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”).
{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).
