(א) בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ מֶֽלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּ֒שָֽׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לַעֲסֹק בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה:
(1) Blessed are You, Adonoy our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified1The observance and fulfillment of His commandments makes a person holy. us with His commandments and commanded us to be engrossed in the words of Torah.
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר וְטָֽמְאָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים כִּימֵ֛י נִדַּ֥ת דְּוֺתָ֖הּ תִּטְמָֽא׃ וּבַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב בִּדְמֵ֣י טָהֳרָ֑ה בְּכָל־קֹ֣דֶשׁ לֹֽא־תִגָּ֗ע וְאֶל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א תָבֹ֔א עַד־מְלֹ֖את יְמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽהּ׃ וְאִם־נְקֵבָ֣ה תֵלֵ֔ד וְטָמְאָ֥ה שְׁבֻעַ֖יִם כְּנִדָּתָ֑הּ וְשִׁשִּׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב עַל־דְּמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽה׃ וּבִמְלֹ֣את ׀ יְמֵ֣י טָהֳרָ֗הּ לְבֵן֮ א֣וֹ לְבַת֒ תָּבִ֞יא כֶּ֤בֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה וּבֶן־יוֹנָ֥ה אוֹ־תֹ֖ר לְחַטָּ֑את אֶל־פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ וְהִקְרִיב֞וֹ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ וְכִפֶּ֣ר עָלֶ֔יהָ וְטָהֲרָ֖ה מִמְּקֹ֣ר דָּמֶ֑יהָ זֹ֤את תּוֹרַת֙ הַיֹּלֶ֔דֶת לַזָּכָ֖ר א֥וֹ לַנְּקֵבָֽה׃ וְאִם־לֹ֨א תִמְצָ֣א יָדָהּ֮ דֵּ֣י שֶׂה֒ וְלָקְחָ֣ה שְׁתֵּֽי־תֹרִ֗ים א֤וֹ שְׁנֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יוֹנָ֔ה אֶחָ֥ד לְעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶחָ֣ד לְחַטָּ֑את וְכִפֶּ֥ר עָלֶ֛יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְטָהֵֽרָה׃ (פ)
Hashem spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity.— On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.— She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days. On the completion of her period of purification, for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. He shall offer it before Hashem and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female. If, however, her means do not suffice for a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean.
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
The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For what reason does the Torah say that a woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time that a woman crouches to give birth, her pain is so great that she impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husband ever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. Therefore, the Torah says that she must bring an offering for violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband.
והקריבו לפני ה' וכפר עליה וטהרה ממקור דמיה יאמר שתקריב כופר נפשה לפני ה' שתטהר ממקור דמיה כי האשה בלדתה תהיה לה מעין נרפס ומקור משחת ואחרי עמדה בימי הנקיון או בימי יצירת הולד לזכר או לנקבה תביא כופר נפשה שיעמוד מקורה ושתטהר כי השם יתעלה רופא כל בשר ומפליא לעשות ורבותינו אמרו (נדה לא) בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת לא אזקק עוד לבעלי ועיקר הכונה בזה כי בעבור שהיא נשבעת מתוך הצער ואין השבועה ראויה להתקיים מפני היותה משועבדת לבעלה רצתה התורה לכפר לה מעלות רוחה ומחשבות השם יתברך עמוקות ורחמיו מרובים שהוא רוצה להצדיק בריותיו:
AND HE SHALL OFFER IT BEFORE THE ETERNAL, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER; AND SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF HER BLOOD. Scripture is stating that she shall offer a ransom for her soul40See Exodus 30:12. before the Eternal so that she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood, for a woman in childbirth has a troubled fountain and a tainted spring,41Proverbs 25:26. and after she has completed the number of days of becoming clean [as explained above in Verse 4], or the days of the formation of the child, male or female,42This is a reference to Ibn Ezra’s explanation mentioned by Ramban (above, Verse 4). In other words, after she has completed the forty-day period for a male child and eighty days for a female — whether the reason that the Torah decreed these days is as Ramban explained it, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, or as Ibn Ezra explained it in accordance with that of Rabbi Yishmael (ibid.) — she shall then bring etc. she shall then bring a ransom for her soul so that her fountain should be stayed, and that she should become cleansed, for G-d, praised be He, “heals all flesh and does wondrously.”43Berachoth 60 b.
Now our Rabbis have said44Niddah 31 b. that [the reason for these offerings is] that at the moment that she bends down to give birth she rashly swears [because of the pains of childbirth]: “I will no longer have relationships with my husband” [so as not to conceive again]. The main purport of this statement of the Rabbis is that since she only swears on account of her pain, and the oath is moreover not capable of fulfillment, because she is subject to her husband, therefore the Torah wished for her to atone for that which came into her mind [and therefore commanded her to bring these offerings]. G-d’s thoughts, blessed be He, are deep,45See Psalms 92:6. and His mercies are bountiful, for it is His desire to justify His creatures.
Now our Rabbis have said44Niddah 31 b. that [the reason for these offerings is] that at the moment that she bends down to give birth she rashly swears [because of the pains of childbirth]: “I will no longer have relationships with my husband” [so as not to conceive again]. The main purport of this statement of the Rabbis is that since she only swears on account of her pain, and the oath is moreover not capable of fulfillment, because she is subject to her husband, therefore the Torah wished for her to atone for that which came into her mind [and therefore commanded her to bring these offerings]. G-d’s thoughts, blessed be He, are deep,45See Psalms 92:6. and His mercies are bountiful, for it is His desire to justify His creatures.
From "Parashat Tazria: Atonement After Childbirth / Chodesh Adar Bet" by Pamela Gottfried at https://meltonschool.org/blogs/parashat-tazria-atonement-after-childbirth-chodesh-adar-bet
My first encounter with Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s explanation of this verse was during my sophomore year of college, when my feminist ideology was emerging as I studied Jewish history and literature at Bryn Mawr College. The classical rabbinic material on women struck me as typically patriarchal fare—male rabbis who had never experienced or even witnessed childbirth projecting their fears and misapprehensions onto a singularly female act of physical strength.
Ten years later, following the birth of my first child, I reread the sages’ words not as a pronouncement of judgment but rather as a reflection of compassion. Having sworn in this exact fashion through gritted teeth during an intensely painful contraction and having immediately relented when the nurse placed my newborn daughter in my arms, I understood the texts differently. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s explanation was an expression of his awe that a woman in the throes of childbirth can be lucid enough to make an oath at all.
As Parashat Tazria approaches in the Torah reading cycle, I anticipate my next encounter with this verse as a middle-aged mother of three, now a seasoned feminist and lifelong learner. Not only the act of childbirth, but also decades of parenthood, has taught me humility. I contemplate the many times I’ve hastily uttered, “I’ll never do such-and-such to my child.” It would be so much easier to bring a sin offering to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting than to seek forgiveness for broken promises, to atone for oaths made in vain.
My first encounter with Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s explanation of this verse was during my sophomore year of college, when my feminist ideology was emerging as I studied Jewish history and literature at Bryn Mawr College. The classical rabbinic material on women struck me as typically patriarchal fare—male rabbis who had never experienced or even witnessed childbirth projecting their fears and misapprehensions onto a singularly female act of physical strength.
Ten years later, following the birth of my first child, I reread the sages’ words not as a pronouncement of judgment but rather as a reflection of compassion. Having sworn in this exact fashion through gritted teeth during an intensely painful contraction and having immediately relented when the nurse placed my newborn daughter in my arms, I understood the texts differently. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai’s explanation was an expression of his awe that a woman in the throes of childbirth can be lucid enough to make an oath at all.
As Parashat Tazria approaches in the Torah reading cycle, I anticipate my next encounter with this verse as a middle-aged mother of three, now a seasoned feminist and lifelong learner. Not only the act of childbirth, but also decades of parenthood, has taught me humility. I contemplate the many times I’ve hastily uttered, “I’ll never do such-and-such to my child.” It would be so much easier to bring a sin offering to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting than to seek forgiveness for broken promises, to atone for oaths made in vain.
וכפר עליה. אין לשון כפרה נופל כי אם על החטא, ולפיכך קרבן זה של יולדת מחודש כקרבן הנזיר, כי מה חטאה בזמן הלידה שתצריכנה התורה קרבן, ואם זה הקרבן הוא על שבאה בסכנה ונצלה מהמיתה, היה ראוי לה שתביא תודה, ולמה תביא עולה וחטאת.
ויתכן לפרש שאין הקרבן הזה מצד חטא של עצמה רק מצד אמה שהיא היתה אם כל חי, כי לולא החטא ההוא היה האדם מוליד עם אשתו שלא בדרך תאוה וחשק אלא בדרך הטבע הגמור, כטבע האילן המוציא פירותיו בכל שנה שלא בתאוה, והיולדת הזו כאמה בתה במעשה החטא, כי הענפים הם מקולקלים בקלקול השורש, ועל כן יצריכנה הכתוב קרבן לכפר על החטא הקדמוני, שכן נצטוה בסבת אותו החטא על שלש מצות, והן נדה וחלה והדלקת הנר. ולפי שהחטא ההוא היה תחלה במחשבה ואח"כ במעשה ומפני זה הזכיר בקרבן יולדת אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, כנגד חטא המחשבה וחטא המעשה, ומפני זה הקדים עולה לחטאת, מה שאין כן בשאר הקרבנות שהחטאת קודמת לעולה בכולן, וזה ששנינו בזבחים אחד לעולה ואחד לחטאת, לא הקדימו הכתוב אלא למקראה, והכוונה שלא הקדים הכתוב עולה לחטאת להיותה קודמת במעשה. אבל הענין הקדימה במקראה הוא מטעם זה, לרמוז על חטא המחשבה ההיא שקדם לחטא המעשה, ולדעת רז"ל חטא היולדת הוא שעברה על השבועה, ממה שאמרו בשעה שהיא כורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת לא אזקק עוד לבעלי, ולפי שהיא נשבעת מתוך הצער ואין השבועה ראויה שתתקיים מפני שהיא משועבדת לבעלה, על כן יצריכנה הכתוב קרבן לכפר על חטא המחשבה.
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.
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.
From "The Sacrifices of Childbirth (Tazria 5779)" by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks at https://rabbisacks.org/the-sacrifices-of-childbirth-tazria-5779/
The child will one day sin: “There is none on earth so righteous as to do only good and never sin,” says Ecclesiastes (7:20). So a mother brings a sin offering in advance to atone, as it were, for any sin the child may commit while still a child, as if to say: “God, you knew humans would sin, yet still You created them and commanded us to bring new lives into the world. Therefore, please accept this sin offering in advance for any wrong my child may do.”
Parents are responsible in Jewish law for sins their children commit. That is why, when a child becomes bar or bat mitzvah, a parent makes the blessing thanking God “for making me exempt from the punishment that might have accrued to me through this one.”[10]
Thus the sacrifices a woman brings on the birth of a child, and the period during which she is unable to enter the Temple, have nothing to do with any sin she may have committed or any “defilement” she may have undergone. They are, rather, to do with the basic fact of human mortality, together with the responsibility a parent undertakes for the conduct of a child, and an acknowledgement that every new life is the gift of God.
The child will one day sin: “There is none on earth so righteous as to do only good and never sin,” says Ecclesiastes (7:20). So a mother brings a sin offering in advance to atone, as it were, for any sin the child may commit while still a child, as if to say: “God, you knew humans would sin, yet still You created them and commanded us to bring new lives into the world. Therefore, please accept this sin offering in advance for any wrong my child may do.”
Parents are responsible in Jewish law for sins their children commit. That is why, when a child becomes bar or bat mitzvah, a parent makes the blessing thanking God “for making me exempt from the punishment that might have accrued to me through this one.”[10]
Thus the sacrifices a woman brings on the birth of a child, and the period during which she is unable to enter the Temple, have nothing to do with any sin she may have committed or any “defilement” she may have undergone. They are, rather, to do with the basic fact of human mortality, together with the responsibility a parent undertakes for the conduct of a child, and an acknowledgement that every new life is the gift of God.
כי תזריע. לְרַבּוֹת שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ יְלָדַתּוּ מָחוּי — שֶׁנִּמְחָה וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּעֵין זֶרַע — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה (נדה כ"ז):
כי תזריע — These words are superfluous, כי ילדה would suffice — they mean literally, ”if she bringeth forth seed” and are employed to include the case that if she gave birth to him (the male child) as a pulpy mass which had dissolved, having become liquified like seed, even then its mother becomes unclean as though it were a normal birth (Niddah 27b).
וכפר עליה כי כל ימי זוב טומאתה תהיינה כל מחשבותיה פונות אל עסקי כלי הזרע ופעולתם, ולא תהיה ראויה למקדש וקדשיו עד שתביא כפרתה ותפנה אל הקודש:
וכפר עליה, for during all the days that she had been excreting blood her thoughts had been preoccupied with the phenomenon of semen, etc, and she had therefore not been in a fit state of mind to enter the precincts of the Temple and offer sacred matters.
