ויקרא

The Korban Oleh Ve-Yored – Substance Over Form[1]

Following the presentation of the regular sin offering applicable to an ordinary individual, the Torah proceeds to detail the laws of the variable sin-offering (oleh ve-yored). The main distinguishing feature of this sin-offering is that the form of the sacrifice is linked to the financial position of the sinner. The first option for the offering follows the model of the standard sin-offering comprising of either a sheep or female goat. However, if the owner cannot afford an animal, then they may offer two turtle doves or pigeons. Finally, if they cannot afford the birds, the Torah permits the sinner to offer a meal offering instead.

The Torah lists three circumstances in which this type of offering is brought. The first is a case where a witness withholds testimony despite hearing an adjuration (אלה). Interestingly, this is the only deliberate sin for which a chatat is brought. The second is a case where the person contracts impurity by way of touching a carcass or the impure emissions of a person, and subsequently neglects to purify himself. The third case is one where a person fails to fulfil an oath. In both the second and third cases the Torah uses the expression ונעלם ממנו ('hidden from him') to refer to the forgetful mindset of the sinner. This contrasts with the term שגג used in the context of the standard sin-offering.

The challenge which faces us is to understand the common thread of these sins and why specifically these cases result in a measure of leniency reflected in the flexibility of the type of offering.  

Before attempting to answer these questions, it is worth pointing out that not everyone considers these cases to constitute a closed list. According to the Abarbanel these three cases are merely examples, but the principle that the offering depends on the financial position of the sinner is equally applicable to all sin offerings brought by an individual. [2] Nevertheless, a straightforward reading suggests that the leniency described is indeed specific to these transgressions. Firstly, according to the Abarbanel's approach it is difficult to understand the need for the involved examples altogether. Second, as already mentioned, the language used to describe the second and third case (נעלם) differs from that used for the regular sin offering (ושגג). Furthermore, the inclusion of a deliberate sin suggests we are dealing with a list of exceptions. Finally, the recurring phrase אחת מאלה strongly supports the traditional view that the leniency is indeed specific to these transgressions.

To identify the common denominator, we will first consider the meaning of a chatat offering in general and then reflect on the uniqueness of these sins against that backdrop.

The meaning of a chatat offering

Though we are accustomed to thinking of the chatat as referring to the sin for which the offering is brought, the root חטא in this context is better translated as cleansing or purification and does not necessarily relate to the sin itself.[3] This can clearly be seen from the following examples:

וַיִּשְׁחָט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַדָּם וַיִּתֵּן עַל־קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וַיְחַטֵּא אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּח (ויקרא ח:טו)

The function of the blood service at the time of the inauguration of the Mishkan was to purify the altar to prepare it for use. It was not related to any specific sin.

וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת לְמֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִוא (במדבר יט:ט)

The water of purification used in the parah adumah process similarly has no connection with sin yet is described as a 'chatat' due to its purification function. There are many other examples (see Vayikra 6:19, 14:49, Yechezkel 43:20).

The primary function of a chatat offering as a process of purification is further evidenced from its role in other contexts. As part of the purification process of a zav, zava, yoledet, and metzorah, they are required to bring a chatat offering yet there is no apparent link to any sin.[4]

Not only does a chatat refer to the purification process, it is important to note that the target object of the purification is the altar and not the person. Though we are accustomed to thinking of a sin-offering as a process of atonement for the sinner, the symbolism is in fact focussed outwardly on purging the altar, the Mishkan, and even the surrounding camp from the contamination caused by sin. The model presented by the Torah is that ritual impurity or sin originating in the camp permeates the Mishkan and contaminates the very altar itself. Since the altar represents the primary vehicle of divine service, the damage caused to that vehicle through contamination in the camp is understandable. Essentially, the relationship between the Mishkan and the camp operates in both directions. The Mishkan spiritually energises the camp and, correspondingly, the level of contamination in the camp impacts the status and purity of the Mishkan.[5]  

This explains a number of other unique features about the chatat. Unlike other sacrifices, the blood of the chatat is placed on all four corners of the altar. If the function of the chatat is to purify the altar, then it follows that the blood should symbolically cover the whole altar. It is also noteworthy that the chatat is the only offering where the blood service may extend beyond the borders of the altar towards or even into the Kodesh Kodashim. On these occasions a much deeper purification is required corresponding to the level of penetration resulting from the sin and/or the impurity. This is simply not relevant to the other sacrifices where the service is always performed on the altar.

The mechanism described above is explicit in the context of the chatat of Yom Kippur:

וְשָׁחַט אֶת־שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לָעָם וְהֵבִיא אֶת־דָּמוֹ אֶל־מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת וְעָשָׂה אֶת־דָּמוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְדַם הַפָּר וְהִזָּה אֹתוֹ עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת וְלִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת׃ וְכִפֶּר עַל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל־חַטֹּאתָם וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם׃ (ויקרא טז:טו-טז)

According to the verse, the blood is being sprinkled to purify the sanctuary from the contamination of ritual impurity and sin. I would suggest that the underlying rationale for this model is that by paralleling the contamination caused by sin and ritual impurity the sinner is thereby made aware of the severity of their sin. Especially in the context of inadvertent transgression, where the source of sin is neglect and carelessness, there is a need for an involved purification system to heighten sensitivity to sin and deter the sinner from repeat transgression.

One may theorise whether this implies there is an ontological status to sin, or whether it is just a symbolic model and the real contamination of sin is the effect of sin itself. However, there is little practical difference. The Torah's concern for the gravity of sin feeds off the concepts and associations of ritual impurity. From this perspective, intent is irrelevant; it is not good enough to simply say 'I erred'. The effects of the sin are treated as real and need to be dealt with in all their severity.[6]      

The common denominator of the cases

Based on the above, we can turn to consider the specific cases for which a korban oleh ve-yored is brought. If the purpose of the sin-offering in general is to construct tangible consequences of sin, then it would seem natural to limit its scope to cases where the sin involves positive action. Where the transgression involves a physical act, then it is possible to conceive of objective consequences independent of the intent of the sinner. As mentioned before, the way in which the world of korbanot relates to sin adopts the concepts and terminology of ritual impurity where status is determined by physical events alone.[7]

The common denominator of the three cases is that they are passive forms of transgression in which the sinner has defaulted on a duty or responsibility. In the case of the witnesses who refuse to testify the passive nature is clear. In the third case, though there could be cases where an oath is broken by way of positive action, the lack of fulfilment is passive in concept – the sinner neglects to adhere to the oath they have made.

With respect to the second case, although Chazal considered the sin to occur only where a person enters the sanctuary in his state of impurity, the text itself does not mention this criterion. This issue arises in other contexts as well, where the plain meaning of the text indicates that remaining in a state of impurity is fundamentally problematic. Here too Chazal added the condition that the prohibition only applies when entering the Mikdash in a state of impurity:

 וְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה בָּאֶזְרָח וּבַגֵּר וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר׃ וְאִם לֹא יְכַבֵּס וּבְשָׂרוֹ לֹא יִרְחָץ וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃ (ויקרא י"ז:טו-טז)

ונשא עונו. אִם יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ יִכָּנֵס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָּב עַל טֻמְאָה זוֹ כְּכָל שְׁאָר טֻמְאוֹת (ספרא): (רש"י)

It has reasonably been suggested that the reason for this wide discrepancy between peshat and halacha is due to the difference between the encampment in the wilderness and the application of the law post entry to the land.[8] In the former situation, where the tribes directly encircled the Mishkan, the camp was a quasi-extension of the holiness of the Mishkan. This principle is mirrored in the prohibition against consuming non-consecrated meat within the vicinity of the camp during the sojourn in the wilderness. The Torah explicitly states that this rule would no longer apply when the nation is spread out and distant from the sanctuary:

כִּי־יַרְחִיב יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת־גְּבוּלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר־לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי־תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל־אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר׃ כִּי־יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהוָה לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּכֹל אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ (דברים יב:כ-כא)

At this point, the prohibition of consuming non-consecrated meat would only apply within the vicinity of the sanctuary. The elevated status of the camp during the sojourn in the wilderness reflected the spiritual intensity of this period. In these circumstances it was indeed problematic to remain in a state of impurity. In contrast, when the people were spread across the land and visits to the Beit HaMikdash were generally limited to the three pilgrimage festivals, a more practical interpretation was adopted to align with the new reality.

In any event, we see that the text itself relates to the second case also in passive terms. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this is indeed the common denominator in all the cases.[9]

We can now go back to explain the various features of the oleh ve-yored. One may simply posit that the increased flexibility is intended to encourage the sinner to atone. Due to the lack of action, a sinner would be more likely to be dismissive of their transgression. However, it is possible to go a step further. Recall that it is specifically the blood of the korban which is said to remove the contamination caused by a sin. Since it is the blood which provides the expiation, the concept of a meal offering as a chatat is almost a contradiction in terms. Indeed, in other cases where the chatat contains a measure of flexibility based on financial concerns, such as a yoledet or a metzorah, the only alternative is the bird offering. There is no further option of a meal offering. It seems that the very possibility of bringing a meal offering, where no blood service is involved, indicates that we are not dealing with a chatat in the full sense. As there is no concrete action involved, the formal purification involving the placing or sprinkling of the blood is not a critical component. The lack of rigidity in the offering thereby focusses on the inner world of the sinner and shifts away from prescriptive ritual characteristic of korbanot in general.  

The 'viduy' requirement

A final feature we can now understand is why the viduy (confession) requirement is only mentioned in the case of the oleh ve-yored but not the regular sin offering. It is generally assumed that viduy is required in the case of every chatat, though this is not explicit in the text. Either way, the reason the viduy specifically appears in the context of the oleh ve-yored seems related to the subjective nature of these sins. Firstly, on a practical level, since the transgression takes place within the inner world of the sinner and has no external expression, it is important for the sinner to unambiguously acknowledge the transgression through verbal confession. Additionally, since there is no positive action, no fixed korban and no blood service, the atonement procedure similarly focuses on the thoughts of the sinner by emphasising the viduy.   

In summary, more than any other korban the oleh ve-yored places the inner world of the owner at the centre and downplays the formulaic ritual. Although the sins for which a korban oleh ve-yored offering is brought comprise a limited list, it nonetheless reveals a fundamental principle that there can be sin without action and atonement without blood. As Chazal stated in a similar context:

נאמר בעולת בהמה (ויקרא א, ט) אשה ריח ניחוח ובעולת עוף (ויקרא א, ט) אשה ריח ניחוח ובמנחה (ויקרא ב, ב) אשה ריח ניחוח לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים. (מנחות יג:יא)

 

 

---

[1] Many of the concepts discussed here are based on the תורת הקרבנות series of R. Yonatan Grossman, shiurim #25-34.

[2] See Abarbanel introduction to Vayikra

[3] This is the view of Shadal and R. David Zvi Hoffman. It also appears to be the dominant view amongst modern scholars.

[4] With respect to the chatat of the Nazir see the earlier discussion here

[5] It is of course also the case that simultaneously with the purification of the altar, the sinner achieves self-purification.

[6] One of the far-reaching innovations of the korbanot was that they can generally atone only for unintentional sins. This raises a legitimate question of how the purification is achieved in the case of intentional sin? We must answer that as important as it was to adopt and adapt the formalities and prevailing norms of religious practice, the exclusion of intentional sins speaks volumes about the limits the Torah set on the expiation delivered by the korban. The korbanot are intended as a tool to heighten sensitivity to sin but can never replace the need for sincere repentance. It is better to do away with the entire exercise than have one think it can effect atonement on its own (at least in the case of intentional sin). Truth be told, if the Mishkan can become contaminated through sin alone then surely it can become purified through sincere repentance. The implication is simply that the korbanot are unavailable to assist in this process where intentional sin is involved.

[7] In general terms as well transgression by inaction is seen as less severe, at least in terms of court intervention. For example, a court does not generally punish a sinner where the transgression did not involve a positive action – לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו.

[8] R. Yehuda Rock, פרשת ויקרא - קרבן עולה ויורד

[9] It is possible that these three cases also share in common a dimension of chillul ha-shem. Perhaps that is why specifically these cases, although passive, nevertheless warrant a korban.