Komentaryo sa Levitico 5:19: Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Sforno & Chizkuni

אָשָׁ֖ם ה֑וּא אָשֹׁ֥ם אָשַׁ֖ם לַיהוָֽה׃ (פ)

Ito ay handog para sa pagkakasala; tunay na siya ay nagkasala sa Walang-Hanggan.

Rashi

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).
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Ibn Ezra

he has incurred guilt before God and that explains why it is called a guilt-offering
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sforno

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.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy