Were lambs used as a sin sacrifice?

[steve7150]

For Emmet or anyone who may know, in Lev 5.6 in Christian bibles it says lambs could be used as a sin sacrifice but in the Tanach (Stone's) it only mentions "female sheep" also ram is mentioned therefore does anyone know what the hebrew actually says? Thanks.

[RND]

For Emmet or anyone who may know, in Lev 5.6 in Christian bibles it says lambs could be used as a sin sacrifice but in the Tanach (Stone's) it only mentions "female sheep" also ram is mentioned therefore does anyone know what the hebrew actually says? Thanks.

KJV - Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

Leviticus Chapter 5

וְהֵבִיא אֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא נְקֵבָה מִן-הַצֹּאן כִּשְׂבָּה, אוֹ-שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים--לְחַטָּאת; וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן, מֵחַטָּאתוֹ.

and he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.

The reason a female Lamb or goat was required first was simply because a female was the most valuable of the flock.

[steve7150]

Thank you RND but is this translation from a non-Christian site. You see the Stone's Tanach according to Emmit is a translation influenced by Rabbinical tradition therefore they may be motivated to leave out anything that sounds like Jesus (lamb of God) but the Christian bibles include "lamb" but maybe they are motivated to see the word "lamb" in female sheep.
So is your source 100% reliable and unbiased?

[RND]

Thank you RND but is this translation from a non-Christian site.

Um, Steve, where do you go to find out what the Hebrew actually says?

You see the Stone's Tanach according to Emmit is a translation influenced by Rabbinical tradition therefore they may be motivated to leave out anything that sounds like Jesus (lamb of God) but the Christian bibles include "lamb" but maybe they are motivated to see the word "lamb" in female sheep.

Well, that seems to be par for the course now doesn't it? I mean Rabbinical Judaism has relied more and more on the Talmud than that of the Torah. So that's not too surprising. But more to your point. I'm fairly comfortable with the KJV and most translations of the Torah to be fairly accurate. The motivation to remove Jesus out of the scriptures doesn't surprise me much....if satan wants to be worshiped gotta take Jesus out of the way!

So is your source 100% reliable and unbiased?

You'd have to ask them.....I just work here!

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Steve,

Tardy here....

Brown-Driver-Briggs terms it a ewe-lamb; Koehler-Baumgartner-Richardson terms it a young ewe-lamb, but terms the male counterpart a young ram; Gesenius has it as a lamb. Jastrow lists it as at least one year old.

More importantly, the term used in the Septuagint is the same as found in John 1:29 & 36, Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19 (but not as in Revelation 5:6 & 8) - excepting, of course, the gender difference.

The key thing is that the animal is female (likewise female in the Septuagint, and in Targums Onqelos, Neofiti, and Pseudo-Jonathan).

The lamb is female, of course, because it is a type of Jesus. (no, no, I'm not calling Jesus a girl - I'm just needling typologists...)

Seriously, though, this is just one of a variety of offerings related to misconduct. Compare Leviticus 4 & 6. Some of these offerings are male and some are female.

RND stated that the female was the most valuable of the flock. If this is the operative issue, we may ask why the leader in Leviticus 4 is liable for a male goat, while the common person is liable for a female one. One might think that the leader should offer a more valuable offering for his misdeed than an average person, not a less valuable one.

[RND]

RND stated that the female was the most valuable of the flock. If this is the operative issue, we may ask why the leader in Leviticus 4 is liable for a male goat, while the common person is liable for a female one. One might think that the leader should offer a more valuable offering for his misdeed than an average person, not a less valuable one.

Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin in a general sense.The sin of leadership, that stems from ignorance, that causes others to sin, the common folk, is not as grievous as individual sin. The sin of ignorance by the common people is of greater significance because the close proximity of the transgression against God.

In other words, individual sin is more costly and more grievous than corporate sin.

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin in a general sense.

Please demonstrate this from the text.

RND wrote:
The sin of leadership, that stems from ignorance, that causes others to sin, the common folk, is not as grievous as individual sin. The sin of ignorance by the common people is of greater significance because the close proximity of the transgression against God.

In other words, individual sin is more costly and more grievous than corporate sin.

So a sin that leads thousands of people astray is to be understood as less "grievous" than the sin of one average individual?

[RND]

Please demonstrate this from the text.

NLT added for clarification.

Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

"If the high priest sins, bringing guilt upon the entire community, he must bring to the LORD a young bull with no physical defects.

Lev 4:13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done [somewhat against] any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which should not be done, and are guilty;

"If the entire Israelite community does something forbidden by the LORD and the matter escapes the community's notice, all the people will be guilty.

The "male bull" was always offered for corporate sin, never for individual sin and "atonement" was granted for the corporate sin, not the individual sin.

Individual sin of ignorance:

Lev 4:22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done [somewhat] through ignorance [against] any of the commandments of the LORD his God [concerning things] which should not be done, and is guilty;

"If one of Israel's leaders does something forbidden by the LORD his God, he will be guilty even if he sinned unintentionally.

Lev 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth [somewhat against] any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and be guilty;

"If any of the citizens of Israel* do something forbidden by the LORD, they will be guilty even if they sinned unintentionally.

So a sin that leads thousands of people astray is to be understood as less "grievous" than the sin of one average individual?

All sin is "grievous" and leads to the necessity for, and the death of the "lamb" of God. But the "lamb" was symbolic of "individual" sin, not corporate sin. This is symbolic that we are not save "corporately" but "individually." We are still forgiven individually even though there may be corporate sin.

[kaufmannphillips]

You have not demonstrated your assertion.

The material of 4:1-21 might be construed as dealing with issues of corporate sin; clearly, 4:13-21 does so. But the material in 4:22-35 does not introduce the concept of corporate sin.

The unifying concept in chapter four is not corporate sin, but unintentional sin (q.v., 4:2).

[RND]

You have not demonstrated your assertion.

The material of 4:1-21 might be construed as dealing with issues of corporate sin; clearly, 4:13-21 does so. But the material in 4:22-35 does not introduce the concept of corporate sin.

The unifying concept in chapter four is not corporate sin, but unintentional sin (q.v., 4:2).

Yes, I understand that you are extremely anal retentive KP and I should have stated it this way: "Much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance." Please forgive me for not recognizing your extreme sensibilities to ultimate accuracies. What other construction might verses 1-12 deal with?

Most Bible scholars, including Jewish Bible scholars would agree that much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance.