Kommentar zu Wajikra 12:7

והקריבו AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — Two offerings have been mentioned, a lamb and a bird, but it states here ,,and he shall offer it and so make an atonement for her” — this teaches you that only the omission to sacrifice a particular one of these two precludes her from eating the sacrificial food. And which is this? It is the sin-offering, because it is stated immediately afterwards: “he shall make expiation for her and she shall be clean” — that which is intended as expiation (i. e. the sin-offering), upon it does the purification depend (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 3 4).

AND HE SHALL OFFER IT BEFORE THE ETERNAL, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER; AND SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED FROM THE FOUNTAIN OF HER BLOOD. Scripture is stating that she shall offer a ransom for her soul⁴⁰See Exodus 30:12. before the Eternal so that she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood, for a woman in childbirth has a troubled fountain and a tainted spring,⁴¹Proverbs 25:26. and after she has completed the number of days of becoming clean [as explained above in Verse 4], or the days of the formation of the child, male or female,⁴²This is a reference to Ibn Ezra’s explanation mentioned by Ramban (above, Verse 4). In other words, after she has completed the forty-day period for a male child and eighty days for a female — whether the reason that the Torah decreed these days is as Ramban explained it, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, or as Ibn Ezra explained it in accordance with that of Rabbi Yishmael (ibid.) — she shall then bring etc. she shall then bring a ransom for her soul so that her fountain should be stayed, and that she should become cleansed, for G-d, praised be He, “heals all flesh and does wondrously.”⁴³Berachoth 60 b.
Now our Rabbis have said⁴⁴Niddah 31 b. that [the reason for these offerings is] that at the moment that she bends down to give birth she rashly swears [because of the pains of childbirth]: “I will no longer have relationships with my husband” [so as not to conceive again]. The main purport of this statement of the Rabbis is that since she only swears on account of her pain, and the oath is moreover not capable of fulfillment, because she is subject to her husband, therefore the Torah wished for her to atone for that which came into her mind [and therefore commanded her to bring these offerings]. G-d’s thoughts, blessed be He, are deep,⁴⁵See Psalms 92:6. and His mercies are bountiful, for it is His desire to justify His creatures.

והקריבו לפני ה׳ וכפר עליה; and he shall offer it before G'd and make atonement for her. Concerning the offering of the sheep as a burnt-offering the Torah said והקריבו, whereas concerning the turtle-dove as the sin-offering the Torah writes וכפר עליה, "and he will make atonement for her." Torat Kohanim write that the two sacrifices are not both dependent on each other in order to fulfil their respective tasks but that only one depends on the other. I do not know therefore which of the two sacrifices is indispensable, and this is why the Torah said והקריבו, he will offer it up. Had, the Torah only written these words I still would not have known which one of these two sacrifices was indispensable; therefore the Torah adds the words וכפר עליה to tell us that the sin-offering is indispensable. Perhaps the exegesis is derived from the fact that the Torah could have simply written והקריבם, "and he is to offer them up." The fact that the Torah spent all these extra words teaches that the two sacrifices are not of equally indispensable nature.

וטהרה, she is ritually pure enough to be allowed to eat sacred foods. This is the interpretation of our sages in Yevamot 74. This is not so surprising, as a person undergoing the ritual rehabilitation process, if lacking only the official stamp of atonement, i.e. the sacrifice in question, may already eat sacred foods of the sanctity level of T’rumah, grain or its derivative given to the priest as a tithe. Sacred foods of a higher degree of sanctity may not be consumed by such a person until he has brought the requisite sacrifice.

והקריבו לפני ה' וכפר עליה, “He shall offer it before Hashem and atone for her.” Nachmanides writes that the new mother is in need of atonement as a woman after having given birth is left with a damaged womb. She is in need of having G’d heal that damage for her in order that she will be capable of continuing normal family relations after her womb has healed. Only G’d, the Healer of all flesh, can do this for her. Our sages of old, hold that the reason why most women are in personal need of atonement is that during the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth they vowed never again to have marital relations with their husbands. Seeing that such a woman swore out of extreme pain and her oath is therefore not really effective legally, since she is contractually obligated to have relations with her husband, G’d wanted her to escape the consequences of such an oath, and by allowing her to bring this sacrifice He forgave her. [We must remember that a legally ineffective oath constitutes uttering the name of the Lord in vain. Ed.]

