Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:22

1) (Vayikra 4:22): "If (asher) a leader (nassi) sin ["asher," similar to "ashrei" ("fortunate")]: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: Fortunate is the generation whose nassi brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin. If he brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin, how much more so (is he contrite over) his deliberate sin. And if his nassi brings a sin-offering, how much more so is he (the common man) moved to bring a sin-offering (for his sin)! "a nassi": I might think the nassi of a tribe, like Nachshon; it is, therefore, written: "And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d," and, elsewhere, (in respect to a king) (Devarim 17:19): "so that he may learn to fear the L–rd his G d." Just as there, the nassi is one who has no one above him but the L–rd his G d, so, here. (Scripture speaks of) a nassi who has no one over him but the L–rd his G d (i.e., a king).

2) — But why not say: Just as idolatry is characterized by being liable to judicial death penalty, so, all acts thus liable are included (in liability for a sin-offering)! And what will I include? One who curses his father and mother, an inciter (to idolatry), a necromancer, a false prophet, and scheming witnesses. — (These are not included for it is written (Vayikra 4:22): "And he do (… unwittingly"), to exclude those (transgressions) where there is no act.

2) Why "(If) a nassi shall sin" (instead of "sinned")? For otherwise I might think that he must bring (a he-goat) for (unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a he-goat?), viz.: If the high-priest, who brings his sin-offering (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, does not bring (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) prior to his appointment — a nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) for (sins committed) after removal from office, how much more so should he not bring it for (sins committed) prior to his appointment! — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring (his sin-offering, a bullock,) for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), as opposed to a nassi, who does bring (his sin-offering, a he-goat,) for deed-unwittingness (alone). And since he does, I would think that he brings (a he-goat, too,) for prior sins; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): ("If a nassi) shall sin," after he is appointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

(Fol. 10) Our Rabbis were taught concerning the passage (Lev. 4, 22) When a ruler sinneth. This excludes [from being a ruler] one who was sick with leprosy, as it is said (II Kings 15, 5) And the Lord smote the King so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelt in a house of freedom. Since the passage says in the house of freedom, we understand that until then (until stricken) he was a slave (a king); as it happened when Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, who were on a boat; the former had taken bread for food, and the latter had taken bread and fine flour for food. When the bread of Rabban Gamaliel was consumed by him he relied upon the fine flour of R. Joshua. Upon R. Gamaliel's question: "Were you then aware that there will be a delay in the journey that you took along the fine flour in reserve?" R. Joshua replied: "There is a star which appears once in seventy years that makes the captains of the ships err, and I thought perhaps it would appear now and make us err [I therefore took along extra food]." "You possess so much wisdom!" exclaimed Rabban Gamaliel, "and yet you are compelled to go on a ship to make your living." To which R. Joshua rejoined: "You are wondering about myself; how would you be surprised if you knew about two disciples of yours who are on the land, viz., R. Jochanan b. Gudgada and R. Elazar b. Chasma, who can figure out how many drops of water there are in the sea and nevertheless have no bread to eat and no garments to wear." Rabban Gamaliel then made up his mind to appoint them as officers. Upon his return he sent for them, but they did not appear; he sent again for them, and when they came he said to them: "Do you think that the appointment to which I am selecting you is lordship. (Ib. b.) Nay, slavery I give to you, as it is said (I Kin. 12, 7) And they spoke unto him saying, If thou wilt this day be a servant unto this people, etc."

3) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. "… a nassi shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written "asher he shall sin," (the connotation being) "when" (i.e., if) he shall sin.

4) (Vayikra 4:2): ("If he sin unwittingly … and he do" [(If it now followed)] "one (of these"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of "one of these") "of one of these." (i.e., even part of one). If (only) "of one" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): "… do one." How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name "from" a big name, e.g., "Shem," from (the intended) "Shimon" or "Shmuel"; "Noach," from "Nachor"; "Dan," from "Daniel"; "Gad," from "Gadiel."

4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah."

4) "and he do one (of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d"): to make him liable for (a sin-offering) for each one. How so (If he unwittingly ate) two (olive-size pieces of) cheilev (forbidden fat): If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods [forgetfulness of its being forbidden], or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly ate) cheilev and blood, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed) two transgressions liable to burning:

“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your loaf in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers and he handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over” (Ruth 2:14).
“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here.” Rabbi Yoḥanan interpreted this [verse] with six approaches. [According to one approach, this verse] is referring to David. “Come here [halom],” – draw near to kingship, as halom means nothing other than kingship, as it is written: “[King David came and he sat before the Lord and said: Who am I, my Lord God, and who is my household, that You have brought me to this point [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Lord, do not rebuke me in Your wrath” (Psalms 6:2).¹⁸⁵This verse was stated by David. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rav Huna said: Those six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom are not included in the tally,¹⁸⁶Of the years of David’s reign. as he would gain atonement with a female goat like a commoner.¹⁸⁷A commoner brings a female goat as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27-28), whereas a king brings a male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23). Thus, Rav Huna is stating that during those six months David did not have the status of a king. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “Now I know that the Lord has redeemed His anointed” (Psalms 20:7). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – [David] eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Solomon. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship, as it is stated: “Solomon's provision for one day was thirty kor of fine flour, and sixty kor of meal” (I Kings 5:2). “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are his sullied actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rabbi Yoḥai bar Ḥanina said: An angel in the image of Solomon descended and sat on his throne, and Solomon would circle among the entrances of Israel¹⁸⁸Seeking charity and say: “I am Kohelet , I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). What did one of them do? She gave him a bowl of grits and struck him on his head with a reed, and said to him: ‘Isn’t Solomon sitting on his throne, and [yet] you say: I am Solomon king of Israel?’ “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him. “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Hezekiah. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs [and spread it on the rash and he will live]” (Isaiah 38:21).¹⁸⁹The verse is stated regarding Hezekiah. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it says: “So said Hezekiah: A day of distress and chastisement” (Isaiah 37:3). “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He was exalted in the eyes of all nations thereafter” (II Chronicles 32:23). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Menashe. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – that he sullied his actions like vinegar due to his evil actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it is written: “The Lord spoke to Menashe and his people, but they would not pay heed. The Lord brought the officers of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they took Menashe captive in manacles” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They were manacles of iron and bronze. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayyata said: They made a bronze cauldron and kindled a fire beneath it. He was crying: ‘Idol so-and-so, idol so-and-so, rescue me!’ When he saw that they were of no avail to him at all, he said: ‘I remember that my father would read to me: “In your distress [all these things] will find you…For the Lord your God is a merciful God [He will not forsake you]” (Deuteronomy 4:30–31). I will cry to Him. If He answers, that is good; if He does not answer, everything is one, all the gods are the same.’ At that moment, the ministering angels arose and sealed all the supernal windows, and they said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, a person who placed an idol in the Sanctuary, are You accepting him through repentance?’ He said to them: ‘If I do not accept him through repentance, I would thereby be locking the door before all penitents.’ What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He excavated an opening beneath His throne of glory, in a place that no angel has control. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He acceded to his entreaty [vaye’ater] and He heard his supplication” (II Chronicles 33:13). Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call excavation atira. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). With what did He return him? Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said: He returned him with the wind. This is what is said: He causes the wind to blow. “She ate, was sated, and left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future.
Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “He was pained by our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured [litzod] from him, as it says: “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured” (Zechariah 14:2). “He handed her roasted grain” – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: “He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Levi: Like the initial redeemer, so the ultimate redeemer. Just as the initial redeemer was revealed, and then was again concealed from them, and for how long was he concealed from them, for three months, as it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 5:20);¹⁹⁰The midrash interprets this as referring to the officers of the Israelites meeting Moses and Aaron after Moses returned from a three-month hiatus in Midyan. See Shemot Rabba 5:19, which similarly states that Moses departed to Midyan, but states that it was for six months. so too, the ultimate redeemer will be revealed to them and concealed from them. How long will he be concealed from them? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of the Rabbis: Forty-five days; that is what is written: “From the time the daily offering is abolished…[one thousand two hundred and ninety days]” (Daniel 12:11), and it is written: “Happy is one who waits and it comes [to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days]”(Daniel 12:12). These extra days, what are they? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ketzarta in the name of Rabbi Yona: These are the forty-five days that Israel will gather and eat saltwort; that is what is written: “Who pick saltwort from the bushes.” (Job 30:4).
Where will he lead them?¹⁹¹Where will the messianic king lead the Jewish people? To the Judean Desert, as it is stated: “Behold, I will seduce her and I will lead her to the desert” (Hosea 2:16). [There is] one who says: To the wilderness of Siḥon and Og, as it is stated: “I will yet settle you in tents as in the days of the appointed times” (Hosea 12:10). Anyone who believes in him will live, and one who does not believe in him will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: Ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He will appear to them and rain down manna for them, “and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Boaz, draw near and “eat of the bread,” this is the bread of the reapers. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar,” as it is the way of reapers to dip their loaves in vinegar. Rabbi Yonatan said: From here it is derived that one takes out sour foods to the threshing floors. “She sat beside the reapers,” she certainly sat alongside them.¹⁹²But not in their midst, for reasons of modesty. “He handed her roasted grain,” a light, small amount, with his two fingers. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the fingers of that righteous man, or that a blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. From where? It is from that which is written: “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over.”¹⁹³If he gave her just a pinch of roasted grain, how could she have been sated, with grain to spare? It stands to reason that the blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach you that if a person performs a mitzva he should perform it wholeheartedly, as had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21),¹⁹⁴This verse is stated regarding Reuben saving Joseph from his brothers, who wanted to kill him. he would have taken him to his father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is emerging to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), he would have emerged to meet [Moses] with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would write it. Now, when a person performs a mitzva, who writes it? Elijah writes it, and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He affixes a seal for them. That is what is written: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, [and the Lord heeded, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him]” (Malachi 3:16).

5) If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods, or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed one sin liable to) stoning, and (another liable to) burning, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

6) ("and he do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest and in respect to the congregation (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "which are not to be done, unwittingly": We are hereby taught that he brings (a sin-offering) for deed- unwittingness (alone [even without an error in the ruling]). "and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering, a ram [see 5:17 and 18]) Now (why is the inclusion clause needed?)

7) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he brings it?), viz.: If the individual (i.e., a lay person), who does not bring a male for his (subsequently) known (unwitting) sin, (but a she-lamb or a she-goat), brings an asham talui (for a possible sin). — the nassi, who brings a male (a he-goat) for his known sin, how much more so should he bring an asham talui (a ram). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who brings a male (bullock) for his known sin, notwithstanding which he does not bring an asham talui.

8) So, too, do not wonder if the nassi, who brings a male for his known sin, should not bring an asham talui. It is, therefore, written (to tell us that he does): "and he be guilty."

9) (But why not) adduce it differently (without the inclusion clause?), viz.: The individual is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" ["unsuspended"] guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the individual brings an asham talui, so the nassi should bring an asham talui!

10) — But why not go in this direction? The high-priest is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the high-priest does not bring an asham talui, so the nassi should not bring an asham talui!

11) Let us see whom he (the nassi) is most like. We should derive (the rule) for him (the nassi), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness alone, [without an error in ruling], from him (the individual), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone); and this should not be refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone). — Or go in this direction: We should derive (the rule for) him (the nassi), who brings a male for his known sin from him (the high-priest), who brings a male for his known sin, and this should not be refuted by (the instance of the individual), who does not bring a male for his known sin. It must, therefore, be written: "and he (the nassi) be guilty," to teach us that he brings an asham talui.