While at only sixty-seven verses, Tazria is one of the shortest of the weekly Torah-portions, it is also generally recognized as among the most difficult. From the twelve-year-old boy preparing the laining for his forthcoming Bar Mitzvah and struggling with the unfamiliar words and counter-intuitive vocalizations, to the veteran scholar mastering the Scriptural foundations of Teharos, the least-studied Seder of Torah Shebe’al Peh (Oral Law), Parashas Tazria presents a challenge to all.

 

Yet, despite these inherent complexities that may require a keen sense of Dikduk (Hebrew grammar) on the one hand and expert knowledge of Halakha (Jewish Law) on the other, there are some quite elementary questions that may occur even to the novice reader as he or she encounters the opening verses:

 

• Why is the birth of a child the cause for Tumah, ritual impurity? Ordinarily, Tumah is associated with the lack of life, with a human corpse being the “Avi Avos Ha-Tumah” – the most severe form of Tumah - and subordinate levels of Tumah often being linked to that which has somehow come in contact with the dead, whether man or animal. Rashi, in his opening comments to the Parasha notes a Chiddush – novel point - that even if the fetus is malformed and the baby non-viable, the mother still contracts this “Tumas Leda” – the impurity of birth. On the surface, however, based on the usual rules of Tumah, one would have expected the reverse: that the miscarried or stillborn be the source of Tumah, and then and only then we possibly apply this to viable forms of birth as well.
• As a corollary to the previous question, it seems that the “recovery period” from this state of impurity is so unusually extensive that it is almost harsh:  After the initial seven days of impurity, “for thirty-three days she [the mother] shall remain in the blood of purity; she may not touch anything sacred and she may not enter the Sanctuary, until completion of her days of purity.” This is the case for the birth of a male. For a female, the stakes are doubled: “If she gives birth to a female, she shall be contaminated for two weeks, as during her separation; and for sixty-six days she shall remain in the blood of purity.” Even one who has direct contact with the dead and wishes to purify himself is not subjected to this sort of waiting period, potentially approaching three months!  
• Why in fact is there this distinction between the male and female child, the former requiring seven and thirty-three days and the latter necessitating fourteen and sixty-six? While as Traditionalists, we are accustomed to accepting that there are differences in obligations and observances by males and females, from the perspective of the mother – the one who actually must observe this state of impurity – she has simply given birth, and the gender of the child – the vehicle of this impurity – should not a priori be a factor.
• Why, in this context do we suddenly get reminded of the commandment to circumcise a male son? This Mitzva was already given long ago to Avraham Avinu in Bereshis, and was established as a prerequisite to the Korban Pesach (Paschal Scarifice) in Shemos, Is it mentioned here near the beginning of Vayikra merely to maintain the streak?
• Finally, in addition to observing the period of purification, the mother must bring a pair of sacrifices, an Olah and a Chatas, and “Elevation Offering” and a “Sin Offering”? Whatever reasons we may suggest for her state of impurity, how do they translate into a requirement to also bring sacrifices, at least the latter of which is connected by name and by rite with some sort of iniquitous misbehavior? On the contrary, hasn’t this woman just fulfilled – or at least facilitated - “Peru Urevu”, the requirement to procreate - the first Mitzva in the Torah!

 

Many of these questions have already been addressed individually, in one form or another, with solutions proposed by the Midrashim and the Commentators, but perhaps we can suggest a single concept that ties together all of our inquiries.

 

With the arrival of a child, a single entity may be created, but simultaneously, two different doors of potential are opened: the world of mitzva and berakha, and the world of avera and kelala. Symbolically, we might model them with the Olah – the elevation offering which is upwardly-oriented, consumed so-to-speak by G-d - in contrast to the Chatas, the sin-offering. Thus, a birth is an occasion to rejoice for the great opportunity of a fulfilling life that awaits the newborn, but there is also the trepidation associated with the uncertainty of that child’s future direction. The Bris Milah is one of the great mitzvos of the Torah, described as the basis of “Thirteen Covenants” between G-d and the Jewish People, with failure to observe it punishable by Kares (excision). Significantly, the object of this mitzva is the very organ that can foster love and intimacy between husband and wife, a harbinger for Shalom Bayis, but also can be a vehicle for promiscuity and destroying a home. While it is true that we usually associate Tumah with death, the potential for Taharah or Tumah in fact begins with the onset of life, and the Torah was calling attention to this lifelong risk with the immediate post-partum period of impurity. Indeed, it is the birth of a girl – even more than that of a boy – which represents the potential to propagate this chain in either of the two polar-opposite directions – and as such may be subject of the longer purification process.

 

At the time of conception, G-d makes certain decrees about the unborn child. But from the moment of birth, it is the individual – guided initially by his parents and teachers - who continually makes decisions about his or her own ultimate destiny. Echad le-olah ve-echad le-chatas: there is the option of elevation and there is the option of sin. The choice is ours.