B"H
2021 note - while I'm still bothered by these texts, 2021 me would word the last couple of paras differently. Although it would still be rather ranty. In any case, I've left this up as a reminder of 2012 me.
2022 - exciting update to footnote 3!
******************
Apologies for the delay in getting this out, hopefully you'll understand why...
So it seems that R' Shimon bar Yochai's teaching is in fact is a potential source-text for both of the above midrashim. The first part sounds exactly in line with women's experience of childbirth, and yet the second part regarding everyone 'being upset'** over the birth of a girl is an example of blatant misogyny which (as my own mother exclaimed on hearing this) would never be stated by any woman.
I should point out here that I have no axe to grind regarding the Torah itself on the yoledet. True, the double-length period of purification after the birth of a daughter, without any explanation, is troubling and has perplexed many. While the explanation I am most comfortable with (and which may in fact have a basis in the physiology of a newborn girl)*** is that the double-period reflects the fact that the newborn girl will one day go through her own cycle of niddah/childbearing, at the end of the day this is a chok of the Torah which is beyond human rationalisation. What troubles me is therefore not the law of the yoledet, but rather R' Shimon bar Yochai's explanation for it rooted in a clear preference for males over females.
Of course R' Shimon bar Yochai may merely have been stating the reality in his day and society that sons were prized more highly than daughters. After all, this is hardly an attitude that is restricted to the Talmudic world - a preference for sons over daughters, to the point of infanticide of female babies, can be found in many societies right up until the present day. However, as modern Jews in Western society one would hope that we no longer hold such negative attitudes towards our daughters. It is therefore very difficult - especially as a woman - to read such statements in texts which are integral to our Jewish tradition (and which in some quarters of the Orthodox world may still in fact be taught to young bochurim with little 'real' contact with women to counteract such texts).
How, then, do I respond to such texts? Well, it is possible to skirt the issue by engaging in apologetics, trying as best as one can to engage with the text on its own terms, or - as I have in fact done on previous occasions with the Midrash Tanchuma - avoiding problematic texts entirely and choosing to focus on other texts. Yet there are times when, confronted with statements such as that of R' Shimon bar Yochai above, it is impossible to avoid facing up to the fact that these texts simply do not square with a Judaism which values both men and women as created equally b'tzelem Elokim (in the 'image' of G-d).
A better solution may therefore be to develop the 'alternative' voice of women reading and interpreting traditional Jewish texts, bringing a feminine insight almost entirely missing from Jewish discourse until the 20th century and the educational and social changes which it has brought for Jewish women. Given the particular relevance to women of texts such as those dealing with the yoledet, perhaps by developing this voice we can bring new and more relevant meanings to such areas of Torah - and in doing so, relegate misogynist comments such as those of R'Shimon bar Yochai and the Midrash Tanchuma to no more than a footnote in Jewish history.
Shavua tov
RPT
*This midrash also contains a more haunting statement that a woman in childbirth cries 100 cries - 99 'for death' and one 'for life'. I may well have explored this more fully, had it not been for the upset of coming across Niddah 31b etc...
**To make matters worse, the actual term used by the Gemara here is one which the Midrash Tanchuma only the week before had identified as specifically meaning an act of mourning - see my earlier post from parshat Shemini. Obviously, to say that everyone 'mourns' the new life of a baby girl is even stronger than the translation above...
***Briefly speaking - menstruation is stimulated by a sharp drop in certain hormones at a particular point in the menstrual cycle. When a baby of either gender is born, the hormones it had previously been exposed to in its mother's womb are now withdrawn. In some newborn girls, this drop in hormones results in bleeding from the baby's uterus in what is essentially a mini 'period'. This article therefore posits that the doubled period following the birth of a daughter may be because by bleeding herself the baby girl may briefly become ritually impure as a zavah (a female experiencing bleeding outside of the usual menstrual cycle), and this status will inevitably be passed on to the mother through nursing her baby. While I have yet to find an Orthodox source backing this up, so far it is the best reason behind the doubled period that I can find, and also ties in well with those who explain the doubled period as relating to the fact that the newborn girl will herself one day experience niddah etc.
1) Due to the content of parshat Tazria, this post will touch on niddah, menstruation and childbirth. While I will keep any explicit discussions to a minimum, if you are uncomfortable reading about this I suggest you look away now.
2) This also comes with a 'controversy warning' - while I have brought sources etc. as usual, this is not so much a dvar Torah as my personal attempt to confront certain misogynist comments in the Talmud. Therefore, if you are the sort of person who considers feminism to be treif , I would also suggest that you look away now and content yourself with Tazria-Metora Part I as posted last week.
Consider yourself warned!
Sources:
1) Vayikra 12:1-8
א
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.
ב
דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה
זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.
ג
וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.
ד
וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה
בְּכָל-קֹדֶשׁ לֹא-תִגָּע וְאֶל-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא עַד-מְלֹאת יְמֵי
טָהֳרָהּ.
ה
וְאִם-נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁשִּׁים יוֹם וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה.
ו
וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ
בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן-יוֹנָה אוֹ-תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל-פֶּתַח
אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.
ז
וְהִקְרִיבוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אוֹ לַנְּקֵבָה.
ח
וְאִם-לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי-תֹרִים אוֹ
שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ
הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה
2) Midrash Tanchuma Tazria, Chapter 4
ובמלאת ימי טהרה וגו'. למה היא מביאה קרבן. אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה, מאה פעיות האשה פועה, שנאמר, הן אתם מאין ופעלכם מאפע (ישע' מא כד).
מהו מאפע. מאה פועות היא פועה כשהיא יושבת על המשבר, תשעים ותשע למיתה,
ואחת לחיים. וכיון שהצרות מקיפות אותה, היא נודרת שלא תזקק עוד לאישה.
לפיכך מביאה קרבן, שנאמר, תביא כבש בן שנתו:
3) Midrash Tanchuma Tazria, Chapter 1 (extract)
אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. זה שאמר הכתוב, מי יתנני כירחי קדם וגו' (איוב כט ב).
הפסוק הזה איוב אמר. אימתי. בשעה שבאו עליו היסורין. אמר, מי יתנני כירחי
קדם ולואי שהייתי כאותן הימים שהייתי במעי אמי. כימי אלוה ישמרני (שם), מלמד שהולד משתמר במעי אמו. בהלו נרו עלי ראשי, לאורו אלך חשך (שם שם ג). מכאן את למד, שהאורה לתינוק כשהוא במעי אמו. כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי (שם שם ד).
כשם שהגשם מוחה בקרקע ומלכלך אותה, כך התינוק מלוכלך במעי אמו, ד"א בסוד
אלוה עלי אהלי מדבר בתינוק וכשם שהתינוק מלוכלך כך אדם מלוכלך מעונות
והצרות באות עליו. באותה שעה הוא אומר, מי יתנני כירחי קדם, ולואי היו לי
אותן הירחים והימים שהייתי במעי אמי. מה אומר באחרונה, כאשר הייתי בימי
חרפי, אמר רבי אבהו, התינוק יוצא ממעי אמו מלא רירין ומלא דם, והם מחבבין
אותו. וכן מנהג כל אשה שתלד, מחבבין אותו הולד. וכל שכן אם הוא זכר. הוי
אומר, אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר
4) Talmud Bavli, Niddah 31b (extract)
שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן
אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה
תביא קרבן מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן
שבועה בעי איתויי ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל
שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר ומפני מה אמרה
תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים
As Torah-observant Jews living in the modern world, sometimes we are confronted by texts and ideas that are so incompatible with modern sensibilities that they shake us out of our comfort zone, forcing us to reassess our Jewish identity and how we approach Torah. A couple of weeks ago, I was faced with such a challenge while reviewing the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Tazria in preparation for writing this blog.
Dealing as they do with various forms of impurity resulting from bodily discharges, the double portion of Tazria-Metzora was never going to be an easy one to write about. The opening section of parshat Tazria dealing with the korban to be offered by a woman after childbirth (classed as a yoledet) is a particularly difficult text which has challenged for many commentators for two main reasons. Firstly, for what 'sin' is a mother required to bring a chatat ('sin-offering) following childbirth - after all, what on earth could be 'sinful' about bringing a new life into this world? Secondly, why should the two periods of purification - the initial period in which relations with one's husband are prohibited in the same way as for a niddah (menstruating woman), and the second period in which one can have relations but still has a measure of ritual 'impurity' in terms of korbanot and the Beit HaMikdash - both be doubled following the birth of a daughter rather than of a son? While both commentators and midrashim provide various explanations for the first question (the need for a chatat to be brought by the new mother), they usually struggle with a viable reason for the second question.
Usually, when choosing a midrash to write about, I try to at least skim-read all of the Midrash Tanchuma for a particular parsha at least once before settling on one (or more) midrashim to explore. Several midrashim of interest may therefore catch my eye on a first review, even if I choose not to explore them in more detail due to time constraints/complexity etc. For parshat Tazria, these included in particular perek 4 (source 2 above), which has a rather down-to-earth explanation the requirement for the mother to bring a chatat: namely that, during childbirth, the sheer pain of labour causes women to swear they will never have relations with their husbands again.*
On reading this I couldn't help but smile - while the compilers of the Midrash Tanchuma were almost certainly male, this particular midrash sounded so much like something women might say amongst themselves that I could almost hear a matriarchal chorus in my head agreeing vociferously with the midrash. (In case you accuse me of making this up, I have been present when older women have spoken quite frankly about the pain of childbirth, leaving yours truly wide-eyed and wincing...). As the midrash in question was quite short, I marked it as a 'possible' only and moved on.
However, it was on a second review of another 'possible' midrash (source 3 above) that my eye was caught by a less-than-favourable footnote. The midrash comments at this point that a mother always loves her newborn child despite its being covered in the blood and mucus of childbirth, adding 'especially if it is a male'. Not to be outdone, quoting the Eitz Yosef the footnote to the Metsudah edition of the Midrash Tanchuma explains this as follows:
"The Gemoro says in [Talmud Bavli, Niddah 31b]: Why does the Torah command that a woman remain impure for seven days after the birth of a male child, but fourteen days after the birth of a female child? The answer is that since everyone is happy with the birth of a male child, the woman has remorse (for declaring she never wants to give birth again) after seven days. But in the case of a girl, since everyone is saddened by her birth, her mother feels remose only after fourteen days. So this is what the Midrash means when it says "especially if it is a male". And this is why, "when a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child," she is impure for seven days and when she bears a female child she is impure for fourteen days. From this we learn that there is more joy at the birth of a boy than at the birth of a girl."
Hang on. 'In the case of a girl...everyone is saddened by her birth'???!!
As you can imagine, this footnote was not greeted with a smile on my part. However, as a believer in always checking original sources, I decided to look at the 'offending' section of Talmud itself to see what it had to say. While the original text can be found at 4) above, copied below is the Soncino translation of the relevant passage:
"R. Simeon b. Yohai was asked by his disciples: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman after
childbirth should bring a sacrifice? He replied: When she kneels in bearing she swears impetuously
that she will have no intercourse with her husband. The Torah, therefore, ordained that she should
bring a sacrifice. (R. Joseph demurred: Does she not act presumptuously in which case the
absolution of the oath depends on her regretting it? Furthermore, she should have brought a
sacrifice prescribed for an oath!)And why did the Torah ordain that in the case of a male [the
woman is clean] after seven days and in that of a female after fourteen days? [On the birth of a] male
with whom all rejoice she regrets her oath after seven days, [but on the birth of a female] about
whom everybody is upset she regrets her oath after fourteen days. And why did the Torah ordain
circumcision on the eighth day? In order that the guests shall not enjoy themselves while his
father and mother are not in the mood for it." (Translation taken from here at the bottom of p147/top of p148)
Dealing as they do with various forms of impurity resulting from bodily discharges, the double portion of Tazria-Metzora was never going to be an easy one to write about. The opening section of parshat Tazria dealing with the korban to be offered by a woman after childbirth (classed as a yoledet) is a particularly difficult text which has challenged for many commentators for two main reasons. Firstly, for what 'sin' is a mother required to bring a chatat ('sin-offering) following childbirth - after all, what on earth could be 'sinful' about bringing a new life into this world? Secondly, why should the two periods of purification - the initial period in which relations with one's husband are prohibited in the same way as for a niddah (menstruating woman), and the second period in which one can have relations but still has a measure of ritual 'impurity' in terms of korbanot and the Beit HaMikdash - both be doubled following the birth of a daughter rather than of a son? While both commentators and midrashim provide various explanations for the first question (the need for a chatat to be brought by the new mother), they usually struggle with a viable reason for the second question.
Usually, when choosing a midrash to write about, I try to at least skim-read all of the Midrash Tanchuma for a particular parsha at least once before settling on one (or more) midrashim to explore. Several midrashim of interest may therefore catch my eye on a first review, even if I choose not to explore them in more detail due to time constraints/complexity etc. For parshat Tazria, these included in particular perek 4 (source 2 above), which has a rather down-to-earth explanation the requirement for the mother to bring a chatat: namely that, during childbirth, the sheer pain of labour causes women to swear they will never have relations with their husbands again.*
On reading this I couldn't help but smile - while the compilers of the Midrash Tanchuma were almost certainly male, this particular midrash sounded so much like something women might say amongst themselves that I could almost hear a matriarchal chorus in my head agreeing vociferously with the midrash. (In case you accuse me of making this up, I have been present when older women have spoken quite frankly about the pain of childbirth, leaving yours truly wide-eyed and wincing...). As the midrash in question was quite short, I marked it as a 'possible' only and moved on.
However, it was on a second review of another 'possible' midrash (source 3 above) that my eye was caught by a less-than-favourable footnote. The midrash comments at this point that a mother always loves her newborn child despite its being covered in the blood and mucus of childbirth, adding 'especially if it is a male'. Not to be outdone, quoting the Eitz Yosef the footnote to the Metsudah edition of the Midrash Tanchuma explains this as follows:
"The Gemoro says in [Talmud Bavli, Niddah 31b]: Why does the Torah command that a woman remain impure for seven days after the birth of a male child, but fourteen days after the birth of a female child? The answer is that since everyone is happy with the birth of a male child, the woman has remorse (for declaring she never wants to give birth again) after seven days. But in the case of a girl, since everyone is saddened by her birth, her mother feels remose only after fourteen days. So this is what the Midrash means when it says "especially if it is a male". And this is why, "when a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child," she is impure for seven days and when she bears a female child she is impure for fourteen days. From this we learn that there is more joy at the birth of a boy than at the birth of a girl."
Hang on. 'In the case of a girl...everyone is saddened by her birth'???!!
As you can imagine, this footnote was not greeted with a smile on my part. However, as a believer in always checking original sources, I decided to look at the 'offending' section of Talmud itself to see what it had to say. While the original text can be found at 4) above, copied below is the Soncino translation of the relevant passage:
"R. Simeon b. Yohai was asked by his disciples: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman after
childbirth should bring a sacrifice? He replied: When she kneels in bearing she swears impetuously
that she will have no intercourse with her husband. The Torah, therefore, ordained that she should
bring a sacrifice. (R. Joseph demurred: Does she not act presumptuously in which case the
absolution of the oath depends on her regretting it? Furthermore, she should have brought a
sacrifice prescribed for an oath!)And why did the Torah ordain that in the case of a male [the
woman is clean] after seven days and in that of a female after fourteen days? [On the birth of a] male
with whom all rejoice she regrets her oath after seven days, [but on the birth of a female] about
whom everybody is upset she regrets her oath after fourteen days. And why did the Torah ordain
circumcision on the eighth day? In order that the guests shall not enjoy themselves while his
father and mother are not in the mood for it." (Translation taken from here at the bottom of p147/top of p148)
So it seems that R' Shimon bar Yochai's teaching is in fact is a potential source-text for both of the above midrashim. The first part sounds exactly in line with women's experience of childbirth, and yet the second part regarding everyone 'being upset'** over the birth of a girl is an example of blatant misogyny which (as my own mother exclaimed on hearing this) would never be stated by any woman.
