Lingering Guilt
Lessons in Likutay Torah | April 27, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Lingering Guilt

Lessons in Likutay Torah | June 27, 2025

1. REQUIRES ATONEMENT

At the end of the Torah section discussing a woman who gives birth, the verse says, “The kohen must first effect atonement for her {through the sin-offering}, and she will thus be rid of this impurity.” The Gemara expounds: “The clause and she will thus be rid of this impurity implies that {beforehand} she was impure.” Anyone who “requires atonement” (after “a person immersed and emerged” and “the sun has set for him” — but before he has brought his atonement offering) is still impure in certain respects: (a) The prohibition of “she may not touch anything sacred” — to refrain from eating sacrificial foods — still applies. (b) A person in this state who serves in the Temple deserves death (because “an impure {kohen} who performs a Temple service is punishable by death”). (c) He (the person still requiring atonement) invalidates the service performed in the Temple.

In his Mishneh Torah, Rambam cites this teaching in two places: (a) regarding someone requiring atonement who served in the Temple — “his service is invalid”; (b) regarding the prohibition to enter the Temple (from the Courtyard of Israelites and onward). However, in these two places, Rambam describes the mother’s status slightly differently than the Gemara: “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete.”

Rambam’s diction suggests that the deficiency of someone who “requires atonement” is not so much because of lingering impurity. [Such a proposition would be understood as follows: True, an impure person who has immersed, and for whom the day of the immersion has passed, is regarded as pure for certain things, including eating terumah. Nevertheless, when it comes to eating sacrificial foods or entering the Temple, since a trace of the impurity lingers, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods, enter the Temple, and so on.]

Instead, Rambam maintains that this atonement is required due to (the absence of something, namely) a lack in the person’s purification: He can’t engage in these holy activities because his purification is still incomplete, which is completed by “atonement,” namely, by bringing a sacrifice.

This understanding can be seen clearly in Rambam’s words at the beginning of this section: “Why are they referred to as ‘requiring atonement’? Because even after each of them has become pure from the condition that caused his impurity — he has immersed in a mikveh, and the day of the immersion has passed — the person’s purification is still deficient. His purity remains incomplete, preventing him from partaking in sacrificial foods until he offers the required sacrifice. However, before he makes this sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake in sacrificial food (as explained in Hilchos Pesulei HaMukdashim).” Put differently, the prohibition is not due to lingering impurity, but because his purity is lacking.

[This is also indicated from the fact that the Gemara chose the verse, “his impurity is still upon him” to prove that a person “requiring atonement” is forbidden to enter the Temple — “this serves to include a person who requires atonement”; as opposed to Rambam who (as mentioned above) derives the law from the verse, “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete.”]

These two approaches lead to a practical difference in halachah: since Rambam views the person who requires atonement as not being impure (and it is only that “her purification was incomplete”), Rambam therefore rules that if this person (ate sacrificial food or) served in the Temple, he would not be liable for the death-penalty (or kares).

Raavad, by contrast, maintains that the person would be liable, disputing Rambam’s stance as follows: “Have we not learnt in tractate Makkos, ‘his impurity is still upon him — this serves to include a person who requires atonement’... Moreover, the Torah states ‘and she will be purified’ in the context of a woman who gave birth, indicating that until that point, she is still considered impure. And the Gemara in Zevachim states: ‘a zav who still requires atonement is considered like a zav’; and Tosefta of Zevachim counts him {a person who still requires atonement} among those who are liable for the death-penalty.”

Disagreeing with Rambam, Raavad maintains that people who require atonement retain a trace of their previous impurity until they bring their sacrifice. (Only a remnant of their impurity — preventing them from eating terumah — is removed.)

2. RASHI’S VERSION

In his Torah commentary, on the words, “and she will thus be rid of this impurity,” Rashi also brings the above-quoted exposition. However, he, too, puts it differently than the Gemara (though not in the same way as Rambam does — saying): “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure.”

The reason Rashi amends the wording of the Gemara, “this implies that she is impure,” is as follows: His previous explanation of “her days of purity — her days of purity” (where Rashi states “days of purity” without qualification, and not “her days of purity with her husband,” or something similar) indicates that the days that passed were entirely “days of purity” (fully). And when the verse warns, “she may not touch anything sacred and she may not enter the Sanctuary, until the completion of her days of purity,” it is due to something tangential (namely, the completion of her purification is lacking, and) that forbids her from touching “anything sacred” or entering the Temple.

