Commento su Levitico 5:19

אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea “he has done something” (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, “he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering”, then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela’im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states “הוא” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).

אשם הוא; even though sometimes this offering is brought when no offence has in fact been committed, the party bringing such an offering is not guilty of bringing secular meat into the holy precincts, for it is after all a קרבן, an approved offering. Even if the party concerned had not been guilty of the offence he thought he might have been guilty of, 'אשום אשם לה, he is certainly guilty before G’d for being careless enough for the doubt about his specific guilt in this instance to arise.

A guilt-offering two-years old. This is surely a scribal error, because why would Scripture need to write that the guilt-offering of the engaged maidservant should be two-years old, since it is written “ram” concerning the engaged maidservant (19:21), the same as here? What is the strength of “ram” written here over the word “ram” written concerning the engaged maidservant? Furthermore, Rashi says: Perhaps I should include the guilt offering for a nazir and the guilt offering of a metzoro? But why would you think that the guilt-offering of the nazir and metzoro should be a two-year old ram, when it is written “lamb” concerning them, and whenever it is written “lamb” or “calf” it refers to a one-year old? Rather, we have to correct the text: “that it should [consist] of a ram worth two Shekalim.” This is because it is not written regarding the engaged maidservant, “the valuation of two shekalim,” and so it lets us know here that we require two shekalim here as well (Gur Aryeh).

'אשם אשם לה, “he is most certainly guilty in the eyes of the Lord.” According to Rashi, the apparent repetition of the word אשם, [although the first one is a noun whereas the second one is a verb Ed.] is meant to add that also in the case of someone who had had sexual relations with a Canaanite slave whose process of being freed had not yet been completed, must offer a two year old animal [as opposed to a one year old one which is much cheaper. Ed. Whenever the Torah uses the word איל, “ram,” without adding the age of said animal, it refers to a two year old ram. (Torat Kohanim)

He certainly incurred guilt. Why does the Torah require a more expensive offering for a case of doubt than a case of certainty? Similarly, why is a guilt-offering more expensive than a sin-offering, and yet a guilt-offering is brought for a sin which is lighter than that of a sin-offering? This is because any sin subject to a light punishment in Heaven has its punishment meted out in this world instead, where punishment is much easier to bear than the World to Come. Thus, the offering for a lighter sin which is a candidate for punishment in this world will be more expensive since it comes to atone for a spiritual punishment. For example, someone who was in doubt about eating forbidden fat must bring an offering which protects from suffering, and thus, it is more expensive.

אשם, אשם, “a guilt offering, he is guilty;” according to Rashi, he has to bring the offering decreed for having sexual relations with a Canaanite servant woman who has not yet completed the procedure for becoming free; This offering consists if a two year old ram. This is clear, as only after having attained that age is this animal referred to as איל. We might have asked what special “power” does a 2 year old ram possess to have been selected by the Torah as atonement for the sin of treating Temple treasury money as if it were secular money? At that age this animal is valued at two shekels. This is why the Torah repeats the word אשם. We might have thought that a sheep, כבש בן שנתו, one year old, such as is required from someone healed from the affliction of tzoraat, would have sufficed. This is to teach us that this is not so, the Torah emphasized: אשם, he is guilty, as opposed to a person afflicted with tzoraat concerning whom no specific guilt has been spelled out. As to the question of how we could have made such a mistake seeing that in the case of the sin offering for a Nazarene or a person afflicted with tzoraat, the Torah had spelled out the word כבש, which if not stated otherwise, is a one year old sheep?This is why we need to correct the wording in Rashi, and add the words “worth two shekels,” an expression not used in the Torah accept in connection with the atonement offering or people guilty of abusing money belonging to the Temple treasury, i.e. the sin of מעילה(Compare Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 19,11, where this has been spelled out already.)