Nature of the Asham/2

Nature of the Asham

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Reparations Offering

The Asham is a reparations offering, allowing a sinner to pay back debts owed to Hashem for sacrilege to the Sanctum.

Sources:R. D"Z HoffmannVayikra 5:17About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, modern scholars¹

Meaning of Asham – This approach understands that the noun "אשם" means reparations or compensation, pointing to the word's usage in Bemidbar 5:7-8 and Shemuel I 6:3-8 as evidence.² As such, in the cultic context, the word refers to a "reparations offering".

Asham: common denominator – SefornoVayikra 1:4Vayikra 5Vayikra 7:1-7Vayikra 14:12Vayikra 19:20About R. Ovadyah Seforno asserts that the common denominator between all the cases listed in Vayikra 5 in which an Asham is brought is that they all involve sacrilege of the Sanctum (מעילה בקודש). The transgressor incurred a debt to Hashem by benefiting from the Kodesh. This debt is paid through the Asham.³

• אשם מעילות –This is most evident in the case of "אשם מעילות",‎⁴ brought by one who has unintentionally benefited from that which was sanctified to Hashem.⁵
• אשם תלוי – One who is unsure of whether he has unintentionally sinned also brings an Asham (known as an אשם תלוי)⁶ to compensate for the Chatat⁷ which he might owe Hashem.⁸
• אשם גזילות – One who owes money to another but denies this, swearing falsely about the matter, benefits from his oath. This person, too, is said to have "מָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּי״י" because he committed sacrilege against Hashem's name, using it for his personal benefit 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 – It is not as easy to see how the other instances in which one is required to bring an Asham⁹ are also cases of "theft" or sacrilege of the holy requiring reparations. R"Y Grossman¹⁰ attempts to show how these cases, too, fit the mold:

• One who had relations with a pledged maidservant has committed an offense which shares aspects of financial and sexual misconduct.¹¹ While the former might have required only compensation to the individual, the latter is considered also a sin against Hashem. Under these circumstances, taking that which was sanctified to another is similar to "מעילה בקודש" and reparations are necessary.¹²
• A Nazirite who becomes impure nullifies the days of his oath to be "holy to Hashem," so that he has, in effect, 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 and unable to enter the Mishkan or participate in its offerings. As such, he must also make reparation for this lost time.¹³

Missing sacrificial protocol – The fact that the sacrificial protocol of the Asham is not mentioned in Parashat Tzav might relate to the compensatory nature of the sacrifice. It is, perhaps, the reparations itself, i.e. the bringing of the animal, rather than its slaughter and sacrifice which is the key component of the sacrifice and so it is that which is emphasized.

"וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַי״י אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ" – This approach might understand the directive that the animal brought be "בְּעֶרְכְּךָ" (according to your worth) to mean that one must bring an animal which costs the equivalent of the sanctified object that was taken. Again, this highlights the fact the sacrifice is first and foremost compensatory in nature.¹⁴

Animals brought? Most individuals who are required to bring an Asham are obligated to bring a ram as the offering.  This more expensive animal is perhaps required to ensure that it cover the expenses of the sacrilege. The Nazirite and Metzora are exceptional, being required to bring only a lamb, perhaps because their "theft" is related only to holy time,  and not to a material object.

"וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי י״י וְנִסְלַח לוֹ" – This position might understand "וְכִפֶּר" to mean remove or expiate.  Through the offering the sin is expiated, not because it intrinsically removed the sin, but because through it reparations were made and the debt to Hashem was paid for.  The individual can now be forgiven.

Comparison to Chatat – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the two offerings have different purposes and are brought for different actions.  The Chatat is mainly a purifying offering, meant to purge both the sinner and Mikdash of either physical or spiritual impurity.¹⁵  The Asham, in contrast, is not meant to purify but to repay debts incurred against Hashem.  Neither offering, then, is really meant to purge one of sin itself.

Guilt Offering

The Asham offering is meant to expiate one's sins and save the individual from punishment.

Sources:Ibn EzraVayikra 1:4Vayikra 5:15-26About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorVayikra 5About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,  RambanVayikra 5:15About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Sefer HaChinukh129About Sefer HaChinukh, RalbagVayikra 1:4Vayikra 5:16Vayikra 5:26Vayikra Toalot 5:15About R. Levi b. Gershom

Meaning of Asham – Accridng to this approach, the root אשם relates to guilt or wrong-doing¹⁶ as supported by many verses in Tanakh, including Bereshit 42:21, Vayikra 4:13, 22, Yechezkel 22:4, Tehillim 69:6 or Ezra 9:6.¹⁷ Ramban goes further to suggest that  "אשם" refers specifically to that which is deserving of harsh punishment such as destruction or desolation, pointing to the verb's usage in Tehillim 5:11 and Hoshea 14:1 as evidence.¹⁸ As such, in the cultic context, an Asham refers to a guilt-offering, brought by one who committed a deed deserving of severe penalty.

Common denominator – These sources struggle to find a common denominator linking all the sins which obligate one to bring an Asham, agreeing only in that they are all more severe than those which obligate a Chatat.

• Double sin – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that each of the sins listed in Vayikra 5¹⁹ are considered more serious transgressions because there is a double wrong; the individual both sinned and derived benefit from his sin.²⁰  The case of אשם תלוי, brought when one is unsure if he has sinned, is exceptional and treated more severely only because the individual might think that he deserves no punishment.²¹
• Disparaging of Hashem – ShadalVayikra 5:15-25About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, instead, points to the fact that each of the cases in Vayikra 5²² involves a belittling of Hashem, either by taking from that which belongs to Hashem, being unaware of one of Hashem's mitzvot,²³ or by swearing falsely in His name.²⁴
• Ramban treats each case individually.  He notes that three cases requiring the Asham (אשם גזילות, אשם שפחה חרופה, אשם נזיר²⁵) involve intentional transgressions, and thus more problematic.²⁶ Desecrating or benefiting from the Kodesh, even though unintentional, also requires an Asham as it is a grave sin referred to in the verses as "מעילה" or treachery. Finally, the fact that the Metzora is already desolate  and compared to the dead, further testifies that his sin, too, was deserving of destruction.²⁷

Comparison to Chatat – These sources suggest that the Asham and Chatat serve the same function, atoning for sin. The only difference between them is the nature and severity of the crime for which the sacrifice is brought.

¹ Many modern scholars take this approach, though they vary in the details and extent to which they apply it. See J. Milgrom "The Cultic Asham: A Philological Analysis," Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies I (1977): 299-308 and The Anchor Bible: Leviticus (New York, 1991): 319-373.   See also  צ' וינברג, "חטאת ואשם", בית מקרא יח (תשל"ג): 524­-530,  ב' קהת (קץ), "קורבן האשם", דף קשר 328 (תשנ"ב): 2­-3, מ' ברזילי, "מה בין חטאת לאשם – על תפקידם של קורבנות החובה בספר ויקרא", משלב מ (תשס"ו):31­-50 and R"Y Grossman, "אשם וגזל גבוה".

² R. D"Z Hoffmann notes that the root in general often connotes destruction or punishment (as in Hoshea 5:15 or Tehillim 34:22), and thus, too, payment of a penalty or debt.  J. Milgrom similarly 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 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.

³ In R. D"Z Hoffmann's words, an Asham is "תשלום חוב לה".

⁴ This case is perhaps listed first as it, to some extent, defines the requirements of an Asham.

⁵ One, however, might question why extra reparations are due given that the inadvertent sinner is obligated to repay what he took and add a fifth.  These sources might respond that the individual must pay back both the Mikdash itself and Hashem.

⁶ 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.

⁷ See Z. Weinberg, cited above, who makes this point.

⁸ Only one who knows for certain that he has transgressed may bring a Chatat. [See Vayikra 4:14, 23 and 28 and 5:3 which emphasize that only once the transgressor knows of his sin, "אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא", does he bring the sacrifice.] As such, in this case, due to his uncertainty, the individual cannot bring a Chatat, but might nonetheless owe one.
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 of 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 in cases in which one is unsure if he has committed a sin which would have required a Chatat, is one required to bring 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.

⁹ These include 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, a שפחה חרופה (Vayikra 19:20).

¹⁰ See his article, "אשם כגזל גבוה - המשך".

¹¹ This is due to the woman's in-between status.

¹² It is the combination of the financial and sexual factors which paves the way for the Asham offering. Had someone simply stolen, then it is enough to return the property and pay double. Had someone slept with an engaged woman without maidservant status, then the penalty would be death. Since this case stands some place in the middle, an Asham, reparations for sacrilege of the holy, is offered instead.

¹³ Seforno and R. D"Z Hoffmann, instead, point to the sins for which one is plagued by tzara'at, gossip and vanity, suggesting that these sins themselves are considered "מעילה בקודש". Seforno points to Divrei HaYamim II 26:16 where Uzziyahu is struck with tzara'at and the text explains, "וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד לְהַשְׁחִית וַיִּמְעַל בַּי״י אֱלֹהָיו"

¹⁴ See also

¹⁵ It gets rid not of sin, but the contamination which is the consequence thereof.

¹⁶ Ralbag even asserts that the word might be synonymous with חטא.

¹⁷ See, for instance,

¹⁸ See also Yeshayahu 24:6, Hoshea 5:15, Yoel 1:18 and Tehillim 34:22-23.

¹⁹ He does not address the other cases of Asham, such as the Nazirite, Metzora, or one who slept with a pledged maidservant.

²⁰ In the first case (אשם מעילות) the sinner not only took from that which was sanctified to Hashem (itself a sin), but also used it for himself. In the third case (אשם גזילות), too, the sinner not only swore falsely (itself a sin), but also benefited from what he took from the other.  This is in contrast to sins which obligate one to bring a Chatat or graduated Chatat (קרבן עולה ויורד) where there is just one stage, either benefit or sin, but not both.  Sins which obligate a regular Chatat themselves involve deriving benefit (whether it be sexual misconduct, eating that which is prohibited, or doing work on Shabbat).  The graduated Chatat, on the other hand, involves wrong-doing, but no benefit.  [One who refuses to testify for another derives no personal benefit from the deed and one who accidentally entered the Kodesh while impure similarly does not do so to benefit.]  As such, the conditions are more lenient.

²¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor emphasizes that a person who has brought himself to a case of doubt needs to learn to be more careful lest he treat Torah laws with so little attention that he gets to a place where he ignores the prohibition altogether.

²² He, too, does not address the other cases in which one is obligated to being an Asham. 

²³ In conrast to most commentators who understands the case known as "אשם תלוי" to refer to a case in which one is not sure if he has sinned at all, Shadal assumes that it refers to acase where one unintentionally transgresses because he is not aware of a law. [A case where a person is aware of the law but made a mistake regarding an object or action, for example eating prohibitted חלב, thinking it was permitted fat, would obligate one to bring a Chatat.]

²⁴ Ramban treats each case individually. He notes that three cases requiring an Asham (אשם גזילות, אשם שפחה חרופה, אשם נזיר) involve intentional transgressions, and are thus more problematic than those obligating a Chatat which is brought for unintentional sins. [It is not clear why Ramban includes the Nazirite as one who has sinned intentionally, considering that he is obligated to bring an Asham only when he has inadvertantly come into contact with the dead. It is possible that Ramban thinks that since the Nazirite voluntarily took upon himself these extra prohibitions, he is responsible even for unintentional outcomes afterwards.] Ramban further notes that benefiting from the Kodesh, even though unintentional, also requires an Asham as it is a grave sin referred to in the verses as "מעילה" or treachery. Finally, the fact that the Metzora is already desolate and compared to the dead, further testifies that his sin, too, was deserving of destruction. Like R"Y Bekhor Shor, Ramban suggests that the case of אשם תלוי is exceptional and treated more severely only to ensure that the individual realize that his uncertainty itself is problematic.
Ramban's theory, besides necessitating different explanations for each case,  does not explain why it is only these specific intentional sins which obligate one to bring a Chatat rather than others. [For example, the case of שבועת העדות, when one does not testify despite hearing an oath cursing any who have testimony and do not bear witness, is included in the cases that obligate a graduated Chatat and not an Asham, even when done intentionally.]

²⁵ It is not clear why Ramban includes the Nazirite as one who has sinned intentionally, considering that he that he is obligated to bring an Asham only when he has unintentionally come into contact with the dead. It is possible that Ramban thinks that since the Nazirite voluntarily took upon himself these extra prohibitions, he is responsible even for unintentional outcomes afterwards.

²⁶ This stands in contrast to the Chatat which is mandated only for unintentional sins.  One, might however, question why, שבועת העדות, when one does not testify despite hearing an oath cursing any who have testimony and do not bear witness, is included in the cases that obligate a graduated Chatat and not an Asham, considering that it is also an intentional sin.  Ramban also does not explain why it is only these intentional sins which obligate one to bring a Chatat rather than others.

²⁷ Like R"Y Bekhor Shor, he too suggests that the case of אשם תלוי is exceptional and treated more severely only to ensure that the individual realize that his uncertainty itself is problematic.