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

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).

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.”

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The MS here actually has an erasure: לזכר ולנקבה ולנידה

All translations of rabbinic literature are mine unless stated otherwise.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

^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.

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.

"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.”

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.

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.

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.

^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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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).