Комментарий к Вайикра 1:4

על ראש העולה UPON THE HEAD OF THE BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to include an obligatory burnt offering also in the law of סמיכה (laying hands on the head of the sacrifice) as well as to include a sheep that is offered as a free — will burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 3-5).

AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. This means his two hands, for we find it stated: and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock;⁵⁶Exodus 29:10. and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram,⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 15. and the Rabbis interpreted it to mean: “the hands of each and every individual.”⁵⁸I.e., the word “hands” does not refer to “Aaron and his sons,” thus implying that each lay one hand, but to each individual laying his two hands on the offering. The source of this interpretation is unknown to me. Thus [it is clear that] both hands were required for it. In the case of the goat designed to be sent [to Azazel] it is expressly stated, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat.⁵⁹Further, 16:21. If so, I do not know why Scripture wrote “his hand” [in the singular] in all other cases of the laying of hands. Perhaps it is for the purpose of deriving therefrom what the Rabbis have interpreted:⁶⁰Menachoth 93b. “His hand — and not the hand of his proxy.” For had it been written “his hands” [in the plural we would have interpreted it] to require the laying of both hands, and we would not have been able to exclude the proxy. But now that [we derive from other verses that] both hands must be laid upon the offering, [we must conclude that] He only wrote the singular [indicating the hands of only one person], to exclude a proxy, for although a man’s proxy is like the man himself⁶¹Kiddushin 41b. in all other places, we should not consider him so in the case of the laying of hands. In Torath Kohanim we find:⁶²Torath Kohanim, Acharei 4:4. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands.⁵⁹Further, 16:21. This teaches that the laying of hands upon the offering must be done with both hands, and forms the general rule for all cases of laying of hands, that they be done with both hands.”

וסמך ידו, “He shall lean his hand on it with all his strength.” Although the word ידו is spelled in the singular mode, the meaning is: “his hands.” We find elsewhere that the Torah spells this out, for instance in Leviticus The reason that here the word is spelled in the singular mode is to enable us to derive the halachah that the owner of the sacrificial animal personally must do this and not anyone whom he has deputized. This is an exception to the rule that normally שלוחו של אדם כמותו, “a person’s designated messenger has the same legal status as the person himself.”

וסמך ידו על ראש העולה, “he is to place his bodily weight on the head of the animal serving as the burnt-offering.” It is well known that this procedure has to be carried out with both hands as this is what Torat Kohanim says in connection with Leviticus 16,21: “and Aaron is to place both his hands on the head of the scape-goat.” This verse is used as applicable for all animal offerings requiring this procedure. Thus far Torat Kohanim.
When the Torah writes in this instance that וסמך ידו, “he shall place his hand (sing.),” this is meant to exclude the messenger, intermediary. Although we have a general rule that a person’s messenger enjoys the same legal status as the person on whose behalf he acts, this is an exception. The owner of the animal cannot delegate the requirement to place his own hands on the animal. The placing of the hands on the animal by the owner was performed only in the part of the Tabernacle called Azarah, the courtyard. It was immediately followed by the slaughter of the animal. It was mandatory to place one’s entire weight on the animal using both one’s hands; this is why the Torah wrote: “on the head of the animal,” i.e. not on its neck or any other part.

For laying (of hands). Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “[on the head of] the burnt-offering”? [It should say “on its head,”] because at the verse’s beginning it is written “burnt-offering” to which the verse is referring. Rather, it comes to include everything that is termed a burnt-offering for laying [of the hands], even an obligatory burnt-offering. And since it is written “the burnt-offering” with the indicative ה, this implies [only] the burnt-offering that was mentioned: “From cattle or from sheep,” and to exclude a bird [offered as a] burnt-offering from laying [of the hands]; and to include a sheep [brought as] a burnt-offering, i.e., also for laying [of hands].

לכפר עליו, “to make atonement for him.” When someone has eaten forbidden fats, inadvertently, he must bring an offering as atonement. If he is in doubt if he has eaten forbidden fat he must bring an offering known as asham taluy, an offering which suspends his status vis a vis G–d until the doubt has been removed. If it turns out that he had not eaten forbidden fat that is the end of the matter. If it turns out that he did eat forbidden fat, he must bring the additional sin offering. Sometimes it happens that a person was convinced that what he ate was permissible, whereas in fact it was not. In such an event, offering a burnt offering will achieve atonement on his behalf. This is the kind of burnt offering described in our verse.

וסמך ידו, according to the plain meaning of the text, [this is not a commandment but the Torah describes the norm when people offer such an animal. It describes a preparatory activity, Ed]

העלה THE BURNT OFFERING — This implies the exclusion of a bird offered as a burnt offering (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 7).

AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵Beraitha (literally: “outside”) is a teaching or tradition of the Tannaim that had been excluded from the Mishnah and incorporated in other collections. The Tosephta, Mechilta, Sifra (Torath Kohanim), and Sifre contain these Beraithoth. in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5.
But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷“Punishments” [such as “excision etc.”] are incurred only for wilful violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸The general rule is that a sin-offering is brought only for such a sin unwilfully committed for which the penalty if committed wilfully would be excision. Ramban is thus suggesting: we could say that the freewill burnt-offering atones for those unwilful sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven etc., and for all those sins for which the penalty is death by the court and yet do not require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹The reason why the sin-offering is not brought for the unwilful violation of these negative commandments is that the punishment of excision is not incurred in case of the wilful violation thereof. See Note 68 above. just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰Thus Scripture made it clear that in the case of those sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven or stripes if committed wilfully — no offering for expiation is needed when committed unintentionally. Rashi and the Torath Kohanim were thus correct in stating that the burnt-offering could not effect atonement for these unwilful sins, since “the punishments” have already been stated in Scripture both for wilful and unwilful sins, and therefore we could not say that the burnt-offering effects atonement for the above-mentioned sins if committed unwilfully. For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill.
It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹Further, 5:18. the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹Further, 5:18. and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷²See I Samuel 29:4. With this gift!
I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵The Hebrew term for the burnt-offering is olah [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶Ezekiel 20:32. — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷Job 1:5. This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d.
The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸Up to here we have followed Silberman’s translation of the phrase: “and it shall be favorably accepted for him.” Ramban now suggests three new interpretations: 1) “and he will be favorably accepted by Him.” 2) “and the sin will be completed to him” — never to be mentioned again. 3) “and it will be ‘agreeable’ to Him.” refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) unto his lord?;⁷⁹I Samuel 29:4. and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰Psalms 44:4. and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹Isaiah 40:2. until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸²II Chronicles 36:21. and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³Further, 26:43. — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.

ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to afford him atonement.” Rashi already questions where the idea of the donor requiring “atonement” suddenly comes from. He argues that surely, if the guilt of the donor to be atoned for involves capital sins for which execution or death at the hands of heaven is in order, there should have been a warning somewhere spelling out which sin this donor had committed! Even if the sin had “only” been one warranting 39 lashes as penalty, it should have been spelled out somewhere. He concludes that the only sins such a sacrifice could atone for is omission to fulfill some positive commandment, or a negative commandment which is inextricably involved with a positive commandment so that non-observance is not punishable by lashes. Rashi is supported by a baraitha in Torat Kohanim. Nachmanides questions “whence do we know that the sacrifice atones for all inadvertently committed sins which when committed intentionally carry the penalty of 39 lashes or death at the hands of heavenly decree altogether?” Perhaps we may assume that this sacrifice atones for sins that are subject to premature death by heavenly decree when committed intentionally, but which have been committed inadvertently, and the Torah had not provided atonement in such a case by a sin offering or guilt offering. as a way of atonement. Striking father or mother are an example of such sins committed inadvertently for which the Torah did not provide explicit penalties when these sins were committed inadvertently. Nachmanides suggests as a possible solution to our query that seeing that in some cases the Torah lists penalties for deliberately committed capital crimes, as well as methods of atonement when these crimes were committed inadvertently, it is reasonable to suppose that where the Torah fails to be specific on that point, the burnt offering, עולה, may well be the vehicle through which such atonement can be secured. This would make the wording of Rashi’s commentary more intelligible. The absence of a procedure to secure atonement for such inadvertently committed sins in cases where the Torah failed to spell this out, might otherwise have led us to believe that there is no mechanism for such inadvertently committed sins to be forgiven. Rashi picked the two categories of sin by omission for which the Torah had failed to specify a specific path to atonement, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment [when it is the type which we must look for opportunities to perform, such as the lulav on Sukkot, as opposed to the building of a protective railing on one’s roof, a commandment only applicable to people who own a house. Ed.] It is further possible that seeing that when the Torah lists specific voluntary offerings, without the wording specifying that such offering atones for a specific sin committed [וכפר על חטאתו אשר חטא, “it will atone for his sin which he had committed unintentionally (or similar as in Leviticus 42, and 5,2),” Ed.], it is clear that the “atonement” mentioned in our verse is for sins of omission (מצות עשה) committed inadvertently. The expression ונרצה, “it will be received with grace,” implies that the person offering this burnt offering had lacked grace in the eyes of the Lord prior to his presenting this offering. If our sages in Torat Kohanim interpreted the verse as the offering conferring atonement for intentionally committed sins when the sinner had repented, their reasoning is that anyone who committed inadvertent sins has not fallen out of grace with Hashem, so that he does not need to be reinstated in a state of grace, as is suggested by our verse. If that is so, the only deliberate sins that these burnt offerings could atone for are sins of omission, and sins of omission directly involving the transgression of a negative commandment, rather than sins of commission. [seeing, as Rashi pointed out, the Torah had spelled out the penalties for violating negative commandments deliberately]. Even though we have a principle according to which if someone commits a sin of omission or one involving a sin of omission involving also a negative commandment, that repentance achieves atonement immediately, without the offering, or the act of leaning on the animal to be sacrificed, (Yuma 86), whereas if he offers the sacrifice without repenting, his offering is rejected as זבח רשעים, the offering of a wicked individual, we need to say that the “forgiveness” mentioned in Yuma is not complete until the person concerned has also offered the burnt offering discussed in our verse.

A prohibition which is uprooted by a positive commandment. For instance (Devarim 22:6): “You shall not take the mother upon the young,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 7): “You shall send away the mother.” Similarly (Shemos 12:10): “You must not leave any of it over until morning. Any of it left over until morning must be burned in fire.” Also (Vayikro 19:13): “And you shall not rob,” upon which it is written (Ibid. 5:23): “He shall return the stolen property.” No punishment is mentioned with regard to these prohibitions, but the prohibitions mentioned by Rashi have their punishments specified, whether committed intentionally where there is execution ordered by a court or being whipped, or when committed unintentionally where there is a sin-offering.

ידו, this does not have to refer to a single hand, but the verse excludes a son or servant performing this procedure. The Torah does not allow the donor to delegate these acts.

‎ ונרצה לו AND PROPITIATION SHALL BE EFFECTED FOR HIM — For what kind of sins does it (the עולת נדבה) effect propitiation for him? Should you say, “for such as make him liable to excision, or to execution by the court, or to the death penalty through the Heavenly Judge, or to lashes, surely, you see that the punishment for those sins is expressly stated and it is that and not the sacrifice which effects propitiation! Consequently it can only propitiate for the neglect of a positive command and for the transgression of “a prohibition transformed into a positive command” (לאו הניתק לעשה, a prohibitive law the transgression of which can be repaired by a succeeding act) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 4 8).

ידו על ראש, “his hand on the head;” not one hand above the other, or placing his hands on any other part of the animal.

על ראש העולה, “on the head of the burnt offering;” Rashi understands this as referring to when this burnt offering is a mandatory as distinct from a voluntary burnt offering. He quotes Torat Kohanim in support of his interpretation. It is stated there that if a voluntary burnt offering requires the above procedure as introductory step, then it is obvious that a mandatory burnt offering does not require less. The fact that the Torah writes simply: עולה, without specifying which type of עולה, the voluntary one or the mandatory one, is taken as proof that this placing of the owner’s hands on the head of the animal refers to both types. It also means that regardless of whether the animal is a sheep, or a bull, the same rule applies. On the other hand, only burnt offerings belonging to an individual require this procedure, not animals representing a group of people. Animals belonging to women or to gentiles do not require this procedure either. All of them require an accompanying libation, however, even animals belonging to gentiles. We know this from a baraitah in Menachot 29, commencing with the words; “when a gentile has sent his burnt offering, etc.”

לכפר עליו, “to serve as his atonement.”

The use of the word: עליו in this sense is also found in Psalms 44,23, עליך, where it clearly means: “for your sake.” The same is true of Psalms 69,8.