Sinful to have a baby?

[Lulav]

Reading todays Torah portion and I am wondering again, why is is sinful to have a child? Why must the mother take a sin offering after her days of separation?

Why is it only a total of 40 days for a male child and twice as long, 80 days for a female child?

Which makes me think of Miriam going to the temple with her turtledove. Was it sinful to bear the Messiah?

 

[Lulav]

Why does the same ritual appear for a leprous man when he is clean as that for the initiation of the high priest?

Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. EX 29:20

12 And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: 13 And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy: 14 And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed , and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot: Lev :14

 

[Lemmiwinks]

Normal bodily functions, like childbirth, are not sinful. I don't understand 99% of the things in Leviticus and I have stopped trying to.

 

[lifeinlavender]

I didn't think it was necessarily sin that was the issue, rather uncleanliness. From what I understand sin and uncleanliness are not the same things, and there are different rituals for each. I thought she was not considered clean enough to go into the temple until she had been cleansed from childbirth.

However, I have always wondered the same as you about the amount of days for boy vs girl. Why is a girl any more unclean than a boy? Is it because of the female causing the fall of man? I would love to know the answer to this.

ETA: Totally off topic, but how do I get rid of the dragon pets under my name?

 

[Lulav]

Yes, I understand the uncleanness part, but not for childbirth. When a woman has her monthly time, the uncleanness comes from death. The death of the unfertilized egg. This is the reason for separation. Also why we are required to wash after marital relations. (Both the husband and the wife the shared death of the seeds).

But with a child there was no death of the egg, but rather life. I am wondering if the sin offering required goes back to the curse in the garden for woman to have pain in childbirth because of her sin with the serpent. A reminder to us of that time perhaps?

thought some here might have more knowledge on this, perhaps from the Talmud so I don't have to go research it myself.

 

[genifer]

You know what I think of when I think of these verses in Leviticus? I think of the other verses, the one in psalms about having been concieved in sin. I think, I may be wrong, but I wonder if its to do with the fact that because everything about the Law (in my understanding) is to do with reminding us that everything about us is completely sinful and seperated from God. I think making a sin offering after childbirth reminds us that everything from conception to death, in this age and state of affairs, is sinful, is fallen, not as it was created to be, has been subjected to frustration the way described in romans 8.

As far as the boy vs girl thing... Idk, maybe it is to do with the woman being decieved first at the fall. But thats never popular to say nowadays and I dont know if its true.

 

[zaksmummy]

What does the Talmud/Mishnah say?

Sorry I dont have time to read up on it now, but I bet you'd find an answer in there.

 

[Lulav]

Well that's what I was hoping someone would be able to post.

 

[Caissie]

"Sin" is "Transgression of the law". One does not transgress the law by having a child. Being "unclean" does not mean you transgressed the law.

 

[ChavaK]

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2010/parsha/rneu_tazria.html

 

[Lulav]

Thank You Chavak, that was very enlightening, and was what I was wondering about regarding a sin offering.

 

[lifeinlavender]

Thank you ChavahK!

 

[ChavaK]

The original link I put up changed to this weeks parsha, so I changed it to the archive link:

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2010/parsha/rneu_tazria.html
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2010/parsha/rneu_tazria.html

 

[Ivy]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but about the Adam and Eve thing, whose fault was it for the fall etc:

I know it's been historically popular--starting straight off with Adam's statement after the fruit-- to assign one hundred percent of the blame to Eve, and consequently to portray all females following her as suspect, untrustworthy creatures--and, being sinners, sometimes we are.

But no more than males are.

IMHO, the blame is a square fifty-fifty for that fateful day--Eve was to blame for taking charge of the situation where she was not supposed to, and Adam was to blame for not taking charge of the situation where he was supposed to. Neither person was operating in his/her God-ordained sphere that day, and neither person "caused" the other to be operating out of sphere.

Adam should have stepped in, Eve should have stepped back. Two separate people, two separate failures, two separate responsibilities.

Now, do not throw rotten tomatoes at Ivy She just has a schstick about a) balance b) not scapegoating people and c) taking personal responsibility and this schstick likes to rear its head every so often. no rotten eggs either, they are stinky

 

[Ivy]

And just a thought I had about the offering for having a baby.....beats me why it would be more for a girl, I wish I knew.....but at any rate, the husband had to pay a price, too, I'd imagine, because he'd probably be the one to have to provide the actual substance of the offering, and also he'd have to wait for you-know-what to resume.

It seems like in the Scripture that spillage of blood is always something that needs to be accounted for somehow or other, and that is certainly something that occurs in childbirth. Maybe the double number of days for a girl baby has to do with the fact that that sort of spillage is probably in her future, if she has children.

 

[Lulav]

Maybe slightly off-topic, but about the Adam and Eve thing, whose fault was it for the fall etc:

I know it's been historically popular--starting straight off with Adam's statement after the fruit-- to assign one hundred percent of the blame to Eve, and consequently to portray all females following her as suspect, untrustworthy creatures--and, being sinners, sometimes we are.

But no more than males are.

IMHO, the blame is a square fifty-fifty for that fateful day--Eve was to blame for taking charge of the situation where she was not supposed to, and Adam was to blame for not taking charge of the situation where he was supposed to. Neither person was operating in his/her God-ordained sphere that day, and neither person "caused" the other to be operating out of sphere.

Adam should have stepped in, Eve should have stepped back. Two separate people, two separate failures, two separate responsibilities.

Now, do not throw rotten tomatoes at Ivy She just has a schstick about a) balance b) not scapegoating people and c) taking personal responsibility and this schstick likes to rear its head every so often. no rotten eggs either, they are stinky

A bit OT but I don't mind.

This is how I've always viewed it. First to consider, was the commandment given to Adam before he was given Chavah? Were they both given it in the one body? Was he there when the serpent was speaking to her?

This is how I see it. The commandment was given to either the both in one body, or to Adam, his responsibility to tell his wife if the second applies. I believe by the wording that he was there. The L-RD punished him for 'harkening unto thy wife'. which many take to not listen to your wife, your help mate, but that makes no sense. What I think Adam did wrong was to not double check with the L-RD. It seems by the little we know in this scenario, that he visited often so there was no excuse.
Chavah was accountable to her husband, Adam was accountable to HaShem.

He should have told her, no, wait, let me check it out with G-d (do we know what Adam called him?). Anyway he didn't he just partook of it.

Notice when the L-RD does come, he calls for Adam and Adam is the one afraid and hiding ( they both were hiding but Adam was the one the L-RD asked about where they were).

See the thing is G-d built into woman a predisposition for shiny things, think about how we love jewelry, beads, sparkly things.............we couldn't resist that shining one, but Adam, he should have known better!

 

[Lulav]

And just a thought I had about the offering for having a baby.....beats me why it would be more for a girl, I wish I knew.....but at any rate, the husband had to pay a price, too, I'd imagine, because he'd probably be the one to have to provide the actual substance of the offering, and also he'd have to wait for you-know-what to resume.

It seems like in the Scripture that spillage of blood is always something that needs to be accounted for somehow or other, and that is certainly something that occurs in childbirth. Maybe the double number of days for a girl baby has to do with the fact that that sort of spillage is probably in her future, if she has children.

Maybe it's in the numbers.

40 is a significant number for testing. The 40 years in the wilderness, the 40 days of temptation of our L-RD, the rains in Noah's time..............

So 40 for testing, 40 days for a male child.

Now anyone that's had a daughter knows that she will try that mother twice as much as any son will! So maybe this is just a warning of what's to come!

 

[Lulav]

"Sin" is "Transgression of the law". One does not transgress the law by having a child. Being "unclean" does not mean you transgressed the law.

Exactly (your first sentence) Way back in the garden both man and woman transgressed the law.

The punishment that the woman and all women after her were given was:

Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

I'd say it is a reminder to us, even monthly about that sin. And in Childbirth the sin offering I would say may be in regards to this.

 

[Ivy]

Maybe it's in the numbers.

40 is a significant number for testing. The 40 years in the wilderness, the 40 days of temptation of our L-RD, the rains in Noah's time..............

So 40 for testing, 40 days for a male child.

Now anyone that's had a daughter knows that she will try that mother twice as much as any son will! So maybe this is just a warning of what's to come!

I'm with ya', Lulav. Lord knows I love my daughter from the marrow of my bones, but there is no doubt she's put twice as much mileage (a conservative estimate maybe even ) on her ma that her brother has.

 

[Ivy]

A bit OT but I don't mind.

This is how I've always viewed it. First to consider, was the commandment given to Adam before he was given Chavah? Were they both given it in the one body? Was he there when the serpent was speaking to her?

This is how I see it. The commandment was given to either the both in one body, or to Adam, his responsibility to tell his wife if the second applies. I believe by the wording that he was there. The L-RD punished him for 'harkening unto thy wife'. which many take to not listen to your wife, your help mate, but that makes no sense. What I think Adam did wrong was to not double check with the L-RD. It seems by the little we know in this scenario, that he visited often so there was no excuse.
Chavah was accountable to her husband, Adam was accountable to HaShem.

He should have told her, no, wait, let me check it out with G-d (do we know what Adam called him?). Anyway he didn't he just partook of it.

Notice when the L-RD does come, he calls for Adam and Adam is the one afraid and hiding ( they both were hiding but Adam was the one the L-RD asked about where they were).

See the thing is G-d built into woman a predisposition for shiny things, think about how we love jewelry, beads, sparkly things.............we couldn't resist that shining one, but Adam, he should have known better!

Well, from a quick reading in Gen. 2, it looks like the Lord made the man, then He gives the talk about the tree, then he makes the woman out of the man. I'm thinking that God, being a completely responsible parent, made some arrangement for her to know, by her either hearing it in Adam or with Adam or by telling him to pass the word on. And it seems like she did know, since the whole subject of conversation between her and the serpent is God's "tree rule".

But of course the serpent is playing on and twisting the whole female tendency to "reconsider" (which is not bad in every case; it's sometimes a part of wisdom, and necessary for growth), and building a deception on it, getting her blown way off course from the original truth.

I tend to take note of that phrase, "her husband who was with her," maybe because the female-bashers seem to conveniently ignore it. I also tend to think that Adam, being right there, could have intervened at any time--after all, God had given him dominion over every creature in the garden, and "every" creature would certainly include the serpent. I don't know why he did not, anymore than I know why Eve barged ahead the way she did, but my guess is that he was just as curious as she was to see what would happen. Maybe he wasn't attracted to shiny baubles, but I'm betting he was mighty curious about outcomes.

I tend to think that, just as Adam should have checked with God, Eve should have waited and checked with Adam before she bought the shiny thing. (You have to wonder why these two "couldn't" wait that long--it wasn't like the tree or the fruit were going any place.) Beware the hard sell, sigh!

Sorry for rattling on so long ..........it's one of the most fascinating stories in the Bible to me.