Komentarz do Kapłańska 5:7

AND IF HIS MEANS SUFFICE NOT FOR A LAMB. Scripture has been lenient towards these sinners by allowing them to bring an offering of either higher or lower value. It is possible that the reason for the leniency with regard to the offering in the case of oaths [i.e., the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance”, as explained above] is because the punishment is not excision [were they to be done wilfully]. In the case of defilement of the Sanctuary and the holy food [He mitigated the obligation of the offering] because the person who did it erred whilst engaged in performing a religious duty, for the priest who eats the holy food or enters into the Sanctuary to prostrate himself or to bring an offering is engaged in performing a religious duty, and his intention is towards Heaven. Therefore even though he sinned on account of having forgotten his state of uncleanness, Scripture gave him more ways of atonement.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the reason why one [of the two birds brought by the poor man in the offering of higher or lower value] was a burnt-offering, is so that it should be offered on the altar in lieu of the fats of the animal sin-offering [brought by the affluent person].³⁵⁰I.e., in view of the fact that nothing of the bird sin-offering is burnt on the altar, while the fats of the animal sin-offering are burnt thereon, Scripture therefore required that the poor man who cannot afford the animal offering, should bring two birds, one for a sin-offering [which is the required offering in this case], and an additional bird as a burnt-offering, to take the place of the fats of the animal sin-offering. He has explained it well.

ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, if he is unable to afford a lamb, etc. This means that the individual in question can afford to present more than the two turtle-doves which are the next cheaper sin-offering and burnt offering the Torah demands of him. As long as he is not able to afford a lamb as his sin-offering, he is allowed to offer the bird-offerings designated for a needy person.

ואם לא תגיע ידו, ”and if he cannot afford it, etc.” There are some sages who believe that the reason why the Torah showed a degree of leniency to financially strapped sinners by allowing them to bring an inexpensive guilt offering consisting of a bunt offering of one bird and a sin offering of another bird, is that in all of the examples concerned the sinner did not derive any meaningful personal advantage from the sin he had committed. On the other hand, someone eating chelev or eating ordinary food on the Day of Atonement, or someone performing work on the Sabbath, and a host of similar examples of sins, did derive personal satisfaction or financial benefit from them, not to mention people indulging in forbidden sexual relations, or people who have misappropriated property belonging to someone else, such sinners most certainly have to bring an offering that sets them back financially. Some of these have committed a twofold transgression, seeing that it occurred in holy precincts that were out of bounds to them. These offerings cost at least a shekel. As to the guilt offering designed to ward off punishment for transgressions of an indeterminate nature, the אשם תלוי, the conditional guilt offering, this must also be one that costs at least one shekel. It is relatively expensive, as people who are not sure they have committed a transgression are in the habit of giving themselves the benefit of the doubt. They must not think that they can do so with relative impunity. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the guilt offering for transgressions related to oaths is relatively inexpensive for people with restricted means, is that the transgressions in respect of which his offering is brought do not carry a type of death penalty such as karet even if they had been committed deliberately. The reason that this is so in ritual impurity related transgressions, is that the transgression itself was committed in the course of fulfilling a commandment. When reflecting on his words one has difficulty in reconciling them to a situation where a father was supposed to circumcise his son after the Sabbath, and he had forgotten the correct date, i.e. the 8th day, and circumcised his son on the Sabbath instead, who is guilty, and must bring the expensive sin offering according to the opinions of all our scholars. The reason might be that seeing that the performance of the commandment was not performed at the right time, and the father had not involved himself in as many preparations prior to fulfilling this commandments, he is not entitled to the leniency shown by the Torah in the other examples.

ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, “if he is unable to afford the price of a lamb, etc.” seeing that people guilty of entering sacred grounds in a state of ritual impurity or swearing a futile oath, do not derive any benefit from committing that sin, the Torah made allowances for them if they found offering a lamb as sin offering a financial hardship, and offered two alternatives depending on their financial status. No such relief is granted to people who inadvertently ate forbidden fat, blood, or who ate on the day of Atonement, (thinking it was on a different date), or people performing forbidden activities on the Sabbath for their personal benefit. Anyone who had derived personal benefit by making use of sanctified animals or vessels has committed two sins simultaneously, and is also not qualified to avail himself of what is written in this verse. He is viewed as if had tried to steal from G–d. All these people have to pay for the value of the animal offered by the priest on their behalf.

ואם לא תגיע ידו, “if he is financially unable, etc.” the Torah does not demand that he must borrow money in order to be able to atone for his unintentional sin, and it does not require that he use the products of his special skill and bring this as an offering. But if he owns a lamb, which is what is basically required of him as an offering, but he does not have money to cover his basic expenses, he does have to bring this lamb as his offering. The sages derive this rule from the Torah having written: די שה. (Sifra on that verse)

שתי תורים, “two turtledoves;” the reason this person has to offer two sacrifices (two birds) is that between them the two birds correspond in some manner to the parallel offering brought by a wealthy person guilty of the same transgression, namely offerings which contain parts that are burned up on the altar, and meat consumed by the priests. In the case of the offerings consisting of the two turtledoves, the one that is called עולה, burnt offering, is all dedicated to heaven, whereas the one known as חטאת, sin offering, this is consumed by the priests. If only a burnt offering had been sacrificed, the priest performing the procedure would not have been compensated at all. On the other hand, if only a sin offering had been presented, the altar would not have received anything as no eymurim of birds are burnt up on the altar.

The word ידו is interpreted by Torat Kohanim to mean that the individual in question does not have to borrow money to enable him to purchase a lamb for his sin-offering. Neither do we tell such a person to work harder in order to earn the money necessary to purchase the lamb. The reason for this is the principle חביבה מצוה לשעתה, it is important to perform a commandment at the time it is due rather than to perform it somewhat later but in a more perfect manner (based on Pessachim 68). Torat Kohanim describes the alternatives as follows: "the meaning of the words "if his means do not suffice for a lamb" is that even if the individual in question owned a lamb but he did not have the wherewithal for his elementary needs, i.e. for clothing, food or shelter, he is considered as if he did not have a lamb to offer. Torat Kohanim derives this from the expression די שה, "sufficient to afford to offer a lamb."

אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, “one of which (the two birds) as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering.” Only the blood of a bird offering that is a sin offering is brought to the altar, so that the altar has something that can be “eaten.” When a wealthy person has to bring a sin offering, the Torah is satisfied with either a female sheep or goat, seeing that there is enough meat on these animals to provide a meal for the officiating priest, and the entrails provide the ”meal” for the altar.

I have seen a comment by Rabbeynu Hillel who defines "his needs" as referring to the lamb for the offering which this individual does not possess. Halachah demands that the owner of the lamb personally bring it to the courtyard of the Temple, etc. This explanation seems rather forced seeing it does not take more effort or time to bring a lamb to the Temple than it takes to take two turtle-doves to the Temple. If the Rabbi referred to the effort to bring a relatively sizable lamb to the Temple, let him bring the money instead and purchase it from the Temple-treasury. If Rabbeynu Hilel referred to the need to perform סמיכה on the lamb, something that need not be performed on the birds, this too is no argument as the performance of סמיכה is an initial requirement only; the requirement is not mandatory so that failure to perform it would invalidate the offering. Why should such an individual rather not bring the offering required of him and instead bring the offering designated for a needy person? We have learned at the end of tractate Nega-im (14,12) that if a well-to-do person offered the sin-offering designated for a poor person he has not fulfilled his obligation. The same applies to all the offerings commonly known as קרבן עולה ויורד, offerings which vary in value with the economic situation that the person who has to offer a sin-offering finds himself in. Maimonides also rules this way in Hilchot Shega-got chapter 10. The requirement of placing one's weight on the lamb is only meant to enhance the commandment and does not in any way interfere with the atonement value of the offering for the sinner in question as we know from Zevachim 6.

Torat Kohanim interprets the words "if she cannot afford a lamb" in Leviticus 12,8 where the need for a woman who gave birth to bring a sin-offering is discussed, as follows: "If she owns a lamb but does not have her basic needs, how do I know that she need only bring the offering designated for a poor person?" Answer: "The Torah writes די שה, sufficient for a lamb." The reason Torat Kohanim had to use these words there in the same sense as in Leviticus 12,8 is that one of the offerings of a mother who has given birth is a burnt-offering and such burnt-offering requires to be accompanied by a drink-offering נסכים. This drink-offering is mandatory. Had the Torah not written די שה in that verse I could not have derived this meaning from our verse where we discussed an offering that is purely a sin-offering. As a result of such considerations, why did the Torah not merely write these words in Leviticus 12,8 and I would have applied them here also? There was no need to tell us that the sinner may forego the need for סמיכה, as we could have applied a קל וחומד, an inference from minor to major; if in the case of a sin-offering which does not involve a mandatory drink-offering, a person who owns a lamb but does not have money for his basic needs is allowed to bring the sin-offering applicable to a poor person in its place, then a mother who finds hereself in a similar economic situation and who would have to find the means for an additional drink-offering most certainly would be allowed to offer a poor person's offering instead, and I would not need additional superfluous words for such exegesis. I believe therefore that I was right. As long as the sinner has more than enough for two birds but not enough for a lamb, he is entitled to bring the offering designated for a poor person. Korban Aharon supports my interpretation.