Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 6:23/רמב"ן על ויקרא ו׳:כ״ג

אוְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיס מִדַּם חַטָּאת הַחִיצוֹנָה לִפְנִים פְּסוּלָה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו':כ"ג). וּכְפִי הַדַּעַת הַזּוֹ מַה שֶׁאָמַר "לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ" אֵינוֹ כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי נִפְסְלָה בַּהֲבָאָה זוֹ, וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה הַפְּסוּל שֶׁלָּהּ הִיא נִשְׂרֶפֶת. אֲבָל אָמַר "לְכַפֵּר" שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים עַל דַּעַת לְכַפֵּר, שֶׁיַּזֶּה מִמֶּנָּה שָׁם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת פְּנִימִית, אע"פ שֶׁלֹּא כִּפֵּר בָּהּ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הִזָּה מִדָּמָהּ כְּלוּם, נִפְסְלָה מִשְּׁעַת כְּנִיסָה וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָהּ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁלֹּא לְהַזּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה כְּלָל, שֶׁתְּהֵא כְּשֵׁרָה. וּכְדִבְרֵי ר' שִׁמְעוֹן (זבחים פב) אֵינָהּ פְּסוּלָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כִּפֵּר בְּדָמָהּ, שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ הַזָּאוֹת כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת פְּנִימִית, וּלְכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב "לְכַפֵּר", לֹא שֶׁכִּפְּרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא הֵבִיא מִדָּמָהּ לְכַפֵּר בָּהּ וְכִפֵּר כְּפִי מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ. וּפֵרוּשׁ "לִפְנִים" שֶׁהִכְנִיס הַדָּם לַהֵיכָל. וְכֵן אִם הִכְנִיס מִדַּם פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וְהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר וּשְׂעִירֵי ע"ז לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, שֶׁכֻּלָּן לִפְנִים מִמְּקוֹמָן הִכְנִיסָן וּפְסוּלִין. וְאָמַר "מִדָּמָהּ" שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ פּוֹסֵל, שֶׁאִם קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וְהִכְנִיס אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִפְנִים פְּסוּלָה (שם). וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט אֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בַּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת שֶׁצִּוָּה כְּבָר בִּשְׂרֵפָתָן וּבָא כָּאן לִתֵּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתָן, כִּי הַפָּרָשָׁה לְהַשְׁלִים דִּינֵי הַחַטָּאוֹת. וְזֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַ' יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ח ח) וּבִזְבָחִים (שם):

1AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,”⁵² sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon,⁶³ it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar].⁶⁴ It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest,⁶⁵, Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”⁶⁶, Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols,⁶⁷ namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.By way of the plain meaning of Scripture,⁶⁸ outer sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of outer sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “inner sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which is regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded,⁶⁹ and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them,⁷⁰ for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings.⁷¹ sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to inner sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim⁷² 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.⁷³