💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:41:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
23 [1] AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’ into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase *to atone in the holy place* which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression *to atone* means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,” even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon, it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar]. It is for this reason that Scripture states *to atone* — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest, or that of “forgetting a matter of law,” or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols, namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states *‘of’ the blood* in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded, and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them, for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings. This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim and in Tractate Zebachim.
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY