A negative commandment and kareis. This excludes circumcision and Pesach, which only have kareis [but are positive commandments; also, not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment alone, such as not harvesting the corners of the field, and most of the Torah’s other negative commandments]; and not something which is a negative commandment and punishable by execution by a Beis Din, but not kareis, such as one who strikes his father or mother, one who kidnaps an Israelite, or the rebellious elder; and not for something whose intentional violation is a negative commandment and has the penalty of kareis, but it does not involve an active deed, such as one who curses his father, conspiring witnesses, a blasphemer, a sorcerer, an enticer or one who causes others to worship idols, or a false prophet. All these were learned from what it is written [regarding idol worship] (Bamidbar 15:29): “One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently,” and it is written (ibid. 30): “But if a person should act highhandedly (intentionally) ... [and that soul shall be cut off from among its people].” The Torah compares (hekeish) all the inadvertent transgressions of the Torah and the inadvertent transgression of idolatry in that they are liable for its intentional violation the penalty of kareis and for its unintentional violation, a sin-offering.

Noach of Nochor. Because it is written, “from one [of these],” it implies that even a part [of one of them]. We should not say [that one who writes on Shabbos] even one letter, because we derive from the word “one” as well, i.e., as if Scripture wrote, “one,” which would imply [he writes on Shabbos] the entire name. Therefore, [in resolution] we say that he is liable only if he writes Shem of Shimon, which is both, a whole name in itself, and also part of another name.

With an unintentional act. I.e., first, the law was concealed from him and he ruled against the halachah, and then he personally acted according to his decision. However, if the kohein ruled for others and they acted according to his decision, the kohein is exempt [from bringing the sin-offering], because it is written, “[He shall bring] for his sin which he committed.”

Perhaps an old one? The verse says: “son.” Meaning: If Scripture had only written “a bullock,” I would think that even a four or five year old [was acceptable], therefore, it lets me know “son” — because everywhere it says “son” [it refers to] a two year old, as it is written (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf (בן בקר), for a sin-offering and a ram, for a burnt-offering, unblemished ones.” So too, regarding years, just as the ram is two years old, the young calf is also two years old. If it said “son” [perhaps a young one?] Meaning: Now that it is written “bullock” and also “son of cattle,” perforce, it must be explained as a bullock close to [the age of] a “son,” which is three years old. You might ask: Rashi explains above (1:10): “And if ... from flocks of sheep” — “excluding [an animal too] old”? [Why is another exclusion needed here?] The answer is: I might think that Scripture excludes with regard to a burnt-offering, but with regard to a sin-offering, I might think even an old animal is valid. [Therefore,] the verse says: “son,” and not an old one (Re”m). This raises a difficulty: Rashi explains above regarding the burnt-offering (ibid.): “[From flocks,] of lambs, of goats” — “these [are three] limitations — excluding [an animal that is ill], one [that is] too old [to be offered], and one [that is] filthy.” Why is another exclusion needed here for offering an old one? Perhaps you will say: There, it is with regard to a burnt-offering and here it deals with a sin-offering, therefore it needs an independent [source of] exclusion. If so, however, it remains difficult: Scripture should have written here another exclusion for the one that is ill and one that is filthy. The answer is: With regard to being invalid because of illness or filth, which is repulsive, we can easily derive [the law of] a sin-offering from a burnt-offering, as it is logical to invalidate such an animal because of [the reason mentioned in Malachi 1:8]: “[When you offer a blind animal for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you]?” However, regarding the old one which is [merely] older than three years, it is not logical [that it should be invalid]. Rather, it is a Scriptural decree that it is invalid. [Thus,] I might think [it is invalid] only where the Torah reveals so. [Therefore,] Scripture lets me know that an [old] sin-offering is invalid as well (Divrei Dovid).

To the Heichal. This does not refer specifically to the Mishkon, but rather the same applies to the Beis HaMikdosh, as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13): “He has defiled the Mishkon of Adonoy,” and afterwards it is written (v. 20): “For he has defiled the Mikdosh of Adonoy.” Our Sages derived from this (Shavuos 16b): If it says Mishkon, why does it say Mikdosh? And if it says Mikdosh, why does it say Mishkon? Rather, it applies the laws of this to that, and of that to this. Perforce, there is no difference between them, but only that Scripture uses the term Mishkon because it was in existence at that time. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain this above (1:3) with regard to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting? [The answer is:] Because there it refers to the courtyard, and the term “courtyard” applies equally to the Mishkon and the eternal house [Mikdosh]. However, the term “Tent of Meeting” is applicable only to the Mishkon, and the holiness of the Mishkon was exchanged for the holiness of the eternal house, for this one’s holiness was temporary and this one’s holiness is eternal, [thus, it was necessary to explain that although this is so, the mitzvah of ‘bringing’ applies to them both].

In front of the space between the poles. Otherwise, why does it say “the Holy [Curtain]”? Rather, [it comes to teach us that] the sprinkling is valid only on the spot exactly in front of the space between the poles of the Aron HaKodesh, and not any other place along the Curtain’s width.

Not touch. [Rashi knows this] since it is not written, “on the Holy Curtain,” implying even without touching.

The remaining blood. Although he already sprinkled from it, it is called “all the blood.” This teaches that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the bullock’s blood, as if it says: All the bullock’s blood he shall receive, and afterwards sprinkle. After the sprinkling, he pours the remaining [blood].

The bullock of Yom Kippur. Re”m writes: They taught the same in regard to “He shall spill all the bullock’s blood” — It should have stated [“its blood,”] etc. Rather, [it comes] to include the bullock of Yom Kippur for spilling [the blood]. Rashi, however, only brings what they derived from the verse: “And all the fat of the bullock,” but I do not know why. It appears that it is because it is a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, as cited in the Yalkut on this Parshah (pg. 157, see there). (Minchas Yehudah). Rashi did not bring this because in Zevachim (25a) they derived another matter from this verse — that the one who slaughters needs to receive all the blood of the bullock (Gur Aryeh).

The goats of idolatry for the kidneys. This is [Rashi’s] text in Toras Kohanim, but our version is: “To include the goats of idolatry for all that was stated in this matter.” [You might ask: They said the goats of idolatry] although there is only one goat [brought as the sin-offering] for idolatry! It is brought together with the bullock burnt-offering, as it says in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 14:24), for an anointed kohein who inadvertently violated idolatry brings a goat like an ordinary person. The answer is because all the tribes, each one separately, would bring a bullock for their burntoffering and a goat for a sin-offering for the [transgression of] idolatry violated due to the inadvertently incorrect ruling of the Beis Din. If so, there were twelve goats, as we find in Horiyos (4b and 5a) (Re”m).

From that which is still attached. And the meaning of “from it” is when the bullock is still whole.

But what was explained. Meaning: Just as it specifies all the fats with regard to the peace-offering, it also specifies them here regarding the bullock of the anointed kohein.

Just as peace-offerings [must be offered] for their own sake. As it is written (3:1): “If his offering is a peace-offering...” Perforce, the Merciful One [in the Torah] is particular that the offering must be offered for the sake of a peace-offering.

Law from a law. Meaning: Since the bullock of the matter concealed from the community (v. 13) was needed to teach about the goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry with regard to the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys, in that they are compared through a hekeish to one another regarding the burning of the inner parts, as it says in Zevachim (41a). However, Scripture does not write the lobe of the liver and the kidneys in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [itself]. Instead, [they are derived] through a hekeish from the bullock of the anointed kohein, where it is written (v. 20): “He shall do to the bullock [the same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock.” And [the Rabbis] taught [in a Baraisa]: “To the bullock” — this is the bullock of the matter concealed from the community; “To the sin-offering bullock” — this is the bullock of the anointed kohein: Just as the bullock of the anointed kohein has the two kidneys and the lobe included its inner parts [that are burnt on the altar], so too the bullock of the matter concealed from the community. And [since] we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture], Scripture was therefore required to write the verse: “In the same manner as they were separated” regarding the bullock of the kohein, even though it is not needed for itself, to say: If it is not needed for itself, it should be applied to another matter — the bullock of the matter concealed from the community [and it will be considered as if it was written explicitly in the section of the bullock of the matter concealed from the community]. We learn from this that if it were not written clearly [by the bullock of the matter concealed from the community], the [law of the] goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry could not be derived from the bullock of the matter concealed from the community, since a matter that was itself derived through a hekeish cannot go back and teach [about something else] through a hekeish.

Beyond the three. [Rashi knows this] from what is written here: “Encampment,” and later on in this section it is written (v. 20): “[The same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock, so he shall do to it,” and then it is written (v. 21): “He shall take the bullock outside, beyond the encampment.” Why is this needed? Obviously, it is extra, in order to derive from it one more encampment. [That it should be beyond] the third encampment is derived from what it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:4): “He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment.” It should only say: “He should take out the ashes,” and I would know that it is beyond the encampment, because it is written in our section: “Beyond the encampment, to a pure [undefiled] place, where the ashes are thrown,” [thus,] this [the place where the ashes are thrown] is outside the encampment. Obviously, it is [also] extra, to derive from it another encampment. Thus, [we derive that he takes it out] beyond three encampments. The three encampments are: The encampment of the Divine Presence, from the entrance to the courtyard and within. From the entrance to the courtyard to the entrance to the Temple Mount is the Levites’ encampment, and from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the city gate is the third encampment. Beyond the city gate is outside of three encampments.

Outside the city. This raises a strong difficulty: There is no difference between the eternal house and Shilo, and the other places, for in every place where the Ark was located there were three encampments. The Gemara says [the same] clearly in Sanhedrin 42b, see there. The answer is: Perhaps it is a textual error and it should say “And in Jerusalem” (Nachalas Yaakov). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reserve the verse’s order to explain first “to a pure place” and then, “beyond the encampment” — “beyond the three encampments”? [The answer is:] This is to say: How do we know that the explanation of “beyond the encampment” is “beyond the three encampments”? Therefore, Rashi explains [first] “to a pure place” — Since there is a place prepared for impurity outside in which they throw out stones stricken with plague, and that is certainly outside of three camps. This is because the stricken house was inside the city, and it was necessary to take it outside. If so, when it is written: “beyond [the encampments],” it means beyond the three encampments, which is outside the city (Gur Aryeh).

A place. I.e., this does not refer to the ashes that were lifted from inner consumed parts, which are the ashes from “when the fire consumes the burnt-offering on the altar” (6:3) each day [i.e., the trumas hadeshen], for those ashes were not thrown out beyond the encampment. Rather, he would rake a full pan of ashes each day and place it in the courtyard on the ramp’s eastern side, as it is written (6:3): “And he shall separate the ashes...”

There are no ashes there. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the verse’s repetition is to [make it] an absolute requirement, that if there are no ashes there, it is invalid? (Re”m). The answer is: It should only say: “It shall be burnt upon the ashes.” Why [does it say:] “It shall be burned wherethe ashesare thrown”? Rather, it must be [that it teaches he burns the bullock] upon the place of the ashes although there are no ashes there at all.

The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this through a gezeirah shavah:] because it says here “עדה (congregation)” and it says later “עדה” (Bamidbar 35:24-5): “Then the congregation shall judge... The congregation shall protect”: Just as עדה that is mentioned later refers to the Beis Din, so too עדה that is mentioned here refers to the Beis Din. And since it says: “Congregation of Yisroel,” perforce [it is referring to] the special congregation of the people of Yisroel, which is the Great Sanhedrin that sits in the Chamber of Hewed Stone.

That the community acted according to their decision. The word הקהל (the community) is linked to the previous phrase and to the next phrase. [It is linked to the previous phrase, as follows]: “And the matter was concealed from the eyes of the community” — which is the Great Sanhedrin; they decided against the Halachah and said to the nation: “You are permitted.” [And it is linked to the next phrase:] “The community and they did” — that the community acted according to their decision. In such a case the Great Sanhedrin bring a young bullock...

Opposite the entrance. Otherwise, why does it say “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above (v. 7) regarding the bullock of the anointed kohein? The answer is: Rashi explains here that this refers to the western base [to let us know that spilling the blood there impedes. We should not say that he spills the blood there only] because he first passes that side when he exits the Tent of Meeting after completing the sprinklings inside, for the reason that we do not pass over mitzvos. Therefore, the second verse comes to teach us that this is the requirement of the mitzvah, and it is not because of the rule that we do not pass over mitzvos. Rashi in Zevachim (51a) answers in a different way as to why “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” is repeated a second time, and we can resolve it differently based on his answer.

This. Rashi adds the word “this” to the word “bullock” because if the first [sacrifice] was a goat or sheep, it would be correct to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the goat or sheep.” It is not correct, however, to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the bullock.” Because of this, Rashi added the word “this.” Also, it is not correct to say, “He shall do to this bullock as he did to the sin-offering bullock,” unless the word “first” is added [i.e., “as he did to the first sin-offering bullock]. For this reason, Rashi needs to say: “As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” [which takes the place of the word “first.”] [Also,] so that we should not err and say perhaps it refers to another bullock, such as the bullock of Yom Kippur, although it has not yet been mentioned, Rashi therefore adds [“As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” in place of] the word “first.”

