ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף ויקרא 5:23

AND HE SHALL CONFESS THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED. 6. AND HE SHALL BRING HIS GUILT-OFFERING. This was not the [order of the] procedure.³³⁹For the offering had to be brought first, then the laying of hands was performed during which [while his hands lay on the offering] he confessed his sin (see Note 64 above). Hence the expression and he shall bring his guilt-offering must mean “and he who comes to bring an offering to effect atonement for his guilt … ” Rather, he first brought the sin-offering and laid his hands upon it, and then confessed, similarly to that which is [explicitly] said further on, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel.³⁴⁰Further, 16:21. Here, however, Scripture does not state “and he shall lay his hand,” because He explained previously in the case of all sin-offerings³⁴¹Above, Chapter 4, Verses 4, 15, 24 and 29. that they require the laying of hands, and similarly, in the case of freewill offerings.³⁴²Ibid., Chapter 1, Verse 4; Chapter 3, Verses 2, 8 and 13. See also Note 11 above. But He did not explain [the duty of] confession above in the case of the other sin-offerings, [although it is required in those cases as well].
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it would appear that here He said and he shall confess, because in the case of an “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. the offering is to be brought even if the oath was taken wilfully. So also in the case of an “oath of deposit”³⁴³If Reuben says to Shimon, “Give me my deposit which you have,” and Shimon replies “I swear I have naught of yours,” or if Shimon said, “I have naught of yours,” and Reuben says, “I adjure thee” and he answers “Amen” — in this case too Shimon is liable to bring an offering [in addition to the restitution] even if he wilfully swore falsely. The offering, however, is not the one of higher or lower value mentioned in this section — but a guilt-offering, as explained further on (in Verses 23-26). Ramban mentions the “oath of deposit” here only to liken it to the “oath of testimony” in the sense that the offerings in each case are brought even if committed wilfully. This is a novel point in the law of offerings, for all other offerings brought for commission of a sin effect atonement only in case the transgression has been committed in error; otherwise, the offering of the wicked is an abomination (Proverbs 21:27). Ramban thus suggests [in line with the plain meaning of Scripture] that since the offerings in these two cases — that of the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of deposit” — are required to be brought even when committed wilfully, therefore the Torah mentions in their cases the subject of confession. But in the case of all other sin-offerings, since they are brought only when the transgression was committed in error, there is no need for confession of sin. However, Ramban will immediately refute this position, for the Rabbis have clearly interpreted that all sin-offerings require confession of sin. He mentioned, then they shall confess their sin which they have done.³⁴⁴Numbers 5:7. But in the case of the sin-offering brought for transgression in error, He did not mention confession.³⁴⁵“But [when bringing] the sin-offering for a sin committed in error he does not confess” (Tur in quoting the language of Ramban). But in the opinion of our Rabbis³⁴⁶Sifre Zuta 5:5. the expression, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned, refers to everything mentioned in this section, including the defiling of the Sanctuary and the holy food, and an “oath of utterance,”³³⁷This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering. which offerings have to be brought [only] when [the sins are] committed in error, and [in the case of] all other sin-offerings [which are also brought only when the transgression was done in error, the need for confession when bringing them] is derived from here. He mentioned confession, however, [specifically] here because the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance” do not make one liable to excision [if done wilfully, unlike the sin-offering which is brought only for those sins committed in error which, if committed wilfully, incur the punishment of excision], and yet He requires confession in these cases, and [thus it follows] all the more that in the case of the fixed³⁴⁷As distinct from the offering of higher or lower value, where the offering varies according to the means of the transgressor, a fixed sin-offering must be of an animal and is alike for poor and rich, so that if the poor cannot afford it he is not obligated to bring another offering in its stead, as is the case of the offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 78-79. sin-offerings mentioned above, he must confess [since his sin, were it to be committed wilfully, would incur] the penalty of excision. Our Rabbis have said³⁴⁸Sifre Naso 2. that the expression here, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned is a general principle in the case of all sin-offerings, that they require confession. The verses written in the section of Naso, stating, and that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done,³⁴⁹Numbers 5:6-7. is to include all guilt-offerings [in the requirement of confession]. So it is explained in the Sifre.³⁴⁸Sifre Naso 2. There the Rabbis have interpreted: “And that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess.³⁴⁹Numbers 5:6-7. This establishes the general rule for all those executed [by the court] that they require confession” [to achieve full forgiveness of their sin].

ופקדתם And that which they have laid up. Comp. פקדון that which hath been delivered him to keep (Lev. 5:23).—They will carry their treasures to the willows of the brook, to hide them there, or better they will carry away their treasures by boats on a certain river in their land, which flows between willows; that is, they will carry their property to another place, where it may be kept for them.

But here there is no possibility of repentance. And this is said specifically regrading the sexual sins that lead to no mamzer, but one who has intercourse with a married woman and gives birth from her, or from one of the other forbidden close relations, this is "a crooked thing cannot be made straight" (Eccl. 1:15) as it is said (Yevamot 21a) regarding teshuvah 'and behold Rabbi Chayim says that even though what is crooked cannot be made straight it is possible to do teshuvah as commanded by God, Who has commanded him to do teshuvah and sincerely repent, but a robber, whose teshuvah is dependent on returning what was stolen, as it is written "and he returns what he stole, etc." (Lev. 5:23), how can one who stole from the public know exactly from whom he has stolen to return [the property]? And even though it is said 'let him pay with [the stolen goods] the needs of the community' (Baba Kamma 94b) in any instance it is not complete teshuvah.