Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the laws of the chattas sacrifice of a king, which is unique in that the animal must be a male, while the standard chattas sacrifice is a female animal.

The verse that describes the sacrifice has additional anomalies (Vayikra 4:22–26):

“In case that a nasi sins and unwittingly violates one of the commandments of God of which he is commanded to abstain from, and incurs guilt.”

The Hebrew word for “in case that…” is asher, which also translates as “when.” Additionally, the language of “incurs guilt” is not used by the individual sinner.

Seforno (ibid) interprets this as a warning/criticism for the king. The trappings of power and wealth are likely to seduce you to sin, incurring guilt. It’s not just if, but when. Malbim (ibid) states that asher, as opposed to the Hebrew word im (which also means “if/when”), connotes a likely event to transpire. Chizkuni (ibid) implies something similar, inverting the words in the verse to even more strongly indicate an inevitability of sin.

Regarding the fact that the sacrifice is a male animal, first we need to understand why the ordinary citizen’s chattas is female. The Rama (Toras HaOlah II:9 and II:11) explains that the symbolic and kabbalistic aspect of the feminine is the material physical realities. The feminine body and nature are a holding space for physical material matters—childbirth and nurture. The masculine is more aggressive and adds form to the matter.

To our Rishonim, as well as secular Aristotelian philosophers, the world contains matter and form. Matter is the hardware, and form is the software that enables the matter to have shape and function. By way of metaphor, there is the concept of a triangle. This idea of a triangle—the angle and shape—is an idea, and it exists as form. If an architect uses that idea and shapes the building material into a triangle, then the form was imposed upon the matter. In the case of male-female relations, the man plants the seed in the woman, which contains the program that activates the form inside the woman to grow into the baby. This is not correspondent with our modern understanding of biology, but that’s not a concern because the Torah works with observed experiences. If something looks like something, that’s good enough. Regardless of the inner microscopic biology, if it looks like the man plants a seed in a woman, and so he provides the form and she provides the matter, that is meaningful in the same way that one could engage in homiletics over texts of the Torah. Because it looks a certain way, we assume it means that God wanted us to take a certain meaning out of it.

A sin that incurs a chattas comes from violating a sin that would be liable for kares due to lack of knowledge or awareness. In other words, there is a lack of focus and a lack of being vigilant (aggressive) enough about purpose and duty. This is like the undifferentiated matter before form imposes something upon it—undeveloped, unfulfilled potential. Therefore, it is fitting that the animal is female, representing this imbalance and lack of appropriate direction and vigilance. (It goes without saying, but I will have to say it: these metaphors of feminine and masculine are not alleging that women are passive and formless. It is a relative expression of a dynamic where it is the feminine trait to focus on physical and material safety and care—food, nurture, home, and beauty—and the masculine trait to be aggressive and active to bring about some desired result. Many women do not view themselves that way today; some of them do not want to be mothers altogether. Nevertheless, these are classic, somewhat instinctive archetypes of behavior.)

Returning to the king’s chattas, his sin is less passive. It doesn’t come from not having awareness or direction. It comes from too much aggression and too much arrogance. This is why his chattas is a male, because this overreach needs to be corrected and sacrificed on the altar.