Rashi on TanakhLeviticus 4

Any commandment of Adonoy. Our Rabbis explained: A sin-offering comes only for something whose intentional violation [involves] a negative commandment and [the penalty] of kareis.

One of these, part of one of them, such as one who writes on Shabbos, Shem of Shimon, Noach of Nochor, Don of Doniel.

If the anointed kohein should sin to bring guilt on the people, Its midrashic interpretation: He is not obliged [to bring a sin-offering] unless there is a hidden thing together with an unintentional [illegal] act, as it is said, “to bring guilt on the people” “and something is hidden from the congregation and they do.” And its plain meaning according to the aggodoh: When the kohein godol sins, it [results] in the guilt of the people, for they are dependent on him to atone for them and pray for them — and [now] he has become impaired.

Bullock [literally, “a bullock, son of cattle.”] Perhaps an old one? The verse says: “son.” If a son, perhaps a young one? The verse says: “a bullock.” How is this? This [refers to] a three-year old bullock.

The Tent of Meeting, to the Tabernacle, and in the Temple, to the Heichal.

In front of the Holy Curtain, before its most holy spot, exactly in front of the space between the poles. The blood [need] not touch the holy curtain, but if [by accident] they touched, they touched.

And all the blood, the remaining blood.

And all the fat of the bullock [of the sin-offering]. [The verse] should have stated “its fat.” Why does the verse state “[the fat] of the bullock”? To include the bullock [offered] on Yom Kippur [under the rule regarding] the kidneys, the fats and the lobe [on the liver].

The sin-offering, to include the goats [brought as a sin-offering] for idolatry [under the rule regarding] the kidneys, the fats and the lobe [on the liver].

He shall separate from it, from that which is still attached — [to teach us] that he should not butcher it before the removal of the fat. (Toras Kohanim)

In the same manner as they were separated, from those fats [for burning] explained regarding an ox [offered] for a peace-offering. But what was explained in regard to a peace-offering that was not explained here? Rather, to compare this to a peace-offering. Just as peace-offerings [must be offered] for their own sake, so this [must be offered] for its own sake; and just as peace-offering [bring] peace to the world, so this [brings] peace to the world. And [it is taught] Shechitas Kodoshim, [that the verse] is required to derive from it [the rule] that we may not derive a law from a law [which itslf was derived from scripture] regarding Holy Things [= sacrifices] — in the Chapter Ezehu Mekoman [= Zevochim, 49b].

On the liver, on the kidneys, with its head, and feet — all of them [= all the “on’s” mentioned in these verses] are expressions of “addition,” as [the word] “besides.”

To a pure [undefiled] place. Since there is outside the city a place prepared for impurity — [in which] to throw out stones stricken with plague, and [set aside] for a cemetery — it was necessary to state that “beyond the encampment,” which is outside the city [= Jerusalem], that the place should be pure.

Beyond the encampment, beyond the three encampments, and in the Temple, [this means] outside the city [of Jerusalem], as our Rabbis explained it in Maseches Yomo and in Sanhedrin.

Where the ashes are thrown, a place in which they spill the ashes removed from the altar, as it is said, “He shall take the ashes out beyond the encampment [to a pure place].”

It shall be burned where the ashes are thrown. Though the verse did not have to say [this] except to teach that [the bullock is burnt] even if there are no ashes there.

Congregation of Yisroel, this [refers to] the sanhedrin.

The matter [that error] was concealed, they erred in a decision regarding an [act which leads to a punishment of] kerisos [mentioned] in the Torah — [ruling] that it is permitted.

The community and they did, that the community acted according to their decision.

In front of the curtain. [But] above it says: “In front of the Holy Curtain.” [Why the change in terminology?] It may be compared to a king against whom a province rebelled; if the smaller portion of it rebelled, his court continues to exist. But if all of it rebelled, his court does not continue to exist. So too here. When the anointed kohein [= the kohein godol] sinned, there is still the designation of sanctity on the Temple; when all of them sin, God forbid, the holiness is removed.

The base of the altar of the burnt-offering which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. This [refers] to the western base which is opposite “the entrance [of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary].”

He shall remove all its fat. Even though the lobe and two kidneys are not specified here, they learn this from “he shall do to the bullock as he did [to the sin-offering].” Why was this not explained here? It was taught in the School of R. Yishmo’el: This may be compared to a king who became angry with his friend, [but] minimized his sin because of his love for him.

He shall do to — this — bullock as he did to the sin-offering bullock, as explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein [= the kohein godol] — to include the lobe and two kidneys — for he explained there what he didn’t explain here, and to repeat the mitzvos of the [Temple] services, to teach that if he omitted one of all the applications [of blood], it is invalid. Because we have found [elsewhere] that [if blood] which had to be placed on the outer altar that if he placed it with only one application — he has [nevertheless effected] the atonement, it was necessary to say here, that [the omission of] any one of these impedes [the atonement].

If a leader sins. An expression of “fortunate is. . .” Fortunate is the generation whose leader is concerned to bring an atonement for his inadvertent transgression — all the more so that he regrets his intentional transgressions.

Or [if his sin] becomes known [to him], similar to “if the matter becomes known. There are many “or’s” which serve [the same purpose] as the expression “if,” and “if” in place of “or.” Similarly, “or [= if] it became known that the ox is a gorer.”

It becomes known to him. When he sinned he thought that it was permitted, and afterwards he became aware that it was forbidden.

In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, in the north [of the altar], which is explained in regard to the burnt-offering.

It is a sin-offering, [when it is offered for] its sake, it is valid; when not for its sake, it is invalid.

And its blood — the remnants of its blood.

As the fat of a peace-offering, as those fats [burnt on the altar] which are detailed regarding a goat which is discussed [in the section dealing with] the peace-offering.

As the fat from the peace-offering was removed, as the fats of a goat [burnt on the altar] which are discussed in regard to the peace-offering.

And slaughter it as a sin-offering, that its slaughter should be for the sake of a sin-offering.

As the fat of the lamb was removed, whose fats [burnt on the altar] were increased by [the addition] of the fat tail, so too the sin-offering, when it comes [as a] lamb, requires [that] the fat tail [be burnt] with fats.

On the fires of Adonoy, on the fires which are made for God [by human effort], foailles in Old French.