He shall bring his trespass offering , [ 'et 'ashaamow ]. The 'ashaam and the chaTaat' (see the notes at Leviticus 4:2-3), though distinguished in the prescriptions of the law (see the note at Leviticus 5:15), were sometimes used indiscriminately, just as, in English, transgressions of the divine law are called sometimes sins and sometimes debts. The material of the expiative ceremonial was the same in these specified examples as was formerly prescribed for the common Israelite (Leviticus 4:32), unless poverty prevented, and in that case less costly offerings were permitted: he might bring a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons-the one to be offered for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering (see, for the reason of this alternative choice, the note at Leviticus 1:14); or if even that was beyond his ability, the law would be satisfied with the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense.
Verse 11. He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; because it is a sin offering. 'Oil and incense symbolize the Spirit of God and the prayer of man. The meat offering in general is the symbol of good works. These, however, are good works, and acceptable to God, only when they proceed from the depths of a godly and sanctified heart, when they are produced and matured by the Holy Spirit, and when, furthermore, they are presented to God as His own work in man, and the latter acknowledges, with thanksgiving and praise, that the works are not the product of his own goodness, but of the grace of God. The sin offering, however, was characteristically an expiatory sacrifice. The idea of atonement was here so entirely predominant that no room for the other ideas remained' (Kurtz, 'Mosaisches Opfer').
Verse 12. And the priest shall take his handful - (see the notes at Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 7:9, where, in the meat offerings, the priest received all except a handful.) Such was the sin offering-a sacrifice offered for the expiation of such transgressions as were not punished by the laws of the state, or which were known only to the conscience of the individual.
Sin offerings, indeed, were appointed in specific cases, which cannot be included in this category (see the notes at Leviticus 9:2; Leviticus 12:6; Leviticus 14:19); but in general they were designed for transgressions of the social law, on which no penal statute was declared (cf. Exodus 22:25), or a mistake in the observance of the ritual law (as when a person continued his labour so as unwittingly to encroach upon the sacred season of the Sabbath); in short, for transgressions of all the commandments of the Lord (cf. Numbers 15:22-24) which were committed undesignedly, through inadvertency, negligence, or precipitation. For these the sin offering was instituted as a means of atonement-the design being to produce, by the necessity of such sacred formalities, a sense of the evil of sin, in separating the offender from God, and the effect, or at least the tendency, being to impress upon the mind of the offerer the importance of greater circumspection and vigilance in future.
The sin offerings were prescribed for all classes who were conscious of sin to be expiated: and it is observable that the material, as well as the formalities prescribed, were graduated, not so much by the nature of the sin, as by the standing of the offending party; because the principle underlying the offering was, that the sin committed had severed the transgressor from theocratic communion with Yahweh. Accordingly, the commencement of the oblation was made in the forecourt of the sanctuary, and at the altar of burnt offering. The characteristic formality was, that instead of sprinkling the blood of the victim indiscriminately round about the altar (Leviticus 1:5), as in other offerings, it was done exclusively upon the horns of that altar-a significant act; as the horn was the symbol of regal power (Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:9), as well as of honour (Job 16:15; Psalms 89:17; Psalms 112:9), also of temporal prosperity (Psalms 92:10), and hence, of spiritual blessings (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalms 18:2; Luke 1:69).
This particular act was required because, unlike the burnt offering, which had regard to sin generally, the sin offering had to do with a definite offence. This was the common form of the sin offering; and hence, the mention of it occurs in specifying the cases of private individuals or rulers in Israel.
But when the party was a priest, in whom an offence or mistake was aggravated by his high and public position, a more expensive as well as a more solemn process of expiation was prescribed. No victim inferior to a bullock was allowable; and as the sanctuary, in which he discharged his sacred functions, had been desecrated by the fact of his delinquency, so, after the observance of the usual preliminaries, the blood of the sacrifice was carried within the sanctuary, and sprinkled upon the altar of incense, which was chosen not only from its relative superiority in importance to the other furniture, but because it actually embodied the full idea of 'the holy place.' Hence, the blood was besmeared on its horns; but that being insufficient, there was a sevenfold (the covenant number) sprinkling toward the separating veil, before the kaporet (mercyseat) - i:e., before the Lord" (Leviticus 4:6).
The same course of observances was required in the offering for the whole congregation, in consequence of their priestly character. This graduated course of ritual atonement, independently of the ends of moral and religious discipline to which it was subservient, seems to have been based on the principle that acts which would not be thought by pagans as having any element of evil in them were sinful when done by the Israelites, who were in national covenant with Yahweh, and still more so in their priests, who were consecrated to His service, and officiated in His sanctuary; just as among us many things are done freely by men of the world which are considered improprieties in Christian people, and reprehensible offences in Christian ministers.