‘Shidduch Crisis’ / Single Motherhood / Matrilineal Descent: Parshat Tazria

Jewish tradition stipulates that a child’s religious identity is determined by his mother.

In 1983 American Reform Jewry chose, out of desperation or expedience, to run afoul of tradition and irreconcilably trash any vestigial connection to normative Judaism by declaring patrilineal descent valid.

Elsewhere, in haredi society – especially the yeshivish world – there is a great deal of rabbinical hand-wringing, not to mention emotional angst among its female victims, about what is dubbed “the shidduch crisis”. Too many single haredi young women remain un-shidduched.

If a girl reaches the age of 23 and is not yet married, she becomes virtually untouchable. Unsaid, is the fact that the common denominator shared by nearly all these ‘old maids’ is that they are un-monied. Their tattys just don’t have the lucre to purchase a suitable young Torah man to marry their daughters.

The quest for money among ostensible Torah scholars is hardly a new thing. Indeed, it was often the only thing that mattered to a young yeshiva man when choosing his bride.

In the past, this was not much of a problem. Young Torah scholars – other than (especially?) those pursuing a rabbinical career had no intention of remaining cloistered for a lifetime in the beit midrash. They looked forward, after a few years of additional learning, to joining the shver’s (father in law’s) business thereby leapfrogging the trials and tribulations of striking out on their own.

All this changed with the advent of the new reform Judaism known as ‘black hat’ or haredi – where it became de rigueur to spend a lifetime learning ‘Tayreh’ while expecting the shver (and, if necessary, a working wife) to put bread on the table.

In addition, the married kolel man had the entitled expectation of a large family with many children who would, of necessity, be supported by others.

Alas, these many children would eventually grow up and need shidduchim of their own. Some 51% of these children would inevitably make the grievous error of being born female. And few young yeshiva men – including the brothers of such girls – would agree to meet a prospective bride whose tatty was himself an impecunious Torah learner. They know what they were entitled to, having been weaned by their roshei yeshiva on an ethos whereby “ah shidduch ohne gelt heist nisht kein shidduch” – i.e. a match without money is no match.

Some years ago, I was learning with a study partner in an empty shul in Shaarei Chesed when a well-dressed young man replete with the starched shirt and crisp black Borsalino that signifies an avreich (a married kolel student) came in. He was collecting money for his father who was in serious trouble.

I naturally assumed there was some medical issue that required private funding, but I was wrong. The father had agreed to provide a new apartment for his daughter and her groom. However, he did not have the necessary funds and the groom was now threatening to terminate the engagement unless the future shver ponied up the cash.

There is something similar to a shidduch crisis within normative society as well.  Too many young women find themselves confronting the waning ticking of their biological clocks, yet lacking significant others with whom to procreate and rear at least one child of their own.

There are many culprits responsible of this situation; feminism, careerism, widespread immaturity among men who have themselves been feminized by the zeitgeist, the reality of career tracks in which there is no masculine advantage, the massive increase in the number of males who declare themselves gay.

And yet, the maternal instinct among so many of the maritally stranded women is in high, even desperate, gear with no conventional solution at hand.

To their credit, an increasing number of such women are choosing to fly solo by arranging anonymous donor insemination and embarking on a lifetime of single parenthood. This is a daunting challenge. I speak as someone who raised two children as a divorced father. It isn’t easy. And yet they do it – instinct being stronger than intellect. And they deserve all the support we can give them.

For those haredi virgins floundering in the desperate bubble of their societal fortress, single motherhood is not even an option. But perhaps it should be. Clearly the Torah has little or no objection. And other than the social stigma – one which might easily be mitigated over time – there really is no barrier to conception.

Indeed, it could well be that a single working haredi mom would be far better off than one saddled with a kolel husband who does nothing to maintain his family, other than making sure it increases in number.

The phrasing of the second, eponymous, verse of Parshat Tazria (Vayikra/Leviticus 12:2) is unusual, even bizarre.

… אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר

While commonly translated as “If a woman conceives ….”, the word תזריע  ‘tazria’ implies an almost unilateral, even botanical, sprouting; a spontaneous occurrence that seems to lack any active partner.

Normally Torah’s description of conception and birth is ותהר ותלד  “vatahar va’teled” (and she became pregnant and gave birth), which more clearly implies the active role of a husband/male partner in the generative process.

The verse that follows is both grammatically interesting and totally out of context.

וּבַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר ערְלָתֽוֹ

Initially, it may appear to make sense that the commandment to circumcise a male child would follow a verse about birthing such a child. Yet, in truth the mitzvah of brit milah does not belong in a parsha that is otherwise 100% dedicated to ritual impurities. Indeed, circumcision has nothing at all to do with the ritual impurity of the mother – it neither causes it, nor mitigates it, nor purifies it in any way.

Verse 3 manifests its separateness from verse 2 by making it abundantly clear that circumcision of the infant boy is not the task of the mother.

Again, the conventional translation of Verse 3 is “On the eighth day the flesh of the foreskin shall be circumcised”.

In truth, Verse 3 could also be translated as:

“On the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin”, implying that the infant must circumcise himself, which is absurd.

Or;

“On the eight day he (another male, possibly but not necessarily the father) shall circumcise the flesh of his (the infant’s) foreskin”.

Under no circumstances is there any possibility of this being the mother’s task, or even for allowing a female to perform circumcision, as the verse is clearly gender-specific.

Had the Torah wished to make the mother responsible, it would have said “timol”  (תמול) instead of “yimol” (ימול) – she should circumcise rather than he should circumcise. And had the Torah wished to be gender-neutral, it would have used the passive past perfect huf’al (הופעל) verb conjugation, i.e.” “humal” (הומל) – and the foreskin shall have been circumcised, which would leave the surgeon’s gender open to choice.

Our parsha is hardly loathe to employ the huf’al verb where it deems appropriate, including one fascinatingly obscure one. Nevertheless, here where it would seem only natural to do so, it does not.

So what gives?

I would like to suggest that these two verses are not so much linked as they are juxtaposed. Verse 2 purposely excludes the male partner in order to lay the groundwork for matrilineal descent. As well as for situations in which the birth mother has no husband.

In determining a child’s Israelite identity, who the male partner is and whether or not he is known is irrelevant. If the mother is Jewish so is the offspring. Paternity is at best a question mark, and can have no bearing on national-religious identity. And if she is a single woman, well so be it. The child is a Jewish child and is included in the greater Jewish community.

Having established this, and given such absolute identifying power to the mother, the Torah then draws the line by saying, this is where her power ends. The circumcision that follows should be performed by a male.

Why is this so? Possibly because a male surgeon would have more empathy for the child. Possibly to restore some pride of parenting to the presumed father. Possibly to initiate the male child into a lifetime of ritual responsibilities that are assigned to male members of the Jewish community. Yes, the mother authenticates and legitimizes her child as a member of the Israelite body, but she has no monopoly on the child’s ritual progress.

As for the two huf’als in our parsha:

1. Vayikra/Levitucs 13:2

The Torah does not use the term “yavo” (יבוא) and he shall come. This may be for one of two reasons;

a) because one cannot expect someone who has developed a social disease to step forward voluntarily, or

(b) because the Torah prefers not to be gender-specific, lest we assume that only males can be afflicted by this disease.

2.Vayikra/Leviticus 13:55 and 56

The word הֻכַּבֵּ֣ס  “huqabess” is a one-off and makes no other appearance anywhere in TaNaKh. Perhaps the Torah wishes to make clear that it is never the kohen who does the washing, and, indeed, whoever does the washing would prefer to remain anonymous.

We live in complicated times, and Torah was written for complicated times too. Conventional living arrangements are, increasingly, no longer the norm. Too many women remain single. Many because they lack the primary aphrodisiac that attracts a Torah scholar – a large dowry. Many others because they are victims of society’s normative disintegration, the erasure of crisp gender roles and identity. Yet the maternal instinct remains powerful.

Parshat Tazria makes it clear that a woman can unilaterally choose to find herself pregnant. Clearly the Torah embraces her decision to have a child. We should too. And if there aren’t enough tattys in Torahland who can purchases husbands for their daughters, perhaps its time to realize that this new “Torah Judaism” is not such as good idea, and barring any changes, to at least enable the stranded daughters to fulfill their desire for motherhood.