כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם, “When you will come to the Land of your dwelling, etc.” Nachmanides writes that after Hashem had reassured the children of the generation who had experienced the Exodus that they, at any rate would inherit the Promised Land, the Torah completes the legislation about both the public and private offerings. The Torah specifically introduces the subject of חלה, the setting aside of a small portion of any dough for the priest, Hashem’s representative on earth, as symbolic recognition that even basic foodstuffs such as bread that man toiled to produce are, in the final analysis, a gift from the Creator. [I elaborated on the theme with my own words. Ed.] Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why these paragraphs were appended at this juncture was to cheer up the younger generation who had to face the premature death of their parents as a result of the debacle with the spies. The Torah reassured them that they, at any rate, would come to the Holy Land, and legislation at this time applicable only in the Holy Land, would lift their spirits. I believe (Ibn Ezra continuing) that more is involved here. On the one hand, this sin -as opposed to the golden calf where only a small percentage of Jews actually took active part, -had involved the entire people, and they had been saved from immediate death only by Moses prayer. It was appropriate therefore to write legislation dealing with both inadvertent sin, (compare verse 22) and to provide a mechanism for obtaining forgiveness. (Verse 25) At the same time, the Torah added technical details about offering gift-offerings, מנחות which henceforth were to be added to all burnt offerings and meat-offerings. In addition the Torah spelled out what would happen if the sin were to be committed deliberately. Furthermore, the legislation about ציצית, fringes, was introduced as an act of G’d’s mercy, as these fringes were to remind the wearer when he looked at them that he must not commit sins against his Creator. Finally, we have a report about an Israelite who deliberately violated the Sabbath legislation and who was executed as a result after the method of execution had been spelled out by G’d. (Verse 32-36)

סולת עשרון בלול ברביעית ההין, “a tenth eyfah fine flour mixed with a quarter hin of oil.” It is peculiar that our verse gives us a relationship between the amount of oil needed to mix with the amount of flour that does not correspond to standard relationships we find elsewhere. If the example described here were a standard example, why would we find that in the case of the libations accompanying offerings consisting of varying sizes of four-legged animals the libations brought with an offering consisting of a ram where two tenths of an eyfah of flour are used instead of half a hin of oil only a third of a hin is required; similarly when the libation of an offering consisting of a bull is described the Torah decrees three tenths of an eyfah of flour to be mixed with only half a hin of oil? Perhaps, although in order to mix the flour thoroughly with oil, in the example mentioned in our verse a quarter of a hin of oil is required, when the quantity of flour is greater, the need to increase the proportionate amount of oil decreases gradually.

וכי תשגו ולא תעשו את כל מצות האלה, “if you err and do not fulfill all of these commandments, etc.” Nachmanides refers to an error by numerous commentators who mistakenly believed that the offerings described here apply to people who failed to perform positive commandments they were bidden to do. The true meaning of the words is that they apply to negative commandments, and disobedience whether deliberate or inadvertent consists in doing the opposite of what one is supposed to do, i.e. ignoring a negative commandment by acting in opposition to it. It is clear beyond doubt from verse 24 that the error consisted of the people doing something that the Torah had forbidden. The offering described here is one that must be brought when the entire people acted in error but in good faith. This is not the same offering as has been legislated in Leviticus In that instance the offering required was a bull as a sin offering. The bull that is discussed here is one that is offered as a burnt offering, עולה, not as a חטאת, a sin offering. The accompanying sin offering in our instance is a male goat. The sin the people became inadvertently guilty of is the sin of idolatry, a sin which is equated with violation of all of G’d’s commandments, i.e. את כל המצות האלה. According to the plain meaning of the text, (as opposed to the Rabbinic interpretation) the scenario of which the Torah speaks here is, in the case of an individual, someone who was raised amongst gentiles, unaware of the Torah and its laws. When he becomes aware of his error, he is obliged to offer one single such sacrifice in respect of all the previous violations. In the case of the whole people having erred, the scenario would be that they considered that the laws of the Torah are not applicable for all times, and they had believed that the applicability of the law in question had already expired. According to our sages, the subject is violation of the laws of idolatry and it is written here as the Torah (the Book of numbers) concludes the legislation of different kinds of offerings for different reasons. The fact that it has been written specifically here is due to the people now having committed acts of rebellion against G’d as described when they wanted to appoint alternate leaders who would lead them back to Egypt.

והם הביאו את קרבנם אשה לה', “and they have brought their offering, a fire offering for Hashem.” These words refer to the burnt offering.

וחטאתם לפני ה', “as well as their sin offering for Hashem.” These words refer to the male goat serving as the sin offering. According to Nachmanides the Torah writes both offerings separately so as to stress the enormity of the sin, and to teach that in spite of the sin itself being of a colossal nature, the fact that it was not committed knowingly qualifies it for forgiveness by the Creator.

The Torah also mentions the גר, the stranger, (proselyte) separately, as due to their only recently having converted they are more likely to commit sins erroneously. 15,31 עונה בה, “his sin is upon him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is similar to such an expression as דמיהם בם. (Leviticus 20,11, at al) their “blood-guilt” will remain upon them (as long as they have not repented). Another similar expression is ערירים ימותו עונם ישאו, “they will die childless while bearing the burden of their guilt.” (Compare Leviticus 20,20)

עונה בה, “his sin is upon him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is similar to such an expression as דמיהם בם. (Leviticus 20,11, at al) their “blood-guilt” will remain upon them (as long as they have not repented). Another similar expression is ערירים ימותו עונם ישאו, “they will die childless while bearing the burden of their guilt.” (Compare Leviticus 20,20)

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “The Children of Israel were in the wilderness.” This verse that apparently does not tell us anything we did not know, appears here as explaining how what will be described here could have happened. It was all due to the decree that the people had to keep wandering in the desert. This is followed by the legislation about Tzitzit, the fringes to be appended to four cornered garments, a device designed to remind the wearer of all of the Torah’s commandments whenever he looks at these fringes. Nachmanides comments on the commentary of Rashi in which he refers to the numerical of the word amounting to 600 (ציצית) When we add the 8 strings involved and the 5 knots used in tying them we arrive at 613, i.e. the umber of laws in the Torah. He questions this whole explanation, pointing out that the spelling in the Torah of the word ציצת [without the letter י in front of the letter ת leaves us with only 590.] He adds further, that according to the school of Hillel, the number of strings is three and not eight. The Torah also requires only 2 knots, not 5. [Nachmanides’ query has already been raised by Tossaphot in Menachot, 39 and is not directed at Rashi who did not originate the explanation, but at any rate the answer given there is that the letter ל in the word לציצת in our paragraph makes up (30) for the three letters י missing in the three words spelled ציצת in the text of the Torah in our paragraph. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides, the “remembering” of the Torah’s commandments mentioned in our paragraph is due to the colour of the thread of תכלת, ocean-blue wool, and not to any numerical values of any of the letters in the paragraph. Ocean-blue reminds us of the blue sky, which in turn makes us think of the Creator presiding over His universe on His throne in heaven.