Nature of the Asham/2

Nature of the Asham

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Reparations Offering

Meaning of Asham – These sources understand that the noun "אשם" means reparations or compensation, pointing to the word's usage in Bemidbar 5:7-8 and Shemuel I 6:3,7-8 as evidence of this usage.¹ As such, in the cultic context, the word 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.² This debt is paid through the Asham.³

• 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.⁴
• אשם תלוי – One who is unsure of whether he has unintentionally sinned brings an Asham (known as an אשם תלוי)⁵ because he might owe the Mikdash a Chatat which, due to his uncertainty, he cannot bring.⁶ 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, benefits 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 – It is not as easy to see how 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, a שפחה חרופה (Vayikra 19:20) are also cases of "theft" from the Kodesh requiring reparations. R"Y Grossman attempts to show how these cases, too, fit the mold:

• 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 makes reparation for this 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 being a sin against not just man but also Hashem.⁷ Since someone has taken that which was sanctified to another, it is similar to "מעילה בקודש" and reparations are necessary.

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 "kodesh" that was taken. Again, this highlights the fact the sacrifice is first and foremost compensatory.

Animals brought?

¹ 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.

² See Seforno, who writes that one brings an Asham, "להיות חטאו מעילה בקדש".

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 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.

⁶ 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.

⁷ It is the combination of these two 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.