Commento su Levitico 12:11

“When a woman produces children,” etc. Rashi’s language is: Rabbi Simlai said: as the creation of man was after all domestic and wild animals and birds were created in the six days of creation, so his laws were explained after the laws of domestic and wild animals and birds.

*The women who will conceive and give birth to a male:* why doesn't it mention the seed? It says in the Torah "just like the land produces its produce and like the garden produces its produce so does G-d cause righteousness to sprout." If you plant something in the ground, the ground accepts the seed and, if it doesn't get ruined, it will certainly grow without a doubt. In a similar way, we pray for the sprouting of the Redemption, the coming of Moshiach speedily in our days. As it says in davening: "Moshiach should come." We also say in our prayer "Let the glory of Dovid your servant sprout." It also says "there's a man who's named is Tzemach" that's a reference to Moshiach. Why is Moshiach associated with growth and sprouting? The name of Moshiach existed before the world. So, too, G-d created Heaven and Earth and then there was Light and that light is the light of Moshiach. The original light that Hashem is planted and from that time it came to the world, from before, to grow and sprout our Moshiach, he come speedily in our days. Because of the generous rain and prayer and tears, asking for Moshiach, causes the light to continually grow. All of the prophets who prophesized about Moshiach use the present and past tense. This is because the growth of Moshiach happens every day, which is why the Tanach uses present and past tense. As it says "the first one to Zion, behold, behold them, and for Jerusalem I will give a herald" Yeshaya 41:27 [https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15972/jewish/Chapter-41.htm]. We are asking to speedily see the growth and greatness of Moshiach when he is revealed, may it happen speedily. That's why we say in our prayers "let our salvation quickly sprout and may agony and sighing depart from us." Even in our time, when Moshiach hasn't come, there should be growth in the light of Moshiach to feel some of the effects of Redemption. This is the meaning of the posuk "just like the earth produces it produce so will G-d cause righteousness to sprout." The similarity is that when seed is in the ground and not ruined, the growth is guaranteed; so too, with the light of Moshiach, it is certain it will sprout. This is the meaning of the posuk "the woman who gave seed gives birth to a boy." What this means "when a women seeds, and she receives the seed in a proper way" that when the Jewish people put in effort to become closer to G-d then the offspring is male. Male is associated with mercy and through this the good deeds of the Jewish people cause the elevation of the female waters properly and they draw down kindness and mercy upon the Jewish people in this world.

אשה כי תזריע IF A WOMAN HAVE CONCEIVED SEED — R. Simlai said: Even as the formation of man took place after that of every cattle, beast and fowl when the world was created, so, too, the law regarding him is set forth after the law regarding cattle, beast and fowl (contained in the previous chapter) (Leviticus Rabbah 14:1).

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.”

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, the sages in Niddah 31 explain the term תזריע in our verse as “when a woman experiences her orgasm before her male partner the child born from such a union will be a male. The perception underlying this is that the woman’s “seed” is the moisture which she excretes from time to time at the time she engages in physical union with her partner does not enter into the formation of a male embryo. Her “semen” is active in suppressing the effect of the man’s semen. But her blood enters the semen of the male it moistens and provides addition impetus to the man’s semen,

דבר …לאמור. "Speak…to say." Why does the word לאמור have to be repeated here, seeing verse 1 ended with the word לאמור, "to say?" Perhaps the reason is that this commandment is addressed primarily to women. The word לאמור after "the children of Israel," is a warning to the women to pay special attention to this legislation. We may also explain this extra word לאמור in accordance with Torat Kohanim on this verse which explains the words בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles. The word לאמור stresses that it is a privilege for Jewish women to be given this legislation. Had they not been on a spiritually higher level than their non-Jewish counterparts they would not have been considered as having suffered impurity through such a natural process as giving birth. [seeing that their spiritual level had been temporarily eclipsed by the need to focus on purely bodily functions, the mothers need to purify their bodies to make it fit again for their spiritual functions. Ed.]

אשה כי תזריע, who becomes pregnant whether with a male fetus or a female fetus. When the time comes for her to give birth, the sex of the baby determines her status as to the impurity known as טומאת לידה. All the details are spelled out in the verses following.

אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” At the end of the last portion the Torah instructed the Jewish people to sanctify themselves (verse 44). The fact that the subject following deals with conception, marital intercourse, etc, is proof that the specific sanctification the Torah had in mind at the end of the last portion was that the sex life of the Jewish people should not become one of mere physical indulgence, but should be guided by more lofty considerations, should aim at conceiving and bearing children in a spiritual environment commensurate with the people that are unique in their relationship to their Creator. [In Leviticus chapter 19 the need to sanctify themselves is a dictate based on this relationship with our Creator. I have deliberately pontificated a little at this point. Ed.] It is the duty of the Jewish people to be at all times aware of the fact that there are things in this universe that are pure, and others that are impure in a ritual sense. The destiny of the Jewish people to be a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19,6)” cannot be achieved without our constant awareness of this fact. Such considerations are at the root of our sages counseling or demanding that prior to a woman having her monthly period, assuming she is regular, the husband should already refrain from having relations with her for a period of 12 hours to ensure that he would not become ritually defiled by being in contact with her menstrual blood. The sages also decreed that a widowed woman must not remarry for a period of three months to ensure that when she becomes pregnant from her new husband, there is no chance that the child born might have been fathered by her deceased husband. If, by chance, this decree is ignored, children born in ritual impurity of the most severe type might result. Rashi explains on our verse that the wording תזריע, suggests that even if the mother gave “birth” to an afterbirth which was so lacking in substances that it was more like sperm, she is still considered as impure due to birthing. This should not be understood as meaning that if a woman involuntarily aborts an amnion, a sac of the fetus full with water, that she becomes ritually impure like woman that has given birth, seeing that we have a rule that any such sac aborted which did not contain something resembling a human fetus does not confer the impurity of new motherhood on the woman concerned. Only what is called שפיר מרוקם, a sac containing clearly defined human features does that. When the Talmud (Niddah 28) says that when a woman conceives first she will give birth to a male child, the reason for this is that it is a fact in nature that anything that appears later is liable to neutralize phenomena that have appeared earlier. If a woman therefore conceives, or has an orgasm first, this feminine part of the process of conception will be weakened once the subsequent male orgasm and ejaculation occurs and contributes male sperm. The same is true in reverse, of course; when the male ejaculates before the female partner has achieved orgasm, the result will be a child of the feminine gender. Nachmanides writes that the statement in the Talmud about a woman “contributing seed first,” does not mean to imply that women in common with men each contribute sperm to the fetus to emerge. It could not mean that, as it is common knowledge that women do not have sperm. Woman contributes from the blood in her womb to the formation of the eventual fetus, and upon completion of her pregnancy a child is born. The term זרע used by the Talmud refers to the combination of the sperm contributed by the male and the blood contributed by the woman, his partner. Following this approach, the Talmud perceives three partners who between them are active in creating a new life. They are: father, mother, and G’d, the father contributing the sperm which eventually will produce tendons, bones, etc., the mother the blood which will develop into flesh, skin and blood and blood vessels; as well as hair and the black (pupil) of the eye. G’d, of course, contributes the נפש-נשמה the intangible life force known as “soul.” This is the opinion of the medical men of the author’s time. The ancient Greeks believed that the entire body of the baby is produced by the mother, the father’s contribution being limited to determining the shape and form of the raw material man is made of. This had to be so, they believed, as man does not have ovaries, as does woman. The fact is that the chick which was produced after its mother hen had copulated with a rooster is different from the chick whose mother hen had not been mated with a male of the species only in the length of time the mother hen has spent sitting on her egg until it was ready to burst its prison walls and emerge as a new living organism.

In the Work of Creation. You might ask: Why did the creation of animals and beasts precede the creation of man? The Sages already answered in Sanhedrin (38a): “Why was man created on Erev Shabbos? So that they [i.e., the heretics] would not say Hashem had a partner in the Work of Creation. Another explanation: Because if man would be haughty they can say to him: The mosquito preceded you. Another explanation: So that he would immediately become obligated in a mitzvah [Shabbos]. Another explanation: So that he would find everything immediately prepared for his meal. This can be compared to a king...” You might ask: If the Torah explains according to the order of creation, then Parshas Metzoro should come before Parshas Ki Tazria, because Metzoro speaks of a man and Tazria speaks of a woman, and Adam was created before Chavah! The answer is: It is more common for a woman gives birth than for a man to become afflicted with tzora’as. Furthermore, we can say: The reason Tazria comes before Metzoro is because the main reason a person is afflicted with tzora’as is because he has relations with his wife when she is a menstruant, as the Gemara says (Erachin 16a, and Tanchuma Tazria 11). Another answer: The woman is compared to the earth’s soil, which causes what is planted (שזורעים) in it to grow. Man, as well, was created from the earth’s soil. Therefore, it is written regarding a woman: “When [a woman] conceives (תזריע) and gives birth to a male child,” i.e., the male is created from the female who is likened to the earth’s soil. This raises a difficulty: What practical difference does this comparison make? Furthermore, Re’m raised the difficulty that the Gemora says in Sanhedrin (38a) that the reason Adam was created last was so that if he would be haughty it can be said to him: The mosquito preceded you in the work of creation, and so that he would find everything prepared for his meal, [and more reasons,] all of which are not applicable here! He also asks: Why does it mention the law [of tzora’as]: “When a man will have in the skin of his flesh” after the law pertaining to a woman: “When [a woman] conceives”? The woman was created last! It appears to me the answer is: All this is what R. Simlai [who is cited in Rashi] means to say: Just as there is a good reason why Adam was created last — so that he would come and find everything ready for his meal — so too, regarding the law of man: It was explained after the laws of animals, beasts and birds, i.e., with regard to what is forbidden and permitted [among them]. This follows what it says in the Midrash (Vayikro Rabboh 13:3) on the verse (11:2): “These are the living things” — “Every word of Hashem is refined” (Mishlei 30:5), “The mitzvos were given to Israel” — i.e., what is forbidden to be eaten — “only for the sake of refining the people with them.” In this way Hashem demonstrates his love for us, as it says in the Midrash that someone who loves his servant cautions him from eating harmful food. Therefore, R. Simlai said that just as Adam was created last at the time of Creation for his advantage, so that he find his provisions prepared, so too, regarding Torah and mitzvos, Hashem gave them to Israel for their benefit, to refine them. Therefore, mankind was mentioned last so that they would have the refinement of mitzvos by means of the laws pertaining to animals, beasts and birds. Therefore, there is no difficulty posed from: “When a man will have, in the skin of his flesh” [the law of tzora’as of a man is mentioned after the section dealing with a woman], for there [the concept of] refinement is not relevant (Divrei Dovid).

אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” what is meant here is that if the woman reaches orgasm in her marital relations with her husband before he does, she will give birth to a male child.

אשה כי תזריע וילדה, “when a woman has fructification of seed and has given birth as a result;” the regulations about to be discussed apply only when she gives birth naturally from the womb, not by caesarean invasive procedure. Rabbi Shimon holds that a baby born by caesarean section is considered as having been “born,” and that its mother is obligated to offer the same sacrifices that the mother of a baby born from the womb has to offer. The only difference between such a baby and the one born from the mother’s womb, is that if it is firstborn male, its father does not have to redeem it by paying a priest five shekel. (Sifra)

כי תזריע — These words are superfluous, כי ילדה would suffice — they mean literally, ”if she bringeth forth seed” and are employed to include the case that if she gave birth to him (the male child) as a pulpy mass which had dissolved, having become liquified like seed, even then its mother becomes unclean as though it were a normal birth (Niddah 27b).

כימי נדבת דותה, for during the first seven days after her giving birth she is like a menstruating woman regarding her ritual status.

שבעת ימים; even if it was a “dry birth,” no blood emerging from her vagina.

Mushy. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: “When a woman gives birth to a male child.” [Why does it add “conceives”?] Rather, this comes to include even [when the embryo] is born mushy. One should not object: [The Rabbis taught (Berachos 60a)]: This teaches that if a woman emits seed first [the child will be a male, thus,] it is needed for that! [The answer is:] If so, it should say: “כי תזריע האשה וילדה זכר.” Rather, it juxtaposes “conception” to “giving birth” and writes וילדה זכר with a ו, which indicates certainty, and does not write “if,” the way it does (v. 5): “If she gives birth to a female.” Perforce you have both [explanations]. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:15): “These are the sons of Leah... along with his daughter Deenah.” — “The males are attributed to Leah while the females are attributed to Yaakov, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first then she will give birth to a male [and if the man emits seed first then she will give birth to a female].” Why is this needed? It is derived from here! The answer is: From here we can only derive that a woman who emits seed [first] gives birth [to a male], however, [it is inconclusive in the event] the man emits seed first or they both emit simultaneously, that she will give birth to a female. Therefore, Scripture lets us know: “along with his daughter Deenah,” that if they [both] emit seed simultaneously they each cancel the other [and she will give birth to a male or female]. And from there alone, however, it cannot be derived, because we can say Scripture attributes the males to Leah because it cannot attribute them to Yaakov, who had other male children, [and if it said “these are the sons of Yaakov” I might think that these alone are the sons of Yaakov]. The female [Deenah] was attributed to him, though, since he had no other daughter besides her. [Thus,] from both [verses] it is derived well. Re’m dwelt at length on this but I shortened it (Minchas Yehudah).

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, a woman who brings forth seed by giving birth to a male child, etc. Why did the Torah not simply write: אשה כי תלד זכר, "when a woman gives birth to a male child, etc.?" The words כי תזריע appear superfluous. Our sages disagree about the reason. Torat Kohanim on our verse writes that these words tell us that contrary to expectations a woman who was already pregnant before this legislation was revealed to the people is also subject to it, whereas she does not contract impurity if she gave birth just before this legislation was revealed. Anonymous sages state that when the baby is delivered by caesarean incision the mother does not contract impurity. The fetus has to exit from the same place where the seed entered. Rabbi Shimon holds that even if an indeterminate mass is delivered, i.e. some fetus clearly unable to live, the mother does contract impurity and has to bring the required offerings. He does not accept the view that if a woman gives "birth" by caesarean incision that she is not subject to the legislation in our chapter. Why did the Torah use the future tense in the words כי תזריע, and switch to the past tense writing וילדה instead of ותלד? We find that the Torah does use the word ותלד when describing the birth of a female child in verse 5! Although there are numerous instances when a form of the past tense of the verb is used by the Torah to describe something in the future, the Torah does not switch tenses unnecessarily without trying to draw our attention to some additional meaning. Furthermore, why does the Torah write וילדה, "she gave birth," instead of אם ילדה זכר, "if she gave birth to a male child as a result," seeing there is no certainty that she will indeed give birth to a male child rather than to a girl? One could answer the last question by saying that the word כי in כי תזריע is equivalent to the word אם, "if," and that this word belongs to the latter half of the verse. This is a forced explanation, however.

D’VOTHAH.’ “This is an expression for anything which flows from her body, derived from the wording¹¹In our text of Rashi: “Another interpretation.” for malady [madveh] and sickness, for no woman sees an issue of blood without becoming unwell, and her head and her limbs feeling heavy on her.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not know on the basis of which root the word d’vothah can be an expression in the Sacred Language for “anything which flows.” But it is possible that it is an expression of malady, on the basis of what the Rabbis have said,¹²Niddah 9 a. “and her head and limbs are heavy on her.” So also is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who writes: “D’vothah is a noun and means sickness, for the blood which issues indicates a sickness in the woman.” Now it is true that the flow constitutes a cleansing of surpluses [of blood], and due to the fact that her head and her limbs feel heavy upon her, the flow is perhaps termed “a sickness.” The correct interpretation, however, is that d’vothah is an expression derived from the word madveh [which does not mean “sickness,” i.e., an unnatural occurrence in the body, since a woman’s menses are natural; and d’vothah is therefore like the terms] plague and pain, just as in the expressions: My heart is ‘davoi’ (faint) within me;¹³Jeremiah 8:18. for this our heart is ‘daveh’ (faint),¹⁴Lamentations 5:17. and like: the plague of his heart.¹⁵I Kings 8:38. Thus menstruation is an affliction upon the woman even though it is in her nature [to experience it regularly]. A similar expression is upon the bed of ‘d’voi’ (illness].¹⁶Psalms 41:4.

וילדה, even if the mother gave birth after only between five up to eight months pregnancy, she has to do so, and the restrictive nature of this word means that she has become ritually unclean by giving “birth” to a fetus after five or more months of pregnancy. (Sifra)

כימי נדת דותה תטמא AS IN THE DAYS OF THE SEPARATION FOR HER IMPURITY SHALL SHE BECOME UNCLEAN — According to the regulation of every uncleanness which is mentioned in the case of a נדה does she become unclean in respect to the uncleanness resulting from child-birth — even though the womb opened without any issue of blood (cf. Niddah 21a).

כימי נדת דותה, just as the red colour of the blood determines if a menstruating woman is still evacuating blood, so the same criteria apply to a woman giving birth. The whitish fluid that is characteristic a of woman in a state of flux, זובה, another source of ritual impurity originating within her body, is irrelevant to the subject under discussion in our verses.

As semen. Rashi’s explanation implies that first, before it was born, it was somewhat formed as a fetus, but afterwards it became crushed. [He knows this] from what is written, “when [a woman] conceives,” which implies even if she only gave birth to something resembling semen. But it is written, “and gives birth to a male child,” implying that it was a fully formed embryo. How [can this be resolved]? Perforce, we must say that originally it was a fully formed fetus, but afterwards it was crushed and became as semen.

Our sages in Niddah 31 as well as in Berachot 60 are of the opinion that if the woman achieves orgasm first during marital intercourse the baby born from such a union will be male, and that the Torah here informs us of this biological fact. This is why the Torah wrote וילדה זכר as something that is definite. While it is true that Rabbi Tzadok arrived at this conclusion exegetically from Genesis 46,15 ואת דינה בתו, the fact is that the Torah made the birth of a male child dependent on an experience of the mother, and the birth of a female child on the experience of the father during their union. The verse in Genesis does not provide a reason for this linkage to the respective experience of father and mother during their union. [The author of Torah Temimah comments on that verse that the scientific aspect of the matter was an established fact for our sages; they knew that when two factors have to combine to create something it is the last factor which determines the nature of the product. Hence, if the male has spent his reproductive effort before the woman, the result will be a female child corresponding to the reproductive power of the woman. We do not "learn" this from that verse; the verse only alludes to something already known. Ed.] In our verse the Torah explains the reason for this fact of life, namely that the crucial factor is who spends his reproductive power first. The Torah did not need to add the word "first" in our verse for even if the mother were not to expend her reproductive power first she does have to spend it in order to produce a child of either gender. This is why the Torah also had to write the verse in Genesis 46,15 so that from the two verses combined we would know what factors determine the sex of a baby. [The word ואת, "and in addition," in that verse in Genesis indicates that Leah was last in spending her reproductive power during the union that led to the birth of Dinah. Hence the child was a female. Ed.].

זכר, “a male;” including if it was stillborn.

דותה — This is an expression for anything which flows from her body (‎‎‏זב = דו, “flowing”), and the translation is: “as in the days of separation due to her flux”. Another explanation is: it has the same meaning as .מדוה (root דוה), malady and sickness, and this is termed דותה, “her sickness”, because no woman sees an issue of blood from herself except that, as a result of it, she becomes unwell and her head and limbs feel heavy (cf. Niddah 9a).

נדה, the expression denotes a type of isolation, distance from her husband.

Mentioned in regard to a menstruant woman. She causes impurity due to lying down or sitting, as does a menstruant woman, and all the laws of impurity apply to her. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means: “as the days of her menstrual flow” — which is seven days — so too, the amount of impurity for childbirth is seven days. The answer is: This would not require a verse, for it clearly says: “she will be ritually unclean for seven days.” If so, why does it say: “as the days of her menstrual flow”? Rather, it comes to teach about other [laws of menstrual] impurity. You might ask: This is obvious! She is a menstruant woman, for at the time of her difficulty [in birth] she saw blood. Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if the womb opens without blood.”

The Torah managed to include still more information in these few words. In Psalms 139,5 David says: "you have created me both last and first." This line is explained by Bereshit Rabbah 8,1 as referring to two separate creations of man. His body was created at the very end of the six days of creation whereas his spirit had been created already in the first verse of the Torah prior to the creation of the light, when the Torah described the spirit of the Lord as hovering over the deep. We are told by the Zohar Kedoshim page 80 that the nature of the soul or personality of a baby is determined by the thoughts of the father and mother during marital union. If the parents entertain unworthy thoughts during such a union the personality of the baby will tend to be attracted to spiritually negative forces, whereas if the thoughts of the parents during their physical union are worthy this will be reflected in the children of such unions. Consider carefully what we are told in Berachot 10 and the Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,2 about what happened to the children of the pious king Chizkiyah who had married the daughter of the prophet Isaiah. [the regular text of the Talmud does not have this; parts are found in Eyn Yaakov Ed.) According to the Talmud there the reason that Menashe and Ravshoke, the sons of that union, became such heretics was some unworthy thoughts entertained by Chiskiyah's wife at the time the child was conceived. (supposedly she fantasized about the servants of Merodach Baladon king of Babylon) If we accept this, the most important part of the "birth," i.e. the fusion of soul and body takes place already at the time of conception. Not only that, but the thought which precedes ejaculation of the semen has a determining influence on the tendency of the baby's character development. This would be the mystical aspect of the words כי תזריע וילדה, the nature of what will be born is determined at the time of conception. After that period it is already too late to reverse what occurred at the time of the union between father and mother. The term לידה, birth, is therefore applicable to a process which is a long way from becoming visible. Once we have appreciated this we will have a better understanding of Genesis 12,5 where the Torah speaks of personalities נפש which Abram and Sarai made in Charan, i.e. due to their union as man and wife. Although Sarai had not given birth to a physical child in those years, the thoughts that she and her husband entertained while they tried to conceive children produced the kinds of souls which became G'd fearing individuals in other bodies. This does not contradict the truth of the statement that the sex of the child is determined at the time of conception. The Torah wrote the word זכר, male, as a hint that already during the moments when the bodies of the parents join in marital union they have it within their power to determine the sex of the child which will be the result of such a union by dint of the thoughts which they entertain at that time. These will enable them to draw down from heaven a male soul. (or "a soul from the part of heaven inhabited by male souls").

וילדה זכר, “and she gave birth to a male;” According to our author (quoting ספר התולדות), a woman’s body contains seven openings, three on her left side, three on her right side, and one in the center. If her husband’s semen enters via the openings on her right side it will produce a male child. If it enters through the openings on her left side, she will produce a female child. If it enters through the opening in her center she will produce either a hermaphrodite possessing both fully developed masculine and feminine organs, or neither of such organs that are fully developed. Her position in bed shortly after her husband’s ejaculating semen into her determines through which of these openings the semen travels. If she lies on her right side the degree of ritual contamination “evaporates” faster than if she had been lying on her left side; this is why she cannot resume marital relations with have husband or offer her respective sacrifices until this process has run its natural cause. Lying on her left side at that critical juncture slows down the ritual contamination which was the result of the mother having been impregnated with her partners’ semen. This is why the Torah decreed different length of 33 or 66 days before the mother can purify herself. (verses 47) The above is hinted at by Solomon in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת לראשי, “with his left hand under my head.” The maid’s lover did this in order to help his partner to give birth to males. [The fact that Solomon who had so many wives and concubines produced only a single male heir is proof that G-d’s active providence overrides nature. Ed.]

דותה, an expression denoting a kind of sickness. Compare Jeremiah 8,18 לבי דווי, “my heart is sick within me.”

Which flows. [Rashi knows this] because the ז is interchangeable with the ד, as [we see from the fact that] the Aramaic translation of זב (discharge flow) is דב (15:2) [and the ו and the ב are interchangeable since they have the same source of pronunciation]. If so, it is as if Scripture had written זבותה (her flow).

The verse contains an allusion to other psychological factors which are part of the process of conception, i.e. the physical union between man and wife. A woman is neither obligated to have children, nor does she as a rule volunteer to beconme pregnant, an experience she finds often painful, fraught with many discomforts and danger to her health culminating in the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth. In fact, there are women who avoid getting married in order to avoid the experience of pregnancy and birth. If the woman does get married, the feelings she entertains during marital intercourse are frequently limited to gratifying her physical pleasure during such intercourse. According to Gittin 49 a woman's desire in this respect is greater than that of her husband. [according to the author this is the meaning of the statement in the Talmud that "her urge to get married is greater than that of her husband." Ed.] In our verse the Torah hints that if a woman enters marriage although she is not commanded to do so, this will be accounted for her as a meritorious deed, as if she were a male and had fulfilled the commandment to procreate incumbent upon the male. The Torah writes: אשה כי תזריע, that when a woman is active in joining in an activity which will result in the birth of a baby, i.e. she engages in intercourse in order to have children, and not in order to satisfy her biological urge, she may have a son. If the Torah had merely written אשה כי תלד זכר," when a woman gives birth to a male child, etc," we would have understood that the process described above occurs as a result of any mating between husband and wife irrespective of their thoughts at the time. As it is, the Torah teaches how a woman can acquire the stature of a זכר, male. The reason the Torah has to add the word וילדה is to tell us that she attains that level only if the thoughts she entertained during intercourse also result in the actual birth of a child. Perhaps this is also part of the meaning of the word לאמור in verse 2, the need for which we had questioned earlier. The sequence of לאמור אשה, suggests that Moses was to tell the women how a woman may attain a spiritually superior niveau; she will do so by volunteering to have children and by entertaining lofty thoughts during the process of conception. Perhaps this is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 10,1; בן כסיל תוגת אמו; "a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." A son who is not up to the expectations of his mother may well be the outcome of the kind of thoughts the mother did not entertain when she conceived him.

וטמאה, “she will be ritually unclean;” the emphasis here is on the suffix ה meaning only the mother, not her child will become ritually unclean as a result of that birth. (Sifra)

The verse also contains an allusion to the כנסת ישראל, the Jewish people as a conceptual entity. We find that this term is applied to women in such verses as Isaiah 54,5: כי בעליך עושיך, "for He who has made you will espouse you;" the prophet also continues: ואשת נעורים, "and the wife of your youth;" the prophet Hoseah describes the relationship of G'd and כנסת ישראל in Hoseah 2,21: וארשתיך לי לעולם, (G'd speaking to His bride) "I will betroth Myself to you forever, etc." Isaiah 50,1: "where is the bill of divorce I have given you?" There are more such verses to be found scattered throughout the Books of the Prophets. וילדה זכר, "and she gives birth to a male child, etc." when viewed from a moral-ethical vantage-point, the Torah reveals that when the מזריע the initiative for the husband-wife relationship with G'd originates with the Jewish people, the כנסת ישראל, then the product of such an initiative will be a male child, זכר, the entire nation will attain the highest spiritual level. The word זכר, male, is hyperbole for the highest moral-ethical achievenment. In Sanhedrin 98 and Shemot Rabbah 15 the superiority of the ultimate redemption to the redemption at the time of the Exodus from Egypt is described. The ultimate redemption is perceived there as the corollary of Israel distinguishing itself by the performance of good deeds, etc. The prophet described the Exodus in terms of Israel being "naked and nude" (Ezekiel 16,7). Clothing is perceived as a layer of מצות and good deeds covering our bodies. The inadequacy of the Jewish people at the time of the Exodus is underlined in Deut. 4,34 where G'd describes the Exodus as wrenching one people from the midst of the same people, something that made it legally difficult for G'd to justify taking the Israelites out of Egypt when He did. That redemption has been described only in female terms and that is why it did not endure in the end and the Temple was destroyed. Not so the redemption of the future which will occur as a direct result of Israel's merits. First and foremost among those merits is Israel's preoccupation with Torah as described in Deut. 31,21 something that will never be forgotten even during a protracted period of exile. The Torah continues: וטמאה, the mother contracts ritual impurity as a result of giving birth. Here the Torah alludes to the way G'd initiates a process which culminates in the rehabilitation of Israel so that it will attain a spiritual level that qualifies for the description זכר. The "days" mentioned here are to be understood as seven years similar to Genesis 24,55 where Laban and his mother wanted Rebeccah to delay her departure by ימים, i.e. a year. The years which are viewed as the חבלי משיח, the birth-pangs of the Messiah, last for seven years during which Israel will be refined spiritually in preparation of his arrival. He will make his appearance during the eighth year. On the eighth day, at the beginning of the eighth day (year), the baby is to have its foreskin removed, i.e. the concept of a foreskin which acts as a barrier between man and G'd will be removed from the universe. We read in Zachariah 13,2 that G'd will destroy the spirit of impurity from the earth. This will occur during the eighth year. It is well known that conceptually the foreskin is identical with the forces of the קליפה, the spiritually negative emanations. When the Torah wrote the word וטמאה, describing the state of the mother, this is a simile for the afflictions experienced during the birth-pangs of the Messiah.

שבעת ימים, “for seven days;” in the event that she gave birth to twins or more babies, the count starts at the end of the last birth. When the students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai asked him why the Torah decreed different lengths of ritual contamination depending on the sex of the baby, he answered them that the birth of a male baby results in an even greater degree of joy than the birth of a female baby. As a result, the baby’s mother retracts her oath made at the time of enduring the pains during her delivery sooner than after the birth of a daughter, (who is after all also destined to undergo such pain in due course.)

נדת, this word is a variant for distance, temporary disassociation, as for instance in Job 18,18: ומתבל ינדוהו, “and chased out of the world.” In our verse the separation is from her husband.

כימי נדת דותה, “just as she separates from him during the days when she has her menses. A Baraitha (Niddah, folio 31) relates that Rabbi Meir explained the reason why generally speaking the period of a woman’s menses lasts seven days, is because if her husband had to abstain from marital relations with her during that period, she will be as desirable for him at the end of that period as she was when he stood with her under the wedding canopy. The woman who just gave birth is familiar with the seven day period during her menses and it is a period she abhors. By reminding her of this comparison, she may look forward to having marital relations with her husband again as when pregnant she does not experience the discomfort of her menses. By the same token, this separation also awakens desire in her for her husband.

וטמאה שבעת ימים, “as a result she will remain in a state of ritual impurity for seven days.” It is G’d’s decree that just as the state of impurity lasts for seven days, the purification rites require seven days. The number “seven” applies equally to days of impurity, days of purification, days of joy (after a wedding or the duration of certain festivals) and days of mourning.

כימי נדת דותה תטמא, “her impurity is as long as her impurity due to menstruation.” The expression דותה is derived from מדוה, a description of a “natural” sickness, i.e. the menstruation period a woman experiences at regular intervals. Our sages (Niddah 9) have also explained that during such a period a woman’s heads and limbs feel very heavy. Although the excretion of blood by the woman every month is the excretion of superfluous material, it is still considered a disease. The word נדה means to “be distant;” similarly the word מנודה is a term for people who have been ostracised, banished and banned from society. The term is used in Nedarim 4 in connection with someone vowing to not benefit from certain people’s belongings or eating a meal at their place, or not to come within 4 cubits of the property of such a person.
The reason a menstruous woman is referred to as נדה is that other people shun her, keep their distance from her while she is in the throes of that disease. Even her women friends keep their distance from her. She usually spends that period in isolation. Throughout ancient history all the nations considered that period in a woman’s monthly cycle as one requiring her to be isolated, even considering the earth a woman in such circumstances walked on as contaminated. One did not speak to such a woman for fear of being contaminated. When Lavan wanted to search Rachel’s tent and she apologized for not rising in his honour (she was sitting on the teraphim her father was searching for) we note that Lavan did not speak a single word to her. This was because it was considered unhealthy to engage in conversation with a menstruating woman. Clearly, Rachel was sitting isolated in her tent, presumably without any maidservant at her side. The exhalations of such a woman and the odors coming from her were all considered potentially contaminating (compare Genesis 31,34-35). [Halachah, of course, does not recognize such superstitions and in the main a woman’s state of being נדה affects her husband’s relations with her and her inability to touch sacred objects including food for sacred purposes which she would contaminate by her touch. Ed.] According to Nachmanides even what such a woman looked at was considered as harmful, similarly to the evil eye. (Nachmanides on Leviticus 18,19 reports that when a menstruous woman in the very beginning of her period looks at a gleaming sword or mirror, drops of blood can be seen on that sword or mirror according to the eye witness reports of some “scientists.”) It is clear that if even some of all this is true cohabiting with a woman while she is in that state is a health hazard to her partner.

וביום השמיני ימול, for by that time the blood of his mother has congealed [dry blood does not confer impurity. Ed.] As a result the baby has become ritually cleansed, no moist blood being attached to it.

וביום השמיני, and on the eighth day, etc. Why did the Torah have to instruct us to circumcise a male baby on the eighth day, something that has been legislated already in Genesis 17,12 prior to the birth of Isaac, even? If all the Torah wanted was to tell us that the rite of circumcision must be performed by day and not by night, or that the importance of circumcising the baby on the eighth day is so important that the Sabbath may be violated in order to fulfil this commandment on time (compare Shabbat 132), why did G'd not include this information in Genesis?

וביום, “and on the day, etc.;” the reason why the Torah had to write this word is to teach us that if for some reason the circumcision had been delayed beyond the eighth day it must not be performed at night but on the nearest day thereafter possible, except on the Sabbath, as the Sabbath may be desecrated only when the circumcision is performed on the eighth day after birth. (Sifra)her for her husband.

Perhaps the reason G'd did not mention all this to Abraham at the time was so that people should not think that only the patriarchs were allowed to violate the Sabbath in order to circumcise the baby on the eighth day, seeing they had not yet been commanded to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest and that therefore the observance of the Sabbath was not so important. However, the Israelites, who were warned in Exodus 31,14 not to violate the Sabbath on pain of execution, were not expected to circumcise their babies on the Sabbath. The Torah repeated the legislation here in order to include the detail that the Sabbath was not to take precedence over circumcision on the eighth day. While it is true that the Talmud in Chulin 101 states that the legislation about גיד הנשה was legislated at Mount Sinai, the Torah decided to record it in Genesis 32,33 to inform us of the reason for this legislation. Similar considerations may have motivated the Torah in recording the legislation about circumcision already in Genesis 17,12 though it was commanded to the Jewish people collectively at Mount Sinai. All of this still enables those who want to, to argue that there is reason to be more lenient about the date of the circumcision prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai than afterwards.

וביום השמיני ימול, and on the eighth day the baby is to be circumcised; Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai’s students asked him why that day had been chosen by G-d for circumcision of the newly born; (not sooner) he answered them that this was so that the whole family could rejoice in that celebration, as otherwise the mother of the child could not participate in the joyful activity due to her still being ritually unclean. That day has been described as a joyful occasion in Psalms 119,162: שש אנכי על אמרתך, the psalmist proclaiming “I rejoice over Your promise,” and our sages in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 130 understand David as having referred to the day the child is circumcised. On the face of it this is a remarkable statement as one would expect both parents to be saddened by the fact that they cannot indulge in marital relations until then; however as soon as the mother has immersed herself in a ritual bath on the evening after the seventh day, she is free to resume normal relations with her husband. Thus on the eighth day the whole family can rejoice. The reason why this commandment has been repeated is to remind us that it is so important that it be preformed on the eighth day that it overrides the work prohibition on the Sabbath. How then can I deal with the explicit warning that anyone desecrating the Sabbath laws is subject to legal execution? (Exodus 31,14.) Only preparatory activities associated with the circumcision are forbidden even on the Sabbath, whereas the circumcision itself overrides the Sabbath provided it is performed on the eighth day. (If the baby was born at dusk on Friday evening, the circumcision is deferred until the day after the Sabbath. If there is some doubt about the baby having a proper foreskin, the removal of that is also not performed on the Sabbath. (Sifra)

Furthermore, we may assume that what the legislation revealed to Abraham in Genesis 17,12 means is that it is as binding as if it had been revealed at Mount Sinai and that therefore the Torah did not need to add any details to that legislation when the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai. G'd did not need to write a special verse to tell Abraham to perform circumcision even on the Sabbath as he would have understood this on his own just as he understood many other מצות which were never spelled out to him. The reason he would have considered the circumcision legislation as overriding the Sabbath legislation is that G'd had not bothered to command him specifically to observe the Sabbath, but He had commanded him specifically concerning the circumcision. In fact, if G'd had spelled out to Abraham that the circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Sabbath legislation, every exegete would have written reams of paper wanting to know why G'd had bothered to do this, seeing that Abraham could have arrived at this by simple logic. Seeing G'd did not tell Abraham, He had to tell the Israelites who, after all, had been commanded to observe the Sabbath and who could not have arrived at these details by using logic as could Abraham at the time.

ימול בשר ערלתו, “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” We have learned concerning this procedure as follows in the Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 137: “a newborn may be legally circumcised on the eighth, ninth or the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day, without the father having been remiss in performing the procedure on the correct day. How can this occur? 1) The normal day for mandatory circumcision is the eighth day. 2) the ninth day as the “official” day is when the baby was born at dusk between the seventh and eighth day. If dusk is considered as part of the next day, then the baby cannot be legally circumcised until the morning of the day following, i.e. the ninth day. If that day happens to be the Sabbath, circumcision would have to be delayed for another day. How could it happen that the legal day for the circumcision would not occur until the eleventh of even the twelfth day? If the baby was born at dusk on Friday, and the day following the Sabbath is a festival. If the baby was born at dusk of the end of the twentysecond of Ellul and the following Thursday which would normally be the eighth day is New Year of the following Year and a holiday. As this day however could be the ninth day, both days of New Year as well as Sabbath following are out, so that the earliest legal day would be Sunday, which is the twelfth day after its birth. It is possible that our author bases himself on a statement attributed in Bereshit Rabbah 7,2, to someone by the name do Yaakov, resident of Nevorai, who issued a ruling in Tzor, that the son of an idol worshipping woman and a Jewish father, born on the Sabbath, could be circumcised on the Sabbath. When Rabbi Chagai heard about this ruling he ordered this Yaakov to appear before him in order to be punished by lashes for such a ruling. To this Yaakov of Nevorai replied that “when someone gives a correct ruling according to the Torah, why should he be punished by lashes?” Thereupon Rabbi Chagai asked him to explain how his ruling could conform to Torah law. Thereupon Yaakov cited Numbers 1,18: ויתילדו על משפחותם לבית אבותם, “they identified themselves according to their families by their fathers’ houses.” To this Rabbi Chagai replied that Yaakov had not interpreted that verse correctly, as it could not override the prohibition against intermarriage with members of an idolatrous nation which is spelled out in Deuteronomy 7,3, with the words לא תתחתן בם, “do not intermarry with them (the Canaanites) i.e. since such a union is illegal its offspring is not Jewish. It is also confirmed by Deuteronomy 7,4 where the Torah gives as the reason for such a prohibition: כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי, “for he will lead your son astray from Me;” a reference to your soninlaw. The Torah did not write כי תסיר, for she will lead astray, but “for he will lead astray.” She cannot lead astray, as she is not Jewish in the first place. Therefore the son of the woman mentioned in the story cited in Bereshit Rabbah, does not require circumcision on either a weekday or the Sabbath since he does not qualify for performance of that rite until and if he converted.

Let us now turn to why the Torah wrote this piece of legislation immediately after the law about the mother who gave birth contracting a kind of ritual impurity lasting for seven days similar to the menstrual impurity. The Torah simply wanted to explain why the circumcision of the baby has to be delayed for seven days (compare Shabbat 135). This is the reason that the Torah wrote וביום השמיני, the letter ו indicating that the timing was related to what has been described previously. The Talmud in Niddah 31 elaborates further, suggesting that the "whole world should not be rejoicing when the baby is introduced to Judaism while its mother is depressed being ritually impure." Devarim Rabbah 6,1 writes as follows: "why does the baby have to be circumcised on the eighth day after its birth? G'd exercised His mercy on the baby waiting until it was strong enough to endure this operation. Just as G'd exercises His mercy on human beings He did so on animals and this is why a new born animal may not be offered as a sacrifice until the eighth day after it has been born (compare Leviticus 22,27).

How do we know that the baby attains a certain amount of physical strength by the eighth day after its birth? It appears that we have to rely on the Zohar both in our Parshah as well as in Parshat Emor where it is explained that the experience of a single Sabbath in its life confers such additional physical strength upon both the baby and the new-born animal. The Sabbath experience provides what is called כח חיוני, a life-sustaining force. You will also find the comment of Bereshit Rabbah 10 that prior to the first Sabbath the universe was in a very unstable condition. It was only the Sabbath which helped stabilise the entire universe. This is what the sages meant when they said that the experience of a Sabbath helps stabilise the vital signs of new-born babies and animals. The letter ו in the word וביום also links the impurity of the mother to the circumcision experience of the baby, i.e. if the baby's mother is meticulous in her observance of the laws pertaining to menstruating women, her baby's chances of living long enough to experience circumcision and not being harmed by it are improved.

Our verse may also be explained in terms of Tanchuma Tazria 5 where we have the following statement: "The Roman Governor Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva whose actions were more pleasing, G'd's or man's? Rabbi Akiva answered that man's actions were more pleasing. Turnus Rufus asked why the Israelites circumcised themselves? Rabbi Akiva said he had known that Turnus Rufus would ask him this and this is why he had said immediately that man's actions were more pleasing. Rabbi Akiva brought both ears of corns and white flour proclaiming: "the former are representative of G'd's works, the latter are representative of man's works. Are not the latter nicer than the former?" Thereupon Turnus Rufus wanted to know why G'd commanded circumcision instead of creating man without a foreskin? Rabbi Akiva replied that the whole reason for Torah legislation is in order to refine human beings as we know from Psalms 18,31 'the word of the Lord is refining;' Rabbi Akiva did not content himself with the example of the ears of corn versus the finished product, the scone or roll, seeing that the improvement necessary in order to convert ears of corn into flour is intended to add to man's enjoyment and man therefore is motivated to convert ears of corn into flour. This cannot be said of his body. Man does not feel that the foreskin is a hindrance to his physical perfection. There was a reason therefore for G'd Himself to create man without a foreskin if that was His will. Why did He leave this to man instead of doing it Himself? Rabbi Akiva therefore answered Turnus Rufus that G'd's laws are designed to refine man. This appears to be a very enigmatic answer for someone like Turnus Rufus. A pagan of the type of Turnus Rufus does not understand the concept that man has to attain his relative perfection by means of carrying out G'd's commandments. He therefore accepted the answer at face value. We Israelites, G'd's favourites, have to examine the matter on a different level. One of the remarkable things is the fact that whereas in nature we observe that nature's products reproduce themselves true to existing features, i.e. the farmer having achieved a certain strain of wheat, for instance, will find that if he sows seed of that strain they will reproduce themselves identically, the same is not true of circumcised Jews producing children without a foreskin. All our evolutionary studies ought to dictate that after thousands of years of male Jews living their lives without foreskins, their children should be born without foreskins! Even if we were to argue that once one has been born with a foreskin the laws of mutation will ignore such a fact and he will reproduce children with a foreskin, why did someone such as Moses who was born without a foreskin (compare Sotah 12) not produce children without foreskins?

Let me enlighten you in matters of G'd's instructions to us. We have learned that the foreskin symbolises evil, its very presence drawing attention to hidden characteristics. Man's entire body is a sheath for the personality it hides within. The sheath reveals information concerning what is inside it. G'd told the Jewish people that by removing the visible evidence of evil within them, i.e. the foreskin, they would be able to diminish the power of evil hidden inside their bodies also. If the Gentiles were to do the same, the effect would not be the same as their entire personalities are the outgrowths of spiritually negative forces, as represented by their foreskins. When the prophet Jeremiah 9,25 refers to all Gentiles summing them up as "foreskins," this is very significant. It is a well-known fact that Adam possessed perfect health, that his body created by G'd Himself lacked any particle of impurity; as a result he had no foreskin which could symbolise any hidden impurity. When the Talmud Sanhedrin 38 describes Adam as "pulling" on his foreskin after he committed the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, this is a way of saying that he had developed a foreskin. After Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge, she too developed signs of physical impurity reflecting the fact that her personality had absorbed input by the forces of impurity. In her case the external sign of such impurity which corresponded to the foreskin in Adam was the menstrual blood. The Talmud Eyruvin 100 describes no less than ten curses Eve suffered as a result of her eating from that tree. Man's sin impacted on nature as a whole. Starting after the sin, the earth began to produce fruit covered with many peels, the husks of an ear of grain being one example of such קליפות, "peels.

Proof of all this is that man cannot enjoy bread until he has first removed these peels from the kernel of grain. He can convert it into flour only after having removed the outer husk. In fact, the grain has to undergo no less than 10 stages of refinement before we can serve it up as bread (compare Shabbat 73). These ten stages correspond to the ten curses we mentioned earlier (compare Zohar Pinchas page 243). This is why when the time comes which is envisaged by the prophet Zachariah 13,2 the earth will once again give forth rolls or scones, ready to eat. This is what Rabbi Akiva had in mind when he contrasted the rolls with the ears of corn. The reason that nature (G'd) does not produce perfection nowadays is not G'd's inability to do so but man's interference in the mechanism G'd had provided for nature. As a result, when man procreates at a time when he is already minus the foreskin, the forces represented by the foreskin have not thereby been vanquished; they are still as active as ever in our universe and man is nourished daily by products which have been influenced by all the spiritually negative forces which are rampant in nature. As a result, the seed which ultimately develops into a baby, has been inhibited by all these negative forces in our world preventing it from developing into a human being minus the foreskin. As to Turnus Rufus' second question that if G'd does indeed want man to be circumcised why had He not created him so, this question was based on his ignorance of the relationship between spiritual inadequacy and the resultant inadequacies in nature.

Alternatively, Turnus Rufus was aware that man's external appearance, i.e. that tangible aspects of man reflect some of his intangible parts inside of him; he thought that such stains on man's character as were reflected by his exterior had been given to him by G'd at birth. He believed that when G'd ordered for man to remove his foreskin, the character stains which his foreskin reflected would be removed from him by G'd. Rabbi Akiva gave him a general answer concerning the purpose of the positive and negative commandments. Having a foreskin is not indicative of a single stain on one's character or even a single inadequacy which has become part of human nature. Rather, it is a reminder of basic inadequacies which man is troubled by ever since Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Inasmuch as man caused these inadequacies, he must labour to overcome them. G'd does not do it for him. Rabbi Akiva explained that all the positive commandments combined are designed to refine man, i.e. to gradually remove the stains which are part of his being a creature born of woman. Performance of each positive commandment restores some of the spiritual light which has become encapsuled in a "peel" as a result of eating from that tree. The negative commandments on the other hand, are the agents which remove the sickness which adheres to man's soul ever since first man allowed such diseases to become part of him. The whole process of rehabilitation is best described in Proverbs 6,23 כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, "performance of a single commandment is equivalent to providing the kind of light given by a single candle, whereas the performance of all of the Torah's commandments (not given to a single individual to perform) provides "Light", i.e. will restore the light which existed when Adam was in גן עדן." It is not G'd who does all this; G'd gave man the commandments as tools in order to enable him to find his way back to "paradise lost." Seeing Adam had contaminated all future souls, it is up to each human being to rehabilitate himself individually. I have dealt with the subject in my commentary on Genesis 4,7.

Furthermore, if we were to allow G'd to remove all these impediments man faces nowadays, the whole concept of reward and punishment which is the philosophical basis of Judaism would be negated. How can one expect to be rewarded for gifts given to us by G'd? To sum up: the fact that we are born with a foreskin is the result of spiritual damage caused to man's soul as a by-product of his sin. This spiritual damage is reflected in an outgrowth of his body, i.e. the foreskin. G'd ordered every male Israelite to excise the visible part of this evil from his body. Having done this his soul will also be on the road to recovery. This is why the Torah stresses וביום "and on that day," etc. There was already the need for the mother to purify herself from the impurity contracted through giving birth. Now there is the added commandment to remove the foreskin from the baby. G'd commands concerning both these rehabilitative steps simultaneously. This is the meaning of וביום השמיני, "and on the eighth day, etc." Seeing that the sin of Eve had been greater than that of Adam, man is able to remove the physical reminder of his impurity with one stroke i.e. the foreskin does not grow back [as distinct from normal skin Ed.], whereas woman experiences menstrual bleeding at regular intervals.

Perhaps another reason why G'd commanded that circumcision should be performed on the eighth day, not sooner and not later, was because on that day G'd judges the mother who has to count seven days of impurity from the moment the baby left her womb. The baby is perceived as having left a grave [simile for the mother's womb. Ed.] hence the baby itself has become contaminated by contact with the impurity suffered by its mother. Seeing that circumcision is equivalent to G'd revealing His name to man as I have hinted in my commentary in Parshat Vayera where G'd visited Abraham after he had circumcised himself, He wanted to wait until the seven days during which cleansing from that impurity occurs have passed. On the eighth day the baby is fit to be circumcised.

ימול בשר ערלתו. "the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." We understand this in terms of what we have already mentioned, namely that the foreskin is a tangible symbol of the קליפה, the spiritually negative part of the emanations. The Torah hints here that the ritual of circumcision consists of three stages. They are called: מילה, פריעה, מציצה; 1) the removal of the foreskin itself; 2) the splitting of the membrane and pulling it down; 3) the sucking of some blood from the place where the foreskin has been cut. The word ימול refers to the cutting of the foreskin. The פריעה does not involve cutting that membrane and is alluded to in the text by the word בשר. This rite insures that the foreskin will not grow back. The word בשר suggests "dead meat." The מציצה consists of removing blood which had been contaminated by the two parts of the foreskin which have been removed. This blood was considered as part of the foreskin and has to be removed alongside with the foreskin. This ritual is alluded to in the text by the word ערלתו, his foreskin.

There is an interesting analysis of the concept of קליפות, peels, in an appendix to the first volume of the Zohar page 262. The "peels" surrounding the kernel "sanctity" are compared to the four peels surrounding the walnut. The comparison is based on Solomon speaking of the גנת אגוז, in Song of Songs 6,11. 1) There is an outer shell which is bitter in taste, eventually dries out and falls of its own accord. 2) There is the hard shell. 3) There is the flexible type of shell which separates different edible parts of the nut from one another. 4) There is the thin peel which adheres to the fruit itself and is edible when attached to the fruit. This inner peel is not considered so despicable unless it is separated from the edible part of the nut. When we contemplate the ritual of circumcision, we think in terms of three peels. The foreskin itself is somewhat like the outer shell of the walnut. The membrane we fold back during what is called פריעה corresponds to the hard shell of the nut which is broken before one can get at the edible part. Finally, the act of מציצה, the sucking away of contaminated blood, corresponds to the inner peel of the nut which separates edible parts from one another. It too has to be removed in order to enable us to eat the nut without hindrance. Man still remains with the last "peel" the one that we described as not totally despicable while it is attached to the edible part. Zohar part one, page 78, refers to this part as the peel which is attached to a boy until he reaches the age of 13. Until that time he is still considered as possessing some kind of ערלה, foreskin in the allegorical sense, seeing he does not yet have an antidote to the evil urge he has been born with. To carry the simile a little further. Just as every fruit-bearing tree is considered by the Torah as ערלה during its first three years of existence, so man, who is compared elsewhere by the Torah to the tree in the field, is considered as still possessing some ערלה until his בר מצוה. Once he enters the fourteenth year of his life he is קדש הילולים, all his products (deeds) may become holy unto G'd.

Another way of looking at our verse may be parallel to what is written in the תקוני הזהר section 24, folio 69. The commandment of circumcision consists of three levels. The highest level of this commandment is the circumcision of the children of the righteous, the children of the living G'd. Their circumcision is an experience comparable to revelation of G'd's very name to them. They will consider the experience as if G'd's holy name had been engraved on their very flesh which had thus become sanctified. The next lower level of the circumcision experience is that experienced by the average person. For such people the experience of circumcision is equivalent to their having become a sacrificial offering to G'd. The third level of circumcision is when children of forbidden unions are circumcised, people who are evil and hated by G'd. When people like that perform the ritual of circumcision it is as if they donated part of themselves to the original serpent, as if giving it dust which is its bread, i.e. these people feed the forces of evil (compare Tikkuney Hazohar folio 10). These three levels of the circumcision experience are alluded to in the Torah by the words ימול־בשר־ערלתו. The first word ימול may be understood as יו׳ד מול, G'd (יו׳ד) is perceived as present by the person being circumcised. The word בשר is a simile for the meat-offerings, i.e. the person being circumcised conceives of himself as being sacrificial meat. The word ערלתו is a simile for the people whom G'd hates being circumcised. The word "his foreskin" is a reference to the unworthy part of man which in reality is part of Satan. Unworthy people are perceived as donating those parts to Satan when they undergo circumcision. As a result of these considerations we find that G'd commanded all three levels of our people to undergo the ritual of circumision so that a Jewish court would not be able to say that there is no point in performing circumcision on the body of a ממזר, a "bastard" (the product of a union between partners who are forbidden to be joined in marriage on pain of the Karet penalty). The reason the Torah wants the foreskin of such a bastard removed is to weaken the Satanic forces active within such a person. This is so even though such a male is not allowed to marry a Jewish girl even after he has been circumcised. Once his foreskin has been removed this (innocent) victim of the sins of his parents has a chance to perfect his personality and to strengthen all the positive elements within him. This is why our sages in Horiot 13 are on record that a ממזר who is a Torah scholar takes precedence in matters of personal honour over a High Priest who has not studied Torah.

תשב — The word תשב signifies here “remaining”, just as in (Deuteronomy 1:46) “And ye stayed (ותשבו) at Kadesh”, and (Genesis 13:18) “and he stayed (‎‎‎וישב) in the Plain of Mamre”

AND SHE SHALL THEN ‘TEISHEIV’¹⁷Literally: “sit” or “dwell.” (REMAIN) IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION THREE AND THIRTY DAYS. “The term yeshivah [literally: sitting] signifies here ‘remaining,’ just like in the verses: ‘vateishvu’ (and ye stayed) in Kadesh;¹⁸Deuteronomy 1:46. ‘vayeishev’ (and he dwelled) by the terebinths of Mamre.”¹⁹Genesis 13:18. This is Rashi’s language. But if so, the verse is stating: “for another thirty-three days she should still wait, touching no hallowed thing nor coming into the Sanctuary, even though they are days of purity as far as [physical relationship with] her husband,”²⁰A woman after the birth of a male child is impure for seven days like a menstruant, and is forbidden to have conjugal relations with her husband. For the next thirty-three days, even though she has an issue of blood, she is permitted to her husband, but she may not eat of the offerings nor come into the Sanctuary until the forty-first day, when she brings her prescribed offerings (Verses 6-8). For a female child the number of impure days are fourteen, and the waiting period until she may eat of the offerings etc. is sixty-six days, and she brings her offerings on the eighty-first day. — It should be pointed out that this is the Scriptural law which explains the verses and the text of Ramban before us. For the practical law to be observed today, see further, Note 23. this being the sense of the expression in the blood of purification. Scripture uses this expression [‘remain’ in the blood of purification, instead of saying “and she shall then be … “] in order to inform us that even though she sees no issue of blood during these [thirty-three days for a male child, or sixty-six for a female], she must still wait this entire period on account of the childbirth [before she may eat of the hallowed food or enter the Sanctuary]. It is possible that the expression teisheiv here is like in the verse, Many days ‘teishvi’ (thou shalt sit solitary) for me; thou shalt not play the harlot, and then thou shalt not be any man’s wife,²¹Hosea 3:3. for a woman who has intercourse with her husband is called yosheveth lo (sitting for him). Now since He said in regard to the seven days [after the birth of the male child], she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of the sickness shall she be unclean,²²Verse 2. meaning that she be impure to her husband and for hallowed food during all these seven days, He now said that after the seven days she may sit for her husband [i.e., she may have intercourse with him] for thirty-three days in the blood of purification, but still she may not touch hallowed things nor come into the Sanctuary, even if she sees [no issue of blood], and she may be with her husband even if she sees [an issue].²³This as noted above is the Scriptural law. Rabbi Moshe Isserless states the law as it is to be observed today. After commenting that in some places it is customary that during the entire forty-days period for a male-child and eighty for a female, the mother does not purify herself for her husband by immersion in a ritual pool, he states the law to be as follows: “But in those places where there is no such custom, we should not be stringent at all. Rather, immediately after she has not seen blood following the seven-days for a male-child and fourteen for a female, and after she counted a further seven clean days, she is permitted to her husband. But if she again saw even a drop of blood as tiny as a grain of mustard, she is unclean. For although by Scriptural law it is clean blood, yet the custom has already been accepted in all Israel that no coition is permitted if there is clean blood, the law applicable thereto being in every respect like that of other [unclean] blood” (Yoreh Deah 194:1, Rama).
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that a woman in the days of her menstruation is called niddah (shunned) because she was avoided by and kept distant from all people. Men and women would not approach her, and she would sit alone and not speak with them, for even her speech was considered by them impure, and they regarded the dust upon which she stepped to be impure as the dust of the decomposed bones of the dead. Our Rabbis have mentioned this.²⁴Vol. I, p. 387. Even her gaze was considered harmful, and I have already mentioned this in Seder Vayeitzei Ya’akov.²⁵Ibid., pp. 387-388, and Note 224 there. Thus it was the custom of menstruants to sit in a special tent, this being the intent of Rachel’s words to her father [Laban], Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise up before thee; for the manner of women is upon me,²⁶Genesis 31:35. since it was their custom that a woman in that condition should not walk, nor let the sole of her foot step upon the ground. That is why the Torah was more stringent in regard to what the menstruant sits upon or lies upon [in that both the person who touches them and his garments are rendered impure]²⁷Further, 15:21-23. than with respect to touching [the menstruant herself, in which case the person himself is rendered impure, but not his garments].²⁸Ibid., Verse 19. Similarly Scripture said in regard to the leper: he shall dwell [literally: “sit”] alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be,²⁹Ibid., 13:46. and it did not say as it did in the case of the other impure persons, and he shall go out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp.³⁰Deuteronomy 23:11. Rather, it mentioned the term “sitting,” meaning that he is to avoid walking, since his odor and breath are harmful. It is for this reason that Scripture says here that for another thirty-three days she shall ‘sit’ in the blood of purification, in the same place where she sat in the [seven] days of impurity on account of the childbirth, and further prohibited by means of a negative commandment from touching hallowed things or coming into the Sanctuary during that time. The [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof is as follows:³¹Sifra, Tazria 1:7. “She shall continue [in the blood of purification for three and thirty days]. This comes to include a woman in hard labor during the eleven days,³²It is important to clarify first certain basic Scriptural concepts in order to understand the text before us: (a) Commencing with the day on which a woman first sees a menstrual issue, she is to count seven days of impurity. During these days she remains impure, and forbidden to her husband, whether or not she sees another issue in the course of them. The issue, however, having ceased before the sun has set on the seventh day, she is to immerse herself that night in a ritual pool and may enter into conjugal relations. [However, for the Rabbinic ordinance as observed today, see Note 35.] (b) After these seven days of impurity effecting the menstruant, commences “the eleven-day period” (here referred to in the text) during which she becomes subject to the law affecting the zavah (a woman suffering a flux outside her regular period). That is to say, if during this period she sees one or two issues on the same day or on two consecutive days, she only has to immerse herself in a ritual pool on the following day, and returns to her purity with the setting of the sun. A woman suffering a flux of this kind is often referred to as “a minor zavah.” If, however, during the eleven-day period she sees one or more issues on three consecutive days, she becomes “a major zavah,” being under the obligation to count seven “clean days” after the complete cessation of the flux. And if in the course of these seven “clean days,” she sees another issue, she is to commence counting seven “clean days” anew. With the completion of the counting of seven completely “clean days,” the major zavah is to immerse herself in a ritual pool, bringing on the following day the prescribed offering (further, 15:29-30). Thus it is clear that by ordinance of the Torah, the law of the menstruant is far different from that of the zavah, to which she is subject during “the eleven-day” period, or the intervening time between her regular periods. See additionally, Note 35 as to the Rabbinic ordinance. that she be pure from zivah (the law of ‘flux’).³³Thus a woman who was in protracted labor for three days of this “eleven-day period” [during which ordinarily the laws of zivah would have applied], and she saw issues on these three consecutive days, is yet not subject to this law. But, as the text continues, if she was in hard labor during her seven days of menstruation and she saw an issue, she is impure as a menstruant. I might think that she should also be regarded as pure from [the impurity conveyed through] menstruation;³⁴See above, Note 32 (a). Scripture therefore says [as in the days of the impurity of her sickness] shall she be unclean.”³⁵It is important to note that by Rabbinic ordinance a woman seeing an issue at any time whatever, is under obligation to count seven completely “clean days” after the cessation of the issue last seen — irrespective of whether she has seen the last issue within the seven-day period, or at any time thereafter. She must then immerse herself in a ritual pool, whereupon she is considered purified, and may enter into conjugal relations — the conditions attaching to the eating of hallowed food no longer of course being in force in our days because of the destruction of the Sanctuary and the absence of certain other means of ritual purification.

בדמי טהרה, although this blood could not have originated from a new ovulation but dates back to the last ovulation before she had become pregnant, whatever had happened at that time is no longer relevant the whole appearance of that blood having changed completely.

בדמי טהרה, blood which is not the result of menstruation. There are two separate origins within a woman’s body from which blood emerges at different times. The blood which emerges during the thirty three days mentioned does not confer impurity. In fact it is part of the healing process.

בדמי טהרה, “in blood of purity;” Nachmanides, comments on the opinion of Rashi, who claims that the last letter ה in the word טהרה does not have a dot, dagesh, meaning that the word itself is a noun, and that the translation of the words בדמי טהרה is “in the blood of purification,” [as opposed to “her purification,” Ed] so that the meaning is “although she sees blood she is ritually clean.” This interpretation is also the one given by Ibn Ezra, who spells out that this blood is blood that denotes purification, as opposed to דם נדה that is blood denoting ritual impurity. According to Nachmanides, G’d decreed that the number of days a mother having given birth to a male child remains partially pure and partially impure corresponds to the number of days (40) after conception that it takes for the male fetus to develop to a state where it is recognizable as such. The period of 33 days when she is no longer niddah, in a state of menstruation, to her husband she is still undergoing a second stage of purification before she is able to present the required offerings in the Temple. The word תשב, normally translated as: “she is to sit,” is equivalent to “sitting out,” awaiting the conclusion of the period of the remaining 33 days until she is completely purified. This statement is accepted by Nachmanides as scientifically proved. Similarly, he accepts as proven that the development of the female fetus takes twice as long to attain that stage. [The term “proven” apparently is used, as this is the opinion offered by Rabbi Yishmael in Niddah 30. This Rabbi quoted postmortems performed on a woman executed for some misdemeanour and an embryo not older than 40 days since conception being discovered inside her in such a state of development. The majority view there rejects this “proof,” and states for halachic considerations that both a female and a male fetus develop at the same speed. Ed.] Nachmanides considers the word טהרה here as an adjective, such as when we speak of זהב טהור, pure gold, unadulterated by other metals or dross. The rationale appears to be that when giving birth to a male child, during the first seven days, when the mother still discharges blood constantly, she is considered as in the same state as a menstruating woman having her monthly cycle, The additional thirty three days which the Torah decrees that the new mother has to count, she has to spend staying in her home in order to cleanse her body thoroughly, as during these days she will discharge remnants of blood originating in her womb and ovaries. Once all this has been discharged she is able to enter the consecrated grounds of the Temple and to offer her sacrifices, as described in the following verses. Our sages had a tradition that as far as her ritual status vis a vis her husband- as opposed to vis a vis G’d, i.e. the Temple, is concerned, she is ritually pure after the first seven days. The reason why in both regards twice the length of time for ritual impurity has been decreed by the Torah is either in accordance with Rabbi Ibn Ezra’s opinion based on that of Rabbi Yishmael, that the gestation of a female embryo takes that much longer, or, if we accept the view of the majority opinion of the sages at the time, that both types of embryos have developed to the same state after 41 days, that the nature of the feminine embryo is that it is colder and wetter, the wetness is a condition of the mother’s womb caused by the female embryo, which results in the process of her fully recovering from her pregnancy and birth taking so much longer and the process of discharging excess blood also taking longer. We all know from daily experience that cleaning something that is cold is more difficult than something that is warm or hot.

ושלושים יום ושלושת ימים, “and for the thirty-three days following, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the 33 days of purification were decreed to combine with the seven days of impurity in order to complete a cycle of forty days. The fetus required forty days after its mother conceived to become something in its own right.
A kabbalistic approach: The thirty-three days given to the woman (during which she cannot halachically become a menstruant) were given to her as corresponding to the bride in Song of Songs who is viewed as possessing the thirty-two paths of wisdom. She is presumed to join these thirty-two paths thus making a total of thirty-three [the concept of אחותי כלה “the bride is my sister,” (Song of Songs 4,10) means in kabbalistic terms that “wisdom is my sister,” i.e. [I attach myself to wisdom as one is attached to one’s sister.” Ed.] the כלה is perceived as “carrying,” supporting these thirty-two paths of wisdom.

Even if. Otherwise, why does it say: “בדמי”? Alternatively, this is the explanation: Would it be insufficient that she does not see blood, that it was written with the expression “תשב בדמי (she will remain in the blood)”? Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if [she sees blood]...”

ושלשים יום ושלשת ימים, “and thirty three days, etc;” the thirty three days plus the first seven days combine to make forty days, the number of days that are required until the male fetus has developed its features. The female fetus requires twice this number of days as has been proven conclusively. (based on the Talmud tractate Niddah folio 30)

בדמי טהרה IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION — Even though she see an issue of blood she is nevertheless clean (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1 7).

עד מלאת ימי טהרה, “until the completion of the days of her purification.” The completion occurs on the 40th day including the following night. During that night she is still not allowed to come into contact with sanctified objects, etc. On the morning following she may offer the sacrifices ordained for mothers that have recently given birth, including her sin-offering.

To one who eats. As it is written nearby: “and she shall not come into the Sanctuary,” and the one who enters the Sanctuary in impurity is liable koreis (excision), as it is written at the beginning of Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:20). [Thus,] the Gemora (Yevamos 75a) makes a comparison between “she shall not touch anything holy” and one who enters the Sanctuary, just as one who enters the Sanctuary involves koreis, so too, when it is written, “she shall not touch anything holy,” it refers to koreis. If so, perforce we must say that “she shall not touch” is a warning to one who eats, for one who eats sacrifices in the state of impurity is liable [koreis. Regarding terumoh, though, which Rashi derives above from “anything holy,” the punishment is] death [at the hands of Heaven], as it is written (22:9): “And die because of it for having profaned.” However, one who touches sacrifices in the state of impurity is not liable koreis [and the reason the verse teaches eating with an expression of ‘touching’ is to let us know that one who is forbidden to eat sacrifices may also not touch them]. Furthermore, we can say that Rashi [knows that ‘touch’ refers to eating from that which he] explains nearby “anything holy” — “to include [terumoh].” Perforce, he did not intend to explain the verse, for the phrase “anything holy” is written before “she shall not touch,” so why does Rashi reverse the order? Rather, this refers to what precedes his explanation on “anything holy.” And this is its explanation: “She shall not touch” — “A warning to one who eats,” but how do we know it is a warning to one who eats? Thus, he explains: Because “anything holy” includes terumoh, and “she shall not touch” also refers to it. If so, we cannot say “she shall not touch” is a warning for actual touching, since it is permissible to touch terumoh immediately after immersing [in a mikveh], and she immersed immediately after the seven days. A טבול יום (one who immersed and is waiting for sunset) is permitted to touch terumoh. Rather, [it must be] a warning for one who eats. This raises a difficulty: In the verse it is written קדש (holy) and not terumoh! Upon this Rashi answers: The proof is from that which it is written: “until the days of her purity are completed,” which is applicable only to terumoh, “for this one is [considered] as one who has immersed [in a mikveh but whose purification is concluded only] after a long day, [thus,] the expression “days” is applicable to her. However, sacrifices cannot be eaten until one brings his [sacrifice of] atonement, and it does not depend on days alone. [Thus,] although the [warning] itself comes for one who eats sacrifices, nevertheless, the exclusion from “anything” comes to prohibit eating terumoh (Nachalas Yaakov).

IN THE BLOOD OF ‘TAHORAH’ (PURIFICATION). According to Rashi this means that even though she sees [an issue of blood during this period of thirty-three days for a male child, and sixty-six for a female], she is nevertheless pure by law of the Torah.²³This as noted above is the Scriptural law. Rabbi Moshe Isserless states the law as it is to be observed today. After commenting that in some places it is customary that during the entire forty-days period for a male-child and eighty for a female, the mother does not purify herself for her husband by immersion in a ritual pool, he states the law to be as follows: “But in those places where there is no such custom, we should not be stringent at all. Rather, immediately after she has not seen blood following the seven-days for a male-child and fourteen for a female, and after she counted a further seven clean days, she is permitted to her husband. But if she again saw even a drop of blood as tiny as a grain of mustard, she is unclean. For although by Scriptural law it is clean blood, yet the custom has already been accepted in all Israel that no coition is permitted if there is clean blood, the law applicable thereto being in every respect like that of other [unclean] blood” (Yoreh Deah 194:1, Rama). And so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra write, that the meaning of the above expression is that “it constitutes pure blood in contrast to the blood of the menstruant, and therefore does not convey impurity, G-d having decreed in the case of a male child [a forty-days period for the after-effects of the childbirth upon the mother — seven impure days and thirty-three pure days], corresponding to the number of days necessary for the form of the male child to be completed in the womb, while that of the female child is double [fourteen impure days and sixty-six pure days, corresponding to the eighty days it takes for the female child to be formed in the mother’s womb]. This is clear and tested.”
But in my opinion the meaning of the word tahorah is cleanness [in a physical sense], similar in meaning to ‘zahav tahor’ (pure gold),³⁶Exodus 25:39. which means smelted and refined. A similar expression is found in the verse, And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver.³⁷Malachi 3:3. Thus the meaning of the expression here is as follows. Having commanded that a woman who gives birth to a male child be impure for seven days as in the days of her impurity, because then she usually sees issues of blood from the interior of the womb [from which the menses are discharged], He further commanded that she should wait for another thirty-three days, staying in her house in order to cleanse her body; for during all these days she will emit the remnants of blood and the turbid, ill-smelling secretions which come from these bloods, and then she will become cleansed from the childbirth, pregnancy and conception,³⁸See Hosea 9:11. and she may come to the House of G-d. Now our Rabbis have received the tradition that during these [thirty-three days for a male child and sixty-six for a female], she is pure for her husband, because with reference to the seven impure days it says that they are as in the days of the impurity of her sickness,²²Verse 2. but in connection with these [thirty-three days etc.] He said that she is impure as regards [eating or touching] hallowed things and entering the Sanctuary, but not for non-holy things nor for her husband, just as the Rabbis have said,³⁹Chullin 31 a. “Her husband is not a holy object.”
The reason that the time is doubled in the case of the birth of a female child [i.e., fourteen impure days and sixty-six pure days], is perhaps as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [as mentioned above] in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, that the formation of a male child is completed on the forty-first day, and that of a female child on the eighty-first day. But according to the opinion of the Sages who say that both male and female are completed on the forty-first day, we must say that the reason [why the time is doubled in the case of a female child] is that the nature of the female is cold and moist, and the white [fluid] in the mother’s womb is then exceedingly abundant and cold, this being the reason why she gave birth to a female child. Hence she needs a longer time to become clean [in a physical sense], on account of the abundant moisture in her which contains the ill-smelling blood, and on account of the coldness [of her body], as is well-known that sick people who suffer from cold need a longer period to restore their vigor than those who are hot.

בדמי טהרה — There is no Mappik in the last 'ה‎ of טהרה (as there is in the last word of this verse): it (the word) is an uninflected noun similar in meaning to טֹהַר (being a feminine form of it).

One who has immersed after a long day. Meaning: We need not ask: Terumoh is permissible to be eaten after the sunset, so why should it be forbidden to be eaten after the end of the seven days? Rashi answers: “For this one is as one who has immersed after a long day...” until the fortieth day when they bring their offerings of childbirth, and at sunset before the fortieth day she is permitted to eat terumoh.

ימי טהרה — the 'ה here has a Mappik and the meaning is: the days of her טֹהַר, her purification.

בכל קדש [SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH] ANYTHING THAT IS HOLY — not anything: this serves to include the heave-offering (Makkot 14b; Yevamot 75a). The Torah prescribes this because such a woman must be regarded as one who has taken the immersion on a very long day (טבולת יום ארוך), because she immersed herself at the end of the first seven days whilst her sun does not set to bring about her purification until sunset of the fortieth day since it is only on the morrow that she has to bring the atonement offering in connection with her purification, as it is stated in v. 6.

לא תגע SHE SHALL NOT TOUCH — This is a prohibition addressed to anyone who would eat holy things in a state of uncleanness, as it is stated in a Baraitha in Yevamot 75a.

ואם נקבה תלד, and if she gives birth to a female child, etc. Why does the Torah not describe the birth with the word וילדה as it did in the case of a male child? Torat Kohanim write: "how would I have known that the legislation of impurity due to giving birth applies not only in the case of a female child being born but also if a child of undetermined sex or a bisexual child had been born? The Torah writes אם נקבה תלד וטמאה, "if she gives birth to a female she is ritually impure" to teach us that the basic ritual impurity depends on the birth process not on the sex of the baby being born." I most certainly do not want to dispute what Torat Kohanim has written, but I do want to add something to that comment. Perhaps the author of this comment arrives at his conclusion by the failure of the Torah to write simply וכי תלד נקבה, "if she gives birth to a female," with the verb at the beginning of the sentence instead of at its end. This latter sequence of the words would have indicated that what the woman gave birth to would result in her becoming ritually impure only if the baby was definitely female. As it is, the wording allows also for babies of indeterminate sex.

וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה, “and she will remain in a state of blood of purification for sixty six days.” The Torah made a minor change in the description of the blood during those sixty six days, calling it על דמי טהרה, whereas the thirty three days of the parallel period after the birth of a male bay are called as remaining בדמי טהרה. The reason is that after the birth of a male child the mother has to observe these thirty three days under all circumstances, whereas in the case of a female child having been born, it is theoretically possible that the mother has already aborted a new embryo during the 80 days since she gave birth, in which case these days might not have to be observed in full.

ואם נקבה תלד, “and if she gives birth to a female child, etc.” the Torah now describes what procedure to follow if, as a result of the husband reaching orgasm first, a baby girl is born. We know this is the meaning from the letter ו before the word: אם, “if or when.” This is how the Talmud, tractate Niddah, folio 31 interprets our verse. Some scholars claim to have read in articles dealing with these matters scientifically, that every woman has seven orifices in her body, three on her right side and three on her left side and one in the middle. If the man’s semen enters any of the orifices on her right side she will give birth to a male child, whereas if it enters on one of the orifices on her left side she will give birth to a female child. If it enters the orifice in her middle, the baby born will either possess no (visible) genitals or the genitals of both sexes. According to these theories it depends on the woman’s position during marital intercourse. If she lies on her right side, she will give birth to a male child, i.e. her ritual impurity will depart from her relatively quickly. This is why the Torah provided for her to be ritually unclean for relations with her husband for only seven days after giving birth. If she had been lying on her left side, her ritual contamination departs more slowly, and that is why the Torah put her out of bounds for marital intercourse for a period of fourteen days. This is why Solomon said in Song of Songs 2,6: שמאלו תחת ראשית וימינו תחבקני, “his left is under my head, and his right embraces me.” The love-sick partner in this poem indicates her desire to bear male children.

תשב על דמי טהרה, Rashi explains that the expression תשב in our context means “to sit out,” in the sense of “to wait out.” She is not housebound, but she must await the termination of these days before being allowed to handle sanctified objects, [including the dough she bakes, when it is larger than the minimum quantity requiring that challah be taken from it. Ed.] Of course, she may not enter consecrated grounds during that period. Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the word תשב here is used in the same sense as in Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי, “you are to refrain for a long time (from sexual intercourse)” A woman who is in the habit of having marital relations with her husband is described as יושבת לו, “co-habiting with him.” Seeing that the Torah had spelled out the type of her impurity during the first seven days as similar to the days of her menstruation, whereas the following days spell out different kinds of restrictions, it is clear that during these latter days she may cohabit with her husband in spite of any blood which appears to originate in her womb or ovaries. Nachmanides’ personal view, however, is that a woman who sees menstrual blood is called niddah, a term borrowed from someone who has been put into some kind of ban and is ostracised from the community. A woman experiencing her period is similarly socially restricted as far as her husband and holy things are concerned. In the olden days such women were assigned special huts to dwell in during these days, In some societies they were not even allowed to speak to people, as their condition was perceived as contagious, and their spittle could have transmitted their germs. The earth that women in such a state stepped on was considered as polluted. What such women excreted was considered is similar to decaying flesh of the dead. Even being looked at by a woman in such a state was considered dangerous by some societies. This may have led the Torah to decree harsher degrees of ritual impurity for women in such a condition. Any place a menstruating woman sat on or lay on is treated as ritually impure, requiring purification in a ritual bath. The nature of ritual impurity of a menstruating woman has something in common with people afflicted with tzoraat on their skin, such people being ostracised and placed In quarantine outside the camp of the Israelites in the desert, or outside built up areas in later Israelite kingdoms. In the case of the צרוע, the person so afflicted, the Torah specifically states בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה, “he is to remain for an open ended amount of time outside the camp.”(Leviticus 13,46) It is clear that the meaning of the word ישב there cannot be: ”he is to sit,” as who can sit for an undisclosed amount of time. The meaning of ישב is that such a person must remain in a condition of expectancy for an indeterminate period of time. The term ישב is used to indicate that he must not enter the camp during this period of ostracism. If the Torah was not content to describe the situation of the צרוע with the words ויצא אל מחוץ למחנה he is to go outside the camp, and ולא יבא אל המחנה and he must not enter the camp, a term used for different other kind of ritually impure people, the reason may be that this צרוע is not to move about at all as even his gaze may be harmful, not only his touch. When the Torah here says that the new mother must תשב בדמי טהרה, it means that she is to observe a similar degree of restriction as do menstruating women, [no more, as we know from the addition that she must not enter consecrated grounds, as otherwise this latter addition would have been superfluous. Ed.]

Alternatively, the fact that the position of the word תלד is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including אנדרוגינוס, bisexual children, may reflect the fact that the author of Torat Kohanim holds a view similar to that expressed in Bikkurim 4,5 that such a creature is considered as in a category by itself. [The author proceeds to analyse this problem; the interested reader is referred to the original. Ed.]

תביא כבש, “she is to bring a sheep as an offering;” when his students asked Rabbi Shimon why the mother of the baby has to bring an offering, he answered them that it was because during the contractions preceding her giving birth she swore not again to have marital intercourse with her husband which was the reason for the pain she had to endure. This was an inappropriate oath for which she as to atone.

אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This teaches that the mother herself looks after these birds as well as sheep until then, when she hands them over to the priest. (Sifra)

והקריבו AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — Two offerings have been mentioned, a lamb and a bird, but it states here ,,and he shall offer it and so make an atonement for her” — this teaches you that only the omission to sacrifice a particular one of these two precludes her from eating the sacrificial food. And which is this? It is the sin-offering, because it is stated immediately afterwards: “he shall make expiation for her and she shall be clean” — that which is intended as expiation (i. e. the sin-offering), upon it does the purification depend (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 3 4).

