Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a distinction between a chattas and asham offering. If the owner of the sin offering dies before it is able to be brought as a sacrifice, it must be left to die. However, for an asham whose owner dies, we allow it to graze until it develops a blemish, and then it can be redeemed. What is the reason for this distinction?
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Z”L (Rabbi Sacks on Yom Kippur Mahzor, Yom Kippur Evening, Yoma 6:1) explains this based on the Ramban’s (Vayikra 5:15) conceptualization of the difference between the chattas and asham offerings. A chattas is for a sin due to negligent lack of awareness that, had he done this sin intentionally, he would have incurred kares or a heavenly death decree. The etymology of the word chattas means to be an error. It is a sin, but not particularly grave. The function of the chattas is to fully cleanse this relative error and wrongdoing. It is not general. It is specific to this deed. On the other hand, the Hebrew word for asham implies severe guilt and wrongdoing. Indeed, asham sacrifices are incurred due to a number of intentional sins, such as denying financial obligations under oath and other severe breaches. The function of the asham is not so much to cleanse, but just to partially ameliorate and protect against divine punishment. That is in fact why there is one type of asham that is brought when a person is unsure if he committed a sin - not to achieve forgiveness but just a suspended sentence until, or if the sin is verified. The entire function of the asham is an umbrella form of protection in the hopes of gaining favor and forbearance. So far, these are the words of the Ramban. Rabbi Sacks builds on this idea and explains that this helps us understand the distinction of how the sacrifice is treated. Should the owner die, since the chattas is for a specific atonement and he no longer is in this world, the window for that form of atonement has expired. The animal has dramatically lost its function and cannot be repurposed. However, the asham, which is not specifically for atonement in a direct manner but rather a general appeasement, is not as strongly identified with the sin. Therefore, if the owner died, we can wait for it to develop a blemish and repurpose it via redemption.
There is a powerful idea here. The mild sin of a chattas can be expiated through a direct offering. This is reserved for inadvertent sins. However the intentional sinner does not get off easy. There is no quick fix, no direct path and no assurance. He must offer appeasement and hope he will merit forbearance and even eventually forgiveness, but he has no formula. He is not allowed a false sense of security via the formula of a prescribed sacrifice that automatically leads to forgiveness. The sacrifice, at best, generates a state of divine mercy, but he must go beyond the rite and the rote to find an individual and unique path to achieve his forgiveness.
In a relationship, when one experiences an occasional breach or disappointment, a simple apology suffices. However, if the betrayal is great, the offended person says, “I don’t know what will make me feel better. It’s going to take time and don’t expect me to be fine. Don’t ask me how to make it better—just go ahead and you figure it out.”
sponsored by https://empowermentaftertrauma.com/
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
The Chosson and Kallah Shmooze You Wish You Had But Never Got
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com