Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 5:5

AND HE SHALL CONFESS THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED. 6. AND HE SHALL BRING HIS GUILT-OFFERING. This was not the [order of the] procedure.³³⁹For the offering had to be brought first, then the laying of hands was performed during which [while his hands lay on the offering] he confessed his sin (see Note 64 above). Hence the expression and he shall bring his guilt-offering must mean “and he who comes to bring an offering to effect atonement for his guilt … ” Rather, he first brought the sin-offering and laid his hands upon it, and then confessed, similarly to that which is [explicitly] said further on, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel.³⁴⁰Further, 16:21. Here, however, Scripture does not state “and he shall lay his hand,” because He explained previously in the case of all sin-offerings³⁴¹Above, Chapter 4, Verses 4, 15, 24 and 29. that they require the laying of hands, and similarly, in the case of freewill offerings.³⁴²Ibid., Chapter 1, Verse 4; Chapter 3, Verses 2, 8 and 13. See also Note 11 above. But He did not explain [the duty of] confession above in the case of the other sin-offerings, [although it is required in those cases as well].
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it would appear that here He said and he shall confess, because in the case of an “oath of testimony”³³²The section here discusses the offering of higher or lower value (see above, Note 15), the verse before us stating that this offering is required in the case of a false oath concerning testimony. Thus, if the person interested in the evidence called upon him by an oath, adjuring him that if he knows any evidence favorable to him he should testify before the court, and he swore that he knows of no testimony concerning him, when in fact he does know, in such a case, if he swore either unintentionally or wilfully, he must offer what is called an offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 82-83. In the following verse another transgression for which this offering is required is mentioned. — Ramban now proceeds to explain the sense of the triple expression, and he is a witness, or knows, or saw. the offering is to be brought even if the oath was taken wilfully. So also in the case of an “oath of deposit”³⁴³If Reuben says to Shimon, “Give me my deposit which you have,” and Shimon replies “I swear I have naught of yours,” or if Shimon said, “I have naught of yours,” and Reuben says, “I adjure thee” and he answers “Amen” — in this case too Shimon is liable to bring an offering [in addition to the restitution] even if he wilfully swore falsely. The offering, however, is not the one of higher or lower value mentioned in this section — but a guilt-offering, as explained further on (in Verses 23-26). Ramban mentions the “oath of deposit” here only to liken it to the “oath of testimony” in the sense that the offerings in each case are brought even if committed wilfully. This is a novel point in the law of offerings, for all other offerings brought for commission of a sin effect atonement only in case the transgression has been committed in error; otherwise, the offering of the wicked is an abomination (Proverbs 21:27). Ramban thus suggests [in line with the plain meaning of Scripture] that since the offerings in these two cases — that of the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of deposit” — are required to be brought even when committed wilfully, therefore the Torah mentions in their cases the subject of confession. But in the case of all other sin-offerings, since they are brought only when the transgression was committed in error, there is no need for confession of sin. However, Ramban will immediately refute this position, for the Rabbis have clearly interpreted that all sin-offerings require confession of sin. He mentioned, then they shall confess their sin which they have done.³⁴⁴Numbers 5:7. But in the case of the sin-offering brought for transgression in error, He did not mention confession.³⁴⁵“But [when bringing] the sin-offering for a sin committed in error he does not confess” (Tur in quoting the language of Ramban). But in the opinion of our Rabbis³⁴⁶Sifre Zuta 5:5. the expression, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned, refers to everything mentioned in this section, including the defiling of the Sanctuary and the holy food, and an “oath of utterance,”³³⁷This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering. which offerings have to be brought [only] when [the sins are] committed in error, and [in the case of] all other sin-offerings [which are also brought only when the transgression was done in error, the need for confession when bringing them] is derived from here. He mentioned confession, however, [specifically] here because the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance” do not make one liable to excision [if done wilfully, unlike the sin-offering which is brought only for those sins committed in error which, if committed wilfully, incur the punishment of excision], and yet He requires confession in these cases, and [thus it follows] all the more that in the case of the fixed³⁴⁷As distinct from the offering of higher or lower value, where the offering varies according to the means of the transgressor, a fixed sin-offering must be of an animal and is alike for poor and rich, so that if the poor cannot afford it he is not obligated to bring another offering in its stead, as is the case of the offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 78-79. sin-offerings mentioned above, he must confess [since his sin, were it to be committed wilfully, would incur] the penalty of excision. Our Rabbis have said³⁴⁸Sifre Naso 2. that the expression here, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned is a general principle in the case of all sin-offerings, that they require confession. The verses written in the section of Naso, stating, and that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done,³⁴⁹Numbers 5:6-7. is to include all guilt-offerings [in the requirement of confession]. So it is explained in the Sifre.³⁴⁸Sifre Naso 2. There the Rabbis have interpreted: “And that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess.³⁴⁹Numbers 5:6-7. This establishes the general rule for all those executed [by the court] that they require confession” [to achieve full forgiveness of their sin].

והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “and he shall confess what he had sinned.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah does not report the correct sequence of the procedure involved here. The leaning on the animal prior to it being slaughtered has been omitted here. It was omitted as previously it has been made plain that before any sin offering is slaughtered the owner must lean his hands on the sacrificial animal and confess his sin. On the other hand, in the verses where the leaning is mentioned, no mention was made of the confession that accompanied this part of the procedure. According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason why the confession is made a part of the procedure here is because in both instances involving the oath the sin to be expiated had been committed deliberately, as opposed to the other instances when the sin offering is offered on account of inadvertently committed sins. According to this approach no confession accompanies the bringing of ordinary sin offerings. However, our sages claim that the word והתודה concerns all the examples of sin offerings mentioned up until now including entering holy precincts in a state of ritual impurity when it occurred unintentionally. The same applies to all other sin offerings, each one requiring a confession immediately prior to the animal being slaughtered. The reason why the confession was mentioned especially in this verse, is that the news is that the sin mentioned does not carry the karet penalty, as do the other sins for which a sin offering if they were committed only inadvertently. How much more so would a confession be required when the sin concerned would require a definitive sin offering when committed unintentionally!

והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “he will confess that wherein he has sinned.” We speak about someone who was in doubt if he had committed an error and upon closer examination finds that he has indeed committed that sin inadvertently. This is indicated by the choice of the word והתודה, “that he makes himself confess, attains certainty.”
Our sages (Sifri Nasso 2) say that the word teaches that every sin requires that it be confessed. The same explanation occurs elsewhere in the Sifri on Numbers 5,6 “this person has committed a sin etc.,” where the operative word is the repetition of the word נפש, meaning that by the sin he has forfeited his life. That verse is used as the classic verse demanding that every sinner is required to confess his sin in order that his guilt can be expiated. [Even sinners who are executed for their sins do not obtain atonement if they did not confess their guilt prior to execution. Achan, who was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. Ed.]

And that is that He commanded us to confess the transgressions and sins that we have done before God and to say them together with [our] repentance. And that is confession. And its intent is that one say, "Please, Lord, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled and I have done such and such." And he should prolong the statement and request forgiveness about this matter according to the polish of his speech. And you should know that even the sins for which one is liable for the types of sacrifices that are mentioned - that He said that one offer them and it atones for him - do not suffice with the sacrifice when it is without confession. And that is His saying, "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man [...]. And they shall confess the sins that they did" (Numbers 5:6-7). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:5), 'and he shall confess that which he has sinned upon it' - it is to be upon the sin-offering when it is in existence, not after it has been slaughtered. It is only understood that an individual confesses for entering the Temple [impure]" - for this verse appears in Parashat Vayikra about one who renders the Temple and its sanctified objects impure, and that which is mentioned with it, as we explained; and so the Mekhilta there raises the possibility that we would only learn the obligation for confession from Scripture about one who renders the Temple impure. "From where are you to include all the other commandments? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' And from where [do we know] even [sins that bring punishments of] excision and death penalties of the court? It states, 'the sins,' to include negative commandments; 'that they did,' to include positive commandments." And there it says, "'From any of the sins of man' - for theft, for robbery, for evil speech; 'to commit a trespass' - to include one who swears falsely and a blasphemer; 'and be guilty' - to include all those guilty of death penalties. It might be even those who are killed according to the testimony of colluding ones. I only said, 'and that man be guilty.'" That means to say that he is not obligated to confess when he knows that he has not sinned, but rather what was testified against him was false. Behold it has been made clear to you that we are obligated to confess for all types of transgressions, big and small - and even [for] positive commandments. But because this command - that is, "And they shall confess" - appeared with an obligation for a sacrifice, it could have entered our mind that confession is not a commandment by itself, but is rather from those things that are an extension of the sacrifice. [Hence] they needed to clarify this in the Mekhilta with this language - "It might be that when they bring their sacrifices, they confess; when they do not bring their sacrifices, they do not confess. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' But still, the understanding of confession is only in the Land [of Israel]. From where [do we know], also in the diaspora? [Hence] we learn to say, 'their iniquities [...] and the iniquities of their fathers' (Leviticus 26:40)." And likewise did Daniel say, "To You, Lord, is justice, etc." (Daniel 9:7). Behold that which we have mentioned has been made clear to you - that confession is a separate obligation; and that it is an obligation for the sinner for every sin that he did. Whether in the Land or outside of the Land; whether he brought a sacrifice or did not bring a sacrifice - he is obligated to confess, as it is stated, "And they shall confess for their iniquities." And the language of the [Sifra] is, "'And he shall confess' - that is confession of words." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1).