Nature of the Chatat/2

Nature of the Chatat

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Sin Offering

The Chatat serves to atone for sins.

Sources:Ibn EzraVayikra 1:4About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorVayikra 2:13Vayikra 4About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:46About R. Moshe b. Maimon, RambanVayikra 1:9Vayikra 3:1Vayikra 5:15About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Sefer HaChinukh95121About Sefer HaChinukh, RalbagVayikra 1:4Vayikra 5:26Vayikra 16:34Vayikra Toalot 1:4Vayikra Toalot 4:1About R. Levi b. Gershom,

Meaning of Chatat – Many verses in Tanakh¹ suggest that the word "חַטָּאת" means "sin". The offering is so called as it serves to atone for sin. Ramban adds that the word takes the specific connotation of "miss the mark," pointing to Shofetim 20:16, "קֹלֵעַ בָּאֶבֶן אֶל הַשַּׂעֲרָה וְלֹא יַחֲטִא" as evidence of this usage. As such, it refers to inadvertent sins rather than intentional ones.

Who must bring a Chatat: common denominator

• Sin – These sources might suggest that all cases in which a Chatat is brought involve sin of some sort.  Vayikra 4 speaks explicitly of those who inadvertently transgress a sin.² The birthing mother, metzora, and Nazirite are similarly obligated for they, too, are understood to have sinned, despite the sin not being explicit in Torah.³
• Change of status – Alternatively, one might suggest that the unifying factor between all those who bring a Chatat is that the individual is undergoing a change in status. The inadvertent transgressor transitions from sinner to innocent, from someone who deserved to be cut off, to someone who is welcomed back into the community.  The physically impure similarly transition from impure to pure and from being distanced from the Mikdash to being close. The Nazirite, too, moves from a place of separation back into society.⁴

How does the Chatat serve to atone?

• Replacement for the sinner – Ibn Ezra and Ramban suggest that the sacrifice serves as a substitute or redemption (כופר נפש) for the sinner, as it is killed in the individual's stead.⁵ Moreover, in watching the animal slaughtered, the person is forced to recognize that it should have been his blood which was spilled had it not been for Hashem's mercy.⁶ This knowledge should prevent him from sinning further.
• Enable repentance and change – Others suggest that in reality it is the individual's personal repentance rather than the sacrifice which expiates for sin.  The sacrificial process is necessary only to lead the sinner to this repentance and enable a fresh start.
• Sefer HaChinukh asserts that the process of having to actively bring an offering (rather than simply confessing by mouth) leads one to recognize the gravity of his sin and regret and repent of his actions ("אחרי הפעולות נמשכות לבבות").⁷
• R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag add that if there was no way of cleansing one's self from sin, people would be less likely to be wary of future sins, thinking that they would remain stained regardless. The sacrificial process was instituted so that individuals can feel that their slate has been wiped clean, thereby providing an incentive to subsequently remain pure.⁸

"וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" – The root "כפר" can be defined in various manners, each corresponding to this position's understanding of the Chatat's purpose:

• Rashi and Ralbag asserts that "כפר" means to wipe away or remove.⁹ This suggests that the sacrificial procedure serves to wipe away the need for punishment or, perhaps, the sin itself.¹⁰ Shadal, pointing to Bereshit 6:14, "וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר" similarly suggests that the word means to "cover". Via the offering, one's sin is covered, as if it has disappeared.
• Ibn Ezra and Ramban, in contrast, suggests that the root "כפר" relates to the phrase "כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ", meaning ransom.  The Chatat acts as a redemption for the sinner, being offered in his place.

Role of blood – Ramban asserts that the animal's blood is supposed to represent and substitute for the sinner's soul, being sprinkled on the altar in his stead. The unique language of "נתינת דם" (rather than זריקת דם) might imply that blood plays a more important role in this sacrifice than others, due its role in the atonement process.

Status related – Chatatot and their protocols are divided based on the status of the person who sinned (with those of higher stature bringing more expensive animals and their blood being sprinkled deeper in the Mishkan's precincts) because the more important the person the more serious his transgression is deemed.¹¹

Role of סמיכה – These sources present two understandings of this procedure:

• Transfer of sin – Ralbag¹² asserts that the laying of hands is a symbolic act, representing the transfer of sin from the transgressor to the animal.¹³  This is meant to allow the sinner to feel that his sins were in fact removed and that he is now clean.¹⁴
• Appointing of substitute – R. D"Z Hoffmann notes that throughout Torah, "סמיכה" represents the choosing of another as a substitute.¹⁵ If so, perhaps here the point is to signify that the animal is taking the place of the human, being punished in his stead.

Burning outside the camp – Rambam asserts that the flesh of the offerings of the Priest and Community are burned outside the camp because they carry grave sins, and are thus too contaminated to be brought on the altar of the Mishkan.¹⁶  For the same reason, the smoke of these offerings are not described as a "לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַי״י". In contrast to a burnt offering (עולה) whose fragrance is pleasing, the smoke of these sin offerings, representing the guilt of the nation, is offensive.¹⁷

Not called an "אִשֶּׁה לַי״י"

"וְנִסְלַח לוֹ" – As this position maintains that forgiveness is the end goal of the whole procedure, it is expected that after describing th various protocols the verse should state, "וְנִסְלַח לוֹ".

Gradated offerings (עולה ויורד) – According to these sources the gradated offerings of Vayikra 5 function like a regular Chatat, also serving to atone for sin.  According to R"Y Bekhor Shor¹⁸ and Ramban,¹⁹ is only because the sins are less severe that one is offered the possibility of giving a less expensive offering.  Sefer HaChinkuh, in contrast, suggests that the leniency stems from the factt hat these specific sins are very common and easily transgressed.²⁰

Comparison to Asham

Purification Offering

The Chatat is primarily a purification offering.

Sources:R. David Zvi HoffmannVayikra 5:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, modern scholars²¹

Meaning of Chatat – According to these sources,²² the root "חטא" means to purify, as proven by the many verses where it is clearly mentioned in the context of purification (sometimes being parallel to the root "טהר") including Vayikra 14:48-52, Bemidbar 8:7, Bemidbar 19:19 and Yechezkel 43:23-26.²³

Who must bring a Chatat: common denominator – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the common denominator between all cases in which one must bring a Chatat is that they involve contraction of impurity, be it spiritual or physical. Thus, both those individuals who have obtained and imparted spiritual impurity by unintentionally transgressing a prohibition and those who have contracted physical impurity (a birthing mother, one who has tzara'at, one who has an emission, and a Nazirite who has come in contact with a corpse) are obligated to bring a Chatat.²⁴

What does the Chatat purify? R. Hoffmann explains that sin defiles²⁵ not just the person, but also the Mikdash,²⁶ and as such, the Chatat comes to purify also the Mikdash itself from impurity. As evidence that the Mikdash itself can be polluted not just via physical impurity but by sin as well, he points to Vayikra 16:16, "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם" and Vayikra 20:3, "כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ לְמַעַן טַמֵּא אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי".

Where is the Chatat blood sprinkled? In support of the assumption that the Chatat is meant to purify the Mikdash itself, R. Hoffmann notes that the blood of such offerings is sprinkled not on the person but in the Mikdash. He further suggests that the gravity of the sin determines the depths to which the Mikdash is polluted, and hence, where exactly the blood is sprinkled:

• Unintentional sins of an individual are the least defiling and affect only the courtyard. As such, the blood of these Chatatot is sprinkled on the outer altar.
• Inadvertent sins of the high priest (Vayikra 4:1-12) and community (Vayikra 4:13-21) affect even the Outer Sanctum and thus, the blood of their Chatatot is sprinkled on the Incense Altar.
• Brazen sins penetrate to even the Inner Sanctum, and this is purified through the blood of the Yom HaKippurim offerings, sprinkled in the Holy of Holies. [For further discussion on the role of the various Chatatot of Yom HaKippurim see Purpose of the Service of Vayikra 16.]

