Zitat Kommentar zu Divrej Hajamim II 36:21

וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני, it is noteworthy that nowhere else when the Torah announces new legislation does it also mention where this legislation was originally issued. The only time such locations are mentioned is when a new element of that commandment is added. We have heard about the principle of the sh’mittah legislation in Exodus 23,11 where the general outline was presented, the Torah writing that the produce of the land during the seventh year should be left untouched by the farmer and is intended for the poor of the nation.
Now the Torah reverts to present this legislation in greater detail. This is the reason why we are told where these details were first spelled out. What we read here is only a prototype. The principle does not apply only to the sh’mittah legislation, but wherever some legislation had been mentioned in a general manner only, when the details were filled in this took place at Mount Sinai, just as it did in the case of the sh’mittah legislation. (Torat Kohanim 1,1)
The reason that Moses mentioned this particular legislation at this point is because at this time he was still under the impression that the Israelites would proceed in short order to the land of Canaan, the sin of the spies which set them back by forty years not having occurred yet. Even as late as Numbers 10,29 Moses still spoke to the people of the impending journey to the Holy Land. Speaking about the soil of the holy Land “resting,” is the subject in Leviticus 26,34 as well as in Chronicles II 36,21. This shows that the main focus of the sh’mittah legislation concerns the “Sabbatical” experienced by the farmland of the nation.

and it shall not fail; though it tarry it shall not fail to come, though that appointed time may take long to come. wait for it for...; it shall not delay at all after the seventy years. This clause can also be explained to mean: though he tarry, meaning the prophet Jeremiah. Jonathan renders: the prophecy is written and explained in the Book of the Torah. He translated כְּתֹב as כָּתוּב. It has already been alluded to in the Torah (Lev. 26:34): “Then shall the land placate [God concerning] its Sabbaths.” Israel sinned by violating seventy Sabbatical Years, in which they did not release the land, and, corresponding to them, they were exiled therefrom for seventy years. And so it is stated in II Chronicles (36:21): “Until the land placated its Sabbaths; all the days it lay waste, it rested to complete seventy years.” And so you find in Ezekiel (4:5): “And I have given you the years of their iniquity according to the number of days, three hundred and ninety days... (verse 6) I gave you a day for a year.” And Scripture says (verse 4): “And you lie on your left side, etc.” You are found saying that Israel provoked God for three hundred and ninety years until the Ten Tribes were exiled, and the tribe of Judah sinned for forty years, and from the time the Ten Tribes were exiled until the destruction of Jerusalem are the twenty-two years of Manasseh. The rest of Manasseh’s years were spent in repentance, for it is stated concerning him (II Kings 21:2f.) “And he did what was evil, etc.,... as Ahab... had made.” Therefore we count Manasseh’s evil years according to the number of Ahab’s years, and he reigned for twenty-two years. With two years of his son Amon’s reign, and eleven of Jehoiakim’s, and eleven of Zedekiah’s, the evil years total forty-six, and this prophecy was said to Ezekiel in the fifth year of Zedekiah. In any case, we find the time of their sinning four hundred and thirty years, for after this prophecy they tarried there six years. [I.e., the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained in the land for six more years] In four hundred years, there are eight Jubilee Years, and in every Jubilee cycle there are seven Release Years, making a total of fifty-six Release Years and eight years consecrated as Jubilee Years making all together sixty-four. In thirty-six years there are five Release Years, totaling sixty-nine consecrated years, and this final Jubilee year is also counted in the number, since it was not completed because of their iniquity. And here, this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Habakkuk: A vision is already written in the Torah, but it is sealed. You write and explain on the tablets, for a vision of this appointed time will yet be revealed.

AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵Beraitha (literally: “outside”) is a teaching or tradition of the Tannaim that had been excluded from the Mishnah and incorporated in other collections. The Tosephta, Mechilta, Sifra (Torath Kohanim), and Sifre contain these Beraithoth. in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5.
But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷“Punishments” [such as “excision etc.”] are incurred only for wilful violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸The general rule is that a sin-offering is brought only for such a sin unwilfully committed for which the penalty if committed wilfully would be excision. Ramban is thus suggesting: we could say that the freewill burnt-offering atones for those unwilful sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven etc., and for all those sins for which the penalty is death by the court and yet do not require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹The reason why the sin-offering is not brought for the unwilful violation of these negative commandments is that the punishment of excision is not incurred in case of the wilful violation thereof. See Note 68 above. just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰Thus Scripture made it clear that in the case of those sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven or stripes if committed wilfully — no offering for expiation is needed when committed unintentionally. Rashi and the Torath Kohanim were thus correct in stating that the burnt-offering could not effect atonement for these unwilful sins, since “the punishments” have already been stated in Scripture both for wilful and unwilful sins, and therefore we could not say that the burnt-offering effects atonement for the above-mentioned sins if committed unwilfully. For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill.
It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹Further, 5:18. the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹Further, 5:18. and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷²See I Samuel 29:4. With this gift!
I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵The Hebrew term for the burnt-offering is olah [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶Ezekiel 20:32. — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷Job 1:5. This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d.
The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸Up to here we have followed Silberman’s translation of the phrase: “and it shall be favorably accepted for him.” Ramban now suggests three new interpretations: 1) “and he will be favorably accepted by Him.” 2) “and the sin will be completed to him” — never to be mentioned again. 3) “and it will be ‘agreeable’ to Him.” refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) unto his lord?;⁷⁹I Samuel 29:4. and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰Psalms 44:4. and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹Isaiah 40:2. until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸²II Chronicles 36:21. and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³Further, 26:43. — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.

the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days This teaches us that the house of Judah sinned, from the time that the ten tribes were exiled until Jerusalem was destroyed, forty years: 22 of Manasseh, about whom it is written (II Kings 21:3): “as Ahab...had made,” and Ahab had reigned 22 years; two of Ammon and 11 of Jehoiakim, and this prophecy was transmitted to Ezekiel in the fifth year of Zedekiah. This totals 40 years. The grand total is four hundred and thirty [years]. After this prophecy, they remained yet six years, equaling 8 jubilees and 36 years. In 8 jubilees [there] are 8 cycles of Sabbatical years, equaling 56 Sabbatical years, totaling 64 [hallowed years]. In 36 years, there are 5 Sabbatical years, totaling 69 land-release years, and the final jubilee year is accounted to them as an iniquity because they were exiled from it [the land] because of their iniquity, totaling 70 hallowed years of land release, which Israel did not observe. Therefore, they were exiled 70 years to fulfill (Lev. 26:34): “Then the land will appease its Sabbaths.” That is what is written at the end of Chronicles (II 36:21): “To fulfill the word of the Lord [that was] in the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land has appeased its Sabbaths, for as long as it lay desolate, it rested, to complete seventy years.”