레위기 4:37의 주석

'מכל מצות ה [IF A SOUL SIN IN ERROR] AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD — Our Rabins explained ( Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 7; Shabbat 69a) that a sin-offering (of which this chapter speaks) is brought only for such a thing the wilful committal of which is forbidden by a לאו (a negative command) and is subject to the penalty of excision).

IF A SOUL SHALL SIN IN ERROR. Since the process of thinking is centered in the soul, and it is the soul which commits the error,²⁹⁸Up to this chapter the subjects dealt with have been the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, and the peace-offerings — all of which are voluntary and are not brought for the commission of sin. Here the subject is the sin-offering which is brought as an atonement for a certain sin committed in error. See above, Note 68. Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). The reason for the offerings for the erring soul is that all sins [even if committed unwittingly] produce a particular “stain” upon the soul and constitute a blemish thereon, and the soul is only worthy to be received by the countenance of its Creator when it is pure of all sin. Were it not so, then all the fools of the world would be deserving to come before Him. It is for this reason that the erring soul brings an offering, through which it becomes worthy of approaching unto G-d who gave it.²⁹⁹Ecclesiastes 12:7. It is on account of this that Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). Our Rabbis have interpreted:³⁰⁰Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Nedabah 1:1. “‘Nefesh’ (A soul) — this [word is used to] include proselytes and slaves” [thus teaching us that they too are under the obligation of bringing this offering, since the term nefesh is inclusive of them as well].
Now in the case of the sin-offering of the anointed priest [first discussed here in Verses 3-12], He does not say “and [the priest] shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven,” as He mentions in the case of other sinners — namely, the whole congregation,³⁰¹Verse 20. the prince,³⁰²Verse 26. and the common man.³⁰³Verses 31 and 35. Perhaps the reason for this is that due to his great importance he cannot obtain atonement nor be forgiven completely until he prays and beseeches his G-d, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts,³⁰⁴Malachi 2:7. and he must be of clean and pure hands [so that he can never be reproached with anything; hence in addition to the offering he must bring, he must also pray especially for forgiveness].
Scripture does not mention here, when speaking about the bulls which were to be entirely burnt,³⁰⁵These bulls were the sin-offering for the anointed priest (Verse 3), and that of the whole congregation of Israel (Verse 14). After their fats were burnt on the altar, these bulls were taken outside the camp and completely burnt (Verses 12 and 21). This was unlike the procedure done to the sin-offering of the prince and the common man, of which only the fats were burnt on the altar, whereas the meat was eaten by the priests (further, 6:17-23). Hence the name given to the first two categories of sin-offerings [“bulls to be entirely burnt”]. that the burning of those portions offered on the altar is “of a pleasing odor,” or that it is “a fire-offering unto the Eternal.” The reason for this is that since part of them is burnt outside [the camp of Israel], it is therefore not for “the fire unto the Eternal.” In the case of the goat of the prince [which he brings as his sin-offering],³⁰⁶Verse 23. He mentioned “atonement” [and the priest shall make atonement for him]³⁰⁷Verse 26. but did not state that it is “a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,” because the offering is a sa’ir (a goat).³⁰⁸This is like the sa’ir brought in case of idol worship (Numbers 15:24) (Ma’or V’shamesh). See also Ramban at the end of 3:1. In the case of the sin-offering of the common person, He mentions that it is for a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,³⁰⁹Verse 31. but does not mention “a fire-offering,” for it is self-understood that it is such, since the whole purpose of the fire-offering is to the Eternal. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.

דבר אל בני ישראל, "speak to the children of Israel, etc." Torat Kohanim uses the expression בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles from offering sin-offerings in the event they violated any of the seven Noachide laws. This appears very difficult. Why should the idea that they could offer such sacrifices ever have arisen so that the Torah needed to refute it? If we would have made a comparison with the Gentile's right to offer free-will offerings, there is no comparison seeing that those offerings were not meant to achieve atonement as we know from Chulin 5 where the Talmud debated the source of denying the heretic the right to offer either total-offerings or sin-offerings respectively. The Talmud there makes it plain that the two kinds of offerings cannot be derived one from the other unless there was something in the text alluding to such entitlement. One argument used there is that if someone were denied to offer a free-will offering it does not follow automatically that he should be barred from offering a sin-offering seeing the latter is designed to help him achieve atonement. The same argument can be used here. As a result of such considerations, the Gentile would have been presumed as entitled to offer sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write בני ישראל, to exclude him from the privilege to offer such offerings. It appears to me that the need for this exclusion was accentuated by the word נפש which the Torah used in the very same verse in which it described who would be required (or entitled) to bring a sin-offering. The word נפש suggests that any human being is included in the legislation about to be unveiled. By writing first בני ישראל, the Torah enabled us to use the inclusive term נפש as including proselytes.

אשר לא תעשינה, all the negative commandments violation of which carries the karet penalty when the violation was deliberate. There are only two positive commandments for which there is a karet penalty, where for the mere deliberate omission of performing the commandment the penalty is equal to corresponding negative commandments. They are Pessach, failing to bring or participate in eating of that offering at the right time, and failure to circumcise oneself if this rite has not been performed on one as a baby.

נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “when a person commits a sin of commission inadvertently, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah prefaced this verse with the word נפש instead of the customary איש, is that we find when a person of no particular category is meant, that sin originates in our thoughts, and the biological soul, life force, is where our thoughts originate from, the Torah implies that the source of our sins lies not in a biological necessity, instinctive behaviour, but in our spiritual part. The rationale for the need of the person who has sinned inadvertently to have to atone by means of animal sacrifice, is that all sins bring in their wake stains which leave their marks on our souls, something which interferes with our ability to receive beneficial Divine input from celestial sources. Our personalities are only fully receptive to divine input when we can be described as ritually pure, in the sense of being free from unexpiated sin. To impress these thoughts upon us, the Torah chose the introductory word נפש here. Interestingly, in the case of the High Priest becoming guilty of any of the inadvertent sins the Torah does not mention in connection with the atonement for his sin the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, “he will provide atonement for him and it shall be forgiven to him.” Perhaps the Torah here hints at a criticism directed at the High Priest concerned, who, in spite of his stature, could become guilty of a sin caused by negligence. Possibly, for such a person the sacrifice will not obtain total forgiveness. The High Priest may have to add prayers asking G’d for forgiveness and apologising for being somehow remiss in his conduct before the balance of his guilt will be forgiven. Seeing that he has been likened to מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord of Hosts”, he needs to –allegorically speaking- have clean hands at all times. Some commentators see in the absence of the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, an allusion to the Talmudic rule (Baba Metzia 33) that שגגת תלמוד עולה זדון, “errors committed by a scholar are accounted as if they were deliberate,” because their standing in the community does not permit them to be careless.” When speaking of the פרים הנשרפים, the sin offerings by such High Priests, (Zevachim 5,2) and their being burned up, the customary statements that this will be a source of pleasant aroma, ריח ניחוח for Hashem, is missing, also indicating that the High Priest’s negligence has not yet been forgiven completely, even though he has offered the requisite offering.

A negative commandment and kareis. This excludes circumcision and Pesach, which only have kareis [but are positive commandments; also, not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment alone, such as not harvesting the corners of the field, and most of the Torah’s other negative commandments]; and not something which is a negative commandment and punishable by execution by a Beis Din, but not kareis, such as one who strikes his father or mother, one who kidnaps an Israelite, or the rebellious elder; and not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment and has the penalty of kareis, but it does not involve an active deed, such as one who curses his father, conspiring witnesses, a blasphemer, a sorcerer, an enticer or one who causes others to worship idols, or a false prophet. All these were learned from what it is written [regarding idol worship] (Bamidbar 15:29): “One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently,” and it is written (ibid. 30): “But if a person should act highhandedly (intentionally) ... [and that soul shall be cut off from among its people].” The Torah compares (hekeish) all the inadvertent transgressions of the Torah and the inadvertent transgression of idolatry in that they are liable for its intentional violation the penalty of kareis and for its unintentional violation, a sin-offering.

נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “if someone commits a sin inadvertently;” it is noteworthy that the verse does not commence with the word: אדם, “a human being,” as it does in Genesis chapter one verse two, where it describes someone feeling the urge to offer a sacrifice to the Lord. When the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 18,4, writes about the same subject, he too commences by referring to the subject as נפש, i.e. the animalistic part of our soul. The point that is being made in both these verses is that a sin can only be the product of the animalistic life force in our body, not the spiritual part that G–d blew into Adam’s nostrils when the result was his becoming a human being, אדם. (Compare Genesis 2,7 where he is then described as נפש חיה, “a living creature,” not just as נפש.) The creature described as נפש, is by definition mortal, as is clear from the verse quoted from Ezekiel 18,4, where the prophet concludes with the word: תמות, “it is bound to die.” Consider the following parable: two subjects had each committed a trespass against their king. One is an ordinary citizen, whereas the second one was one of the people engaged by the palace where he made his living. They were both arraigned for judgment. The King decreed that the ordinary citizen was to be released forthwith, whereas he imposed a painful penalty for the member of the palace staff who had committed a similar offence. The other members of the palace staff were very disturbed when they observed that their colleague had been singled out for harsher punishment. They questioned the king about this. The King told them that the first citizen, being a stranger, was not familiar with the good qualities of the king. He could therefore be forgiven for having committed this trespass. The palace employees, however, who were well aware of all the king had done for them, could not be forgiven for having trespassed against his rules instead of being especially careful not to commit such an offence. The same applies to creatures who possess only a body, i.e. who though human, did not have a Divine soul, which made them part of the heavenly regions, i.e. they are part of the staff of G–d’s Palace. They are charged with ensuring that their “uniform,” the soul, is in a state of purity at all times. As a result of this difference, the bodies who did not receive a נשמה, a soul from heaven, when they die are buried and this is all. Human beings endowed with a heavenly soul, however, come up for judgment to determine if the G–d given soul is being returned in the condition it had been given to them.

כי תחטא בשגגה, “if you transgress a law inadvertently; sin offerings as a form of atonement are acceptable only when that sin had not been committed deliberately. Deliberately committed sins cannot be atoned for by that method. [There are some exceptions. Ed.]

מאחת מהנה — The prefix in מאחת, being the partitive מ, suggests: even if one infringes only a part of one of them. as, for instance, if one writes on Sabbath the two letters שם of the name שמעון having intended to write the whole word, or the letters נח of the word נחור, or דן of דניאל (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 1 4; Shabbat 103b).

מאחת מהנה, our sages in Torat Kohanim under the heading of חובה, consider this to mean “part of a whole,” as for instance the letters שם of the name שמעון, i.e. if one intended to write the name שמעון but was interrupted after having written the first two letters, seeing that they make sense one is liable for having performed the whole אב מלאכה of “writing.”

Noach of Nochor. Because it is written, “from one [of these],” it implies that even a part [of one of them]. We should not say [that one who writes on Shabbos] even one letter, because we derive from the word “one” as well, i.e., as if Scripture wrote, “one,” which would imply [he writes on Shabbos] the entire name. Therefore, [in resolution] we say that he is liable only if he writes Shem of Shimon, which is both, a whole name in itself, and also part of another name.

The obvious question is why the Torah did not simply omit both the words בני ישראל and נפש, and I would have excluded the Gentiles and included the proselytes? What possible reason could there have been to exclude the proselyte from the privilege to offer a sin-offering that prompted the Torah to write a word designed to include him? This is no objection as we find that the Torah had included proselytes already in 1,2 where the Torah used the term אדם, and this term included proselytes. We would naturally have assumed that proselytes were included only in the right to offer burnt-offerings but not sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write the word נפש in our verse to tell us that proselytes have the right to offer sin-offerings. Unless the Torah had also excluded the Gentiles by the restrictive term בני ישראל, one could have argued that proselytes did not need to be specifically included as they had already been included at the beginning of the portion with the word אדם. I would then have concluded that the absence of any further restrictive clause indicated that the Torah has no objection to Gentiles offering sin-offerings. We have now learned that the word נפש here, though inclusive, includes only the proselyte and that the inclusive term אדם at the beginning of our portion was not sufficient seeing the privilege of offering a sin-offering is a far greater privilege than that of offering a burnt-offering. The very fact that a separate paragraph was needed to sanction the offering of sin-offerings altogether indicates that it is a great privilege to be allowed to atone for a sin by offering a sin-offering (only). This privilege could not have been derived merely by exegesis, but needed to be stated outright. Moreover, it appears that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that the words בני ישראל exclude Gentiles is not based on these words being superfluous, but rather on their plain meaning, i.e. "Jews and not Gentiles." The moment we accept this, the implication is that only natural-born Jews are subject to the legislation in this paragraph as the expression "children of Israel" refers to direct descendants of the patriarch Jacob. If the Torah wanted to include proselytes also, it had to write the word נפש in order for us to understand this beyond doubt. Having said this you will appreciate that though the expression בני ישראל in the whole Torah is not understood as available for exegetical purposes but as telling us to whom the respective legislation is addressed, it excludes Gentiles automatically.

מאחת מהנה, “of one of these;” the first letter מ in this expression is unnecessary, whereas the second letter מ introduces examples. An example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 4,9: כעם ככהן, “ordinary people (will fare) as well as priests.” Another such construction can be found in Kings II 3,7: כמוני כמוך, כעמי כעמך, כסוסי כסוסיך, “I will do what you do; my troops will be your troops; my horses will be your horses.” A third example of such a construction is found in Psalms 139,12: כחשכה כאורה, “darkness is like light.”

נפש, a person. Torat Kohanim views this word as including proselytes in the group of people entitled to offer sin-offerings. If the Torah had intended to also include women, the Torah should have written אדם כי יחטא as the term אדם includes males and females seeing the Torah referred to both males and females by the collective term אדם in Genesis 5,2.

A moral-ethical meaning of the term נפש as used in this paragraph may be the following. The soul of a human being becomes defective when its owner has sinned intentionally. This is why sinners are referred to as "dead" even while they are still "alive," as we know from Ezekiel 18,32: "for G'd does not desire the death of the dead, etc." The sinner is referred to by the prophet as dead already seeing he no longer has a soul. Solomon refers to something similar in Proverbs 23,2 "if you are someone possessed of a נפש, soul." Our verse tells us that even sins committed inadvertently result in damage to one's soul. While it is true that such inadvertently committed sins do not destroy the soul completely, nonetheless the Torah requires a sin-offering in order for the damage to that soul to be repaired. The offering of that קרבן, the sacrifice whose purpose it is to re-establish the affinity of the soul with its origin, enables the diseased soul to be infused with the spiritual values which will heal its wounds. The same result cannot be achieved if someone who had sinned intentionally were to offer such a sacrifice seeing he had already forfeited his soul. There is nothing left that can be reconstituted until the sinner repented and experienced the beneficial effect of the Day of Atonement, as pointed out by Ezekiel 18,32 והשיבו וחיו, "when you return and cause others to return so that you may live."

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.

'לפני ה, “before the Lord;” i.e. on the north side facing the entrance to the Tabernacle.

וסמך את ידו, “and he is to place the weight of his body with his hand;” no heaving or libations are required with this offering.

אל אהל מועד‎ [AND THE PRIEST … SHALL BRING IT] TO THE APPOINTED TENT — to the Tabernacle — and, later, in the House of Eternity (the Temple at Jerusalem), into the Heichal (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:43).

To the Heichal. This does not refer specifically to the Mishkon, but rather the same applies to the Beis HaMikdosh, as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13): “He has defiled the Mishkon of Adonoy,” and afterwards it is written (v. 20): “For he has defiled the Mikdosh of Adonoy.” Our Sages derived from this (Shavuos 16b): If it says Mishkon, why does it say Mikdosh? And if it says Mikdosh, why does it say Mishkon? Rather, it applies the laws of this to that, and of that to this. Perforce, there is no difference between them, but only that Scripture uses the term Mishkon because it was in existence at that time. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain this above (1:3) with regard to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting? [The answer is:] Because there it refers to the courtyard, and the term “courtyard” applies equally to the Mishkon and the eternal house [Mikdosh]. However, the term “Tent of Meeting” is applicable only to the Mishkon, and the holiness of the Mishkon was exchanged for the holiness of the eternal house, for this one’s holiness was temporary and this one’s holiness is eternal, [thus, it was necessary to explain that although this is so, the mitzvah of ‘bringing’ applies to them both].

ולקח הכהן המשיח מדם הפר, “the High Priest is to take some of the blood of this bull;” the expression לקח both here and again in Exodus 24,6 [in the past tense, i.e. ויקח] teach us that just as in Exodus Moses used a bowl in which the blood was placed, so the High Priest here is also supposed to place that blood in a bowl first.

את פני פרכת הקדש [AND THE PRIEST SHALL … SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE קדש — i.e. before that spot where it is exceedingly holy — exactly in front of the space between the staves of the Ark (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 3 10). The blood did not touch the Partition Vail (since he was standing some distance off), but if it happened to touch it, then it touched it, (and it did not invalidate the ceremony) (Yoma 57a).

In front of the space between the poles. Otherwise, why does it say “the Holy [Curtain]”? Rather, [it comes to teach us that] the sprinkling is valid only on the spot exactly in front of the space between the poles of the Aron HaKodesh, and not any other place along the Curtain’s width.

את פני פרכת הקדש, “in front of the veil of the Sanctuary.” In verse 17, where we have a similar procedure, the adjective “holy” after the word: פרכת is missing. Why is this? Is it not the same curtain? It is to teach us that if only the High Priest has committed a sin, the presence of G–d does not depart, but if an entire congregation commits a sin, that presence goes into “hiding,” i.e. people forfeit the privilege of G–d ”dwelling” on earth within the Tabernacle.

וטבל, והזה, “the priest will dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle;” every sprinkling of the blood has to be preceded by the priest dipping his finger in the blood;

Not touch. [Rashi knows this] since it is not written, “on the Holy Curtain,” implying even without touching.

