Komentarz do Kapłańska 5:15

כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).

AND HE SHALL BRING ‘ASHAMO’ (HIS GUILT-OFFERING) UNTO THE ETERNAL. This offering is called asham (“guilt-offering” — as distinguished from the sin-offering), just as He has said [here in the verse] after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt-offering. But he shall bring ‘ashamo’ unto the Eternal³⁵¹Above, Verse 6. In this case the word ‘ashamo’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.” mentioned above in the case of the offering of higher and lower value means, “and he shall bring his offering unto the Eternal,” for that offering was a sin-offering, as He said, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering.³⁵¹Above, Verse 6. In this case the word ‘ashamo’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.”
Now it has not been explained why the name of one offering is “a sin-offering,” and that of the other, “a guilt-offering,” since they both come to effect atonement for sin! We cannot say that the reason is since the sin-offering is a female [unlike the guilt-offering which is male, and therefore the word asham which is masculine cannot be applied to the female sin-offering], for there are sin-offerings which are male — namely the goats [brought as sin-offerings in case of the public worshipping idols,³⁵²A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid., Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. or the usual sin-offering of the prince],³⁵²A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid., Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks [brought by the anointed priest as a sin-offering,³⁵³Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid., Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). as well as his bullock on the Day of Atonement].³⁵³Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid., Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). Again, it cannot be said that [the guilt-offering is so called] on account of the severity of the sin [for which it is brought], for behold, the leper brings two offerings — the name of one being “the sin-offering” and the name of the other, the “guilt-offering!”³⁵⁴Ibid., Chapter 14, Verses 12 and 19. How could one person have a simultaneous liability to bring these two offerings?
It appears to me that the term asham denotes some serious deeds for which the person who did it deserves to be shameim (ruined) and destroyed because of it, similar to the expressions: ‘ha’ashimeim’ (destroy them), O G-d;³⁵⁵Psalms 5:11. the pastures of the wilderness waste away.³⁵⁶I have found no such verse. Possibly it is a paraphrase of the verses in Jeremiah 9:9-10, where the prophet bewails the emptiness of the destroyed pastures of the wilderness, and predicts that the cities of Judah will be sh’mama (wasted away). Thus both phrases occur in juxtaposition, and Ramban deduces therefrom the underlying idea of the root shamam. Perhaps it is a combination of Isaiah 24:6 [where the word vaye’shmu — “and they wasted away”] and Joel 1:19 [where the pastures of the wilderness] are mentioned. So also: ‘Te’sham Shomron’ (Samaria shall be laid waste), for she hath rebelled against her G-d,³⁵⁷Hosea 14:1. and we are ‘asheimim³⁵⁸Genesis 42:21. Thus in place of the usual translation “we are guilty” [concerning our brother] Ramban interprets it to mean “we are being punished” on account of our brother. — means “we are being punished.” The word chatath (sin) denotes something which has turned aside off the way, this being of the expression, every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not ‘yachti’ (miss).³⁵⁹Judges 20:16. Now the guilt-offering for robberies,³⁶⁰Verses 21-25. and the guilt-offering for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage³⁶¹Further, 19:20-22. would then be called asham [indicating a serious sin] because they have to be brought even for wilful commission of the sin. So also the asham (guilt-offering) of the Nazirite [which he brings for becoming defiled by a dead body, even if his defilement was caused wilfully,³⁶²Numbers 6:12. Kerithoth 9a. and is therefore deserving to be shameim — destroyed]. The guilt-offering for misusing sanctified objects,³⁶³Verses 15-16. however, even though it is brought only when the sin was committed in error, yet because it concerns the holy things of the Eternal, it is called asham, because the great sin that he did makes him deserve to be shameim (destroyed) because of it, even as it is called me’ilah (treachery).³⁶⁴'Ki thim’ol ma’al’ (if any one commit a treachery) (in Verse 15). The reason for the name [asham] of the leper’s offering³⁶⁵The leper’s first offering [on the day he is cleansed] is the guilt-offering (further, 14:12). After that he brings a sin-offering (ibid., Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term asham, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (ibid., Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is because a leper is regarded as dead,³⁶⁶Nedarim 64b. and thus he is shameim (ruined) and destroyed. The leper’s first offering, then,³⁶⁵The leper’s first offering [on the day he is cleansed] is the guilt-offering (further, 14:12). After that he brings a sin-offering (ibid., Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term asham, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (ibid., Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is called asham in order to protect him from the guilt for which he is “ruined,” and the second is the sin-offering which effects atonement for his errors.
The reason for the suspensive guilt-offering³⁶⁷See Note 310 above. is because the owner thinks that he is not liable to be punished [since his sin has not been confirmed]; therefore Scripture was more severe with him in the case of his doubt than in that of certainty [of sin], requiring him to bring a ram of the value of shekels of silver,³⁶⁸Verse 15. — I.e., two s’laim. See also Rashi on Verse 18 [speaking of the suspensive guilt-offering]: “a ram … with thy valuation — according to the value stated above” [in Verse 15, i.e., at least two shekels]. whilst if the sin is confirmed, he brings a sin-offering which could be worth only a danka [a small Persian coin — the sixth of a denar]. Scripture calls it asham in order to say that it must be worth two s’laim just like the graver guilt-offerings [i.e., like the guilt-offering brought for appropriating sanctified objects, and that brought for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage, which must be worth at least two s’laim], thus indicating to the sinner [since he is in doubt as to whether he has sinned], that if he treats it lightly and will not bring his [offering for] atonement, he will be destroyed by his sin. This is the sense of the verse, ‘Asham hu, ashom asham lashem’ (It is a guilt-offering — he hath surely incurred guilt before the Eternal).³⁶⁹Verse 19. That is to say, although this offering is brought only on a doubtful sin, it is a guilt-offering, for he has surely incurred guilt before the Eternal Who knows all hidden things, and if indeed he did sin before Him, He will requite him. Similarly, that which He said above, and he shall bring his guilt-offering,³⁷⁰Above, Verse 6. The question arose (see Ramban at beginning of this verse), why the Torah calls it ashamo (his guilt-offering) when it is really a sin-offering — Ramban now proposes to answer that “it is because etc.” is because among those sins mentioned above are also those which require the bringing of an offering even when they are committed wilfully, such as for the “oath of testimony; ”³³²The section here discusses the offering of higher or lower value (see above, Note 15), the verse before us stating that this offering is required in the case of a false oath concerning testimony. Thus, if the person interested in the evidence called upon him by an oath, adjuring him that if he knows any evidence favorable to him he should testify before the court, and he swore that he knows of no testimony concerning him, when in fact he does know, in such a case, if he swore either unintentionally or wilfully, he must offer what is called an offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 82-83. In the following verse another transgression for which this offering is required is mentioned. — Ramban now proceeds to explain the sense of the triple expression, and he is a witness, or knows, or saw. therefore He mentions the term asham with reference to them although the offering is called a sin-offering.
Also by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], a female offering for a sin is called chatath (sin-offering), and the male offering is called asham.³⁷¹In other words, the determining factor for the difference in the names between the chatath and the asham is whether the offering is male or female. For the fuller mystical implication, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 26. The goats³⁵²A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid., Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks³⁵³Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid., Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). [even though they are male] are also called chatath (sin-offering), because they are brought [as an atonement] for sin.
Tzav

'מקדשי ה, deriving beneficial use from something belonging to the Temple treasury, i.e. אשם מעילות.

והביא את אשמו לה', “and he is to present his guilt offering to Hashem.” Nachmanides explains that the reason why this offering is called אשם, “guilt,” although it is not of the same type of animal (rather a female of the species of sheep or goats and only worth one shekel, or even less for the poor who bring birds) as the ones mentioned in our verse and worth at least 2 shekel, is that it is not the same as the sin-offering of which the Torah spoke in verse 6 and it is offered as expiation of guilt. The offering mentioned in verse 6 is actually a sin offering, and the word אשמו used by the Torah there does not refer to the name of the offering, but describes the reason, i.e. the guilt of the party who presents this offering. In trying to understand why one of these types of offerings is called חטאת whereas the other is called אשם, seeing that both are designed to atone for sins committed, Nachmanides speculates that the word אשם implies a major guilt, whereas the word חטאת, related as it is to the causative החטיא, suggests that the guilty party aimed at what he should have aimed at, but he missed the target through lack of concentration or through not taking proper aim. This would explain why a more expensive offering, without allowance for sinners who are in financial distress being made is required, whereas when the basic offering is described by the Torah as a חטאת, this involves a transgression which G’d views more leniently. Misappropriating Temple property, even when using it, does not diminish its value, disregarding laws of ritual purity involving either sacred locations or sanctified food is certainly not a simple carelessness, seeing that the nature of the sites or meats demand especial care. Nachmanides continues examining all the examples of a קרבן עולה ויורד, a sin offering in which the Torah makes allowance for the economic condition of the party required to offer it, using the yardstick of the degree of negligence that is involved in the transgression. The offerings brought by a person cured from the skin disorder known as tzoraat are both referred to as אשם and חטאת, seeing that the afflicted person was considered as if dead, being completely ostracized from human society. The first offering sort of acts as protective shield against retribution that would have awaited him, the second as a sin-offering expiating, and paving the way for re-admission to society. The latter is to be worth at least two “regular” shekels. This is why it is called אשם instead. [I have restated some of the foregoing after comparing text in our editions of Nachmanides. Ed.]

