The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees

Summary: An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?

Post: In the complaint of the Israelites in parashat Chukat, we read:

5. Why have you taken us out of Egypt to bring us to this evil place; it is not a place for seeds, or for fig trees, grapevines, or pomegranate trees, and there is no water to drink.

ה. וְלָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָבִיא אֹתָנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הָרָע הַזֶּה לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן וּמַיִם אַיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת:

Pashut peshat is that they are comparing their present place to Egypt (see parshat Korach for comparison) or to the eventual destination, Canaan. But Baal HaTurim, playing on that the spark here was the termination of the flow of Miriam's well at her death, makes a comparison instead to the Israelites' other encampments. Thus, he writes, in his long commentary:


לא מקום זרע. מלמד  שהבאר  היתה מגדלת
 להם מיני  זרע ומיני  אילנות לפי שעה  בכל
 מקום שחנו, שהרי לא התרעמו  שלא היו  במקום
 זרע אלא עתה שפסק הבאר


Since this complaint only comes now, at the termination of the well's flow, it must be that until then they had it. So lefi shaa, fairly quickly, in each place they encamped, it caused edible plants as well as trees to grow.

The basis for this Baal HaTurim is a midrash in Shir HaShirim Rabba. The pasuk in Shir HaShirim, perek 4, reads:

יג  שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים, עִם פְּרִי מְגָדִים:  כְּפָרִים, עִם-נְרָדִים.

13 Thy shoots are a park of pomegranates, with precious fruits; henna with spikenard plants,

And the Midrash reads:

דבר אחר: שלחיך פרדס רמונים
שלחיך עתיד הקב"ה לעשותך כפרדס רמונים לעתיד לבא.
ואיזה זה?
זה הבאר.

מאן היו ישראל מנטרים כל מ' שנה שעשו במדבר? רבי יוחנן אמר:
מן הבאר, וממנו היו רוב הנייתן.

דאמר רבי יוחנן:
הבאר הייתה מעלה להם מיני דשאים, מיני זרעונים, מיני אילנות, תדע לך שהוא כן, שכיון שמתה מרים ופסקה הבאר מהן, היו אומרים: (במדבר כ') לא מקום זרע ותאנה וגפן.

רבי לוי אמר:
מן האשכול, על שם: (שם י"ג) ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבים אחד.
אפשר כן?

אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא:
פירות היו גסין באותה שעה.

ורבנן אמרין:
ממה שהיו תגרי עובדי כוכבים מוכרין להם לישראל.

תני ר' ישמעאל:
עדיין לא נאסר יינם של עובדי כוכבים לישראל: 

Thus, Rabbi Yochanan, an early Palestinian Amora, says this. The connection is between the pasuk in Shir Hashirim and in Bemidbar 20, but not just zera mentioned, but also לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן. Thus, all sorts of edible plants and trees. And also the immediate juxtaposition (and preceding of all these) to the phrase  וּמַיִם אַיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת.

In Matamei Yaakov,a by R' Yaakov Yechizkiyah Fish, we read the following contrast in midrashim:

Thus, after citing the Tur, though not the source midrash upon which the Tur is based, he writes:

"And there is to point out that according to that which is explained, that Yaakov saw with ruach hakodesh that Israel would build the Mishkan in the future and they would need cedar wood, and therefore he brought them with him to Egypt and they took them, for in this Midbar is [not] a place of planting, it is implied from there not like the Tur. For if the Well caused the sprouting of trees, they would not need to prepare it from before, for also this would have grown. And perhaps he did this because we do not rely on a miracle."

We see this Rashi in sefer Shmos, in parshas Terumah, in Shemot 25 -- my own translation:

5. ram skins dyed red, tachash skins, and acacia wood;		ה. וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים:
And acacia wood: From where did they have this in the wilderness? Rabbi Tanchuma explains that Yaakov Avinu saw with ruach hakoshesh that Israel would in the future build a Mishkan in the wilderness, and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them, and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt.		ועצי שטים: מאין היו להם במדבר, פירש רבי תנחומא יעקב אבינו צפה ברוח הקודש, שעתידין ישראל לבנות משכן במדבר, והביא ארזים למצרים ונטעם, וצוה לבניו ליטלם עמהם, כשיצאו ממצרים:

We can read that Midrash Tanchuma here:

ומהיכן היו הקרשים?
יעקב אבינו נטע אותם בשעה שירד למצרים. אמר לבניו: בני, עתידים אתם להיגאל מכאן, והקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד לומר לכם משאתם נגאלין, שתעשו לו את המשכן, אלא עמדו ונטעו ארזים מעכשיו, שבשעה שיאמר לכם לעשות לו את המשכן, יהיו הארזים מתוקנים לכם.
מיד עמדו ונטעו ועשו כן. 

"And from where were the boards {kerashim}? Yaakov Avinu planted them at the time he went down to Egypt. He said to his sons, 'my children, you will eventually be redeemed from here, and Hashem will then tell you, when you are redeemed, that you should make the Mishkan for Him. But stand and plant them from now, so that at the time that He tells you to make the Mishkan for him, the cedars will be planted for you. Immediately, the stood and planted and did so."

To explain the divergence between cedars and acacias, see here at Yeshiva Har Etzyon's Virtual Bet Midrash, from Rabbi David Silverberg, that the Midrash Tanchuma understand shittim to be a type of cedar rather than acacia.

I find the resolution from Matamei Yaakov a bit forced. I would simply say that these are, perhaps, conflicting midrashim that should not be harmonized. After all, even within Midrash Tanchuma, there are those who argue with Rabbi Yochanan, with Rabbi Levi saying they got sustenance of this sort from the Eshkol, from the land of Canaan, and the Rabanan saying the god it from gentile merchants! And who says that Rabbi Yochanan would maintain that it is cedar rather than acacia? Barring that, I am not sure ain somchin al hanes is the best answer. The same way that Yaakov could see in the future that they would need acacia / cedar wood, he could see in the future that they would have miraculous well that would provide them with such plants.

I would suggest a different resolution. As we see, the specific plants that are growing quickly are ones which provide sustenance and pleasure (hanaah) to the Bnei Yisrael. We are speaking of grape vines, fig trees, pomegranate trees, and seeds of foods. The purpose of the Be'er was to give them sustenance, not to give them building materials. Therefore, the cedar or acacia trees would not grow due to the Be'er, and so it was necessary for Yaakov to plant.

I would also point out that Rabbi Yochanan's midrash carried an important homiletic message about preparing for the best, well in advance, such that geulah is your known eventual goal. This whether or not it was intended literally.

Finally, I will note that acacia wood does grow in the wilderness of Sinai; cedars, I think, do not, but rather in Lebanon:

Acacia albida, Acacia tortilis and Acacia iraqensis can be found growing wild in the Sinai desert and the Jordan valley. 

So it works out well according to Midrash Tanchuma, that shittim is something that does not grow naturally in the Sinai desert.

Was the fire in Haifa predicted in Midrash Rabba?

Summary: Absolutely not! Only if you don't know how to read a midrash, or willfully misinterpret it, can it say what some are proposing.

Post: An "inspirational" post, I suppose, over by Rabbi Lazer Brody's site:

While the devastating forest fire on the outskirts of Haifa still blazes, a pointless national witch hunt is going on. Energies here would be much better applied to soul-searching, teshuva, and learning emuna.

We here at the Beams aren't going to participate of the finger-pointing festival. Nor shall we cry in lament like the secular media who says, "if we can't put out a forest fire, how can we defend ourselves?"

We never did defend ourselves - it was Hashem that pulled us out of every fire; this is personal experience talking...

We teach in the principles of emuna that everything Hashem does is for the very best. Everyone asks, how can 42 losses of life and thousands of acres of charred forests be for the best?

The answer is in the following Midrash (Shir Hashirim 2:5, elaborating on the passage, K'shoshana bane ha chuchim): Right before Moshiach comes, Hashem will burn the outskirts of Haifa. See it for yourselves...

 Below is a close-up image of the above photo:

Get ready, folks.

I agree with Rabbi Brody about the witch-hunt. Yet I disagree with the attempt to find meaning based on tying it to the imminent arrival of mashiach, based on misreading or misinterpreting text. Compare to what people did after the tragedy in Mumbai, tying it to a misinterpretation of Zohar, to "prove" that mashiach would arrive on the eighth day of Chanukkah of that year.

So I dislike the approach. I also think this is a misinterpretation of the source. The pasuk in Shir Hashirim states:

ב  כְּשׁוֹשַׁנָּה בֵּין הַחוֹחִים, כֵּן רַעְיָתִי בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת.

2 As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.

and the midrash explains that when it comes to the ultimate redemption, Israel will be surrounded by nations like a lily among thorns. To collect it, the owner will have to burn the surrounding thorns. Similarly, to rescue the Israelites in Jerusalem, Hashem will burn the wicked nations in the surrounding areas (including Haifa). This clearly does not match the present situation of arson by the wicked nations, or negligence by teenagers, killing Jews who are living in Haifa.

There are so many Biblical, Rabbinic, Kabbalistic, and Chassidic texts that if one is willing to misinterpret, one can find an "inspirational" connection between any text, and current event, and moshiach.

Anyway, here is the text of the midrash, coupled with the standard commentary of Matnat Kehuna. The midrash:

רבי איבו פתר קרייה בגאולת מחר 
מה השושנה הזו כשהיא נתונה בין החוחים קשה לבעלה להלקט.
מהו עושה? מביא אור ושורף חוצה לה, ואחר כך לוקטה.
כך, (איכה א') ציווה ה' ליעקב סביביו צריו.
כגון: חלמיש לגווה.
יריחו לנועדן.
סוסיתן לטיבריה.
קסטרא לחיפא.
לוד לאונו.
הדא הוא דכתיב: (יחזקאל ה') זאת ירושלים בתוך הגוים שמתיה.
למחר, כשיגיע הקץ, מה הקדוש ברוך הוא עושה? מביא האור ושורף חוצה לה. הדא הוא דכתיב: (ישעיה ל"ג) והיו עמים משרפות סיד.
מה כתיב תמן? (דברים ל"ב) ה' בדד ינחנו. 

And the commentary:

To roughly translate the midrash:
Rabbi Abahu explained the verse {in Shir HaShirim} as referring to tomorrow's redemption {=the coming of Mashiach}. Just as this lily, when it is placed between the thorns, it is difficult for its owner to pluck. What does he do? He brings a flame and burns surrounding it, and afterwards plucks it. So too {Eicha 1}

יז  פֵּרְשָׂה צִיּוֹן בְּיָדֶיהָ, אֵין מְנַחֵם לָהּ--צִוָּה ה לְיַעֲקֹב, סְבִיבָיו צָרָיו; הָיְתָה יְרוּשָׁלִַם לְנִדָּה, בֵּינֵיהֶם.  {ס}

17 Zion spreadeth forth her hands; there is none to comfort her; the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries; Jerusalem is among them as one unclean. {S}

{but also the end of the pasuk, not explicitly cited in the midrash}. Such as Chalamish to Gaavah, Yericho to Noadan, Susitan to Teveriah, Kistera to Haifa, Lud to Ono. {These are all place names, as Matnas Kehuna notes, where the wicked nations of Amon and Moav live.} This is what is written {Yechezkel 5}

ה  כֹּה אָמַר, אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, זֹאת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, בְּתוֹךְ הַגּוֹיִם שַׂמְתִּיהָ; וּסְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ, אֲרָצוֹת.

5 Thus saith the Lord GOD: This is Jerusalem! I have set her in the midst of the nations, and countries are round about her.

