๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:46:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10 โ[1] ** ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืืื, concerning the sin which he committed, etc.** In connection with the offering by a rich man the Torah writes: ืืืืืชื, whereas when describing the parallel offering by a poor man the Torah writes: ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืืื. Why the difference between these descriptions? *Torat Kohanim* item 343, elaborating on verse 13 which deals with the sin-offering to be brought by the poorest of the poor, claims that I might have thought that the value of the various sin-offerings was determined by the relative severity of the sin it was to atone for; in order to disabuse us of such thinking the Torah wrote ืืืืช ืืืื, that either kind of sin-offering could atone for either kind of sin and that what determined the kind of sin-offering was only the economic situation of the sinner. The reason for this comment is the fact that this paragraph deals with three distinctly different kinds of sins for which sin-offerings have to be brought. We have the sin of someone who is ritually impure introducing impurity into the Temple precincts (5,2), a sin which carries the *Karet* penalty if committed intentionally. This is the most severe sin for which a sin-offering is acceptable. We have the sin (5,1) of perjury committed by someone who withholds relevant testimony on behalf of a fellow Jew, a sin which is punishable by a sin-offering either if committed inadvertently or if committed intentionally. This sin is less severe than the one which preceded it, though it is more severe than the one involving ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื an undertaking accompanied by an oath to do or not to do something and the failure to honour one's undertaking. This sin is listed in the Torah (5,5) after the ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช as it is relatively minor. Violation of ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื is punishable by a sin-offering only if it occurred inadvertently. As a result of these distinctions I could have thought that different sins require sin-offerings of different value in relation to the severity of the sin. Therefore the Torah tells us in verse 13 that the value of the sin-offering is not related to the nature of the sin but to the ability of the sinner to afford the offering in question.
โ[2] The hypothesis that we could have misunderstood the intent of the Torah unless the Torah had written the words ืืืืช ืืืื in verse 13 is baffling. After all, the Torah had spoken specifically of the sinner's inability to afford a certain kind of offering in our verse! This made it abundantly clear that the kind of sin-offering to be brought was not determined by the kind of sin but by the economic status of the sinner! Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi suggests in his commentary on verse 13, that the words ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืืื were needed to prevent us from misinterpreting the words ืืื ืื ืชืืืข ืืื to mean that if the sinner's "hand" had not "touched" i.e. been guilty of committing a trespass involving the need to offer a sheep as a sin-offering, but had been guilty only of a minor trespass, that such a sinner has to bring the sin-offering consisting of two turtle-doves. If the sinner had not even been guilty of a sin severe enough to require a sin-offering consisting of two turtle-doves, then he has to bring only a sin-offering consisting of a meal-offering." The words ืืืืืชื ืืฉืจ ืืื were written after the Torah discussed a lesser of the three categories of sin mentioned in our paragraph i.e. ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, so that we would not err and think that the sin-offering consisting of turtle-doves is applicable only for atonement of the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, but not to any of the categories of sin dealt with in this paragraph. Rabbi Mizrachi elaborates with further examples which we need not repeat here. I believe that his approach is very forced, seeing it is hard to imagine someone misinterpreting the words ืืื ืื ืชืฉืื ืืื as referring to a greater sin.
โ[3] Perhaps *Torat Kohanim* was prompted by the following consideration: If the Torah had not written the words ืืืืช ืืืื, I would have thought that if someone committed the most severe of the sins listed in this paragraph, the bringing of impurity into the precincts of the Tabernacle, the only kind of sin-offering acceptable from such a sinner would be a four-legged animal, a ewe. As to the line in verse 7: "if he cannot afford a lamb he should bring two turtle-doves, etc," this alternative does not apply except in the case where he was guilty of the lesser offence such as ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช which, because of the relatively milder nature of the sin, requires less in the way of atonement. If someone were to argue that the Torah's concession to the sinner extended even to a poor man guilty of bringing a sin-offering consisting of a sheep for a more serious offence, let him prove his case! Similarly, when the Torah wrote in verse 11 ืืื ืื ืชืฉืื ืืื ืืฉืชื ืชืืจืื, that if the sinner cannot afford two turtle-doves that he should bring a meal-offering as his sin-offering, I would have assumed that the Torah made this concession in a case where the sinner was guilty of only the least severe of the sins mentioned in this paragraph, the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื. I would not have assumed that such a meal-offering could serve as a sin-offering for the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช which is more severe than ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื. It would most certainly not suffice to achieve atonement for the severe sin of bringing impurity into the confines of the Holy Tabernacle. I would have been confirmed in this attitude by the fact that in all the sins listed by the Torah up to now where sin-offerings are called for the Torah never offered the concession of a bird or meal-offering replacing a sin-offering consisting of a four-legged animal. I would have reasoned "why should the Torah deal so leniently with someone guilty of a sin which carries the *Karet* penalty?" I would have assumed that the inexpensive sin-offering was certainly acceptable only for the lesser sins. I would have reasoned as follows: The wealthy person has to bring a four-legged animal as his sin-offering regardless of the relative severity or mildness of his sin. The Torah made a concession to the poor if he happened to have been guilty of the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, in which case he could bring the turtle-doves. If he had been guilty of the sin of bringing impurity into the Tabernacle however, the Torah did not exempt him from the rule applicable to sin-offerings in ื ืคืฉ ืื ืชืืื ืืฉืืื, described in chapter four. If a person is destitute and committed only the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื, the Torah relents and allows him to offer a sin-offering consisting only of a meal-offering. If that same destitute person was guilty of the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, which is more severe, he cannot absolve his guilt by offering only a meal-offering as his sin-offering. This is the major error I could have made unless the Torah had written the words ืืืืช ืืืื in verse 13. By means of these two words the Torah placed all the sins in the same category to teach us that the meal-offering as a sin-offering is acceptable to G'd provided the sinner is so destitute that he cannot even afford to bring two turtle-doves. This is what the author of *Torat Kohanim* had in mind when he wrote: "I could have thought, etc." When he wrote that "we would have made a division in comparing the mild sins to the severe sins," this is an error; the text there should have read: "the severe sins to the milder sins."
