Midrash su Levitico 4:23

1) (Vayikra 4:23): "… then he shall bring (his offering a kid of goats, a male without blemish"): even after Yom Kippur, (the Yom Kippur goat not exempting him from this offering, for which he remains liable.) "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his (deceased) father.

1) (Vayikra 4:23) ("If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it"): "becomes known" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is "not fit to enter the congregation") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): "becomes known to him" — and not that others tell him.

1) Or, perhaps it (Vayikra 4:24 — "and he shall slaughter … in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered") is meant to include (sin-offerings) that are similar to this (the sin-offering of a nassi), viz.: Just as this is characterized by being a sin-offering that is male, fixed, (and not sliding-scale [oleh veyored (see Vayikra 5:6-7)], atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin — so, I will include all of that kind. What will I include? The idolatry goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin. Or, bullocks that are burnt, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming for a known sin — though they do not come from the flock (i.e., this single exception would not bar their inclusion). Or, the festival goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming from the flock — though not coming for a known sin. Since they are all (essentially) "equally weighted," let them all be included (as requiring slaughtering in the north).

2) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon and R. Shimon b. R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Shimon: He is liable for only one, it being written "for his unwitting sin wherein he sinned unwittingly." "For he did not know (of the 'possibility' having come before him)" — to exclude his being informed by others. I might think (that he is not liable) even though he does not deny (their words); it is, therefore, written "For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him" — but if he does know, it will not be forgiven him.

2) I might think (that he does not bring a sin-offering) even if he does not refute (the witnesses, but remains silent). It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known." I would include (as making him liable for a sin-offering in such an instance, only) two witnesses, who can make him liable to the death penalty (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for one witness? I would include one witness (even without the clause), for he can make him liable for an oath (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for two relatives? I would include two relatives, who are kasher to testify for others. Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife? even for his bondswoman? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not include these otherwise): "if it becomes known" (in any instance of his remaining silent).

2) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a (relatively) lesser sin, for a greater sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own), but that he can fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a lesser sin, for a lesser sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own). It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation (only) with his offering and not with that of his father.

2) And (Vayikra 6:18): ("This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall) the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the idolatry sin-offering (of the individual), which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though not a male (but a she-goat). Or, the Yom Kippur goat, which is a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included.

3) R. Meir said (in refutation of the above [i.e., that even if two witnesses inform him and he refutes them he is not liable for a sin-offering]): If two witnesses can bring him to death — the severe (liability), can they not bring him to an offering — the lesser! R. Yehudah said (in refutation of R. Meir): (This is no kal vachomer, for) How can they tell him: "Stand and confess," when he says: "I have not sinned!" (i.e., Atonement is a "personal" matter, and if he does not wish it, witnesses cannot force him to it.) R. Shimon said (Also, in refutation of R. Meir's kal vachomer): If he said (to the witnesses): "I did it intentionally," he would not be liable (for a sin-offering, so that, ab initio, witnesses cannot "bring him" to a sin-offering).

3) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering with a beast that his father separated, from the lesser (of the father) to the greater (of his own), or from the greater to the lesser, or from the greater to the greater, or from the lesser to the lesser — for a son may not shave (after his Naziritism) by offering the beasts separated for his father's Naziritism — but that he does fulfill his obligation with the monies separated by his father from the lesser to the greater, from the greater to the lesser, from the lesser to the lesser, and from the greater to the greater — for he may shave by offering (beasts bought with) his father's monies when they were undesignated (i.e., how much for which offering), but not when they were designated. It is, therefore, written: "his offering": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his father.

3) "… the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the sin-offering for defiling the sanctuary, which is a sin-offering that atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though it is not male and not fixed (but sliding-scale). Or, the sin-offering of a Nazirite, which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not male, and not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included. "… the sin-offering be slaughtered" is meant to include the sin-offering of a metzora, which, though not a fixed offering (but sliding-scale), effects atonement (and, unlike the goat of the nassi, is not male and does not come for a known sin.)

4) R. Meir says (in answer to R. Shimon): If he says in the beginning (to the witnesses who testified that he sinned): "I sinned intentionally," he is believed (not to bring a sin-offering), but if he disputed with them the whole day (saying that he had not committed the sin at all), and at the end he said: "I sinned intentionally," he is not believed (and must bring a sin-offering as having sinned unwittingly).

4) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering, even with monies that his father separated, and even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — but that he does fulfill it with an offering that he separated for himself, even from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater. It is, therefore, written: (Vayikra 4:28): "his offering … for his sin" — It must be (separated) for that sin.

4) Now that we have included (as requiring "north") things that are similar to it (the goat of the nassi) and things that are not similar to it, why is this (requirement) specified (in the instance of the nassi)? To make it a categorical requirement — that if it is not slaughtered in the north it is pasul.

… it is written there “Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You…” (Melachim I 8:27) and here it is written “…the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” (Shemot 40:35) R’ Yehoshua of Sachnin said in the name of R’ Levi ‘to what is this likened? To an open cave at the edge of the sea. When the sea storms the cave is filled, but the sea is not reduced. So too, even though it is written that ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle’ the upper and lower worlds did not lose anything of the brilliance of the glory of the Holy One, just as it is written “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth? says the Lord.” (Yirmiyahu 23:24) Therefore it is written here ‘And it was’. Just as the Divine Presence was here below at the beginning of the creation of the world but withdrew to above, now it returned to be below as it had been “And it was that on the day that Moses finished…” (Bamidbar 7:1) ... [Another explanation. “And it was that on the day that Moses finished erecting the Mishkan…” (Numbers 7:1)] R’ Simon said: at the time when the Holy One told Israel to erect the Tabernacle, He hinted that when the Tabernacle below is erected, the Tabernacle above is erected, as it says “And it was that on the day that Moses finished…” (ibid.) It does not say ‘erecting the Tabernacle’ but rather ‘erecting this (et) the Tabernacle.’ This refers to the Tabernacle above. The Holy One said: in this world, when the Tabernacle was erected, I commanded Aharon and his sons that they bless you. In the time to come I, in my glory, will bless you. So it is written “May the Lord bless you from Zion, He Who made heaven and earth.” (Psalms 134:3)

5) Similarly, R. Meir said: If they (witnesses) said to him: "You are a Nazirite" (i.e., You made a Nazirite vow and [then] you defiled yourself and must now bring an offering for having done so) — If he said: "I made the vow on condition" (and the condition was not realized), he is believed. But if he tired them the whole day (saying that he had not made the vow), and, in the end, he said: "I made the vow on condition," he is not believed.

5) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering, with a beast that he separated for himself, even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated a beast for (a sin-offering for having eaten) cheilev and he offered it for having eaten blood, or (if he separated it) for blood and offered it for cheilev, he is not liable for me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects) and he does not receive atonement, (the first status of the offering not having been changed — so that in our instance, too, the status of the beast is not changed and it cannot serve as a sin-offering for the sin to which it has been transferred); but I might think that he does fulfill his obligation with (transference of) monies that he separated for himself, from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated monies for himself for (an offering for) cheilev, and he brought (the offering) for blood, or for blood and he brought it for cheilev, he is liable for mei'lah and it does effect atonement (its first status having been changed — so that in our instance, too, transference of monies is permitted ab initio). It is, therefore, written: "his offering … for his sin" — His offering must be brought (ab initio) for his specific sin (and not transferred from one sin to another).

5) I might think that this (the goat of the nassi) alone is pasul if not slaughtered in the north, but (that with) all the other sin-offerings it is a mitzvah to slaughter them in the north, though if they are not slaughtered in the north they are (still) kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4:29): "and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering." This is a binyan av (a general rule) for all sin-offerings — that if they are not slaughtered in the north, they are pasul.

6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.")

6) ("If his sin becomes known to him) wherein he has sinned in it": What is the intent of this? Whence do we derive (the halachah vis-à-vis liability for a sin-offering in a situation in which) his wife (who was) a niddah and his sister were with him in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which; Shabbath and Yom Kippur, (one following the other), and he performed a (forbidden) labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which; cheilev (forbidden fats) and nothar (left-over consecrated flesh) before him, and he ate of one of them (cheilev or nothar) and did not know which (What is the halachah?) R. Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering and R. Yehoshua exempts him.

6) (Vayikra 4:23): "a he-goat" — and not a she-goat (even if he cannot find a he-goat). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that a nassi should be able to bring a she-goat), viz.: If a commoner, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a she-lamb or a she-goat) is not the same as his offering for Yom Kippur (the communal offering, a he-goat), still, his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (a she-goat) — then a nassi, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur — how much more so should his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (i.e., how much more so should he be able to bring a she-goat for all the mitzvoth if a he-goat could not be found! Therefore, the exclusion clause is necessary) — This is refuted by the (instance of the) high-priest, whose offering (for all the mitzvoth — a bullock) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur, yet not the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry! (i.e., he cannot bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock for all mitzvoth — see Section 3:3)

7) R. Eliezer queried him: Whatever the case — If he lived with his wife, a niddah, he is liable; if he lived with his sister he is liable! If he desecrated the Sabbath he is liable; if he desecrated Yom Kippur he is liable! If he ate cheilev he is liable; if he ate nothar he is liable! R. Yehoshua replied: It is written: "wherein he has sinned" — He is not liable until his (specific) sin becomes known to him.

7) No, this (that a she-goat may not be brought as an alternate) may be so with a high-priest, who does not bring both this (his offering for all the mitzvoth) and that (his idolatry offering) from the flock, (so that a she-goat may not be an alternate for a bullock), as opposed to a nassi who brings both (a he-goat for all mitzvoth, and a she-goat for idolatry) from the flock, and since he brings both from the flock, I would say (without an exclusion clause) that his offering for all the mitzvoth should be the same as his offering for idolatry (i.e., that he should be able to bring a she-goat as an alternate for a he-goat). It is, therefore, written: "sair" (a he-goat), and not a she-goat. (Vayikra 4:23): "izim" (goats), and not exchanges (i.e., sheep); "a male," and not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite; "whole," and not blemished.

8) R. Yossi said: Both agree that if he performs a labor between the two twilights (i.e., beginning a labor on one day and completing it on the next) he is exempt, for I (then) say: He did part of it today and part on the next day. Where do they argue? Where he performs an (entire) labor on one day, but he does not know whether that day was Shabbath or Yom Kippur, or where he performs a (forbidden) labor, but he does not know which labor he performed. R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even from an asham talui (see Ibid. 5:17 and 18).

8) "And he shall place his hand on the head of the goat": to include the goat of Nachshon (and the other nesi'im — see Bamidbar 7) for semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: to include the (communal) idolatry goats for semichah (by the elders). For R. Shimon said: Every communal offering whose blood enters within (the heichal) requires semichah.

9) R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shazuri say: Both agree that (if he is in doubt about) an act which goes by the same name (i.e., If he knows that he "plucked figs from a tree," but he does not know from which tree he plucked them), he is liable. Where do they argue? Where (he is in doubt about an act where) two names are involved (e.g., if he is in doubt as to whether he "reaped" or "ground"), in which instance R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. And R. Yehudah says: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even in the instance of an act which goes by the same name.

9) "And he shall slaughter it": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): "and he shall slaughter it": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say "the offspring of a sin-offering" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no "exchange of a sin-offering" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no "sin-offering whose owner died" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering "whose owner has received atonement" and one "which has passed its year" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering.

10) How so? His two wives, niddoth, and his two sisters with him in the house — he intended to live with one and he lived with the other; figs and grapes (on trees) before him — he intended to pluck figs and he plucked grapes, or grapes and he plucked figs; black ones and he plucked white ones, or white ones and he plucked black ones — R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. But why should R. Yehoshua exempt him? (Does he not, in any event, intend to commit a sin?) But if so, (if R. Yehoshua would rule him to be liable in such an instance), what is the intent of "wherein he has sinned in it"? (i.e., What is excluded from a sin-offering by "in it"?) Mithasek (intending to do) [a permitted thing] and doing [a forbidden one]) is excluded (e.g., intending to cut what is torn off [the tree] and cutting what is attached).

10) "And he slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered." Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north. This, too, is slaughtered in the north. But do I derive this from here? Is it not already written (Vayikra 6:18): "In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd"? Why, then, is this specified here? To make it categorical — that if it were not slaughtered in the north, it is pasul.

11) You say that it was specified for this purpose. But perhaps it was specified to teach that only this (the goat of the nassi) requires north (but not other sin-offerings)! (This cannot be, for) it is written (Vayikra 4:29): "… and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering" — to include all sin-offerings as requiring slaughtering in the north.