(א) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר וְטָֽמְאָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים כִּימֵ֛י נִדַּ֥ת דְּוֺתָ֖הּ תִּטְמָֽא׃ (ג) וּבַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃ (ד) וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב בִּדְמֵ֣י טָהֳרָ֑ה בְּכָל־קֹ֣דֶשׁ לֹֽא־תִגָּ֗ע וְאֶל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א תָבֹ֔א עַד־מְלֹ֖את יְמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽהּ׃ (ה) וְאִם־נְקֵבָ֣ה תֵלֵ֔ד וְטָמְאָ֥ה שְׁבֻעַ֖יִם כְּנִדָּתָ֑הּ וְשִׁשִּׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב עַל־דְּמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽה׃ (ו) וּבִמְלֹ֣את ׀ יְמֵ֣י טָהֳרָ֗הּ לְבֵן֮ א֣וֹ לְבַת֒ תָּבִ֞יא כֶּ֤בֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה וּבֶן־יוֹנָ֥ה אוֹ־תֹ֖ר לְחַטָּ֑את אֶל־פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ (ז) וְהִקְרִיב֞וֹ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ וְכִפֶּ֣ר עָלֶ֔יהָ וְטָהֲרָ֖ה מִמְּקֹ֣ר דָּמֶ֑יהָ זֹ֤את תּוֹרַת֙ הַיֹּלֶ֔דֶת לַזָּכָ֖ר א֥וֹ לַנְּקֵבָֽה׃
(1) Adonai spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Tell the Israelite people: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be impure [tama] seven days; she shall be [tama] as at the time of her menstruation. (3) On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. (4) She shall remain in a state of blood purification for 33 days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary, until her period of purification is completed. (5) If she bears a female, she shall be impure [tama] two weeks, as during her menstruation; and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for 66 days. (6) On the completion of her period of purification, for either a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering. (7) He shall offer it before Adonai, and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be purified from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning a woman who bears a child, male or female.
Howard Curzer, "When Sacred Texts Say Terrible Things"
Many sacred texts contain problematic passages (i.e. passages which endorse morally repugnant ideas and practices). . . .
Some people criticize contemporary versions of Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam on the basis of problematic passages within the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran. This sort of criticism is typically misguided for a simple reason. These religious traditions have disavowed many problematic passages within their sacred texts. It is unfair to criticize a religion on the basis of a passage which it has renounced.
But can a religion possibly discard passages within its own sacred texts? After all, these texts are thought to be divinely authored, or at least divinely inspired. Can religions just pick and choose passages within their own scriptures? Here are a few strategies employed by some strands of the contemporary Abrahamic religions to reject or nullify passages.
Reject passages by rejecting inerrancy.
The simplest strategy for dealing with problematic passages is explicitly to allow that the original text contained errors. One may maintain that the Bible was written by inspired, but imperfect people. They were good, but not perfectly reliable transmitters of the divine message. Therefore, each passage must be weighed to determine whether it can plausibly be part of the divine message. Passages which fail this test can be rejected. The problematic passages were simply mistakes made by fallible people having bad days. . . .
Accept inerrancy. Reject passages by rejecting textual literalism.
One might maintain that all of the passages in our current manuscripts are true, but the problematic passages are true only at a metaphorical level. Thus, problematic passages may be retained while their literal meaning is rejected. For example, the barbaric eye-for-an-eye passages in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Ex 21:23-25) may be read metaphorically to mean that a person who harms another must pay monetary damages: for causing the loss of an eye one must pay a fine equal to the worth of an eye.
Alternatively, one might insist that sacred texts must be interpreted holistically. God is not a flip-flopper, so if two passages taken in the most natural way contradict each other, then at least one of these passages does not mean what it seems to mean. One version of this strategy is the interpretative principle of consistency which says, if a passage conflicts with the overwhelming bulk of the rest of the text, its natural meaning must be rejected. Another version is the interpretative principle of charity which says, if a problematic passage conflicts with an unproblematic passage, its natural meaning must be rejected. For example, the Hebrew Bible says both that one should do no work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-10), and that one should save lives whenever one can (Lev19:16). To resolve the contradiction, the Talmudic rabbis as well as Jesus ruled that the prohibition of work on the Sabbath contains an implicit exception for lifesaving and healing (Yoma 84b, Talmud; Mark 3:3-4).
Accept inerrancy, textual literalism, and the problematic passages. Reject their application.
Surprisingly, one can accept that all passages of a sacred text are literally true, and still reject problematic passages. One maneuver is to say that these passages were appropriate for the time and place in which they were written, but the problematic passages are no longer applicable because times and circumstances have changed. They are literally true, but irrelevant to the contemporary world. For example, when the Temple was destroyed, Talmudic rabbis decreed that the Torah’s rules of animal sacrifice no longer applied. . . .
Accept the problematic passages and their application. Render them useless.
A nifty maneuver is to wall off the problematic passages by adding nullifying details. For example, Talmudic rabbis faced with explicit endorsement of capital punishment in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Ex 20:12-17) added extreme qualifications and restrictions which functionally eliminated capital punishment without formally rejecting the passages. For example, they decreed that guilty parties could only be executed if they had previously stated their intention to commit the crime to at least two people who warned them beforehand not to commit the crime, and who later witnessed the crime (Sanhedrin 1:4, Talmud). Similarly, faced with passages in which God orders genocide (e.g. Deut 20:16-18) the rabbis proclaimed that such passages cannot be used as a precedent or justification for any subsequent genocide. God’s orders concerned never-to-be-repeated events, like the Biblical flood.
As a last resort, one may simply background the problematic passages. One might say, “The passages are there, and we don’t deny that they are true, and they do mean what they seem to mean, but ... well ... we just don’t talk about, or invoke them these days.” Of course, this is not as decisive a rejection or nullification as the others mentioned above, but it is a functional rejection of the problematic passages, nevertheless. For example, the commandment to punish the misuse of God’s name (Lev 24:13-16) is so deemphasized within some strands of Judaism and Christianity that it has virtually vanished.
***
Many sacred texts contain problematic passages (i.e. passages which endorse morally repugnant ideas and practices). . . .
Some people criticize contemporary versions of Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam on the basis of problematic passages within the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran. This sort of criticism is typically misguided for a simple reason. These religious traditions have disavowed many problematic passages within their sacred texts. It is unfair to criticize a religion on the basis of a passage which it has renounced.
But can a religion possibly discard passages within its own sacred texts? After all, these texts are thought to be divinely authored, or at least divinely inspired. Can religions just pick and choose passages within their own scriptures? Here are a few strategies employed by some strands of the contemporary Abrahamic religions to reject or nullify passages.
Reject passages by rejecting inerrancy.
The simplest strategy for dealing with problematic passages is explicitly to allow that the original text contained errors. One may maintain that the Bible was written by inspired, but imperfect people. They were good, but not perfectly reliable transmitters of the divine message. Therefore, each passage must be weighed to determine whether it can plausibly be part of the divine message. Passages which fail this test can be rejected. The problematic passages were simply mistakes made by fallible people having bad days. . . .
Accept inerrancy. Reject passages by rejecting textual literalism.
One might maintain that all of the passages in our current manuscripts are true, but the problematic passages are true only at a metaphorical level. Thus, problematic passages may be retained while their literal meaning is rejected. For example, the barbaric eye-for-an-eye passages in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Ex 21:23-25) may be read metaphorically to mean that a person who harms another must pay monetary damages: for causing the loss of an eye one must pay a fine equal to the worth of an eye.
Alternatively, one might insist that sacred texts must be interpreted holistically. God is not a flip-flopper, so if two passages taken in the most natural way contradict each other, then at least one of these passages does not mean what it seems to mean. One version of this strategy is the interpretative principle of consistency which says, if a passage conflicts with the overwhelming bulk of the rest of the text, its natural meaning must be rejected. Another version is the interpretative principle of charity which says, if a problematic passage conflicts with an unproblematic passage, its natural meaning must be rejected. For example, the Hebrew Bible says both that one should do no work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-10), and that one should save lives whenever one can (Lev19:16). To resolve the contradiction, the Talmudic rabbis as well as Jesus ruled that the prohibition of work on the Sabbath contains an implicit exception for lifesaving and healing (Yoma 84b, Talmud; Mark 3:3-4).
Accept inerrancy, textual literalism, and the problematic passages. Reject their application.
Surprisingly, one can accept that all passages of a sacred text are literally true, and still reject problematic passages. One maneuver is to say that these passages were appropriate for the time and place in which they were written, but the problematic passages are no longer applicable because times and circumstances have changed. They are literally true, but irrelevant to the contemporary world. For example, when the Temple was destroyed, Talmudic rabbis decreed that the Torah’s rules of animal sacrifice no longer applied. . . .
Accept the problematic passages and their application. Render them useless.
A nifty maneuver is to wall off the problematic passages by adding nullifying details. For example, Talmudic rabbis faced with explicit endorsement of capital punishment in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Ex 20:12-17) added extreme qualifications and restrictions which functionally eliminated capital punishment without formally rejecting the passages. For example, they decreed that guilty parties could only be executed if they had previously stated their intention to commit the crime to at least two people who warned them beforehand not to commit the crime, and who later witnessed the crime (Sanhedrin 1:4, Talmud). Similarly, faced with passages in which God orders genocide (e.g. Deut 20:16-18) the rabbis proclaimed that such passages cannot be used as a precedent or justification for any subsequent genocide. God’s orders concerned never-to-be-repeated events, like the Biblical flood.
