Speak to the Israelites, saying, ‘Should a woman quicken with seed and bear a male, she shall be unclean seven days, as in the days of her menstrual unwellness she shall be unclean. Rabbi Benamozegh expertly merges Talmudic interpretations with the insights of natural philosophers, spanning from ancient times to his own time. He refers to a discussion in the Talmudic tractate Nidda (3a), which suggests that women who emit seed first are predisposed to conceive male children. This perspective echoes the beliefs of numerous esteemed natural philosophers throughout history. Rabbi Benamozegh highlights this as an example of how Ḥazal often incorporated prevailing scientific knowledge into their exegetical practices, remarking, “Our Sages followed these natural philosophers, as is their way in all matters of human wisdom, to seek shelter in the shadow of the wisdom of their times.” He further discusses the view as set forth in the Talmud (Nidda 31a-b) that conception is most likely to occur near a woman’s menstrual cycle. There, Rabbi Yiṣḥaq cites the verse in Tehillim (51:7) that states “Behold, I was born in iniquity [Heb. avon]” as the source for this. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees, stating that instead, conception is most likely to occur near immersion, as that same verse states “And in sin [Heb. ‘ḥet’] did my mother conceive me.” The Talmud links the word ‘ḥet’ to purification, based on its usage to refer to the purification of a house stricken with ṣara’at. However, the link from Rabbi Yiṣḥaq’s source to menstruation is less clear. Rabbi Benamozegh cites the interpretation of 11th century French commentator Rashi, which links the idea of avon to the prohibition on engaging in intercourse close to the expected time of menstruation. Since this is the time that conception is most likely to occur (according to Rabbi Yiṣḥaq), this brings the husband to the avon of engaging in intercourse at this time. Expressing astonishment at the complex interpretation, Rabbi Benamozegh suggests a more straightforward understanding, linking the equating of menstrual blood with ‘sin’ to the sin of Adam. According to a midrash, this sin of Adam resulted in the curse of menstruation in women. Concluding his discourse, Rabbi Benamozegh points out the consensus among expert physicians, from Hippocrates in the 5th century BCE to Herman Boerhaave in the 17th century, regarding the high probability of conception around the menstrual period. He underscores the synergy between Talmudic insight and scientific understanding, illustrating how these seemingly disparate fields often converge in their explanations of natural phenomena, especially in the realm of human biology and conception.

And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Rabbi Benamozegh explains the rationale behind the timing of circumcision (berit mila) on the eighth day after birth. He argues that this practice is grounded in two ancient beliefs, that a newborn was not regarded as a viable or fully created being until the eighth day, and the significance that lay behind the seventh day. Furthermore, Rabbi Benamozegh draws a parallel with the treatment of animals as stated in Vayiqra 22:27: “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother, and from the eighth day and thereafter it shall be accepted as an offering by fire to YHWH.” In other words, the offering of an animal can only take place from the eighth day onwards, after having spent seven days with its mother. He cites a midrash in which Ḥazal liken this law to a king who says that before seeing him, guests must see the matrona (a Latin word meaning an honourable woman) first. The matrona refers to a Shabbat which must pass the newborn animal before it is offered up to God, represented by the king. Rabbi Benamozegh links this passage to the similar requirement of circumcision on the eighth day, in order that the child encounter the matrona of Shabbat before being brought close to God through circumcision. Returning to the verse about the newborn animal, Rabbi Benamozegh proceeds to address the common misconception that this period before separation from the mother is merely out of compassion. He clarifies that while compassion might be a factor, it is not the primary intention, as we can see from the similarity of practise between it and circumcision, where compassion is irrelevant. Finally, Rabbi Benamozegh references similar practices among ancient Greeks, who would not name a child until the seventh day due to the belief that the child was at risk during this initial period. This practice, as he notes, is documented in Aristotelian works and in historical texts on medicine, showing a cross-cultural recognition of the significance of this initial period in a child’s life.