וְהָאָרֶץ֩ תֵּעָזֵ֨ב מֵהֶ֜ם וְתִ֣רֶץ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתֶ֗יהָ בָּהְשַׁמָּה֙ מֵהֶ֔ם וְהֵ֖ם יִרְצ֣וּ אֶת־עֲוֺנָ֑ם יַ֣עַן וּבְיַ֔עַן בְּמִשְׁפָּטַ֣י מָאָ֔סוּ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתַ֖י גָּעֲלָ֥ה נַפְשָֽׁם׃
Cette terre restera donc abandonnée par eux, afin que, laissée par eux déserte, elle répare ses chômages, et qu’eux-mêmes ils réparent leur iniquité; parce que, oui, parce qu’ils auront dédaigné mes statuts, et que leur esprit aura repoussé mes lois.
Ramban
A SABBATH UNTO THE ETERNAL, “[This means] in honor of the Eternal [and that it is not primarily intended for man’s benefit],33In other words, we are to observe the Sabbatical year primarily as a mark of honor to G-d, and not for our benefit, in that by lying fallow for a year the land will improve. The same applies to the weekly Sabbath, which we celebrate in honor of the Creator of the world, and not primarily because we benefit physically from a day of rest. (Mizrachi). in the same sense as this expression is used in the case of the Sabbath of Creation” [i.e., the weekly Sabbath, of which it is also said, a Sabbath unto the Eternal].34Exodus 20:10. See note above. This is the language of Rashi. But this was not the intention of the Rabbis in their interpretation,35In other words, it is true that in the Torath Kohanim (Behar 1:2) there is such an interpretation of the Rabbis, likening the expression a Sabbath unto the Eternal stated here in the case of the Sabbatical year to that mentioned in the law of the weekly Sabbath. But the intent thereof is not as Rashi presented it, for etc. The full text of the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim will be mentioned further on by Ramban. for all [weekly] Sabbaths, and also the festivals, are in honor of the Eternal, and yet in not one of them [i.e., the festivals] does Scripture say that they are “unto the Eternal.” Instead, it says it shall be a solemn rest unto you,36Above, 23:24. and in the case of the Day of Atonement it states, It shall be unto you a Sabbath of solemn rest.37Ibid., Verse 32. The text of the Beraitha in the Torah Kohanim [quoted by Rashi] is as follows:38Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:2. “A Sabbath unto the Eternal. Just as it says with reference to the Sabbath of Creation, so is it said regarding the Sabbatical year, a Sabbath unto the Eternal.” But the meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d34Exodus 20:10. See note above. stated in connection with the Sabbath of Creation, is that on it He ceased from work and rested39Exodus 31:17. and therefore thou shalt not do any manner of work.34Exodus 20:10. See note above. It was with reference to that idea that the Sages, of blessed memory, said that the same expression is also stated in the case of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh in [the cycle of] the years [just as the weekly Sabbath is the seventh day in the cycle of days; and the meaning thereof here is that since the seventh year is a Sabbath to the Eternal, as will be explained, we are to desist from working the land].
Now here [in the Torath Kohanim mentioned above, the Rabbis] have roused our attention to one of the great secrets of the Torah.40See in Exodus (Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23). Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already given us a hint of it when he wrote: “The meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal is like that of the Sabbath-day.41For just as the Sabbath was given for the purpose of contemplating G-d’s deeds and meditating upon His Torah, so also is the purport of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh of the years (Mekor Chayim in his commentary to Ibn Ezra). The secret of the years of the world is alluded to in this place.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s comment.]
Bend now your ear to understand that which I am permitted to inform you about it in the words that I will cause you to hear, and if you will be worthy, you will contemplate them [and understand them]. I have already written in Seder Bereshith42Genesis 2:3 (Vol. I, pp. 61-64). that the six days of creation represent [all] the days of the world, and the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d,34Exodus 20:10. See note above. for on it will be the Sabbath to the Great Name, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:43Tamid 7:4. “On the seventh day what psalm did the Levites sing [in the Sanctuary? They sang] A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath-day44Psalms 92:1. — [a song] for the World to Come, which will be wholly a Sabbath, and rest for life everlasting.” Thus the [seven] days [of the week] allude to that which He created in the process of creation, and the [seven] years [of the Sabbatical cycle] refer to that which will occur during the creation of all “the days” of the world. It is for this reason that Scripture was more stringent regarding [the transgression of the laws of] the Sabbatical year than with respect to those guilty of transgressing all other negative commandments, and made it punishable with exile, just as He was stringent with respect to forbidden sexual relations [for which the punishment of the people, as opposed to that of the individual, is also exile];45Above, 18:28. as it is said, Then shall the Land be paid her Sabbaths,46Further, 26:34. and He repeated this matter many times: As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest,47Ibid., Verse 35. and it is further said, And the Land shall lie forsaken without them, and shall be paid her Sabbaths.48Ibid., Verse 43. “And so we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:49Aboth 5:9. Our text of the Mishnah has a variant reading. See my Hebrew commentary p. 167, Note 55. “Exile comes for the delaying of justice, and for the perversion of justice, and for [the neglect of] the year of rest for the Land.” [This stringency of punishment is] because whoever denies it [i.e., the law of the Sabbatical year], does not acknowledge the work of creation and [life in] the World to Come. Similarly the prophet [Jeremiah] was stringent, and decreed exile for neglecting to send [Hebrew] servants to freedom in the seventh year [of their service], as it is said, I made a covenant with your fathers … At the beginning of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother etc.,50Jeremiah 34:13-14. — The verse there reads ‘mikeitz sheva shanim’, which is normally translated as “at the end of seven years” (so also in the J.P.S. translation). Ramban in Deuteronomy 15:1, however, brings proofs that the correct meaning in this context is “at the end-year of the seven years”, i.e., at the beginning of seventh year, rather than “at the end of the seventh year.” Thus the Hebrew servant goes free at the beginning of the seventh year [the end-year of the cycle of seven years], and this is indeed the accepted law (Rambam, Hilchoth Avadim 2:1) that he serves for six years. See, however, Yonathan ben Uziel in Jeremiah. for in the case of a servant the seventh year is also like a [complete] Jubilee; and the Jubilee is known also [at the very beginning of the Torah] — from ‘Bereshith’ (In the beginning) to ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished)51In other words, in the Scriptural account of the creation — commencing with the verse, In the beginning … and concluding with ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished) (2:1) — the secret of the Jubilee is already hinted at, namely, “that all things, that came into existence in the beginning of time will be finished in the era of the Jubilee (Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). — intimating that in the Jubilee everything is to return [to its origin], every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.52Further, Verse 10. For it is a sure foundation, and he that believeth53Isaiah 28:16. The verse reads: He that believeth will not ‘yachish’ (make haste). Ramban brings out ingeniously a different meaning by saying: he that believeth ‘yacharish’ (will keep silence), suggesting that the student of Cabala must be reticent and careful not to disclose the secrets he has learned. Cf. the phrase in Amos 5:13 — ‘Therefore ‘hamaskil yidom’. (he who understands will keep quiet)! shall keep silence. This is what is meant in saying, ‘v’shavtah ha’aretz shabbath’ (and ‘the land’ shall keep a Sabbath);54In Verse 2 before us. The word ha’aretz is here understood as “the earth” in its entirety [not merely one particular part of it], the same interpretation applying to the next verses quoted. See further, Note 194. and ye shall proclaim liberty ‘ba’aretz’ (throughout ‘the land’),55Further, Verse 10. for the reference here is to “the land of eternal life” which is alluded to in the first verse [of the Torah],56In the beginning G-d created the heavens ‘v’eth ha’aretz’, which means “the land of eternal life.” and of which it is said, ‘v’ha’aretz ezkor’ (and I will remember ‘the land’).57Further, 26:42. I have already mentioned this several times.58See Vol. I, pp. 110, and 120. Perhaps it is to this that our Rabbis alluded in saying:59Rosh Hashanah 21 b. See also Vol. I, pp. 9-10. “Fifty gates [degrees] of understanding were created in the world, and all were transmitted to Moses with one exception.” For each cycle of seven years constitutes “the gate of one house” [creation], and thus He informed him of all existence from beginning to end, with the exception of the holy Jubilee.
Now here [in the Torath Kohanim mentioned above, the Rabbis] have roused our attention to one of the great secrets of the Torah.40See in Exodus (Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23). Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already given us a hint of it when he wrote: “The meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal is like that of the Sabbath-day.41For just as the Sabbath was given for the purpose of contemplating G-d’s deeds and meditating upon His Torah, so also is the purport of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh of the years (Mekor Chayim in his commentary to Ibn Ezra). The secret of the years of the world is alluded to in this place.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s comment.]
Bend now your ear to understand that which I am permitted to inform you about it in the words that I will cause you to hear, and if you will be worthy, you will contemplate them [and understand them]. I have already written in Seder Bereshith42Genesis 2:3 (Vol. I, pp. 61-64). that the six days of creation represent [all] the days of the world, and the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d,34Exodus 20:10. See note above. for on it will be the Sabbath to the Great Name, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:43Tamid 7:4. “On the seventh day what psalm did the Levites sing [in the Sanctuary? They sang] A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath-day44Psalms 92:1. — [a song] for the World to Come, which will be wholly a Sabbath, and rest for life everlasting.” Thus the [seven] days [of the week] allude to that which He created in the process of creation, and the [seven] years [of the Sabbatical cycle] refer to that which will occur during the creation of all “the days” of the world. It is for this reason that Scripture was more stringent regarding [the transgression of the laws of] the Sabbatical year than with respect to those guilty of transgressing all other negative commandments, and made it punishable with exile, just as He was stringent with respect to forbidden sexual relations [for which the punishment of the people, as opposed to that of the individual, is also exile];45Above, 18:28. as it is said, Then shall the Land be paid her Sabbaths,46Further, 26:34. and He repeated this matter many times: As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest,47Ibid., Verse 35. and it is further said, And the Land shall lie forsaken without them, and shall be paid her Sabbaths.48Ibid., Verse 43. “And so we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:49Aboth 5:9. Our text of the Mishnah has a variant reading. See my Hebrew commentary p. 167, Note 55. “Exile comes for the delaying of justice, and for the perversion of justice, and for [the neglect of] the year of rest for the Land.” [This stringency of punishment is] because whoever denies it [i.e., the law of the Sabbatical year], does not acknowledge the work of creation and [life in] the World to Come. Similarly the prophet [Jeremiah] was stringent, and decreed exile for neglecting to send [Hebrew] servants to freedom in the seventh year [of their service], as it is said, I made a covenant with your fathers … At the beginning of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother etc.,50Jeremiah 34:13-14. — The verse there reads ‘mikeitz sheva shanim’, which is normally translated as “at the end of seven years” (so also in the J.P.S. translation). Ramban in Deuteronomy 15:1, however, brings proofs that the correct meaning in this context is “at the end-year of the seven years”, i.e., at the beginning of seventh year, rather than “at the end of the seventh year.” Thus the Hebrew servant goes free at the beginning of the seventh year [the end-year of the cycle of seven years], and this is indeed the accepted law (Rambam, Hilchoth Avadim 2:1) that he serves for six years. See, however, Yonathan ben Uziel in Jeremiah. for in the case of a servant the seventh year is also like a [complete] Jubilee; and the Jubilee is known also [at the very beginning of the Torah] — from ‘Bereshith’ (In the beginning) to ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished)51In other words, in the Scriptural account of the creation — commencing with the verse, In the beginning … and concluding with ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished) (2:1) — the secret of the Jubilee is already hinted at, namely, “that all things, that came into existence in the beginning of time will be finished in the era of the Jubilee (Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). — intimating that in the Jubilee everything is to return [to its origin], every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.52Further, Verse 10. For it is a sure foundation, and he that believeth53Isaiah 28:16. The verse reads: He that believeth will not ‘yachish’ (make haste). Ramban brings out ingeniously a different meaning by saying: he that believeth ‘yacharish’ (will keep silence), suggesting that the student of Cabala must be reticent and careful not to disclose the secrets he has learned. Cf. the phrase in Amos 5:13 — ‘Therefore ‘hamaskil yidom’. (he who understands will keep quiet)! shall keep silence. This is what is meant in saying, ‘v’shavtah ha’aretz shabbath’ (and ‘the land’ shall keep a Sabbath);54In Verse 2 before us. The word ha’aretz is here understood as “the earth” in its entirety [not merely one particular part of it], the same interpretation applying to the next verses quoted. See further, Note 194. and ye shall proclaim liberty ‘ba’aretz’ (throughout ‘the land’),55Further, Verse 10. for the reference here is to “the land of eternal life” which is alluded to in the first verse [of the Torah],56In the beginning G-d created the heavens ‘v’eth ha’aretz’, which means “the land of eternal life.” and of which it is said, ‘v’ha’aretz ezkor’ (and I will remember ‘the land’).57Further, 26:42. I have already mentioned this several times.58See Vol. I, pp. 110, and 120. Perhaps it is to this that our Rabbis alluded in saying:59Rosh Hashanah 21 b. See also Vol. I, pp. 9-10. “Fifty gates [degrees] of understanding were created in the world, and all were transmitted to Moses with one exception.” For each cycle of seven years constitutes “the gate of one house” [creation], and thus He informed him of all existence from beginning to end, with the exception of the holy Jubilee.
Ramban
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.
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.
Tosafot Yom Tov
THE SWORD COMES TO THE WORLD ON ACCOUNT OF PROTRACTED RULINGS. As per the verse “and I will bring upon you the sword which extracts vengeance for the covenant” (Leviticus 26:25), in which “covenant” refers to the Torah. And the verse at the end of that same section says, “because they have made My laws revolting”225The simple reading is “because they have found My laws revolting.” The midrashic reading interprets ma'asu as a transitive verb, giving “because they have made My laws revolting.” The Talmud explains that the courts have made the laws revolting by protracting the rulings and perverting justice. (Leviticus 26:43)—Talmud, Shabbat 33a.
Rabbeinu Yonah
Disponible uniquement pour les membres PremiumRashi
and the deserted places be many For the land will be abandoned by them, and this is the explanation of the language: Deserted places will increase in the midst of the land.