Kommentar zu Wajikra 5:23

יחטא ואשם‎‎ כי‎ means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).

והשיב את הגזלה..ואת אשמו יביא, the sacrifice does not achieve atonement until the guilty party has first satisfied the demands on him by the injured party.

והיה כי יחטא ואשם, “it will be when he has sinned and realises his guilt, etc.” The reason why the Torah repeats the words meaning “he has sinned,” using both the term יחטא and אשם is to bring home the point that in all these instances the sin is two-fold. The sinner committed a crime against his fellow man but he also sinned against G’d the Law giver. The sin discussed in this verse is an intentional one. This is why the paragraph commences with the words נפש כי תחטא instead of writing merely כי תחטא בשגגה, “if he sinned erroneously.” All the other instances in which the Torah has used the term חטא the word בשגגה, “inadvertently,” or words to that effect accompanied the term חטא (compare 4,2; 4,22; 4,27; 5,15). It is a well known fact that most sin-offerings are brought only in respect of unintentionally committed sins. There are only four instances when a guilt-offering is prescribed for sins committed knowingly; they are: 1) if someone slept with a Gentile servant girl (slave); 2) a Nazirite who defiled himself; 3) swearing a false oath as part of one’s testimony. 4) swearing a false oath concerning matters entrusted to him (compare Keritut 9).

To repent. Otherwise, who is forcing him to return the theft, since there were no witnesses here? Perhaps by himself? If so, what did he think originally when he denied and swore falsely? Rather, it must be: When he recognizes in himself [the need] to repent... This is a truncated verse, and it is as if it says: “It shall be that when he admits that he sinned and incurs guilt, he shall return the stolen property...”

It shall be that when he [realizes his] sin and incurs guilt. No sinner considers himself guilty, for every man thinks he is doing the right thing. This is because he rationalizes his actions, imagining that the other fellow owes him money for some reason, or has wronged him in some other dealings, and he decides he has a right to take what was deposited by him for safe-keeping. Therefore, the Torah calls it ואשם — meaning, when he realizes his error and that he has wronged his fellow man and now recognizes he is guilty. He will then certainly set his heart on repentance and return the stolen object. He should not simply pay for the object, but rather should return the object itself.

והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל, “he has to return the object which he had obtained through robbery;” It would have been sufficient for the Torah to write: “he shall give back the object obtained by robbery.” Why did the Torah add the words “which he has robbed?” The Torah taught that it is not sufficient to return the value of the object but that the actual object which has been obtained by robbery must be returned. (assuming it is still in existence and in its original condition). If, assuming we are speaking about coins, it had already become mixed with other coins so that it cannot be identified with certainty, the guilty party has to make restitution in kind (Baba Kama 66). The text of the Talmud, (omitting mentioning the divergent views expressed by some scholars) is: “if he stole (robbed) a beam and has used it in building an upper floor in his house and he now tears down the entire upper floor and restores the beam to the owner he has done more than the law requires of him.” [The school of Hillel decreed this so that the guilty party would not be discouraged from making restitution.]
The type of repentance which the people of Nineveh (whom the prophet Jonah had threatened with destruction) performed was of that nature. We are told in Jonah 3,8 that the king of Nineveh issued orders to his countrymen that “they shall turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty.” Our sages in Baba Kama 11 commenting on the apparently redundant words אשר גזל, “which he obtained through robbery,” read the words as if they meant “which are similar to having been obtained through robbery.” They mean that assuming the original object has become worth less by the time the guilty party is willing to make restitution, he has to base the restitution on the value at the time he committed the crime. The same rule also applies in the case of deposits or wages withheld that someone is accused of and has first denied. The Torah also repeated the unnecessary words אשר עשק in order to make this point quite clear.

And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, "and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, "and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring." (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, "and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)