In the Work of Creation. You might ask: Why did the creation of animals and beasts precede the creation of man? The Sages already answered in Sanhedrin (38a): “Why was man created on Erev Shabbos? So that they [i.e., the heretics] would not say Hashem had a partner in the Work of Creation. Another explanation: Because if man would be haughty they can say to him: The mosquito preceded you. Another explanation: So that he would immediately become obligated in a mitzvah [Shabbos]. Another explanation: So that he would find everything immediately prepared for his meal. This can be compared to a king...” You might ask: If the Torah explains according to the order of creation, then Parshas Metzoro should come before Parshas Ki Tazria, because Metzoro speaks of a man and Tazria speaks of a woman, and Adam was created before Chavah! The answer is: It is more common for a woman gives birth than for a man to become afflicted with tzora’as. Furthermore, we can say: The reason Tazria comes before Metzoro is because the main reason a person is afflicted with tzora’as is because he has relations with his wife when she is a menstruant, as the Gemara says (Erachin 16a, and Tanchuma Tazria 11). Another answer: The woman is compared to the earth’s soil, which causes what is planted (שזורעים) in it to grow. Man, as well, was created from the earth’s soil. Therefore, it is written regarding a woman: “When [a woman] conceives (תזריע) and gives birth to a male child,” i.e., the male is created from the female who is likened to the earth’s soil. This raises a difficulty: What practical difference does this comparison make? Furthermore, Re’m raised the difficulty that the Gemora says in Sanhedrin (38a) that the reason Adam was created last was so that if he would be haughty it can be said to him: The mosquito preceded you in the work of creation, and so that he would find everything prepared for his meal, [and more reasons,] all of which are not applicable here! He also asks: Why does it mention the law [of tzora’as]: “When a man will have in the skin of his flesh” after the law pertaining to a woman: “When [a woman] conceives”? The woman was created last! It appears to me the answer is: All this is what R. Simlai [who is cited in Rashi] means to say: Just as there is a good reason why Adam was created last — so that he would come and find everything ready for his meal — so too, regarding the law of man: It was explained after the laws of animals, beasts and birds, i.e., with regard to what is forbidden and permitted [among them]. This follows what it says in the Midrash (Vayikro Rabboh 13:3) on the verse (11:2): “These are the living things” — “Every word of Hashem is refined” (Mishlei 30:5), “The mitzvos were given to Israel” — i.e., what is forbidden to be eaten — “only for the sake of refining the people with them.” In this way Hashem demonstrates his love for us, as it says in the Midrash that someone who loves his servant cautions him from eating harmful food. Therefore, R. Simlai said that just as Adam was created last at the time of Creation for his advantage, so that he find his provisions prepared, so too, regarding Torah and mitzvos, Hashem gave them to Israel for their benefit, to refine them. Therefore, mankind was mentioned last so that they would have the refinement of mitzvos by means of the laws pertaining to animals, beasts and birds. Therefore, there is no difficulty posed from: “When a man will have, in the skin of his flesh” [the law of tzora’as of a man is mentioned after the section dealing with a woman], for there [the concept of] refinement is not relevant (Divrei Dovid).

Mushy. [Rashi knows this] because it should only say: “When a woman gives birth to a male child.” [Why does it add “conceives”?] Rather, this comes to include even [when the embryo] is born mushy. One should not object: [The Rabbis taught (Berachos 60a)]: This teaches that if a woman emits seed first [the child will be a male, thus,] it is needed for that! [The answer is:] If so, it should say: “כי תזריע האשה וילדה זכר.” Rather, it juxtaposes “conception” to “giving birth” and writes וילדה זכר with a ו, which indicates certainty, and does not write “if,” the way it does (v. 5): “If she gives birth to a female.” Perforce you have both [explanations]. [You might ask:] Rashi explains above in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:15): “These are the sons of Leah... along with his daughter Deenah.” — “The males are attributed to Leah while the females are attributed to Yaakov, to teach you that if the woman emits seed first then she will give birth to a male [and if the man emits seed first then she will give birth to a female].” Why is this needed? It is derived from here! The answer is: From here we can only derive that a woman who emits seed [first] gives birth [to a male], however, [it is inconclusive in the event] the man emits seed first or they both emit simultaneously, that she will give birth to a female. Therefore, Scripture lets us know: “along with his daughter Deenah,” that if they [both] emit seed simultaneously they each cancel the other [and she will give birth to a male or female]. And from there alone, however, it cannot be derived, because we can say Scripture attributes the males to Leah because it cannot attribute them to Yaakov, who had other male children, [and if it said “these are the sons of Yaakov” I might think that these alone are the sons of Yaakov]. The female [Deenah] was attributed to him, though, since he had no other daughter besides her. [Thus,] from both [verses] it is derived well. Re’m dwelt at length on this but I shortened it (Minchas Yehudah).

As semen. Rashi’s explanation implies that first, before it was born, it was somewhat formed as a fetus, but afterwards it became crushed. [He knows this] from what is written, “when [a woman] conceives,” which implies even if she only gave birth to something resembling semen. But it is written, “and gives birth to a male child,” implying that it was a fully formed embryo. How [can this be resolved]? Perforce, we must say that originally it was a fully formed fetus, but afterwards it was crushed and became as semen.

Mentioned in regard to a menstruant woman. She causes impurity due to lying down or sitting, as does a menstruant woman, and all the laws of impurity apply to her. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the verse means: “as the days of her menstrual flow” — which is seven days — so too, the amount of impurity for childbirth is seven days. The answer is: This would not require a verse, for it clearly says: “she will be ritually unclean for seven days.” If so, why does it say: “as the days of her menstrual flow”? Rather, it comes to teach about other [laws of menstrual] impurity. You might ask: This is obvious! She is a menstruant woman, for at the time of her difficulty [in birth] she saw blood. Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if the womb opens without blood.”

Which flows. [Rashi knows this] because the ז is interchangeable with the ד, as [we see from the fact that] the Aramaic translation of זב (discharge flow) is דב (15:2) [and the ו and the ב are interchangeable since they have the same source of pronunciation]. If so, it is as if Scripture had written זבותה (her flow).

Even if. Otherwise, why does it say: “בדמי”? Alternatively, this is the explanation: Would it be insufficient that she does not see blood, that it was written with the expression “תשב בדמי (she will remain in the blood)”? Therefore, Rashi explains: “even if [she sees blood]...”

To one who eats. As it is written nearby: “and she shall not come into the Sanctuary,” and the one who enters the Sanctuary in impurity is liable koreis (excision), as it is written at the beginning of Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:20). [Thus,] the Gemora (Yevamos 75a) makes a comparison between “she shall not touch anything holy” and one who enters the Sanctuary, just as one who enters the Sanctuary involves koreis, so too, when it is written, “she shall not touch anything holy,” it refers to koreis. If so, perforce we must say that “she shall not touch” is a warning to one who eats, for one who eats sacrifices in the state of impurity is liable [koreis. Regarding terumoh, though, which Rashi derives above from “anything holy,” the punishment is] death [at the hands of Heaven], as it is written (22:9): “And die because of it for having profaned.” However, one who touches sacrifices in the state of impurity is not liable koreis [and the reason the verse teaches eating with an expression of ‘touching’ is to let us know that one who is forbidden to eat sacrifices may also not touch them]. Furthermore, we can say that Rashi [knows that ‘touch’ refers to eating from that which he] explains nearby “anything holy” — “to include [terumoh].” Perforce, he did not intend to explain the verse, for the phrase “anything holy” is written before “she shall not touch,” so why does Rashi reverse the order? Rather, this refers to what precedes his explanation on “anything holy.” And this is its explanation: “She shall not touch” — “A warning to one who eats,” but how do we know it is a warning to one who eats? Thus, he explains: Because “anything holy” includes terumoh, and “she shall not touch” also refers to it. If so, we cannot say “she shall not touch” is a warning for actual touching, since it is permissible to touch terumoh immediately after immersing [in a mikveh], and she immersed immediately after the seven days. A טבול יום (one who immersed and is waiting for sunset) is permitted to touch terumoh. Rather, [it must be] a warning for one who eats. This raises a difficulty: In the verse it is written קדש (holy) and not terumoh! Upon this Rashi answers: The proof is from that which it is written: “until the days of her purity are completed,” which is applicable only to terumoh, “for this one is [considered] as one who has immersed [in a mikveh but whose purification is concluded only] after a long day, [thus,] the expression “days” is applicable to her. However, sacrifices cannot be eaten until one brings his [sacrifice of] atonement, and it does not depend on days alone. [Thus,] although the [warning] itself comes for one who eats sacrifices, nevertheless, the exclusion from “anything” comes to prohibit eating terumoh (Nachalas Yaakov).

One who has immersed after a long day. Meaning: We need not ask: Terumoh is permissible to be eaten after the sunset, so why should it be forbidden to be eaten after the end of the seven days? Rashi answers: “For this one is as one who has immersed after a long day...” until the fortieth day when they bring their offerings of childbirth, and at sunset before the fortieth day she is permitted to eat terumoh.

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...”

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.”

[The verse] placed it first. Meaning: For the purpose of reading the Torah that the one who reads in the Torah will read the word “burnt-offering” first, “but as to [the order of] offering...” [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not explain this above, where it is written: “She shall bring a lamb, in its first year, as a burnt-offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering”? This is because above it is logical that it should place the burnt-offering first, since it is speaking about a rich person who brings a lamb as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering, and even for bringing the offerings the burnt-offering comes first, since a lamb is more important. Here, however, [it is speaking] of a poor person who brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons, which are both the same, so I might think that also for bringing the offering the burnt-offering comes first since it was placed first, etc. Therefore, Rashi explains: “The verse placed it first...”