Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts
and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday at 8:00pm Eastern so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha
as noted by Iain Lonie (1932-1988), an expert on classical medicine from Otago University, this belief about embryonic development was a general tenet of Greek medicine, widely accepted among Greek natural philosophers:
The belief that male embryos both develop and quicken more rapidly than female was general in antiquity. Galen says that “almost all physicians” were agreed in the opinion, and quotes the statement of Rufus that Diogenes of Apollonia was the sole exception. Extant evidence suggests that the belief, at least in its scientific form, goes back to Empedocles who, according to Oribasius, believed that the male is articulated earlier than the female…
Similarly, Shlomo Naeh, Professor of Rabbinics at Hebrew University, notes that the connection between the post-partum flow and the amount of time it takes for a fetus to form goes back to Hippocrates (5th cent. B.C.E.) On the Nature of the Child:
I brought all of these [details] in to demonstrate that the period when the limbs of the child are articulated occurs at the latest at day 42 for a female and 30 for a male. The proof for this is from the [period of] cleansing from the flow of blood after birth, which lasts for forty-two days after a female and thirty days after a male at the latest.
quoted by: Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber in Postpartum Impurity: Why Is the Duration Double for a Girl?
וידוע כי האשה היולדת אחר עבור עליה כל אלו המכאובות על חבלי יולדה, אם יולדת זכר הכל נשכח. ומיד מתחרטת בשמחת הזכר. והיתה רצונה להזדווג מיד עם בעלה להוליד זכר אחר. והשם יתברך היודע הלבבות. צוה בזכר וטמאה שבעת ימים. לפי שהיא מתחרטת מיד. אבל בנקבה שעברו עליה צירים וחבלים ביום ובלילה. ואחר כך ילדה בת. היא עצובת רוח בעצב כפול.... ולכן אינה מתחרטת משבועתה ומהעולה על לבה. אבל היא מקיימת הדבר. ובאותו זמן אומרת שלעד לעולם לא תזדווג לבעלה. ולכן התורה שירדה לסוף דעתה. צוותה עליה וטמאה שבועים כנדתה. בענין שבזה הזמן תתחרט.
It is known that after a woman gives birth, and all of the birthing pains have passed, if she gives birth to a boy everything is forgotten. She immediately regrets [the vow] in her happiness over having a boy, and wishes to be intimate with her husband and have another boy. Hence, God, who knows the souls of people, commanded that for a boy she be impure only for one week, since she immediately regrets [her vow]. However, for a girl [it is different]. After going through birthing pains day and night and afterwards giving birth to a girl, [the mother] becomes doubly depressed… Therefore, she does not [immediately] regret her vow and the thoughts that inspired it, rather, she remains with them. At that time, she believes that she will never be intimate with her husband again. Therefore, the Torah, which understands her mind, commanded that she be impure like a menstruant for two weeks, since it will take this long for her to regret [the vow].
Tzeror Ha-Mor of R. Abraham Saba (1440–1508) quoted by: Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber in Postpartum Impurity: Why Is the Duration Double for a Girl?
וכפר עליה. אין לשון כפרה נופל כי אם על החטא, ולפיכך קרבן זה של יולדת מחודש כקרבן הנזיר, כי מה חטאה בזמן הלידה שתצריכנה התורה קרבן, ואם זה הקרבן הוא על שבאה בסכנה ונצלה מהמיתה, היה ראוי לה שתביא תודה, ולמה תביא עולה וחטאת. ויתכן לפרש שאין הקרבן הזה מצד חטא של עצמה רק מצד אמה שהיא היתה אם כל חי, כי לולא החטא ההוא היה האדם מוליד עם אשתו שלא בדרך תאוה וחשק אלא בדרך הטבע הגמור, כטבע האילן המוציא פירותיו בכל שנה שלא בתאוה, והיולדת הזו כאמה בתה במעשה החטא, כי הענפים הם מקולקלים בקלקול השורש, ועל כן יצריכנה הכתוב קרבן לכפר על החטא הקדמוני, שכן נצטוה בסבת אותו החטא על שלש מצות, והן נדה וחלה והדלקת הנר. ולפי שהחטא ההוא היה תחלה במחשבה ואח"כ במעשה ומפני זה הזכיר בקרבן יולדת אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, כנגד חטא המחשבה וחטא המעשה, ומפני זה הקדים עולה לחטאת, מה שאין כן בשאר הקרבנות שהחטאת קודמת לעולה בכולן, וזה ששנינו בזבחים אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, לא הקדימו הכתוב אלא למקראה, והכוונה שלא הקדים הכתוב עולה לחטאת להיותה קודמת במעשה. אבל הענין הקדימה במקראה הוא מטעם זה, לרמוז על חטא המחשבה ההיא שקדם לחטא המעשה, ולדעת רז"ל חטא היולדת הוא שעברה על השבועה, ממה שאמרו בשעה שהיא כורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת לא אזקק עוד לבעלי, ולפי שהיא נשבעת מתוך הצער ואין השבועה ראויה שתתקיים מפני שהיא משועבדת לבעלה, על כן יצריכנה הכתוב קרבן לכפר על חטא המחשבה.
