Any woman who gives birth must have her needs met and more.

That sounds like a line from a policy statement by Planned Parenthood or the Children's Defense Fund, but I read those words in a collection of traditional commentaries, Iturei Torah (4:67), quoting the Belzer Rebbe. The statement is not derived from any modern conception of the rights of women and children. Rather it is derived from a passage in this week's Torah portion that, on the surface, appears to be talking about how women are ritually impure after giving birth.
The commentary observes, as did Rashi, that these verses about the ritual of purification for such a woman appear to be out of order:

[The priest] shall offer [the mother’s offering of a sheep and a dove] before Adonai and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be pure from her flow of blood. This is the Torah of one who gives birth to a male or female child. If she has insufficient means for a sheep, she shall take two two pigeons or doves, one for a burnt offering and one for a purgation offering. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be pure. (Leviticus 12:7-9)

Why, they wonder, is the offering of the sheep and dove followed by the statement that "This is the Torah"? Is the offering of the poor woman who can only bring pigeons or doves not also Torah? The classical answer is that the offering of the wealthy woman is the way that it ought to be for everyone—that is the Torah. The Torah acknowledges that there are poor women who give birth who cannot afford the prescribed offering, but that is a disgrace. It should not be that way.

The Belzer Rebbe taught, "In truth, 'The Torah of one who gives birth' is that she should have the means to bring the offering of a wealthy person. According to the Torah, any woman who gives birth must have her needs met and more.  But, if it sometimes happens that 'she has insufficient means' this is not according to the Torah."

Whose responsibility is it to make sure that her material and spiritual needs are met? The Torah seems to say that we should not expect God to provide for her. God has made provisions for her in the case the responsible party fails to do the right thing. Who is the responsible party? It is all of us, of course. As the famous statement from the Talmud declares, "All Israel is responsible for one another" (B. Shevuot 39a). 

We can have delightful discussions and arguments about how this should happen. Should the government be responsible for caring for her needs? Should it be the responsibility of private charities to support women's reproductive health care? Our texts do not say. Yet, there is no ambiguity in our tradition about communal responsibility. It is up to us to make sure that the disgrace of a poor pregnant woman never happens.

We are responsible for each other, particularly for those in need, particularly for those who give life. No woman, regardless of who she is or how she came to be pregnant, should be left without all her needs (and more) met as she brings new life into the world.


Other Posts on This Topic:
Tazria: Newborn Spirituality
 
 
Once a month, I lead a spirituality discussion group in the psychiatric unit of our local hospital. Once a month, I spend forty-five minutes talking with people for whom the struggle to find meaning is as urgent and necessary as breathing. Often, there is a power to the insights revealed in this setting that I have not experienced anywhere in the so-called "normal" world. 

I always begin the discussion by asking a simple question: "What experiences have you encountered in life that you would describe as spiritual?" Often, I am surprised by the powerful answers I hear. Some describe imagined visits to other worlds. I have heard people talk with frightening intensity about losing someone they love. I have listened to people recall moments of joy, terror and wonder.

Take a moment, please, to think about your answer to the question. What experience or relationship have you had in life that you would describe as "spiritual"?

In all of the hundreds of answers I have heard to the question, I find one common element. The experiences we call spiritual are those in which we feel connected to something beyond ourselves. Whether it is the intensity of deeply and sincerely empathizing with another person, or the overwhelming realization of ones smallness in a vast universe, spiritual experiences are moments in which we reach beyond individuality and discover that we are inextricably linked to something beyond ourselves.

There is also this surprising fact: In all of the hundreds of answers I have heard to the question, there is one answer that is, by far, the most common. I find that about one in five people says that his or her most memorable spiritual experience is the experience of becoming a parent. It is, in fact, the answer that I would give myself. 

There has been no other moment in my life that compares to holding that dear, tiny, new baby child—who is an echo of my own life—for the first time. In that moment, I feel intensely connected to all the generations that have preceded me and all that will follow. I am gazing into the eye of eternity and see myself to be part of it. It is a moment of shocking clarity and also of disquieting amazement—like being pulled, temporarily, out of the world to catch a glimpse of a deeper reality.  

Does that sound crazy? Or is it, rather, a release from the ordinary insanity of our lives?

This week's Torah portion, Tazria, opens with one of the most baffling laws in the Torah. The law states that a woman is considered ritually impure (tamei, in Hebrew) for a set period of time after giving birth. During her impurity, she must not touch any holy object or enter into the holy place of God's house. For thirty-three days after giving birth to a son, or for sixty-six days after giving birth to a girl (!), the mother is kept apart from the things that "normal" (sane?) people consider sacred.

This law asks many questions; it offers few answers, if any. Why is a woman who may be at a peak spiritual moment considered unfit for the sacred? Why does the birth of a girl force a period of impurity that is twice as long? 

It seems to me that there is something deeply frightening to the normal world about a woman who has just given birth. There is something about her that must be controlled. Boundaries have to be put in place to keep the contagion of danger from spreading. A fence is built around her.

As I ponder this, I consider that this is also how I sometimes think about my spiritual moments—the moments of feeling deeply connected. They, too, are a threat to so-called normal life. I sense that, if I were to linger too long in the place where I am inextricably linked to something beyond myself, I would be in danger of losing myself. It can feel wonderful to dive deeply into the ocean of intense spirituality, but before long, I have to come up from the depths to breathe the air of individuality, self, and boundaries that separate myself from others.

The woman who holds newborn eternity in her hands—who brings the future and the past together as they suckle at her breast—she represents the danger of living without the boundaries that separate conventional reality from the numinous. She defies the laws of differentiation by being two beings in one. Declaring her tamei is a declaration of our own limitations. We are not meant to live in the world of undifferentiated pure holiness.

For those thirty-three or sixty-six days, she is passing through the place without boundaries. It is the place where the distinctions between sacred and profane are obliterated. It cannot last for long, but while it does, what does it matter if she cannot enter the place that normal people deem holy? To her, in that moment of supreme connection, every place and everything is holy.