Leviticus 5:15

(15) If a soul commit a trespass.—The word used here for trespass is not the same which is so rendered in Lev_5:19, and from which the noun rendered in this very chapter by trespass offering (Lev_5:6-7; Lev_5:15-16; Lev_5:19), is derived. It literally denotes to cover, then to act covertly, to be faithless, especially in matters of a sacred covenant made either with God (Lev_26:40; Num_31:16; Deu_32:51, &c.), or between husband and wife (Num_5:12; Num_5:27).

And sin through ignorance.—If at the time of its committal he did not know that it was a transgression. (See Lev_4:2.)

In the holy things of the Lord.—That is, inadvertently keeping back the things which belong to the sanctuary, and to the service of the Lord, as, for instance, the tithes, the firstfruits, or not consecrating or redeeming his firstborn (Exo_28:38; Num_5:6-8).

A ram without blemish.—For committing any of these transgressions presumptuously, the transgressor incurred the punishment of excision (Num_15:30; Heb_10:28); but when they were done unawares, he was to bring a ram as a sacrifice. According to the rules which obtained during the second Temple, it must be over thirty-one days in the second year of its age. It was of greater value than the female sheep. The sacrifice for a trespass in holy things, though ignorantly committed, was therefore more costly than for the sin of ignorance mentioned in Lev_5:6.

With thy estimation by shekels of silver.—That is, according to the valuation of Moses, to whom this was primarily addressed, the ram is to be so grown up as to be worth several, or at least two shekels. The act of valuing was transferred by Moses to the officiating priests. (See Lev_27:8; Lev_27:12; Num_18:16.) For the shekels of the sanctuary see Exo_30:13.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 5:15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:

Ver. 15. In the holy things of the Lord.] Things consecrate to him, by robbing and wronging of God and his priests; be it but through ignorance or error. For to do such a thing presumptuously was death, {Num 15:30} and by the laws of the twelve tables in Rome, such were to be punished as parricides. {a}

{a} Sacrum qui clepserit, rapseritve, parricida esto.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 5:15. A trespass — Against the Lord and his priests. Through ignorance — For if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Num 15:30. In the holy things — In things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; these were many, and by various ways a man might be guilty, even unwittingly, with respect to them; such as tithes and first-fruits, or any thing due or devoted to God, which possibly a man might either withhold, or employ to some common use. A ram — A more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation — As thou, O priest, shalt esteem or rate it; and at present, thou, O Moses, for he as yet performed the priest’s part. And this was an additional charge and punishment to him; besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had withheld or abused, so many shekels of silver as the priests should esteem proportionable to it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:15 unintentionally defiling: Damage to sacred property was distinguished from damage to secular property. The sacrifice was effective only if the damage to sacred property had been committed accidentally. Deliberate damage, such as vandalism, to something sacred was blasphemous. As with other deliberate sins (Num 15:30-31), no means was specified for its atonement. No devout believer would defiantly continue in sin (see 1 Jn 3:9). • The sanctuary shekel was not a coin but a standardized unit for measuring weight. It was used to evaluate the ram being offered. Some scholars suggest that this text permits the substitution of the appropriate amount of silver for the ram.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

By the estimation of the Priest, Lev. 27:12.

As touching the firstfruits or tithes, due to the Priests and Levites.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, &c.--This is a case of sacrilege committed ignorantly, either in not paying the full due of tithes, first-fruits, and similar tribute in eating of meats, which belonged to the priests alone--or he was required, along with the restitution in money, the amount of which was to be determined by the priest, to offer a ram for a trespass offering, as soon as he came to the knowledge of his involuntary fraud.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 15. In the holy things of the Lord] This law seems to relate particularly to sacrilege, and defrauds in spiritual matters; such as the neglect to consecrate or redeem the firstborn, the withholding of the first-fruits, tithes, and such like; and, according to the rabbins, making any secular gain of Divine things, keeping back any part of the price of things dedicated to God, or withholding what man had vowed to pay. See a long list of these things in Ainsworth.

With thy estimation] The wrong done or the defraud committed should be estimated at the number of shekels it was worth, or for which it would sell. These the defrauder was to pay down, to which he was to add a fifth part more, and bring a ram without blemish for a sin-offering besides. There is an obscurity in the text, but this seems to be its meaning.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Chs. Lev_5:14 to Lev_6:7. The Guilt-Offering

Three cases where a Guilt-Offering should be brought are here specified:

(a) 15, 16; if part of what is due to the Lord has been withheld.

