The Bleeding Woman: A Journey From the Fringes

Medical Conditions and Social Taboos

From a medical perspective, the decade or more of bleeding suggests the woman has a chronic condition. This may be menometrorrhagia (prolonged or excessive uterine bleeding) occurring through a hormonal imbalance, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, cancer, anovulation (where no egg is released and insufficient progesterone can cause heavy bleeding), or a combination of the above. If it is related to peri-menopause there will be a build-up of oestragen in her uterus lining, thickening the wall, which signals the body to shed its lining. This menstrual blood may be heavy and very clotted, increasing the amount of iron which is lost. As this becomes chronic it is not only her haemoglobin levels but her iron stores which are affected. At worst she will become anaemic, a potentially life-threatening condition as the body needs ferritin to make blood.

It is also possible that whatever condition this woman had may have been exacerbated by treatment. Illness in the first century was treated by doctors with the limitation of an ancient medical knowledge, magicians who performed incantations and rituals, and religious myths where people viewed the gods as responsible for both the health and illness of humans. ⁹ Our woman is assumed to be Jewish, and we know she was unable to be cured by physicians. Mark specifies her visits to doctors, while Luke’s shorter text does not. The shorter reading has compelling external weight, ¹⁰ although from an historical perspective it is both possible and logical she tried every avenue to stem the flow.

Chronic bleeding is a major medical condition for any woman. Blood transports oxygen and nutrients to the lungs and tissues, has platelets which are necessary to form life-preserving blood clots; brings waste products to the kidneys and liver which filter and clean the blood, contains iron which is necessary for general strength and breathing, and is needed to regulate body temperature. For a Jew, blood represents life, which is why meat is drained of blood before it is eaten. However, when you lose blood over a long period (which may simply be a month), blood represented a loss of life. Kate Manning’s poem expresses this sentiment. Our woman will have been increasingly disheartened and unwell by her bleeding. She also may have been incrementally disenfranchised by the community who, despite theologically accepting blood gives life (Lev. 17.11) and that menstrual bleeding was a normal part of a woman’s life (Lev. 15), may have viewed menstruation as a social taboo. The reality of social prejudice towards menstruation is discussed by Kendrick:

The menstrual taboo originates in the fear and superstition that menstrual blood contains supernatural powers. Paula Weideger explains that when a person is believed to possess that which may be dangerous to the group, controls are established to limit and contain the power. These controls form the rules of taboo . . . The controls which dictate that women keep their experiences of menstruation hidden nonetheless function negatively. When we are taught that something is hidden, we naturally believe that it contains an element that is not acceptable to other people. If menstruation were considered ‘clean’ and menopause ‘decent’, everyone would admit to their existence. ¹¹

This social taboo, I suggest, is disconnected from Jewish law, and reading the bleeding woman who touched Jesus as a problem with the law is incorrect. The problem she faced was physical (her body was struggling to give her life), social (the community had a negative attitude to menstrual bleeding), but not spiritual; her interaction with Jesus was legal. She did nothing wrong in approaching and touching him.

Menstrual Bleeding, Women and Jewish Law

In the first instance, it is important to establish some historical facts with regard to female bleeding. In ancient times, and in some parts of the world today, women do not menstruate every month. There are many reasons for this: when women do not have accessible or desirable contraception, they are more likely to be pregnant for most of their childbearing years with little space for bleeding to re-establish itself. Concomitant with this is that women may breastfeed intensively reducing the likelihood of bleeding. If these cultures are largely agrarian or subsistence cultures, sizable families are necessary to carry out the daily and seasonal tasks, especially if there is a high level of infant mortality. As a result, these cultures often see childbearing and child raising as a valued part of womanhood. Therefore, it is quite possible that for women in the first century, most of the years from early marriage (aged perhaps 12–14) to 35 or 40 when a woman may no longer have children or the body is too tired or menopause begins, there is little sign of regular menstrual bleeding. ¹²

This dynamic is currently documented in the lives of Ethiopian Jewish women who have come to live in Israel. In Ethiopia today, menstrual cycles are rare and the most one might experience is one or two between pregnancies. ¹³ However, many young women who are living in Israel are choosing to stay single for longer, using contraceptives and pursuing education. Entering into marriage and motherhood are occurring later than was traditionally expected. For these women, this has meant they are now experiencing a monthly cycle, the experience of which is uncommon to their mothers and grandmothers. Therefore, we should not assume that all women in first century Palestine were bleeding each month.

