## Or HaChaim on Leviticus Chapter 4

###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:1)

**דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים דָּרְשׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת וְלֹא גּוֹיִם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת עַל שֶׁבַע מִצְווֹת בְּנֵי נֹחַ. וְקָשֶׁה, מִנַּיִן יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעַת לוֹמַר שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַעֲטָם? וְאִם מִנְּדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, מַה לִנְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת שֶׁאֵינָם לְכַפָּרָה, תֹּאמַר בְּחַטָּאת? וּכְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּחוּלִּין (חולין ה.) בִּצְרִיכוּת מִעוּטָא דְּמוּמָר דְּמִעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא בְּעוֹלָה וּבְחַטָּאת, דְּאִצְטְרִיךְ לְמַעֵט מוּמָר בְּעוֹלָה וְלֹא גָּמְרִינַן לֵיהּ מִמִּעוּט חַטָּאת, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְכַפָּרָה הוּא, מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן עוֹלָה, עַד כָּאן. וּמִינָהּ בְּהֵיכָא דְּנִתְרַבּוּ בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא נְדָבוֹת וּנְדָרִים שֶׁאֵין לִלְמֹד חַטָּאת שֶׁהִיא לְכַפָּרָה. וְנִרְאֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁהַכַּוָּנָה הִיא לִשְׁמֹר שֶׁלֹּא תְּרַבֶּה גּוֹיִם מִיִּתּוּר ״נֶפֶשׁ״ שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב, לָזֶה אָמַר **בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** לְמַעֵט גּוֹיִם, וְרִבּוּי **נֶפֶשׁ** לְרַבּוֹת גֵּרִים.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**דבר אל בני ישראל, "speak to the children of Israel, etc."** *Torat Kohanim* uses the expression בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles from offering sin-offerings in the event they violated any of the seven Noachide laws. This appears very difficult. Why should the idea that they could offer such sacrifices ever have arisen so that the Torah needed to refute it? If we would have made a comparison with the Gentile's right to offer free-will offerings, there is no comparison seeing that those offerings were not meant to achieve atonement as we know from *Chulin* 5 where the Talmud debated the source of denying the heretic the right to offer either total-offerings or sin-offerings respectively. The Talmud there makes it plain that the two kinds of offerings cannot be derived one from the other unless there was something in the text alluding to such entitlement. One argument used there is that if someone were denied to offer a free-will offering it does not follow automatically that he should be barred from offering a sin-offering seeing the latter is designed to help him achieve atonement. The same argument can be used here. As a result of such considerations, the Gentile would have been presumed as entitled to offer sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write בני ישראל, to exclude him from the privilege to offer such offerings. It appears to me that the need for this exclusion was accentuated by the word נפש which the Torah used in the very same verse in which it described who would be required (or entitled) to bring a sin-offering. The word נפש suggests that any human being is included in the legislation about to be unveiled. By writing first בני ישראל, the Torah enabled us to use the inclusive term נפש as including proselytes.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:2)

וְקָשֶׁה, לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב לֹא ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ וְלֹא ״נֶפֶשׁ״, וַאֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַגּוֹיִם לֹא מִטַּעַם שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ, וְגֵרִים מְבִיאִין, דְּמִנַּיִן יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעַת לְמַעֲטָם. זוֹ אֵינָהּ קֻשְׁיָא, כִּי הֲלֹא מָצִינוּ שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לְרַבּוֹתָם בִּתְחִלַּת הַפָּרָשָׁה, דִּכְתִיב (ויקרא א:ב) ״אָדָם״, וְדָרְשׁוּ שָׁם בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים לְהָבִיא גֵרִים, וְאִם כֵּן סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא שֶׁלֹּא רִבָּה אוֹתָם אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָה וְלֹא לְחַטָּאת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן. וְאִם כֵּן אִם לֹא הָיָה מִעוּט שֶׁמִּעֵט בְּיִתּוּר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ הָיָה צַד לוֹמַר כִּי גֵרִים לֹא אִצְטְרִיךְ, מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּנִתְרַבּוּ בִּתְחִלַּת הַפָּרָשָׁה נִתְרַבּוּ לְכָל פְּרָטִים הָרְשׁוּמִים בְּכָל הַפָּרָשָׁה, וְלֹא בָּא רִבּוּי שֶׁרִבָּה בְּיִתּוּר ״נֶפֶשׁ״ אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁמְּבִיאִין חַטָּאת. לָזֶה אָמַר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ לְמַעֵט גּוֹיִם, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאָמְרוֹ ״נֶפֶשׁ״ אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת גֵּרִים, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק רִבּוּי שֶׁבִּתְחִלַּת הַפָּרָשָׁה לְצַד מַדְרֵגַת חַטָּאת עֲדִיפָא מֵעוֹלָה, גַּם לְצַד שֶׁהִפְסִיק בָּעִנְיָן וְאֵין לְמֵדִין, לָזֶה אִצְטְרִיךְ. וְעוֹד נִרְאֶה לוֹמַר כִּי לֹא מִיִּתּוּר ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ דּוֹרֵשׁ אֶלָּא מִמַּשְׁמָעוּת ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ יַגִּיד כִּי לֹא גוֹיִם, וּלְצַד שֶׁבְּמַשְׁמָעוּת ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ יִתְמַעֲטוּ גַּם הַגֵּרִים, לָזֶה אָמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ״ לְרַבּוֹת הַגֵּרִים. וּמֵעַתָּה הֲגַם כִּי ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ לְהוֹדִיעַ לְמִי בָּאָה מִצְוָה זוֹ, מִמֵּילָא מִתְמַעֲטִים הַגּוֹיִם.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
The obvious question is why the Torah did not simply omit both the words בני ישראל and נפש, and I would have excluded the Gentiles and included the proselytes? What possible reason could there have been to exclude the proselyte from the privilege to offer a sin-offering that prompted the Torah to write a word designed to include him? This is no objection as we find that the Torah had included proselytes already in 1,2 where the Torah used the term אדם, and this term included proselytes. We would naturally have assumed that proselytes were included only in the right to offer burnt-offerings but not sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write the word נפש in our verse to tell us that proselytes have the right to offer sin-offerings. Unless the Torah had also excluded the Gentiles by the restrictive term בני ישראל, one could have argued that proselytes did not need to be specifically included as they had already been included at the beginning of the portion with the word אדם. I would then have concluded that the absence of any further restrictive clause indicated that the Torah has no objection to Gentiles offering sin-offerings. We have now learned that the word נפש here, though inclusive, includes only the proselyte and that the inclusive term אדם at the beginning of our portion was not sufficient seeing the privilege of offering a sin-offering is a far greater privilege than that of offering a burnt-offering. The very fact that a separate paragraph was needed to sanction the offering of sin-offerings altogether indicates that it is a great privilege to be allowed to atone for a sin by offering a sin-offering (only). This privilege could not have been derived merely by exegesis, but needed to be stated outright. Moreover, it appears that the conclusion of *Torat Kohanim* that the words בני ישראל exclude Gentiles is not based on these words being superfluous, but rather on their plain meaning, i.e. "Jews and not Gentiles." The moment we accept this, the implication is that only natural-born Jews are subject to the legislation in this paragraph as the expression "children of Israel" refers to direct descendants of the patriarch Jacob. If the Torah wanted to include proselytes also, it had to write the word נפש in order for us to understand this beyond doubt. Having said this you will appreciate that though the expression בני ישראל in the whole Torah is not understood as available for exegetical purposes but as telling us to whom the respective legislation is addressed, it excludes Gentiles automatically.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:3)

**נֶפֶשׁ.** אָמְרוּ רַזַ״ל (תורת כהנים), לְרַבּוֹת גֵּרִים, וְאִם לִכְלוֹל נָשִׁים הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ״אָדָם כִּי יֶחֱטָא״, כִּי אָדָם כּוֹלֵל זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית ה:ב) ״וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָם אָדָם״.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**נפש, a person.** *Torat Kohanim* views this word as including proselytes in the group of people entitled to offer sin-offerings. If the Torah had intended to also include women, the Torah should have written אדם כי יחטא as the term אדם includes males and females seeing the Torah referred to both males and females by the collective term אדם in Genesis 5,2.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:4
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:4)

וּבְדֶרֶךְ רֶמֶז יְכַוֵּן, כִּי לְצַד שֶׁנֶּפֶשׁ שֶׁל אָדָם רָשָׁע הִיא נֶחְסֶרֶת לְצַד מַעֲשֵׂה הָרַע בְּאֶמְצָעוּת הֶעָוֹן בְּמֵזִיד, וְלָזֶה יִקָּרֵא הָרָשָׁע בְּחַיָּיו מֵת, דִּכְתִיב (יחזקאל יח:לב) ״בְּמוֹת הַמֵּת״, כִּי אֵין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ. וְהוּא גַּם כֵּן אָמְרוֹ (משלי כג:ב) ״אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה״. וְהוֹדִיעוֹ הַכָּתוּב כִּי תֶחְסַר הַנֶּפֶשׁ גַּם בְּחֵטְא הַשּׁוֹגֵג, הָאֱמֶת שֶׁלֹּא תֶחְסַר כֻּלָּהּ אֶלָּא מִקְצָתָהּ, וּלְצַד מַחְסוֹר כָּזֶה הוּא אֲשֶׁר אָמַר ה׳ כִּי יָבִיא קָרְבָּן, וּבָזֶה תִּתְקָרֵב הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְשָׁרְשָׁהּ וְיָאִיר אוֹרָהּ כְּבַתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל בְּמֵזִיד שֶׁתֶּחְסַר כֻּלָּהּ לֹא יוֹעִיל תַּקָּנַת הַקָּרְבָּן, כִּי אֵין נֶפֶשׁ בַּמְּצִיאוּת לְקָרְבָהּ עַד אֲשֶׁר יָשׁוּב וְיַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְיִחְיֶה, עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרוֹ (יחזקאל יח:לב) ״הָשִׁיבוּ וִחְיוּ״.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
A moral-ethical meaning of the term נפש as used in this paragraph may be the following. The soul of a human being becomes defective when its owner has sinned intentionally. This is why sinners are referred to as "dead" even while they are still "alive," as we know from Ezekiel 18,32: "for G'd does not desire the **death of the dead**, etc." The sinner is referred to by the prophet as dead already seeing he no longer has a soul. Solomon refers to something similar in Proverbs 23,2 "if you are someone possessed of a נפש, soul." Our verse tells us that even sins committed inadvertently result in damage to one's soul. While it is true that such inadvertently committed sins do not destroy the soul completely, nonetheless the Torah requires a sin-offering in order for the damage to that soul to be repaired. The offering of that קרבן, the sacrifice whose purpose it is to re-establish the affinity of the soul with its origin, enables the diseased soul to be infused with the spiritual values which will heal its wounds. The same result cannot be achieved if someone who had sinned intentionally were to offer such a sacrifice seeing he had already forfeited his soul. There is nothing left that can be reconstituted until the sinner repented and experienced the beneficial effect of the Day of Atonement, as pointed out by Ezekiel 18,32 והשיבו וחיו, "when you return and cause others to return so that you may live."


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:3:1)

**אִם הַכֹּהֵן וְגוֹ׳.** הִתְחִיל בַּכֹּהֵן וְלֹא בַּצִּבּוּר, וּמַה גַּם שֶׁאָמַר **לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם** שֶׁדִּמָּה שִׁגְגָתוֹ לְשִׁגְגַת הָעָם וּמִן הָרָאוּי לְהַקְדִּים בְּרֵישָׁא. וְאוּלַי שֶׁבָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּים קָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל מָשׁוּחַ לְשֶׁל צִבּוּר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לְשֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, וְהַטַּעַם כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת הוֹרָיוֹת (הוריות יג.) כֹּהֵן מְכַפֵּר וְצִבּוּר מִתְכַּפְּרִין. וּמָצָאתִי לְרַזַ״ל (תורת כהנים פסוק יג) שֶׁאָמְרוּ, פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה, פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם, וּדְרָשׁוּהָ מֵאָמְרוֹ ״וְאִם כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל״ וְגוֹ׳, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהַקְדִּימוֹ. עוֹד דָּרְשׁוּ מֵאָמְרוֹ ״כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף״ וְגוֹ׳, מִכָּאן שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּים פַּר מָשִׁיחַ לְפַר הָעֵדָה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, If the anointed priest shall sin, etc.** The Torah begins its list with the sin of an individual, although the Torah writes לאשמת העם, that this individual thereby brings guilt on the entire people. This is to tell us that an inadvertent sin committed by the High Priest is equivalent to an inadvertent sin by the whole community. If so, why did the Torah not begin the list of people who have to bring sin-offerings with 4,13 where the sin of the community is described, and wait with mentioning a sin by the High Priest until after verse 21 when inadvertent sins by individuals are listed? Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that in the event of the High Priest **and** the community having committed an inadvertent sin, the sin-offering of the High Priest takes precedence over that of the community as a whole. The same rule would apply if both the King and the people had committed a sin. The reason given in *Horiot* 13 is that the High Priest is active in securing atonement whereas the community achieves its atonement passively. I have found in *Torat Kohanim* on verse 13 (item 240) in our chapter that when both a high Priest and the community have to offer bullocks as sin offerings, the bullock of the High Priest has to be offered first. This ruling is based on the word ואם in verse 13 meaning that what is listed here is only secondary to what has been listed before, i.e. the bullock of the High Priest.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:3:2)

וְצָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְרַזַ״ל לִלְמֹד הַקְּדִימָה מִמַּה שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהֻצְרְכוּ לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחַר דְּרָשׁוֹת אֲחֵרִים. וְאוּלַי שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיְתָה אֶלָּא הַקְּדִימָה בַּסֵּדֶר לְבַד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא סִדְּרוֹ הַכָּתוּב קֹדֶם קָרְבַּן צִבּוּר אֶלָּא לְצַד שֶׁאִם הָיָה מְסַדְּרוֹ אַחַר קָרְבַּן צִבּוּר, הָיָה נִשְׁמָע אָמְרוֹ ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, פֵּרוּשׁ, הָאֲמוּרָה בְּסָמוּךְ, שֶׁהוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְהוּא הוֹרָה עִמָּהֶם, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ, כִּי אִם הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר, וְכִדְאִיתָא בַּמִּשְׁנָה (הוריות ז.), לָזֶה קָדַם וְסִדֵּר מִשְׁפָּטוֹ לְבַד. וַעֲדַיִן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא יַקְדִּים קָרְבָּנוֹ לְשֶׁל צִבּוּר, לָזֶה דָּרְשׁוּ מֵאָמְרוֹ ״וְאִם״ וְגוֹ׳. וַעֲדַיִן קָשֶׁה לָמָּה הֻצְרְכוּ שְׁתֵּי דְּרָשׁוֹת לָזֶה, דְּרָשַׁת ״וְאִם״, וּדְרָשַׁת ״כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף״ (ויקרא ד:כא). וְנִרְאֶה כִּי אֶחָד לִרְשׁוּת וְאֶחָד לְחוֹבָה. וּמַה שֶׁרָאִיתִי לְבַעַל קָרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנָּתַן טַעַם שֶׁהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר לְמִקְצָת וְלֹא לְכֻלָּהּ, אֵין טַעַם בְּטַעְמוֹ. עוֹד נִרְאֶה לוֹמַר, אֶחָד לְאִם קָדַם וְהֵבִיא וַעֲדַיִן לֹא הֵבִיאוּ פַּר הָעֵדָה וְהֵבִיאוּ אַחַר כָּךְ וַהֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִים, וְחַד לְאִם בָּאוּ כְּאַחַת פַּר מָשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן תַּקְדִּים שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
This raises the question why our sages could not have deduced this rule simply from the fact that the Torah has written about the bullock to be offered by the High Priest before it wrote about the bullock to be offered by the community in the event the latter committed an error? Perhaps the sages reasoned that if there were no other hint that the High Priest's bullock takes precedence except the fact that the paragraph about the High Priest sinning was mentioned first, we would have misunderstood the words לאשמת העם as a reference to the error the people had committed which is described in verse 13. That verse deals with the people having acted on the basis of an erroneous decision of the High Court. I would have thought that the reason the Torah described the High Priest's error as "the sin of the people" was because he had concurrred with the erroneous decision of the High Court, or had even been part of the Court which handed down the erroneous decision. Such an interpretation would be wrong. If the High Priest had been part of the High Court which handed down an erroneous decision, his atonement is part of the atonement of the whole people, i.e. he does not have to bring a bullock as an individual sin-offering (*Horiot* 7). The Torah commenced the sin-offering legislation with the High Priest in order that we should not arrive at an erroneous conclusion. In view of this I would not have been able to use the fact that the first paragraph deals with the sin-offering of the High Priest as proof that his sin-offering takes precedence even over the communal sin-offering. We are still faced with the problem why two separate exegetical comments were necessary to teach us this, a) the word ואם in verse 13, and b) the words כאשר שרף, in verse 21 (compare *Torat Kohanim* 255 on that verse). I believe that the reason there are two such exegetical openings is simply that if I had only had one, I would have reasoned that the High Priest's offering **may** be offered first, but does **not have to be** offered first. Seeing that the Torah provided us with two exegetical openings it is clear that the Torah considers the High Priest's offering taking precedence as mandatory. I have seen a comment by *Korban Aharon* who claims that unless I had both these expressions available for exegetical use I would have assumed that the High Priest's offering would take only partial precedence but that before he completed his offering one would start with the offering of the community. I do not see any merit in such reasoning. If the author of *Korban Aharon* were correct the Torah should not have written כאשר שרף את הפר הראשון, "the first bullock" in verse 21, but should have written את הפר האחד, "the one bullock." This would have indicated that the procedure of offering the bullock of the High Priest had not been completed as yet at that stage.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:3:3)

**לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם.** יִתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (אבות ה:יח): הַמְזַכֶּה אֶת הָרַבִּים אֵין חֵטְא בָּא עַל יָדוֹ, וּבִרְאוֹת כִּי כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ חָטָא – זֶה יַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ הַזּוֹכִים עַל יָדוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא חֵטְא עַל יָדוֹ בִּשְׁבִילָם, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם.**

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**לאשמת העם, so as to bring guilt on the people;** we may understand this statement as parallel to what we are taught in *Avot* 5,18: that if someone is engaged in conferring merits on others he himself will not commit a sin. When the High Priest himself commits a sin, this is proof that the people did not enjoy sufficient merits by reason of his activities that it should have protected him against committing a sin himself. This is the meaning of לאשמת העם.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:4
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:3:4)

וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים דָּרְשׁוּ כִּי ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״ יְכַוֵּן הַכָּתוּב לְהַרְאוֹת מִין הַחֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יִתְחַיֵּב עָלָיו קָרְבָּן, שֶׁהוּא הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, כָּאָמוּר ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״ (ויקרא ד:יג) ״וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר״ וְגוֹ׳. וְאִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ שָׁגַג בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְבַד, הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אִם יִתְחַיֵּב לְהָבִיא קָרְבַּן הֶדְיוֹט אוֹ לֹא, וְדָרְשׁוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (הוריות יא.) בְּפָסוּק ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ לְהוֹצִיא כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ כִּי פָּטוּר לְגַמְרֵי. וְאִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ אֵינוֹ חָכָם מֻפְלָא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר (הוריות ז.) מִכָּל מִין קָרְבָּן, בֵּין בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר וְשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְבַד, וְצָרִיךְ לָתֵת טַעַם לְדָבָר זֶה. וְאוּלַי כִּי הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר וְהוּא חָכָם מֻפְלָא, שְׁגָגָה זוֹ עוֹשָׂה רֹשֶׁם גָּדוֹל בְּנִשְׁמָתוֹ וּמַרְחִיק נַפְשׁוֹ מִשָּׁרְשָׁהּ, וְלֹא יוֹעִיל זְכוּתָם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָן לִמְנֹעַ מִמֶּנּוּ הַפְּגָם, מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן כָּל שֶׁשָּׁגַג בְּמַעֲשֶׂה לְבַד אוֹ בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר וְאֵינוֹ חָכָם מֻפְלָא, חֵטְא זֶה לֹא יַפְעִיל פְּגָם בִּבְחִינַת נֶפֶשׁ כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְרַחֲקָהּ מִשָּׁרְשָׁהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לְקָרְבָּן לְקָרְבָהּ, כִּי בְּאֶמְצָעוּת זְכוּת הָרַבִּים הֶן אֵל כַּבִּיר לֹא יִמְאָס, גַּם לֹא יַסְפִּיק זֶה לְסִימָן כִּי הָעָם אֲשֵׁמִים מִמַּה שֶׁבָּא לְיַד הַמָּשִׁיחַ שׁוֹגֵג זֶה מֵהַטַּעַם עַצְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
*Torat Kohanim* interprets the words אשמת העם as providing us with a clue as to the nature of the sin on account of which the High Priest has to atone with the bullock as a sin-offering. The sin is described as העלם דבר, lack of knowledge of the correct religious ruling which resulted in the people violating a negative commandment involving an activity, as mentioned in verse 13. If all the High Priest had been guilty of was an erroneous activity, some hold that he would be required to bring the same kind of sin-offering as an ordinary individual, whereas others hold that he would not be culpable at all. We learned in *Horiot* 11 that the words מעם הארץ in verse 27 are proof that if the High Priest had been guilty of a personal sin consisting of a sinful act that he would be free of the obligation to offer a sin-offering altogether. According to *Horiot* 7 if the High Priest does not happen to be an outstanding scholar he is not required to offer a sin-offering of either kind, not for having committed a sinful act inadvertently nor for having handed down an erroneous ruling upon which the people acted. We need to understand the reason for such an *halachah*. Perhaps the reason is that if an erroneous ruling is handed down by a High Priest who also happens to be an outstanding scholar and upon whom the people place a great deal of reliance, such an error makes a deep impression on his soul, creating a distance between his soul and its holy roots so that the merits of the Israelites which he has been instrumental in securing for them is insufficient to protect him against harmful effects on his own soul. Such an effect would not occur when the High Priest only erred in personally committing an inadvertent sinful act, or even if a High Priest who was not presumed to be a scholar handed down an erroneous ruling. Such sins would not create the kind of distance between his soul and its holy roots that he would need to bring an additional sacrifice in order to re-establish the bonds with his soul's holy roots. The merits a High Priest confers on the multitude by means of his daily activities are enough to protect the soul of such a High Priest from major harm. G'd would not despise him on account of the error he committed. Furthermore, seeing that the High Priest's error did not involve the people, it does not leave such a deep impression on his soul.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:1)

**לִפְנֵי ה׳.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים: מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּפַר הַבָּא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד לִפְנִים מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לִפְנֵי ה׳״ וְלֹא כֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳, עַד כָּאן. מַשְׁמַע שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצִינוּ בְּפַר הַבָּא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁמִיעֵנוּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״. וְקָשֶׁה, וּמִנַּיִן אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ מְקוֹם עֲמִידָתוֹ? וּמֵחֲמַת שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ מֵהַכָּתוּב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָקוֹם יָדוּעַ, נָבוֹא לוֹמַר: רָצָה – עוֹמֵד לִפְנִים מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹמֵד, רָצָה – עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹמֵד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, לוֹמַר כִּי צָרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְלָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״? עוֹד קָשֶׁה, מִנַּיִן מָקוֹם לִדְרֹשׁ שֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת וְהוּא חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ? דִּלְמָא לְגוּפָא בָּא שֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהוּא חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּכְדֶרֶךְ אָמְרוֹ בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר (ויקרא טז:יח) ״וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, וּלְעוֹלָם הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת תִּהְיֶה וְהוּא לִפְנִים.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**לפני ה׳ אשר באהל מועד before the Lord who is in the Tent of Meeting, etc.** In answer to the question why the Torah had to write the words "before the Lord" which had already been written in verse 6, Rabbi Nechemyah in *Torat Kohanim* says that seeing that we find that Aaron stood beyond the golden altar on the Day of Atonement when he sprinkled the blood on the dividing curtain, we could have assumed that the same procedure was to be followed here. The Torah therefore had to make clear that only the golden altar was "before the Lord," not Aaron. This suggests that except for the fact that the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement was sprinkled towards the dividing curtain, the words "before the Lord" in our verse would be superfluous. This is difficult. How would I have known where Aaron was to have stood if the Torah had not written the words "before the Lord?" Seeing that in that event the Torah had not designated a specific spot where Aaron had to stand to perform the sprinkling ceremony, I would have concluded that he had the choice of standing either in front of the golden altar or beyond it. The Torah therefore had to write the words: "in front of the Lord," to tell us that Aaron was to stand in front of the altar. Why was all this necessary? Because we find that there was another occasion when he was to stand beyond the golden altar. Another difficulty is this: why would I assume that Aaron was to perform the ritual of sprinkling the blood towards the dividing curtain while he was standing so far away that the altar was between him and the dividing curtain? Perhaps the words are to tell us that he was to sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing in front of it (facing the dividing curtain)? Seeing that in Leviticus 17,18 the Torah describes Aaron as exiting the Holy of Holies in the direction of the golden altar while putting some of the blood of the bullock on its corners, maybe the Torah wanted to tell us that the same procedure should be followed here, i.e. that when Aaron was to put the blood on the corners of the golden altar he was to do so while having his back to the dividing curtain and facing outwards before pouring out the excess blood at the base of the copper altar? As far as the sprinkling of blood towards the dividing curtain was concerned, however, this should take place when Aaron stood between the golden altar and the dividing curtain? If we had had no other detail than this to worry about, we could have answered this problem.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:2)

וְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה לָנוּ אֶלָּא דִּקְדּוּק זֶה הָיָה מָקוֹם לְיַשֵּׁב. אֶלָּא שֶׁרָאִיתִי עוֹד בְּפָרָשַׁת אַחֲרֵי מוֹת (ויקרא טז:יח): תַּנְיָא ״וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּפַר הַבָּא עַל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְיָצָא״, וְהֵיכָן הָיָה? ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, עַד כָּאן. קָשֶׁה, מַה הִיא כֹּחַ קֻשְׁיַת ״מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר״? וַהֲלֹא אִצְטְרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְלֹא יַזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהוּא בִּפְנִים. עוֹד אָמְרוֹ ״לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר״ מַשְׁמַע דַּוְקָא לְצַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, אֲבָל זוּלַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יוֹדִיעֵנוּ הַכָּתוּב מְקוֹם עֲמִידָתוֹ כְּשֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת. וְעוֹד לְפִי דְּבָרָיו לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר לֹא ״וְיָצָא״ שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ נִתְחַיֵּב לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בְּפַר הַמִּצְווֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּדַקְדֵּק בִּדְבָרָיו ״מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לִפְנֵי ה׳״ לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ וְכוּ׳, וְלֹא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה נִתְחַיֵּב לוֹמַר ״וְיָצָא״ בְּפָרָשַׁת פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר כְּאָמְרוֹ ״מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְיָצָא״ לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ וְכוּ׳. וְעוֹד קָשֶׁה אָמְרוֹ ״לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּפַר הַבָּא עַל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁעוֹמֵד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת״, הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב כֵּן? וְאִם מֵאָמְרוֹ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, דִּלְמָא עַל הַזָּאַת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הוּא אוֹמֵר כִּפְשַׁט הַכָּתוּב וְלֹא עַל הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת. וְעוֹד נִרְאֶה אֲנַחְנוּ, אִם לֹא הָיָה אוֹמֵר לֹא ״וְיָצָא״ וְלֹא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ אַיֵּה מְקוֹם כְּבוֹד עֲמִידָתוֹ, וְאִם כֵּן אֵיךְ יָכוֹל תַּנָּא לוֹמַר ״מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר״ בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם?

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
However, I have seen that the same Rabbi Nechemyah speaking of the meaning of the words "and Aaron shall exit towards the altar which is in front of the Lord" (Leviticus 16,18), questions the meaning of these words. He answers that we find in connection with the bullock which Aaron has to offer concerning all the other inadvertently committed sins that he had to stand on the far side of the curtain with the altar between him and the dividing curtain. I might have concluded that he was to follow the same procedure also with the bullock on the Day of Atonement; therefore the Torah had to write the word ויצא, etc. Where did Aaron stand on that occasion? לפני השם, in front of the Lord." Thus far Rabbi Nechemyah in *Torat Kohanim* item 45 on 16,18 (item 45). It is difficult to understand why Rabbi Nechemyah had to find justification for the words of the Torah in that verse. Surely the Torah had to inform us (or the High Priest) that the High Priest had to leave the place he stood on and not sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing between it and the dividing curtain. Besides, the *Torat Kohanim* claims that the **only** reason we know where the High Priest stood at the time was that the Torah describes him as in the process of exiting towards the golden altar when he sprinkled blood on the dividing curtain. Furthermore, according to what Rabbi Nechemyah said that the words ויצא אל המזבח are not needed seeing that we now learned where Aaron was standing from the words לפני השם in 16,18 instead of as he said in our verse from the words לפני השם in 4,7. Rabbi Nechemyah glibly assumed that the High Priest would have stood outside the altar when sprinkling the blood of the bullock towards the dividing curtain when he performed this procedure on occasions other than the Day of Atonement. Where is there an indication in the text that this was indeed the case? If he were to use the words לפני השם to prove this theory, perhaps those words referred to the need to sprinkle some of the blood onto the altar itself which is the plain meaning of the verse! Besides, if the Torah had omitted both the words ויצא אל המזבח and the words לפני השם, how would I have known where Aaron was to have stood? How could Rabbi Nechemyah therefore even ask what these words were supposed to teach us?


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:3)

**אָכֵן** דְּרָשַׁת הַתַּנָּא הִיא כְּסֵדֶר זֶה, כִּי אִם לֹא אָמַר הַכָּתוּב לֹא ״וְיָצָא״ וְלֹא יִתּוּר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, פָּשׁוּט הוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁפֹּט בּוֹ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַזּוֹת בֵּין עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת בֵּין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בְּכָל אֹפֶן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, בֵּין הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּפְנִים בֵּין הוּא בִּפְנִים. וְאַחַר שֶׁבָּא הַכָּתוּב וְזָכַר בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם מִצְוַת מִזְבֵּחַ בִּפְנִים, וּפְשַׁט הַכָּתוּב הוּא עַל הַזָּאַת מִזְבֵּחַ, וְזָכַר בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר גַּם כֵּן מִזְבֵּחַ בִּפְנִים, כָּאָמוּר ״וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, וּבִפְרָט זֶה הֻשְׁווּ פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר עִם פַּר הַמִּצְווֹת. גַּם הִשְׁמִיעָנוּ בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר שֶׁהַזָּאַת פָּרֹכֶת תִּהְיֶה וְהוּא בִּפְנִים, כִּי מֵאָמְרוֹ ״וְיָצָא״ מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיָה בִּפְנִים. וְהִנֵּה הַדַּעַת נוֹתֶנֶת שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין בְּפַר הַמִּצְווֹת תִּהְיֶה הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת וְהוּא לִפְנִים מֵהַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְיִלָּמֵד מַה שֶׁחָסֵר בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם מִפַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים וּפַר הַמִּצְווֹת שָׁוִים שֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת וְהוּא לִפְנִים וְיֵצֵא וְיַזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן בָּא הַתַּנָּא וְהוֹצִיא דָּבָר זֶה מִלֵּב שׁוֹמֵעַ בְּכֹחַ הַדְּרָשָׁה, וְאָמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? פֵּרוּשׁ, אַחַר שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים ״וְיָצָא״, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַזָּאַת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תִּהְיֶה וּמִזְבֵּחַ לִפְנִים, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״? אִם לְלַמֵּד בָּא שֶׁלֹּא יַזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהוּא בַּחוּץ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, וְיִלָּמֵד הַכֹּל מִפַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים. וְתֵרֵץ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כִּי הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, פֵּרוּשׁ, מִמַּה שֶׁאָנוּ רוֹאִים שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה הַכָּתוּב לִלְמֹד פַּר מִצְווֹת מִפַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים, הֲרֵי זֶה מַרְאֶה בָּאֶצְבַּע שֶׁאֵין דּוֹמֶה לוֹ. וּבַמֶּה אֵין דּוֹמֶה לוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בּוֹ פְּרָט אֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְכַּר בְּפַר הַמִּצְווֹת, וְהוּא הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת וְהוּא בִּפְנִים. וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ: ״לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד לִפְנִים וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת״, וְאִם הָיִיתִי דָּן פַּר מִצְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ הָיִיתִי יָכוֹל לוֹמַר גַּם זֶה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ וְכוּ׳. וּמֵעַתָּה אָמְרוֹ ״מִזְבֵּחַ לִפְנֵי ה׳״ שׁוֹלֵל כֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳ בְּכָל הַהַזָּאוֹת, בֵּין שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ בֵּין שֶׁל פָּרֹכֶת, שֶׁעַל מִי סָמַךְ עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב לְהָבִין אַיֵּה מְקוֹם עֲמִידָתוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאַת פָּרֹכֶת? אִם לִלְמֹד מִפַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר נִלְמַד גַּם כֵּן הַכֹּל, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹ מְקוֹמוֹ ״מִזְבֵּחַ לִפְנֵי ה׳״ וְלֹא כֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳ בְּכָל הַהַזָּאוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בְּעִנְיָן זֶה. וּבְפָסוּק ״וְיָצָא״ הָאָמוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים דָּרַשׁ עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? פֵּרוּשׁ, מַשְׁמָעוּת פְּשַׁט הַכָּתוּב הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא, וּמַשְׁמִיעֵנוּ גַּם כֵּן שֶׁקֹּדֶם כְּשֶׁהִזָּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת הָיָה לִפְנִים.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
Actually, the exegesis of Rabbi Nechemyah in both parts of *Torat Kohanim* is most appropriate. Had the Torah not written the words ויצא and not the apparently superfluous words לפני השם, I would simply have concluded that Aaron was free to sprinkle both onto the dividing curtain and onto the altar regardless of whether he stood between the altar and the dividing curtain or between the entrance to the Sanctuary and the golden altar. The Torah mentioned in connection with a wrong decision rendered by the High Court and acted upon by the community that a bullock had to be offered by the High Priest and that the blood was to be sprinkled as atonement on the **golden altar** (according to the plain meaning of the verse). The Torah also mentioned the golden altar as recipient of the blood of the bullock offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement as evident by the words ויצא אל המזבח. These facts established a halachic linkage between these two bullocks and the procedure to be followed concerning them. Not only this, but in both instances the Torah also speaks of the blood requiring to be sprinkled either upon or in the direction of the dividing curtain which is beyond the golden altar. Logic would have told us that the procedure prescribed in chapter 16 must be similar to that prescribed in chapter 4, i.e. that the sprinkling of the blood towards the dividing curtain was to be performed from a position beyond the golden altar, closer to the dividing curtain. We would then have made a מה מצינו kind of exegesis from what was missing in the information described in chapter 4, 13-21 by referring to chapter 16, 3-20. Rabbi Nechemyah tells us in *Torat Kohanim* that the words לפני השם are intended to prevent us from arriving at such a faulty conclusion. He asks rhetorically: Why were the apparently superfluous words לפני השם written seeing we would have used the same words in 16,18 and have applied them in our verse here? After all, we already know that the golden altar was used for sprinkling of the blood of the bullock offered as a sin-offering by the Torah writing ויצא אל המזבח. The words לפני השם could most certainly not be used to teach us that the High Priest was not to sprinkle the blood of the bullock on the copper altar seeing that altar was outside the Sanctuary. We are therefore back to the question what precisely the words לפני השם have been written for in our context seeing everything else could have been derived from the legislation about the bullock on the day of Atonement. Rabbi Nechemyah answers all these questions saying that the words לפני השם prove that the Torah did not want us to apply the מה מצינו type of exegesis by comparing the procedure to be followed with the bullock in our paragraph to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement. The essential difference between these two procedures involving the bullock as a sin-offering on the Day of Atonement and that in our chapter is, that there is no mention of the sprinkling of the blood **on** the dividing curtain by the High Priest while the latter is standing between the altar and the Holy of Holies in our verse. This is in contrast to the bullock to be offered on the Day of Atonement, where there is specific mention of this. Had I derived the various procedures applicable to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement, I would have also had to apply the detail of where the blood was to be sprinkled from the procedure outlined in chapter 16. The appearance of the word לפני השם in our verse teaches me not to derive **any למוד** from the bullock used on the Day of Atonement, be it the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain or the sprinkling of the blood of that animal on the altar. Seeing this is so we would not have had any source upon which to base an assumption as to where the High Priest was to stand during the procedure of sprinkling the blood in the direction of the dividing curtain involving the פר העלם דבר, i.e. the bullock in our chapter. It seems clear therefore, that the words לפני השם must refer to the golden altar and not to the place where the High Priest was standing during all the sprinklings mentioned in our verse. Rabbi Nechemyah explains the words ויצא אל המזבח in 16,18 as follows: "What do these words teach us, i.e. what is the plain meaning of this verse?" Answer: "That the High Priest should not commence the sprinkling of the remaining blood on the altar until he has passed the golden altar on his way out of the Sanctuary." This teaches by inference that prior to that the High Priest had performed the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain while standing between the golden altar and the dividing curtain.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:4
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:4)

