Postpartum Impurity: Why Is the Duration Double for a Girl?

After giving birth to a male, the mother is impure for 7 days, followed by 33 days of purification. However, with a female, the mother is impure for 14 days, followed by 66 days of purification.

Dr. Rabbi

Zev Farber

Dr. Rabbi

Zev Farber

Categories:

Tazria

Postpartum Impurity: Why Is the Duration Double for a Girl?

Leviticus 12 lays out the three-step purification procedure required of a woman who gives birth: A period of impurity, a period of ṭahara (meaning either purity or purification), and a ḥaṭṭʾat (sin or purification) offering.

The length of the process, however, is dependent upon the gender of the child. If the child is male, the period of impurity is one week, like that of a menstruant (v. 2), and the period of ṭaharah is 33 days, equaling 40 days in total, a number of symbolic import. If the child is female, each segment is double the time frame for the male child: the period of impurity is two weeks, the period of ṭaharah is 66 days, and the entire period is 80 days.

Ancient and medieval Jewish interpreters struggled to explain the different time periods for each sex.^[1]

A Woman’s Oath and the Gender that Brings More Joy

In traditional Jewish circles, the best-known explanation appears in the Talmud, in which R. Shimon bar Yochai explains that a parturient woman must bring a sin offering because she swears never to sleep with her husband again due to the pain of childbirth.^[2] It continues with a follow up question and answer (b. Niddah 31a):

"ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר?"

“And why did the Torah command seven days [of impurity] for [giving birth to] a male child but fourteen days for a female?”

"זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר."

“Since everyone is excited about a male child, she has remorse [from her oath] in a week. But for the female, where everyone is upset, it takes fourteen days for her to have remorse.”

Notably, even as R. Shimon is taking into consideration the woman’s feelings and her experience of pain, he assumes automatically that even the mother strongly prefers having a son over having a daughter. The explanation here may be meant tongue-in-cheek.^[3] In any event, it is not reflective of the major thrust of pre-modern explanations.^[4]

Biological Explanation 1: Parallels the Formation of the Fetus

One approach to understanding the details of the distinction between post-partum laws for male and female babies was to look for rational or biological reasons. The earliest example of this approach can be found in Philo (ca. 20 B.C.E.—ca. 50 C.E.). Explaining what it means that God created woman out of the side^[5] of man, he writes (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1:25):

Accordingly the lawgiver says that woman was made from the side of man, intimating that woman is a half of man’s body. For this we also have evidence in the constitution of the body, its common parts, movements, faculties, mental vigor and excellence. For all things are seen as if in double proportion. Inasmuch as the molding of the male is more perfect than and double that of the female, it requires only half the time, namely forty days; whereas the imperfect woman, who is, so to speak, a half-section of man, requires twice as many days, namely eighty.^[6]

Philo seems to be harmonizing an apparent (to him) contradiction: woman is only part of man, and inferior, but takes twice as long to create. His answer appears to be that since the parts of the man are sounder or more solidly constructed, they are easier to put together.

Melding Torah with Greek Medicine

Leviticus 12, though not mentioned explicitly by Philo, serves as the background for his explanation.^[7] Nevertheless, Philo is not working exclusively with the Bible here. Instead, 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…^[8]

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 (5^th 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.^[9]

It is thus natural that a philosopher such as Philo, who wished to explain how the Torah fits with Greek wisdom, would latch onto this theory. As no consensus existed among ancient authorities for the exact time either the bleeding or the articulation of the fetuses takes, Philo was easily able to make use of this model to explain the biblical data.

R. Ishmael

The Greek medical explanation was not limited to Hellenistic philosophical thinkers such as Philo but appears in rabbinic literature as well. The Mishnah discusses the law of a woman who miscarriages on day 41 of her pregnancy (m. Niddah 3:7, Kaufmann MS):

המפלת יום ארבעים, אינה חוששת לוולד; יום ארבעים ואחד, תשב לזכר ולנקבה, ולנידה.

If a woman miscarries on day 40, she need not consider it a fetus; day 41 – she should treat [the fetus] as if it were both a boy and a girl and [the blood] as if it were menstrual.

רבי ישמעאל אומ[ר]: "יום ארבעים ואחד, תשב לזכר^[10] ולנידה; יום שמונים ואחד, תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנידה, שהזכר ניגמר לארבעים ואחד, ונקבה לשמונים ואחד."

Rabbi Ishmael says: “If day 41, she should treat [the fetus] as if it were a boy and [the blood] as if it were menstrual, if day 81, she should treat [the fetus] as if it were both a boy and a girl and [the blood] as if it were menstrual, since a male is completed by day 41 and a female by day 81.”

וחכמ[ים] אמ[רים]: "אחד בריית זכר, ואחד בריית הנקבה, זה וזה לארבעים ואחד."

The Sages say: “Both the creation of the male and the female is [completed] by day 41.”^[11]

From this Mishnah, it appears that R. Ishmael and the Sages agreed about how long it takes for a male fetus to form but disagreed about the female fetus. That R. Ishmael’s biological view is informed by the laws in Leviticus 12 seems clear.^[12] The Tosefta (t. Niddah 4:8) even records a disturbing empirical proof to R. Ishmael’s position:

א"ר ישמעאל: "מעשה בקלופטרא מלכת אלכסנדרית שהביאה שפחותיה שנתחייבו מיתה למלך וקרעתן ונמצא הזכר נגמר לארבעים ואחד ונקבה לשמונים ואחד."

R. Ishmael said: “It happened with Cleopatra queen of Alexandria that she brought forward her handmaidens, who had been sentenced to death, to the king. He ripped them open and found that the male was complete at 41 days and the female at 81.”^[13]

The Tosefta’s attempt to have R. Ishmael prove the point empirically demonstrates that the axis of this debate was perceived to be biological and not just exegetical.^[14]

The position that a male is formed in 40 days and a female in 80 continues into the medieval period in the commentaries of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1167)^[15] and Don Isaac Abarbanel (1437–1508).^[16]

Biological Explanation 2: Cold Females and Cleansing the Womb

As noted above, the idea that the male fetus is formed more quickly than the female goes back to Empedocles in the 5^th century B.C.E., who connected the formation of each sex to one side. As Lonie writes, according to Empedocles:

[T]he parts on the right-hand side are formed earlier than those on the left. This is the natural corollary of his theory that males are formed in the right-hand and warmer side of the womb, and that males are constitutionally warmer than females…”^[17]

In the Middle Ages, the great medieval Scottish philosopher, Michael Scot (1180-1250), put forward a revision of this theory, according to which the uterus has seven chambers.^[18] If the sperm enters in one of the right chambers, the fetus will be a boy, if one of the left, a girl.

Scott’s theory greatly influenced the Jewish exegetes of the time,^[19] who employed this theory to explain the biblical laws of post-partum impurity, by positing that this right/left distinction, in turn, affects the time it takes for the woman’s uterus to be cleansed.

For example, in the comment of the 13^th century French exegete, Hezekiah ben Manoach:

כשהיא שוכבת סמוך אחר הבעילה על צלע ימין, הזרע נכנס באותן נקבים של ימין וילדה זכר, וממהרת הטומאה לצאת, ולפיכך אינה טמאה אלא שבעת ימים, וטהרתה לשלשה ושלשים יום, וכשהיא שוכבת סמוך אחר הבעילה על צלע שמאל, הזרע נכנס בנקבים של שמאל ויולדת נקבה, ואין הטומאה ממהרת לצאת, לפיכך טמאה שבועיים.

When she lies on her right side immediately after sex the semen enters the right holes and she gives birth to a male. Hence the impurity hurries out of her and she is only impure for seven days, and her purification lasts thirty-three days. But when she lies on her left side immediately after sex, the semen enters the holes on the left side and she gives birth to a female. Hence the impurity does not hurry out of her and she remains impure for two weeks.^[20]

According to this commentator, a woman with a right-sided (=male) pregnancy cleans out her uterus faster than one with a left-sided (=female) pregnancy.

Nahmanides: Ṭaharah=Cleansing

R. Moses Nahmanides (1194–1270), a contemporary of Hizkuni, offers a similar explanation, although without the creative anatomy. He explains that the term ṭaharah in the verse refers to cleansing:

והענין כי צוה ביולדת זכר שתטמא שבעה כנדתה, כי המנהג שתהיה שופעת דם מן המקור, וצוה שתוחיל עוד שלשים ושלשה ימים תשב בביתה לנקות גופה, כי בכל אלה תוציא תמצית הדמים והלחות העכורות המעופשות הבאות מתמצית הדם ואז תנקה מלידה ומבטן ומהריון ותבא בית ה'...

The reason that a woman who gave birth to a male was commanded to be impure seven days like her menstrual period is since it is usual for her to pour blood from the uterus [during this period]. And it was commanded that she sit another thirty three days in her house to cleanse her body, since during this period she will pass the blood essences and dark rotted liquids which come from blood essence, and then she will be clean from her birthing, from her womb and her pregnancy and can come to the house of the Lord…

וטעם הכפל בנקבה: ...הטעם בעבור כי טבע הנקבה קר ולח, והלבנה ברחם האם רבה מאד וקרה, ועל כן ילדה נקבה, ועל כן צריכה נקיון גדול מפני ריבוי הלחות והדם המעופש שבהן, ומפני קרירות כידוע, כי החולים הקרין צריכין בנקיותם אריכות זמן יותר מן החמים.

The reason for the doubling by a female: …the reason is that a female is cold and moist, and the “white”^[21] in the womb of the mother is very great and cold, which is why she had a female. Therefore, she requires a great cleansing because of the amount of moisture and rotten blood within her [womb], as well as because of the coldness, as it is known that sick people who are cold require a longer period of cleansing than do warm [people].

According to Nahmanides, the cleansing period allows the “rotten blood and moisture” accumulated in the womb during her pregnancy to remove itself, and this process takes twice as long when the fetus is female.^[22]

Summary

The biblical laws of purity and impurity are grounded in physical phenomena, and the post-partum impurity seems to be no different.^[23] Although, biologically speaking, it is not obvious why postpartum bleeding should be different depending on the gender of the baby, these sages turned to contemporary biological theories to explain it. Since the science of their times was far from empirical, the numbers could be adjusted to fit the biblical source.

Biblical Explanation 1: When Adam and Eve Entered the Garden

A very different approach to understanding the rules of childbirth associated them with stories of Israel’s past,^[24] an approach popular in the 3^rd cent. B.C.E. book of Jubilees, which embeds all of its laws in the narratives of Genesis and Exodus. ^[25] In this case, the laws of parturient impurity are presented as part of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden:

^3:8 In the first week, Adam and the flank, his wife, were fashioned, and in the second week he (God) showed her to him. And for this reason a commandment was given to maintain [postpartum mothers] – seven days for a male [child] and for a female two seven-day [units] – in their impurity.

^3:9 Afterwards, when for Adam forty days had been completed in the land where he had been fashioned, we brought him into the Garden of Eden^[26] to till and maintain it. And his wife was brought [there] on the eightieth day. Afterwards, she entered into the Garden of Eden. ^3:10 For this reason a commandment was written in the heavenly tablets for the one who gives birth…^[27]

At this point Jubilees quotes from Leviticus 12 setting out the laws of postpartum purification. According to this, the first period of impurity is based on the creation of Adam: As he was created at the end of the first week, the birthing mother recreates this period after giving birth to a boy. To commemorate the “showing” of Eve to Adam,^[28] which was done at the end of the second week, the mother must remain in the status of impurity for two weeks instead of one. The explanation for why the purification process lasts up to day 40 or 80, depending on the sex, is similarly based on when each was brought into the Garden of Eden, which parallels the Temple in this understanding.

Given that there is no independent source which describes Eve being created at the end of the second week, or the dates when Adam and Eve entered the garden, the passage in Jubilees should be understood as having been written specifically to explain these laws.

This interpretation does not appear in classical midrash, but does make it into the unconventional midrashic work Midrash Tadshe (ch. 15).^[29] He quotes it in the name of R. Pinchas ben Yair (ch. 15), an obscure early rabbinic figure connected with mysticism, which appears to be the author’s way of referencing Jubilees, which he seems to have had access to.^[30]

Biblical Explanation 2: The Birth of Cain, Abel, and Their Sisters

A variation of the explanation found in Jubilees is found in the sixth century Christian work Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan.^[31] After recording the birth of Cain and his sister Luluwa, the book states:

^1:74 Then Adam and Eve (Ḥeiwan) waited until Cain (Qayal) and his sister were forty days old, when Adam said unto Eve: “We will make an offering and offer it up in behalf of the children.” And Eve said, “We will make one offering for the first-born son; and afterwards [=forty days later] we shall make one for the daughter.”^[32]

The text continues with Adam and Eve having Abel and his sister.

^1:75 When the days of nursing the children were ended, Eve again conceived, and when her days were accomplished she brought forth another son and daughter; and they named the son Abel (Abeil), and the daughter Aklemia. Then at the end of forty days, Adam made an offering for the son, and at the end of eighty days he made another offering for the daughter, and did by them, as he had done before by Cain and his sister Luluwa.^[33]

According to this, the purification for girls, and the corresponding sacrifice, occurs later than that of boys because Eve decided to make this distinction upon the birth of her first two sets of twins—Cain and his sister, and Abel and his sister—the first four children ever born.^[34]

Biblical Explanation 3: Atonement for the Sin of Eve

The explanations found in Jubilees and in the Christian Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan did not enter mainstream rabbinic sources. Another connection to the Adam and Eve story, however, was suggested by R. Abraham Saba (1440-1508), a survivor of both the Spanish and Portuguese expulsions, in his Tzeror ha-Mor.

R. Saba suggests that the doubling of post-partum impurity for the birth of girls atones for the sin of Eve. He offers exegetical proof for this claim:

...לא תמצא בקללת אדם הראשון אלא בעצבון תאכלנה. ולכן לזכר לא צוה אלא שבעה ימים. אבל באשה שכפל. ואמר בעצב על עצבונך. אמר בנקבה וטמאה שבועים.

…You will only find in the curse of Adam “you will eat in suffering” (Gen 3:17) [i.e., the word suffering only appears once]. Therefore, for a boy, [God] only commanded [one period of] seven days, but for a woman it was doubled. [In Eve’s curse, God] says “in suffering” in addition to “your suffering” (Gen 3:16) to say that for a female, she should be impure for two weeks.

As noted by Alan Cooper, Professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,^[35] this comes very close to the Christian concept of original sin, according to which all humans are born tainted with the sin of Eve.^[36]

The idea that post-partum impurity is the result of original sin^[37] was further built upon by R. Ephraim of Luntshitz (1550–1619), in his commentary on the Pentateuch Keli Yaqqar (ad loc.):

אומר אני שכל זה נמשך בדרך טבע מן חטא הקדום, כמו שנאמר "וטהרה ממקור דמיה", כי החטא הקדום של חוה הוא מקור נפתח לדמים טמאים אלו... כי כל הנשים צריכין טהרה על חטא ראשון אשר ממנו נתפשטה הטומאה והזוהמא בעולם וגרם לכל הנולדים טומאת שבעה...^[38]

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…

R. Ephraim goes on to say that the double impurity is because giving birth to a girl increases impurity in the world:

וטעם לטומאת שבועים לאשה עצמה בלידת נקיבה, דין הוא שתהיה לאשה טומאת פי שנים כנגד שתי נקיבות, כי כל נקיבה בפני עצמה נמשך לה טומאת שבעה מן חטא הקדום על כל הנקיבות שבעולם, על כן מן הראוי שתטמא י"ד ימים: שבעה של עצמה ועוד שבעה של בתה, כי הוסיפה בעולם טומאה על טומאתה...

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…^[39]

Notably, while the approaches of Jubilees, Conflict, and the medieval approach of R. Saba and R. Ephraim are all different, each ties the laws into the story of Adam and Eve, and each believes that an inexplicable law can be justified by connecting it to events from the past.

Exegesis Trumps Old Medicine

“The laws concerning purification after parturition pose a challenge to modern sensibilities” writes Alan Cooper.^[40] Apparently, they bothered ancient authorities as well, though for different reasons. As noted, the most natural explanation was to look for a biological basis, the circularity of which would not have been obvious to the ancient and medieval scholars the way it is to the modern readers, as the former were not familiar with scientific method.^[41]

Nevertheless, this approach did not have universal appeal, since it lacks meaningfulness or religious significance. Practical explanations for commandments may have been popular with some authorities, but they were distinctly unpopular with others, especially those of a mystical bend.^[42] For that reason, many sages preferred the non-biological model, that the distinction between the impurity for male and female children was not built into their physical bodies but into the history of their creation, going back to the original pair of male and female, Adam and Eve.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

April 23, 2020

Last Updated

November 28, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

TheTorah.com needs your support. A generous friend has offered to match end-of-year donations. Every contribution makes a difference.

Please Donate

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

April 23, 2020

Last Updated

November 28, 2024

[1] For some modern attempts at understanding this law, see: Kristine Henriksen Garroway, “Gendering a Child with Ritual,” TheTorah (2019); Tzvi Novick, “Mother and Child Post-Partum Defilement and Circumcision,” TheTorah (2014); Tirzah Meacham, “הצעת פירוש לשוני בדין ימי טומאה וטהרה ליולדת,” [A Suggested Commentary for the Doubling of Days of Impurity and Purity for the Woman Who Births a Daughter] Shnaton 11 (1997): 153–66; Jonathan Magonet, “‘But If It Is a Girl She Is Unclean for Twice Seven Days . . .’: The Riddle of Leviticus 12.5,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. John F. A. Sawyer, JSOTSup 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 143–152. For a parallel in the Hittite Kunzigannaḫit ritual, see Gary Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals, StBoT 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983); Yitzhaq Feder, “A Sin Offering for Birth Anxiety,” TheTorah (2016).

[2]

שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי: "מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן?"

Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai’s students asked him: “Why did the Torah command the woman who gives birth to bring an offering?”

אמר להן: "בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן."

He said to them: “When she is crouching to give birth she jumps up and swears never to have relations with her husband again. Therefore, the Torah said that she must bring an offering.”

[3] This is likely why the Talmud does not feel it necessary to explain the 33/66-day period.

[4] It does appear in the Tzeror Ha-Mor of R. Abraham Saba (1440–1508), albeit as his third explanation:

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].

His first two explanations follow the two main models (medical and historiographic) discussed in this article.

[5] The LXX uses the word πλευρά, which means “side” though it can also mean rib, and this is likely the term Philo was working with.

[6] Philo, QG (trans. Ralph Marcus; Loeb 380); the original Greek has been lost and the text survives only in an Armenian translation.

[7] Philo could have argued that it takes longer to make a female because the female is superior, but the male being inferior would take only half the time, but such an interpretation would have been impossible for him, not only because of the Genesis passage but because of his Neo-Platonic/Aristotelian views on the nature of men and women. For more on Greek philosophical views of women, see, Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne,” History of Religions 13 (1974): 176; Howard R. Bloch, "Medieval Misogyny," Representations 20 (1987): 10; Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 81. For a more tempered view of Philo and his relationship to Greek misogyny see: David Winston, “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,” Poetics Today 19.1 (1998): 41-62.

[8] Iain M. Lonie The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation”, “On the Nature of the Child” and “Diseases IV” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 190.

[9] Shlomo Naeh, “על שני מושגים היפוקרטיים במשנת חז"ל” [On Two Hippocratic Concepts in Rabbinic Literature] Tarbiz 66 (1997): 169–174 [p. 172]. The Greek reads:

Ταῦτα εἰσενεγκάμην ὧδε δὶα τοῦτο, ὃκως ἀποφήνω ὃτι τῶν παιδίων γίνεται ἡ διάκρισις τῶν μελέων ἡ μακροτάτη ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ κούρῃ ἐν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δυοῖν ἡμέρῃσιν, ἐπι δὲ τῷ κούρῳ ἐν τριήκοντα ἡμέρῃσιν, ἱστόριον ἡ κάθαρσις τῶν λοχίων, ὃτι ἐπι μὲν τῇ κούρῃ γίνεται ἐν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δυοῖν ἡμέρῃσιν, ἐπι δὲ τῷ κούρῳ ἐν τριήκοντα ἡμέρῃσιν ἡ χρονιωτάτη.

See also the detailed treatment of the medical explanation in Matthew Thiessen, “The Legislation of Leviticus 12 in Light of Ancient Embryology,” Vetus Testamentum 68.2 (2018): 297–319.

[10] The MS here actually has an erasure: לזכר ולנקבה ולנידה

[11] All translations of rabbinic literature are mine unless stated otherwise.

[12] The Bavli (b. Niddah 30b) offers two midrashic proofs for Rabbi Ishmael’s position from Leviticus 12, thus making explicit what was implicit already, that the “scientific” view here is working backwards from the biblical text in Leviticus.

[13] The Tosefta continues with the Sages’ response:

אמרו לו: "אין מביאין ראיה מכאן."

They said to him: “One cannot bring a proof from such a case.”

Their objection is because these women are assumed to be of “loose morality” and one cannot know when they actually got pregnant, despite their claims to the contrary. Thus they continue:

ומהיכן מביאין ראיה? מי שנכנסה אצל בעלה או ממי שבא בעלה ממדינת הים.

From where can one bring a proof? From a woman who came to her husband (for the first time), or from one whose husband just returned from across the sea.

It seems that it was “understood” that wives are generally faithful. The Bavli expands on the Cleopatra (b. Niddah 30b), offering two different versions of the story and multiple arguments and counterarguments for each position.

[14] Needless to say, the story recorded in this source, whether historical or not, with its violence against women, desecration of corpses, and medical experimentation on the bodies of prisoners, is exceedingly problematic. For a very preliminary discussion of this source in the context of medical ethics, see: Baruch C. Cohen, “The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 19 (1990): 102–127 (http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html).

[15]

והשם גזר על הזכר כמספר הזכר אשר תשלים צורתו בבטן והנקבה כפלים. וזה דבר ברור ומנוסה.

God decreed [a purification period upon the mother]: for a male, the number [of days] that it takes to form [his fetus] in the womb, and for a female double. This matter is clear and well-tested.

[16]

הנה הנסיון מאמת דעת ר' ישמעאל לפי שכלל הנשים מרגישות תנועת זכר למ"א יום, אבל תנועת נקבה לא ירגישו בה כי אם לפ"א יום. וא[י] א[פשר] שיהיה חלופו, כי חומר הזכר הוא יותר חם וחומר הנקבה הוא יותר קר ולבניי, כמו שהם במזגם יותר קרות מהזכרים, ויצירת היותר חם נגמר יותר במהירות ממה שיגמר היותר קר, שיצטרך יותר זמן לבשולו.

Experience proves the correctness of R. Ishmael’s position, since most women feel the movement of a male [fetus] at 41 days but they do not feel the movement of a female [fetus] until 81 days. And it would be impossible for it to be the opposite, since the substance of the male is warmer and the substance of the female is cooler and whiter, just as [females] are colder than males, and the formation of the warmer [substance] is completed quicker than it takes to complete [the formation of] the cooler, which needs more time to cook.

[17] Lonie The Hippocratic Treatises, 190. Lonie goes on to reference Aristotle: “In the womb the female is articulated within a longer period than the male… for the female is weaker and colder in constitution. Articulation is concoction, and it is heat that concocts, and what is warmer is more easily concocted” (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 4, 6; 775a, 11-18).

[18] Edward Reichman, “Anatomy and the Doctrine of the Seven-Chamber Uterus in Rabbinic Literature,” Ḥakirah 9 (2010): 245–265.

[19] The earliest rabbinic iteration appears to be from the Daʿat Zeqenim mi-Baʿalei ha-Tosafot, a 12^th century French commentary, but the text appears to be corrupt, so I quote from Hizkuni:

וילדה זכר – נמצא בספר התולדות: יש באשה שבעה נקבים, שלשה בימין ושלשה בשמאל ואחד באמצע. וכשהזרע נכנס באותן שבימין תלד זכר ואם נכנס בשל שמאל תלד נקבה, ואם נכנס בשל אמצע תלד טומטום או אנדרוגינוס.

And gives birth to a male – it was found in the Book of Generations: A woman has seven holes [in her womb]: three on the right, three on the left and one in the middle. When the semen enters one of the ones on the right she gives birth to a male but if it enters one of the left ones she gives birth to a female, and if it enters the center one she gives birth either to a sexless child or a hermaphrodite.

This conflicts with the standard Rabbinic idea that the gender of the child is determined by which parent ejaculates first: Man first producing a female and woman first producing a male (b. Niddah 25b, 31a).

[20] Hizkuni ends with an exegetical proof:

וזהו "שמאלו תחת לראשי" – כדי להוליד זכרים.

This is [the meaning of the verse]: “His left hand under my head [and his right hand embracing me]” (Song 2:6, 8:3) – in order to give birth to males.

[21] Alternative texts read here “לחה” (moistness). I do not know what the “white” refers to, but the term is used by other commentators as well.

[22] Nahmanides does not explain exactly how the material accumulated in the womb, but the question was taken up by other scholars, such as Ovadiah Sforno and Isaac Abarbanel, who believe that the first period of blood is fresh while the second “pure” blood is old blood from the periods she wasn’t having while pregnant. I discuss this in Zev Farber, “The Parturient's Days of Purity from Torah to Halacha,” TheTorah (2017).

[23] For a modern explanation of some of these laws with this in mind, see Tamar Kamionkowski, “Postpartum Bloods of Purity,” TheTorah (2020).

[24] This aetiological approach already has precedent in the Bible, for instance, in the explanation that Israelites do not eat the sciatic nerve because of what the angel did to Jacob’s leg, or that we eat matzah on the festival of Matzot to remember how the Israelites needed to rush out of Egypt during the exodus and didn’t have time to bake bread.

[25] For a discussion of the trend to place divine law before the time of Moses, see: Gary A. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1.1 (1994), 1-29; Hindy Najman, “The Law of Nature and the Authority of Mosaic Law,” The Studia Philonica Annual 11 (1999): 55-73; Steven Robert Wilf, The Law Before the Law (Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2008), 83-134. This idea apparently gained currency among the Karaites as well. See: Yoram Erder, “Early Karaite Conceptions about Commandments Given before the Revelation of the Torah,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 60 (1994): 101-140.

[26] In the Ethiopic it is spelled “Edom,” exactly as Edom itself is spelled in Ethiopic Bibles. The two places are apparently considered to be one and the same according to the Ethiopic church. The consonant change—from ayin to aleph and from nun to mem—makes the consonantal spelling of this name identical to that of Adam, a point also emphasized in the Ethiopic church. See, for example, Abel Gashe, The Wisdom Compass to Eternal Life (USA: Xlibris, 2011), 453.

[27]

^3:⁸ በሳብዕት : ቀዳሚት : ተፈጥረ : አዳም : ወገቦ : ብእሲቱ : ወበሳብዕት : ካልእት : አርአዮ : ኪያሃ : ሎቱ :: ወበእንተ : ዝንቱ : ተውህበ : ትእዛዝ : ለዐቂበ : ሰቡዕ : መዋዕል : ለተባዕት : ወለአንስት : ክልኤ : ሰቡዕ : መዋዕል : ውስተ : ርኵሶን :: ^3:9 ወእምድኅረ : ተፈጸመ : ለአዳም : አርብዓ : መዋዕል : በምድር : ኀበ : ተፈጥረ : አባእናሁ : ውስተ : ገነተ : ኤዶም : ከመ : ይትቀነይ : ወይዕቀባ :: ወብእሲቶኒ : አብኡ : በስማንያ : ምዋዕል : እምድኅረ : ዝንቱ : ቦአት : ውስተ : ገነተ : ኤዶም :: ^3:10 በእንተ : ዝንቱ : ተጽሕፈ : ትእዛዝ : ውስተ : ጽላተ : ሰማይ : ለእነተ : ትወልድ…

The Ge’ez follows James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum 510; Scriptores Aethiopici 87 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). The English is based on James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum 511; Scriptore Aethiopici 88 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), but with adjustments.

[28] I phrase it this way since Jubilees goes out of its way to point out that “the flank” (gabo) was created at the same time as Adam. For a discussion of the passage in Jubilees, see: James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Harvard University Press, 1997) 85-86; Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 117; Brill, 2007), 47-58. For a feminist reading of this text, see: Betsy Halpern Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (Boston: Brill, 1999) 9-12.

[29]

"למה גזר הקב"ה על היולדת [זכר] לישב ז' (נקיים) [ימים] ועל הנקבה לישב י"ד יום? אלא להזכירך יצירת אדם הראשין שנברא בז' ימי בראשית של שבת ראשון יצירת חוה שנטלה מצלעותיו בשבת שניה" – זו דברי ר' פנחס בן יאיר....

“Why did the Holy one, blessed be He, command the woman who gives birth [to a male] to sit seven [days] and for a female fourteen days? In order to remind you of the creation of Adam who was created during the seven days of creation of the first week [as well as of] the creation of Eve who was taken from his ribs during the second week” – these are the words of R. Pinḥas ben Yair….

למה גזר שהיולדת זכר אחר ארבעים יום ויולדת נקבה אחר פ' יום תבא לבית המקדש? להזכירך מה פעל הקב"ה עם אדם הראשון שנברא חוץ מגן עדן ואח[ר] כ[ך] נכנס לגן עדן.

Why did He command that one who gives birth to a male should come to the temple after forty days and one who gives birth to a female after eighty? To remind you of what the Holy One blessed by He did with the first man who was created outside of the garden of Eden and afterwards entered the garden of Eden.

The midrash then expresses the standard rabbinic position as the Sages:

חכמים אומרים: "אבל שניהם נבראו אבל שניהם נבראו בערב שבת הראשונה ביום השישי."

The Sages say: “Really both of them were created on the eve of the first Sabbath on the sixth day.”

[30] See note 3 in the Epstein edition of the midrash (ad loc.), as well as his lengthy introduction in, Abraham Epstein, Beiträge zur Jüdischen Alterthumskunde (קדמוניות היהודים) 1 (Wien: Commissions-Verlag von Ch. D. Lippe, 1887). For a general description and discussion of this unusual work, see Samuel Belkin, "מדרש תדשא או מדרש דר' פנחס בן יאיר, מדרש הלניסטי קדמון" [Midrash Tadshe or the Midrash of Rabbi Phineas: An Early Hellenistic Midrash], Horeb 11:21–22 (1951): 1–52.

[31] Although Christian, the work is highly influenced by Jewish pseudepigraphic literature. The work was probably written originally in Syriac, although no full Syriac manuscript is extant. From the Syriac it was translated into Arabic, and the Arabic text was subsequently translated into Ge’ez sometime after the 7^th century C.E. The Arabic text was published for the first time relatively recently: Antonio Battista and Bellarmino Bagatti, Il Combattimento di Adamo: Testo Arabo Inedito con Traduzione Italiana e Commento (Collectio Minor / Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 29; Jerusalem: Franciscan Print Press, 1982). The Ge’ez text was published by Ernst Trumpp, "Der Kampf Adams, oder Das christliche Adambuch des Morgenlandes, Ethiopischer Text, verglichen mit dem arabischen Originaltext," Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philos.-philol. Classe 15.3 (1881): 1-172 [82–83]. As the published Arabic text does not cover this section, I follow the Ge’ez text here.

^1:74 ወተዐገሡ ፡ አዳም ፡ ወሔዋን ፡ እስክ ፡ ኮነ ፡ ለቃየል ፡ ወለእኅቲ ፡ ፵ ዕለት ፡ ወይቤ ፡ አዳም ፡ ለሔዋን ፡ ንፈቅድ ፡ ንግበር ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ወናዕርጎ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ሕፃናት ፡፡ ወትቤ ፡ ሔዋን ፡ ንግበር ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ለወልድ ፡ ቀዳሚ ፡ ወእምድኅረ ፡ ዝንቲ ፡ ንግበር ፡ ለወለት፡፡

My thanks to Annette Yoshiko Reed for her assistance in tracking down this text.

[32] The English follows Solomon C. Malan, trans.; The Book of Adam and Eve: Also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (London: Williams and Norgate, 1882), 1:74-75 (pp. 91-92), with slight modifications.

[33]

^1:75 ወእምድኅረ ፡ ፈፀምዎሙ ፡ ፀንሰት ፡ ሔዋን ፡ ወፈጸመት ፡ ዕለታቲሃ ፡ ወወለደት ፡ ወሰመዮ ፡ ለወልድ ፡ አቤል ፡ ወለወለት ፡ አቅልምያ ፡፡ ወሶበ ፡ ተፈጸመ ፡ ሎሙ ፡ ፵ መዓልት ፡ ገብረ ፡ [አዳም ፡] ቊርባነ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ወልድ ፡ ወሶበ ፡ ተፈጸመት ፡ [፹] ዕለት ፡ ገብረ ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ካዕበ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ወለት ፡ ወገብረ ፡ ቦሙ ፡ (በከመ ፡) በቀዳሚ ፡ በከመ ፡ ገብረ ፡ በቃየል ፡ ወእኅቲ ፡ [ለሉዋ ፡]

The terms in brackets are filled in by Trumpp based on the Arabic, the term in parentheses is missing in the Arabic according to Trumpp.

[34] The idea that Cain and Abel had twin siters appears in rabbinic literature as well (Genesis Rabbah 22:2), and it is the natural answer to the question of how Cain could have had children if Adam and Eve only had sons. (Answer: Adam and Eve must have had a daughter or daughters, whom he married.) Nevertheless, the implied application of this notion to the laws of Leviticus is unique to this text.

[35] Alan Cooper, “A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: R. Ephraim of Luntshitz on Leviticus 12,” Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004), 445-459.

[36] For more on this concept, and Jewish iterations of it, see Shawna Dolansky, “The Immortal Myth of Adam and Eve,” TheTorah (2015); Joel Kaminsky, “Attaining and Forfeiting Adam's Immortality at Sinai,” TheTorah (2016).

[37] The earliest explicit use of the original sin concept in Jewish writings, according to Cooper, is in R. Baḥya ben Asher’s commentary to Leviticus ad loc., although Baḥya uses it to explain the sin offering, not the length of time for postpartum purification; Cooper, “A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin,” 453.

[38] At this point, the R. Ephraim goes into an intricate explanation for why a male requires circumcision to be purified but a female needs nothing.

[39] This is not the only suggestion offered by R. Ephraim—he was well aware of the biological model—but as Rabbi Ephraim leans toward moralistic explanations in his commentary, this seems to be main message he wishes to derive from the text. This is in line with his reputation as a motivational speaker, who went from synagogue to synagogue preaching ethics. See: Leonard Samuel Levin, Seeing with Both Eyes: The Intellectual Formation of Ephraim Luntshitz (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 2003).

[40] Cooper, “A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin,” 451. The idea that having a girl should make the mother twice as impure as having a boy strikes an exceedingly negative chord in our modern world with its egalitarian ethos, but this is not necessarily so for classical and medieval interpreters. The classical and medieval authorities lived in a pre-modern world where the idea that being a woman was somehow worse than being a man was generally considered a given. Hence, although these commentators are also bothered by the gender distinction with regard to process length, this was more out of genuine “curiosity” or a search for meaning than out of any feeling that the implications of this passage could be considered offensive to women. Charlotte Fonrobert makes this point in her discussion of menstrual purity in rabbinic literature. Although claiming that rabbinic literature as a whole is not misogynistic, she still writes:

Nonetheless, I want to resist the relativization of the misogynist elements as necessarily external to the “pattern” of rabbinic culture. As a culture, it harbors these elements, just like any other culture in late antiquity.

Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender, Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 35.

[41] It goes without saying that they would have had no way of knowing how medically false these explanations were either.

[42] This debate is played out most famously between Maimonides and Naḥmanides, the former preferring practical explanations for commandments and the latter more mystical ones. For a discussion of this debate, see: Josef Stern, Problems and Parables of Law: Maimonides and Nahmanides on Reasons for the Commandments, SUNY Series in Judaica, Hermeneutic, Mysticism and Religion (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998); see also: Isaac Heinemann, The Reasons for the Commandments in Jewish Thought: From the Bible to the Renaissance, trans. Leonard Levin, Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009).

[2]

שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי: "מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן?"

Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai’s students asked him: “Why did the Torah command the woman who gives birth to bring an offering?”

אמר להן: "בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן."

He said to them: “When she is crouching to give birth she jumps up and swears never to have relations with her husband again. Therefore, the Torah said that she must bring an offering.”

[3] This is likely why the Talmud does not feel it necessary to explain the 33/66-day period.

[4] It does appear in the Tzeror Ha-Mor of R. Abraham Saba (1440–1508), albeit as his third explanation:

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].

His first two explanations follow the two main models (medical and historiographic) discussed in this article.

[5] The LXX uses the word πλευρά, which means “side” though it can also mean rib, and this is likely the term Philo was working with.

[6] Philo, QG (trans. Ralph Marcus; Loeb 380); the original Greek has been lost and the text survives only in an Armenian translation.

[8] Iain M. Lonie The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation”, “On the Nature of the Child” and “Diseases IV” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 190.

[9] Shlomo Naeh, “על שני מושגים היפוקרטיים במשנת חז"ל” [On Two Hippocratic Concepts in Rabbinic Literature] Tarbiz 66 (1997): 169–174 [p. 172]. The Greek reads:

Ταῦτα εἰσενεγκάμην ὧδε δὶα τοῦτο, ὃκως ἀποφήνω ὃτι τῶν παιδίων γίνεται ἡ διάκρισις τῶν μελέων ἡ μακροτάτη ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ κούρῃ ἐν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δυοῖν ἡμέρῃσιν, ἐπι δὲ τῷ κούρῳ ἐν τριήκοντα ἡμέρῃσιν, ἱστόριον ἡ κάθαρσις τῶν λοχίων, ὃτι ἐπι μὲν τῇ κούρῃ γίνεται ἐν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δυοῖν ἡμέρῃσιν, ἐπι δὲ τῷ κούρῳ ἐν τριήκοντα ἡμέρῃσιν ἡ χρονιωτάτη.

See also the detailed treatment of the medical explanation in Matthew Thiessen, “The Legislation of Leviticus 12 in Light of Ancient Embryology,” Vetus Testamentum 68.2 (2018): 297–319.

[10] The MS here actually has an erasure: לזכר ולנקבה ולנידה

[11] All translations of rabbinic literature are mine unless stated otherwise.

[13] The Tosefta continues with the Sages’ response:

אמרו לו: "אין מביאין ראיה מכאן."

They said to him: “One cannot bring a proof from such a case.”

Their objection is because these women are assumed to be of “loose morality” and one cannot know when they actually got pregnant, despite their claims to the contrary. Thus they continue:

ומהיכן מביאין ראיה? מי שנכנסה אצל בעלה או ממי שבא בעלה ממדינת הים.

From where can one bring a proof? From a woman who came to her husband (for the first time), or from one whose husband just returned from across the sea.

[15]

והשם גזר על הזכר כמספר הזכר אשר תשלים צורתו בבטן והנקבה כפלים. וזה דבר ברור ומנוסה.

God decreed [a purification period upon the mother]: for a male, the number [of days] that it takes to form [his fetus] in the womb, and for a female double. This matter is clear and well-tested.

[16]

הנה הנסיון מאמת דעת ר' ישמעאל לפי שכלל הנשים מרגישות תנועת זכר למ"א יום, אבל תנועת נקבה לא ירגישו בה כי אם לפ"א יום. וא[י] א[פשר] שיהיה חלופו, כי חומר הזכר הוא יותר חם וחומר הנקבה הוא יותר קר ולבניי, כמו שהם במזגם יותר קרות מהזכרים, ויצירת היותר חם נגמר יותר במהירות ממה שיגמר היותר קר, שיצטרך יותר זמן לבשולו.

Experience proves the correctness of R. Ishmael’s position, since most women feel the movement of a male [fetus] at 41 days but they do not feel the movement of a female [fetus] until 81 days. And it would be impossible for it to be the opposite, since the substance of the male is warmer and the substance of the female is cooler and whiter, just as [females] are colder than males, and the formation of the warmer [substance] is completed quicker than it takes to complete [the formation of] the cooler, which needs more time to cook.

[18] Edward Reichman, “Anatomy and the Doctrine of the Seven-Chamber Uterus in Rabbinic Literature,” Ḥakirah 9 (2010): 245–265.

[19] The earliest rabbinic iteration appears to be from the Daʿat Zeqenim mi-Baʿalei ha-Tosafot, a 12^th century French commentary, but the text appears to be corrupt, so I quote from Hizkuni:

וילדה זכר – נמצא בספר התולדות: יש באשה שבעה נקבים, שלשה בימין ושלשה בשמאל ואחד באמצע. וכשהזרע נכנס באותן שבימין תלד זכר ואם נכנס בשל שמאל תלד נקבה, ואם נכנס בשל אמצע תלד טומטום או אנדרוגינוס.

And gives birth to a male – it was found in the Book of Generations: A woman has seven holes [in her womb]: three on the right, three on the left and one in the middle. When the semen enters one of the ones on the right she gives birth to a male but if it enters one of the left ones she gives birth to a female, and if it enters the center one she gives birth either to a sexless child or a hermaphrodite.

[20] Hizkuni ends with an exegetical proof:

וזהו "שמאלו תחת לראשי" – כדי להוליד זכרים.

This is [the meaning of the verse]: “His left hand under my head [and his right hand embracing me]” (Song 2:6, 8:3) – in order to give birth to males.

[21] Alternative texts read here “לחה” (moistness). I do not know what the “white” refers to, but the term is used by other commentators as well.

[23] For a modern explanation of some of these laws with this in mind, see Tamar Kamionkowski, “Postpartum Bloods of Purity,” TheTorah (2020).

[27]

^3:⁸ በሳብዕት : ቀዳሚት : ተፈጥረ : አዳም : ወገቦ : ብእሲቱ : ወበሳብዕት : ካልእት : አርአዮ : ኪያሃ : ሎቱ :: ወበእንተ : ዝንቱ : ተውህበ : ትእዛዝ : ለዐቂበ : ሰቡዕ : መዋዕል : ለተባዕት : ወለአንስት : ክልኤ : ሰቡዕ : መዋዕል : ውስተ : ርኵሶን :: ^3:9 ወእምድኅረ : ተፈጸመ : ለአዳም : አርብዓ : መዋዕል : በምድር : ኀበ : ተፈጥረ : አባእናሁ : ውስተ : ገነተ : ኤዶም : ከመ : ይትቀነይ : ወይዕቀባ :: ወብእሲቶኒ : አብኡ : በስማንያ : ምዋዕል : እምድኅረ : ዝንቱ : ቦአት : ውስተ : ገነተ : ኤዶም :: ^3:10 በእንተ : ዝንቱ : ተጽሕፈ : ትእዛዝ : ውስተ : ጽላተ : ሰማይ : ለእነተ : ትወልድ…

[29]

"למה גזר הקב"ה על היולדת [זכר] לישב ז' (נקיים) [ימים] ועל הנקבה לישב י"ד יום? אלא להזכירך יצירת אדם הראשין שנברא בז' ימי בראשית של שבת ראשון יצירת חוה שנטלה מצלעותיו בשבת שניה" – זו דברי ר' פנחס בן יאיר....

“Why did the Holy one, blessed be He, command the woman who gives birth [to a male] to sit seven [days] and for a female fourteen days? In order to remind you of the creation of Adam who was created during the seven days of creation of the first week [as well as of] the creation of Eve who was taken from his ribs during the second week” – these are the words of R. Pinḥas ben Yair….

למה גזר שהיולדת זכר אחר ארבעים יום ויולדת נקבה אחר פ' יום תבא לבית המקדש? להזכירך מה פעל הקב"ה עם אדם הראשון שנברא חוץ מגן עדן ואח[ר] כ[ך] נכנס לגן עדן.

Why did He command that one who gives birth to a male should come to the temple after forty days and one who gives birth to a female after eighty? To remind you of what the Holy One blessed by He did with the first man who was created outside of the garden of Eden and afterwards entered the garden of Eden.

The midrash then expresses the standard rabbinic position as the Sages:

חכמים אומרים: "אבל שניהם נבראו אבל שניהם נבראו בערב שבת הראשונה ביום השישי."

The Sages say: “Really both of them were created on the eve of the first Sabbath on the sixth day.”

^1:74 ወተዐገሡ ፡ አዳም ፡ ወሔዋን ፡ እስክ ፡ ኮነ ፡ ለቃየል ፡ ወለእኅቲ ፡ ፵ ዕለት ፡ ወይቤ ፡ አዳም ፡ ለሔዋን ፡ ንፈቅድ ፡ ንግበር ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ወናዕርጎ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ሕፃናት ፡፡ ወትቤ ፡ ሔዋን ፡ ንግበር ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ለወልድ ፡ ቀዳሚ ፡ ወእምድኅረ ፡ ዝንቲ ፡ ንግበር ፡ ለወለት፡፡

My thanks to Annette Yoshiko Reed for her assistance in tracking down this text.

[33]

^1:75 ወእምድኅረ ፡ ፈፀምዎሙ ፡ ፀንሰት ፡ ሔዋን ፡ ወፈጸመት ፡ ዕለታቲሃ ፡ ወወለደት ፡ ወሰመዮ ፡ ለወልድ ፡ አቤል ፡ ወለወለት ፡ አቅልምያ ፡፡ ወሶበ ፡ ተፈጸመ ፡ ሎሙ ፡ ፵ መዓልት ፡ ገብረ ፡ [አዳም ፡] ቊርባነ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ወልድ ፡ ወሶበ ፡ ተፈጸመት ፡ [፹] ዕለት ፡ ገብረ ፡ ቊርባነ ፡ ካዕበ ፡ በእንተ ፡ ወለት ፡ ወገብረ ፡ ቦሙ ፡ (በከመ ፡) በቀዳሚ ፡ በከመ ፡ ገብረ ፡ በቃየል ፡ ወእኅቲ ፡ [ለሉዋ ፡]

The terms in brackets are filled in by Trumpp based on the Arabic, the term in parentheses is missing in the Arabic according to Trumpp.

[35] Alan Cooper, “A Medieval Jewish Version of Original Sin: R. Ephraim of Luntshitz on Leviticus 12,” Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004), 445-459.

[38] At this point, the R. Ephraim goes into an intricate explanation for why a male requires circumcision to be purified but a female needs nothing.

Nonetheless, I want to resist the relativization of the misogynist elements as necessarily external to the “pattern” of rabbinic culture. As a culture, it harbors these elements, just like any other culture in late antiquity.

[41] It goes without saying that they would have had no way of knowing how medically false these explanations were either.

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber is the Senior Editor of TheTorah.com, and a Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute's Kogod Center. He holds a Ph.D. from Emory University in Jewish Religious Cultures and Hebrew Bible, an M.A. from Hebrew University in Jewish History (biblical period), as well as ordination (yoreh yoreh) and advanced ordination (yadin yadin) from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) Rabbinical School. He is the author of Images of Joshua in the Bible and their Reception (De Gruyter 2016) and editor (with Jacob L. Wright) of Archaeology and History of Eighth Century Judah (SBL 2018).

Essays on Related Topics:

Symposium:More Responses