## Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra

###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:2:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:2:1)

**נפש כי תחטא בשגגה.** מלת **נפש** הוא חבור הנפש עם הגוף יחדו, כי תמצא במעשה בראשית שכתוב (בראשית ב׳:ז׳) וייצר ה' אלהים את האדם עפר מן האדמה, וכשהתחברו שניהם הגוף והנפש קראם נפש, הוא שאמר (שם) ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, כי מלת אדם הוא חבור הגוף והנפש, וכן מלת הנפש ענינה חבור הגוף והנפש, כי הזכות והחטא לשניהם ביחד וכל אחד לבדו אין לו פעולה לא שיזכה ולא שיענש בה, וזהו שכתוב (ויקרא י״ז:י׳) ונתתי פני בנפש האוכלת את הדם, ואנחנו רואים הגוף כי הוא האוכל והשותה וכל עניני שאר החושים, ואמר בנפש האוכלת, וזהו ראיה כי חבור הגוף והנפש קורא הכתוב נפש. וזהו שסיים הכתוב והכרתי אותו מקרב עמו, אחר שהזכיר לשון נקבה חזר אל הגוף בלשון זכר. וכן אמר בכאן נפש כי תחטא בשגגה ועשה הזכיר ועשה שהוא לשון זכר, והזכיר מיד אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, כי הוא מחובר מנפש וגוף, וכיון שמצינו במעשה בראשית שהזכיר חבור הגוף והנפש בלשון נפש לכך הזכיר במקצת המצות נפש, ואין הכוונה על הנפש בלתי הגוף אלא גוף האדם עם נפשו, ולפעמים תמצא בכתוב אדם, והענין הנפש עם הגוף ביחד, ואולם מצינו לפעמים הגוף לבדו נזכר בלשון נפש, והוא שכתוב (מלכים א כ׳:ל״א) אולי יחיה את נפשך, וכן (במדבר כ״ג:י׳) תמות נפשי מות ישרים, כי אין מיתה לנפש. ודרשו רז"ל **נפש כי תחטא** לרבות הגרים והעבדים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
נפש כי תחטא בשגגה , “when a person will sin inadvertently, etc.” The expression נפש includes the body and the invisible life-force. When G’d began to create man in Genesis 2,7 we find that the Torah wrote וייצר ה' אלו-הים את האדם עפר מן האדמה, “the Lord G’d formed man dust from the soil;” afterwards, the Torah added that “He blew into his nostrils a living soul;” as a result of these two parts being joined together man, i.e. האדם, became a living being, i.e. נפש חיה. In other words, the word אדם means “a combination of body and spirit.” The word הנפש just as האדם refers to a combination of body and spirit. It is important for us to know this so that we appreciate that whatever reward or punishment G’d metes out He metes out to both body and spirit. The spirit alone, or the body alone, are not capable of performing actions which qualify for either reward or punishment. This is the meaning of Leviticus 17,10: ונתתי פני בנפש האוכלת את הדם, “I will set My face against the person eating the blood, etc.” This is clear proof that the Torah calls the combination of body and spirit נפש, as the spirit by itself could not eat, and even if it could, it would not be culpable. When the Torah concludes the above verse it writes והכרתי אותו, “I will wipe him out, etc.” Seeing that the word נפש was treated as feminine at the beginning of this verse, it is clear that the Torah switching from the feminine to the masculine wants to teach us that the term נפש refers to the combination of spirit, נשמה, (feminine) and body i.e. עפר (masculine). In our verse here we also find the Torah using once the feminine כי תחטא instead of כי יחטא, whereas at the same time the Torah speaks of ועשה, “and he committed,” instead of ועשתה, “and she committed.” This grammatically otherwise untenable combination is proof that man is a composition of body and spirit. In the next verse the Torah describes such an unintentional sin by the High Priest with the words: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “If the High Priest sins” (all masculine). The formula is in order as the High Priest consists of body and spirit. Seeing that the term נפש has been used by the Torah in Genesis to describe man, we find in a variety of instances that the Torah employs the same term when speaking of a living human being. Whenever this term occurs it never refers to the invisible spirit alone but always to a human being, i.e. a combination of body and spirit. On other occasions when the Torah describes the creature addressed as אדם, what is meant is also this combination of body and spirit. However, in other parts of the Bible, we do encounter the term נפש as applying only to the body. Examples are Kings I 20,31 where the servants of Ben Haddad advise their king to surrender himself to the Jewish king, claiming that the soft-hearted King Achav might spare his life. The word נפשך in that line can hardly apply to Ben Haddad’s soul as it was not within the power of Achav to make dispositions of Ben Haddad’s soul. Besides souls are not mortal. When the prophet Bileam wished himself a death such as the death of the righteous (Numbers 23,10) he referred to his body only seeing the soul is not mortal anyway. Our sages (in Sifra nedavah 1,1), comment as follows on the words נפש כי תחטא, “the expression נפש is meant to include converts and slaves of the Jews.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:2:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:2:2)

**ובמדרש**נפש כי תחטא בשגגה זהו שאמר הכתוב (משלי י״ט:ב׳) גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב ואץ ברגלים חוטא, זה אחאב בן קוליה וצדקיה בן מעשיה שהיו חוטאים בירושלים ולא די אלא משגלו לבבל היו מוסיפים חטא. ומה היו עושין בירושלים, היו נביאי שקר והניחו אומנותן בבבל והיו מסרסרין זה לזה בעריות, והיה אחאב בן קוליה נכנס אצל גדולי המלכות ואומר אני פלוני נביא הקב"ה שלחני לומר דבר לאשתך, והיה אומר לו הרי היא לפניך, היה נכנס ומתיחד עמה ואומר לה הקב"ה מבקש להעמיד ממך נביאים לכי שמשי עם צדקיה בן מעשיה ותלד ממנו נביאים, והיתה שומעת לו והיתה משלחת אחר צדקיה ובא ומשמש עמה, אף צדקיה היה מסרסר לאחאב כך, וזו היתה אומנותן. בוא וראה כמה היו רשעים והוציאו להם שם בבבל שהם נביאים גדולים, אם היתה האשה מעוברת היו אומרים לה שתלד זכר, והיו אומרים לשכנותיה שתלד נקבה, אם ילדה זכר היתה היא אומרת נתקיימו דבריו של נביא ואם ילדה נקבה היו שכנותיה אומרות לה כך אמר לנו הנביא אבל לא רצה לצער אותך, והיו עושין כך עד שהגיעו לאשתו של נבוכדנצר, אמר לה צדקיה הקב"ה שלחני אצלך לכי שמשי עם אחאב ותלדי ממנו נביאים, אמרה לו איני עושה זה אלא מדעת המלך, הגידה הדבר למלך, שלח המלך נבוכדנצר בשבילם אמר להם כך אמרתם לאשתי, אמרו לו הקב"ה רוצה להעמיד ממנה נביאים, א"ל המלך אני שמעתי מאלהיכם שהוא שונא זמה, זמרי בן סלוא על שפרץ בזנות נפלו מישראל ארבעה ועשרים אלף, ואתם אומרים כך, אם אתם נביאי אמת או נביאי שקר איני יודע, אלא בדקתי לחנניה מישאל ועזריה והסקתי את הכבשן שבעת ימים ויצאו שלמים, ולכם איני מסיקו אלא יום אחד אם תנצלו יודע אני בודאי שאתם נביאי אמת ואסכים על פיכם כל מה שתאמרו, אמרו לו חנניה מישאל ועזריה היו שלשה והנס ע"י שלשה נעשה ואנחנו שנים, אמר להם יש כאן שלישי כיוצא בכם, א"ל יש יהושע בן יהוצדק כהן גדול, הם חשבו שינצלו בזכותו, השליכוהו עמהם לכבשן האש נשרפו שניהם והוא נצל, הוא שכתוב (זכריה ג׳:ב׳) הלא זה אוד מוצל מאש, ומן אחאב וצדקיה (ירמיהו כ״ט:כ״ב) לוקח מהם קללה לכל גלות יהודה אשר בבבל לאמר ישימך אלהים כצדקיה וכאחאב אשר קלם מלך בבל באש, מי גרם לרשעים הללו לישרף על שהיו אצים ברגליהם אחר העבירות, לכך נאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
We have another Midrash (Tanchuma Vayikra 6) according to which the emphasis of the verse is on the words בשגגה, inadvertently. The Torah refers to what Solomon spoke about in Proverbs 19,2 “it is also not good for a person (נפש) to lack knowledge, he who rushes in with his feet sins.” This verse applies to two individuals, Achav ben Kulliah and Tzidkiyah ben Massiayh who were junior prophets (disciples of a school of prophets) at the time of the last King of Yehudah Tzidkiyah in Jerusalem, and who, according to tradition committed sins in Jerusalem and even after having been exiled continued sinning in Babylon. Their sin consisted in abusing their supposed prophetic powers to gain access to married women having in mind immoral and illegitimate relations with these women. They would obtain these women’s husbands permission to be alone with their wives by claiming that they had a message for them from G’d which was only for their ears. Once they had gained access to these women they told them that G’d wanted them to become the mothers of future prophets. They would therefore suggest that the woman in question have intercourse with their respective friend and partner in crime so that the lady would become pregnant. Seeing that they did not demand sexual satisfaction for themselves but for another their story sounded more plausible and they were not suspected of being corrupt. They made this kind of deceit their regular mode of operation. Although they were such exceedingly wicked men they established for themselves a reputation of being great prophets in Babylon. Seeing that they had such a reputation pregnant women would ask them if they were going to give birth to a male child or to a female child. They would tell the pregnant woman that she would have son, but at the same time tell her girlfriend that the woman in question would have a daughter. When the woman who had been told she would have a son found that she gave birth to a daughter, her girlfriend would tell her that she knew this all along as the prophet had told her in confidence. The reason he had not told this to the pregnant woman was in order to save her the distress over expecting a daughter and having to endure pregnancy with such a prospect all the time. Eventually, one of them approached the wife of King Nebuchadnezzar in a similar fashion, asking that she sleep with his friend if she wanted to become the mother of a prophet. The lady said that she would not agree unless her husband had agreed to this first. She told the King about what Tzidkiyah had proposed to her, i.e. that she sleep with Achav. The King called in both Achav and Tzidkiyah repeating what his wife told him, but adding that he was aware that the G’d of the Jews hated all manner of sexual licentiousness. He quoted the example of Zimri ben Salu who had been slain by Pinchas on account of sleeping with the princess of Midian, and how prior to Pinchas’ deed 24,000 Israelites had died by the plague because they committed the sin of sexual licentiousness. He challenged them to prove that they were not false prophets. He told them that once before he had wanted to know if Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah had been true prophets of the G’d in heaven and in order to know he heated a kiln for seven days, threw them into it bound hands and feet and they walked out unharmed. The King proposed that when examining Tzidkiyah and Achav he would heat up the same kiln for only one day. If G’d would save them he would recognise them as true prophets and would agree that his wife become pregnant by one of them. Thereupon these two fakers said that seeing Chananyah, Mishael and Azzaryah were three it was understandable that G’d extended Himself in order to save them. Seeing there were only the two of them, it was unlikely that G’d would perform a miracle on their account. Nebuchadnezzar countered that there was indeed a third man, a Jew who used to be the High Priest in Jerusalem. He, Nebuchadnezzar, would throw all three of them into the heated kiln and they would find out the result. The two false prophets were now encouraged by this, thinking that G’d would save them as He would not allow the High Priest to die such a death. They therefore agreed to the test. Nebuchadnezzar threw all three of them into the kiln; the two false prophets were burned whereas the High Priest Yehoshua was saved. This is the reason that Zecharyah 3,2 described this High Priest as “a brand who had been saved from the fire.”
 The incidence of these two false prophets Achav and Tzidkiyah became so widely known during the exile of the Jews in Babylon that when people had occasion to curse someone they would curse them by saying: “may G’d treat you as the King of Babylon treated Achav and Tzidkiyah whom he consigned to the flames (Jeremiah 29,22).” When trying to determine what was the downfall of these two men, we are reminded of their eagerness to run and commit sins (Proverbs 19,2), something far worse than being unable to resist temptation when it comes one’s way.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:3:1)

**אם הכהן המשיח יחטא.** סדר החוטאים המביאים קרבן שבפרשה הם, כהן גדול והסנהדרין ומלך ישראל ואח"כ המון העם. ורצה להתחיל מן הכהן שהוא האדם הגדול ומלאך ה' צבאות הוא, וממנו יראו וכך יעשו כל ישראל שיזהרו לשוב בתשובה, כי מתוך שיראוהו שהמזהיר שבהם הכהן הוא הראש מביא קרבן על חטאו, הכל יראו ויקחו מוסר וילמדו ממנו ק"ו, אם הקב"ה מכפר למי שהוא קרוב אליו שלא היה ראוי לחטוא אף כי יכפר בעד שאר העם, כי מהידוע כי לפי מעלת האדם יכבד פשעו, ועל זה אמר שלמה ע"ה (קהלת א׳:י״ח) כי ברוב חכמה רב כעס, לפי מה שהוא יותר חכם וצדיק יכבד כעס חטאו ושגיאתו אצל הקב"ה, והראיה ממשה רבינו ע"ה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the High Priest becomes guilty of a sin, etc.” The list of sinners mentioned in this chapter proceeds in the following order: 1) High Priest, 2) High Court (collectively); 3) King; 4) the common people. The reason the Torah commences with the High Priest is that he is an outstanding individual (Joshua 14,15) comparable to an angel of the Lord (Malachi 2,7). When the people observe that even the High Priest has to bring a sin-offering they will be careful to return to G’d in repentance themselves. They will be encouraged when they see the High Priest bringing such an offering, reasoning that if G’d is willing to forgive the trespass of even such an highly placed individual as the High Priest, He would most certainly be willing to forgive ordinary people for their trespasses against Him. It was a well known fact that G’d relates more severely to people of distinction who become guilty of a sin than He does to ordinary individuals. This is why Solomon said in Kohelet 1,18 that “the amount of (G’d’s) anger is determined by the degree of wisdom (of the sinner).” The more wisdom one possesses the less forgivable is one’s sin. The best example in Scripture of the truth of this statement is Moses who was punished grievously for committing an error when striking the rock instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20,12).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:3:2)

**לאשמת העם.** לפי מנהג העם ודרכם שהם אשמים, ועל כן הוסיף לאשמת העם כדי להזהיר על התשובה ושלא יבוש החוטא לשוב מחטאו, וכן פירש הכתוב על אחת מכל אשר יעשה האדם לחטוא בהנה, כלומר ממה שהוא למוד לעשות ועלול אצל החטא ובא לומר שיקריב קרבנו ויתכפר לו, כי הוא אם רגיל לחטוא ודרכו בכך, וכן דרך העם באשמה ועון, דרך הש"י לכפר לו חטאו כי כן מדתו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
לאשמת העם, “due to the guilt of the people;” according to the custom of the people and their path, i.e. they are guilty. The Torah adds these words to teach that the High Priest should not be ashamed to confess and rectify his guilt when it was due to his falling into the bad habits practiced by the people. This is also the meaning of the words על אחת מכל אשר יעשה האדם לחטא בהנה, i.e. “one of the ways in which people are in the habit of sinning.” The expression אשם refers to habitual, knowing sin, whereas the expression יחטא which the Torah uses in connection with the sin of the High Priest refers to unintentional sin, something committed as an exception. The Torah teaches that the High Priest is to offer his offering and his mistake will be forgiven him just as G’d forgives the sins of the common people.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:3:3)

**ומזה**אמרו במדרש איכה (איכה ג׳:מ״ב) נחנו פשענו ומרינו כמדתנו אתה לא סלחת, כמדתך. שהרי מדתו של הקב"ה אפילו לרשע הגמור המרבה לחטוא הוא מרבה לסלוח אם ישוב. וזהו שהנביא מזהיר (ישעיהו נ״ה:ז׳) יעזוב רשע דרכו ואיש און מחשבותיו, ולשון רשע הוא המתגאה והכופר בעקר וחושב שאין אלהים בשמים ואין השגחה בארץ, וכענין שכתוב (תהילים י׳:ד׳) רשע כגובה אפו בל ידרוש אין אלהים כל מזמותיו, ואעפ"כ כשהוא חוזר בתשובה הקב"ה מקבלו ואין צריך לומר שימצא סליחה במדת הרחמים כי אפילו במדת הדין ימצא סליחה, וזה שאמר (ישעיהו נ״ה:ז׳) וישוב אל ה' וירחמהו ואל אלהינו כי ירבה לסלוח, כלומר אפילו במדת הדין. וכן מצינו במזמור נאום פשע לרשע (תהילים ל״ו:ו׳) שכתוב שם ה' בהשמים חסדך, והמזמור ההוא מיוסד על מעשה הרשעים הכופרים, ולכך הזכיר שם מדת החסד לפי שחסדו של הקב"ה מתפרסם בעמים בסליחת הרשעים, ומפני שהזכיר כי החסד בשמים על כן הוסיף אות הה"א כי הה"א צורת פתח והיא רמז לעוה"ז, וכדי ללמד שאפילו בארץ בעוה"ז שנברא בה"א ימצא פתח פתוח לתשובה, אפילו הרשע המוחלט ימשיך הקב"ה חסדו אליו אם ירצה לשוב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Our sages in Midrash Eicha 3,34, comment on Lamentations 3,42: “we have sinned (knowingly) and we have rebelled, You have not forgiven.” The meaning is not that G’d did not forgive but that though if He had applied our own yardsticks He would not have forgiven, the fact is He applied His own yardstick and hence He did forgive. G’d’s yardsticks (attributes) enable Him to extend forgiveness even to habitual sinners completely — provided the sinner returns to Him in sincere and total repentance. Isaiah 55,7 confirms this when he writes: “let the wicked give up his ways, the sinful man his plans; let him turn back to the Lord, and He will pardon him.” The word רשע, “the wicked man,” used in that verse refers to the sinner who boasts of his sins, who is a complete heretic denying that there is a G’d in heaven and that therefore there is no divine supervision of what occurs on earth. The word רשע is used in this context by Psalms 10,4: “the wicked, arrogant as he is in all his scheming (thinks) ‘He does not call to account; G’d does not care.’” There is no need to emphasise that the attribute of Mercy will forgive such a sinner as even the attribute of Justice forgives a repentant sinner. This is the meaning of Isaiah 55,7 וישוב אל ה' ורחמהו ואל אלו-הינו כי ירבה לסלוח, ”let him turn back to the Lord and He will pardon him, and to our G’d, for He freely forgives.” We find the same idea expressed in Psalms 36,2 and 36,6: “I know what Transgression says to the wicked; he has no sense of the dread of the Lord.” “O Lord Your faithfulness reaches to heaven; Your steadfastness to the sky.” This entire hymn is based on the deeds of the wicked, the heretics. This is the reason David speaks of the attribute of חסד, of loving kindness, (verse 6) as this attribute is known by the nations through G’d’s extending forgiveness to those who appear to have no claim to such treatment. The reason the psalmist adds the letter ה at the beginning of the word בהשמים instead of the customary בשמים is that this letter is like an entrance, a gateway. David hints that the gateway to forgiveness is open. Seeing that this attribute is located in heaven, it is important to show that the gateway to heaven remains open. The shape of the latter ה, i.e. a shape in our terrestrial world; it is meant to show that even in our terrestrial world a door is open to heaven. G’d does not deny His love to those who want to return to Him in penitence.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:13:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:13:1)

**ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו.** אלו סנהדרין כי אי אפשר שכל ישראל יסכימו בחטא, ועל כן אמר מעיני העדה, כי הסנהדרין והנביאים והחכמים הם עיני העדה, וכענין שכתוב (ישעיהו כ״ט:י׳) ויעצם את עיניכם את הנביאים, באר כי עיניהם הם הנביאים. 
וכן דרשו רז"ל **ואם כל עדת ישראל** יכול בכל העדה הכתוב מדבר ת"ל עדה, ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר ל״ה:כ״ד) ושפטו העדה, מה להלן ב"ד אף כאן ב"ד, אי מה להלן עדה האמורה בעשרים ושלשה אף כאן בעשרים שלשה, ת"ל כל עדת ישראל, עדה המיוחדת לכל ישראל, ואי זו זו סנהדרי גדולה היושבת בלשכת הגזית.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, “and if the entire assembly of Israel err, etc.” The “assembly” referred to in our verse is the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court. It could not be otherwise, as it is quite impossible for the entire Jewish nation by themselves to commit the same sin by mistake. In order to make this point quite clear the Torah added the words ונעלם הדבר מעיני העדה, “and the matter became obscured from the eyes of the congregation.” The Supreme Court, prophets, and Torah scholars are traditionally regarded as “the eyes of the congregation.” An example of this is found in Isaiah 29,10: “and has shut your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.” Isaiah makes it plain that the prophets are the eyes of the people. 
We also have a statement by our sages (Sifra, Vayikra 4,2) to that effect where we are told: “I might have supposed that here we are talking about the entire community; to ensure we do not misunderstand the Torah wrote the words עדה, whereas in Numbers 35,24 the Torah also used the word עדה, when describing judgment being pronounced on a murderer; just as there the word עדה refers to a court and not to the whole people, so here too the Supreme Court is meant and not the whole people.” Just as in that instance a court comprising not less than 23 judges is meant, so here too a court of not fewer than 23 judges is meant. What then is the precise meaning of the words כל עדת ישראל? It means a congregation peculiar to the Jewish people, i.e. the great Sanhedrin which had its seat on the Temple Mount.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:14:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:14:1)

**והקריבו הקהל פר בן בקר לחטאת והביאו אותו לפני אהל מועד.** חטאו של אדם הראשון וחטא ישראל במדבר דומין זה לזה, לפיכך אמרו חכמי האמת כי אדם הראשון הקריב שור, ומפני זה נתעוררו במדרשם ואמרו מפני מה נאמר אל פתח אהל מועד בפר מה שלא נאמר בקרבנות, משל לאוהבו של מלך שהביא דורון נאה למלך אמר המלך תלו אותו בפתח פלטרין כדי שידעו הכל מה דורון נאה הביא לי אוהבי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והקריבו הקהל פר בן בקר לחטאת והביאו אותו לפני אהל מועד, “and the congregation is to bring a two year old bull as a sin-offering, and they shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The sin of original man, Adam, and that of the Jewish people in the desert had something in common; this is the reason that our sages were of the opinion that Adam offered a bull as his sin-offering. (Chulin 60). This is also the reason that our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 5,6 made a point of commenting that this is the reason it is the only sin-offering of which the Torah writes that it was to be brought at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (verse 4). The matter may be understood by means of a parable. A king had a friend who had brought him a valuable gift. The king was so impressed that he told his friend to display it at the entrance to his palace for all to see what a valuable gift he had presented to his ruler.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:14:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:14:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:14:2)

**והרב**הגדול מורי רבי שלמה ז"ל פירש כי הדורון הנאה הזה היא התשובה שהרי מי שנטה אחר לבו וחטא בדבר. אין דבר נאה לו כשובו בתשובה עם אותו דבר שנטה אחריו כי אז יראה לכל שהוא מודה ועוזב וחזר בתשובה שלמה, וזה שהזכיר למעלה והביא את הפר אל פתח אהל מועד, ואמר ושחט את הפר לפני ה', ואמר והזה מן הדם שבע פעמים לפני ה' עד כאן, וכבר הזכרתי מזה (בראשית ג) בפסוק ויאכל.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The author’s own teacher, Rabbi Shlomoh ben Aderet, explained that the beautiful gift referred to in the parable was the repentance (not the bull). When a person has followed the instincts of his heart and thereby committed a sin, there is no nicer gift he can make to His Creator than to present the very item with which he sinned as a gift to his Creator. This proves that his repentance is unreserved. When the Torah repeats the expression: “in front of the Tent of Meeting” no fewer than three times in connection with this sin-offering of the bull, i.e. “he will bring it,” “he will slaughter it,” “he will sprinkle its blood seven times”, this underlines the point. [The people’s sin, of course, was that of the golden calf, and atoning for it by offering a bull makes the parable fit. Ed.] Thus far רשב"א. (The author elaborated on this in his commentary on Genesis 3,6 ויאכל).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:17:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:17:1)

**והזה שבע פעמים לפני ה' את פני הפרוכת.** ולמעלה בכהן משיח הזכיר את פני פרוכת הקדש, משל למלך שסרחה עליו מדינה, אם מעוטה סרחה פמליא שלו מתקיימת, ואם כולה סרחה אין פמליא שלו מתקיימת, אף כאן כשחטא הכהן המשיח עדיין קדושת המקום על המקדש וכשחטאו כולם ח"ו נסתלקה הקדושה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והזה שבע פעמים לפני ה' את פני הפרוכת, “he is to sprinkle (the blood) seven times before the Lord, before the curtain.” When describing a similar procedure performed with the sin-offering of the High Priest, the Torah wrote את פני פרוכת הקודש. What is the difference? We may again use a parable to illustrate the difference. When a king faces the rebellion of a small number of his subjects, his regime and his ministers will endure. If all his subjects rebel his regime will topple. As long as only the High Priest was guilty of a sin, the matter is not serious enough for the inner Sanctum, i.e. Dividing Curtain and what is beyond to lose its “holiness,” i.e. symbol of the kingdom. When the whole people rebelled, i.e. the entire Jewish nation was guilty of a sin of disloyalty, the “Dividing Curtain” could no longer be described as “holy”; its whole function had been undermined. By omitting mention of the adjective “holy” when speaking about the Dividing Curtain the Torah alluded to this difference.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:21:1)

**חטאת הקהל הוא.** מלת הוא חוזרת על הפר. ויתכן לפרש כי בא לרמוז בכללו כי בו היה חטא קהל ישראל במדבר ממאמר רז"ל ששמטו אחד מטטרמולין שבמרכבה, שנאמר (יחזקאל א׳:י׳) ופני שור מהשמאל לארבעתם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
חטאת הקהל הוא, “it is a sin-offering by the congre-gation.” The word הוא [masculine, instead of the word היא which we would have expected as the appropriate pronoun applicable to the feminine חטאת, Ed.] refers to the word הפר, “the bull,” earlier in our verse.
 It is possible to view the word as an allusion to the sin of the golden calf (a male calf) which had been the only such collective sin of all the Jewish people in the desert. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 42,5 state that because of this sin one of the feet of the merkavah, the carriers of G’d’s entourage, slipped at that time. They base this on Ezekiel 1,10 “and the face of the ox on the left of the four of them.” [In other words the “ox” symbolised the fact that through their sin at the golden calf the Israelites had undermined G’d’s throne, in particular the חיה with the face of an ox. Ed.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:21:2)

**והנה**הקרבנות בכהן משיח והקהל שוין הן כי כן אהרן התחיל לעשותו וישראל טעו אחריו, וכתיב (שמות ל״ב:ל״ה) את העגל אשר עשו, את העגל אשר עשה אהרן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The type of sin-offerings to be brought by either the High Priest or the people [when they followed faulty High Court instructions] were the same, i.e. a two year old bull, because Aaron the High Priest had committed the error first [when making the golden calf, Ed.] and the people’s sin was a consequence of Aaron making the calf. The Torah ascribes the calf to the people when writing (Exodus 32,20) “the calf they had made.” A few verses later (verse 35) as if correcting itself, the Torah writes: “which Aaron had made.” In other words, the Torah is trying to explain the sin of the people as due to Aaron having committed the first error.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:21:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:21:3)

**ויש**לך להתבונן עוד איך הזכיר הכתוב למעלה בפר כהן משיח תמים לה', ולא הזכירה כן בכאן בפר של צבור, שהרי בפר כהן משיח אמר פר בן בקר תמים לה' לחטאת, ובכאן אמר והקריבו הקהל פר בן בקר לחטאת, ולא הזכיר בו תמים, וכל זה לרמוז כי כוונת אהרן היתה תמימה לה', וכאמרו חג לה' מחר, והקהל היה בהם מי שלא היה לבו תמים לה' כי מקצתם שאלוהו למנהיג ומקצתם עשו ממנו ע"א, וכענין שכתוב וישתחוו לו ויזבחו לו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
You should also appreciate why, when the Torah describes the sin-offering of the High Priest in verse 3, the bull is described as 'תמים לה, “unblemished for the Lord,” whereas here the Torah only mentions “the congregation shall offer a two year old bull as a sin-offering,” without mentioning anything about it being unblemished. All of this is evidence that the Torah wishes to preserve the impression that Aaron’s part in the entire golden calf episode had been of pure, unblemished intention. When he had invited the people to celebrate a festival for the Lord on the morrow of the golden calf having emerged (32,5), he could not have known that some of the people had impure idolatrous intentions at that time and would treat this calf as a deity, as we know from Exodus 32,8: “they prostrated themselves before it and sacrificed to it.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:22:1)

**אשר נשיא יחטא.** לשון אשר כלשון אם, ושעורו אם נשיא יחטא, וכמוהו (דברים י״א:כ״ז) את הברכה אשר תשמעו, ששעורו אם תשמעו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
אשר נשיא יחטא, “when a prince (king) will sin inadvertently,” The word אשר in this instance is the same as if the Torah had written אם, “if a prince has sinned, etc.” We find the word אשר substituting for the word אם also In Deut. 11,27 את הברכה אשר תשמעו, “the blessing, if you will listen, etc.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:22:2)

**או**אפשר לאמר שהוא לשון ודאי, ולזה לא נכתב אם נשיא יחטא כמו שאמר אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, ואמר אם כן ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, כי הכהן הגדול נזהר מן החטא לפי שעיני כל ישראל תלויות עליו בין לענין צרכי גופם ומזונותם בין לענין כפרת נפשותם, וכן הסנהדרין גם כן נזהרים הם מן החטא לפי שרוח הקודש נוספת עליהם, ולפיכך הזכיר בהם בחטאם לשון ספק, אבל בנשיא הזכיר החטא בלשון ודאי לפי שהנשיא לבו גס מאד בו, ומדת הגאוה שהיא סבת החטא מצויה עמו לגודל ממשלתו, ולזה הזהירה התורה את המלך ותוכיחנו במדה הזאת, הוא שכתוב (דברים י״ז:כ׳) לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו, ומפני זה כתוב (שמות ל״ה:כ״ז) והנשיאים הביאו את אבני השהם, מה ענין שהתנדבו אבנים יותר משאר דברים, אלא לפי שהאבנים היו על לב אהרן לזכרון להם לפני ה', והנשיאים לבם גס בהם לפיכך הביאו אבנים שיתכפר להם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
Alternatively, we could understand the word to reflect a definitive statement, i.e. the Torah assuming that at one point or another a king is going to commit a sin and will have to offer a sin-offering. This then would account for the fact that the Torah did not choose to write אם נשיא יחטא, “if a king will sin, etc.” Seeing that the Torah had written אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, “if the High Priest will sin,” and it had written ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, “and if the entire congregation of Israel err, etc.,” the reason could be that seeing the High Priest is so careful not to sin, and the entire High Court cannot be presumed to err, the Torah did not want to write the word אשר in those instances which would have made a flat statement that these representatives of the people who are imbued with Holy Spirit would commit inadvertent sins. A king, who is no religious authority and to whom neither the people’s purity nor their piety is directly entrusted, is much more likely to err and sin; therefore the Torah used the expression אשר, to indicate that the Torah considers the fact that a king will sin at one time or another as a given. Kings have a hard time combating their arrogance and it is therefore not unusual for them to become guilty of sins. Keeping the pressures on kings to combat their egos in mind, the Torah devoted several verses to this in Deut. 17,20 and legislated certain restrictions on them to restrain their feeling all-powerful and above the law
 It was not accidental that the princes- the nearest thing to kings the Israelites had in those days- donated the precious stones for the shoulder piece and breastplate of the High Priest as they were to atone for the sin of arrogance. Compare what we wrote on Exodus 35,27.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:22:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:22:3)

**ובמדרש**אשר נשיא יחטא, לשון אשרי, אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו מביא קרבן חטאת על שגגתו, אם הנשיא שלו מביא חטאת על שגגתו, צריך לאמר מה מביא על זדונו. אם הנשיא מביא חטאת מה צריך לאמר הדיוט. נשיא, יכול נשיא שבט כנחשון, ת"ל ועשה אחת מכל מצות ה' אלהיו, ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים י״ז:י״ט) למען ילמד ליראה את ה' אלהיו, מה הנשיא האמור להלן שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו, אף נשיא האמור כאן שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו. וכן תמצא ביחזקאל (יחזקאל י״ב:י״ב) והנשיא אשר בתוכם אל כתף ישא, ופירושו המלך, והכוונה על צדקיה מלך יהודה, לפי שהמלך הוא הנשיא בעם, וזהו שכתוב (שמות כ״ב:כ״ז) אלהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, הזהיר תחלה בברכת המלך העליון ואח"כ על המלך המולך בארץ. ודרשו רז"ל כי כשהעם חוטאים המלך נתפס על חטאם דכתיב חטאת הקהל הוא וסמיך ליה אשר נשיא יחטא, מכאן אמרו כל מי שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה הוא נתפס על הכל.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
A Midrashic approach (Sifra Vayikra 5,1) to the words אשר נשיא יחטא: According to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai the word אשר may be understood as אשרי, i.e. “hail to the generation whose king offers a sin-offering for having committed an inadvertent sin. If he is humble enough to acknowledge an error and to seek forgiveness, how much more so is he likely to repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed knowingly!” If the people observe that their king acknowledges errors by offering a sin-offering how much more so will their subjects be encouraged to acknowledge their mistakes and bring sin-offerings and ask G’d’s forgiveness!
 I might have thought that when the Torah writes the word נשיא it refers to a mere tribal head such as Nachshon prince of Yehudah. In order to make clear that this is not the kind of נשיא the Torah has in mind here, we find the words ועשה אחת מכל מצות ה' אלו-היו אשר לא תעשינה, “and he becomes guilty of committing one of the acts from all the commandments of Hashem which may not be done, etc.” In Deut. 17,19 the Torah writes: ”in order that he (the king) should learn to fear the Lord his G’d.” The message is that just as the king who has no human authority above him must respect divine authority, so here too, the “prince” is to understand that he must respect divine authority. The word נשיא as describing the highest temporal authority is also used in Ezekiel 12,12 where the prophet writes: והנשיא אשר בתוכם אל כתף ישא, which means that “that the king (Tzidkiyahu) should carry the vessels of exile on his shoulders.” The term נשיא is appropriate for a king as he is the most elevated person in the nation. This is also what the Torah meant in Exodus 22,27 where we read אלוהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “you shall not curse G’d, nor shall you revile the leader of your people.” In that verse the Torah first warns against cursing the most high Being, i.e. G’d, followed by the most highly placed human being, i.e. the king who rules the land (or on earth). Our sages have said that when the people sin it is usually found that their king is punished for their sin. They base this on verse 21 in our chapter where the sin is described as חטאת העם, “the sin of the people,” and these words are followed immediately by the words “when a ruler sins.” They use this sequence to teach that anyone in authority who is able to protest wrongdoing and does not do so is considered as guilty of the wrongdoing committed (Shabbat 54).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:23:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:23:1)

**או הודע אליו** שעורו והודע, או שיאמר וידע חטאתו. וכמוהו (משלי ל׳:ל״א) זרזיר מתנים או תיש, כאלו אמר זרזיר מתנים ותיש, כן דעת המפרשים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
או הודע אליו, “or (the sin) becomes known to him, etc.” The meaning of the words is the same as if the Torah had written either והודע or וידע חטאתו, “he is aware of his sin.” In other words, the word או here is to be understood as the same as the connecting letter ו, “and.” We find a similar construction in Proverbs 30,31 זרזיר מתנים או תיש, where the words do not mean “a greyhound or a male goat,” but “a greyhound as well as a male goat.” [This is the view of commentators such as Rabbi Yonah quoted by Kimchi רד"ק.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:23:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 4:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/4:23:2)

**אמנם**מה שהוצרך לומר הודע בה"א ולהוסיף מלת או, מפני שקרבן חטאת לה"א אחרונה שבשם, ולכך אמר שעירת עזים תמימה נקבה, והה"א מביאה עליו יסורים להודיע אליו חטאתו כדי שיזכור ויביא קרבנו, ולפי שהיא מן וא"ו והוא"ו מן ה"א לכך הוצרך לומר או, כי בזה יהיה ריח ניחוח לה', והמשכיל יבין.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
This leaves us with the need to explain why the Torah chose this way of writing the word הודע with the letter ה in front as well as the additional word או. The reason may be that the sin-offering is related to the last letter ה in the tetragram. This is also why the Torah speaks of שעירת עזים תמימה נקבה in verse 28 where the reference to the subject which is masculine, i.e. קרבנו, should have rated the expression תמים instead of תמימה with the feminine ending at the end. The fact is that the letter ה really does refer to the word קרבנו and the message is that G’d inflicts afflictions on the sinner in order to prompt him to repent and to offer the sacrifice as proof of his repentance. It is the attribute of Justice represented by that last letter ה in the tetragram which initiates the afflictions setting the process of repentance-sin-offering in motion. The verse means that had the sinner not been victimised by such afflictions he would not have become aware of his sin.