Nature of the Asham/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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 denominatorSefornoVayikra 1:4Vayikra 5Vayikra 7:1-7Vayikra 14:12Vayikra 19:20About R. Ovadyah Seforno3 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.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.10
Other cases obligating an Asham – It is not as easy to see how the other instances in which one is required to bring an Asham11 are also cases of "theft" or sacrilege of the holy requiring reparations. R"Y Grossman12 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.13 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.14
  • 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.15
Missing heading – R"Y Grossman suggests that the second case (known as אשם תלוי) in Vayikra 5 does not get its own heading since it is really only an appendix to the laws of אשם מעילות(the taking form that which was dedicated to Hashem). 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".‎
Missing sacrificial protocol – The fact that the sacrificial protocol of the Asham is not mentioned in Parashat Vayikra 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.16
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 points out 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.17  [See Nature of the Chatat for details.] The Asham, in contrast, is not meant to purify but to repay debts incurred against Hashem.  According to him, then, neither offering is really meant to purge one of sin itself.
Sprinkling of blood – In contrast to the Chatat whose blood is "placed" on the altar ("וְנָתַן... מִן הַדָּם"), the Asham's blood is only sprinkled ("דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ"). As the Asham's purpose is not to purify, and its entire sacrificial procedure is secondary to the indemnification, the role of blood is minimized.

Guilt Offering

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

Meaning of Asham – According to this approach, the root אשם relates to guilt or wrong-doing18 as supported by many verses in Tanakh, including Bereshit 42:21, Vayikra 4:13,22, Yechezkel 22:4, Tehillim 69:6 or Ezra 9:6.19 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.20 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.21
  • 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.22  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.23 
  • Disparaging of HashemShadalVayikra 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,24 or by swearing falsely in His name.25
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,26 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.27 [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. Spiegelman28 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.29 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.30 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 – Ralbag asserts that "כפר" means to wipe away or remove.31 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"? RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:46About R. Moshe b. Maimon 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 practice regarding the sprinkling of blood.
Two headings – This approach might suggest that a heading is found before the case of אשם גזילות to differentiate it from the first two cases in Vaykra 5 which involve unintentional crimes, it being the sole case in the unit which involves an intentional transgression.