๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:46:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
27 โ[1] ** ืืื ื ืคืฉ ืืืช ืชืืื, And if anyone of the common people sin through error, etc.** The letter ื at the beginning of the word ืืื connects this paragraph to the rules established in the previous paragraphs concerning the details of the procedures.
โ[2] **ืืขื ืืืจืฅ, amongst the common people, etc.** *Horiot* 11 teaches that this excludes the High Priest if the latter erred without there having been an erroneous decision handed down by the High Court. In such an event the High Priest does not even have to bring a female goat as a sin-offering to atone for his error. Exegetes also use the letter ื in the word ืืขื to exclude culpability of a ruler in the event he ate half (part) of the minimum amount of a forbidden food whereas he had eaten the other half before becoming the ruler. The method of exegesis is based on the words ืืขื ืืืจืฅ being superfluous in the first instance; the words ื ืคืฉ ืื ืชืืื would have been quite sufficient. The expression is therefore used to exclude prominent individuals such as the High Priest. The additional letter ื is now also available for exegesis "dividing" the concept of ืขื ืืืจืฅ. Hence the exegete applies it to a commoner who has consumed part of a forbidden amount of blood, for instance, and was subsequently elevated to the status of king or High Priest before he ate the second part of that blood which constituted an amount for which one is culpable of bringing a sin-offering. The extraneous letter teaches us that such a High Priest or King does not have to bring a sin-offering.
โ[3] **ืืขืฉืืชื, when she (the ื ืคืฉ) has performed it (the sin).** This word is extraneous and *Torat Kohanim* interprets it both restrictively and inclusively. It is used restrictively to teach that if the person who committed the sin did so as a result of carrying out a ruling handed down by the High Court, he is exonerated. He has to bring the sin-offering mentioned in our verse **only** if he acted in accordance with his own opinion. The Torah had to state this separately because I might have thought that when the Torah legislated the bullock as a sin offering in verse 14, only people who committed that sin as a result of having heard of the High Court's decision would be covered by it, but that if an individual had not heard of that ruling and had nonetheless committed the same sin he would have to bring the she-goat as a sin-offering; the Torah therefore wrote ืืขืฉืืชื that he is to bring the personal sin-offering only if he had acted on his own and there was no faulty ruling by the High Court. The word ืืขืฉืืชื is interpreted inclusively in the event that the individual complied with the High Court's faulty ruling though he was well enough versed in Torah to know that the ruling was faulty. In such a case he cannot shield himself behind the High Court's ruling but has to offer a personal sin-offering of a she-goat for having acted against his better judgment. His sin-offering then is in addition to the bullock prescribed in verse 14. Had the Torah written only ืืขืฉืืช, I would have interpreted it only as inclusive; seeing the Torah added the letter ื at the end, I can also use it restrictively, i.e. only in such a case and not in any other case. When you reflect on this you will understand the *Torat Kohanim* correctly.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY