Halakhah su Levitico 5:78

But there is nothing that will clarify the difference between a negation and a prohibition to you besides the content of the statement. Indeed it will surely not be clarified by the word, for the word for negation and prohibition are the same in Hebrew; and that is the word, lo. So one learned must understand the content of the statement. And then he will quickly grasp which negative statement is a negation and which negative statement is a prohibition, according to our preceding explanation. And [the Sages], peace be upon them, already alluded to this matter. And that is in that which we find disagreement about a certain negative statement, as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition. And that is His saying regarding a bird sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8), "pinching its head at the nape, and he does not sever it." For behold our tanna - and that is the tanna that speaks in the mishnah (Zevachim 6:4) - holds that this is a prohibition; and therefore said that if he separated it, it is disqualified. And according to this, this negative statement would have to be a negative commandment. That is that if he severed it, it is disqualified - as if he brought leaven or honey [on the altar]. But Rabbi Elazar (ben Shimon) holds that this negative statement is a negation and not a prohibition; and that His saying, "he does not sever it," is intending to say, one does not have to sever the head, but rather one can cut it in any way that it might be. And hence - according to his opinion - if one severed it, it is [still] fit. And accordingly, they said in the Gemara, Zevachim (Zevachim 65b), "Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon would say, 'I have heard that we sever the bird sin-offering.' [Then] what is [the meaning of], 'he does not sever it?' He does not have to sever it." And they asked about this and said, "But from this - concerning a pit, about which it is written (Exodus 21:33), "and he does not cover it," is it also the same?" And the answer was, "There, it is written (Exodus 21:34), 'The one responsible for the pit must make restitution' - it is implied that he needs to cover it." Behold it has been clarified that they took a proof as to whether it is a negation or a prohibition from the content of the statement. And from it, it has become clear that His saying, "he does not sever it," is a negative commandment - according to what is written in the mishnah. And it has [also] become clear that His saying with a bird burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:17), "And he shall tear it open by its wings, he does not sever it," is inappropriate to count as a negative commandment - as it is a negation. And according to everyone, if he severs it, it is [still] fit. For it is because He said with an animal fire-offering (Leviticus 1:12), "And you shall cut it up into sections," that it would enter your mind that a bird burnt-offering is also like this. So He said that you do not need to sever it, but just tear it. So if he severed it, it is [still] fit - as is explained in its place.

Every commandment of the Law, both positive and negative, if a man transgresses one of them through error or deliberately, if he repents and returns from his sins he is enjoined to confess before God, may His name be exalted, as it is written, “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass … then they shall confess their sin” (Num. 5:6). This is a verbal confession and it involves a positive commandment. In what manner does one confess? He says, “I pray, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have transgressed before Thee, such and such have I done, and behold I am sorry, I am ashamed of my actions and I will never return to this thing.”¹Maimonides, Hilkhoth Teshuvah, 1:1. This is the essence of the confession. And he who adds to his confession and elaborates in the matter is all the more praiseworthy.²Yoma, 84b. And so sinners and the guilty at the time that they bring sacrifices for their sins and for their errors are not forgiven until they do penance and make a verbal confession, as it is written, “And he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned” (Lev. 5:5). And so all those under sentence of death by the court and those subject to lashes, their death and flagellation does not obtain forgiveness for them unless they do penance and confess.³Sanhedrin 43b. And so he who wounds his neighbor or does damage to his neighbor even though he has paid him that which was due him is not atoned for until he confesses and returns from ever doing this again, as it is written, “Any sin that men commit” (Num. 5:6).⁴Yalkut Shimoni, ed. Horeb, Numbers, par. 701, p. 444. The goat that is to be sent away⁵Lit “The goat to be sent away.” The scapegoat used for the Yom Kippur ritual sent into the wilderness carrying the sins of the people. (See Leviticus 16:8.) atones for all transgressions in the Torah, light ones and more serious ones, both if the person transgressed in error and if he transgressed deliberately, both if it was made known to him or not made known to him, all is expiated for by the goat that is sent away and this all applies only when he does penance. But if he has not done penance the goat does not atone except for the light ones.⁶J. T. Shebuoth 1:6. And which are the light ones and which are the more serious ones? The more serious ones are those for which one is guilty of the death penalty or of excision (from Israel). A needless oath and a false oath, even though excision is not applicable, are considered among the more serious ones. And all other positive commandments and negative commandments which do not involve excision are regarded as light ones. And in our day when the Holy Temple no longer exists and we have no atonement through the altar there is nothing left but penance. Penance atones for all transgressions. Even if a man has been wicked all his days and has done penance at the end, his wickedness is not counted, as it is written, “And as for the wickedness of the wicked he shall not stumble thereby in the day thereby he turneth from his wickedness” (Ezek. 33:12).⁷Kiddushin 40b. And the gravity of the Day of Atonement atones for penitents, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Lev. 16:30).⁸Yoma 85b. Even though repentance atones and the gravity of the Day of Atonement atones, there are transgressions which obtain forgiveness only after a time.⁹Ibid., 86a. How so? A man has transgressed a positive commandment not involving excision and has done penance he does not go away from there until he is forgiven. Concerning these (such transgressors) it is said, “Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jer. 3:22). If a man has transgressed a negative commandment which does not involve excision and capital punishment and has repented, the repentance suspends judgement and the Day of Atonement atones. Concerning this it is said, “For on this day shall atonement be made” (Lev. 16:30). If he has transgressed in a matter involving excision and capital punishment and has done penance, penance and the Day of Atonement suspend judgement and the tribulations that visit him conclude the expiation, and he never does obtain full forgiveness until tribulation comes upon him. Concerning them (such transgressors) Scripture says, “Then will I visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Ps. 89:33). When does this apply? Only when he did not profane the Name when he transgressed, for example, he committed the transgression in secret (is expiation possible), but profaning the Name publicly, even though he has done penance and the Day of Atonement has arrived and he stands yet within his penance and tribulation has visited him, not even all of these are able to cleanse his wrong so as to obtain (for him) full forgiveness, except that he die. Repentance, the Day of Atonement and tribulations, these three only suspend judgement but death cleanses and atones, as it is said, “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in mine ears” (Isa. 22:14).
What is complete penance? (It is illustrated by) one to whom a transgression has presented itself which he has already transgressed and he has the opportunity to do it again but has withdrawn and has not done it because of the penance and not because of fear or weakness. How so? Behold one who has cohabited illicitly with a woman and later has been left alone again with her and has had the opportunity to do it again, and he has been still steadfast in his love for her and has been able to do it, but has subdued his passion and has not transgressed, he is a complete penitent. Concerning this one Solomon said, “Remember then thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1).¹⁰Abodah Zarah 19a. And if he has not returned except in his old age and at the time when it is no longer possible because of his failing strength, to do that which he was able to do in his youth, even though this is not the best penance it avails, and he is regarded as a penitent. And even though he has transgressed all his life and at the end, at the time of his death, he has repented and he has died penitent, all of his transgressions are forgiven him,¹¹Kiddushin 40b. as it is said, “Before the sun and the light … are darkened” (Eccl. 12:2), which is the day of death, from which we can deduce that if he remembers his Creator before death he is forgiven. And what is this repentance? That the sinner forsake his sin and remove evil thoughts from his heart, and resolve in his heart to do it (the evil) no more, as it is said, “Let the wicked forsake his way” (Isa. 55:7). Let him repent and regret his previous sins, as it is written, “Surely after that I was turned I repented” (Jer. 31:18); and let him say, “I give testimony concerning myself before Him Who knows all hidden things, that I will not return to this sin ever; as it is written, “Neither will we call anymore the work of our hands our gods” (Hos. 14:4).¹²The Zohar, ed. Soncino, V, 334, 335. And in keeping with the paths of repentance it would have been proper for him to cry continuously before God with weeping and supplications, do charity according to his ability, further himself greatly from the things wherein he sinned, change his name, that is to imply, that “I am another and not that man who did those evil things,” and he changes his actions for the good to rear himself in the upright path. He imposes exile upon himself because exile atones for transgression, it subdues him and causes him to become humble and meek. And it is most praiseworthy for the penitent to confess publicly and let his sin be known and reveal his sin that is between him and his neighbor to others, saying to them, “I have sinned against so and so and such and such have I done to him and this day I return and do penance.” And the proud who do not make known but conceal their sins, their repentance is not complete, as it is written, “He that covereth his transgression shall not prosper; but who so confesseth and forsaketh shall obtain mercy” (Prov. 28:13). In what case (who so confesseth … shall obtain mercy)? Only (in cases) concerning transgressions between man and man, but involving those between man and his Master, he does not need to publicize them. It is insolence on his part if he has revealed it to another; instead he returns to his Creator, blessed be He, and enumerates his sins before Him but confesses them before the congregation inexplicitly, (saying) “I have sinned.” It is best that he not reveal his transgressions, “Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is pardoned” (Ps. 32:1).¹³Rashi, Yoma 21a.

(Kof) “Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, (i.e., taking consecrated property). As with [robbing an ordinary person, the Torah] has sin precede me’ilah (trespass), [whereas with robbing the Most High], it has me’ilah preceding sin.” With robbing an ordinary person, it is written (Lev. 5:21), “If any one sin, and commit a trespass, etc.” But with one who misuses consecrated items, it is written (Lev. 5:15), “If any one trespasses in misuse (timol ma’al) and sins unwittingly, etc.” And this is a statement of Rabbi Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaSfina (Bava Batra ).⁵⁸Only the first part of this appears in our standard text of the Talmud, but the meaning is the same. And it requires explanation – as [just] because it had sin precede me’ilah, [does that mean] it is more severe? As both [terms] appear in both. And it appears to me that it can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Yitschak Arama in Parashat Chukkat of Akeidat Yitschak, that even the most complete person sins in something, etc. Indeed, he is compelled by his nature, as the verse states (Ecclesiastes 7:20), “For there is no man who is righteous in the world [… who does not sin].” But when it is in the manner of either being from the light sins or after complete repentance, he will certainly not be punished; as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 12b) “I am He before he sins, and I am He after he sins and repents.”⁵⁹The Talmud (the wording of which is slightly different than the quote) is referring to God’s attributes of mercy in Exod. 34:6). However we do not understand from this that no sinner is ever punished. As even though – in his not being God – he is compelled to sin, he is not compelled to wallow in sin and have it become habitual. See there. And [so] it is elucidated that man is not fitting to be punished for sinning, since he is compelled to it – and especially if it is from the lighter sins. Rather the main punishment comes in his wallowing in it and making it habitual, and not repenting. As anyone [can repent]; as it is written (Deut. 30:11), “it is not a wonder […] and not distant, etc.” – and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say this is referring to repentance.⁶⁰The first known source for this is actually Ramban on this verse. And that is because while the [fulfillment of all the] actual commandments [is] a wonder for man and distant from him since he is a man and not divine, and is [so] compelled to sin – especially with the lighter sins – he is not compelled to wallow in them and make them habitual. And he needs to regret and repent, [as] the commandment of repentance is not a wonder and distant. And it is because of this that Rabbi Levi decides that stealing from an ordinary person is more severe than from the Most High. For with stealing from the Most High, [the Torah] had trespass precede sin; as since it is from the lighter sins, it is not called a sin for a man, given that “there is no man who is righteous in the world who only does good.” And the main sin [here] is because he wallows in it and does not immediately regret [it] after doing it. And that is why it has trespass before sin; as the sin is [afterwards] when he does not regret [it]. For this reason, it is written (Num. 5:7), “and they shall confess,”⁶¹In another section dealing with misusing sanctified property. such that they shall repent. But the trespass itself is not in the category of sin, since man is compelled to do such a light sin; which is not the case with robbing an ordinary person. [As] that is more severe, since a man can withstand [its temptation]. Even though he is not divine, he is not compelled to rob his fellow – [something that is] in the category of friendship and brotherhood. Hence with robbing an ordinary person, the trespass itself is the sin. And for this reason it had sin precede trespass.

(Kof) “Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, (i.e., taking consecrated property). As with [robbing an ordinary person, the Torah] has sin precede me’ilah (trespass), [whereas with robbing the Most High], it has me’ilah preceding sin.” With robbing an ordinary person, it is written (Lev. 5:21), “If any one sin, and commit a trespass, etc.” But with one who misuses consecrated items, it is written (Lev. 5:15), “If any one trespasses in misuse (timol ma’al) and sins unwittingly, etc.” And this is a statement of Rabbi Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaSfina (Bava Batra ).⁵⁸Only the first part of this appears in our standard text of the Talmud, but the meaning is the same. And it requires explanation – as [just] because it had sin precede me’ilah, [does that mean] it is more severe? As both [terms] appear in both. And it appears to me that it can be explained according to that which is written by Rabbi Yitschak Arama in Parashat Chukkat of Akeidat Yitschak, that even the most complete person sins in something, etc. Indeed, he is compelled by his nature, as the verse states (Ecclesiastes 7:20), “For there is no man who is righteous in the world [… who does not sin].” But when it is in the manner of either being from the light sins or after complete repentance, he will certainly not be punished; as the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Rosh Hashanah 12b) “I am He before he sins, and I am He after he sins and repents.”⁵⁹The Talmud (the wording of which is slightly different than the quote) is referring to God’s attributes of mercy in Exod. 34:6). However we do not understand from this that no sinner is ever punished. As even though – in his not being God – he is compelled to sin, he is not compelled to wallow in sin and have it become habitual. See there. And [so] it is elucidated that man is not fitting to be punished for sinning, since he is compelled to it – and especially if it is from the lighter sins. Rather the main punishment comes in his wallowing in it and making it habitual, and not repenting. As anyone [can repent]; as it is written (Deut. 30:11), “it is not a wonder […] and not distant, etc.” – and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say this is referring to repentance.⁶⁰The first known source for this is actually Ramban on this verse. And that is because while the [fulfillment of all the] actual commandments [is] a wonder for man and distant from him since he is a man and not divine, and is [so] compelled to sin – especially with the lighter sins – he is not compelled to wallow in them and make them habitual. And he needs to regret and repent, [as] the commandment of repentance is not a wonder and distant. And it is because of this that Rabbi Levi decides that stealing from an ordinary person is more severe than from the Most High. For with stealing from the Most High, [the Torah] had trespass precede sin; as since it is from the lighter sins, it is not called a sin for a man, given that “there is no man who is righteous in the world who only does good.” And the main sin [here] is because he wallows in it and does not immediately regret [it] after doing it. And that is why it has trespass before sin; as the sin is [afterwards] when he does not regret [it]. For this reason, it is written (Num. 5:7), “and they shall confess,”⁶¹In another section dealing with misusing sanctified property. such that they shall repent. But the trespass itself is not in the category of sin, since man is compelled to do such a light sin; which is not the case with robbing an ordinary person. [As] that is more severe, since a man can withstand [its temptation]. Even though he is not divine, he is not compelled to rob his fellow – [something that is] in the category of friendship and brotherhood. Hence with robbing an ordinary person, the trespass itself is the sin. And for this reason it had sin precede trespass.

