Kommentar zu Wajikra 4:2

'מכל מצות ה [IF A SOUL SIN IN ERROR] AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD — Our Rabins explained ( Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 7; Shabbat 69a) that a sin-offering (of which this chapter speaks) is brought only for such a thing the wilful committal of which is forbidden by a לאו (a negative command) and is subject to the penalty of excision).

IF A SOUL SHALL SIN IN ERROR. Since the process of thinking is centered in the soul, and it is the soul which commits the error,²⁹⁸Up to this chapter the subjects dealt with have been the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, and the peace-offerings — all of which are voluntary and are not brought for the commission of sin. Here the subject is the sin-offering which is brought as an atonement for a certain sin committed in error. See above, Note 68. Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). The reason for the offerings for the erring soul is that all sins [even if committed unwittingly] produce a particular “stain” upon the soul and constitute a blemish thereon, and the soul is only worthy to be received by the countenance of its Creator when it is pure of all sin. Were it not so, then all the fools of the world would be deserving to come before Him. It is for this reason that the erring soul brings an offering, through which it becomes worthy of approaching unto G-d who gave it.²⁹⁹Ecclesiastes 12:7. It is on account of this that Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). Our Rabbis have interpreted:³⁰⁰Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Nedabah 1:1. “‘Nefesh’ (A soul) — this [word is used to] include proselytes and slaves” [thus teaching us that they too are under the obligation of bringing this offering, since the term nefesh is inclusive of them as well].
Now in the case of the sin-offering of the anointed priest [first discussed here in Verses 3-12], He does not say “and [the priest] shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven,” as He mentions in the case of other sinners — namely, the whole congregation,³⁰¹Verse 20. the prince,³⁰²Verse 26. and the common man.³⁰³Verses 31 and 35. Perhaps the reason for this is that due to his great importance he cannot obtain atonement nor be forgiven completely until he prays and beseeches his G-d, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts,³⁰⁴Malachi 2:7. and he must be of clean and pure hands [so that he can never be reproached with anything; hence in addition to the offering he must bring, he must also pray especially for forgiveness].
Scripture does not mention here, when speaking about the bulls which were to be entirely burnt,³⁰⁵These bulls were the sin-offering for the anointed priest (Verse 3), and that of the whole congregation of Israel (Verse 14). After their fats were burnt on the altar, these bulls were taken outside the camp and completely burnt (Verses 12 and 21). This was unlike the procedure done to the sin-offering of the prince and the common man, of which only the fats were burnt on the altar, whereas the meat was eaten by the priests (further, 6:17-23). Hence the name given to the first two categories of sin-offerings [“bulls to be entirely burnt”]. that the burning of those portions offered on the altar is “of a pleasing odor,” or that it is “a fire-offering unto the Eternal.” The reason for this is that since part of them is burnt outside [the camp of Israel], it is therefore not for “the fire unto the Eternal.” In the case of the goat of the prince [which he brings as his sin-offering],³⁰⁶Verse 23. He mentioned “atonement” [and the priest shall make atonement for him]³⁰⁷Verse 26. but did not state that it is “a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,” because the offering is a sa’ir (a goat).³⁰⁸This is like the sa’ir brought in case of idol worship (Numbers 15:24) (Ma’or V’shamesh). See also Ramban at the end of 3:1. In the case of the sin-offering of the common person, He mentions that it is for a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,³⁰⁹Verse 31. but does not mention “a fire-offering,” for it is self-understood that it is such, since the whole purpose of the fire-offering is to the Eternal. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.

דבר אל בני ישראל, "speak to the children of Israel, etc." Torat Kohanim uses the expression בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles from offering sin-offerings in the event they violated any of the seven Noachide laws. This appears very difficult. Why should the idea that they could offer such sacrifices ever have arisen so that the Torah needed to refute it? If we would have made a comparison with the Gentile's right to offer free-will offerings, there is no comparison seeing that those offerings were not meant to achieve atonement as we know from Chulin 5 where the Talmud debated the source of denying the heretic the right to offer either total-offerings or sin-offerings respectively. The Talmud there makes it plain that the two kinds of offerings cannot be derived one from the other unless there was something in the text alluding to such entitlement. One argument used there is that if someone were denied to offer a free-will offering it does not follow automatically that he should be barred from offering a sin-offering seeing the latter is designed to help him achieve atonement. The same argument can be used here. As a result of such considerations, the Gentile would have been presumed as entitled to offer sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write בני ישראל, to exclude him from the privilege to offer such offerings. It appears to me that the need for this exclusion was accentuated by the word נפש which the Torah used in the very same verse in which it described who would be required (or entitled) to bring a sin-offering. The word נפש suggests that any human being is included in the legislation about to be unveiled. By writing first בני ישראל, the Torah enabled us to use the inclusive term נפש as including proselytes.

אשר לא תעשינה, all the negative commandments violation of which carries the karet penalty when the violation was deliberate. There are only two positive commandments for which there is a karet penalty, where for the mere deliberate omission of performing the commandment the penalty is equal to corresponding negative commandments. They are Pessach, failing to bring or participate in eating of that offering at the right time, and failure to circumcise oneself if this rite has not been performed on one as a baby.

נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “when a person commits a sin of commission inadvertently, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah prefaced this verse with the word נפש instead of the customary איש, is that we find when a person of no particular category is meant, that sin originates in our thoughts, and the biological soul, life force, is where our thoughts originate from, the Torah implies that the source of our sins lies not in a biological necessity, instinctive behaviour, but in our spiritual part. The rationale for the need of the person who has sinned inadvertently to have to atone by means of animal sacrifice, is that all sins bring in their wake stains which leave their marks on our souls, something which interferes with our ability to receive beneficial Divine input from celestial sources. Our personalities are only fully receptive to divine input when we can be described as ritually pure, in the sense of being free from unexpiated sin. To impress these thoughts upon us, the Torah chose the introductory word נפש here. Interestingly, in the case of the High Priest becoming guilty of any of the inadvertent sins the Torah does not mention in connection with the atonement for his sin the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, “he will provide atonement for him and it shall be forgiven to him.” Perhaps the Torah here hints at a criticism directed at the High Priest concerned, who, in spite of his stature, could become guilty of a sin caused by negligence. Possibly, for such a person the sacrifice will not obtain total forgiveness. The High Priest may have to add prayers asking G’d for forgiveness and apologising for being somehow remiss in his conduct before the balance of his guilt will be forgiven. Seeing that he has been likened to מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord of Hosts”, he needs to –allegorically speaking- have clean hands at all times. Some commentators see in the absence of the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, an allusion to the Talmudic rule (Baba Metzia 33) that שגגת תלמוד עולה זדון, “errors committed by a scholar are accounted as if they were deliberate,” because their standing in the community does not permit them to be careless.” When speaking of the פרים הנשרפים, the sin offerings by such High Priests, (Zevachim 5,2) and their being burned up, the customary statements that this will be a source of pleasant aroma, ריח ניחוח for Hashem, is missing, also indicating that the High Priest’s negligence has not yet been forgiven completely, even though he has offered the requisite offering.

A negative commandment and kareis. This excludes circumcision and Pesach, which only have kareis [but are positive commandments; also, not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment alone, such as not harvesting the corners of the field, and most of the Torah’s other negative commandments]; and not something which is a negative commandment and punishable by execution by a Beis Din, but not kareis, such as one who strikes his father or mother, one who kidnaps an Israelite, or the rebellious elder; and not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment and has the penalty of kareis, but it does not involve an active deed, such as one who curses his father, conspiring witnesses, a blasphemer, a sorcerer, an enticer or one who causes others to worship idols, or a false prophet. All these were learned from what it is written [regarding idol worship] (Bamidbar 15:29): “One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently,” and it is written (ibid. 30): “But if a person should act highhandedly (intentionally) ... [and that soul shall be cut off from among its people].” The Torah compares (hekeish) all the inadvertent transgressions of the Torah and the inadvertent transgression of idolatry in that they are liable for its intentional violation the penalty of kareis and for its unintentional violation, a sin-offering.

נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “if someone commits a sin inadvertently;” it is noteworthy that the verse does not commence with the word: אדם, “a human being,” as it does in Genesis chapter one verse two, where it describes someone feeling the urge to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. When the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18,4, writes about the same subject, he too commences by referring to the subject as נפש, i.e. the animalistic part of our soul. The point that is being made in both these verses is that a sin can only be the product of the animalistic life force in our body, not the spiritual part that G–d blew into Adam’s nostrils when the result was his becoming a human being, אדם. (Compare Genesis 2,7 where he is then described as נפש חיה, “a living creature,” not just as נפש.) The creature described as נפש, is by definition mortal, as is clear from the verse quoted from Ezekiel 18,4, where the prophet concludes with the word: תמות, “it is bound to die.” Consider the following parable: two subjects had each committed a trespass against their king. One is an ordinary citizen, whereas the second one was one of the people engaged by the palace where he made his living. They were both arraigned for judgment. The King decreed that the ordinary citizen was to be released forthwith, whereas he imposed a painful penalty for the member of the palace staff who had committed a similar offence. The other members of the palace staff were very disturbed when they observed that their colleague had been singled out for harsher punishment. They questioned the king about this. The King told them that the first citizen, being a stranger, was not familiar with the good qualities of the king. He could therefore be forgiven for having committed this trespass. The palace employees, however, who were well aware of all the king had done for them, could not be forgiven for having trespassed against his rules instead of being especially careful not to commit such an offence. The same applies to creatures who possess only a body, i.e. who though human, did not have a Divine soul, which made them part of the heavenly regions, i.e. they are part of the staff of G–d’s Palace. They are charged with ensuring that their “uniform,” the soul, is in a state of purity at all times. As a result of this difference, the bodies who did not receive a נשמה, a soul from heaven, when they die are buried and this is all. Human beings endowed with a heavenly soul, however, come up for judgment to determine if the G–d given soul is being returned in the condition it had been given to them.

כי תחטא בשגגה, “if you transgress a law inadvertently; sin offerings as a form of atonement are acceptable only when that sin had not been committed deliberately. Deliberately committed sins cannot be atoned for by that method. [There are some exceptions. Ed.]

מאחת מהנה — The prefix in מאחת, being the partitive מ, suggests: even if one infringes only a part of one of them. as, for instance, if one writes on Sabbath the two letters שם of the name שמעון having intended to write the whole word, or the letters נח of the word נחור, or דן of דניאל (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 1 4; Shabbat 103b).

מאחת מהנה, our sages in Torat Kohanim under the heading of חובה, consider this to mean “part of a whole,” as for instance the letters שם of the name שמעון, i.e. if one intended to write the name שמעון but was interrupted after having written the first two letters, seeing that they make sense one is liable for having performed the whole אב מלאכה of “writing.”

Noach of Nochor. Because it is written, “from one [of these],” it implies that even a part [of one of them]. We should not say [that one who writes on Shabbos] even one letter, because we derive from the word “one” as well, i.e., as if Scripture wrote, “one,” which would imply [he writes on Shabbos] the entire name. Therefore, [in resolution] we say that he is liable only if he writes Shem of Shimon, which is both, a whole name in itself, and also part of another name.

The obvious question is why the Torah did not simply omit both the words בני ישראל and נפש, and I would have excluded the Gentiles and included the proselytes? What possible reason could there have been to exclude the proselyte from the privilege to offer a sin-offering that prompted the Torah to write a word designed to include him? This is no objection as we find that the Torah had included proselytes already in 1,2 where the Torah used the term אדם, and this term included proselytes. We would naturally have assumed that proselytes were included only in the right to offer burnt-offerings but not sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write the word נפש in our verse to tell us that proselytes have the right to offer sin-offerings. Unless the Torah had also excluded the Gentiles by the restrictive term בני ישראל, one could have argued that proselytes did not need to be specifically included as they had already been included at the beginning of the portion with the word אדם. I would then have concluded that the absence of any further restrictive clause indicated that the Torah has no objection to Gentiles offering sin-offerings. We have now learned that the word נפש here, though inclusive, includes only the proselyte and that the inclusive term אדם at the beginning of our portion was not sufficient seeing the privilege of offering a sin-offering is a far greater privilege than that of offering a burnt-offering. The very fact that a separate paragraph was needed to sanction the offering of sin-offerings altogether indicates that it is a great privilege to be allowed to atone for a sin by offering a sin-offering (only). This privilege could not have been derived merely by exegesis, but needed to be stated outright. Moreover, it appears that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that the words בני ישראל exclude Gentiles is not based on these words being superfluous, but rather on their plain meaning, i.e. "Jews and not Gentiles." The moment we accept this, the implication is that only natural-born Jews are subject to the legislation in this paragraph as the expression "children of Israel" refers to direct descendants of the patriarch Jacob. If the Torah wanted to include proselytes also, it had to write the word נפש in order for us to understand this beyond doubt. Having said this you will appreciate that though the expression בני ישראל in the whole Torah is not understood as available for exegetical purposes but as telling us to whom the respective legislation is addressed, it excludes Gentiles automatically.

מאחת מהנה, “of one of these;” the first letter מ in this expression is unnecessary, whereas the second letter מ introduces examples. An example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 4,9: כעם ככהן, “ordinary people (will fare) as well as priests.” Another such construction can be found in Kings II 3,7: כמוני כמוך, כעמי כעמך, כסוסי כסוסיך, “I will do what you do; my troops will be your troops; my horses will be your horses.” A third example of such a construction is found in Psalms 139,12: כחשכה כאורה, “darkness is like light.”

נפש, a person. Torat Kohanim views this word as including proselytes in the group of people entitled to offer sin-offerings. If the Torah had intended to also include women, the Torah should have written אדם כי יחטא as the term אדם includes males and females seeing the Torah referred to both males and females by the collective term אדם in Genesis 5,2.

A moral-ethical meaning of the term נפש as used in this paragraph may be the following. The soul of a human being becomes defective when its owner has sinned intentionally. This is why sinners are referred to as "dead" even while they are still "alive," as we know from Ezekiel 18,32: "for G'd does not desire the death of the dead, etc." The sinner is referred to by the prophet as dead already seeing he no longer has a soul. Solomon refers to something similar in Proverbs 23,2 "if you are someone possessed of a נפש, soul." Our verse tells us that even sins committed inadvertently result in damage to one's soul. While it is true that such inadvertently committed sins do not destroy the soul completely, nonetheless the Torah requires a sin-offering in order for the damage to that soul to be repaired. The offering of that קרבן, the sacrifice whose purpose it is to re-establish the affinity of the soul with its origin, enables the diseased soul to be infused with the spiritual values which will heal its wounds. The same result cannot be achieved if someone who had sinned intentionally were to offer such a sacrifice seeing he had already forfeited his soul. There is nothing left that can be reconstituted until the sinner repented and experienced the beneficial effect of the Day of Atonement, as pointed out by Ezekiel 18,32 והשיבו וחיו, "when you return and cause others to return so that you may live."