We are now in Chapter Four of Tractate Niddah, where the discussion brings in a new type of impurity, that of a zav, which is explained in Leviticus 15:19. According to my daf notes a zav is a man who becomes tamei from an abnormal genital discharge. He immerses in a mikvah the same day and is tahor by nightfall. If he experiences two emissions, he must observe seven clean days before immersing in spring water and bringing a sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem. The same applies to the female zavah.
Clearly the laws of zav and zavah lapsed with the Temple's destruction, but that doesn't stop the rabbis from discussing them. Plus there is another type of genital impurity, from semen, which makes both the man who discharged it and the woman into whom it was discharged, tamei until immersion. So the discussion really gets complicated when the rabbis try to sort out how the different types of impurity - niddah, zav, and semen - take effect when they are combined. Needless to say, the various combinations and permutations of 3 types of impurity in both sexes give rise to "questions that would cross a rabbi's eyes."
The reason I found this interesting is that two of the rabbis involved in one of the most convoluted and nasty arguments happen to be Rami bar Chama and Rava, the two suitors of Rav Hisda’s daughter, both of whom eventually marry her. Prof Richard Kalmin of JTS has written how certain Talmudic sages are not merely talking heads, but display actual personalities. One of his prime examples is certain heated debates between Rami and Rava, in which Rava insults Rami with far more acrimony than one usually sees in the Talmud, but which is understandable in light of the fact that Rami has married the woman Rava desires. There are at least six passages where this occurs, most of which I reference in RAV HISDA'S DAUGHTER, and Niddah 33ab is one of them.
Got my work cut out for me today. My editor just send me the Reading Group Guide questions for my upcoming novel RAV HISDA'S DAUGHTER to review, plus the e-blast that I'll need to start sending to my 3000+ gmail contacts. Also I'm taking my oldest grandson to swim lessons. If that weren't enough, I can't resist the need to walk over to my daughter's house and play with the new kittens so they won't feel lonely while the rest of the family is at work/daycare/summer camp. Sure beats going to some office every day.
Now for the last piece of lovely Aggadah from Niddah 31. The first passage is one of my favorites, where the rabbis decide [quite unscientifically] that in order to conceive a son, the man must bring the woman to orgasm first. What a far cry from Christianity, where any pleasure during sex was a sin.
R. Ami stated, "If the woman emits her seed first she bears a male child, and if the man emits his seed first she bears a female child; for it is written [in Leviticus], 'If a woman emits seed and bear a son'." At first it was said that if the woman emits her seed first she will bear a male and if the man emits his seed first she will bear a female, but the Sages did not know the reason until R. Zadok came and explained it [from Genesis]: "These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore unto Jacob, with his daughter Dinah." The Torah thus ascribes the sons to the mother and the daughter to the father. It is also written [in Chronicles], "And the sons of Ulam were mighty men and had many sons and grandsons." Yet is it within a man's power to produce many 'sons and grandsons'? But the fact is that they restrained themselves during intercourse in order that their wives should emit seed first so that their children would be males. This is why R. Katina said, "I could make all my children to be males." Rava stated, "One who desires all his children to be males should cohabit and then repeat the act."
Next come questions about Torah laws. R. Simeon b. Yohai was asked: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman after childbirth should bring a sin offering? He replied: When she is in hard labor she swears impetuously that she will have no intercourse with her husband. The Torah, therefore, ordained that she should bring a sin offering for breaking her oath. And why did the Torah ordain that in the case of a male [the woman is clean] after seven days and in that of a female after fourteen days? [On the birth of a] male with whom all rejoice she regrets her oath after 7 days, [but on the birth of a female] about whom everybody is upset she regrets her oath after 14 days. And why did the Torah ordain circumcision on the eighth day? In order that the guests shall not enjoy themselves while his father and mother cannot [because she would tamei and unable to even touch her husband until after 7 days]. This last question is often quoted by the Orthodox: "Why did the Torah ordain that a woman is niddah for seven days? Because if his wife is always available to him [a husband might] come to loath her. This way, she is niddah for seven days in order that she shall be beloved by her husband as at the time of her first entry into the bridal chamber."
Lastly, our Gemara asks why a man goes in search of a woman and a woman does not search for a man? [how little he knows] This is like the case of a man who lost something. Who goes in search of what? He who lost the thing [Adam lost a rib to Eve] goes in search of what he lost [not the lost item for its owner]. And why does the man lie face downwards and the woman face upwards towards the man [during intercourse]? He [faces the earth] from which he was created, and she [faces the man] from whom she was created.
Here I continue with more of the beautiful passage from Tractate Niddah 31a about fetal development, which includes a little digression on miracles that makes good food for thought as we enter Shabbat.
There are three partners in man: the Holy One, his father and his mother. His father supplies the white seed [semen] out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, the brain in his head and the white in his eye; his mother supplies the red seed [menstrual blood] out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives the spirit and the breath, facial features, eyesight, the power of hearing, and the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment. When his time approaches to depart from the world, the Holy One takes away His share and leaves the father's and mother's shares with them.
Come see the contrast between the power of the Holy One and that of humankind. A man puts something in a sealed bottle whose opening faces upwards, yet perhaps [the thing] will be preserved or perhaps not. However the Holy One fashions the embryo in a woman's womb that is open and whose orifice is turned downwards and yet it is preserved until it's birth. Another exposition: If a dyer puts different ingredients into a vat they all blend into one color, however the Holy One, fashions the embryo in a woman's womb in a manner that each color seed develops into its own colored way.
Two men set out on a trading expedition when a thorn got into one of them who began to curse and complain at having to delay [for treatment] miss his ship. After a time, he heard that his friend's ship had sunk into the sea he began to laud and praise. This is what R. Eleazar taught: What is meant by the text from Psalms, "Who does wondrous things alone" …? Even the person for whom a miracle is performed may be unaware of the miracle.
Daf Yomi Niddah pp. 25-28. Just when I thought the Gemara couldn’t discuss a more repulsive topic than how the rabbis examined [and smelled] various colors of blood a woman might discharge in order to declare her tamei or tahor, I was proved wrong. For the last eight pages have been devoted to the gruesome task of describing an encyclopedic diversity of miscarriage remains. The rabbis' goal is to first determine if this was a human child, and if so, was it male or female, as these decision have important legal ramifications on the mother's purity status. In addition, if this was her first pregnancy, then these also affect the inheritance of later children and whether a son born next is a firstborn or not.
Today, of course, we accept all fetuses as human and genetic testing can tell us its gender, rendering this debate moot. So I read ahead in Niddah, and when I got to pp. 30-31, I found some of the most sublime pieces of Talmud I've ever seen in one passage. Some of you may recognize pieces of it, but what amazed me was that it all was part of one lengthy discussion of fetal development, only this time the rabbis are talking about an unborn child, not a miscarriage.
On page 30b, we begin with: "A light burns above its head and it looks and sees from one end of the world to the other. Yet do not be astonished at this, for a person sleeping here [in Bavel] might see a dream in Spain. And there is no time in which a man enjoys greater happiness than in those days, for it is written [in Job], 'O that I were as the months of old, the days when God watched over me.' Which are the days that make up these months? The months of pregnancy. It [the fetus] is taught all the Torah from beginning to end, for it is written [by King Solomon in Proverbs], 'when the secrets of God were above my tent.' But as soon as it emerges into the world, an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all his learning."
The angel leaves a mark on the baby, a small cleft just below the nose and above the upper lip, which can be seen on everyone, male and female. Thus we are born with an a priori understanding of Torah so that later, we merely have to remember what we've already learned. Isn't that lovely? Well, it's just the first of several such teachings that I will share in the next week or so.
Daf Yomi Niddah pp. 22-24. Some of my longtime readers may recall my Israeli friend Ilana Kurshan, who not only studies Talmud but writes limericks and blogs about it. She too has been doing Daf Yomi, and since I'm preparing for my lecture at the Assn of Jewish Libraries convention tomorrow, I suggest that my Daf Yomi fans check out her blog post on Niddah 24b, The Mystery of the Miscarried Snake. To enjoy an example of Ilana's limericks, here are some recent examples from Niddah 20b.
(20b)
Elazar deemed a woman's blood due
To her love for her spouse - it proved true!
When Rav Ami inquired
She said she desired
Her husband. So Elazar knew!
(20b)
Ifra Hurmiz sent Rava a sample
Of blood. He ruled right. She sent ample
Selections. He tested.
The last was infested
From lice. "Comb your nits ‘til they’re trampled."
(20b)
Yalta gave of her blood to a sage.
When he ruled, Yalta said, "I’m outraged."
I resist your dominion!
Need second opinion!
She got it, and then was assuaged.
Daf Yomi Niddah pp. 19-21. Suddenly the Mishna takes a bizarre turn and starts describing various colors/shades of bloodstains [red, yellow, black], some of which render the woman who finds them niddah. Of course the different rabbis can't agree on what exactly these look like, so we get a lengthy discussion on comparisons to so many objects [red like wine, black like ink, yellow like crocus, brown like fenugreek water, etc.], that most rabbis declare themselves not competent to judge bloodstains. Frankly the very idea of bringing some stained underwear to a rabbi for him to decide if a woman is niddah revolts me.
But just as I was getting completely disgusted, I get to page 20b where a short passage details how Ifra Hormizd, the mother of Persian King Shapur, sent a bloodstain to Rava, who smelled it and judged it to be "blood of desire," which is tahor/pure. Impressed, Ifra praises Rava's wisdom to her son, who suggests that Rava was just lucky. So Ifra and Shapur decide to test Rava by sending him sixty different blood samples, all of which he identifies correctly except for one, which was actually louse blood. However, Rava luckily sends the queen-mother a lice comb as a gift, which she interprets to mean that he had even identified the louse blood properly.
This tale both astonished and intrigued me. Rava, of course, is my heroine Hisdadukh's second husband. This Talmud text is not the only one that mentions a relationship between Rava and Persian royalty, which sent my novelist mind reeling with possible scenarios for Book II. It didn't take me long to learn that Shapur's father was named Hormizd, but that while his mother's name was not recorded, Christian sources state that she was a Jewish princess. This didn't surprise me, as Persian kings regularly married daughters of their vassals, including the exilarch's.
Lo and behold, a fabulous subplot for Book II as Hisdadukh gets involved in Persian court politics and intrigues as a friend and confidant of Shapur's Jewish mother, who would have been about her age.
Daf Yomi Niddah pp. 16-18. Amazingly, considering that the subject is moot for the Talmudic rabbis, we have more discussion of a woman's possible retroactive impurity when she examines herself and finds blood. But I found a couple of wheaty passages among the chaff. The first, continuing from Niddah 15b, mentions that there's a certain pit into which the female slaves cast their stillborns or abortions, and the rabbis declare that looking into it does not convey tumah met [corpse impurity] because the weasels and polecats regularly drag away the remains.
Whoa! Let's unpack this. The Gemara, here and in other places, mentions abortifacients, particularly in regard to preventing the birth of slave children. But is it only female slaves who need to discard the remains of their unwanted pregnancies, not free women? Or are the female slaves dumping those of their mistresses? Clearly the rabbis have no qualms about the practice as their concerns are only for their own purity status.
Later, on page 16b, the rabbis posit that it is forbidden, or at least improper, to have sexual relations in the daytime, since conception occurs during the night. How do they know this? The angel who oversees conception is named Lailah [night], and he ascertains whether the child will be "strong or weak, intelligent or foolish, rich or poor." But Lailah does not ask if the child will be good or evil, for "all is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven." [where have we heard that before?]
After some discussion of why else sexual relations should be avoided in the daytime, Abaye says that a man may see some flaw in his wife that makes her undesirable. Rav Huna says the opposite, that a man's thoughts become impious when he sees his wife unclothed. Rava says that a scholar may have sex during the day if the room is dark, and if not, he may darken the room with his cloak. Behind this is the Persian belief [shared by Babylonian Jews] that demons are active at night, and thus less likely to harm the cohabiting couple during the day.
Last week's NYC trip interfered with my Daf Yomi routine not so much by preventing me from learning them, but by not allowing me sufficient time to blog about them. So I'm going to post 3 days in a row for the pages that I studied in the interim. First I'll address Niddah pp. 13-15, the most interesting aspect for me being on page 13, as the other pages continue with increasingly complicated situations in which a woman who bleeds may or may not be retroactively tamei, and thus any food she was supposed to handle in purity may or may not need to be burned.
The Mishna is not only short but takes us in a new direction: "Every hand that examines frequently is praiseworthy in a woman, but in men let it be cut off." The Gemara asks why the difference, and we learn, astonishingly to the modern reader, that the rabbis believe that while men can, and do, arouse themselves sexually, woman cannot. As I will point out later, this is one of several Talmud passages showing that the rabbis are ignorant of women's sexuality and anatomy. But this is good news for women, since the rabbis proceed to rail against men masturbating but don't address the subject in women at all.
The rabbis' condemnation has two objections. First, the man will come to "waste seed," which the rabbis consider tantamount to committing murder. Second, the man will entertain sinful thoughts, which will lead to sinful behavior. Both of these are to be avoided, even to the extent that a debate ensues over whether a man is permitted to handle his penis in order to urinate. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits it, stating [amusingly] that such a man brings a flood upon the world, while a more practical rabbi points out that the man will likely urinate on his feet.
Rav Nachman solves the problem for most rabbis by applying this prohibition only to unmarried men. Even in the unlikely event that he becomes aroused while urinating, he will turn to his wife for relief. Interesting, I note that Rabbi Eliezer is from Eretz Israel, where men are advised to study Torah first and then marry, leaving them more vulnerable to wasting seed than in Rav Nachman's Babylonia, where men marry before studying Torah.
For a modern view of the Jewish attitude towards masturbation, see Rabbi Elliott Dorf's article on the subject at My Jewish Learning.
This post is going to be pretty short because I'm leaving early Monday morning for 3 days in New York City. Astonishingly, I have no lectures scheduled in this, the largest Jewish community in the world. What I do have is an audition, so to speak, for the Jewish Book Network author tours, where I will talk for 2-minutes about my upcoming novel, RAV HISDA'S DAUGHTER, in hopes that the various JCCs, etc. who put on Jewish Book Festivals will invite me to speak. This will be my fourth time out, after doing this for all 3 volumes of RASHI'S DAUGHTERS, so I'm not too nervous. I have my speech nearly memorized, and my new business cards are ready to hand out. Hopefully, everyone will be so dazzled that I'm showered with invitations.
Now back to Daf Yom, Niddah pp. 10-12, which concludes Chapter One. Here the rabbis discuss how a woman should examine herself to ensure she has not become niddah. In short, she is advised to use clean white cloths to check herself for blood both morning and evening. But not so fast. Towards the end of page 12a, Rava states that for women who don't handle tohorot [food that must be prepared in purity], whose niddah status is only relevant for her husband, they needn't examine themselves at all. And when one of his students suggests that perhaps a scholar should be strict in this matter and have his wife examine herself before sexual relations, Rava strongly rejects this and explains that her husband will find her repulsive if he sees her doing this. Remember that Rava is the one doesn't want to prevent procreation.
Lastly comes a small discussion on how a man can have sex with his wife while she's asleep, which he might want to do when he's just returned from a journey. But some rabbis are just as disapproving of this as modern folks might be, and it ultimately turns out that asleep only means drowsy or that he wakes her when he returns.