Moshe Kollmar and Yakir Forman's Review of Chizkuni's Comments on Parashat VaYikra

ויקרא פרק ה

כ וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  כא נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא, וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיהוָה; וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן, אוֹ-בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ

בְגָזֵל, אוֹ, עָשַׁק אֶת-עֲמִיתוֹ.  כב אוֹ-מָצָא אֲבֵדָה וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ, וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל-שָׁקֶר; עַל-אַחַת, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם--לַחֲטֹא בָהֵנָּה.  כג וְהָיָה, כִּי-יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם--וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת-הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת-הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק, אוֹ אֶת-הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ; אוֹ אֶת-הָאֲבֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר מָצָא.  כד אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו, לַשֶּׁקֶר--וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו: לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ, בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ.  כה וְאֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא, לַיהוָה, אַיִל תָּמִים מִן-הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.  כו וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וְנִסְלַח לוֹ, עַל-אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה, לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ

    Chizkuni begins his comments to this section by noting that Korbanot and fines serve as punishment for swearing falsely, but no Azharah appears in this section.  He answers that the Azharah appears in the Pasuk, “Lo Teshakeru” in Parashat Kedoshim.  This seems like a very reasonable assumption.
    Chizkuni interprets the phrase, “VeShilam Oto BeRosho” (v. 24) to exclude payment of additional fines such as Tashlumei Cheifel and Tashlumei Arbaah VaChamishah.  He also interpets the plural “Chamishitav” to refer to paying multiple Chomeshim: one Chomesh and then one Chomesh of the Chomesh if he swears falsely about the Chomesh, etc.  He says that this applies if he is discovered to have lied Al Pi Eidim.  If he admits himself that he lied, then he pays only one Chomesh.  This appears to be a novel assumption with little root in the Pesukim, and in fact, the footnote in the Torat Chayim notes that it contradicts the Gemara (Bava Kama 108b).  We’re not sure if one use of a plural word warrants contradicting the Gemara (after all, it could just refer to multiple cases of Chomesh).
    Chizkuni then explains the use of the word “BeYom” in the phrase “BeYom Ashmato.” He says that one should pay the money back on the very day he will bring his Asham because it will aid his Korban in its acceptance process.  We are not sure whether this means that it is preferable to pay back on that specific day or by the day he brings his Korban.  Either way, this idea very nicely notes the link between Teshuvah Bein Adam LaChaveiro (repaying) and Teshuvah Bein Adam LaMakom (bringing a Korban) that the Pesukim express in this section.
    Chizkuni then spends some time discussing why specific Aveirot require specific Korbanot.  He notes that Aveirot that give no benefit (such as entering the Mikdash while Tamei, eating Korbanot BeTumah, or breaking a Shevuah) require a relatively easy Korban to bring, the Korban Oleh VeYoreid, since Hashem has mercy due to the lack of benefit received from the Aveirah. (We aren’t sure why eating Korbanot BeTumah is counted as having no Hanaah.)

On the other hand, Aveirot with Hanaah (such as eating Cheilev, drinking Dam, eating on Yom HaKippurim, or doing Melachah on Shabbat) require a Chatat, a more severe Korban because of its fixed value. Avodah Zarah, even though it gives no benefit, is inherently a severe sin because it involves rebellion against Hashem, so it too requires a Chatat.

Me’ilah has two strikes against it - it is a rebellion against Hashem and also gives Hanaah - so it requires an Asham, which is even stricter than a Chatat. Denying that you were given a Pikadon to watch also has two strikes against it - swearing falsely and giving Hanaah - so it requires an Asham. Finally, the Torah requires an Asham in a case in which it is a Safeik whether Cheit was committed or not, even though this Asham is stricter than the Chatat that would be required if it were known that the Cheit was committed, because it will teach people to stop being so careless that they get themselves into a situation of Safeik.

In this section, Chizkuni notes Pshat ideas (one of which is reasonable, and the other is very novel) as well as thematic concepts that greatly enhanced our understanding of the laws of Korbanot. Although we didn’t understand where Chizkuni was coming from a few times in this section, we enjoyed his analysis and thought his comments made sense overall.