Jonathan Goldstein, in his commentary to II Maccabees, considers Yehuda's collection of silver as a literal misreading of the mitzva of the ḥatat offered for the collective sins of a community (Lev. 4:13-21):
וְאִם כׇּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺת יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃ וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ וְהִקְרִיבוּ הַקָּהָל פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר לְחַטָּאת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃וְסָמְכוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה וְשָׁחַט אֶת־הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה׃ וְהֵבִיא הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִדַּם הַפָּר אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ וְטָבַל הַכֹּהֵן אֶצְבָּעוֹ מִן־הַדָּם וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֵת פְּנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת׃ וּמִן־הַדָּם יִתֵּן עַל־קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵת כׇּל־הַדָּם יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל־יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ וְאֵת כׇּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה׃ וְעָשָׂה לַפָּר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְפַר הַחַטָּאת כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה־לּוֹ וְכִפֶּר עֲלֵהֶם הַכֹּהֵן וְנִסְלַח לָהֶם׃ וְהוֹצִיא אֶת־הַפָּר אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הוּא׃
If it is the whole community of Israel that has erred and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation, so that they do any of the things which by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt— when the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known, the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting. The elders of the community shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the LORD. The anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the Tent of Meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of it seven times before the LORD, in front of the curtain. Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar which is before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting, and all the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. He shall remove all its fat from it and turn it into smoke on the altar. He shall do with this bull just as is done with the [priest’s] bull of sin offering; he shall do the same with it. Thus the priest shall make expiation for them, and they shall be forgiven. He shall carry the bull outside the camp and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is the sin offering of the congregation.
Of course, Yehuda's actions are different from the halakhic procedure of the ḥatat. According to the Oral Torah, "the whole community of Israel" refers to the seventy members of the Sanhedrin, if they make a mistake in a law that the whole community follows. Nevertheless, it appears this was the biblical source through which Yehuda sought to rectify the Jews' idolatry, once it was discovered. Goldstein claims that, in contrast to the then contemporary Chashmonaim--Yehuda's descendants--who were against the idea of resurrection, the writer interpreted the act of collecting money as proof that Yehuda did indeed believe in the resurrection of the dead:
Judas and his surviving force may have believed their case to be the one envisaged at Lev 4:13, taken literally. The rabbinic interpretation of that verse is different (see Rashi's commentary ad loc). The Sifra to Lev 4:13 (p. 19a Weiss) considers and rejects the interpretation that "whole congregation" is to be taken literally. Judas and his men, however, lived long before the rabbis. Lev 4:13 is almost echoed in vss. 40-41: the community had unknowingly been tainted with the sin of idolatry through the secret misconduct of the soldiers, but the sin had now been exposed. If Judas and his men took Lev 4:13 to apply to their case, they found that Lev 4:14-21 required the community to bring a bull as a sin offering. Later, rabbinic law provided for a special collection from the community to pay for the bull (To. Sheqalim 2:6; TB Menahot 52a; see Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah, Part IV [Mo'ed], pp. 682 - 83), similar to Judas' procedure. Two thousand silver drachmas was far too much for a bull. According to rabbinic law, the extra money would be treated as a donation to the temple, and the law may have been the same in Judas' time. It is noteworthy that Jason himself, surely following his source, speaks in vs. 43 only of a singular sin offering. Had the sin requiring the sacrifice been the individual sin of the possessors of idolatrous objects, there would have been an offering for each sinner.
Nevertheless, Jason believes that the sin offering was brought to secure expiation for the dead! His view disagrees with rabbinic law. There, the principle holds that sacrifices do not secure expiation for the dead. The experience of death itself is their expiation. See TB Zebahim 9b and "Eyn kapparah Pmetim" Talmudic Encyclopedia, I (5707=1946-47), 293b-294b. Again, neither Jason nor Judas and his men had to agree with rabbinic law, but we have found many indications that Jason misinterpreted his source. The words he took over from the source do not fit his opinion; indeed, the words hint that Judas and his men acted in literal fulfillment of Lev 4:13-21.
Jason was driven to this kind of interpretation because he firmly believed in resurrection and had to justify his own approval of Judas, a member of a family notorious for rejecting the doctrine. If Jason had had direct evidence of Judas' acceptance of the doctrine, he surely would have quoted it. Judas did win the loyalty of many pious believers in resurrection, perhaps by avoiding any public expression of disbelief.