Comentário sobre Levítico 5:10

כמשפט [AND THE SECOND HE SHALL OFFER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING] ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION — according to the law that is mentioned with regard to a free-will burnt-offering of fowls at the beginning of the section (Leviticus 1:14) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 10; Chullin 21a).

מחטאתו אשר הטא, concerning the sin which he committed, etc. In connection with the offering by a rich man the Torah writes: מחטאתו, whereas when describing the parallel offering by a poor man the Torah writes: מחטאתו אשר חטא. Why the difference between these descriptions? Torat Kohanim item 343, elaborating on verse 13 which deals with the sin-offering to be brought by the poorest of the poor, claims that I might have thought that the value of the various sin-offerings was determined by the relative severity of the sin it was to atone for; in order to disabuse us of such thinking the Torah wrote מאחת מאלה, that either kind of sin-offering could atone for either kind of sin and that what determined the kind of sin-offering was only the economic situation of the sinner. The reason for this comment is the fact that this paragraph deals with three distinctly different kinds of sins for which sin-offerings have to be brought. We have the sin of someone who is ritually impure introducing impurity into the Temple precincts (5,2), a sin which carries the Karet penalty if committed intentionally. This is the most severe sin for which a sin-offering is acceptable. We have the sin (5,1) of perjury committed by someone who withholds relevant testimony on behalf of a fellow Jew, a sin which is punishable by a sin-offering either if committed inadvertently or if committed intentionally. This sin is less severe than the one which preceded it, though it is more severe than the one involving שבועת בטוי an undertaking accompanied by an oath to do or not to do something and the failure to honour one's undertaking. This sin is listed in the Torah (5,5) after the שבועת העדות as it is relatively minor. Violation of שבועת בטוי is punishable by a sin-offering only if it occurred inadvertently. As a result of these distinctions I could have thought that different sins require sin-offerings of different value in relation to the severity of the sin. Therefore the Torah tells us in verse 13 that the value of the sin-offering is not related to the nature of the sin but to the ability of the sinner to afford the offering in question.

וכפר עליו הכהן....ונסלח לו, “and the Priest will provide him atonement....and it shall be forgiven him.” Forgiveness will originate in heaven as the guilt will disappear together with the burning up of the sacrifice. The meaning of וכפר as making atonement occurs for the first time when Yaakov brought gifts (similar to sacrifices) to his brother Esau hoping that he would forgive him (ואכפרה פניו) for obtaining the birthright by trickery (Genesis 32,21). There is a difference between what is described as כפרה “atonement,” and סליחה, “forgiveness.” The latter means that the guilt has been totally forgiven, is now “non-existent” whereas the former is merely concerned with culpability for the sin committed. It is not within the capacity of human beings to grant forgiveness; only G’d Himself can wipe the slate clean completely. This is why David writes in Psalms 130,4: “forgiveness rests with You.” The High Priest, while initiating the process of forgiveness, cannot complete it, only G’d can. When someone was guilty of שבועת בטוי, (verse 4) “a false oath,” there is atonement only. The Torah does not add the words that “it will be forgiven him.” [Swearing a false oath is hardly an unintentional sin qualifying for total forgiveness. Ed.]