אצבעו, “his finger”; this finger is mentioned both here and again in Leviticus 14,16. Just as in that verse the right index finger is the one to be used, so here too he is to perform this procedure with the index finger of his right hand. (Sifra)

שבע פעמים, “seven times.” He is to count seven times during this procedure, not the way the High Priest does during the sprinkling on the Day of Atonement, (Sifra, here) where he counted:; “one, plus seven.”

שבע פעמים, seven times.” The number seven occurs on many separate occasions repeatedly in matters involving heaven. There are seven constellations of major stars, we speak of seven layers of the heavens, and the earth, correspondingly, is referred to by seven different names, i.e: ,ארץ, אדמה, ארקא, חרבה, יבשה, תבל and חלד There are seven deserts mentioned in the Torah; there are seven “worlds,” (i.e. G-d created seven universes, and destroys six of them) compare (Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer) the week has seven days, we count seven years of the sh’mittah cycle, seven times seven for the Jubilee cycle. The candlestick in the Temple had seven lamps. Bileam, the sorcerer, built seven different altars. (Compare more on this in Avot de Rabbi Natan, chapter 37.)

ואת כל דם AND ALL THE BLOOD — i. e. all the remainder of the blood (since part of it had already been sprinkled) (Zevachim 25a).

לפני ה׳ אשר באהל מועד before the Lord who is in the Tent of Meeting, etc. In answer to the question why the Torah had to write the words "before the Lord" which had already been written in verse 6, Rabbi Nechemyah in Torat Kohanim says that seeing that we find that Aaron stood beyond the golden altar on the Day of Atonement when he sprinkled the blood on the dividing curtain, we could have assumed that the same procedure was to be followed here. The Torah therefore had to make clear that only the golden altar was "before the Lord," not Aaron. This suggests that except for the fact that the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement was sprinkled towards the dividing curtain, the words "before the Lord" in our verse would be superfluous. This is difficult. How would I have known where Aaron was to have stood if the Torah had not written the words "before the Lord?" Seeing that in that event the Torah had not designated a specific spot where Aaron had to stand to perform the sprinkling ceremony, I would have concluded that he had the choice of standing either in front of the golden altar or beyond it. The Torah therefore had to write the words: "in front of the Lord," to tell us that Aaron was to stand in front of the altar. Why was all this necessary? Because we find that there was another occasion when he was to stand beyond the golden altar. Another difficulty is this: why would I assume that Aaron was to perform the ritual of sprinkling the blood towards the dividing curtain while he was standing so far away that the altar was between him and the dividing curtain? Perhaps the words are to tell us that he was to sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing in front of it (facing the dividing curtain)? Seeing that in Leviticus 17,18 the Torah describes Aaron as exiting the Holy of Holies in the direction of the golden altar while putting some of the blood of the bullock on its corners, maybe the Torah wanted to tell us that the same procedure should be followed here, i.e. that when Aaron was to put the blood on the corners of the golden altar he was to do so while having his back to the dividing curtain and facing outwards before pouring out the excess blood at the base of the copper altar? As far as the sprinkling of blood towards the dividing curtain was concerned, however, this should take place when Aaron stood between the golden altar and the dividing curtain? If we had had no other detail than this to worry about, we could have answered this problem.

The remaining blood. Although he already sprinkled from it, it is called “all the blood.” This teaches that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the bullock’s blood, as if it says: All the bullock’s blood he shall receive, and afterwards sprinkle. After the sprinkling, he pours the remaining [blood].

'על קרנות מזבח הקטורת הסמים לפני ה, “on the horns of the altar of sweet fragrances, in front of the Lord.” This does not mean that the priest is standing before the Lord, as he is standing in front of that altar when he sprinkles, and both the altar and the dividing curtain separate him from the Holy Ark in the Holy of Holies.

However, I have seen that the same Rabbi Nechemyah speaking of the meaning of the words "and Aaron shall exit towards the altar which is in front of the Lord" (Leviticus 16,18), questions the meaning of these words. He answers that we find in connection with the bullock which Aaron has to offer concerning all the other inadvertently committed sins that he had to stand on the far side of the curtain with the altar between him and the dividing curtain. I might have concluded that he was to follow the same procedure also with the bullock on the Day of Atonement; therefore the Torah had to write the word ויצא, etc. Where did Aaron stand on that occasion? לפני השם, in front of the Lord." Thus far Rabbi Nechemyah in Torat Kohanim item 45 on 16,18 (item 45). It is difficult to understand why Rabbi Nechemyah had to find justification for the words of the Torah in that verse. Surely the Torah had to inform us (or the High Priest) that the High Priest had to leave the place he stood on and not sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing between it and the dividing curtain. Besides, the Torat Kohanim claims that the only reason we know where the High Priest stood at the time was that the Torah describes him as in the process of exiting towards the golden altar when he sprinkled blood on the dividing curtain. Furthermore, according to what Rabbi Nechemyah said that the words ויצא אל המזבח are not needed seeing that we now learned where Aaron was standing from the words לפני השם in 16,18 instead of as he said in our verse from the words לפני השם in 4,7. Rabbi Nechemyah glibly assumed that the High Priest would have stood outside the altar when sprinkling the blood of the bullock towards the dividing curtain when he performed this procedure on occasions other than the Day of Atonement. Where is there an indication in the text that this was indeed the case? If he were to use the words לפני השם to prove this theory, perhaps those words referred to the need to sprinkle some of the blood onto the altar itself which is the plain meaning of the verse! Besides, if the Torah had omitted both the words ויצא אל המזבח and the words לפני השם, how would I have known where Aaron was to have stood? How could Rabbi Nechemyah therefore even ask what these words were supposed to teach us?

Actually, the exegesis of Rabbi Nechemyah in both parts of Torat Kohanim is most appropriate. Had the Torah not written the words ויצא and not the apparently superfluous words לפני השם, I would simply have concluded that Aaron was free to sprinkle both onto the dividing curtain and onto the altar regardless of whether he stood between the altar and the dividing curtain or between the entrance to the Sanctuary and the golden altar. The Torah mentioned in connection with a wrong decision rendered by the High Court and acted upon by the community that a bullock had to be offered by the High Priest and that the blood was to be sprinkled as atonement on the golden altar (according to the plain meaning of the verse). The Torah also mentioned the golden altar as recipient of the blood of the bullock offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement as evident by the words ויצא אל המזבח. These facts established a halachic linkage between these two bullocks and the procedure to be followed concerning them. Not only this, but in both instances the Torah also speaks of the blood requiring to be sprinkled either upon or in the direction of the dividing curtain which is beyond the golden altar. Logic would have told us that the procedure prescribed in chapter 16 must be similar to that prescribed in chapter 4, i.e. that the sprinkling of the blood towards the dividing curtain was to be performed from a position beyond the golden altar, closer to the dividing curtain. We would then have made a מה מצינו kind of exegesis from what was missing in the information described in chapter 4, 13-21 by referring to chapter 16, 3-20. Rabbi Nechemyah tells us in Torat Kohanim that the words לפני השם are intended to prevent us from arriving at such a faulty conclusion. He asks rhetorically: Why were the apparently superfluous words לפני השם written seeing we would have used the same words in 16,18 and have applied them in our verse here? After all, we already know that the golden altar was used for sprinkling of the blood of the bullock offered as a sin-offering by the Torah writing ויצא אל המזבח. The words לפני השם could most certainly not be used to teach us that the High Priest was not to sprinkle the blood of the bullock on the copper altar seeing that altar was outside the Sanctuary. We are therefore back to the question what precisely the words לפני השם have been written for in our context seeing everything else could have been derived from the legislation about the bullock on the day of Atonement. Rabbi Nechemyah answers all these questions saying that the words לפני השם prove that the Torah did not want us to apply the מה מצינו type of exegesis by comparing the procedure to be followed with the bullock in our paragraph to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement. The essential difference between these two procedures involving the bullock as a sin-offering on the Day of Atonement and that in our chapter is, that there is no mention of the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain by the High Priest while the latter is standing between the altar and the Holy of Holies in our verse. This is in contrast to the bullock to be offered on the Day of Atonement, where there is specific mention of this. Had I derived the various procedures applicable to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement, I would have also had to apply the detail of where the blood was to be sprinkled from the procedure outlined in chapter 16. The appearance of the word לפני השם in our verse teaches me not to derive any למוד from the bullock used on the Day of Atonement, be it the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain or the sprinkling of the blood of that animal on the altar. Seeing this is so we would not have had any source upon which to base an assumption as to where the High Priest was to stand during the procedure of sprinkling the blood in the direction of the dividing curtain involving the פר העלם דבר, i.e. the bullock in our chapter. It seems clear therefore, that the words לפני השם must refer to the golden altar and not to the place where the High Priest was standing during all the sprinklings mentioned in our verse. Rabbi Nechemyah explains the words ויצא אל המזבח in 16,18 as follows: "What do these words teach us, i.e. what is the plain meaning of this verse?" Answer: "That the High Priest should not commence the sprinkling of the remaining blood on the altar until he has passed the golden altar on his way out of the Sanctuary." This teaches by inference that prior to that the High Priest had performed the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain while standing between the golden altar and the dividing curtain.

