A very brief chapter of Leviticus, the shortest in the entire book, focuses entirely on the connection between a woman giving birth, ceremonial uncleanness afterward, and sacrifices to God in Biblical philosophy. Early in this chapter, Leviticus 12, it is said that giving birth to a boy renders a woman temporarily unclean so that she should not enter the sanctuary of Yahweh until after her purification (12:4). There is a seven day period of uncleanness (12:2) followed by another 33 days (12:4) after the boy's circumcision (12:3). Upon giving birth to a girl, the mother is unclean for an initial 14 days followed by an additional 66 days (12:5), exactly double the duration of uncleanness for giving birth to a boy on all fronts. The woman is to eventually bring animals to a Levitical priest after the applicable time has elapsed and complete her ceremonial purification (12:6-8).
Here are verses 6-8 of Leviticus 12 in which the often unmentioned details are stated.
Leviticus 12:6-8—"'"When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean."'"
In a blatant but casual manner, Leviticus 12:6-8 absolutely does call for the woman herself, not her husband or any male biological relative such as her father or brother, to pay for and bring the animal as her offering. Whether the woman (as with any other man or woman bringing a sacrifice) bought the animal with money specifically for this purpose or selected an animal from those she already possessed, she is the one who can afford the creature. She has her own resources or means of obtaining them. If she cannot personally afford the initially required animal, she is to substitute a pair of the specified clean birds [1].
In fact, nowhere in the entirety of Leviticus 12 is any husband mentioned. Alive or dead, married to the woman or not, the father of the son or daughter is simply not referenced. This is not unusual since the context is about how a woman who has given birth was to ceremonially cleanse herself under the active Levitical priesthood. It still reinforces that the focus really is on the woman from the birth to her offerings in accordance with what she can afford.
This does not mean that if the woman is in a committed relationship and especially if the man is the father, the husband/boyfriend should never offer to help with the cost of the animal or the woman automatically sins by asking for such assistance. She is the only one who has to present the offering because her birth-related ceremonial uncleanness is what the offering is for, something tied to female biology (not psychological stereotypes about either women or men), though the husband is still morally free to accompany her. This is actually the case with Mary and Joseph in Luke 2:22-24 (also given direct attention verse 27). Both go to Jerusalem for this purpose.
But the woman is clearly not prescribed financial dependence upon her husband or any other man. The wording here, along with that of other passages expressly mandating that women make restitution (Numbers 5:5-7) or give their own animal sacrifices (Leviticus 15:28-30, Numbers 5:5-10, Numbers 6:1-2 with 9-18), is very plain about this being her responsibility and, in turn, the woman having access to animals or her own money to purchase them with. For still other affirmations of the moral legitimacy of women having their own property according to the Law, see verses like Numbers 27:5-8, Deuteronomy 15:12-14, and Deuteronomy 24:17. Luke 15:8-10 in the New Testament, moreover, features a woman's personal property ownership as a fundamental component of one of Christ's parable.
Also, even as women are not prescribed financial dependence on a male relative or significant other, they are not forced to grapple with crushing poverty while making inflexibly expensive purification offerings regardless of their relationship status. There is the permissible option of making a less costly offering, a pair of doves or pigeons in place of a lamb in the case of Leviticus 12:6-8. Leviticus 14:21-22 addresses flexibility in making an offering to be fully ceremonially cleansed in the instance of certain skin conditions, while Leviticus 5:6-13 goes two layers deep into the reduced requirements for what to bring to the priest. The poverty of a man or woman was never to be a total obstacle to either ceremonial purification or atoning for moral misdeeds.
No one sins by seeking or having financial autonomy, irrespective of their marital status. Gender certainly has nothing to do with this logically or Biblically. Men and women alike are ethically allowed to pursue property of their own, given that it is not something morally illegitimate as with an idol for worship, and men and women alike were to make offerings from their own resources during the active Levitical priesthood. Financial independence without extreme vulnerability is precisely what Leviticus 12:6-8 acknowledges is a woman's and by extension every person's right.
No comments:
Post a Comment