Ramban on Leviticus 6:23

וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה שאם הכניס מדם חטאת החיצונה לפנים פסולה לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא ו׳:כ״ג) וכפי הדעת הזו מה שאמר "לכפר בקדש" אינו כמשמעו שזו אינה מכפרת שהרי נפסלה בהבאה זו ומפני זה הפסול שלה היא נשרפת אבל אמר "לכפר" שאם הכניסה לפנים על דעת לכפר שיזה ממנה שם כמעשה חטאת פנימית אע"פ שלא כפר בה כלומר שלא הזה מדמה כלום נפסלה משעת כניסה ותשרף ואפשר שאם הכניסה על דעת שלא להזות ממנה כלל שתהא כשרה וכדברי ר' שמעון (זבחים פב) אינה פסולה אלא אם כן כפר בדמה שעשה בה הזאות כמעשה חטאת פנימית ולכך אמר הכתוב "לכפר" לא שכפרה אלא שהוא הביא מדמה לכפר בה וכפר כפי מחשבתו ופירוש "לפנים" שהכניס הדם להיכל וכן אם הכניס מדם פר כהן משיח והעלם דבר ושעירי ע"ז לפני ולפנים שכולן לפנים ממקומן הכניסן ופסולין ואמר "מדמה" שאפילו מקצת דמה פוסל שאם קבל דמה בשני כוסות והכניס אחד מהן לפנים פסולה (שם) ועל דרך הפשט אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בחטאות הפנימיות שצוה כבר בשריפתן ובא כאן ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתן כי הפרשה להשלים דיני החטאות וזהו מדרשו של ר' יוסי הגלילי בתורת כהנים (פרק ח ח) ובזבחים (שם): AND EVERY SIN-OFFERING, WHEREOF ANY OF THE BLOOD IS BROUGHT INTO THE TENT OF MEETING etc. “This means that if the priest brought any of the blood of ‘an outer sin-offering’⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. into the interior of the Sanctuary it becomes invalidated, [and the offering may not be eaten, and must be burnt].” Thus the language of Rashi. According to this opinion, the phrase to atone in the holy place which Scripture says [in continuation], is not to be understood in its simple sense, since this blood does not [in fact] bring atonement, for it became invalidated as soon as it was brought into the Sanctuary, and it is on account of that very invalidation that it is to be burnt. Rather, the expression to atone means [according to Rashi] that if he brought it into the interior “with the intent to atone,” [namely] to sprinkle there of its blood as is done with the blood of “the inner sin-offerings,”⁵²Sin-offerings were of two kinds: (a) those whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar, and are therefore referred to as the “outer sin-offerings.” These included most of the sin-offerings. After the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the fats, the meat was eaten by the priests, (b) The second group was called “the inner sin offerings,” because their blood was taken into the interior of the Sanctuary to be sprinkled in front of the Veil overhanging the Holy of Holies, as well as on the golden altar (see above, 4:6-7; 17-18), and on the Day of Atonement also in front of the ark (further, 16:14-15). These sin-offerings were wholly burnt outside the camp [and later, after the Sanctuary was built, they were burnt outside the city of Jerusalem]. — Now here in Verse 20 Scripture states the law regarding “the outer sin-offerings,” that if any of their blood was sprinkled upon a garment, the garment must be washed in a holy place [i.e., in the Court of the Sanctuary], But it does not say this law with regard to “the inner sin-offerings.” Since the section, however, begins with the expression [zoth] ‘torath’ hachatath (this is ‘the law’ of the sin-offering), and the word torath denotes inclusion, we know that the same law applies to both kinds of sin-offering. even though he has not [in fact] atoned with it, meaning that he has not sprinkled any of its blood, it is nonetheless invalidated from the moment of entry, and [the offering] is to be burnt. It is possible according to this that if he brought it in with the intent of not sprinkling thereof at all [in the Sanctuary], that the offering remains valid. According to the words of Rabbi Shimon,⁶³Zebachim 83 a. it only becomes invalidated if he “atoned” with the blood, meaning that he actually sprinkled thereof in the same manner as is done in the case of “the inner sin-offerings” [i.e., in front of the Veil and on the comers of the golden altar].⁶⁴See above, 4:6-7. It is for this reason that Scripture states to atone — not [meaning] that he actually effected atonement, but that he brought of its blood to atone with it, and, according to his thinking, effected atonement. The meaning of the term “into the interior” [which Rashi mentioned above] is “into the Sanctuary.” The same [is also the meaning of the phrase] “if he brought into the ‘interior of the interior’ [i.e., the Holy of Holies]” of the bullock of the anointed priest,⁶⁵Ibid., Verses 4-7. or that of “forgetting a matter of law,”⁶⁶Ibid., Verses 13-18. or of the goats brought for worshipping the idols,⁶⁷Numbers 15:24. namely that if he brought their blood into a more interior place than that designated for them, [since in these cases of sin-offering the blood is to be brought into the Sanctuary proper to effect atonement], then the offerings become invalidated. Scripture states ‘of’ the blood in order to indicate that even bringing in part of the blood invalidates the offering. Thus if the priest received the blood in two cups, and brought only one of them into the interior, the offering is invalidated.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture,⁶⁸Thus far we have followed the interpretation of Rashi which is based upon sources in the Talmud, which was as follows: “and every outer sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place, according to the priest’s intent which was not, however, in accordance with the law — since the blood of an outer sin-offering is to be sprinkled upon the outer altar — that offering shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.” Ramban is now to suggest a totally different interpretation, namely, that the verse is not speaking of outer sin-offerings wrongly brought in, but establishes the principle that all “inner sin-offerings” [as enumerated in the text: “the bullock of the anointed priest etc.”] the blood of which is regularly brought into the interior, are not to be eaten by the priests, unlike that of “the outer sin-offerings,” whose meat is eaten by the priests (see Note 52 above). Ramban will conclude by saying that this is the interpretation of one of the Sages in the Torath Kohanim and Talmud. the verse speaks only with reference to “the inner sin-offerings,” concerning the burning of which He had already commanded,⁶⁹Above, 4:12, 21. and here Scripture came to add a negative commandment against eating them,⁷⁰The command in Chapter 4 is a positive one; Ramban is saying that the verse here adds to this a negative command, not to eat of the flesh, in addition to the positive one to burn it. There is thus an additional penalty for one who eats of it. for this section is intended to complete the laws of sin-offerings.⁷¹Ramban means to say that although Verses 17-22 clearly speak of outer sin-offerings [which are eaten], Scripture wished to complete here all laws pertaining to all sin-offerings, and thus we may interpret Verse 23 as indeed referring to inner sin-offerings (see note 68 above). This is the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean in the Torath Kohanim⁷²Torath Kohanim, Tzav 8:5. and in Tractate Zebachim.⁷³Zebachim 82 a.