פירוש על ויקרא 6:23

‎'וכל חטאת וגו‎ AND NO SIN OFFERING [WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING SHALL BE EATEN] — This means, that if the priest brought any of the blood of an “external” sin-offering (one the blood of which has to be sprinkled on the outer altar) into the Interior it becomes invalid and must be burnt.

AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,”⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon,⁶³Zebachim 83 a. it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar].⁶⁴See above, 4:6-7. It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest,⁶⁵Ibid., Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”⁶⁶Ibid., Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols,⁶⁷Numbers 15:24. namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture,⁶⁸Thus far we have followed the interpretation of Rashi which is based upon sources in the Talmud, which was as follows: “and every outer sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of outer sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “inner sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which is regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded,⁶⁹Above, 4:12, 21. and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them,⁷⁰The command in Chapter 4 is a positive one; Ramban is saying that the verse here adds to this a negative command, not to eat of the flesh, in addition to the positive one to burn it. There is thus an additional penalty for one who eats of it. for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings.⁷¹Ramban means to say that although Verses 17-22 clearly speak of outer sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to inner sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim⁷²Torath Kohanim, Tzav 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.⁷³Zebachim 82 a.

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה אל אהל מועד, the following comprise the sin offerings included in the verse we are discussing. 1) The bull offered as a sin offering by the High Priest; 2) the bull offered on behalf of the people who had become inadvertent victims of a faulty ruling by the High Court, known as פר העלם צבור in Talmudic parlance. 3) Both the bull and the male goat offered as sin offering on the Day of Atonement. 5) The male goats which are offered as sin offerings for inadvertent sins involving idolatry. Concerning all the above 5 sin offerings the Torah requires the blood to be offered inside the sanctuary, either on the dividing curtain or the golden altar. This is the plain meaning of the text.

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה, “any of the types of sin-offering whose blood brought into the Sanctuary, etc.” Rashi comments that if the priest brought blood from a sin offering whose blood was not destined for sprinkling on the corners of the golden altar, such as the blood of the sin-offerings Aaron offered on the Day of Atonement, into the Sanctuary, then the offering is retroactively invalid. According to this the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש in our verse cannot be understood literally, as the wording assumes that it is capable of securing atonement. On the contrary, it even nullifies what otherwise would have been atonement. The meaning of the words לכפר בקודש must then be “with the intention of achieving atonement in the Sanctuary.” There is a sage who holds that the sin offering of which our verse speaks becomes invalidated only if the priest had sprinkled some of that blood on the golden altar, not if he had merely brought it within the confines of the Sanctuary. There is yet another sage who understands our verse as speaking of the type of sin offering whose blood is meant to be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and that the Torah merely informs us that it is forbidden for the priests to consume any parts of that type of sin offering. We can therefore understand the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש as quite literally: “the one that requires to be brought into the Sanctuary in order to achieve atonement, etc.’

וכל AND ALL — The word “all” serves to include in this law other sacrifices too (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 8 1; Zevachim 81b).