2. A person is permitted to place a cherem in the synagogue on anyone who knows testimony for him to come and testify. He cannot, however, force them to swear. If they don’t testify, they will carry their sin. Nevertheless, if the court sees a need to have them swear to say the truth, they may do so. See earlier 17:3 and later 71:7-8. There are those that say that when a cherem is placed, even relatives and the party himself must testify. There are those that disagree and this is the primary ruling. See Yoreh Deah Siman 232 regarding a king who commands the placement of a cherem for testimony.

However, we were not permitted to go out from it [wantonly, but] rather [only] with the stratagem and counsel of the sage; that the one who swore come in front of the man who is wise and understanding of the ways of the Torah and confess to him that [the oath] was from his lack of knowledge - that he did not know at the time that he swore something that he knew afterwards - that he wants to annul what he swore about (Nedarim 71a); and that he recognizes that the smallness of his knowledge and his lacking caused the annulment, not something else or an external thought that would be in his heart, God forbid. And after the confession of his mouth about this, the sage recognizes and sees that there is substance in his words that something new happened to him that if he had had to agree to it at the time that he swore, he would not have sworn and that this is why he regrets [it]; he accepts his confession and he releases him from his oath. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berachot 32b), "He cannot forgive [it], but others can forgive it to him." Therefore it is never possible to annul an oath, except with the reason of something new to the one who swore - for example, that he will say, "If I had known thing x, I would never have sworn." As this is like duress. But if he says, "Annul me my oath," without a claim, no man has the power to annul it. And based on this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 64a) that we do not create an opening (to annul the vow) with something new that is not found (that has not happened). As [with this] he does not clearly say that he regrets that he swore - that we should consider it duress - but rather that his will today is like it was at the beginning, but he [just] wants it annulled now. How is this? He swears that he not benefit from x and [x] becomes the town scribe or butcher, and he says, "My will [still] stands that I did not want to benefit from him and I [also] did not want him to become the scribe or the butcher." We do not annul [it] for him until he says, "Since I see that this man has become the scribe, I regret that I swore [off] his benefit forever. And if only I had not sworn!" In this way, we annul [it] for him; as behold, he concedes that his will has changed and that he regrets his deeds completely, due to the lack of his knowledge - as had he known at the time of the oath what he knows today, he never would have sworn. And it is like duress. And we expound (Shevuot 26a), "'A man with an oath' (Leviticus 5:4) - to exclude duress."

And that is that He commanded us that one who does certain sins must offer a guilt-offering sacrifice. And that is what is called a definite guilt-offering. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are misappropriation; theft; one who has sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant; and one who swears falsely with an oath over a deposit. And that is one who misappropriated in error and derived benefit worth a perutah (a small coin) from sanctified property - whether sanctified for Temple upkeep or whether sanctified for the altar; one who robbed the value of a perutah or more from his fellow and took an oath; one who had sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant, whether inadvertent or volitional. [In these cases,] he is obligated to offer a sacrifice for his sin, and it is not a sin-offering sacrifice; indeed, it is a guilt-offering, and it is called a definite guilt-offering. And He said regarding misappropriation, "and he sinned in error, etc. and he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:15). He [also] said, "and he denied his countryman [...] and swore falsely, etc. his guilt offering shall he bring." (Leviticus 5:21-25). And He said, "and she is a designated maidservant for a man [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 19:20-21). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)

Rabbi Waldenberg notes that Jewish law also provides that the Bet Din may compel testimony which would otherwise involve a breach of personal or professional confidence. The obligation born of the commandment "… he who is a witness … if he does not inform, he should bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 5:1) supersedes the obligation to respect the privacy of others. It would seem that in such cases Jewish law would require that testimony of this nature be heard in camera in order that matters of a personal nature not be overheard by persons who have no "need to know." This was indeed the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Rabbinical Court, Piskei Din Rabbaniyim, IX, 331, in a related case.

The question of whether testimony by a physician before a Bet Din constitutes a violation of the Hippocratic oath is also discussed by Rabbi Baruch Rakover, presently a member of the rabbinical court of Haifa, in No'am, vol. II (5719). Rabbi Rakover concludes that the physician is forbidden to testify by virtue of his oath in situations in which he is the sole witness. Moreover, even when the witnesses are two or more in number, argues Rabbi Rakover, the physician may not testify unless summoned to do so by one of the litigants. Testimony is ordinarily obligatory by virtue of the specific biblical commandment, "if he shall not testify he shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 5:1). This commandment is understood as requiring testimony only when demanded by a litigant. In the absence of a demand on the part of a litigant the witness is required to come forward by virtue of a general obligation to prevent loss or damage to one's fellow. The requirement to give testimony voluntarily under such circumstances is recorded in Yoreh De'ah 239:7. Rema rules that since the obligation to testify under such circumstances is not explicitly stated in Scripture a prior oath not to testify is valid and must be annulled before giving testimony.

He prohibited us from placing olive oil in the meal-offering of a sinner. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "he shall not place oil on it" (Leviticus 5:11). And if one placed [it], he is lashed. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 12.)

