Rashi on TanakhLeviticus 5

And heard an oath, in a matter in which he is a witness, for which they made him take an oath that if he knows some testimony for him [= one of the disputants] he must testify for him.

Or, if a person touches [anything impure], and after this impurity he eats holy [sacrificial] food or enters the Temple, which is a matter whose intentional trespass [involves] koreis. In Maseches Shevuos it is expounded thus:

And this was concealed from him, the impurity

And incurs guilt for eating holy food or entering the Temple [while in a state of impurity].

Impurities of man, this [refers] to the impurity [which comes from touching] a dead body.

To whatever impurity, [the word “whatever,” literally, “all” comes] to include the impurity [which comes] from the touch of zovin or zovos.

Causes impurity, to include one who touches [a man] who has had relations with a menstruant woman.

That causes, to include one who swallows the carcass of a kosher bird.

And was concealed, and he does not know, for he forgot the impurity.

Incurs guilt, in eating holy food or entering the Temple.

Orally, but not with his heart.

Do harm to himself.

Do good to himself. As for example, [he said]: “I will eat” [and he did not eat] or [he said] “I will not eat,” [and he ate], “I will sleep” [and he did not sleep] or “I will not sleep” [and he slept].

Regarding all [a person] will express, to include the past.

And was concealed from him, and he violated his oath — all these [require] a sliding scale sacrifice, as is explained here, but [violation] of an oath which involves the denial of a financial obligation does not [require] this sacrifice but a guilt-offering.

He shall bring that which is for a sin-offering first, a sin-offering precedes a burnt-offering. To what may this be compared? To an advocate who entered [the palace] to obtain pardon for his client. [Once] the advocate gains the pardon, the gift [the עוֹלָה] is brought in after him.

[He does] not separate [the head entirely], he only nips one organ.

Neck, that is the slope of the head which inclines toward the neck.

Back of the neck, close by [that part of the back of the head] which “sees” the neck — that is, the length of the entire back of the neck.

He shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering. Regarding a burnt-offering only squeezing was required, [but] regarding a sin-offering, [both] sprinkling and squeezing out [are required]; he seizes the back of the head and makes [the blood] spurt out, and the blood spurts out and reaches the altar.

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

As prescribed, according to the rule regarding a free-will fowl burnt-offering mentioned at the beginning of the paroshoh.

Because it is a sin-offering, and so it is not proper that it should be embellished [with oil or frankincense].

It is a sin-offering, if a fistful is taken and it is burned for its sake, it is valid; [if] not for its sake, it is invalid.

For his sin that he committed. Here the verse has changed [its phraseology], for in regard to the rich and poor [sacrifices] “for his sin” is mentioned, [while] here in regard to the poorest of the poor, “On his sin” is mentioned. Our Rabbis derived from [these minute considerations] here that if he sinned when he was rich and put aside money for a lamb or goat, and [then] became poor, he need bring [only] two turtledoves from part [of the money set aside]. [If] he had set aside money for two turtledoves and [then] became poor, he need bring [only] a tenth of an ephah from part [of the money set aside]; [if] he set aside money for a tenth of an ephah and became rich, he must add to them and bring the sacrifice [due from] a rich man. Therefore it is said here: on his sacrifice, [i.e., in addition to his sacrifice].

In one of these, in one of these three [forms of] atonement mentioned in regard to this matter — either for rich, or for poor, or for the poorest of the poor. What does the verse say? Perhaps the most severe of them [= sins] [requires] a lamb or goat, and the less severe [requires] a fowl, while the least severe [require] a tenth of an ephah? The verse says: “in one of these,” to equate the least to the most severe [sin], for a lamb and goat, if he can afford it, and the most severe to the least [sin], for a tenth of an ephah for the poorest of the poor.

And it shall belong to the kohein as a meal-offering, to teach [us] regarding a sinner’s meal-offering, that its remnants should be eaten — this is according to its plain meaning, [but] our Rabbis expounded: “and it should belong to the kohein“ — and if this sinner is [himself] a kohein — this should be like [any] other free-will meal-offering of a kohein, which “shall be completely burnt, it should not be eaten.”

Wrongfully deviates מְעִילָה wherever it occurs [means] “changing.” Similarly, it says: “They deviated from the God of their fathers, and went astray after the gods of the peoples of the land,” and similarly it says in regard to a suspected adulteress, “she committed a מַעַל [= she acted faithlessly].

And unwittingly sins [by using] the sacred property of Adonoy, [in] that he benefitted from sacred property. And where was he warned [against doing this]? חֵטְא (= sin) is mentioned here, and חֵטְא (= sin) is mentioned later on regarding תְּרוּמָה, “that they not bear the burden of sin for it.” Just as there He warned [against misappropriating תְּרוּמָה], so too here He warned [against misappropriating sacred property]. [Perhaps] just as there Scripture warned only against eating [תְּרוּמָה], so too here scripture warned only against eating [sacred property]? The verse says: תִמְעֹל מַעַל — it [thus] includes [even actions aside from eating].

