๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:40:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 โ[1] ** ืืื ืื ืชืืืข ืืื ืื ืฉื, if he is unable to afford a lamb, etc.** This means that the individual in question can afford to present more than the two turtle-doves which are the next cheaper sin-offering and burnt offering the Torah demands of him. As long as he is not able to afford a lamb as his sin-offering, he is allowed to offer the bird-offerings designated for a needy person.
โ[2] The word ืืื is interpreted by *Torat Kohanim* to mean that the individual in question does not have to borrow money to enable him to purchase a lamb for his sin-offering. Neither do we tell such a person to work harder in order to earn the money necessary to purchase the lamb. The reason for this is the principle ืืืืื ืืฆืื ืืฉืขืชื, it is important to perform a commandment at the time it is due rather than to perform it somewhat later but in a more perfect manner (based on *Pessachim* 68). *Torat Kohanim* describes the alternatives as follows: "the meaning of the words "if his means do not suffice for a lamb" is that even if the individual in question **owned** a lamb but he did not have the wherewithal for his elementary needs, i.e. for clothing, food or shelter, he is considered as if he did not have a lamb to offer. *Torat Kohanim* derives this from the expression ืื ืฉื, "sufficient to afford to offer a lamb."
โ[3] I have seen a comment by Rabbeynu Hillel who defines "his needs" as referring to the lamb for the offering which this individual does not possess. *Halachah* demands that the owner of the lamb personally bring it to the courtyard of the Temple, etc. This explanation seems rather forced seeing it does not take more effort or time to bring a lamb to the Temple than it takes to take two turtle-doves to the Temple. If the Rabbi referred to the effort to bring a relatively sizable lamb to the Temple, let him bring the money instead and purchase it from the Temple-treasury. If Rabbeynu Hilel referred to the need to perform ืกืืืื on the lamb, something that need not be performed on the birds, this too is no argument as the performance of ืกืืืื is an initial requirement only; the requirement is not mandatory so that failure to perform it would invalidate the offering. Why should such an individual rather not bring the offering required of him and instead bring the offering designated for a needy person? We have learned at the end of tractate *Nega-im* (14,12) that if a well-to-do person offered the sin-offering designated for a poor person he has not fulfilled his obligation. The same applies to all the offerings commonly known as ืงืจืื ืขืืื ืืืืจื, offerings which vary in value with the economic situation that the person who has to offer a sin-offering finds himself in. Maimonides also rules this way in *Hilchot Shega-got* chapter 10. The requirement of placing one's weight on the lamb is only meant to enhance the commandment and does not in any way interfere with the atonement value of the offering for the sinner in question as we know from *Zevachim* 6.
โ[4] *Torat Kohanim* interprets the words "if she cannot afford a lamb" in Leviticus 12,8 where the need for a woman who gave birth to bring a sin-offering is discussed, as follows: "If she owns a lamb but does not have her basic needs, how do I know that she need only bring the offering designated for a poor person?" Answer: "The Torah writes ืื ืฉื, sufficient for a lamb." The reason *Torat Kohanim* had to use these words there in the same sense as in Leviticus 12,8 is that one of the offerings of a mother who has given birth is a burnt-offering and such burnt-offering requires to be accompanied by a drink-offering ื ืกืืื. This drink-offering is mandatory. Had the Torah not written ืื ืฉื in that verse I could not have derived this meaning from our verse where we discussed an offering that is purely a sin-offering. As a result of such considerations, why did the Torah not merely write these words in Leviticus 12,8 and I would have applied them here also? There was no need to tell us that the sinner may forego the need for ืกืืืื, as we could have applied a ืงื ืืืืื, an inference from minor to major; if in the case of a sin-offering which does not involve a mandatory drink-offering, a person who owns a lamb but does not have money for his basic needs is allowed to bring the sin-offering applicable to a poor person in its place, then a mother who finds hereself in a similar economic situation and who would have to find the means for an additional drink-offering most certainly would be allowed to offer a poor person's offering instead, and I would not need additional superfluous words for such exegesis. I believe therefore that I was right. As long as the sinner has more than enough for two birds but not enough for a lamb, he is entitled to bring the offering designated for a poor person. *Korban Aharon* supports my interpretation.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY