פרשת ויקרא — חמישי (Aliyah 5)
Parashat Vayikra | Leviticus 4:1–4:26 | Aliyah 5 of 7
קלאוד על הפרשה
The fifth aliyah of Parashat Vayikra introduces one of the Torah’s most sophisticated legal and theological constructs: the chatat, the sin offering brought for transgressions committed unintentionally (bishgagah). With the opening formula “when a person unwittingly incurs guilt” (nefesh ki techeta bishgagah), the Torah acknowledges a category of wrongdoing that most ancient legal systems ignored entirely. The very existence of the chatat presupposes that sin leaves a mark on the sinner and on the sanctuary regardless of intent, and that this spiritual residue requires a formal process of purgation. As Ramban explains, even an unintentional sin reveals something about the inner state of the person who committed it — a righteous soul, fully attuned to the divine will, would not stumble even inadvertently.
What makes this passage especially striking is its graduated structure. The Torah does not prescribe a single, universal sin offering. Instead, it calibrates the offering according to the status and responsibility of the sinner, presenting three distinct categories in descending order: the anointed priest (kohen hamashiach), the entire congregation acting through its leadership, and the nasi, the tribal or political ruler. The anointed priest, whose sin is described as bringing guilt “upon the people” (le-ashmat ha-am), must offer a bull — the most costly and elaborate of the sin offerings. Rashi, drawing on the Aggadah, explains that when the High Priest sins, it constitutes the guilt of the people because they depend on him for atonement and intercession, and his moral failure leaves the entire community spiritually exposed. Sforno takes this further, suggesting that the High Priest’s error is almost never purely his own but is symptomatic of the people’s spiritual decline, which has corroded even the holiness of their appointed representative.
The procedural details reinforce this hierarchy of culpability. The blood of the High Priest’s bull and the congregation’s bull is brought inside the Tent of Meeting, sprinkled seven times before the parokhet (the curtain of the Holy of Holies), and applied to the horns of the inner incense altar — a procedure that penetrates deeper into sacred space than any other regular offering. Rashi preserves a remarkable parable from the Talmud (Zevachim 41b): when the anointed priest alone sins, Scripture still calls the curtain “the curtain of the Holy” (parokhet hakodesh), because the sanctity of the place endures; but when the entire people sin, the adjective “holy” is dropped, as if the holiness itself has, God forbid, departed. The carcass of these bulls is then burned entirely outside the camp, with no portion eaten by the priests — a stark departure from most offerings that underscores the gravity of communal and priestly sin.
The nasi’s offering occupies a middle ground that the commentators found deeply instructive. His offering is a male goat rather than a bull, and its blood is applied only to the outer altar, never brought inside the sanctuary. Ibn Ezra connects the choice of a goat to the verse in Proverbs (30:31) that pairs the he-goat with the king, both creatures that carry themselves with an air of authority. Yet the most celebrated comment on this passage belongs to Rashi, who notes the unusual word “asher” (which) opening the section on the nasi, reading it as a play on “ashrei” — “happy is the generation whose leader takes care to bring atonement even for an inadvertent sin, for how much more so will he repent of his deliberate wrongs.” This reading, drawn from Horayot 10b, transforms a dry legal provision into a meditation on the character of good leadership: the mark of a worthy ruler is not perfection but the willingness to acknowledge error.
Taken as a whole, this aliyah establishes a foundational principle that runs through all of Jewish law: responsibility and accountability scale with authority. The greater one’s position, the greater the impact of one’s failings, and the more elaborate the process required to restore spiritual equilibrium. The Or HaChaim elaborates that the High Priest’s sin creates a rupture between his soul and its holy roots, a distance that only the most intensive sacrificial procedure can bridge. The graduated system thus reflects not arbitrary ritual distinctions but a profound moral logic — that those entrusted with the spiritual welfare of others bear a heavier burden when they fall short, and that the community’s relationship with the divine is mediated through, and therefore vulnerable to, the conduct of its leaders.
Leviticus 4:1–4:26 · ויקרא ד:א–ד:כו
פסוק ד:א · 4:1
Hebrew:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
English:
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:
פסוק ד:ב · 4:2
Hebrew:
דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֮ לֵאמֹר֒ נֶ֗פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תֶחֱטָ֤א בִשְׁגָגָה֙ מִכֹּל֙ מִצְוֺ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֣א תֵעָשֶׂ֑ינָה וְעָשָׂ֕ה מֵאַחַ֖ת מֵהֵֽנָּה׃
English:
Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a person unwittingly incurs guilt in regard to any of יהוה’s commandments about things not to be done, and does one of them—
This foundational verse introduces the category of unintentional sin (shogeg). The Torah establishes that a person who violates a negative commandment without realizing it still requires atonement. Rashi clarifies that the chatat applies specifically to prohibitions whose willful violation carries the penalty of karet (excision).
רש״יRashi
מכל מצות ה'. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אֵין חַטָּאת בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ לָאו וְכָרֵת (ספרא): מאחת מהנה. מִמִּקְּצָת אַחַת מֵהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכּוֹתֵב בְּשַׁבָּת שם מִשִּׁמְעוֹן, נח מִנָּחוֹר, דן מִדָּנִיֵּאל (שם):
'מכל מצות ה [IF A SOUL SIN IN ERROR] AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD — Our Rabins explained ( Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 7; Shabbat 69a) that a sin-offering (of which this chapter speaks) is brought only for such a thing the wilful committal of which is forbidden by a לאו (a negative command) and is subject to the penalty of excision). מאחת מהנה — The prefix in מאחת, being the partitive מ, suggests: even if one infringes only a part of one of them. as, for instance, if one writes on Sabbath the two letters שם of the name שמעון having intended to write the whole word, or the letters נח of the word נחור, or דן of דניאל (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 1 4; Shabbat 103b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
נפש כי תחטא. לעשות בשגגה אחת ממצות לא תעשה שיש עליהם כרת או מלקות. ומלת נפש כלל לישראל ולגר כי כן כתוב. ואחר כן פרט והחל מהכהן הגדול והוא הכהן המשיח:
IF ANY ONE SHALL SIN. By inadvertently transgressing one of the negative commandments, the penalty for which is excision1Such as eating leaven on Passover (Ex. 12: 15). There are thirty-six transgressions for which the penalty of excision is prescribed. They are listed in Keritot 1:1. or flogging [for a deliberate act].2For such a transgression as eating food which is not kosher. The word nefesh3Literally, a person or a soul. (any one) takes in Israelites and strangers,4Non-Jews living in the Land of Israel. See notes on I.E. Lev. 13:3. for it is so stated.5The term nefesh is used in reference to a stranger in Ex. 23:9. It is widely used in Scripture to refer to Israelites. See Ex. 12:15. Scripture then goes into detail.6It goes on to describe the sin offerings to be brought by the various strata of society. It begins with the kohen gadol, the anointed kohen.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
דבר אל בני ישראל וגו'. בתורת כהנים דרשו בני ישראל מביאים חטאת ולא גוים מביאים חטאת על ז' מצות בני נח וקשה מנין יעלה על דעת לומר שיביאו שהוצרך למעטם, ואם מנדרים ונדבות מה לנדרים ונדבות שאינם לכפרה תאמר בחטאת, וכדרך שאמרו בחולין (ה:) בצריכות מיעוטא דמומר דמיעטיה קרא בעולה ובחטאת דאצטריך למעט מומר בעולה ולא גמרינן ליה ממיעוט חטאת משום דלכפרה הוא מה שאין כן עולה ע"כ, ומינה בהיכא דנתרבו בעולה שהיא נדבות ונדרים שאין ללמוד חטאת שהיא לכפרה. ונראה לומר שהכוונה היא לשמור שלא תרבה גוים מייתור נפש שאמר הכתוב, לזה אמר בני ישראל למעט גוים וריבוי נפש לרבות גרים. וקשה לא היה לו לכתוב לא בני ישראל ולא נפש ואני יודע שהגוים לא מטעם שכתבנו וגרים מביאין דמנין יעלה על דעת למעטם. זו אינו קושיא כי הלא מצינו שהוצרך הכתוב לרבותם בתחלת הפ' דכתיב (פסוק ב') אדם ודרשו שם בתורת כהנים להביא גרים וא"כ סלקא דעתך אמינא שלא ריבה אותם אלא לעולה ולא לחטאת קא משמע לן, ואם כן אם לא היה מיעוט שמעט ביתור בני ישראל היה צד לומר כי גרים לא איצטריך משום דכיון דנתרבו בתחלת הפרשה נתרבו לכל פרטים הרשומים בכל הפרשה ולא בא רבוי שריבה ביתור נפש אלא לרבות הגוים שמביאין חטאת לזה אמר בני ישראל למעט גוים הא למדת שאומרו נפש אינה אלא לרבות גרים, ולא הספיק רבוי שבתחלת הפרשה לצד מדרגת חטאת עדיפא מעולה, גם לצד שהפסיק בענין ואין למידין לזה אצטריך. ועוד נראה לומר כי לא מיתור בני ישראל דורש אלא ממשמעות בני ישראל יגיד כי לא גוים, ולצד שבמשמעות בני ישראל יתמעטו גם הגרים לזה אמר נפש לרבות הגרים, ומעתה הגם כי בני ישראל צריכה לגופה בכל התורה כולה להודיע למי באה מצוה זו ממילא מתמעטים הגוים: נפש. אמרו רז"ל (תו"כ) לרבות גרים, ואם לכלול נשים היה לו לומר אדם כי יחטא כי אדם כולל זכר ונקבה דכתיב (בראשית ה ב) ויקרא שמם אדם. ובדרך רמז יכוין כי לצד שנפש של אדם רשע היא נחסרת לצד מעשה הרע באמצעות העון במזיד ולזה יקרא הרשע בחייו מת דכתיב (יחזקאל יח) במות המת כי אין לו נפש, והוא ג"כ אומרו (משלי כג) אם בעל נפש אתה, והודיעו הכתוב כי תחסר הנפש גם בחטא השוגג, האמת שלא תחסר כולה אלא מקצתה ולצד מחסור כזה הוא אשר אמר ה' כי יביא קרבן ובזה תתקרב הנפש לשורשה ויאיר אורה כבתחלה אבל במזיד שתחסר כולה לא יועיל תקנת הקרבן כי אין נפש במציאות לקרבה עד אשר ישוב ויעבור עליו יוה"כ ויחיה ע"ד אומרו (יחזקאל יח) השיבו וחיו:
דבר אל בני ישראל, "speak to the children of Israel, etc." Torat Kohanim uses the expression בני ישראל as excluding Gentiles from offering sin-offerings in the event they violated any of the seven Noachide laws. This appears very difficult. Why should the idea that they could offer such sacrifices ever have arisen so that the Torah needed to refute it? If we would have made a comparison with the Gentile's right to offer free-will offerings, there is no comparison seeing that those offerings were not meant to achieve atonement as we know from Chulin 5 where the Talmud debated the source of denying the heretic the right to offer either total-offerings or sin-offerings respectively. The Talmud there makes it plain that the two kinds of offerings cannot be derived one from the other unless there was something in the text alluding to such entitlement. One argument used there is that if someone were denied to offer a free-will offering it does not follow automatically that he should be barred from offering a sin-offering seeing the latter is designed to help him achieve atonement. The same argument can be used here. As a result of such considerations, the Gentile would have been presumed as entitled to offer sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write בני ישראל, to exclude him from the privilege to offer such offerings. It appears to me that the need for this exclusion was accentuated by the word נפש which the Torah used in the very same verse in which it described who would be required (or entitled) to bring a sin-offering. The word נפש suggests that any human being is included in the legislation about to be unveiled. By writing first בני ישראל, the Torah enabled us to use the inclusive term נפש as including proselytes. The obvious question is why the Torah did not simply omit both the words בני ישראל and נפש, and I would have excluded the Gentiles and included the proselytes? What possible reason could there have been to exclude the proselyte from the privilege to offer a sin-offering that prompted the Torah to write a word designed to include him? This is no objection as we find that the Torah had included proselytes already in 1,2 where the Torah used the term אדם, and this term included proselytes. We would naturally have assumed that proselytes were included only in the right to offer burnt-offerings but not sin-offerings. The Torah therefore had to write the word נפש in our verse to tell us that proselytes have the right to offer sin-offerings. Unless the Torah had also excluded the Gentiles by the restrictive term בני ישראל, one could have argued that proselytes did not need to be specifically included as they had already been included at the beginning of the portion with the word אדם. I would then have concluded that the absence of any further restrictive clause indicated that the Torah has no objection to Gentiles offering sin-offerings. We have now learned that the word נפש here, though inclusive, includes only the proselyte and that the inclusive term אדם at the beginning of our portion was not sufficient seeing the privilege of offering a sin-offering is a far greater privilege than that of offering a burnt-offering. The very fact that a separate paragraph was needed to sanction the offering of sin-offerings altogether indicates that it is a great privilege to be allowed to atone for a sin by offering a sin-offering (only). This privilege could not have been derived merely by exegesis, but needed to be stated outright. Moreover, it appears that the conclusion of Torat Kohanim that the words בני ישראל exclude Gentiles is not based on these words being superfluous, but rather on their plain meaning, i.e. "Jews and not Gentiles." The moment we accept this, the implication is that only natural-born Jews are subject to the legislation in this paragraph as the expression "children of Israel" refers to direct descendants of the patriarch Jacob. If the Torah wanted to include proselytes also, it had to write the word נפש in order for us to understand this beyond doubt. Having said this you will appreciate that though the expression בני ישראל in the whole Torah is not understood as available for exegetical purposes but as telling us to whom the respective legislation is addressed, it excludes Gentiles automatically. נפש, a person. Torat Kohanim views this word as including proselytes in the group of people entitled to offer sin-offerings. If the Torah had intended to also include women, the Torah should have written אדם כי יחטא as the term אדם includes males and females seeing the Torah referred to both males and females by the collective term אדם in Genesis 5,2. A moral-ethical meaning of the term נפש as used in this paragraph may be the following. The soul of a human being becomes defective when its owner has sinned intentionally. This is why sinners are referred to as "dead" even while they are still "alive," as we know from Ezekiel 18,32: "for G'd does not desire the death of the dead, etc." The sinner is referred to by the prophet as dead already seeing he no longer has a soul. Solomon refers to something similar in Proverbs 23,2 "if you are someone possessed of a נפש, soul." Our verse tells us that even sins committed inadvertently result in damage to one's soul. While it is true that such inadvertently committed sins do not destroy the soul completely, nonetheless the Torah requires a sin-offering in order for the damage to that soul to be repaired. The offering of that קרבן, the sacrifice whose purpose it is to re-establish the affinity of the soul with its origin, enables the diseased soul to be infused with the spiritual values which will heal its wounds. The same result cannot be achieved if someone who had sinned intentionally were to offer such a sacrifice seeing he had already forfeited his soul. There is nothing left that can be reconstituted until the sinner repented and experienced the beneficial effect of the Day of Atonement, as pointed out by Ezekiel 18,32 והשיבו וחיו, "when you return and cause others to return so that you may live."
פסוק ד:ג · 4:3
Hebrew:
אִ֣ם הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ יֶחֱטָ֖א לְאַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם וְהִקְרִ֡יב עַ֣ל חַטָּאתוֹ֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר חָטָ֜א פַּ֣ר בֶּן־בָּקָ֥ר תָּמִ֛ים לַיהֹוָ֖ה לְחַטָּֽאת׃
English:
If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering*sin offering So throughout this translation and traditionally; more precisely, “offering of purgation.” to יהוה.
The Torah begins its graduated system of sin offerings with the anointed High Priest. His unintentional sin is described as bringing guilt upon the people, since the entire community depends on him for atonement. Rashi explains that the phrase le-ashmat ha-am teaches that the High Priest is liable only when there is an erroneous ruling combined with a mistaken action, paralleling the communal sin offering.
רש״יRashi
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם. מִדְרָשׁוֹ: אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶֹה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ (שם); וּפְשׁוּטוֹ לְפִי אַגָּדָה: כְּשֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חוֹטֵא, אַשְׁמַת הָעָם הוּא זֶה, שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וּלְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲדָם, וְנַעֲשֶׂה מְקֻלְקָל: פר. יָכוֹל זָקֵן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בֶּן, אִי בֶּן יָכוֹל קָטָן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר פַּר, הָא כֵּיצַד? זֶה פַּר בֶּן שָׁלוֹשׁ (שם):
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) "[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt. פר A BULLOCK — One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בן, a young animal. If, then, it must be בן, a young one, I might think a very young animal is fitted too (this being also implied in the term בן)! Scripture, however, states פר! How is this to be reconciled? By explaining פר בן בקר to be a bullock of three years (which is neither too old nor too young) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:7 and Note thereon).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לאשמת העם. שהורה שלא כהוגן ואשם העם וכלם שוגגים או פירוש לאשמת העם באשמת כל בני אדם ונזכר כן בעבור שהכהן הוא נושא התורה והוא עצמו נשמר וקדוש לשם: על חטאתו. בעבור חטאתו וכאשר הוא גדול יקריב הפר שהוא הגדול מכל הקרבים על גבי המזבח:
TO BRING GUILT ON THE PEOPLE. The kohen gadol taught incorrectly and the people were guilty, all of them having acted inadvertently.7The people inadvertently sinned by following the wrong ruling of the kohen gadol. On the other hand, the meaning of leashmat ha-am (to bring guilt on the people) might be, because of the guilt of all of the people.8The kohen gadol is responsible for the people's sin. He did not sufficiently admonish the people. It9The phrase le-ashmat ha-am (to bring guilt on the people). According to this interpretation our verse reads: If the appointed priest shall sin because of the people's guilt. is mentioned here10After the word yechete (shall sin). In other words, le-ashmat ha-am (to bring guilt on the people) qualifies yechete (shall sin). because the kohen is the bearer of the Torah and he is very careful and holy unto God.11He himself would not sin inadvertently. FOR HIS SIN. Al chattato (for his sin) means because of his sin.12Al chattato (for his sin) literally means on his sin. Hence I.E.'s comment. Since the kohen gadol is great he must offer a bullock, which is the largest animal of all that are offered on the altar.
ספורנוSforno
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם. כלומר שלא תקרה לו שגגת חטאת זולתי ממוקשי עם, כאמרם (ברכות לד:) המתפלל וטעה סימן רע לו, ואם שליח ציבור הוא, סימן רע לשולחיו. וקרבנו נשרף ואין לכהן שום חלק בו, ולכן לא כתב בו ואשם כמו שכתב בכל שאר החוטאים, כי אמנם באמרו ואשם יורה אזהרה על התשובה, וזה לא יפול על הכהן המשיח כי לא מלבו היה החטא כלל, אבל קרה לו לאשמת העם. ובשגגת סנהדרין שהוא גם כן רחוק אמר:
seeing that sinners are always on different levels morally and ethically, some being more prone to sin than others, the Torah addresses these different groups of people in different ways, each one appropriate to their specific rating in society. The Torah begins with the High Priest, the one who is least likely to commit a sin, and writes: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם, implying that a sin by the High Priest is most likely the outcome of guilt by the people, their conduct having contributed to his committing such an error. The Talmud (Berachot 34b:29) quotes that if someone makes an error in his private prayer this is a bad omen for him. If, however, the cantor, i.e. the person hired to pray on behalf of the people makes an error, not only he but all those on whose behalf he offered his prayers will suffer the consequences of his error. The sacrifice of a priest who committed an error must be burned and no one derives the slightest benefit from such an offering. Such considerations account for the fact that the Torah did not write here ואשם, "he sinned," which would have been a warning for the errant person to do teshuvah. Had the Torah phrased its address to the High Priest thus this would not have been appropriate as the error committed by the High Priest did not originate within his heart but his faulty prayer had been due to the sinfulness of the people he represented which had insidiously influenced the words he was uttering.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
אם הכהן וגו'. התחיל בכהן ולא בצבור, ומה גם שאמר לאשמת העם שדימה שגגתו לשגגת העם ומן הראוי להקדים ברישא. ואולי שבא לו' שצריך להקדים קרבנו של משוח לשל ציבור ואין צריך לומר לשל מלך, והטעם כמו שאמרו במסכת הוריות (יג) כהן מכפר וצבור מתכפרין. ומצאתי לרז"ל (תו"כ פסוק יג) שאמרו פר כהן משיח ופר העדה פר כהן משיח קודם, ודרשוה מאומרו ואם כל עדת ישראל וגו' הא למדת שיש להקדימו. עוד דרשו מאומרו כאשר שרף וגו' מכאן שצריך להקדים פר משיח לפר העדה. וצריך לדעת למה לא הספיק לרז"ל ללמוד הקדימה ממה שהקדימו הכתוב שהוצרכו לחפש אחר דרשות אחרים. ואולי שאם לא היתה אלא הקדימה בסדר לבד הייתי אומר שלא סדרו הכתוב קודם קרבן צבור אלא לצד שאם היה מסדרו אחר קרבן צבור היה נשמע אומרו אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם פירוש האמורה בסמוך שהורו בית דין והוא הורה עמהם, וזה אינו כי אם הורה עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור וכדאיתא במשנה שם (הוריות ו) לזה קדם וסדר משפטו לבד. ועדיין אני אומר שלא יקדים קרבנו לשל צבור לזה דרשו מאומרו ואם וגו', ועדיין קשה למה הוצרכו ב' דרשות, לזה דרשת ואם, ודרשת כאשר שרף. ונראה כי אחד לרשות ואחד לחובה. ומה שראיתי לבעל קרבן אהרן שנתן טעם שהייתי או' למקצת ולא לכולה, אין טעם בטעמו. עוד נראה לו' אחד לאם קדם והביא ועדיין לא הביאו פר העדה והביאו אחר כך והרי שניהם עומדים, וחד לאם באו כאחת פר משיח ופר העדה אף על פי כן תקדים של משיח: לאשמת העם. יתבאר על דרך אז"ל (אבות פ"ה מי"ח) המזכה את הרבים אין חטא בא על ידו, ובראות כי כהן המשיח חטא זה יגיד שלא זכו הזוכים על ידו כדי שלא יבא חטא על ידו בשבילם והוא אומרו לאשמת העם. ובתורת כהנים דרשו כי לאשמת העם יכון הכתוב להראות מין החטא אשר יתחייב עליו קרבן שהוא העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה כאמור לאשמת העם (פסוק יג) ונעלם דבר וגו'. ואם הכהן המשיח שגג בשגגת מעשה לבד הדבר תלוי אם יתחייב להביא קרבן הדיוט או לא, ודרשו ז"ל (הוריות יא) בפסוק מעם הארץ להוציא כהן משיח כי פטור לגמרי. ואם הכהן המשיח אינו חכם מופלא הרי זה פטור (שם ז) מכל מין קרבן בין בהעלם דבר ושגגת מעשה בין בשגגת מעשה לבד, וצריך לתת טעם לדבר זה. ואולי כי העושה בהעלם דבר והוא חכם מופלא שגגה זו עושה רושם גדול בנשמתו ומרחיק נפשו משורשה ולא יועיל זכותם של ישראל שהוא מכפר בעדן למנוע ממנו הפגם, מה שאין כן כל ששגג במעשה לבד או בהעלם דבר ואינו חכם מופלא חטא זה לא יפעיל פגם בבחינת נפש כהן משיח לרחקה משרשה כדי שיצטרך לקרבן לקרבה כי באמצעות זכות הרבים הן אל כביר לא ימאם, גם לא יספיק זה לסימן כי העם אשמים ממה שבא ליד המשיח שוגג זה מהטעם עצמו שכתבנו:
אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, If the anointed priest shall sin, etc. The Torah begins its list with the sin of an individual, although the Torah writes לאשמת העם, that this individual thereby brings guilt on the entire people. This is to tell us that an inadvertent sin committed by the High Priest is equivalent to an inadvertent sin by the whole community. If so, why did the Torah not begin the list of people who have to bring sin-offerings with 4,13 where the sin of the community is described, and wait with mentioning a sin by the High Priest until after verse 21 when inadvertent sins by individuals are listed? Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that in the event of the High Priest and the community having committed an inadvertent sin, the sin-offering of the High Priest takes precedence over that of the community as a whole. The same rule would apply if both the King and the people had committed a sin. The reason given in Horiot 13 is that the High Priest is active in securing atonement whereas the community achieves its atonement passively. I have found in Torat Kohanim on verse 13 (item 240) in our chapter that when both a high Priest and the community have to offer bullocks as sin offerings, the bullock of the High Priest has to be offered first. This ruling is based on the word ואם in verse 13 meaning that what is listed here is only secondary to what has been listed before, i.e. the bullock of the High Priest. This raises the question why our sages could not have deduced this rule simply from the fact that the Torah has written about the bullock to be offered by the High Priest before it wrote about the bullock to be offered by the community in the event the latter committed an error? Perhaps the sages reasoned that if there were no other hint that the High Priest's bullock takes precedence except the fact that the paragraph about the High Priest sinning was mentioned first, we would have misunderstood the words לאשמת העם as a reference to the error the people had committed which is described in verse 13. That verse deals with the people having acted on the basis of an erroneous decision of the High Court. I would have thought that the reason the Torah described the High Priest's error as "the sin of the people" was because he had concurrred with the erroneous decision of the High Court, or had even been part of the Court which handed down the erroneous decision. Such an interpretation would be wrong. If the High Priest had been part of the High Court which handed down an erroneous decision, his atonement is part of the atonement of the whole people, i.e. he does not have to bring a bullock as an individual sin-offering (Horiot 7). The Torah commenced the sin-offering legislation with the High Priest in order that we should not arrive at an erroneous conclusion. In view of this I would not have been able to use the fact that the first paragraph deals with the sin-offering of the High Priest as proof that his sin-offering takes precedence even over the communal sin-offering. We are still faced with the problem why two separate exegetical comments were necessary to teach us this, a) the word ואם in verse 13, and b) the words כאשר שרף, in verse 21 (compare Torat Kohanim 255 on that verse). I believe that the reason there are two such exegetical openings is simply that if I had only had one, I would have reasoned that the High Priest's offering may be offered first, but does not have to be offered first. Seeing that the Torah provided us with two exegetical openings it is clear that the Torah considers the High Priest's offering taking precedence as mandatory. I have seen a comment by Korban Aharon who claims that unless I had both these expressions available for exegetical use I would have assumed that the High Priest's offering would take only partial precedence but that before he completed his offering one would start with the offering of the community. I do not see any merit in such reasoning. If the author of Korban Aharon were correct the Torah should not have written כאשר שרף את הפר הראשון, "the first bullock" in verse 21, but should have written את הפר האחד, "the one bullock." This would have indicated that the procedure of offering the bullock of the High Priest had not been completed as yet at that stage. לאשמת העם, so as to bring guilt on the people; we may understand this statement as parallel to what we are taught in Avot 5,18: that if someone is engaged in conferring merits on others he himself will not commit a sin. When the High Priest himself commits a sin, this is proof that the people did not enjoy sufficient merits by reason of his activities that it should have protected him against committing a sin himself. This is the meaning of לאשמת העם. Torat Kohanim interprets the words אשמת העם as providing us with a clue as to the nature of the sin on account of which the High Priest has to atone with the bullock as a sin-offering. The sin is described as העלם דבר, lack of knowledge of the correct religious ruling which resulted in the people violating a negative commandment involving an activity, as mentioned in verse 13. If all the High Priest had been guilty of was an erroneous activity, some hold that he would be required to bring the same kind of sin-offering as an ordinary individual, whereas others hold that he would not be culpable at all. We learned in Horiot 11 that the words מעם הארץ in verse 27 are proof that if the High Priest had been guilty of a personal sin consisting of a sinful act that he would be free of the obligation to offer a sin-offering altogether. According to Horiot 7 if the High Priest does not happen to be an outstanding scholar he is not required to offer a sin-offering of either kind, not for having committed a sinful act inadvertently nor for having handed down an erroneous ruling upon which the people acted. We need to understand the reason for such an halachah. Perhaps the reason is that if an erroneous ruling is handed down by a High Priest who also happens to be an outstanding scholar and upon whom the people place a great deal of reliance, such an error makes a deep impression on his soul, creating a distance between his soul and its holy roots so that the merits of the Israelites which he has been instrumental in securing for them is insufficient to protect him against harmful effects on his own soul. Such an effect would not occur when the High Priest only erred in personally committing an inadvertent sinful act, or even if a High Priest who was not presumed to be a scholar handed down an erroneous ruling. Such sins would not create the kind of distance between his soul and its holy roots that he would need to bring an additional sacrifice in order to re-establish the bonds with his soul's holy roots. The merits a High Priest confers on the multitude by means of his daily activities are enough to protect the soul of such a High Priest from major harm. G'd would not despise him on account of the error he committed. Furthermore, seeing that the High Priest's error did not involve the people, it does not leave such a deep impression on his soul.
פסוק ד:ד · 4:4
Hebrew:
וְהֵבִ֣יא אֶת־הַפָּ֗ר אֶל־פֶּ֛תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְסָמַ֤ךְ אֶת־יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַפָּ֔ר וְשָׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הַפָּ֖ר לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
English:
He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before יהוה, and lay a hand upon the head of the bull. The bull shall be slaughtered before יהוה,
פסוק ד:ה · 4:5
Hebrew:
וְלָקַ֛ח הַכֹּהֵ֥ן הַמָּשִׁ֖יחַ מִדַּ֣ם הַפָּ֑ר וְהֵבִ֥יא אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
and the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it into the Tent of Meeting.
The blood of the High Priest's sin offering is brought inside the Tent of Meeting itself, not merely applied to the outer altar. Rashi notes that in the permanent Temple this refers to the Heichal, the inner sanctuary. This inward movement of the blood reflects the severity of the High Priest's sin and his unique relationship to the sacred space.
רש״יRashi
אל אהל מועד. לַמִּשְׁכָּן, וּבְבֵית עוֹלָמִים לַהֵיכָל:
אל אהל מועד [AND THE PRIEST … SHALL BRING IT] TO THE APPOINTED TENT — to the Tabernacle — and, later, in the House of Eternity (the Temple at Jerusalem), into the Heichal (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:43).
פסוק ד:ו · 4:6
Hebrew:
וְטָבַ֧ל הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶת־אֶצְבָּע֖וֹ בַּדָּ֑ם וְהִזָּ֨ה מִן־הַדָּ֜ם שֶׁ֤בַע פְּעָמִים֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י פָּרֹ֥כֶת הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ׃
English:
The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before יהוה, in front of the curtain of the Shrine.
The sevenfold sprinkling before the parokhet is a ritual act of extraordinary gravity, directed toward the curtain that separates the Holy from the Holy of Holies. Rashi explains that the sprinkling is aimed at the spot directly between the staves of the Ark, and that the blood did not actually need to touch the curtain. Ibn Ezra connects the number seven to a recurring biblical pattern of completeness and sanctification.
רש״יRashi
את פני פרכת הקדש. כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם קְדֻשָּׁתָהּ — מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְלֹא הָיוּ נוֹגְעִים דָּמִים בַּפָּרֹכֶת, וְאִם נָגְעוּ נָגְעוּ:
את פני פרכת הקדש [AND THE PRIEST SHALL … SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL OF THE קדש — i.e. before that spot where it is exceedingly holy — exactly in front of the space between the staves of the Ark (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 3 10). The blood did not touch the Partition Vail (since he was standing some distance off), but if it happened to touch it, then it touched it, (and it did not invalidate the ceremony) (Yoma 57a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וטבל הכהן. הוא המשיח בעצמו. וטעם שבע פעמים תמצאנו בפרשת וירא בלק ובעבור גודל מעלת הכהן הגדול יזה מדם חטאתו על פרכת הקדש ועל קרנות מזבח הקטרת וכל הפר חוץ מהחלבים ישרוף בחוץ כי איננה עולה:
AND THE PRIEST SHALL DIP. The anointed kohen himself. You will find the reason for seven times in the Torah portion Va-Yar Balak (Num. 22:2-25:9).13See I.E. on Num. 23:1, Vol 4, p. 191. The kohen gadol sprinkles some of the blood of the sin offering in front of the veil of the sanctuary14The veil (parokhet) separating the holy from the Holy of Holies. and on the incense altar15Which stood in the holy. because of his exalted status.16In the case of other sin offerings the blood is not sprinkled in front of the veil and on the incense altar. Hence I.E.'s comment. The kohen gadol burns the entire bullock, aside from the various fats,17Which are burned on the altar. See verses 8 and 9. outside [of the camp]18Verses 11 and 12. because it is not a burnt offering.19Hence, unlike the burnt offering, it is not burnt on the altar which stood in the temple courtyard. See Lev. 1:13.
פסוק ד:ז · 4:7
Hebrew:
וְנָתַן֩ הַכֹּהֵ֨ן מִן־הַדָּ֜ם עַל־קַ֠רְנ֠וֹת מִזְבַּ֨ח קְטֹ֤רֶת הַסַּמִּים֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְאֵ֣ת ׀ כׇּל־דַּ֣ם הַפָּ֗ר יִשְׁפֹּךְ֙ אֶל־יְסוֹד֙ מִזְבַּ֣ח הָעֹלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense, which is in the Tent of Meeting, before יהוה; and all the rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
After the sevenfold sprinkling, the priest applies blood to the horns of the golden incense altar inside the sanctuary. The remainder of the blood is then poured out at the base of the outer burnt offering altar. Rashi clarifies that the phrase 'all the blood' means the remaining blood, since part was already used for the sprinklings.
רש״יRashi
ואת כל דם. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם (זבחים כ"ה):
ואת כל דם AND ALL THE BLOOD — i. e. all the remainder of the blood (since part of it had already been sprinkled) (Zevachim 25a).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
לפני ה'. בתורת כהנים מה תלמוד לומר אמר רבי נחמיה לפי שמצינו בפר הבא ביום הכפורים שהוא עומד לפנים מן המזבח ומזה על הפרכת יכול אף זה כן ת"ל המזבח לפני ה' ולא כהן לפני ה' ע"כ. משמע שאם לא מצינו בפר הבא ביום הכפורים לא היה צריך להשמיענו לפני ה'. וקשה ומנין אני יודע מקום עמידתו, ומחמת שאין אני יודע מהכתוב שיש לו מקום ידוע נבוא לומר רצה עומד לפנים מן המזבח עומד רצה עומד חוץ למזבח עומד תלמוד לומר לפני ה' לומר כי צריך לעמוד חוץ למזבח ולמה הוצרך לומר (לפי שמצינו) לפני ה'. עוד קשה מנין מקום לדרוש שיזה על הפרוכת והוא חוץ למזבח, דלמא לגופא בא שיזה על המזבח והוא חוץ למזבח, וכדרך אומרו בפר יום כיפור (לקמן טז יח) ויצא אל המזבח, ולעולם הזאת הפרוכת תהיה והוא לפנים. ואלו לא היה לנו אלא דקדוק זה היה מקום ליישב. אלא שראיתי עוד בפרשת אחרי מות (שם) תניא ויצא אל המזבח מה ת"ל אמר רבי נחמיה לפי שמצינו בפר הבא על המצות שהוא עומד חוץ למזבח ומזה על הפרוכת יכול אף זה כן תלמוד לומר ויצא, והיכן היה לפני ה' ע"כ. קשה מה היא כח קושית מה תלמוד לומר, והלא אצטריך לומר שיצא ממקומו ולא יזה על המזבח והוא בפנים. עוד אומרו לפי שנאמר משמע דוקא לצד שנאמר אבל זולת שנאמר לא יודיענו הכתוב מקום עמידתו כשיזה על הפרוכת. ועוד לפי דבריו לא היה לו לומר לא ויצא שממנו נתחייב לומר לפני ה' בפר המצות כמו שמדקדק בדבריו מה תלמוד לומר לפני ה' לפי שמצינו וכו' ולא לפני ה' שממנה נתחייב לומר ויצא בפרשת פר יום כיפור כאומרו מה תלמוד לומר ויצא לפי שמצינו וכו'. ועוד קשה אומרו לפי שמצינו בפר הבא על המצות שעומד חוץ למזבח ומזה על הפרוכת, היכן מצינו שאמר הכתוב כן, ואם מאומרו לפני ה', דלמא על הזאת המזבח הוא אומר כפשט הכתוב ולא על הזאת הפרוכת. ועוד נראה אנחנו אם לא היה אומר לא ויצא ולא לפני ה' איה מקום כבוד עמידתו, ואם כן איך יכול תנא לומר מה תלמוד לומר בשניהם: אכן דרשת התנא היא כסדר זה כי אם לא אמר הכתוב לא ויצא ולא יתור לפני ה' פשוט הוא שנשפוט בו שיכול להזות בין על הפרכת בין על המזבח בכל אופן שיהיה בין המזבח בפנים בין הוא בפנים, ואחר שבא הכתוב וזכר בפר העלם מצות מזבח בפנים, ופשט הכתוב הוא על הזאת מזבח, וזכר בפר יום כיפור גם כן מזבח בפנים כאמור ויצא אל המזבח, ובפרט זה הושוו פר יום כיפור עם פר המצות, גם השמיענו בפר יום כיפור שהזאת פרוכת תהיה והוא בפנים, כי מאומרו ויצא מכלל שהיה בפנים, והנה הדעת נותנת שהוא הדין בפר המצות תהיה הזאת הפרוכת והוא לפנים מהמזבח וילמוד מה שחסר בפר העלם מפר יום הכיפור ונמצאו פר יום כיפורים ופר המצות שוים שיזה על הפרוכת והוא לפנים ויצא ויזה על המזבח, אשר על כן בא התנא והוציא דבר זה מלב שומע בכח הדרשה, ואמר לפני ה' מה תלמוד לומר, פירוש אחר שאמר הכתוב בפר יום כיפורים ויצא הא למדת שהזאת המזבח תהיה ומזבח לפנים, אם כן למה הוצרך לומר כאן לפני ה', אם ללמד בא שלא יזה על המזבח והוא בחוץ, אינו צריך וילמד הכל מפר יום כיפורים, ותירץ רבי נחמיה כי הוצרך לומר לפני ה', פירוש ממה שאנו רואים שלא רצה הכתוב ללמוד פר מצות מפר יום כיפורים הרי זה מראה באצבע שאין דומה לו, ובמה אין דומה לו, לפי שמצינו בו פרט אחד שלא הוזכר בפר המצות והוא הזאת הפרוכת והוא בפנים, והוא אומרו לפי שמצינו בפר יום כיפורים שהוא עומד לפנים ומזה על הפרוכת, ואם הייתי דן פר מצות ממנו הייתי יכול לו' גם זה (כן) תלמוד לומר לפני ה' כו', ומעתה אומרו מזבח לפני ה' שולל כהן לפני ה' בכל ההזאות בין של מזבח בין של פרוכת, שעל מי סמך עליו הכתוב להבין איה מקום עמידתו בשעת הזאת פרוכת, אם ללמוד מפר יום כיפור נלמוד גם כן הכל, אלא ודאי שקנה לו מקומו מזבח לפני ה' ולא כהן לפני ה' בכל ההזאות האמורים בענין זה. ובפסוק ויצא האמור ביום הכיפורים דרש על זה הדרך, מה תלמוד לומר פירוש משמעות פשט הכתוב הוא שלא יזה על המזבח עד שיצא, ומשמיענו גם כן שקודם כשהזה על הפרוכת היה לפנים: והנה דרשה ראשונה נשמעת בכתוב שצריך לצאת להזות על המזבח, אבל הזאת פרוכת שצריך לעמוד בפנים אין הכרח בדבר ויכול להזות בין שהוא לפנים בין שהוא לחוץ, ולצד כי רשות יש לו לעמוד במקום שירצה להזות על הפרוכת הזהיר הכתוב שכשיגמור בפנים להזות על הפרוכת יצא להזות על המזבח, לזה בא התנא ואמר הדרשה שבשבילה בנה הקושיא, והוא לפי שמצינו בפר הבא על המצות שהוא עומד וכו', פירוש הגם שלא הוזכר שם אלא גבי הזאת המזבח ולא למדנו על הזאת הפרכת אלא ממה שלא למד מפר יום כיפור והוצרך לומר לפני ה', אף על פי כן לפי מה שאנו דנים עליו עתה הוא אם לא נאמר בפר יום כיפור ויצא אלא לפני ה' שבפר העלם ובמציאות זה כשאני בא לדון על מקום עמידתו בשעת הזאת הפרוכת הייתי אומר כי רצה עומד בפנים רצה עומד בחוץ שלא הקפיד הכתוב אלא על הזאת המזבח שצריך שיעמוד בחוץ אבל בשעת הזאתו על הפרוכת אין עכוב בדבר, נמצאת אומר כי יכול לעמוד בחוץ למזבח ומזה על הפרוכת, והוא אומרו לפי שמצינו וכו' שהוא עומד חוץ למזבח ומזה על הפרוכת יכול גם זה כן תלמוד לומר ויצא, פירוש לעכובא שצריך לעמוד בפנים בשעת הזאת הפרוכת, שאם אתה אומר רשות לא היה צריך לו לומר ולומד אני מפר העלם, הא למדת שמכח אומרו לפני ה' בפר העלם אתה מתחייב לומר כי אומרו ויצא בפר יום כיפור בא לומר שצריך לעמוד בפנים בשעת הזאה על הפרוכת, שאם רשות לא היה צריך לומר והיה למד מפר העלם ב' דברים, שצריך לעמוד בהזות על המזבח בחוץ, ובהזות על הפרוכת יעמוד במקום שירצה, הא למדת מאומרו ויצא ב' דברים, שצריך לעמוד בפנים כשיזה על הפרוכת, וצריך לעמוד בחוץ כשיזה על המזבח, ולפי זה נתיישבו צריך עיון שהניח הרא"ם בפרשת אחרי מות (טז יח) בדרשת ויצא ועיין שם דבריו: אלא שצריך לחקור זאת, לפי ברייתא זאת שהכריחה עמידת פנים בהזאת הפרוכת ממה שלא למד פר יום כיפור מפר העלם, אם כן כשנחזור להבין ברייתא דלפני ה' למה נאמר וכו' קשה והלא צריך לדעת לפני ה' שזולתה לא הייתי יודע כי כוונת אומרו ויצא הוא להצריך עמידה בפנים בהזאת הפרוכת כנזכר, ומעתה נחזור למה שהיה עולה על דעתינו לומר כי גם בפר העלם יעמוד בפנים בשעת הזאה על הפרוכת כסדר האמור בפר יום כיפור, מה תאמר, למה הוצרך לומר, אצטריך כדי לגלות על פר יום כיפור שחובה לעמוד בפנים בהזאת הפרכת כאמור, שזולת זה הייתי אומר רשות. ויש לומר כי סובר התנא שלא תבא לפני ה' לעשות ממנו פלפול זה לבד דהיינו להקשות ילמוד ממנו פר יום כיפור וממה שלא למד וכו' כנזכר, כי אין זה דרך הכתוב, שעל כל פנים תהיה צריכה ללמוד דבר לגופה, שאם לא היה כוונת ה' אלא לגלות על ויצא כנזכר היה לו לפרש הדבר במקומו בפר יום כיפור: עוד נראה לומר כי כיון שדרשה זו צודקת כשנקדים להקשות למה נאמר לפני ה' וילמד מויצא, למה תדחה דרשה זו מאידך, הלכך למדינן תרווייהו:
לפני ה׳ אשר באהל מועד before the Lord who is in the Tent of Meeting, etc. In answer to the question why the Torah had to write the words "before the Lord" which had already been written in verse 6, Rabbi Nechemyah in Torat Kohanim says that seeing that we find that Aaron stood beyond the golden altar on the Day of Atonement when he sprinkled the blood on the dividing curtain, we could have assumed that the same procedure was to be followed here. The Torah therefore had to make clear that only the golden altar was "before the Lord," not Aaron. This suggests that except for the fact that the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement was sprinkled towards the dividing curtain, the words "before the Lord" in our verse would be superfluous. This is difficult. How would I have known where Aaron was to have stood if the Torah had not written the words "before the Lord?" Seeing that in that event the Torah had not designated a specific spot where Aaron had to stand to perform the sprinkling ceremony, I would have concluded that he had the choice of standing either in front of the golden altar or beyond it. The Torah therefore had to write the words: "in front of the Lord," to tell us that Aaron was to stand in front of the altar. Why was all this necessary? Because we find that there was another occasion when he was to stand beyond the golden altar. Another difficulty is this: why would I assume that Aaron was to perform the ritual of sprinkling the blood towards the dividing curtain while he was standing so far away that the altar was between him and the dividing curtain? Perhaps the words are to tell us that he was to sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing in front of it (facing the dividing curtain)? Seeing that in Leviticus 17,18 the Torah describes Aaron as exiting the Holy of Holies in the direction of the golden altar while putting some of the blood of the bullock on its corners, maybe the Torah wanted to tell us that the same procedure should be followed here, i.e. that when Aaron was to put the blood on the corners of the golden altar he was to do so while having his back to the dividing curtain and facing outwards before pouring out the excess blood at the base of the copper altar? As far as the sprinkling of blood towards the dividing curtain was concerned, however, this should take place when Aaron stood between the golden altar and the dividing curtain? If we had had no other detail than this to worry about, we could have answered this problem. However, I have seen that the same Rabbi Nechemyah speaking of the meaning of the words "and Aaron shall exit towards the altar which is in front of the Lord" (Leviticus 16,18), questions the meaning of these words. He answers that we find in connection with the bullock which Aaron has to offer concerning all the other inadvertently committed sins that he had to stand on the far side of the curtain with the altar between him and the dividing curtain. I might have concluded that he was to follow the same procedure also with the bullock on the Day of Atonement; therefore the Torah had to write the word ויצא, etc. Where did Aaron stand on that occasion? לפני השם, in front of the Lord." Thus far Rabbi Nechemyah in Torat Kohanim item 45 on 16,18 (item 45). It is difficult to understand why Rabbi Nechemyah had to find justification for the words of the Torah in that verse. Surely the Torah had to inform us (or the High Priest) that the High Priest had to leave the place he stood on and not sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing between it and the dividing curtain. Besides, the Torat Kohanim claims that the only reason we know where the High Priest stood at the time was that the Torah describes him as in the process of exiting towards the golden altar when he sprinkled blood on the dividing curtain. Furthermore, according to what Rabbi Nechemyah said that the words ויצא אל המזבח are not needed seeing that we now learned where Aaron was standing from the words לפני השם in 16,18 instead of as he said in our verse from the words לפני השם in 4,7. Rabbi Nechemyah glibly assumed that the High Priest would have stood outside the altar when sprinkling the blood of the bullock towards the dividing curtain when he performed this procedure on occasions other than the Day of Atonement. Where is there an indication in the text that this was indeed the case? If he were to use the words לפני השם to prove this theory, perhaps those words referred to the need to sprinkle some of the blood onto the altar itself which is the plain meaning of the verse! Besides, if the Torah had omitted both the words ויצא אל המזבח and the words לפני השם, how would I have known where Aaron was to have stood? How could Rabbi Nechemyah therefore even ask what these words were supposed to teach us? Actually, the exegesis of Rabbi Nechemyah in both parts of Torat Kohanim is most appropriate. Had the Torah not written the words ויצא and not the apparently superfluous words לפני השם, I would simply have concluded that Aaron was free to sprinkle both onto the dividing curtain and onto the altar regardless of whether he stood between the altar and the dividing curtain or between the entrance to the Sanctuary and the golden altar. The Torah mentioned in connection with a wrong decision rendered by the High Court and acted upon by the community that a bullock had to be offered by the High Priest and that the blood was to be sprinkled as atonement on the golden altar (according to the plain meaning of the verse). The Torah also mentioned the golden altar as recipient of the blood of the bullock offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement as evident by the words ויצא אל המזבח. These facts established a halachic linkage between these two bullocks and the procedure to be followed concerning them. Not only this, but in both instances the Torah also speaks of the blood requiring to be sprinkled either upon or in the direction of the dividing curtain which is beyond the golden altar. Logic would have told us that the procedure prescribed in chapter 16 must be similar to that prescribed in chapter 4, i.e. that the sprinkling of the blood towards the dividing curtain was to be performed from a position beyond the golden altar, closer to the dividing curtain. We would then have made a מה מצינו kind of exegesis from what was missing in the information described in chapter 4, 13-21 by referring to chapter 16, 3-20. Rabbi Nechemyah tells us in Torat Kohanim that the words לפני השם are intended to prevent us from arriving at such a faulty conclusion. He asks rhetorically: Why were the apparently superfluous words לפני השם written seeing we would have used the same words in 16,18 and have applied them in our verse here? After all, we already know that the golden altar was used for sprinkling of the blood of the bullock offered as a sin-offering by the Torah writing ויצא אל המזבח. The words לפני השם could most certainly not be used to teach us that the High Priest was not to sprinkle the blood of the bullock on the copper altar seeing that altar was outside the Sanctuary. We are therefore back to the question what precisely the words לפני השם have been written for in our context seeing everything else could have been derived from the legislation about the bullock on the day of Atonement. Rabbi Nechemyah answers all these questions saying that the words לפני השם prove that the Torah did not want us to apply the מה מצינו type of exegesis by comparing the procedure to be followed with the bullock in our paragraph to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement. The essential difference between these two procedures involving the bullock as a sin-offering on the Day of Atonement and that in our chapter is, that there is no mention of the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain by the High Priest while the latter is standing between the altar and the Holy of Holies in our verse. This is in contrast to the bullock to be offered on the Day of Atonement, where there is specific mention of this. Had I derived the various procedures applicable to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement, I would have also had to apply the detail of where the blood was to be sprinkled from the procedure outlined in chapter 16. The appearance of the word לפני השם in our verse teaches me not to derive any למוד from the bullock used on the Day of Atonement, be it the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain or the sprinkling of the blood of that animal on the altar. Seeing this is so we would not have had any source upon which to base an assumption as to where the High Priest was to stand during the procedure of sprinkling the blood in the direction of the dividing curtain involving the פר העלם דבר, i.e. the bullock in our chapter. It seems clear therefore, that the words לפני השם must refer to the golden altar and not to the place where the High Priest was standing during all the sprinklings mentioned in our verse. Rabbi Nechemyah explains the words ויצא אל המזבח in 16,18 as follows: "What do these words teach us, i.e. what is the plain meaning of this verse?" Answer: "That the High Priest should not commence the sprinkling of the remaining blood on the altar until he has passed the golden altar on his way out of the Sanctuary." This teaches by inference that prior to that the High Priest had performed the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain while standing between the golden altar and the dividing curtain. [Although the author continues to dissect the exegetical comments by Rabbi Nechemyah still further, I have decided to omit further details seeing we have shown how he solved the main problem. Ed.]
פסוק ד:ח · 4:8
Hebrew:
וְאֶת־כׇּל־חֵ֛לֶב פַּ֥ר הַֽחַטָּ֖את יָרִ֣ים מִמֶּ֑נּוּ אֶת־הַחֵ֙לֶב֙ הַֽמְכַסֶּ֣ה עַל־הַקֶּ֔רֶב וְאֵת֙ כׇּל־הַחֵ֔לֶב אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַקֶּֽרֶב׃
English:
He shall remove all the fat from the bull of sin offering: the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is about the entrails;
The verse specifies which fats must be separated from the bull and burned on the altar. Rashi explains that the phrase 'bull of the sin offering' (rather than simply 'its fat') serves to include the bull of the Day of Atonement in the same rules about fat portions. The fat must be removed while the animal is still whole, before it is cut into pieces.
רש״יRashi
ואת כל חלב פר. חֶלְבּוֹ הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר פַּר? לְרַבּוֹת פַּר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִכְלָיוֹת וְלַחֲלָבִים וְיוֹתֶרֶת (ספרא): החטאת. לְהָבִיא שְֹעִירֵי עֲ"זָ לִכְלָיוֹת וְלַחֲלָבִים וּלְיוֹתֶרֶת (שם): ירים ממנו. מִן הַמְחֻבָּר — שֶׁלֹּא יְנַתְּחֶנּוּ קֹדֶם הֲסָרַת חֶלְבּוֹ, תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים:
ואת כל חלב פר [AND HE SHALL TAKE UP …] ALL THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK — It ought to have said "its fat" (since the פר has just been mentioned); why does it state expressly "the fat of a bullock [of a sin-offering]" (i.e. any bullock brought as a sin-offering)? In order to include also the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1). החטאת — [THE FAT OF THE BULLOCK OF] THE SIN OFFERING (implying, the fat of the bullock because it is a sin-offering) consequently serves to include the goats brought as a sin-offering for idolatry (Numbers 15:24) in respect to the burning of the kidneys, the fat portions and the lobe of the liver (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1; cf. Note on the previous passage). ירים ממנו AND HE SHALL TAKE FROM IT [ALL THE FAT] — from. "it", i. e. from the bullock — consequently he must take it (the fat) whilst it is still connected with it (the animal), — that he must not dismember it before removing the fat from it. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 1).
פסוק ד:ט · 4:9
Hebrew:
וְאֵת֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י הַכְּלָיֹ֔ת וְאֶת־הַחֵ֙לֶב֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עֲלֵיהֶ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַכְּסָלִ֑ים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶ֙רֶת֙ עַל־הַכָּבֵ֔ד עַל־הַכְּלָי֖וֹת יְסִירֶֽנָּה׃
English:
the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, that is at the loins; and the protuberance on the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys—
פסוק ד:י · 4:10
Hebrew:
כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר יוּרַ֔ם מִשּׁ֖וֹר זֶ֣בַח הַשְּׁלָמִ֑ים וְהִקְטִירָם֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן עַ֖ל מִזְבַּ֥ח הָעֹלָֽה׃
English:
just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of well-being. The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar of burnt offering.
The fat portions of the sin offering are burned on the outer altar following the same procedure as the peace offering (shelamim). Rashi explains that this comparison teaches two things: the sin offering must be offered for its own sake (le-shmo), and like the peace offering, it promotes peace in the world. The Talmud (Zevachim 49b) derives from this verse the principle that in sacrificial law, one cannot derive a rule from another rule that is itself derived.
רש״יRashi
כאשר יורם. מֵאוֹתָן אֵמוּרִין הַמְפֹרָשִׁין בְּשׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים; וְכִי מַה פֵּרֵשׁ בְּזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים שֶׁלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן? אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁוֹ לִשְׁלָמִים, מַה שְּׁלָמִים לִשְׁמָן אַף זֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וּמָה שְׁלָמִים שָׁלוֹם לָעוֹלָם, אַף זֶה שָׁלוֹם לָעוֹלָם; וּבִשְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים מַצְרִיכוֹ לִלְמֹד הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין לָמֵד מִן הַלָּמֵד בָּקֳדָשִׁים, בְּפֶרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן (זבחים מ"ט): על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו. כֻּלָּן לְשׁוֹן תּוֹסֶפֶת הֵן, כְּמוֹ מִלְּבַד:
כאשר יורם AS IT WAS TAKEN [FROM THE OX OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEACE OFFERINGS] — i. e. from those fat portions which are specified in the case of an ox brought as a sacrifice of peace-offerings. But what is specified in the case of a sacrifice of peace-offerings that is not specified here? Nothing at all! (Cf. Leviticus 3:3—4 with here.) What then is the force of the words כאשר יורם? But they are intended to declare it analogous to the peace-offerings: What is the case with שלמים? They must be burnt as such! So, too, must this be burnt as such!) And again what is the case with שלמים? They are intended to promote peace for the world! So, too, is this intended to promote peace for the world (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 4 2). In the Treatise on "the Slaughtering of Sacrifices" it (the passage 'כאשר יורם וכו) is stated to be necessary to deduce from it the rule that in the case of sacrifices we can derive no law from a law which is itself only derived from a text, and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. This is to be found in the chapter beginning with the words איזהו מקומן (Zevachim 49b). על הכבד על הכליות. על ראשו ועל כרעיו — All these words (על) are an expression denoting an addition — they meat: as much as "besides".
פסוק ד:יא · 4:11
Hebrew:
וְאֶת־ע֤וֹר הַפָּר֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ עַל־רֹאשׁ֖וֹ וְעַל־כְּרָעָ֑יו וְקִרְבּ֖וֹ וּפִרְשֽׁוֹ׃
English:
But the hide of the bull, and all its flesh, as well as its head and legs, its entrails and its dung—
פסוק ד:יב · 4:12
Hebrew:
וְהוֹצִ֣יא אֶת־כׇּל־הַ֠פָּ֠ר אֶל־מִח֨וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֜ה אֶל־מָק֤וֹם טָהוֹר֙ אֶל־שֶׁ֣פֶךְ הַדֶּ֔שֶׁן וְשָׂרַ֥ף אֹת֛וֹ עַל־עֵצִ֖ים בָּאֵ֑שׁ עַל־שֶׁ֥פֶךְ הַדֶּ֖שֶׁן יִשָּׂרֵֽף׃ {פ}
English:
all the rest of the bull—he shall carry to a pure place outside the camp, to the ash heap, and burn it up in a wood fire; it shall be burned on the ash heap.
The entire remainder of the bull -- hide, flesh, head, legs, entrails, and dung -- is burned outside the camp in a ritually clean location. Rashi explains that the Torah specifies a 'clean place' because there were unclean areas outside the camp used for plague-stricken stones and burial. In the Temple era, 'outside the camp' meant outside the city of Jerusalem. The repetition 'on the ash heap it shall be burned' teaches that even if no ashes happen to be there, the burning is still valid.
רש״יRashi
אל מקום טהור. לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִחוּץ לָעִיר מָקוֹם מוּכָן לְטֻמְאָה — לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אֲבָנִים מְנֻגָּעוֹת וּלְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת — הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה זֶה — שֶׁהוּא חוּץ לָעִיר — שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמָּקוֹם טָהוֹר: מחוץ למחנה. חוּץ לְשָׁלוֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת; וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים חוּץ לָעִיר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּהוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת יוֹמָא (דף ס"ח) וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין (דף מ"ב): אל שפך הדשן. מָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹפְכִין בּוֹ הַדֶּשֶׁן הַמְסֻלָּק מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה (ויקרא ו'): על שפך הדשן ישרף. שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֵין שָׁם דֶּשֶׁן (ספרא):
אל מקום טהור [EVEN THE WHOLE BULLOCK SHALL HE BRING FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP] UNTO A CLEAN PLACE — Because there was outside the city (Jerusalem) a place intended for depositing unclean things viz., to cast there the plague-stricken stones (cf. Leviticus 14:45) and to serve as a place of burial, Scripture was compelled to state regarding this term "without the camp" — which in the case of Jerusalem, is identical with: "without the city" — that the place where it was to be burnt shall be a clean one. מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i. e. without the three camps (מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה ומחנה ישראל) ; and, in the case of the "House of Eternity" (the Temple), it was to be brought forth without the city, just as our Rabbis have explained it in Treatise Yoma 68a and in Treatise Sanhedrin 42b. אל שפך הדשן means: to the place where the ashes that were removed from the altar were cast, as it is said (Leviticus 6:4) "and he shall bring out the ashes without the camp". על שפך הדשן UPON THE PLACE FOR SHEDDING THE ASHES [SHALL IT BE BURNT] — This is something which need not have been stated (since it says immediately before, that it shall be brought forth to this spot), but it is intended to teach that even if at the time there happen to be no ashes there, the bullock shall nevertheless be burnt there (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 5 5; Pesachim 75b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
על שפך הדשן. שיהיה נשרף במקום שיש שם דשן המזבח:
WHERE THE ASHES ARE POURED OUT. It should be burned in the place where the ashes of the altar are found.20In the place where the ashes of the altar are put.
פסוק ד:יג · 4:13
Hebrew:
וְאִ֨ם כׇּל־עֲדַ֤ת יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יִשְׁגּ֔וּ וְנֶעְלַ֣ם דָּבָ֔ר מֵעֵינֵ֖י הַקָּהָ֑ל וְ֠עָשׂ֠וּ אַחַ֨ת מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺ֧ת יְהֹוָ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֖ינָה וְאָשֵֽׁמוּ׃
English:
If it is the community leadership of Israel*community leadership of Israel Heb. kol ‘adat yisra’el, lit. “whole congregation of Israel,” which here denotes the part (“leadership”) that acts on behalf of the whole (“congregation”). See the Dictionary under ‘edah. that has erred and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation, so that they do any of the things which by יהוה’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize guilt—
The Torah now turns to the sin of the entire congregation, which Rashi identifies as referring to the Great Sanhedrin issuing an erroneous ruling that the people then follow. The sin must involve a matter that is 'hidden from the eyes of the assembly' -- an honest legal error, not negligence. Sforno emphasizes that even though the court bears primary responsibility, the people themselves are considered culpable, for the moral level of the judges reflects that of the generation they serve.
רש״יRashi
עדת ישראל. אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין (שם): ונעלם דבר. טָעוּ לְהוֹרוֹת בְּאַחַת מִכָּל כָּרֵתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר (הוריות ח'): הקהל ועשו. שֶׁעָשׂוּ צִבּוּר עַל פִּיהֶם:
עדת ישראל [AND IF THE WHOLE] CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL [ERR] — This is the Great Sanhedrin (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 4 2; cf. Horayot 4b). ונעלם דבר AND A THING (a matter of law) WAS HID [FROM THE EYES OF THE ASSEMBLY] — i. e. they (the Synhedrion) erred, deciding in respect to one of all those acts for which excision is, according to tradition), implicitly mentioned in the Torah that it is permissible (Horayot 8a). הקהל ועשו — [AND THE THING BE HID FROM THE EYES OF] THE ASSEMBLY AND THEY HAVE DONE — It means that the assembly did according to their (the Sanhedrin's) decision (cf. Horayot 2a).
ספורנוSforno
ישגו ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל. שעם היותם עיני הקהל, הראוים לראות בעד אחרים, לא היטיבו לראות לעצמם, וגם כן עליהם אמר:
in the event the Supreme Court issued an erroneous decree, a very remote chance, ישגו ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל, although this court is to function as עיני הקהל, "the watchful eye of the community," not only did they fail to protect their community from sinning but they did not even succeed in preventing themselves from committing such an error. Nonetheless the Torah attributes such an error by the Supreme Court as ואשמו, "they sinned," the "they" being the congregation which is held responsible if their "seeing eye" fails. The Torah here warns of the need to do teshuvah, i.e. all those concerned, before proceeding with the sacrifice, as the sacrifice would be useless unless all the people had confessed their errors. Seeing that the combined guilt of the Supreme Court and the people of their generation is severe, the blood of the atonement is sprinkled on the dividing curtain inside the sanctuary and the sin offering is burned up on the altar completely.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ואם כל עדת וגו'. בתורת כהנים דרשו עדת זו סנהדרין, נאמר כאן עדה ונאמר להלן וכו', ישראל דרשו המיוחדת שבישראל, שהיא של ע"א, ישגו יכול יהיו המיוחדים חייבים על ואמרו עוד הורו בית דין ועשו יכול יהיו חייבין תלמוד לומר הקהל ועשו, ההוראה בבית דין והמעשה בקהל ע"כ. ובדרך רמז ירצה שאם ישגו העדה ויטעו מדרך הישר, גם סנהדרי ישראל תורתם תהיה נעלמת מהם, לצד שלא השגיחו על עדת ה' ליישר המעקשים, כי החטא יולד חטא אחר, וצא ולמד (כתובות ס:) מהוראת אביי בלא נטילת רשות מרבו ששגג באותה הוראה והרגיש כי דין גרמה, וכדאיתא בסנהדרין (ה:):
ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, And if the entire community of Israel shall err, etc. The word עדת, "community of" is taken by Torat Kohanim as referring to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. The word עדה in this verse and the word עדה in Numbers 35,24-25 both are a reference to the Sanhedrin of 71 sages. The word ישראל is presumed to mean the Court which is unique to Israel, i.e. the Court comprising 71 judges. The word ישגו teaches that the legislation introduced here applies only if the Court erred in its judgment and the people acted upon that error in judgment. If the members of the Court themselves acted upon their faulty judgment this is still no reason to apply the legislation stated in this paragraph seeing that the Torah writes הקהל ועשו, "and the community did accordingly." Thus far the Torat Kohanim. A moral-ethical approach to this verse considers the word ישגו as referring to Israeli society committing moral errors and departing from Jewish norms. As a result of such conduct it would follow that the Jewish Supreme Court will also hand down faulty judgments as the judges and their Torah knowledge reflect the level of the people whom they represent. They are to blame for the people straying as they had not used their authority in controlling public morals. It had been their duty to discipline the individuals who were responsible for a trend away from traditional Jewish values. We have the example of Abbaye in Gittin 60, who erred in a ruling as he had not first obtained permission from his teacher to issue a ruling. We have been told this specifically in Sanhedrin 5.
פסוק ד:יד · 4:14
Hebrew:
וְנֽוֹדְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטְא֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וְהִקְרִ֨יבוּ הַקָּהָ֜ל פַּ֤ר בֶּן־בָּקָר֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְהֵבִ֣יאוּ אֹת֔וֹ לִפְנֵ֖י אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
when the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known, the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting.
The communal sin offering is triggered only once the error becomes known -- the community cannot atone for a sin it has not yet recognized. Like the High Priest, the congregation brings a bull, underscoring the parallel between the two. Ibn Ezra notes that the same law of awareness applies to the High Priest as well, even though it is not stated explicitly in his section: no one brings a sin offering unless they know they have sinned.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ונודעה החטאת. וכן משפט הכהן הגדול ואם איננו נזכר כי אם לא הודע אליו חטאתו לא יקריב פר החטאת. ויש אומרים כי בכל שנה יקריב כן שמא חטא. והזכיר עם כל עדת ישראל ונודעה החטאת שהכהן יתכן שיודיעם ואין מי שיודיע לכהן רק מעצמו. וחטאת הקהל כחטאת הכהן הגדול בכל משפטיה. והנה הכהן הגדול שקול כנגד כל ישראל:
WHEN THE SIN WHEREIN THEY HAVE SINNED IS KNOWN. The same law,21A person shall bring a sin offering only after learning that he has sinned. The same law applies to the kohen gadol. even though it is not mentioned,22Scripture doesn't state, "when their sin is known" in the law dealing with the kohen gadol. applies to the kohen gadol, for if the sin not be known to the kohen gadol, then he does not bring a sin offering. Others say that the kohen gadol shall bring this sacrifice23A sin offering. every year because he may have sinned.24Hence Scripture does not state "when the sin wherein he sinned is known" with regard to the kohen gadol. Scripture mentions the sin…is known with regard to the whole congregation of Israel, for it is possible that the kohen will inform them. However, there is no one to inform the kohen; he informs himself.25The kohen gadol realizes by himself that he has sinned. The sin offering of the congregation is the same as that of the kohen gadol in all details. The kohen gadol is thus equivalent to all of Israel.26Hence their sacrifices are equal.
פסוק ד:טו · 4:15
Hebrew:
וְ֠סָמְכ֠וּ זִקְנֵ֨י הָעֵדָ֧ה אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֛ם עַל־רֹ֥אשׁ הַפָּ֖ר לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְשָׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הַפָּ֖ר לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
English:
The elders of the community shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull before יהוה, and the bull shall be slaughtered before יהוה.
The elders of the congregation perform the semichah (laying of hands) on behalf of all Israel, since it is obviously impossible for the entire nation to place their hands on the animal simultaneously. Ibn Ezra explains that the elders serve as representatives -- they are the leaders (manhigim) who act on behalf of the community in this ritual.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
זקני העדה. הם המנהיגים והם יסמכו את ידיהם בעדם ובעד כל ישראל כי לא יתכן שיסמכו כל ישראל:
AND THE ELDERS OF THE CONGREGATION. The elders are the leaders. They will lay their hands27On the head of the bullock. on their behalf and on behalf of all of Israel, for it is impossible for all of Israel to place their hands.28On the head of the bullock.
פסוק ד:טז · 4:16
Hebrew:
וְהֵבִ֛יא הַכֹּהֵ֥ן הַמָּשִׁ֖יחַ מִדַּ֣ם הַפָּ֑ר אֶל־אֹ֖הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
The anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the Tent of Meeting,
פסוק ד:יז · 4:17
Hebrew:
וְטָבַ֧ל הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶצְבָּע֖וֹ מִן־הַדָּ֑ם וְהִזָּ֞ה שֶׁ֤בַע פְּעָמִים֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֖ת פְּנֵ֥י הַפָּרֹֽכֶת׃
English:
and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of it seven times before יהוה, in front of the curtain.
The blood ritual for the communal sin offering mirrors that of the High Priest's offering, with the sevenfold sprinkling before the curtain. However, Rashi notes a subtle but significant difference: here the Torah calls it simply 'the curtain' (ha-parokhet), whereas for the High Priest it was called 'the curtain of the Holy' (parokhet ha-kodesh). The Talmud (Zevachim 41b) explains this through a parable: when only part of a kingdom rebels, the king's court still stands, but when the entire kingdom rebels, the court is no more -- so too, when all Israel sins, the holiness is diminished.
רש״יRashi
את פני הפרכת. וּלְמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר אֶת פְּנֵי פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁסָּרְחָה עָלָיו מְדִינָה, אִם מִעוּטָהּ סָרְחָה, פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת וְאִם כֻּלָּהּ סָרְחָה, אֵין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת, אַף כָּאן, כְּשֶׁחָטָא כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ עֲדַיִן שֵׁם קְדֻשַּׁת הַמָּקוֹם עַל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מִשֶּׁחָטְאוּ כֻּלָּם, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם נִסְתַּלְּקָה הַקְּדֻשָּׁה (זבחים מ"א):
את פני הפרכת [AND THE PRIEST SPRINKLE IT …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL — But above (v. 6) Scripture states את פני פרכת הקדש? A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king against whom the country revolted. If it is only a minority of it that revolts his council (familia) still exists, but if the whole country revolts his council no longer exists. So, also, here: When the anointed priest alone sinned, the appelation of sanctity that is attached to the place still remains on the Sanctuary, but as soon as all of them have sinned the holiness, God forbid, disappears (Zevachim 41b).
פסוק ד:יח · 4:18
Hebrew:
וּמִן־הַדָּ֞ם יִתֵּ֣ן ׀ עַל־קַרְנֹ֣ת הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ אֲשֶׁר֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וְאֵ֣ת כׇּל־הַדָּ֗ם יִשְׁפֹּךְ֙ אֶל־יְסוֹד֙ מִזְבַּ֣ח הָעֹלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
English:
Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar which is before יהוה in the Tent of Meeting, and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
As with the High Priest's offering, blood from the communal bull is placed on the horns of the inner incense altar and the remainder is poured at the base of the outer altar. Rashi identifies this base as the western foundation of the altar, the side facing the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
רש״יRashi
יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד. זֶה יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁהוּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח (שם נ"א):
יסוד מזבח העלה אשר פתח אהל מועד [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT ALL THE BLOOD AT] THE BASE OF THE ALTAR OF THE BURNT-OFFERING WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — this is the base on the west side, for it was that which was opposite to the entrance of the tent (cf. Zevachim 51a).
פסוק ד:יט · 4:19
Hebrew:
וְאֵ֥ת כׇּל־חֶלְבּ֖וֹ יָרִ֣ים מִמֶּ֑נּוּ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּֽחָה׃
English:
He shall remove all its fat from it and turn it into smoke on the altar.
The fat of the communal bull is burned on the altar. Rashi observes that although the verse does not explicitly list the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys (as it did for the High Priest's bull), these are included by the reference in the next verse to doing 'as he did with the bull of the sin offering.' The School of Rabbi Yishmael explains the abbreviation through a parable: a king angered by his friend shortens the account of his offense out of affection.
רש״יRashi
ואת כל חלבו ירים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת, לְמֵדִין הֵם מִוְּעָשָׂה לַפָּר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְגוֹ' וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁזָּעַם עַל אוֹהֲבוֹ וּמִעֵט בְּסִרְחוֹנוֹ מִפְּנֵי חִבָּתוֹ (שם מ"א):
ואת כל חלבו ירים AND HE SHALL TAKE ALL HIS FAT — Although it does not expressly mention here the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys as portions that were to be taken (as it does in the case of the anointed priest's sin-offering, v. 9) they may be derived from the statement (v. 20) "And he shall do with the bullock as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering]". But why are they not expressly mentioned? It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael: A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king who was angry with his friend and abridged the account of his offence because of the affection he bore him (Zevachim 41b). (Similarly Scripture does not give in detail all the rites that have to be carried out when the whole of the nation sins.)
פסוק ד:כ · 4:20
Hebrew:
וְעָשָׂ֣ה לַפָּ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשָׂה֙ לְפַ֣ר הַֽחַטָּ֔את כֵּ֖ן יַעֲשֶׂה־לּ֑וֹ וְכִפֶּ֧ר עֲלֵהֶ֛ם הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְנִסְלַ֥ח לָהֶֽם׃
English:
He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of sin offering; he shall do the same with it. The priest shall thus make expiation for them, and they shall be forgiven.
This verse explicitly links the communal sin offering to the High Priest's, instructing that the same procedure be followed. Rashi explains that the cross-reference serves two purposes: it fills in the details omitted from the communal section (the kidneys, the lobe of the liver), and it teaches that omitting even a single blood application invalidates the entire offering. The verse concludes with the assurance of divine forgiveness -- atonement is attainable when the proper process is followed.
רש״יRashi
ועשה לפר זֶה כאשר עשה לפר החטאת. כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בְּפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ — לְהָבִיא יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְּלָיוֹת שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ שָׁם, מַה שֶּׁלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ כָּאן, וְלִכְפֹּל בְּמִצְוַת הָעֲבוֹדוֹת, לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם חִסֵּר אַחַת מִכָּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת פָּסוּל; לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בַּנִּתָּנִין עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת כִּפֵּר, הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן שֶׁמַּתָּנָה אַחַת מֵהֶן מְעַכֶּבֶת (שם ל"ט):
ועשה לפר AND HE SHALL DO WITH THE BULLOCK — with this bullock —כאשר עשה לפר החטאת AS HE DID WITH THE BULLOCK FOR A SIN-OFFERING – i. e. as is expressly set forth in the case of the bullock of the anointed priest. This statement thus serves to bring under the command of offering the fat portions the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys which are not expressly mentioned there but which are not expressly mentioned here; and it serves also to repeat the command referring to these rites, teaching thereby that if he (the anointed priest) omitted one of all the applications of the blood it (the sacrifice) becomes invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 6 5). Since we find in regard to blood which had to be placed on the outer altar, that if he places it there by one application alone he nevertheless effected atonement (cf. Mish. Zevachim 4:1), Scripture was compelled to intimate here that the omission of one application impedes the validity of the rite (Zevachim 39a).
פסוק ד:כא · 4:21
Hebrew:
וְהוֹצִ֣יא אֶת־הַפָּ֗ר אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וְשָׂרַ֣ף אֹת֔וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר שָׂרַ֔ף אֵ֖ת הַפָּ֣ר הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן חַטַּ֥את הַקָּהָ֖ל הֽוּא׃ {פ}
English:
He shall carry the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is the sin offering of the congregation.
The communal bull is burned outside the camp just like the High Priest's bull. Ibn Ezra clarifies that the phrase 'it is the sin offering of the congregation' refers to the bull itself. Sforno adds that this sin is attributed to the congregation because it could not have occurred without the moral failings of the generation influencing the court, and the complete burning reflects the severity of the combined guilt of both the court and the people.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
חטאת הקהל הוא. הפר ואם ישגו ישראל ולא יעשו אחת ממצות עשה יקריב פר לעולה ושעיר לחטאת:
IT IS THE SIN-OFFERING. The bullock.29The verse reads, chattat ha-kahal hu. Hu is in the masculine. Hence it refers to the bullock, not to the sin offering. Thus our text is to be understood as follows: The bullock is the sin offering of the assembly. If Israel errs and they do not do one of the positive commandments, then they shall bring a bullock as a burnt offering and a he-goat as a sin offering.30Our text tells us that if the congregation sins in error they then bring a bullock as a sin offering. However, Num. 15:22-24 tells us that if the congregation sins in error they shall bring a bullock as a burnt offering and a he-goat as a sin offering. Hence I.E. points out that our text deals with the violation of a negative precept while Numbers deals with the violation of a positive precept, for the text reads, and do any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done while Num. 15:22 reads, and not observe all these commandments.
פסוק ד:כב · 4:22
Hebrew:
אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א וְעָשָׂ֡ה אַחַ֣ת מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺת֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהָ֜יו אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֛ינָה בִּשְׁגָגָ֖ה וְאָשֵֽׁם׃
English:
In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of his God יהוה ought not to be done, and he realizes guilt—
The Torah introduces the third category: the nasi (ruler or tribal leader). Rashi famously reads the opening word 'asher' (when/which) as connected to 'ashrei' (happy), teaching that happy is the generation whose leader is willing to bring atonement for even an unintentional sin. Sforno notes the absence of the conditional word 'if' (im), suggesting that the Torah considers it virtually inevitable that a political leader will sin, as power and prosperity tend toward complacency.
רש״יRashi
אשר נשיא יחטא. לְשׁוֹן אַשְׁרֵי — אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ נוֹתֵן לֵב לְהָבִיא כַּפָּרָה עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁמִּתְחָרֵט עַל זְדוֹנוֹתָיו (ספרא):
אשר נשיא יחטא — The word אשר is connected in meaning with אשרי "happy". Happy is the generation whose prince (king) takes care to bring an atonement sacrifice even for an inadvertent act of his; how much the more certain is it that he will do penance for his wilful sins (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 5 1; Horayot 10b)
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
אשר נשיא יחטא. הפוך וכן הוא אשר יחטא הנשיא והוא דבק באשר למעלה ואם כל עדת ישראל כאילו אמר ואם אשר יחטא הוא נשיא שבט או נשיא בית אב:
WHEN A RULER SINNETH. The words are inverted.31Our verse reads, asher nasi yechete (when a ruler sinneth). Our verse should be read as if written, when the sinner is the ruler.32In other words, our text should be interpreted as if written, asher yechete nasi. I.E. interprets thus because he believes that asher (when) is connected to the verb (yechete), not to the noun (nasi). It is connected to that which is written above,33Hence our verse does not open with ve-im (and if) but with asher (the one who). that is, And if the whole congregation of Israel… (v. 13). Our verse, as it were, states, and if the one who sins is the ruler of a tribe or the ruler of a father's house.
