וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יהוה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר וְטָֽמְאָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים כִּימֵ֛י נִדַּ֥ת דְּוֺתָ֖הּ תִּטְמָֽא׃
Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity.—
וּבַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עׇרְלָתֽוֹ׃
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.—
וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב בִּדְמֵ֣י טׇהֳרָ֑הֿ בְּכׇל־קֹ֣דֶשׁ לֹֽא־תִגָּ֗ע וְאֶל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א תָבֹ֔א עַד־מְלֹ֖את יְמֵ֥י טׇהֳרָֽהּ׃
She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed.
וְאִם־נְקֵבָ֣ה תֵלֵ֔ד וְטָמְאָ֥ה שְׁבֻעַ֖יִם כְּנִדָּתָ֑הּ וְשִׁשִּׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב עַל־דְּמֵ֥י טׇהֳרָֽהֿ׃
If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days.
[א] 'נקבה' – אין לי אלא נקבה; מנין לרבות טומטום ואנדרוגניס? תלמוד לומר "ואם נקבה תלד וטמאה" – אין הדבר תלוי אלא בלידה.
(Vayikra 12:5) "And if a female she shall bear": This tells me only of (a child that is clearly) a female. Whence do I derive the same for a tumtum (indeterminate gender) and for an androginos (person who is both male and female)? From "she shall bear." The criterion (for what follows) is the bearing.
ואם נקבה תלד. טעם שהוצרך לומר תלד ולא סמך למה שזכר וילדה. אמרו בתורת כהנים וזה לשונם אין לי אלא נקבה מנין לרבות טומטום ואנדרוגינוס תלמוד לומר ואם נקבה תלד אין הדבר תלוי אלא בלידה ע"כ, ואין אני חולק על דבריהם ח"ו אלא כמוסיף, כי מאומרו ואם נקבה ולא אמר וכי תלד נקבה או ולנקבה וגו' נתכוון לומר אפילו אינה ודאי נקבה אלא ואם נקבה פירוש ספק, ואם כן נתרבו טומטום ואנדרוגינוס כי ספק הוא ולא היה צריך לומר תלד.
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 (v'yaldah) as it did in the case of a male child? Torat Kohanim (Sifra) 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 tumtum child or an androginos child had been born? The Torah writes אם נקבה תלד וטמאה (im n'kevah teled v'tamah), 'if female she bears 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 their conclusion by the failure of the Torah to write simply וכי תלד נקבה (v'chi teled n'kevah), "if she gives birth to a female," with the verb at the beginning of the sentence instead of at its end [more closely mirroring the verse about a male baby in Lev. 12:2]. 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 all babies who are not definitely male.
Rabbi Ariel Tovlev's analysis:
Feminist criticism has been described as reading the text from the perspective of the female other. This can be noticing when and how women are mentioned, or it can be noticing when women are not mentioned, and reading them into a text that actively excludes them. This latter practice has been accused of inferring meaning from the text that is nonexistent. Some people argue that actively including the excluded other goes against the tradition of the text and its true intended purpose.
From my perspective, the interpretations from Sifra (Torat Kohanim) and Or HaChaim are not dissimilar from feminist readings. The rabbis knew that other genders besides male and female existed, and they needed to deal with the fact that these genders were not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Additionally, they were concerned with how to fit these individuals into their complex legal system: they still needed to follow the laws of purity for people who gave birth to tumtum or androginos children – how could they do that if the Torah did not tell them these specifics? They dealt with this problem by reading these excluded others into the text, despite the fact that they were not explicitly mentioned. This reading of the tumtum and androginos in this text shows us that inclusive readings don’t go against our tradition, or the ways our texts have been interpreted in the past. Inclusive readings are not modern anachronisms, but traditional practice dating back centuries. These traditional inclusive readings show us that it is imperative that the Torah apply to all Jews, and the proper way to ensure that is by reading the Torah as if it already includes those who are not explicitly mentioned, much like our sages did in Sifra and Or HaChaim.