Commento su Levitico 5:17

ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ‎ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to “be in suspense”); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a).

ואשם ונשא עונו, our sages have a tradition that the Torah here speaks of an asham taluy, a guilt offering offered while the exact nature of the guilt is unclear. The person offering it is not even sure that he is guilty of an offence. Considering this state of affairs the Torah writes ונשא עוונו, he carries (the burden) of his guilt. The guilt is not spelled out precisely as it is not yet known. He may not actually have committed a sin, but this does not mean that he is free from guilt as had he been careful he would never have been in the predicament of not knowing if he had committed the specific sin he is afraid he might have committed.

ולא ידע ואשם; the Torah discusses an אשם תלוי an offering pending clarification of the sin. This is why the Torah adds the rider על שגגתו אשר שגג והוא לא ידע, seeing that every שוגג, inadvertently committed sin, contains an element of being unaware of it, why would the Torah have to add the words “and he did not know?” [Had he known, the sin would have been deliberate and no sacrifice would exonerate him. Ed.] The error consisted of mistakenly eating something not kasher instead of picking up the similar looking kasher item next to it. At the time the person thought that both were kasher so that there was nod doubt in his mind. By the time he found out, the other piece had disappeared. If for some reason he becomes aware later that he had indeed eaten the forbidden piece of meat he will have to bring an additional sin-offering. The effect of the asham taluy protected him only until clarification of the true state of affairs.

ואם נפש כי תחטא וגו'...ולא ידע; this does not mean that the party concerned never became aware of this offence. If that were so, how could the Torah demand a sacrifice from him, etc.? The Torah describes the following scenario: someone had performed an activity which is definitely prohibited on the Sabbath. He does not know if at the hour he had performed this activity the Sabbath had already concluded or not. Or, he entertains a doubt of a different kind, such as having eaten one of two pieces of meat believing it to be kasher. In the meantime he has been made aware that one of the two pieces of meat had not been kasher. He has no means of finding out now which piece he had eaten, i.e. the doubt will forever remain unresolved. In such situations the offering he has to bring is the one known as אשם תלוי, a provisional guilt offering, i.e. pending clarification of what precisely if any his sin had been, this is all he can do in the meantime. Once he finds out that he has indeed committed the sin he was in doubt about, he has to bring (additionally) the regular sin-offering appropriate for the offence in question. וכפר עליו הכהן על שגגתו אשר שגג, which until this time had been an inadvertent sin.

‎ו אשם ונשא עונו‎‎ולא ידע AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, “See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, “If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, “See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) “at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the third witness under the law there stated — to be severe with him and to make his sentence exactly like that of these (the first two witnesses) in respect to punishment in case of “plotting” (evidence that is rebutted by proof that the witness was not present on the occasion to which he has testified; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:16). Now, if Scripture exacts punishment so severely from one who has only joined himself with sinners (he is so described because as a single witness he could not hope that his evidence would be effective), just as it does from the sinners themselves, how much the more certain is it that He will give a reward to him who attaches himself to those who practise meritorious deeds just as it does to those who themselves practise meritorious deeds! (Sanhedrin 9a; Makkot 5b). — R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: In Deuteronomy (24:19) Scripture states, “When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, [thou shalt not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless etc.]”, and, you see, it states immediately afterwards: “that the Lord thy God may bless thee etc.” Scripture (God) thus gives the assurance of a blessing to one through whom a meritorious deed came about (the feeding of the stranger, etc.), without himself knowing about it (since he forgot to remove the sheaf from the field)! You must now admit that if a Sela was tied up in the skirt of one’s garment and it fell from it and a poor man finds it and supports himself by it the Holy One, blessed be He gives the assurance of a blessing to him (to the man who has lost the Sela) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 12 7-13).