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 compensatory offering, allowing the sinner to make reparations for debts owed to Hashem for sacrilege to the Sanctum.

Sources:SefornoVayikra 5Vayikra 7:1-7About R. Ovadyah Seforno, 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 – 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 (or profaning) the Kodesh.³ This debt is paid through the Asham.⁴

• אשם מעילות –This is most evident in the case of "אשם מעילות",‎⁵ brought by one who has unintentionally benefited from that which was sanctified to Hashem.⁶
• אשם תלוי – One who is unsure of whether he has unintentionally sinned also brings an Asham (known as an אשם תלוי)⁷ to compensate for the Chatat⁸ which he might owe Hashem.⁹
• 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 Asham¹⁰ are also cases of "theft" from the Kodesh requiring reparations. R"Y Grossman¹¹ 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.¹² 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.¹³
• 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.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

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 that which was "stolen".  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 "theft" was replaced and 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.  The Asham, in contrast, is not meant to purify but to repay debts incurred against Hashem Himself.  Neither offering, then, is really meant to purge one of sin itself.  One gets rid of the consequences of sin, the other enables the person to be forgiven as his debts are now paid.

Guilt Offering

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

Sources:Ramban

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 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 Tehillim 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.

³ See SefornoVayikra 5Vayikra 7:1-7About R. Ovadyah Seforno, who writes that one brings an Asham, "להיות חטאו מעילה בקדש".

⁴ In R. D"Z Hoffmann's words, an Asham is "תשלום חוב לה".

⁵ This case is perhaps listed first as it, to some extent, defines the requirements of an Asham.

⁶ 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.

⁷ 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.

⁸ See Z. Weinberg, cited above, who makes this point.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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).

¹¹ See his article, "אשם כגזל גבוה - המשך".

¹² This is due to the woman's in-between status.

¹³ 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 someplace in the middle, an Asham, reparations for sacrilege of the holy, is offered instead.

¹⁴ 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"

¹⁵ See also