*1 So the sin offering had 2 blood procedure while
the UP offering only had one blood procedure
(Sprinkle and Squeeze blood vs squeeze blood)

*2 The other differences between these two verses are
minor and reflect procedures common to any bird offering
- all bird offerings were brought to the altar
- all bird offerings were ripped on head opposite neck

However the SPRINKLING of blood is not mentioned at
all in the bird UP offering and therefore is assumed
absent*10

*3 The offering to the altar is done in all sacrifices.
I assume the reason it is not mentioned in the sin
offering is so to speak to emphasize that this is
a sin offering against temple property and therefore
so to speak the person as it were is not worthy
to come near God

*10 Rashi goes into details on the SPRINKLE and SQUEEZE
procedures. The SPRINKLE procedure is done by
taking the cut bird and gesturing toward the altar
which in effect throws the blood towards the altar

*1 It is emphasized to a King, who has power, that
nevertheless, God is HIS LORD [Hence the extra
words, God HIS LORD]


*2 We see the inadvertency for sin vs guilt offerings:
- a sin offering is brought on INADVERTENT sin
- a guilt offering is brought on DOUBT of sin

For example if I ate on Yom Kippur inadvertently
and forgot it was Yom Kippur I bring a sin offering.
We call such a sin INADVERTENT

If I fasted one day and ate one day and am not
sure if I fasted on YOM KIPPUR or the day before
then I bring a guilt offering. Scripture calls
such a sin A SIN ---HE DOESN'T KNOW .

In other words a GUILT offering is brought on
A DOUBT OF HAVING SIN while a SIN offering is brought on
INADVERTENT SIN.

*10 There are many texts on SIN OFFERINGS. We have
selected Lv04-22 which deals with the sin offerings
of Kings [Although the sin offering itself differs
for a King, individual, high priest etc, nevertheless
the inadvertency of sin is the same for all. We
therefore chose the text of inadvertency for a king
since it most closely resembles the text for a guilt
offering]

*1 The symbolic meaning of certain offerings---THANKS, PEACE, UP---
is clear from their name. e.g. The THANKS offering comes when a
person wishes to give a Thank-You on being saved. The UP offering
comes when a person wishes to go UP to God--that is, do more
positive commandments

*2 Hence the symbolism that a SIN OFFERING IS OFFERED FIRST PRIOR
TO AN UP OFFERING (Lv05-08a).

Rashi paraphrased comments
-----------------------------------------------------
To what can this be compared. To a person who owes
someone money and also wants to do him a favor.
The proper procedure is to
- first pay what he owes
- and then do the favor
Similarly in the person-God relationship
- first a person brings a sin offering
- then they express their desire to go UP and do more
-----------------------------------------------------

*1 Nu31-16 cross references Nu25-01:09 which clearly mentions
both these sins (e.g. Nu25-02)

*2 It would appear from this Husband-wife example(adultery)
that M-A-L refers to a violation of any DEEP PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP (Such as acts of adultery to man, or
idolatry/intermarriage to God)

*3 This verse is the ONLY example where M-A-L does not seem
to refer to VIOLATION of the GOD-MAN relationship or to
violation of ther marital relationship.For Lv05-21a
speaks about a person who denies money owed, It is therefore
reasonable to interpret M-A-L in this verse as apptlying to
a FALSE OATH (Which is a violation of the God-man
relationship)*10 *11

*4 See Rashi on Lv05-15a

*10 Rashi citing the Midrash brings additional support: Other
monetary crimes (such as armed robbery, torts, etc) can
involve witnesses and evidence. However the monetary
crimes spoken about in this verse -- keeping lost articles,
witholding wages.... -- are crimes withOUT wintesses
and evidence. Hence the false oath is a violation of
the God-man relationship.

*11 I mention in passing a brilliant Tanakh lecture by
Rabbi Reinman (The author of the book 1 PEOPLE TWO WORLDS,
containing a dialog with a Reform Rabbi).

Rabbi Reinman spoke about the assertion of Radak that
RECHAVAM worshipped idols. Radak derives this from
use of the word M-A-L in 2C12-01:05.

