כִּ֤י כָאָ֙רֶץ֙ תּוֹצִ֣יא צִמְחָ֔הּ וּכְגַנָּ֖ה זֵרוּעֶ֣יהָ תַצְמִ֑יחַ כֵּ֣ן ׀ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה יַצְמִ֤יחַ צְדָקָה֙ וּתְהִלָּ֔ה נֶ֖גֶד כָּל־הַגּוֹיִֽם׃
Car de même que le sol développe ses plantes, de même qu’un jardin fait germer les graines qui lui sont confiées, ainsi Dieu, l’Éternel, fera éclore le salut et la gloire à la vue de toutes les nations.
Malbim
And if a person suddenly become prosperous, without having invested any effort or labor, it appearing as though he has achieved his life's ambition without going through any of the intermediate stages, know that this is a bogus prosperity and will not last, neither in his hands nor in those of his children. However, the prosperity of one who enjoys the results of his labors is different, for it will make its seeds spring forth (Isaiah 61:11) and will produce fruit (Ch.5:3-7).
Ibn Ezra
"And he saw": There are those who interpret "belabat esh" as "belehavat esh", but the correct interpretation in my view is that it means "in the heart [labah = lev] of the fire" since this is what we find [in Ezekiel 16:30] "How weak was your heart [libah]". And R. Adonim [=Dunash] says that if that were the case, it should have a hiriq under the lamed [i.e. libah], as in "el ginat egoz" [Song of Songs 6:11]. But he has forgotten "ukheganah zro'eha tatzmiah" [Isaiah 61:11]. "The bush": the sage says this was a sort of thorn bush.
Ramban
Rashi commented: “If a woman have conceived seed, and born [a male]. This includes a case where she gave birth to [the male child as] a fleshy mass which had dissolved, so that it became liquefied and like seed, in which case his mother becomes impure because of the birth” [as if it were a normal child]. The explanation of this matter1Ramban is clarifying Rashi’s words and saying that Rashi did not refer to a case where the abortion was a foetus filled with water, for in that event the mother does not become impure for the days prescribed for a male or for a female child. Rather, Rashi referred to a case where the child had been formed already etc. is that we know that the child has been formed already in human form, and then became liquefied, for anything that does not have a human form is not considered a child, and similarly, whatever is not fit to become a creature with a soul, is not considered a child. But even if it is a fleshy dissolved mass at the time of birth, it makes the mother impure [for the prescribed number of days] provided we recognize its form, such as a foetus with its human parts fashioned, in which case the mother is certainly impure, and if not [i.e., the matter is in doubt] she is impure because of a doubt. This is what this verse comes to include according to the words of our Rabbis.2Niddah 27b.
Now with regard to the implication of the verse the Rabbis have said:3Ibid., 31a. “Ishah ki thazria —4Literally: “if the woman has [an emission of] seed” first. — Then, as the verse continues, she will bear a male-child. if the woman emits seed first, she will bear a son.”5“And when the male is the first to emit semen, then she will bear a female-child.” The intent of the Rabbis was not that the child is formed from the woman’s seed, for although the woman has generative organs [i.e., ovaries] like those of the man, yet seed is not formed by them at all, or [if it is formed], that seed is not thick and does not contribute anything to the embryo. Rather, the Rabbis used the term “she emits seed” with reference to the blood of the womb, which gathers in the mother at the time of the consummation of coition, and attaches itself to the seed of the male. For in the opinion of the Rabbis the child is formed from the blood of the female and the white [semen] of the man, and both of them are called “seed.” Thus the Rabbis have said:3Ibid., 31a. “There are three partners in [the formation of] man: The male emits the white [semen], from which are formed the sinews, the bones, and the white substance in the eye. The female emits a red secretion from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the blood, the hair, and the black substance in the eye.”6“And the Holy One, blessed be He [i.e., the third partner in the formation of the child] gives him spirit and soul, beauty of features, power of sight, power of hearing, speech and walk, and understanding and rational faculty” (Niddah 31 a). The opinion of doctors as to the formation [of the embryo of the child] is also the same. In the opinion of the Greek philosophers,7See Vol. I, p. 76 (in Verse 18) where Ramban alludes to this controversy. however, the whole body of the child is formed from [the substance of] the blood of the mother, the father only contributing that generative force which is known in their language as hyly, which gives form to matter.8See ibid., p. 23. For there is no difference at all between the egg of a chicken which is laid because it was fructified by a male, and that laid as a result of the mother rolling herself in the dust, except that the egg [that had been fructified by a male] germinates into a young bird, while the other is not sown, nor beareth,9Deuteronomy 29:22. The thought here suggested is: “because the seed of the male was lacking, therefore it does not bear.” because it is deprived of the elemental heat which is its hyly. And if so, the word tazria [in ishah ki thazria] will be like u’cheganah zeiru’eha thatzmiach (as the garden causeth the seeds that are sown in it to spring forth).10Isaiah 61:11. — Ramban’s meaning is as follows: According to the view of the Rabbis [and the doctors] that the child is formed both by the seed of man and the secretion of woman, the expression ishah ki thazria can be understood in its simple meaning: “when the female emits her secretion” first etc. But according to the philosophers who say that the child is formed entirely from the body of the mother, and the male semen is merely a generative force which gives form to matter, then the word tazria can no longer mean “emitting,” but is like thatzmiach — “causes to spring up.” And so did Onkelos render it: “If a woman conceives.”
Now with regard to the implication of the verse the Rabbis have said:3Ibid., 31a. “Ishah ki thazria —4Literally: “if the woman has [an emission of] seed” first. — Then, as the verse continues, she will bear a male-child. if the woman emits seed first, she will bear a son.”5“And when the male is the first to emit semen, then she will bear a female-child.” The intent of the Rabbis was not that the child is formed from the woman’s seed, for although the woman has generative organs [i.e., ovaries] like those of the man, yet seed is not formed by them at all, or [if it is formed], that seed is not thick and does not contribute anything to the embryo. Rather, the Rabbis used the term “she emits seed” with reference to the blood of the womb, which gathers in the mother at the time of the consummation of coition, and attaches itself to the seed of the male. For in the opinion of the Rabbis the child is formed from the blood of the female and the white [semen] of the man, and both of them are called “seed.” Thus the Rabbis have said:3Ibid., 31a. “There are three partners in [the formation of] man: The male emits the white [semen], from which are formed the sinews, the bones, and the white substance in the eye. The female emits a red secretion from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the blood, the hair, and the black substance in the eye.”6“And the Holy One, blessed be He [i.e., the third partner in the formation of the child] gives him spirit and soul, beauty of features, power of sight, power of hearing, speech and walk, and understanding and rational faculty” (Niddah 31 a). The opinion of doctors as to the formation [of the embryo of the child] is also the same. In the opinion of the Greek philosophers,7See Vol. I, p. 76 (in Verse 18) where Ramban alludes to this controversy. however, the whole body of the child is formed from [the substance of] the blood of the mother, the father only contributing that generative force which is known in their language as hyly, which gives form to matter.8See ibid., p. 23. For there is no difference at all between the egg of a chicken which is laid because it was fructified by a male, and that laid as a result of the mother rolling herself in the dust, except that the egg [that had been fructified by a male] germinates into a young bird, while the other is not sown, nor beareth,9Deuteronomy 29:22. The thought here suggested is: “because the seed of the male was lacking, therefore it does not bear.” because it is deprived of the elemental heat which is its hyly. And if so, the word tazria [in ishah ki thazria] will be like u’cheganah zeiru’eha thatzmiach (as the garden causeth the seeds that are sown in it to spring forth).10Isaiah 61:11. — Ramban’s meaning is as follows: According to the view of the Rabbis [and the doctors] that the child is formed both by the seed of man and the secretion of woman, the expression ishah ki thazria can be understood in its simple meaning: “when the female emits her secretion” first etc. But according to the philosophers who say that the child is formed entirely from the body of the mother, and the male semen is merely a generative force which gives form to matter, then the word tazria can no longer mean “emitting,” but is like thatzmiach — “causes to spring up.” And so did Onkelos render it: “If a woman conceives.”