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Horayot 9a) that the liability of the one that sins inadvertently to bring a sin-offering is only for a sin for which we are liable excision for its volitional transgression. But there are three sins in the Torah that, even though there is excision for their volitional transgression, there is no sin-offering for their inadvertent transgression. And these are them: one who curses; one who undoes circumcision; and one who refrains from enacting the Pesach sacrifice. And they give a reason for each one and it is explained in its place. And all other sins for which their volitional transgression has excision, their inadvertent transgression has a fixed sin-offering - except for an impure person that eats consecrated [foods] and an impure person that enters the Temple; as even though their volitional transgression has excision, we do not bring a fixed sin-offering, but rather a sacrifice that varies up and down - which is fowl or flour, as is explained in the verse (Leviticus 5:6,13). You come out learning that all of the sins in the Torah for which an individual brings a fixed sin-offering for their inadvertent transgression are forty-three (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 1:4) - go and count, because you will find it so. And most of them are for forbidden sexual relationships. And so [too,] from this matter is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 112a) that there is only liability for a sacrifice when he is inadvertent from beginning to end. And the different awarenesses that it is possible for an inadvertent sinner to have in his inadvertence are many. And the rest of its many details are elucidated in Horayot and Keritiot, and in [various] places in Shabbat and Zevachim.

The commandment of testimony: To say the testimony in front of the judges, in all that we know of it - whether with the testimony, [the accused] will become liable for death or money that is earmarked for him, or whether it will be his salvation for his money or for his life - as it is stated (Leviticus 5:1), "and he is a witness or saw or knew, if he does not say, he will carry his iniquity." In every matter, it is an obligation (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Testimony 1:1) upon us to say the testimony in front of the court (Bava Kamma 55b).

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males, but not by women - as women are not in the category of testimony due to the weakness of their minds. And one who transgresses it and does not testify - in monetary laws when he is solicited by a party in the case or [by] the court; and with capital laws, or blows or Torah prohibitions, on his own - has violated a positive commandment. And his punishment is very great, as civilizations are preserved with the power of testimony. Therefore, it it written about it (Leviticus 5:1), "if he does not say, he will carry his iniquity." And if the testimony that he suppressed was monetary testimony and the witness denied it and swore about it - meaning to say, he swore that he does not know testimony for him - he is obligated to bring a sacrifice that varies up and down; and under the conditions that are known about the matter, as it is explained in its place in Shevuot 30a. And it is one of three sacrifices that come whether [it is] inadvertent or whether [it is] volitional.

The commandment of the sacrifice that varies up and down: To sacrifice the sacrifice that varies up and down for specific sins - and they are: Impurity of the Temple, meaning to say a man who is impure with a primary source of impurity and enters the Temple inadvertently; likewise, the impurity of its consecrated [foods], that he is impure and ate consecrated meat inadvertently; an oath of expression, meaning to say that he swore falsely about a thing to do it or not to do it, and the other known angles of an oath of expression, and he transgresses it inadvertently; likewise an oath of testimony, meaning to say that he swore to his fellow that he does not have testimony for him [when he actually does], whether inadvertently or volitionally. For these sins, a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice that varies up and down - meaning to say, according to the wealth or poverty of a person; as it is explicit in the verse (Leviticus 5:1), "And if a soul shall sin and he heard the voice of an oath" - meaning to say the voice of the oath that they swore him to, whether he knows testimony, "if he does not say, he will carry his iniquity." And the end of the matter is (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And it is not stated there, "and it was hidden from him," to teach that he is liable for the sacrifice, whether [he is] inadvertent or volitional.

The commandment of the sacrifice that varies up and down: To sacrifice the sacrifice that varies up and down for specific sins - and they are: Impurity of the Temple, meaning to say a man who is impure with a primary source of impurity and enters the Temple inadvertently; likewise, the impurity of its consecrated [foods], that he is impure and ate consecrated meat inadvertently; an oath of expression, meaning to say that he swore falsely about a thing to do it or not to do it, and the other known angles of an oath of expression, and he transgresses it inadvertently; likewise an oath of testimony, meaning to say that he swore to his fellow that he does not have testimony for him [when he actually does], whether inadvertently or volitionally. For these sins, a person is obligated to bring a sacrifice that varies up and down - meaning to say, according to the wealth or poverty of a person; as it is explicit in the verse (Leviticus 5:1), "And if a soul shall sin and he heard the voice of an oath" - meaning to say the voice of the oath that they swore him to, whether he knows testimony, "if he does not say, he will carry his iniquity." And the end of the matter is (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And it is not stated there, "and it was hidden from him," to teach that he is liable for the sacrifice, whether [he is] inadvertent or volitional.

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

And the side of exemption is (for example,) that he became impure and he did not know that he became impure and he entered the Temple or ate consecrated meat, and afterwards it became known to him that he had become impure. In this manner, he is exempt from a sacrifice. And this law is not like other liabilities for excision [when volitional and a sacrifice when inadvertent] in the Torah. As with other excisions - once he knows at the end, even if did not know at the beginning, he is liable for a sacrifice. And the verse determines to judge like this here, as it is written about the impurity of the Temple and its consecrated [foods] (Leviticus 5:2), "and it was hidden from him" - [which] implies that there was a time of awareness at the beginning; and afterwards it is stated, "and he knew." Behold, you have learned that that it needs awareness at the beginning and awareness at the end and hiddenness in the middle. But with other [instances of those] that are liable for excisions, it is written (Leviticus 4:27-28), "in his doing one of the commandments of the Lord which shall not be done, etc. Or his sin is made known to him" - meaning to say, once he knew at the end, even if he did not know at the beginning. As behold, it is not written there, "and it was hidden," from which we would learn awareness at the beginning.

Not to sever a fowl sin-offering: That the priest not sever the head from the fowl that comes as a sacrifice - and that is what is called the fowl sin-offering - when he cuts (yimalek) it, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:8), "and he shall malak its head across from its nape, and he shall not sever." And the understanding of melikah (Rashi on Zevachim 65a) is that the priest plants his fingernail across from the nape - which is the bone that is called the neck-bone - and cuts the bone with his fingernail until he reaches the benchmarks, and [then] cuts the benchmarks (the esophagus and the trachea) with his fingernail, or the majority of one of them. And this is the slaughter of the fowl sin-offering. And the priest needs to not cut it all completely until the head be severed from the body. And about this is it stated, "and he shall not sever." We have already said in the commandment of building the [Temple] (Sefer haChinukh 95) that we do not have the ability - nor does one whose 'small finger is thicker than our loins' - to find an argument about the details of the sacrifices even from the angle of its simple understanding. And it is enough for this work of ours to make known a little explanation about the content of the sacrifices more generally from the angle of the simple meaning. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 95) that which I have known and heard.

To not place olive oil in the meal-offering of a sinner: That a priest not place oil in the meal-offering of a poor sinner, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:11), "he shall not place oil on it" - and even though they would put oil on other meal-offerings. And I said, "the meal-offering of a poor sinner," because of [the following] - since a rich sinner never brings a meal-offering of flour, but rather a sacrifice of a beast, as is explicit in the Torah.

To not put frankincense in the meal-offering of a sinner: To not put frankincense in this meal-offering of the poor sinner that we said, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:11), "nor shall he put frankincense on it." And the language of the Mishnah (Menachot 59b) is "And he is liable for the oil on its own and the frankincense on its own" - as they are two negative commandments, without a doubt. All the content of frankincense is like the content of oil that we wrote (Sefer HaChinukh 125) - there is no point in writing at length about it.

The commandment of the addition of a fifth for one who eats from the consecrated or misappropriates it: That one who benefits from the consecrated (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 118) pay - it is one whether it is the consecrated [foods] of the altar or the consecrated things of the [Temple], and even lower level consecrated [foods] or if he eats the consecrated inadvertently, meaning the priestly tithe - all that he eats or benefits from it, with the addition of a fifth. And he [also] brings a sacrifice for his inadvertent transgression - a ram of two sela or more - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations - and it is one of five definite guilt-offerings. [The source of adding the fifth is] as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15), "A soul that misappropriates a misappropriation, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering, etc." And it is stated (Leviticus 5:16), "And that which he has sinned from the consecrated he shall pay, and its fifth shall he add to it."

The commandment of the addition of a fifth for one who eats from the consecrated or misappropriates it: That one who benefits from the consecrated (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 118) pay - it is one whether it is the consecrated [foods] of the altar or the consecrated things of the [Temple], and even lower level consecrated [foods] or if he eats the consecrated inadvertently, meaning the priestly tithe - all that he eats or benefits from it, with the addition of a fifth. And he [also] brings a sacrifice for his inadvertent transgression - a ram of two sela or more - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations - and it is one of five definite guilt-offerings. [The source of adding the fifth is] as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15), "A soul that misappropriates a misappropriation, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering, etc." And it is stated (Leviticus 5:16), "And that which he has sinned from the consecrated he shall pay, and its fifth shall he add to it."

And the laws of misappropriation are whether with the consecrated for the altar or the consecrated of the [Temple] upkeep. And the measure of misappropriation is [the value of] a small coin (Meilah 18a). There is no misappropriation for those things that have become permissible to eat among the sacrifices - such as meat of the sin-offering and guilt-offering after the sprinkling of their blood; or the two breads after the sprinkling of the blood of the two lambs. Even if a commoner ate from one of these and similar to them - since they are permissible for some people to benefit from, anyone who benefits from them has not misappropriated. And even if they became disqualified and forbidden to eat - since there was a time that they were permitted, one is not [any longer] liable for misappropriation for them. If he is in doubt if he misappropriated or did not misappropriate, he is exempted from the payments and from the sacrifice. The payment of the principal and the bringing of the guilt-offering impede the atonement, but not the fifth; as it is stated about the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:16), "and he shall be forgiven" - the ram and the guilt-offering impede, but the fifth does not impede [it]. And once the one who adds has added the fifth, if he benefited from the fifth, he adds a fifth to [the] fifth; since it is considered like the beginning of the consecrated things. And the fifth is one of four [parts] of the principal, [such that] it and its fifth are five. And the rest of its details are elucidated in Meilah and Temurah.

The commandment of the sacrifice of an undetermined guilt-offering: That one who is in doubt if he sinned one of the big sins for which a man is liable excision when he does it volitionally and a fixed sin-offering when inadvertent, bring a sacrifice (Keritot 25a). And the doubt emerges for him in this way: As you might say, by way of an archetype, that there were two pieces in front of him - one of forbidden fat and one of permissible fat - and he ate one of them and the other got lost. And [so] he worries to himself as he does not know if he ate the one of forbidden fat or the one of permissible fat. This sacrifice that is brought upon this doubt is called an undetermined guilt-offering. And the word undetermined (talui) is said about anything about which it is fitting that a matter come afterwards that reveals about it that which was not known previously. For example, if [one] knows that the sinner ate forbidden fat - behold, it is revealed that the first [sacrifice] was not sufficient for him and he needs to still bring another sacrifice that is called a fixed sin-offering to complete his atonement; but if one knows about him that he ate what was permissible - behold it is revealed that the first was sufficient and he does not need to bring another sacrifice after it. This is the explanation of its being undetermined. And the command for this sacrifice is from that which it is written (Leviticus 5:17-18), "And if a soul sins and does one of all of the commandments of the Lord which you shall not do and he does not know, but he is guilty and he shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring an unblemished ram from the flock, according to your assessment for a guilt-offering to the priest, and the priest shall atone for his inadvertent transgression which he transgressed and did not know" - meaning to say, about his not knowing if he transgressed inadvertently or [not]. And the Sages called this matter, "not known."

And one of these sins is one that illegally has money of a Jew in his hand, from the worth of a small coin and up - for example, he robs him or steals from him, or [money] that remained in his hand from a deposit that was deposited with him or because of a loan or a partnership. The principle of the matter is that [in a case] if he were to admit to him, he would be liable to pay by law, and the robbed or oppressed - or his inheritor or one that comes by his authority - sues him for it, but he denies it and swears falsely about it; when he repents and regrets his sin and returns the 'loot that is in his hand,' he is liable to bring this sacrifice that we said for his sin, besides the fifth that he is obligated to add on the principle and to give to the robbed, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "A soul that sinned and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc." And Rabbi Akiva says, "What do we learn to say [from] 'a misappropriation from God?' Because any lender and borrower act only with witnesses, [therefore] when he denies, he only denies the witnesses; but one who borrows without witnesses and denies it, he denies the Third Party among them" - the Divine Presence - "That is why it states, 'and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc.'" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22:4). And it is written after it (Leviticus 5 23-25), "And it shall be when he sins and is guilty" - meaning to say that he will repent, such that he takes responsibility for his own guilt - "and return the theft, etc. and he shall pay it from its principle, and a fifth shall he add upon it, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram, etc." And this is what is called the guilt-offering of thefts; and this is from those that come whether for the inadvertent or for the volitional.

And one of these sins is one that illegally has money of a Jew in his hand, from the worth of a small coin and up - for example, he robs him or steals from him, or [money] that remained in his hand from a deposit that was deposited with him or because of a loan or a partnership. The principle of the matter is that [in a case] if he were to admit to him, he would be liable to pay by law, and the robbed or oppressed - or his inheritor or one that comes by his authority - sues him for it, but he denies it and swears falsely about it; when he repents and regrets his sin and returns the 'loot that is in his hand,' he is liable to bring this sacrifice that we said for his sin, besides the fifth that he is obligated to add on the principle and to give to the robbed, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "A soul that sinned and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc." And Rabbi Akiva says, "What do we learn to say [from] 'a misappropriation from God?' Because any lender and borrower act only with witnesses, [therefore] when he denies, he only denies the witnesses; but one who borrows without witnesses and denies it, he denies the Third Party among them" - the Divine Presence - "That is why it states, 'and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc.'" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22:4). And it is written after it (Leviticus 5 23-25), "And it shall be when he sins and is guilty" - meaning to say that he will repent, such that he takes responsibility for his own guilt - "and return the theft, etc. and he shall pay it from its principle, and a fifth shall he add upon it, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram, etc." And this is what is called the guilt-offering of thefts; and this is from those that come whether for the inadvertent or for the volitional.

It is from the the roots of the commandment [that] a person not think that even though the matter of the prohibition of robbery is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), "and return the theft" - that each one should go and rob what he wants from his fellow and imagine in his heart to say that when he has it and he return the theft, his iniquity will be atoned and he will be purified from it; and behold, it will be as if he never did it. And this would be an opening for sinners. Hence the Torah made known that even with the repayment with the addition of a fifth, he [still] needs a sacrifice for atonement, for his having sinned. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 123) about this matter, that nonetheless, it does not save him from having transgressed the will of his Creator. And it is a pity on his head that He transgressed the will of the Master of the Heavens, [even if] he sacrificed several [fat] sheep (peace-offerings) for burnt-offerings. And there I also wrote that the sacrifice and the principle impede the atonement, but the fifth does not impede [it].

The commandment of returning theft: That we were commanded to return the theft intact (Bava Kamma 66a) - meaning to say that if the thing itself that he robbed is with him and it has not changed in his possession, he is obligated to return it to the one robbed; and not take it for himself, and give its value to the one robbed - as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), "and return the theft that he robbed." And we say in Bava Kamma 102a in the chapter [known as] HaGozel Batra, "The Rabbis learned, 'And return the theft that he robbed' - what do we learn to say [from] 'that he robbed?' That he return the intact item that he robbed." But if the theft changed in the possession of the robber, he is [only] obligated to repay its value, and he is exempted with that - even though the owners did not forsake it (Bava Kamma 66b). And what is a change that exempts from returning the theft? Like the change that he cannot reverse afterwards to its original state - for example, one who robs wood and burns it or cuts some of it up or digs holes in it; and so [too,] one who robs wool and dyes it or robs spun fabric and makes a garment out of it, and all that is similar to it. But one who robs boards of wood, even if he builds a box out of them - this is not a change that cannot revert to its original state. As behold, it is possible to dismantle them and they will go back [to being] boards as they had been. And therefore, he is obligated to return them intact. And so with all that is similar to this.

That is that He commanded us to return the stolen item itself, if it is still remaining as itself - with the addition of a fifth if he swore [about it] - or to give its value, if it was transformed. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and he shall return the stolen item" (Leviticus 5:3). And they already explained in Tractate Makkot (Makkot 16a) that the negative commandment of robbery is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment. And they said [about this] that Scripture said, "you shall not rob" (Leviticus 19:13), "and he shall return the stolen item." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Bava Kamma. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)

That we do not disavow money that is in our hand from another: That we not disavow that which is deposited into our hand, and about anything that is to us of someone else's, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:11), "you shall not disavow." And the explanation came (Shevuot 37b) that the verse is referring to money. And the language of Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:3 is: "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:22), 'and he disavows it and swears falsely,' we have learned the punishment. From where is the warning? [Hence,] we learn to say, 'and you shall not disavow.'" This is also from the commandments about which the intellect testifies.

To not swear about the denial of money: To not swear about the disavowal, as it stated (Leviticus 19:11), "and you shall not lie" - meaning to say that if a man denied a deposit, he transgressed, "you shall not disavow"; and if he swore about the denial afterwards, he transgressed, "and you shall not lie." As so has the understanding of this verse come to us, that it is to warn about one who swears about the denial of money. And [it is] like it appears in Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:3, "'And you shall not lie' - what do we learn to say? Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:22), 'and he swears falsely,' we have learned the punishment. From where is the warning? [Hence,] we learn to say, 'and you shall not lie.'" And it is elucidated in Tractate Shevuot 49b that anyone who swears an oath about the denial of money, transgresses two negative commandments - on account of "And you shall not swear in My name falsely" (Leviticus 19:12), and on account of "and you shall not lie towards your compatriot."

To not swear falsely: To not swear falsely, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:12), "And you shall not swear in My name falsely." And they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Shevout 21a) that this verse warns about an oath of speech. And an oath of speech is what is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 5:4), "Or a soul that swears to express with the lips to do bad or to do good." And it is divided into four parts - two of the future and two of the past, such as swearing on something that was done or not done, and on something that in the future he will do or will not do. And an oath of speech is only practiced with things that it is possible for a person to do, whether in the past or in the future. How is of the past? "I ate," or "I did not eat"; and so [too,] "I threw," or "I did not throw a stone into the sea." And how is of the future? "I will eat," or "I will not eat"; or "I will throw," or "I will not throw." But with things that have a prevention from the Torah, an oath of speech is not practiced. As an oath only rests upon an optional matter - that if he wants, he does it and if he wants, he does not do it - as it is stated, "to do bad or to do good." But with any matter of a commandment, there is an obligation upon him to do it. Therefore an oath of speech does not rest upon him, whether in the past or in the future - in the case that he swears to perform a commandment, and he did not perform it; and so [too,] if he swears that he performed a commandment, and he did not perform it. As [just] like a liability [for punishment for a false oath] does not rest upon the matter of a commandment in the future, so too does it not rest upon it in the past. And so is the matter elucidated in its place in Shevuot 27a.

And also from the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Kamma 98b), that the robber is obligated to return the stolen object itself, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), "the stolen object that he robbed" - and they, may their memory be blessed, explained, "he returns like what he robbed." And because of this they said (Gittin 55a; Rashi s.v. mipnei), it is according to the law that even if he robbed a mareish - the explanation of which is a beam - and he built it into a mansion, he takes apart all of the mansion and returns the beam to its owner. But as a result of the Ordinance of the Penitents, they ordained that he gives its money and he become exempt. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 130) how the court has the power to do this. And [also] what is the law of the one who robs his fellow in a settlement and wants to return it in the wilderness. And the law of one who robs his fellow and absorbs it into the account [of what is owed], that he fulfills his obligation with this. And if he returned it to his purse, he has fulfilled [it], and that is when there is money in it - since we establish [the law] like Rabbi Yitschak, that says (Bava Kamma 118b), "a man is in the habit of feeling in his purse and he will count his money"; and counting without intention exempts [the one who returns it from further action] with regards to [items] that are not living things. And the law of one who robbed and died [that is] - whether he 'fed' the stolen object to his sons before the loss of hope [by the owners] or after the loss of hope - if he left them land, the sons are obligated to pay the money of the stolen object, but the orphans are not obligated to pay from the movable objects [that the father leaves them]. But because of the Ordinance of the Gaonim that they ordained thus for the betterment of the world, the movable properties of orphans are liened even for an orally agreed loan. And the law of one who buys from the robber is like the law of one who buys from the thief - that there is a distinction between [a thief] who is famous and one who is not famous. And that which they said (Bava Kamma 119a) that it is forbidden to benefit from a man about whom it is assumed that all that he has is from stolen property; but if a little of what is in his hand is not from stolen property - even though it is sparse - it is permitted to benefit from him, until one knows clearly that that actual thing from which he benefits is stolen. And the rest of the laws of robbery, the laws of giving up hope and of changing domains and the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth and tenth chapters of [Bava] Kamma. And I have written a few of them in the Order of Vayikra (Sefer HaChinukh 130).