Rabbi Reinman cited various Talmudic passages showing that
Naamah, Rechavams wife was righteous. Rabbi Rineman
then cited 2C12-13:14 to interpret MAL as not
preparing their hearts properly.

However the Radak has a strong case AS SHOWN BY
THE ABOVE LIST. Based on 2C12 which mentions
RECHAVAM REIGNED OVER JERUSALEM THE CITY WHICH
GOD CHOSE TO DWELL IN, I would take a midway
position between RADAK and the TALMUD.

I would suggest that the Jewish sin was restoration
of the private altars (There is precedent for this
in the above list). Hence we immediately see

-Restoration of the private altars is a TEMPLE
violation and would hence justify the term M-A-L

-If all Naamah did was make sure that the Jews
did not worship idols but instead worshipped
private altars then she was indeed Righteous

-Radak would be justified in classifying
RESTORATION OF PRIVATE ALTARS with IDOLATRY
since the sins are similar (But certainly
not identical in severity).

At any rate Rabbi Reinman encouraged detailed
study of Tanakh with Talmud and Rishonim which
of course is warmly welcomed. What we have
added on this email group is advocation of
use of lists.

*1  Many people are familiar with the concept of the
FORMULA PLUG IN. That is a problem is solved by a
formula which you plug into.

But some problems intrinsically cannot (initally)
be solved by a formula. Instead you have to
formulate the problem algebraically and solve;only
then do you have the formula.

In other words these problems are solved by
the EQUATION vs the FORMULA

Thus the statement that the eldest gets double
suggests the following model.

- Suppose the are B brothers
- Suppose 1 of them is eldest
- The Fathers total assets are T (Total)

- Let A be the amount each brother inherits
We have no formula for A

- Then each of the B-1 brothers obtains A
- The eldest obtains double, 2A.
- Together this exhausts the Fathers estate, T

Hence we have (B-1)A + 2A = (B+1)A = T

This gives rise to the formula  A = T / (B+1)

An example is a father with 100,000 and 4 children
- T=100,000
- B=4
- So each child take T/(B+1) = 100000/5 = 20,000
- Eldest takes 2*20000=40000
- Other 3 take 20000
- Total distribution =3*20000+40000=100000

See Rambam Inheritance Chapter 2

*10 Several comments are worth mentioning here
FIRST we clarify how the Bible takes percentages
------------------------------------------------
- The 20% is 20% of total and hence refers to 25%
For example if a person ate $20 worth of temple meat
then he pays $5 fine + $20 of benefit = $25.
- So $5 = 5/25 = 20% of total payment
- But $5 = 5/20 = 25% of amount improperly benefited

SECOND we cite the Sifrah (explained by Malbim)
-----------------------------------------------
Malbim explains that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most sentences in Hebrew use a VERB-NOUN order
Therefore a NOUN-VERB order always indicates emphasis
Since the verse says
- [WHAT HE SINNED] SHALL BE PAYED vs
- PAY [WHAT HE SINNED]
the emphasis is on WHAT HE SINNED.

From this we infer that
- he must pay to the Temple group he sinned against
- if he sinned against the wood group (eg he used
temple wood for a fire) he pays to the temple group
in charge of wood
If he sinned against the lamb group (eg he ate
a temple lamb) he pays to the temple group in
charge of lambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is therefore conceivable that Rashi-s original text
read
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
He pays what he benefited and the 20% fine TO THAT
[PORTION OF] THE TEMPLE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In other words the word THAT may have fallen from
Rashi giving the erroneous impression that all
he was saying was that the Temple gets TOTAL+20% FINE

*1 Some other examples of this idiom occur at
Ex32-09 Ex33-04 Ex33-05 Ex34-09 Dt09-06
Dt09-13 Pr29-01	

*10 The explanation of the list should be clear
- The first column gives the NUMBER of the RASHI RULE used
All Rashi rules may be found with examples at
http://wwww.Rashiyomi.com/workbook.htm

- The second column gives the LIST ID (eg LIST210z) which
contains many examples of a particular Rashi technique and
includes the example presented in the third column

- The third column gives a lightning summary of the Rashi
with particular emphasis on the Rashi rule used.

All lists may be found at http://www.Rashiyomi.com/lists.htm