AND HE SHALL OFFER IT BEFORE THE ETERNAL, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER; AND SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF HER BLOOD. Scripture is stating that she shall offer a ransom for her soul⁴⁰See Exodus 30:12. before the Eternal so that she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood, for a woman in childbirth has a troubled fountain and a tainted spring,⁴¹Proverbs 25:26. and after she has completed the number of days of becoming clean [as explained above in Verse 4], or the days of the formation of the child, male or female,⁴²This is a reference to Ibn Ezra’s explanation mentioned by Ramban (above, Verse 4). In other words, after she has completed the forty-day period for a male child and eighty days for a female — whether the reason that the Torah decreed these days is as Ramban explained it, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, or as Ibn Ezra explained it in accordance with that of Rabbi Yishmael (ibid.) — she shall then bring etc. she shall then bring a ransom for her soul so that her fountain should be stayed, and that she should become cleansed, for G-d, praised be He, “heals all flesh and does wondrously.”⁴³Berachoth 60 b.
Now our Rabbis have said⁴⁴Niddah 31 b. that [the reason for these offerings is] that at the moment that she bends down to give birth she rashly swears [because of the pains of childbirth]: “I will no longer have relationships with my husband” [so as not to conceive again]. The main purport of this statement of the Rabbis is that since she only swears on account of her pain, and the oath is moreover not capable of fulfillment, because she is subject to her husband, therefore the Torah wished for her to atone for that which came into her mind [and therefore commanded her to bring these offerings]. G-d’s thoughts, blessed be He, are deep,⁴⁵See Psalms 92:6. and His mercies are bountiful, for it is His desire to justify His creatures.

והקריבו לפני ה׳ וכפר עליה; and he shall offer it before G'd and make atonement for her. Concerning the offering of the sheep as a burnt-offering the Torah said והקריבו, whereas concerning the turtle-dove as the sin-offering the Torah writes וכפר עליה, "and he will make atonement for her." Torat Kohanim write that the two sacrifices are not both dependent on each other in order to fulfil their respective tasks but that only one depends on the other. I do not know therefore which of the two sacrifices is indispensable, and this is why the Torah said והקריבו, he will offer it up. Had, the Torah only written these words I still would not have known which one of these two sacrifices was indispensable; therefore the Torah adds the words וכפר עליה to tell us that the sin-offering is indispensable. Perhaps the exegesis is derived from the fact that the Torah could have simply written והקריבם, "and he is to offer them up." The fact that the Torah spent all these extra words teaches that the two sacrifices are not of equally indispensable nature.

וטהרה, she is ritually pure enough to be allowed to eat sacred foods. This is the interpretation of our sages in Yevamot 74. This is not so surprising, as a person undergoing the ritual rehabilitation process, if lacking only the official stamp of atonement, i.e. the sacrifice in question, may already eat sacred foods of the sanctity level of T’rumah, grain or its derivative given to the priest as a tithe. Sacred foods of a higher degree of sanctity may not be consumed by such a person until he has brought the requisite sacrifice.

והקריבו לפני ה' וכפר עליה, “He shall offer it before Hashem and atone for her.” Nachmanides writes that the new mother is in need of atonement as a woman after having given birth is left with a damaged womb. She is in need of having G’d heal that damage for her in order that she will be capable of continuing normal family relations after her womb has healed. Only G’d, the Healer of all flesh, can do this for her. Our sages of old, hold that the reason why most women are in personal need of atonement is that during the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth they vowed never again to have marital relations with their husbands. Seeing that such a woman swore out of extreme pain and her oath is therefore not really effective legally, since she is contractually obligated to have relations with her husband, G’d wanted her to escape the consequences of such an oath, and by allowing her to bring this sacrifice He forgave her. [We must remember that a legally ineffective oath constitutes uttering the name of the Lord in vain. Ed.]

One of them. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written: “He will bring them” since childbirth requires two offerings — a lamb in its first year and a young pigeon or turtledove. Rather, [it must be:] “This teaches you...”

וטהרה ממקור דמיה, “she shall be cleansed from the source of her ritual impurity.” What is the purpose of this verse? Even if the woman who had given birth had seen menstrual blood during all these days of ritual cleansing, she would be able to bring the requisite offerings at the conclusion of these 33 or 66 days after the initial period when she was out of bounds to her husband? Even if we were to assume that these words refer to the blood she saw while ritually unclean, there was no need to repeat the word דמיה, “her blood (her insides had not healed yet).” Her ritual purity does not depend on her bleeding or not bleeding, as she is not able to offer the sacrifices concluding her state of being considered a יולדת “birthing woman” even if she had not only stopped bleeding immediately after giving birth, but had experienced what halachah describes as a “dry” birth! The reason why the expression וטהרה, “she regained her ritual purity,” is in place is because until the expiry of these days and her having brought the requisite offerings, she cannot partake of food which is the residue of animals that have been slaughtered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, as well as agricultural products to be given to a priest, i.e. t’rumah.”

והקריבו, “and he (the priest) shall offer it;” although the pronoun ending in this word is in the singular mode, i.e. ”it,” what is meant is all three creatures, the two birds and the sheep. The Torah also does not bother to spell out the manner in which the birds will be killed, i.e. מליקה, “pinching off of the head, as per Leviticus 5,8.

וטהרה AND SHE SHALL BE CLEAN — it follows, therefore, that until now (until she has brought the atonement offering) she is termed ‘‘unclean” (i.e. she is regarded as טמאה) although she is actually טהרה.

On it the purification depends. For in every place regarding to the sin-offering it is written: “The kohein will atone for him and he shall be forgiven.” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi bring the verse at the end of the section (v. 8) and not the verse preceding it (v. 7): “and atone for her and she will be cleansed”? The answer is: This verse (7) does not prove that the sin-offering comes for atonement, for perhaps the burnt-offering comes for atonement. The other verse (8), however, demonstrates this well, since it is written: “And one as a sin-offering...” which implies that the sin-offering comes to atone. Another answer: Because the verse placed the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, and it placed it first “only for [the purpose of] reading [the Torah scroll].” However, this poses a difficulty: For what practical difference does Scripture place it first? Rather, it is to juxtapose “and he will atone” to “sinoffering” to teach that the atonement depends on the sin-offering. You might ask: Let the Merciful One [in the Torah] write [only]: “And he will atone” and it need not say, “And he will bring it,” and it would imply the one upon which the atonement depends! This is no difficulty, for Scripture had not written “and he will bring it” I might think that “he will atone” refers to the burnt-offering as well, since it is written regarding the burnt-offering (1:4): “And it will be favorably accepted from him to achieve his atonement.” However, now that it is written, “And he will bring it,” which implies one [of them], it is more reasonable to establish it as [referring to] the sin-offering that atones, since he is obligated to bring it to atone, and to exclude the burnt-offering that although it atones, he is not obligated to bring it as atonement. Even when the burnt-offering is obligatory, it comes as a present (Gur Aryeh).

That until now she is considered unclean. Rashi’s view in this is so that you will not raise a difficulty upon what he explains (above): “only one of them prevents her from eating holy food,” if so, this implies only sacrifices are forbidden and not terumoh. However, above he explains (v. 4): “Anything holy” — “to include terumoh”; that it too, is forbidden to be eaten. Therefore, he explains: “And she will be cleansed. Therefore, [we learn] that until now she is considered unclean.” Perforce, this impurity refers to prohibiting [eating from] sacrifices, since terumoh is permitted to be eaten from sunset of the fortieth day and onwards, which implies that sacrifices are prohibited [to be eaten] until after her atonement. Therefore, he explains: “from eating holy food.”

אחד לעלה ואחד לחטאת THE ONE FOR A BURNT-OFFERING AND THE OTHER FOR A SIN-OFFERING — Scripture puts it (the עולה) first only by way of mention, but so far as offering it is concerned the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering; thus do we learn in the Treatise Zevachim 90a, in the chapter commencing כל התדיר .

וכפר עליה, for during all the days that she had been excreting blood her thoughts had been preoccupied with the phenomenon of semen, etc, and she had therefore not been in a fit state of mind to enter the precincts of the Temple and offer sacred matters.

[The verse] placed it first. Meaning: For the purpose of reading the Torah that the one who reads in the Torah will read the word “burnt-offering” first, “but as to [the order of] offering...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain this above, where it is written: “She shall bring a lamb, in its first year, as a burnt-offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering”? This is because above it is logical that it should place the burnt-offering first, since it is speaking about a rich person who brings a lamb as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering, and even for bringing the offerings the burnt-offering comes first, since a lamb is more important. Here, however, [it is speaking] of a poor person who brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons, which are both the same, so I might think that also for bringing the offering the burnt-offering comes first since it was placed first, etc. Therefore, Rashi explains: “The verse placed it first...”

וכפר עליה הכהן, “and the priest shall make atonement for her.” Some people understand this procedure as being in the nature of physical cleansing as in Leviticus 14,19: וכפר על המטהר, “he will cleanse him on account of his uncleanness;” or in verse 53 of the same chapter: וכפר על הבית, “he will make atonement for the house.” In both these verses the subjects are afflictions either on the skin or the house, [neither of which can be considered as “guilty,” so that atonement in the spiritual sense would be required for them. Ed.] We find a similar expression in connection with someone suffering an uncontrollable emission of semen from his sexual organ, i.e. a disease. Clearly, it was not the semen that is at fault and requires purification on that account. (Compare Leviticus 15,15) While it is true that the afflictions in these verses were the result of the person suffering them having committed a sin, it still would sound incomprehensible if their belongings would be “punished.” Furthermore, the expression וחטא את הבית, “he will cleanse the house,” is used in the spiritual sense [seeing the root of the word is חטא sin, so that וכפר and וחטא, can be used both for describing spiritual cleansing and physical cleansing, depending on the context in which these words appear. (Compare Mishnah Negaim, 4,11)

The kohein will atone for her. Some say that this atonement is for the oath that she swears at the time of childbirth that she will never again be with her husband (Niddah 31). For this reason, when she gives birth to a boy she [forgets her pain and] regrets making the oath quickly due to the great rejoicing [of the bris], and therefore her atonement comes sooner. When she gives birth to a female, however, she still has pain and does not regret quickly, so her atonement is delayed.

That is that He commanded us that any woman after childbirth offer a sacrifice - and that is a one-year old lamb as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering. But if she was poor, she should offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons - one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And she is also lacking [full] atonement until she sacrifices them, as He said, "On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring a one-year old lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin-offering, etc." (Leviticus 12:6). (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1.)

That is that He commanded us that a woman after childbirth be impure. And this commandment includes all of the regulations of a woman after childbirth. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 5.)

That is that He commanded us that the purification from tsaraat be according to the process written in Scripture (Leviticus 14). And that is [with] cedar wood, hyssop, crimson dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters and that he do everything stated, with those things. And through this exact process, the person becomes pure - as Scripture explains. Behold it has already been made clear to you that there are three types of things that purify from impurity - one of them is general and two of them are specific to two types of impurity. Indeed, the general one is purification in water; the second type is the [sprinkling of] purification water, and that is something specific for the impurity of a corpse; and the third type is cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet dyed cloth, two living birds and living waters - and that is something specific for tsaraat. And the regulations of this commandment - meaning the purification of someone with tsaraat - have all already been explained in the first [chapter] of Tractate Negaim. (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 11.)