Kommentar zu Wajikra 4:23

או הודע is the same as “IF” (אם‎) [THE THING] WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — There are many passages where או is used in the sense of אם, and again where אם stands in the place of או. A similar instance is: (Exodus 21:36) “או נודע כי שור נגח הוא”, which means “if it was known that the ox was wont to thrust” (cf., however, Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon).

או הודע, as if the Torah had written: אם הודע “if he became aware.” This is the conventional exegesis of these words. Personally, I feel that the line commences with the word ואשם from the last verse, so that the meaning would be that the individual committed an offense and it was brought to his attention by others.

או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him. Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.

או הודע אליו חטאתו, or he has become aware of his inadvertent sin, etc. The Torah here writes "or" seeing in the previous verse it had written ואשם, that he was definite about having sinned. Torat Kohanim concludes that the ruler has to bring an אשם תלוי, a conditional sin-offering, if he is in doubt about having committed the sin in question. Our verse may discuss a situation where after having first offered an אשם תלוי while he was in doubt, the ruler now has to offer a definitive sin-offering as he is now certain that he committed the sin he had been in doubt about.

או הודע אליו, “or it has become known to him;” the Torah uses the singular mode here as well as in verse 28 where the individual who has become guilty of a sin is the leader of his tribe. Some commentators, including Rashi, understand both these verses as applying to people who at the time when they committed the trespass were convinced that what they did was perfectly permissible. Others understand the word או here to mean the same as אם, “if.” However, the author of the commentary b’chor shor of blessed memory, writes that seeing that both ordinary individuals as well as the leader of a tribe have to bring an asham taluy, sin offering of a suspended nature, [arresting potential punishment, until the doubt has been resolved, Ed] when in doubt if they had committed a certain sin. Our verse deals with that doubt having been resolved so that a sin offering to atone for a definitely committed sin is now required. The same situation also applies to verse 27 in this chapter, where the verse following deals with the situation after it has become clear. The author of בכור שור quotes as proof for his interpretation Torat Kohanim on the words: ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, “from amongst one of G–d’s commandments that must not be violated.” (verse 27) The author of that volume understands the word ואשם at the end of that verse as indicating that this asham taluy is not appropriate in that situation. When a community has become guilty of such a sin and a doubt arises, no asham taluy is required. This is based on the fact that when the Torah discussed the situation requiring it, it had spoken of נפש כי תחטא, “if an individual had committed a sin.” When the High Priest had committed a sin, this is linked to a trespass by העם, “the people,” and this is the reason why the situation described as “or he had become aware of it,” is not mentioned there, as if the High Priest had been in doubt and everything he does, he does as the representative of the people, such an asham taluy was not appropriate.

הודע אליו IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — when he committed the sin he was under the belief that it was something permissible, afterwards it became known to him that it was a forbidden thing.