Leviticus 4:23

if his sin that he hath sinned be made known to him, he shall bring for his oblation a kid of the goats, a male, unblemished;

When he becomes aware Scripture employs brevity, as in the case of the High Priest [:3]; but the intent is to include both the case when the chief learns himself that he has sinned, and the case when someone who observed him in the act informs him. The phrase he becomes aware employs a verb in the past tense (as in “when you are besieged” [Deuteronomy 28:52]). Scripture omits the actor, as in “who was born to Levi” [Numbers 26:59]. Rabbi Moshe ben Shmu’el Gikatilla HaKohen holds that the verb is in the passive voice, for the ḥolem vowel interchanges with the shuruq vowel (as in, “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” [Genesis 39:1]). The chief brings a male goat, as Sa‘adya Gaon pointed out when he explained the verse, “a greyhound, and a male goat,” [Proverbs 30:31] in his commentary on the Book of Proverbs. Although the animal is male, because of the chief’s high stature, nevertheless: 1) Its blood is not brought into the Sanctuary; and 2) The kohanim eat from the chief’s sin-offering, to secure atonement for him, as it is written [:27]; even though the High Priest does not eat from his own sin-offering.

או הודע, as if the Torah had written: אם הודע “if he became aware.” This is the conventional exegesis of these words. Personally, I feel that the line commences with the word ואשם from the last verse, so that the meaning would be that the individual committed an offense and it was brought to his attention by others.

או הודע אליו, “or it has become known to him;” the Torah uses the singular mode here as well as in verse 28 where the individual who has become guilty of a sin is the leader of his tribe. Some commentators, including Rashi, understand both these verses as applying to people who at the time when they committed the trespass were convinced that what they did was perfectly permissible. Others understand the word או here to mean the same as אם, “if.” However, the author of the commentary b’chor shor of blessed memory, writes that seeing that both ordinary individuals as well as the leader of a tribe have to bring an asham taluy, sin offering of a suspended nature, [arresting potential punishment, until the doubt has been resolved, Ed] when in doubt if they had committed a certain sin. Our verse deals with that doubt having been resolved so that a sin offering to atone for a definitely committed sin is now required. The same situation also applies to verse 27 in this chapter, where the verse following deals with the situation after it has become clear. The author of בכור שור quotes as proof for his interpretation Torat Kohanim on the words: ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, “from amongst one of G–d’s commandments that must not be violated.” (verse 27) The author of that volume understands the word ואשם at the end of that verse as indicating that this asham taluy is not appropriate in that situation. When a community has become guilty of such a sin and a doubt arises, no asham taluy is required. This is based on the fact that when the Torah discussed the situation requiring it, it had spoken of נפש כי תחטא, “if an individual had committed a sin.” When the High Priest had committed a sin, this is linked to a trespass by העם, “the people,” and this is the reason why the situation described as “or he had become aware of it,” is not mentioned there, as if the High Priest had been in doubt and everything he does, he does as the representative of the people, such an asham taluy was not appropriate.