The law understands that menstrual and abnormal bleeding, however, often they occur, are a normal part of life, so too male ejaculation. Both forms of bleeding are dealt with in the purity laws and are in no way equated with sin, even though a ‘sin-offering’ (hatta’th) is made at the conclusion of a period of abnormal bleeding (Lev. 15:30). Milgrom explains that this offering relates to purification for the sake of the sanctuary not to personal volition, and to translate or understand the Hebrew as implying sin is ‘inaccurate on all grounds: contextually, morphologically, and etymologically’. ¹⁴

Leviticus 15 is part of the priestly writings and contains the laws pertaining to genital emissions of both male and female. The Priestly code more widely deals with skin conditions and the birth and death of children. These writings are further divided into Priestly (P) and Holiness (H) writings, and, although found alongside one another in the law, have different notions of sin. ¹⁵ The relationship between sin and impurity is complex. In P someone who sins morally or accidentally is required to offer the same sacrifice, and both impurity and sin can contaminate the sancta from afar. However, aside from these points of commonality, the two ideas are very separate and even discussed in separate chapters in the law. ¹⁶ In the H writing sin and impurity are more closely intertwined. In H, the effects of impurity affect not the priest and the temple (as in P) but affect the land, which is inhabited by humans (see 18.24; 20.18). Therefore, in H, ‘we begin to see that the status of impurity looks a lot like sin’. ¹⁷ Leviticus 15 is from the P writings and deals with impurity and not sin, with the problem of impurity addressing the need to maintain the holiness of the sancta.

In the first instance, the priestly codes treat male ejaculation and female menstruation with a general sense of equality:

Lev. 15:2 male (mibśarô; ek tou sōmatos)

Lev. 15:19 female (binśarah; ek tō sōmati autēs)

These two phrases have striking linguistic similarity aside from the prepositions ek and en (LXX), which correlate with the difference in the Hebrew prepositions, mem and bet. As prepositions, these words provide a key to interpreting the relationship of one object to another, the man and his body, the woman and her body, and these are small differences but ones which in later years were significant in a shift away from the benign status of the law with regard to menstruation. Leviticus 15 is cast within a clear chiasm where marital intercourse lies at the centre, ¹⁸ and where both male and female take an equal role.

A: Introduction (vv. 1-2)

 B: Abnormal male discharges (vv. 2b-15)

  C: Normal male discharges (vv. 17-17)

   D: Intercourse between a male and a female (v. 18)

  C¹: Normal female discharges (vv. 19-24)

 B¹: Abnormal female discharges (vv. 25-30)

A: motive and summary (vv. 31-33)

There are other points of symmetry: the bed and any surface which the unclean one sits upon can transmit impurity to others (male 15.4–12; female 15.20–23), and anyone who touches the unclean person will be unclean themselves (male 15.11; female 15.19). It is noted however, that the man with the normal emission is unclean for one day (15.16), while the women is for 7 days (15.19), although this appears to correlate to the time taken for the discharge. That is, male ejaculation is short, and a female period takes several days and possibly up to a week.

There seems to be some inconsistency in this pattern of symmetry as it relates to sexual intercourse. When a woman has her period, it is unlawful for a man to have sex with her (18.19; 20:8) yet there is no similar prohibition against sexual relations with a man as regard his discharge. This seems to favour the male’s access to sexual intercourse which most likely reflects the writer’s gender. On a punitive note, the symmetry between the two sexes re-emerges as both are cut off from the people if they transgress the command (20.18). Therefore, we could say that at the heart of the law is a general equality between the sexes, and the law does not speak negatively of either male sperm or female blood. The matters dealt with relate to uncleanness as it pertains to the temple and not the individual; in no way is Lev. 15 dealing with matters of moral sin or sinfulness.

Some Greek and Roman thinking supported a positive view of female bleeding. For example, in the writings of Aristotle, Greek medical texts, and later Roman texts, uterine blood was considered the female contribution to conception; it was ‘female seed, the parallel to male sperm’. ¹⁹ Further, procreation was valued by society as it brought economic and social merit. Women, therefore, held an irreplaceable value in the household and community.

The first negative shift, which is discernible in the biblical period, was during the time of exile. Ezekiel used female bleeding as a negative metaphor for all that had gone wrong with Israel as a nation. This was a clear move away from the Torah’s perspective on bleeding as benign, to an emotive picture, which conveyed general male distaste for the inner workings of the female body. Goldstein posits that in the religious and social vacuum of this time, matters of family purity may have become more prominent for the Israelite people as they sought to regain some level of control over the chaos of exile. ²⁰ Her suggestion cannot be proved but is possible. She notes that the prophet blurred the distinction between the blood of the parturient, the menstruant, abnormal bleeding and the act of sex with the menstruant, creating a ‘monolithic picture of a woman and her impure blood’. ²¹ He took the image of the bleeding woman which men as a rule find awkward and sometimes distasteful, and superimposed the image of the bloody city of Jerusalem (Ezek. 16.38; 23.5; 24.7–8). While this made a vivid picture for Israel’s sin in covenant betrayal, it took a healthy picture of women’s cycle that produced life and destroyed the law’s good intent for women. Goldstein concludes,

By linking menstrual blood with bloodguilt, the prophet is explicit in his condemnation of female blood. In subsequent verses he also condemns the women/city for permitting the following immoral behaviors: oppression of the widow (22.7), partaking in food at unofficial sanctuaries (22.9), incest (22.10-11), taking a menstrual woman for sexual intercourse (22.10), spreading vicious gossip (22.9), treating holy items disdainfully, usury (22.12) and profaning the Sabbath (22.8). The bleeding woman is a symbol for everything that is wrong with Israel! ²²

As exile was understood as punishment for sin, and the loss of the city and temple was felt keenly, women became the scapegoats for Israel’s guilt and shame.

Ezekiel was not alone in his negative use of bleeding. Lamentations 1.17 says ‘The Lord has commanded against Jacob that his neighbors should become his foes; Jerusalem has become a filthy thing (niddah) among them’. This again shows abhorrence towards menses. So too Isaiah who suggests a pejorative understanding of menstruation, saying, ‘Then you will defile your silver-covered idols and your gold-plated images. You will scatter them like filthy rags (daweh), you will say to them, “Away with you!”’ (30.22). ²³

A similar dynamic may be noted in the post-exilic time of Ezra-Nehemiah, if the use of niddah relates to menstruation. The text says, ‘the land that you possess is polluted/menstruous (niddah), by the pollution/menstruation (niddah) of the peoples of the land, by their abominations with which they filled it from one end to another with their impurities’ (Ezra 9.11). ²⁴ In this text, the writer equates the land with niddah; it has become polluted due to the people, and, more especially, the sinful behaviours of the people. Milgrom writes, ‘The menstruant . . . is a metaphor for extreme pollution, ultimate revulsion’. ²⁵ As noted, Lev. 15’s laws are from the P code and do not equate ritual impurity with the land (as in H) but with the sanctity of the temple; therefore, the writer of Ezra has blurred the distinctions in the law, and made a decisive move away from the goodness of menstruation.

