Commento su Levitico 14:18

AND THE REST OF THE OIL THAT IS IN THE PRIEST’S HAND HE SHALL PUT UPON THE HEAD OF HIM TO BE CLEANSED; AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM BEFORE THE ETERNAL. This atonement is accomplished by means of the priest’s acts with the blood of the guilt-offering [as prescribed in Verse 14] and the oil [as set forth in Verses 15-18]. Similarly, the verse stating [in connection with a leper who is poor], to make atonement for him before the Eternal,⁷²Further, Verse 29. [carries the same meaning]. And in the Torath Kohanim we find it said:⁷³Torath Kohanim, Metzora 3:12. “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement. ‘If he put [the rest of the oil upon his head], he effected atonement for him, and if he did not put it thereon, he did not effect atonement.’ These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri said: ‘This is the residue of a commandment, [and therefore is not part of the commandment itself, and thus not indispensable]; whether he put it thereon or did not put it thereon, he has effected atonement.’” Now if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri, the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, refers [only] to the guilt-offering [which is indispensable in the final purification of the leper].
Now Scripture states [here] in the case of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall make atonement, and then states again in the case of the sin-offering, and he shall make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness,⁷⁴Verse 19. and with reference to the burnt-offering and meal-offering it also states, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean.⁷⁵Verse 20. But we do not know the purport of all these expressions of atonement. Perhaps the guilt-offering effects atonement for the trespass that he committed before he was affected by his plague, and the sin-offering effects atonement for his sin which he committed during the time of the plague. For perhaps in his anguish he ascribed aught unseemly to G-d,⁷⁶Job 1:22. this being the significance of the expression because of his uncleanness⁷⁴Verse 19. [used in connection with the sin-offering that he must bring]. The burnt-offering and meal-offering constitute a ransom for his soul, that he be worthy to be purified and return to his dwelling. Therefore He said, and the priest shall make atonement for him, ‘and he shall be clean.’⁷⁵Verse 20.
Now in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:⁷⁷Torath Kohanim, Metzora 3:13. “And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement.⁷⁴Verse 19. Why is this said?⁷⁸I.e., why does it say here, and he shall make atonement, when at the end of the section (in Verse 20) it concludes, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean? (Malbim in his commentary to the Torath Kohanim). Since it is said, And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar,⁷⁵Verse 20. I might think that they are all indispensible for the purification of the leper, therefore Scripture states, and the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement,⁷⁴Verse 19. thus teaching that the atonement is dependent [only] upon the sin-offering.” It is possible that the expression and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean⁷⁵Verse 20. alludes to everything that has been done for him [i.e., for the leper’s purification],for the birds [which he brought at the very beginning of his purification, followed by the three offerings brought on the eighth day, as discussed here] also came for the purpose of atonement and purification, for so He also said in connection with a plague in the house, and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.⁷⁹Further, Verse 53. There the expression, and the priest shall make atonement … and it shall be clean clearly refers to the birds mentioned in that verse. Here too, then, (in Verse 20) the reference is similar.

יתן על ראש המטהר וכפר עליו הכהן לפני ה', “he shall place upon the head of the person being purified, and the priest shall provide him atonement before Hashem.” The vehicle effecting the atonement is the blood of the guilt offering as well as the oil that the priest sprinkles in the direction of the Holy of Holies. The peculiarity in the procedures being described here is the fact that the expression וכפר, “he shall provide atonement,” is repeated so many times; after the guilt offering which apparently provided this atonement, the same expression is used in connection with the sin offering, and then again in connection with the burnt offering, and even again in connection with the gift offering, the מנחה. As a result of this we are quite confused as to the nature of this “atonement.” Perhaps the guilt offering affords forgiveness, atonement, for the trespass the person in question had committed before he had become afflicted with the tzoraat. The sin offering may afford atonement for sins committed while the person was in a state of tzoraat. Possibly, due to his pain, he addressed his prayers then to the attribute of Elokim instead of to the attribute of Hashem, the only one to whom prayers may be addressed. This may be the reason that the Torah adds the word מטומאתו when speaking of this specific atonement. The burnt offering and the gift offering may be the “real” ransom of his soul, permitting him to rejoin society. This is why the Torah may have added the words: “and the priest will provide atonement for him, and he will emerge purified.” It is also possible that this last line of וכפר עליו הכהן וטהר, “and the priest will provide atonement for him and he will emerge purified,” refers to all the foregoing collectively, seeing that also the bird-offerings had as their purpose atonement as we know from their description in connection with plague-like symbols on the walls of someone’s house. (14,53)

והנותר בשמן, “and the rest of the oil;” we would have expected the Torah to have written: מן השמן instead of בשמן. [Whenever our author makes this kind of succinct comment, it is to remind the reader that we are not dealing with a scribe‘s error that need to be emended, but that the Torah had its own reasons for changing the syntax as well as spelling. Ed.]