Lev 4:2-5:13 | KD | STEP | The Sin-Offerings. - The ritual prescribed for these differed, with regard to the animals sacrificed, the sprinkling of the blood, and the course adopted with the flesh, according to the position which the person presenting them happened to occupy in the kingdom of God. The classification of persons was as follows: (1) the anointed priest (Lev 4:2-12); (2) the whole congregation of Israel ( -21); ( ) the prince (vv. 22-26); (4) the common people (v. 27- ). In the case of the last, regard was also paid to their circumstances; so that the sin-offerings could be regulated according to the ability of the offerer, especially for the lighter forms of sin ( ). “ If a soul sin in wandering from any (מכּל in a partitive sense) of the commandments of Jehovah, which ought not to be done, and do any one of them ” (מאחת with מן partitive, cf. , , , lit., anything of one). This sentence, which stands at the head of the laws for the sin-offerings, shows that the sin-offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation. The distinguishing characteristic of the sin is expressed by the term בּשׁגגה (in error). No sins but those committed בּשׁגגה could be expiated by sin-offerings; whilst those committed with a high hand were to be punished by the extermination of the sinner (Num 15:27-31). שׁגגה, from שׁגג = שׁגה to wander or go wrong, signifies mistake, error, oversight. But sinning “ in error ” is not merely sinning through ignorance ( , , , ), hurry, want of consideration, or carelessness ( , , ), but also sinning unintentionally (Num 35:11, Num 35:15, Num 35:22-23); hence all such sins as spring from the weakness of flesh and blood, as distinguished from sins committed with a high (elevated) hand, or in haughty, defiant rebellion against God and His commandments. The sin of the high priest . - The high priest is here called the “anointed priest” ( , , , ) on account of the completeness of the anointing with which he was consecrated to his office ( ); in other places he is called the great (or high) priest ( ; Num 35:25, etc.), and by later writers הראשׁ כּהן, the priest the head, or head priest (2Ki 25:18; ). If he sinned העם לאשׁמת, “to the sinning of the nation,” i.e., in his official position as representative of the nation before the Lord, and not merely in his own personal relation to God, he was to offer for a sin-offering because of his sin an ox without blemish, the largest of all the sacrificial animals, because he filled the highest post in Israel.

‏ Leviticus 4:2-35

The Sin-Offerings. - The ritual prescribed for these differed, with regard to the animals sacrificed, the sprinkling of the blood, and the course adopted with the flesh, according to the position which the person presenting them happened to occupy in the kingdom of God. The classification of persons was as follows: (1) the anointed priest (Lev 4:2-12); (2) the whole congregation of Israel (Lev 5:13 -21); (3) the prince (vv. 22-26); (4) the common people (v. 27- Lev 5:13). In the case of the last, regard was also paid to their circumstances; so that the sin-offerings could be regulated according to the ability of the offerer, especially for the lighter forms of sin (Lev 5:1-13). Lev 4:2 “If a soul sin in wandering from any (מכּל in a partitive sense) of the commandments of Jehovah, which ought not to be done, and do any one of them” (מאחת with מן partitive, cf. Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27, lit., anything of one). This sentence, which stands at the head of the laws for the sin-offerings, shows that the sin-offerings did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to particular manifestations of sin, to certain distinct actions performed by individuals, or by the whole congregation. The distinguishing characteristic of the sin is expressed by the term בּשׁגגה (in error). No sins but those committed בּשׁגגה could be expiated by sin-offerings; whilst those committed with a high hand were to be punished by the extermination of the sinner (Num 15:27-31). שׁגגה, from שׁגג = שׁגה to wander or go wrong, signifies mistake, error, oversight. But sinning “in error” is not merely sinning through ignorance (Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22, Lev 4:27, Lev 5:18), hurry, want of consideration, or carelessness (Lev 5:1, Lev 5:4, Lev 5:15), but also sinning unintentionally (Num 35:11, Num 35:15, Num 35:22-23); hence all such sins as spring from the weakness of flesh and blood, as distinguished from sins committed with a high (elevated) hand, or in haughty, defiant rebellion against God and His commandments. Lev 4:3-12 The sin of the high priest. - The high priest is here called the “anointed priest” (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:5, Lev 4:16, Lev 6:15) on account of the completeness of the anointing with which he was consecrated to his office (Lev 8:12); in other places he is called the great (or high) priest (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, etc.), and by later writers הראשׁ כּהן, the priest the head, or head priest (2Ki 25:18; 2Ch 19:11). If he sinned העם לאשׁמת, “to the sinning of the nation,” i.e., in his official position as representative of the nation before the Lord, and not merely in his own personal relation to God, he was to offer for a sin-offering because of his sin an ox without blemish, the largest of all the sacrificial animals, because he filled the highest post in Israel. Lev 4:4-7

The presentation, laying on of hands, and slaughtering, were the same as in the case of the other sacrifices (Lev 1:3-5). The first peculiarity occurs in connection with the blood (Lev 4:5-7). The anointed priest was to take (a part) of the blood and carry it into the tabernacle, and having dipped his finger in it, to sprinkle some of it seven times before Jehovah “in the face of the vail of the Holy” (Exo 26:31), i.e., in the direction towards the curtain; after that, he was to put (נתן) some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, and then to pour out the great mass of the blood, of which only a small portion had been used for sprinkling and smearing upon the horns of the altar, at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering. A sevenfold sprinkling “in the face of the vail” also took place in connection with the sin-offering for the whole congregation, as well as with the ox and he-goat which the high priest offered as sin-offerings on the day of atonement for himself, the priesthood, and the congregation, when the blood was sprinkled seven times before (לפני) the capporeth (Lev 16:14), and seven times upon the horns of the altar (Lev 16:18-19). So too the blood of the red cow, that was slaughtered as a sin-offering outside the camp, was sprinkled seven times in the direction towards the tabernacle (Num 19:4). The sevenfold sprinkling at the feast of atonement had respect to the purification of the sanctuary from the blemishes caused by the sins of the people, with which they had been defiled in the course of the year (see at ch. 16), and did not take place till after the blood had been sprinkled once “against (? upon) the capporeth in front” for the expiation of the sin of the priesthood and people, and the horns of the altar had been smeared with the blood (Lev 16:14, Lev 16:18); whereas in the sin-offerings mentioned in this chapter, the sevenfold sprinkling preceded the application of the blood to the horns of the altar. This difference in the order of succession of the two manipulations with the blood leads to the conclusion, that in the case before us the sevenfold sprinkling had a different signification from that which it had on the day atonement, and served as a preliminary and introduction to the expiation. The blood also was not sprinkled upon the altar of the holy place, but only before Jehovah, against the curtain behind which Jehovah was enthroned, that is to say, only into the neighbourhood of the gracious presence of God; and this act was repeated seven times, that in the number seven, as the stamp of the covenant, the covenant relation, which sin had loosened, might be restored. It was not till after this had been done, that the expiatory blood of the sacrifice was put upon the horns of the altar, - not merely sprinkled or swung against the wall of the altar, but smeared upon the horns of the altar; not, however, that the blood might thereby be brought more prominently before the eyes of God, or lifted up into His more immediate presence, as Hoffmann and Knobel suppose, but because the significance of the altar, as the scene of the manifestation of the divine grace and salvation, culminated in the horns, as the symbols of power and might. In the case of the sin-offerings for the high priest and the congregation, the altar upon which this took place was not the altar of burnt-offering in the court, but the altar of incense in the holy place; because both the anointed priest, by virtue of his calling and consecration as the mediator between the nation and the Lord, and the whole congregation, by virtue of its election as a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6), were to maintain communion with the covenant God in the holy place, the front division of the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and were thus received into a closer relation of fellowship with Jehovah than the individual members of the nation, for whom the court with its altar was the divinely appointed place of communion with the covenant God. The remainder of the blood, which had not been used in the act of expiation, was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering, as the holy place to which all the sacrificial blood was to be brought, that it might be received into the earth. Lev 4:8-10

The priest was to lift off “all the fat” from the sacrificial animal, i.e., the same fat portions as in the peace-offering (Lev 3:3-4, כּל־חלב is the subject to יוּרם in Lev 3:10), and burn it upon the altar of burnt-offering. Lev 4:11-12

The skin of the bullock, and all the flesh, together with the head and the shank and the entrails (Lev 1:9) and the foeces, in fact the whole bullock, was to be carried out by him (the sacrificing priest) to a clean place before the camp, to which the ashes of the sacrifices were carried from the ash-heap (Lev 1:16), and there burnt on the wood with fire. (On the construction of Lev 4:11 and Lev 4:12 see Ges. §145, 2).

The different course, adopted with the blood and flesh of the sin-offerings, from that prescribed in the ritual of the other sacrifices, was founded upon the special signification of these offerings. As they were presented to effect the expiation of sins, the offerer transferred the consciousness of sin and the desire for forgiveness to the head of the animal that had been brought in his stead, by the laying on of his hand; and after this the animal was slaughtered, and suffered death for him as the wages of sin. But as sin is not wiped out by the death of the sinner, unless it be forgiven by the grace of God, so devoting to death an animal laden with sin rendered neither a real nor symbolical satisfaction or payment for sin, by which the guilt of it could be wiped away; but the death which it endured in the sinner’s stead represented merely the fruit and effect of sin. To cover the sinner from the holiness of God because of his sin, some of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled seven times before Jehovah in the holy place; and the covenant fellowship, which had been endangered, was thereby restored. After this, however, the soul, which was covered in the sacrificial blood, was given up to the grace of God that prevailed in the altar, by means of the sprinkling of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, that it might receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, and the full enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant be ensured to it once more. But the sin, that had been laid upon the animal of the sin-offering, lay upon it still. The next thing done, therefore, was to burn the fat portions of its inside upon the altar of burnt-offering. Now, if the flesh of the victim represented the body of the offerer as the organ of his soul, the fat portions inside the body, together with the kidneys, which were regarded as the seat of the tenderest and deepest emotions, can only have set forth the better part or inmost kernel of the man, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος (Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16). By burning the fat portions upon the altar, the better part of human nature was given up in symbol to the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit of God, that it might be purified from the dross of sin, and ascend in its glorified essence to heaven, for a sweet savour unto the Lord (Lev 4:31). The flesh of the sin-offering, however, or “the whole bullock,” was then burned in a clean place outside the camp, though not merely that it might be thereby destroyed in a clean way, like the flesh provided for the sacrificial meals, which had not been consumed at the time fixed by the law (Lev 7:17; Lev 8:32; Lev 19:6; Exo 12:10; Exo 29:34), or the flesh of the sacrifices, which had been defiled by contact with unclean objects (Lev 7:19); for if the disposal of the flesh formed an integral part of the sacrificial ceremony in the case of all the other sacrifices, and if, in the case of the sin-offerings, the blood of which was not brought into the interior of the sanctuary, the priests were to eat the flesh in a holy place, and that not “as a portion assigned to them by God as an honourable payment,” but, according to the express declaration of Moses, “to bear and take away (לשׂאת) the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them” (Lev 10:17), the burning of the flesh of the sin-offerings, i.e., of the animal itself, the blood of which was not brought into the holy place, cannot have been without significance, or simply the means adopted to dispose of it in a fitting manner, but must also have formed one factor in the ceremony of expiation. The burning outside the camp was rendered necessary, because the sacrifice had respect to the expiation of the priesthood, and the flesh or body of the bullock, which had been made חטּאת by the laying on of the hand, could not be eaten by the priests as the body of sin, that by the holiness of their official character they might bear and expiate the sin imputed to the sacrifice (see at Lev 10:17). In this case it was necessary that it should be given up to the effect of sin, viz., to death or destruction by fire, and that outside the camp; in other words, outside the kingdom of God, from which everything dead was removed. But, inasmuch as it was sacrificial flesh, and therefore most holy by virtue of its destination; in order that it might not be made an abomination, it was not to be burned in an unclean place, where carrion and other abominations were thrown (Lev 14:40, Lev 14:45), but in the clean place, outside the camp, to which the ashes of the altar of burnt-offering were removed, as being the earthly sediment and remains of the sacrifices that had ascended to God in the purifying flames of the altar-fire. ^{▼▼The most holy character of the flesh of the sin-offering (Lev 6:18.) furnishes no valid argument against the correctness of this explanation of the burning; for, in the first place, there is an essential difference between real or inherent sin, and sin imputed or merely transferred; and secondly, the flesh of the sin-offering was called most holy, not in a moral, but only in a liturgical or ritual sense, as subservient to the most holy purpose of wiping away sin; on which account it was to be entirely removed from all appropriation to earthly objects. Moreover, the idea that sin was imputed to the sin-offering, that it was made sin by the laying on of the hand, has a firm basis in the sacrifice of the red cow (Num 19), and also occurs among the Greeks (see Oehler in Herzog’s Cycl.).} Lev 4:13-19

Sin of the whole congregation. - This is still further defined, as consisting in the fact that the thing was hid (נעלּם) ^{▼▼In the correct editions נעלּם has dagesh both here and in Lev 5:2, Lev 5:4, as Delitzsch informs me, according to an old rule in pointing, which required that every consonant which followed a syllable terminating with a guttural should be pointed with dagesh, if the guttural was to be read with a quiescent sheva and not with chateph. This is the case in ויּאסּר in Gen 46:29; Exo 14:6, תּעלּים in Psa 10:1, and other words in the critical edition of the Psalter which has been carefully revised by Bδr according to the Masora, and published with an introduction by Delitzsch. In other passages, such as בּכל־לּבּי Psa 9:2, על־לּשׁנו Psa 15:3, etc., the dagesh is introduced to prevent the second letter from being lost in the preceding one through the rapidity of reading. - Ewald's conjectures and remarks about this “dagesh, which is found in certain MSS,” is a proof that he was not acquainted with this rule which the Masora recognises.} from the eyes of the congregation, i.e., that it was a sin which was not known to be such, an act which really violated a commandment of God, though it was not looked upon as sin. Every transgression of a divine command, whether it took place consciously or unconsciously, brought guilt, and demanded a sin-offering for its expiation; and this was to be presented as soon as the sin was known. The sin-offering, which the elders had to offer in the name of the congregation, was to consist of a young ox, and was to be treated like that of the high priest (Lev 4:14-23 compared with Lev 4:3-12), inasmuch as “the whole congregation” included the priesthood, or at any rate was on an equality with the priesthood by virtue of its calling in relation to the Lord. חטא with על signifies to incur guilt upon (on the foundation of) sin (Lev 5:5, etc.); it is usually construed with an accusative (Lev 4:3, Lev 4:28; Lev 5:6, Lev 5:10, etc.), or with בּ, to sin with a sin (Lev 4:23; Gen 42:22). The subject of ושׁחט (Lev 4:15) is one of the elders. “The bullock for a sin-offering:” sc., the one which the anointed priest offered for his sin, or as it is briefly and clearly designated in Lev 4:21, “the former bullock” (Lev 4:12). Lev 4:20-21

“And let the priest make an atonement for them, that it may be forgiven them,” or, “so will they be forgiven.” This formula recurs with all the sin-offerings (with the exception of the one for the high priest), viz., Lev 4:26, Lev 4:31, Lev 4:35, Lev 5:10, Lev 5:13; Num 15:25-26, Num 15:28; also with the trespass-offerings, Lev 5:16, Lev 5:18; Lev 19:22, - the only difference being, that in the sin-offerings presented for defilements cleansing is mentioned, instead of forgiveness, as the effect of the atoning sacrifice (Lev 12:7-8; Lev 13:20, Lev 13:53; Num 8:21).

The sin of a ruler. - Lev 4:22. אשׁר: ὅτε, when. נשׂיא is the head of a tribe, or of a division of a tribe (Num 3:24, Num 3:30, Num 3:35). Lev 4:23-26

“If (או, see Ges. §155, 2) his sin is made known to him,” i.e., if any one called his attention to the fact that he had transgressed a commandment of God, he was to bring a he-goat without blemish, and, having laid his hand upon it, to slay it at the place of burnt-offering; after which the priest was to put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar, and then to burn the whole of the fat upon the altar, as in the case of the peaceoffering (see Lev 3:3-4), and thus to make atonement for the prince on account of his sin. עזים שׂעיר, or שׂעיר alone (lit., hairy, shaggy, Gen 27:11), is the buck-goat, which is frequently mentioned as the animal sacrificed as a sin-offering: e.g., that of the tribe-princes (Num 7:16., Lev 15:24), and that of the nation at the yearly festivals (Lev 16:9, Lev 16:15; Lev 23:19; Num 28:15, Num 28:22, Num 28:30; Num 29:5, Num 29:16.) and at the consecration of the tabernacle (Lev 9:3, Lev 9:15; Lev 10:16). It is distinguished in Num 7:16. from the attudim, which were offered as peace-offerings, and frequently occur in connection with oxen, rams, and lambs as burnt-offerings and thank-offerings (Psa 50:9, Psa 50:13; Psa 66:15; Isa 1:11; Isa 34:6; Eze 39:18). According to Knobel, עזים שׂעיר, or שׂעיר, was an old he-goat, the hair of which grew longer with age, particularly about the neck and back, and עזים שׂעירת (Lev 4:28; Lev 5:16) an old she-goat; whilst עתּוּד was the younger he-goat, which leaped upon the does (Gen 31:10, Gen 31:12), and served for slaughtering like lambs, sheep, and goats (Deu 32:14; Jer 51:40). But as the עזים שׂעיר was also slaughtered for food (Gen 37:31), and the skins of quite young he-goats are called שׂעירת (Gen 27:23), the difference between שׂעיר and עתּוּד is hardly to be sought in the age, but more probably, as Bochart supposes, in some variety of species, in which case seir and seirak might denote the rough-haired, shaggy kind of goat, and attud the buck-goat of stately appearance. Lev 4:27-35

In the case of the sin of a common Israelite (“of the people of the land,” i.e., of the rural population, Gen 23:7), that is to say, of an Israelite belonging to the people, as distinguished from the chiefs who ruled over the people (2Ki 11:18-19; 2Ki 16:15), the sin-offering was to consist of a shaggy she-goat without blemish, or a ewe-sheep (Lev 4:32). The ceremonial in both cases was the same as with the he-goat (Lev 4:23.). - “According to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord” (Lev 4:35): see at Lev 3:5.

‏ Leviticus 5:1-13

There follow here three special examples of sin on the part of the common Israelite, all sins of omission and rashness of a lighter kind than the cases mentioned in Lev 4:27.; in which, therefore, if the person for whom expiation was to be made was in needy circumstances, instead of a goat or ewe-sheep, a pair of doves could be received as a sacrificial gift, or, in cases of still greater poverty, the tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The following were the cases. The first (Lev 5:1), when any one had heard the voice of an oath (an oath spoken aloud) and was a witness, i.e., was in a condition to give evidence, whether he had seen what took place or had learned it, that is to say, had come to the knowledge of it in some other way. In this case, if he did not make it known, he was to bear his offence, i.e., to bear the guilt, which he had contracted by omitting to make it known, with all its consequences. אלה does not mean a curse in general, but an oath, as an imprecation upon one’s self (= the “oath of cursing” in Num 5:21); and the sin referred to did not consist in the fact that a person heard a curse, imprecation, or blasphemy, and gave no evidence of it (for neither the expression “and is a witness,” nor the words “hath seen or known of it,” are in harmony with this), but in the fact that one who knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses (vid., Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.). עון נשׁא, to bear the offence or sin, i.e., to take away and endure its consequences (see Gen 4:13), whether they consisted in chastisements and judgments, by which God punished the sin (Lev 7:18; Lev 17:16; Lev 19:17), such as diseases or distress (Num 5:31; Num 14:33-34), childlessness (Lev 20:20), death (Lev 22:9), or extermination (Lev 19:8; Lev 20:17; Lev 9:13), or in punishment inflicted by men (Lev 24:15), or whether they could be expiated by sin-offerings (as in this passage and Lev 5:17) and other kinds of atonement. In this sense חמא נשׂא is also sometimes used (see at Lev 19:17). Lev 5:2-3

The second was, if any one had touched the carcase of an unclean beast, or cattle, or creeping thing, or the uncleanness of a man of any kind whatever (“with regard to all his uncleanness, with which he defiles himself,” i.e., any kind of defilement to which a man is exposed), and “it is hidden from him,” sc., the uncleanness or defilement; that is to say, if he had unconsciously defiled himself by touching unclean objects, and had consequently neglected the purification prescribed for such cases. In this case, if he found it out afterwards, he had contracted guilt which needed expiation. Lev 5:4

The third was, if any one should “swear to prate with the lips,” i.e., swear in idle, empty words of the lips, - “to do good or evil,” i.e., that he would do anything whatever (Num 24:13; Isa 41:23), - “with regard to all that he speaks idly with an oath,” i.e., if it related to something which a man had affirmed with an oath in thoughtless conversation, - “and it is hidden from him,” i.e., if he did not reflect that he might commit sin by such thoughtless swearing, and if he perceived it afterwards and discovered his sin, and had incurred guilt with regard to one of the things which he had thoughtlessly sworn. Lev 5:5-6

If any one therefore (the three cases enumerated are comprehended under the one expression כי והיה, for the purpose of introducing the apodosis) had contracted guilt with reference to one of these (the things named in Lev 5:1-4), and confessed in what he had sinned, he was to offer as his guilt (trespass) to the Lord, for the sin which he had sinned, a female from the flock-for a sin-offering, that the priest might make atonement for him on account of his sin. אשׁם (Lev 5:6) does not mean either guilt-offering or debitum (Knobel), but culpa, delictum, reatus, as in Lev 5:7 : “as his guilt,” i.e., for the expiation of his guilt, which he had brought upon himself. Lev 5:7-10

“But if his hand does not reach what is sufficient for a sheep,” i.e., if he could not afford enough to sacrifice a sheep (“his hand” is put for what his hand acquires), he was to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for the sin-offering, the other for the burnt-offering. The pigeon intended for the sin, i.e., for the sin-offering, he was to bring first of all to the priest, who was to offer it in the following manner. The head was to be pinched off from opposite to its neck, i.e., in the nape just below the head, though without entirely severing it, that is to say, it was to be pinched off sufficiently to kill the bird and allow the blood to flow out. He was then to sprinkle of the blood upon the wall of the altar, which could be effected by swinging the bleeding pigeon, and to squeeze out the rest of the blood against the wall of the altar, because it was a sin-offering; for in the burnt-offering he let all the blood flow out against the wall of the altar (Lev 1:15). What more was done with the pigeon is not stated. Hence it cannot be decided with certainty, whether, after the crop and its contents were removed and thrown upon the ash-heap, the whole of the bird was burned upon the altar, or whether it fell to the priest, as the Mishnah affirms (Seb. vi. 4), so that none of it was placed upon the altar. One circumstance which seems to favour the statement in the Talmud is the fact, that in the sin-offering of pigeons, a second pigeon was to be offered as a burnt-offering, and, according to Lev 5:10, for the purpose of making an atonement; probably for no other purpose than to burn it upon the altar, as the dove of the sin-offering was not burned, and the sacrifice was incomplete without some offering upon the altar. In the case of sin-offerings of quadrupeds, the fat portions were laid upon the altar, and the flesh could be eaten by the priest by virtue of his office; but in that of pigeons, it was not possible to separate fat portions from the flesh for the purpose of burning upon the altar by themselves, and it would not do to divide the bird in half, and let one half be burned and the other eaten by the priest, as this would have associated the idea of halfness or incompleteness with the sacrifice. A second pigeon was therefore to be sacrificed as a burnt-offering, כּמּשׂפּט, according to the right laid down in Lev 1:14., that the priest might make atonement for the offerer on account of his sin, whereas in the sin-offering of a quadruped one sacrificial animal was sufficient to complete the expiation. ^{▼▼From the instructions to offer two pigeons in order to obtain expiation, it is perfectly evident that the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering on the part of the priest formed an essential part of the act of expiation, and was not merely a kind of honourable tribute, which God awarded to His servants who officiated at the sacrifice.} Lev 5:11-13

But if any one could not afford even two pigeons, he was to offer the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering. ידו תּשּׂיג for ידו תּגּיע (Lev 5:7): his hand reaches to anything, is able to raise it, or with an accusative, obtains, gets anything (used in the same sense in Lev 14:30, Lev 14:31), or else absolutely, acquires, or gets rich (Lev 25:26, Lev 25:47). But it was to be offered without oil and incense, because it was a sin-offering, that is to say, “because it was not to have the character of a minchah” (Oehler). But the reason why it was not to have this character was, that only those who were in a state of grace could offer a minchah, and not a man who had fallen from grace through sin. As such a man could not offer to the Lord the fruits of the Spirit of God and of prayer, he was not allowed to add oil and incense, as symbols of the Spirit and praise of God, to the sacrifice with which he sought the forgiveness of sin. The priest was to take a handful of the meal offered, and burn it upon the altar as a memorial, and thus make atonement for the sinner on account of his sin. - On “his handful” and “a memorial” (Azcarah), see Lev 2:2. “In one of these” (Lev 5:13 as in Lev 5:5): cf. Lev 4:2. “And let it (the remainder of the meal offered) belong to the priest like the meat-offering:” i.e., as being most holy (Lev 2:3).