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.

"בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים" – 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.

Sprinkling of blood – In contrast to the Chatat whose blood is "placed" on the altar, the Asham's blood is only sprinkled. As the Asham's purpose is not mainly to purify, and its entire sacrificial procedure is secondary to the returning of the reparation, the role of blood is minimized.

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 – According 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.¹⁹

• Double sin – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that each of the sins listed in Vayikra 5 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 5 involves a belittling of Hashem, either by taking from that which belongs to Hashem, being unaware of one of Hashem's mitzvot,²² or by swearing falsely in His name.²³

Neither R"Y Bekhor Shor nor Shadal address the other cases in which an Asham is brought (the Metzora, one who had relations with a pledged maidservant or a Nazarite who was defiled by the dead).

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

How does the Asham serve to atone? These sources assume the Asham functions in the same manner as the Chatat, either serving to atone by acting as a replacement for the sinner, being killed in the individual's stead,²⁴ or leading the sinner to repent and start afresh as he recognizes the gravity of his sin when forced to actively participate in the sacrificial process.²⁵ [For further discussion, see Nature of the Chatat and Purpose of the Sacrifices.]

Animals brought – One who sinned in one of the manners described in Vayikra 5 must bring a ram as an Asham, a more expensive sacrifice than that mandated for a Chatat, since the crime committed is more egregious.

"בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים"

• M. Spiegelman²⁶ suggests that the language of "בְּעֶרְכְּךָ" (according to your worth) teaches that one should bring a ram which is equivalent in worth to the person bringing it, a value set by the individual's age.²⁷ If so, this might highlight how the animal is meant to act as a replacement for the sinner.
• Chazal, however, read the phrase as if written,  "בערך כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים" , understanding that the ram must cost at least two shekels.²⁸ Shadal explains that this highlights the severity of the crime; one must ensure that the ram cost a significant amount.

Missing protocol – It is not clear, according to this approach, why the protocol of the sacrifice is first mentioned in Parashat Tzav.

"וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי י״י וְנִסְלַח לוֹ" – This phrase points to the goal of the offering; that the person be forgiven for his sins. The language of "וְכִפֶּר" might be understood in two ways:

• Removal of sin – Rashi and Ralbag asserts that "כפר" means to wipe away or remove.²⁹ This suggests that the sacrificial procedure serves to wipe away the need for punishment or, perhaps, the sin itself. Shadal, pointing to Bereshit 6:14, "וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר" similarly suggests that the word means to "cover". Via the offering, one's sin is covered, as if it has disappeared.
• Personal redemption – Ibn Ezra and Ramban, in contrast, suggest that the root "כפר" relates to the phrase "כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ", meaning ransom. The offering acts as a redemption for the sinner, being offered in his place.

"רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַי״י"? Rambam explains that in contrast to the smoke of Olah offerings, the smoke of offerings brought for sins, representing the guilt of the nation, is offensive to Hashem and as such is not called a "pleasing fragrance".

Sprinkling of blood – If the Chatat and Asham serve the same basic function, it is not clear why there is a difference in law regarding the sprinkling of blood.

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 more extensively in 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, in specific cases 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 in addition to the Asham.  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 Milgrom goes a step further to suggest that the Torah is not mandating that the individual bring a ram at all, but only the worth of a ram in money. [It is the priests who would then supply a ram.]

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 See, though, Rambam who reaches the opposite conclusion, that the Asham is brought for less severe sins.  He notes that the Chatat is brought on sins which, had they been violated intentionally, would have been deserving of כרת (being cut off). whereas the sins for which one brings an asham are not punishable by כרת.

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 In contrast 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 a case 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 prohibited חלב while thinking it was permitted fat, would obligate one to bring a Chatat.]

²³ 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 though it too is done intentionally.]

²⁴ See Ibn Ezra and Ramban who view the offering as a redemption (כופר נפש) for the sinner. Ramban adds that in watching the animal slaughtered, the person is forced to recognize that it should have been his blood which was spilled had it not been for Hashem's mercy. As the individual watches each part of the animal be sacrificed, he thinks of his parallel limbs and how they aided him in sin. The guts and kidneys are the seat of thought and desire which led him to err, while the thigh represents his legs and hands which did the action. The animal's blood represents the sinner's soul. As such, watching the animal burn is a powerful symbol of the sinner's own potential fate and should prevent him from sinning further.

²⁵ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Sefer HaChinukh and Ralbag all highlight the need for an active sacrificial process (rather than simple confession) for the individual to both repent and stay free of future sin. Having to bring of one's own possessions as a sign of apology helps one recognize that their actions were deserving of censure.  Moreover, the active performance of a deed of submission leads one to feel remorse in the heart as well (אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות).
Additionally, since individuals need to feel that their slate has been wiped clean or they will continue to sin, feeling stained regardless, a process of atonement is necessary. Since most sinners would not feel that giving a mere apology is enough to cleanse them, an entire sacrificial procedure was instituted.

²⁶ See his article "פרשת ויקרא - הקרבנות העולים והיורדים".

²⁷ He points to the laws of vows and valuations in Vayikra 27 which sets differing values to a person based on their age, using the language "וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ".

²⁸ Since "שְׁקָלִים" is in plural, it must be worth at least two.

²⁹ See Yeshayahu 27:9 and Yirmeyahu 18:23 where the word is paired with both "מחה" and "הסר" (meaning to erase and remove). As further support, Rashi points out that in Aramaic the root similarly means to remove.