שמחה לאיש במענה פיו ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “A ready response causes man joy; how good is a word spoken at the right time!” (Prov.15,23)

In this verse Solomon explains that if a person speaks wisely, weighing his words carefully, he will derive pleasure from this; the reason is that such words originate with the intellect at the instigation of the intellectual soul which is part of man. This is what gives man his advantage over other creatures on earth. This is why the gift of speech is attributed to G’d of whom Isaiah 57,19 said בורא ניב שפתים, “who creates the fruit of the lips.” By making this comment the prophet praised the Lord just as he had praised Him for having created heaven and earth and the stars (Isaiah 42,5) which are viewed as “independent” creations imbued with intelligence (compare Maimonides Yesodei Hatorah 3,9). The gist of Solomon’s statement is that when man prepares his words carefully so that they express his thoughts accurately, and he uses his G’d-given intelligence to do so, he will enjoy the results. It is well known that whereas it is within man’s power to plan what he wants to do, the actual words he speaks (execution of his plans) are not under his control but are under G’d’s control as we know from Proverbs 16,1: לאדם מערכי לב ומה' מענה לשון, “a man may plan with his heart; but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord.” When man’s planning and the thoughts he expresses as a result of his planning are in tandem, reflect his thoughts, this is cause for joy as it proves that G’d has approved what he had in mind. It means that he enjoys Divine assistance in what he is embarking on. Solomon also means that although everything man thinks may be fully correct, expressing his thoughts at the wrong time and at the wrong place are not. If a man has composed a beautiful poem and set it to music and proceeds to sing his song in the house of mourning, this would be a prime example of doing the right thing at the wrong time. The same applies to someone composing an elegy and proceeding to read it in public at a joyous occasion. In both instances the misplaced sense of timing results in the composer’s words not being appreciated, not causing joy to the composer. Hence Solomon emphasises in the above verse the importance of “speaking the right words at the right time.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 have said that at a time of joy it is appropriate to say things of a joyful nature, whereas at a time of mourning the reverse is in place. Our sages in Megillah 32, speaking of the same subject, have stipulated that the laws about the observance of Passover should be studied and discussed at or before Passover, whereas the laws pertaining to Tabernacles should be discussed thirty days prior to that festival, etc. Discussing the laws of Tabernacles around Passover time does not reflect a proper sense of timing. All these considerations prompted Solomon to write the verse we quoted at the introduction, i.e. emphasising the importance of a sense of timing. Sometimes we have an urge to share some thought with our peers or our students because we are so convinced of the importance of the message of our thoughts. One needs to consider carefully if the time is appropriate for voicing such a thought, as voicing it at the wrong time or in the wrong environment may diminish its impact. Even the best ideas must be presented only at the appropriate time.

A Midrashic approach (based on Bereshit Rabbah 3,3). The words שמחה לאיש which Solomon speaks about in Proverbs 15,23 are a reference to G’d, seeing G’d (the Lord) is described as ה' איש מלחמה, “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15,3), similarly, the expression במענה פיו, “with the expression of his mouth,” refers to the timing of G’d saying: “let there be light and it was light” (Genesis 1,3). The words ודבר בעתו מה טוב, “and how good is a word spoken at its appropriate time,” reflect what the Torah said “G’d saw the light and it was good,” i.e. He had given the directive at precisely the right time, [having waited 974 generations for that moment according to our tradition. Ed.] Thus far the Midrash.

We know that the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” appear in connection with all the six days of creation [except the second day, but twice with the third day, Ed.]. This means that G’d’s directives calling the respective parts of the universe into existence and arranging for them to function were all the result of דבר בעתו, “a word spoken at the time appropriate for it.” This does not conflict with the view we expressed that the entire universe was created at one and the same moment. Our sages have already illustrated how we are to understand this apparent contradiction when they told us the parable about the farmer who planted six different seeds all at the same time. The plants growing out of these different seeds each germinated, grew and became ripe at different times (Bereshit Rabbah 12,3). Even though they were all put in the earth at the same time, they did not grow at a uniform rate of speed. Concerning such careful timing by G’d Solomon said in Kohelet 3,1: “He did everything at the appropriate time.” The creatures which matured later were not inferior, but on the contrary, they were superior, more sophisticated. As a result, man was the most superior creature of all coming into meaningful existence last. Similarly, the Sabbath is the best of all the days seeing it was last to make its appearance. Israel was the last nation to emerge as a separate nation, 70 other nations having preceded it. This makes the Jewish nation the choicest of them all. Although the last to make their appearance on the stage of history, G’d had planned to have a Jewish people on earth long before He made provision for all the other nations to become historical entities. By the same token, the hereafter, known as עולם הבא, precisely because it takes such a long time to mature, to emerge from its cocoon, is a superior world. We have evidence that Israel was first in G’d’s planning from Jeremiah 2,2: “Israel is holy to G’d the first (and choicest) of His harvest.” In other words, the first (and finest) harvest G’d looked forward to was Israel. The other nations may be viewed as “miscarriages,” fetuses prematurely aborted. When G’d referred to the Jewish people in the verse from Jeremiah we just quoted in translation, He did not use the adjective kadosh or kedoshim to describe their being holy, but He chose the word kodesh, a noun, meaning that Israel was holy in its own right. The implication is that the Jewish people draw on the source of holiness for their existence. We find a similar word when the Torah commands or promises the Jewish people that their destiny is to be or become אנשי קודש, “men (and women) devoted to holiness” (Exodus 22,30). When the Torah describes the Jewish people as G’d’s portion (Deut. 32,9), the idea is similarly that the Jewish people are part of G’d, i.e. of His Holiness. G’d did not assign inter-stellar forces, signs of the zodiac known as mazzalot to supervise the fortunes of the Jewish people as He had done for the 70 nations of the earth, but instead He supervises them personally by means of what is known as hashgachah peratit, “personal benevolent supervision of our collective and individual fates.” When Israel was described as G’d’s first harvest, ראשית תבואתה, (the reading of the last letter is “au”, i.e. the masculine pronoun referring to Hashem). Remember that there are five species of grain all of which are “harvested.” The word ראשית derived from ראש, head, means “the choicest.” The letter ה at the end of the word תבואתה may refer to the 5 kinds of physical harvests, i.e. the five different kinds of grain from which bread is made, or, in the case of the Jewish people, to the five kinds of spiritual harvest, i.e. the “Five Books of Moses,” the Torah. The choicest of the five species of grain is wheat, whereas the choicest Books of the Bible (Torah) are the Five Books of Moses. Concerning all this, the Midrash quotes a parable. There was a king who betrothed a bride to himself giving her five rings as token of the betrothal. The number “five” corresponded to the betrothal between G’d and Israel described in Hoseah 2,21-22 with the words: “I will betroth you to Me forever, with righteousness, with justice, with goodness and with mercy; and I will betroth you to Me with faithfulness, and you will be devoted to the Lord.” This then is the meaning of the word ראשית, i.e. it ranks first. The “first” of which the prophet speaks includes that Israel ranks higher in attributes than the other nations, and that it also enjoys an advantage in time, i.e. they were the first consideration G’d entertained when He planned to create man, etc. The word ראשית denoting superior quality is found in Amos 6,6 ראשית השמנים, “the choicest of the oils.” The same word describing precedence in terms of time occurs in Genesis 10,10 ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל, “the first country under his rule was Babylon.” We have established that whereas Israel was first in terms of G’d’s planning it was last in terms of that plan being executed. Consider the fact that Esau and the rulers descended from him preceded Yaakov’s development as a nation commencing with Esau’s birth which is described as “the first one emerged (from Rivkah’s womb) very reddish looking, etc.” (Genesis 25,25). Esau developed much earlier than his twin Yaakov. Esau married at the age of 40. The only reason the Torah bothered to tell us all these details about Esau and his descendants is to contrast them with Yaakov who was a “late bloomer,” not marrying until he was 84 years of age. Nonetheless, David already said in Psalms 40,6 “You have set out wonders and devised them for us.” We find a saying in the Kuzari 3,73 that תחלת המחשבה סוף המעשה, “that which came first in planning was the last to be carried out.” Let us illustrate the reason for such apparently illogical behaviour. Reuven wanted to study Torah but did not have a study hall with the requisite library. In order to carry out his plan he first has to build the study hall and acquire the necessary books. In other words, the Torah study, the purpose of all these endeavors, can only be carried out after preparatory activities. The parable we just described has much in common with a comment by our sages on Deut. 2,19 exhorting us not to harass the Moabites or Ammonites. In answer to the question why G’d had singled out these two nations, warning the Israelites not to harass them, our sages in Baba Batra 35 explain hat this was on account of two great descendants that would emerge from these two peoples, Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite. Clearly, although these women were born many hundreds of years later than the Israelites’ trek through the desert, this is another example of future events casting long shadows ahead, i.e. G’d’s foreknowledge determining present day behaviour. All of the examples mentioned showed that fruits which develop later are superior to results which are visible immediately. One may compare this to someone who has lost a pearl at the beach and who sieves through bucket after bucket of sand, until finally, he finds the pearl. All that sand, though apparently having no immediate use, was necessary in order to enable the pearl to be found. All the tedium of sifting the sand proved worthwhile in retrospect. This explains much of human history, and even much of Jewish history. Tanchuma Vayeshev 1 explains the ten generations between Adam and Noach and the ones between Noach and Avraham as necessary preludes to someone like Avraham. All of human history and G’d’s frustrations with its disobedience to Him must find their justification in the eventual emergence of such pearls as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The tedious process of ploughing, seeding, etc., etc., has only one ultimate but long delayed objective, i.e. the fruit which the soil or tree will yield as a result. Man is described by David in Psalms 139,5 as ראשון ואחרון צרתני, “You have formed me both first and last;” David meant that though man was the last creature to emerge on earth on the sixth day, he was the first in G’d’s planning of the entire creative process. The word ראשון in that psalm may also mean “choicest, most accomplished.” The word אחרון of course, applies to the process of actual creation. As soon as G’d created man, He gave him the first positive commandment as well as a negative commandment. The first commandment was that he was to eat from all the trees in Gan Eden; the first negative commandment was that he was not to eat from the tree of knowledge. In a manner paralleling what G’d commanded Adam when He had placed him in Gan Eden, in the previous portion the Torah devoted three paragraphs to different categories of life in this terrestrial earth and how such animals may or may not interact with superior forms of life, i.e. man. First the Torah deals with the mammals, animals whose primary raw material is earth, dust, i.e. the most primitive of the four elements making up the terrestrial universe which we discussed already. Secondly, it deals with what may and what may not be eaten of the animals primarily formed from the element water, a slightly more sophisticated element. Thirdly, it dealt with which birds may not be eaten, i.e. creatures whose primary element is the רוח, the wind, i.e. an element much closer to the celestial domain than the previous two. Finally, beginning with our portion, the Torah addresses the most superior creature, i.e. man and immediately repeats the commandment of circumcision as if to emphasise that further refinement of man the species was still necessary. The Torah makes plain by means of this commandment that the principal reason man has been created is to perform G’d’s commandments. This is what Job had in mind (Job 5,7) when we are told there that אדם לעמל יולד, “man has been born in order to toil.” The “toil” referred to is the effort involved in studying and observing G’d’s Torah. This is the reason why the commandments connected to a woman giving birth are surrounded by a variety of commandments both before and after that particular paragraph. The commandments preceding the laws to be observed in connection with the birth of a human being all deal with permitted or forbidden food. This is what our sages (in Tanchuma Tazria 1) had in mind when they interpreted the above-mentioned verse in Psalms 139,5 to mean that the אחור, “after,” the prophet referred to were all the mammals, birds and creeping creatures which had been created before man, whereas the word קדם they understand as applying to the human baby being born to whom G’d already gave directives concerning how to conduct itself after it would leave the mother’s womb. In other words, man’s creation or birth is conditional on his keeping G’d’s commandments. The immediate commandment is the perfor- mance of circumcision of the male baby. [Or, seeing the fetus is taught the Torah while still in its mother’s womb, this is what entitles it to be born. Ed.]

אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.,” Actually, the Torah should have written simply: “when a woman gives birth, etc.” What duties devolve upon her as a result of merely conceiving? The Torah reveals here that even if no live fetus is born and the fetus is no longer recognizable as such when aborted (compare Rashi based on Niddah 27), the rule about impurity contracted as a result of pregnancy or abortion applies.

This word is why our sages in Niddah 31 state that when the woman is the first one to experience orgasm during marital relations the baby born will be male. The reverse is true when the husband reaches climax first. When the Talmud uses the expression מזרעת in describing this process we translated as “orgasm” or “climax” when applicable to the woman, this refers to the fluid supplied by the woman [seeing that the word appears to be a misnomer, a woman not having semen, Ed.]. The fluid meant by the Talmud (according to our author) is the menstrual blood inside her womb. This fluid is called אודם, a reddish looking fluid in the Hebrew of the Mishnah. The parallel fluid of the male is known as לובן, i.e. a whitish fluid. Both fluids are known as זרע, “seed,” “semen.” Compare Niddah 31 where we are told that there are three partners needed to produce a human being, 1) G’d, 2) the father; and 3) the mother. According to the Talmud the father’s contribution of the לובן will result in the infant’s brain, tendons, and bones as well as its nails and the white of its eye. The אודם contributed by the mother will turn into the skin, blood, and flesh of the infant, the hair and pupil of the eye. G’d contributes the spirit, the soul, and the exterior appearance of the face as well as the ability of the eye to see, the power of speech and the lips, as well as the ability of the legs to walk, knowledge, insight and intelligence.

The word תזריע is transitive, i.e. denotes an active participation. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this word (Ibn Ezra) is that she hands over the “semen” which is on deposit with her from the male much as the earth yields up the seed deposited in the soil of the field for it to emerge at the proper time as the desired product. This is the reason why Exodus 21,22 writes כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “as the husband of the woman (who aborted due to the injury) will impose on the guilty party.” Seeing that the children of a woman are considered the husband’s (property), the Torah did not write כאשר תשית עליו האשה “as the woman (the actually injured party) imposes on the one who caused her injury.” The husband may assess the loss he has suffered in financial terms. See my comments in Exodus 21,22.

However, the scientists claim that the entire fetus (body) is part of the mother and that the man’s part or contribution to it is only an ingredient they called היולי, “genes” (something primeval, original) which influences the shape and composition of the material as soon as the man’s semen mixes with the blood of the woman. At the same time it also eliminates the sperm which will not fertilize the ovum of the woman. Its effect on those parts is similar to the effect of the stomach of an animal introduced into milk to make it congeal and become cheese. According to these scientists there is evidence supporting their claims.

1. They compare the formation of a human fetus to the fertilization of a hen’s egg which grows and hatches a chick through having been fertilized by the male, the rooster. Whenever the hen absorbs that semen from the earth through rolling around on the ground and not directly from the rooster, it fails to produce a chick. This is due to absence of physical contact with the rooster which alone would provide the shape and outward appearance of the product. [If I understand correctly the egg remains an egg unless it had been fertilized by the rooster at the outset of its formation. Ed.] This agrees with the opinion of our sages at the beginning of Tractate Beitzah 7 where the Talmud engages in scientific observations such as that when intercourse occurred by day the birth of the creature resulting from such intercourse will be born by day. In connection with the hatching of chicks, the Talmud is on record that when a certain person asked around who had the egg of a hen which had been laid by a live hen, they brought him instead the egg of a hen which had been slaughtered (before the egg was laid). The buyer went to Rabbi Ami demanding that the sale be annulled and his money be refunded as he had been tricked. His money was returned. Another incident related there refers to someone who specifically requested an egg from a hen which had been fertilized by a rooster. He was brought instead an egg from a hen which had absorbed the semen of the rooster through rolling around on the ground. He too complained to Rabbi Ami and had his money refunded after the egg failed to produce a chick. The sale was considered based on deception. It was understood that the condition attached by the buyer was clear evidence that he did not mean to eat the egg but to hatch it. Unless Rabbi Ami had thought that semen absorbed by the hen indirectly could not result in a chick being hatched, he had no reason to reverse that sale.
2. Some birds produce eggs through oral contact or mere “hugging” with their mates, there being no emission of semen by the male. [Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to an halachic responsum by Rabbi Mendel Kirshenbaum based on the Midrash to Proverbs 30,19: “the way of a man with a virgin.” Ed.] This would prove that the male semen does not form part of the fetus.
3. Female fish produce eggs without ever having been in contact with their male counterparts. These eggs are subsequently sprinkled with male semen. The ones which absorb it hatch in due course, the ones which fail to be sprinkled with semen do not develop. This is a phenomenon we do not only find among the species of living creatures but it occurs all the time amongst the plants. When you take a male palm tree and you graft the branch of a female palm on to it, it becomes capable of producing fruit. The assumption is that the male provides a certain degree of warmth for the female to enable it to produce dates. These are the theories of the leading philosopher (Aristotle) on the subject, including a few of his proofs.

The reason that when the woman performs her part in cohabitation with her husband first the result is a male child and the reverse, is very simple. If the woman has already contributed her part to the process the male semen is added last and as such will assert itself over the already present female part of the resulting embryo. If the male performs his part of the sexual act first this process is reversed and the female asserts its dominance over the semen already absorbed by the woman. If we want to understand this phenomenon more graphically, picture a field which is being seeded. In our parable, the first drop of semen be it male or female, is compared to the soil of the field; the last drop of semen, be it male or female is compared to the grains of seed implanted in the soil of the field. We all know hat that which is contributed last determines the shape and appearance of the ultimate product which the earth produces. Therefore, if the male partner in the union of husband and wife contributes its part first it is like the seed, whereas if the female partner contributes its part first, it is like the soil. Whoever contributes his or her part last determines the nature of the product i.e. a male or female infant.

An approach based on the approach of experts of natural science, i.e. that the man’s semen does not become part of the fetus at all. The statement that when the woman climaxes first the result is a male infant must be understood as follows: when the woman enjoys the warmth and embrace of her husband she concentrates so much on the image of her husband, the male, that this hastens her climax. The mental images she entertained during those moments leave an enduring imprint on the ovum which is fertilised so that a male infant will be born from that union. We have an example of such a result when Yaakov peeled the sticks near the watering troughs in Genesis 30,37. When the flocks became stimulated by the appearance of the white streaks or whatever, which Yaakov arranged to simulate the desired skin pattern he wanted these ewes to give birth to, the stratagem worked perfectly. The important thing was for the mating of these animals to take place while they had these images firmly in focus. There is no difference between the reaction of the males or the females of the species, and the same holds true in an even stronger degree when humans react to visual images of this kind. If even animals which react only instinctively, having no intelligence or power of imagination, react so strongly to such images, people do so even more. If someone is able to control his urges and wait with achieving his climax until after his wife has done so his reward will be that his wife will give birth to a male child. This is what the sages (compare Iggeret Hakodesh page 328 by Nachmanides, Chavell edition) referred to when they explained the meaning of Psalms 127,3: “sons are the provision of the Lord; the fruit of the womb, His reward.” The people so rewarded are the husbands who display patience while lying on their wives’ wombs giving their wives a chance to climax first.

Some people offer an additional meaning for the words: “when a woman climaxes first she will bear male offspring;” they claim that the woman’s “semen” has a hidden power, i.e. the power of the male. [Just as we perceive of G’d’s attribute of Mercy, for instance, to harbour within it a small fraction of the attribute of Justice, and vice versa, so the whole concept of male and female, attributes which were united in one body before Chavah was separated from Adam, also each contains a minute part of its opposite. Ed.] Seeing that woman is a derivative of man, so to speak, it is no more than natural that a male child is a derivative of the female of the species. If woman climaxes first this means that she activated this potential male power within her, whereas the reverse is the case if man climaxes first. Having said this we realise that both man and woman have it within their power to recreate a complete set of human beings, a male and a female, “a complete building.”

If we want to round out this picture, remember that the full name of G’d, the tetragram, does not appear in connection with the entire story of creation until after the creation of the human species. In their commentary on Genesis 2,2 and 2,4 וייצר י-ה-ו-ה אלו-הים את האדם, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 13,3) remark cryptically: “a complete name of G’d applicable to a complete universe.” How is it possible to describe the universe as complete when woman had not yet been created? [We hear about Chavah becoming a separate body only in Genesis 2,22] The answer clearly is that Adam had been equipped with the female hormones, or whatever, to enable him to produce female offspring. This full name of the Lord is used again when G’d is described as building up the side He had removed from Adam into a separate human body, a female, i.e. Chavah. This conveys the idea that Chavah too has been equipped with the potential to reproduce either as male or female. In other words, each human being is theoretically able to determine the gender of the offspring it produces. We have a complete verse illustrating this concept in Genesis 46,15: אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב בפדן ארם ואת דינה בתו כל נפש וגו’, “these were the sons of Leah whom she bore for Yaakov in Padan Aram, and Dinah his daughter; all the persons, etc.” The Torah attributes the male children to the mother and the female children to the father. When we said that the male harbours within him the essence of the female, and the female harbours with her the essence of the male, the meaning is not that as a result of such biological factors a woman can give birth to a female and a male to a male (each unassisted by the other). Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 14,9 have already said that there is no barber who can shave himself, i.e. man or woman each require a partner of the opposite sex in order to perform the act of procreation.

A Midrashic approach to our verse (based on Tanchuma Tazria 3): the words אשה כי תזריע mean that when the woman initiates and climaxes first וילדה זכר, she will give birth to a male child. By inference, when the man climaxes first she will give birth to a female child. This is borne out by the words ואם נקבה תלד, (in connection with the birth of a male child the Torah described a dual process, i.e. climax and birth; when describing the birth of a female child no mention is made of the woman climaxing.) Miracles are performed by G’d with this infant (before it is born).When a person is locked up in a jail for even a single day his entire personality yearns to be set free. The fetus, a human being at some stage, is locked up inside the womb of a woman for nine months and G’d protects it there during the entire period. Rabbi Meir elaborates explaining that during the entire nine months the fetus draws blood from its mother whereas as soon as it is born this blood is transformed into milk and the baby starts nursing from its mother’s breast.

An intellectual approach to our verse: man experiences three different worlds in the course of his existence. He experiences the first such world while he is within his mother’s womb; during this stage man begins to develop and to admire the wondrous ways of his Creator and the greatness of His works. Concerning this stage of man’s development David has said in Psalms 139,15: “My frame was not concealed from You while I was being shaped in a hidden place, knit together in the recesses of the earth.” He had already referred to this phenomenon earlier in verse 14 of the same psalm when he said: “I praise You for I am awesomely, wondrously made; Your work is wonderful.” David was speaking about all the wonderful ways required for G’d to produce a sophisticated creature such as man. The men of the Great Assembly who perfected the liturgy of the daily prayers for us already acknowledged all this when they bade us recite every morning the words: אשר יצר את האדם בחכמה וברא בו נקבים, , “Who has fashioned man with wisdom and provided him with numerous orifices any one of which if not functioning correctly would prove fatal to him” [loosely translated. Ed.]. The signature of this short prayer concludes with ומפליא לעשות, “and doing wonders.” Considerations of this nature prompted Solomon to write in Kohelet 11,5: “Just as you do not know how the life breath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of G’d, who causes all things to happen.” in other words, all of G’d’s works are of a mysterious miraculous nature. Solomon simply uses as an example something we are aware of and familiar with to illustrate a principle which operates throughout the universe. Just as it is beyond our understanding to understand how something spiritual is introduced into the womb, so it is beyond our understanding to understand the workings of G’d’s השגחה, benevolent supervision of what goes on in His universe, and how His designs in it can be assured despite our freedom of choice. Concerning this part of the cosmos and the mysterious ways in which G’d operates within it, Job says (Job 10,9-11): “consider that You fashioned me like clay; will You then turn me into dust? You poured me out like milk, congealed me like cheese; You clothed me with skin and flesh and wove me of bones and sinews.” Job referred to the world in which man spends a strictly limited time, nine months plus a few days at the outside. In that part of his world man is devoid of intelligence and knowledge and is not exposed to external pressures. He would be quite content to remain within this mini-cosmos for all his life seeing that all his needs are taken care of without his having to lift a finger, were it not for the fact that he has no control over being born into a larger cosmos. This is what our sages in Avot (end of fourth chapter) referred to when they said: “man is born against his will.” No wonder man cries at the moment of birth seeing that he leaves behind such an ideal existence. This is merely an indication that the world the baby is born into is one full of pain, disappointments, and confusion. Man had been transferred from the world in which he was formed into the second world he experiences during his existence, this present terrestrial universe. He does have certain advantages compared to the world he has left behind when he left his mother’s womb. In this world as a general rule man’s intellect grows more or less apace with the development of his body. His wisdom keeps increasing until he becomes wise as a result of having studied the Torah and performed its commandments. As a by-product of all this he acquires a degree of understanding of the workings of G’d, his Creator. In spite of all this, man’s stay in this present terrestrial world is of very limited duration, as a rule not exceeding eighty years. When he dies, i.e. is removed from this life, this also occurs against his will, and this has prompted the sages in Avot 4 which we quoted already as commenting on our involuntary birth to say that our death is equally involuntary. Had man been asked about his preference, the chances are that he would have opted to live on earth forever. From this terrestrial universe man is transferred to the third world he will experience, i.e. the world known as עולם הבא, “the world to come,” the world of the future. There are no limitations of time in that world. The delights enjoyed in that world are not transient. In that world man is compensated for all the good deeds he has performed while on earth.

