Sifrei Bamidbar 112

¹(Bamidbar 15:27) "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring "a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering" — for which reason this section was stated. You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry! R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry. "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If "light" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the "grave" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written "in error" — to exclude willful (transgression). "he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering." This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "goat" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. "unwitting in sinning": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the "grave" transgression of idolatry! It is, therefore, written "unwitting in sinning," but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. "to atone for him": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of "light" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore, written "And he shall atone" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) "and he shall be forgiven": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other "forgivings" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) "The native-born among the children of Israel, etc." What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) "All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth," I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them." This is a prototype: wherever "native-born" is written, proselytes are also included. Variantly: What is the intent of "the native-born among the children of Israel"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written "the native-born among the children of Israel": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.) "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written "One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. "for him who acts unwittingly": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering. ²(Bamidbar 15:30) "And the soul who acts with a high hand": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) "And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest." And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was Timna." Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) "You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother. These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) "I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes." And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) "Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as ("stout" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will "pull along" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah "tows" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef)." R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself." (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: "You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it." (Ibid.) "and that soul will be cut off": "cutting-off" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). "that soul": who acts deliberately. "from the midst of its people": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is a Sadducee. "and His commandment he has broken": This is a heretic. Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who distorts the Torah. "and His commandment he has broken": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to "thrust" him from the world! Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is "For the word of the L-rd he has despised." Variantly: "For the word of the L-rd he has despised": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written "For the word of the L-rd he has despised" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) "I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "cut off shall be cut off": "cut off" — in this world; "shall be cut off" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) "It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, "and that soul shall be cut off" — in this world. "cut off" — in the world to come. "cut off shall be cut off" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) "its transgression is in it": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, "its transgression is in it." As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) "And their transgressions shall be upon their bones." — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) "its transgression is in it," and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) "They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children. R. Yishmael says: "its transgression is in it": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) "He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons," I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons "until the third and fourth generation"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) "its transgression is in it" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation. R. Nathan says: This ("its transgression is in it") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.) And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) "At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc." R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here ("its transgression is in it") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written "That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it." Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment.