IF A SOUL SHALL SIN IN ERROR. Since the process of thinking is centered in the soul, and it is the soul which commits the error,²⁹⁸ Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). The reason for the offerings for the erring soul is that all sins [even if committed unwittingly] produce a particular “stain” upon the soul and constitute a blemish thereon, and the soul is only worthy to be received by the countenance of its Creator when it is pure of all sin. Were it not so, then all the fools of the world would be deserving to come before Him. It is for this reason that the erring soul brings an offering, through which it becomes worthy of approaching unto G-d who gave it.²⁹⁹ It is on account of this that Scripture mentions here nefesh (soul). Our Rabbis have interpreted:³⁰⁰ 1:1. “‘Nefesh’ (A soul) — this [word is used to] include proselytes and slaves” [thus teaching us that they too are under the obligation of bringing this offering, since the term nefesh is inclusive of them as well]. Now in the case of the sin-offering of the anointed priest [first discussed here in Verses 3-12], He does not say “and [the priest] shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven,” as He mentions in the case of other sinners — namely, the whole congregation,³⁰¹ the prince,³⁰² and the common man.³⁰³ Perhaps the reason for this is that due to his great importance he cannot obtain atonement nor be forgiven completely until he prays and beseeches his G-d, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts,³⁰⁴ and he must be of clean and pure hands [so that he can never be reproached with anything; hence in addition to the offering he must bring, he must also pray especially for forgiveness]. Scripture does not mention here, when speaking about the bulls which were to be entirely burnt,³⁰⁵ that the burning of those portions offered on the altar is “of a pleasing odor,” or that it is “a fire-offering unto the Eternal.” The reason for this is that since part of them is burnt outside [the camp of Israel], it is therefore not for “the fire unto the Eternal.” In the case of the goat of the prince [which he brings as his sin-offering],³⁰⁶ He mentioned “atonement” [and the priest shall make atonement for him]³⁰⁷ but did not state that it is “a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,” because the offering is a sa’ir (a goat).³⁰⁸ brought in case of idol worship (Numbers 15:24) (Ma’or V’shamesh). See also Ramban at the end of 3:1. In the case of the sin-offering of the common person, He mentions that it is for a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,³⁰⁹ but does not mention “a fire-offering,” for it is self-understood that it is such, since the whole purpose of the fire-offering is to the Eternal. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.

footnotes: ²⁹⁸ Up to this chapter the subjects dealt with have been the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, and the peace-offerings — all of which are voluntary and are not brought for the commission of sin. Here the subject is the sin-offering which is brought as an atonement for a certain sin committed in error. See above, Note 68. ²⁹⁹ Ecclesiastes 12:7. ³⁰⁰ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Nedabah ³⁰¹ Verse 20. ³⁰² Verse 26. ³⁰³ Verses 31 and 35. ³⁰⁴ Malachi 2:7. ³⁰⁵ These bulls were the sin-offering for the anointed priest (Verse 3), and that of the whole congregation of Israel (Verse 14). After their fats were burnt on the altar, these bulls were taken outside the camp and completely burnt (Verses 12 and 21). This was unlike the procedure done to the sin-offering of the prince and the common man, of which only the fats were burnt on the altar, whereas the meat was eaten by the priests (further, 6:17-23). Hence the name given to the first two categories of sin-offerings [“bulls to be entirely burnt”]. ³⁰⁶ Verse 23. ³⁰⁷ Verse 26. ³⁰⁸ This is like the sa’ir ³⁰⁹ Verse 31.

WHEN THE SIN WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED IS KNOWN [THEN THE ASSEMBLY SHALL OFFER A YOUNG BULLOCK …]. It is self-understood that they cannot offer a sin-offering until they know that they have sinned. [So why does Scripture mention it?] But it is a linguistic expression of the [Hebrew] language to say, “and when it becomes known to them that they have sinned, they should bring their offering.” Therefore He did not mention it [in Verse 3] in the case of the anointed priest, because there was no need for it. It is possible that [the reason why the verse says, when their sin wherein they have sinned is known, is not merely as a linguistic expression but to indicate] that the assembly is not obliged to bring this sin-offering unless they have definite knowledge of their sin but not if it is merely a doubt, as in the case of the suspensive guilt-offering.³¹⁰ (suspensive guilt-offering) is brought in case of doubt about one of those major sins for which the penalty if committed wilfully is excision, and a sin-offering if committed unintentionally. This offering is called a suspensive guilt-offering. An example of a case of a doubt which calls for such an offering is the following. Suppose a person has before him two pieces of fat, one of which is Scripturally-forbidden food, and the other is permitted to be eaten, and he eats one of the two [whilst the other is eaten by another person or lost]. A doubt then arises in his mind as to whether the piece he has eaten was the permitted or the forbidden food. In such a case he must bring an offering so as to effect atonement, and this is called a suspensive guilt-offering. If it is later established that he ate the forbidden fat, he must then bring a sin-offering (See Maimonides, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 79-80). The point Ramban makes thus is that the verse before us teaches that the sin-offering of the assembly can be brought only when it is definitely confirmed that it has sinned [unintentionally], unlike the suspensive guilt-offering of the individual which is brought in case of doubt. Our Rabbis have interpreted,³¹¹ 4:12; Horayoth 5a. [that the verse says, the sin … is known, to teach that] “if the court knew that they had given an [incorrect] decision [on one of two kinds of forbidden food, such as fat and blood, declaring that one of them may be eaten], but did not know which one it was that they permitted, [and the people had eaten both], I might think that the court is obligated to bring a sin-offering [as they usually are when they give an incorrect decision which the people followed]. Scripture therefore says, when ‘the’ sin wherein they have sinned is known — not when only the sinners are known.”³¹² This is not mentioned in the case [of the sin-offering] of the anointed priest, since He said there: If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people,³¹³ thus declaring [the law of the sin-offering of] the anointed priest to be like that of the public.

footnotes: ³¹⁰ The asham talui ³¹¹ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah ³¹² In that case “the sinners” are known [i.e., it is known that the majority of the people relied on the mistaken decision and ate one of the forbidden foods, under which circumstances the court usually must bring a sin-offering for their mistaken ruling]. The particular “sin,” however, is not known, since the court does not know which of the forbidden foods it was that they incorrectly ruled to be permitted. In such a case, this verse teaches us that they do not bring a sin-offering. Horayoth 7b. ³¹³ Above, Verse 3.

ASHER’ A PRINCE SINNETH. “The word asher is [here] derived from the expression ashrei (happy). Happy is the generation whose prince brings an offering for atonement [even] for his error.³¹⁴ [Torath Kohanim].³¹⁵ 5:1. 23. ‘O’ HIS SIN BE KNOWN TO HIM — ‘if’ his sin be known to him. There are many verses where the word o (or) is used in the sense of im (if), and conversely where im is used in the sense of o. Similarly, ‘o’ it be known that the ox was wont to gore³¹⁶ [means ‘if’ it be known, and the word o which ordinarily means ‘or’ is here used in the sense of ‘im,’ meaning ‘if’].” Thus the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “The sense of asher nasi yechta is as if the expression were inverted, making it read: asher yechta nasi (if ‘he who sins is the prince’), and it is connected with [the section] above, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err.³¹⁷ It is thus as if He had stated here: ‘and if he who sins is the prince [and he knows it of himself], or his sin be made known to him by others.’ Scripture, however, adopts a short form of expression, [omitting to state ‘that he knows the sin himself,’ or that it was made known to him ‘through others’], but the meaning is that either it becomes known to the prince by himself that he sinned, ‘o hoda eilav’ (or it be made known to him) — i.e., that another man who saw him doing it informed him of it. The grammatical form of hoda is then a past causative [like hodi’a — a man ‘informed’ him], this being similar to ‘v’heitzar lecha’³¹⁸ [the meaning of which is as if it said ‘v’heitzir lecha’ in the causative, i.e., and he will besiege thee]. The subject, however, is missing [for it should have said here, or ‘another man’ inform him, and there it should have stated, and ‘the enemy’ will besiege thee], just as ‘asher’ bore her to Levi”³¹⁹ [which should have read ‘asher ishto’ (whose wife) bore her to Levi]. [All these are the words of Ibn Ezra.]. But there is no need for all this, since the uses of the word asher are many. In some cases it indicates time, such as: ‘ka’asher’ (when) *Joseph came unto his brethren;*³²⁰ ‘ka’asher’ (when) they had eaten up the corn,³²¹, 43:2. and the like. Similarly, here too [asher is like ka’asher and indicates time]: ‘when’ a prince sinneth, with the kaf of cognizance [which would make it ka’asher — “when”] missing. So also, The blessing, ‘asher’ ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the Eternal,³²² means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye shall hearken. ‘Asher’ ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more,³²³ means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye have seen them [today ye shall see them no more]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread ‘asher’ I commanded thee,³²⁴, 34:18. means ‘ka’asher’ (when) I commanded thee. At times this word [asher] is missing [not a kaf but] a beth. Thus: And also Maacah his mother he [King Asa of Judah] removed from being queen, ‘asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah³²⁵ means ‘ba’asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah, which denotes “because,” just like, ‘ba’asher’ (because) thou art his wife.³²⁶ The expression o hoda eilav [is thus not a causative, as Ibn Ezra would have it, which would make it to mean “or that it was made known to him by another person;” rather, it] refers to the guilt, stating that when a person will do any one of all the things which the Eternal his G-d hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty,³²⁷ and deserving of punishment, or it be known to him and he will achieve atonement by means of an offering. The sense of the verse is thus: “he will either be guilty [and deserving of punishment], or bring an offering and he will be forgiven.” The reason for the expression: the Eternal his G-d, is to state that even though he is the king, and the lord upon whom there is no fear of mortal man, he is yet to fear the Eternal his G-d, for it is He who is the Lord of lords.³²⁸ Similarly, that he (the king) may learn to fear the Eternal his G-d,³²⁹, 17:19. means that the king is to take to heart [the knowledge] that there is a Supreme One above him, Who is his G-d and in Whose power is his life and kingdom.

footnotes: ³¹⁴ Our Rashi adds: “How much the more certain is it that he will do penance for any sin he committed wilfully.” ³¹⁵ Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah ³¹⁶ Exodus 21:36. ³¹⁷ Verse 13. ³¹⁸ Deuteronomy 28:25. ³¹⁹ Numbers 26:59. ³²⁰ Genesis 37:23. ³²¹ Ibid. ³²² Deuteronomy 11:27. ³²³ Exodus 14:13. ³²⁴ Ibid. ³²⁵ I Kings 15:13. ³²⁶ Genesis 39:9. ³²⁷ Verse 22 here. ³²⁸ Deuteronomy 10:17. ³²⁹ Ibid.

AND THE REMAINING BLOOD THEREOF SHALL HE POUR OUT AT THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING. This is the same altar already mentioned [in the first part of the verse: and he shall put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering]. But such is the linguistic expression of the [Hebrew] language to mention the subject instead of [merely] the definite article [thus repeating “of burnt-offering” rather than just saying “the altar”]. Similarly, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and he shall slaughter the bullock.³³⁰ Our Rabbis have Midrashic interpretations on these verses, for the law of the Eternal is perfect,³³¹ there being nothing in it which is omitted or redundant.

footnotes: ³³⁰ Above, Verse 4. ³³¹ Psalms 19:8.