Considering all that we have described, it is clear that man progresses in an ascending manner from one world to the next, from good to better to best. The first world man lives in is dark. The second world man lives in is illuminated by two luminaries, the sun and the moon. In the third world man will attain is full of unbounded brilliant light. That world knows no boundaries and no darkness. Solomon alludes to all these three worlds in a single verse (Kohelet 7,1) when he says: “a good name is better than fragrant oil, and the day of death than the day of birth.” This verse has to be understood in the following manner: “the treasures” i.e. accumulated merits man acquired while alive on earth, and in store for him in the celestial regions are superior to even the most fragrant oils on earth; oil, i.e. body-oil for rubbing, is perceived as a means to make the body feel good and to enhance the quality of life on earth. Solomon says that what is in store for the soul in the world to come is better than the best of what the body can experience here on earth. He also uses the word “oil” as a commodity similar to “money,” saying that all the money in this world cannot compete with the spiritual treasures in the next world. His meaning is similar to that in Proverbs 21,20: “precious treasure and oil are in the house of the wise man.” The words: “and the day of death is better than the day of his birth,” mean that that day is better than the world the fetus spent in his mother’s womb. Solomon’s point is that just as the terrestrial world is superior to the fetus’ existence within the womb of his mother, so the world to come is superior to life on terrestrial earth. That life is the follow-up of death in the world of the womb. In other words, leaving behind the life in the womb, “dying” from it, is an improvement on what went before; similarly leaving behind life on this earth ushers in an even better life for the person concerned, hence “the day of death is better than the day of entry into that life which one leaves behind.” Solomon follows the principle that phenomena with which we are familiar, i.e. life in the womb and life on earth and their relative pleasures provide us with a clue to what is ahead and has not yet been experienced.

וטמאה שבעת ימים, “as a result she will remain in a state of ritual impurity for seven days.” It is G’d’s decree that just as the state of impurity lasts for seven days, the purification rites require seven days. The number “seven” applies equally to days of impurity, days of purification, days of joy (after a wedding or the duration of certain festivals) and days of mourning.

כימי נדת דותה תטמא, “her impurity is as long as her impurity due to menstruation.” The expression דותה is derived from מדוה, a description of a “natural” sickness, i.e. the menstruation period a woman experiences at regular intervals. Our sages (Niddah 9) have also explained that during such a period a woman’s heads and limbs feel very heavy. Although the excretion of blood by the woman every month is the excretion of superfluous material, it is still considered a disease. The word נדה means to “be distant;” similarly the word מנודה is a term for people who have been ostracised, banished and banned from society. The term is used in Nedarim 4 in connection with someone vowing to not benefit from certain people’s belongings or eating a meal at their place, or not to come within 4 cubits of the property of such a person. The reason a menstruous woman is referred to as נדה is that other people shun her, keep their distance from her while she is in the throes of that disease. Even her women friends keep their distance from her. She usually spends that period in isolation. Throughout ancient history all the nations considered that period in a woman’s monthly cycle as one requiring her to be isolated, even considering the earth a woman in such circumstances walked on as contaminated. One did not speak to such a woman for fear of being contaminated. When Lavan wanted to search Rachel’s tent and she apologized for not rising in his honour (she was sitting on the teraphim her father was searching for) we note that Lavan did not speak a single word to her. This was because it was considered unhealthy to engage in conversation with a menstruating woman. Clearly, Rachel was sitting isolated in her tent, presumably without any maidservant at her side. The exhalations of such a woman and the odors coming from her were all considered potentially contaminating (compare Genesis 31,34-35). [Halachah, of course, does not recognize such superstitions and in the main a woman’s state of being נדה affects her husband’s relations with her and her inability to touch sacred objects including food for sacred purposes which she would contaminate by her touch. Ed.] According to Nachmanides even what such a woman looked at was considered as harmful, similarly to the evil eye. (Nachmanides on Leviticus 18,19 reports that when a menstruous woman in the very beginning of her period looks at a gleaming sword or mirror, drops of blood can be seen on that sword or mirror according to the eye witness reports of some “scientists.”) It is clear that if even some of all this is true cohabiting with a woman while she is in that state is a health hazard to her partner.

וביום השמיני ימול, “and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised.” The word ביום means that even if that day happens to be a Sabbath circumcision is to be performed (Shabbat 131). This holds true only when one can be absolutely certain that the Sabbath is indeed the eighth day after the baby’s birth. When there is any doubt about this, such as the baby being born after sunset but before dark, the circumcision is postponed as we do no desecrate the Sabbath unless we are sure thereby to comply with the Torah’s instructions. The Talmud Shabbat 137 states that an infant may legally be circumcised (earliest opportunity) either on the eighth, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh or the twelfth day of his life. He must not be circumcised sooner, and unless sick and weak not later (on pain of neglecting performance of a positive commandment incumbent on the father). If the baby has been born clearly during the day or night and is healthy he is to be circumcised on the eighth day. If he was born during dusk he is to be circumcised one day later providing that day is neither Sabbath or festival. If he is born at dusk on Friday he is to be circumcised on Sunday, i.e. the tenth day. If the Sabbath is followed by a festival such as Passover or Tabernacles his circumcision takes place on Monday, i.e. the eleventh day. If the Sabbath is followed by New Year, he is circumcised on the twelfth day of his life, i.e. on the Tuesday following New Year. If the baby was sick, circumcision is postponed until after he is well again.

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 5). The wicked Roman governor Turnusrufus once asked Rabbi Akiva whose works were more beautiful (beneficial to mankind) G’d’s or man’s? Rabbi Akiva answered that man’s accomplishments were superior. Turnusrufus, [taken aback by the unexpected answer, Ed.] countered: “can man then create heaven and earth that you say man’s accomplishments are greater than G’d’s?” Rabbi Akiva answered: “do not speak to me of matters which are above earth or below earth (beyond the human habitat), but let us discuss only matters within man’s province. Thereupon Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “why do you people perform the rites of circumcision?” Rabbi Akiva said: “did I not know that this was the question which really troubled you! This is precisely why I told you right away that man’s accomplishments on earth are greater than G’d’s.” Rabbi Akiva proceeded to illustrate his point and brought Turnusrufus both ears of corns and hot rolls. He pointed to the former, saying “this is G’d’s work;” then he pointed to the rolls and said: “this is man’s work!.” Turnusrufus then said: “if your G’d is so desirous of the male infant being circumcised why did He not arrange for it to be born this way?” To this Rabbi Akiva replied: “why does the baby’s navel get born with it, trailing behind, so that its mother has to sever it?” As to your question why the infant is not born without a foreskin, the reason is that G’d gave us His commandments in order to refine human beings through their observance. This is the meaning of Proverbs 30,5: “every word of G’d is meant to purify.”

ושלושים יום ושלושת ימים, “and for the thirty-three days following, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the 33 days of purification were decreed to combine with the seven days of impurity in order to complete a cycle of forty days. The fetus required forty days after its mother conceived to become something in its own right. A kabbalistic approach: The thirty-three days given to the woman (during which she cannot halachically become a menstruant) were given to her as corresponding to the bride in Song of Songs who is viewed as possessing the thirty-two paths of wisdom. She is presumed to join these thirty-two paths thus making a total of thirty-three [the concept of אחותי כלה “the bride is my sister,” (Song of Songs 4,10) means in kabbalistic terms that “wisdom is my sister,” i.e. [I attach myself to wisdom as one is attached to one’s sister.” Ed.] the כלה is perceived as “carrying,” supporting these thirty-two paths of wisdom.

תשב, “she will sit, etc.” Rashi explains that the word תשב is not to be understood in its literal sense, i.e. that this woman has to remain seated; the meaning is that during these thirty-three days she may remain in the immediate vicinity of her husband without having to worry about contracting ritual impurity issuing from her body. The word תשב in the sense of remaining in a location for an extended period is found in Deut. 1,46: ”you dwelt in Kadesh for many years.” The meaning of the whole verse then is as follows: “she will have to wait for 33 days before being allowed to touch sacred things without contaminating them, and she must not enter the Sanctuary. This in spite of the fact that as far as her husband is concerned she is ritually pure and is allowed to cohabit with him.” Nachmanides understands the word תשב in this instance as referring to marital relations, similar to Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי ולא תזני ולא תהיי לאיש, “you are to go for a long time without sexual intercourse or marrying.” Any woman living with her husband and having normal relations with him is called יושבת לו. Seeing that the Torah had referred to the first seven days after her giving birth as days during which she was suffering a ritual impurity similar to that of a menstruous woman, the Torah had to contrast her status during the following 33 days with her previous status.

Maimonides in Sefer Kedushah (Issurei Biah 11,15) writes in a similar vein. These are his words: “the fact that you find in some places (books) and in some responsa of the Gaonim that a woman must not cohabit with her husband for forty days after having given birth to a male child, and not for 80 days after having given birth to a female child even though she had not seen any blood from her normal source of blood during all those days, is an unacceptable practice based on an error. This error has crept into their writings through their copying something from the Sadducees. It is a duty to disabuse scholars of such an error so that they no longer practice heretical practices introduced by the Sadducees. We must ensure that the rulings of the sages that the woman has to count only seven days after giving birth to a male child before being able to cohabit with her husband are upheld.”

בדמי טהרה, “in the blood of her purification.” The words mean that such blood is ritually pure. The expression is used by the Torah to contrast this blood with blood issuing forth from a menstruous woman.

Ibn Ezra wrote that G’d decreed that the number of days such a state of affairs continues for the male child is shorter because it takes forty days for the embryo to gain some substance, for its major components to become recognisable within the womb. In the case of a female fetus this development requires twice as much time, i.e. 80 days. This is why there is a residue of ritual impurity for eighty days

Our sages (majority view, not the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in Niddah 30, on which Ibn Ezra based himself) hold that the time for a male or female fetus to develop is identical. According to their opinion the reason why the Torah legislated twice the amount of time for both impurity and partial impurity in the case of a female baby being born is that the female is cold and wet and as a result the mother needs more time to recover from the birth of a female baby. [An alternative reason offered also by Rabbi Dr. D. Hoffman is that the Torah may have wanted the mother to be pure at the time her son would be circumcised. This act, in turn, would hasten the progress of her recovery so that all traces of impurity disappear already at the end of forty days. Ed.]

וכפר עליה, “and atone for her, etc.” The word כפרה, “atonement,” is never used except when applicable to a sin. This is why the very institution of the sin-offering which the woman who has given birth has to bring strikes one as just as unique as that which the Torah demanded of the Nazir, the person who voluntarily abstained from wine, grape-associated products, and impurity (Numbers 6,14). What sin did the woman commit at the time she gave birth that the Torah should impose upon her the need to offer a sin-offering? If this sacrifice were meant to express her gratitude that she was saved from the danger attending every birth, the Torah should have prescribed that she bring a קרבן תודה, a thanksgiving offering! Why demand that she bring a sin-offering?

It is possible to understand the reason for this offering as not so much related to her as to her “mother,” i.e. the first woman Chavah, who had committed the first sin as a result of which all women subsequently had to endure painful deliveries, pains of menstruation, separation from their husbands, etc. Had Chavah not been guilty of introducing disobedience to G’d’s command women would have been spared all this. The whole process of giving birth would have remained as natural a process as for trees to yield their fruit. Trees do not have to experience desire in order to become fertilized and to yield their fruit year after year. This woman who gave birth now may be perceived as the branch of a contaminated root, daughter of a corrupted mother and as such some of the mother’s contamination was transmitted to her. Hence the Torah requires that she atones for this by bringing a sin-offering after giving birth. By doing so she does her part in helping to atone for the original sin of Chavah. In fact, we find that we are taught in Shabbat 31 that women have been commanded to observe three commandments specifically to help undo the spiritual damage caused to the species of man by their original “mother.” They are 1) the observance of a state of impurity with subsequent purification during their regular menstruation cycles. 2) חלה, the separating (and while the Temple was standing giving to the Priest) of the first part of any dough they bake from the five species of grain (Numbers 15,20-21), and 3) the lighting of the Shabbat candles every Friday night. [The last two commandments devolve on the male when there is no woman at hand. Ed.] In fact, according to the Talmud there, failure to observe these three commandments meticulously may result in their dying during childbirth. Seeing that that particular sin was preceded by the sinful thought before it was actually carried out, the woman offers both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering after giving birth; the first offering atones for the sinful thought and the second for the sinful deed (compare verse 5). This is the reason the Torah wrote of the requirement for the woman to bring a burnt-offering before mentioning the need for her to bring a sin-offering. In all other instances where the sin-offering has to be brought on account of a sin committed by the person bringing the offering, the Torah demands that he first cleanse himself spiritually by atoning for the deed before bringing the burnt-offering. When the Talmud Zevachim 90 states that when the Torah wrote the words אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, “one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering,” (verse 8) that the actual presentation of these two offerings does not follow the order in which the two offerings are listed here, this supports our contention that the reason the Torah reversed the order in which the legislation is written is meant to teach us the lesson we mentioned, i.e. that the sinful intention preceded Chavah’s eating of the fruit of that tree, i.e. the offering we speak of here was not in penitence for an unintentional inadvertently committed sin as are most other sin-offerings. According to the opinion of our sages (Niddah 31) the reason for the sin-offering the mother has to bring is that she presumably was guilty of swearing off marital relations with her husband seeing that the experience of giving birth was so painful and the pregnancy so uncomfortable. Her offering atones for such a lapse on her part. Seeing her oath at the time was due to her being in pain, and she is not a free agent allowed to deny her husband his marital rights, she has committed a culpable sin, i.e. she needs to atone with a burnt-offering for her sinful intent.