Why did Hashem make pauses when speaking to Moshe?
(1,1) “And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying.”
Rashi explained that every time Hashem communicated with Moshe, He first called him. One might think that also after every pause Hashem again called him. But we learn from our posuk otherwise, that only when Hashem began to speak to Moshe did He call him, but not after every pause. If so, what was the purpose of these pauses? To give Moshe time for contemplation between one section and the next, and between one subject and another. And if this pause for contemplation was necessary for Moshe Rabbeinu when he was taught by Hashem, all the more so are they necessary for a regular person who is learning from another regular person.
But how is the question about the purpose of the pauses relevant here? And Rashi’s concluding words "all the more so are they necessary for an regular person" seem to be unneccesary for the explanation of the posuk, and it is not the way of Rashi to write things which are not needed to explain the posuk.
But it seems to me that without Rashi’s explanation I might have thought that the pauses were a sign of endearment, to demonstrate Hashem’s love for Moshe by calling him every time anew. As it says in the Midrash on the next posuk: “Speak to the children of Yisrael” - R. Shimon bar Yochai brought a parable about a king who had an only son, and everyday he would ask his household: Did my son eat? Did my son drink? Did my son go to school? Did my son return from school? So too Hashem said to Moshe: Speak to the Children of Yisrael. Command the Children of Yisrael. Say to the Children of Yisrael. From this we see that repeatedly mentioning their name is a sign of endearment, and therefore here too it was possible that Hashem paused occasionally in order to repeatedly demonstrate His love for Moshe.
But now that Rashi explained that our posuk makes it clear that Hashem only called to Moshe when he started speaking with him and not after each pause, and thus the pauses were not for the sake of showing endearment, the question arises: What were the purpose of the pauses? Therefore, Rashi explained that they were in order to give Moshe time to think.
But Rashi had a difficulty with this answer, because it would have been understandable if the Torah was revealing to us that Hashem was showing endearment to Moshe, since we would learn from this Hashem’s ways, and about His abundant goodness to Yisrael. But if the Torah is teaching us that Hashem paused in order to give Moshe time for contemplation, this seems to be a mere historical fact. What practical difference does it make to us? Therefore Rashi explained that the Torah’s intention is to teach us the correct way how one should learn from another, especially when an regular person is being taught by another regular person - that he should contemplate very well what he is learning.
Why does the Torah need to tell us that the laws of the offerings were commanded in the Tent of Meeting?
(1,1) “And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying.”
Rashi explained the word “saying” means that Hashem said to Moshe: Go and tell them My words, and report back to Me whether they accept them or not, as it says (19:8), “and Moshe reported the words of the people to Hashem”. But why did Hashem make a special request to inform Him whether or not Yisrael accepted the mitzvos of the offerings, but not by other mitzvos elsewhere in the Torah?
There are two ways we can explain this. The first is according to the teaching of Chazal on the posuk “and they stood at the foot of the mountain”, that Hashem held the mountain over Yisrael and forced them to accept the Torah, and Rava taught in the gemora that this gave Yisrael the possibility to later claim that they had not really wanted to accept the Torah but had been forced to do so.
Now, with all the other mitzvos this does not pose a problem, because even if they would do them unwillingly nothing forbidden would result from this, and so Hashem did not specify to Moshe to inform Him whether or not Yisrael accepted His words. But concerning the offerings the Torah writes that “he shall bring it willingly”, and if a person would not bring it completely willingly it would be considered as if he is bringing a non-sanctified animal to the temple courtyard, which is strictly forbidden. And if it was a bird offering, which is killed by using the thumbnail on the back of the neck, the Kohanim eating it would end up eating a treifah animal.
In addition, it is insufficient to just agree in one’s heart that he is bringing the offerings willingly - one has to declare verbally “I am willing”. Chazal learned this from the posuk “he shall bring it willingly”, that a person who does not want to bring an obligatory sacrifice is forced by Beis Din until he says “I am willing”.
Therefore, everywhere else in the Torah, since they kept quiet when Hashem forced them to accept the Torah and did not protest, this was a sufficient demonstration that they accepted the mitzvos. But since with the offerings verbal acceptance is a prerequisite, Hashem was particular that that they should declare verbally that they accept, and therefore He commanded Moshe to report this back to Him.
Another reason why Hashem wanted to know if Yisrael accepted is because Chazal taught that the ministering angels were asked how a person who sins can attain atonement, and they answered that he should die. So we see that from the point of view of strict justice, offerings should not help. But the Torah had pity on the sinner, and responded that he should bring an offering and thereby receive atonement.