Of the sacred property of Adonoy, [referring] to that which is specifically God’s, excluding sacrifices of lesser holiness.

A ram, [a word implying] “toughness, might,” such as “and he took the mighty (eylei) of the land.” Here too [it implies] “might” — a two year old [ram].

A valuation of silver shekalim, that it should be worth two selaim.

And that which he sinned [making use] of the sacred property, must pay. The principal and the fifth to the Temple treasury.

He is uncertain and incurs guilt, he shall bring. This section speaks of one to whom there occured a doubtful [case] of kareis, and he does not know whether he transgressed or not, as for example [where there were pieces of] forbidden fat and permitted fat before him. He thought that both were permitted, and ate one. He was then told, “One was of forbidden fat,” and he does not know whether he ate the one of forbidden fat — this person brings an uncertain guilt offering, [which] protects him as long as he does not know for certain that he sinned, and if he becomes aware after a time [that he did sin], he [then] brings a [regular] sin-offering.

He is uncertain and incurs guilt and bears his iniquity. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Behold, Scripture punished one who was unaware, how much more so will it punish one who is aware [of his sin]. Rabbi Yosi says: If you wish to know the [extent of] the reward of the righteous, go and learn from Odom HoRishon, who was commanded only [one] negative commandment, and transgressed against it — see how many deaths were exacted against him and his descendants. And which measure [of God] is greater, that of good [reward] or that of punishment? You must say: that of good [reward]. If the measure of punishment is the lesser [of the two], see how many deaths were exacted against him and his descendants, [you may calculate] the greater measure of reward [for one] who refrains from [the sin of] פִּגוּל or נוֹתָר, or one who fasts on Yom Kippur — how much more so will he bring merit on himself and on his descendants and his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations. Rabbi Akiva says: Behold, it says: “By the [testimony] of two witnesses or three, etc.” if the testimony is valid with two [witnesses], why did the verse specify “three”? Rather, to include the third to be severe with him, and to make his judgement similar to these [other two], in regard to the punishment of הֲזָמָה . If the verse punishes one who joins those who commit a crime as [severely] as those who actually commit the crime, how much more so will it give a reward to one who joins those who do a mitzvah as those who [actually] do the mitzvah! Rabbi Eleazar son of Azariah says: “When you harvest your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheaf in the field,” behold it says [afterward] “in order that He bless you, etc.” — the verse establishes a blessing for one to whom a mitzvah comes [even] without his knowing. You may conclude from this: If a sela was bound up in [the] corners [of his garment], and it dropped from it, and a poor person found it and supports himself with it, behold, God establishes a blessing for him.

Valuation as a guilt offering, in the value recorded above [= two shekalim].

Which he did unintentionally, and he did not know. Thus if he did realize after a time, this guilt offering does not atone for him until he brings a sin-offering. Behold, what does this resemble? [The case of] a heifer whose neck is to be broken [to atone for a murder whose perpetrator is unknown] whose neck was broken, and afterwards the murderer was found — that one [= the murderer] must be executed [even though an atonement was made with the heifer].

It is a guilt offering [for] he has incurred guilt. The first [word (אָשָׁם)] is altogether [vocalized] with a kamatz, for it is a noun [= “guilt”], while the last [word] is half kametz and half patach, for it is a verb [= “he has incurred”]. And if you say that this is a verse which is not needed, it is expounded in Toras Kohanim (= Sifra): It is a guilt offering; he has incurred guilt, to include the guilt offering [brought by one] [who seduced] an engaged maidservant that it should [consist] of a two-year old ram worth two shekalim. Perhaps I should include the guilt offering for a nazirite and the guilt offering of a metzoro. The verse says: “It is.”

If a person sins. Said Rabbi Akiva: Why does the verse say: וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל (acted faithlessly with Hashem?) Since everyone who lends or borrows or conducts business only does [so] with witnesses and a document, therefore when he denies [the truth of the transaction], he denies [the testimony] of the witnesses and document, but when one deposits [something] with his fellow [for storage], he does not want any soul to know [of this transaction] except the Third between them [= God]. Therefore, when he denies [the transaction], he denies the Third between them.

Or in partnership, that he placed money in his hand to invest, or as a loan.

Or theft, that he stole something from him.

Or oppressed, that [refers to witholding] the wages of a hired hand.

He denies it, that he denies any of these whatever someone will do to sin, and swear falsely in denying a monetary [obligation].

When he [realizes his] sin and incurs his guilt, when he recognizes in himself [the need] to repent, and has in mind to confess that he sinned, and is guilty.

Its price, that is the principal, the “head” of the money.

And its fifth. The Torah included many fifths for one principal, for if he denied [the obligation] of the fifth, took an oath and [then] admitted [the obligation], he must bring an additional fifth of that fifth, and so continues until the principal about which he takes an oath is less than a penny’s-worth.

To whomever the object belongs, to whomever the money belongs.