It follows that Rashi, who focuses on pshat, maintains that the impurity of a woman who gave birth is removed immediately after the previous seven (or fourteen) days of impurity. Indeed, the impurity is removed after thirty-three days, even before she brings her sacrifice. This also helps clarify why, according to Rashi, the Gemara’s formulation, “she is impure,” is inappropriate.

[We can now understand Rashi’s explanation (s.v. “bechol kodesh”): “{This is stated} to include terumah” (meaning, she may not eat terumah during the thirty-three days). “For this woman has the status of a ‘tevulas yom’ for an extended period; since she immersed herself at the end of seven days, but the state of ritual purity that usually takes effect at sunset does not take effect until the setting of the sun of the fortieth day. This is because {only} on the following day will she bring her offering to effect the atonement needed for her purification.” Seemingly, what is the point of emphasizing “because {only} on the following day will she bring the atonement”?

For if Rashi only (simply) intended to negate one from thinking that her “sun sets” on the night following the day that she immersed herself (as it does universally) — it would suffice to write succinctly, “until the setting sun of the fortieth day” (or “until the setting sun of the day she will bring her purifying atonement” as he states in his commentary on Yevamos 74b, s.v. “keivan”).

{In the Hebrew original, “תַלוּבְט םוֹי ךְוֹראָ”; a woman who needs to wait a protracted period after immersing before becoming pure. See fn. 5.}

{The straightforward understanding of Scripture.}

Vayikra 12:4.

As Ramban, Rabbeinu Bachya, and Tur Ha’Aroch do (on Vayikra 12:5).

Vayikra 12:4 (s.v. “b’dmei taharah”).

For all that follows, see a lengthy discussion in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 7, pp. 86, ff. and the footnotes there.

Rashi on Vayikra 12:7; see below, Section 4 for the reason he also changes the wording of the teaching on the following verse.

This is how it appears in our version of Rashi’s commentary, in the first and second editions of Rashi’s commentary, and in the commentators of Rashi.

The version in the first and second editions of Rashi’s commentary.

{The explanation:} With these words, Rashi is pointing out that just as eating sacrificial foods after the completion of her days of purification (before she brings her sacrifice) is prohibited solely because of her obligation to bring an offering (but she is not impure) the same applies to eating terumah during the thirty-three days. This is (not because she is impure, but) because her outstanding obligation to bring her offering to effect the atonement needed for her purification prevents the “setting suns” of the previous days (before the setting sun of the fortieth day) from allowing her to eat terumah.]

This explains why, in his Torah commentary, Rashi phrases this exposition differently than the Gemara: From the perspective of Rashi’s Torah commentary — pshat — we cannot use the word “impure” for a woman who gave birth who still requires atonement (because she is already, even before the sun sets on the fortieth day, in “her days of purity”). According to the Gemara, however, these thirty-three days are considered days of impurity, even concerning eating terumah. Before she brings her atonement offering, “she is impure” (in terms of sacrificial foods and the Temple).

3. CALLED IMPURE

But now we need to look at it from the other side: If Rashi indeed holds that the impurity generated by giving birth was removed, then how does his wording “(this implies that up to this point she is) called impure” fit? Rashi should have instead written (as Rambam does) “this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete” (or something similar)!

This is problematic from whichever way you look at it: If Rashi looks at her obligation to bring a sacrifice as something that prevents her purification (meaning, it prevents her from actually being considered pure), then not only is she “called impure,” she is actually impure! And if we say the opposite — that her impurity has been removed, and she is not allowed to eat holy foods because of a (tangential) prohibition — then this doesn’t fall under the category of being “called impure,” but is instead a prohibition that prevents her from eating sacrificial foods until she brings a sacrifice.

These difficulties suggest that, according to pshat, someone requiring atonement falls under a third category: The impurity because of birth is indeed removed immediately upon the passing of seven complete days (and the remaining days are “her days of purity”), and we therefore cannot say that “she is impure.” Yet, on the other hand, she is forbidden from eating sacrificial foods until she brings a sacrifice, not because she requires the purification that bringing a sacrifice effects, but rather because of a unique rule that applies to a woman who has given birth. This rule is that even after her impurity is removed, the name of impurity remains, “she is called impure,” until she brings her atonement.

