פרשת ויקרא תשכ"ה - קרבן חטאת

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any one of them:

if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin-offering.

And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:

When a ruler sinneth, and doeth through error any one of all the things which the LORD his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty:

And if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and be guilty:

if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin-offering.

לאשמת העם, our sages in Horiyot 7 state that these words are restrictive and mean that in this instance the High Priest’s error is treated in the same way as the public’s error, i.e. that he had first ruled (in error) that something was permitted, and had then acted in accordance with his ruling. However, if we were to go by the plain meaning of the text, the message is that if the priests who are charged with teaching the Torah to the people are liable for mistakes they make handing down rulings, then the High Priest who is regarded as the expert for everyone, and whose faulty ruling causes the entire people to commit a sin, is most certainly held to account for his error. As a result, 'והקריב על חטאתו וגו, he will have to bring an offering for his sin.

if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin-offering.

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) “[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt.

And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock, and bring it to the tent of meeting.

And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.

The kohen will dip his finger i.e., the High Priest. The significance of seven times is explained in the parasha of Balaq [comment on Numbers 23:1]. Because of the High Priest’s great stature, the blood of his sin-offering is sprinkled in front of the holy Partition, and on the corners of the Incense Altar. All of the bullock, except for the organic fats, is to be burned outside, for it is not a burnt-offering.

And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:

And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).

ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]

ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]