[Although the author continues to dissect the exegetical comments by Rabbi Nechemyah still further, I have decided to omit further details seeing we have shown how he solved the main problem. Ed.]

ואת כל חלב פר [AND HE SHALL TAKE UP …] ALL THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK — It ought to have said “its fat” (since the פר has just been mentioned); why does it state expressly “the fat of a bullock [of a sin-offering]” (i.e. any bullock brought as a sin-offering)? In order to include also the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).

The bullock of Yom Kippur. Re”m writes: They taught the same in regard to “He shall spill all the bullock’s blood” — It should have stated [“its blood,”] etc. Rather, [it comes] to include the bullock of Yom Kippur for spilling [the blood]. Rashi, however, only brings what they derived from the verse: “And all the fat of the bullock,” but I do not know why. It appears that it is because it is a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, as cited in the Yalkut on this Parshah (pg. 157, see there). (Minchas Yehudah). Rashi did not bring this because in Zevachim (25a) they derived another matter from this verse — that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the blood of the bullock (Gur Aryeh).

החטאת — [THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK OF] THE SIN OFFERING (implying, the fat of the bullock because it is a sin-offering) consequently serves to include the goats brought as a sin-offering for idolatry (Numbers 15:24) in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe of the liver (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1; cf. Note on the previous passage).

The goats of idolatry for the kidneys. This is [Rashi’s] text in Toras Kohanim, but our version is: “To include the goats of idolatry for all that was stated in this matter.” [You might ask: They said the goats of idolatry] although there is only one goat [brought as the sin-offering] for idolatry! It is brought together with the bullock burnt-offering, as it says in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 14:24), for an anointed kohein who inadvertently violated idolatry brings a goat like an ordinary person. The answer is because all the tribes, each one separately, would bring a bullock for their burntoffering and a goat for a sin-offering for the [transgression of] idolatry violated due to the inadvertently incorrect ruling of the Beis Din. If so, there were twelve goats, as we find in Horiyos (4b and 5a) (Re”m).

ירים ממנו AND HE SHALL TAKE FROM IT [ALL THE FAT] — from. “it”, i. e. from the bullock — consequently he must take it (the fat) whilst it is still connected with it (the animal), — that he must not dismember it before removing the fat from it. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).

From that which is still attached. And the meaning of “from it” is when the bullock is still whole.

כאשר יורם AS IT WAS TAKEN [FROM THE OX OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS] — i. e. from those fat portions which are specified in the case of an ox brought as a sacrifice of peace-offerings. But what is specified in the case of a sacrifice of peace-offerings that is not specified here? Nothing at all! (Cf. Leviticus 3:3—4 with here.) What then is the force of the words כאשר יורם? But they are intended to declare it analogous to the peace-offerings: What is the case with שלמים? They must be burnt as such! So, too, must this be burnt as such!) And again what is the case with שלמים? They are intended to promote peace for the world! So, too, is this intended to promote peace for the world (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 2). In the Treatise on “the Slaughtering of Sacrifices” it (the passage 'כאשר יורם וכו‎) is stated to be necessary to deduce from it the rule that in the case of sacrifices we can derive no law from a law which is itself only derived from a text, and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This is to be found in the chapter beginning with the words איזהו מקומן (Zevachim 49b).

But what was explained. Meaning: Just as it specifies all the fats with regard to the peace-offering, it also specifies them here regarding the bullock of the anointed kohein.

כאשר יורם, “as it is lifted off;” Rashi explains that the Torah had to spell out the “heaving” of the fat pieces of the High Priest’s sin offering in order that we learn from this that the same procedure also had to be performed in the case of the ox that was a peace offering. (Leviticus 3,310) Why did also the same procedure have to be spelled out again in verse 20 of our chapter instead of the Torah simply writing: “as in that instance?” What was different here from there? How could we make a legal comparison that had not been spelled out from a verse in which it had itself not been spelled out, i.e. seeing that in verse 20 the Torah only writes: “as he had done, etc.,” without saying what he had done in that other instance? According to our author rule number three out of 13 rules of how to interpret the written Torah, by Rabbi Yishmael, does not apply when the Torah deals with the subject of קדשים, offerings presented in the sacred precincts of the Temple.

על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו — All these words (על) are an expression denoting an addition — they meat: as much as “besides”.

Just as peace-offerings [must be offered] for their own sake. As it is written (3:1): “If his offering is a peace-offering...” Perforce, the Merciful One [in the Torah] is particular that the offering must be offered for the sake of a peace-offering.

כאשר יורם משור זבח השלמים, “as it is taken off the ox of the sacrifice of peaceofferings;” the reason why the Torah used this example to compare this offering to, is to teach that it too is instrumental in restoring peace between Israel and G-d, as opposed to comparing it to peace offerings consisting of sheep, which are communal offerings, as in Leviticus 23,19.

Law from a law. Meaning: Since the bullock of the matter concealed from the community (v. 13) was needed to teach about the goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry with regard to the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, in that they are compared through a hekeish to one another regarding the burning of the inner parts, as it says in Zevachim (41a). However, Scripture does not write the lobe of the liver and the kidneys in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [itself]. Instead, [they are derived] through a hekeish from the bullock of the anointed kohein, where it is written (v. 20): “He shall do to the bullock [the same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock.” And [the Rabbis] taught [in a Baraisa]: “To the bullock” — this is the bullock of the matter concealed from the community; “To the sin-offering bullock” — this is the bullock of the anointed kohein: Just as the bullock of the anointed kohein has the two kidneys and the lobe included its inner parts [that are burnt on the altar], so too the bullock of the matter concealed from the community. And [since] we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture], Scripture was therefore required to write the verse: “In the same manner as they were separated” regarding the bullock of the kohein, even though it is not needed for itself, to say: If it is not needed for itself, it should be applied to another matter — the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [and it will be considered as if it was written explicitly in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community]. We learn from this that if it were not written clearly [by the bullock of the matter concealed from the community], the [law of the] goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry could not be derived from the bullock of the matter concealed from the community, since a matter that was itself derived through a hekeish cannot go back and teach [about something else] through a hekeish.

על ראשו ועל כרעיו, “with its head and its legs.”

וקרבו ופרשו, “as well as its entrails and its excrement.”

אל מקום טהור [EVEN THE WHOLE BULLOCK SHALL HE BRING FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP] UNTO A CLEAN PLACE — Because there was outside the city (Jerusalem) a place intended for depositing unclean things viz., to cast there the plague-stricken stones (cf. Leviticus 14:45) and to serve as a place of burial, Scripture was compelled to state regarding this term “without the camp” — which in the case of Jerusalem, is identical with: “without the city” — that the place where it was to be burnt shall be a clean one.

אל שפך הדשן, seeing that the Torah writes in Leviticus 6,4,והוציא את הדשן אל מחוץ למחנה “he shall take the ashes outside the encampment,” the Torah here had to tell us where the ash was stored.

אל שפך הדשן ישרף אותו, “on the place where the ash is poured and burn it.” The Torah commanded that the burning of this sin offering including its skin must be performed outside the precincts of the Temple so that it would be observed by the public at large. This would show the people that even a High Priest would acknowledge that he had sinned and ask G’d to forgive him.

Beyond the three. [Rashi knows this] from what is written here: “Encampment,” and later on in this section it is written (v. 20): “[The same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock, so he shall do to it,” and then it is written (v. 21): “He shall take the bullock outside, beyond the encampment.” Why is this needed? Obviously, it is extra, in order to derive from it one more encampment. [That it should be beyond] the third encampment is derived from what it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:4): “He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment.” It should only say: “He should take out the ashes,” and I would know that it is beyond the encampment, because it is written in our section: “Beyond the encampment, to a pure [undefiled] place, where the ashes are thrown,” [thus,] this [the place where the ashes are thrown] is outside the encampment. Obviously, it is [also] extra, to derive from it another encampment. Thus, [we derive that he takes it out] beyond three encampments. The three encampments are: The encampment of the Divine Presence, from the entrance to the courtyard and within. From the entrance to the courtyard to the entrance to the Temple Mount is the Levites’ encampment, and from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the city gate is the third encampment. Beyond the city gate is outside of three encampments.

והוציא את כל הפר, “he is to remove the entire bull, etc.” this teaches that he has to do so before the animal has been cut up into pieces; in other words: the head with the legs need to be cut up of this animal outside the sacred precincts.

מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i. e. without the three camps (מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה ומחנה ישראל) ; and, in the case of the “House of Eternity” (the Temple), it was to be brought forth without the city, just as our Rabbis have explained it in Treatise Yoma 68a and in Treatise Sanhedrin 42b.

Outside the city. This raises a strong difficulty: There is no difference between the eternal house and Shilo, and the other places, for in every place where the Ark was located there were three encampments. The Gemara says [the same] clearly in Sanhedrin 42b, see there. The answer is: Perhaps it is a textual error and it should say “And in Jerusalem” (Nachalas Yaakov). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reserve the verse’s order to explain first “to a pure place” and then, “beyond the encampment” — “beyond the three encampments”? [The answer is:] This is to say: How do we know that the explanation of “beyond the encampment” is “beyond the three encampments”? Therefore, Rashi explains [first] “to a pure place” — Since there is a place prepared for impurity outside in which they throw out stones stricken with plague, and that is certainly outside of three camps. This is because the stricken house was inside the city, and it was necessary to take it outside. If so, when it is written: “beyond [the encampments],” it means beyond the three encampments, which is outside the city (Gur Aryeh).

אל שפך הדשן means: to the place where the ashes that were removed from the altar were cast, as it is said (Leviticus 6:4) “and he shall bring out the ashes without the camp”.

A place. I.e., this does not refer to the ashes that were lifted from inner consumed parts, which are the ashes from “when the fire consumes the burnt-offering on the altar” (6:3) each day [i.e., the trumas hadeshen], for those ashes were not thrown out beyond the encampment. Rather, he would rake a full pan of ashes each day and place it in the courtyard on the ramp’s eastern side, as it is written (6:3): “And he shall separate the ashes...”

על שפך הדשן UPON THE PLACE FOR SHEDDING THE ASHES [SHALL IT BE BURNT] — This is something which need not have been stated (since it says immediately before, that it shall be brought forth to this spot), but it is intended to teach that even if at the time there happen to be no ashes there, the bullock shall nevertheless be burnt there (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 5 5; Pesachim 75b).

There are no ashes there. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the verse’s repetition is to [make it] an absolute requirement, that if there are no ashes there, it is invalid? (Re”m). The answer is: It should only say: “It shall be burnt upon the ashes.” Why [does it say:] “It shall be burned where the ashes are thrown”? Rather, it must be [that it teaches he burns the bullock] upon the place of the ashes although there are no ashes there at all.

עדת ישראל [AND IF THE WHOLE] CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL [ERR] — This is the Great Sanhedrin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 4 2; cf. Horayot 4b).

in the event the Supreme Court issued an erroneous decree, a very remote chance, ישגו ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל, although this court is to function as עיני הקהל, “the watchful eye of the community,” not only did they fail to protect their community from sinning but they did not even succeed in preventing themselves from committing such an error. Nonetheless the Torah attributes such an error by the Supreme Court as ואשמו, “they sinned,” the “they” being the congregation which is held responsible if their “seeing eye” fails. The Torah here warns of the need to do teshuvah, i.e. all those concerned, before proceeding with the sacrifice, as the sacrifice would be useless unless all the people had confessed their errors. Seeing that the combined guilt of the Supreme Court and the people of their generation is severe, the blood of the atonement is sprinkled on the dividing curtain inside the sanctuary and the sin offering is burned up on the altar completely.

ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, And if the entire community of Israel shall err, etc. The word עדת, "community of" is taken by Torat Kohanim as referring to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. The word עדה in this verse and the word עדה in Numbers 35,24-25 both are a reference to the Sanhedrin of 71 sages. The word ישראל is presumed to mean the Court which is unique to Israel, i.e. the Court comprising 71 judges. The word ישגו teaches that the legislation introduced here applies only if the Court erred in its judgment and the people acted upon that error in judgment. If the members of the Court themselves acted upon their faulty judgment this is still no reason to apply the legislation stated in this paragraph seeing that the Torah writes הקהל ועשו, "and the community did accordingly." Thus far the Torat Kohanim.

ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, “and if the entire assembly of Israel err, etc.” The “assembly” referred to in our verse is the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court. It could not be otherwise, as it is quite impossible for the entire Jewish nation by themselves to commit the same sin by mistake. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah added the words ונעלם הדבר מעיני העדה, “and the matter became obscured from the eyes of the congregation.” The Supreme Court, prophets, and Torah scholars are traditionally regarded as “the eyes of the congregation.” An example of this is found in Isaiah 29,10: “and has shut your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.” Isaiah makes it plain that the prophets are the eyes of the people.
We also have a statement by our sages (Sifra, Vayikra 4,2) to that effect where we are told: “I might have supposed that here we are talking about the entire community; to ensure we do not misunderstand the Torah wrote the words עדה, whereas in Numbers 35,24 the Torah also used the word עדה, when describing judgment being pronounced on a murderer; just as there the word עדה refers to a court and not to the whole people, so here too the Supreme Court is meant and not the whole people.” Just as in that instance a court comprising not less than 23 judges is meant, so here too a court of not fewer than 23 judges is meant. What then is the precise meaning of the words כל עדת ישראל? It means a congregation peculiar to the Jewish people, i.e. the great Sanhedrin which had its seat on the Temple Mount.

The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this through a gezeirah shavah:] because it says here “עדה (congregation)” and it says later “עדה” (Bamidbar 35:24-5): “Then the congregation shall judge... The congregation shall protect”: Just as עדה that is mentioned later refers to the Beis Din, so too עדה that is mentioned here refers to the Beis Din. And since it says: “Congregation of Yisroel,” perforce [it is referring to] the special congregation of the people of Yisroel, which is the Great Sanhedrin that sits in the Chamber of Hewed Stone.

ונעלם דבר AND A THING (a matter of law) WAS HID [FROM THE EYES OF THE ASSEMBLY] — i. e. they (the Synhedrion) erred, deciding in respect to one of all those acts for which excision is, according to tradition), implicitly mentioned in the Torah that it is permissible (Horayot 8a).

That the community acted according to their decision. The word הקהל (the community) is linked to the previous phrase and to the next phrase. [It is linked to the previous phrase, as follows]: “And the matter was concealed from the eyes of the community” — which is the Great Sanhedrin; they decided against the Halachah and said to the nation: “You are permitted.” [And it is linked to the next phrase:] “The community and they did” — that the community acted according to their decision. In such a case the Great Sanhedrin bring a young bullock...

A moral-ethical approach to this verse considers the word ישגו as referring to Israeli society committing moral errors and departing from Jewish norms. As a result of such conduct it would follow that the Jewish Supreme Court will also hand down faulty judgments as the judges and their Torah knowledge reflect the level of the people whom they represent. They are to blame for the people straying as they had not used their authority in controlling public morals. It had been their duty to discipline the individuals who were responsible for a trend away from traditional Jewish values. We have the example of Abbaye in Gittin 60, who erred in a ruling as he had not first obtained permission from his teacher to issue a ruling. We have been told this specifically in Sanhedrin 5.

הקהל ועשו — [AND THE THING BE HID FROM THE EYES OF] THE ASSEMBLY AND THEY HAVE DONE — It means that the assembly did according to their (the Sanhedrin’s) decision (cf. Horayot 2a).

WHEN THE SIN WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED IS KNOWN [THEN THE ASSEMBLY SHALL OFFER A YOUNG BULLOCK …]. It is self-understood that they cannot offer a sin-offering until they know that they have sinned. [So why does Scripture mention it?] But it is a linguistic expression of the [Hebrew] language to say, “and when it becomes known to them that they have sinned, they should bring their offering.” Therefore He did not mention it [in Verse 3] in the case of the anointed priest, because there was no need for it. It is possible that [the reason why the verse says, when their sin wherein they have sinned is known, is not merely as a linguistic expression but to indicate] that the assembly is not obliged to bring this sin-offering unless they have definite knowledge of their sin but not if it is merely a doubt, as in the case of the suspensive guilt-offering.³¹⁰The asham talui (suspensive guilt-offering) is brought in case of doubt about one of those major sins for which the penalty if committed wilfully is excision, and a sin-offering if committed unintentionally. This offering is called a suspensive guilt-offering. An example of a case of a doubt which calls for such an offering is the following. Suppose a person has before him two pieces of fat, one of which is Scripturally-forbidden food, and the other is permitted to be eaten, and he eats one of the two [whilst the other is eaten by another person or lost]. A doubt then arises in his mind as to whether the piece he has eaten was the permitted or the forbidden food. In such a case he must bring an offering so as to effect atonement, and this is called a suspensive guilt-offering. If it is later established that he ate the forbidden fat, he must then bring a sin-offering (See Maimonides, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 79-80). The point Ramban makes thus is that the verse before us teaches that the sin-offering of the assembly can be brought only when it is definitely confirmed that it has sinned [unintentionally], unlike the suspensive guilt-offering of the individual which is brought in case of doubt. Our Rabbis have interpreted,³¹¹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah 4:12; Horayoth 5a. [that the verse says, the sin … is known, to teach that] “if the court knew that they had given an [incorrect] decision [on one of two kinds of forbidden food, such as fat and blood, declaring that one of them may be eaten], but did not know which one it was that they permitted, [and the people had eaten both], I might think that the court is obligated to bring a sin-offering [as they usually are when they give an incorrect decision which the people followed]. Scripture therefore says, when ‘the’ sin wherein they have sinned is known — not when only the sinners are known.”³¹²In that case “the sinners” are known [i.e., it is known that the majority of the people relied on the mistaken decision and ate one of the forbidden foods, under which circumstances the court usually must bring a sin-offering for their mistaken ruling]. The particular “sin,” however, is not known, since the court does not know which of the forbidden foods it was that they incorrectly ruled to be permitted. In such a case, this verse teaches us that they do not bring a sin-offering. Horayoth 7b. This is not mentioned in the case [of the sin-offering] of the anointed priest, since He said there: If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people,³¹³Above, Verse 3. thus declaring [the law of the sin-offering of] the anointed priest to be like that of the public.

ונודעה החטאת, “when the sin becomes known, etc.” Nachmanides derives from this that the sinner is not to offer a sin offering until the precise nature of the inadvertently committed sin has become known to himself. It is not unusual for the text to speak in generalities, so that we might have thought that others having heard or seen the sin committed in question is sufficient cause for the sinner to have to bring this offering. Possibly, the intent of the verse is to inform us that unless there is definitive knowledge that the sin has been committed, no sin offering is called for, or even approved.

את פני הפרכת [AND THE PRIEST SPRINKLE IT …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL — But above (v. 6) Scripture states את פני פרכת הקדש? A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king against whom the country revolted. If it is only a minority of it that revolts his council (familia) still exists, but if the whole country revolts his council no longer exists. So, also, here: When the anointed priest alone sinned, the appelation of sanctity that is attached to the place still remains on the Sanctuary, but as soon as all of them have sinned the holiness, God forbid, disappears (Zevachim 41b).

את פני הפרכת, according to the plain meaning of the text the פרכת the Torah speaks of here is the dividing curtain between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. If, in verse 6, this dividing curtain was called פרכת הקודש, this may mean that the sprinkling of the blood had to be aimed at the middle of the curtain, i.e. at the area beyond which stood the Holy Ark, inside the Holy of Holies.

והזה שבע פעמים לפני ה' את פני הפרוכת, “he is to sprinkle (the blood) seven times before the Lord, before the curtain.” When describing a similar procedure performed with the sin-offering of the High Priest, the Torah wrote את פני פרוכת הקודש. What is the difference? We may again use a parable to illustrate the difference. When a king faces the rebellion of a small number of his subjects, his regime and his ministers will endure. If all his subjects rebel his regime will topple. As long as only the High Priest was guilty of a sin, the matter is not serious enough for the inner Sanctum, i.e. Dividing Curtain and what is beyond to lose its “holiness,” i.e. symbol of the kingdom. When the whole people rebelled, i.e. the entire Jewish nation was guilty of a sin of disloyalty, the “Dividing Curtain” could no longer be described as “holy”; its whole function had been undermined. By omitting mention of the adjective “holy” when speaking about the Dividing Curtain the Torah alluded to this difference.

יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT ALL THE BLOOD AT] THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF THE BURNT-OFFERING WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — this is the base on the west side, for it was that which was opposite to the entrance of the tent (cf. Zevachim 51a).

Opposite the entrance. Otherwise, why does it say “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 7) regarding the bullock of the anointed kohein? The answer is: Rashi explains here that this refers to the western base [to let us know that spilling the blood there impedes. We should not say that he spills the blood there only] because he first passes that side when he exits the Tent of Meeting after completing the sprinklings inside, for the reason that we do not pass over mitzvos. Therefore, the second verse comes to teach us that this is the requirement of the mitzvah, and it is not because of the rule that we do not pass over mitzvos. Rashi in Zevachim (51a) answers in a different way as to why “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” is repeated a second time, and we can resolve it differently based on his answer.

ואת כל חלבו ירים AND HE SHALL TAKE ALL HIS FAT — Although it does not expressly mention here the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys as portions that were to be taken (as it does in the case of the anointed priest’s sin-offering, v. 9) they may be derived from the statement (v. 20) “And he shall do with the bullock as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering]”. But why are they not expressly mentioned? It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael: A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king who was angry with his friend and abridged the account of his offence because of the affection he bore him (Zevachim 41b). (Similarly Scripture does not give in detail all the rites that have to be carried out when the whole of the nation sins.)

והקטיר המזבחה, “and make it smoke on the altar.” The expression ריח ניחוח, “of pleasing odour,” is missing here as when an individual of high rank sins, G–d is more harsh than He is with average people.

ועשה לפר AND HE SHALL DO WITH THE BULLOCK — with this bullock —כאשר עשה לפר החטאת AS HE DID WITH THE BULLOCK FOR A SIN-OFFERING – i. e. as is expressly set forth in the case of the bullock of the anointed priest. This statement thus serves to bring under the command of offering the fat portions the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys which are not expressly mentioned there but which are not expressly mentioned here; and it serves also to repeat the command referring to these rites, teaching thereby that if he (the anointed priest) omitted one of all the applications of the blood it (the sacrifice) becomes invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 6 5). Since we find in regard to blood which had to be placed on the outer altar, that if he places it there by one application alone he nevertheless effected atonement (cf. Mish. Zevachim 4:1), Scripture was compelled to intimate here that the omission of one application impedes the validity of the rite (Zevachim 39a).

This. Rashi adds the word “this” to the word “bullock” because if the first [sacrifice] was a goat or sheep, it would be correct to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the goat or sheep.” It is not correct, however, to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the bullock.” Because of this, Rashi added the word “this.” Also, it is not correct to say, “He shall do to this bullock as he did to the sin-offering bullock,” unless the word “first” is added [i.e., “as he did to the first sin-offering bullock]. For this reason, Rashi needs to say: “As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” [which takes the place of the word “first.”] [Also,] so that we should not err and say perhaps it refers to another bullock, such as the bullock of Yom Kippur, although it has not yet been mentioned, Rashi therefore adds [“As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” in place of] the word “first.”

The lobe and two kidneys. Rashi mentioned: “To include the kidneys and the lobe,” and did not mention the fats, because all of them are included in the statement: “He shall burn all its fat,” and this is according to [Rabbi Yossi]. I have already explained this above (v. 10) with regard to what Rashi explains: “And [it is taught] Shechitas Kodoshim, etc. that we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture].” What Rashi writes: “And to repeat, etc.” is according to the Tanna Kamma in Toras Kohanim and not according to Rabbi Yishmael (Re”m).

To teach that if he omitted. This is its explanation: We also learn from it, i.e., from: “He shall do to the bullock...” that he should sprinkle the blood as he sprinkles the blood regarding the sin-offering bullock. You might object: It says clearly that he sprinkles the blood! Therefore, Rashi explains that it repeats twice [to teach] that if he omitted [one of all the applications...] (Minchas Yehudah).

With one application he has atonement. It atones even with only one application, i.e., with one sprinkling he achieves atonement, and it does not impede atonement [although most sin-offerings require two applications that are four in direction]. On the inner altar, however, [if he lacks one of the required sprinklings] it does not achieve atonement for him.

אשר נשיא יחטא — The word אשר is connected in meaning with ‎‎‏אשרי “happy”. Happy is the generation whose prince (king) takes care to bring an atonement sacrifice even for an inadvertent act of his; how much the more certain is it that he will do penance for his wilful sins (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 5 1; Horayot 10b)

ASHER’ A PRINCE SINNETH. “The word asher is [here] derived from the expression ashrei (happy). Happy is the generation whose prince brings an offering for atonement [even] for his error.³¹⁴Our Rashi adds: “How much the more certain is it that he will do penance for any sin he committed wilfully.” [Torath Kohanim].³¹⁵Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah 5:1. 23. ‘O’ HIS SIN BE KNOWN TO HIM — ‘if’ his sin be known to him. There are many verses where the word o (or) is used in the sense of im (if), and conversely where im is used in the sense of o. Similarly, ‘o’ it be known that the ox was wont to gore³¹⁶Exodus 21:36. [means ‘if’ it be known, and the word o which ordinarily means ‘or’ is here used in the sense of ‘im,’ meaning ‘if’].” Thus the language of Rashi.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “The sense of asher nasi yechta is as if the expression were inverted, making it read: asher yechta nasi (if ‘he who sins is the prince’), and it is connected with [the section] above, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err.³¹⁷Verse 13. It is thus as if He had stated here: ‘and if he who sins is the prince [and he knows it of himself], or his sin be made known to him by others.’ Scripture, however, adopts a short form of expression, [omitting to state ‘that he knows the sin himself,’ or that it was made known to him ‘through others’], but the meaning is that either it becomes known to the prince by himself that he sinned, ‘o hoda eilav’ (or it be made known to him) — i.e., that another man who saw him doing it informed him of it. The grammatical form of hoda is then a past causative [like hodi’a — a man ‘informed’ him], this being similar to ‘v’heitzar lecha’³¹⁸Deuteronomy 28:25. [the meaning of which is as if it said ‘v’heitzir lecha’ in the causative, i.e., and he will besiege thee]. The subject, however, is missing [for it should have said here, or ‘another man’ inform him, and there it should have stated, and ‘the enemy’ will besiege thee], just as ‘asher’ bore her to Levi”³¹⁹Numbers 26:59. [which should have read ‘asher ishto’ (whose wife) bore her to Levi]. [All these are the words of Ibn Ezra.].
But there is no need for all this, since the uses of the word asher are many. In some cases it indicates time, such as: ‘ka’asher’ (when) Joseph came unto his brethren;³²⁰Genesis 37:23. ‘ka’asher’ (when) they had eaten up the corn,³²¹Ibid., 43:2. and the like. Similarly, here too [asher is like ka’asher and indicates time]: ‘when’ a prince sinneth, with the kaf of cognizance [which would make it ka’asher — “when”] missing. So also, The blessing, ‘asher’ ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the Eternal,³²²Deuteronomy 11:27. means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye shall hearken. ‘Asher’ ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more,³²³Exodus 14:13. means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye have seen them [today ye shall see them no more]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread ‘asher’ I commanded thee,³²⁴Ibid., 34:18. means ‘ka’asher’ (when) I commanded thee. At times this word [asher] is missing [not a kaf but] a beth. Thus: And also Maacah his mother he [King Asa of Judah] removed from being queen, ‘asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah³²⁵I Kings 15:13. means ‘ba’asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah, which denotes “because,” just like, ‘ba’asher’ (because) thou art his wife.³²⁶Genesis 39:9. The expression o hoda eilav [is thus not a causative, as Ibn Ezra would have it, which would make it to mean “or that it was made known to him by another person;” rather, it] refers to the guilt, stating that when a person will do any one of all the things which the Eternal his G-d hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty,³²⁷Verse 22 here. and deserving of punishment, or it be known to him and he will achieve atonement by means of an offering. The sense of the verse is thus: “he will either be guilty [and deserving of punishment], or bring an offering and he will be forgiven.” The reason for the expression: the Eternal his G-d, is to state that even though he is the king, and the lord upon whom there is no fear of mortal man, he is yet to fear the Eternal his G-d, for it is He who is the Lord of lords.³²⁸Deuteronomy 10:17. Similarly, that he (the king) may learn to fear the Eternal his G-d,³²⁹Ibid., 17:19. means that the king is to take to heart [the knowledge] that there is a Supreme One above him, Who is his G-d and in Whose power is his life and kingdom.

אשר נשיא יחטא, When the prince (or king) commit an error, etc. This includes a situation where the ruler acted on the basis of a decision handed down by a properly constituted court. As long as the court is not guilty of a sin-offering on account of its decision, the ruler has to bring a a male goat as a sin-offering (Maimonides Hilchot Shigegot 15,8).

אשר נשיא יחטא, the word אשר in this verse is similar to the word ואשר in the line ואשר ניתן כתר מלכות בראשו, which means וכתר מלכות אשר נתן בראשו, and the crown of the Kingdom which he had placed on his head. (Esther 6,8)

אשר נשיא יחטא, when the King (or political head) sins; there is no conditional word אם, “if,” i.e. the Torah considers it as almost a given that the political head of the people will become guilty of at least an inadvertent sin. Moses describes such a likely scenario as the result of the people enjoying good times, when he says in Deuteronomy 32,15 וישמן ישורון ויבעט, “when Yeshurun waxed fat it kicked. ואשם, he realised himself that he had sinned; it did not have to be brought to his attention by others. או הודע לו, or his sin had to be brought to his attention by others. The vowel cholem on the letter vav substitutes for the vowel shuruk which would have made it clear that it is a passive mode.

אשר נשיא יחטא, “when the political head of the nation commits an inadvertent sin, etc.” Rashi explains that it is a happy day for the people of Israel when a political head of the nation is called upon to bring this offering [It shows that such a head does not consider that he is infallible, and that he accepts admonitions by his subjects. Ed.] Ibn Ezra feels that the text is inverted and should be understood as if the Torah had written; “when a political head sins, etc.” The whole verse is a continuation of what has been written before, i.e. “in the event that the entire community of Israel has committed an inadvertent sin, etc.” The word אשר, according to Ibn Ezra, is not a statement of fact, but is conditional just as the word אם.

אשר נשיא יחטא, “when a prince (king) will sin inadvertently,” The word אשר in this instance is the same as if the Torah had written אם, “if a prince has sinned, etc.” We find the word אשר substituting for the word אם also In Deut. 11,27 את הברכה אשר תשמעו, “the blessing, if you will listen, etc.”

An expression of “fortunate is...” Meaning: This is because the verse [began with אשר and] did not begin with the usual “If (אם) a leader sins,” as it is written, “If the anointed kohein...” and “If the entire congregation...” This is the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai in the Gemara (Horiyos 10b). [It is written] in the Zohar (Vayikro pg. 38-9): “Rabbi Yitzchok taught... ‘If a leader sins’ — because he was haughty... Rabbi Yehudah taught...” It appears that he does not disagree with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai. Rather, it is only that the verse does not depart from its plain meaning, as Ibn Ezra explains: “If a leader sins. Reverse it: [אשר יחטא הנשיא]. It is connected to what it states above: “If the entire congregation,” as if it says: “If the one that sins is the leader.” If so, according to the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai alone it should say: “ואם אשר נשיא יחטא” because אשר is extra, rather, it is an expression of “fortunate.” From the fact it is not written אם, it includes here that it comes to hint that he will surely sin, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yehudah. But according to their words alone, it is difficult: Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of G-d. You might ask: Why according to the Ibn Ezra is it not written אשר יחטא נשיא; why did it reverse the order? The answer is: As it says in Horiyos (10b), it comes to teach that this [offering] should not be brought for previous sins, for if he sinned and then was appointed leader, he brings like [the offering of] an ordinary person, as it is written: “אשר נשיא יחטא,” that he sinned when he was [already] the leader (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

אשר נשיא יחטא, “when the secular head of the nation commits an inadvertent sin;” the construction אשר נשיא יחטא, instead of: נשיא אשר יחטא, also occurs in Esther 6,8: ואשר נתן כתר מלכות על ראשו, where we would have expected the sequence of וכתר מלכות אשר נתן בראשו, “and the crown of the Kingdom which had been placed on his head.”

מצוות ה' אלוקיו, i.e. if he is a G’d fearing individual and has not sinned deliberately but inadvertently.

מכל מצוות ה' אלוקיו, “of any of the negative commandments of his G’d.” Although up until now the Torah also spoke of violations of G’d’s commandments, the words מצוות אלוקיו underline that even the High Priest and the king, or other political leader, who owe obeisance only to G’d and not to a terrestrial ruler, need to be reminded by the Torah that they must always remain in awe of Hashem. He is the Supreme authority, including that of the King and High Priest. 4,23, או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him. Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.

או הודע is the same as “IF” (אם‎) [THE THING] WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — There are many passages where או is used in the sense of אם, and again where אם stands in the place of או. A similar instance is: (Exodus 21:36) “או נודע כי שור נגח הוא”, which means “if it was known that the ox was wont to thrust” (cf., however, Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon).

או הודע, as if the Torah had written: אם הודע “if he became aware.” This is the conventional exegesis of these words. Personally, I feel that the line commences with the word ואשם from the last verse, so that the meaning would be that the individual committed an offense and it was brought to his attention by others.

או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him. Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.

או הודע אליו חטאתו, or he has become aware of his inadvertent sin, etc. The Torah here writes "or" seeing in the previous verse it had written ואשם, that he was definite about having sinned. Torat Kohanim concludes that the ruler has to bring an אשם תלוי, a conditional sin-offering, if he is in doubt about having committed the sin in question. Our verse may discuss a situation where after having first offered an אשם תלוי while he was in doubt, the ruler now has to offer a definitive sin-offering as he is now certain that he committed the sin he had been in doubt about.

או הודע אליו, “or it has become known to him;” the Torah uses the singular mode here as well as in verse 28 where the individual who has become guilty of a sin is the leader of his tribe. Some commentators, including Rashi, understand both these verses as applying to people who at the time when they committed the trespass were convinced that what they did was perfectly permissible. Others understand the word או here to mean the same as אם, “if.” However, the author of the commentary b’chor shor of blessed memory, writes that seeing that both ordinary individuals as well as the leader of a tribe have to bring an asham taluy, sin offering of a suspended nature, [arresting potential punishment, until the doubt has been resolved, Ed] when in doubt if they had committed a certain sin. Our verse deals with that doubt having been resolved so that a sin offering to atone for a definitely committed sin is now required. The same situation also applies to verse 27 in this chapter, where the verse following deals with the situation after it has become clear. The author of בכור שור quotes as proof for his interpretation Torat Kohanim on the words: ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, “from amongst one of G–d’s commandments that must not be violated.” (verse 27) The author of that volume understands the word ואשם at the end of that verse as indicating that this asham taluy is not appropriate in that situation. When a community has become guilty of such a sin and a doubt arises, no asham taluy is required. This is based on the fact that when the Torah discussed the situation requiring it, it had spoken of נפש כי תחטא, “if an individual had committed a sin.” When the High Priest had committed a sin, this is linked to a trespass by העם, “the people,” and this is the reason why the situation described as “or he had become aware of it,” is not mentioned there, as if the High Priest had been in doubt and everything he does, he does as the representative of the people, such an asham taluy was not appropriate.