This negative trajectory is picked up in many rabbinic writings, while some move back towards the healthy understanding from the Torah. Fonrobert comments on the different prepositions used in Lev. 15.2 (ek or mem for the male) and 15.19 (en or bet for the female), noting that the male emission is visible and comes out from the body, while the female sexual organs are hidden inside the body (and so the use of the preposition en). She calls this a hidden or embodied image, or as ‘architecture of the interior’. ²⁶

The internal and hidden aspect of the woman, as opposed to the external and visible understanding for a male emission, created suspicion which has affected the trajectory of Jewish rabbinic conversation. What is internal is hidden, so how long has the woman been impure? How can we determine what we cannot actually see? This embodied understanding has resulted in domicile metaphors for the women’s uterus such as ‘a chamber, a vestibule, and an upper chamber’ (m. Nid. 2.5), which also, rabbis note, correlate to her religious and cultural location in the home. But more problematic is that this places her (and by default the man/husband) in jeopardy of being in a state of impurity before the blood is visible (external flux), creating a negativity towards the woman’s uterus. At this point we can understand, if not necessarily agree with, the rabbis who later became pseudo doctors and who classified a women’s ritual status based on the colour of her blood. ²⁷

A further complicating factor, while not secondary to our conversation, is that rabbinic thinking started to give etiological reasons for laws relating to female niddah with some thinking which was highly pejorative. A Midrash ascribed to Rabbi Yehoshua, a Palestinian rabbi from the beginning of the second century, describes women’s menstrual bleeding as ‘a divine punishment for the first woman’s act of disobedience, since by her disobedience she became complicit in the death of the first man’. ²⁸ The later Palestinian Talmud is equally stark saying, ‘Eve caused [the first adam’s] death, therefore he [God] gave the commandment of niddah to the woman’ (p. Shab. 2.6), with a midrashic version claiming niddah was given because of Eve’s ‘spilling of blood’, implying she is responsible for murder. ²⁹

Fortunately, these pictures are not the only voices in the rabbinic conversation and some writers have sought to regain the goodness of menstruation. In the Babylonian Talmud, an unnamed Galilean gives an opposite view which shows niddah as God’s gift to women. In his eyes, God has ‘put into’ (or given) women her menstrual cycle, thus redeeming the uterus and the menstrual cycle as fundamentally good. The b. Shab. 31b-32a says,

As a certain Galilean expounded in front of Rav Hisda [a third-generation Babylonian rabbi from the later third to early fourth century CE.]: The Holy One Blessed Be He said: I have put into you [plural] a quarter of a log of blood. I have cautioned you [plural] in matters having to do with blood. I have called you firstling. I have cautioned you [plural] in matters to do with the first [portion of dough]. The soul which I have given you is called lamp. I have cautioned you [plural] in matters having to do with the lamp.

In conclusion,

We have seen two strands of thinking. The law itself supports a reading of menstrual bleeding as good, but because of social taboos, male prejudice has created distance between women and men and women and their bodies. The pejorative use of bleeding in exilic and post-exilic times relate to social taboos and were not correct theologically. They reflected the views of the male writers who eschewed the hiddenness of female blood.

Luke’s Bleeding Woman in Light of Leviticus 15

I read Luke’s text with a positive view of the Levitical law as it relates to women, and view the later developments of exilic, post-exilic and some rabbinic disdain for menses as an aberration. This contrasts with Selvidge’s Women Cult and Miracle Recital where she reads Jesus as freeing women from the problem of niddah. ³⁰

