Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:3

1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin) to the guilt of the people.": The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only where he erred (in ruling for himself) and he sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling)(Why the inclusion clause for the high-priest?) Does it not follow naturally? viz.: The congregation is distinct from the individual (in its offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest.

1) (Vayikra 10:16): "And for the goat of the sin-offering Moses inquired, inquired, and, behold, it was burned": "the goat": This is the goat of Nachshon (Bamidbar 7:16, for the consecration of the altar); "the sin-offering": This is the sin-offering of the eighth day (of miluim, Vayikra 4:3);

1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("then he shall offer a) bullock." I might think (he could offer) even an old one; it is, therefore, written "ben" (connoting a young one.) If "ben" alone were written, I might think it meant a very young one (i.e., one or two years old); it is, therefore, written "bullock. What satisfies this? A three-year-old. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Four and five-year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).

2) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi is distinct from the individual, and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest!

2) R. Yossi Haglili says (in connection with Bamidbar 8:8: "And they [the Levites] shall take a young bullock" [for a burnt-offering], "… and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"): What is the intent of "a second young bullock, etc."? Is it not already written (Bamidbar 8:12): "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? Why, then, repeat "And a second, etc."? The intent of "second" is "of the second year."

Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2), “When a woman emits her seed [and bears a male]”: If the woman comes first, she bears a male; if the man comes first, [she bears] a female.⁸Ber. 60a; Nid. 31ab; see above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 8:18; cf. Sifra to Lev. 22:1-9, (217: Emor, Parashah 4). R. Abbin the Levite said, “The text has given you a clue (in vs. 5), ‘If she bears a female’ (with no mention of her giving her seed). If the man comes first, a female is produced; [if] the woman comes first, a male is produced. Thus it is stated (in vs. 2), ‘When a woman emits her seed and bears a male.’” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “Therefore, the male is dependent (for his procreation) upon the woman; and the female, upon the man. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:20-23), ‘Behold Milcah, she also has borne sons to your brother Nahor, Uz his first-born and Buz his brother…. And Bethuel brought forth Rebekah.’ It also says (in I Chron. 2:48-49), ‘Maacah, the concubine of Caleb bore [Sheber] and Tirhanah. She also bore Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah and the father of Gibea. And the daughter of Caleb] was Achsah.’ Thus females are dependent (for procreation) upon the man; and the males, upon the woman. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 12:2), ‘When a woman emits her seed.’” R. Ayyevu said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with a person. When a person is put in a hot water for [only] a single day, is not his life struggling [to survive] because of it? But when an infant is put in its mother's belly for nine months,⁹According to Lev. R. 14:3, a woman’s womb is at boiling temperature. the Holy One, blessed be He, protects it.” Our masters have said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has performed a miraculous act with this person. When the person is put in a bath tub¹⁰Gk.: embate. for one day, does not his life fail because of it? But when the infant is put in its mother's womb for nine months, its life does not fail because of it. Why? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, is performing a miraculous act with it (i.e., with the infant).” Job said (in Job 36:3), “I will fetch (‘S’) my knowledge from afar.” Now Job saw people, with a woman ('shh) giving birth to a man,¹¹‘ShH and ‘S’ are more alike in Hebrew than the transliterations show. In the unpointed text S (sin) and Sh (shin) are the same letter. Also a final H (he) sounds so much like a final ‘(alef) that Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes conflates the two. Thus the midrash understands Job 36:3 to mean that the WOMAN in Lev. 12:2 was Job’s KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. and also the ship (of Prov. 31:14) sails in the midst of the waters inch by inch.¹²The image suggests Prov. 31:14, according to which the heroic wife is LIKE MERCHANT SHIPS; SHE BRINGS HER FOOD FROM AFAR. So Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, here on Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Now he was surprised over these things and said (in Job 36:3), “I (like the woman of Prov. 31:14) will fetch my knowledge from afar.” R. Judah [bar Simon] said, “A woman's two haunches become like two haunches of stone, in order that she may have strength when she gives birth. As thus it is stated (in Exod. 1:16), ‘look at the birthstool (literally, the pair of stones).’” R. Meir said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? Before the woman bears, she retains blood; after she gives birth, the blood departs to the breasts and becomes milk. Then the infant nurses on them.” R. Abba bar Kahana said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? When the funda (i.e., pouch)¹³The Latin word means “moneybag”. is full with its mouth down, the coins are scattered; but the woman has her funda [with its opening] down, and the fetus is retained.” Another interpretation: An animal walks about with the fetus in the midst of its belly; but a woman walks about erect with the fetus in the midst of her belly, and the Holy One, blessed be He, preserves it.

3) Let us see whom he (the high-priest) is most like. If he is most like the congregation, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the congregation; and if he is most like the nassi, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the nassi. The congregation brings a bullock (as a sin-offering) and it does not bring an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering [see Vayikra 5:18]), and the high-priest brings a bullock, and he does not bring an asham talui. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest should bring (a sin-offering) only where these obtain.

3) Rebbi says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, it is already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." But, because it is written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd," I might think that the sin-offering takes precedence to the burnt-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering." If that alone were written, I would think that the burnt-offering takes precedence to the sin-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd." How is this to be reconciled. The (sprinkling of) the blood of the sin-offering takes precedence to that of the burnt-offering, because it effects conciliation. The (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering takes precedence to the (burning of the) devoted portions of the sin-offering because all of them are burnt.

[(Lev. 16:1:) AFTER THE DEATH OF AARON'S TWO SONS.] R. Judan of Gallia opened (with Job 39:27): IS IT AT YOUR COMMAND THAT THE EAGLE MOUNTS UP AND MAKES ITS NEST ON HIGH? The Holy One said to Aaron: At your command [I had my Divine Presence rest upon the Ark.²⁵Tanh., Lev. 6:3; Lev. R. 20:4; PRK 26(27):4; see PR 47:3. Was it not at your command that I] removed my Divine Presence that was upon the Ark? In the case of the first temple (according to Job 39:28): IT DWELLS AND LODGES ON THE ROCK, < i.e., the Divine Presence was there for > a lodging of one night. In the case of the second temple (referred to in ibid., cont.): ON A ROCKY CRAG²⁶Literally: ROCKY TOOTH. The midrash finds the expression well suited to the spur of rock on the Temple mount. AND A STRONGHOLD, < i.e., the Divine Presence was there for > a lodging of many nights.²⁷The number of nights that the Divine Presence lodged in the two temples is the reverse of what one would expect; however, the Buber text is supported by the unemended, traditional text of Lev. R. 20:4 and in Yalqut Shim‘oni, Job 926. Cf. Tanh., Lev. 4:3, which does affirm that the Divine Presence lodged many nights in the first temple. Moreover, we learn there (in Yoma 5:2): WHEN THE ARK HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THERE WAS A CERTAIN STONE THERE FROM THE DAYS OF THE FORMER PROPHETS,²⁸According to Rav Huna, as cited in Sot. 48b, the former prophets are David, Samuel, and Solomon. AND IT WAS NAMED FOUNDATION. And why was it named Foundation? Because out of it the world was founded.²⁹Yoma 54b (bar.); yYoma 5:4 (42c); TYoma 3:6 (2:14); Numb. R. 12:4; see below, Tanh. (Buber), 7:10; Tanh. 7:10. And how would a high-priest pray on the Day of Atonement?³⁰Cf. yYoma 5:3 (42c). A version of this prayer is part of a long piyyut composed by Rabbi Meshullam ben Kalonymus in the tenth century. It is known either as the Avodah or by its initial words, Amits Koah, and appears as part of the Musaf Service on the Day of Atonement. See P. Birnbaum, The High Holyday Prayer Book (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1951), p. 26. May it be your will, O Lord our God, that this year be one of rain, warmth, and dew, a year of low prices, a year of abundance, a year of grace, a year of blessing, a year of trade, a year when your people Israel are not dependent on each other, a year when [< the people of > Israel] will not be arrogant with each other. Now The Rabbis of Caesarea said: < It was > with reference to our brothers in Caesarea < that the high priest prayed > for them not to be arrogant with each other. But {our Rabbi} but [the Rabbis of the South] say: < It was > with reference to our brothers in the South,³¹The parallel texts in Tanh., Lev. 6:3; Lev. R. 20:4, and PRK 26(27):4 all read, “in Sharon.” Cf. Sot. 8:3; ySot. 8:7 (23a); Sot 44a. lest their houses become their tombs.³²For example, if the houses collaped from heavy rains or were buried in a sandstorm.

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE.] If the woman comes first, she bears a male; if the man comes first, {he sires} [she bears] a female.¹⁰Tanh., Lev. 3:3; Ber. 60a; Nid. 31ab; see above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 8:18; cf. Sifra to Lev. 22:1–9, (217: Emor, parashah 4). R. Abbin [Berabbi] the Levite said: The text has given you a clue (in vs. 5): IF SHE BEARS A FEMALE (with no mention of her giving her seed). If the man comes first, a female is produced; < if > the woman comes first, a male is produced. Thus it is stated (in vs. 2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: Therefore, the male is dependent (for his procreation) upon the woman; and the female, upon the man. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 22:20–23): BEHOLD MILCAH, SHE ALSO HAS BORNE SONS TO YOUR BROTHER NAHOR: UZ HIS FIRST-BORN AND BUZ HIS BROTHER,… AND BETHUEL BROUGHT FORTH REBEKAH. It also says (in I Chron. 2:48–49): [MAACAH], THE CONCUBINE OF CALEB BORE¹¹Buber’s Oxford MS recorded this verb in the feminine, but Buber emended it to the grammatically incorrect masculine of the Masoretic text. {SACAR} [SHEBER] AND TIRHANAH. SHE ALSO BORE {SHATSAPH} [SHAAPH] THE FATHER OF MADMANNAH, SHEVA THE FATHER OF MACHBENAH AND THE FATHER OF {GIBEAH} [GIBEA]. AND THE DAUGHTER [OF CALEB] WAS ACHSAH. Thus females are dependent (for procreation) upon the man; and the males, upon the woman. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED. R. Ayyevu said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with a person. When a person is put in a furnace room¹²Gk.: kaminos (“oven”). Here the word refers to the furnace room of a bathhouse. for < only > a single day, is not his life struggling < to survive > because of it? But when an infant is put in its mother's belly for nine months,¹³According to Lev. R. 14:3, a woman’s womb is at boiling temperature. the Holy One protects it. Our masters have said: The Holy One has performed a miraculous act with this person. When the person is put in a bath tub¹⁴Gk.: embate. for one day, does not his life fail because of it? But when the infant is put in its mother's womb for nine months, its life does not fail because of it. [Why? Because the Holy One is performing a miraculous act with it (i.e., with the infant).] Job said (in Job 36:3): I WILL FETCH ('S') MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Now Job saw the children of Adam with a woman ('ShH) giving birth to a man.¹⁵‘ShH and ‘S’ are more alike in Hebrew than the transliterations show. In the unpointed text S (sin) and Sh (shin) are the same letter. Also a final H (he) sounds so much like a final ‘(alef) that Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes confuses the two. Thus the midrash understands Job 36:3 to mean that the WOMAN in Lev. 12:2 was Job’s KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR. Also the ship (of Prov. 31:14) sails in the midst of the waters inch by inch.¹⁶The image suggests Prov. 31:14, according to which the heroic wife is LIKE MERCHANT SHIPS; SHE BRINGS HER FOOD FROM AFAR. So Enoch Zundel in his commentary, ‘Ets Yosef, on the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Now he was surprised over these things and said (in Job 36:3): I (like the woman of Prov. 31:14) WILL FETCH MY KNOWLEDGE FROM AFAR.

4) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi brings a she-goat (for unwitting transgression of idolatry [see Bamidbar 15:27]), and he brings a categorical guilt-offering (see Vayikra 5:15), and the high-priest brings a she-goat for idolatry and he brings a categorical gift-offering. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest! It is, therefore, written: "to the guilt of the people." The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they (the people) sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only in like circumstances.

4) R. Shimon says: What is the intent of: "and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering"? If to teach that they are two, is it not already written: "And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd"? — I might think that this sin-offering is to be eaten; it is, therefore, written: "and a second bullock" — second to the burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so this sin-offering is not eaten."

[Another interpretation (of Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED.] R. Judah [bar Simon] said: A woman's two haunches become like two haunches of stone, in order that she may have strength when she gives birth.¹⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:3; Exod. R. 1:14. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 1:16:) LOOK AT THE BIRTHSTOOL (literally: THE PAIR OF STONES).¹⁸In the context of Exodus, the midwives were to be looking for male children. Therefore they must have been looking for the child to emerge from the mother’s haunches and not at the birthstool. R. [Meir] said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with the infant.¹⁹Lev. R. 14:3. How? Before the woman bears, she retains blood; after she gives birth, the blood departs to the breasts and becomes milk. Then the infant nurses on them. R. Abba bar Kahana said: The Holy One performs a miraculous act with the infant. How? When the funda {i.e., pouch}²⁰The Latin word means “moneybag”. is full with its mouth down, the coins are scattered; but the woman has her funda < with its opening > down, and the fetus is retained. Another interpretation: An animal walks about with the fetus in the midst of its belly; but a woman walks about erect with the fetus in the midst of her belly, and the Holy One preserves it.

5) But in that case I might think that just as when beth-din ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon their ruling, they (beth-din) are liable (for a sin-offering), so, if the high-priest ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon his ruling, he is liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned" — he brings it for what he has sinned and not for what others have sinned.

5) Similarly, R. Yossi said (Ezra 8:35): "Those who came out of the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt-offerings to the G d of Israel: twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as burnt-offerings to the L–rd." How can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering! But (the intent is): Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so the sin-offering was not eaten. R. Yehudah says: They were brought for (unwitting) idolatry.

6) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin"): "anointed": I might think this is the king; it is, therefore, written "Cohein." If (only) "Cohein" (were written), I might think it referred to a "many-garmented priest," (who is not anointed); it is, therefore, written "anointed." If (only) "anointed Cohein" (were written), I might think that even the priest anointed for war (was included). It is, therefore, written: "the anointed Cohein," who has no one anointed over him (i.e., the high-priest). "shall sin": Why "shall sin" (instead of "sinned," as the verse continues)? For I might otherwise think that he must bring (a bullock) (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 bullock?), viz.: If a nassi, who brings (a he-goat) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring one for previous sins — the high-priest, who does not bring (a bullock) for deed-unwittingness alone — how much more so should he not bring one for previous sins! — No, this may be so with the nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) once removed (from office), as opposed to the high-priest, who continues to bring his sin-offering (a bullock) after removal (from office). And since he brings his sin-offering (for unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, let him bring it for sins committed prior (to his appointment); it is, therefore, written: "If the anointed Cohein shall sin," after he is anointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

6) (Vayikra 4:3): "then he shall offer for his sin." We are hereby taught that he brings his (special) sin-offering (a bullock), even (for unwitting sins committed) after removal (from office) (For if not for this inclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If the nassi, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal — the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), how much more so should he not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal! It is, therefore, written: "then he shall offer for his sin," to teach that he brings his (special) sin-offering (even) after removal.

