A. Rec.di.ar.
(1.) For the whole people, at the New Moon, Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast of Tabernacles (Numb, xxviii, 15-xxix, 3S) ; besides the solemn offerimj of the two goats on the Great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi).
(2.) for the prte-tts and Levites at their consecration (Exod. xxix, 10-14, ;56); besides the yearly sin-ofleriiig (a bullock) for the high-priest on the Great Day ol' Atone- ment (Lev. xvi).
(3.) To these may be added the sacrifloe of the red heif- er (conducted with the ceremonial of a siu-offerinsr), from the ashes of which was mnde the "water of separation," used in ceitain cases of ceremonial pollution (Numb. xix).
/>'. SpKOIAf,.
(1.) For (inp sin of "ignorance" against the command- ment of the Lord, on the part of priest, people, ruler, or private man (Lev. iv).
(2.) For refusal to bear witness under adjuration (Lev. V, 1).
(3.) For ceremonial defilement not wilfully contracted (Lev. v, 2, 3), uuder which may be classed the oft'erings at the purification of women (xii, 6-S), at ilie cleansing of leprosy (xiv, 19, 31) or the uncleanness of men or women (.XV, l.'S, 3(1), on the defilement of a Nazarite (Numb, vl, 6- 11) or the expiration of his vow (ver. 10).
(4.) For the breach of a i-n.-ih oath, the keeping of which would involve siu (Lev. v, 4).
The trespass-offerings, on the other hand, were always special, as —
(1.) For sacrilege " in ignorance," with compensation for the harm done, and the gift of a fifth part of the value, be- sides, to the priest (Lev. v, 15, 10).
(2.) For ignorant transgression against some definite pr(>hil)itiim of the law (Lev. v, 17-1'J).
(3.) For fraud, supjirexsion of the truth, or perjuni against man, with compensation, and with the additioii <if a fifth part of the value of the property in question to the person wronged (Lev. vi, 1-C).
(4.) For rape of a betrothed slave (Lev. xix, 20, 21).
(5.) A t the purification of the kper (Lev. xiv, 12), and the polluted Xazarite (Numb, vi, 12), offered with the sin-of- feriug.
From this enumeration it will be clear that the two classes of sacrifices, although distinct, touch closely upon each other, as especially in /i (1.) of the sin-offering, and (2.) of the trespass-offering. It is also evident that the sin-offering was the only regular and general recog- nition of sin in the abstract, and accordingly was far more solemn and symbolical in its ceremonial; the tre.s- ])a.ss-ort'ering was confined to special ca.ses, most of which related to tlie doing of some material damage, either to the lioly things or to man, except in (.').). where the tres- pass-(»ffering is united with the sin-ottering, .hjseiilms (Ant. iii, U,',i) declares that the sin-ottering is presented by those " who fall into sin in ignorance" (kht ayi'oi- ' av), and the trespass-offering by " one who has sinned and is conscious of his sin, but has no one to convict him thereof." From this it may be inferred (as by Winer and otliersj that the former was used in cases of
known sin against some definite law, the latter in the case of secret sin, unknown, or, if known, not liable to judicial cognizance. Other ojiinions have been enter- tained, widely ditterent from, and even opposed to, one another. The opinions which suppose one ottering due for sins of omission, and the other for sins of commis- sion, have no foinulation in the language of the law. Others, with more plausibility, refer the sin-offering to sins of pure ignorance, the trespass-offering to those of a more sinful and deliberate character; but this does not agree with Lev. v, 17-19, and is contradicted by the sol- emn contrast between sins of ignorance, which might be atoned for, and " sins of presumption," against which death without mercy is denounced in Numb, xv, 30: .\ third opinion supposes the sin-offering to refer to sins for which no material and earthly atonement could be made, the trespass-offering to those for which material compensation was possible. This theory has something to support it in the fact that in some cases (see Lev. v, 15, 16 ; vi, !-()) compensation was prescribed as accessory to the sacrifice. Others seek more recondite distinc- tions, supposing, e. g., that the sin-offering had for its object the cleansing of the sanctuary or the common- wealth, and the trespass-offering the cleansing of the individual; or that the former referred to the effect of sin upon the soul itself, the latter to the effect of sin as the breach of an external law. Without attempting to decide so difficult and so controverted a question, we may draw the following conclusions :
First, that the sin-offering was far the more solemn and comprehensive of I he two sacrifices.
Secondly, that the sin-offering looked more to the gnilt of the sin done, irrespective of its consequences, whde the trespass-offering looked to the evil consequences of sin, either against the service of God or ap;aiiist man, and to the duty of atonement, as far as atonement was possible. Hence the two might with i)ropriety be offered together.
Thirdly, that in the sin-offering e>-pecially we find sym- bolized the acknowledgment of sinfulness as inherent in man, and of the need of expiation by sacrifice to renew the ijroken covenant between man and God.