וכפר עליה, “and atone for her, etc.” The word כפרה, “atonement,” is never used except when applicable to a sin. This is why the very institution of the sin-offering which the woman who has given birth has to bring strikes one as just as unique as that which the Torah demanded of the Nazir, the person who voluntarily abstained from wine, grape-associated products, and impurity (Numbers 6,14). What sin did the woman commit at the time she gave birth that the Torah should impose upon her the need to offer a sin-offering? If this sacrifice were meant to express her gratitude that she was saved from the danger attending every birth, the Torah should have prescribed that she bring a קרבן תודה, a thanksgiving offering! Why demand that she bring a sin-offering? It is possible to understand the reason for this offering as not so much related to her as to her “mother,” i.e. the first woman Chavah, who had committed the first sin as a result of which all women subsequently had to endure painful deliveries, pains of menstruation, separation from their husbands, etc. Had Chavah not been guilty of introducing disobedience to G’d’s command women would have been spared all this. The whole process of giving birth would have remained as natural a process as for trees to yield their fruit. Trees do not have to experience desire in order to become fertilized and to yield their fruit year after year. This woman who gave birth now may be perceived as the branch of a contaminated root, daughter of a corrupted mother and as such some of the mother’s contamination was transmitted to her. Hence the Torah requires that she atones for this by bringing a sin-offering after giving birth. By doing so she does her part in helping to atone for the original sin of Chavah.
In fact, we find that we are taught in Shabbat 31 that women have been commanded to observe three commandments specifically to help undo the spiritual damage caused to the species of man by their original “mother.” They are 1) the observance of a state of impurity with subsequent purification during their regular menstruation cycles. 2) חלה, the separating (and while the Temple was standing giving to the Priest) of the first part of any dough they bake from the five species of grain (Numbers 15,20-21), and 3) the lighting of the Shabbat candles every Friday night. [The last two commandments devolve on the male when there is no woman at hand. Ed.] In fact, according to the Talmud there, failure to observe these three commandments meticulously may result in their dying during childbirth. Seeing that that particular sin was preceded by the sinful thought before it was actually carried out, the woman offers both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering after giving birth; the first offering atones for the sinful thought and the second for the sinful deed (compare verse 5). This is the reason the Torah wrote of the requirement for the woman to bring a burnt-offering before mentioning the need for her to bring a sin-offering. In all other instances where the sin-offering has to be brought on account of a sin committed by the person bringing the offering, the Torah demands that he first cleanse himself spiritually by atoning for the deed before bringing the burnt-offering.
When the Talmud Zevachim 90 states that when the Torah wrote the words אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, “one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering,” (verse 8) that the actual presentation of these two offerings does not follow the order in which the two offerings are listed here, this supports our contention that the reason the Torah reversed the order in which the legislation is written is meant to teach us the lesson we mentioned, i.e. that the sinful intention preceded Chavah’s eating of the fruit of that tree, i.e. the offering we speak of here was not in penitence for an unintentional inadvertently committed sin as are most other sin-offerings.
According to the opinion of our sages (Niddah 31) the reason for the sin-offering the mother has to bring is that she presumably was guilty of swearing off marital relations with her husband seeing that the experience of giving birth was so painful and the pregnancy so uncomfortable. Her offering atones for such a lapse on her part. Seeing her oath at the time was due to her being in pain, and she is not a free agent allowed to deny her husband his marital rights, she has committed a culpable sin, i.e. she needs to atone with a burnt-offering for her sinful intent.
אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. ארז"ל (נדה לא) איש מזריע תחילה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר, והמפרשים כתבו שזה ענין טבעי, וק"ל מה צורך בהודעת ענין זה בפרשה זו המדברת מטומאת יולדת שבעה לזכר וי"ד לנקבה, ועוד מה ענין מצות המילה לכאן אע"פ שנוכל לומר שרצה ליתן טעם למה נתנה המילה בשמיני והוא כדי שלא יהיו הכל שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים (שם לא;) שהרי יש לה טומאת ז' מ"מ כדי ליישב כל הקושיות בדרך אחד אומר אני שכל זה נמשך בדרך טבע מן חטא הקדום כמ"ש וטהרה ממקור דמיה, כי החטא הקדום של חוה הוא מקור נפתח לדמים טמאים אלו לחטאת ולנדה כמו שמצינו (בעירובין ק:) אמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי הרבה ארבה עצבונך. אלו שני טיפי דמים דם נדה ודם בתולים כו', וכן משמע בירושלמי פרק במה מדליקין (הל' ו) שחטא של חוה הוא מקור לדם נדה, לכך נאמר וטהרה ממקור דמיה כי כל הנשים צריכין טהרה על חטא ראשון אשר ממנו נתפשטה הטומאה והזוהמא בעולם וגרם לכל הנולדים טומאת ז', כי אילו לא חטא האדם היה כמלאך אלקים למעלה מן מערכת ז' כוכבי לכת ובחטאו הוסר ממנו הרוחניות ונפל תחת ממשלת המערכה אשר מצדם נמשכה הטומאה לאדם כי כל דבר גשמי נופל תחת מספר ז' כוכבי לכת, וז' ימי בראשית, וכל שמיני רוחני כי הוא למעלה מז' כמבואר למעלה פר' שמיני (ט א).
I say that all of this stems naturally from the ancient sin, as it says: “and she will be purified from the source of her blood,” for the ancient sin of Eve is the source which opened all of these impure bloods… For all women need purification for the ancient sin from which the impurity and the filth spread across the world, and caused all who are born a seven-day impurity…
And the reason for the two week impurity for the woman herself who gives birth to a female is that it is reasonable that a woman should have double the impurity parallel to the two females, for the seven day impurity is spread to each female from the ancient sin, upon all females in the world. Therefore, it is fitting that she be impure for fourteen days: Seven for herself and another seven for her daughter, since she has now added an extra impurity in the world in addition to her own impurity…
A similar notion appears in the commentary of Moses Alshekh (d. after 1593), who writes: “The impurity of the daughter is doubled, because by means of the woman impurity enters the world, and by bearing a daughter, she increases impurity through her.”
Moses Alshekh, Torat Moshe (5 vols.; Jerusalem: Vagshel, 1990) 3:75. On Alshekh, see Shimon Shalem, Rabbi Moshe Alsheikh (in Hebrew) (Studies and Texts; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1966). cited in: A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: Ephraim of Luntshits on Leviticus 12* Alan Cooper Jewish Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary
In view of the topic of this paper, the most interesting feature of the Keli yeqar on Leviticus 12 is Ephraim’s wholesale appropriation of Christian anthropology. One observes, for example, parallelsin John Calvin’s commentary. Calvin remarks that while cohabitation without offspring is obviously shameful, here, in Leviticus 12, “the procreation of children, which should remove this indecency, is accounted the cause of pollution, because the whole race of Adam is full of contagion.” Calvin goes on to suggest that the double period of purification for baby girls might be “because the woman was the beginning of the rebellion, when, being deceived by the serpent, she destroyed her husband with her, and drew her posterity into the same ruin.” [John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (trans. Charles William Bingham; Calvin’s Commentaries 2; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1979) 499.] Although that is not Calvin’s preferred interpretation, it does seem fair to suggest that the Keli yeqar exemplifi es a broad trend in the interpretation of Leviticus 12 in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. As I continue my research, in addition to discerning clearer lines of connection among Jewish commentators, I also hope to find better evidence of contact between Jewish and Christian commentary.
A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: Ephraim of Luntshits on Leviticus 12* Alan Cooper Jewish Theological Seminary and Union Theological Seminary
ורבנן האי מבעי ליה לרבות טומטום ואנדרוגינוס דסלקא דעתך אמינא זכר ונקבה כתיב זכר ודאי נקבה ודאית ולא טומטום ואנדרוגינוס קמ"ל
Hithpalp. - הִיטַּמְטֵם to become a shapeless mass. Ḥall. l. c. ותִטַּמְטֵם; Tosef. ib. l. c. יתִיטַּמְטֵים.
The Importance of Gendering
On a simple level, gendering is about dividing people based on their physical sex, and the Hebrew terms used for male and female in this chapter highlight this. The term used here for the male child, זכר (zakhar), means “phallus” in some Semitic languages—in context, shorthand for “the one with the phallus.”
The term used here for female, נקבה (neqavah), comes from the root נ.ק.ב, meaning “to pierce” or “to bore through.” It is likely a reference to the woman’s perceived passive role in sex; literally, she is the one who will be pierced. Note the parallel term in Akkadian, naqābu, which means “to deflower” or “to rape.” Alternatively, the word could be referencing the shape of female genitalia, that she is one who has been pierced.[7]
While it may seem vulgar to present females in this way, it highlights the connection between sex and gender as understood by ancient Semitic peoples. But in most societies, and certainly for ancient Israelites, gender not only concerns a person’s physical sex, but their social role.
I suggest that the ritual here, even though it is technically about the purity of the mother, is actually about ritually gendering the child. ... Leviticus 12 thus uses the seclusion laws to highlight, and perhaps even reinforce, a child’s gender. By systematically linking the mother’s impurity to the sex of the child, the family publicly announces a child’s gender: “My house has a newborn boy” or “My house has a newborn a girl.” Thus, the re-entry of the Israelite woman into society on day forty or eighty also functioned as an introduction to the newborn boy or girl respectively.
Gendering a Child with Ritual, Dr. Kristine Henriksen Garroway
אלו שאין מביאות כו' ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן: מ"ט דר"ש אמר ר"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ה) ואם נקבה תלד לרבות לידה אחרת מאי היא יוצא דופן
המונח 'יוצא דופן'[עריכת קוד מקור | עריכה]
כיום רגילים לכנות דבר חריג או שונה במילים 'יוצא דופן'. מקור המונח הוא בביטוי התלמודי, המתאר לידה שאינה רגילה 'חריגה', מכאן נתגלגל הביטוי לשאר הדברים שהם חריגים.
More than a 1,00 years before the published findings of The Kinsey Reports on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female[2] (1953) and the findings of Masters and Johnson, the rabbis gave women the rights to sexual fulfillment.