Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 12:2/רמב"ן על ויקרא י״ב:ב׳

אכָּתַב רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ב:ב') כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה לְרַבּוֹת יְלָדַתּוּ מָחוּי שֶׁנִּמְחָה וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּעֵין זֶרַע, אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵדָה. וּפֵרוּשׁ הָעִנְיָן שֶׁנּוֹצַר הַוָּלָד בְּצוּרַת אָדָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמּוֹחַ, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם אֵינוֹ וָלָד, וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִבְרִיַּת נְשָׁמָה אֵינוֹ וָלָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַלֵּדָה אֲפִלּוּ מָחוּי מְטַמֵּא אִם אָנוּ מַכִּירִין צוּרָתוֹ, כְּגוֹן שָׁפִיר מְרֻקָּם טְמֵאָה וַדַּאי, וְאִם לָאו בְּסָפֵק, וְזֶהוּ רִבּוּי שֶׁל מִקְרָא זֶה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (נדה כז). וּבְמַשְׁמָעוּתוֹ אָמְרוּ (שם לא) "אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ" אִשָּׁה מַזְרַעַת תְּחִלָּה - יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר. וְאֵין כַּוָּנָתָם שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה הַוָּלָד מִזֶּרַע הָאִשָּׁה, כִּי הָאִשָּׁה אע"פ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בֵּיצִים כְּבֵיצֵי זָכָר אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָשֶׂה בָּהֶן זֶרַע כְּלָל אוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַזֶּרַע הַהוּא נִקְפָּא וְלֹא עוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר בָּעֻבָּר, אֲבָל אָמְרָם "מַזְרַעַת" עַל דַּם הָרֶחֶם שֶׁיִּתְאַסֵּף בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה בָּאֵם וּמִתְאַחֵז בְּזֶרַע הַזָּכָר, כִּי לְדַעְתָּם הַוָּלָד נוֹצַר מִדַּם הַנְּקֵבָה וּמִלֹּבֶן הָאִישׁ וְלִשְׁנֵיהֶם יִקְרְאוּ זֶרַע. וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ (שם), שְׁלֹשָׁה שֻׁתָּפִין יֵשׁ בּוֹ בָּאָדָם, אִישׁ מַזְרִיעַ בּוֹ לֹבֶן שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וְלֹבֶן שֶׁבָּעַיִן, אִשָּׁה מַזְרַעַת אֹדֶם שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ עוֹר וּבָשָׂר וָדָם וְשֵׂעָר וְשָׁחוֹר שֶׁבָּעַיִן. וְגַם דַּעַת הָרוֹפְאִים בַּיְּצִירָה כָּךְ הִיא. וְעַל דַּעַת פִילוֹסוֹפֵי הַיְּוָנִים כָּל גּוּף הָעֻבָּר מִדַּם הָאִשָּׁה, אֵין בּוֹ לָאִישׁ אֶלָּא הַכֹּחַ הַיָּדוּעַ בִּלְשׁוֹנָם הִיּוּלִי, שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן צוּרָה בַּחֹמֶר, כִּי אֵין בֵּין בֵּיצַת הַתַּרְנְגֹלֶת הַבָּאָה מִן הַזָּכָר לְנוֹלֶדֶת מִן הַמִּתְפַּלֶּשֶׁת בֶּעָפָר שׁוּם הֶפְרֵשׁ, וְזוֹ תְּגַדֵּל אֶפְרוֹחַ וְזוֹ לֹא תִזָּרַע וְלֹא תַצְמִחַ בְּהִמָּנַע מִמֶּנָּה הַחֹם הַיְּסוֹדִי שֶׁהוּא לָהּ הִיּוּלִי. וְאִם כֵּן יִהְיֶה מִלַּת "תַּזְרִיעַ" כְּמוֹ "זֵרוּעֶיהָ תַצְמִיחַ" (ישעיהו סא יא). וְכֵן אָמַר אוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על ויקרא י"ב:ב') "אֲרֵי תְעַדֵּי":

1Rashi commented: “If a woman have conceived seed, and born [a male]. This includes a case where she gave birth to [the male child as] a fleshy mass which had dissolved, so that it became liquefied and like seed, in which case his mother becomes impure because of the birth” [as if it were a normal child]. The explanation of this matter¹ is that we know that the child has been formed already in human form, and then became liquefied, for anything that does not have a human form is not considered a child, and similarly, whatever is not fit to become a creature with a soul, is not considered a child. But even if it is a fleshy dissolved mass at the time of birth, it makes the mother impure [for the prescribed number of days] provided we recognize its form, such as a foetus with its human parts fashioned, in which case the mother is certainly impure, and if not [i.e., the matter is in doubt] she is impure because of a doubt. This is what this verse comes to include according to the words of our Rabbis.²Now with regard to the implication of the verse the Rabbis have said:³, 31a. “Ishah ki thazria —⁴ if the woman emits seed first, she will bear a son.”⁵ The intent of the Rabbis was not that the child is formed from the woman’s seed, for although the woman has generative organs [i.e., ovaries] like those of the man, yet seed is not formed by them at all, or [if it is formed], that seed is not thick and does not contribute anything to the embryo. Rather, the Rabbis used the term “she emits seed” with reference to the blood of the womb, which gathers in the mother at the time of the consummation of coition, and attaches itself to the seed of the male. For in the opinion of the Rabbis the child is formed from the blood of the female and the white [semen] of the man, and both of them are called “seed.” Thus the Rabbis have said:³, 31a. “There are three partners in [the formation of] man: The male emits the white [semen], from which are formed the sinews, the bones, and the white substance in the eye. The female emits a red secretion from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the blood, the hair, and the black substance in the eye.”⁶ The opinion of doctors as to the formation [of the embryo of the child] is also the same. In the opinion of the Greek philosophers,⁷ however, the whole body of the child is formed from [the substance of] the blood of the mother, the father only contributing that generative force which is known in their language as hyly, which gives form to matter.⁸, p. 23. For there is no difference at all between the egg of a chicken which is laid because it was fructified by a male, and that laid as a result of the mother rolling herself in the dust, except that the egg [that had been fructified by a male] germinates into a young bird, while the other is not sown, nor beareth,⁹ because it is deprived of the elemental heat which is its hyly. And if so, the word tazria [in ishah ki thazria] will be like u’cheganah zeiru’eha thatzmiach (as the garden causeth the seeds that are sown in it to spring forth).¹⁰ can be understood in its simple meaning: “when the female emits her secretion” first etc. But according to the philosophers who say that the child is formed entirely from the body of the mother, and the male semen is merely a generative force which gives form to matter, then the word tazria can no longer mean “emitting,” but is like thatzmiach — “causes to spring up.” And so did Onkelos render it: “If a woman conceives.”

בדְּוֹתָהּ לְשׁוֹן דָּבָר הַזָּב מִגּוּפָהּ. ד"א לְשׁוֹן מַדְוֶה וְחֹלִי, שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה רוֹאָה דָּם שֶׁלֹּא תֶּחֱלֶה וְרֹאשָׁהּ וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ב:ב'). וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי מֵאֵיזֶה מוֹצָא יִהְיֶה "דְּוֹתָהּ" לְשׁוֹן דָּבָר הַזָּב בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ. אֲבָל יִתָּכֵן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְשׁוֹן מַדְוֶה, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (נדה ט) וְרֹאשָׁהּ וְאֵבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ. וְכֵן דַּעַת רַבִּי אַבְרָהָם שֶׁאוֹמֵר כִּי "דְּוֹתָהּ" - שֵׁם, וְטַעְמוֹ חֹלִי, כִּי הַדָּם הַיּוֹצֵא חֹלִי בָּאִשָּׁה. וּבֶאֱמֶת שֶׁהוּא נִקּוּי הַמּוֹתָרוֹת, וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁרֹאשָׁהּ וְאֵיבָרֶיהָ כְּבֵדִין עָלֶיהָ אוּלַי יִקָּרֵא חֹלִי. וְהַנָּכוֹן לְשׁוֹן מַדְוֶה, שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ נֶגַע וְצַעַר, כְּמוֹ "עָלַי לִבִּי דַוָּי" (ירמיהו ח יח), "הָיָה דָוֶה לִבֵּנוּ" (איכה ה יז), כְּמוֹ "נֶגַע לְבָבוֹ" (מלכים א ח לח), וְהִנֵּה הַזִּיבָה נֶגַע בָּאִשָּׁה אע"פ שֶׁהִיא בְּתוֹלַדְתָּהּ. וְכֵן "עַל עֶרֶשׂ דְּוָי" (תהלים מא ד):

2D’VOTHAH.’ “This is an expression for anything which flows from her body, derived from the wording¹¹ for malady [madveh] and sickness, for no woman sees an issue of blood without becoming unwell, and her head and her limbs feeling heavy on her.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not know on the basis of which root the word d’vothah can be an expression in the Sacred Language for “anything which flows.” But it is possible that it is an expression of malady, on the basis of what the Rabbis have said,¹² “and her head and limbs are heavy on her.” So also is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who writes: “D’vothah is a noun and means sickness, for the blood which issues indicates a sickness in the woman.” Now it is true that the flow constitutes a cleansing of surpluses [of blood], and due to the fact that her head and her limbs feel heavy upon her, the flow is perhaps termed “a sickness.” The correct interpretation, however, is that d’vothah is an expression derived from the word madveh [which does not mean “sickness,” i.e., an unnatural occurrence in the body, since a woman’s menses are natural; and d’vothah is therefore like the terms] plague and pain, just as in the expressions: My heart is ‘davoi’ (faint) within me;¹³ for this our heart is ‘daveh’ (faint),¹⁴ and like: the plague of his heart.¹⁵ Thus menstruation is an affliction upon the woman even though it is in her nature [to experience it regularly]. A similar expression is upon the bed of ‘d’voi’ (illness].¹⁶