In this lesson we sum up the sugya with a discussion of the question: who brings an asham? The word "asham" literally means an offering brought for guilt, and it comes in six forms - at least in the way the Mishnah arranges them: the first three come for actual transgressions, the next two are, if you will, offerings that are part of a process, and the last is the asham talui. We will go through each one separately.
Asham Talui:
An asham talui is brought in order to suspend the consequences of not bringing a fixed chatas. That is, when a person is not certain whether he is obligated in a fixed chatas - for example, there were two portions of meat in the refrigerator, one of shuman (permitted fat) and one of cheilev (forbidden fat), and he does not know which of them he ate unintentionally (and one who eats cheilev is obligated in a chatas) - he cannot bring a fixed chatas, since he is not certain that he became obligated in one. Instead he brings an asham talui, which suspends the obligation, and this is an entirely different offering. If afterward it becomes clear to him with certainty that he sinned, he then brings the chatas.
The Three Ashamos for Actual Transgressions:
Asham gezeilos - a person who stole, or who owed money to his fellow, swore that he did not owe him, and afterward admitted that he had lied. His atonement revolves around an asham gezeilos.
Asham me'ilos - a person who committed me'ilah unintentionally, that is, he made use of hekdesh, the property of the Beis HaMikdash.
Asham shifchah charufah - a more complex case: a maidservant who is, as it were, half freed and half a maidservant, and a man had relations with her unintentionally. In such a case he brings an asham shifchah charufah.
The Two Process-Related Ashamos:
Asham metzora - brought to complete the purification process of the metzora, at the point when he becomes tahor.
Asham nazir - a nazir who obligated himself not to become tamei with the tumah of a corpse and then became tamei must begin his nezirus anew, and as part of that process he brings an asham.
These two are more procedural in nature, but they also contain an element of transgression: the metzora became a metzora because of certain antisocial behavior, and the nazir committed a transgression in that he obligated himself through the force of his vow not to become tamei with the tumah of a corpse, and in the end he became tamei.
Who Is Obligated in an Asham Talui:
The Mishnah states: "Asham talui - hayachid v'hanasi chayavin, u'mashiach u'veis din peturin" - an individual and a king are obligated to bring it, because those people are obligated in a fixed chatas. They may bring different animals, but the principle is that they are subject to the obligation of a fixed chatas: if they unintentionally tied a double knot in their shoes on Shabbos, they bring a chatas, and if they do not know whether they ate the shuman or the cheilev, they bring an asham talui. In contrast, the mashiach, who is the Kohen Gadol, is exempt from a fixed chatas under ordinary circumstances, while as for beis din, there is no such thing as an asham talui for them, and therefore both are exempt. There is no asham talui for a beis din that erred in its ruling and the like.
Who Is Obligated in an Asham Vadai:
Regarding the other five ashamos, which are brought for genuinely positive causes of liability, we learned: "Hayachid v'hanasi v'hamashiach chayavin" - this obligation applies to all of them equally, whether an individual, a nasi, or a mashiach: if he unintentionally made use of the property of the Mikdash, or had relations with a shifchah charufah and the like, he must bring an asham vadai, an ordinary asham offering. The reason is that although in the passage of the chatas it says that it is for the am ha'aretz and not for the king, and the king is exempted from there, that exemption does not apply here; and similarly, the exemption of the Kohen Gadol also does not apply here.
"U'beis din patur" - if the Great Sanhedrin ruled that a certain act is permitted, for example that one may make use of an object consecrated to the Temple, and after the public relied on that ruling it turned out to have been a mistake and that there really was me'ilah and a prohibition here - even though most of the public stumbled inadvertently on the basis of the ruling, no communal sin offering of the he'elem davar type is brought here. Instead each individual brings his own asham me'ilos, since there is no such thing as an asham me'ilos on a national level along the lines of he'elem davar.
Oleh v'yored - for shemi'as kol, for bituy sefasayim and for tumas mikdash v'kodashav:
Here we return to the variable sin offering, the korban oleh v'yored. This Tanna holds that "beis din patur" - there is no he'elem davar for these three transgressions, which carry an oleh v'yored and not a fixed sin offering, as we have already mentioned many times. But "ha'yachid v'ha'nasi v'ha'mashiach chayavin" - an ordinary person, a king and the anointed Kohen are all liable. According to this Tanna, the standard obligation of oleh v'yored applies to all of them, and this is a different approach.
"Ela she'ein kohen gadol chayav al tumas mikdash v'kodashav" - this is the view of Rabbi Shimon, who introduces an exception. It is not the exception of Rabbi Akiva that we saw earlier, but a different one: the Kohen Gadol is not liable for entering the Temple in a state of tumah, nor for eating consecrated food in a state of tumah, and this too is based on verses. If we keep count - the view of the previous Mishnah, Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva there, and now Rabbi Shimon - we arrive at four approaches, which we will summarize below.
"U'mah hen mevi'in?":
What do those who are obligated in a korban oleh v'yored bring? The Mishnah answers: a korban oleh v'yored. That is, they bring a female lamb or a female goat, assuming they can afford it, and if for some reason they cannot - which is generally not relevant for a king or a Kohen Gadol - they bring two turtledoves like an ordinary person, or even the meal offering of a sinner. Even though the offering is variable, the korban oleh v'yored is like a fixed sin offering: a female lamb or a female goat, a female, exactly like a fixed sin offering.
The question, however, arises regarding the king. Rabbi Eliezer says that the nasi brings a se'ir, a male goat and not a female. He is speaking specifically about the prohibition of tumas mikdash v'kodashav - eating consecrated food or entering the Temple in a state of tumah - where one who does so deliberately is punishable with kareis. Since we have a special rule that the fixed sin offering a king brings for a transgression carrying kareis is a male rather than a female, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the same applies here: even for an oleh v'yored he brings a male instead of a female goat. The Tanna Kamma, however, holds that these are two different sets of rules: the king brings a male goat for a fixed sin offering, but for an oleh v'yored he brings a female goat or a lamb like anyone else.
In summary - the four approaches:
The Tanna Kamma in our Mishnah (and in fact already in Mishnah 1): there is no difference between them at all - a Kohen Gadol, a king and an ordinary person are equal, and they all bring a korban oleh v'yored when they are obligated in it, with no exceptions, and this is how the Rambam ruled. This is a simple, straightforward approach. The Rambam's one qualification: a king who is not from the house of David but is one of the kings of Israel, from the northern kingdom, is a wicked king, and since he is not seated on a court and does not testify, he is exempt from the obligation of shemi'as kol, withholding testimony. Apart from that, all of these are liable for all of these transgressions, and this is the halachah.
Rabbi Shimon in our Mishnah: and so ruled the Raavad, who disagrees with the Rambam - the king is liable for an oleh v'yored for everything except shemi'as kol, because he does not testify; and the anointed Kohen is liable for everything except tumas mikdash v'kodashav, on the strength of a verse.
Rabbi Yosi HaGelili (in Mishnah 5): a king and an anointed Kohen are both exempt from the korban oleh v'yored, since in his view they do not descend from their wealth, and the verses speak of one who cannot afford the offering - which is not relevant to them.
Rabbi Akiva (in Mishnah 5): the king is liable for an oleh v'yored in all cases except shemi'as kol, since given that he cannot testify, withholding testimony is not relevant to him. Regarding the anointed Kohen his opinion is not spelled out in the Mishnah, but the Gemara in Horayos (9a) states explicitly that his view is that the anointed Kohen is exempt from the korban oleh v'yored in all situations.
And again, the halachah follows the Rambam: all of these are liable for an oleh v'yored in all cases, except for that small exception of a king who is not from the house of David and does not testify.