ספורנוSforno
ועל עון הנשיא אמר אשר נשיא יחטא. כי אמנם זה דבר מצוי שיחטא, כאמרו וישמן ישורון ויבעט ואמר בו ואשם שמעצמו יכיר עונו.
אשר נשיא יחטא, when the King (or political head) sins; there is no conditional word אם, "if," i.e. the Torah considers it as almost a given that the political head of the people will become guilty of at least an inadvertent sin. Moses describes such a likely scenario as the result of the people enjoying good times, when he says in Deuteronomy 32,15 וישמן ישורון ויבעט, "when Yeshurun waxed fat it kicked. ואשם, he realised himself that he had sinned; it did not have to be brought to his attention by others. או הודע לו, or his sin had to be brought to his attention by others. The vowel cholem on the letter vav substitutes for the vowel shuruk which would have made it clear that it is a passive mode.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
אשר נשיא יחטא. פירוש אפילו בהוראת בית דין כל שאין חייבין בית דין ועשה הוא חייב שעיר, וכן כתב הרמב"ם (הלכות שגגות פט"ו ה"ח):
אשר נשיא יחטא, When the prince (or king) commit an error, etc. This includes a situation where the ruler acted on the basis of a decision handed down by a properly constituted court. As long as the court is not guilty of a sin-offering on account of its decision, the ruler has to bring a a male goat as a sin-offering (Maimonides Hilchot Shigegot 15,8).
פסוק ד:כג · 4:23
Hebrew:
אֽוֹ־הוֹדַ֤ע אֵלָיו֙ חַטָּאת֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָ֖א בָּ֑הּ וְהֵבִ֧יא אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֛וֹ שְׂעִ֥יר עִזִּ֖ים זָכָ֥ר תָּמִֽים׃
English:
or the sin of which he is guilty is made known—he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.
The nasi brings a male goat rather than a bull -- a less costly offering than that of the High Priest or the congregation. Rashi explains that the word 'or' (o) here functions as 'if,' and that 'made known to him' means the ruler originally believed his action was permitted and only later learned it was forbidden. The Or HaChaim notes that the previous verse's mention of the ruler recognizing his own guilt (ve-ashem) implies he must also bring an asham talui (conditional guilt offering) if he is in doubt about whether he sinned.
רש״יRashi
או הודע. כְּמוֹ אִם הוֹדַע הַדָּבָר; הַרְבֵּה אוֹ יֵשׁ שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין בִּלְשׁוֹן אִם, וְאִם בִּמְקוֹם אוֹ, וְכֵן אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא (שמות כ"א): הודע אליו. כְּשֶׁחָטָא הָיָה סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא הֶתֵּר, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁאִסּוּר הָיָה:
או הודע is the same as "IF" (אם) [THE THING] WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — There are many passages where או is used in the sense of אם, and again where אם stands in the place of או. A similar instance is: (Exodus 21:36) "או נודע כי שור נגח הוא", which means "if it was known that the ox was wont to thrust" (cf., however, Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon). הודע אליו IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO HIM — when he committed the sin he was under the belief that it was something permissible, afterwards it became known to him that it was a forbidden thing.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
או הודע אליו. אחז הכתוב דרך קצרה כמו לכהן והטעם שידע הנשיא מעצמו שחטא או הודיעו אדם אחר שראהו. דקדוק הודע אליו פועל עבר כמו והצר לך ויחסר המודיע כמו אשר ילדה אותה ללוי ויאמר רבי משה הכהן כי הוא מהבנין שלא נקרא שם פועלו כי החולם והשורק יתחלפו והוא על משקל ויוסף הורד מצרימה והנשיא יקריב שעיר מטעם זרזיר מתנים או תיש כפירוש הגאון בספר משלי והוא זכר למעלת הנשיא רק לא יובא את דמה לפנים מהקדש והכהנים יאכלו חטאת הנשיא לכפר בעדו כי כן כתוב ולא יאכל הכהן הגדול חטאתו:
IF HIS SIN…BE KNOWN TO HIM.34Hebrew, o hoda elav chattato (literally, or if someone made known to him his sin). Scripture employs an abridged style.35Or, indicates a second possibility. However, Scripture does not record the first possibility. Hence I.E. assumes that Scripture omits the first possibility. It must be supplied by the reader. It is similar to the verse dealing with the kohen.36The kohen gadol. There too Scripture employs an abridged style. See I.E.'s first comment on verse 10. Its meaning is, if the ruler knows on his own that he has sinned or someone else who has seen him37Sin. makes it known to him.38Our verse is to be interpreted as if written: The ruler realizes that he has sinned or if someone makes his sin known to him. The following is the grammatical explanation of hoda elav (be known to him): Hoda (be known) is a verb39A hifil. in the perfect.40It is a variant of hodi'a (he made known). Compare, ve-hetzar41Hetzar is a hifil. It is a variant of hetzir. The same is true of hoda, hodi'a. lekha (and he shall besiege thee) (Deut. 28:52). The one who informs is omitted.42The subject governing hoda is omitted. Scripture does not read, o hoda ish elav chattato. Compare, whom she bore43Translated according to I.E. (Num. 26:59).44Scripture does not identify who did the bearing. Rabbi Moses the Kohen says that hoda (be known) is a hofal,45A passive. In other words, hoda should be rendered, be known. for the cholam and the shuruk interchange.46The usual form of the hofal for this word is huda. Hence I.E. notes that hoda is a variant of huda. Hoda follows the paradigm of hurad47Which is a hofal. (was brought down) in And Joseph was brought down to Egypt (Gen. 39:1). The ruler offers a he-goat as a sacrifice in keeping with The greyhound; the he-goat also (Prov. 30:31).48The complete verse reads: The greyhound; the he-goat also; And the king, against whom there is no rising up. The verse speaks of those who walk haughtily. The he-goat walks with its head held high, as does the king. Hence a goat was chosen as the animal to be offered by the ruler (the king) as a sin offering. The latter is in accordance with the interpretation of the Gaon in the Book of Proverbs. The offering consists of a male, in keeping with the status of the ruler. However, its blood is not brought inside of the sanctuary.49In contrast to the blood of the bullock brought by the kohen gadol and the congregation. The kohanim, as is stated in Scripture,50See Lev. 6:19. eat of the ruler's sin offering to atone for the ruler. The kohen gadol does not eat of his sin offering.51See I.E. on Lev. 6:16.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
או הודע. אומרו או, לצד שקדם ואמר ואשם, ואמרו ז"ל (תו"כ) מלמד שמביא אשם תלוי אם נסתפק, לזה אמר או הודע פירוש אם הודע אליו ודאי:
או הודע אליו חטאתו, or he has become aware of his inadvertent sin, etc. The Torah here writes "or" seeing in the previous verse it had written ואשם, that he was definite about having sinned. Torat Kohanim concludes that the ruler has to bring an אשם תלוי, a conditional sin-offering, if he is in doubt about having committed the sin in question. Our verse may discuss a situation where after having first offered an אשם תלוי while he was in doubt, the ruler now has to offer a definitive sin-offering as he is now certain that he committed the sin he had been in doubt about.
פסוק ד:כד · 4:24
Hebrew:
וְסָמַ֤ךְ יָדוֹ֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִ֔יר וְשָׁחַ֣ט אֹת֗וֹ בִּמְק֛וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁחַ֥ט אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא׃
English:
He shall lay a hand upon the goat’s head, and it shall be slaughtered at the spot*the spot Cf. 1.11. where the burnt offering is slaughtered before יהוה; it is a sin offering.
The nasi performs semichah (laying of hands) on the goat, and it is slaughtered on the north side of the altar -- the same location designated for the burnt offering. Rashi explains that the phrase 'it is a sin offering' teaches that the offering is valid only when slaughtered for its proper purpose (le-shmo); if the priest had a different offering in mind during the slaughter, it is disqualified.
רש״יRashi
במקום אשר ישחט את העלה. בַּצָּפוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְפֹרָשׁ בָּעוֹלָה: חטאת הוא. לִשְׁמוֹ כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ פָּסוּל (ספרא):
במקום אשר ישחט את העלה [AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT] IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY SLAUGHTER THE BURNT-OFFERING — on the north side of the altar which is expressly mentioned in the case of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:11) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 5). חטאת הוא IT IS [TO BE] A SIN-OFFERING — Consequently, if he slaughtered it for the purpose of (i. e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid, but if it is not done for this purpose (i. e. that the officiating priest had another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 8 6; Zevachim 10b; cf. also Rashi and Zevachim 5b).
פסוק ד:כה · 4:25
Hebrew:
וְלָקַ֨ח הַכֹּהֵ֜ן מִדַּ֤ם הַֽחַטָּאת֙ בְּאֶצְבָּע֔וֹ וְנָתַ֕ן עַל־קַרְנֹ֖ת מִזְבַּ֣ח הָעֹלָ֑ה וְאֶת־דָּמ֣וֹ יִשְׁפֹּ֔ךְ אֶל־יְס֖וֹד מִזְבַּ֥ח הָעֹלָֽה׃
English:
The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering.
A key procedural difference emerges here: the nasi's blood is applied to the horns of the outer altar of burnt offering, not the inner incense altar. Unlike the High Priest and the congregation, whose sin offerings penetrate into the inner sanctuary, the nasi's offering remains in the courtyard. Rashi notes that the phrase 'its blood' refers to the remainder after the applications, which is poured out at the altar's base.
רש״יRashi
ואת דמו. שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם:
ואת דמו [AND HE SHALL POUR OUT] THE BLOOD — i. e. the remainder of the blood (cf. Rashi on v. 7).
פסוק ד:כו · 4:26
Hebrew:
וְאֶת־כׇּל־חֶלְבּוֹ֙ יַקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה כְּחֵ֖לֶב זֶ֣בַח הַשְּׁלָמִ֑ים וְכִפֶּ֨ר עָלָ֧יו הַכֹּהֵ֛ן מֵחַטָּאת֖וֹ וְנִסְלַ֥ח לֽוֹ׃ {פ}
English:
All its fat he shall turn into smoke on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of well-being. The priest shall thus make expiation on his behalf for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
The aliyah concludes with the burning of the nasi's goat fat on the altar, compared to the fat portions of the peace offering. Rashi specifies that this refers to the fat portions detailed in the section on a goat brought as a shelamim (Leviticus 3:14-15). The verse ends with the promise of atonement and forgiveness, affirming that even a ruler can achieve reconciliation with God through sincere acknowledgment of error and the prescribed ritual.
רש״יRashi
כחלב זבח השלמים. כְּאוֹתָן אֵמוּרִין הַמְפֹרָשִׁים בְּעֵז הָאָמוּר אֵצֶל שְׁלָמִים:
כחלב זבח השלמים [AND HE SHALL CAUSE ALL ITS FAT TO ASCEND IN FUMES], AS THE FAT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS — i. e. as those fat portions which are specified in the case of the goat that is mentioned among the peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:14, 15).
Navigation
Last updated on