And if any one sin, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;
verse value 2467 — אָלָ֔ה = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 54 letters. Notable word values: "adjuration" (אָלָ֔ה) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "witness" (עֵ֔ד, 2 letters) and the longest is "when·one·shall·sin" (כִּֽי־תֶחֱטָ֗א, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·she·shall·hear" (וְשָֽׁמְעָה֙), "if·not" (אִם־ל֥וֹא), "he·shall·report" (יַגִּ֖יד). The root או appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "if·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "and·he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שמע ("and·she·shall·hear") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root עד ("witness") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'knew', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And if a person sins — in that he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness, having either seen or known — if he does not declare it, he shall bear his guilt.
Rashi
קול האלה הושמע [AND IF A SOUL SIN] AND HEAR THE VOICE OF AN OATH in a matter to which he was witness, i. e. that he (the person interested in the evidence) called upon him (the witness) by an oath that if he knows any evidence favourable to him he should testify for him before the court (cf. Sifra); if he does not tell it, he bears his iniquity.
Ramban
AND HE IS A WITNESS, WHETHER HE HATH SEEN OR KNOWN These are not three separate matters, for it is impossible that one be a witness without seeing and knowing. Rather, Scripture is stating that if one hear the voice of adjuration that a party to a law-suit adjures him, concerning a matter in which he is a witness either by seeing or knowing of it, if he does not tell it he has committed an iniquity. Now the witness is not obligated to bring this offering unless he knows such a testimony that the party in suit who adjured him [to give witness] would have legally won his case because of it [and the witness nonetheless withheld his evidence]. It is for this reason that our Rabbis interpreted [on the basis of the verse before us] that there is testimony which is valid by seeing without knowing, and [testimony which is valid] by knowing without seeing. How so? [Reuben says to Shimon:] “I have delivered to thee a maneh [as a loan] in the presence of such-and-such persons,” and [Shimon] claims “this never happened, let the witnesses [you claim to have], come and testify.” This is a case of seeing without knowing [since although they saw Reuben handing the money to Shimon, they do not know the nature of this delivery, whether it was as a loan, or repayment of a loan that Shimon had originally made to him]. [If Reuben says to Shimon:] “You have admitted to owing me a maneh, in the presence of such-and-such persons,” [and Shimon replies]: “let them come and testify,” this is a case of knowing without seeing [and even though they did not see, they must testify what they know, and hence are liable if they withhold their evidence].But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, we need not [explain] the “seeing” here [to mean seeing] without knowing. Rather, the sense of the verse is as follows: whether he hath seen, meaning that he saw the loan or the sale completely [i.e., with knowledge], or known, i.e., that he heard [the defendants to the suit] admitting that transaction in the presence of witnesses, but he did not see it. Now He does not state here: “and it is hidden from him,” [as He does in the following verse], because in this case [where the witness swears that he knows of no testimony for the party that adjures him to come and testify before the court], he is obligated to bring the offering [mentioned here in these verses] whether he swore [entirely] wilfully, or was in error on the oath whilst wilfully denying his knowledge of evidence. If, however, at the time of giving the oath he had forgotten the testimony, there is no guilt upon him.
Ibn Ezra
"And a soul who sins and hears a voice of an oath" — this is the ban (cherem), and similarly "and you uttered an oath" (ve-et alita). The verse took the abbreviated path and warned that a witness is obligated to testify; for if he does not testify, there is a punishment from Hashem upon him — he will bear his iniquity — if he forgot and did not testify, and afterward remembered.
Or HaChaim
כי תחטא, if one sins, etc. Why did the Torah have to introduce this paragraph with the words ונפש כי תחטא ושמעה?, It would have sufficed to write ונפש כי תשמע. Perhaps the reason is that the person who is the subject of this paragraph is one who had previously denied knowing of testimony which could result in an accused's exoneration. When he does so a second time, he proves that he had already incriminated himself previously. The Torah alludes to this state of affairs by writing נפש כי תחטא, someone who has already sinned, etc. The fact that the potential witness had lied already previously is accounted as a sin. All of this is confirmed by the letter ו the beginning of the word ונפש, at the start of this paragraph. We may also explain the wording based on Shavuot 30 where we learn of the culpability of someone who denied under oath that he knew testimony (concerning return of a loan being claimed by the creditor) and was aware that he would be guilty of offering a sin-offering even if he had denied testimony only inadvertently, but said person did not know that he had to bring a sin-offering for his perjury. If he did not know that he was culpable for the denial under oath of such testimony though he was aware that he lied, he is not guilty of such a sin-offering. Rashi explains that the Talmud means that only if the accused was unaware that he knew testimony that would help the creditor and was unaware of any penalty for withholding such testimony would he be free from bringing a sin-offering. Maimonides writes in chapter 1 of his Hilchot Shavuot that the definition of an inadvertent sin involving an oath concerning testimony is that the witness was unaware that refusal to testify to something one had knowledge of results in such a witness having to bring a sin-offering, whereas that same person is aware that his oath is sinful and that he perjures himself by swearing it. We note therefore that in order to be guilty of bringing the sin-offering the person had to be aware that his action was both forbidden and a lie. When the Torah writes: ונפש כי תחטא the meaning is that regardless of whether the denial was intentional or unintentional the culprit is aware that he commits a sin; the Torah thereby excludes a person who was unaware of the sin or had forgotten that he had witnessed what he is accused of having witnessed is not obligated to render the oath mentioned in our verse. The Zohar understands this verse as referring to the warnings issued by G'd to the soul which descends into this deceitful world when entering man's body. ושמעה קול אלה, when he heard a public imprecation, this is explained by the following statement in the Mishnah on folio 30 in tractate Shavuot: "Culpability for this kind of oath exists both when the guilty party swore in the presence of the court or without the presence of a court provided he volunteered the oath. If, however, he merely denied such knowledge without swearing to his denial or saying "Amen," confirmin...
Rabbeinu Bahya
נפש כי תחטא ושמעה קול אלה, “If a person will sin, having heard a sound (demand) for an oath, etc.” Tanchuma Vayikra 7, commenting on this introduction writes as follows: “take note that when both the creatures in the celestial regions and the ones in the terrestrial regions were created their creation was the result of G’d employing only one half of His name, i.e. Isaiah 26,4 כי ביה ה' צור עולמים, ‘that the Lord employed only the letters י-ה of His name when creating the universe.’ He did so in order that the sinners should not become guilty of desecrating His entire name when sinning.” Observe the sequence of the wording of the Torah in our verse. Instead of the Torah writing אדם כי יקריב מכם לה’ קרבן, the Torah writes אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה'. The reason that the name “for the Lord” appears only at the end is to prevent the possibility of someone dying after having uttered the words “for the Lord” without his being able to complete the sentence. This is how careful one has to be not to utter the name of the Lord in vain. This attitude is reflected in Solomon writing in Kohelet 5,1 “be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before G’d.” Our sages (Tanchuma Vayikra 7) said that Jews should not be rash with offering vows and they should not make a practice of uttering oaths (even true ones). .hey tell of a king called Har in whose time 2,000 towns were destroyed all because of a true oath, because the oath was not called for. What was the oath all about? A person (not just one) swore an oath to his friend that he would go to a certain place and eat and drink there. He completed the journey and kept his oath. All the towns in which they confirmed all their intentions by phrasing them as an oath were ruined. If this is what happened to towns whose inhabitants honoured their oaths, how much worse is in store for people who do not honour their oaths! When in the future, G’d will judge people, the ones who will be accused for swearing a false oath will be put in the same company as the witches, sorcerers, and adulterers. This is all based on Maleachi 3,5: “But I will step forward to contend against you and I will act as a relentless accuser against those who have no fear of Me; who practice sorcery, commit adultery, who swear falsely, who cheat labourers of their hire and who subvert the cause of the widow.” G’d said: “the mouth which I gave you was meant to be used to sing My praises. Instead you use it to defame Me.” This is what is meant by Solomon in Proverbs 16,4: “the Lord made everything for a purpose, for His sake.” Another verse commenting on this subject is found in Isaiah 57,20: “but the wicked are like the troubled sea which cannot rest, whose waters toss up mire and mud.” Just as the waves of the sea in their arrogance rise higher and higher only to collapse upon themselves and be broken as soon as they hit the sand along the shore and the wave following it does not learn a lesson from the fate of the preceding wave, so the wicked do not learn from the fate which has befallen other wicked people before by becoming penitents. This is why they are compared to the waves of the sea which do not know the meaning of ever coming to rest in the world. The righteous, on the other hand, do know the meaning of calm and quiet as testified by Jeremiah 30,10 who writes: “and Yaakov shall again have calm and quiet with none to trouble him.” והוא עד או ראה או ידע, “and he was a witness who either saw or knew, etc.” According to Nachmanides we are not dealing with three separate subjects here. There cannot be someone who is a witness unless he has seen and knows. The meaning of the verse is that if the witness in question has been appealed to by an injured party to come forward and to testify to what he has seen and what he knows of, he will bear guilt if he fails to come forward. In fact, if one speaks of money which is under dispute it is impossible to be a witness unless one has seen and has knowledge of what has been agreed upon. However, it is possible to understand the verse in such a way that it does speak of three separate situations. Each of the situations would be a testimony all by itself. There is such a thing as having witnessed something with one’s eyes without one understanding the meaning of what one has seen. Similarly, it is possible to have knowledge of something even if one has not seen it with one’s eyes. There can even be testimony involving neither seeing nor having knowledge. Let me illustrate: If someone observed Reuven handing over money to Shimon but he did not know whether this money was a loan, a repayment of a loan, or a deposit for safe-keeping, or even if the recipient was a messenger taking possession of the money on behalf of the person who had asked him to do so; in all these cases merely seeing something is not sufficient basis for relevant testimony. The reverse, i.e. knowledge of something without having witnessed the truth of the statement with one’s eyes could be that Reuven heard Shimon admit that he had borrowed money from him. Since at the time he admitted it he did not make repayment, Reuven is in no position to testify to a transaction. The testimony of such a witness may still be of benefit to the plaintiff even when there is neither knowledge of a transaction or the transaction having been witnessed in cases where the person called upon to testify knows the signature of the party or parties concerned and can affirm or deny them. His testimony may help the plaintiff recover his money on the basis of the debtor’s signature to a document being independently confirmed. You could therefore justify the meaning of the word או as meaning “or” in the words והוא עד או ראה או ידע “and he is (either) a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.” On the words: אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו, “if he fails to testify he shall bear his iniquity,” our sages (Sifra Vayikra 11,5) comment that the meaning is that he fails to testify in a place where he is duty-bound to testify, i.e. at court. If such a witness withholds his testimony in private conversation with either of the litigant parties he is not guilty of anything. The Torah’s warning applies to him only if he fails to testify in a legitimate court. A Biblical example is Achan who was not obligated to reveal his misdemeanor before Joshua took him to court. This is why Joshua pleaded with him: (Joshua 7,19) “please tell me what you have done (i.e. confess).” Seeing that there have to be at least 2 litigants, one witness, and three members of the court, the letter ו in the word והגד, in that verse was added to allude to the 6 people involved. In our verse too the word לוא instead of being spelled לא as is customary, had the letter ו added in order to make the same point. It suggests that “if not,” the party concerned will be guilty of the penalty implied in the words ונשא עונו, “he will bear his guilt.” The allusion is that he is guilty only if he fails to testify in the presence of the 6 people represented by that letter ו. One may also see in the words והוא עד, “and he is a witness,” that the meaning of the whole verse is that if he withholds his testimony by not testifying before a court thinking that he can get away with it seeing no one will ever know that he suppressed evidence so how could he be convicted of something? The letters in the words והוא עד refer to G’d being a witness to suppressed evidence even if there is no such evidence in a human court. This would not be the first time that the word הוא is used to describe G’d. One such appearance is in Isaiah 42,8 אני ה' הוא שמי, or Psalms 100,3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him.” A third example is Psalms 19,6 והוא כחתן יוצא מחופתו, “and He (G’d) is like a bridegroom emerging from His wedding canopy.” Still another example of the word הוא meaning “G’d” is Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, “and the Levite will serve G’d.” There are many other examples to confirm what we have said. It is therefore appropriate to translate the words והוא עד in our verse as “and He (G’d) is a witness.” He examines all of man’s motivations, thoughts, etc., and administers punishment based on what He discovers. There is yet another possibility that the additional letter ו in the word לוא is an allusion to the six days of creation and that it is meant to teach us that he who suppresses testimony on behalf of his friend is considered as if he suppressed testifying to the fact that G’d had initiated the universe all by Himself in the space of six days. When a person becomes guilty of committing relatively minor sins he will eventually commit major sins such as heresy.
Tur HaArokh
והוא עד או ראה או ידע, “and he is a witness, either having seen or having definitive knowledge.” The Torah does not speak of three different scenarios here, for it is impossible for someone to be a witness to something that he has neither seen nor otherwise has definitive knowledge of. It must deal therefore with the case of someone beseeching his friend or acquaintance to testify on his behalf to a matter which he has definitive knowledge of by having been an eye witness of it, or having ironclad knowledge of when the matter is not subject to eyesight, such as testifying to words spoken. He may have heard a party admit owing money to another party, for instance. The presence of such a party when money changed hands, would be “seeing” something, the hearing of an admission, would be “knowing” something without the benefit of having seen it. It is also possible to explain the words והוא עד, to mean that this refers to knowledge which includes both having seen what happens and having understood its impact, such as having been present when the loan was handed over and receipt was confirmed by the recipient. The subsequent או ידע would then mean that although the party had been fully aware of the loan having been transacted, the recipient having acknowledged it, he had not seen the money change hands. The Torah, in this case, does not write: ונעלם ממנו, “it was concealed from him,” as it did in the next three verses, seeing that the refusal to testify is not an inadvertent sin but a deliberately committed one. If, at the time when requested to render an oath, the witness had indeed forgotten what he had known at the time, he does not need to render such an oath.
Daat Zkenim
ושמעה קול אלה, “by having heard an oath demanding him to testify, and having ignored it;” all the other paragraphs distinguish between inadvertently committed sins and those committed deliberately except the one involving an oath, known as שבועת בטוי, “a futile oath,” which is automatically considered as the one who uttered it doing so while aware of its implications. Solomon confirmed this in Kohelet 5,5 when he said: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך ואל תאמר לפני המלאך כי שגגה היא, למה יקצוף האלוקים על קולך וחבל את מעשה ידיך, “do not let your mouth bring you in disfavour; and do not plead before the messenger (angel) that it was only an error; but fear the Lord else He may be angered by your talk and destroy your possessions.” When G–d will sit in judgment of all of His creatures, He will place such people next to the sorcerers and adulterers, as we know from the prophet Malachi (Malachi 3,5) והייתי עד ממהר במשפים ובמנאפים ובנשבעים (בשמי) לשקר, “I will act as relentless accuser against those that have no fear of Me, who practice sorcery, commit adultery and who swear falsely (using My name).”
or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean swarming things, and be guilty, it being hidden from him that he is unclean;
verse value 4764 — וְה֥וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 23 words, 82 letters. Notable word values: "and·he" (וְה֥וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·all·thing" (בְּכׇל־דָּבָ֣ר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 484: in·carcass·of, in·carcass·of, in·carcass·of. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "touches" (תִּגַּע֮), "in·all·thing" (בְּכׇל־דָּבָ֣ר). The root טמא appears 5 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נגע ("touches") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root טמא ("impure") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'impure', dividing the verse into phrases of 18 and 5 words.
Onkelos
Or if a person touches any unclean thing — whether the carcass of an unclean wild animal, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of an unclean crawling creature — and it was concealed from him, yet he is unclean, he has incurred guilt.
Rashi
'או נפש אשר תגע וגו OR IF A SOUL TOUCH [ANY UNCLEAN THING] etc., and after acquiring this uncleanness eats holy things or enters the Sanctuary, this being something which if done willfully is subject to the penalty of excision — thus is it explained in Treatise Shevuot 14b. עלם ממנוונ AND IT WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM — the uncleanness was hidden from him (escaped his notice, not the fact that the things he ate were holy or that the place he entered was the Sanctuary. The translation therefore is “and it — the fact that he was unclean — escaped his notice, but he actually was unclean”) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 7; cf. Shevuot 14b). םואש AND HE INCUR GUILT through eating sacred food or entering the Sanctuary.
Ramban
AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM — “that is, he had forgotten his state of uncleanness. AND HE INCURRED GUILT — by eating holy food or by entering the Sanctuary.” This is Rashi’s language. Now [Rashi’s] intent is not that the [requirement of] eating the holy food or entering the Sanctuary is derived from the word v’asheim (and he incurred guilt), for this word is used with reference to all the sin-offerings mentioned previously. But this section deals in a brief manner with those points which are self-understood. For there is no sin involved in touching a carcass of an unclean beast or swarming thing [which defiles the person]. Even the priests have not been warned against it. So it is impossible that Scripture should require a person to bring an offering just because he touched them and thereby became defiled. Rather, Scripture is stating that when a person becomes defiled and forgets his state of uncleanness, or when he swears [an “oath of utterance”] and forgets the oath, and he incurs guilt by violating it — for either of these sins committed through forgetfulness, he is required to bring an offering. Now it is self-understood that the mere forgetfulness of his state of uncleanness involves no sin, except [if in that state] he ate holy food or entered the Sanctuary. Nor is there any sin in the mere forgetfulness of an oath, except if he violated it. This is the literal explanation of the verses in this section. Our Rabbis have further interpretations on this section strengthening this explanation.
Ibn Ezra
"Or a soul who touches" — [this refers to contact with] the carcasses of the four [animals] mentioned, namely the pig and its companions. "Or the carcass of an impure animal" — [impure] for eating, such as the horse, the donkey, and an impure creeping creature from the eight mentioned. "And it was hidden from him" — and afterward he became aware [of it]; or [he touched] a zav, one impure from a corpse, a zavah, or a menstruant.
Rashbam
ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא אשם, he had forgotten that he was ritually impure and entered the holy domain, or he had eaten sacred meat while being in such a state of impurity, offences punishable by karet if perpetrated knowingly.
or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be with which he is unclean, and it be hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty;
verse value 2502 — וְה֥וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 52 letters. Notable word values: "and·he" (וְה֥וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. Verse gematria: 2502 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "in·impurity·of" (בְּטֻמְאַ֣ת, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, in·it. The root טמאה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "he·shall·be·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root טמאה ("in·impurity·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 5 words.
Onkelos
Or if he touches human impurity — any such impurity by which one becomes impure — and it was concealed from him, and then he knows, he has incurred guilt.
Rashi
בטמאת אדם [OR IF HE TOUCHES] THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN — This refers to uncleanness resulting from a corpse (i. e. it implies both touching the corpse itself or touching anyone who has come in contact with the corpse) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8). לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS OF HIM IT BE — This is intended to include in this law the uncleanness resulting from touching men or women who have a flux (and those in similar physical condition e. g. 'וכו יולדת נדה) Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8. אשר יטמא — these apparently redundant words are intended to include in this law one who touches a man who had intercourse with a הנד and has not yet immersed himself (cf. Leviticus 15:24) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8). בה — is intended to include in this law one who swallows the carrion of a clean bird (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8). והוא ידע … ונעלם AND IT WAS HIDDEN [FROM HIM], BUT HE KNOWETH afterwards) that he had forgotten his state of uncleanness. ואשם AND HAD INCURRED GUILT by eating sacred food or by entering the Sanctuary in this state.
Chizkuni
והוא ידע ואשם, “it came to his attention some time after the event so that he now had become guilty;” according to Rashi he had known, but had forgotten that this contact had made him ritually impure, so that he considered himself ritually pure. According to Rashi, how could he have become guilty since he had not been warned that he had committed something that results in his becoming impure?
Tur HaArokh
ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא, “but it was concealed from him,” the same applies when the party asked to swear had forgotten the occurrence which he was now asked to swear about Nachmanides writes that actually, the Torah abbreviated, meaning to tell us that the sin occurred due to the party having forgotten something of relevance. There was no need to spell out the nature of the sin, seeing it was well known (except to the party who had committed it) He would only become guilty of the “sin” of being ritually unclean if he were to enter the precincts of the Holy Temple, or he would attempt to eat sacrificial meat, before either being alerted to it, or undergoing ritual purification in order to be on the safe side. Forgetting an undertaking by an oath is culpable only if in addition to having forgotten about it he had violated the terms of the oath.
Rashbam
BUT LATER THAT PERSON REALIZES GUILT. It becomes known to him now that he is impure, and he knows that he is guilty.
or if any one swear clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it be hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty in one of these things;
verse value 4819
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 80 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·he·knew" (וְהוּא־יָדַ֥ע, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "utters·an·oath" (תִשָּׁבַע֩), "to·articulate" (לְבַטֵּ֨א), "in·lips" (בִשְׂפָתַ֜יִם). The root או appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·he·knew" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root יטב ("to·do·good") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 4 words.
Onkelos
Or if a person swears, uttering with his lips to do harm or to do good — regarding anything that a person expresses with an oath — and it was concealed from him, and then he knows, he has incurred guilt in regard to one of these.
Rashi
בשפתים [OR IF A SOUL SWEAR, PRONOUNCING] WITH HIS LIPS [FOR HARM, OR FOR GOOD] — with his lips but not merely in his heart (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 2; Shevuot 26b). להרע TO DO HARM to himself, או להטיב OR TO DO GOOD to himself, — as for instance, if he swears: “I shall eat” (which is להטיב), or, “I shall not eat” (להרע), “I shall sleep” (להטיב) or, “I shall not sleep” (להרע) (cf. Shevuot 27a). לכל אשר יבטא WHATSOEVER IT BE THAT A MAN PRONOUNCETH [WITH AN OATH] whatsoever it be: — this is intended to include the case where the oath refers to something that happened in the past (e.g., he swore, “I have eaten” etc. but he has not) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 9 8; Shevuot 26a). ונעלם ממנו AND IT BE HID FROM HIM (he forgot that he had taken such an oath) and consequently he violated his oath. — All these cases come under the law of “a sacrifice of higher or lesser value” (according to pecuniary conditions), as is set forth here (vv. 6—13): but an oath which involves the false repudiation of a claim to money does not come under the law of this sacrifice but under that of a guilt-offering (v. 25).
Ibn Ezra
"To utter with the lips" — speech of the lips. "To harm" — against one who is liable; or, according to the Gaon's explanation, to afflict oneself [by fasting]. The reason for mentioning these [cases] is that one is obligated to confess [them]; but for the others, which are negative commandments, one does not confess before the priest — and the offering is the same [in either case].
Chizkuni
לאחת מאלה, “be guilty concerning one of these things.” Concerning this Rashi asks what the Torah means to tell us with these words? (Actually on verse 13, where the same expression occurs, not on this verse) he answers that the three different sins all involving oaths that are being mentioned here are being treated equally. He answers that I could have thought that the type of offering demanded would be determined by the relative severity of the sin, whereas theTorah reveals that it is determined by the economic status of the sinner concerned. For example: if the person concerned had by mistake eaten part of an offering, he basically has to atone for this by offering a sheep or female goat. If he had committed a less serious sin, by failing to testify to something he had been a witness of, he has to bring a bird offering. If his inadvertent sin consisted of swearing an oath concerning what he would or would not do, and had forgotten that he had expressed this by words that made it an oath, he will bring a meal offering as atonement consisting of about two kilos of flour.
and it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned;
verse value 1982 — וְהָיָ֥ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 34 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֥ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֥ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "that·he·shall·incur·guilt" (כִֽי־יֶאְשַׁ֖ם, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "that·he·shall·incur·guilt" (כִֽי־יֶאְשַׁ֖ם). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "about·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root ידה ("and·he·shall·confess") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·these', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהָיָ֥ה [and·it·shall·be] (26) + כִֽי־יֶאְשַׁ֖ם [that·he·shall·incur·guilt] (381) + לְאַחַ֣ת [to·one] (439) + מֵאֵ֑לֶּה [from·these] (76) + וְהִ֨תְוַדָּ֔ה [and·he·shall·confess] (426) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that] (501) + חָטָ֖א [sinned] (18) + עָלֶֽיהָ [about·it] (115) = 1982.
Onkelos
And it shall be, when he has incurred guilt in regard to one of these, that he shall confess concerning that in which he has sinned.
Ramban
AND HE SHALL CONFESS THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED. 6. AND HE SHALL BRING HIS GUILT-OFFERING. This was not the [order of the] procedure. Rather, he first brought the sin-offering and laid his hands upon it, and then confessed, similarly to that which is [explicitly] said further on, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel. Here, however, Scripture does not state “and he shall lay his hand,” because He explained previously in the case of all sin-offerings that they require the laying of hands, and similarly, in the case of freewill offerings. But He did not explain [the duty of] confession above in the case of the other sin-offerings, [although it is required in those cases as well].In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it would appear that here He said and he shall confess, because in the case of an “oath of testimony” the offering is to be brought even if the oath was taken wilfully. So also in the case of an “oath of deposit” He mentioned, then they shall confess their sin which they have done. But in the case of the sin-offering brought for transgression in error, He did not mention confession. But in the opinion of our Rabbis the expression, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned, refers to everything mentioned in this section, including the defiling of the Sanctuary and the holy food, and an “oath of utterance,” which offerings have to be brought [only] when [the sins are] committed in error, and [in the case of] all other sin-offerings [which are also brought only when the transgression was done in error, the need for confession when bringing them] is derived from here. He mentioned confession, however, [specifically] here because the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance” do not make one liable to excision [if done wilfully, unlike the sin-offering which is brought only for those sins committed in error which, if committed wilfully, incur the punishment of excision], and yet He requires confession in these cases, and [thus it follows] all the more that in the case of the fixed sin-offerings mentioned above, he must confess [since his sin, were it to be committed wilfully, would incur] the penalty of excision. Our Rabbis have said that the expression here, and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned is a general principle in the case of all sin-offerings, that they require confession. The verses written in the section of Naso, stating, and that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done, is to include all guilt-offerings [in the requirement of confession]. So it is explained in the Sifre. There the Rabbis have interpreted: “And that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess. This establishes the general rule for all those executed [by the court] that they require confession” [to achieve full forgiveness of their sin].
Rabbeinu Bahya
והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “he will confess that wherein he has sinned.” We speak about someone who was in doubt if he had committed an error and upon closer examination finds that he has indeed committed that sin inadvertently. This is indicated by the choice of the word והתודה, “that he makes himself confess, attains certainty.” Our sages (Sifri Nasso 2) say that the word teaches that every sin requires that it be confessed. The same explanation occurs elsewhere in the Sifri on Numbers 5,6 “this person has committed a sin etc.,” where the operative word is the repetition of the word נפש, meaning that by the sin he has forfeited his life. That verse is used as the classic verse demanding that every sinner is required to confess his sin in order that his guilt can be expiated. [Even sinners who are executed for their sins do not obtain atonement if they did not confess their guilt prior to execution. Achan, who was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “and he shall confess what he had sinned.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah does not report the correct sequence of the procedure involved here. The leaning on the animal prior to it being slaughtered has been omitted here. It was omitted as previously it has been made plain that before any sin offering is slaughtered the owner must lean his hands on the sacrificial animal and confess his sin. On the other hand, in the verses where the leaning is mentioned, no mention was made of the confession that accompanied this part of the procedure. According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason why the confession is made a part of the procedure here is because in both instances involving the oath the sin to be expiated had been committed deliberately, as opposed to the other instances when the sin offering is offered on account of inadvertently committed sins. According to this approach no confession accompanies the bringing of ordinary sin offerings. However, our sages claim that the word והתודה concerns all the examples of sin offerings mentioned up until now including entering holy precincts in a state of ritual impurity when it occurred unintentionally. The same applies to all other sin offerings, each one requiring a confession immediately prior to the animal being slaughtered. The reason why the confession was mentioned especially in this verse, is that the news is that the sin mentioned does not carry the karet penalty, as do the other sins for which a sin offering if they were committed only inadvertently. How much more so would a confession be required when the sin concerned would require a definitive sin offering when committed unintentionally!
and he shall bring his forfeit to Hashem for his sin which he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.
verse value 5119 — חָטָ֜א = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 77 letters. Notable word values: "sinned" (חָטָ֜א) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "for" (עַ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "or·goat·of" (אֽוֹ־שְׂעִירַ֥ת, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "ewe-lamb" (כִּשְׂבָּ֛ה), "or·goat·of" (אֽוֹ־שְׂעִירַ֥ת). The root חטאה appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חטאה ("his·sin") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'as·a·purgation·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And he shall bring his guilt-offering before Hashem for his sin that he has committed: a female from the flock — a ewe-lamb or a female goat — as a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin.
Chizkuni
והביא את אשמו, “he shall bring as his guilt offering, etc;” this offering does not have to be accompanied by a libation, but it does require that the person bringing it places his weight through his hands upon it (when confessing his guilt). (Sifra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
והביא את אשמו לה' על חטאתו אשר חטא, נקבה מן הצאן, “he shall bring as his guilt-offering to Hashem a female from the flock, etc.” Our sages called this paragraph the עולה ויורד, meaning that although the expression אשמו occurs here the nature of the offering is not the kind of offering called אשם elsewhere at all. The offering known by the name אשם is invariably a male animal and here the Torah speaks of a female animal being the guilt-offering. Why then do we encounter the word אשמו usually translated as “his guilt-offering?” The reason is that his sin or guilt is the cause of his having to bring an offering. Just as on occasion a verse in Scripture refers to חכמה, “wisdom” as לב, “heart,” seeing that the heart is the seat or cause of wisdom, so here the Torah refers to the cause for the offering and calls it by that name. The term עולה ויורד, “ascending or descending,” given by the sages to the category of guilt-offerings discussed now is that the value of the offering is adjusted to the economic circumstances of the person who has to offer this sacrifice. If a person was wealthy at the time he committed the sin but became impoverished by the time he could bring his sacrifice, the Torah bases the sacrifice on his most recent economic circumstances. The same is true in reverse. Even though at the time he committed the offense he was poor and would have qualified for a less expensive offering to make expiation, if in the interval he became wealthy, inherited money for instance, he must bring a sacrifice commensurate with his present economic status. The Torah distinguishes between the rich, the poor, and the destitute. The former has to bring a sheep or goat, the person who is poor brings either two pigeons or two turtle-doves. The destitute brings a meal-offering consisting of a tenth of an epho of fine flour and oil. The Torah is explicit concerning the value of a guilt-offering consisting of a ram, writing that its valuation is 2 “holy shekalim,” i.e. four times the half shekel every male over 20 years of age had to “donate” for the Tabernacle for expiation of his participation in the sin of the golden calf as stipulated in Exodus 30,12. The author explains what the value of these two shekalim was in Arabic currency in his time, something not very relevant to us [approx. 28 grams or 1 ounce of pure silver in our weights. Ed.] It was presumed that the two birds which the poor had to bring was worth about one tenth of that, whereas the value of the meal-offering by the destitute was worth one tenth of the two birds, i.e. 1% of the value of the “wealthy” sinner. You find an allusion to this in the missing letter י in the word עשרית האפה instead of the normal עשירית האפה when the Torah discusses this measure.
And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his forfeit for that in which he has sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, to Hashem: one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.
verse value 4722 — חָטָ֗א = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 73 letters. Notable word values: "sinned" (חָטָ֗א) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "enough·for" (דֵּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "young·pigeons" (בְנֵֽי־יוֹנָ֖ה, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "suffice" (תַגִּ֣יעַ), "or·two" (אֽוֹ־שְׁנֵ֥י). The root אחד appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·if·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root די ("enough·for") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root שה ("lamb") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 4 words.
Onkelos
But if his means do not suffice for a lamb, he shall bring as his guilt-offering for the sin that he committed two turtledoves or two young pigeons before Hashem — one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering.
Ramban
AND IF HIS MEANS SUFFICE NOT FOR A LAMB. Scripture has been lenient towards these sinners by allowing them to bring an offering of either higher or lower value. It is possible that the reason for the leniency with regard to the offering in the case of oaths [i.e., the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance”, as explained above] is because the punishment is not excision [were they to be done wilfully]. In the case of defilement of the Sanctuary and the holy food [He mitigated the obligation of the offering] because the person who did it erred whilst engaged in performing a religious duty, for the priest who eats the holy food or enters into the Sanctuary to prostrate himself or to bring an offering is engaged in performing a religious duty, and his intention is towards Heaven. Therefore even though he sinned on account of having forgotten his state of uncleanness, Scripture gave him more ways of atonement. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the reason why one [of the two birds brought by the poor man in the offering of higher or lower value] was a burnt-offering, is so that it should be offered on the altar in lieu of the fats of the animal sin-offering [brought by the affluent person]. He has explained it well.
Ibn Ezra
"And if his hand does not reach" — for the hand is what does labor and what acquires; it is an allusion to one who has nothing. "One for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering" — Rav Yitzhak said that the reason one [bird] is a burnt-offering is because he could not afford [the full offering], and perhaps an [improper] thought arose in his mind. What seems to me [more likely] is that one [bird] corresponds to the amurim — the sacrificial portions [burned on the altar] — and the second is a sin-offering in the usual manner.
Or HaChaim
ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, 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. The word ידו 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 חביבה מצוה לשעתה, 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 די שה, "sufficient to afford to offer a lamb." 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 סמיכה on the lamb, something that need not be performed on the birds, this too is no argument as the performance of סמיכה 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 קרבן עולה ויורד, 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. Torat Kohanim interprets the words "...
Chizkuni
ואם לא תגיע ידו, “if he is financially unable, etc.” the Torah does not demand that he must borrow money in order to be able to atone for his unintentional sin, and it does not require that he use the products of his special skill and bring this as an offering. But if he owns a lamb, which is what is basically required of him as an offering, but he does not have money to cover his basic expenses, he does have to bring this lamb as his offering. The sages derive this rule from the Torah having written: די שה. (Sifra on that verse) אחד לחטאת ואחד לעולה, “one of which (the two birds) as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering.” Only the blood of a bird offering that is a sin offering is brought to the altar, so that the altar has something that can be “eaten.” When a wealthy person has to bring a sin offering, the Torah is satisfied with either a female sheep or goat, seeing that there is enough meat on these animals to provide a meal for the officiating priest, and the entrails provide the ”meal” for the altar.
Tur HaArokh
ואם לא תגיע ידו, ”and if he cannot afford it, etc.” There are some sages who believe that the reason why the Torah showed a degree of leniency to financially strapped sinners by allowing them to bring an inexpensive guilt offering consisting of a bunt offering of one bird and a sin offering of another bird, is that in all of the examples concerned the sinner did not derive any meaningful personal advantage from the sin he had committed. On the other hand, someone eating chelev or eating ordinary food on the Day of Atonement, or someone performing work on the Sabbath, and a host of similar examples of sins, did derive personal satisfaction or financial benefit from them, not to mention people indulging in forbidden sexual relations, or people who have misappropriated property belonging to someone else, such sinners most certainly have to bring an offering that sets them back financially. Some of these have committed a twofold transgression, seeing that it occurred in holy precincts that were out of bounds to them. These offerings cost at least a shekel. As to the guilt offering designed to ward off punishment for transgressions of an indeterminate nature, the אשם תלוי, the conditional guilt offering, this must also be one that costs at least one shekel. It is relatively expensive, as people who are not sure they have committed a transgression are in the habit of giving themselves the benefit of the doubt. They must not think that they can do so with relative impunity. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the guilt offering for transgressions related to oaths is relatively inexpensive for people with restricted means, is that the transgressions in respect of which his offering is brought do not carry a type of death penalty such as karet even if they had been committed deliberately. The reason that this is so in ritual impurity related transgressions, is that the transgression itself was committed in the course of fulfilling a commandment. When reflecting on his words one has difficulty in reconciling them to a situation where a father was supposed to circumcise his son after the Sabbath, and he had forgotten the correct date, i.e. the 8th day, and circumcised his son on the Sabbath instead, who is guilty, and must bring the expensive sin offering according to the opinions of all our scholars. The reason might be that seeing that the performance of the commandment was not performed at the right time, and the father had not involved himself in as many preparations prior to fulfilling this commandments, he is not entitled to the leniency shown by the Torah in the other examples. שתי תורים, “two turtledoves;” the reason this person has to offer two sacrifices (two birds) is that between them the two birds correspond in some manner to the parallel offering brought by a wealthy person guilty of the same transgression, namely offerings which contain parts that are burned up on the altar, and meat consumed by the priests. In the case of the offerings consisting of the two turtledoves, the one that is called עולה, burnt offering, is all dedicated to heaven, whereas the one known as חטאת, sin offering, this is consumed by the priests. If only a burnt offering had been sacrificed, the priest performing the procedure would not have been compensated at all. On the other hand, if only a sin offering had been presented, the altar would not have received anything as no eymurim of birds are burnt up on the altar.
Daat Zkenim
ואם לא תגיע ידו די שה, “if he is unable to afford the price of a lamb, etc.” seeing that people guilty of entering sacred grounds in a state of ritual impurity or swearing a futile oath, do not derive any benefit from committing that sin, the Torah made allowances for them if they found offering a lamb as sin offering a financial hardship, and offered two alternatives depending on their financial status. No such relief is granted to people who inadvertently ate forbidden fat, blood, or who ate on the day of Atonement, (thinking it was on a different date), or people performing forbidden activities on the Sabbath for their personal benefit. Anyone who had derived personal benefit by making use of sanctified animals or vessels has committed two sins simultaneously, and is also not qualified to avail himself of what is written in this verse. He is viewed as if had tried to steal from G–d. All these people have to pay for the value of the animal offered by the priest on their behalf.
And he shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and pinch off its head close by its neck, but shall not divide it apart.
verse value 4460
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 62 letters. The shortest word is "them" (אֹתָם֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "to·the·priest" (אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "first" (רִאשׁוֹנָ֑ה), "from·front·of" (מִמּ֥וּל), "its·nape" (עׇרְפּ֖וֹ). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מול ("from·front·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'first', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְהֵבִ֤יא [and·he·shall·bring] (24) + אֹתָם֙ [them] (441) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן [to·the·priest] (111) + וְהִקְרִ֛יב [and·he·shall·offer] (323) + אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that·which] (902) + לַחַטָּ֖את [for·the·purgation·offering] (448) + רִאשׁוֹנָ֑ה [first] (562) + וּמָלַ֧ק [and·he·shall·nip·off] (176) + אֶת־רֹאשׁ֛וֹ [its·head] (908) + מִמּ֥וּל [from·front·of] (116) + עׇרְפּ֖וֹ [its·nape] (356) + וְלֹ֥א [and·not] (37) + יַבְדִּֽיל [sever] (56) = 4460.
Onkelos
He shall bring them to the priest, and he shall offer first the one that is for the sin-offering, and he shall nip its head from opposite its nape, but shall not sever it.
Rashi
והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה AND HE SHALL OFFER THAT WHICH IS FOR A SIN-OFFERING FIRST — This verse establishes the general rule that the sin-offering is always sacrificed before the burnt-offering. — To what may this be compared? To the case of an advocate (in our case the חטאת) who went in to the king to obtain pardon for his client. When the advocate has gained that pardon, then the present (עולה) is brought in after him (Zevachim 7b). ולא יבדיל [AND HE SHALL NIP ITS HEAD …] BUT SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — i.e. he nips only one organ (either the gullet or the windpipe) (Chullin 21a). עורף is the surface of the head which slopes down towards the neck); מול עורף is the part bordering on it which sees the עורף (the part next to the עורף and within sight of it) — that is, the length of the whole back of the throat (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 7: Chullin 19b).
Chizkuni
והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה, “he (the priest) is to present the offering serving as the sin offering, first;” the verse does not discuss what is offered first on the altar, but what is slaughtered (pinched) first. Any left over blood will be squeezed out on the altar. ולא יבדיל, “he must not sever the head (of the bird) completely. Only one of the vital conduits of the bird, either the one for breathing, or the one for leading to the stomach needs to be pinched.
Rashbam
ולא יבדיל; he only needs to perform the procedure on either the windpipe or the foodpipe.
And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.
verse value 2358
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 53 letters. Verse gematria: 2358 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "from·blood·of" (מִדַּ֤ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·what·remains" (וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 62: the·altar, the·altar. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "upon·wall·of" (עַל־קִ֣יר), "and·what·remains" (וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר), "shall·be·drained" (יִמָּצֵ֖ה). The root דם appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "the·altar" (root מזבח, 95x in Leviticus); "from·blood·of" (root דם, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·altar', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְהִזָּ֞ה [and·he·shall·sprinkle] (23) + מִדַּ֤ם [from·blood·of] (84) + הַחַטָּאת֙ [the·purgation·offering] (423) + עַל־קִ֣יר [upon·wall·of] (410) + הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ [the·altar] (62) + וְהַנִּשְׁאָ֣ר [and·what·remains] (562) + בַּדָּ֔ם [in·the·blood] (46) + יִמָּצֵ֖ה [shall·be·drained] (145) + אֶל־יְס֣וֹד [to·foundation·of] (111) + הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ [the·altar] (62) + חַטָּ֖את [a·purgation·offering] (418) + הֽוּא [it] (12) = 2358.
Onkelos
He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar, and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar — it is a sin-offering.
Rashi
והזה מדם החטאת AND HE SHALL SPRINKLE OF THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING [… AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD SHALL BE WRUNG OUT] — In the case of a burnt-offering of a fowl Scripture requires only the wringing out of the blood (Leviticus 1:15), whilst in the case of the sin-offering it requires sprinkling and wringing out: standing quite near to the altar, he grasps the nape and makes the blood spurt out and thus the blood spurts forth in a jet and goes in the direction of the altar (cf. Zevachim 64b). חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — These apparently redundant words intimate: if the sprinkling and wringing of the blood are done for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if it is not done for this purpose (i.e. that the officiating priest has another sacrifice in mind) it is invalid (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 9 and Rashi on Leviticus 4:24).
Chizkuni
והנשאר בדם ימצה, “and the remainder of the blood shall be drained out;” the priest walks around the side of the altar and squeezes the bird against the wall of the altar so that the blood drains by itself. The word ימצה is spelled here with the letter א at the end to suggest that the blood ends up the same way as does the blood which had been sprinkled, namely at the base of the altar.[I have not in any of the editions of the chumash or training Torah scrolls at my disposal. According to one commentary I have seen the author had the same spelling in front of him as do we, but he means that the vowel tzeyre instead of the vowel segol the result is that the meaning is as if the letter ה had been written instead of the letter א. Ed.]
Rashbam
והזה מדם החטאת; he takes hold of the body of the bird and sprinkles from a distance, squeezing out the rest of the blood; if the offering is a total offering, there is no sprinkling of the blood; all of it is simply squeezed out. (Leviticus 1,15)
And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven.
verse value 3386 — לֽוֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 50 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (לֽוֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (לֽוֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·second" (וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִ֛י, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·the·second" (וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִ֛י). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "for·him" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "he·shall·make" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שני ("and·the·second") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root משפט ("as·the·regulation") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'as·the·regulation', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 7 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִ֛י [and·the·second] (772) + יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה [he·shall·make] (385) + עֹלָ֖ה [burnt-offering] (105) + כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט [as·the·regulation] (449) + וְכִפֶּ֨ר [and·he·shall·make·expiation] (306) + עָלָ֧יו [for·him] (116) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + מֵחַטָּאת֥וֹ [from·his·sin] (464) + אֲשֶׁר־חָטָ֖א [which·he·sinned] (519) + וְנִסְלַ֥ח [and·shall·be·forgiven] (154) + לֽוֹ [to·him] (36) = 3386.
Onkelos
And the second one he shall make into a burnt-offering as is proper; and the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Rashi
כמשפט [AND THE SECOND HE SHALL OFFER FOR A BURNT-OFFERING] ACCORDING TO THE REGULATION — according to the law that is mentioned with regard to a free-will burnt-offering of fowls at the beginning of the section (Leviticus 1:14) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 18 10; Chullin 21a).
Or HaChaim
מחטאתו אשר הטא, concerning the sin which he committed, etc. In connection with the offering by a rich man the Torah writes: מחטאתו, whereas when describing the parallel offering by a poor man the Torah writes: מחטאתו אשר חטא. 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 מאחת מאלה, 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 שבועת בטוי 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 שבועת העדות as it is relatively minor. Violation of שבועת בטוי 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. The hypothesis that we could have misunderstood the intent of the Torah unless the Torah had written the words מאחת מאלה 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 מחטאתו אשר חטא were needed to prevent us from misinterpreting the words ואם לא תגיע ידו 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 tur...
Rabbeinu Bahya
וכפר עליו הכהן....ונסלח לו, “and the Priest will provide him atonement....and it shall be forgiven him.” Forgiveness will originate in heaven as the guilt will disappear together with the burning up of the sacrifice. The meaning of וכפר as making atonement occurs for the first time when Yaakov brought gifts (similar to sacrifices) to his brother Esau hoping that he would forgive him (ואכפרה פניו) for obtaining the birthright by trickery (Genesis 32,21). There is a difference between what is described as כפרה “atonement,” and סליחה, “forgiveness.” The latter means that the guilt has been totally forgiven, is now “non-existent” whereas the former is merely concerned with culpability for the sin committed. It is not within the capacity of human beings to grant forgiveness; only G’d Himself can wipe the slate clean completely. This is why David writes in Psalms 130,4: “forgiveness rests with You.” The High Priest, while initiating the process of forgiveness, cannot complete it, only G’d can. When someone was guilty of שבועת בטוי, (verse 4) “a false oath,” there is atonement only. The Torah does not add the words that “it will be forgiven him.” [Swearing a false oath is hardly an unintentional sin qualifying for total forgiveness. Ed.]
But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that in which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin-offering.
verse value 8097 — חָטָ֗א = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 25 words, 104 letters. Notable word values: "sinned" (חָטָ֗א) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "or" (אוֹ֮, 2 letters) and the longest is "young·pigeons" (בְנֵי־יוֹנָה֒, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 390: to·two, oil. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·two" (לִשְׁתֵּ֣י), "to·two" (לִשְׁנֵ֣י), "he·shall·not·put" (לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים). The root שנים appears 2 times in this verse. 21 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·if·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נשג ("afford") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root איפה ("the·ephah") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'as·a·purgation·offering', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 9 words.
Onkelos
But if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for the sin he committed one-tenth of three seahs of fine flour as a sin-offering; he shall not place oil upon it, nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering.
Rashi
כי חטאת הוא [HE SHALL PUT NO OIL UPON IT, NEITHER SHALL HE PUT ANY FRANKINCENSE THEREON:] FOR IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — a sinner’s offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished by oil and frankincense (Menachot 6a).
Ibn Ezra
"A tenth of an ephah" — the food of one man for one day.
Chizkuni
One tenth of an ephah. A commandment performed at its proper time is more welcome to the Lord than at a later time, i.e. the sinner having expected some substantial money coming his way and therefore preferring to wait with the sin offering until he can present an animal of greater worth. The same rule applies to the poor person who, although not even having sinned, promises his own worth as a donation to G-d. It is preferable that he donates one sela (or whatever the Kohen determines he can afford) rather than wait until he becomes rich and give 50 shekalim. (See Leviticus 27.2-8) כי חטאת היא, “for it really should have had the rules pertaining to a sin offering, requiring libations so that the sinner would not emerge as having actually profited. The reason why the Torah decided to forego this requirement is so that the sinner would not be able to boast about what kind of costly sacrifice he had brought in order to atone for what was, after all, only an inadvertent sin. In the case of someone who offers a sin offering after having been healed from the affliction of tzoraat, since [at least according to the written text of the Torah, Ed.] he had not been afflicted for a specific sin that he had been guilty of, and since this offering is required only in order to enable the person offering it to be able to eat of sacrificial meat when the occasion arises, this offering requires libations, as our sages have stated in the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 36.
And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part of it, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of Hashem made by fire; it is a sin-offering.
verse value 3202 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 68 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "together·with" (עַ֖ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "its·token·portion" (אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ֙, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 236: and·he·shall·take·handful, his·handful. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "fullness·of" (מְל֨וֹא). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "together·with" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 2 words.
Onkelos
He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop from it a full fistful as its memorial portion, and he shall cause it to ascend upon the altar upon the fire-offerings of Hashem — it is a sin-offering.
Rashi
חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — Here, too, the apparently redundant words intimate: if the קמץ has been taken from it and has been burnt for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if, however, this was done not for its purpose (i. e. the priest had another offering in mind when officiating) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 9).
And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and it shall be the priest's, as the meal-offering.
verse value 2914 — ל֑וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 54 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֑וֹ) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֑וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "upon·his·sin" (עַל־חַטָּאת֧וֹ, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "as·the·grain·offering" (כַּמִּנְחָֽה). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "for·him" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְכִפֶּר֩ [and·he·shall·make·expiation] (306) + עָלָ֨יו [for·him] (116) + הַכֹּהֵ֜ן [the·priest] (80) + עַל־חַטָּאת֧וֹ [upon·his·sin] (524) + אֲשֶׁר־חָטָ֛א [which·he·sinned] (519) + מֵֽאַחַ֥ת [from·one] (449) + מֵאֵ֖לֶּה [from·these] (76) + וְנִסְלַ֣ח [and·shall·be·forgiven] (154) + ל֑וֹ [to·him] (36) + וְהָיְתָ֥ה [and·it·shall·be] (426) + לַכֹּהֵ֖ן [to·the·priest] (105) + כַּמִּנְחָֽה [as·the·grain·offering] (123) = 2914.
Onkelos
And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin that he has committed, one of these, and it shall be forgiven him; and it shall belong to the priest, as the meal-offering.
Rashi
אשר חטא על חטאתו [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION ON HIS BEHALF] FOR THE SIN THAT HE HATH SINNED — Here Scripture varies the expression, for in the case of affluence (v. 6) and narrow means (v. 10) it is stated, “[and the priest shall make expiation for him] מחטאתו”, whilst here, in the case of utter destitution, it is stated מחטאתו) על חטאתו may mean: something from his sin-offering, i. e., a part of it, whilst על חטאתו implies something in addition to his sin-offering)! Our Rabbis from the niceties of the text derived from here the law that if one sinned whilst he was a rich man and set apart money for a she-lamb or a she-goat (the sacrifice prescribed for a well-to-do person; cf. v. 6), but then became impoverished somewhat, he has only to bring (purchase) from a part of it (the money) two turtledoves (or two young pigeons, the offering prescribed for the poor) and may retain the balance for his own use: if, being a poor mạn, he has set apart money for two turtledoves and then was reduced to even greater poverty, he has only to bring from a part of it a tenth of an ephah of flour; hence the use of the word מחטאתו in the sense explained above. If, on the other hand, being only of moderate means, he has set apart money only for a tenth of an ephah of flour, but became rich afterwards, he must add to it and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man. For this reason it is stated here על חטאתו — in addition to what was intended for his sin-offering (Keritot 27b). מאחת מאלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] BY MEANS OF ONE OF THESE — i. e. by means of one of the three expiating sacrifices mentioned in this section: either by means of the offering prescribed for affluence or by that for poverty or by that for utter destitution (i. e., in the case of the offerings brought for each of the three sins mentioned above (vv. 1, 2—3 and 4) the offering must be brought according to the circumstances of the wrong-doer). But why is this stated? (i. e., why does it not merely state אשר חטא ונסלח לו חטאתו הכהן על וכפר עליו since the different sacrifices have been mentioned previously)? But Scripture uses this term “by means of one of these”, because I might think that the most serious sins amongst them (i. e. those mentioned in vv. 2—3, which, if done wilfully, are subject to the penalty of כרת) should be atoned for by a she-lamb or a she-goat: the lighter ones (v. 1) by a fowl, and the lightest of all (v. 4) by a tenth part of an ephah of flour! Scripture, however, states, “[and he shall make expiation for him] by one of these” — in order to put on the same level the light sins with the most serious with regard to the duty of offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, if he (the offender) possesses the means. And, on the other hand, to put on the same level the most serious sins with the lighter in respect to the duty of bringing a tenth part of an ephah of flour as an offering in case of utter destitution (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah...
Chizkuni
והיתה לכהן כמנחה, “and it (the remnant) will belong to the priests, just as a giftoffering. All male priests are allowed to partake of it within the sacred precincts of the Temple only.
Rashbam
מאחת מאלה, in respect of either of the three sins mentioned, i.e. ignoring a call to testify, false oaths, or violating the laws of ritual purity in connection with entering the holy domain or consuming sacred meat.
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
If any one commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy things of Hashem, then he shall bring his forfeit to Hashem, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offering.
verse value 5721 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 85 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "a·person" (נֶ֚פֶשׁ, 3 letters) and the longest is "silver·of·shekels" (כֶּֽסֶף־שְׁקָלִ֥ים, 8 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "when·one·shall·trespass" (כִּֽי־תִמְעֹ֣ל), "and·sins" (וְחָֽטְאָה֙), "silver·of·shekels" (כֶּֽסֶף־שְׁקָלִ֥ים). The root יהוה appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "a·trespass" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "and·he·shall·bring" (root בוא, 81x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מעל ("when·one·shall·trespass") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root מקדש ("from·the·sacred·things·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 10 words.
Onkelos
If a person acts treacherously and commits a trespass, sinning inadvertently against the sacred things of Hashem, he shall bring his guilt-offering before Hashem: an unblemished ram from the flock, of the appropriate valuation in silver shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a guilt-offering.
Rashi
כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a). 'וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (וחטאה … 'מקדשי ה)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b). מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1). איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38). בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).
Ramban
AND HE SHALL BRING ‘ASHAMO’ (HIS GUILT-OFFERING) UNTO THE ETERNAL. This offering is called asham (“guilt-offering” — as distinguished from the sin-offering), just as He has said [here in the verse] after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt-offering. But he shall bring ‘ashamo’ unto the Eternal mentioned above in the case of the offering of higher and lower value means, “and he shall bring his offering unto the Eternal,” for that offering was a sin-offering, as He said, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering. Now it has not been explained why the name of one offering is “a sin-offering,” and that of the other, “a guilt-offering,” since they both come to effect atonement for sin! We cannot say that the reason is since the sin-offering is a female [unlike the guilt-offering which is male, and therefore the word asham which is masculine cannot be applied to the female sin-offering], for there are sin-offerings which are male — namely the goats [brought as sin-offerings in case of the public worshipping idols, or the usual sin-offering of the prince], and the bullocks [brought by the anointed priest as a sin-offering, as well as his bullock on the Day of Atonement]. Again, it cannot be said that [the guilt-offering is so called] on account of the severity of the sin [for which it is brought], for behold, the leper brings two offerings — the name of one being “the sin-offering” and the name of the other, the “guilt-offering!”It appears to me that the term asham denotes some serious deeds for which the person who did it deserves to be shameim (ruined) and destroyed because of it, similar to the expressions: ‘ha’ashimeim’ (destroy them), O G-d; the pastures of the wilderness waste away. So also: ‘Te’sham Shomron’ (Samaria shall be laid waste), for she hath rebelled against her G-d, and we are ‘asheimim — means “we are being punished.” The word chatath (sin) denotes something which has turned aside off the way, this being of the expression, every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not ‘yachti’ (miss). Now the guilt-offering for robberies, and the guilt-offering for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage would then be called asham [indicating a serious sin] because they have to be brought even for wilful commission of the sin. So also the asham (guilt-offering) of the Nazirite [which he brings for becoming defiled by a dead body, even if his defilement was caused wilfully, and is therefore deserving to be shameim — destroyed]. The guilt-offering for misusing sanctified objects, however, even though it is brought only when the sin was committed in error, yet because it concerns the holy things of the Eternal, it is called asham, because the great sin that he did makes him deserve to be shameim (destroyed) because of it, even as it is called me’ilah (treachery). The reason for the name [asham] of the leper’s offering is because a leper is regarded as dead, and thus he is shameim (ruined) and destroye...
Ibn Ezra
"Commits a trespass, a trespass" — something that was concealed from him, derived from the word me'il (cloak); the meaning is that it is a sin against the sacred things of Hashem. He brings a ram worth silver shekels — and the minimum of a plural is two.
Chizkuni
איל תמים, “an unblemished ram, according to Rashi, a two year old ram, fully mature.
Rabbeinu Bahya
נפש כי תמעל מעל וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה, ”if a person commits treachery and sins unintentionally against Hashem’s holies;” in this instance the Torah prefaces the expression מעל, “commits a trespass,” before mentioning the word חטא, “sin.” On the other hand, in the paragraph dealing with someone denying that he had received an object in trust for safe-keeping, etc., (verse 21) the order of describing the sin is reversed, i.e. first we have the word תחטא before the word מעלה. Another difference between both instances involving מעילה and unintentional sins not being described as “trespass” is the requirement to repay punitive damages, i.e. “one fifth.” The reason for all this is that here the Torah does not speak of unintentionally committed sins. There clearly was an intent to defraud either the Temple treasury or a fellow human being. Proof that the word מעילה implies deliberate wrong-doing is found in Ezra 9,2 where the subject is the mixed marriages of Jews to Gentiles. The author stigmatizes the leaders of the people for setting a poor example to the rest of the population by being the first ones to indulge in this sinful practice, calling it מעל. [One does not engage in the wholesale practice of marrying unconverted Gentiles through an error. Ed.] When the Torah uses the word חטא, however, this describes a sin committed erroneously, inadvertently. We have proof that this is the meaning of the word from Judges 20,16 ולא יחטיא, “and he would not miss (fail to hit his target).” A miss certainly would have been unintentional. When the Torah deals with trespass against holy, sacred property, where no human being suffers from the intent to defraud, the Torah mentions the nature of the sin, “trespass” first. Seeing G’d did not “suffer,” He is able to treat the sin as if it had been committed unintentionally. The verse may be translated as “a person commits a trespass sinning unintentionally, etc.” In verse 21 however, where the sinner defrauds a fellow human being the Torah emphasizes the sinful nature of the act by mentioning the word תחטא before defining the sin, i.e. “a trespass.” The noun מעל implies the sinful, deliberate nature of the act. [The author feels that the last word is the word which carries the emphasis in both instances, the first word being like an adjective though it describes the action. Ed.] It is typical of the Torah to treat sins committed against one’s fellow human being as more difficult to atone for than sins committed against G’d directly. It I also an important rule in the Hebrew language, or at least in Biblical Hebrew, that when the order of certain words is inverted there is an important message in such apparently arbitrary use of the sequence of these words. Let us consider the example of תפשום חיים or חיים תפשום, which we translate in English as “capture them alive” (compare Kings I 20,18 where both expressions are used in the same verse, and it appears at first glance as if there were no difference between the two instructions of Ben Haddad). Seeing that Ben Haddad commanded that the men in question be captured alive regardless of whether their intention had been peaceful or hostile, why did he change the wording, using the expression “capture them alive” in the event that they were peaceful, and the expression “alive you shall capture them” in the event that the men’s intentions were hostile? The meaning of the words תפשום חיים “capture them alive” is “do not only not kill them when attempting to capture them, but let them continue to live.” In the second command the emphasis on the word חיים first means that you are to “capture their lives,” i.e. to kill them. Let us illustrate what is meant by G’d reacting more sternly to wrongs committed between people than to wrongs committed by His creatures against Himself. In Genesis 12,3 G’d states that “he who curses you (Avraham) I will curse,” i.e. G’d personally will avenge Avraham’s injured dignity. By way of contrast we read in Samuel I 2,30 that “those who honour Me I will honour whereas those who spurn Me shall be dishonoured.” G’d did not say that He, personally, will dishonour the people who spurn Him, whereas He, personally, will honour people who show Him respect. In connection with Jerobam, King of Israel, who had dared offer a sacrifice to an idol on the altar he had built illegally, we find that G’d punished him immediately, making his arm lame, because he had given orders to arrest the prophet who had spoken out against the altar. G’d had failed to take visible revenge on Jerobam who had built the altar and sacrificed to idols upon it. Again we have proof of how concerned G’d is with the dignity of his creatures, in this instance “the man of G’d.” [even the ones who spurn Him. Ed.] In Kings II 6,18 where the subject is war between Aram and Israel during the days of Elisha we find that while G’d never struck the soldiers of Ben Haddad’s army with blindness although they had been worshipping idols all their lives, when Elisha asked G’d to strike them with blindness G’d obliged so that they could not capture him. Here too you see that G’d’s concern for His creature, Elisha, was greater than His concern with insults the same people had heaped upon Him. Concerning the payment of a penalty of 20% (25% respectively) for having violated another person’s trust, the Torah writes in verse 24 of our chapter וחמישתיו יסף עליו. We need to understand the sequence of the paragraph as follows: after the person to whom a deposit had been entrusted denies that he either received it or had not yet returned it, he aggravates his sin by swearing an oath that what he said was true, he ought by rights to pay many such extra 20% penalties. This explains the plural form of the word חמישתיו instead of חמישתו which we would have expected. The extra penalty would be imposed for the original refusal to pay a single extra 20%. Actually, in practice, the Torah does not impose the multiple penalty payments; however the Torah wants to be on record that strict Justice would have demanded that the guilty party now pay several times what he had to pay before he swore a false oath. [Here too we see that in practice G’d waived the penalty for the insult addressed to Him by means of a false oath, whereas the original denial vis-a-vis the wronged party did carry such a penalty. Ed]. Sifra Vayikra 21,3 commenting on the words 'ונפש כי מעלה מעל בה, where the word “against G’d” is peculiar seeing that the trespass was directed against a fellow human being, states in the name of Rabbi Akiva that all loans, etc., should have been executed with a document, witnessed, etc. The party who extended a loan without insisting on a written receipt is partly at fault for causing the borrower to be tempted to deny his liability seeing the lender could not offer proof of the borrower’s indebtedness to him. Seeing this happened, the borrower now has to have his denial of the debt witnessed by witnesses and a document. The person who entrusted his belongings for safe-keeping to a third parry without witnesses did so precisely because he did not want a third party to know anything about the whereabouts of the object. This is why he is not criticised by the Torah as having trespassed against G’d in what he did and how he did it. The word 'בה therefore alludes to the third party to the transaction described, i.e. G’d. Only He knows about it in addition to the two parties directly involved.
Tur HaArokh
והביא את אשמו לה', “and he is to present his guilt offering to Hashem.” Nachmanides explains that the reason why this offering is called אשם, “guilt,” although it is not of the same type of animal (rather a female of the species of sheep or goats and only worth one shekel, or even less for the poor who bring birds) as the ones mentioned in our verse and worth at least 2 shekel, is that it is not the same as the sin-offering of which the Torah spoke in verse 6 and it is offered as expiation of guilt. The offering mentioned in verse 6 is actually a sin offering, and the word אשמו used by the Torah there does not refer to the name of the offering, but describes the reason, i.e. the guilt of the party who presents this offering. In trying to understand why one of these types of offerings is called חטאת whereas the other is called אשם, seeing that both are designed to atone for sins committed, Nachmanides speculates that the word אשם implies a major guilt, whereas the word חטאת, related as it is to the causative החטיא, suggests that the guilty party aimed at what he should have aimed at, but he missed the target through lack of concentration or through not taking proper aim. This would explain why a more expensive offering, without allowance for sinners who are in financial distress being made is required, whereas when the basic offering is described by the Torah as a חטאת, this involves a transgression which G’d views more leniently. Misappropriating Temple property, even when using it, does not diminish its value, disregarding laws of ritual purity involving either sacred locations or sanctified food is certainly not a simple carelessness, seeing that the nature of the sites or meats demand especial care. Nachmanides continues examining all the examples of a קרבן עולה ויורד, a sin offering in which the Torah makes allowance for the economic condition of the party required to offer it, using the yardstick of the degree of negligence that is involved in the transgression. The offerings brought by a person cured from the skin disorder known as tzoraat are both referred to as אשם and חטאת, seeing that the afflicted person was considered as if dead, being completely ostracized from human society. The first offering sort of acts as protective shield against retribution that would have awaited him, the second as a sin-offering expiating, and paving the way for re-admission to society. The latter is to be worth at least two “regular” shekels. This is why it is called אשם instead. [I have restated some of the foregoing after comparing text in our editions of Nachmanides. Ed.]
Rashbam
'מקדשי ה, deriving beneficial use from something belonging to the Temple treasury, i.e. אשם מעילות.
Cross-references: Exodus 30:13; Numbers 5:8; II Kings 12:17
And he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part to it, and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering, and he shall be forgiven.
verse value 5357 — חָטָ֨א = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 75 letters. Notable word values: "sinned" (חָטָ֨א) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "to·him" (לֽוֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·his·fifth·part" (וְאֶת־חֲמִֽישִׁתוֹ֙, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 116: upon·it, for·him. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·which" (וְאֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר֩), "from·the·holiness" (מִן־הַקֹּ֜דֶשׁ), "he·shall·make·restitution" (יְשַׁלֵּ֗ם). The root על appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root חמש ("and·his·fifth·part") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·priest', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 7 words.
Onkelos
And what he has sinned against the sacred thing he shall make restitution for, and he shall add its fifth part upon it, and he shall give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
Rashi
הקדש ישלם מן חטא אשר ואת AND FOR THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED IN THE HOLY THING HE SHALL PAY both the principal and the additional fifth to the Temple treasury (cf. Keritot 26b).
Ibn Ezra
"He shall pay restitution" — he shall pay restitution for what he sinned against the sacred thing, with the addition of its fifth. This is the guilt-offering for one who acted inadvertently at first and afterward became aware.
Rashbam
ונתן אותו לכהן, the ram of this אשם he has to give to the priest to atone for him by means of this animal
And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Hashem has commanded not to be done, though he does not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
verse value 5091 — יְהֹוָ֔ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 60 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֔ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "when" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·all·commandments·of" (מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺ֣ת, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·she·shall·do" (וְעָֽשְׂתָ֗ה), "and·did·not·know" (וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע). The root עשה appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·done', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ [and·if·person] (477) + כִּ֣י [when] (30) + תֶֽחֱטָ֔א [one·shall·sin] (418) + וְעָֽשְׂתָ֗ה [and·she·shall·do] (781) + אַחַת֙ [one] (409) + מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺ֣ת [from·all·commandments·of] (626) + יְהֹוָ֔ה [Hashem] (26) + אֲשֶׁ֖ר [which] (501) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תֵעָשֶׂ֑ינָה [shall·be·done] (835) + וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע [and·did·not·know] (121) + וְאָשֵׁ֖ם [and·he·shall·incur·guilt] (347) + וְנָשָׂ֥א [and·he·shall·lift] (357) + עֲוֺנֽוֹ [his·iniquity] (132) = 5091.
Onkelos
And if a person sins and violates one of all the commandments of Hashem that are not lawful to be done, and he does not know, and he has sinned, he shall bear his guilt.
Rashi
ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to “be in suspense”); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a). ו אשם ונשא עונוולא ידע AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, “See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, “If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, “See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) “at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the ...
Ibn Ezra
"And if a soul sins" — and committed one of the negative commandments without knowing that it is forbidden, he brings a ram. The opinion of many is that this is the asham taluy [suspended guilt-offering]: he does not know whether he acted or did not act. The sin-offering mentioned at the outset [is for one who] did not know [at the time of the act] and afterward did know. Thus: the sin-offering is for one who did not know [the act was] forbidden until it was made known to him; the guilt-offering is for one who knew it was forbidden, forgot, and then remembered — or [it is] the asham taluy.
Sforno
ואשם ונשא עונו, our sages have a tradition that the Torah here speaks of an asham taluy, a guilt offering offered while the exact nature of the guilt is unclear. The person offering it is not even sure that he is guilty of an offence. Considering this state of affairs the Torah writes ונשא עוונו, he carries (the burden) of his guilt. The guilt is not spelled out precisely as it is not yet known. He may not actually have committed a sin, but this does not mean that he is free from guilt as had he been careful he would never have been in the predicament of not knowing if he had committed the specific sin he is afraid he might have committed.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “and he did not know and became guilty, he shall bear his guilt.” According to Rashi this paragraph deals with someone who may or may not have committed a sin for which he penalty is the karet penalty when it has been committed intentionally. The classic example given in the Talmud is a person who has both permissible and forbidden fat in front of him and has eaten some, believing both kinds to be permissible. When he was told subsequently that one of the two pieces of fat in front of him had been חלב, i.e. fat the deliberate consumption of which carries the karet penalty, he has to bring an offering known as אשם תלוי, a “guilt-offering that is pending;” [his culpability is “suspended” until he can be sure of what he did eat. Ed.] Another scenario described by our verse could be that of a woman in a man’s bed of whose identity he was not certain, i.e. if she was his wife or his sister. He had slept with her not having made sure of her identity. Our sages in Nazir 23 understand the words “he did not know and becomes guilty, carrying his guilt” as astounding. It is amazing that if a person who is faced with two distinct choices such as in the first example has to bring an אשם תלוי, is it not clear that if someone who did not even have two different entities in front of him is surely guilty of bringing at least such an offering? One may raise an objection to the entire line of reasoning involved here. In the earlier paragraph the party who has committed a sin in error has to bring a regular sin-offering (compare 4,28), whereas here where the person is not even certain that he has committed a sin at all the Torah refers to his offering as אשם, which has a much stronger connotation of sin than the word חטאת, a term reserved for offerings atoning for inadvertent sin. Why should the Torah give the impression that the person who does not even know if he committed a sin is guilty of something more than the person who does know that he committed a sin, but in error? The very expression אשם is related to the word שממה, wasteland, something desolate, i.e. a very negative connotation. It is called thus to remind the sinner that he has become guilty of destroying his entitlement to life, so to speak. So why treat the possible sinner as worse than the definitive sinner? Furthermore, why is the offering of the person who is aware of having sinned the female she-goat, something we characterized earlier as indicating less guilt than when one has to bring a male animal, whereas the person whose guilt has not even been established as yet has to bring a male animal, אשם, as if his sin were more severe than that of a person who knows definitively that he did commit such a sin? (The author adds that the ram has more blood than the she-goat, so that shedding more blood is symbolic of a greater sin). The answer to these questions is that once one knows that one has committed a sin the very knowledge weighs upon one and produces the guilt feelings desired by G’d. When a person is in doubt about having committed a sin altogether his conscience does not bother him so much as he tries to convince himself that he may not have committed a sin altogether. In order to bring home to the person who is not certain that he has indeed committed a sin, the Torah, by treating this “maybe sin” as if it were more serious than the definite sin, hopes to achieve the psychological effect it desires. Having achieved this result the “maybe sinner” may resort to confession of his laxity in not making certain that what he ate or whom he slept with was permissible beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is why the person described in verse 17 is called אשם as if he were someone guilty of a serious sin. This is also why the word אשם, אשום אשם appears three times in verse 19 of our chapter. The matter is comparable to what our sages explained in connection with the sin-offering on the new Moon in Numbers 28,15 where the male goat is described as לחטאת לה' as “a sin-offering for the Lord.” Seeing the Torah had not mentioned any specific sin this offering was to atone for, the sages (Shevuot 9) concluded that the meaning of the words are that only the Lord is aware of what possible sin this animal is to expiate for. A Midrashic approach (based on Sifra Vayikra 12,7-13):The author quotes Rabbi Yossi Haglili as saying concerning the words ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “here the Torah punishes a person who is unaware for his very being unaware.” From this we can only deduce that if people who were unaware of having committed a sin are held responsible for their lack of awareness, how much more so must people be guilty and face punishment when they have been aware of wrongdoing! Rabbi Yossi adds the following thought. If you want to get any idea of the degree of reward in store for the righteous, consider the case of Adam, first man. Adam had been commanded only a single negative commandment. When he violated the commandment untold number of deaths were decreed on mankind, i.e. his descendants for thousands of years. We have it on the authority of G’d Himself that when determining reward for commandments performed G’d employs a multiple of the ratio He demonstrated when He punished people for sins committed (compare Exodus 20,6). How much reward may be expected for people who abstain from violating negative commandments such as fasting on Yom Kippur, not eating sacrificial meat past the time limit allocated for it, etc., etc. Surely, by comparing what happened to the descendants of Adam because he violated a negative commandment, how much reward is in store for all the people not violating 365 commandments most of which they are capable of violating!” Rabbi Akiva draws attention to the following: The Torah writes that for a matter to be considered as definitive two or three witnesses are required (Deut. 17,6). If two witnesses suffice for a court to arrive at a valid judgment, why did the Torah bother to mention that three witnesses suffice? The reason the Torah mentions a third witness is to impose an additional responsibility on the third witness. Assuming three witnesses testified falsely that they had seen someone commit a crime at a certain location at a certain time, and it turns out that the testimony is refuted by other witnesses who testify that the first three were seen at a different location at the time in question, the third witness cannot claim exoneration by saying that his testimony never made any difference in the first place as only two witnesses had been required to establish guilt or innocence. In other words, we find that the Torah punishes anyone who even incidentally assists the sinners. If that is so, how much will G’d reward people who, while not actually performing certain commandments, enable others to do so by their actions? Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah points out that the Torah (Deut. 24,19) wrote: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a bundle in the field, you shall not turn back to take it....G’d will bless you in all your handiwork.” The Torah in this instance promises a blessing to people, who though unaware of it, were instrumental in a good deed being performed through their oversight (Sifra Vayikra 12,7).
Kli Yakar
And he did not know, and he is guilty, and he shall bear his iniquity. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Scripture punishes one who did not know, all the more so one who did know. Rabbi Yose says: If you wish to know the reward for commandments, go and learn from Adam the first man, etc… One who refrains from eating forbidden foods [pigulim], and from leftovers [notarot], and one who fasts on Yom Kippur, etc. (Torat Kohanim, Leviticus 363). One must contemplate why specifically these three were mentioned. It appears that since Adam the first man stumbled by eating something forbidden, therefore Rabbi Yose mentioned the opposite — one who is careful regarding forbidden food has three levels: First, “One who refrains from forbidden foods [pigulim]” is an all-encompassing term for abstaining from any forbidden food, for it is pigul. And not only does such a person refrain from eating forbidden food like Adam the first man did, but second, even from what is permitted, they only eat what is necessary and distance themselves from leftovers [notar], not consuming any luxury [motarot] beyond what is necessary. For the righteous person only eats to satisfy their soul for bodily sustenance alone. Third, not only does such a person refrain from luxuries, but even from necessities they distance themselves at times — referring to one who fasts on Yom Kippur in order to purify their material being in the crucible of affliction, how much more so will they be rewarded. And from eating, you can make comparisons to other human activities and needs. The reason Rabbi Yose connected his words to this passage, it seems to me, is to explain why the verse says he is guilty, he shall surely be guilty [asham hu, ashom asham] to the Lord — why these three mentions of guilt? It comes to teach that if one is guilty for eating forbidden food [pigul], all the more so would they be guilty for eating luxuries of permitted food, and all the more so will they not fast. From this, you can learn what reward awaits one who is careful in all three areas.
Rashbam
ולא ידע ואשם; the Torah discusses an אשם תלוי an offering pending clarification of the sin. This is why the Torah adds the rider על שגגתו אשר שגג והוא לא ידע, seeing that every שוגג, inadvertently committed sin, contains an element of being unaware of it, why would the Torah have to add the words “and he did not know?” [Had he known, the sin would have been deliberate and no sacrifice would exonerate him. Ed.] The error consisted of mistakenly eating something not kasher instead of picking up the similar looking kasher item next to it. At the time the person thought that both were kasher so that there was nod doubt in his mind. By the time he found out, the other piece had disappeared. If for some reason he becomes aware later that he had indeed eaten the forbidden piece of meat he will have to bring an additional sin-offering. The effect of the asham taluy protected him only until clarification of the true state of affairs.
And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt-offering, to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed, though he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven.
verse value 4029 — וְה֥וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 74 letters. Notable word values: "and·he" (וְה֥וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "upon" (עַ֣ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·flock" (מִן־הַצֹּ֛אן, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·error" (שִׁגְגָת֧וֹ), "which·he·committed" (אֲשֶׁר־שָׁגָ֛ג), "did·not·know" (לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע). The root כהן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "for·him" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "and·he" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·priest', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 10 words.
Onkelos
He shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, of the appropriate valuation, as a guilt-offering to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him for the inadvertent act that he committed inadvertently and did not know, and it shall be forgiven him.
Rashi
לאשם בערכך [HE SHALL BRING A RAM …] ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION FOR A GUILT OFFERING — i. e. according to the value stated above (v. 15, viz., at least 2 shekels). ידע והוא לא אשר שגג [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS ERROR] WHEREIN HE ERRED AND DISCOVERED IT NOT — Consequently if it came to his knowledge after a time that he has sinned, he is not atoned for by this guilt-offering which he has already bought, but remains unatoned until he brings a sin-offering. To what may this be compared? To the law of the Heifer whose neck was to be broken (as a kind of expiation when it was unknown who has committed the murder) when, on some particular occasion, its neck was actually broken and the murderer was afterwards found — when he surely has to be put to death (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 2).
Rashbam
This is why the Torah adds the reader על שגגתו אשר שגג והוא לא ידע, seeing that every שוגג, inadvertently committed sin, contains an element of being unaware of it, why would the Torah have to add the words “and he did not know?” [Had he known, the sin would have been deliberate and no sacrifice would exonerate him. Ed.] The error consisted of mistakenly eating something not kasher instead of picking up the similar looking kasher item next to it. At the time the person thought that both were kasher so that there was no doubt in his mind. By the time he found out, the other piece had disappeared. If for some reason he becomes aware later that he had indeed eaten the forbidden piece of meat he will have to bring an additional sin-offering. The effect of the asham taluy protected him only until clarification of the true state of affairs.
It is a guilt-offering—he is certainly guilty before Hashem.
verse value 1091
Insights
Verse structure: 5 words, 17 letters. The shortest word is "a·reparation·offering" (אָשָׁ֖ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "to·Hashem" (לַיהֹוָֽה, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 341: a·reparation·offering, surely, incurred·guilt. The root אשם appears 3 times in this verse. 3 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "a·reparation·offering" (root אשם, 38x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 2 and 3 words. Full calculation: אָשָׁ֖ם [a·reparation·offering] (341) + ה֑וּא [it] (12) + אָשֹׁ֥ם [surely] (341) + אָשַׁ֖ם [incurred·guilt] (341) + לַיהֹוָֽה [to·Hashem] (56) = 1091.
Onkelos
It is a guilt-offering — he is certainly liable; a guilt-offering he shall bring before Hashem.
Rashi
אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea “he has done something” (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, “he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering”, then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela’im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states “הוא” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).
Ibn Ezra
"He is guilty, guilty before Hashem" — its explanation is: he is guilty.
Sforno
אשם הוא; even though sometimes this offering is brought when no offence has in fact been committed, the party bringing such an offering is not guilty of bringing secular meat into the holy precincts, for it is after all a קרבן, an approved offering. Even if the party concerned had not been guilty of the offence he thought he might have been guilty of, 'אשום אשם לה, he is certainly guilty before G’d for being careless enough for the doubt about his specific guilt in this instance to arise.
Chizkuni
אשם, אשם, “a guilt offering, he is guilty;” according to Rashi, he has to bring the offering decreed for having sexual relations with a Canaanite servant woman who has not yet completed the procedure for becoming free; This offering consists of a two year old ram. This is clear, as only after having attained that age is this animal referred to as איל. We might have asked what special “power” does a 2 year old ram possess to have been selected by the Torah as atonement for the sin of treating Temple treasury money as if it were secular money? At that age this animal is valued at two shekels. This is why the Torah repeats the word אשם. We might have thought that a sheep, כבש בן שנתו, one year old, such as is required from someone healed from the affliction of tzoraat, would have sufficed. This is to teach us that this is not so, the Torah emphasized: אשם, he is guilty, as opposed to a person afflicted with tzoraat concerning whom no specific guilt has been spelled out. As to the question of how we could have made such a mistake seeing that in the case of the sin offering for a Nazarene or a person afflicted with tzoraat, the Torah had spelled out the word כבש, which if not stated otherwise, is a one year old sheep?This is why we need to correct the wording in Rashi, and add the words “worth two shekels,” an expression not used in the Torah accept in connection with the atonement offering or people guilty of abusing money belonging to the Temple treasury, i.e. the sin of מעילה(Compare Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 19,11, where this has been spelled out already.)
Daat Zkenim
'אשם אשם לה, “he is most certainly guilty in the eyes of the Lord.” According to Rashi, the apparent repetition of the word אשם, [although the first one is a noun whereas the second one is a verb Ed.] is meant to add that also in the case of someone who had had sexual relations with a Canaanite slave whose process of being freed had not yet been completed, must offer a two year old animal [as opposed to a one year old one which is much cheaper. Ed. Whenever the Torah uses the word איל, “ram,” without adding the age of said animal, it refers to a two year old ram. (Torat Kohanim)
Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
If any one sin, and commit a trespass against Hashem, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor;
verse value 4923
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 66 letters. The shortest word is "when" (כִּ֣י, 2 letters) and the longest is "or·in·deposit·of" (אֽוֹ־בִתְשׂ֤וּמֶת, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 7: or, or. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·Hashem" (בַּיהֹוָ֑ה), "in·deposit" (בְּפִקָּד֗וֹן), "or·in·deposit·of" (אֽוֹ־בִתְשׂ֤וּמֶת). The root עמית appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "a·trespass" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root כחש ("and·he·shall·deceive") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root עמית ("in·his·fellow") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 10 words.
Onkelos
If a person sins and acts treacherously before Hashem, and deals falsely with his fellow regarding a deposit, or a hand-investment, or robbery, or he has defrauded his fellow;
Rashi
ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of מעל בה׳ ומעלה here, where it does not speak of betraying “holy things of the Lord” as in v. 15, but of betraying one’s neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; therefore when he repudiates the deposit, he is repudiating the Third Being who is between them (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 4). בתשומת יד A CHARGE — He denies that he has put (שָׂם) money into his (the neighbour’s) hand (יד, i. e. that he has put money at his disposal) for the purpose of doing business in partnership or as a loan (cf. Onkelos and Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6). או בגזל OR A THING TAKEN AWAY BY VIOLENCE — He denies that he has violently taken something from his possession, או עשק OR HATH WRONGED [HIS NEIGHBOUR] — This refers to withholding the wages of a hired man (cf. Leviticus 19:13; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6 and Bava Kamma 103b).
Ibn Ezra
"And commits a trespass against Hashem" — he transgressed a negative commandment in a matter between him and another person. "Or a hand-deposit" — a partnership in which he placed his hand together with [the other's]. "In robbery" — by force, as in "and he seized the spear." "Extortion" — in secret. "And his fellow (amito)" — his companion; and it is possible that it means "opposite him (be-umato)," with the heh in bahenah being an added particle.
Or HaChaim
נפש כי תחטא, ומעלה מעל בשם, If someone sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words כי תחטא here? It cannot mean that the sin referred to is a denial of the sin by the sinner seeing that the Torah already wrote וכחש בעמיתו, that the sinner denied having committed the trespass, i.e. having exploited his labourer by failing to pay him. Besides, why does the Torah in this instance describe the sinner as מעל בשם, "having committed a trespass against the Lord," words which have not appeared in any of the previous examples of sins committed? Why did the Torah have to add the word בעמיתו when writing וכחש בעמיתו? The meaning of the word is not clear. Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us of three distinct wrongs committed by the sinner in question. 1) He appropriated to himself something which did not belong to him, i.e. an aspect of the sin of robbery. 2) ומעלה מעל בשם, the meaning of the words "against G'd" may imply that by trying to re-arrange the allocation of wealth to people other than those decreed by G'd, the sinner interfered with G'd's scheme of things. Hence the Torah describes him as having committed a trespass against G'd. By doing so, the sinner creates the impression that he denied G'd's justice and fairness in allocating wealth to different people at different times. It is even possible that the reason that the Torah repeats the expression, i.e. ומעלה מעל instead of merely saying ומעל includes the victim's impression of G'd's sense of justice and fairness. By the sinner having done what he did, he produces a feeling in the heart of the victim that G'd has allowed him to be victimised. This is an additional sin committed by the person described as guilty of "trespass." 3) The meaning of the words וכחש בעמיתו is that the sinner, i.e. the recipient of a loan who now denies to the lender that he had received it, accuses the righteous of being wicked when he makes it appear as if the lender was the liar. The exact meaning of the word בעמיתו is, that he puts his opposite number in the position of appearing to have stolen from the dishonest accuser. He has the nerve to challenge the person who extended a loan to him, and, instead of being grateful to him he makes him appear as a criminal. All of these three sins occur either when 1) someone has either received some deposit on trust, פקדון, or בתשומת יד, when he had a loan extended to him, the depositor not wanting a third party to know about it; or 2) when there is outright robbery, גזל;, or 3) עשק בעמיתו, when the sinner is guilty of withholding wages from his labourer and the like. When someone has found some object lost by a third party and denies it, the definition כחש בעמיתו does not apply, seeing he does not know who has lost it. This is the reason that the Torah wrote a separate verse to describe this example of wrongdoing. On the moral-ethical level, our paragraph also describes three negative effects on the soul of the sinner described ...
Rabbeinu Bahya
או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו, “or by robbery or by defrauding his fellow.” There is a difference between “robbery” and “defrauding.” This is why the Torah writes in Leviticus 19,13: “You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery.” Each of these actions is considered violation of a separate law, commandment. A person may be guilty of robbery even when he admits that he has committed this deed as long as he has not made restitution. “Defrauding” implies that the guilty party denies his guilt by claiming to have already made restitution or having paid the rent, as the case may be. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 111) determines that “robbery” means someone admitting having someone else’s property in his possession and refusing to give it back, while “defrauding” means that the accused party claims to have returned the object or money in question.
Kli Yakar
A soul if it sins and commits a trespass against the Lord Here, the sin precedes the trespass, while in the case of misappropriating sacred property (verse 15), the trespass precedes the sin. This is because this section speaks about one who denies their fellow’s money and then swears falsely. Thus, they have committed one sin against their fellow, but against Heaven their sin is doubled. For by the robbery, they transgressed God’s commandment, and then they swore falsely. This is what it means when it says, A soul if it sins, which refers to sinning against their fellow, and commits a trespass against the Lord — two trespasses as mentioned. The term “trespass” [me’ilah] is more appropriately used toward the Divine, as Rashi explains: “The term me’ilah always denotes change, etc.” For the Lord is good to all, yet the person does not return to Him according to His deeds, but changes and does not act as He has acted toward him. However, with respect to human beings, the term me’ilah is not applicable, for what good has one done for the other in the case of a deposit or robbery? But in the case of misappropriating sacred property, the text puts trespass first, because as soon as one eats and benefits from the sacred property, he has trespassed against the Lord by extending his hand to [take from] the Divine table. The term me’ilah is doubled to include one who derives benefit without actually eating, as Rashi explains. Only afterward does it say and sins, because he has also sinned against man by robbing the portion of the priests, since they take their share from the sacred offerings. By way of allusion [the Torah] says When a person sins and acts treacherously against the Lord, and deceives his fellow regarding a deposit. For every night a person deposits his spirit in the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, and even though the soul is indebted to the Holy One, blessed be He, because through sins it is pursued until it becomes liable, nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold His deposit and returns it to him as it was given to Him. And this person who denies his fellow’s deposit, even though he is not indebted to him, does not reciprocate to the Holy One, blessed be He, as He has done for him. And according to this, the soul that sins regarding his fellow’s deposit acts treacherously against a third party, namely the Lord, who commanded him to return the deposit.
Rashbam
וכחש בעמיתו, a guilt offering concerning robbery, mentioned in this portion.
or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely in it, and swear to a lie; in any of all these that a man does, sinning in it;
verse value 3264
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "in·it" (בָּ֖הּ, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·he·may·do" (אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "or·he·found" (אֽוֹ־מָצָ֧א), "lost·item" (אֲבֵדָ֛ה), "and·swears" (וְנִשְׁבַּ֣ע). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·he·may·do" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus); "from·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus); "to·sin" (root חטא, 65x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root מצא ("or·he·found") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root אבד ("lost·item") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·lie', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: אֽוֹ־מָצָ֧א [or·he·found] (138) + אֲבֵדָ֛ה [lost·item] (12) + וְכִ֥חֶשׁ [and·he·shall·deceive] (334) + בָּ֖הּ [in·it] (7) + וְנִשְׁבַּ֣ע [and·swears] (428) + עַל־שָׁ֑קֶר [upon·lie] (700) + עַל־אַחַ֗ת [upon·one] (509) + מִכֹּ֛ל [from·all] (90) + אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה [that·he·may·do] (886) + הָאָדָ֖ם [the·person] (50) + לַחֲטֹ֥א [to·sin] (48) + בָהֵֽנָּה [in·them] (62) = 3264.
Onkelos
or he has found a lost object and denied it, and swore falsely over any one of all the things that a person may do to incur guilt through them —
Rashi
וכחש בה AND DENIETH IT — i.e. that he denies על אחת מכל REGARDING ONE OF ALL these things (those mentioned above), אשר יעשה האדם לחטא THAT A MAN DOETH (is apt to do, cf. Numbers 5:7, said of a similar case מכל חטאת האדם) TO SIN and to swear falsely with the object of repudiating a money claim.
Ibn Ezra
"And swore falsely" — its meaning: or he swore falsely concerning property that someone demands from him, or [in a case involving] the witness; or concerning any matter upon which he swore falsely.
then it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he has gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found,
verse value 6407 — וְהָיָה֮ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 81 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָה֮) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֤וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·deposit" (אֶת־הַפִּקָּד֔וֹן, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 501: which, which, which, which. 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "when·he·shall·sin" (כִּֽי־יֶחֱטָ֣א), "the·robbed·goods" (אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָ֜ה), "robbed" (גָּזָ֗ל). The root אשר appears 4 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root שוב ("and·he·shall·bring·back") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root פקד ("the·deposit") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'together·with·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 4 words. 12 of the verse's 20 words begin with the letter א.
Onkelos
it shall be, when he has transgressed and incurred guilt, that he shall return the stolen object that he stole, or the fraudulent gain that he extorted, or the deposit that was deposited with him, or the lost object that he found;
Rashi
יחטא ואשם כי means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).
Sforno
והשיב את הגזלה..ואת אשמו יביא, the sacrifice does not achieve atonement until the guilty party has first satisfied the demands on him by the injured party.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והיה כי יחטא ואשם, “it will be when he has sinned and realises his guilt, etc.” The reason why the Torah repeats the words meaning “he has sinned,” using both the term יחטא and אשם is to bring home the point that in all these instances the sin is two-fold. The sinner committed a crime against his fellow man but he also sinned against G’d the Law giver. The sin discussed in this verse is an intentional one. This is why the paragraph commences with the words נפש כי תחטא instead of writing merely כי תחטא בשגגה, “if he sinned erroneously.” All the other instances in which the Torah has used the term חטא the word בשגגה, “inadvertently,” or words to that effect accompanied the term חטא (compare 4,2; 4,22; 4,27; 5,15). It is a well known fact that most sin-offerings are brought only in respect of unintentionally committed sins. There are only four instances when a guilt-offering is prescribed for sins committed knowingly; they are: 1) if someone slept with a Gentile servant girl (slave); 2) a Nazirite who defiled himself; 3) swearing a false oath as part of one’s testimony. 4) swearing a false oath concerning matters entrusted to him (compare Keritut 9). והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל, “he has to return the object which he had obtained through robbery;” It would have been sufficient for the Torah to write: “he shall give back the object obtained by robbery.” Why did the Torah add the words “which he has robbed?” The Torah taught that it is not sufficient to return the value of the object but that the actual object which has been obtained by robbery must be returned. (assuming it is still in existence and in its original condition). If, assuming we are speaking about coins, it had already become mixed with other coins so that it cannot be identified with certainty, the guilty party has to make restitution in kind (Baba Kama 66). The text of the Talmud, (omitting mentioning the divergent views expressed by some scholars) is: “if he stole (robbed) a beam and has used it in building an upper floor in his house and he now tears down the entire upper floor and restores the beam to the owner he has done more than the law requires of him.” [The school of Hillel decreed this so that the guilty party would not be discouraged from making restitution.] The type of repentance which the people of Nineveh (whom the prophet Jonah had threatened with destruction) performed was of that nature. We are told in Jonah 3,8 that the king of Nineveh issued orders to his countrymen that “they shall turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty.” Our sages in Baba Kama 11 commenting on the apparently redundant words אשר גזל, “which he obtained through robbery,” read the words as if they meant “which are similar to having been obtained through robbery.” They mean that assuming the original object has become worth less by the time the guilty party is willing to make restitution, he has to base the restitution on the value at the time he committed the crime. The same rule also applies in the case of deposits or wages withheld that someone is accused of and has first denied. The Torah also repeated the unnecessary words אשר עשק in order to make this point quite clear.
Kli Yakar
And it shall be when he sins and acknowledges his guilt. Rashi explains: When he recognizes within himself to return in repentance, etc. For every sinner never places blame on himself, and a man’s way is right in his own eyes because he justifies himself in all his ways, saying that this person owes him from elsewhere according to his imagination, or it seems to him that he has done him some injustice, therefore he withholds his deposit. Consequently, on the day that he places guilt upon himself and recognizes his error, and that he has not done good among his people, this is what it means by and acknowledges his guilt — that he blames himself, and he too instructs himself about the prohibition by recognizing his sins, and then he will certainly take to heart to return in repentance. And he shall return the stolen item that he stole — not that he should pay the value of the stolen item, but rather the actual item that he stole. And he shall pay it in its principal, etc. — For the Holy One, blessed be He, gives up what is His and does not insist if one delays bringing his guilt offering to God. Therefore, He commanded him to prioritize payment to the person, to give him first all that is his, and afterward he shall bring his guilt offering for the oath, and he shall add its fifth part to it — because his money was idle with him. The matter of the fifth part is, that the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to a person gold and many pearls so that they should distribute and give from their possessions for the sake of God to the poor of His people. And our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Ketubot 50) that one who wishes to splurge should not splurge [give away] more than a fifth, as it says (Genesis 28:22), I will surely tithe to You [aser easerenu], and the second tithe is like the first tithe. And this person, not only did they not splurge and give away a fifth of their money for the needs of the sacred or to support their fellow, but on the contrary, they stole from the sacred or from their fellow. Therefore, it is appropriate to punish them with the addition of a fifth, for the theft of the principal is atoned for by returning the stolen item, and the fact that they did not give the fifth will be atoned for by their adding a fifth.
or any thing about which he has sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more to it; to him to whom it appertains shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.
verse value 5954 — ל֛וֹ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 69 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (ל֛וֹ) = 36, double chai. Verse gematria: 5954 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "or" (א֠וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "about·which·he·swears" (אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַ֣ע, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 116: upon·it, upon·it. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "about·which·he·swears" (אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַ֣ע), "and·he·shall·repay" (וְשִׁלַּ֤ם), "and·its·fifth·part" (וַחֲמִשִׁתָ֖יו). The root על appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·whom" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "upon·it" (root על, 127x in Leviticus); "in·day·of" (root יום, 112x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root יסף ("he·shall·add") in Leviticus. First appearance of the root יום ("in·day·of") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 6 words.
Onkelos
or anything regarding which he swore falsely — he shall make restitution for it in its principal amount, and shall add its fifth part upon it; he shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day of his guilt.
Rashi
בראשו — This means the principal — the capital (ראש) money. וחמשתיו [AND HE SHALL ADD] THE FIFTH PART [MORE THERETO) — By using the plural וחמשתיו the Torah includes in this law of restitution the many additional fifths possible in respect to one principal — that if he denies the fifth (i. e. he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it, but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now has become the קרן in addition to it), and so he keeps on adding a fifth to the original fifth until the principal about which he takes an oath becomes less in value than a P’rutah (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 103a). לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).
Ibn Ezra
"In its principal (be-rosho)" — the principal itself, or its equivalent value. "And its fifths (ve-hamishtiyu)" — the minimum of a plural is two, so these are two-fifths; I will explain this further. "On the day of his guilt (be-yom ashmato)" — its meaning: on the day he turns from his guilt, he brings a ram.
Chizkuni
ישבע עליו לשקר ושלם, “about which he has sworn falsely,” the Torah here tells us of the penalty for this sin, but where did the warning not to commit this sin which we expect, appear? Answer: compare Leviticus 19,11: לא תשקרו, “do not lie!” ושלם אותו בראשו, “he shall repay the victim in full;” he does not have to pay twice the full amount, as in the case of a thief who has stolen tangible chattels. Neither does he have to repay the victim four or five times the value as in the case of a thief who has stolen an ox or a sheep (see Exodus 21.37). An alternate explanation of this verse: “he has to repay the stolen object, and in the event that the stolen goods have already passed to other hands so that we cannot determine its value, his sin offering would not be acceptable. וחמשיתיו, “plus twice an additional 25%, i.e. 20% when counted after adding the full amount of the fine, if he had only owned up to his sin after witnesses have testified to his being guiltyIf he admitted his guilt without our having independent proof of it, it suffices if he adds 25% to the value of the goods in question.י יתננו ביום אשמתו, “the robber has to make restitution on the day when he had admitted his guilt, in order for his guilt offering to become acceptable to the Lord. או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר, “or from anything concerning which he had sworn falsely;” this additional detail is meant to include תשומת יד, intangibles, such as pledges or loans which no longer can be collected from the sinner. It also includes false oaths as witness, or intangible damage caused by a non priest entering sacred precincts, which did not cause measurable damage to the Temple. In some of these examples the sinner did not enjoy a tangible or even intangible profit from having committed this sin. In such instances the Torah took this fact into consideration when assessing the penalty to be applied. This is why financially hard up people, guilty of either of these sins may attain atonement by low cost offerings, depending on how hard up they are. The reason the sages have tagged these sacrifices with the expression: עולה ויורד, “ascending or descending,” is that if a poor man delayed bringing the inexpensive offering he was entitled to due to his economic status, and he became wealthy in the interval, he cannot plead poverty as a reason for offering the low priced offering. On the other hand, if the sinner before having a chance to offer the higher priced offering became impoverished, G-d will accept the offering of a pair of birds instead of a sheep or goat, or in extreme cases even a meal offering. If someone ate (inadvertently, of course) forbidden fat from a sacrifice, or he ate any kind of blood, or he ate on the Day of Atonement, or he performed biblically prohibited kind of work on the Sabbath, or he indulged in sexual intercourse forbidden under the heading of “incest,” all sins from which he derived physical pleasure, he must bring the standard type of sacrifice prescribed by the Torah. Someone who ate from sacrificial meat that he was not entitled to eat from has actually enjoyed a dual benefit from his sin, so that he must bring a sin offering worth two shekels. Similarly, if he swore falsely not to have stolen what he has been accused of. If he is guilty of what is called: “a guilt offering valid while we are in doubt if he had committed a sin,” he first has to offer a sacrifice worth two shekels, and if it is eventually determined that he had indeed been guilty of having committed that sin, he offers an additional sacrifice worth one shekel. Although at first glance we may be puzzled by this, the reason is that the only reason why he had not known that he had indeed committed the sin in question, is because he chose to give himself the benefit of the doubt. Next time, hopefully, he will be more careful not to develop such a doubt.
Rabbeinu Bahya
לאשר הוא לו יתננו, “he shall give it to its owner.” This means that the party who had first been guilty of denial has to give both principal and premium to the injured party. Restitution is not effected through the good offices of the court but directly by the guilty party to the injured party. It is also possible that the words לאשר הוא לו mean that the money is to be returned to the party entitled to it, i.e. the heirs of the person from whom it has been taken against his will, if that person had died in the interval. ביום אשמתו, “on the day he admits his guilt.” The day in question is the day that he realizes his guilt. This day may even be the very day on which he committed the wrong. The Torah teaches us here that as long as the guilty party has not actually refunded the object in question he is considered as still as guilty as before. There are basically two categories of sin; 1) sin against the Creator not involving one’s fellow, i.e. acts of rebellion against G’d. 2) crimes committed against fellow human beings. The first category of sin originates in a person becoming estranged from his G’d by not realizing that he is a constant recipient of G’d’s kindness. Such a sinner basically commits his “violence” against himself and his life. The matter is comparable to what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 6,32: “anyone who commits adultery with a woman (consenting adults) lacks understanding; he who wants to destroy himself does such a thing.” The sinner just described committed his sin “only” against one party, i.e. against G’d. The second category of sin is that committed vis-a-vis his fellow man. For instance, he may abuse his fellow man verbally, or he may even inflict bodily harm upon him. When doing this the guilty party also sins against G’d at the same time. This is why the crime of robbery is such a severe crime. Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 33,3) said that if a person is guilty of a whole measuring cup full of sins, the one which demands justice from G’d is only the crime of robbery. The decree to wipe out the generation of the deluge was issued on account of their being guilty of robbery, indiscriminate lack of respect for other people’s property The Torah spells this out unmistakably in Genesis 613, “the end of all flesh has come before Me...for the earth has become full of violence, robbery.” We also find that when the prophet Ezekiel listed a whole slew of sins committed by the Jewish people (Ezekiel 22,2-13) that it was the sin of shedding (innocent) blood, i.e. violence which led to the city of Jerusalem’s destruction being sealed. The abuse of widow, orphan, and the poor are mentioned. The desecration of the Sabbath, spurning sacred offerings, committing the sin of slander, all serious sins, did not bring about the final decree of destruction, but robbery and murder did (compare verse 13 in that chapter). When G’d spoke about “pounding His hand” in Ezekiel 22,13 this occurred only after He had mentioned the sin of robbery, seeing that this is such a grievous sin. In the following verse G’d says: ”can your courage endure or your hand be strong in the days when I shall deal with you?” Although the commandment not to rob is the type of commandment which is linked to the positive commandment of making restitution, i.e. it can be atoned for relatively easily, the sin is very grievous as one cannot always locate the injured party when one is finally ready to make restitution and as a result the sin remains unatoned. Even if the victimised party is located but does not want to forgive the robber, he has no way of rehabilitating himself. Alternatively, the robber may have become a poor beggar and as such is simply unable to make amends. For all the above-mentioned reasons the sin of robbery is very serious although tied to the positive command- ment of making restitution. Material wealth has a way of disappearing as we know from Solomon (Proverbs 23,5) “riches grow wings, fly away heavenward like an eagle.” Even a wealthy robber may not have much time to make restitution then. Another problem with robbery is that the robber may often not even know whom he has robbed, such as when he robbed money belonging to a group of people. How can he make restitution when he does not even know to whom he owes how much? Concerning this latter eventuality the Torah wrote: “he has to bring his guilt-offering to the Lord” (verse 25), so that after he has made restitution he can at least be clear vis-a-vis Hashem. Having made restitution he is then in a position to bring the guilt-offering as spelled out in verse 26, i.e. that the Priest will provide him with atonement. There cannot be effective repentance based on words and on an offering unless it has been preceded by action, i.e. restitution. This is what the prophet Isaiah 1,16 meant when he said: “wash yourselves clean, put your evil deeds away from My sight.” He also said (verse 17) “learn to do good!” Furthermore, it is written in verse 18 of the same chapter: “if your sins be as crimson they can turn snow-white.” Job’s friends (Job 11,14) said to him “if there is iniquity with you, remove it; do not let injustice reside in your tent.” In this verse they warned Job not to be guilty of the sin of robbery either in public or in private. The first half of the verse addresses the sin of robbery which is plain for all to see, the second half mentioning his tent, speaks of concealed acts of robbery. His friends ask Job to examine if he had been guilty of that sin (which could account for the afflictions he was suffering). His friends continue by promising him relief if he found he had been guilty of this sin and had taken steps to make restitution. This is the meaning of “life will be brighter than noon, etc.” (verse 17). They add: “you will be secure, for there is hope, and entrenched you will rest secure; you will lie down undisturbed.” His friends promise him that he will be secure both in public and in private. Even when you find yourself in difficulty you will not have cause to be afraid. David echoes similar sentiments when he says in Psalms 51,6: “I have only sinned against You (G’d).” David implies that he is free of such sins against his fellow man as robbery or sins related to it. We find that David offered a similar prayer on another occasion (Psalms 19,13) “who can be aware of errors? Clear me of unperceived guilt.” David did not pray to be protected against sins he was aware of. He wanted relief only from sins committed unwittingly in circumstances where no one had seen him commit them and which he did not remember having committed. He implied that he had been careful not to become guilty of deliberate sins. It is a well known fact that he who is careful to avoid sinning will have his reward stored up by G’d; this is what Isaiah 40,10 referred to when he said: “see his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The same sentiment is echoed by the words (Psalms 19,12) “Your servant pays them heed; in obeying them there is much reward.”
Rashbam
ביום אשמתו, when he confessed and promised not to sin again in respect to any or several of the above mentioned offences, i.e. denial of things given to him in trust, open robbery, abusing his position of authority unfairly, or appropriating things lost by another Jew when he was aware of the owner of the item in question.
And he shall bring his forfeit to Hashem, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt-offering, to the priest.
verse value 2394
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 44 letters. Verse gematria: 2394 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "ram" (אַ֣יִל, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·his·penalty" (וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמ֥וֹ, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·his·penalty" (וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמ֥וֹ). The root אשם appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "to·the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "he·shall·bring" (root בוא, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 6 words. Full calculation: וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמ֥וֹ [and·his·penalty] (754) + יָבִ֖יא [he·shall·bring] (23) + לַיהֹוָ֑ה [to·Hashem] (56) + אַ֣יִל [ram] (41) + תָּמִ֧ים [without·blemish] (490) + מִן־הַצֹּ֛אן [from·the·flock] (236) + בְּעֶרְכְּךָ֥ [in·your·valuation] (312) + לְאָשָׁ֖ם [as·a·reparation·offering] (371) + אֶל־הַכֹּהֵֽן [to·the·priest] (111) = 2394.
Onkelos
And his guilt-offering he shall bring before Hashem: an unblemished ram from the flock, of the appropriate valuation, as a guilt-offering, to the priest.
Ibn Ezra
"According to your valuation (be-erkekha)" — as [established] at the outset; and he added fifths because this guilt-offering involves intentional [wrongdoing]. It is the view of an individual that this too is a suspended guilt-offering (asham taluy).
Targum Yonatan
And he shall bring an oblation for his trespass to the presence of the Lord; a male unblemished from the flock, according to its estimation for the trespass, (shall he bring) unto the priest.
And the priest shall make atonement for him before Hashem, and he shall be forgiven, concerning whatsoever he does so as to be guilty thereby.
verse value 2756 — יְהֹוָ֖ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 2756 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "to·him" (ל֑וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "which·he·does" (אֲשֶֽׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה, 7 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·incur·guilt" (לְאַשְׁמָ֥ה). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "the·priest" (root כהן, 195x in Leviticus); "for·him" (root על, 127x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·him', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְכִפֶּ֨ר [and·he·shall·make·expiation] (306) + עָלָ֧יו [for·him] (116) + הַכֹּהֵ֛ן [the·priest] (80) + לִפְנֵ֥י [to·face·of] (170) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + וְנִסְלַ֣ח [and·shall·be·forgiven] (154) + ל֑וֹ [to·him] (36) + עַל־אַחַ֛ת [upon·one] (509) + מִכֹּ֥ל [from·all] (90) + אֲשֶֽׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה [which·he·does] (886) + לְאַשְׁמָ֥ה [to·incur·guilt] (376) + בָֽהּ [in·it] (7) = 2756.
Onkelos
And the priest shall make atonement for him before Hashem, and it shall be forgiven him — for any one of all the things that he did to incur guilt through it.
Ibn Ezra
"To be guilty thereby (la-ashmah vah)" — a noun from the qal stem, standing in place of the verbal noun.
Chizkuni
לאשמה בה, “to become guilty thereby.” The only exception to this rule is if the sinfully acquired property is less than the lowest valued coin, called prutah (Compare Torah sh’leymah on this item 236 on our verse).
Onkelos
Rashi
Ramban
Ibn Ezra
Or HaChaim
Rabbeinu Bahya
Tur HaArokh
Daat Zkenim