레위기 4:3의 주석

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) “[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt.

seeing that sinners are always on different levels morally and ethically, some being more prone to sin than others, the Torah addresses these different groups of people in different ways, each one appropriate to their specific rating in society. The Torah begins with the High Priest, the one who is least likely to commit a sin, and writes: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם, implying that a sin by the High Priest is most likely the outcome of guilt by the people, their conduct having contributed to his committing such an error. The Talmud (Berachot 34b:29) quotes that if someone makes an error in his private prayer this is a bad omen for him. If, however, the cantor, i.e. the person hired to pray on behalf of the people makes an error, not only he but all those on whose behalf he offered his prayers will suffer the consequences of his error. The sacrifice of a priest who committed an error must be burned and no one derives the slightest benefit from such an offering. Such considerations account for the fact that the Torah did not write here ואשם, “he sinned,” which would have been a warning for the errant person to do teshuvah. Had the Torah phrased its address to the High Priest thus this would not have been appropriate as the error committed by the High Priest did not originate within his heart but his faulty prayer had been due to the sinfulness of the people he represented which had insidiously influenced the words he was uttering.

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, If the anointed priest shall sin, etc. The Torah begins its list with the sin of an individual, although the Torah writes לאשמת העם, that this individual thereby brings guilt on the entire people. This is to tell us that an inadvertent sin committed by the High Priest is equivalent to an inadvertent sin by the whole community. If so, why did the Torah not begin the list of people who have to bring sin-offerings with 4,13 where the sin of the community is described, and wait with mentioning a sin by the High Priest until after verse 21 when inadvertent sins by individuals are listed? Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that in the event of the High Priest and the community having committed an inadvertent sin, the sin-offering of the High Priest takes precedence over that of the community as a whole. The same rule would apply if both the King and the people had committed a sin. The reason given in Horiot 13 is that the High Priest is active in securing atonement whereas the community achieves its atonement passively. I have found in Torat Kohanim on verse 13 (item 240) in our chapter that when both a high Priest and the community have to offer bullocks as sin offerings, the bullock of the High Priest has to be offered first. This ruling is based on the word ואם in verse 13 meaning that what is listed here is only secondary to what has been listed before, i.e. the bullock of the High Priest.

לאשמת העם, our sages in Horiyot 7 state that these words are restrictive and mean that in this instance the High Priest’s error is treated in the same way as the public’s error, i.e. that he had first ruled (in error) that something was permitted, and had then acted in accordance with his ruling. However, if we were to go by the plain meaning of the text, the message is that if the priests who are charged with teaching the Torah to the people are liable for mistakes they make handing down rulings, then the High Priest who is regarded as the expert for everyone, and whose faulty ruling causes the entire people to commit a sin, is most certainly held to account for his error. As a result, 'והקריב על חטאתו וגו, he will have to bring an offering for his sin.

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the High Priest becomes guilty of a sin, etc.” The list of sinners mentioned in this chapter proceeds in the following order: 1) High Priest, 2) High Court (collectively); 3) King; 4) the common people. The reason the Torah commences with the High Priest is that he is an outstanding individual (Joshua 14,15) comparable to an angel of the Lord (Malachi 2,7). When the people observe that even the High Priest has to bring a sin-offering they will be careful to return to G’d in repentance themselves. They will be encouraged when they see the High Priest bringing such an offering, reasoning that if G’d is willing to forgive the trespass of even such an highly placed individual as the High Priest, He would most certainly be willing to forgive ordinary people for their trespasses against Him. It was a well known fact that G’d relates more severely to people of distinction who become guilty of a sin than He does to ordinary individuals. This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 1,18 that “the amount of (G’d’s) anger is determined by the degree of wisdom (of the sinner).” The more wisdom one possesses the less forgivable is one’s sin. The best example in Scripture of the truth of this statement is Moses who was punished grievously for committing an error when striking the rock instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20,12).

