What Distinguishes the Chatat and Asham/2

What Distinguishes the Chatat and Asham?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Function of the Offering

While the Chatat is first and foremost a purification offering, the Asham is a reparation offering.

Sources:R. David Zvi HoffmannVayikra 5:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, modern scholars,

Meaning of חטאת – According to these sources, the root "חטא" means to purify, as proven by the many verses where it is clearly mentioned in the context of purification (sometimes being parallel to the root "טהר") including Vayikra 14:48-52, Bemidbar 8:7, Bemidbar 19:19 and Yechezkel 43:23-26.¹

Chatat: common denominator – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the common denominator between all cases in which one must bring a Chatat is that they involve contraction of impurity, be it spiritual or physical. Thus, both those who have created spiritual impurity by unintentionally transgressing a prohibition² and those who have contracted physical impurity (a birthing mother, one who has tzara'at, one who has an emission, and a nazirite who has come in contact with a corpse) are obligated to bring a Chatat.³

What does the Chatat purify? R. Hoffmann explains that sin defiles not just the person, but also the Mikdash,⁴ and as such, the Chatat comes to purify the Mikdash itself from impurity.  As evidence that the Mikdash itself can be polluted not just via physical impurity but by sin as well, he points to Vayikra 16:16, "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכׇל חַטֹּאתָם" and Vayikra 20:3, "כִּי מִזַּרְעוֹ נָתַן לַמֹּלֶךְ לְמַעַן טַמֵּא אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי".

Where the blood is sprinkled? In support of the assumption that the Chatat is meant to purify the Mikdash itself,⁵ R. Hoffmann notes that the blood of such offerings is sprinkled not on the person but in the Mikdash. He further suggests that the gravity of the sin determines the depths to which the Mikdash is polluted, and hence, where exactly the blood is sprinkled:

• Unintentional sins of an individual are the least defiling and affect only the courtyard. As such, the blood of these Chatatot is sprinkled on the outer altar.
• Inadvertent sins of the high priest (Vayikra 4:1-12) and community (Vayikra 4:13-21) affect even the Outer Sanctum and thus, the blood of their Chatatot is sprinkled on the Incense Altar.
• Brazen sins penetrate to even the Inner Sanctum, and this is purified through the blood of the Yom HaKippurim offerings, sprinkled in the Holy of Holies.

Meaning of Asham – These sources understand that the noun "אשם" means reparations or compensation, as supported by the word's usage in Bemidbar 5:7-8 and Shemuel I 6:3,7-8.⁶ As such, in the cultic context, it refers to a "reparations offering".

Asham: common denominator – According to this approach, the common denominator between all the cases listed in Vayikra 5 in which an Asham is brought is that the transgressor incurred a debt to Hashem by benefiting from the kodesh.⁷  This debt is paid through the Asham.⁸

• אשם מעילות –This is most evident in the case of "אשם מעילות", brought by one who has unintentionally benefited from that which was sanctified to Hashem.⁹
• אשם תלוי –One who is unsure of whether he has unintentionally sinned brings an Asham (known as an אשם תלוי)¹⁰ because he might owe the Mikdash a Chatat which, due to his uncertainty, he cannot bring.¹¹ To compensate for the missing Chatat, he brings reparations in the form of an Asham.
• אשם גזילות – One who owes money to another but denies this, swearing falsely about the matter (אשם גזילות), has benefited from his oath. This person, too, is said to have "מָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּי״י" because he used Hashem's name (in his oath) to steal from another.  As such, he must pay back both the victim, through returning the amount taken and adding a fifth and Hashem, via the Asham.

Other Cases Obligating an Asham – R"Y Grossman suggests that the other instances in which one is required to bring an Asham, (a nazirite who has been defiled by the dead (Bemidbar 6:9-11), a metzora (Vayikra 14:10-20), and one who has had relations with a pledged servant (שפחה חרופה) are similarly cases in which there has been "theft" from the Kodesh and reparations are due:

• A Nazirite who becomes impure nullifies the days of his oath to be "holy to Hashem," so that he has, albeit unintentionally, taken for himself days which had been set apart for Hashem, necessitating him to pay reparations for the loss.
• In the metzora's defiled state, he is prohibited from entering the camp, unable to enter the Mishkan or participate in its offerings. As such, as he undergoes the purification process, he must also makes reparation for his lost time as a participant in the Kodesh.
• One who had relations with a pledged maidservant has committed an offense which shares aspects of financial and sexual misconduct, the latter often being seen as a sin against not just man but also Hashem.

"בְּעֶרְכְּךָ"

Animals brought?

Severity of Sin

While both the Chatat and Asham serve an atoning role, they do so for different types of sins.

Asham More Severe

The more severe offenses necessitate an Asham offering rather than a Chatat.

Asham Less Severe

Less severe sins are expiated with an Asham rather than a Chatat.

¹ See also Shemot 29:36, Vayikra 8:15, and Yechezkel 45:18. 

² Though the verses appear to speak of unintentional transgression of any prohibition, R. Hoffmann, like Chazal, limits the cases for which one needs to bring an offering to only those which one would have been obligated with כרת had one transgressed them intentionally.

³ The red heifer whose ashes come to purify one who ha come into contact with a dead body is also referred to as a Chatat.

⁴ He suggests that this impurity takes the form of the distancing of the Shekhinah, while purification via sprinkling of blood allows the Shekhinah to return.

⁵ R. Hoffmann asserts that the sacrifice serves to purify both the sinner's soul and the Mikdash.  Prof. Milgrom, though, goes a step further to suggest that the Chtat comes to purify only the Mikdash. To explain the process of sin's defilement, he uses Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" as an analogy.  In the work, the corrupt and hedonistic Dorian Gary remains handsome and unblemished, while his portrait progressively reveals his corruption.  So, too, Milgrom suggests that according to Sefer Vayikra, sinful actions might not always be revealed in the figure of the sinner, but every sin will progressively contaminate the Mikdash.

⁶ J. Milgrom notes that the word might take on different connotations in different contexts and forms.  As a verb, it might mean to incur liability or feel guilt (as in Vayikra 5:5), or alternatively, to be punished (as in Hoshea 5:15 or Psalms 34:22) As a noun, outside of the cultic context, it means reparations and in the cultic context, reparation offering. He notes that several words in Biblical Hebrew, such as עון or רעה, refer both to a sin itself and to its repercussions or punishment.  The root, "אשם", thus similarly can refer both to the state of feeling guilt, or to the reparations that one pays as a result.

⁷ See Seforno, who writes that one brings an Asham, "להיות חטאו מעילה בקדש".

⁸ In R. D"Z Hoffmann's words, an Asham is "תשלום חוב לה".

⁹ This case is perhaps listed first as it, to some extent, defines the requirements of an Asham.

¹⁰ From the fact that if the individual later learns that he did in fact sin unintentionally, he must then bring a Chatat, it is clear that the Asham is not meant to expiate from sin or purify the Mikdash, for if it served that role, another Chatat would not be necessary.

¹¹ R"Y Grossman points out that the case is brought as an appendix to the laws of the Asham Meilot (as evidenced by the fact that there is a new introduction "וַיְדַבֵּר י"י אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר" only in verse 20, by the third case which requires an Asham, but not before this second case) because the two are really variations o the same sin.  The fact that one might have a sheep in his flock which really belongs to Hashem (since it is owed as a Chatat) is considered "מעילה בקודש" and therefore requires an Asham. He further notes that Chazal's assertion that only sins which would have required a Chatat require an Asham is logical, for the Asham comes only to compensate for the potentially missing Chatat. If no Chatat was obligated then no compensation is necessary.