Comentário sobre Levítico 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).