With an unintentional act. I.e., first, the law was concealed from him and he ruled against the halachah, and then he personally acted according to his decision. However, if the kohein ruled for others and they acted according to his decision, the kohein is exempt [from bringing the sin-offering], because it is written, “[He shall bring] for his sin which he committed.”

. אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the anointed priest were to commit an inadvertent sin;” because he is the High Priest, his sin offering will reflect this and he will offer a bull instead of a female goat.”

פר A BULLOCK — One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בן, a young animal. If, then, it must be בן, a young one, I might think a very young animal is fitted too (this being also implied in the term בן)! Scripture, however, states פר! How is this to be reconciled? By explaining פר בן בקר to be a bullock of three years (which is neither too old nor too young) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7 and Note thereon).

Perhaps an old one? The verse says: “son.” Meaning: If Scripture had only written “a bullock,” I would think that even a four or five year old [was acceptable], therefore, it lets me know “son” — because everywhere it says “son” [it refers to] a two year old, as it is written (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf (בן בקר), for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering, unblemished ones.” So too, regarding years, just as the ram is two years old, the young calf is also two years old. If it said “son” [perhaps a young one?] Meaning: Now that it is written “bullock” and also “son of cattle,” perforce, it must be explained as a bullock close to [the age of] a “son,” which is three years old. You might ask: Rashi explains above (1:10): “And if ... from flocks of sheep” — “excluding [an animal too] old”? [Why is another exclusion needed here?] The answer is: I might think that Scripture excludes with regard to a burnt-offering, but with regard to a sin-offering, I might think even an old animal is valid. [Therefore,] the verse says: “son,” and not an old one (Re”m). This raises a difficulty: Rashi explains above regarding the burnt-offering (ibid.): “[From flocks,] of lambs, of goats” — “these [are three] limitations — excluding [an animal that is ill], one [that is] too old [to be offered], and one [that is] filthy.” Why is another exclusion needed here for offering an old one? Perhaps you will say: There, it is with regard to a burnt-offering and here it deals with a sin-offering, therefore it needs an independent [source of] exclusion. If so, however, it remains difficult: Scripture should have written here another exclusion for the one that is ill and one that is filthy. The answer is: With regard to being invalid because of illness or filth, which is repulsive, we can easily derive [the law of] a sin-offering from a burnt-offering, as it is logical to invalidate such an animal because of [the reason mentioned in Malachi 1:8]: “[When you offer a blind animal for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you]?” However, regarding the old one which is [merely] older than three years, it is not logical [that it should be invalid]. Rather, it is a Scriptural decree that it is invalid. [Thus,] I might think [it is invalid] only where the Torah reveals so. [Therefore,] Scripture lets me know that an [old] sin-offering is invalid as well (Divrei Dovid).

This raises the question why our sages could not have deduced this rule simply from the fact that the Torah has written about the bullock to be offered by the High Priest before it wrote about the bullock to be offered by the community in the event the latter committed an error? Perhaps the sages reasoned that if there were no other hint that the High Priest's bullock takes precedence except the fact that the paragraph about the High Priest sinning was mentioned first, we would have misunderstood the words לאשמת העם as a reference to the error the people had committed which is described in verse 13. That verse deals with the people having acted on the basis of an erroneous decision of the High Court. I would have thought that the reason the Torah described the High Priest's error as "the sin of the people" was because he had concurrred with the erroneous decision of the High Court, or had even been part of the Court which handed down the erroneous decision. Such an interpretation would be wrong. If the High Priest had been part of the High Court which handed down an erroneous decision, his atonement is part of the atonement of the whole people, i.e. he does not have to bring a bullock as an individual sin-offering (Horiot 7). The Torah commenced the sin-offering legislation with the High Priest in order that we should not arrive at an erroneous conclusion. In view of this I would not have been able to use the fact that the first paragraph deals with the sin-offering of the High Priest as proof that his sin-offering takes precedence even over the communal sin-offering. We are still faced with the problem why two separate exegetical comments were necessary to teach us this, a) the word ואם in verse 13, and b) the words כאשר שרף, in verse 21 (compare Torat Kohanim 255 on that verse). I believe that the reason there are two such exegetical openings is simply that if I had only had one, I would have reasoned that the High Priest's offering may be offered first, but does not have to be offered first. Seeing that the Torah provided us with two exegetical openings it is clear that the Torah considers the High Priest's offering taking precedence as mandatory. I have seen a comment by Korban Aharon who claims that unless I had both these expressions available for exegetical use I would have assumed that the High Priest's offering would take only partial precedence but that before he completed his offering one would start with the offering of the community. I do not see any merit in such reasoning. If the author of Korban Aharon were correct the Torah should not have written כאשר שרף את הפר הראשון, "the first bullock" in verse 21, but should have written את הפר האחד, "the one bullock." This would have indicated that the procedure of offering the bullock of the High Priest had not been completed as yet at that stage.

יחטא לאשמת העם, “so as to bring guilt on the people;” the High Priest may have given an erroneous halachic ruling, and the people, by following that ruling, all committed a sin by performing a forbidden act. We know that it was the duty of the people to accept the halachic rulings of the High Priest, seeing that the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 33,10: יורו משפטיך ליעקב, “they (the Levites) are to teach you (the people) your laws.”

לאשמת העם, so as to bring guilt on the people; we may understand this statement as parallel to what we are taught in Avot 5,18: that if someone is engaged in conferring merits on others he himself will not commit a sin. When the High Priest himself commits a sin, this is proof that the people did not enjoy sufficient merits by reason of his activities that it should have protected him against committing a sin himself. This is the meaning of לאשמת העם.

על חטאתו אשר חטא, “on account of his sin which he has sinned;” the word על occurs in this context also in Leviticus 1,4: לכפר עליו, “to make atonement on account of it.” Compare also Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for we are being killed on Your account all day long.”

Torat Kohanim interprets the words אשמת העם as providing us with a clue as to the nature of the sin on account of which the High Priest has to atone with the bullock as a sin-offering. The sin is described as העלם דבר, lack of knowledge of the correct religious ruling which resulted in the people violating a negative commandment involving an activity, as mentioned in verse 13. If all the High Priest had been guilty of was an erroneous activity, some hold that he would be required to bring the same kind of sin-offering as an ordinary individual, whereas others hold that he would not be culpable at all. We learned in Horiot 11 that the words מעם הארץ in verse 27 are proof that if the High Priest had been guilty of a personal sin consisting of a sinful act that he would be free of the obligation to offer a sin-offering altogether. According to Horiot 7 if the High Priest does not happen to be an outstanding scholar he is not required to offer a sin-offering of either kind, not for having committed a sinful act inadvertently nor for having handed down an erroneous ruling upon which the people acted. We need to understand the reason for such an halachah. Perhaps the reason is that if an erroneous ruling is handed down by a High Priest who also happens to be an outstanding scholar and upon whom the people place a great deal of reliance, such an error makes a deep impression on his soul, creating a distance between his soul and its holy roots so that the merits of the Israelites which he has been instrumental in securing for them is insufficient to protect him against harmful effects on his own soul. Such an effect would not occur when the High Priest only erred in personally committing an inadvertent sinful act, or even if a High Priest who was not presumed to be a scholar handed down an erroneous ruling. Such sins would not create the kind of distance between his soul and its holy roots that he would need to bring an additional sacrifice in order to re-establish the bonds with his soul's holy roots. The merits a High Priest confers on the multitude by means of his daily activities are enough to protect the soul of such a High Priest from major harm. G'd would not despise him on account of the error he committed. Furthermore, seeing that the High Priest's error did not involve the people, it does not leave such a deep impression on his soul.