Rabbeinu Bachya

(ben Asher; c. 1265-1340; Spain), to Leviticus 12:2:

פירוש רבינו בחיי לויקרא יב, ב (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשנ"ד); ז"ל

אשה כי תזריע וגו'.  היה ראוי הכתוב לומר "אשה כי תלד זכר", אבל באה מלת "תזריע" לרבות ילדתו מחוי, כלומר שנוצר בצורת אדם ואחר כך נמוח שאמו טמאה לידה, כמו שפירש רש"י ז"ל.  ומן המלה הזאת דרשו רז"ל: אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה.  והכוונה בלשון "מזרעת" על זרע הנקבה שהוא דם הנדות כי האשה אין לה זרע, אבל הדם שלה שברחם הוא הזרע שלה והוא הנקרא אודם, וזרע הזכר הוא הנקרא לובן והאודם והלובן כל אחד מהם יקרא זרע, וכן אמרו רז"ל בסוף פרק המפלת: שלשה שותפין יש בו באדם, הקב"ה אביו ואמו, אביו מזריע לובן שממנו מוח וגידין ועצמות וצפרנים ולובן שבעין, אמו מזרעת אודם שממנו עור ובשר ודם ושער ושחור שבעין, והקב"ה נותן בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים וראית העין ושמיעת האזן ודבור שפתים והלוך רגלים ודעה ובינה והשכל.  ומלת "תזריע" יוצאת.  ועל דרך הפשט: פירושה תמסור הזרע כי הוא פקדון אצלה מן הזכר כזרע השדה שהוא פקדון בגוף השדה ויצא בעתו, ומזה אמר הכתוב: כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, לא כאשר תשית עליו האשה כי הילדים שלו והוא הראוי לתת בהם ערך, וכבר כתבתי שם.  אבל חכמי הטבע אומרים כי כל גוף העובר לאשה ואין בו לאיש רק הכח הנקרא בלשונם היולי שהוא נותן צורה בחומר, כי הזרע בהתערבו עם דם האשה נותן בו הצורה והתקון, ומבדיל ממנו המותרים שלא יצליחו בעובר, ומקפיא אותו כענין הקיבה המקפיא בחלב.  ויש להם ראיות לדעתם: האחת, מביצת התרנגולת שהיא מגדלת אפרוח כשהיא באה מן הזכר, וכשהיא מן המתפלשות בעפר אינה מגדלת אפרוח כלל, לפי שהזכר נעדר ממנה שהוא נותן הצורה, וכן דעת רז"ל בפרק קמא דמסכת יום טוב: יהבו ליה ביעי דספנא מארעא אזל אותבינהו ולא אפריחו.  והשנית, ממקצת העופות שמולידין בחבוק בלבד ולא נראה בהם פליטת זרע וזה ראיה כי זרע האיש איננו חלק מהעובר.  והשלישית, מדג הנקבה שתוליד ביצים מעצמה ואחר כך כשיפיל הזכר זרעו עליהם כל מה שיפול הזרע עליהם יהיה מהם דג וכל הביצים שלא יפול עליהם לא יהיה מהם דג כלל, ואין זה נמצא בבעלי חיים בלבד אלא גם בצמחים שאם תקח עץ התמר הזכר ותרכיבהו עם התמר שהיא נקבה אז יצליח לעשות פרי, והענין כי הזכר נותן לנקבה חמימות, עמו ישלם בשול התמרים, זה דעת החכם ראש הפילוסופים עם קצת ראיותיו.וטעם הדבר באשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה, לפי שכשהאשה מזרעת תחלה זרע הזכר שהוא אחרון בא ומתגבר עליו ולפיכך יולדת זכר דעילאה גבר, איש מזריע תחלה טפת הנקבה באה באחרונה ומתגברת עליו ולפיכך יולדת נקבה.  והענין כי הטפה הראשונה אשר תהיה מהזכר או מהנקבה הוא כמו השדה שזורעין בו, והטפה האחרונה כדמיון הזרע שזורעין בשדה, ולפי שכשהאשה מזרעת תחלה הרי הטפה ההיא כשדה וטפת הזכר שבאחרונה הוא הזרע, ולפיכך תלד זכר כמותו, וזהו לשון "תזריע", ואם הזכר יזריע תחלה הרי הטפה ההיא כשדה וטפת הנקבה שבאחרונה הוא הזרע ותלד נקבה כמותו.  ועל דרך חכמת הטבע אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר, כי כשהאשה משתוקקת לבעלה ומתחממת בחשקו כל רצונה ומחשבתה עליו ומציירת צורתו בלבה, ומתוך אותו חשק ממהרת ומזרעת תחלה ובכח אותה המחשבה המצויירת בלבה תלד זכר שכנגד לבה ועיניה, וזהו ענין המקלות ליעקב אבינו שהיה עושה בהן ציורין, והצאן כשהיו מתחממות היו מתעברות דוגמת אותן הצורות שהיו רואות בשעת תשמיש, ונשתוו בזה זכרים ונקבות.  והוא הדין במין האדם, וכל שכן הוא, שהרי אם במין הבהמי יש לו כח בציור המחשבה על אחת כמה וכמה במין השכלי, וכבר הזכרתי זה בענין המקלות.  ומי שהוא יכול לכבוש את יצרו ומשהה את עצמו כדי שתזרע היא תחלה קבל שכרו כי היא יולדת זכר מן הטעם הזה, וזהו שדרשו רז"ל בפסוק: הנה נחלת ה' בנים שכר פרי הבטן, אלו שמשהין עצמם על הבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה ויולדות זכר, וזהו "שכר פרי הבטן"....  עכ"ל

אשה כי תזריע, "When a woman conceives, etc.," Actually, the Torah should have written simply: "when a woman gives birth, etc."  What duties devolve upon her as a result of merely conceiving?  The Torah reveals here that even if no live fetus is born and the fetus is no longer recognisable as such when aborted (compare Rashi based on Niddah 27), the rule about impurity contracted as a result of pregnancy or abortion applies.  This word is why our sages in Niddah 31 state that when the woman is the first one to experience orgasm during marital relations the baby will be born male.  The reverse is true when the husband reaches climax first.  When the Talmud uses the expression מזרעת in describing this process we translated as "orgasm" or "climax" when applicable to the woman [seeing that the word appears to be a misnomer, a woman not having semen, Ed.].  The fluid meant by the Talmud (according to our author) is the menstrual blood inside her womb.  This fluid is called אודם, a reddish looking fluid in the Hebrew of the Mishnah.  The parallel fluid of the male is known as לובן, i.e. a whitish fluid.  Both fluids are known as זרע, "seed," "semen."  Compare Niddah 31 where we are told that there are three partners needed to produce a human being, 1) G'd, 2) the father; and 3) the mother.  According to the Talmud the father's contribution of the לובן will result in the infant's brain, tendons, and bones as well as its nails and the white of its eye.  The אודם contributed by the mother will turn into the skin, blood, and flesh of the infant, the hair and the pupil of the eye.  G'd contributes the spirit, the soul, and the exterior appearance of the face as well as the ability of the eye to see, the power of speech and the lips, as well as the ability of the legs to walk, knowledge, insight and intelligence.

The word תזריע is transitive, i.e. denotes an active participation.  According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this word (Ibn Ezra) is that she hands over the "semen" which is on deposit with her from the male much as the earth yields up the seed deposited in the soil of the field for it to emerge at the proper time as the desired product.  This is the reason why Exodus 21,22 writes כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, "as the husband of the woman (who aborted due to the injury) will impose on the guilty party."  Seeing that the children of a woman are considered the husband's (property), the Torah did not write כאשר ישית עליו האשה "as the woman (the actually injured party) imposes on the one who caused her injury."  The husband may assess the loss he has suffered in financial terms.  See my comments in Exodus 21,22.  (page 1148 our translation)

However, the scientists claim that the entire fetus (body) is part of the mother and that the man's part or contribution to it is only an ingredient they called היולי, "genes" (something primeval, original) which influences the shape and composition of the material as soon as the man's semen mixes with the blood of the woman.  At the same time it also eliminates the sperm which will not fertilise the ovum of the woman.  Its effect on those parts is similar to the effect of the stomach of an animal introduced into milk to make it congeal and become cheese.  According to these scientists there is evidence supporting their claims.

1) They compare the formation of a human fetus to the fertilisation of a hen's egg which grows and hatches a chick through having been fertilised by the male, the rooster.  Whenever the hen absorbs that semen from the earth through rolling around on the ground and not directly from the rooster, it fails to produce a chick.  This is due to the absence of physical contact with the rooster which alone would provide the shape and outward appearance of the product.  [If I understand correctly the egg remains an egg unless it had been fertilised by the rooster at the outset of its formation.  Ed.]  This agrees with the opinion of our sages at the beginning of tractate Beytzah 7 where the Talmud engages in scientific observations such as that when intercourse occurred by day the birth of the creature resulting from such intercourse will be born by day.  In connection with the hatching of chicks, the Talmud is on record that when a certain person asked around who had the egg of a hen which had been laid by a live hen, they brought him instead the egg of a hen which had been slaughtered (before the egg was laid).  The buyer went to Rabbi Ami demanding that the sale be annulled and his money be refunded as he had been tricked.  His money was returned.  Another incident related there refers to someone who specifically requested an egg from a hen which had been fertilised by a rooster.  He was brought instead an egg from a hen which had absorbed the semen of the rooster through rolling around on the ground.  He too complained to Rabbi Ami and had his money refunded after the egg failed to produce a chick.  The sale was considered based on deception.  It was understood that the condition attached by the buyer was clear evidence that he did not mean to eat the egg but to hatch it.  Unless Rabbi Ami had thought that semen absorbed by the hen indirectly could not result in a chick being hatched, he had no reason to reverse that sale.

2) Some birds produce eggs through oral contact or mere "hugging" with their mates, there being no emission of semen by the male.  [Rabbi Chavell refers the reader to an halachic responsum by Rabbi Mendel Kirshenbaum based on the Midrash to Proverbs 30,19: "the way of a man with a virgin."  Ed.]  This would prove that the male semen does not form part of the fetus.

3) Female fish produce eggs without ever having been in contact with their male counterparts.  These eggs are subsequently sprinkled with male semen.  The ones which absorb it hatch in due course, the ones which fail to be sprinkled with semen do not develop.  This is a phenomenon we do not only find among the species of living creatures but it occurs all the time amongst the plants.  When you take a male palm tree and you graft the branch of a female palm onto it, it becomes capable of producing fruit.  The assumption is that the male provides a certain degree of warmth for the female to enable it to produce dates.  These are the theories of the leading philosopher (Aristotle) on the subject, including a few of his proofs.

The reason that when the woman performs her part in cohabitation with her husband first the result is a male child and the reverse, is very simple.  If the woman has already contributed her part to the process the male semen is added last and as such will assert itself over the already present female part of the resulting embryo.  If the male performs his part of the sexual act first this process is reversed and the female asserts its dominance over the semen already absorbed by the woman.

If we want to understand this phenomenon more graphically, picture a field which is being seeded.  In our parable, the first drop of semen be it male or female, is compared to the soil of the field; the last drop of semen, be it male or female is compared to the grains of seed implanted in the soil of the field.  We all know hat [sic] that which is contributed last determines the shape and appearance of the ultimate product which the earth produces.  Therefore, if the male partner in the union of husband and wife contributes its part first it is like the seed, whereas if the female partner contributes its part first, it is like the soil.  Whoever contributes his or her part last determines the nature of the product i.e. a male or female infant.

An approach based on the approach of the experts of natural science, i.e. that the man's semen does not become part of the fetus at all.  The statement that when the woman climaxes first the result is a male infant must be understood as follows: when the woman enjoys the warmth and embrace of her husband she concentrates so much on the image of her husband, the male, that this hastens her climax.  The mental images she entertained during those moments leave an enduring imprint on the ovum which is fertilised so that a male infant will be born from that union.  We have an example of such a result when Yaakov peeled the sticks near the watering troughs in Genesis 30,37.  When the flocks became stimulated by the appearance of the white streaks or whatever, which Yaakov arranged to stimulate the desired skin pattern he wanted these ewes to give birth to, the stratagem worked perfectly.  The important thing was for the mating of these animals to take place while they had these images firmly in focus.  There is no difference between the reaction of the males or the females of the species, and the same holds true in an even stronger degree when humans react to visual images of this kind.  If even animals which react only instinctively, having no intelligence or power of imagination, react so strongly to such images, people do so even more.

If someone is able to control his urges and wait with achieving his climax until after his wife has done so his reward will be that his wife will give birth to a male child.  This is what the sages (compare Iggeret Hakodesh page 328 by Nachmanides, Chavell edition) referred to when they explained the meaning of Psalms 127,3: "sons are the provision of the Lord; the fruit of the womb, His reward."  The people so rewarded are the husbands who display patience while lying on their wives' wombs giving their wives a chance to climax first.  [translation from Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya: Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher, by Rabbi Eliyahu Munk, Vol. 5 (Vayikra-Bechukotai) (Brooklyn: Lambda, 2003)]

Note the comments of Rabbi Chaim Chavel ad loc.:

הערות ר' חיים דב שעוועל שם; ז"ל

"כי כל גוף העובר לאשה."  היינו מדם האשה (רמב"ן – עמ' סד).  כי זרע האיש איננו חלק מהעובר, וחולקים חכמי הטבע בזה על דעת רז"ל.
...
"ועל דרך חכמת הטבע."  שזרע האיש איננו חלק מהעובר, צריך לתת טעם אחר לענין אם אשה מזרעת תחלה וכו'.  עכ"ל

"The entire fetus (body) is part of the mother," that is, from the blood of the mother....  For the semen of the father does not become part of the fetus.  The experts of natural science dispute this matter with Chazal.

"Based on the approach of the experts of natural science," according to whom the semen of the father does not become part of the fetus, we require a different explanation as to why a woman's reaching climax first results in a boy etc.  [translation by HWMNBN]