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 unintentional sins.

Sources:RambanVayikra 3:1Vayikra 5:15About R. Moshe b. Nachman

Meaning of Chatat

Who must bring a Chatat: common denominator

Purification Offering

The Chatat is primarily a purification offering.

Sources:R. David Zvi HoffmannVayikra 5:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, modern scholars¹

Meaning of Chatat – According to these sources,² 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 43:23-26.³

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.⁴

What does the Chatat purify? R. Hoffmann explains that sin defiles⁵ not just the person, but also the Mikdash,⁶ 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 sprinkled, but actively placed on the defiled areas.⁷

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.⁸

"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".‎⁹

"וְנִסְלַח לוֹ" – This phrase is somewhat difficult for this position, which suggests that the sacrifice is not meant to atone. Milgrom suggests 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.

Gradated offerings – This position¹⁰ 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.¹¹ 

• 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 prohibited¹² 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.¹³  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 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,

² 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".

³ See also Shemot 29:36,Vayikra 8:15, and Yechezkel 45:18.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ 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.

⁷ This is what leads Chazal to suggest that the Chatat requires four "gifts" of blood, while other sacrifices require only two.

⁸ 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

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ 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.

¹² 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.

¹³ The individual, though, did not himself swear that he had no testimony to share, nor even answer "amen" to one who made the oath.