What does Hashem do? He brings a flame and burns outside it. This is what is written {Yeshaya 33}:

יב  וְהָיוּ עַמִּים, מִשְׂרְפוֹת שִׂיד; קוֹצִים כְּסוּחִים, בָּאֵשׁ יִצַּתּוּ.  {פ}

12 And the peoples shall be as the burnings of lime; as thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire. {P}

{and once again, note the end of the pasuk as well, which speaks of thorns.} What is written there? {Devarim 32}:

יב  ה, בָּדָד יַנְחֶנּוּ;  {ס}  וְאֵין עִמּוֹ, אֵל נֵכָר.  {ר}

12 The LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with Him.

This ends the midrash.
I would add a bit to Matnas Kehuna. It is not that all these places are places of the wicked nations. Rather, in each pair, it is a non-Jewish and wicked place next to a place of Jewish settlement. Thus, it is Susita/Hippos, a Greco-Roman city by thje Sea of Galilea, right next to Teveria, and so this is an example of a thorn coupled with a lily.

So too, Chaifa is the Jewish city, and Kastara is a Roman fortification, presumably close by. Thus, in Bava Kamma 98a:

Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be made by means of money not in one's actual possession, such as if he had money in Castra or in the King's Mountain⁹  or if his purse fell into the ocean; no redemption could then be effected'.¹⁰  — Said Rabbah: The case [of redemption] of tithe is different, as it is required there that the money should be [to all intents and purposes] actually in your hand, for the Divine Law says, And bind up the money in thy hand,¹¹  which is lacking in this case.¹²

The midrash is talking about the destruction, perhaps burning, of non-Jewish towns and cities in close proximity to Jewish towns, NOT fire which kills many Jews on the "outskirts of Haifa". And it wouldn't just be near Haifa, either. And it would be towns, rather than thousands of acres of forest.

How many seeds in a pomegranate?

Summary: Malbim declares that there are 613 seeds in a pomegranate. Who are we going to believe, him or our own eyes. And if our own eyes, are we denigrating the Malbim to say that he is incorrect?

Post: See also my 2007 parshablog post, and this 2008 article by Rabbi Ari Zivitofsky, "What's the Truth About... Pomegranate Seeds?", as well as the brief discussion at Mi Yodea.

The Malbim is one of two famous sources for the explicit assertion that there are 613 seeds in a pomegranate. The pasuk in Shir Hashirim 4:3 states:

ג  כְּחוּט הַשָּׁנִי שִׂפְתוֹתַיִךְ, וּמִדְבָּרֵךְ נָאוֶה; כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ, מִבַּעַד לְצַמָּתֵךְ.

3 Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy mouth is comely; thy temples are like a pomegranate split open behind thy veil.

and Malbim explains:

Note the line I underlined, where he states that the pomegranate is full of 613 seeds. There is mashal and nimshal in play here, and this is supposed to stand as the mashal. One must first explain the metzius of the mashal, and then progress to explaining the nimshal. Thus, despite this detailing aspects of an allegory, it is fairly clear that he intends this literally.

The other source is the Chasam Sofer, from a Shabbos Hagadol Derasha from 5591. I haven't tracked this one down to see it inside yet, but if you, dear reader, know where it is in some accessible (say, online) source, I would much appreciate it.

However, if you buy a pomegranate and count the seeds, you will NOT discover 613 seeds. This was likely simply an improper extension of a gemara (e.g. Eruvin 19a) that Israel is full of mitzvot just as a pomegranate is full of seeds.

Frum Satire had a recent satirical post about someone who went off the derech because of this:

“I sat down one day with a fresh rimon and decided to actually count the seeds” he relates his story as tears stream down his face. “I expected to find exactly 613 and when I found significantly less than that I called my rebbe to tell him that our counting methods were off” His Rabbi told him that he was just like benai yisrael in the desert and they too had miscounted – or that he may have lost some of the seeds, but Moishe knew the truth and since then he has been a non-believer.

Related, see this post at Rationalist Judaism about the Dangers of False Inspiration. To relate it to the issue at hand, if you "prove" Judaism to people using false or shoddy proofs, when the proofs fail, the Judaism might just fail as well.

There was an interesting exchange or two in the comments at Frum Satire. Specifically, this:

Yankel:

Taking into account who the Malbim was, I would venture to say he must have somehow known this for a fact.
Who knows. Maybe there was a strain of pomegranites which did actually contain 613 seeds, and the ones which didn’t – came from grafting and other genetic shtick.

Heshy (=Frum Satire):

There are loads of things which great scholars got wrong in their day – besides most of this stuff seems to be metaphorical

Yankel:

Hey Hesh, be careful, don’t mess with the Malbim.
Metaphorical translations are not rational options in every situation. It’s pretty clear he means it in a physical sense.
My personal inclination is to lean towards the genetic thing. I cannot accept that the Malbim would say anything without knowing 100% that it’s true.

I would agree with Yankel that it is pretty clear that he means it in a physical sense. However, I would disagree with him that the Malbim would say anything without knowing 100% that it is true. This is an unfortunate side-effect of venerating our rabbis.

There are two ways of acquiring knowledge. One is through conducting empirical tests. Another is through tradition, or in other words hearing words of others and believing them.

Both of these are useful ways of learning things about our reality. And nowadays, we use both. Do you believe that there are blood types of A, B, AB, and O? If you do, is this because you have personally performed various tests to conclude this? Or, did you learn this in elementary school or high school? The truth is, it is the latter. You trust others, where it is reasonable to do so.

How many bones does a person have? You can consult a medical textbook and discover this. Would you conduct an autopsy, or dig up a grave? Absolutely not!

Let us say that the Malbim wrote that a person had X bones, or that there were blood types of A, B, and O? Would you assume that he conducted the research personally, or that he relied upon others?

It is fairly obvious that he would have relied upon others. To waste his time rediscovering all this for himself would be pointless. Further, if he had consistently wasted his time in such a manner, he would not have been the Malbim!

Let us say a rabbi, even of the caliber of the Malbim, uses known fact to explain a pasuk, and it turns out that the facts are wrong. To take a practical example, you and I likely learnt about tongue maps in elementary school. But in fact, it turns out to have been scientifically disproven. And a close relative even received a low mark in science class when he claimed to be able to taste a bitter taste with the tip of his tongue, since he must have made an error! If tongue maps were contemporary to Malbim, and he referred to this scientific fact to explain a pasuk, would that mean that nishtaneh hateva regarding tongues? Or that he was talking about different tongues? Or that our present evaluation of metzius must be wrong? This should not be called "messing" with the Malbim. And it isn't denigrating him in any way to assert that he was wrong in this.

This even though the assertion about 613 does not come from any secular scientific source. He might well have received it as a Jewish tradition, trusted the tradition, and didn't waste his time testing it. Indeed, while there are many ways of interpreting this gemara, consider (Sanhedrin 100a):

R. Johanan was sitting and teaching: The Holy One, blessed be He, will bring jewels and precious stones, each thirty cubits long, and thirty cubits high, and make an engraving in them, ten by twenty cubits, and set them up as the gates of Jerusalem, for it is written, And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles.¹²  A certain disciple derided him saying, 'We do not find a jewel even as large as a dove's egg, yet such huge ones are to exist!' Some time later he took a sea journey and saw the ministering angels cutting precious stones and pearls. He said unto them: 'For what are these?' They replied: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, will set them up as the gates of Jerusalem.' On his return, he found R. Johanan sitting and teaching. He said to him: 'Expound, O Master, and it is indeed fitting for you to expound, for even as you did say, so did I myself see.' 'Wretch!' he exclaimed, 'had you not seen, you would not have believed! You deride the words of the Sages!' He set his eyes upon him, and he turned in to a heap of bones.¹³

One could assert that subjecting traditions to empirical testing is irreverent. Are we sure that Malbim would have done this, or indeed had this scientific approach?


(The assertion, mentioned in that comment thread, that the average number of seeds is 613 is pure bunk. See my discussion here.)

A defense of Rabbi Eleazer HaKallir from Ibn Ezra's criticisms, pt ii

(See part i here.) Another piyut which Ibn Ezra criticizes is Shoshan Emek Ayuma, which we say on Mussaf Yom Kippur. The image to the right compiled from parts of Artscroll's Yom Kippur Machzor. Shoshan Emek Ayuma means "fearful rose of the valley," which they expand to mean God-fearing rose, and make explicit the nimshal which is Knesset Yisrael. In the footnote, they note that it is drawn from Shir Hashirim 2:1, where the woman there is regularly understood to mean Knesset Yisrael. Thus:

שיר השירים פרק ב

• פסוק א: אֲנִי חֲבַצֶּלֶת הַשָּׁרוֹן, שׁוֹשַׁנַּת הָעֲמָקִים.

Ibn Ezra objects to the Kallir's choice of language. Thus,

ועוד כי לשון הקודש ביד רבי אליעזר נ"ע עיר פרוצה אין חומה, שיעשה מן הזכרים נקבות והפך הדבר ואמר "שושן עמק אויימה", וידוע כי ה"א שושנה לשון נקבה וישוב הה"א תי"ו כשיהיה סמוך שושנת העמקים, ובסור הה"א או התי"ו יהיה לשון זכר כמו צדקה וצדק. ואיך יאמר על שושן אויימה, ולמה ברח מן הפסוק ולא אמר שושנת עמק אויימה. ועוד מה ענין לשושנה שיתארנה באימה, התפחד השושנה? ואין תואר השושנה כי אם קטופה או רעננה או יבשה.

אמר אחד מחכמי הדור, הוצרך לומר אויימה, בעבור שתהיה חרוזתו עשירה. השיבותי אם זאת חרוזה עשירה, הנה יש בפיוטיו חרוזים עניים ואביונים מחזרים על הפתחים, שחיבר הר עם נבחר.

Ibn Ezra's complaint appears to be two-fold. Firstly, the pasuk from which it is drawn has shoshanat, rather than shoshan. This is because a shoshanah is a feminine noun, and so in the contruct form the heh is replaced with a tav. Yet here the paytan makes it a masculine noun, and uses the contruct form of that! Secondly, why add this "fearful" aspect? It does not work on the level of mashal, for how can a flower be fearful?

Rabbi Zechariah Mendel answers on Rabbi Eleazar Hakallir's behalf. He does not respond on the shift from feminine to masculine, but does address how one can have a fearful flower.

You see, in the days of Ibn Ezra the Zohar was not yet discovered. But in the introduction to the Zohar, we have a discussion of Knesset Yisrael as a flower, where Klal Yisrael is is in danger from all sides, and is protected, just as the alin of the flower protect it. And there is no question for Ibn Ezra why the flower is fearful, since it needs protection.

My take: It is possible that this was R' Eleazar Hakallir's intent. But since Zohar was written much later, it seems likely that this Zohar took it from the piyut rather than vice versa. At any rate, the Zohar itself does not ascribe this trait of fearfulness in the mashal. See Artscroll's footnote which mentions the vulnerability of an exposed flower. This might be the poet's intent, or else it might be a conflating of the levels of mashal and nimshal, such that he ascribes a property to the flower which should really only apply to the Knesset Yisrael.

Chizkuni's alternate suggestion for having male children

Note: Slightly adult-themed, just like the other recent Tazria post. You might wish to skip this.

This ties into two previous parshablog posts. One is the previous post, of the famous midrash in Niddah that if the woman gives forth seed first, she will bear a male child. The second concerns another famous midrash of how the Israelite women in Egypt gave birth to sextuplets. Ibn Ezra connects it to contemporary medicine, which (falsely) believed that a woman had seven chambers in the womb. To expand to a perush based on the most expansive theory: The ones on one side were for males; on the other side for females, and the one in the middle for an androgynus, so there would not be a seventh, for that would not be a blessing. This is the medical theory propounded by Bartholomeus Anglicus.

Here is the beginning of the commentary of Chizkuni on the parsha, skipping down 8 lines, to וילדה זכר. He is surely thinking of the famous midrash in masechet Niddah, about how to attain male offspring:

"And gives birth to a male child": It is found in a sefer, in Toldot {generations? a book on reproduction}: There is in a woman seven holes {=chambers of the womb}, three on the right and three on the left, and one in the middle. When the {man's} seed enters into that of the right, she gives birth to a male; and if it enters into that of the left, she gives birth to a female; and if it enters the middle one, she gives birth to a tumtum {one of indeterminate gender, where the genitals are internal} or a hermaphrodite.

When she sleeps, soon after intercourse, on her right side, the sperm enters into those holes {chambers} of the right, and she gives birth to a male; and the ritual impurity speeds to go out, and therefore, she is only ritually impure for seven days, and is ritually pure for thirty-three days.

And when she sleeps, soon after intercourse, one her left side, the sperm enters in the holes of the left, and she gives birth to a female, and the ritual impurity does not speed to leave; therefore, she is ritually impure for two weeks.

And this is {the intent of the verse in Shir Hashirim 8:3}:

ג שְׂמֹאלוֹ תַּחַת רֹאשִׁי, וִימִינוֹ תְּחַבְּקֵנִי.

3 His left hand should be under my head, and his right hand should embrace me.

in order to beget male-children.

If I may be so bold to explain Chizkuni's explanation of this pasuk from Shir Hashirim. The pasuk refers to the lovers after they have engaged in intercourse. And they are now sleeping together, or resting together. On which side is the man sleeping, on his left or his right side? His left hand is under her head, rather than on top of it. And his right hand is embracing her, presumably resting on top of her. This only works if he is resting on his left side, rather than his right side.

What is the woman's orientation? She could be facing him, or else facing away from him, such that they are "spooning." Chizkuni's assumption appears to be that the woman is facing him. Thus, if he is on his left side, she is on her right side, and so the seed will enter one of the right chambers, and she will bear a son rather than a daughter.

I would also note that the pasuk seems to be in the imperative, or at the least, that is how it is translated in the JPS translation. Perhaps this is something Chizkuni also picked up upon. He should do X and Y. Why? To have male children.

How Rabbanit Keren Is Untzniusdik

She dresses like a tent. We might say she is trying to emulate Sarah Imeinu, for we read in parshas Vayera,

ט וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, אַיֵּה שָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בָאֹהֶל

9 And they said unto him: 'Where is Sarah thy wife?' And he said: 'Behold, in the tent.'

upon which Rashi cites Bava Metziah 87a and midrash Tehillim that this means that she was modest. And if this is meritorious here, then certainly it is obligatory everywhere for women to go about in tents. And so she dresses like a tent, wherever she goes, and her followers follow her lead. (Yes, I am making this extension to this derasha up, but they make plenty of other things up, so why not?)

What she apparently doesn't realize is that Sarah just happened to be in the tent, but dressing like a tent is untzniusdik. After all, we learn that various things are erva from pesukim in Shir haShirim. Thus, on Berachos 24a, we have:

אמר רב ששת שער באשה ערוה שנא' (שיר השירים ד) שערך כעדר העזים

R. Shesheth said: A woman's hair is a sexual incitement, as it says, Thy hair is as a flock of goats.

Shir Hashirim 4:

א הִנָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי, הִנָּךְ יָפָה--עֵינַיִךְ יוֹנִים, מִבַּעַד לְצַמָּתֵךְ; שַׂעְרֵךְ כְּעֵדֶר הָעִזִּים, שֶׁגָּלְשׁוּ מֵהַר גִּלְעָד.

1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thine eyes are as doves behind thy veil; thy hair is as a flock of goats, that trail down from mount Gilead.

And there is a pasuk towards the very beginning of Shir haShirim:

ה שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי וְנָאוָה, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם; כְּאָהֳלֵי קֵדָר, כִּירִיעוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה.

5 'I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

If all a woman's skin is erva, and her skin is considered beautiful only by comparison with the tents of Kedar, then certainly the tents of Kedar themselves are attractive. And yet, Rabbanit Keren dresses up as a tent, in order to attract the lustful eyes of men everywhere! How is moshiach going to come, when she acts like this?!