And this is Rashi’s intent by changing the wording and emphasizing: “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — This implies that up to this point she is called impure” — unlike the Gemara that states, “this implies that she is impure”: (a) She is merely “called impure,” (b) but this status is a continuation of her preceding ritual status {namely} “up to this point — (she) is called impure.”

4. RASHI’S SOURCE

The proof for Rashi’s interpretation of pshat is alluded to by another amendment that Rashi makes to the Gemara’s wording in his commentary: In the Gemara, this exposition, “this implies that she is impure,” is made on the clause “and she will thus be rid of this impurity” at the end of the section — “the kohen must first effect atonement for her and she will thus be rid of this impurity.” Rashi, however, cites this exposition in his commentary on the preceding verse: “He shall offer it before Hashem and atone for her, and she shall become purified from the source of her blood.”

Seemingly, since Rashi teaches, “This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure” — meaning that she is already not impure, and only has the name denoting impurity — it would seem more fitting for him to bring this exposition in his commentary on the word, “הָרֵהָטְו {and she will thus be rid of this impurity}” (where the hei has the tzeirei vowel) that appears at the end of this section, rather than on the word “הָרֲהָטְו {and she shall become purified} (where the hei is vowelized with a patach) from the source of her blood,” — which emphasizes her active purification from impurity!

The explanation: If not for the verse, “and she shall become purified from the source of her blood” we would have thought that the prohibition to eat sacrificial foods is totally unrelated to impurity, but instead comes from a separate prohibition — because she still lacks the benefit that comes with bringing a sacrifice;

However, the verse’s wording — “and she shall become purified from the source of her blood” — adds a critical nuance: It suggests that her purity remains incomplete not merely because she has failed to bring a sacrifice, but also because impurity remains “from the source of her blood.”

How does this verse square with the verse saying that the thirty-three days are already called “her days of purity”? We must say, "This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure”: Although her impurity was removed, she is still labelled impure.

5. 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.

6. THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH

Upon examining the verse, “When a woman conceives and gives birth... she shall become impure... as during the days of her menstruant infirmity” — the section that discusses a woman who gives birth — we are reminded of the connection between a woman giving birth and pain (as punishment for a sin) recorded in parshas Bereishis: Hashem told Chavah (after she sinned by eating forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge), “‘I will greatly increase your suffering and your pregnancy; in pain shall you bear children.” This establishes that every childbirth (which is the outcome of conception, “conceived and bore”) now happens in a manner of (your suffering and your pregnancy — the pain of pregnancy, and) “in pain shall you bear children,” “the pain of giving birth” and thereby contains a trace of the consequence for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge.

We can now understand why a woman who gives birth becomes impure (even if there is no sighting of blood) according to pshat: Just as the sin of the Tree of Knowledge causes pain to the birthing mother, it similarly imparts impurity.

This helps explain why a woman who gives birth must offer an atonement sacrifice: since every birth (of all women) contains a trace of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, a new mother must bring a sacrifice of atonement.

[This is similar to Rashi’s explanation regarding the sin of the Golden Calf — “and on a day that I make an accounting, I shall bring to account — always, whenever I shall make an accounting of {the Jewish nation’s} sins against them, I will also bring to account against them a bit of this sin along with the other sins. No punishment comes upon Israel, which does not have some retribution for the sin of the golden calf.”]

7. NOT WASTING TIME

In light of this explanation of the impurity of a woman who gave birth, we can now understand Rashi’s explanation of the word, “He shall offer it — The one which comes to atone, upon it does the purity depend” — meaning that the woman’s purification hinges on the sin-offering that brings atonement, and not on the burnt-offering.

It specifically hinges on the atonement sacrifice because the impurity stems from something that must be atoned for. Therefore, the purification of this impurity depends upon her receiving atonement.

In light of the above explanation, we can better understand and appreciate Rashi’s subsequent comment. Immediately after his above-mentioned explanation of “He shall offer it” (where he emphasizes that the purification of a woman who gives birth is connected with her receiving atonement), he then says, “and she shall become purified — this implies that up to this point (she) is called impure”: Now that we know that the impurity of a woman who gives birth is an offshoot of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, and her purification depends upon her receiving atonement — it follows that “up to this point (she) is called impure”: Even after the impurity {of giving birth} is removed, as long as she has not received atonement, she is still “called impure.”

This also clarifies what practical difference there is (even according to pshat) that “up to this point (she) is called impure”: If the prohibition against her partaking of sacrificial foods were merely because she was still not entirely pure, it would be quite plausible that she wouldn’t feel any urgency to bring a sacrifice to allow her to eat sacrificial foods. There is no obligation for a Jew to make sure that they are pure enough to eat sacrificial foods (except before the Festivals, when a person must indeed ensure that he is pure on the Festival).

However, now that we understand that she is “called impure” because she still lacks atonement, it becomes clear that she must hasten to obtain atonement as soon as possible.

8. SPEEDY REDEMPTION

Our Sages tell us that “what He does, He tells Israel to do.” Accordingly, just as Hashem doesn’t want a Jew to remain in a state of (merely being) “called impure,” and wishes the Jew to bring a sacrifice to effect atonement, Hashem, too, conducts Himself accordingly. When we find ourselves in exile, we are “called impure.”

[As Rambam rules, every Jew in all places and all times wants (based on the Torah of Truth) to live according to Hashem’s Will. (If a Jew occasionally behaves differently, it is only because he was coerced.) All the more so is this true after all of the awful decrees and persecution — the birth pangs of Mashiach — that the Jewish people have already endured (especially in this final generation before Mashiach’s arrival).]

Hashem will free the Jewish people from this condition under which we are “called impure” — and G-d forbid to believe that anyone or anything can impede this redemption — and it will happen faster than anyone imagined.

It is only that Hashem desires that we, too, yearn to leave quickly, “immediately” — as Rambam says — from exile, from this state in which we are “called impure,” achieving a state of total purity — atonement.

Then, redemption will come to pass, as Scripture describes, “with the clouds of ...

1. REQUIRES ATONEMENT

At the end of the Torah section discussing a woman who gives birth, the verse says, “The kohen must first effect atonement for her {through the sin-offering}, and she will thus be rid of this impurity.” The Gemara expounds: “The clause and she will thus be rid of this impurity implies that {beforehand} she was impure.” Anyone who “requires atonement” (after “a person immersed and emerged” and “the sun has set for him” — but before he has brought his atonement offering) is still impure in certain respects: (a) The prohibition of “she may not touch anything sacred” — to refrain from eating sacrificial foods — still applies. (b) A person in this state who serves in the Temple deserves death (because “an impure {kohen} who performs a Temple service is punishable by death”). (c) He (the person still requiring atonement) invalidates the service performed in the Temple.

In his Mishneh Torah, Rambam cites this teaching in two places: (a) regarding someone requiring atonement who served in the Temple — “his service is invalid”; (b) regarding the prohibition to enter the Temple (from the Courtyard of Israelites and onward). However, in these two places, Rambam describes the mother’s status slightly differently than the Gemara: “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete.”

Rambam’s diction suggests that the deficiency of someone who “requires atonement” is not so much because of lingering impurity. [Such a proposition would be understood as follows: True, an impure person who has immersed, and for whom the day of the immersion has passed, is regarded as pure for certain things, including eating terumah. Nevertheless, when it comes to eating sacrificial foods or entering the Temple, since a trace of the impurity lingers, he is forbidden to partake of sacrificial foods, enter the Temple, and so on.]

Instead, Rambam maintains that this atonement is required due to (the absence of something, namely) a lack in the person’s purification: He can’t engage in these holy activities because his purification is still incomplete, which is completed by “atonement,” namely, by bringing a sacrifice.

This understanding can be seen clearly in Rambam’s words at the beginning of this section: “Why are they referred to as ‘requiring atonement’? Because even after each of them has become pure from the condition that caused his impurity — he has immersed in a mikveh, and the day of the immersion has passed — the person’s purification is still deficient. His purity remains incomplete, preventing him from partaking in sacrificial foods until he offers the required sacrifice. However, before he makes this sacrifice, he is forbidden to partake in sacrificial food (as explained in Hilchos Pesulei HaMukdashim).” Put differently, the prohibition is not due to lingering impurity, but because his purity is lacking.

[This is also indicated from the fact that the Gemara chose the verse, “his impurity is still upon him” to prove that a person “requiring atonement” is forbidden to enter the Temple — “this serves to include a person who requires atonement”; as opposed to Rambam who (as mentioned above) derives the law from the verse, “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete.”]

These two approaches lead to a practical difference in halachah: since Rambam views the person who requires atonement as not being impure (and it is only that “her purification was incomplete”), Rambam therefore rules that if this person (ate sacrificial food or) served in the Temple, he would not be liable for the death-penalty (or kares).

Raavad, by contrast, maintains that the person would be liable, disputing Rambam’s stance as follows: “Have we not learnt in tractate Makkos, ‘his impurity is still upon him — this serves to include a person who requires atonement’... Moreover, the Torah states ‘and she will be purified’ in the context of a woman who gave birth, indicating that until that point, she is still considered impure. And the Gemara in Zevachim states: ‘a zav who still requires atonement is considered like a zav’; and Tosefta of Zevachim counts him {a person who still requires atonement} among those who are liable for the death-penalty.”

Disagreeing with Rambam, Raavad maintains that people who require atonement retain a trace of their previous impurity until they bring their sacrifice. (Only a remnant of their impurity — preventing them from eating terumah — is removed.)

2. RASHI’S VERSION

In his Torah commentary, on the words, “and she will thus be rid of this impurity,” Rashi also brings the above-quoted exposition. However, he, too, puts it differently than the Gemara (though not in the same way as Rambam does — saying): “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure.”

The reason Rashi amends the wording of the Gemara, “this implies that she is impure,” is as follows: His previous explanation of “her days of purity — her days of purity” (where Rashi states “days of purity” without qualification, and not “her days of purity with her husband,” or something similar) indicates that the days that passed were entirely “days of purity” (fully). And when the verse warns, “she may not touch anything sacred and she may not enter the Sanctuary, until the completion of her days of purity,” it is due to something tangential (namely, the completion of her purification is lacking, and) that forbids her from touching “anything sacred” or entering the Temple.

It follows that Rashi, who focuses on pshat, maintains that the impurity of a woman who gave birth is removed immediately after the previous seven (or fourteen) days of impurity. Indeed, the impurity is removed after thirty-three days, even before she brings her sacrifice. This also helps clarify why, according to Rashi, the Gemara’s formulation, “she is impure,” is inappropriate.

[We can now understand Rashi’s explanation (s.v. “bechol kodesh”): “{This is stated} to include terumah” (meaning, she may not eat terumah during the thirty-three days). “For this woman has the status of a ‘tevulas yom’ for an extended period; since she immersed herself at the end of seven days, but the state of ritual purity that usually takes effect at sunset does not take effect until the setting of the sun of the fortieth day. This is because {only} on the following day will she bring her offering to effect the atonement needed for her purification.” Seemingly, what is the point of emphasizing “because {only} on the following day will she bring the atonement”?

For if Rashi only (simply) intended to negate one from thinking that her “sun sets” on the night following the day that she immersed herself (as it does universally) — it would suffice to write succinctly, “until the setting sun of the fortieth day” (or “until the setting sun of the day she will bring her purifying atonement” as he states in his commentary on Yevamos 74b, s.v. “keivan”).

{In the Hebrew original, “תַלוּבְט םוֹי ךְוֹראָ”; a woman who needs to wait a protracted period after immersing before becoming pure. See fn. 5.}

{The straightforward understanding of Scripture.}

Vayikra 12:4.

As Ramban, Rabbeinu Bachya, and Tur Ha’Aroch do (on Vayikra 12:5).

Vayikra 12:4 (s.v. “b’dmei taharah”).

For all that follows, see a lengthy discussion in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 7, pp. 86, ff. and the footnotes there.

Rashi on Vayikra 12:7; see below, Section 4 for the reason he also changes the wording of the teaching on the following verse.

This is how it appears in our version of Rashi’s commentary, in the first and second editions of Rashi’s commentary, and in the commentators of Rashi.

The version in the first and second editions of Rashi’s commentary.

{The explanation:} With these words, Rashi is pointing out that just as eating sacrificial foods after the completion of her days of purification (before she brings her sacrifice) is prohibited solely because of her obligation to bring an offering (but she is not impure) the same applies to eating terumah during the thirty-three days. This is (not because she is impure, but) because her outstanding obligation to bring her offering to effect the atonement needed for her purification prevents the “setting suns” of the previous days (before the setting sun of the fortieth day) from allowing her to eat terumah.]

This explains why, in his Torah commentary, Rashi phrases this exposition differently than the Gemara: From the perspective of Rashi’s Torah commentary — pshat — we cannot use the word “impure” for a woman who gave birth who still requires atonement (because she is already, even before the sun sets on the fortieth day, in “her days of purity”). According to the Gemara, however, these thirty-three days are considered days of impurity, even concerning eating terumah. Before she brings her atonement offering, “she is impure” (in terms of sacrificial foods and the Temple).

3. CALLED IMPURE

But now we need to look at it from the other side: If Rashi indeed holds that the impurity generated by giving birth was removed, then how does his wording “(this implies that up to this point she is) called impure” fit? Rashi should have instead written (as Rambam does) “this implies that until this point her purification was incomplete” (or something similar)!

This is problematic from whichever way you look at it: If Rashi looks at her obligation to bring a sacrifice as something that prevents her purification (meaning, it prevents her from actually being considered pure), then not only is she “called impure,” she is actually impure! And if we say the opposite — that her impurity has been removed, and she is not allowed to eat holy foods because of a (tangential) prohibition — then this doesn’t fall under the category of being “called impure,” but is instead a prohibition that prevents her from eating sacrificial foods until she brings a sacrifice.

These difficulties suggest that, according to pshat, someone requiring atonement falls under a third category: The impurity because of birth is indeed removed immediately upon the passing of seven complete days (and the remaining days are “her days of purity”), and we therefore cannot say that “she is impure.” Yet, on the other hand, she is forbidden from eating sacrificial foods until she brings a sacrifice, not because she requires the purification that bringing a sacrifice effects, but rather because of a unique rule that applies to a woman who has given birth. This rule is that even after her impurity is removed, the name of impurity remains, “she is called impure,” until she brings her atonement.

And this is Rashi’s intent by changing the wording and emphasizing: “and she will thus be rid of this impurity — This implies that up to this point she is called impure” — unlike the Gemara that states, “this implies that she is impure”: (a) She is merely “called impure,” (b) but this status is a continuation of her preceding ritual status {namely} “up to this point — (she) is called impure.”

4. RASHI’S SOURCE

The proof for Rashi’s interpretation of pshat is alluded to by another amendment that Rashi makes to the Gemara’s wording in his commentary: In the Gemara, this exposition, “this implies that she is impure,” is made on the clause “and she will thus be rid of this impurity” at the end of the section — “the kohen must first effect atonement for her and she will thus be rid of this impurity.” Rashi, however, cites this exposition in his commentary on the preceding verse: “He shall offer it before Hashem and atone for her, and she shall become purified from the source of her blood.”

Seemingly, since Rashi teaches, “This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure” — meaning that she is already not impure, and only has the name denoting impurity — it would seem more fitting for him to bring this exposition in his commentary on the word, “הָרֵהָטְו {and she will thus be rid of this impurity}” (where the hei has the tzeirei vowel) that appears at the end of this section, rather than on the word “הָרֲהָטְו {and she shall become purified} (where the hei is vowelized with a patach) from the source of her blood,” — which emphasizes her active purification from impurity!

The explanation: If not for the verse, “and she shall become purified from the source of her blood” we would have thought that the prohibition to eat sacrificial foods is totally unrelated to impurity, but instead comes from a separate prohibition — because she still lacks the benefit that comes with bringing a sacrifice;

However, the verse’s wording — “and she shall become purified from the source of her blood” — adds a critical nuance: It suggests that her purity remains incomplete not merely because she has failed to bring a sacrifice, but also because impurity remains “from the source of her blood.”

How does this verse square with the verse saying that the thirty-three days are already called “her days of purity”? We must say, "This implies that up to this point (she) is called impure”: Although her impurity was removed, she is still labelled impure.

