|
The
Abarbanel on the Yom Kippur Service
in the Beis Hamikdash
The
Sin Offerings
Rendered into English
by Rabbi Elimelech Lepon
Questions:
4.Why did the Yom Kippur sin
offering of the congregation consist of a goat, while that of the Kohen Gadol was a bull?
Moreover, the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol discussed in parashas Vayikra is identical to that of the community, as it
says: "If the entire congregation shall unwittingly sin...they shall
bring a bull." In addition, in parashas Shelach, regarding the sin of idol worship, the
congregation is required to bring a bull and a goat. Why does the
congregation sometimes bring a bull, sometimes a goat, and sometimes a bull
and a goat?
5. If a goat for a sin offering was
already brought during the musaf service, why the
need for a second goat? If both sin offerings atoned for
defiling the Beis Hamikdash,
it seems that one was superfluous.
6. Why were these sin offerings treated
differently? The goat of musaf was eaten by the kohanim on the night after Yom Kippur and its blood was
sprinkled on the outer altar. But the goat for atonement was not eaten. It
was completely burnt outside the walls and its blood was sprinkled on the paroches, on the gold altar, and in the Holy of Holies.
The bull of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol was dealt with in the same manner. Why the
different treatments?
COMMENTARY:
The sin
offering (chatos)
is the second type of service for Yom Kippur.
Our Rabbis tell us that the bull of the Kohen Gadol atoned for the sin of the golden calf.
However, there are problems with this explanation.
First, why should the sin of the golden calf, which was committed in the
wilderness, still need to be atoned for during the Second Temple period, or in the
future, during the time of the Third Temple? Second, the Kohen Gadol enumerated his
sins and those of his family and fellow kohanim
when he offered this bull. But no kohanim took
part in the sin of the golden calf, aside from Aharon
himself. Third, if the bull atoned for the past sin of the golden calf,
then what event is symbolized by the ram?
Another explanation can be made, as follows: "There is no righteous
man on earth who does only good and does not sin," including
the Kohen Gadol inside
the Holy of Holies. He would therefore confess and beg for forgiveness and
atonement so as not to be ensnared by any sin he might commit while
inside.*
* Many
unworthy Kohanim met their death by the hands of
Heaven in the Holy of Holies.
For this purpose he would bring a bull to represent Avraham,
so that his merit should protect and atone for him, and then a ram to
represent Yitzchak so that his merit too, should guard him. However, he
would not bring a goat to recall the merit of Yaakov, because his merit has
been reserved for the congregation of Yisrael.
Since Yaakov was called Yisrael, he represents
the community, and not the individual, as do Avraham
and Yitzchak.
Now we shall discuss the two goats offered on Yom Kippur for the entire
congregation as well as the goats for the sin offerings of Rosh Chodesh and Festivals. Our Rabbis explain that goats
are always offered to atone for the community, because they symbolize and
atone for the community, because they symbolize and atone for the sin of
selling of Yosef, as it says: "And they slaughtered a young
goat."
The Rambam writes further that the goat (sair)
atoned for the congregation of Yisrael because in
Egypt they rebelled and
worshipped demons (seirim).
As it says, "No more shall they offer sacrifices to the demons after
which they turn astray."*
However, these two explanations are difficult to understand. How is it
possible that after thousands of years we would still be asking forgiveness
and atonement for deeds not done in our days, neither the selling of Yosef
nor the worshipping of demons?
Another explanation is that the goat offered with musaf was to atone
for the evil inclination, which leads a man to sin. A goat (sair).
As our Rabbis explain, the evil inclination precedes the good by thirteen years,
as it says, "Sin crouches at the opening," ** that is, from the
moment a person is born. Thus we have explained why the Kohen
Gadol's sin offering was a bull, and that of the
congregation was a goat.
* The
demons were called serim because deranged people
would see them in the form of goats (Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Vayikra
17:7).
** "Sin" here refers
to the Evil Inclination (Rashi, Bereshis 4:7).
Unlike the Yom Kippur sin offering, the sin offering of the congregation
discussed in parashas Vayikra
consists of a bull.
Our Rabbis tell us that this refers only to a case when the Sanhedrin has
erred in a halachic decision and the congregation
sinned as a result of following their mistake.
Thus, when the Torah says, "And it was hidden from the eyes of the
congregation," it is referring to the Sanhedrin, who are the "eyes" of the congregation. Because of
the spiritual stature of the Sanhedrin, the Torah commanded that they bring
a bull for their unintentional sins and those of the congregation who
followed their ruling, just as the Kohen Gadol does on Yom Kippur, as it says, "If the anointed
priest shall sin...he shall bring a bull....
Moreover, when the congregation sinned as a result of a mistaken teaching
of the Sanhedrin, the Torah does not require them to bring a burnt
offering. Therefore, a more valuable sin offering was demanded.
In parashas Shelach,
the Torah discusses the sacrifices of the community when it unintentionally
commits the sin of idol worship. In this case, the Torah commands that they
should bring a bull and a goat, due to the loathsomeness of their crime.
The bull was a burnt offering and the goat was a sin offering.
(The Rambam explains that the greater the sin,
the lowlier its corresponding sacrifice. Therefore, when an individual
worshipped idols unintentionally, he achieved atonement with a she-goat
alone, for the female was worth less than the male. Since there is no
greater sin than idol worship, and there is no lowlier animal than a
she-goat, it was brought for atonement. But when the entire congregation
worshipped idols, their atonement was the more expensive male goat, in
order to show respect for the community. This is the Rambam's
opinion and it is correct).
In sum, parashas Vayikra
discusses the unintentional sin of the Sanhedrin, and the Torah requires a
bull to be offered out of respect for the Sanhedrin. Moreover, because
there was no olah
the sin offering was increased in value to that of a bull. In parashas Shelach
the Torah requires the community to offer a bull and a goat, but the bull
was an olah
and only a goat was brought to atone for the sin of unintentional idol
worship. On Yom Kippur there was only a sin offering to atone for the
unintentional sin of defiling the Beis Hamikdash, so the Torah only required one goat, which
is the proper sacrifice for any unintentional sin committed by the
congregation except idol worship, which requires both an olah
and a chatas .
This explains question 4.
Actually, on Yom Kippur there were two goats for a sin offering. One was
part of musaf,
which atoned for unintentional defilement of the Beis
Hamikdash. The other was the goat of atonement
whose blood was brought into the Holy of Holies. This did not atone for
unintentional sins, but rather for the intentional transgression of
entering the Beis Hamikdash
while in a state of impurity or eating from the sacrifices in such a state.
So there was a need for two goats, one for the unintentional sins and one
for the intentional. This explains question 5.
Just as there is a vast difference between unintentional sins and
intentional ones, so there was a difference between these goats. One of
them, the goat for the sin offering of musaf that atoned for
unintentional sins, was eaten by the kohanim and
its blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, in keeping with the relative
lightness of the sin. Conversely, the special goat of atonement, which
atoned for intentional sins, was burnt up outside the walls, in keeping
with the severity of the rime. It was dragged to the gates of Jerusalem
while it blood was brought into the Holy of Holies in order to beseech the
Lord of Atonement to forgive these great crimes. This explains question 6.
|
