Parshat Vayikra Answers

VaYikra 5725
Alef.
 Chapter 4, v. 2, where “כי” is used, is describing the category in general. “When” someone does something that qualifies for a sin offering…The word reflects the inevitability of someone, anyone eventually doing something that leads to the bringing of a sin offering. The verses following describe specific categories of individuals and the procedures connected to the sin offering vary depending upon the identity of the sinner. Therefore “אם”, “if” becomes a more appropriate introductory word. The reason why the case of the “נשיא" (prince) is introduced by the word "אשר" is explained in the Gilayon for VaYikra 5714.¹ In section Gimel of that Gilayon, the view of R. Yochanan in Horiyot 10b, upon which RaShI bases his comment, is presented, with “אשר” leading to the word “אשרי” (happy) with the connotation that the generation whose political leader is prepared to admit and regret a mistake is indeed fortunate. MaLBIM suggests that the specific connotation of “אשר” is that in addition to the situation being conditional, it is one that we are desirous of occurring, i.e., in this case, that the political leader possesses a moral consciousness and religious sensibility. The resulting difference between the Rabbinic approach and that of MaLBIM becomes one where the former is describing the emotional feeling that results from having the right kind of leader, whereas the latter is concerned with the difference between a “neutral” conditional situation and one that is “desireable.”
Beit.
The question that arises for both RaMBaN and R. SR Hirsch is the connotation of the word “נפש” with respect to the inadvertent sin. RaMBaN emphasizes that regardless of why a person sins, even when it is inadvertent, an imperfection is left upon the soul, something that hopefully is expatiated by the sacrifice intended to achieve atonement. R. SR Hirsch understands “נפש” as calling attention to a lack of diligence upon the individual. Had he been as careful as the religious life calls upon him to be, then inadvertent sin, let alone deliberate sin, could never occur. The sacrifice atones for this lack of care that led to the sin.

Gimel.
1) The difficulty in the verse is that while at the outset it is stated that we are talking about an inadvertent sin on the part of the Priest, we go on to mention “אשמת העם”, the sin of the people.

2)  RaShBaM assumes that since one of the roles of the Priest is to teach the people the precepts of the Tora, that his inadvertent sin entailed teaching them incorrectly. ShaDaL takes a more metaphysical approach by suggesting that the people are held responsible for the sins of their leaders, much like in certain instances, children are held accountable for the sins of their fathers. It is apparently assumed that a community ends up with leaders that are a reflection of themselves, in the spirit of (Devarim 16:18):

 יח) שפטים ושטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך אשר יקוק אלקיך נתן לך לשבטיך ושפטו את העם משפט צדק:

)Judges and enforcement officials give to yourselves…( Consequently, the sins of the leaders are also considered the sins of the followers.  

3)    In Avimelech’s response to God, he implies that while he is the only one who has sinned by taking Sara who it turns out is Avraham’s wife, his entire nation is at risk as the result of his sin. As opposed to assuming that Avimelech is speaking idiosyncratically or in an exaggerated fashion, ShaDaL understands that he is declaring an objective truth.  

Daled.

1)    While instructing someone to do the wrong thing might be a violation of (VaYikra 19:14) “…before a ‘blind’² person do not place a stumbling block…”, this is not the type of sin that results in having to bring a sin offering.³ From the perspective of the people, the rule “Ein Shliach LeDevar Aveira” (there is no surrogacy with respect to sinful behavior, i.e., a sinner cannot excuse himself by saying that someone else told him to do so. One is expected to assume responsibility for his own mistakes.

2)    If 4:3 would have simply stated “והקריב על חטאתו פר בן בקר” then there would be no basis for the Sifra’s comment. However the addition of “ חטאאשר” places emphasis on the act of the Kohen, as opposed to the act of the people who might have followed his instruction.

Heh.

1)   In the other instances of Korban Chatat, a Kohen who is not among the sinners offers the sacrifice—v. 16, 25, 30, 34. Yet in the instance of the sin of the “Anointed Kohen”, i.e., the Kohen Gadol, the text says that he himself offers up the sacrifice.

2)    Meshech Chachma notes that with regard to the “Anointed Kohen” the phrases “וכפר עליו” or “וכפר בעדו” that appear by the other cases—v. 20, 26, 31—do not appear, suggesting that the entire matter is kept “close to the vest.” 

Vav.

Perhaps RaMBaM learns that once the “Anointed Kohen” is involved directly in any part of the Avoda associated with the Chatat process, then he becomes the antecedent of any further mention of Kohen in that particular section. Therefore if “כהן המשיח” appears in v. 5, then subsequent references in v. 6, 7, 10 must be to the same individual. However, in the case of the “Nasi” or the “Nefesh Achat” since “Anointed Kohen” is never explicitly mentioned, then a different type of Kohen could be referred to in v. 25-6, and 30-1, 34-5. Of course that opens up the possibility that in the case where the entire people have sinned, v. 13 ff., that the “Anointed Kohen” also does the entire Avoda since v. 17 and 20 could relate back to v. 16.
Zayin.
R. David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary on VaYikra supports the Rabbinic interpretation reflected in RaShI, i.e., Eida, Adat Yisrael= Sanhedrin with the following proofs, among others:

במדבר פרק י

(ג) ותקעו בהן ונועדו אליך כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד:

Since the entire people could not fit into the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, representatives of the people, i.e., the Sanhedrin, must be whom we are speaking about.  

במדבר פרק כז

(כא) ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ושאל לו במשפט האורים לפני יקוק על פיו יצאו ועל פיו יבאו הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה:

Since “the entire Jewish people”  have already been mentioned, the reference to “the entire congregation” must be to a representative body, i.e., the Sanhedrin.

במדבר פרק כה

(ו) והנה איש מבני ישראל בא ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת בני ישראל והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד:

Since a significant portion of the people had become involved in the sin of Pe’or (BaMidbar 25:1-5), it would be impossible to say that the entire congregation were witnesses to what Zimri and Kozbi were doing. Consequently it makes more sense to say that the text is referring to the Sanhedrin.

Chet.

ויקרא פרק ד

(יג) ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל ועשו אחת מכל מצות יקוק אשר לא תעשינה ואשמו:

The contrast between the earlier verb “ישגו” (they erred)  with respect to “עדת ישראל” and “ועשו” (and they did) in terms of the “קהל" suggests that the Sanhedrin are considered to have sinned short of actually doing anything in terms of concrete actionsà they merely publicized a decision even if they themselves did not act upon it, and are already considered in need of offering a sin offering.

Tet.
1)

 ויקרא פרק א

(א) ויקרא אל משה

     וידבר יקוק אליו מאהל מועד לאמר:

The problem that the commentators are dealing with is the fact that in the initial phrase of the verse, we are  told neither Who is Doing the Calling  nor from where the calling is coming. These two facts are contained in the verse’s concluding phrase, an order that is atypical for Biblical verses.

2)    R. Heidenheim suggests that since the true content of a message is associated with the verb “דבר”, with “קרא” serving only as an invitation to the subsequent content of the Revelation. Moshe required such an invitation whenever the Cloud of the Divine Presence Filled the Tent of Meeting, indicating that no one was to enter unless called. Therefore the first part of the verse describes only the invitation to Moshe to receive Revelation, while the second part establishes the principle that all such Revelations, this one as well as those that followed, whereby content was conveyed to Moshe by God, issued from the Tent of Meeting.