40 Days?
‘A woman who conceives and gives birth to a male will be spiritually unready for seven days, as during the days of her separation shall she be spiritually unready. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. For thirty-three days she shall remain in blood-spiritual readiness. (Lev. 12)
The total number of days is forty – which matches the rebirth period for the earth (in the flood) as well (as well as the forty days Moshe was on Sinai, and the forty years in the wilderness – the number forty seems to symbolize transformative change). But the Torah’s language is most peculiar (which is why many translations mangle it): instead of saying, “She is spiritually unready,” the text says that she is spiritually unready for seven days, and then she is in a state of spiritual readiness for another thirty-three. Why is she in opposite spiritual states in this period?
To answer this, perhaps we must first understand the meaning of “spiritual readiness”, tahor, or “spiritual unreadiness,” tamei. How does the Torah itself define these words? Looking at the text, is not being spiritually ready, tahor, simply mean that one is in a state that allows for one to reconnect, to strive for holiness? And being spiritually unready, tamei, is the result of being in contact with things that cannot elevate (like a lizard), or incomplete or failed creativity, such as sexual union, a menstrual cycle, or contact with death?
So when a woman gives birth, does it not make sense that she becomes spiritually unready? Her act, while it has a holy component, is also deeply animalistic, which renders her unable to elevate at the mikdash for a period of time. But the text does not say that she, as a result of the birth, is only “spiritually unready!” She follows seven days of spiritual unreadiness with thirty-three days of blood-spiritual readiness. What does it mean?
Might it suggest that the first seven days mirror the first days of creation: the physical creation of a new person. And then the following 33 days might be for the spiritual element of a new person, its spirit or soul?
Might the woman’s thirty-three days of “blood-spiritual readiness” for bringing a new spirit into the world? Unlike the body, the spirit will not wither and die; our souls are capable of transcending our physical existences, just as our non-biological creativity is capable of leaving an everlasting impression on the world we leave behind. Are not souls on loan from G-d, created inherently tahor, capable of spiritual elevation?
Which would explain why there is a bris milah in the middle, right? Circumcision, the core Jewish connection between a physical and spiritual existence, is, as told to us in Genesis, signified by blood.
Only flesh with the spirit thereof, which is the blood, shall ye not eat. Gen. 9:4
So why is the tamei process for a girl twice as long? Might it connect back to the flood: Forty days and forty nights, the repetition of forty being the complete connection to the earth, the host for all life, just as Chava (Eve) was called the mother of all life?
Might the different durations reflect the different contributions to new life between men and women? It may take contributions from both a man and a woman to bring a child into this world, but it is the woman who incubates that new life, who is capable of taking the fertilized egg all the way from conception to birth. The connection here is to the earth itself: life on earth was put here by G-d, but it is the earth, just like a fertile woman, who nurtures and sustains that life, making it possible for all life – physical and spiritual alike – to be born. The Torah makes the linkage for us, by connecting the forty/eighty days after childbirth with the Flood.
Might the linkage to the Flood also explain the symbolism of water in the process of resetting people from a state of tamei to a state of taharah?
White
There is a visible sign that something is not right: a person develops white, lavan spots. If someone has a white spot, the priest can diagnose it as a case of tzaraas.
So how do we know tzaraas is cured? The simplified answer is that either the white vanishes, or a black hair is seen rising. White, and then black: first the ailment, and then the way forward.
Why? What is the symbolic meaning of all of this?
Might the answer be a simple linkage between the words as they are found earlier in the text. After all, the name of Jacob’s uncle is Lavan, with precisely the same spelling. And what do we know of Lavan? We know he deceived people and played games with them in order to build and cement his own power. He resisted anyone leaving his grip, even trying to gain their own freedom. Even when his daughters and grandchildren leave, Lavan insists that they belong to him and not Jacob. Lavan undermines others in every way imaginable.
Might tzaraas be characterized using white, lavan, precisely because of Lavan the person? If so, then the things that cause tzaraas might be actions that Lavan might have done? Does Lavan, the man, become the prototype for lavan the symptom!
I believe that the text explains why a person who is entirely white becomes tahor … can you see it? It can be found in earlier uses of the root word lavan in the Torah: building bricks and having children.
Black
What shows that a person has left tamie to become tahor? A black, shachar, hair rises up. This word is found in the Torah describing the revelations that come with the rising of the dark – the dawn:
As darkness lifted, the messengers urged Lot on, saying, “Up, take your wife and your two remaining daughters, lest you be swept away because of the iniquity of the city.”
…
Jacob was left alone. And a figure wrestled with him until the lifting of the darkness.. … Then he said, “Let me go, for darkness is lifting.” But he answered, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.”
So the lifting of the darkness indicates a resolution of a situation: clarity and a clear path forward.
Note, too, that Jacob’s connection to shachar happened after he had left Lavan behind. The very sequence of the words in Genesis are a precursor to those same words describing the malady of tzaraas. The Lavan period ends, and the blackness rises, indicating clarity going forward. In this way, coming out of tzaraas can be compared to Jacob leaving Lavan. In both cases, the person who has left the lavan behind finds themselves in a state where they can spiritually grow and reconnect with G-d.
Might this all lead to a pretty breathtaking conclusion: the entire document that deals with this ailment is all about teaching us to not be like Lavan? And those who wish to exit that state should emulate Yaakov – wrestle with themselves until the rising of the dark, when they can emerge as new people, freed from the taint of evil?