The Gemara in Kerisus 22b learns from a Gezeirah Shaveh that one only brings an Asham Taluy for the type of Aveirah that is punishable with a Chatas when one is certain that he has transgressed it b'Shogeg and Kares when one has transgressed it b'Mezid. The Gemara cites as Rebbi Akiva's source for obligating a Safek Asham Me'ilos to bring an Asham Taluy an extra 'Vav' ('Vav Mosif') which opens the Parshah of Asham Taluy, which immediately follows that of Asham Me'ilos.

In that case, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that for Me'ilah one can bring an Asham Taluy, even though normally it is only a Safek Chatas who brings an Asham Taluy, and not a Safek Asham.

Kol Tuv.

Eliezer Chrysler.

I asked two Gedolei Torah in Yerushalayim who were Meshamesh the Brisker Rav (Hageonim Rav Moshe Shapiro from Bayit Vegan and Rav Shlomo Katz from Har Nof) if they knew of any logical explanation for why the Torah should make a Safek Asham Me'ilos an exception and obligate the person to bring an Asham Taluy, while a Safek Asham Shifchah Charufah or Safek Asham Gezeilos does not bring an Asham Taluy (according to Tosfos' conjecture).

They both replied that according to Rebbi (Sanhedrin 83a) who ascribes the punishment of Misah b'Yedei Shamayim to one who is Mo'el b'Hekdesh, it is easier to understand why Me'ilah is Chayav an Asham Taluy more than other Chayavei Asham. The purpose of the Asham Taluy is to relieve a person of the terrible tension of knowing he might have transgressed a Chiyuv Kares and not atoned for his act. As such, it might be appropriate for a Chiyuv Misah to bring an Asham Taluy as well. The other two cases where an Asham Taluy is brought are only Chayavei Malkus.

However, they both conceded that we do not find that Rebbi Akiva agrees to the opinion of Rebbi on this matter.

If I may make a humble suggestion of my own on this matter, it is possible that the difference between the Chayavei Asham is whether the Torah is being Machmir with them by obligating them to bring an Asham, or whether it is being Meikil with them.

That is, the sin of Shifchah Charufah is really not on the level of Chayavei Kerisus at all, but the Torah obligated the sinner in a Korban nonetheless (because of its similarity to adultery). That is why the Korban is only an Asham and not a Chatas. Similarly, the sin of one who steals and swears falsely is not on the same level as Chayavei Kerisus. Nonetheless, the Torah was stringent with the sinner and obligated him to bring a Korban because of the severity of the sin of swearing falsely, see Rambam Hilchos Shevuos 11:16, combined with the severity of theft.

On the other hand, one who misuses an object of Hekdesh is perhaps worthy of the punishment of Kares. However, the Torah did not want a person to be given Kares on the account of the Kedushah of an object -- that is, it should not look like the Kedushah brings about punishment. (This of course does not apply to an object of Kodesh which became Pasul, such as Pigul etc., the eating of which is indeed punishable with Kares). The Torah therefore downgraded their punishment to Malkus (or Misah, according to Rebbi).

As such, Rebbi Akiva might hold that Me'ilah really ought to be a Chiyuv Kares, and therefore an Asham Taluy can be assigned to one who performed Safek Me'ilah, just like any other Safek Chiyuv Kares.

M. KORNFELD