Now, Chazal taught on the posuk in Tehillim 50:3 “and around Him it storms furiously”, that Hashem is very exacting with the righteous, like the breadth of a hair, and since before the sin of the golden calf all of them were righteous they were judged by Hashem with the strict measure of justice, and thus if they sinned they would die. Therefore, when Yisrael first accepted the Torah it did not include the mitzvos of offerings, since they would serve no purpose.
But after they made the golden calf and their spiritual level plummeted, Hashem saw that they could not survive if He judged them with strict justice, and it became necessary to combine with it the attribute of mercy, and so offerings now served a purpose. (This is similar to how it was when Hashem created the world, that the primary intention was to create it according to the attribute of justice, but He saw that the world would not survive and so He combined with it the attribute of mercy). Thus, only now did Hashem introduce the concept of offerings, and since they were not included when they originally accepted the Torah, a new acceptance was required. Therefore, Hashem requested from Moshe to inform Him whether Yisrael accepted or not.
Now we can understand why the posuk emphasizes that the laws of the offerings were said to Moshe from the Tent of Meeting - why did the Torah need to specify from which place this prophecy came? Also, in the beginning of parshas Behar we learn that all the general rules and details of the Torah were said at Mount Sinai, but why was that piece of information imparted to us specifically in that parsha?
But according to what we explained above the section concerning the offerings was not stated at Mount Sinai but in the Tent of Meeting. And so we might have thought that also the rest of the Torah was said in the Tent of Meeting and not at Mount Sinai. Therefore, when the Torah concluded teaching about the offerings at the end of parshas Emor, it taught at the beginning of parshas Behar that only these, the laws of offerings, were said in the Tent of Meeting, but all the rest of the Torah was taught at Mount Sinai when Yisrael first accepted it.
What is the main difference between a thanksgiving offering and a sin offering?
(1,2) “Speak to the children of Yisrael, and say to them: A person when he brings from you an offering for Hashem, from animals, from the cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice.”
None of the offerings which are brought because of a sin are beloved to Hashem. Only the thanksgiving offering, which is a voluntary offering brought because of the goodness which Hashem has bestowed on a person, is beloved by Him, as is brought in the Midrash on parshas Tzav on the posuk 7:12 “if as a thanksgiving offering he is bringing it”.
Now, the difference between an offering which comes to atone for a sin and a thanksgiving offering, is that in the former case the principle offering is the person’s soul, because according to strict justice he should be killed for his sin, as we learned earlier, but the Torah had pity on the sinner and allowed him to bring an offering. As the Alshich explained on our posuk, “a person, when he brings from you an offering” - it is fitting that from you, literally, should be the offering, but the Torah had pity and said that “from the cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice”. Thus, the main benefit in bringing the sacrifice is when the sinner has in mind that everything that is being done to the sacrifice should really be done to him. Then it will be as if he is sacrificing himself, because a good thought is considered like a deed. So too it says in the Midrash on posuk 2:1 “A soul, if he brings a meal offering to Hashem”- said Hashem: I will accredit him as if he had offered himself. The sacrifice is just a hint and the main sacrifice is the sinner himself. But with a thanksgiving offering where he is not obligated to bring an offering at all since he did not sin, Hashem only desires the sacrifice of an animal to demonstrate the person’s thanks to Him.
In addition, when a person sins, he sins with his physical body and his spiritual soul, and so it is fitting that the atonement be similarly both physical and spiritual. And since the animal is only physical, it must be that it only serves as a hint that he should intend as if he had offered himself, and that he is the main sacrifice. But when a person brings a thanksgiving offering to thank Hashem for the goodness which He has bestowed upon him, since all the goodness of this world is only physical, for the good of the body and for its success and not for the success of the soul, for this the physical body of the animal is sufficient, and he does not need to intend as if he had offered himself.
This is what the posuk is saying: “when one of you brings an offering for Hashem” - if he wants to bring an offering which will be acceptable and pleasing to Hashem, then “from the cattle and from the flock you shall bring your offering” - the main sacrifice should be just the animal from your cattle or your flock, and this is a thanksgiving offering. But an offering which is for atonement, the main component of the offering is the sinner’s soul, and this is not pleasing to Hashem.
Why did Avrohom Avinu not offer up the horns of the ram?
(1,9) “And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water; and the Kohen shall make all of it smoke on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, a pleasing fragrance to Hashem.”
Chazal learned from the words “all of it” that he even offers up the horns and hooves of the animal, and therefore the sefer Ohr Hachaim asked why Avrohom Avinu did not offer up the horns of the ram at the incident of the binding of Yitzchok.
But it seems to me that there is no difficulty, because the Torah obligated offering up the horns of an animal only when it is the original sacrifice, where he donated a horned animal or he obligated himself to bring a horned animal on account of a sin. That is when the Torah commands us that “the Kohen shall burn all of it on the altar”, including the horns. But if the offering was a substitute - in a case where someone first sanctified an animal which did not have horns, and afterwards substituted an animal which did have horns - then he would not be obligated to offer up also the horns, since his original obligation was an animal without horns.
Therefore since Avrohom was not obligated initially to bring the ram, but rather it was a substitute for his son - as it says “and he offered it as a burnt offering, in place of his son” - and since his son of course did not have horns, he was not obligated to offer up its horns, since he was only obligated to offer up that which was comparable to his son, and no more.
And the reason why Avrohom substituted the ram for his son even though it is forbidden to substitute sacrifices, is because it is only forbidden when the original sacrifice is fitting to be offered. But if it is not fitting to be offered, then it is permissible to exchange it. Therefore, since his son was pushed off from being an offering by Hashem’s command, it was permissible for him to exchange the ram for his son.
How do we know that the offering of a poor person is more beloved to Hashem then that of a rich person?
(2,8) “And you shall bring the meal offering, which he shall make from these, to Hashem. And he shall bring it to the Kohen, and he shall bring it close to the altar.”
Behold, the words “which he shall make from these” seem to be superfluous, and Rashi’s explanation that it means “which he shall make from one of these types” does not seem to solve the problem, since the posuk would mean this even without these extra words..
But we can understand these words according to the Midrash, which explains why the meal offering is different from the animal offerings in that five kinds of oil dishes are mentioned in connection with it, with a parable about a king for whom his friend had prepared a feast. Knowing that his friend was poor he said to him: Prepare for me five types of fried dishes so that I will derive pleasure from you. I explained in my writings that the Midrash means that because Hashem loves the offering of a poor person He intentionally divided it into several types, in order to increase His speaking about it.
This is what the posuk is saying here, that for the rich person Hashem only considers the offering that he brings, and no more. But when a poor person brings an offering, even though he only brings one type it is considered by Hashem as if he had brought all five types. Therefore it says, “and you shall bring the meal offering, which he shall make from these” - from all these five types, “to Hashem”. Even though he only brings one meal offering, Hashem considers it as if he brought from all five types, because the offering of a poor person is so much beloved to Hashem.
For the transgression of which type of mitzvos are we required to bring a sin offering, and why are there different types of sin offerings?
(4,2) “Speak to the children of Yisrael, saying: If a person sins unintentionally in any of the commandments of Hashem which should not be done, and does one of them.”
The Rambam wrote in his ‘Eight Chapters’ that there are two types of mitzvos: those which our intellect would not have compelled us to do, and those which our intellect would have compelled us to do even if Hashem had not commanded us. Therefore, it is completely forbidden to desire those things which our intellect would have forbidden, but those things which our intellect would not have forbidden, on the contrary, it is forbidden to despise them. Instead, one should desire them but refrain from them only because the Creator commanded so. As Chazal taught, a person should not say that he does not want to eat pig meat, but rather he should say that he wants it, but Hashem commanded him not to eat it.
Now, the Torah obligated the bringing of a sin offering for an unintentional sin only for those commandments which our intellect would have obligated us not to do, for example forbidden sexual relations. Another example is Shabbos, which our intellect would have instructed us to observe because it is a testimony to the fact that the world was created. And our intellect would have concluded that we should not eat forbidden fats, because they were chosen to be burned on the altar for Hashem and therefore they are not fitting for us. Therefore, those mitzvos which our intellect teaches us not to transgress, doing so is a very great sin and requires the bringing of a sin offering. But those commandments which are statutes, and which we would not have considered to be forbidden had we not been commanded in them, those do not require the bringing of a sin offering if one does them unintentionally.
This is what the Torah is saying: “If a person sins unintentionally in any of the commandments of Hashem which”, in any case “should not be done”, that your intellect in any case would have compelled you not to do them, and even so, “he does one of them”, his sin is very great and he is required to bring a sin offering.
