¹tn Heb “produces seed” (Hiphil of urz; used only elsewhere in Gen 1:11-12 for plants “producing” their own “seed”), referring to the process of childbearing as a whole, from conception to the time of birth (TDOT 4:144; cf. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 164-165 and Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 742-743). The Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX have Niphal “be impregnated” (see, e.g., Num 5:28).
²sn The regulations for the “male child” in vv. 2-4 contrast with those for the “female child” in v. 5 (see the note there).
³tn Heb “as the days of the menstrual flow [nom.] of her menstruating [q. inf.] she shall be unclean” (NIDOTTE 1:925-26; the verb appears only in this verse in the OT).
sn See Lev 15:19-24 for the standard purity regulations for a woman’s menstrual period.
⁴tn Heb “and in….”
⁵tn This rendering, “the flesh of his foreskin,” is literal. Based on Lev 15:2-3, one could argue that the Hebrew word for “flesh” here (rc*B*) is euphemistic for the male genital member and therefore translate “the foreskin of his member” (see, e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 748).
⁶tn Heb “sit, dwell” (bvy normally means “to sit; to dwell”), but here it means “to remain; to stay” in the same condition for a period of time (cf., e.g., Gen 24:55).
⁷tn Heb “in bloods of purification” or “purifying” or “purity.” See the following note.
⁸sn The initial seven days after the birth of a son were days of blood impurity for the woman as if she was on her menstrual period. Her impurity was contagious during this period, so no one should touch her or even furniture on which she has sat or reclined (Lev 15:19-23), lest they too become impure. Even her husband would become impure for seven days if he had sexual relations with her during this time (Lev 15:24; cf. 18:19). The next thirty-three days were either “days of purification, purifying” or “days of purity,” depending on how one understands the abstract noun hr`h(f) “purification; purity” in this context. During this time the woman could not touch anything holy or enter the sanctuary, but she was no longer contagious like she had been during the first seven days. She could engage in normal everyday life, including sexual intercourse, without fear of contaminating anyone else (Levine, Leviticus [JPSTC], 73-74; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 749-750). Thus, in a sense, the thirty-three days were a time of blood “purity” as compared to the previous seven days, but they were also a time of blood “purification” (or “purifying”) as compared to the time after the thirty-three days, when the blood atonement had been made and she was pronounced “clean” by the priest (see vv. 6-8 below). In other words, the thirty-three day period was a time of “blood” (flow), but this was “pure blood,” as opposed to the blood of the first seven days.
⁹tn Heb “on purity blood.” The preposition here is lu^ rather than B= (as it is in the middle of v. 4), but no doubt the same meaning is intended.
¹⁰tn For clarification of the translation here, see the notes on vv. 2-4 above.
sn The doubling of the time after the birth of a female child is puzzling (see the remarks in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 750-751 and Wenham, Leviticus NICOT, 188). Some have argued, for example, that it derives from the relative status of the sexes, or a supposed longer blood flow for the birth of a woman, or even to compensate for the future menstrual periods of the female just born. Perhaps there is a better explanation. First, a male child must be circumcised on the eighth day, so the impurity of the mother could not last beyond the first seven days lest it interfere with the circumcision rite. A female child, of course, was not circumcised, so the impurity of the mother could not interfere and the length of the impure time could be extended further. Second, it would be natural to expect that the increased severity of the blood flow after childbirth, as compared to that of a woman’s menstrual period, would call for a longer period of impurity than the normal seven days of the menstrual period impurity (compare Lev 15:19 with 15:25-30). Third, this suggests that the fourteen day impurity period for the female child would have been more appropriate, and the impurity period for the birth of a male child had to be shortened. Fourth, not only the principle of multiples of seven but also multiples of forty applies to this reckoning. Since the woman’s blood discharge after bearing a child continues for more than seven days, her discharge keeps her from contact with sacred things for a longer period of time in order to avoid contaminating the tabernacle (note Lev 15:31). This ended up totaling forty days for the birth of a male child (seven plus thirty-three) and a corresponding doubling of the second set of days for the woman (fourteen plus sixty-six). See NIDOTTE 2:368-70. The fact that the offerings were the same for either a male or a female infant (vv. 6-8) suggests that the other differences in the regulations are not due to the notion that a male child had greater intrinsic value than a female child (Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 169).
¹¹tn Heb “And when….”
¹²tn Heb “a lamb the son of his year.”
¹³sn See the note on Lev 1:3 regarding the “burnt offering.”
¹⁴sn See the note on Lev 4:3 regarding the term “sin offering.”
¹⁵tn Heb “and he” (i.e., the priest mentioned at the end of v. 6).
¹⁶sn See the note on Lev 1:4 “make atonement.” The purpose of sin offering “atonement,” in particular, was to purge impurities from the tabernacle (see Lev 15:31 and 16:5-19, 29-34), whether they were caused by physical uncleannesses or sins and iniquities. In this case, the woman has not “sinned” morally by having a child. Even Mary brought such offerings for bearing Jesus (Luke 2:22-24). She certainly did not “sin” in giving birth to our savior. Note that the result of bringing this “sin offering” was “she will be clean,” not “she will be forgiven” (cf. Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13). The impurity of the blood flow has caused the need for this “sin offering,” not some moral or relational infringement of the law (contrast Lev 4:2, “When a person sins by straying from any of the commandments of the Lord”).
¹⁷tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”
¹⁸tn Heb “from her source [i.e., spring] of blood,” possibly referring to the female genital area, not just the “flow of blood” itself (as suggested by Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 761).
¹⁹tn Heb “If her hand cannot find the sufficiency of a sheep.”
²⁰tn Heb “from the sons of the pigeon,” referring either to “young pigeons” or “various species of pigeon” (contrast Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB], 168 with Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 14; cf. Lev 1:14 and esp. 5:7-10).
²¹tn Or “she will be[come] pure.”