If any one commit a trespass, and sin through error, in the holy things of the LORD, then he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offering. (Leviticus 5:15)

נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִמְעֹל מַעַל וְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה' וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה' אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאָשָׁם. (ויקרא ה', טו)

And if any one sin, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering (Leviticus 5:17–18)

וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וְעָשְׂתָה אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֺת ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְלֹא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ. וְהֵבִיא אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם (יז-יח)

If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD … And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest. (Leviticus 5:21–25)

נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה' ... וְאֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַה': אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן (כא-כה)

The guilt-offering is brought in three different cases, all repeating almost exactly “a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation.” This repetition indicates an essential element rather than a technical detail.

What does “be-erkekha,” according to your valuation, mean? What valuation determines the ram, and how many shekels must it be worth? The Torah gives neither an amount nor a criterion, and this wording is absent from other offerings, requiring explanation.

Rabbi Amnon Bazak proposes a ram worth the person’s valuation according to the schedule at the end of Leviticus (27:1–8). This expresses animal sacrifice as a substitute for human sacrifice. A grave offender should in principle sacrifice himself; a ram corresponding to his valuation symbolizes this.

The identical term appears in firstborn redemption: “And their redemption-money – from a month old shalt thou redeem them – shall be, according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver” (Numbers 18:16). This too may refer to the valuation schedule for a male from one month to five years: “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy valuation shall be for the male five shekels of silver” (Leviticus 27:6).

Rabbi Bazak traces the idea of animal sacrifice replacing human sacrifice to Isaac’s binding. Abraham was required to offer his son, but finally an animal replaced him: “And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son” (Genesis 22:13). The ram thus expresses substitution, particularly meaningful when a guilt-offering ram corresponds to a person’s valuation.

Professor Grossman objects that no ram costs as much as a person’s valuation. Yet Rabbi Bazak’s attractive interpretation can stand without assuming any ram’s market price, however expensive, reaches that amount.

Perhaps the sinner purchases a ram from the sanctuary’s flocks, paying his own valuation even when it exceeds the ordinary price. The repeated “a ram … out of the flock, according to thy valuation” may hint at this. Elsewhere “out of the flock” distinguishes flock offerings from herd offerings (Leviticus 1:2, 10; 3:6); here “ram” already specifies the animal. The Torah also uses “a young bullock,” literally “a bull, son of the herd,” but that defines the animal, whereas “out of the flock” apparently specifies its source. Perhaps it means a ram taken from sacred flocks in exchange for a payment corresponding to the person’s valuation.

Some support appears in the “guilt-offering” returned by the Philistine lords with the ark (I Samuel 6). There it consists of gold objects whose value pays to remove guilt rather than an animal. The offering may thus essentially be money or a valuable object, rather than necessarily the sacrificed beast. In Leviticus too, the essential component may include the payment, determined by the sinner’s valuation rather than the ram’s ordinary value.

An echo appears in “The forfeit money, and the sin money, was not brought into the house of the LORD; it was the priests’” (II Kings 12:17). This might be money offered independently as guilt- or sin-offerings, or money paid to purchase sacrifices. Even on the latter possibility, “forfeit money” may suggest that payment is part of the guilt-offering itself rather than merely a technical means of acquiring the animal.