1) (Vayikra 4:2): "Speak to the children of Israel": The children of Israel bring a sin-offering, but gentiles do not. It goes without saying that (they do not bring a sin-offering) for (transgression of) a mitzvah not binding on the sons of Noach, but (they do not bring it) even for one that is binding upon them. "the children of Israael": This tells me only of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive that proselytes and bondsmen are included? From (Vayikra 4:2): "A soul if he sin." 2) "unwittingly": He brings it only for unwitting (transgression), but not for intentional (transgression). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?), viz.: If in respect to the grave sin of idolatry, (where one would expect that a sin-offering should be brought for intentional transgression to help expiate the sin), intentional sin was not likened to unwitting sin, (a sin-offering being brought for the latter [see Bamidbar 15:27] but not for the former), should it not follow that with lesser mitzvoth intentional sin should not be likened to unwitting sin, (and a sin-offering not be brought for the former? [Why, then, the exclusion clause?]) — But that is just the point! If (atonement) for the grave sin of intentional idolatry is delayed until Yom Kippur, (a sin-offering not being able to atone for it), would you put off (possible atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth until Yom Kippur? Let him bring a sin-offering and gain atonement immediately! It is, therefore, written (in respect to lesser mitzvoth): "if he sin unwittingly." He brings (a sin-offering) for unwitting sin but not for intentional sin. 3) — But, in that case, should it not follow by kal vachomer that (a sin-offering not be brought for intentional) idolatry? (Why the exclusion clause? [Bamidbar 15:27]), viz.: If (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth is delayed until Yom Kippur, (not being susceptible of atonement with a sin-offering), should not (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) the grave sin of idolatry be delayed until Yom Kippur? — Not so — if we are lenient with the lesser mitzvoth, (no sin-offering being required before Yom Kippur), should we be lenient with the grave sin of idolatry? Rather, let a sin-offering be brought (for intentional violation), and "keep things in abeyance" for him until (the complete atonement of) Yom Kippur. Therefore "unwittingly" must be stated both in respect to (transgression of other) mitzvoth and in respect to idolatry. 4) Why is "unwittingly" written both in respect to "se'ir" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and "se'irah" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if "unwittingly" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, "unwittingly" must be written both in respect to "se'ir" and "se'irah." 5) (He must bring a sin-offering (Bamidbar 4:2): ["if he sin unwittingly of]) all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see Bamidbar 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see Bamidbar 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see Bamidbar 5:2) (for all of which he brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). 6) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (only negative commandments are being referred to.) ("which may not be done" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: "which may not be done." But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd," to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was "surprised" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: "And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.") 7) "which may not be done": I might think (that one must bring a sin-offering) both for things intentional violation of which makes him liable to kareth, and for things intentional violation of which does not make him liable to kareth; it is, therefore, written (in respect to idolatry, Bamidbar 15:29): "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly." All unwitting sins are being likened to idolatry. Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression. 8) But something (i.e., the bringing of a sin-offering), which you derive in one "way" (i.e., from idolatry), you must derive in all the ways that obtain with it, viz.: Just as idolatry is characterized by not being permitted once it is forbidden, and by nothing in its class being permitted, and by being liable to judicial death penalty, and by being forbidden to the descendants of Noach as to Israel — so, include (in liability for a sin-offering) only those sins which are like it, e.g., (a man's) lying with a man or lying with a beast, which is not permitted once forbidden, where nothing in its class is permitted, where one is liable to judicial death penalty, and where there is liability for descendants of Noach as for Israel — though there be (a stringency factor) in (a man's) lying with a man, which does not obtain in lying with a beast, and in lying with a beast which does not obtain in lying with a man, viz.: It is forbidden for a man to lie with a man, whether with his own kind (a Jew with a Jew) or with another kind (a Jew with a gentile); but it is permitted (for a man to mate) a beast with its kind though forbidden (to mate it) with a different kind. In one man's lying with another, a minor (below the age of nine) is not equated with an adult (for liability). In his lying with a beast, a young animal (that is lain with) is equated with a grown one. (These differences, however, do not affect the bringing of a sin-offering, for "idolatry" remains the parameter.) 9) ["of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": "mitzvoth" is mentioned in this context four times, and "of all," three times, a signal for seven inclusions for the bringing of a sin-offering, even if some of the aforementioned elements do not obtain. Those sins closest to the gravity of idolatry will be first included.] "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) one's mother, with his father's wife, and with his daughter-in-law, which, like idolatry, are liable to stoning; and, in addition, with his daughter, his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter, (which are liable to death by burning.) 10) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his wife's daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, which, like idolatry, once forbidden, were not permitted; and, in addition, (illicit relations with) his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law's mother, (the last two being derived from "mother-in-law" and not explicitly stated.) 11) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) a betrothed maiden and desecration of the Sabbath, (which though liable to stoning, like idolatry, have certain attenuations.) There is that (i.e., an attenuating factor) in a betrothed maiden which is not in the Sabbath, and that in the Sabbath which is not in a betrothed maiden. A betrothed maiden has a "permit" (divorce, or death of the betrothed), and Sabbath has no "permit." Something in the class of "Sabbath" (i.e., Sabbath Temple sacrifice) is permitted; nothing in the class of "a betrothed maiden" is permitted. 12) "Of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (illicit relations with) a married woman and with a niddah, (where there is no liability to stoning and where there are attenuating factors). There is that (i.e., a stringency factor) in a married woman which is not in a niddah, and that in a niddah which is not in a married woman. One who has illicit relations with a married woman is liable to judicial death penalties; one who has illicit relations with a niddah is not. A married woman is permitted to her husband; a niddah is forbidden to all men. 13) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include (relations with) his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, (which are of lesser gravity than relations with a married woman and a niddah, being permitted to all men other than the relatives in question). There is that (an attenuating factor) in his brother's wife which is not in his father's brother's wife, and there is that in his father's brother's wife which is not in his brother's wife. His (deceased) brother's wife, if she has children (from him), she is forbidden (to the brother); if she has no children, she is permitted; his father's brother's wife — Whether or not she has children (from her [deceased] husband), she is forbidden (to her nephew). His brother's wife — a brother by his mother is considered (interdicted) like a brother by his father; his father's brother's wife — a brother by his mother is not considered like a brother by his father. 14) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister, which, like idolatry, were at no time permitted to him, (but which are of lesser gravity than his brother's wife and his father's brother's wife, which were forbidden to all men while they were married.) "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": to include his wife's sister, (though she is permitted to him upon his wife's death.)
Sifra Chovah Section 1
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.