Parasha Thoughts
By Rabbi David Cohen
This is the law of the sin-offering; in the place where the Olah (Elevation/Burnt-Offering) is slaughtered, shall the sin-offering be slaughtered. (6:17)
The Torah details the various laws applicable to the korbanot, ritual offerings. One intriguing halachah that demands elucidation is that of the Korban Chatat, Sin-offering, which was slaughtered in the same place in the Courtyard of the Mishkan, already used for the Korban Olah, Burnt-offering. The Olah was slaughtered b’tzafon, to the north, of the Mizbayach, Altar. Why is the primary halachah that of the Olah being slaughtered in the north, with the “follow-up” being the Chatat? This implies that the need to have the Olah slaughtered in the north is of greater significance to the Olah than to the Chatat. Second, why does the Chatas merely “follow” the Olah? They are two distinct korbanot, with apparently no connection to one another.
The Shem MiShmuel quotes his father, the Avnei Nezer, who makes a profound observation concerning the Korban Olah. An Olah is brought to atone for sinful thoughts which did not conclude with any action. The Olah was slaughtered in the north. The Hebrew word for north is tzafon, which has the same root as the word matzpun, which means conscience or intellect. The Olah is, thus, slaughtered in the north, because the north represents man’s intellect, the place where the sin requiring the Olah had occurred: the intellect/mind/conscience.
While this addresses why the Korban Olah was brought in the north, it creates a new difficulty. Since the Olah was brought to atone for sins emanating from the intellect or “intellectual sins,” those which involved no physical action – only evil thoughts – it was suited for the north. This was, so to speak, the intellectual corner of the Courtyard. If so, why was the Chatat brought in the same place? The Sin-offering was a korban brought to atone for an accidental sin – a sin which was carried out – without thought. Had any of these sins been performed with deliberation, they would have incurred a punishment of karet, Heavenly excision. The Chatat represents sinful behavior without intellect, [a sinful act without sinful aforethought]. The mind was not engaged when the body carried out the sinful act, diametrically contrasting the Olah, which is a sinful thought without an act. Why, then, should they be so closely intertwined to the point that both offerings have to be slaughtered in the same place?
The Shem MiShmuel feels that we must first delve into the nature of inadvertent sin, the precipitator of the Korban Chatat. Why does one sin inadvertently? On a simple level, one either forgets that it is Shabbat and acts the way he would during the week – precipitating a number of transgressions; or, he is aware that it is Shabbat, but has forgotten that a particular activity is prohibited on Shabbat. In either event, he acted without malice and aforethought. Indeed, he acted without thinking – period. He is obliged to bring a Korban Chatat to atone for his action.
Why does this happen? Should we view inadvertent sin as a mere accident, totally unpreventable? The Shem MiShmuel does not seem to think so. In fact, he feels that when a person sins, his action reflects more than mere chance. We all have our desires, our likes and dislikes. When the Torah prohibits a certain activity, a specific food, it does not mean that we no longer have any interest in it or that the activity no longer is something we enjoy doing. In reality, our desire still exists, but it is harnessed. We refrain from actually doing the prohibited act because the Torah forbids it. Our consciousness of Hashem’s will prevails over our physical desire to act, to eat.
Thus, despite the fact that one is controlling himself, his desire for the act creates a connection to the psyche, which controls him from carrying out the forbidden deed. The consequence of this interplay between psyche and deed is that, while he would never consciously perform the transgression, when his guard is down – for whatever reason – if he is not thinking rationally, his reflex will be to transgress. This is the true act of aveirah b’shogeg, inadvertent sin: one in which were he to be mindful and in control, he would never act sinfully; but when he is not mindful, it just “slips” out – not on purpose – not with malice – just “slipping.”
We now understand the connection between the Olah and the Chatat. The commonality between them is that they are both sins of the mind. Inappropriate, sinful thoughts are the springboards for sins which obligate each individual offering. As such, both sacrifices are slaughtered in the north, the place which emblemizes the power of the intellect.