โ[4] Another method of explaining the words of the *Torat Kohanim* is by remembering that the paragraph deals with three separate sins and I notice that the Torah also describes three different kinds of sin-offerings. I would assume that the Torah arranged the list of the sin-offerings in keeping with the type of sins they are to atone for. The Torah therefore commences with the sin-offering to be offered in respect of the most severe of these three sins by saying that the sinner has to offer a female sheep. In the event that the sinner in question could not afford that, he should bring the kind of offering that would be appropriate for the sin mentioned by the Torah prior to this one, i.e. the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช. The sin-offering should consist of two birds regardless of the sinner's economic situation, whereas the sin-offering consisting of such birds would be acceptable as atonement for the sin of bringing impurity into the Temple only if the sinner was poor. The words ืืื ืื ืชืฉืื ืืื, "if he cannot afford even a bird-offering" in verse 11 apply to the sin-offering if one was guilty of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, for which the regular sin-offering consists of two turtle-doves. If the sinner could not afford this, he would be allowed to bring the sin-offering appropriate for the next milder sin, i.e. ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื.
โ[5] As a result of such reasoning the sin-offering appropriate to atone for ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื would be the least expensive one, a meal-offering, even if the offender were a wealthy individual. Similarly, a wealthy individual would be allowed to bring only a bird-offering for the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช even if he were well to-do. If he were especially poor however, he would only have to bring the meal-offering. If someone were guilty of bringing impurity into the Tabernacle and he is well to-do, he will have to bring a sheep or goat; if he is poor he would bring turtle-doves but not a meal-offering. This is what the author of *Torat Kohanim* meant when he wrote that the serious ones would be atoned for by a sheep. He meant that only in respect of the serious sins were sheep required as the sin-offering. No sheep as a sin-offering would be called for in respect of minor sins such as the two types of oaths even if the people who had committed these offences were wealthy individuals. *Torat Kohanim* did not worry that you might misinterpret what the Torah wrote and think that only a sheep or goat would be acceptable as atonement for the sin of impurity seeing that the Torah had written in the verse following the requirement to offer a sheep: "if he is unable to afford a sheep, etc. (compare verses 6 and 7)." However, the Torah had to tell us that whereas the less serious offences (the oaths) did not require a sheep or goat as a sin-offering, they did require bird-offerings. The bird-offerings themselves are required only for the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช, whereas the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืืื can be atoned for by a sin-offering consisting of a meal-offering. *Torat Kohanim* also did not worry that someone might think that it would not be acceptable under any circumstances to try and atone for the sin of ืฉืืืขืช ืืขืืืช with a meal-offering, seeing the Torah wrote immediately following the requirement to offer the bird-offerings: "if he is unable to afford this he may bring a meal-offering as his sin-offering" (compare verses 10 and 11).
โ[6] As a result of all these considerations you would have concluded that 1) a sheep is only called for if the most severe of the three sins mentioned in this paragraph had been committed; 2) a bird-offering is called for in case the sin was relatively mild, but not in case it was the mildest of the three; 3) the appropriate sin-offering for the mildest of the three offences is the meal-offering. The most severe sin could not be atoned for by a mere meal-offering under any circumstances.
โ[7] [At this point the author devotes several pages to demonstrate why every line in the *Torat Kohanim* is justified. The interested reader is referred to the original somewhat tedious presentation. Ed.]
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY