Skip to main contentSkip to Content

פרשת ויקרא — שביעי (Aliyah 7)

Parashat Vayikra | Leviticus 5:11–5:26 | Aliyah 7 of 7


קלאוד על הפרשה

The seventh and final aliyah of Parashat Vayikra completes the Torah’s treatment of the chatat (sin offering) with a remarkable provision for the very poorest members of Israelite society, and then introduces an entirely new category of sacrifice: the asham (guilt offering). The aliyah opens (5:11-13) by addressing someone who cannot afford even two birds — the already-reduced offering described in the previous aliyah. For such a person, the Torah permits a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a chatat. Rashi, citing Menachot 6a, explains why this flour offering must contain no oil or frankincense: “It is a sinner’s offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished.” The flour chatat must remain unadorned precisely because it is an atonement, not a gift. Yet the very existence of this provision reveals a profound theological principle: no Israelite, however destitute, is excluded from the possibility of atonement. Ibn Ezra notes that a tenth of an ephah represents roughly a single day’s food — the Torah asks the poorest person for no more than one day’s sustenance.

The aliyah then transitions (5:14-16) to the first type of asham: the asham me’ilot, brought for inadvertent misuse of sacred property (me’ilah). The concept of me’ilah — deriving benefit from something consecrated to God — represents a trespass against the boundary between the holy and the profane. Rashi explains that the root m-’-l connotes “change” or “betrayal,” as in a wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband. The offender must bring a ram worth at least two shekalim of silver, restore the sacred property’s value, and add a surcharge of one-fifth. This fixed minimum value distinguishes the asham from the chatat, where the animal’s cost varies with the offender’s means. The requirement of monetary restitution alongside sacrifice establishes a principle that will recur throughout the aliyah: when damage has been done, ritual atonement alone is insufficient.

The next passage (5:17-19) introduces the asham talui, one of the more conceptually striking offerings in the entire sacrificial system. This guilt offering is brought by a person who suspects but is not certain that a sin has been committed. The classic example, given by the Talmud (Keritot 22b-23a) and cited by Rashi, involves a person who had two pieces of fat before him, one forbidden (chelev) and one permitted (shuman). He ate one and was later told that one of the two was chelev, but he does not know which he consumed. The asham talui “suspends” his punishment, protecting him until clarity emerges. If he later discovers that he did indeed sin, he must then bring a full chatat. Sforno offers a penetrating observation: even if the person turns out not to have sinned, the offering is not wasted, because the very carelessness that led to the uncertainty is itself a form of guilt — “he is certainly guilty before God for being careless enough for the doubt to arise.”

The aliyah concludes (5:20-26) with the asham gezelot, the guilt offering for interpersonal wrongs: denying a deposit, defrauding a business partner, robbery, withholding wages, keeping a lost object, or swearing falsely about any of these. Rabbi Akiva, as cited by Rashi from the Sifra, explains why the Torah describes these interpersonal offenses as “a trespass against the Lord” (ma’alah ma’al ba-Shem): when someone entrusts a deposit to another, he does so without witnesses, relying on God alone as “the Third Being between them.” To deny the deposit is therefore to deny God’s witness. The Or HaChaim elaborates further, identifying three distinct wrongs in such a sin: the theft itself, the affront to God’s justice in redistributing wealth against the divine allocation, and the defamation of the innocent victim who is made to appear a liar. Critically, atonement here requires both restitution — the principal plus a fifth — and the ram offering. Sforno emphasizes that the sacrifice achieves nothing until the guilty party has first satisfied the injured party’s claim. This insistence that sacrifice cannot substitute for interpersonal justice provides a fitting conclusion to Parashat Vayikra, anchoring the entire sacrificial system in moral accountability.


Leviticus 5:11–5:26 · ויקרא ה:יא–ה:כו

פסוק ה:יא · 5:11

Hebrew:

וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים אוֹ֮ לִשְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵי־יוֹנָה֒ וְהֵבִ֨יא אֶת־קׇרְבָּנ֜וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֗א עֲשִׂירִ֧ת הָאֵפָ֛ה סֹ֖לֶת לְחַטָּ֑את לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים עָלֶ֜יהָ שֶׁ֗מֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּ֤ן עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ לְבֹנָ֔ה כִּ֥י חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃

English:

And if one’s means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, that person shall bring as an offering for that of which one is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering; one shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering.

The Torah provides a final tier of the sliding-scale chatat for the very poorest, who cannot afford even birds. Such a person brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour -- roughly one day's food -- without oil or frankincense, since a sinner's offering should not be embellished.
רש״יRashi
כי חטאת הוא. וְאֵין בַּדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא קָרְבָּנוֹ מְהֻדָּר (מנחות ו'):
כי חטאת הוא [HE SHALL PUT NO OIL UPON IT, NEITHER SHALL HE PUT ANY FRANKINCENSE THEREON:] FOR IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — a sinner's offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished by oil and frankincense (Menachot 6a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
עשירת האיפה. מאכל לאיש אחד ביום אחד:
THE TENTH PART OF AN EPHAH. The amount of food a person eats in one day.29See Ex. 16:36.

פסוק ה:יב · 5:12

Hebrew:

וֶהֱבִיאָהּ֮ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֒ וְקָמַ֣ץ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן ׀ מִ֠מֶּ֠נָּה מְל֨וֹא קֻמְצ֜וֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ֙ וְהִקְטִ֣יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַ֖ל אִשֵּׁ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה חַטָּ֖את הִֽוא׃

English:

The offerer shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop out of it a handful as a token portion and turn it into smoke on the altar, with יהוה’s offerings by fire; it is a sin offering.

The priest performs the kemitzah (scooping a handful) from the flour offering, just as with a regular minchah, and burns it on the altar. The remainder belongs to the priest. Despite being mere flour, this offering carries the full legal weight of a chatat.
רש״יRashi
חטאת הוא. נִקְמְצָה וְנִקְטְרָה לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה:
חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — Here, too, the apparently redundant words intimate: if the קמץ has been taken from it and has been burnt for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if, however, this was done not for its purpose (i. e. the priest had another offering in mind when officiating) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 9).

פסוק ה:יג · 5:13

Hebrew:

וְכִפֶּר֩ עָלָ֨יו הַכֹּהֵ֜ן עַל־חַטָּאת֧וֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָ֛א מֵֽאַחַ֥ת מֵאֵ֖לֶּה וְנִסְלַ֣ח ל֑וֹ וְהָיְתָ֥ה לַכֹּהֵ֖ן כַּמִּנְחָֽה׃ {ס}        

English:

For whichever of these sins one is guilty, the priest shall thus make expiation on behalf of that person, who shall be forgiven. It shall belong to the priest, like the meal offering.

This verse concludes the sliding-scale chatat section. The priest makes atonement regardless of which tier the offerer qualifies for -- a lamb, birds, or flour. Rashi explains that the phrase 'one of these' teaches that all three levels of offering provide equal atonement for any of the sins listed above.
רש״יRashi
על חטאתו אשר חטא. כָּאן שִׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעֲשִׁירוּת וּבְדַלּוּת נֶאֱמַר מֵחַטָּאתוֹ, וְכָאן בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת נֶאֱמַר עַל חַטָּאתוֹ, דִּקְדְּקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מִכָּאן, שֶׁאִם חָטָא כְּשֶׁהוּא עָשִׁיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עַל חַטָּאתוֹ: מאחת מאלה. מֵאַחַת מִשָּׁלוֹשׁ כַּפָּרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בָּעִנְיָן — אוֹ בַּעֲשִׁירוּת אוֹ בְּדַלּוּת אוֹ בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הַחֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיוּ בְּכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, וְהַקַּלִּין יִהְיוּ בְּעוֹף, וְהַקַּלִּין שֶׁבַּקַּלִין יִהְיוּ בַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה, לְהַשְׁווֹת קַלִּין לַחֲמוּרִין לְכִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה אִם הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ, וְאֶת הַחֲמוּרִין לַקַּלִּין לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת (ספרא): והיתה לכהן כמנחה. לְלַמֵּד עַל מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, זֶהוּ לְפִי פְּשׁוּטוֹ; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָּרְשׁוּ: "וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן" — וְאִם חוֹטֵא זֶה כֹּהֵן הוּא, תְּהֵא כִּשְׁאָר מִנְחַת נִדְבַת כֹּהֵן, שֶׁהִיא בְּכָלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל (ספרא):
‎אשר חטא על חטאתו [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION ON HIS BEHALF] FOR THE SIN THAT HE HATH SINNED — Here Scripture varies the expression, for in the case of affluence (v. 6) and narrow means (v. 10) it is stated, "[and the priest shall make expiation for him] מחטאתו", whilst here, in the case of utter destitution, it is stated מחטאתו) על חטאתו may mean: something from his sin-offering, i. e., a part of it, whilst על חטאתו implies something in addition to his sin-offering)! Our Rabbis from the niceties of the text derived from here the law that if one sinned whilst he was a rich man and set apart money for a she-lamb or a she-goat (the sacrifice prescribed for a well-to-do person; cf. v. 6), but then became impoverished somewhat, he has only to bring (purchase) from a part of it (the money) two turtledoves (or two young pigeons, the offering prescribed for the poor) and may retain the balance for his own use: if, being a poor mạn, he has set apart money for two turtledoves and then was reduced to even greater poverty, he has only to bring from a part of it a tenth of an ephah of flour; hence the use of the word מחטאתו in the sense explained above. If, on the other hand, being only of moderate means, he has set apart money only for a tenth of an ephah of flour, but became rich afterwards, he must add to it and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man. For this reason it is stated here על חטאתו — in addition to what was intended for his sin-offering (Keritot 27b). מאחת מאלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] BY MEANS OF ONE OF THESE — i. e. by means of one of the three expiating sacrifices mentioned in this section: either by means of the offering prescribed for affluence or by that for poverty or by that for utter destitution (i. e., in the case of the offerings brought for each of the three sins mentioned above (vv. 1, 2—3 and 4) the offering must be brought according to the circumstances of the wrong-doer). But why is this stated? (i. e., why does it not merely state‎ אשר חטא ונסלח לו ‎ חטאתו הכהן על ‎וכפר עליו‎ since the different sacrifices have been mentioned previously)? But Scripture uses this term "by means of one of these", because I might think that the most serious sins amongst them (i. e. those mentioned in vv. 2—3, which, if done wilfully, are subject to the penalty of כרת) should be atoned for by a she-lamb or a she-goat: the lighter ones (v. 1) by a fowl, and the lightest of all (v. 4) by a tenth part of an ephah of flour! Scripture, however, states, "[and he shall make expiation for him] by one of these" — in order to put on the same level the light sins with the most serious with regard to the duty of offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, if he (the offender) possesses the means. And, on the other hand, to put on the same level the most serious sins with the lighter in respect to the duty of bringing a tenth part of an ephah of flour as an offering in case of utter destitution (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 10). והיתה לכהן כמנחה AND IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST'S, JUST AS A MEAL-OFFERING — This is intended to teach with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner (i. e. a meal-offering brought as an expiation for the sins mentioned above) that what is left of it after the קמץ has been burnt may be eaten by the priests just as the remains of the free-will offering (cf. Leviticus 2:3). This is what the statement means according to its literal sense. Our Rabbis, however, explained והיתה לכהן to imply: that if this sinner be a priest, then it shall be as any other meal-offering brought as a free-will offering by a priest which comes under the law: (Leviticus 6:16) "[For every meal-offering of the priest] shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten". (The words are to be construed thus:והיתה לכהן, but if it be a priest's, כמנחה then it shall be exactly like any voluntary meal-offering that he brings) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 11; Menachot 73b).

פסוק ה:יד · 5:14

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

And יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:


פסוק ה:טו · 5:15

Hebrew:

נֶ֚פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תִמְעֹ֣ל מַ֔עַל וְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה מִקׇּדְשֵׁ֖י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְהֵבִיא֩ אֶת־אֲשָׁמ֨וֹ לַֽיהֹוָ֜ה אַ֧יִל תָּמִ֣ים מִן־הַצֹּ֗אן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ֛ כֶּֽסֶף־שְׁקָלִ֥ים בְּשֶֽׁקֶל־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ לְאָשָֽׁם׃

English:

When a person commits a trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of יהוה’s sacred things: One shall bring as a penalty to יהוה a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight, as a guilt offering.

A new section begins: the asham (guilt offering) for inadvertent misuse of sacred property (me'ilah). The offender must bring a ram worth at least two silver shekalim. Rashi explains that me'ilah connotes betrayal or 'change' -- diverting something from its sacred purpose to profane use.
רש״יRashi
כי תמעל מעל. אֵין מְעִילָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵאלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (דהי"א ה'), וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּסוֹטָה וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל (במדבר ה'): וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה'. שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ; וְהֵיכָן הֻזְהַר? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן חֵטְא, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן חֵטְא בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא יִשְֹאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא (ויקרא כ"ב), מַה לְּהַלָּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן הִזְהִיר; אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, אַף כָּאן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, תַּ"לֹ תִמְעֹל מַעַל — רִבָּה (ספרא): מקדשי ה'. הַמְיֻחָדִים לַשֵּׁם, יָצְאוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים (שם): איל. לְשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה, כְּמוֹ וְאֶת אֵילֵי הָאָרֶץ לָקָח (יחזקאל י"ז), אַף כָּאן קָשֶׁה — בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים (ספרא): בערכך כסף שקלים. שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁוֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים:
כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes "changing". Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) "And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land" (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) "[If any man's wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him" (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a). ‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): "[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it". How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b). מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1). איל is an expression for "strong", "mighty", as in (Ezekiel 17:13) "he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land".Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38). בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
תמעל מעל. דבר שנתכסה עליו מגזרת מעיל והטעם כי חטאת הוא בקדשי השם יביא איל שהוא שוה כסף שקלים ומעוט רבים שנים:
COMMIT A TRESPASS. The reference is to something which covered the offender.30The offender is compared to a person who covers himself with a garment which does not belong to him. Timol ma'al (commit a trespass) is related to the word me'il (garment).31Thus, timol ma'al literally means to garment a garment that is, to cover oneself with a garment. The reason why he shall bring a ram32And not a lamb or goat, which is a less expensive offering. worth silver shekels33Hebrew, shekalim. is that he sinned against that which is sanctified to God. The minimum of the plural shekalim (shekels) is two.

פסוק ה:טז · 5:16

Hebrew:

וְאֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר֩ חָטָ֨א מִן־הַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ יְשַׁלֵּ֗ם וְאֶת־חֲמִֽישִׁתוֹ֙ יוֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְנָתַ֥ן אֹת֖וֹ לַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְהַכֹּהֵ֗ן יְכַפֵּ֥ר עָלָ֛יו בְּאֵ֥יל הָאָשָׁ֖ם וְנִסְלַ֥ח לֽוֹ׃ {פ}

English:

That person shall make restitution for the remission regarding the sacred things, adding a fifth part to it and giving it to the priest. The priest shall make expiation with the ram of the guilt offering on behalf of that person, who shall be forgiven.

Beyond bringing the ram, the offender must make monetary restitution for the sacred property misused, adding a surcharge of one-fifth of its value, paid to the priest. Only then does the priest effect atonement through the guilt offering.
רש״יRashi
ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם. קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:
הקדש ישלם‎ מן ‎חטא‎‎ אשר‎ ואת‎ AND FOR THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED IN THE HOLY THING HE SHALL PAY both the principal and the additional fifth to the Temple treasury (cf. Keritot 26b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ישלם. וישלם אשר חטא מן הקדש עם תוס׳‎ חמישתו וזה הוא אשם בשגגה בתחלה ואחר כך ידע:
HE SHALL MAKE RESTITUTION. He shall make restitution for sinning by using a holy object and add a fifth.34A fifth of its value. This is a guilt offering brought by one who errs at first and then becomes cognizant of his sin.

פסוק ה:יז · 5:17

Hebrew:

וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ כִּ֣י תֶֽחֱטָ֔א וְעָֽשְׂתָ֗ה אַחַת֙ מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֣א תֵעָשֶׂ֑ינָה וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע וְאָשֵׁ֖ם וְנָשָׂ֥א עֲוֺנֽוֹ׃

English:

And a person who, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of יהוה’s commandments about things not to be done, and then realizes guilt: Such a person shall be subject to punishment.

This verse introduces the asham talui, the 'suspended guilt offering,' brought when a person suspects but is not certain that a sin was committed. The classic case is someone who ate one of two pieces of fat, one forbidden and one permitted, and cannot determine which he consumed.
רש״יRashi
ולא ידע ואשם, והביא. הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה מְדַבֵּר בְּמִי שֶׁבָּא סְפֵק כָּרֵת לְיָדוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע אִם עָבַר עָלָיו אִם לָאו, כְּגוֹן חֵלֶב וְשֻׁמָּן לְפָנָיו, וּכְסָבוּר שְׁתֵּיהֶן הֶתֵּר וְאָכַל אֶת הָאֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב הָיְתָה, וְלֹא יָדַע אִם זוֹ שֶׁל חֵלֶב אָכַל, הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וּמֵגֵן עָלָיו כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁוַּדַּאי חָטָא, וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן, יָבִיא חַטָּאת (כריתות כ"ב): ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב עָנַשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיַּעֲנִישׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁיָּדַע, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לֵידַע מַתַּן שְֹכָרָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, צֵא וּלְמַד מֵאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוָּה אֶלָּא עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ עָלָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו. וְכִי אֵיזוֹ מִדָּה מְרֻבָּה שֶׁל טוֹבָה אוֹ שֶׁל פֻּרְעָנוּת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר מִדָּה טוֹבָה, אִם מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנוּת מְעוּטָה, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו, מִדָּה טוֹבָה הַמְרֻבָּה הַיּוֹשֵׁב לוֹ מִן הַפִּגּוּלִין וְהַנּוֹתָרוֹת וְהַמִּתְעַנֶּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — עַאַכַּ"וְ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְגוֹ' (דברים י"ז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ג'? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא שְׁלִישִׁי לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ לְעִנְיַן עֹנֶשׁ בַּהֲזָמָה; אִם כָּךְ עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם שָֹכָר טוֹב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה (סנהדרין ט'); רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ וְגוֹ' (דברים כ"ד) — קָבַע הַכָּתוּב בְּרָכָה לְמִי שֶׁבָּאת עַל יָדוֹ מִצְוָה בְּלֹא יָדַע — אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה, הָיְתָה סֶלַע צְרוּרָה בִּכְנָפָיו וְנָפְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וּמְצָאָהּ הֶעָנִי וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ, הֲרֵי הַקָּבָּ"ה קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ בְּרָכָה (ספרא):
ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ‎ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to "be in suspense"); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a). ‎ו אשם ונשא עונו‎‎ולא ידע AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, "See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, "If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, "See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) "at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the third witness under the law there stated — to be severe with him and to make his sentence exactly like that of these (the first two witnesses) in respect to punishment in case of "plotting" (evidence that is rebutted by proof that the witness was not present on the occasion to which he has testified; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:16). Now, if Scripture exacts punishment so severely from one who has only joined himself with sinners (he is so described because as a single witness he could not hope that his evidence would be effective), just as it does from the sinners themselves, how much the more certain is it that He will give a reward to him who attaches himself to those who practise meritorious deeds just as it does to those who themselves practise meritorious deeds! (Sanhedrin 9a; Makkot 5b). — R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: In Deuteronomy (24:19) Scripture states, "When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, [thou shalt not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless etc.]", and, you see, it states immediately afterwards: "that the Lord thy God may bless thee etc." Scripture (God) thus gives the assurance of a blessing to one through whom a meritorious deed came about (the feeding of the stranger, etc.), without himself knowing about it (since he forgot to remove the sheaf from the field)! You must now admit that if a Sela was tied up in the skirt of one's garment and it fell from it and a poor man finds it and supports himself by it the Holy One, blessed be He gives the assurance of a blessing to him (to the man who has lost the Sela) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 12 7-13).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ואם נפש כי תחטא. ועשה אחת ממצות לא תעשה ולא ידע אם הוא אסור יביא איל ודעת רבים שזה אשם תלוי לא ידע אם עשה אם לא עשה והחטאת שבתחלה לא ידע ואחר כן ידע והנה החטאת שלא ידע שהוא אסור עד שהודע והאשם ידע שהוא אסור ושכח ואחר כן נזכר או אשם תלוי:
AND IF ANY ONE SIN.35According to Lev. 4:27,28,32 when a person sins he brings a female lamb or a she-goat. However, according to our verse one who sins brings a ram. Hence the interpretations which follow. And violates one of the negative commandments and does not know that what he did is prohibited,36And then learns that what he did was prohibited. However, if he knows that the act is prohibited but forgets the law and then reminds himself he brings a sin offering. he shall bring a ram.37As a guilt offering. Many believe38This is the opinion of the rabbis. See Keritot 23a. that the ram is brought as a "doubt guilt offering." He brings a ram if he does not know whether he violated the law or not.39"This speaks of a person who is in doubt whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with excision. For example, forbidden fat (chelev) and permitted fat (shuman) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible fat and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however he was informed that one of these was forbidden fat, and he does not know whether he has eaten the forbidden fat. Such a person has to bring a guilt-offering in doubt" (Rashi). A sin offering is brought if he did not know that he sinned and then became aware of it. Observe,40According to the latter opinion (Krinsky). a sin offering is brought if he did not know that a certain act is prohibited until he was informed of it. A guilt offering is brought if he knew that it is prohibited but forgot, and then reminded himself. On the other hand, our verse might be speaking of a "doubt guilt offering."41In other words, if we accept the opinion that a sin offering is brought for ignorance of the law, then we still have two options regarding the guilt offering spoken of in our verse.
ספורנוSforno
ואשם ונשא עונו. כבר קבלו ז"ל (יומא פרק יוה"כ) שזה מדבר באשם תלוי, שאינו יודע אם חטא ואם לאו. ועל זה אמר ונשא עונו כפי הראוי לו, אם חטא בשוגג, או לא נפל בחטא אבל היה עונו שלא נזהר עד שנפל בספק, וכפי עונו ישא העונש:
ואשם ונשא עונו, our sages have a tradition that the Torah here speaks of an asham taluy, a guilt offering offered while the exact nature of the guilt is unclear. The person offering it is not even sure that he is guilty of an offence. Considering this state of affairs the Torah writes ונשא עוונו, he carries (the burden) of his guilt. The guilt is not spelled out precisely as it is not yet known. He may not actually have committed a sin, but this does not mean that he is free from guilt as had he been careful he would never have been in the predicament of not knowing if he had committed the specific sin he is afraid he might have committed.

פסוק ה:יח · 5:18

Hebrew:

וְ֠הֵבִ֠יא אַ֣יִל תָּמִ֧ים מִן־הַצֹּ֛אן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ֥ לְאָשָׁ֖ם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְכִפֶּר֩ עָלָ֨יו הַכֹּהֵ֜ן עַ֣ל שִׁגְגָת֧וֹ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁגָ֛ג וְה֥וּא לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע וְנִסְלַ֥ח לֽוֹ׃

English:

That person shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent,*the equivalent I.e., in currency; cf. v. 15. as a guilt offering. For the error committed unwittingly, the priest shall make expiation on behalf of that person, who shall be forgiven.

The asham talui requires a ram of the same value as the asham me'ilot (at least two shekalim). Rashi clarifies that if the person later discovers with certainty that he sinned, this offering does not suffice -- he must then bring a full chatat.
רש״יRashi
בערכך לאשם. בָּעֵרֶךְ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה: אשר שגג והוא לא ידע. הָא אִם יָדַע לְאַחַר זְמַן, לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בְּאָשָׁם זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאת, הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה? לְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג (שם):
‎ לאשם בערכך [HE SHALL BRING A RAM …] ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION FOR A GUILT OFFERING — i. e. according to the value stated above (v. 15, viz., at least 2 shekels). ‎ידע‎ והוא לא‎‎ אשר שגג [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS ERROR] WHEREIN HE ERRED AND DISCOVERED IT NOT — Consequently if it came to his knowledge after a time that he has sinned, he is not atoned for by this guilt-offering which he has already bought, but remains unatoned until he brings a sin-offering. To what may this be compared? To the law of the Heifer whose neck was to be broken (as a kind of expiation when it was unknown who has committed the murder) when, on some particular occasion, its neck was actually broken and the murderer was afterwards found — when he surely has to be put to death (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 2).

פסוק ה:יט · 5:19

Hebrew:

אָשָׁ֖ם ה֑וּא אָשֹׁ֥ם אָשַׁ֖ם לַיהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}

English:

It is a guilt offering; guilt has been incurred before יהוה.

The verse emphasizes that the asham talui is a genuine guilt offering, not wasted even if no sin was ultimately committed. Sforno explains that the person's carelessness in allowing the doubt to arise is itself a form of guilt before God.
רש״יRashi
אשם הוא אשם אשם. הָרִאשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ קָמוּץ, שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם דָּבָר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן חֶצְיוֹ קָמָץ וְחֶצְיוֹ פַּתָּח שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן פָּעַל; וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִקְרָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ הוּא, כְּבָר דָּרוּשׁ הוּא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, אשם אשם — לְהָבִיא אֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה שֶׁיְּהֵא אַיִל בֶּן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים, יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הוּא (שם):
אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea "he has done something" (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, "he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering", then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela'im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states "הוא" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
אשם אשם לה׳‎. הוא פירושו אשם הוא:
HE IS CERTAINLY GUILTY BEFORE THE LORD. This explains why it is called a guilt offering. It is so called because he is guilty.42The offering is called a guilt offering because he is guilty before the Lord.
ספורנוSforno
אשם הוא. אף על פי שלפעמים יובא זה הקרבן והוא לא נכשל באותו החטא, לא יחשוב החושב שמכניס בזה חולין לעזרה, כי אמנם הוא קרבן אשם על כל פנים, אף על פי שלא נכשל באותו החטא שנפל בו הספק, והטעם הוא כי אשום אשם לה', כשלא נזהר בדבר עד שנפל בספק:
אשם הוא; even though sometimes this offering is brought when no offence has in fact been committed, the party bringing such an offering is not guilty of bringing secular meat into the holy precincts, for it is after all a קרבן, an approved offering. Even if the party concerned had not been guilty of the offence he thought he might have been guilty of, 'אשום אשם לה, he is certainly guilty before G'd for being careless enough for the doubt about his specific guilt in this instance to arise.

פסוק ה:כ · 5:20

Hebrew:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃

English:

*This verse constitutes 6.1 in some editions. יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:


פסוק ה:כא · 5:21

Hebrew:

נֶ֚פֶשׁ כִּ֣י תֶחֱטָ֔א וּמָעֲלָ֥ה מַ֖עַל בַּיהֹוָ֑ה וְכִחֵ֨שׁ בַּעֲמִית֜וֹ בְּפִקָּד֗וֹן אֽוֹ־בִתְשׂ֤וּמֶת יָד֙ א֣וֹ בְגָזֵ֔ל א֖וֹ עָשַׁ֥ק אֶת־עֲמִיתֽוֹ׃

English:

When a person sins and commits a trespass against יהוה —by dealing deceitfully with another in the matter of a deposit or a pledge,*pledge Meaning of Heb. tesumeth yad uncertain. or through robbery, or by defrauding another,

A new category: the asham for interpersonal wrongs -- denying a deposit, defrauding a partner, robbery, or withholding wages. Rabbi Akiva explains why this is called 'a trespass against the Lord': a deposit is entrusted without witnesses, with God alone as the 'Third Being' between the parties.
רש״יRashi
נפש כי תחטא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַה תַּ"ל וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה'? לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה וְהַנּוֹשֵֹׁא וְהַנּוֹתֵן אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים וּבִשְׁטָר, לְפִיכָךְ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ, מְכַחֵשׁ בָּעֵדִים וּבַשְּׁטָר, אֲבָל הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה שֶׁתֵּדַע בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה אֶלָּא שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ מְכַחֵשׁ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם (שם): בתשומת יד. שֶׁשָּׂם בְּיָדוֹ מָמוֹן לְהִתְעַסֵּק אוֹ בְּמִלְוֶה: או בגזל. שֶׁגָּזַל מִיָּדוֹ כְּלוּם: או עשק. הוּא שְֹכַר שָֹכִיר (שם):
ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of ‎‎‎מעל בה׳‎‎ ומעלה here, where it does not speak of betraying "holy things of the Lord" as in v. 15, but of betraying one's neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; therefore when he repudiates the deposit, he is repudiating the Third Being who is between them (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 4). בתשומת יד A CHARGE — He denies that he has put (שָׂם) money into his (the neighbour's) hand (יד, i. e. that he has put money at his disposal) for the purpose of doing business in partnership or as a loan (cf. Onkelos and Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6). או בגזל OR A THING TAKEN AWAY BY VIOLENCE — He denies that he has violently taken something from his possession, או עשק OR HATH WRONGED [HIS NEIGHBOUR] — This refers to withholding the wages of a hired man (cf. Leviticus 19:13; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6 and Bava Kamma 103b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ומעלה מעל בה׳‎. שעבר על מצות לא תעשה מדבר שהוא בינו ובין אדם: או בתשומת יד. שותפות ששם ידו עמו: בגזל. בחזקה כמו ויגזול את החנית: עשק. בסתר: ועמיתו. רעהו ויתכן שהוא בעומתו. וה״א בהנה נוסף:
AND COMMIT A TRESPASS AGAINST THE LORD. By violating one of the negative precepts governing the relationship between a man and his neighbor.43As Scripture goes on to explain. IN A MATTER OF DEPOSIT.44Hebrew, tesumet yad (literally, a placing of the hand). Hence I.E.'s comment. Partnership. He joined hands with him. OR OF ROBBERY.45Hebrew, gazel. Involving force. Compare, and plucked (va-yigzol)46Va-yigzol and gazel come from the same root. the spear out of the Egyptian's hand (I Chron. 11:23). OR HAVE OPPRESSED. In secret.47Harming his neighbor secretly in any way (Krinsky). HIS NEIGHBOR. Amito means his neighbor. It most probably means the one who is beside him.48I.E. connects the word amit (neighbor) to the word le-ummat (close by) (Ex. 25:27).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
נפש כי תחטא ומעלה וגו'. צריך לדעת למה אמר כי תחטא, ואין לנו לפרש כאן כי החטא הוא ההכחשה, שהרי הוא אומר וכחש בעמיתו. עוד אומרו מעל בה' מה שלא אמר בכל החטאות. עוד אומרו וכחש בעמיתו שלא היה צריך לומר בעמיתו. גם שיעור התיבה אינו מדוקדק: ואולי כי יודיע הכתוב שלשה ענפי רשע שיעשה בעל עבירה זו. הא' נטילת דבר שאינו שלו, הוא ענף הגזל. ב' ומעלה מעל בה', פירוש בה' כביכול עשה המעל פירוש לשון שינוי, כי הוא שפט על פי המעשים וזיכה לזה שיהיה לו ממון, וכשזה בא וגוזלו נמצא שגורם מעילה בה' ששינה עליו את הדין, שלא עמד בידו ממה שהגיעו כפי משפט ה', ונמצא ה' כביכול נחשד שלא עשה משפט צדק, ואולי שכפל לומר ומעלה מעל, ולא הספיק לומר ומעלה בה', נתכוין לכלול גם כן צד הגזלן, כי גם לצדו מעל בה' כביכול כי הוא דנו בחסרון הלקוח, והוא נוטל מה שלא נקצב עליו במשפטי ה'. ג' וכחש בעמיתו, פירוש שמרשיע את הצדיק כשתובע ממנו פקדונו וכו' והוא אומד לו לא היו דברים מעולם, ומשימו מכחש, והוא אומרו וכחש בעמיתו, פירוש משים הכיחוש בעמיתו, שהוא הנגזל ממנו, משימו רשע, שתובע דבר שאינו שלו ואומר לו למה תשקר עלי ויריב עמו. והנה ב' דברים אלו אינם אלא בפקדון או בתשומת יד או בגזל כשגוזל ממנו את שלו, או עושק שכר שכיר, אבל במצא אבדה אין בה כחש בעמיתו, לזה אמר הכתוב בפני עצמה, או מצא אבדה וכחש בה וגו': עוד ירמוז שלשה דברים רעים הגורמת הנפש המרשעת. הא' היא נחסרת מאורה וממעלתה, והוא אומרו נפש כי תחטא לשון חסרון בנפש עצמה. ב' ומעלה מעל בה' על דרך אמרו אנשי אמת כי אין לך נפש מישראל שאין שפע נשמתו יורד לה להתקיים שזולת זה אין לה חיות, זולת הנפש אשר עלתה צחנתה ובאשה בעון פלילי לזה יכרת ממנה השפע האלהי, כאומרו (בראשית יז יד) ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, ודרך השפע בא דרך ב' חוטין דקים, דרך ב' נקבי האף, והוא דרך מקום דביקות הנפש עם קונה, כאומרו (דברים ד ד) ואתם הדבקים בה' אלהיכם: והנה בחטא האדם מהחטאים כאלה הנפש ההיא שולטים בה ובשפעה החיצונים כידוע, ונהנים מהשפע האלהי הרשעים ההם, וזהו אומרו ומעלה מעל בה', כביכול באור הנמשך ממנו, והוא סוד הרמוז באומרו (משלי כח ד) גוזל אביו ואמו וגו' חבר הוא לאיש משחית, פירוש לצד שמתחבר לבחינת הרע הנקרא איש משחית, והבן: הג' כי גם לכללות הקהל הוא גורם הכחשה, פירוש לצד שכל ישראל כאחד רעת אחד תסובב רע לכל הנצר, והוא אומרו וכחש בעמיתו שנעשית עמיתו כחושה מצדו רחמנא ליצלן, והוא מה שרמוז בפסוק (שם) גוזל אביו ואמו ואמרו ז"ל (ברכות לה:) אמו זו כנסת ישראל כי באמצעות אנשי חיל מתרבה בכללות עם ה' השלום והטוב והחיים: חסלת פרשת ויקרא
נפש כי תחטא, ומעלה מעל בשם, If someone sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words כי תחטא here? It cannot mean that the sin referred to is a denial of the sin by the sinner seeing that the Torah already wrote וכחש בעמיתו, that the sinner denied having committed the trespass, i.e. having exploited his labourer by failing to pay him. Besides, why does the Torah in this instance describe the sinner as מעל בשם, "having committed a trespass against the Lord," words which have not appeared in any of the previous examples of sins committed? Why did the Torah have to add the word בעמיתו when writing וכחש בעמיתו? The meaning of the word is not clear. Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us of three distinct wrongs committed by the sinner in question. 1) He appropriated to himself something which did not belong to him, i.e. an aspect of the sin of robbery. 2) ומעלה מעל בשם, the meaning of the words "against G'd" may imply that by trying to re-arrange the allocation of wealth to people other than those decreed by G'd, the sinner interfered with G'd's scheme of things. Hence the Torah describes him as having committed a trespass against G'd. By doing so, the sinner creates the impression that he denied G'd's justice and fairness in allocating wealth to different people at different times. It is even possible that the reason that the Torah repeats the expression, i.e. ומעלה מעל instead of merely saying ומעל includes the victim's impression of G'd's sense of justice and fairness. By the sinner having done what he did, he produces a feeling in the heart of the victim that G'd has allowed him to be victimised. This is an additional sin committed by the person described as guilty of "trespass." 3) The meaning of the words וכחש בעמיתו is that the sinner, i.e. the recipient of a loan who now denies to the lender that he had received it, accuses the righteous of being wicked when he makes it appear as if the lender was the liar. The exact meaning of the word בעמיתו is, that he puts his opposite number in the position of appearing to have stolen from the dishonest accuser. He has the nerve to challenge the person who extended a loan to him, and, instead of being grateful to him he makes him appear as a criminal. All of these three sins occur either when 1) someone has either received some deposit on trust, פקדון, or בתשומת יד, when he had a loan extended to him, the depositor not wanting a third party to know about it; or 2) when there is outright robbery, גזל;, or 3) עשק בעמיתו, when the sinner is guilty of withholding wages from his labourer and the like. When someone has found some object lost by a third party and denies it, the definition כחש בעמיתו does not apply, seeing he does not know who has lost it. This is the reason that the Torah wrote a separate verse to describe this example of wrongdoing. On the moral-ethical level, our paragraph also describes three negative effects on the soul of the sinner described here. 1) By accusing someone wrongly, the soul of the accuser loses some of its spiritual light; the expression נפש כי תחטא reflects this loss sustained by the soul itself. 2) the words ומעלה מעל בשם may be understood in kabbalistic terms. Every Jewish soul depends on continuous input from celestial forces called שפע נשמתו in order to sustain itself spiritually inside a body. The only soul which does not enjoy this continuous spiritual input is one whose נפש, the person it resides in, has become guilty of criminal sins which will result in its being deprived of the celestial spiritual input. This is what the Torah meant when it described the נפש being "cut off" in Genesis 17,14 as the consequence of a Jew ignoring the commandment to circumcise himself or be circumcised. The celestial spiritual input into our souls which we have described enters by means of two thin "threads" through a person's two nostrils as this is the area where the נפש is joined מקום דבקות, to its owner i.e. to G'd. This is what Moses meant when he said in Deut. 4,4: "all of you who have cleaved unto the Lord your G'd are alive as of this day." If man commits the sins described in this paragraph his soul comes under the domination of the forces of evil. If the spiritual input from celestial sources were to continue, it would actually strengthen the forces of evil which have taken over in that person. When the Torah speaks of ומעלה מעל בשם, this describes such a process of strengthening him who trespassed against G'd. This is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 28,24: "Whoever robs his father and mother and says: 'it is no sin,' is a companion of a destroyer." Solomon means that inasmuch as this person makes common cause with evil, otherwise known as איש משחית, a destroyer, he has himself become a destroyer. 3) The denial of the truth by the individual in our paragraph impacts also on the community of Israel seeing that all of Israel are branches of one soul. If any branch of that soul becomes involved in evil this has repercussions on the entire people. This is the deeper meaning of the words וכחש בעמיתו, his denial extends to the members of his עם, his people. His people become כחש, "weak," through his sinful behaviour. This is exactly what Solomon referred to in the verse from Proverbs we have just quoted. Berachot 35 describes the word אמו in that verse as referring to the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish people, "mother Israel." The Jewish nation increases in spiritual power by means of its men of valour who contribute to it peace and harmony and who thereby assure it of life itself.