And this prohibiton is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and robs from the worth of a small coin and up has violated a negative commandment. But we do not administer lashes for this negative commandment, since it is rectified by the positive commandment of returning [it], as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), "that he shall return the stolen object that he robbed, etc." And even if he negated the positive commandment about it - meaning to say, that he burned the stolen object or hurled it to the Great Sea - he is not lashed, since it is a negative commandment that is given to repayment, such that he repay what it was worth. And if he denied it and swore falsely, he adds a fifth and brings a guilt-offering, as it is elucidated in [Bava] Kamma and at the end of Makkot 16a.

He prohibited us - that we not steal that to we which we do not have entitlement, by force and duress. And that is His saying, "and you shall not rob" (Leviticus 19:13). And so have the masters of the tradition explained (Bava Kamma 79b) - "you shall not rob," is like the content of, "and he robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian" (II Samuel 23:21). And it is a negative commandment that is rectified by a positive commandment; and that is His saying, "he shall return the stolen property" (Leviticus 5:23). But even if he nullified the positive commandment, he is not lashed, since it is a negative commandment that is given to repayment - such that if he burned the stolen property or threw it to the sea, he can give [back] what it was worth. However, if he denied it and swore falsely, he adds a fifth and sacrifices a guilt-offering, as is explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 71); and likewise is it explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 16a). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the seventh [chapter] of [Bava] Kamma. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Theft 10.)

He prohibited us - regarding that which is found with us that we owe, not to withhold it and not give it. And that is His saying, "You shall not exploit" (Leviticus 19:13). And that is that theft is taking something that is with someone else by ruses and in secret; and we have been prohibited this action with His saying, "You shall not steal" (Leviticus 19:11), as we explained. And robbery is the taking of something that is with another by force, duress and fighting, like the robbers in the cities do; and we were prohibited this action by His saying, "and you shall not rob." Whereas exploitation is that someone else has something of value - meaning money that is coming to him - that one is holding and not giving to him; either by force or not by force, but [always] through deception. And He prohibited this action also, with His saying, "You shall not exploit." And in the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:9): "'You shall not exploit' - monetary exploitation. And which is that? One who retains the wage of a wage-worker" - and all that is similar to it. However the example is that of a wage-worker, because it is a full obligation upon you - even though he did not give you money from himself and money did not come to you from him; nevertheless since he came to you with a well-known obligatory arrangement, [you are] obligated. And this prohibition about this matter has already been repeated, and He took the example of this matter itself and said, "Do not exploit the worker, who is poor and destitute" (Deuteronomy 24:14). His intention with this is, do not exploit a worker, since he is poor and destitute - as He said about him, "neither shall the sun set upon it, etc." (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 278:1) is, "'Do not exploit the laborer, who is poor and destitute' - is it not already stated, 'you shall not rob?' It [hence] teaches that anyone who retains the wage of a wage-worker transgresses, 'You shall not exploit,' 'you shall not rob,' 'there shall not abide,' and on account of, 'You must pay him his wage on the same day' (Deuteronomy 24:15)." And there (Sifrei Devarim 278:2), they said in explanation of, "poor and destitute": "'Poor and destitute' - I hasten to exact payment for one who is poor and destitute." And the one who transgresses exploitation has the same law as a robber. [This is from] His saying, "and denies to his kinsman, a deposit or a pledge or robbery or exploitation from his countryman" (Leviticus 5:21). (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1)

He prohibited us - that we not deny obligations that we are indebted and deposits held by us. And that is His saying, "you shall not deny" (Leviticus 19:11); and it is explained that the verse is speaking about money. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2:3) is "Since it is stated, 'and denies it and swears falsely' (Leviticus 5:22), we have heard the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not deny.'" And you already know that one who denies a deposit [being held by him] is disqualified from testimony - even though he did not swear - since he transgressed the negative commandment, "you shall not deny." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Shevuot. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)

He prohibited us from swearing [falsely] about the denial of money that is incumbent upon us [to pay]. And that is His saying, "and do not lie to your kinsman" (Leviticus 19:11). The example about this is that when he denies the deposit, he transgresses, "you shall not deny"; and when he swears falsely about his denial, he transgresses, "do not lie." And in the Sifra: "'And do not lie ' - what do we learn to say [from it]? Since it states, 'and swears falsely about it' (Leviticus 5:22), we have learned the punishment. From where [do we know] the prohibition? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and do not lie.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Shevuot. And there (Shevuot 20b), it is explained that one who swore falsely about the denial of money, transgresses two negative commandments - on account of, "You shall not swear falsely by My name" (Leviticus 19:12); and on account of, "do not lie." (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Oaths 1.)

He prohibited us from being negligent about saving the life of someone when we see him in mortal danger, or [in a case of] loss, and we have the ability to save him - such as if he was drowning in the river and we know how to swim and are able to save him; or if a robber is trying to kill him and we are able to foil his plan or repel his injury. And the prohibition comes with His saying, "you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16). And they already said that one who represses [his] testimony is also included in this prohibition. For he sees the money of his fellow destroyed and he is able to return it to him by saying the truth. And also already appearing about this is, "if he does not tell, he shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 5:1). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4:8) is, "From where [do we know] that if you know testimony for someone, you are not permitted to remain silent? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.' And from where [do we know] that if you see someone drowning in the river, or animals or robbers coming against him, you are obligated to rescue him? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.'" And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Sanhedrin. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 1.)

The commandment of confession of sin: We are commanded to confess before God our sins that we have sinned, at such time that we feel remorse for them. And this is the content of confession: to say at the time of repentance, "Please, God, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled [in] such and such," meaning to say that he mention the sin that he did explicitly with his mouth. He should [then] seek atonement for it and extend his words in this matter according to his fluency. And they, may their memory be blessed, said that even sins that require the bringing of a sin-offering still demand confession with the offering, and about this it states (Numbers 5:6), "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man and rebels against the Lord, that soul is guilty and they shall confess the sins that they did." [The Sages] said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Numbers 5:6), "Since it says 'confess the sin' (Leviticus 5:5) it means that the sin must be extant, that is that the sin-offering is alive and not slaughtered." This mean that the animal to be offered must still be alive. They also said there, "We see that one must confess if he renders impure the Temple and its holy things. From where do you know to include all other commandments?" That is that this verse in Parshat Vayikra only [discusses] one who renders impure the Temple and its holy things; from where do you know to include all other commandments? "As it is written, 'Speak to the children of Israel, etc. and they should confess.'" That is, that we expound the verse as if it is not written about a specific thing. "And from where do we know that its understanding [includes sins that are punishable by] death and excision? Since it is stated about the confession of Aharon in Acharei Mot (Leviticus 16:16 'for all their sins'." [The Sages], may their memory be blessed, expounded [on this verse] to include negative commandments; and 'that they did' which is written here to include positive commandments, meaning to say that if he does not do a positive commandment that he could have done, he is obligated to confess about it. And they further expounded there in the Mekhilta, "'From any of the sins of man' - from that which is between him and his fellow, theft, robbery and evil speech." And this confession truthfully requires that he return the '[theft] that is in his hands,' as if he does not do so it would be better not to confess about it. "'To rebel' includes all those sentenced to death who must [also] confess. I might have thought to include even those convicted by false witnesses"; that is, even though he knows that he did not sin, except that false testimony was testified against him, that he be obligated to confess about this. "Hence the verse teaches, 'soul [that] is guilty' - I only said when there is guilt there, but not when he knows that he did not sin, except false testimony was testified against him. Hence we understand that [for] all iniquities, large and small - even positive commandments - a man is obligated to confess about them.

And since this commandment of confession comes with the obligation to bring an offering - as is written in Parshat Vayikra there (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering, etc." - one might think that the confession is not an independent commandment on its own, but rather only one of the things that are an extension of the sacrifice. Therefore they had to elucidate in the Mekhilta that such is not the case, but rather it is indeed an independent commandment. And so they said there, "I might have thought that I only confess when they brought [offerings]. From where do I know even at the time that they do not bring [them]? Since it is stated, 'the children of Israel[...] and they shall confess'" - meaning to say that the tradition comes to expound [it] in this way. "Still, I might have thought that there is confession only in the Land"; that is, even though one may confess without the sacrifice, nonetheless, that the obligation for confession is only in the Land, as that is the locus of atonement, and the sacrifices are there and the locus of everything is there. "From where do I know to include the Diaspora? From that which is written (Leviticus 26:40), 'And they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers.'" That is, the iniquity of their fathers who sinned and were exiled from the Land. "And so [too,] did Daniel say outside of the Land (Daniel 9:7) 'For You, Lord, is the righteousness and for us is the shame on this day.'" Hence it is elucidated that confession is an independent commandment and that it is practiced in all places. And they also said in the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 4 6), "'And they shall confess' - that is verbal confession."

And we can open to annul even with something that newly develops (nolad), so long as it is something that commonly develops. But with something new that does not commonly develop, [we do not]. So is it explained in the Gemara (Nedarim 64a). And so [too,] we can open with regret, and as Rava determines in the name of Rav Nachman in Tractate Nedarim 22b - "We open for regret, and make ourselves available to annul, even to the one who has sworn by the God of Israel," which is a severe oath. And [this is] uniquely with regret from the beginning, such as "Is this heart [still] upon you?" [This is] meaning to say that this vower vowed out of anger, and after his mind settled down, he is completely bewildered by his oath and does not want it at all. But if he regrets [it] now because of something new that developed after he vowed, and he wanted his vow until now; this is not effective regret, and we do not open for him at all - as behold, everyone who comes to ask about his vow certainly regrets it now. And if [this type of regret were effective], the Gemara would not have required us to search to find openings for vows. But we find in the Gemara that they did search for openings for vows. But rather the truth is certainly like we wrote, that we need regret from the beginning. And [this is the case] also, since the entire foundation of annulling vows is the claim of error or duress (Shevuot 26a), since the Torah stated (Leviticus 5:4), "a man with an oath" - to exclude duress; and so too, that his mouth and heart are the same. And if so, it is impossible to have mistake or duress during the time of all the oaths depend upon regret from now. But there is a claim of mistake or duress with regret from the beginning; as behold, he now admits that if he knew this, he would not have made the vow from the beginning.

Anyone who misappropriates volitionally is lashed and pays the principal of what he damaged of the sacred. And its warning is from that which is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows" - we learned from the tradition that this is a warning to the one that eats meat of the fire-offering - as we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 447), since all of it is for God, may He be blessed. And the law is the same for the rest of all the consecrated which is only for God - whether it is from the consecrated for the altar or the consecrated of the [Temple] upkeep: If he benefited of the value of a small coin, he is lashed. If he misappropriated inadvertently, he pays what he benefited and an addition of a fifth, and he brings a ram [purchased] with two sela and sacrifices it as a guilt-offering and it atones for him - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15-16), "inadvertently from the consecrated things of the Lord, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, etc. And that which he sinned from the holy, he shall pay and add its fifth upon it." The payment of the principal with the addition of the fifth and the bringing of the sacrifice is a positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 127). The payment of the principal and the bringing of the guilt-offering impede the atonement, but not the fifth; as it is stated about the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:16), "and he shall be forgiven" - the ram and the guilt-offering impede, but the fifth does not impede [it]. If he brought his misappropriation [offering] before he brought his guilt [payment], he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. If he is in doubt if he misappropriated or did not misappropriate, he is exempted from the payments and from the sacrifice. And the fifth is like the beginning of the consecrated things; and [so] if he benefited from it, he adds a fifth to [the] fifth. And we have already elucidated several times (see Sefer HaChinukh 355) that the fifth is one of four [parts] of the principal, [such that] it and its fifth are five. And there are things that one is not liable for misappropriation from Torah writ, but it is forbidden to benefit from them rabbinically; and one who benefits from them only pays the principle, but does not add a fifth and does not bring a guilt-offering, as is elucidated in Tractate Meilah (Chapter 3).

Anyone who misappropriates volitionally is lashed and pays the principal of what he damaged of the sacred. And its warning is from that which is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows" - we learned from the tradition that this is a warning to the one that eats meat of the fire-offering - as we said above (Sefer HaChinukh 447), since all of it is for God, may He be blessed. And the law is the same for the rest of all the consecrated which is only for God - whether it is from the consecrated for the altar or the consecrated of the [Temple] upkeep: If he benefited of the value of a small coin, he is lashed. If he misappropriated inadvertently, he pays what he benefited and an addition of a fifth, and he brings a ram [purchased] with two sela and sacrifices it as a guilt-offering and it atones for him - and this is what is called the guilt-offering of misappropriations, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:15-16), "inadvertently from the consecrated things of the Lord, etc. he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, etc. And that which he sinned from the holy, he shall pay and add its fifth upon it." The payment of the principal with the addition of the fifth and the bringing of the sacrifice is a positive commandment (Sefer HaChinukh 127). The payment of the principal and the bringing of the guilt-offering impede the atonement, but not the fifth; as it is stated about the ram of the guilt offering (Leviticus 5:16), "and he shall be forgiven" - the ram and the guilt-offering impede, but the fifth does not impede [it]. If he brought his misappropriation [offering] before he brought his guilt [payment], he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. If he is in doubt if he misappropriated or did not misappropriate, he is exempted from the payments and from the sacrifice. And the fifth is like the beginning of the consecrated things; and [so] if he benefited from it, he adds a fifth to [the] fifth. And we have already elucidated several times (see Sefer HaChinukh 355) that the fifth is one of four [parts] of the principal, [such that] it and its fifth are five. And there are things that one is not liable for misappropriation from Torah writ, but it is forbidden to benefit from them rabbinically; and one who benefits from them only pays the principle, but does not add a fifth and does not bring a guilt-offering, as is elucidated in Tractate Meilah (Chapter 3).