English translation — תזריע א

In the verse at the end of the portion of a woman who gave birth¹

"And the priest shall make atonement for her and she shall be pure" teaches the Gemara²

"And she shall be pure implies that she was impure,"

so a person lacking atonement

(after he "immersed and arose" and "his sun set" — <b>before</b> he brought his atonement)

is impure regarding several laws: A)

There is still upon him the prohibition of "Do not touch any sacred thing, etc."³,

eating of sacred foods⁴.

If he served in the Holy Temple he is liable to death⁵

(because "an impure person who served [is liable to] death")⁶.

C)

He

(a person lacking atonement)

invalidates the service⁷.

The Rambam in Sefer HaYad brings the exposition in two places

A.

Regarding a person lacking atonement who served, that "his service is invalid"⁸.

B)

(B)

Regarding the prohibition of entering the Temple

(from the Court of Israelites and inward)⁹]

— but with a change of language: "And she shall be pure implies that her purification has not yet been completed

(completed¹⁰)

her purification."

From the language of the Rambam it is understood that the deficiency of a mechusar kippurim is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; so because of the "obligation" of tumah — that is: although through the fact that he immersed and the sun set for him he became tahor

(for some matters,

including also eating terumah),

but regarding kodesh and mikdash &lt;b&gt;remained&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;tumah&lt;/b&gt;

(and therefore he is forbidden in kodesh and to enter the mikdash etc.)

Only this is because of the

(negation)

deficiency in taharah: because there is lacking in him the taharah

(completion)

that is accomplished through the korban.

And as the Rambam says at the beginning of the matter in explanation: "And why are they called those lacking atonement? Because each one of them, even though he has become purified from his impurity and immersed and his sun set, he is still lacking and his purification is not completed in order to eat sacred foods until he brings his offering, and before he brings his atonement it is forbidden for him to eat sacred foods

(as we explained in Pesulei HaMukdashin)

Daled.

Heh.

The prohibition is not because he is still impure,

but because there is a lack in his purification¹³

from "still his impurity is upon him"¹⁵

— to include one lacking atonement",

the Rambam⁹

however learns it

(as above)

from the verse "and she shall become pure,

implying that her purification is not yet completed"]

*¹⁵.

And it is a practical halachic difference: because the Rambam teaches that a mechusar kippurim is <b>not</b> tamei

(It is only that "his purification is <b>not completed</b>"),

therefore the Rambam rules that a mechusar kippurim who

(eats kodesh¹⁶

or

serves — is <b>not</b> liable to death

(or kareis).

But the Ra'avad holds that a mechusar kippurim is liable to death, and as he objects¹⁷

to the Rambam: "But we say in Makkos¹⁸

'Still his impurity is in him' includes a mechusar kippurim...

And further, 'and she becomes pure' is written regarding a yoledet, implying that until now she was impure, and we say in Zevachim¹⁹

a mechusar kippurim of a zav is like a zav, and in the Tosefta of Zevachim it counts him among those liable to death."²⁰

Because the Ra'avad learns,

that the definition of a mechusar kippurim is,

that until one brings the atonement there still &lt;b&gt;remained&lt;/b&gt; from the &lt;b&gt;previous&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;impurity&lt;/b&gt;

(It is only that the &lt;b&gt;part&lt;/b&gt; of impurity that prevented eating terumah was &lt;b&gt;removed&lt;/b&gt;)&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

B.

Also Rashi in his commentary on the Torah brings the exposition on "vetaheira"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

but he changes from the language of the Gemara

(But not like the Rambam,

and this is his language)

: "Vetaheira,

implying that until now

(she&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;)

&lt;b&gt;is called&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

impure".

That which Rashi says not in the language of the Gemara "from the general principle &lt;b&gt;that she&lt;/b&gt; is impure" — one can say&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

: from his previous commentary on the words "days of purity&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

— days of purity of hers"

(Since Rashi says &lt;b&gt;plainly&lt;/b&gt; "days of purity" and not "days of purity &lt;b&gt;with&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;her husband"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

and the like)

it is proven,

that the days are &lt;b&gt;entirely&lt;/b&gt; "days of purity"

(in completeness)

that have ended.