With this we can understand the seemingly problematic sequence of the posukim. First it says “If a person he sins”, which implies an ordinary person. Next it says “if the anointed Kohen sins” he has to bring an unblemished young bull as a sin offering. Afterwards it says, “When a leader sins…he shall bring his offering an unblemished male goat”. And finally it concludes, “If a person, one of the common people, sins unintentionally, doing one of the commandments of Hashem which you should not do, incurring guilt…he shall bring his offering, an unblemished female goat”. Why did the Torah not tell us when it initially mentioned the ordinary person that he brings a female goat, and then it would not have been necessary to repeat itself later. And why is there a difference in their sin offerings; why does the anointed Kohen bring a young bull, the leader a male goat, and an ordinary person a female goat?
We can answer these questions with the teaching of Chazal on the posuk in Yeshayohu 58:1 “Tell my people their transgression” - these are the Torah sages whose unintentional sins are considered like intentional sins, “and to the House of Ya'akov, their sins” - these are the unlearned people, whose intentional sins are considered like unintentional sins. From this teaching it follows that if the intentional sins of an unlearned person are like unintentional sins, if they actually committed a sin unintentionally all the more so would their punishment be very light.
Now, the Kohen Gadol, the anointed Kohen, was certainly a Torah sage, as Chazal teach on the posuk in Devarim 24:8 “according to everything that the Kohanim teach you”, because the Torah was transmitted to them. And the leader, although he was not as great a Torah sage as the Kohen Gadol, was nevertheless more of a Torah sage than an ordinary person. Consequently the punishment for the Kohen Gadol for his unintentional sins which are treated like intentional sins is the greatest, and so he brings a bull for his sin offering. And the leader who was a lesser Torah sage brings a goat, but it is a male goat, to allude to the fact that the accusing angel that was created from his sin is strong like a male. And the general population whose unintentional sins are light bring a female goat, because their sin is weak like a female.
Thus the sequence of the posukim is to show us that Hashem has more pity on an ordinary person who sins than a great person. Because in the beginning a person does not transgress a big sin - he initially does a light sin which then leads to a more severe sin, until he transgresses a sin for which he has to bring a sin offering. Hence the Torah writes, “if a person sins unintentionally, and does one of the commandments of Hashem, which you shall not do”, that initially he transgresses mitzvos which he should not do, until he eventually “does one of them” - one of those mitzvos that “if the anointed Kohen sins” he would bring a bull, and “if the leader sins” he would bring a male goat, nevertheless, “if an individual sins” it is sufficient for him to bring a female goat because his sin is light, because he is from the general, less learned population, whose intentional sins are considered like unintentional sins, and thus all the more so their unintentional sins are considered to be light. Therefore, he brings only a female goat, because his sin is weak like a female.
And with this we can also explain the posuk “If the anointed Kohen sins, for the guilt of the people” - since a Torah sage’s unintentional sins are like intentional ones, and there is no greater Torah sage than the Kohen Gadol, therefore it says that if the anointed Kohen sins, his sin is like the guilt - the intentional sins - of the people, and therefore requires the greatest atonement and thus he brings a bull.
Another question which requires attention is that with all these offerings it says “and he shall atone”, that the Kohen will atone for the sinner, but it does not say this with regard to the anointed Kohen. It seems to me that this is in accordance with the teaching of Chazal that an imprisoned person cannot free himself from prison. Therefore, with all the other sinners, where the Kohen has no part in the sin, the Kohen can atone for them, and therefore it says “and the Kohen shall atone for him”. But here, where the anointed Kohen himself is the sinner, and he himself is the one who offers the sacrifice, as it says “and the anointed Kohen shall take from the blood of the bull”, he cannot atone for himself because a captive cannot free himself. But he nevertheless brings an offering and Hashem atones for him. However, with regard to Yom Kippur it does say “he atones for himself”, because the day of Yom Kippur itself atones for all Yisrael, and so he can atone for himself.
Why do the elders support (defend) Yisrael only when they petition Hashem for clemency, but not when they address Yisrael?
(4,15) “The elders of the congregation shall support their hands on the head of the bull before Hashem, and he shall slaughter the bull before Hashem.”
It says in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 5:7) - Rabbi Yitzchok said: The nations of the world do not have supporters, as it says “and the supporters of Egypt fell” (Yechezkel 30:6), Yisrael have supporters, as it says “the elders of the congregation shall support”. This Midrash is very enigmatic - what does it mean and what does it want to teach us?
It seems to me that the Midrash had a question: Why is it that whenever the Torah mentions supporting the hands on the head of an animal it does not say that they should do this “before Hashem”? Several times before now it says “they shall support” and did not say “before Hashem” - only here does it do so. Therefore, the Midrash explains that the posuk is coming to show the great superiority of Yisrael over the nations of the world.
Because behold, it says in the Midrash in parshas Devarim (Devarim Rabbah 1:2): “He that reproves someone אחרי will find more favor than one who flatters with his tongue” (Proverbs 28:23). “He that reproves” - this refers to Moshe, “someone” - this refers to Yisrael. What does אחרי mean? Says Hashem: So to speak, Moshe reproves Me for Yisrael and reproves Yisrael for Me. To Yisrael he said: “you have sinned a great sin” (Shemos 32:30), but to Hashem he said: “Why are You so angry at Your people?” (Shemos 32:11). “More than one who flatters with his tongue” - this refers to Bilaam who flattered with his tongue and praised Yisrael, and because of this they became arrogant and stumbled (sinned) at Shittim.
From this we see that it is the nature of the tzaddikim of Yisrael not to support Yisrael in their presence - on the contrary, they put fear into them by telling them that they have sinned and need to repent - but before Hashem they claim that Yisrael are good and righteous and that it is fitting to have mercy upon them, and this is a very good character trait.
But the prophets of the nations of the world do the opposite - they tell their nation that they are righteous and that their deeds are pure and straight, and thus incite them to do many sins. This is like it says in the Midrash in parshas Balak (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:1), that the reason why the narrative of Bilaam was recorded in the Torah was in order to inform us why Hashem removed Divine inspiration from the prophets of the nations of the world, because this one arose from them and look what he did - he advised them to commit immoral acts!
Thus the prophets of Yisrael support them before Hashem, but to Yisrael’s face they do not support them - like Moshe said to them “you have sinned a great sin” - and therefore this type of support is a support that has substance.
This is the meaning of the Midrash which says that the nations of the world do not have supporters, as it says “the supporters of Egypt fell”, because they supported them and maintained that they were innocent and righteous and free from all evil, and therefore they stumbled and sinned. But Yisrael has supporters, as it says “the elders of the congregation shall support before Hashem” - but not before Yisrael. Therefore this type of support is good and superior and substantive.
What is the Torah teaching us by emphasizing that the bull offering which is brought because the Beis Din taught a wrong halachah is “the sin offering of the congregation”?
(4,21) “And he shall take out the bull outside the camp and burn it like he burned the first bull, it is the sin-offering of the congregation.”
At first glance the conclusion of the posuk “it is the sin-offering of the congregation” is hard to understand - how is this giving a reason for what was written previously, and what is it coming to teach us?
It seems to me that we can explain it according to what I wrote earlier, that the reason why the Kohen Gadol brings a bull (when he sins unintentionally) is because he is a Torah sage, and therefore his unintentional sins are considered to be intentional thus requiring a large atonement.
But if so this creates a difficulty, because here we are discussing the sin of the congregation, and so on the contrary, it is far easier for a congregation to attain atonement than an individual, as it says in Iyov 36:5 “Behold, the Mighty G-d does not despise” [the congregation when they gather together and pray - see Berachos 6a]. If so, if a he-goat is sufficient for the sin-offering of an individual, all the more so it should be sufficient for a congregation! So why do they need to bring a bull?
Therefore the posuk provides the reason for this: the reason why they need a bull is not because they need a great atonement, but because the honor of the congregation requires a more significant offering, and thus bringing a he-goat would be a dishonor to the congregation.
This is similar to the teaching that one who reads the Book of Esther when it is written together with other books of the Tanach [and not a separate scroll] has not fulfilled his obligation, and the Ba’al Hamaor explains there that this is because of the honor of the congregation. So too here in our case.
This what it says here: “And he shall take out the bull outside the camp and burn it like he burned the first bull” - that although what is required to be done is the same as for the sin of the Kohen Gadol, it is only similar in deed, but the reason is not similar. There the reason is because he needs a great atonement since his sin was severe, and here it is because of their honor “because it is the sin-offering of the congregation”, and the offering which an individual brings is not in keeping with their honor.
But nevertheless it is still called a sin-offering denoting that it is for an unintentional sin, unlike the Kohen Gadol whose sin is considered like the guilt of the people and called an intentional sin, like I wrote earlier. However, since “it is the sin-offering of the congregation” it needs to be something important.