6) R. Shimon says: Wherever "egel" (calf) is written in the Torah, (a calf) of the first year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:3): "and a calf and a lamb of the first year." (Wherever) "ben bakar" (is written), (a calf of) the second year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:2): "Take for yourself egel ben bakar (a bull-calf) and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish." Just as a ram is of the second year, so, a bull-calf. "bullock," unqualified, is of the third year. Four and five year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).

7) 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. "… an anointed Cohein shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: "If he shall sin."

7) I might think that if he sinned with the congregation (i.e., if he ruled erroneously together with beth-din and then acted upon that ruling together with the congregation), he brings a bullock for himself. And this would follow, viz.: The nassi is distinct from the congregation (in his offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the congregation. Just as when the nassi sins by himself, he brings (a sin-offering) for himself, and when he sins with the congregation he receives atonement together with (the sin-offering of) the congregation, so, the high-priest — If he sins by himself, he brings for himself, and when he sins with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.

8) No, this may be so with the nassi, who atones with the congregation on Yom Kippur, as opposed to the high-priest, who does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, (but who brings different sacrifices for certain sins). And since he does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, I would say (if not for the inclusion clause here) that he should bring a bullock for himself. It is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned." If he sinned by himself, he brings for himself; if he sinned with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.

(Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH… WENT OUT. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: The male is always attributed to the wife, and the female, to the husband.⁵⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 4:4; Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Then why is this < daughter > attributed to her mother? Because her pregnancy was originally male. However, when Leah had borne six < sons >, Billah, two, and Zilpah, two, for a total of ten; then she prayed on behalf of < the barren > Rachel, and < the child > in her womb became female.⁵⁸See above, 7:19; Ber. 60a; Gen. R. 72:6. Ber. 60a explains that Jacob could have no more than twelve sons and that, therefore, if Leah’s seventh child were a son, there would only be one son left for Rachel to have. Then Rachel would not even be equal to one of the handmaidens. For that reason, she was attributed to her mother. (Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH … WENT OUT.

(Bamidbar 8:3) "And Aaron did so": This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses told him, thus did he do, without any change. He made "mul" and "panim" (see above). "He'elah" (lit., "he raised") its lamps" — whence they said: There was an ascent before the menorah of three steps on which the Cohein stood and tended to the lamps, (after which) he placed the oil jug on the second step and left. "as the L-rd had commanded Moses" (i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.) This tells me only of Aaron (the high-priest). Whence do I derive the same for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)? From (Vayikra 24:3) "Aaron and his sons shall arrange it." This tells me only of the menorah, that the sons were equated with the father. Whence do I derive the same for the (offering of the) incense? (viz. Shemot 34:7) "It follows, viz.: "Service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to the menorah, and it is also written in respect to the incense. If I have learned of the first that sons are equated with the father, so, do I learn with the second. — (No,) this is refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, in which instance, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written in respect to it, the sons are not equated with the father. And this refutes (the argument for) incense, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. — Would you say that? There is a (strategic) difference! "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written both in respect to the menorah and in respect to the incense, and this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, which, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, is not in golden (but in linen vestments). — This (argument) is refuted by the instance of the bullock of "forgetfulness" of the anointed (high-priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written, and in respect to which sons were not equated with the father. And this will refute (the argument for) incense, which even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. Would you say that? There is a difference! I would derive it from three terms together. In respect to the menorah it is written "service in the tent of meeting," and "golden vestments," and also "continuously" (tamid), and thus is it written of incense. And this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, where, even though "service in the tent of meeting" is written thereof, it is not in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be refuted) by the bullock of forgetfulness of the anointed (high-priest), where, even though "service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments" is written thereof, "continuously" is not written thereof. I will learn a thing from a (similar) thing, and I will derive a thing from a (similar) thing. I will learn a thing from another thing which is similar to it in three ways, but not from a thing that is not similar to it in three things, but only in one or two. Therefore, if I have learned in respect to the menorah that sons are equated with the father, so, I will learn in respect to the incense that the sons are equated with the father.