And that which the verse&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

warns "Do not touch any holy thing and do not enter the Sanctuary until the days of her purity are fulfilled" is that due to a side reason

(they are not — &lt;b&gt;fillings&lt;/b&gt;)

because of which she may not touch "any holy thing" and may not enter the Sanctuary.

It turns out,

that according to Rashi — the plain meaning of Scripture — the impurity of childbirth ceased &lt;b&gt;immediately&lt;/b&gt; after the 7

(or 14)

days,

and certainly after the 33 days,

before she brings the offering — and for this reason it is understood,

why it is not possible to say about her the expression "that she is impure".

(in the entry "In every holy")

"To include the terumah

(that she may not eat terumah during the thirty-three days)

because this one is a tevul yom of a long day, who immersed at the end of seven days, and her sunset does not bring her evening to purify her until sunset of the fortieth day, on the next day she will bring her atonement of her purification" — for apparently, what is the practical difference to emphasize "on the next day she will bring her atonement of her purification"?

*&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

Only with this Rashi intends to say,

that just as regarding eating holy things &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; the completion of the days of purification

(before she brings the offering)

is only that the obligation of the offering holds her back from eating holy things

(but she is not impure),

so too is also regarding eating terumah during the thirty-three days,

that this is

(not because she is impure,

but)

because of that which the obligation of her purification atonement holds her back and does not allow that the sunset of the previous days

(before the sunset of the fortieth day)

should permit for eating terumah].

And this is the reason for the difference between the language of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah and the language of the Talmud: According to Rashi on the Torah — simple meaning of Scripture — one cannot say regarding a woman after childbirth who is lacking atonement the term "unclean"

(Because also earlier,

before the sunset of the fortieth day,

she already had "her days of purity")

; but according to the method of the Gemara, the thirty-three days are within her days of uncleanness²⁹

(also regarding terumah)

and before she brings her atonement — "she is unclean"³⁰

(regarding sacred things and the Sanctuary)³¹.

3.

One must, however, understand,

on the other hand: Since according to Rashi the impurity of childbirth has ceased — then accordingly the language of Rashi "

(From the general principle that until now)

is called unclean" is also not appropriate?

Rashi should have said

(in the manner of the language of the Rambam)

"From the general principle that her purification was not completed"

(and the like).

And from whichever side: if Rashi teaches that this that she still has an obligation of a sacrifice is <b>withholding</b> her <b>purification</b>

(That

is

that it does not become purification <b>in actuality</b>)

— it is then not only that "she is <b>called</b> impure",

rather she is impure <b>in actuality</b>; and if one would say,

on the other hand,

that the impurity has been nullified,

and this that she may not eat sacred foods is a <b>prohibition</b>

(sides)

— it is then not a matter of "she is <b>called</b> <b>impure</b>",

rather a <b>prohibition</b> against eating sacred foods until she brings the sacrifice.

From this it is understood,

that according to the plain sense of Scripture the definition of a lacking atonement by a woman after childbirth is in a third manner: the impurity of childbirth was nullified immediately after the seven days

(and the later days are "her days of <b>purity</b>")

and therefore one cannot say about her "that she is impure"; but on the other hand,

the reason that she is forbidden to eat sacred foods until she brings the sacrifice,

is <b>not</b> because there needs to come <b>purification</b> through the sacrifice,

rather due to a special law by a woman after childbirth³²,

that even after the impurity has left her — <b>nevertheless</b> <b>the</b> <b>name</b> of impurity <b>remains</b> <b>upon</b> <b>her</b>,

until she brings the sacrifice for her atonement.

And this Rashi says — repeats and emphasizes: "and she shall be clean,

from the rule &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;

(she)

&lt;b&gt;is called&lt;/b&gt; unclean" — not as in the Gemara "from the rule that she is unclean":

(a)

She is only "&lt;b&gt;called&lt;/b&gt; unclean",

(b)

But this is a &lt;b&gt;continuation&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;earlier&lt;/b&gt; "&lt;b&gt;Until&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; —

(she)

"she is <b>called</b> impure",

is called unclean"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

d.

The proof for this in the plain sense of Scripture — one must say,

is hinted at in Rashi's commentary,

through another change from the Gemara: In the Gemara stands the exposition "from the rule that she is unclean" on the word "and she shall be clean" &lt;b&gt;that is at the end&lt;/b&gt; of the passage — "and the priest shall make atonement for her and she shall be clean".

But Rashi says it on the earlier verse*&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

"and he shall bring them before the Lord and make atonement for her and she shall be clean from the flow of her blood"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

And seemingly: since Rashi teaches "from the rule that until here

(she)

is called unclean" — so here too previously there was no impurity,

only a name of impurity — it would have been more fitting to bring the exposition on the word "and she shall be pure"

(first heh — tzere)

that is at the end of the portion,

than to bring it on the word "and she shall be pure

(heh with patach)

from the source of her blood",

which emphasizes the action of purification from impurity?

Rather the explanation in this: were it not for the verse "and she shall be pure from the source of her blood" one would have learned that the prohibition to eat of holy things is entirely not connected with impurity,

rather it is a side prohibition,

which is because she still lacks the action of the offering;

Since however the verse is precise "and she shall be purified &lt;b&gt;from the source&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of her blood&lt;/b&gt;",

it comes out that the purity that she lacks is not merely because she has not yet brought the offering,

but because there still remains impurity "&lt;b&gt;from the source&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of her blood&lt;/b&gt;".

How does this accord with what the verse says that already the thirty-three days are "&lt;b&gt;days of&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;purification&lt;/b&gt;"?

One must say,

that "from the general

until here

<b>called</b> "impure": although

that the impurity has already been nullified,

but the <b>name</b> of impurity still remained upon her.

5.

It still remains, however, not explained:

a)

Rashi is indeed not a book of reasons for the laws — what difference does it make in understanding the plain meaning of the verse to say that the reason for the prohibition to eat sacred meat is because "until here

(it is)

(she)

is called unclean"?

b)

Since the impurity of the woman after childbirth has already been revoked — why should the name impurity remain with her until she brings the sacrifice?

It will be understood by prefacing the explanation: already spoken several times that Rashi in his commentary on the Torah answers <b>all</b> questions that arise in the plain meaning of Scripture — why do we not find that Rashi explains the reason that a woman after childbirth must bring a sin-offering <b>for atonement</b>?

What sin has she committed that she should need to have an atonement³⁵?

(which requires an answer)

in the plain meaning of Scripture,

and as indeed many commentators of the Torah ask,

furthermore: we find in <b>Rashi</b> <b>above</b> that Rashi warns regarding a burnt-offering,

where it says³⁶

"and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him" — Rashi explains: for what does it appease for him etc. for a positive commandment and for a prohibition etc.].

And simply,

that one cannot say that Rashi relies on the explanation in the <b>Gemara³⁷</b>

that this is because "at the time she crouches

(the woman)

to give birth she jumps and swears etc."

And especially since he does not even hint at it!

One must say,

that the one five years old for Mikra understands it by himself according to the plain meaning of the verse that he has already learned,

as follows.

6.

When one learns "A woman, when she conceives and gives birth etc. &lt;b&gt;and she shall be impure&lt;/b&gt; etc. as the days of her menstrual infirmity &lt;b&gt;she shall be in her infirmity"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

— The portion of a woman who gave birth — it immediately reminds of the combination of woman, birth, and pain

(— as a punishment for a sin)

— in the portion of Bereishis where the Supreme One said to Chavah

(after her &lt;b&gt;sin&lt;/b&gt; of the Tree of Knowledge)

"To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your pain and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

Every birth —

(which comes as a result of pregnancy "and she conceived and gave birth")

is in a manner of

(your pain and your pregnancy — pain of conception&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;)

"in pain you shall bear children",

"pain of childbirth"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

— has in it a part of

(the punishment for the)

sin of the Tree of Knowledge.