Why by the sin offering of the leader does it say that the Kohen atones for him “from his sin”, but by the sin offering of the individual it says “for his sin”?
(4,22) “When a leader sins … he shall bring for his offering a he-goat … and the Kohen shall atone for him from his sin and he shall be forgiven.”
Behold, the reason why it says here “from his sin” but later on it with regard to the sacrifice of an individual it says “for his sin” can be explained according to the teaching of Chazal that the sin that Dovid Hamelech committed with Bas Sheva was not in keeping with his sterling character, but he was induced to do so in order to teach the world about the efficacy of repentance. From this we see that sometimes a great person may be induced to commit a sin that is not in keeping with his character for the sake of teaching about repentance.
If so, for an ordinary sinner his atonement does not come from his sin - it was a normal sin for which he subsequently received atonement. But one who sins to teach about repentance, his atonement comes from the sin itself, because the main reason why he was led to sin was for the sake of the atonement and to teach about repentance - if not for the atonement he would never have sinned.
This is what the posukim are saying: “When a leader sins”, and ordinarily he would not have committed such a great sin because Hashem guards pious individuals from sinning, it was only in order to receive atonement and teach about repentance. Therefore “the Kohen shall atone for him 'from' his sin” - because his atonement comes from his sin. But concerning a normal individual who sins and whose sin is a normal sin it says that “the Kohen shall atone for him 'for' his sin”. The posukim now make good sense.
Since confessing one’s sin is always an integral part of the the teshuvah process, why does the Torah specifically mention it here?
(5,4) “Or if a person swears, expressing with his lips to do bad or to do good, whatever a person expresses with an oath, and it was hidden from him and [then] he knows [about it] and is guilty in one of these things. And it shall be that when he will be guilty in one of these things, he shall confess that which he sinned.”
We can explain that we know that a person does not need to immediately confess a sin which he realizes is severe, because he will definitely not forget to confess later on since he knows the severity of his sin. But in those things where the sin is more common - those sins which a person tramples underfoot, if he does not confess immediately he will forget about it and never bring a sacrifice for it.
And we know that due to our many sins swearing falsely and similar transgressions are things which a person tramples underfoot and becomes accustomed to do. Therefore Hashem commanded that “when he is guilty of one of these things”, immediately “he should confess that which he sinned”, and thereby his sin will remain constantly before his eyes and he will remember to bring a sacrifice.
Another thing which needs explaining is the conclusion of the posuk “and he shall confess that which he sinned עליה (because of it)” - the word עליה is superfluous since it should have been sufficient to just say “and he shall confess that which he sinned”. But we can explain it according to the rule that “one sin leads to another”, so what was his initial sin that caused him to violate an oath?
One answer is that his intial sin was swearing an oath - even if he swore truthfully it is nevertheless forbidden. Another explanation is according to the teaching of Chazal (Nedarim 20a): “Do not become habituated in making vows, because this will lead you to violate oaths”. According to this, the reason why he violated an oath was because he had become habituated in making vows, and one sin leads to another.
Therefore when he comes to make a confession he needs to also confess the previous sin which lead him to this sin.
This is what the posuk is saying: “and he shall confess that which he sinned because of it”, that is, he shall also confess the sin which caused him to sin because of it - which lead him to this sin of violating an oath.
Why does the evil inclination first try to seduce a person to sin in monetary matters?
(5,22) “Or if he found a lost item and denied it and swore falsely, for anything which a person does to sin thereby.”
Similarly the parsha concludes “for anything which he does to be guilty thereby”. It seems to me that the meaning of the posukim is according to the teaching of Chazal in gemora Shabbos 105b: Such is the tradecraft of the evil inclination - today he tells him to do this, and tomorrow he tells him to do that, until he tells him to go and worship idols, and he goes and does so.
According to this, behold, initially the evil inclination endeavors to entice him to sin in a monetary matter, because he knows that this is an area in which it is easy to entice him since a person’s desire for money is very great, and a person finds many excuses to legitimize his actions in monetary affairs. And once he succeeds in getting him to sin in this area and causes him to deny a monetary wrongdoing, he leads him to swear falsely and other sins. Thus his initial monetary sin was only in order to lead him to other sins.
This is what the posuk is saying: “which a person does to sin thereby” - that is, his initial act of enticing him in money matters was only in order “to sin thereby”, to make him commit various other sins. And similarly the end of the parsha says “for anything which he does to be guilty thereby” - his initial act was only in order “to be guilty thereby”, to make him guilty of other sins.