פסוק ה:כב · 5:22

Hebrew:

אֽוֹ־מָצָ֧א אֲבֵדָ֛ה וְכִ֥חֶשׁ בָּ֖הּ וְנִשְׁבַּ֣ע עַל־שָׁ֑קֶר עַל־אַחַ֗ת מִכֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הָאָדָ֖ם לַחֲטֹ֥א בָהֵֽנָּה׃

English:

or by finding something lost and lying about it; if one swears falsely regarding any one of the various things that someone may do and sin thereby—

The list of interpersonal wrongs continues: keeping a lost object and denying it, or swearing falsely about any monetary claim. The false oath compounds the original wrong, as the person invokes God's name to cover a lie about money owed to another.
רש״יRashi
וכחש בה. שֶׁכָּפַר על אחת מכל אֵלֶּה אשר יעשה האדם לחטא וּלְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר לִכְפִירַת מָמוֹן:
וכחש בה AND DENIETH IT — i.e. that he denies על אחת מכל REGARDING ONE OF ALL these things (those mentioned above), אשר יעשה האדם לחטא THAT A MAN DOETH (is apt to do, cf. Numbers 5:7, said of a similar case ‎מכל חטאת האדם) TO SIN and to swear falsely with the object of repudiating a money claim.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ונשבע על שקר. פירושו או נשבע על ממון שיבקש אדם ממנו והעד או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר:
AND SWEAR TO A LIE. The meaning of ve-nishba al shaker (and swear to a lie) is, or swear to a lie49The vav prefaced to va-nishba means or, rather than and. regarding money that one seeks from him. The fact that Scripture states, or any thing about which he has sworn falsely (v. 24)50And then goes on to state that he must return the money regarding which he has sworn falsely. is proof of this. The heh of va-hennah (therein) is superfluous.51Henneh is a variant of hen.

