ATONEMENT FOR WHAT?
Some points must still be clarified:
- Rashi’s commentary is not a collection of halachic explanations. What practical difference is there in our understanding of pshat to say that the reason she can’t partake of sacrificial foods is because “up to this point (she) is called impure”?
- Since the impurity of a woman who gives birth was already removed, why does the name of impurity remain upon her until she brings her sacrifice?
These difficulties will be resolved by introducing another question: As we’ve discussed many times, Rashi’s commentary on Torah answers every question arising in pshat. If so, why doesn’t Rashi explain why a woman who gives birth must bring a sacrifice for atonement? What transgression did she commit that she must atone for?!
[And this question must be solved according to pshat. Indeed, many other Torah commentators have raised this question. Furthermore, we find in Rashi’s commentary earlier that when the Torah {similarly} says, “and it will be considered pleasing on his behalf, to atone for him,” when discussing a burnt-sacrifice, Rashi addresses a similar question and comments: “In what way is this sacrifice considered “pleasing” for the person?... for {his failure to observe} a positive commandment or {for transgressing} a negative commandment {that is rectifiable}....”]
And we obviously can’t say that Rashi {doesn’t explain because he} relies on the Gemara’s explanation — that atonement is needed because “when a woman crouches to give birth, {her pain is so great that} she impulsively takes an oath {which, invariably, she will not keep}....” Notably, Rashi doesn’t even allude to this idea!
We must therefore say that the novice student of Scripture already knows the answer to this on his own based on pshat that he has learnt previously, as elucidated below.