Jesus was a Jewish man who upheld the integrity of the law revealing the heart of the law as good; for Jesus menstruation was a healthy part of womanhood, and it was not something women needed help to ‘escape’ from. Some readings of this text as they relate to niddah are flawed by their presentist view; ³¹ they also devalue a culture far removed from our own and assume the contemporary view must be correct. Regulations around women’s bleeding are foreign to today’s Christian women, while many Jewish women embrace these as good. For example, Cook, a Jewish orthodox scholar, suggests that female bleeding is part of the ‘harmonious system of differences established through a series of divine acts of separation. To the extent to which humans maintain and mirror this divine action, they exist in the harmony of Eden; conversely, to the extent that they do not, they are in exile’. ³² For this writer, bleeding and the management of this is to be valued as part of a woman’s particularity. From a later Mishnaic perspective, slightly later than our first century period, Cook notes that the orthodox practice of strict laws are managed by women (rather than a male priest in the temple period), and therefore give women a priestly role. Now women are part of the ‘bold and creative reconstruction of the Temple system in the absence of both temple and priests’. ³³ For Cook, the law values women’s bodily cycles. Tehilla Abramov’s positive view represents a typical modern orthodox position which notes the spiritual and physical advantages of niddah laws that include strong marriages, fertility, spiritual satisfaction and good health. ³⁴ We should assume that most Jewish men and women viewed menstruation (and male ejaculation with which it is clearly paired) as a normal part of life in keeping with the Levitical presentation.

This reading of the text is also contrary to the prevailing Christian reading which (1) views the women touching Jesus as wrong and (2) believes her bleeding limits her ability to have social interaction. Most commentators say little about what this would have meant for her family interaction. Garland writes that ‘the touch of a menstruating woman was harmful’, and ‘those auditors familiar with the law would take it for granted that she was largely banished from normal social intercourse’. ³⁵ Green notes that she is socially banished, ³⁶ and when the woman touches Jesus she crosses a boundary which was ‘a violation of the biblical purity code’. ³⁷ She is viewed (by society) as ‘an unclean, disgraceful woman’, ³⁸ and her actions were therefore ‘unprecedented and unanticipated’. ³⁹ In similar vein, Bovon comments that she is ‘ritually unclean and socially isolated’, suggesting these two ideas are inherently linked, and that ‘contact with her was forbidden by the law’. ⁴⁰ Nolland suggests that the woman ‘should not have been anonymously in the crowd’ as she was ritually unclean, but does not suggest she shouldn’t have touched Jesus. ⁴¹ For these scholars the woman’s unclean status means she is socially isolated but when she is healed, she is ritually restored and can become part of the community again. To refute these claims and to engage with Luke’s text, we will now examine the Levitical code regarding an abnormal bleeding pattern which our Lukan woman exhibits.

Leviticus 15.25–26 describes a woman with an abnormal bleed as unclean. The text says, ⁴²

If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity (menstrual period), or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness (akatharsia); as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean (akathartos). ²⁶ Every bed on which she lies during all the days of her discharge shall be treated as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean (akathartos), as in the uncleanness (akatharsia) of her impurity.

Muraoka explains akatharsia as (1) a religiously or morally impure object; (2) a ceremonially unclean state; and (3) immorality, moral or religious impurity, and akathartos as (1) impurity in a ritual or ceremonial sense or (2) in a religious or moral sense. ⁴³ Religious impurity rather than a moral category is implied, and assigned time periods and offerings restored impurity.

First, it is important to note that her uncleanness relates to (1) her bed and to (2) the objects she sits upon; this does not relate to most activities undertaken in social discourse. For example, going to the market, stopping to talk with friends, going to the well to draw water, and such like. Many daily tasks were not affected by this section of the law. For those who do touch the place where she sat, 15.26 outlines that they are themselves ritually unclean and need to wash their clothes and bathe in water; they are unclean until the evening. Therefore, these people are only in a ritually unclean state until the evening, much like after sexual intercourse (15.18).

Luke’s woman had bled for many years, and this will have created a constant demand for her and her family as they followed these laws. I suggest that she did have a family who cared for her and with whom she lived. She is placed in narrative contrast to the demoniac; he is naked and living outside of the community in isolation (Lk. 8.7). None of these are factors discussed in her situation, and further, she has had access to medical help. This is implied strongly in Luke when the text says ‘ouk iskysen ap’oudenos therapeuthēnai’ (‘she could not be healed’; 8.43), while Mark makes this explicit. ⁴⁴

Second, it is critical to note that the qualifications around touching relate to the inanimate objects (the bed and chair) and not the woman; a child may touch his or her mother, a husband may touch his wife (though not sexually), and a friend may touch the woman. It is significant to note the restrictions and their direction. That is, the woman is the only one who is restricted in whom she may touch.

Third, the passage never actually discusses the problem of the women touching anything; she does not transfer uncleanness to anyone or anything. ⁴⁵ Our woman touched Jesus (8.44), and there was no problem regarding her or Jesus’ ritual purity in her action, although some Lukan commentators have misunderstood this. This incorrect view appears to stem from the writings of Ramban who says,

In ancient days menstruants kept very isolated, for they ever were referred to as niddôt on account of their isolation, because they did not approach people and speak with them. For the ancients in their wisdom knew that their breath is harmful, their gaze is detrimental and makes a bad impression . . . and the menstruants dwelled isolated in tents where no one entered, just as our rabbis have mentioned in the Baraita de Massekat Niddah: A learned man is forbidden to greet a menstruant’. Rabbi Nehemiah says, ‘Even the utterance of her mouth is impure’. Said Rabbi Yochanan: ‘One is forbidden to walk after a menstruant and tread in her footsteps, which are as a corpse; so is the dust upon which the menstruant steeped is impure, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from her work’. (on Gen 31.35)

Ramban’s words have made their way into a Jewish thinking and theology. For example, Wasserfall says,

During the second Temple period . . . menstruating women were segregated and resided in what was called ‘a house of impurity’. They could not adorn themselves, had to eat alone, and could not continue their duties in their homes. This was because only ‘pure’ food could be eaten during the Temple periods, again because of the presence of God in the Temple. ⁴⁶

Yet today, as Milgrom among others points out, this view is not considered a correct reflection of the lives of Jewish women, and Ramban’s late view (end of the first millennium CE) does not reflect the Babylonian Talmud. ⁴⁷ The Talmud allows a woman to continue a relatively normal life: cooking, cleaning, talking with friends, going to the marketplace, and attending synagogue; her hands do not transmit impurity. ⁴⁸ The b. Ketub. 61a only restricts her filing her husband’s cup of wine, making his bed, and washing him. ⁴⁹ Furthermore, in keeping with the law, the male and female are to refrain from sexual intercourse: an equal restriction.

Fonrobert notes a rabbinic perspective that showed no prejudice towards bleeding women in a religious setting. She writes,

there is no evidence that women should be kept separate from the ‘holy books’ because of a potential danger of transferring their menstrual impurity to them. On the contrary, there is at least one tannaitic source that –almost in passing – explicitly allows menstruous women to read Torah: ‘men and women with irregular genital emissions, menstruants and parturients are permitted to read Torah, and to study Mishnah, Midrash, laws and homilies’. (t. Ber. 2:12)

The problem of impurity in Leviticus is explained as the defilement of the tabernacle (15.31), ⁵⁰ for this was where sacred rituals were performed. This reference to the sanctuary would later be understood as the temple, but did not translate to the synagogue for it did not have the same sacred status. ⁵¹ We can assume our woman attended the synagogue along with her family without any restriction.

What would have been ritually unacceptable is that Jesus could not have touched her, but this is not what happened; the woman touched Jesus’ ritual fringes. In fact, here I suggest that as she took hold of the ritual fringes, she demonstrated she knew what they represented: the commandments of the law (Num. 15.38–41). In this act, our woman functioned as a priest who took hold of the horns of the altar with both hands in blood rituals, and in doing so made a plea for God’s mercy. ⁵² In doing this, she performed a priestly rite breaking a new barrier for women.