And based on this, the reason for the impurity — of a woman who gave birth is understood&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

(even without blood&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;)

in the simple sense of the verse: just as birth is in pain

(birth)

as a result of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,

so too does it bring impurity&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

And from this it is understood why a woman after childbirth must bring a sin-offering for her atonement: because in every birth

(by every woman)

there is from the sin of the Tree of Knowledge — she must bring an atonement for it⁴⁴.

— always when I visit upon them their iniquities, I will visit upon them a little of this sin along with the other sins, and no calamity comes upon Israel that does not contain some payment for the sin of the Golden Calf"].

7.

According to the explanation in the impurity of childbirth, it is also explained what Rashi interprets on the word "והקריבו" — "the one who comes to atone with it, the purification depends on it",

that the purification of the woman who gave birth depends specifically on the sin-offering that comes for atonement and not on the burnt-offering⁴⁶

— because⁴⁷

the impurity comes through a matter that needs atonement,

therefore the purification from the impurity is bound up with her bringing her atonement.

And based on the above, will be understood and sweetened the continuation in Rashi — that immediately after his aforementioned explanation on "והקריבו"

(in which he emphasizes that the purification of a woman after childbirth is connected with her atonement)

— he continues "וטהרה,

from the implication that until now

is called unclean": after we know that the impurity of the woman after childbirth is connected with the sin of the Tree of Knowledge and therefore her purification is connected with her atonement,

it is understandable,

is called unclean": even after the impurity has been removed from her,

but as long as she does not yet have her atonement,

she is still "called unclean".

With this is also understandable the practical difference

(also according to the simple meaning of the verse)

that "until now

that "until now

(she)

(she)

(she)

is called unclean": if the prohibition of eating sacred food were only because she lacks the completion of purification — there would be room for the woman not to hasten to bring her offering in order to be able to eat sacred food.

One does not find an obligation upon a Jew to be in a state of purity in order to be able to eat sacred food

(except before the Festival,

that a person is obligated to purify himself on the Festival⁴⁸).

However, since that which "called unclean" until now is connected with that which is lacking in her &lt;b&gt;atonement&lt;/b&gt; — it is therefore understood,

that she must hasten to be atoned as much as possible.

ח.

Chazal&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

say that the Almighty "what He does, He tells Israel to do."

From this it is understood,

that just as the Almighty wants that Jews should not be even in a state of "&lt;b&gt;called&lt;/b&gt;

(merely)

unclean",

and should bring a sacrifice for atonement,

So too conducts Himself the Supernal One with Jews,

that when one is in exile,

and Jews are called "unclean carcass"

that every Jew in every place and in every time — is His will

(And according to the Torah of truth)

— does only the will of Hashem — and if he sometimes does otherwise it is only from the side of coercion,

And especially after all these terrible fearsome decrees and forced conversions,

the birth-pangs of Mashiach that Jews have already gone through

(And especially in our generation, this last one)]

Hashem takes out the Jews from the situation and state of "call impure"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

— and G-d forbid and G-d forbid to say that someone or something can prevent Him — and it comes with the greatest alacrity,

He only wants that by Jews there should also be the desire&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

to go out with alacrity "&lt;b&gt;immediately&lt;/b&gt;" — in the language of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

— from exile,

from the state of "call impure",

and come to the completion of their purification — their atonement,

And the redemption comes in a manner of "with the clouds of heaven"⁵⁵,

"I will hasten it"⁵⁶

(in "I will hasten it"⁵⁷),

immediately, literally,

in our time, speedily.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tazria 5741)