LEV32 In his description of the Nasi as a politician who rules the country, Rabbeinu Bechaye, who lived in the 1300s, sounds as though he is describing modern political life. He says that in referring to the sins of other Jewish leaders, the Torah begins the word "Im" -- "if." Only in the case of a Nasi does the verse begin with the word "Asher" -- "when." The reason is that (in contrast with the situation and other positions of Jewish leadership) it is almost inevitable that the Nasi is going to sin due to his hubris. It is a question of "when" rather than "if" when it came to the Nasi. A High Priest is aware of his holiness, and a Rabbi at the head of the Rabbinical court is aware of his religious duty, but a king who derives his power from his actions often thinks too highly of himself, and this will inevitably lead to sin. Unlike the Torah, Rabbeinu Bechaye is speaking about intentional sins as well (Rabbeinu Bechaye commentary on this verse].

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV33 This concept (I.e. that repentance alone is not enough for atonement] is further clarified by what is stated in the Torah (this and next verses]. Our Sages, z"l, said (Kerisos 2a) that a sin-offering is brought for an act performed unintentionally, which when deliberately transgressed incurs excision. Because a sin that can cause excision is very severe, the sinner cannot achieve full atonement for transgressing it--even when performed unintentionally--until he brings a sin-offering. This is true even though he [already] confessed his sin (since without confession and repentance his sin cannot be atoned for [even] with a sin offering, as the pasuk says [Mishlei 21:27], "The offering of the wicked is an abomination") ("[The offering of the wicked] who maintain their evil ways when offering their sacrifice, for they have not returned to Hashem--this offering is an abomination" (Metzudas David).) But after the confession (i.e., with repentance) and the offering, his transgression will be atoned for, as the pasuk says (Yayikra 4:31), "The Kohen will make an atonement for him, and he will be forgiven." Reflect upon this: if one who sins unintentionally cannot attain purity after repentance until he brings an offering, then [imagine] how harsh must be the punishment of one who deliberately sins! True, his sin can find atonement through suffering, as the pasuk says (Iyov 33:19-26), "He is castigated through pain upon his bed… He beseeches God and He favors him." The pasuk further says (Mishlei 3:12), "For Hashem admonishes the one He loves, and [then], as a father a son, He will favor [him]." But there is a solution and a remedy for the sinner (i.e., other than suffering)--through [the performance of] good deeds, which shield him from the pain, as will be explained.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV34 An individual who sins unwittingly shall bring an offering when the same act if done intentionally carries the punishment of “cutting off.” Key concept: To humble the guilty soul.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV35 The atonement of doing charity is commensurate to the atonement of sacrifices. Rabbi Yochanan was walking on the outskirts of Jerusalem and Rabbi Yehoshua was following him. When they saw the ruins of the Bais Hamikdosh (Holy Temple), Rabbi Yehoshua said, "Woe to us. The place that atoned for sins is destroyed." "My son," said Rabbi Yochanan, "We still have another means of atonement that is equal to the Bais Hamikdosh: Chesed. As it is stated, 'Lovingkindness is what I want, and not sacrifices' (Hoshaia 6:6)." (Avos D'Reb Noson, ch. 4).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV36 See [[LEV33]] Leviticus 4:27 unintentional GATES 453-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV37 Bring an offering of greater or lesser value. For certain transgressions, the object that is brought on the Altar as an offering depends upon the financial status of the one who needs atonement. The transgressions are: 1) entering the Beis HaMikdash or eating kodshim when one is spiritually impure; 2) falsely swearing the type of oath that is called “shavuas bitui” (see Leviticus 19:12); or 3) falsely swearing that one does not know testimony that could help a litigant in court. The act of bringing an offering makes a person realize that he acted improperly and must ask for forgiveness from Hashem. The sinner must also resolve to be more careful in the future. Regarding certain transgressions, because they are relatively common, Hashem is lenient and requires a less costly offering if the sinner is poor. Why for these sins in particular is there a leniency whereby the type of atonement depends upon the sinner’s financial status? The leniency exists regarding false oaths because false oaths are made by mere speech. Compared to the amount of effort required to sin with one's body, much less effort is required to sin with one's mouth. The leniency exists for someone who enters the Beis HaMikdash when spiritually impure because maintaining such purity is very difficult. To stay spiritually pure we must distance ourselves from ever-present sources of impurity. Often a person will come in contact with such impurity and it will not occur to him until after he has entered the Beis HaMikdash or has eaten kodshim while spiritually impure. Owing to the frequency of these transgressions, atonement is made easier for those who are poor. As said, false oaths are made with little effort, by means of mere words, and therefore, Hashem provides a leniency regarding atonement. Regarding false oaths about testimony, the same rationale applies, but here, there is an additional leniency. As a rule, when a sin is intentional, atonement for it cannot be attained through an offering, but a false oath about testimony is an exception to this rule, because here, the potential for transgression is particularly great. Almost always, some sort of litigation is before the courts and people who possess relevant information could serve as witnesses, but their hearts cause them to avoid their responsibility. They swear falsely, saying that they do not possess relevant information, knowing that afterwards they can claim that although they had such knowledge they forgot that they had it. They also rationalize this false oath by saying to themselves that in court they might not testify accurately. Additionally, this transgression is frequent because there are many people who do not appreciate that withholding testimony or giving false testimony is a very serious matter. Through this transgression they can cause their fellow Jew to be oppressed and to suffer serious financial loss, but it does not faze them, for they rationalize that they are not physically stealing or extorting from anyone. Since these transgressions are taken lightly and are relatively frequent, Hashem shows mercy and allows atonement for them by means of an offering, even when the transgression is intentional.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV39 The law of the pursuer demonstrates, however, exactly how far Jewish law was willing to go to stop attacks. And if it justifies even homicide to prevent an assault, it certainly expects third parties to intervene in less violent ways to protect victims from further abuse. That includes reporting cases of abuse to legal authorities. This is not only required as part of the effort to save lives but is also specifically demanded in the Torah according to the Talmud's interpretation of the Torah's verses cited at the beginning of this section." One may not stand idly by the blood of one's neighbor" demands coming forward to help someone who is being attacked (Leviticus 19:16.) The new translation of The Jewish Publication Society reads, "Do not profit by the blood of your fellow." The meaning of this phrase is uncertain. As the note to the verse says, the new translation interprets the verse in the context of the civil legislation in the verse immediately before it. The rabbinic tradition, however, interpreted and applied Leviticus 19:16 to establish a positive obligation to come to the aid of those in danger; see M. Sanhedrin 8:7 and B. Sanhedrin 73a). One who has information to report and fails to do so also violates [this verse] "If he does not come forth with his information, then he shall be subject to punishment" (M.T. Laws of Testimony 1:1). While in monetary affairs, the witness may wait until summoned, in other matters, such as abuse, the witness must come forward voluntarily to "destroy the evil from your midst" (Kesef Mishneh to M.T. Laws of Testimony 1:1 and Rosh to Mikkot, chap. 1. #11. "Destroy the evil from your midst" occurs a number of times in the Torah as a general purpose of the law: Deuteronomy 13:6, 17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 24:7; See also 17:12 and 22:22). For that matter, even suspicions of abuse must be reported to the authorities, for Jewish law maintains that Jewish law, including the law against defamation, must be violated even when the threat to someone's life is not certain (safek nefashot) (M. Yoma 8:6; B. Yoma 83a; M.T. Laws of the Sabbath 2:1; and S.A. Orah Hayyim 328:10). The positive duty to inform authorities applies to witnesses of abuse by a spouse, a parent, a teacher, or anyone else. Witnesses to spousal abuse or to its results may understandably feel reticent to interfere in what might be construed as a couple's private affairs, especially since raising the issue may cause one to lose a friend, particularly if the abused party refuses to acknowledge the abuse and becomes defensive. Even if the abused spouse admits the abuse to a friend, neither the abused party nor the witness may want to expose the family to the humiliation involved in making the abuse public, preferring instead to deal with it within the family. That, however, almost never works; if there is any chance that the marriage can and should be saved, it will have to be with outside, professional help. More often the abused party needs help in extricating herself (usually) from the marriage altogether. Thus for all their understandable hesitation, witnesses to spousal abuse must inform the authorities, for failing to do that exposes the abused party to the risk of further maiming and even death. Defamation of the abuser will probably occur, but that concern is definitely superseded in Jewish law by the need to save the physical integrity and the very life of the victim. The same is true for child abuse.… Similarly, witnesses to child abuse perpetrated by teachers, counselors, or youth group leaders must report even suspicions of such abuse to the authorities.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV38 … Judaism's approach to criminal law is a system that demonstrates the value of a structure that has absolute prohibitions (e.g., The Ten Commandments), affirmative obligations (e.g., the duty of a witness to testify) [this verse, Numbers 5:5-8], and interpretive commentary (including, Midrash Halakhah, Mishnah, Talmud, and later rabbinic teachings in codes and legal rulings). In itself, the structure has been replicated in many criminal justice systems with the adoption of criminal codes, interpretations by the judges, and regulations guiding application of the code. These transform criminal sentences from the arbitrary decisions of judges to the rule of law.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV40 Provide testimony needed by Jewish courts of law. Whenever we possess information relevant to a Jewish court of law, we must come forth and reveal the information to the judges. [Regarding litigation over money matters, we are not obligated to come forth unless the court or one of the litigants demands our testimony. When a life is at stake, however, such as when someone witnesses a murder, the witness must come forth on his own and testify.] So, too, if he sees his fellow Jew violating any Torah prohibition, he must come forth and testify, to uproot the evil and prevent people from violating the Torah in the future. Key concept is obvious. The great benefit is clear; so no explanation is needed (See [[EXOD449]] Exodus 20:13 false CHINUCH 28-9).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV42 [This verse]. One must state his transgressions and the sins of his forebears, for he is punished for those [as well] when following in their [sinful] footsteps. Similarly it states (Leviticus 26:40), "They will confess their transgressions and the transgressions of their forefathers."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT