Commento su Levitico 4:27

ואם נפש אחת תחטא, And if anyone of the common people sin through error, etc. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ואם connects this paragraph to the rules established in the previous paragraphs concerning the details of the procedures.

ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ, if an ordinary citizen had committed an inadvertent sin, a likely event; here the Torah describes the sin as חטא, whereas when speaking of the King it describes it as אשם, in order to warn him at the same time to confess and do teshuvah before offering his sin offering. In both instances, as well as in all sacrifices described as asham, part of the sacrificial meat is eaten by the priests. The eating of those parts of the sacrifice by the priests is an essential ingredient in the atonement process for the guilty parties.

ואשם, “and he has become guilty;” he found out himself that he had committed an inadvertent sin.

מעם הארץ, amongst the common people, etc. Horiot 11 teaches that this excludes the High Priest if the latter erred without there having been an erroneous decision handed down by the High Court. In such an event the High Priest does not even have to bring a female goat as a sin-offering to atone for his error. Exegetes also use the letter ם in the word מעם to exclude culpability of a ruler in the event he ate half (part) of the minimum amount of a forbidden food whereas he had eaten the other half before becoming the ruler. The method of exegesis is based on the words מעם הארץ being superfluous in the first instance; the words נפש כי תחטא would have been quite sufficient. The expression is therefore used to exclude prominent individuals such as the High Priest. The additional letter ם is now also available for exegesis "dividing" the concept of עם הארץ. Hence the exegete applies it to a commoner who has consumed part of a forbidden amount of blood, for instance, and was subsequently elevated to the status of king or High Priest before he ate the second part of that blood which constituted an amount for which one is culpable of bringing a sin-offering. The extraneous letter teaches us that such a High Priest or King does not have to bring a sin-offering.

בעשותה, when she (the נפש) has performed it (the sin). This word is extraneous and Torat Kohanim interprets it both restrictively and inclusively. It is used restrictively to teach that if the person who committed the sin did so as a result of carrying out a ruling handed down by the High Court, he is exonerated. He has to bring the sin-offering mentioned in our verse only if he acted in accordance with his own opinion. The Torah had to state this separately because I might have thought that when the Torah legislated the bullock as a sin offering in verse 14, only people who committed that sin as a result of having heard of the High Court's decision would be covered by it, but that if an individual had not heard of that ruling and had nonetheless committed the same sin he would have to bring the she-goat as a sin-offering; the Torah therefore wrote בעשותה that he is to bring the personal sin-offering only if he had acted on his own and there was no faulty ruling by the High Court. The word בעשותה is interpreted inclusively in the event that the individual complied with the High Court's faulty ruling though he was well enough versed in Torah to know that the ruling was faulty. In such a case he cannot shield himself behind the High Court's ruling but has to offer a personal sin-offering of a she-goat for having acted against his better judgment. His sin-offering then is in addition to the bullock prescribed in verse 14. Had the Torah written only בעשות, I would have interpreted it only as inclusive; seeing the Torah added the letter ה at the end, I can also use it restrictively, i.e. only in such a case and not in any other case. When you reflect on this you will understand the Torat Kohanim correctly.

That is that He commanded us that anyone who erred in a sin and is an individual offer a sin-offering sacrifice. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And if a person sins in error." And that is a fixed sin-offering - meaning that is always an animal sin-offering. And we have already explained that sins for which we are liable for a sin-offering when inadvertent, we are liable for excision when volitional - and that is on condition that they are negative commandments and that they involve an action, as it is explained at the beginning of Keritot (Keritot 2). And the regulations of this commandment are explained in Tractate Menachot and Keritot, and in Tractate Shabbat, Shevuot and Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 1.)