What was the reason for a mother to be unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy?

tonychanyt said:

Leviticus 12:


The mother giving birth to a boy was to be unclean for a total of 40 days.


For giving birth to a girl, she would be unclean for 80 days.

Why this doubling of days?

I don't know any good answers to this except the obvious: this law favored boys over girls. Back then, it was a patriarchal society, and this societal preference was codified in this ritual law. This law wasn't about gender equality; the text itself provided no rationale for the difference; it simply stated the law. You need to think of this law in its cultural socio-economical context.

Modern people do not like this simple answer and try to push it away with other gymnastic explanations and spaghetti logic.

Click to expand...

There are a couple of those laws that seem "discriminatory" that actually tend to ameliorate some misogynistic factor of the Hebrew society. For instance, "unclean" periods as a practical matter of the day were good things for women...those were vacations. This may be one of those whose practical utility we don't recognize today.

tonychanyt said:

Any reference?

Click to expand...

I just gave you a reference. It's in the very passage you're discussing.

We think, retroactively, that being "unclean" is a bad thing. But put it back into its time and place and imagine living through it. Remember that it was only men who had ceremonial duties anyway. Being ceremonially unclean was not a negative for women. For those women, to become ceremonially unclean by fiat of the law law rather than misadventure was a vacation. It was time off from virtually all their home duties.

It was certainly a great thing during their menstrual periods, which would have been awful in the pre-tampon, pre-Advil era. A woman wouldn't have been required leave the "red tent" for anything other than her own needs.

tonychanyt said:

The biblical reference does not say "vacations". Do you have any scholarly references to support "vacations"?

Click to expand...

There is no moral error ascribed to her temporary "unclean" state, and she had no ceremonial duties to attend to anyway.

The woman gets to stay home (probably in the "red tent") and not do any "wifely duties" or normal household chores. She can't touch anything her husband might touch and can't prepare any of his food.

Ask your wife if that's not a vacation.

This is not only not obvious but is obviously biased - in some error of a man's thinking/sinning, but I do not know why.

tonychanyt said:

don't know any good answers to this except the obvious: this law favored boys over girls. Back then, it was a patriarchal society, and this societal preference was codified in this ritual law. This law wasn't about gender equality; the text itself provided no rationale for the difference; it simply stated the law. You need to think of this law in its cultural socio-economical context.

Click to expand...

God's Law is Perfect, enlightening the soul..... Believe God and Obey Him.

KJV: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
DRB: But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses, and she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.
DBT: And if she bear a female, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation; and she shall continue sixty-six days in the blood of her cleansing.
ERV: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
WBT: But if she shall bear a female-child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty six days.
WEB: But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days.
YLT: 'And if a female she bear, then she hath been unclean two weeks, as in her separation; and sixty and six days she doth abide for the blood of her cleansing.

tonychanyt said:

Leviticus 12:


The mother giving birth to a boy was to be unclean for a total of 40 days.


For giving birth to a girl, she would be unclean for 80 days.

Why this doubling of days?

I don't know any good answers to this except the obvious: this law favored boys over girls. Back then, it was a patriarchal society, and this societal preference was codified in this ritual law. This law wasn't about gender equality; the text itself provided no rationale for the difference; it simply stated the law. You need to think of this law in its cultural socio-economical context.

Modern people do not like this simple answer and try to push it away with other gymnastic explanations and spaghetti logic.

Click to expand...

On the scientific side ....

After giving birth, a woman's blood changes from bright red to brown, yellow, and white over several weeks. This is called lochia, and it's a normal part of the healing process.

Perhaps it was to give a woman more time to heal.

eleos1954 said:

On the scientific side ....

After giving birth, a woman's blood changes from bright red to brown, yellow, and white over several weeks. This is called lochia, and it's a normal part of the healing process.

Perhaps it was to give a woman more time to heal.

Click to expand...

Hi eleos
I think the follow-up question is does the healing process differ significantly when giving birth to a girl?

Rose_bud said:

Hi eleos
I think the follow-up question is does the healing process differ significantly when giving birth to a girl?

Click to expand...

It may have been more about the husband's attitude toward his wife. He probably needed more time to "heal" after she gave birth to a girl, while she had a legal excuse to be out of his presence.

RDKirk said:

It may have been more about the husband's attitude toward his wife. He probably needed more time to "heal" after she gave birth to a girl, while she had a legal excuse to be out of his presence.

Click to expand...

You may be right here, the laws for menstruation that separated women from men may of had the added benefit of breaking from sexual duties, especially for those who may have been mistreated.

I digged abit following eloes science approach on the Jewish laws of menstruation (niddah).

"After the fourteen days of niddah impurity after the birth of a female child, any blood the woman sees is considered blood of purification. She is forbidden to go to the Temple but is pure for her spouse. It is possible that the doubling of days is due to the fact that the infant girl may have a discharge of uterine blood as a result of the hormone withdrawal at birth from her mother’s pregnant state. This occurs in a certain percentage of infants and the discharge of blood or, more commonly, blood-stained mucus, is nearly always for three days on the fifth, sixth, and seventh days after birth. In that case the infant would be seeing uterine blood at a time that is not at the time of her period because menarche is due only some twelve years hence. As a result, the infant is considered a zava, a female with abnormal uterine bleeding. Her mother then would be subject to the laws of one who has birth impurity for the first seven days but also one who has contact with the discharges of a zava. She could not become pure until the baby girl counted seven clean days (days 8–14), after which her saliva while nursing would not transfer zava impurity"

It seems that the doubling of days for menstruation impurity after the birth of a girl child might be related to the possibility of the baby girl experiencing uterine bleeding due to hormone withdrawal after birth. Classifying her as one having an irregular loss of blood, making the mother subject to additional laws and restrictions.

According to medical sources, pseudo-menstruation is caused by the withdrawal of hormones which she was exposed to in the womb. Not an uncommon occurrence for baby girls.

So although the mother is cleared from the ritual impurity, it's the baby girl who experiences a pseudo-menstruation that increases the separation. This then simultaneously retains birthing a girl to issues of blood, which she also experiences later in life.

Was if it one of the many commands in the Mosaic laws or a later Jewish manmade ritual? Would be a question to run by a Rabbinate for current orthodoxy as well as its health/medical rationale.