From "The Early Weeks of Pregnancy Do Not Need to Be Isolating" by Rabbi Nicole Auerbach at https://forward.com/life/307061/telling-your-miscarriage-story/
. . .Concerned with maintaining secure boundaries between holy and profane, and between life and death, the authors of Leviticus envision a world in which everything is either “tahor” or “tamei.” Typically these words are translated as meaning “pure” and “impure” or “clean” and “unclean.” But what is unclean, or impure about a woman who has given birth?
As Professor David Kraemer explains, citing Rabbi Eliezer, the term tahor is used to mark what is rightfully in our realm; tamei designates that which belongs to God. “We cannot eat the ‘impure’ animal,” he explains, “because God, its creator, has not granted us the right to do so. Its impurity marks it as ‘out of bounds.’” Likewise, “life and death,” and by extension, pregnancy and birth, “are in the realm of God.” Contact with God’s realm is what renders us tamei. When a woman gives birth, the Levitical system recognizes that she has breached the boundary between God’s domain and our own. It therefore creates ritual means for reestablishing that boundary and bring her back into community.
I had read this portion many, many times before. But this time, I found myself becoming angry. I wanted to know: “What if a pregnancy ended before you knew if it was a boy or a girl? How long would we remain tamei then? Would we pretend it never happened? What kind of sacrifice accounts for a life that ends before it begins? It seems to me that any system designed to make firm the slippery boundaries between life and death needs to account for that dark and unbounded space in which too many of us find ourselves as we try to bring life into this world.
According to our commentators, the word “tazria” itself does just that, by encompassing the realities of both birth and pregnancy loss. They read: “Isha ki tazria v’yaldah zachar.” and ask: What is the word “tazria” doing here? After all, if it means simply to give birth, that is covered by the more common “yaldah.” Both Rashi and Ramban suggest that because “‘tazria’ literally means ‘to give forth seed’, even if the embryo has lost its human form, and what emerges appears like the ‘seed’ that went into her,” the mother is treated as having given birth. They acknowledge what we too often seek to ignore – that not all pregnancies end with a child. They insist that even when a pregnancy dissolves into something that resembles only the primordial beginnings of life, we cannot pretend that nothing happened. We must instead ritually recognize that the woman took part, albeit too briefly, in the act of creation. . .
. . .Concerned with maintaining secure boundaries between holy and profane, and between life and death, the authors of Leviticus envision a world in which everything is either “tahor” or “tamei.” Typically these words are translated as meaning “pure” and “impure” or “clean” and “unclean.” But what is unclean, or impure about a woman who has given birth?
As Professor David Kraemer explains, citing Rabbi Eliezer, the term tahor is used to mark what is rightfully in our realm; tamei designates that which belongs to God. “We cannot eat the ‘impure’ animal,” he explains, “because God, its creator, has not granted us the right to do so. Its impurity marks it as ‘out of bounds.’” Likewise, “life and death,” and by extension, pregnancy and birth, “are in the realm of God.” Contact with God’s realm is what renders us tamei. When a woman gives birth, the Levitical system recognizes that she has breached the boundary between God’s domain and our own. It therefore creates ritual means for reestablishing that boundary and bring her back into community.
I had read this portion many, many times before. But this time, I found myself becoming angry. I wanted to know: “What if a pregnancy ended before you knew if it was a boy or a girl? How long would we remain tamei then? Would we pretend it never happened? What kind of sacrifice accounts for a life that ends before it begins? It seems to me that any system designed to make firm the slippery boundaries between life and death needs to account for that dark and unbounded space in which too many of us find ourselves as we try to bring life into this world.
According to our commentators, the word “tazria” itself does just that, by encompassing the realities of both birth and pregnancy loss. They read: “Isha ki tazria v’yaldah zachar.” and ask: What is the word “tazria” doing here? After all, if it means simply to give birth, that is covered by the more common “yaldah.” Both Rashi and Ramban suggest that because “‘tazria’ literally means ‘to give forth seed’, even if the embryo has lost its human form, and what emerges appears like the ‘seed’ that went into her,” the mother is treated as having given birth. They acknowledge what we too often seek to ignore – that not all pregnancies end with a child. They insist that even when a pregnancy dissolves into something that resembles only the primordial beginnings of life, we cannot pretend that nothing happened. We must instead ritually recognize that the woman took part, albeit too briefly, in the act of creation. . .