One of them. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written: “He will bring them” since childbirth requires two offerings — a lamb in its first year and a young pigeon or turtledove. Rather, [it must be:] “This teaches you...”

וטהרה ממקור דמיה, “she shall be cleansed from the source of her ritual impurity.” What is the purpose of this verse? Even if the woman who had given birth had seen menstrual blood during all these days of ritual cleansing, she would be able to bring the requisite offerings at the conclusion of these 33 or 66 days after the initial period when she was out of bounds to her husband? Even if we were to assume that these words refer to the blood she saw while ritually unclean, there was no need to repeat the word דמיה, “her blood (her insides had not healed yet).” Her ritual purity does not depend on her bleeding or not bleeding, as she is not able to offer the sacrifices concluding her state of being considered a יולדת “birthing woman” even if she had not only stopped bleeding immediately after giving birth, but had experienced what halachah describes as a “dry” birth! The reason why the expression וטהרה, “she regained her ritual purity,” is in place is because until the expiry of these days and her having brought the requisite offerings, she cannot partake of food which is the residue of animals that have been slaughtered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, as well as agricultural products to be given to a priest, i.e. t’rumah.”

והקריבו, “and he (the priest) shall offer it;” although the pronoun ending in this word is in the singular mode, i.e. ”it,” what is meant is all three creatures, the two birds and the sheep. The Torah also does not bother to spell out the manner in which the birds will be killed, i.e. מליקה, “pinching off of the head, as per Leviticus 5,8.

וטהרה AND SHE SHALL BE CLEAN — it follows, therefore, that until now (until she has brought the atonement offering) she is termed ‘‘unclean” (i.e. she is regarded as טמאה) although she is actually טהרה.

On it the purification depends. For in every place regarding to the sin-offering it is written: “The kohein will atone for him and he shall be forgiven.” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi bring the verse at the end of the section (v. 8) and not the verse preceding it (v. 7): “and atone for her and she will be cleansed”? The answer is: This verse (7) does not prove that the sin-offering comes for atonement, for perhaps the burnt-offering comes for atonement. The other verse (8), however, demonstrates this well, since it is written: “And one as a sin-offering...” which implies that the sin-offering comes to atone. Another answer: Because the verse placed the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, and it placed it first “only for [the purpose of] reading [the Torah scroll].” However, this poses a difficulty: For what practical difference does Scripture place it first? Rather, it is to juxtapose “and he will atone” to “sinoffering” to teach that the atonement depends on the sin-offering. You might ask: Let the Merciful One [in the Torah] write [only]: “And he will atone” and it need not say, “And he will bring it,” and it would imply the one upon which the atonement depends! This is no difficulty, for Scripture had not written “and he will bring it” I might think that “he will atone” refers to the burnt-offering as well, since it is written regarding the burnt-offering (1:4): “And it will be favorably accepted from him to achieve his atonement.” However, now that it is written, “And he will bring it,” which implies one [of them], it is more reasonable to establish it as [referring to] the sin-offering that atones, since he is obligated to bring it to atone, and to exclude the burnt-offering that although it atones, he is not obligated to bring it as atonement. Even when the burnt-offering is obligatory, it comes as a present (Gur Aryeh).

That until now she is considered unclean. Rashi’s view in this is so that you will not raise a difficulty upon what he explains (above): “only one of them prevents her from eating holy food,” if so, this implies only sacrifices are forbidden and not terumoh. However, above he explains (v. 4): “Anything holy” — “to include terumoh”; that it too, is forbidden to be eaten. Therefore, he explains: “And she will be cleansed. Therefore, [we learn] that until now she is considered unclean.” Perforce, this impurity refers to prohibiting [eating from] sacrifices, since terumoh is permitted to be eaten from sunset of the fortieth day and onwards, which implies that sacrifices are prohibited [to be eaten] until after her atonement. Therefore, he explains: “from eating holy food.”