5. 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.

6. THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH

Upon examining the verse, “When a woman conceives and gives birth... she shall become impure... as during the days of her menstruant infirmity” — the section that discusses a woman who gives birth — we are reminded of the connection between a woman giving birth and pain (as punishment for a sin) recorded in parshas Bereishis: Hashem told Chavah (after she sinned by eating forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge), “‘I will greatly increase your suffering and your pregnancy; in pain shall you bear children.” This establishes that every childbirth (which is the outcome of conception, “conceived and bore”) now happens in a manner of (your suffering and your pregnancy — the pain of pregnancy, and) “in pain shall you bear children,” “the pain of giving birth” and thereby contains a trace of the consequence for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge.

We can now understand why a woman who gives birth becomes impure (even if there is no sighting of blood) according to pshat: Just as the sin of the Tree of Knowledge causes pain to the birthing mother, it similarly imparts impurity.

This helps explain why a woman who gives birth must offer an atonement sacrifice: since every birth (of all women) contains a trace of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, a new mother must bring a sacrifice of atonement.

[This is similar to Rashi’s explanation regarding the sin of the Golden Calf — “and on a day that I make an accounting, I shall bring to account — always, whenever I shall make an accounting of {the Jewish nation’s} sins against them, I will also bring to account against them a bit of this sin along with the other sins. No punishment comes upon Israel, which does not have some retribution for the sin of the golden calf.”]

7. NOT WASTING TIME

In light of this explanation of the impurity of a woman who gave birth, we can now understand Rashi’s explanation of the word, “He shall offer it — The one which comes to atone, upon it does the purity depend” — meaning that the woman’s purification hinges on the sin-offering that brings atonement, and not on the burnt-offering.

It specifically hinges on the atonement sacrifice because the impurity stems from something that must be atoned for. Therefore, the purification of this impurity depends upon her receiving atonement.

In light of the above explanation, we can better understand and appreciate Rashi’s subsequent comment. Immediately after his above-mentioned explanation of “He shall offer it” (where he emphasizes that the purification of a woman who gives birth is connected with her receiving atonement), he then says, “and she shall become purified — this implies that up to this point (she) is called impure”: Now that we know that the impurity of a woman who gives birth is an offshoot of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, and her purification depends upon her receiving atonement — it follows that “up to this point (she) is called impure”: Even after the impurity {of giving birth} is removed, as long as she has not received atonement, she is still “called impure.”

This also clarifies what practical difference there is (even according to pshat) that “up to this point (she) is called impure”: If the prohibition against her partaking of sacrificial foods were merely because she was still not entirely pure, it would be quite plausible that she wouldn’t feel any urgency to bring a sacrifice to allow her to eat sacrificial foods. There is no obligation for a Jew to make sure that they are pure enough to eat sacrificial foods (except before the Festivals, when a person must indeed ensure that he is pure on the Festival).

However, now that we understand that she is “called impure” because she still lacks atonement, it becomes clear that she must hasten to obtain atonement as soon as possible.

8. SPEEDY REDEMPTION

Our Sages tell us that “what He does, He tells Israel to do.” Accordingly, just as Hashem doesn’t want a Jew to remain in a state of (merely being) “called impure,” and wishes the Jew to bring a sacrifice to effect atonement, Hashem, too, conducts Himself accordingly. When we find ourselves in exile, we are “called impure.”

[As Rambam rules, every Jew in all places and all times wants (based on the Torah of Truth) to live according to Hashem’s Will. (If a Jew occasionally behaves differently, it is only because he was coerced.) All the more so is this true after all of the awful decrees and persecution — the birth pangs of Mashiach — that the Jewish people have already endured (especially in this final generation before Mashiach’s arrival).]

Hashem will free the Jewish people from this condition under which we are “called impure” — and G-d forbid to believe that anyone or anything can impede this redemption — and it will happen faster than anyone imagined.

It is only that Hashem desires that we, too, yearn to leave quickly, “immediately” — as Rambam says — from exile, from this state in which we are “called impure,” achieving a state of total purity — atonement.

Then, redemption will come to pass, as Scripture describes, “with the clouds of ...

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Lessons in Likutay Torah | April 27, 2025