QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Rabanan derive from the verse, "At the completion (Melos) of the days of purity for a son (l'Ben) or for a daughter (l'Bas), she shall bring..." (Vayikra 12:6), that a woman who gives birth must bring a Korban for every son that is born and for every daughter that is born. RASHI (DH l'Chayev) writes that this means that if the woman went to the Mikvah more than fourteen days after the birth of a girl and then had relations (which is permitted during the following 66 days, even if she saw blood), became pregnant, and gave birth again after the eightieth day after the first birth, she must bring two Korbanos for the two births.

Why does Rashi write that the woman first gave birth to a girl? The Gemara says that "she must bring a Korban for every son born," which implies that she first gave birth to a boy, and then, forty days later, gave birth to another boy. She must bring two Korbanos even though she became pregnant during the forty days after the birth of the first boy (the days of "Melos"). Why does Rashi write that the first baby was a girl?

ANSWER: The CHIDUD HALACHOS (by the author of the Sidrei Taharah, printed after the Sidrei Taharah in the end of the second volume of the SHULCHAN ARUCH, Yoreh De'ah) answers that Rashi maintains that if she would have become pregnant during the days of "Melos" after a male child, since the duration of "Melos" is only forty days the baby could not have been "formed" before the end of "Melos." The Mishnah earlier (30a) states that a woman who miscarries during the first forty days of pregnancy is not Tamei with Tum'as Leidah. Rashi there (DH Einah) explains that the formation of the embryo is not completed until after forty days have passed from the time of conception. If the first baby would have been a boy, then the second baby would have been considered merely as "Maya b'Alma" (mere fluid) during the "Melos" of the first baby (that is, the first forty days after the first birth). Therefore, it is obvious that one Korban would not suffice to exempt both babies; the second baby's primary development occurs after the "Melos" of the first. Since the second baby has no connection to the first baby, it would not be necessary for the verse to teach that she needs to bring two Korbanos. The verse is necessary only for Rashi's case, when the mother became pregnant during the 66 days of Yemei Tohar after the birth of a girl, because then the form of the embryo (Tzuras ha'Vlad) of the second child could be completed before the end of "Melos," and thus one might have thought (if not for the verse) that one Korban suffices for both births.

The Chidud Halachos writes that Rashi is consistent with this approach in two other places in the Sugya. The Gemara continues and says that it was taught in front of Rav Sheshes that the verse, "This (Zos) is the law of the Yoledes" (Vayikra 12:7), teaches that she brings one Korban for many births. However, the Gemara qualifies this and says that it is possible that one might think that even when the first birth is before "Melos" and the second birth is after "Melos" she should also bring only one Korban. Therefore, the Torah says the word "Zos," which implies that one Korban must be brought for every birth. Rashi there (DH she'Lifnei) writes that the case in which the first birth was before "Melos" and the second birth was after "Melos" is a case in which the second birth was after eighty days. Rashi, by mentioning eighty days, implies that the first birth was a girl.

The Gemara continues and says that although the Torah says "Zos" (which implies that one brings a separate Korban for each birth, as mentioned above), the Rabanan still need the verse of "l'Ben" or "l'Bas" to teach that she must bring a Korban for each son and each daughter that is born. Had there been only one verse, one might have thought that she must bring only two Korbanos when she was pregnant twice, but when she was pregnant only once with twins born at intervals perhaps she needs only one Korban (see Rashi (DH b'Trei), who explains that it is possible for twins to be born at two births with a gap of three months between them). Rashi explains that the case in which she was pregnant twice is a case in which she gave birth, became pregnant again during the Yemei Tohar, and gave birth at the end of eighty days. Again it is evident from Rashi's mention of eighty days that the first birth was a girl. As explained above, Rashi explains that the first birth was a girl because if the first birth would have been a boy, then the second baby could not have been formed before the end of "Melos" (forty days). It would be obvious that she needs two Korbanos and no verse would be needed to teach this. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon includes "ha'Lan" in the list of invalid Korbanos. RASHI (DH ha'Lan) explains that "ha'Lan" refers to blood of a Korban that was left over and was not applied to the Mizbe'ach before nightfall.

Why does Rashi explain that the Beraisa refers to blood that was not applied to the Mizbe'ach before nightfall, and not to parts of the Korban itself that were not offered on the Mizbe'ach before nightfall? In fact, when Rashi in Zevachim (27b) explains the same Beraisa, he writes that "ha'Lan" refers to parts of the Korban itself that were not offered on the Mizbe'ach before nightfall! Why does he explain differently here?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH ha'Lan) points out that the Beraisa mentions Nosar among the invalid Korbanos. This Nosar cannot refer to the meat of a Korban that was left over and was not eaten in its proper time (as Nosar usually means), because the Beraisa states that Nosar is left on the Mizbe'ach if it is placed there by accident. Parts of a Korban that are supposed to be eaten, however, may not be left on the Mizbe'ach. "Nosar" in the Beraisa, therefore, must refer to the leftover fats of a Korban that were not offered on the Mizbe'ach before nightfall. Accordingly, "ha'Lan" cannot refer to those parts of the Korban that were left over, because "Nosar" already refers to them. Rather, it must refer to the blood, and not to the fats, of the animal, which was not offered before nightfall.

Rashi in Zevachim explains that "ha'Lan" there refers to the flesh of the Korban and not to the blood, because the version of the Beraisa quoted by the Gemara there omits the word, "Nosar." Accordingly, Rashi there explains that the word "ha'Lan" in that Beraisa refers to the fats of the Korban that were not offered on the Mizbe'ach before nightfall! (M. KORNFELD)