15. commit a trespass] The Heb. word (mâ‘al) here and in Lev_6:2 is different from that which is rendered ‘be guilty,’ ‘bring guilt,’ and ‘guilt offering’ (trespass offering A.V.) in Lev_4:3 to Lev_5:7 (’âshâm). It means ‘to deal deceitfully.’

in the holy things of the Lord] i.e. by keeping back what is His due (e.g. tithes or firstfruits). The offender shall make restitution of what he has kept back unwittingly, adding a fifth part, and shall also bring as a Guilt-Offering a ram of sufficient value estimated after the shekel of the sanctuary. According to tradition this shekel was double the value of the ordinary shekel, but see A. R. S. Kennedy’s Art. Money, in HDB. iii. 422, or Lev. (Cent. Bible) p. 58, where he makes it to be ‘the so-called Phœnician silver shekel of 224 grains, and its value about 2 Samuel 9 d.’ It thus would weigh but little more than the Jewish shekels now extant.

according to thy estimation] also in Lev_5:18 and Lev_6:6.

in silver by shekels] i.e. the ram must be worth at the least two shekels. According to Tal. Bab. (Zebâḥîm 90 b) it must be two years old.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord,.... In the payment of tithes, or offering first fruits as he ought, by withholding them, or any part of them, or through eating of sacred things he ought not:

then shall he bring for his trespass unto the Lord; for it being a trespass in holy things, it might be properly called a trespass to or against the Lord; unless this is rather to be understood of the offering brought to the Lord for his trespass as follows:

a ram without blemish out of the flocks; out of the sheep and not the goats, as Ben Gersom observes; and this being for sacrifice, or for a trespass in holy things though ignorantly done, an offering of more value is required than for sins of ignorance in other cases, Lev 5:6 a type of Christ, who for his strength may be compared to a ram, and to one without blemish, for his purity and holiness, and to a choice one, selected out of the flock, for his being chosen out from among the people:

with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering; that is, either an estimation was to be taken of the damage done in the holy things, an account of which was to be brought along with the ram, and the cost paid; or else the ram brought was to be of the value of, or worth shekels of silver; and the least of many being two, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the sense is, that the ram brought for the trespass offering should be at least worth two shekels of silver; so Jarchi and Ben Gersom.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Commit a trespass - Rather, here and in Lev 6:2, perpetrate a wrong. The word is different from that rendered trespass elsewhere in these chapters.

Through ignorance - Through inadvertence. See Lev 4:2 note.

In the holy things of the Lord - The reference is to a failure in the payment of firstfruits, tithes or fees of any kind connected with the public service of religion by which the sanctuary suffered loss; compare Num 5:6-8.

Shekel of the sanctuary - See Exo 38:24 note.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The ceremonies: omitted in Hebrew and Septuagint --- Sanctified [Sacrificed?], neglecting to pay the first-fruits; or, by mistake, eating any of the victims reserved for God, or for the priests. --- Two sicles. St. Jerome seems to have read in the dual number, whereas the Hebrew pointed copies have sicles indefinitely; and the Rabbins understand two, when the word is plural and undetermined. Theodoret reads fifty, which some maintain is the ancient translation of the Septuagint, though it is not found in any of our copies. Hebrew may be rendered "a ram (or) according to thy estimation, sicles of silver." The particle or is sometimes understood. It is probable that when the fault was considerable, a ram was to be sacrificed, and restitution made of what was due with the fifth part besides; but if the fault was small, the priest determined how many sicles were to be presented for sacred purposes. --- Sanctuary. See Exodus xxx. 13.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

If a soul commit a trespass against the Lord and his priests.

And sin through ignorance; for if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Num 15:30.

In the holy things of the Lord; in things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; of which see Lev 22:2; such as tithes and first-fruits, or any things due, or devoted, or offered to God, which possibly a man might either withhold, or employ to some common use. See Exo 34:26; Deu 12:17,18; 15:19; Jer 2:3.

A ram was a more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation; as thou shalt esteem or rate it, thou, O priest, as appears from Lev 5:16,18; 6:6; 22:14; 27:2,3; and at present, thou, O Moses, Lev 27:3, for he as yet performed the priest’s part. And this either,

1. May be referred to the ram, which was to be of such a price and worth as the priest should appoint. Or rather,

2. Is an additional charge and punishment to him, which, besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had withheld or abused, so many shekels of silver ms the priest should esteem proportionable to it; which was, as it were, another part or branch of his trespass-offering.

The shekel of the sanctuary; of which see Poole "Gen 23:15".

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

A trespass - Against the Lord and his priests. Through ignorance - For if a man did it knowingly, he was to be cut off, Num. xv, 30. In the holy things - In things consecrated to God, and to holy uses; such as tithes and first-fruits, or any things due, or devoted to God, which possibly a man might either with-hold, or employ to some common use. A ram - A more chargeable sacrifice than the former, as the sin of sacrilege was greater. With thy estimation - As thou shalt esteem or rate it, thou, O priest; and at present, thou, O Moses, for he as yet performed the priest's part. And this was an additional charge and punishment to him; besides the ram, he was to pay for the holy thing which he had with-held or abused, so many shekels of silver as the priest should esteem proportionable to it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).

‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b).

מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1).

איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38).

בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND HE SHALL BRING ‘ASHAMO’ (HIS GUILT-OFFERING) UNTO THE ETERNAL. This offering is called asham (“guilt-offering” — as distinguished from the sin-offering), just as He has said [here in the verse] after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt-offering. But he shall bring ‘ashamo’ unto the Eternal ’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.” mentioned above in the case of the offering of higher and lower value means, “and he shall bring his offering unto the Eternal,” for that offering was a sin-offering, as He said, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering. ’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.”Now it has not been explained why the name of one offering is “a sin-offering,” and that of the other, “a guilt-offering,” since they both come to effect atonement for sin! We cannot say that the reason is since the sin-offering is a female [unlike the guilt-offering which is male, and therefore the word asham which is masculine cannot be applied to the female sin-offering], for there are sin-offerings which are male — namely the goats [brought as sin-offerings in case of the public worshipping idols, Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. or the usual sin-offering of the prince], Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks [brought by the anointed priest as a sin-offering, Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). as well as his bullock on the Day of Atonement]., Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). Again, it cannot be said that [the guilt-offering is so called] on account of the severity of the sin [for which it is brought], for behold, the leper brings two offerings — the name of one being “the sin-offering” and the name of the other, the “guilt-offering!”, Chapter 14, Verses 12 and 19. How could one person have a simultaneous liability to bring these two offerings?It appears to me that the term asham denotes some serious deeds for which the person who did it deserves to be shameim (ruined) and destroyed because of it, similar to the expressions: ‘ha’ashimeim’ (destroy them), O G-d; the pastures of the wilderness waste away., and predicts that the cities of Judah will be sh’mama (wasted away). Thus both phrases occur in juxtaposition, and Ramban deduces therefrom the underlying idea of the root shamam. Perhaps it is a combination of Isaiah 24:6 [where the word vaye’shmu — “and they wasted away”] and Joel 1:19 [where the pastures of the wilderness] are mentioned. So also: ‘Te’sham Shomron’ (Samaria shall be laid waste), for she hath rebelled against her G-d, and we are ‘asheimim — means “we are being punished.” The word chatath (sin) denotes something which has turned aside off the way, this being of the expression, every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not ‘yachti’ (miss). Now the guilt-offering for robberies, and the guilt-offering for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage would then be called asham [indicating a serious sin] because they have to be brought even for wilful commission of the sin. So also the asham (guilt-offering) of the Nazirite [which he brings for becoming defiled by a dead body, even if his defilement was caused wilfully, and is therefore deserving to be shameim — destroyed]. The guilt-offering for misusing sanctified objects, however, even though it is brought only when the sin was committed in error, yet because it concerns the holy things of the Eternal, it is called asham, because the great sin that he did makes him deserve to be shameim (destroyed) because of it, even as it is called me’ilah (treachery). ’ (if any one commit a treachery) (in Verse 15). The reason for the name [asham] of the leper’s offering, Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term asham, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (ibid., Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is because a leper is regarded as dead, and thus he is shameim (ruined) and destroyed. The leper’s first offering, then, Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term asham, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (ibid., Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is called asham in order to protect him from the guilt for which he is “ruined,” and the second is the sin-offering which effects atonement for his errors.The reason for the suspensive guilt-offering is because the owner thinks that he is not liable to be punished [since his sin has not been confirmed]; therefore Scripture was more severe with him in the case of his doubt than in that of certainty [of sin], requiring him to bring a ram of the value of shekels of silver,. See also Rashi on Verse 18 [speaking of the suspensive guilt-offering]: “a ram … with thy valuation — according to the value stated above” [in Verse 15, i.e., at least two shekels]. whilst if the sin is confirmed, he brings a sin-offering which could be worth only a danka [a small Persian coin — the sixth of a denar]. Scripture calls it asham in order to say that it must be worth two s’laim just like the graver guilt-offerings [i.e., like the guilt-offering brought for appropriating sanctified objects, and that brought for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage, which must be worth at least two s’laim], thus indicating to the sinner [since he is in doubt as to whether he has sinned], that if he treats it lightly and will not bring his [offering for] atonement, he will be destroyed by his sin. This is the sense of the verse, ‘Asham hu, ashom asham lashem’ (It is a guilt-offering — he hath surely incurred guilt before the Eternal). That is to say, although this offering is brought only on a doubtful sin, it is a guilt-offering, for he has surely incurred guilt before the Eternal Who knows all hidden things, and if indeed he did sin before Him, He will requite him. Similarly, that which He said above, and he shall bring his guilt-offering, (his guilt-offering) when it is really a sin-offering — Ramban now proposes to answer that “it is because etc.” is because among those sins mentioned above are also those which require the bringing of an offering even when they are committed wilfully, such as for the “oath of testimony; ”. therefore He mentions the term asham with reference to them although the offering is called a sin-offering.Also by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], a female offering for a sin is called chatath (sin-offering), and the male offering is called asham. and the asham is whether the offering is male or female. For the fuller mystical implication, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 26. The goats, Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks, Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). [even though they are male] are also called chatath (sin-offering), because they are brought [as an atonement] for sin.Tzav

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.