פסוק ה:כג · 5:23

Hebrew:

וְהָיָה֮ כִּֽי־יֶחֱטָ֣א וְאָשֵׁם֒ וְהֵשִׁ֨יב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֗ל א֤וֹ אֶת־הָעֹ֙שֶׁק֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׁ֔ק א֚וֹ אֶת־הַפִּקָּד֔וֹן אֲשֶׁ֥ר הׇפְקַ֖ד אִתּ֑וֹ א֥וֹ אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָצָֽא׃

English:

when one has thus sinned and, realizing guilt, would restore either that which was gotten through robbery or fraud, or the entrusted deposit, or the lost thing that was found,

When the guilty party recognizes his sin and chooses to repent, he must restore what was stolen, defrauded, deposited, or found. Rashi explains that 'when he sins and realizes guilt' means when he comes to recognize his own duty to repent and confess.
רש״יRashi
כי יחטא ואשם. כְּשֶׁיַּכִּיר בְּעַצְמוֹ לָשׁוּב בִּתְשׁוּבָה, וּבְדַעְתּוֹ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת כִּי חָטָא וְאָשֵׁם:
יחטא ואשם‎‎ כי‎ means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).
ספורנוSforno
והשיב את הגזלה ואת אשמו יביא. שאין הקרבן מכפר אלא אם כן פייס את הניזק קודם הבאת הקרבן כאמרם ז"ל (שם) הביא את אשמו עד שלא הביא גזילו לא יצא:
והשיב את הגזלה..ואת אשמו יביא, the sacrifice does not achieve atonement until the guilty party has first satisfied the demands on him by the injured party.

פסוק ה:כד · 5:24

Hebrew:

א֠וֹ מִכֹּ֞ל אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַ֣ע עָלָיו֮ לַשֶּׁ֒קֶר֒ וְשִׁלַּ֤ם אֹתוֹ֙ בְּרֹאשׁ֔וֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָ֖יו יֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֑יו לַאֲשֶׁ֨ר ה֥וּא ל֛וֹ יִתְּנֶ֖נּוּ בְּי֥וֹם אַשְׁמָתֽוֹ׃

English:

or anything else about which one swore falsely, that person shall repay the principal amount and add a fifth part to it. One shall pay it to its owner upon realizing guilt.

Full restitution requires returning the principal plus an additional fifth of its value to the rightful owner. Rashi notes the plural form 'fifths' teaches that if the offender denies the surcharge and swears falsely again, he must add yet another fifth on top of that, and so on.
רש״יRashi
בראשו. הוּא הַקֶּרֶן, רֹאשׁ הַמָּמוֹן: וחמשתיו. רִבְּתָה הַתּוֹרָה חֲמִישִׁיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה לְקֶרֶן אַחַת, שֶׁאִם כָּפַר בַּחֹמֶשׁ וְנִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה, חוֹזֵר וּמֵבִיא חֹמֶשׁ עַל אוֹתוֹ חֹמֶשׁ, וְכֵן מוֹסִיף וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הַקֶּרֶן הַנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה (בבא קמא ק"ג): לאשר הוא לו. לְמִי שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ (שם):
בראשו — This means the principal — the capital (ראש) money. וחמשתיו [AND HE SHALL ADD] THE FIFTH PART [MORE THERETO) — By using the plural וחמשתיו the Torah includes in this law of restitution the many additional fifths possible in respect to one principal — that if he denies the fifth (i. e. he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it, but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now has become the קרן in addition to it), and so he keeps on adding a fifth to the original fifth until the principal about which he takes an oath becomes less in value than a P'rutah (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 103a). לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
בראשו. בעצמו או מה שהוא שוה: וחמשתיו. מיעוט רבים שנים והנה הם שני חמישיות ועוד אפרשנו: ביום אשמתו. טעמו ביום שובו מאשמתו יביא איל:
IN FULL. Be-rosho (in full)52The word rosh literally means a head. Thus be-rosho literally means for its head. means in itself,53Head is a metaphor for the entire body. It thus can be taken to mean the entire thing. or its worth. THE FIFTH PART. The minimum of a plural is two. Thus chamishitav54Chamishitav is a plural. (the fifth part) means two fifths. I will explain it later.55See I.E. on Num. 5:7 (Vol. 4, p. 35): "If he confesses on his own (then he adds a fifth part). However, if there are witnesses then he shall add two fifths. Those who transmitted the law say a fifth of a fifth. Their minds are greater than ours." IN THE DAY OF HIS BEING GUILTY. Its meaning is, in the day that he turns away from his guilt56When he repents. he shall bring a ram.

פסוק ה:כה · 5:25

Hebrew:

וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמ֥וֹ יָבִ֖יא לַיהֹוָ֑ה אַ֣יִל תָּמִ֧ים מִן־הַצֹּ֛אן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ֥ לְאָשָׁ֖ם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן׃

English:

Then that person shall bring to the priest, as a penalty to יהוה, a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent,*the equivalent I.e., in currency; cf. v. 15. as a guilt offering.

In addition to making full restitution to the victim, the offender must bring a ram worth at least two shekalim as a guilt offering to the priest. Sforno emphasizes that the sacrifice achieves nothing until the injured party has first been compensated.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
בערכך. כראשון והוסיף חומשים בעבור שזה האשם הוא בזדון ודברי יחיד הם שגם זה האשם תלוי:
ACCORDING TO THY VALUATION. As the first one.57The ram first mentioned in verse 15, i.e., a ram worth two shekalim. See I.E. on verse 15. Scripture adds fifths58See I.E. on v. 24. because this guilt offering is brought for a deliberate sin. There is an individual opinion that this guilt offering is also59Like the offering spoken of in verse 17. This opinion apparently accepts that Scripture speaks of one who is not certain whether he swore falsely. a "doubt-offering."

פסוק ה:כו · 5:26

Hebrew:

וְכִפֶּ֨ר עָלָ֧יו הַכֹּהֵ֛ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה וְנִסְלַ֣ח ל֑וֹ עַל־אַחַ֛ת מִכֹּ֥ל אֲשֶֽׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה לְאַשְׁמָ֥ה בָֽהּ׃ {פ}

English:

The priest shall make expiation before יהוה on behalf of that person, who shall be forgiven for whatever was done to draw blame thereby.

The priest makes atonement before God and the offender is forgiven. This final verse of Parashat Vayikra underscores that for sins between people, both restitution to the victim and sacrifice to God are required -- neither alone suffices.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לאשמה בה. שם מהבנין הקל תחת שם הפועל:
TO BE GUILTY THEREBY. Ashmah (guilty) is a noun in the kal. Scripture employs it in place of the infinite.60Le'eshom.

Aliyah 6 — ששי |

Back to Parashat Vayikra | Back to Parashat HaShavua

Last updated on