Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:27

1) (Vayikra 4:27): ("And if a single soul sin unwittingly of the people of the land in doing it …"): "soul," "single," "in doing it": These (expressions are redundant [in the Hebrew] and) signal (three) exclusions. (One exclusion:) One who acts on his own is liable (for a sin-offering), and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.

1 (Vayikra 4:28): "If his sin becomes known to him (wherein he sinned"): And not if others tell him. I might think even if he does not refute (them); it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known."

2) How so? If beth-din (mistakenly) ruled (that it is permitted) to transgress one of all the mitzvoth mentioned in the Torah, and an individual went and acted on their ruling — whether they themselves acted (on their ruling) and he acted with them, whether they acted and he acted after them, whether they did not act and he acted — I might think he is liable; it is, therefore, written: "soul," "single," "in doing it" — these are exclusions, (one of which relates to such an instance.) One who acts on his own is liable, and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.

2) "then he shall bring as his offering a kid of goats, a female without blemish": Whence is it derived that it must be of the first year? It follows viz.: He brings a sin-offering, and a leper brings a sin-offering. Just as the sin-offering of the leper is of the first year, so, this. — No, this may be so with the sin-offering of a leper, which requires libations, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the Nazirite's sin-offering, which does not require libations, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the Nazirite's sin-offering, which has other "bloods" (i.e., offerings) along with it, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the idolatry sin-offering, which does not have other "bloods" along with it, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the idolatry sin-offering, which is fixed (i.e., it must be a she-goat), as opposed to this, which is not fixed (i.e., it may be a lamb); and since it is not fixed, I might say that it need not be of the first year; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:29): "One law shall there be for you for him who does unwittingly." All unwitting sin-offerings are being compared to (that for) idolatry. Just as the idolatry sin-offering must be of the first year, so, this. — But (why not say): Just as the idolatry sin-offering is a she-goat, so, this, (the first-year requirement,) applies to a she-goat (and not to he-goats). — "shall be" (is superfluous) — to include (in the first-year requirement) the festival he-goats; "for you" — to include the idolatry he-goats (of the congregation); "for him who does" — to include the he-goat of the nassi.

3) And R. Shimon adds: If beth-din erred (and most of the congregation sinned unwittingly on the basis of their ruling), and then they found that they had erred and they retracted their ruling — whether they had brought their atonement or had not yet brought it — and an individual (not having heard of their retraction) sinned on the basis of their ruling, he is not liable, (R. Shimon regarding him as "depending" upon beth-din). R. Meir says that he is liable, (regarding him [after beth-din's retraction] as "depending" upon himself.) R. Eliezer says that it is not clear (whether he is regarded as one or the other [so that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering.)] Sumachos says: He (himself) is "suspended" (i.e., he is regarded as having brought an asham talui and need not fear afflictions). If one "depends" upon himself he is liable (for a sin-offering); if he "depends" upon beth-din he is not liable. How so? If beth-din ruled, and one of them (one of the judges) knew that they had erred — or if a "seasoned" disciple were sitting before them, who was himself fit to judge, one like Shimon ben Azzai — and he went and acted on their ruling — I might think he is not liable, (being regarded as "depending" on beth-din); it is, therefore, written: "in doing it": if one depends on himself ([as in the above instance, assuming that it is permitted to act on a mistaken ruling of beth-din], he is reckoned as "doing it" and) he is liable.

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) (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) You say that the exclusions — "soul," "single," "in doing it" — were stated for the above. But perhaps they were stated to affirm that only one individual who sinned unwittingly is liable, but two or three who did so are not liable. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "the people of the land" — even if they are many.

“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) But I would still say that (only) if a minority of the congregation sin unwittingly, then they are liable (for individual sin-offerings); for beth-din does not bring a bullock for them (in the instance of an erroneous ruling). But if most of the congregation sinned, I would say that they are not liable; for (in the instance of beth-din ruling erroneously and most of the congregation sinning), beth-din brings a bullock for them. It is, therefore, written: "the people of the land" — even (if) most of them (sin), even (if) all of them (sin, they are liable for individual sin-offerings).

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

6) But is there not a different a fortiori argument, viz.: If in the place where the "knowing" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, their "not knowing" is exempt from a sin-offering, in the place where the "knowing" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their "not knowing" is exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, their "knowing" is liable for a sin-offering, in the place where the "not knowing" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their "knowing" should be liable for a guilt-offering? A different a fortiori argument: If in the place where the "knowing" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, the "knowing" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, should it not follow that the "not knowing" of the lesser sins should be exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the "not knowing" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, the "not knowing" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, in the place where the "knowing" of graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, should it not follow that the "knowing" of the lesser sins should be liable for a guilt-offering? It is, therefore, written "and he be guilty (ve'ashem)" - "and he be guilty," to posit an identity (gezeirah shava, viz. Hermeneutical Principles 2) — Just as the "ve'ashem" there (Vayikra 4:27, in respect to an individual sin-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth, and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering, so the ve'ashem here (Vayikra 5:17, in respect to a suspended guilt-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering. (And the other negative commandments are not thus liable. And since (in the presence of a gezeirah shaveh) we do not entertain any a fortiori arguments, if it becomes known, too, he is exempt from a guilt-offering.)

6) "the people of the land": to exclude a nassi and to exclude a high-priest. If you would ask: But a high-priest has already been excluded (from bringing a she-lamb or a she-goat), for he brings a bullock; and a nassi has already been excluded, for he brings a he-goat — (the answer:) I might think (without the exclusion) that he brings a bullock (only) for error in ruling and unwittingness in act, but that for unwittingness in act alone he brings a she-lamb or a she-goat; it is, therefore, written: "the people of the land" — to exclude nassi and high-priest.

7) "of the people of the land": to exclude a heretic (vis-à-vis the act in which [in this instance] he has sinned unwittingly, a sin-offering not being accepted from him.) R. Shimon b. Yossi said in the name of R. Shimon: What is the intent of ("And if a single soul sin unwittingly … in doing it, one of the mitzvoth of the L–rd) which may not be done" "unwittingly"? If he would abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful, and he sinned unwittingly), he is liable (for a sin-offering) for his unwitting sin — to exclude a heretic, who would not abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful).

8) "in doing it," one (of the mitzvoth of the L–rd") — one who does all of it, and not one who does part of it. How so? If (on the Sabbath) two took hold of a pitchfork and stacked, of a shuttle and pressed (the weaving rod), of a pen and wrote, of a cane and took it out to the public domain — I might think they were liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "in doing it, one …" — one who does all of it (the forbidden labor), and not one who does part.

9) (If two took hold) of a (large) cake of figs and took it out to the public domain, or of a (large) beam, and took it out to the public domain — R. Yehudah says: If one cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are liable, (each one being regarded as doing a "whole" labor). R. Shimon says: Even if one of them cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are not liable, it being written: "in doing it, one" — one who did (all of it) is liable; two or three who did it (together) are not liable.

10) "the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The "mitzvoth" stated in respect to high-priest, congregation, and nassi are the "mitzvoth" referred to here (i.e., the criteria for "mitzvoth" are the same.) "of 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 Ibid. 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2). "which are not to be done, and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings a suspended guilt-offering (see 5:18).