As a last resort, one may simply background the problematic passages. One might say, “The passages are there, and we don’t deny that they are true, and they do mean what they seem to mean, but ... well ... we just don’t talk about, or invoke them these days.” Of course, this is not as decisive a rejection or nullification as the others mentioned above, but it is a functional rejection of the problematic passages, nevertheless. For example, the commandment to punish the misuse of God’s name (Lev 24:13-16) is so deemphasized within some strands of Judaism and Christianity that it has virtually vanished.
***
Nicole Auerbach, Senior Sermon HUC-JIR, April 2015.
Concerned with maintaining secure boundaries between holy and profane, and between life and death, the authors of Leviticus envision a world in which everything is either tahor or tamei. Typically these words are translated as meaning “pure” and “impure” or “clean” and “unclean.” But what is unclean, or impure about a woman who has given birth? As David Kraemer explains, citing Rabbi Eliezer, the term tahor is used to mark what is rightfully in our realm; tamei designates that which belongs to God. “We cannot eat the ‘impure’ animal,” he explains, “because God, its creator, has not granted us the right to do so. Its impurity marks it as ‘out of bounds.’” Likewise, “life and death,” and by extension, pregnancy and birth, “are in the realm of God.” Contact with God’s realm is what renders us tamei. When a woman gives birth, the Levitical system recognizes that she has breached the boundary between God’s domain and our own. It therefore creates ritual means for reestablishing that boundary and for bringing her back into her community.
http://forward.com/sisterhood/307061/telling-your-miscarriage-story/
Concerned with maintaining secure boundaries between holy and profane, and between life and death, the authors of Leviticus envision a world in which everything is either tahor or tamei. Typically these words are translated as meaning “pure” and “impure” or “clean” and “unclean.” But what is unclean, or impure about a woman who has given birth? As David Kraemer explains, citing Rabbi Eliezer, the term tahor is used to mark what is rightfully in our realm; tamei designates that which belongs to God. “We cannot eat the ‘impure’ animal,” he explains, “because God, its creator, has not granted us the right to do so. Its impurity marks it as ‘out of bounds.’” Likewise, “life and death,” and by extension, pregnancy and birth, “are in the realm of God.” Contact with God’s realm is what renders us tamei. When a woman gives birth, the Levitical system recognizes that she has breached the boundary between God’s domain and our own. It therefore creates ritual means for reestablishing that boundary and for bringing her back into her community.
http://forward.com/sisterhood/307061/telling-your-miscarriage-story/
Reuters, "San Francisco is First City to Require Fully Paid Parental Leave"
(Reuters) – San Francisco became the first U.S. city to mandate six weeks of fully paid parental leave, requiring employers to shoulder much of the cost and exceeding federal and state benefit rules for private-sector employees, a city supervisor said on Tuesday.
The law, unanimously approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, grants six-week leave for fathers and mothers working for companies with 20 or more employees, nearly doubling the pay they are now eligible to collect under California law.
“Our country’s parental leave policies are woefully behind the rest of the world, and today San Francisco has taken the lead in pushing for better family leave policies for our workers,” Supervisor Scott Wiener said in a statement.
Better benefits for parents are part of campaigns across the nation aimed at combating rising income inequality. California’s governor on Monday signed into law a bill raising the state’s minimum wage from $10 to $15 an hour by the year 2023.
San Francisco already offers 12 weeks of fully paid parental leave to its approximately 30,000 city employees.
***
Nationally, 12 percent of workers receive paid family leave through their employers, Wiener’s office said.
Technology companies in Silicon Valley have increased family leave benefits to help recruit and retain employees. Netflix Inc provides up to a year paid, while Facebook Inc provides four months and Microsoft Corp offers eight weeks.
Federal law provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or adopted child for employees at companies with 50 or more workers.
(Reuters) – San Francisco became the first U.S. city to mandate six weeks of fully paid parental leave, requiring employers to shoulder much of the cost and exceeding federal and state benefit rules for private-sector employees, a city supervisor said on Tuesday.
The law, unanimously approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, grants six-week leave for fathers and mothers working for companies with 20 or more employees, nearly doubling the pay they are now eligible to collect under California law.
“Our country’s parental leave policies are woefully behind the rest of the world, and today San Francisco has taken the lead in pushing for better family leave policies for our workers,” Supervisor Scott Wiener said in a statement.
Better benefits for parents are part of campaigns across the nation aimed at combating rising income inequality. California’s governor on Monday signed into law a bill raising the state’s minimum wage from $10 to $15 an hour by the year 2023.
San Francisco already offers 12 weeks of fully paid parental leave to its approximately 30,000 city employees.
***
Nationally, 12 percent of workers receive paid family leave through their employers, Wiener’s office said.
Technology companies in Silicon Valley have increased family leave benefits to help recruit and retain employees. Netflix Inc provides up to a year paid, while Facebook Inc provides four months and Microsoft Corp offers eight weeks.
Federal law provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or adopted child for employees at companies with 50 or more workers.