הודע אליו IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — when he committed the sin he was under the belief that it was something permissible, afterwards it became known to him that it was a forbidden thing.

במקום אשר ישחט את העלה [AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT] IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY SLAUGHTER THE BURNT-OFFERING — on the north side of the altar which is expressly mentioned in the case of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:11) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 5).

In the north. You might ask: It already says in Parshas Tzav (6:18): “In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered”! The answer is: This establishes an obligation — that it should be slaughtered only in the north, and if it is not slaughtered in the north, the offering is invalid.

במקום אשר ישחט את העולה, “at the same place as he has to slaughter the burntoffering.” This was done in order not to embarrass a sinner, so that the people would think he is presenting a burnt offering.

חטאת הוא IT IS [TO BE] A SIN-OFFERING — Consequently, if he slaughtered it for the purpose of (i. e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid, but if it is not done for this purpose (i. e. that the officiating priest had another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 6; Zevachim 10b; cf. also Rashi and Zevachim 5b).

Not for its sake, it is invalid. Meaning: We derive this since it is written “הוא (it is),” because הוא implies that it is as it should be, i.e., one should bring in the first place for the sake of a sin-offering. If it is not as it should be, however, because it was slaughtered for the sake of a burnt-offering, it is entirely invalid.

ואת דמו [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT] THE BLOOD — i. e. the remainder of the blood (cf. Rashi on v. 7).

AND THE REMAINING BLOOD THEREOF SHALL HE POUR OUT AT THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING. This is the same altar already mentioned [in the first part of the verse: and he shall put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering]. But such is the linguistic expression of the [Hebrew] language to mention the subject instead of [merely] the definite article [thus repeating “of burnt-offering” rather than just saying “the altar”]. Similarly, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and he shall slaughter the bullock.³³⁰Above, Verse 4. Our Rabbis have Midrashic interpretations on these verses, for the law of the Eternal is perfect,³³¹Psalms 19:8. there being nothing in it which is omitted or redundant.

מזבח העולה , the altar outside the sanctuary. This blood was not to be smeared on the interior altar as was the blood of the sin offering of the High Priest, or that of the sin-offering on behalf of the community at large. (verse 16-17).

The remnants of its blood. But not all of its blood, because he already put some of it on the corners of the altar.

על קרנות מזבח העולה, “on the horns (corners) of the altar for burnt offerings.” When either the High Priest or the community offers a sacrifice (sin offering), the blood for the atonement through these sacrifices is considered before the Almighty as if it had been offered inside the Sanctuary and having been sprinkled on the dividing curtain and on the golden altar. By the same token, the sins for which atonement had been sought may be perceived as if they had been cast out even beyond the three Camps of the Israelite nation, all according to the severity of the sin to be atoned for. If either the secular head of the people or another person find themselves in the same position, seeing that they are not so highly ranking individuals do not bother to offer the required sacrifice and do not consider either the blood of it or its entrails etc, the blood of their sacrifices is offered on the altar in the courtyard of the Temple, and the meat of these sacrifices may be consumed. (based on B’chor shor end of Vayikra)

כחלב זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL CAUSE ALL ITS FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES], AS THE FAT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i. e. as those fat portions which are specified in the case of the goat that is mentioned among the peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:14, 15).

A goat. Rashi said “as those parts (אימורים)” instead of “as that fat” which would be understood [more directly] from the word [in the verse] “as the fat,” because Scripture does not intend to specify the fats. This is because the phrase, “all its fats” [already] includes all the fats. Rather, the verse’s intention is to add the lobe and the kidneys, which are not included in the statement, “all its fats.” Rashi [then] says: “which are detailed regarding a goat which is discussed [in the section dealing with] the peace-offering” because the peace-offering of a sheep also includes the tail fat among the אימורים, but the sin-offering of the leader is a goat, which has no tail fat.

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.

או הודע אליו, “or it had been brought to his attention;”

כאשר הוסר הלב מעל זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT] AS THE FAT IS REMOVED FROM OFF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i.e. as the fat portions of the goat which are mentioned in the case of peace offerings (cf. previous verse).

והקטיר המזבחה, “and make it smoke on the altar.” The expression ריח ניחוח, “of pleasing odour,” is missing here as when an individual of high rank sins, G–d is more harsh than He is with average people.

ואם כבש יביא קרבנו, And if he bring a lamb for his offering, etc. Why did the Torah have to make two separate paragraphs out of verses 27-31 and 32-35? Why did the Torah not simply state in the previous paragraph that the individual inadvertent sinner who is the subject in both paragraphs has the choice of bringing either a ewe or a she-goat to serve as his sin-offering? This would have eliminated the need for the entire paragraph commencing with verse 32? I believe that the reason why the Torah chose to write a separate paragraph is the same as why the Torah saw fit to write the paragraph starting with 3,6-11 and a separate paragraph commencing with 3,11-17 when the peace-offering consists of a she-goat. Torat Kohanim on 3,12 (item 185) explained all that. In our instance when the Torah speaks of sheep and goats as sin-offerings rather than as peace-offerings as in chapter three, the Torah (4,31) speaks of separating and burning up on the altar all of the fat of the she-goat sin-offering, comparing it with 3,9 where the fat-tail of sheep is included in the parts to be burned up as a peace-offering. In the case of a sin-offering consisting of a sheep, all of the fat parts are to be offered on the altar (4,35) including the fat-tail. We could not have derived the legislation pertaining to voluntary peace-offerings from legislation describing what is to be done with the same kind of animal when it is offered as a mandatory sin-offering.

Concerning the words וסמך את ידו, that the owner- sinner has to place his weight on the sin-offering prior to its being slaughtered, something that I would have derived from the same rule pertaining to the she-goat sin-offering, Torat Kohanim uses the superfluous words as applying to sin-offerings by a Nazirite or a person struck with Tzora-at after he has been declared healed. Both of these people have to bring a mandatory sin-offering at the end of the term of Nazirism or when the affliction has disappeared (compare Numbers 6,14, and Leviticus 14,11). In either instance the Torah did not mention the need for the person who obtains atonement by means of that offering to perform the rite of placing his weight on the animal. Therefore, the superfluous words וסמך ידו in our verse are used as applicable to those sin-offerings. ושחט אותה לחטאת, and he is to slaughter it to be a sin-offering. Zevachim 7 derives from these words that the act of slaughtering must be accompanied by the intent that the animal in question become a sin-offering. This is another detail which could only have been derived by the repetition of this sentence. In the previous paragraph these words were needed for the plain meaning of the verse. You may learn from this verse that this rule applies both to the sin-offering of a she-goat and that of a ewe. במקום אשר ישחט את העולה, in the place where he (the priest) is to slaughter the burnt-offering. Zevachim 48 asks: "whence do I know that the sin-offering had to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar? Answer: Leviticus 4,33." The Talmud goes on to ask: "granted that this is true of the slaughtering; whence do I know that this is not only an initial requirement but is mandatory? Answer: "from the additional and otherwise superfluous words במקום אשר ישחט את העולה." Again we have proof that the verse had to be written in two separate paragraphs (29 and 33). The Talmud there goes on to demonstrate that this requirement applies as a mandatory requirement to all categories of sin-offerings. מדם החטאת, from the blood of the sin-offering, etc. Torat Kohanim derives from this superfluous repetition (compare verse 30) that the receiving of the blood into the receptacle provided for this was mandatory. The same kind of exegesis is used to derive halachot from every single repetition in these two paragraphs.

אותה ‎‏ושחט‎ ‎לחטאת‎ AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT FOR A SIN-OFFERING — This means that its slaughtering shall be for the purpose of (with the intention of making it) a sin-offering (Zevachim 7b).

כאשר יוסר חלב הכבש [AND HE SHALL REMOVE ALL THE FAT THEREOF] AS THE FAT OF THE LAMB IS REMOVED — the fat portions of which have been augmented by the addition of the fat-tail (cf. v. 9): thus, too, does a sin-offering, whenever it is brought as she-lamb, require the fat-tail to be removed together with the other fat portions (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 11 4).

כאשר יוסר חלב הכשב, the fatty part fo the sheep’s tail, opposite the rump, עצה.

On the fires which are made for, Hashem. Meaning: [This does] not [mean he shall burn the fats] on the fire that descends from Heaven, which in actuality is a “fire of Hashem,” for that fire was one, and in the verse it is written: “The fires of Hashem,” [i.e.,] those which are made for Hashem [by human effort].

על אשי ה׳ means upon the fire-pyres which are made for the Lord; foailles in O. F.

That is that He commanded us that the court should offer a sacrifice if they erred in a directive. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And if the whole community of Israel has erred, etc." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Horayot and Zevachim. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 2.)

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.)