Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 1:4/רמב"ן על ויקרא א׳:ד׳

אוְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, כִּי מָצָאנוּ "וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הַפָּר" (שמות כט י), "וְסָמְכוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֶת יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הָאָיִל" (שם טו), וְדָרְשׁוּ בּוֹ יְדֵי כָּל יָחִיד וְיָחִיד, וְהִנֵּה הִיא בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. וּבְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְפֹרָשׁ "וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר" (ויקרא ט"ז:כ"א), וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָּתַב בְּכָל שְׁאָר הַסְּמִיכוֹת "אֶת יָדוֹ". וְאוּלַי לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ מַה שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ (מנחות צג), "יָדוֹ" וְלֹא יַד שְׁלוּחוֹ, כִּי שֶׁמָּא הָיָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע "יָדָיו" לְהָבִיא אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְלֹא נְמַעֵט בּוֹ הַשָּׁלִיחַ, אֲבָל עַכְשָׁו שֶׁהַסְּמִיכָה בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, לֹא כָּתַב לְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט הַשָּׁלִיחַ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁאָר הַמְּקוֹמוֹת, לֹא נָדוּן כֵּן בִּסְמִיכָה. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (אחרי פרשה טז כא) "וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו" (ויקרא טז כא), מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַסְּמִיכָה בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם, בִּנְיַן אָב לְכָל הַסְּמִיכוֹת שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם:

1AND HE SHALL LAY HIS HAND. This means his two hands, for we find it stated: and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock;⁵⁶ and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon the head of the ram,⁵⁷, Verse 15. and the Rabbis interpreted it to mean: “the hands of each and every individual.”⁵⁸ Thus [it is clear that] both hands were required for it. In the case of the goat designed to be sent [to Azazel] it is expressly stated, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat.⁵⁹ If so, I do not know why Scripture wrote “his hand” [in the singular] in all other cases of the laying of hands. Perhaps it is for the purpose of deriving therefrom what the Rabbis have interpreted:⁶⁰ “His hand — and not the hand of his proxy.” For had it been written “his hands” [in the plural we would have interpreted it] to require the laying of both hands, and we would not have been able to exclude the proxy. But now that [we derive from other verses that] both hands must be laid upon the offering, [we must conclude that] He only wrote the singular [indicating the hands of only one person], to exclude a proxy, for although a man’s proxy is like the man himself⁶¹ in all other places, we should not consider him so in the case of the laying of hands. In Torath Kohanim we find:⁶² 4:4. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands.⁵⁹ This teaches that the laying of hands upon the offering must be done with both hands, and forms the general rule for all cases of laying of hands, that they be done with both hands.”

בוְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו עַל מָה הוּא מְרַצֶּה לוֹ, אִם תֹּאמַר עַל כָּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת ב"ד אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם אוֹ מַלְקוּת, הֲרֵי עָנְשָׁן אָמוּר, הָא אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה אֶלָּא עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לָאו שֶׁנִּתָּק לַעֲשֵֹה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא א':ד'). וּבָרַיְתָא הִיא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ד ח). וַאֲנִי תָּמֵהַּ, וְכִי הֵיכָן עָנְשָׁן אָמוּר, כִּי הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת בַּשּׁוֹגְגִין הֵן מְרַצִּין. וְנוּכַל לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּכַפְּרוּ עַל חַיָּבֵי מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שׁוֹגְגִין וְעַל חַיָּבֵי מַלְקוּת שׁוֹגְגִין וְעַל חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת ב"ד שׁוֹגְגִין בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם חַטָּאת, כְּגוֹן מַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וּמְקַלֵּל, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַחַטָּאת מְכַפֶּרֶת בְּחַיָּבֵי כְּרֵתוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין. וְאוּלַי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ הַכָּתוּב בְּחַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת ב"ד וּבְחַיָּבֵי כְּרֵתוֹת עָנְשָׁן בְּמֵזִיד וּבְשׁוֹגֵג, וּפֵרֵשׁ בְּחַיָּבֵי מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם עָנְשָׁן בְּמֵזִיד לְמִיתָה וּבְחַיָּבֵי לָאוִין לְמַלְקוּת וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ בָּהֶם שׁוּם עֹנֶשׁ בְּשׁוֹגֵג, נִרְאָה לָהֶם לַחֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל הָעֹנֶשׁ שֶׁבָּהֶם פֵּרְשׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב, כִּי לָמָּה יְפָרֵשׁ עָנְשָׁן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ בְּמֵזִיד וּבְשׁוֹגֵג וִיפָרֵשׁ עֹנֶשׁ הָאֲחֵרִים בְּמֵזִיד וְלֹא יְפָרֵשׁ אוֹתוֹ בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְיֹאמַר שֶׁיְּהֵא מְחֻיָּב לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן עוֹלָה, וּלְכָךְ רָאוּ שֶׁאֵין בְּחַיָּבֵי מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם וּבְחַיָּבֵי מַלְקוּת אֶלָּא עָנְשָׁן הַמְפֹרָשׁ בָּהֶן בְּמֵזִיד, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹגֵג אֵין עֲלֵיהֶם שׁוּם נְשִׂיאוּת חֵטְא וְאֵין צְרִיכִין רִצּוּי כְּלָל. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ "כְּבָר עָנְשָׁן אָמוּר", שֶׁכָּל הָעֹנֶשׁ שֶׁרָצָה לְהַטִּיל עֲלֵיהֶם כְּבָר אֲמָרוֹ הַכָּתוּב, אֲבָל עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הַנִּתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה הַמְּזִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּיר בָּהֶם שׁוּם עֹנֶשׁ, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָנֵשׁ בָּהֶם, בָּזֶה יֵרָצֶה בָּעוֹלָה הַזּוֹ אִם יְבִיאֶנָּה בְּנִדְבַת נַפְשׁוֹ. וְיִתָּכֵן לוֹמַר כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּיר בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַנְּדָבָה "לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג" כַּאֲשֶׁר בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַחֵטְא, וְאָמַר "וְנִרְצָה", הָיָה לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּמַּשְׁמָעוּת הַזֶּה שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר עַל הַמְּזִידִים שֶׁאֵינָם רְצוּיִים לְפָנָיו, כִּי הַשּׁוֹגֵג אע"פ שֶׁחָטָא רְצוּי הַשֵּׁם הוּא, אִם כֵּן אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עַל הַמְּזִידִים זוּלָתִי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא נִזְכַּר בָּהֶם עֹנֶשׁ, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָם רְצוּיִים לַמֶּלֶךְ בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁעָבְרוּ עַל מִצְוָתוֹ, וּבַמֶּה יִתְרַצּוּ אֶל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶם, בַּדּוֹרוֹן הַזֶּה. וְרָאִיתִי בְּאַגָּדָה בְּוַיִּקְרָא רַבָּה (ז ג), תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי, אֵין הָעוֹלָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵרַת הַלֵּב. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי, מִקְרָא מָלֵא הוּא, "וְהָעוֹלָה עַל רוּחֲכֶם הָיֹה לֹא תִהְיֶה" (יחזקאל כ לב), הָעוֹלָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הָעוֹלָה עַל רוּחֲכֶם. וְכֵן בְּאִיּוֹב הוּא אוֹמֵר, "וְהֶעֱלָה עֹלוֹת מִסְפַּר כֻּלָּם כִּי אָמַר אִיּוֹב אוּלַי חָטְאוּ בָנַי וּבֵרֲכוּ אֱלֹהִים בִּלְבָבָם" (איוב א ה), הָדָא אָמְרָה אֵין הָעוֹלָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל הִרְהוּרֵי הַלֵּב. וְהַטַּעַם שֶׁלְּפִי שֶׁהוּא חֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה' לְפִיכָךְ כֻּלָּהּ כָּלִיל לַה'. וּלְשׁוֹן "וְנִרְצָה לוֹ" יַחְזֹר אֶל הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד הַנִּזְכָּר, שֶׁיִּתְרַצֶּה לוֹ בַּקָּרְבָּן הַזֶּה לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו, מִלְּשׁוֹן "וּבַמֶּה יִתְרַצֶּה זֶה אֶל אֲדֹנָיו" (שמואל א כט ד), "וְאוֹר פָּנֶיךָ כִּי רְצִיתָם" (תהלים מד ד), וְכֵן רַבִּים. וְיִתָּכֵן כִּי "וְנִרְצָה" כִּנּוּי לַחֵטְא, שֶׁנִּרְצָה לוֹ חֶטְאוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו, מִלְּשׁוֹן "כִּי נִרְצָה עֲוֹנָהּ" (ישעיהו מ ב), "עַד רָצְתָה הָאָרֶץ אֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתֶיהָ" (דהי"ב לו כא), "וְהֵם יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֹנָם" (ויקרא כו מג), לְשׁוֹן הַשְׁלָמָה. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁהוּא כָּעִנְיָן הָרִאשׁוֹן, כְּאִלּוּ הֶעָוֹן רָצוּי לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם, לֹא יִחַר אַפּוֹ בּוֹ עוֹד:

2AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³ and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴ (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵ in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶ 4:5.But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷ violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸ require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹ just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰ For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶ 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³ and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴ (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill.It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹ the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹ and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷² With this gift!I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³ of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴ “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵ [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶ — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷ This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d.The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸ refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) unto his lord?;⁷⁹ and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰ and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹ until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸² and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³ — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.