[Means] changing. I.e., He “changes” it from sacred property to not sacred, even though he did not drive benefit from it, for instance: If a Temple treasurer gave money of sacred property to another person who went and took it out of the domain of sacred property, the Temple treasurer has misappropriated the sacred funds, as the Mishnah states in Maseches Meilah. The correct text is: “אין מעילה אלא שנוי (מעילה always means ‘changing’),” and we should not use the text: “בכל מקום (wherever it occurs).” It means: This מעילה can only mean “changing,” etc. (Re”m). [This is because] Re”m raises the difficulty: The word מעילה written concerning the guilt-offering of thievery does not connote “changing,” because someone who withholds payment of a hired worker or denies owing a debt is not taking anything out of the owner’s domain, and yet it says there (v. 21): “ומעלה מעל (and wrongfully deviates).” This is no difficulty, however, for he certainly does take it out of the owner’s domain. This is because we have established the Halachah that the Sabbatical year will not release [the debt of] one who denies a loan and stands by his denial. But if there was no change of ownership, and it remained as it originally was [before his denial], the Sabbatical year should release him [from his debt]. Thus, this is [also] called “changing.” (Gur Aryeh). Divrei Dovid answers that it is also called a change of domain there, because the obligation [to bring a guilt-offering] is only if he swears falsely. If so, he turns away from Hashem in that he takes His Name in vain, and throws off His yoke. In this it resembles idolatry which is mentioned afterwards.

איל תמים, “an unblemished ram, according to Rashi, a two year old ram, fully mature.

‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b).

And where. Meaning: We derive through a gezeirah shavah [from the words] חטא חטא from terumah. It says here: “וחטאה בשגגה (and unwittingly sins)” and it says regarding terumah (22:9): “ולא ישאו עליו חטא וגו' (lest they bear sin...).” Just as חטא mentioned with regard to terumah is [referring to the case] where he benefited from it, as it is written (ibid. 14): “If a man inadvertently eats of sacred-offering,” where he benefits by eating, so too חטא mentioned here is where he benefits from the sacred property — even if he did not change it from the sacred domain to an ordinary domain and did not harm it — for instance, he drank from a gold cup or wore a sacred ring on his finger. Thus, the meaning of וחטאה is “or he unwittingly sins,” i.e. [“If a person wrongfully deviates”] — he changes it from one domain to another but does not have benefit, [“or he unwittingly sins”] — or he has benefit from it but does not change it, he has misappropriated “and shall bring his guilt-offering...”

מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1).

Against eating. Meaning: [Perhaps] the same applies as with the other benefits that are included in “consuming,” where the Merciful One [in His Torah] was not concerned that it be harmed, so too here the Merciful One warned only against eating and the like, but not that it must be harmed, [for example,] if he wore a sacred garment and had a copper coin’s worth of benefit from it, even though he did not harm it in the value of a copper coin, he has misappropriated? The verse says: תמעול מעל — it [thus] includes [even actions aside from eating]. I.e., if it is a thing which usually gets damaged, he has not misappropriated if he has benefit from it until he damages it. This is as [the Rabbis] taught [in a Mishnah] (Meilah 18a): One who derives benefit from sacred property, even though he has not damaged it the worth of a copper coin, he has misappropriated; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say: One does not misappropriate with something which is susceptible to damage until he damages it, but with something that is not susceptible to damage he misappropriates as soon as he derives benefit from it. How is this so? If he placed a gold necklace [of sacred property] on her neck or a ring on her finger, or drank from a golden cup, he has misappropriated.

איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38).

תמעול מעל — it [thus] includes [even actions aside from eating]. [Rashi does] not [mean] exactly that it includes, because we do not actually derive this through an “inclusion.” Rather, [it is derived] from a comparison (hekeish) to idolatry, in which it is written מעילה (Divrei Hayomim I, 5:25): “They deviated from the God of their fathers”: Just as regarding idolatry there is a change, for until now, before he bowed down to it, it was in his domain and benefit was permitted, but now its domain has changed and it has entered the domain of the idolatry, and deriving any benefit from it is prohibited; this is its damage. This is what is meant by: “It includes” — Scripture includes it through this hekeish. Here as well, if it is a matter that is usually damaged, even if he has benefit from it he has not misappropriated until it is damaged (Re”m).

בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).

Excluding sacrifices of lesser holiness. Meaning: Misappropriation is not applicable to the meat of sacrifices of lesser holiness both before the blood is sprinkled or after the blood is sprinkled, because they are not designated for the sake of Hashem alone; their only restriction is that they may be eaten only inside the walls [of Jerusalem], but they are permitted to an ordinary Jew who may eat them. The meat of sin-offerings and guiltofferings as well: misappropriation is applicable to them before the blood is sprinkled, but after sprinkling there is no misappropriation since they are permitted to be eaten by the kohanim.

Implying toughness. See above in Parshas Vayeitzei on the verse (Bereishis 31:38): “[And I did not eat any] rams of your flocks...”

Worth two selaim. Rashi informs us that בערכך means “they are worth,” and not an actual estimation, for the translation of estimation and appraisal is not applicable here. Rather: “they are worth.”