Finally, the law deals with how purity is restored to the woman (Lev. 15.28–30) and the reason for the impurity (15.31). In v.28, the woman waits for the eighth day after the bleeding has ceased, and then she makes an offering of two turtle-doves or two pigeons which are offered to the priest; one is offered as a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering for her ‘unclean discharge’ (15.29–30). The burnt offering dealt with the bleeding while the ‘sin offering’ was really a matter of purification for the sake of the sanctuary. ⁵³ Menstrual bleeding of less than 7 days (a standard period) did not require the waiting period, but the length of the bleed seems to have created the belief that the impurity ‘will grow in force until it has the power to pollute the sanctuary from afar’. ⁵⁴ The law, as we have repeated, did not view the bleeding women herself as sinful.

Notably, the law does not require a third party to establish whether the women is now ready to go to the priest; time parameters are given, and the implicit expectation is that women have authority over their own bodies. This contrasts with later developments in the Mishnah and Talmud where a rabbi was required to evaluate the woman’s ritual status. The Mishnah discusses the various colours of the blood and their source. This then enabled decisions to be made regarding the appropriateness of sexual relations, which were forbidden during menstruation (18.19; 20.18). The Mishnah and later Talmud also explain that not all vaginal bleeding was menstrual blood and therefore required abstinence from sexual relations for the sake of purity. While the Mishnah’s dating is not in our direct time period, it gives a framework for Jewish discussion which is likely to have taken place in the first century. Of particular interest is Rabbi Aqiva’s view in the Mishnah, for he lived in the first century.

A case about a woman who came before Rabbi Aqiva:

It is possible that our woman and her husband and/or rabbi believed her highly abnormal bleeding was not actually menstrual blood but from another source, and so she may even have had a normal sexual relationship.

The reason given for the uncleanness, as we have already seen, relates to the sanctuary and is not a matter of personal volition. That is, the woman is not a contaminated vessel which must be avoided; she has not sinned, and her menstrual flow is not sinful. Quite the contrary, a functioning uterus is the component necessary for the growth of the unborn. If anything, the uterus needs to be understood as a valuable part of female anatomy and is to be celebrated. Sadly, this is not the experience of many, and these ‘hidden’ parts are less valued, and we eschew talk of menstruation. Poignantly, Judith Duerk asks,

How might it have been different for you, if on your first menstrual day, your mother had given you a bouquet of flowers and taken you out to lunch, and then the two of you had gone to meet your father at the jeweller, where your ears were pierced, and your father brought you your first pair of earrings . . . how might your life be different? ⁵⁵

On a final note it is important for us to consider the historic location of the woman; she lived in Galilee and not Jerusalem, and it is therefore highly unlikely she was able to make a trip to the temple to give an offering when her bleeding ceased, especially in the timeframe of 8 days. A journey of that distance for her own cultic needs would be highly impractical, and it is more likely that she visited the local mikveh or river to signify the end of her ritual impurity.

During the time of her bleeding, life must have been very difficult. As noted, her energy levels will have been critically low and her general health and ability to cope with the physical demands of life would have been diminished. She would likely have known her life ebbing away, and blood, which was a positive force in Judaism, would have been a negative thing for her. Our woman’s life in Galilee will have at least been aided by access to a good clean supply of water for bathing and general cleanliness. The value of clean water should not be overlooked or underestimated. Blood once oxidised is smelly and she will have fought a constant battle to ‘feel’ clean and not stick out in a social setting. Furthermore, being able to keep clothes and bedding clean will have been an ongoing problem. Maintaining her own health will have taken much time. Fortunately, the ancient world did know of tampons. ⁵⁶ Egyptian hieroglyphics suggest they were used in this part of the world. They were probably made from natural fibres such as rolled papyrus and wool. Greek women wrapped lint wrapped around small pieces of wood. Roman women wore pads and tampons made of soft wool. Jewish women are likely to have used similar natural fibres.