I should point out here that I have no axe to grind regarding the Torah itself on the yoledet. True, the double-length period of purification after the birth of a daughter, without any explanation, is troubling and has perplexed many. While the explanation I am most comfortable with (and which may in fact have a basis in the physiology of a newborn girl)*** is that the double-period reflects the fact that the newborn girl will one day go through her own cycle of niddah/childbearing, at the end of the day this is a chok of the Torah which is beyond human rationalisation. What troubles me is therefore not the law of the yoledet, but rather R' Shimon bar Yochai's explanation for it rooted in a clear preference for males over females.
Of course R' Shimon bar Yochai may merely have been stating the reality in his day and society that sons were prized more highly than daughters. After all, this is hardly an attitude that is restricted to the Talmudic world - a preference for sons over daughters, to the point of infanticide of female babies, can be found in many societies right up until the present day. However, as modern Jews in Western society one would hope that we no longer hold such negative attitudes towards our daughters. It is therefore very difficult - especially as a woman - to read such statements in texts which are integral to our Jewish tradition (and which in some quarters of the Orthodox world may still in fact be taught to young bochurim with little 'real' contact with women to counteract such texts).
How, then, do I respond to such texts? Well, it is possible to skirt the issue by engaging in apologetics, trying as best as one can to engage with the text on its own terms, or - as I have in fact done on previous occasions with the Midrash Tanchuma - avoiding problematic texts entirely and choosing to focus on other texts. Yet there are times when, confronted with statements such as that of R' Shimon bar Yochai above, it is impossible to avoid facing up to the fact that these texts simply do not square with a Judaism which values both men and women as created equally b'tzelem Elokim (in the 'image' of G-d).
A better solution may therefore be to develop the 'alternative' voice of women reading and interpreting traditional Jewish texts, bringing a feminine insight almost entirely missing from Jewish discourse until the 20th century and the educational and social changes which it has brought for Jewish women. Given the particular relevance to women of texts such as those dealing with the yoledet, perhaps by developing this voice we can bring new and more relevant meanings to such areas of Torah - and in doing so, relegate misogynist comments such as those of R'Shimon bar Yochai and the Midrash Tanchuma to no more than a footnote in Jewish history.
Shavua tov
RPT
*This midrash also contains a more haunting statement that a woman in childbirth cries 100 cries - 99 'for death' and one 'for life'. I may well have explored this more fully, had it not been for the upset of coming across Niddah 31b etc...
**To make matters worse, the actual term used by the Gemara here is one which the Midrash Tanchuma only the week before had identified as specifically meaning an act of mourning - see my earlier post from parshat Shemini. Obviously, to say that everyone 'mourns' the new life of a baby girl is even stronger than the translation above...
***Briefly speaking - menstruation is stimulated by a sharp drop in certain hormones at a particular point in the menstrual cycle. When a baby of either gender is born, the hormones it had previously been exposed to in its mother's womb are now withdrawn. In some newborn girls, this drop in hormones results in bleeding from the baby's uterus in what is essentially a mini 'period'. This article therefore posits that the doubled period following the birth of a daughter may be because by bleeding herself the baby girl may briefly become ritually impure as a zavah (a female experiencing bleeding outside of the usual menstrual cycle), and this status will inevitably be passed on to the mother through nursing her baby. While I have yet to find an Orthodox source backing this up, so far it is the best reason behind the doubled period that I can find, and also ties in well with those who explain the doubled period as relating to the fact that the newborn girl will herself one day experience niddah etc.
2022 update - rather excitingly, I found some references to baby girls 'menstruating' and going to the mikveh in Niddah 31b-32a (in a discussion about Samaritan girls being considered niddah from birth). See in particular here re: the baraitot by Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Proof of the 'baby zavah' theory?
No comments:
Post a Comment