## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 5

###### Ramban on Leviticus 5:1:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 5:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/5:1:1)

**וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע** אֵינָם שְׁלֹשָׁה עִנְיָנִים, כִּי אֵין עֵד בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה וּבְלֹא יְדִיעָה, אֲבָל יֹאמַר אִם שָׁמַע קוֹל אָלָה שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ עָלָיו לְהַאֲלוֹתוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֵד, בֵּין בִּרְאִיָּה בֵּין בִּידִיעָה, אִם לֹא יַגִּיד יֵשׁ עָלָיו עָוֹן. וְהִנֵּה לֹא יִתְחַיֵּב בַּקָּרְבָּן הַזֶּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ בְּדִינוֹ, וּלְכָךְ פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (שבועות לג) כִּי יֵשׁ עֵדוּת שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בִּרְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה וְיֵשׁ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בִּידִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה, כֵּיצַד, מָנֶה מָנִיתִי לְךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְטוֹעֵן לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם, יָבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ, זוֹ הִיא רְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה. מָנֶה הוֹדֵיתָ לִי בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, יָבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ, זוֹ הִיא יְדִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה, אֲבָל "אוֹ רָאָה" שֶׁהוּא רָאָה הַהַלְוָאָה אוֹ הַמִּקָּח לְגַמְרֵי, "אוֹ יָדַע" שֶׁשָּׁמַע אוֹתָם מוֹדִים בַּמַּעֲשֶׂה הַהוּא בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְלֹא רָאָה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. וְלֹא אָמַר כָּאן "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ" כִּי הוּא חַיָּב בְּמֵזִיד אוֹ בְּשִׁגְגַת הַשְּׁבוּעָה עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה שָׁכוּחַ בָּעֵדוּת בִּשְׁעַת שְׁבוּעָה אֵין עָלָיו כְּלוּם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE IS A WITNESS, WHETHER HE HATH SEEN OR KNOWN³³². These are not three separate matters, for it is impossible that one be a witness without seeing and knowing. Rather, Scripture is stating that if one *hear the voice of adjuration* that a party to a law-suit adjures him, concerning a matter in which he is a witness either by seeing or knowing of it, *if he does not tell it* he has committed an iniquity. Now the witness is not obligated to bring this offering unless he knows such a testimony that the party in suit who adjured him [to give witness] would have legally won his case because of it [and the witness nonetheless withheld his evidence]. It is for this reason that our Rabbis³³³ interpreted [on the basis of the verse before us] that there is testimony which is valid by seeing without knowing, and [testimony which is valid] by knowing without seeing. How so? [Reuben says to Shimon:] “I have delivered to thee a maneh³³⁴ [as a loan] in the presence of such-and-such persons,” and [Shimon] claims “this never happened,³³⁵). let the witnesses [you claim to have], come and testify.” This is a case of seeing without knowing [since although they saw Reuben handing the money to Shimon, they do not know the nature of this delivery, whether it was as a loan, or repayment of a loan that Shimon had originally made to him].³³⁶ Reuben giving Shimon money is sufficiently valid to obligate Shimon to pay Reuben, although they did not *know* the nature of that transaction. If therefore they withhold their testimony, they are liable to bring the offering dealt with here. [If Reuben says to Shimon:] “You have admitted to owing me a maneh,³³⁴ in the presence of such-and-such persons,” [and Shimon replies]: “let them come and testify,” this is a case of knowing without seeing [and even though they did not see, they must testify what they know, and hence are liable if they withhold their evidence].
But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, we need not [explain] the “seeing” here [to mean seeing] without knowing. Rather, the sense of the verse is as follows: *whether he hath seen*, meaning that he saw the loan or the sale completely [i.e., with knowledge], *or known*, i.e., that he heard [the defendants to the suit] admitting that transaction in the presence of witnesses, but he did not see it.
Now He does not state here: “and it is hidden from him,” [as He does in the following verse], because in this case [where the witness swears that he knows of no testimony for the party that adjures him to come and testify before the court], he is obligated to bring the offering [mentioned here in these verses] whether he swore [entirely] wilfully, or was in error on the oath whilst wilfully denying his knowledge of evidence. If, however, at the time of giving the oath he had forgotten the testimony, there is no guilt upon him.

footnotes:
³³² The section here discusses the offering of higher or lower value (see above, Note 15), the verse before us stating that this offering is required in the case of a false oath concerning testimony. Thus, if the person interested in the evidence called upon him by an oath, adjuring him that if he knows any evidence favorable to him he should testify before the court, and he swore that he knows of no testimony concerning him, when in fact he does know, in such a case, if he swore either unintentionally or wilfully, he must offer what is called an offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 82-83. In the following verse another transgression for which this offering is required is mentioned. — Ramban now proceeds to explain the sense of the triple expression, and he is a witness, or knows, or saw
³³³ Shebuoth 33b.
³³⁴ A Hebrew unit of weight and value, equal to the sixtieth part of a talent.
³³⁵ And Shimon claims: “Let such and such persons come and testify that they saw you [Reuben] delivering me the money, and I will pay you” (Rashi, ibid.
³³⁶ But since Shimon denied that this transaction had ever taken place, and says that if Reuben can produce the witnesses he claims he has to testify that they saw Reuben delivering him money, he will pay Reuben — then the witnesses’ testimony that they saw
³³⁴ A Hebrew unit of weight and value, equal to the sixtieth part of a talent.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 5:2:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/5:2:1)

**וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא** שֶׁנֶּעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה, **וְאָשֵׁם** בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים אוֹ בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא ה':ב'). וְאֵין הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים וּבִיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ נִלְמָדִים מִן "וְאָשֵׁם", כִּי בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת לְמַעְלָה נֶאֱמַר כֵּן, אֲבָל הַפָּרָשָׁה הַזּוֹ תְּקַצֵּר בַּדָּבָר הַמּוּבָן, כִּי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בִּנְגִיעַת נְבֵלָה וְשֶׁרֶץ שׁוּם חֵטְא וְלֹא הֻזְהֲרוּ מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִילּוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיְּחַיֵּב הַכָּתוּב בִּנְגִיעָתָם קָרְבָּן. אֲבָל אָמַר כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא הָאָדָם וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה, אוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְיֶחֱטָא בְּהַעֲלָמָה שֶׁל אַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה, יִתְחַיֵּב לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן. וּבְיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין בְּהַעֲלָמַת הַטֻּמְאָה חֵטְא זוּלָתִי שֶׁיֹּאכַל קָדָשִׁים אוֹ יָבֹא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין בְּהַעֲלָמַת הַשְּׁבוּעָה חֵטְא זוּלָתִי שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עָלֶיהָ. וְזֶה יִשּׁוּב פְּשׁוּטָן שֶׁל מִקְרָאוֹת בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ. וּלְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ בָּהּ עוֹד מִדְרָשִׁים לְחַזֵּק הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM³³⁷ — “that is, he had forgotten his state of uncleanness. AND HE INCURRED GUILT — by eating holy food or by entering the Sanctuary.” This is Rashi’s language. Now [Rashi’s] intent is not that the [requirement of] eating the holy food or entering the Sanctuary is derived from the word *v’asheim* (and he incurred guilt), for this word is used with reference to all the sin-offerings mentioned previously.³³⁸ But this section deals in a brief manner with those points which are self-understood. For there is no sin involved in touching a carcass of an unclean beast or swarming thing [which defiles the person]. Even the priests have not been warned against it. So it is impossible that Scripture should require a person to bring an offering just because he touched them and thereby became defiled. Rather, Scripture is stating that when a person becomes defiled and forgets his state of uncleanness, or when he swears [an “oath of utterance”]³³⁷ and forgets the oath, and he incurs guilt by violating it — for either of these sins committed through forgetfulness, he is required to bring an offering. Now it is self-understood that the mere forgetfulness of his state of uncleanness involves no sin, except [if in that state] he ate holy food or entered the Sanctuary. Nor is there any sin in the mere forgetfulness of an oath, except if he violated it. This is the literal explanation of the verses in this section. Our Rabbis have further interpretations on this section strengthening this explanation.

footnotes:
³³⁷ This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering.
³³⁸ Above, Chapter 4, Verses 13, 22, and 27.
³³⁷ This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 5:5:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 5:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/5:5:1)

**וְהִתְוַדָּה אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עָלֶיהָ וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ** אֵין הַסֵּדֶר כֵּן, אֲבָל הוּא מֵבִיא הַחַטָּאת וְסוֹמֵךְ עָלֶיהָ וּמִתְוַדֶּה, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (טז כא) "וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". אֲבָל לֹא אָמַר כָּאן "וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ" בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ בְּכָל הַחַטָּאוֹת לְמַעְלָה שֶׁהֵם טְעוּנִים סְמִיכָה, וְכֵן בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַנְּדָבָה, וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ הַוִּדּוּי לְמַעְלָה בִּשְׁאָר הַחַטָּאוֹת. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט יֵרָאֶה שֶׁאָמַר בְּכָאן "וְהִתְוַדָּה" בַּעֲבוּר כִּי שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת יָבִיאוּ קָרְבָּן עַל זְדוֹנָהּ, וְכֵן בִּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן הִזְכִּיר (במדבר ה ז) "וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ", אֲבָל בְּחַטָּאת הַשְּׁגָגָה לֹא יַזְכִּיר וִדּוּי. אֲבָל עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ספרי זוטא נשא ה ה) "וְהִתְוַדָּה אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עָלֶיהָ" עַל כָּל הַנִּזְכָּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה, אַף טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו וּשְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי שֶׁהֵן בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וּשְׁאָר כָּל חַטָּאוֹת לָמַדְנוּ מִכָּאן. אֲבָל הִזְכִּיר הַוִּדּוּי בְּכָאן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת וּשְׁבוּעַת בִּטּוּי אֵין בִּזְדוֹנָן כָּרֵת וְהִצְרִיכָן וִדּוּי, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לְמַעְלָה בְּחַטָּאוֹת קְבוּעוֹת שֶׁיִּתְוַדֶּה עַל חַיָּבֵי כְּרֵיתוֹת. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ כִּי "וְהִתְוַדָּה אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עָלֶיהָ" כְּלָל לְכָל חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁטְּעוּנִין וִדּוּי, וְהַכָּתוּב בְּפָרָשַׁת נָשֹׂא (ה ו כ) "וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ", לְהָבִיא כָּל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת, כָּךְ מְפֹרָשׁ בְּסִפְרֵי (נשא ב). וְשָׁם דָּרְשׁוּ, "וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא וְהִתְוַדּוּ" - בִּנְיַן אָב לְכָל הַמֵּתִים שֶׁיִּטָּעֲנוּ וִדּוּי:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL CONFESS THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED. 6. AND HE SHALL BRING HIS GUILT-OFFERING. This was not the [order of the] procedure.³³⁹ must mean “and he who comes to bring an offering to effect atonement for his guilt … ” Rather, he first brought the sin-offering and laid his hands upon it, and then confessed, similarly to that which is [explicitly] said further on, *And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel*.³⁴⁰ Here, however, Scripture does not state “and he shall lay his hand,” because He explained previously in the case of all sin-offerings³⁴¹ that they require the laying of hands, and similarly, in the case of freewill offerings.³⁴², Chapter 1, Verse 4; Chapter 3, Verses 2, 8 and 13. See also Note 11 above. But He did not explain [the duty of] confession above in the case of the other sin-offerings, [although it is required in those cases as well].
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it would appear that here He said *and he shall confess*, because in the case of an “oath of testimony”³³². the offering is to be brought even if the oath was taken wilfully. So also in the case of an “oath of deposit”³⁴³ (Proverbs 21:27). Ramban thus suggests [in line with the plain meaning of Scripture] that since the offerings in these two cases — that of the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of deposit” — are required to be brought even when committed wilfully, therefore the Torah mentions in their cases the subject of confession. But in the case of all other sin-offerings, since they are brought only when the transgression was committed in error, there is no need for confession of sin. However, Ramban will immediately refute this position, for the Rabbis have clearly interpreted that all sin-offerings require confession of sin. He mentioned, *then they shall confess their sin which they have done*.³⁴⁴ But in the case of the sin-offering brought for transgression in error, He did not mention confession.³⁴⁵ But in the opinion of our Rabbis³⁴⁶ 5:5. the expression, *and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned*, refers to everything mentioned in this section, including the defiling of the Sanctuary and the holy food, and an “oath of utterance,”³³⁷ which offerings have to be brought [only] when [the sins are] committed in error, and [in the case of] all other sin-offerings [which are also brought only when the transgression was done in error, the need for confession when bringing them] is derived from here. He mentioned confession, however, [specifically] here because the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance” do not make one liable to excision [if done wilfully, unlike the sin-offering which is brought only for those sins committed in error which, if committed wilfully, incur the punishment of excision], and yet He requires confession in these cases, and [thus it follows] all the more that in the case of the fixed³⁴⁷ sin-offerings mentioned above, he must confess [since his sin, were it to be committed wilfully, would incur] the penalty of excision. Our Rabbis have said³⁴⁸ 2. that the expression here, *and he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned* is a general principle in the case of all sin-offerings, that they require confession. The verses written in the section of *Naso*, stating, *and that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done*,³⁴⁹ is to include all guilt-offerings [in the requirement of confession]. So it is explained in the Sifre.³⁴⁸ 2. There the Rabbis have interpreted: “*And that soul shall be guilty. Then they shall confess*.³⁴⁹ This establishes the general rule for all those executed [by the court] that they require confession” [to achieve full forgiveness of their sin].

footnotes:
³³⁹ For the offering had to be brought first, then the laying of hands was performed during which [while his hands lay on the offering] he confessed his sin (see Note 64 above). Hence the expression and he shall bring his guilt-offering
³⁴⁰ Further, 16:21.
³⁴¹ Above, Chapter 4, Verses 4, 15, 24 and 29.
³⁴² Ibid.
³³² The section here discusses the offering of higher or lower value (see above, Note 15), the verse before us stating that this offering is required in the case of a false oath concerning testimony. Thus, if the person interested in the evidence called upon him by an oath, adjuring him that if he knows any evidence favorable to him he should testify before the court, and he swore that he knows of no testimony concerning him, when in fact he does know, in such a case, if he swore either unintentionally or wilfully, he must offer what is called an offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 82-83. In the following verse another transgression for which this offering is required is mentioned. — Ramban now proceeds to explain the sense of the triple expression, and he is a witness, or knows, or saw
³⁴³ If Reuben says to Shimon, “Give me my deposit which you have,” and Shimon replies “I swear I have naught of yours,” or if Shimon said, “I have naught of yours,” and Reuben says, “I adjure thee” and he answers “Amen” — in this case too Shimon is liable to bring an offering [in addition to the restitution] even if he wilfully swore falsely. The offering, however, is not the one of higher or lower value mentioned in this section — but a guilt-offering, as explained further on (in Verses 23-26). Ramban mentions the “oath of deposit” here only to liken it to the “oath of testimony” in the sense that the offerings in each case are brought even if committed wilfully. This is a novel point in the law of offerings, for all other offerings brought for commission of a sin effect atonement only in case the transgression has been committed in error; otherwise, the offering of the wicked is an abomination
³⁴⁴ Numbers 5:7.
³⁴⁵ “But [when bringing] the sin-offering for a sin committed in error he does not confess” (Tur in quoting the language of Ramban).
³⁴⁶ Sifre Zuta
³³⁷ This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering.
³⁴⁷ As distinct from the offering of higher or lower value, where the offering varies according to the means of the transgressor, a fixed sin-offering must be of an animal and is alike for poor and rich, so that if the poor cannot afford it he is not obligated to bring another offering in its stead, as is the case of the offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 78-79.
³⁴⁸ Sifre Naso
³⁴⁹ Numbers 5:6-7.
³⁴⁸ Sifre Naso
³⁴⁹ Numbers 5:6-7.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 5:7:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 5:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/5:7:1)

**וְאִם לֹא תַגִּיעַ יָדוֹ דֵּי שֶׂה** הֵקֵל הַכָּתוּב עַל הַחוֹטֵא בְּאֵלּוּ לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁהַטַּעַם בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּבֵי כְּרֵיתוֹת, וּבְטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה, כִּי הַכֹּהֵן הָאוֹכֵל קָדָשִׁים וְהַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת אוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן עוֹסֵק הוּא בַּמִּצְוָה וְדַעְתּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְפִיכָךְ אע"פ שֶׁחָטָא בְּהַעֲלָמַת הַטֻּמְאָה רִבָּה לוֹ הַכָּתוּב כַּפָּרוֹת. וְאָמַר ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא ה':ז') כִּי טַעַם "אֶחָד לְעֹלָה" שֶׁיִּקְרַב עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּנֶגֶד הָאֵמוּרִין בְּחַטַּאת הַבְּהֵמָה. וְיָפֶה פֵּרֵשׁ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND IF HIS MEANS SUFFICE NOT FOR A LAMB. Scripture has been lenient towards these sinners by allowing them to bring an offering of either higher or lower value. It is possible that the reason for the leniency with regard to the offering in the case of oaths [i.e., the “oath of testimony” and the “oath of utterance”, as explained above] is because the punishment is not excision [were they to be done wilfully]. In the case of defilement of the Sanctuary and the holy food [He mitigated the obligation of the offering] because the person who did it erred whilst engaged in performing a religious duty, for the priest who eats the holy food or enters into the Sanctuary to prostrate himself or to bring an offering is engaged in performing a religious duty, and his intention is towards Heaven. Therefore even though he sinned on account of having forgotten his state of uncleanness, Scripture gave him more ways of atonement.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the reason why one [of the two birds brought by the poor man in the offering of higher or lower value] was a burnt-offering, is so that it should be offered on the altar in lieu of the fats of the animal sin-offering [brought by the affluent person].³⁵⁰ He has explained it well.

footnotes:
³⁵⁰ I.e., in view of the fact that nothing of the bird sin-offering is burnt on the altar, while the fats of the animal sin-offering are burnt thereon, Scripture therefore required that the poor man who cannot afford the animal offering, should bring two birds, one for a sin-offering [which is the required offering in this case], and an additional bird as a burnt-offering, to take the place of the fats of the animal sin-offering.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 5:15:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 5:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/5:15:1)

**וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה'** נִקְרָא הַקָּרְבָּן הַזֶּה אָשָׁם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר "בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאָשָׁם", אֲבָל "וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה'" הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה (ויקרא ה':ו') בְּקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, טַעְמוֹ וְהֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ לַה', כִּי הַקָּרְבָּן הַהוּא חַטָּאת הוּא, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר (שם) "כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים לְחַטָּאת". וְלֹא נִתְבָּרֵר מָה טַעַם יִהְיֶה שֵׁם הַקָּרְבָּן הָאֶחָד "חַטָּאת" וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד "אָשָׁם" וְכֻלָּן יָבֹאוּ עַל חֵטְא. וְלֹא נוּכַל לוֹמַר בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהַחַטָּאת נְקֵבָה, כִּי יֵשׁ חַטָּאת זָכָר, שְׂעִירִים וּפָרִים, וְאֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּהֵא מִפְּנֵי חֹמֶר הַחֵטְא, כִּי הִנֵּה הַמְּצֹרָע מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת, שֵׁם הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְהַשֵּׁנִי אָשָׁם. וְהַנִּרְאֶה בְּעֵינַי כִּי שֵׁם "אָשָׁם" מוֹרֶה עַל דָּבָר גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר הָעוֹשׂוֹ יִתְחַיֵּב לִהְיוֹת שָׁמֵם וְאָבֵד בּוֹ, מִלְּשׁוֹן "הַאֲשִׁימֵם אֱלֹהִים" (תהלים ה יא), "וְיֶאֶשְׁמוּ נְאוֹת מִדְבָּר", וְכֵן "תֶּאְשַׁם שֹׁמְרוֹן כִּי מָרְתָה בֵּאלֹהֶיהָ" (הושע יד א) וְכֵן "אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ" (בראשית מב כא), נֶעֱנָשִׁים. וְחַטָּאת מוֹרָה עַל דָּבָר נָטָה בּוֹ מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ, מִלְּשׁוֹן "אֶל הַשַּׂעֲרָה וְלֹא יַחֲטִא" (שופטים כ טז). וְהִנֵּה אֲשַׁם גְּזֵלוֹת וַאֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהֵם בָּאִים אַף עַל הַמֵּזִיד יִקָּרֵא קָרְבָּנָם "אָשָׁם", וְכֵן אֲשַׁם הַנָּזִיר, אֲבָל אֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת אע"פ שֶׁהוּא בְּשׁוֹגֵג בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהוּא בְּקָדְשֵׁי ה' יִקָּרֵא הַקָּרְבָּן "אָשָׁם", כִּי הַחֵטְא הַגָּדוֹל יִתְחַיֵּב לִהְיוֹתוֹ אָשֵׁם בּוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִקָּרֵא מְעִילָה. וְעִנְיַן הַמְּצֹרָע בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהַמְּצוֹרָע חָשׁוּב כְּמֵת, וְהִנֵּה הוּא כְּבָר שָׁמֵם וְאָבֵד, וְיִקָּרֵא קָרְבָּנוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן "אָשָׁם", שֶׁיָּגֵן עָלָיו מִן הָאַשְׁמָה אֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁמֵם בָּהּ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי "חַטָּאת", שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר שִׁגְגוֹתָיו. וְטַעַם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּעָלָיו סָבוּר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֹנֶשׁ, כִּי לֹא נוֹדַע שֶׁחָטָא, מִפְּנֵי זֶה הֶחְמִיר עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב בִּסְפֵקוֹ יוֹתֵר מִוַּדָּאוֹ וְהִצְרִיכוֹ אַיִל בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים, וְאִלּוּ נוֹדַע חֶטְאוֹ הָיָה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת בַּת דַּנְקָא, וּקְרָאוֹ "אָשָׁם", לֵאמֹר שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁנֵי סְלָעִים כַּאֲשָׁמוֹת הַחֲמוּרִים, לִרְמֹז לוֹ שֶׁאִם יִהְיֶה נָקֵל בְּעֵינָיו וְלֹא יָבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ שָׁמֵם יִהְיֶה בַּעֲוֹנוֹ. וְזֶה טַעַם "אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה'" (ויקרא ה':י"ט), יֹאמַר כִּי הַקָּרְבָּן הַזֶּה אעפ"י שֶׁהוּא בָּא עַל הַסָּפֵק אָשָׁם הוּא, כִּי אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה' הַיּוֹדֵעַ כָּל תַּעֲלוּמוֹת, וְאִם אוּלַי חָטָא לוֹ יַעֲנִישֶׁנּוּ. וְכֵן מַה שֶׁאָמַר לְמַעְלָה (ויקרא ה':ו') "וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ", בַּעֲבוּר כִּי מִן הַנִּזְכָּרִים מְזִידִין, כְּגוֹן שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, יַזְכִּיר בּוֹ אָשָׁם, וְהוּא חַטָּאת. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת עוֹד הַקָּרְבָּן הַבָּא נְקֵבָה עַל חֵטְא יִקָּרֵא "חַטָּאת", וְהַזָּכָר יִקָּרֵא "אָשָׁם", וְהַשְּׂעִירִים וְהַפָּרִים יִקָּרְאוּ גַּם כֵּן "חַטָּאת" בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהֵם לְחַטָּאת:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL BRING ‘ASHAMO’ (HIS GUILT-OFFERING) UNTO THE ETERNAL. This offering is called *asham* (“guilt-offering” — as distinguished from the sin-offering), just as He has said [here in the verse] *after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt-offering*. But *he shall bring ‘ashamo’ unto the Eternal*³⁵¹’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.” mentioned above in the case of the offering of higher and lower value means, “and he shall bring his offering unto the Eternal,” for that offering was a sin-offering, as He said, *a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering*.³⁵¹’ [literally, “guilt”] is not the name of the offering, but merely indicates “the offering — i.e., a sin-offering — brought because of guilt.”
Now it has not been explained why the name of one offering is “a sin-offering,” and that of the other, “a guilt-offering,” since they both come to effect atonement for sin! We cannot say that the reason is since the sin-offering is a female [unlike the guilt-offering which is male, and therefore the word *asham* which is masculine cannot be applied to the female sin-offering], for there are sin-offerings which are male — namely the goats [brought as sin-offerings in case of the public worshipping idols,³⁵², Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. or the usual sin-offering of the prince],³⁵², Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks [brought by the anointed priest as a sin-offering,³⁵³, Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). as well as his bullock on the Day of Atonement].³⁵³, Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). Again, it cannot be said that [the guilt-offering is so called] on account of the severity of the sin [for which it is brought], for behold, the leper brings two offerings — the name of one being “the sin-offering” and the name of the other, the “guilt-offering!”³⁵⁴, Chapter 14, Verses 12 and 19. How could one person have a simultaneous liability to bring these two offerings?
It appears to me that the term *asham* denotes some serious deeds for which the person who did it deserves to be *shameim* (ruined) and destroyed because of it, similar to the expressions: ‘*ha’ashimeim*’ (*destroy them*), *O G-d;*³⁵⁵ the pastures of the wilderness waste away.³⁵⁶, and predicts that the cities of Judah will be *sh’mama* (wasted away). Thus both phrases occur in juxtaposition, and Ramban deduces therefrom the underlying idea of the root *shamam*. Perhaps it is a combination of Isaiah 24:6 [where the word *vaye’shmu* — “and they wasted away”] and Joel 1:19 [where *the pastures of the wilderness*] are mentioned. So also: ‘*Te’sham Shomron*’ (*Samaria shall be laid waste*), *for she hath rebelled against her G-d*,³⁵⁷ and *we are ‘asheimim*³⁵⁸ — means “we are being punished.” The word *chatath* (sin) denotes something which has turned aside off the way, this being of the expression, *every one could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not ‘yachti’* (*miss*).³⁵⁹ Now the guilt-offering for robberies,³⁶⁰ and the guilt-offering for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage³⁶¹ would then be called *asham* [indicating a serious sin] because they have to be brought even for wilful commission of the sin. So also the *asham* (guilt-offering) of the Nazirite [which he brings for becoming defiled by a dead body, even if his defilement was caused wilfully,³⁶² and is therefore deserving to be *shameim* — destroyed]. The guilt-offering for misusing sanctified objects,³⁶³ however, even though it is brought only when the sin was committed in error, yet because it concerns *the holy things of the Eternal*, it is called *asham*, because the great sin that he did makes him deserve to be *shameim* (destroyed) because of it, even as it is called *me’ilah* (treachery).³⁶⁴’ (*if any one commit a treachery*) (in Verse 15). The reason for the name [*asham*] of the leper’s offering³⁶⁵, Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term *asham*, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (*ibid.*, Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is because a leper is regarded as dead,³⁶⁶ and thus he is *shameim* (ruined) and destroyed. The leper’s first offering, then,³⁶⁵, Verse 19). In the light of the above explanation of the term *asham*, Ramban suggests a reason why the leper brings the two offerings at the same time when both atone for sin, and why the guilt-offering first. There is indeed a third offering — namely, the burnt-offering — that the leper brought on that day (*ibid.*, Verse 20). But since that presents no difficulty, Ramban does not refer to it. is called *asham* in order to protect him from the guilt for which he is “ruined,” and the second is the sin-offering which effects atonement for his errors.
The reason for the suspensive guilt-offering³⁶⁷ is because the owner thinks that he is not liable to be punished [since his sin has not been confirmed]; therefore Scripture was more severe with him in the case of his doubt than in that of certainty [of sin], requiring him to bring a ram of the value of *shekels of silver*,³⁶⁸. See also Rashi on Verse 18 [speaking of the suspensive guilt-offering]: “*a ram … with thy valuation* — according to the value stated above” [in Verse 15, i.e., at least two shekels]. whilst if the sin is confirmed, he brings a sin-offering which could be worth only a *danka* [a small Persian coin — the sixth of a *denar*]. Scripture calls it *asham* in order to say that it must be worth two *s’laim* just like the graver guilt-offerings [i.e., like the guilt-offering brought for appropriating sanctified objects, and that brought for carnally knowing a handmaid already promised in marriage, which must be worth at least two *s’laim*], thus indicating to the sinner [since he is in doubt as to whether he has sinned], that if he treats it lightly and will not bring his [offering for] atonement, he will be destroyed by his sin. This is the sense of the verse, ‘*Asham hu, ashom asham lashem*’ (*It is a guilt-offering — he hath surely incurred guilt before the Eternal*).³⁶⁹ That is to say, although this offering is brought only on a doubtful sin, *it is a guilt-offering*, for he has surely incurred guilt before the Eternal Who knows all hidden things, and if indeed he did sin before Him, He will requite him. Similarly, that which He said above, *and he shall bring his guilt-offering*,³⁷⁰ (his guilt-offering) when it is really a sin-offering — Ramban now proposes to answer that “it is because etc.” is because among those sins mentioned above are also those which require the bringing of an offering even when they are committed wilfully, such as for the “oath of testimony; ”³³². therefore He mentions the term *asham* with reference to them although the offering is called a sin-offering.
Also by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], a female offering for a sin is called *chatath* (sin-offering), and the male offering is called *asham*.³⁷¹ and the *asham* is whether the offering is male or female. For the fuller mystical implication, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 26. The goats³⁵², Verse 22, etc.) is also a he-goat as a sin-offering. and the bullocks³⁵³, Verse 14), and by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:3). [even though they are male] are also called *chatath* (sin-offering), because they are brought [as an atonement] for sin.
Tzav

footnotes:
³⁵¹ Above, Verse 6. In this case the word ‘ashamo
³⁵¹ Above, Verse 6. In this case the word ‘ashamo
³⁵² A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid.
³⁵² A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid.
³⁵³ Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid.
³⁵³ Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid.
³⁵⁴ Ibid.
³⁵⁵ Psalms 5:11.
³⁵⁶ I have found no such verse. Possibly it is a paraphrase of the verses in Jeremiah 9:9-10, where the prophet bewails the emptiness of the destroyed pastures of the wilderness
³⁵⁷ Hosea 14:1.
³⁵⁸ Genesis 42:21. Thus in place of the usual translation “we are guilty” [concerning our brother] Ramban interprets it to mean “we are being punished” on account of our brother.
³⁵⁹ Judges 20:16.
³⁶⁰ Verses 21-25.
³⁶¹ Further, 19:20-22.
³⁶² Numbers 6:12. Kerithoth 9a.
³⁶³ Verses 15-16.
³⁶⁴ 'Ki thim’ol ma’al
³⁶⁵ The leper’s first offering [on the day he is cleansed] is the guilt-offering (further, 14:12). After that he brings a sin-offering (ibid.
³⁶⁶ Nedarim 64b.
³⁶⁵ The leper’s first offering [on the day he is cleansed] is the guilt-offering (further, 14:12). After that he brings a sin-offering (ibid.
³⁶⁷ See Note 310 above.
³⁶⁸ Verse 15. — I.e., two s’laim
³⁶⁹ Verse 19.
³⁷⁰ Above, Verse 6. The question arose (see Ramban at beginning of this verse), why the Torah calls it ashamo
³³² The section here discusses the offering of higher or lower value (see above, Note 15), the verse before us stating that this offering is required in the case of a false oath concerning testimony. Thus, if the person interested in the evidence called upon him by an oath, adjuring him that if he knows any evidence favorable to him he should testify before the court, and he swore that he knows of no testimony concerning him, when in fact he does know, in such a case, if he swore either unintentionally or wilfully, he must offer what is called an offering of higher or lower value. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 82-83. In the following verse another transgression for which this offering is required is mentioned. — Ramban now proceeds to explain the sense of the triple expression, and he is a witness, or knows, or saw
³⁷¹ In other words, the determining factor for the difference in the names between the chatath
³⁵² A male goat is brought as a sin-offering by the prince (above, 4:23), and by the public for worshipping idols (Numbers 15:24), as well as on the Day of Atonement (further, 16:5). Among the Additional Offerings brought by the public on the New Moon (Numbers 28:15) and the Festivals (ibid.
³⁵³ Bullocks are brought as sin-offerings by the anointed priest (above, 4:3), by the court (ibid.