## Tur HaArokh, Leviticus

###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:2:1)

**נפש כי תחטא.**כתב הרמב"ן בעבור היות המחשבה בנפש והיא השוגגת הזכיר כאן הנפש. וטעם הקרבנות על הנפש השוגגת שכל העוונות יולידו גנאי בנפש ולא תזכה לקבל פני יוצרה רק בהיותה טהורה ולכן הנפש השוגגת תקריב קרבן שתזכה לקרבה אל האלקי' אשר נתנה ובעבור זה הזכיר כאן הנפש. ולא הזכיר בחטאת הכהן המשיח וכפר עליו ונסלח לו כאשר אמר בקהל בנשיא ובהדיוט ואולי לרוב מעלתו לא יסלח לו סליחה גמורה עד שיתפלל ויחנן לאלקיו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא וצריך להיות נקי וטהור ידים. וי"מ שזה רמז למה שאמר שגגת תלמיד עולה זדון דאפי' שגגתו חשובה כזדון ולא אמר בפרים הנשרפים בהקטרת אימוריהם ריח ניחוח ולא אשה לה' בשביל שיש מהם חלק לחוץ ואינו אשה לה':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “when a person commits a sin of commission inadvertently, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah prefaced this verse with the word נפש instead of the customary איש, is that we find when a person of no particular category is meant, that sin originates in our thoughts, and the biological soul, life force, is where our thoughts originate from, the Torah implies that the source of our sins lies not in a biological necessity, instinctive behaviour, but in our spiritual part.
 The rationale for the need of the person who has sinned inadvertently to have to atone by means of animal sacrifice, is that all sins bring in their wake stains which leave their marks on our souls, something which interferes with our ability to receive beneficial Divine input from celestial sources. Our personalities are only fully receptive to divine input when we can be described as ritually pure, in the sense of being free from unexpiated sin. To impress these thoughts upon us, the Torah chose the introductory word נפש here. Interestingly, in the case of the High Priest becoming guilty of any of the inadvertent sins the Torah does not mention in connection with the atonement for his sin the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, “he will provide atonement for him and it shall be forgiven to him.” Perhaps the Torah here hints at a criticism directed at the High Priest concerned, who, in spite of his stature, could become guilty of a sin caused by negligence. Possibly, for such a person the sacrifice will not obtain total forgiveness. The High Priest may have to add prayers asking G’d for forgiveness and apologising for being somehow remiss in his conduct before the balance of his guilt will be forgiven. Seeing that he has been likened to מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord of Hosts”, he needs to –allegorically speaking- have clean hands at all times.
 Some commentators see in the absence of the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, an allusion to the Talmudic rule (*Baba Metzia* 33) that שגגת תלמוד עולה זדון, “errors committed by a scholar are accounted as if they were deliberate,” because their standing in the community does not permit them to be careless.”
 When speaking of the פרים הנשרפים, the sin offerings by such High Priests, (*Zevachim* 5,2) and their being burned up, the customary statements that this will be a source of pleasant aroma, ריח ניחוח for *Hashem,* is missing, also indicating that the High Priest’s negligence has not yet been forgiven completely, even though he has offered the requisite offering.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:12:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:12:1)

**אל שפך הדשן ישרף.**צוה הכתוב לשורפו בחוץ לעיני הכל לומר שלא יתבייש אדם מחטאו ויתודה עליו שהרי אפי' כהן גדול מתודה ומביא חטאתו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אל שפך הדשן ישרף אותו, “on the place where the ash is poured and burn it.” The Torah commanded that the burning of this sin offering including its skin must be performed outside the precincts of the Temple so that it would be observed by the public at large. This would show the people that even a High Priest would acknowledge that he had sinned and ask G’d to forgive him.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:14:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:14:1)

**ונודעה החטאת.**כתב הרמב"ן שלא יביאו חטאת עד שידעו שחטאו אלא כך דרך הלשון כאשר ידעו שחטאו יקריבו חטאתם. ויתכן שצוה שלא יתחייבו בחטאת אלא בידיעה ודאית ולא על הספק כמו באשם תלוי:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ונודעה החטאת, “when the sin becomes known, etc.” Nachmanides derives from this that the sinner is not to offer a sin offering until the precise nature of the inadvertently committed sin has become known to himself. It is not unusual for the text to speak in generalities, so that we might have thought that others having heard or seen the sin committed in question is sufficient cause for the sinner to have to bring this offering. Possibly, the intent of the verse is to inform us that unless there is definitive knowledge that the sin has been committed, no sin offering is called for, or even approved.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:22:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:22:1)

**אשר נשיא יחטא.**פירש"י אשרי הדור שהנשיא מביא כפרה על שגגתו וכו'. ור' אברהם כתב אשר נשיא יחטא הוא הפוך ופירושו אשר יחטא נשיא והוא דבק עם של מעלה ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו כאומ' ואם אשר יחטא הוא הנשיא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אשר נשיא יחטא, “when the political head of the nation commits an inadvertent sin, etc.” *Rashi* explains that it is a happy day for the people of Israel when a political head of the nation is called upon to bring this offering [It shows that such a head does not consider that he is infallible, and that he accepts admonitions by his subjects. Ed.]
 Ibn Ezra feels that the text is inverted and should be understood as if the Torah had written; “when a political head sins, etc.” The whole verse is a continuation of what has been written before, i.e. “in the event that the entire community of Israel has committed an inadvertent sin, etc.” The word אשר, according to Ibn Ezra, is not a statement of fact, but is conditional just as the word אם.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:22:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:22:2)

**מכל מצות ה' אלקיו.**דהיינו נשיא או מלך שאין עליו אלא מצות ה' אלקיו ומזכיר זה לומר אע"פ שאין עליו מורא בשר ודם יש לו לירא מה' שהוא אלקיו כי הוא אדוני האדונים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מכל מצוות ה' אלוקיו, “of any of the negative commandments of his G’d.” Although up until now the Torah also spoke of violations of G’d’s commandments, the words מצוות אלוקיו underline that even the High Priest and the king, or other political leader, who owe obeisance only to G’d and not to a terrestrial ruler, need to be reminded by the Torah that they must always remain in awe of *Hashem.* He is the Supreme authority, including that of the King and High Priest.
 4,23, או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. 
 Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him.
 Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:23:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 4:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/4:23:1)

**או הודע אליו חטאתו.**אחז הכתוב דרך קצרה שמתחלה אמר והוא ידע ואשם פי' שידע מעצמו שחטא או הודיעוהו אחרים שחטא. והרמב"ן כתב אין צריך לכל זה כי אשר רמז (כמו?) כאשר פי' כאשר נשיא יחטא ורבים כיוצא בזה ופי' או הודע אליו חטאתו קאי על מה שאמר תחלה והוא ידע ואשם פי' שעשה אחת מכל מצות ה' והוא ידע ונשאר באשמתו שלא הביא עליו קרבן לכפר או אם ירצה יביא קרבן ויתכפר. וי"מ משום הכי לא כתיב או הודע אליו אלא בנשיא ויחיד אבל לא בצבור וכהן משיח לפי שנשיא ויחיד מביאין אשם תלוי והכי פירוש' ואשם פי' אם ספק בידו מביא אשם תלוי או הודע אליו חטאתו בודאי אז אינו חייב אלא חטאת וכן גבי יחיד וה"ה גבי כהן הדיוט שדינו כשאר ישראלי' לענין זה אבל צבור וכהן משיח אין מביאין אשם תלוי צבור דכתיב באשם תלוי נפש אחת וכהן משיח דכתיב בי' לאשמת העם אשמתו כאשמת העם משום הכי לא כתיב בהו או הודע:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. 
 Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him.
 Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.