Part of the beauty of the Old Law is that it notices everyone. When a crime is committed—intentional or not—there is a sliding scale of sacrifices that one can offer based on their position in society and/or their economic status.
Nowhere in Leviticus is this more clearly seen than in Leviticus 4. Beginning at the top of society, a priest who commits an unintentional sin is to offer a bull. The same goes for if the whole congregation commits a sin that they aren’t aware of.
For a leader of the people, a male goat is sufficient, whereas with a commoner, offering a female goat or lamb is the right sacrifice. If you go into Leviticus 5:7, a poorer person can offer two turtledoves or two pigeons, while the absolute poorest of the land can offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11).
Everyone is accounted for in this system. No matter who you are, there is always a way to fix your sin.
But what I find interesting is the difference between certain animals—primarily with why Leviticus specifies male goats for the leaders (Leviticus 4:22) and female goats for the laymen (Leviticus 4:28). Wouldn’t female goats be more prized due to their ability to create offspring?
There are a couple possible answers that I found. The first relies purely on a symbolic argument. Since males are the heads of household in the ancient world, sacrificing a male goat is symbolic of sacrificing a leader of the flock. That’s a strong argument, but not one I would consider the primary driver in this case.
The other reason is based on simple economics and practicality. If you are a subsistence farmer living in an average home in Israel, which animal are you more likely to have at home? A female that can produce milk and reproduce, or a male that can’t do either?
Apparently, this value proposition explains partly why female goats are relegated to the sacrifice of the commoner, whereas male goats were sacrificed for leadership positions: More people had more females in their possession than males simply because females are more useful.
By comparison, males were less common and therefore harder to sacrifice—most families simply didn’t keep male goats around. After male goats were weaned, they were usually slaughtered and eaten, with their hair used for clothing.
This argument speaks more to the nature of God, that not only does He know what’s best for His people, but He knows what His people are actually capable of. Common sense in our time would dictate the female goat as more valuable, but God knew what people actually had on hand. And what they had, they could sacrifice.
