according to the Law, to be 'redeemed' of the priest at the price of five shekels of the
Sanctuary.5 Rabbinic casuistry here added many needless, and even repulsive, details.
The following, however, are of practical interest. The earliest period of presentation was
thirty-one days after birth so as to make the legal month quite complete. The child must
have been the firstborn of his mother (according to some writers, of his father also);6
neither father nor mother7 must be of Levitic descent; and the child must be free from all
such bodily blemishes a s would have disqualified him for the priesthood - or, as it was
expressed: 'the firstborn for the priesthood.' It was a thing much dreaded, that the child
should die before his redemption; but if his father died in the interval, the child had to
redeem himself when of age. As the Rabbinic law expressly states, that the shekels were
to be of 'Tyrian weight,'8 the value of the 'redemption money' would amount to about ten
or twelve shillings. The redemption could be made from any priest, and attendance in the
Temple was not requisite. It was otherwise with the 'purification' of the mother.9 The
Rabbinic law fixed this at forty-one days after the birth of a son, and eighty-one after that
of a daughter,10 so as to make the Biblical terms quite complete.11 But it might take place
any time later - notably, when attendance on any of the great feasts brought a family to
Jerusalem. Thus, we read of cases when a mother would offer several sacrifices of
purification at the same time.12 But, indeed, the woman was not required to be personally
present at all, when her offering was presented, or, rather (as we shall see), provided for -
say, by the representatives of the laity, who daily took part in the services for the various
districts from which they came. This also is specially provided for in the Tulmud.13 But
mothers who were within convenient distance of the Temple, and especially the more
earnest among them, would naturally attend personally in the Temple;14 and in such
cases, when practicable, the redemption of the firstborn, and the purification of his
mother, would be combined. Such was undoubtedly the case with the Virgin-Mother and
her Son.
5. Numb. xviii. 16.
6. So Lundius, Jüd. Alterth. p.621, and Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. p. 1699. But I am bound to
say, that this seems contrary to the sayings of the Rabbis.
7. This disposes of the idea, that the Virgin -Mother was of direct Aaronic or Levitic
descent.
8. Bechor viii. 7.
9. Lev. xii.
10. Archdeacon Farrar is mistaken in supposing, that the 'thirty-three days' were counted
'after the circumcision.' The idea must have arisen from a misunderstanding of the
English version of Lev. xii. 4. There was no connection between the time of the
circumcision of the child, and that of the purification of his mother. In ce rtain
circumstances circumcision might have to be delayed for days, in case of sickness, till
recovery. It is equally a mistake to suppose, that a Jewish mother could not leave the
house till after the forty days of her purification.
11. Comp. Sifra, ed. Weiss, p. 59 a and b; Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hal.Mechusre
Capp., ed. Amst., vol. iii. p. 255 a and b.
12. Comp. Kerith. i. 7.
13. Jer. Sheq. 50 b.