The lobe and two kidneys. Rashi mentioned: “To include the kidneys and the lobe,” and did not mention the fats, because all of them are included in the statement: “He shall burn all its fat,” and this is according to [Rabbi Yossi]. I have already explained this above (v. 10) with regard to what Rashi explains: “And [it is taught] Shechitas Kodoshim, etc. that we may not derive a law from a law [which itself was derived from Scripture].” What Rashi writes: “And to repeat, etc.” is according to the Tanna Kamma in Toras Kohanim and not according to Rabbi Yishmael (Re”m).

To teach that if he omitted. This is its explanation: We also learn from it, i.e., from: “He shall do to the bullock...” that he should sprinkle the blood as he sprinkles the blood regarding the sin-offering bullock. You might object: It says clearly that he sprinkles the blood! Therefore, Rashi explains that it repeats twice [to teach] that if he omitted [one of all the applications...] (Minchas Yehudah).

With one application he has atonement. It atones even with only one application, i.e., with one sprinkling he achieves atonement, and it does not impede atonement [although most sin-offerings require two applications that are four in direction]. On the inner altar, however, [if he lacks one of the required sprinklings] it does not achieve atonement for him.

An expression of “fortunate is...” Meaning: This is because the verse [began with אשר and] did not begin with the usual “If (אם) a leader sins,” as it is written, “If the anointed kohein...” and “If the entire congregation...” This is the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai in the Gemara (Horiyos 10b). [It is written] in the Zohar (Vayikro pg. 38-9): “Rabbi Yitzchok taught... ‘If a leader sins’ — because he was haughty... Rabbi Yehudah taught...” It appears that he does not disagree with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai. Rather, it is only that the verse does not depart from its plain meaning, as Ibn Ezra explains: “If a leader sins. Reverse it: [אשר יחטא הנשיא]. It is connected to what it states above: “If the entire congregation,” as if it says: “If the one that sins is the leader.” If so, according to the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai alone it should say: “ואם אשר נשיא יחטא” because אשר is extra, rather, it is an expression of “fortunate.” From the fact it is not written אם, it includes here that it comes to hint that he will surely sin, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi Yehudah. But according to their words alone, it is difficult: Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of G-d. You might ask: Why according to the Ibn Ezra is it not written אשר יחטא נשיא; why did it reverse the order? The answer is: As it says in Horiyos (10b), it comes to teach that this [offering] should not be brought for previous sins, for if he sinned and then was appointed leader, he brings like [the offering of] an ordinary person, as it is written: “אשר נשיא יחטא,” that he sinned when he was [already] the leader (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

In the north. You might ask: It already says in Parshas Tzav (6:18): “In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered”! The answer is: This establishes an obligation — that it should be slaughtered only in the north, and if it is not slaughtered in the north, the offering is invalid.

Not for its sake, it is invalid. Meaning: We derive this since it is written “הוא (it is),” because הוא implies that it is as it should be, i.e., one should bring in the first place for the sake of a sin-offering. If it is not as it should be, however, because it was slaughtered for the sake of a burnt-offering, it is entirely invalid.

The remnants of its blood. But not all of its blood, because he already put some of it on the corners of the altar.

A goat. Rashi said “as those parts (אימורים)” instead of “as that fat” which would be understood [more directly] from the word [in the verse] “as the fat,” because Scripture does not intend to specify the fats. This is because the phrase, “all its fats” [already] includes all the fats. Rather, the verse’s intention is to add the lobe and the kidneys, which are not included in the statement, “all its fats.” Rashi [then] says: “which are detailed regarding a goat which is discussed [in the section dealing with] the peace-offering” because the peace-offering of a sheep also includes the tail fat among the אימורים, but the sin-offering of the leader is a goat, which has no tail fat.

On the fires which are made for, Hashem. Meaning: [This does] not [mean he shall burn the fats] on the fire that descends from Heaven, which in actuality is a “fire of Hashem,” for that fire was one, and in the verse it is written: “The fires of Hashem,” [i.e.,] those which are made for Hashem [by human effort].