**וְהִנֵּה** דְּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה נִשְׁמַעַת בַּכָּתוּב שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לָצֵאת לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל הַזָּאַת פָּרֹכֶת שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנִים אֵין הֶכְרֵחַ בַּדָּבָר, וְיָכוֹל לְהַזּוֹת בֵּין שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים בֵּין שֶׁהוּא לַחוּץ, וּלְצַד כִּי רְשׁוּת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַעֲמֹד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁכְּשֶׁיִּגְמֹר בִּפְנִים לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת יֵצֵא לְהַזּוֹת עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. לָזֶה בָּא הַתַּנָּא וְאָמַר הַדְּרָשָׁה שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ בָּנָה הַקֻּשְׁיָא, וְהוּא, לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּפַר הַבָּא עַל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד וְכוּ׳, פֵּרוּשׁ הֲגַם שֶׁלֹּא הֻזְכַּר שָׁם אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי הַזָּאַת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לָמַדְנוּ עַל הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת אֶלָּא מִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד מִפַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר וְהֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לְפִי מַה שֶׁאָנוּ דָּנִים עָלָיו עַתָּה הוּא אִם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר ״וְיָצָא״ אֶלָּא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ שֶׁבְּפַר הֶעְלֵם, וּבִמְצִיאוּת זֶה כְּשֶׁאֲנִי בָּא לָדוּן עַל מְקוֹם עֲמִידָתוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר כִּי רָצָה עוֹמֵד בִּפְנִים רָצָה עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, שֶׁלֹּא הִקְפִּיד הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא עַל הַזָּאַת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד בַּחוּץ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאָתוֹ עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת אֵין עִכּוּב בַּדָּבָר. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר כִּי יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בְּחוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ ״לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ וְכוּ׳ שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת יָכוֹל גַּם זֶה כֵּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְיָצָא״, פֵּרוּשׁ, לְעִכּוּבָא, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנִים בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹ לוֹמַר וְלוֹמֵד אֲנִי מִפַּר הֶעְלֵם. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁמִּכֹּחַ אָמְרוֹ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם אַתָּה מִתְחַיֵּב לוֹמַר כִּי אָמְרוֹ ״וְיָצָא״ בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר בָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנִים בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאָה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, שֶׁאִם רְשׁוּת לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, וְהָיָה לָמֵד מִפַּר הֶעְלֵם שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים: שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בְּהַזּוֹת עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּחוּץ, וּבְהַזּוֹת עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת יַעֲמֹד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ מֵאָמְרוֹ ״וְיָצָא״ שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים: שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנִים כְּשֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד בַּחוּץ כְּשֶׁיַּזֶּה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּלְפִי זֶה נִתְיַשְּׁבוּ צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הָרַב רַבִּי אֵלִיָּהוּ מִזְרָחִי בְּפָרָשַׁת אַחֲרֵי מוֹת (ויקרא טז:יח) בִּדְרָשַׁת ״וְיָצָא״, וְעַיֵּן שָׁם דְּבָרָיו.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
[Although the author continues to dissect the exegetical comments by Rabbi Nechemyah still further, I have decided to omit further details seeing we have shown how he solved the main problem. Ed.]


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:5
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:5)

**אֶלָּא** שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַחֲקוֹר זֹאת, לְפִי בָּרַיְתָא זֹאת שֶׁהִכְרִיחָה עֲמִידַת פְּנִים בְּהַזָּאַת הַפָּרוֹכֶת מִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר מִפַּר הֶעְלֵם, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁנַּחְזוֹר לְהָבִין בָּרַיְתָא דְּ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר וְכוּ׳, קָשֶׁה – וַהֲלֹא צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, שֶׁזּוּלָתָהּ לֹא הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ כִּי כַּוָּנַת אָמְרוֹ ״וְיָצָא״ הוּא לְהַצְרִיךְ עֲמִידָה בִּפְנִים בְּהַזָּאַת הַפָּרוֹכֶת כַּנִּזְכָּר. וּמֵעַתָּה נַחְזוֹר לְמַה שֶׁהָיָה עוֹלֶה עַל דַּעְתֵּנוּ לוֹמַר כִּי גַּם בְּפַר הֶעְלֵם יַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנִים בִּשְׁעַת הַזָּאָה עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת כַּסֵּדֶר הָאָמוּר בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר. מַה תֹּאמַר, לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר? אִצְטְרִיךְ כְּדֵי לְגַלּוֹת עַל פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר שֶׁחוֹבָה לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנִים בְּהַזָּאַת הַפָּרֹכֶת כָּאָמוּר, שֶׁזּוּלַת זֶה הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת. וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר כִּי סוֹבֵר הַתַּנָּא שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ לַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ פִּלְפּוּל זֶה לְבַד, דְּהַיְנוּ לְהַקְשׁוֹת יִלְמוֹד מִמֶּנּוּ פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּר וּמִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד וְכוּ׳ כַּנִּזְכָּר, כִּי אֵין זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁעַל כָּל פָּנִים תִּהְיֶה צְרִיכָה לִלְמוֹד דָּבָר לְגוּפָהּ, שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיָה כַּוָּנַת ה׳ אֶלָּא לְגַלּוֹת עַל ״וְיָצָא״ כַּנִּזְכָּר הָיָה לוֹ לְפָרֵשׁ הַדָּבָר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ בְּפַר יוֹם כִּפּוּר.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:6
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:7:6)

**עוֹד** נִרְאֶה לוֹמַר, כִּי כֵּיוָן שֶׁדְּרָשָׁה זוֹ צוֹדֶקֶת כְּשֶׁנַּקְדִּים לְהַקְשׁוֹת לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ וְיִלָּמֵד מִ״וְיָצָא״, לָמָּה תִּדָּחֶה דְּרָשָׁה זוֹ מֵאִידָךְ, הִלְכָּךְ לָמְדִינַן תַּרְוַיְיהוּ.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:13:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:13:1)

**וְאִם כָּל עֲדַת וְגוֹ׳.** בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים דָּרְשׁוּ ״עֲדַת״ – זוֹ סַנְהֶדְרִין, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֵדָה״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְכוּ׳ (במדבר לה:כד-כה), ״יִשְׂרָאֵל״ דָּרְשׁוּ הַמְּיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, ״יִשְׁגּוּ״ יָכוֹל יִהְיוּ הַמְּיֻחָדִים חַיָּבִים עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנֶעְלַם״, אֵינָם חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר. וְאָמְרוּ עוֹד: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ יָכוֹל יִהְיוּ חַיָּבִין – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ״, הַהוֹרָאָה בְּבֵית דִּין וְהַמַּעֲשֶׂה בַּקָּהָל, עַד כָּאן.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, And if the entire community of Israel shall err, etc.** The word עדת, "community of" is taken by *Torat Kohanim* as referring to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. The word עדה in this verse and the word עדה in Numbers 35,24-25 both are a reference to the Sanhedrin of 71 sages. The word ישראל is presumed to mean the Court which is unique to Israel, i.e. the Court comprising 71 judges. The word ישגו teaches that the legislation introduced here applies only if the Court erred in its judgment **and** the people acted upon that error in judgment. If the members of the Court themselves acted upon their faulty judgment this is still no reason to apply the legislation stated in this paragraph seeing that the Torah writes הקהל ועשו, "and the community did accordingly." Thus far the *Torat Kohanim*.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:13:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:13:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:13:2)

וּבְדֶרֶךְ רֶמֶז יִרְצֶה, שֶׁאִם יִשְׁגּוּ הָעֵדָה וְיִטְעוּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הַיָּשָׁר, גַּם סַנְהֶדְרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹרָתָם תִּהְיֶה נֶעֱלֶמֶת מֵהֶם, לְצַד שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁגִּיחוּ עַל עֲדַת ה׳ לְיַשֵּׁר הַמַּעֲקַשִּׁים, כִּי הַחֵטְא יוֹלִיד חֵטְא אַחֵר, וְצֵא וּלְמַד (גיטין ס.) מֵהוֹרָאַת אַבַּיֵּי בְּלֹא נְטִילַת רְשׁוּת מֵרַבּוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג בְּאוֹתָהּ הוֹרָאָה וְהִרְגִּישׁ כִּי דֵּין גָּרְמָה, וְכִדְאִיתָא בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (ה:).

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
A moral-ethical approach to this verse considers the word ישגו as referring to Israeli society committing moral errors and departing from Jewish norms. As a result of such conduct it would follow that the Jewish Supreme Court will also hand down faulty judgments as the judges and their Torah knowledge reflect the level of the people whom they represent. They are to blame for the people straying as they had not used their authority in controlling public morals. It had been their duty to discipline the individuals who were responsible for a trend away from traditional Jewish values. We have the example of Abbaye in *Gittin* 60, who erred in a ruling as he had not first obtained permission from his teacher to issue a ruling. We have been told this specifically in *Sanhedrin* 5.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:22:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:22:1)

**אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא.** פֵּרוּשׁ, אֲפִלּוּ בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין כָּל שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין בֵּית דִּין וְעָשָׂה הוּא חַיָּב שָׂעִיר, וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ״ם (הלכות שגגות טו:ח).

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**אשר נשיא יחטא, When the prince (or king) commit an error, etc.** This includes a situation where the ruler acted on the basis of a decision handed down by a properly constituted court. As long as the court is not guilty of a sin-offering on account of its decision, the ruler has to bring a a male goat as a sin-offering (Maimonides *Hilchot Shigegot* 15,8).


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:23:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:23:1)

**אוֹ הוֹדַע.** אָמְרוֹ ״אוֹ״, לְצַד שֶׁקָּדַם וְאָמַר ״וְאָשֵׁם״, וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (תורת כהנים ד:כג) מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אִם נִסְתַּפֵּק, לָזֶה אָמַר ״אוֹ הוֹדַע״ פֵּרוּשׁ אִם הוֹדַע אֵלָיו וַדַּאי.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**או הודע אליו חטאתו, or he has become aware of his inadvertent sin, etc.** The Torah here writes "or" seeing in the previous verse it had written ואשם, that he was definite about having sinned. *Torat Kohanim* concludes that the ruler has to bring an אשם תלוי, a conditional sin-offering, if he is in doubt about having committed the sin in question. Our verse may discuss a situation where after having first offered an אשם תלוי while he was in doubt, the ruler now has to offer a definitive sin-offering as he is now certain that he committed the sin he had been in doubt about.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:27:1)

**וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳.** אָמַר **וְאִם** בְּוָא״ו לְהוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן מַה שֶׁרָשַׁם מֵהַדִּינִים בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם נֶגְדִּיּוּת לְהָאָמוּר בְּמַה שֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**ואם נפש אחת תחטא, And if anyone of the common people sin through error, etc.** The letter ו at the beginning of the word ואם connects this paragraph to the rules established in the previous paragraphs concerning the details of the procedures.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:27:2)

**מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ.** דָּרְשׁוּ רַזַ״ל (הוריות יא.) לְמַעֵט כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ בְּשִׁגְגָתוֹ בְּלֹא הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אֲפִלּוּ שְׂעִירָה. גַּם מ״ם שֶׁל ״מֵעַם״ אָמְרוּ לְמַעֵט נָשִׂיא בְּהֵיכָא שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת וְהוּא הֶדְיוֹט וַחֲצִי זַיִת וְהוּא מֶלֶךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה. פֵּרוּשׁ, מִתְּחִלָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ ״עַם הָאָרֶץ״ שֶׁהוּא לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַגָּדוֹל וּמְיֻחָד שֶׁבָּהֶם שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וּדְרָשָׁא זוֹ הָיְתָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת הֲגַם שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר ״בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ״, וּמֵאָמְרוֹ ״מֵעַם״ חָזַר וְחִלֵּק גַּם חֵלֶק מֵהַהֶדְיוֹט, וּכְגוֹן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת וְנִתְמַנָּה וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**מעם הארץ, amongst the common people, etc.** *Horiot* 11 teaches that this excludes the High Priest if the latter erred without there having been an erroneous decision handed down by the High Court. In such an event the High Priest does not even have to bring a female goat as a sin-offering to atone for his error. Exegetes also use the letter ם in the word מעם to exclude culpability of a ruler in the event he ate half (part) of the minimum amount of a forbidden food whereas he had eaten the other half before becoming the ruler. The method of exegesis is based on the words מעם הארץ being superfluous in the first instance; the words נפש כי תחטא would have been quite sufficient. The expression is therefore used to exclude prominent individuals such as the High Priest. The additional letter ם is now also available for exegesis "dividing" the concept of עם הארץ. Hence the exegete applies it to a commoner who has consumed part of a forbidden amount of blood, for instance, and was subsequently elevated to the status of king or High Priest before he ate the second part of that blood which constituted an amount for which one is culpable of bringing a sin-offering. The extraneous letter teaches us that such a High Priest or King does not have to bring a sin-offering.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:3
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:27:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:27:3)

**בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ.** לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, וְדָרְשׁוּ מִמֶּנָּה בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מִעוּט וְרִבּוּי: מִעוּט – שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה עַל פִּי הוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר, דְּסָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא מַה שֶׁקָּבַע הַכָּתוּב פַּר הַקָּהָל אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהָיוּ סִבָּה בְּהוֹרָאָתָם לַחֲטֹא, אֲבָל הָעוֹשִׂים כְּדִינָם עוֹמְדִים לְהָבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּדַוְקָא הַתּוֹלֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ. רִבּוּי – שֶׁאִם תָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין, פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁהוֹרוּ בְּבֵית דִּין וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם, אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁטָּעוּ אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִצַּד הוֹרָאָתָם וְחַיָּב בִּשְׂעִירָה אוֹ כִּשְׂבָּה, הֲגַם שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ בֵּית דִּין פַּר הַחַטָּאת כְּמִשְׁפָּטוֹ. הָרִבּוּי רָמוּז בְּתֵבַת ״בַּעֲשׂוֹת״, וְהַמִּעוּט בְּדִקְדּוּק ״בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ״, מַשְׁמַע בַּעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת, וּבָזֶה תָּבִין שְׁתֵּי בָּרַיְתוֹת בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים עַל נָכוֹן.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**בעשותה, when she (the נפש) has performed it (the sin).** This word is extraneous and *Torat Kohanim* interprets it both restrictively and inclusively. It is used restrictively to teach that if the person who committed the sin did so as a result of carrying out a ruling handed down by the High Court, he is exonerated. He has to bring the sin-offering mentioned in our verse **only** if he acted in accordance with his own opinion. The Torah had to state this separately because I might have thought that when the Torah legislated the bullock as a sin offering in verse 14, only people who committed that sin as a result of having heard of the High Court's decision would be covered by it, but that if an individual had not heard of that ruling and had nonetheless committed the same sin he would have to bring the she-goat as a sin-offering; the Torah therefore wrote בעשותה that he is to bring the personal sin-offering only if he had acted on his own and there was no faulty ruling by the High Court. The word בעשותה is interpreted inclusively in the event that the individual complied with the High Court's faulty ruling though he was well enough versed in Torah to know that the ruling was faulty. In such a case he cannot shield himself behind the High Court's ruling but has to offer a personal sin-offering of a she-goat for having acted against his better judgment. His sin-offering then is in addition to the bullock prescribed in verse 14. Had the Torah written only בעשות, I would have interpreted it only as inclusive; seeing the Torah added the letter ה at the end, I can also use it restrictively, i.e. only in such a case and not in any other case. When you reflect on this you will understand the *Torat Kohanim* correctly.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:32:1
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:32:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:32:1)

**וְאִם כֶּבֶשׂ וְגוֹ׳ עַד וְנִסְלַח לוֹ.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לְחַלְּקָם לִשְׁתֵּי פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת, וְהָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר לְמַעְלָה ״וְהֵבִיא קָרְבָּנוֹ שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים וְגוֹ׳ אוֹ כִשְׂבָּה תְמִימָה״ וְגוֹ׳ וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתֹּב כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. וְנִרְאֶה כִּי חִלְּקָם הַכָּתוּב לַטַּעַם עַצְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַזַ״ל (תורת כהנים ג) בְּפָרָשַׁת וְאִם עֵז, שֶׁבָּא לְרַבּוֹת אַלְיָה בְּחַטָּאת מִן הַכִּשְׂבָּה, לָזֶה דִּקְדֵּק לוֹמַר בְּכִשְׂבָּה ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם חֵלֶב הַכֶּשֶׂב״, וּבִשְׂעִירָה אָמַר ״וְאֶת כָּל חֶלְבָּהּ יָסִיר״. וַחֲדָא בְּשַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה וַחֲדָא בְּחַטָּאת חוֹבָה.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
**ואם כבש יביא קרבנו, And if he bring a lamb for his offering, etc.** Why did the Torah have to make two separate paragraphs out of verses 27-31 and 32-35? Why did the Torah not simply state in the previous paragraph that the individual inadvertent sinner who is the subject in both paragraphs has the choice of bringing either a ewe or a she-goat to serve as his sin-offering? This would have eliminated the need for the entire paragraph commencing with verse 32? I believe that the reason why the Torah chose to write a separate paragraph is the same as why the Torah saw fit to write the paragraph starting with 3,6-11 and a separate paragraph commencing with 3,11-17 when the peace-offering consists of a she-goat. *Torat Kohanim* on 3,12 (item 185) explained all that. In our instance when the Torah speaks of sheep and goats as sin-offerings rather than as peace-offerings as in chapter three, the Torah (4,31) speaks of separating and burning up on the altar **all** of the fat of the she-goat sin-offering, comparing it with 3,9 where the fat-tail of sheep is included in the parts to be burned up as a peace-offering. In the case of a sin-offering consisting of a sheep, all of the fat parts are to be offered on the altar (4,35) including the fat-tail. We could not have derived the legislation pertaining to voluntary peace-offerings from legislation describing what is to be done with the same kind of animal when it is offered as a mandatory sin-offering.


###### Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:32:2
[Or HaChaim on Leviticus 4:32:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:32:2)

גַּם רוֹאַנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִדּוּשׁ בְּכָל הָאָמוּר, אָמְרוֹ **וְסָמַךְ** דָּרְשׁוּ רַזַ״ל (תורת כהנים הכא) שֶׁבָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל חַטַּאת נָזִיר וְחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע שֶׁטְּעוּנִין סְמִיכָה. וְאָמְרוֹ **וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת** דָּרְשׁוּ (זבחים ז.) שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה שְׁחִיטָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, וּפְרָט זֶה לֹא נִרְמַז בְּפָרָשַׁת שְׂעִירָה וּמִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד לִשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאָמְרוֹ **בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר** וְגוֹ׳ אָמְרוּ בִּזְבָחִים (זבחים מח:) בְּפֶרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן: חַטָּאת מְנָלַן דְּבָעְיָא צָפוֹן, דִּכְתִיב ״וְשָׁחַט הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הָעוֹלָה״, אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה, לְעִכּוּבָא מְנָלַן, דִּכְתִיב ״בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הָעוֹלָה״ וְגוֹ׳, עַד כָּאן. הֲרֵי שֶׁהֻצְרְכוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים. וְשָׁם בַּשַּׁ״ס הֶעֱלָה שֶׁלְּמֵדִין לְכָל הַחַטָּאוֹת לְמִצְוָה. וְאָמְרוֹ (תורת כהנים כאן) **מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת** דָּרְשׁוּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְקַבֵּל דָּמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, וְכֵן בְּכָל מַה שֶׁכָּפַל יֵשׁ בּוֹ חִדּוּשׁ מִשְׁפָּט, וְלָזֶה חַלְקִינְּהוּ קְרָא לְלַמֵּד חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים וְכוּ׳.

**Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk:**
Concerning the words וסמך את ידו, that the owner- sinner has to place his weight on the sin-offering prior to its being slaughtered, something that I would have derived from the same rule pertaining to the she-goat sin-offering, *Torat Kohanim* uses the superfluous words as applying to sin-offerings by a Nazirite or a person struck with *Tzora-at* after he has been declared healed. Both of these people have to bring a mandatory sin-offering at the end of the term of Nazirism or when the affliction has disappeared (compare Numbers 6,14, and Leviticus 14,11). In either instance the Torah did not mention the need for the person who obtains atonement by means of that offering to perform the rite of placing his weight on the animal. Therefore, the superfluous words וסמך ידו in our verse are used as applicable to those sin-offerings. **ושחט אותה לחטאת, and he is to slaughter it to be a sin-offering.** *Zevachim* 7 derives from these words that the act of slaughtering must be accompanied by the intent that the animal in question become a sin-offering. This is another detail which could only have been derived by the repetition of this sentence. In the previous paragraph these words were needed for the plain meaning of the verse. You may learn from this verse that this rule applies both to the sin-offering of a she-goat and that of a ewe. **במקום אשר ישחט את העולה, in the place where he (the priest) is to slaughter the burnt-offering.** *Zevachim* 48 asks: "whence do I know that the sin-offering had to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar? Answer: Leviticus 4,33." The Talmud goes on to ask: "granted that this is true of the slaughtering; whence do I know that this is not only an initial requirement but is mandatory? Answer: "from the additional and otherwise superfluous words במקום אשר ישחט את העולה." Again we have proof that the verse had to be written in two separate paragraphs (29 and 33). The Talmud there goes on to demonstrate that this requirement applies as a mandatory requirement to all categories of sin-offerings. **מדם החטאת, from the blood of the sin-offering, etc.** *Torat Kohanim* derives from this superfluous repetition (compare verse 30) that the receiving of the blood into the receptacle provided for this was mandatory. The same kind of exegesis is used to derive *halachot* from every single repetition in these two paragraphs.