VOLUME 115 NUMBER 1
Nissan 6, 5785
April 4, 2025
Parshas Vayikra
Candlelighting Time 7:10

            Vayikra discusses many variations of sin offerings. The first scenario is that of the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest. In contrast to the sin offering of a regular individual, he offers his atonement by sprinkling the blood towards the curtain separating the most inner chamber of the Mishkan from the outer area. Then more blood is dashed upon the inner altar and finally, the sacrifice is burnt outside the camp. This protocol is in direct contrast to that of an individual that sins. His offering’s blood is placed on the corners of the outside altar and the innards are burnt on the altar. Although of course the Kohen Gadol was on a different level of purity then the average person, still why the disparity in the procedure?

            Chasam Sofer discusses the variance between the atonement realized by the nation as a whole and that of the individual. Just as by the Kohen Gadol when the entire nation or at least an entire tribe requires penance the process is that the blood is thrown against the curtain and on the inner altar and burnt outside the confines of the camp. Even though the Kohen Gadol is only one individual, his office represents the entire nation by virtue of his persona impacting the people. His eminence of sanctity inspired all to reach higher in their service of Hashem. Subsequently, his sacrifice was similar to that of the people when they sinned.

            What indeed distinguishes the repentance of the individual from that of the nation? What is symbolic of burning their offering outside of the camp as opposed to the single person’s sacrifice. Our Sages contrast that even if the nation’s response to their sin is somewhat compromised and their attitude has not been critically altered, nonetheless their penitence is accepted. Furthermore, their contrition accesses a level of reception by Hashem far exceeding that of the individual. The power of the masses to regret their shortcomings is unparalleled and incomparable despite their somewhat compromised nature.  Therefore, although the blood is dispatched in the holier areas of the Mishkan, the final expression of the sacrifice is outside in the open, not as contained as the individual’s offering.   

            The individual’s opportunity to repent for his sin is more limited and confined. The blood is on the outside altar and the burning of the fats and limbs of the offering are on the same altar as well. Additionally, the Kohanim must consume the meat of the sacrifice to complete the atonement for the individual. His own participation is not sufficient to gain acceptance of his penance. Also, his repentance does not reach the same exalted plane similar to that of the nation.

            We can glean from this parsha the incredible supremacy and potency that our nation carries when we achieve goals together.  The nation is not comprised of only a large collection  of individuals, we are zoche to actually be part of a larger contingency of that which is unified and consolidated into one unit. When the Torah discusses the sin of the Kohen Gadol the verbiage is that it is the sin of the nation. That seems rather strange since they seemingly did nothing wrong. However, the commentators explain that when the nation is weak and not achieving at their level of competency then that directly leads to the failure of its leaders. Hence the Kohen Gadol is more susceptible to veer away from that which is correct and indeed the entire nation suffers. Unity is vital and it is incumbent upon the people of our nation to conduct themselves with the utmost standards of purity in order to protect our leaders and the entire nation as well.  

A BYTE FOR SHABBOS

The halacha concerning the sin offering is that if the one obligated is obstinate and refuses to bring his sacrifice then we coerce him to do so. Although it is seemingly against his will however, the Torah is teaching us a very important lesson. Since he essentially wants to fulfill Hashem’s laws just in this particular situation he is not cooperative we don’t view this as an absolute coercion, rather we are convincing him that he should realize that Hashem’s will always applies.                             S’FAS EMES

GOOD SHABB0S