Role of the blood: "וְנָתַן... מִן הַדָּם" – According to this approach, the sprinkling, placing, and pouring of the blood is the focal point of the sacrificial protocol as it is the blood which serves as the purifying agent.  This might be supported by the unique language of "נתינת דם" which is found only by the Chatat (rather than "זריקת דם" found by other offerings). This language implies that the blood of the Chatat is not merely thrown, but actively placed on the defiled areas.²⁷

Status related – In contrast to other offerings, Chatatot and their protocols are divided based on the status of the person who sinned. As mentioned above, this is due to the fact that the higher the status, the more defiling the sin, and hence both the bigger the offering required and the deeper into the Mikdash that the blood must be sprinkled.

Not called an "אִשֶּׁה לַי״י" – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that while other sacrifices are referred to as an "אִשֶּׁה לַי״י", by the Chatat this is not emphasized because the focal point of the sacrifice is not its consumption by fire, but its purifying of the altar.

Role of סמיכה – This position might suggest that the "hand leaning" has no symbolic value and is not integral to the purification process (and, as such, is not unique to this offering).  It might  simply demonstrate ownership of the animal being sacrificed.

For which transgressions? This approach might suggest that any unintentional transgression, even if not overly severe, would require an offering, for all transgressions contaminate the Mikdash.²⁸

"וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" – This approach might suggest that he root "כפר" refers to the purging of defilement rather than atonement. See, for example, Vayikra 12:7-8, Vayikra 14:18-20, Yechezkel 43:26 and Yechezkel 45:18-20 where the root is paired with the root "טהר".‎²⁹

"וְנִסְלַח לוֹ" – This phrase is somewhat difficult for this position, which suggests that the sacrifice is not meant to atone, but only to purify.  One might respond that with purification comes forgiveness.³⁰

Gradated offerings (קרבן עולה ויורד) – This position³¹ might suggest that in certain cases of impurity, where there is no active transgression but rather the omission of an act, the Torah is lenient, allowing one's economic means to determine what is brought as the offering.³² 

• Delayed purification – Vayikra 5:2-4 is understood to refer to a case in which someone contracted impurity by touching a defiled object or corpse and then forgot to purify one's self (even if one does not subsequently enter the Mikdash or eat of consecrated food). Since postponing one's purification might cause a build-up of impurity which can then contaminate the Mikdash, a Chatat is necessary.  However, since the actual defilement is not prohibited³³ and the delay in purification was an unintentional crime of omission, there is room for leniency.
• Abrogation of oaths – Vayikra 5:1 refers to case where one does not bear testimony despite hearing an oath/curse requiring it.³⁴  As such it is similar to a case in which one accidentally does not fulfill a vow (Vayikra 5:4) in that both relate to oaths but are crimes of omission rather than active performance of a prohibited action. This position might suggest that abrogation of oaths normally causes Temple impurity, requiring a Chatat, but since these cases do not involve any action (but the lack thereof), the Torah allows for a lower grade of offering.

Difference from Asham – R. Hoffmann suggests that though both the Chatat and Asham are obligatory sacrifices, offered in the wake of sin, they serve different functions.  While the Chatat is mainly a purification offering, the Asham is primarily a reparations offering, meant to compensate for benefiting from the Sancta.

¹ See, for example, Bereshit 4:7, 18:20, and 50:17.

² These sources follow Bavli Shabbat 69a in limiting the obligation to those who transgress prohibitions for which one would have been culpable of "כרת" had it been intentional.

³ Bavli Niddah 31bNiddah 31bAbout the Bavli suggests that in the pain of childbirth, the mother sins in swearing not to ever have relations again. Vayikra Rabbah 17:317:3About Vayikra Rabbah brings a whole host of possible sins transgressed by one inflicted by tzara'at. [See Tzara'at  for details.]  Finally, Sifre Bemidbar 6:11 states that the Nazirite sinned in separating himself from wine, while Ramban claims that his sin lies in ending the period of his Nazirite oath.

⁴ It is possible that the Levites brought a Chatat during their consecration (Bemidbar 8:8) for the same reason, to mark their elevation in status.

⁵ See Ibn Ezra on Shemot 12:7 who views the role played by the blood in the Pesach offering in a similar light. For elaboration, see Purpose of the Pesach.

⁶ As the individual watches each part of the animal be sacrificed, he thinks of his parallel limbs and how they aided him in sin. The guts and kidneys are the seat of thought and desire which led him to err, while the thigh represents his legs and hands which did the action. The animal's blood represents the sinner's soul. As such, watching the animal burn is a powerful symbol of the sinner's own potential fate.

⁷ One could add that the necessity of having to slaughter of one's own flock causes the sinner pain, leading him to further distance himself from sin in the future.

⁸ R"Y Bekhor Shor makes an analogy to a person who is wearing pure white clothing and therefore is very careful lest he get them dirty. Once he blackens them, however, he is not nearly as cautious.

⁹ See Yeshayahu 27:9 and Yirmeyahu 18:23 where the word is paired with both "מחה" and "הסר" (meaning to erase and remove). As further support, Rashi points out that in Aramaic the root similarly means to remove.

¹⁰ Ramban argues against this reading, pointing out that the Torah never uses the language "לכפר את החטא", but rather "לכפר בעד החטא" or "בעד נפשותיכם" and the like.

¹¹ See, though, Rambam who asserts that the bigger the sin, the lower the quality of the animal that is brought.  He claims that the sins of those of higher stature are actually smaller than those of the ordinary individual, for they themselves sinned only in relaying mistaken teachings but did not actively perform an inappropriate action. [Rambam, though, is somewhat self-contradictory as later in his comments he implies that these offerings carry more grave than others and that is why the flesh of these animals are burned outside the camp.]

¹² See SefornoVayikra 1:4Maamar Kavvanot HaTorah 8,9About R. Ovadyah Seforno similarly.

¹³ As evidence, he points to the ceremony of the two goats on Yom HaKippurim, where the verse more explicitly connects the ritual of the laying of hands and transfer of sins, "וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁתֵּי יָדָו עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת כׇּל עֲוֺנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר".

¹⁴ Cf. Rambam who emphasizes that there is no real transfer of sin; this is merely a symbolic act: אבל אלו המעשים כולם משלים להביא מורא בנפש עד שתתפעל לתשובה - כלומר שכל מה שקדם ממעשינו נקינו מהם והשלכנום אחרי גוינו והרחקנום תכלית ההרחקה.

¹⁵ As support, he points to Moshe's appointing of Yehoshua as his substitute through laying his hands upon him (Bemidbar 27:23), or the Israelites appointing the Levites to serve in their stead in Bemidbar 8:10.

¹⁶ He compares this to the goat which is sent to Azazel. Laden as it is with all of the sins of the entire nation, it is brought as far away from the sanctuary as possible. See Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel for elaboration on his position.

¹⁷ To explain why the Chatat of the individual is still described as having a "רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ" one might suggest that the sins of individuals are less offensive, being more minor.

¹⁸ R"Y Bekhor Shor points out that the transgressor derives no benefit form any of the sins listed.

¹⁹ Ramban notes that, in contrast to sins for which one is obligated to bring a Chatat, the oath related crimes are not deserving of כרת when performed intentionally. The leniency relating to the sin of forgetting to purify one's self and then entering the Kodesh, in contrast, derives from the fact that the individual was engaged in doing a positive act when he unintentionally transgressed.

²⁰ He claims that speech related sins, like abrogating oaths,  tend to be more common that actions, and laws of purity are often difficult to observe.

²¹ For a comprehensive discussion of this position, see J. Milgrom, "תפקיד קרבן החטאת", Tarbitz 40 (1971):1-8 and. See also מ. ברזלי, "מה בי�ן חטאת לאשם? על תפקיד
של קרבנות החובה בספר ויקרא"ת משלב מ' (תשל"א):31-50 and י. גרוסמן,

²² Se also R. Saadia Gaon who translates "חטאת" as "ד'כוה", meaning purification and see Shadal Vayikra 4:3Vayikra 4:3-14About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, "קרא חטאת כשעושין בו חטוי על קרנות המזבח, ומפני שקוראים להזהה חטוי כד״א {=כמה דהוא אומר} תחטאני באזוב {תהלים נ״א:ט׳}, על כן נקרא הקרבן הזה חטאת, לא מפני שבא על חטא".

²³ See also Shemot 29:36,Vayikra 8:15, and Yechezkel 45:18.

²⁴ The red heifer whose ashes come to purify one who has come into contact with a dead body is also referred to as a Chatat. In addition, during the Days of Consecration, a Chatat was brought to purify the Altar.

²⁵ He suggests that this impurity takes the form of the distancing of the Shekhinah, while purification via sprinkling of blood allows the Shekhinah to return.

²⁶ While R. Hoffmann asserts that the sacrifice serves to purify both the sinner's soul and the Mikdash, Prof. Milgrom goes a step further to suggest that the Chatat comes to purify only the Mikdash. According to both, impurity can be contracted from a distance; the sinner need not actively enter the Mikdash in order for it to be defiled. To explain the process of sin's defilement, Milgrom uses Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" as an analogy. In the work, the corrupt and hedonistic Dorian Gary remains handsome and unblemished, while his portrait progressively reveals his corruption. So, too, Milgrom suggests that according to Sefer Vayikra, sinful actions might not always be revealed in the figure of the sinner, but every sin will progressively contaminate the Mikdash.

²⁷ This is what leads Chazal to suggest that the Chatat requires four "gifts" of blood, while other sacrifices require only two.

²⁸ R. Hoffmann, though, follows Chazal and limits the cases for which one needs to bring an offering to only those which one would have been obligated with כרת had one transgressed them intentionally.  Perhaps, it is only somewhat severe sins t

²⁹ J. Milgrom, who maintains that only the Mikdash is purified rather than the sinner himself, notes that in the context of people, the verb "כפר"never takes a direct object (כפר את) because they themselves are not being purified.  The text rather employs the phrase "כפר על", meaning that the purification (of the Mikdash)  is being done on the individual's behalf.

³⁰ This is more difficult for Milgrom who thinks that only the Mikdash itself is being purified. He notes that since the transgression was unintentional, pardon is automatic once the sinner recognized his deed, yet the consequences of his sin, defilement of the Mikdash, still require forgiveness. This is attained after the sacrificial blood purges the Mikdash.

³¹ The reconstruction below draws heavily on Prof. Milgrom's understanding of the verses but follows A. Bazak, "קרבן עולה ויורד" in emphasizing the role of the "crime of omission" rather than "active trangression."  A. Bazak, however, not set his discussion in the context of the purifying role of the Chatat.

³² R. D"Z Hoffmann does not read the verses in this manner, instead viewing these cases as constituting an in-between category of sins which resemble both a Chatat and an Asham, as each requires the repayment of a debt as well. He understands "שבועת עדות" (Vayikra 5:1) to refer to a case in which one who swore that he had no testimony to share, when he in fact could have testified and saved another economic loss.  The case of שבועת הביטוי (Vayikra 5:4) is one in which someone does not fulfill a vow.  In both one has incurred a "debt" and are thus similar to "" for which one must bring an Asham.  R. Hoffmann understands the case of impurity by contact (Vayikra 5:2-3) to refer to someone who not only forgot to purify himself but who then went into the Mikdash or ate of consecrated foods while he was impure.  As such, it is similar to the case of "מעילה בקודש,"  when one desecrates and benefits from the Kodesh and is obligated to bring an Asham.

³³ Prof. Milgrom suggests that in other cases of physical impurity, such as a birthing mother or a metzora, the sacrifice is similarly economically gradated as one can bring either a lamb or a bird. [In the cases of emissions or a defiled Nazirite, no gradation is necessary as to begin with one is only required to bring a bird.]  In these cases as well, there is no sin in being defiled, just a necessity to purify, and thus there is more leniency in what is brought.
Prof. Milgrom suggests that the option of a meal offering is not open to these individuals, for there is no excuse for accidental postponement of purification in cases of actual bodily impurity. [It is difficult to "forget" about physical impurity that is affecting one's body such as tzara'at.]. Moreover, as these cases involve clear cut cases of Mikdash defilement (rather than the potential defilement of the Mikdash in cases of delayed purification), blood (and hence an animal) is necessary as it is the preferred purifying agent.

³⁴ The individual, though, did not himself swear that he had no testimony to share, nor even answer "amen" to one who made the oath.