Komentarz do Kapłańska 19:11

לא תגנבו YE SHALL NOT STEAL — This is a warning addressed to him who steals money (the property of his fellow-man), but the law “Thou shalt not steal" which is contained in the Ten Commandments is a warning addressed to him who steals a human being. For this it what is learnt from the context, because it must be a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court, (since the preceding laws in the Ten Commandments are of this character, which is the case with kidnapping and not with theft of money; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:14) (Mekhilta 20:13:3; Sanhedrin 86a).

After this the Torah explains various aspects of civil law some of which are addressed to the people at large, whereas others are addressed to the judiciary and the manner in which they deal with the people. Others again are addressed to the heads of the nation. Still others emphasise that individuals must not infringe on others’ property, hence לא תגנובו לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, all damages involving financial property. Also,

לא תגנבו, "Do not steal, etc." What is the reason the Torah chose to write this commandment next to that of leaving your gleanings for the poor? Perhaps Torat Kohanim provides the clue. They quote Ben Bag Bag who said: "do not steal your own property back from the thief lest you will be perceived as a thief" (i.e. by those who do not know that what you took was yours in the first place). Thus far Torat Kohanim. Here the Torah warns the farmer that if he collects the gleanings of his own harvest he should not rationalise this by saying that he is only taking what belongs to him anyway.

לא תגנובו, money.

לא תגנובו , “you shall not steal!” At this point the Torah reverts to using the plural seeing that a similar commandment in the Ten Commandments had been addressed to the individual, i.e. לא תגנוב. The Torah did not want us to think that the commandment here was merely a repetition of what has already been written in the Decalogue. In the Decalogue the Torah speaks of someone stealing somebody for which the penalty is execution, whereas here the Torah speaks about objects or even animals for which financial compensation with or without a penalty is in place. The reason we know that in the Decalogue we speak about a different category of theft, i.e. kidnapping, is that the other commandments there i.e. “do not commit adultery, and do not murder,” are also sins punishable by execution of the person violating them deliberately. Here the Torah speaks of stealing money, or the equivalent of money, something that can be expiated by means of payments to the party concerned. We were told in Baba Metzia 61 that the wording לא תגנובו implies that stealing is prohibited even if one committed the theft only in order to annoy the person from whom one stole without the intention of keeping the stolen money. The reason the sages in Baba Metzia had to come up with this explanation is that seeing the Torah already wrote לא תגזול, “do not commit robbery,” and everyone who steals is automatically guilty of violating the commandment not to commit robbery, the words לא תגנובו had to contain an additional dimension.

[This is] a prohibition against one who steals money. Rashi means that over there, since it is written, “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” which are liable for a court-exacted death penalty, therefore, “You shall not steal” too is speaking of [a case liable for] a court-exacted death penalty. Therefore, “you shall not steal” [here] must refer to money because if not so, why two [verses]? [Re’m] Re’m writes: You might ask, why does Rashi need to prove from there that the Torah here is speaking of stealing money? He should have proved it from here, because from here too it is obvious [that it is speaking of stealing money] because of [the rule that] “a matter is interpreted according to its context,” since the verse here only speaks of monetary cases. [I say], the answer is that here too the verses are speaking of [cases punishable by] death because it is written (in the previous verse), “I am Adonoy, your God,” and Rashi explains, “A Judge Who punishes [wrongdoers], and [for this sin] I exact from you, nothing less than [your] souls.” And this [indeed], is why Rashi mentioned this exegesis above [in verse 10]. It also seems to me that Rashi is answering the question that you could have said the opposite; that here the verse is talking about kidnapping and above it is talking about stealing money? Rashi answers, “This matter is deduced from its context, etc.” This is not like Re’em’s explanation above that Rashi is answering the question “Why [do we need] two [verses]?” This is easy to understand. (Gur Aryeh). Rashi here is not trying to deduce that the verse here is talking about stealing money. Rather, he is answering why the verse [here] has to write “You shall not steal” since it already wrote “You shall not steal” in the Ten Commandments that includes everything, both money and people since the verse writes in general terms, “Do not steal.” He answers that the verse “Do not steal” of the Ten Commandments is certainly [only] speaking of kidnapping because “this matter is deduced from its context.” But he was certainly never bothered by the question why Scripture had to write “Do not steal” in the Ten Commandments once it writes “do not steal” here, because it is obvious that the verse here is talking [only] about money, because it says “You shall not deny,” and [stealing] is certainly the same as “you shall not deny” because [in the latter] too one is taking the money of his fellow. But “You shall not steal” of the Ten Commandments is not completely the same as “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery,” and therefore one may have thought that there it is talking about every [kind of] theft, whether of money or people. Therefore, he has to say that there it is talking only about kidnapping because “something is deduced from its context.” Regarding “you shall not steal” [of the Ten Commandments] no punishment is stated. Therefore you cannot explain that one verse is for the punishment and one is for the negative commandment. Therefore, he has to say that one [verse] is talking about kidnapping, and the other, about stealing money. (Nachalas Yaakov)

לא תגנובו, “do not steal;” here too the Torah repeated by using the plural mode what had already been part of the commandment not to steal in the Ten Commandments, when it was phrased as if only addressed to an individual. The Torah implies that if someone observes theft and is silent, he is no better than the thief himself. (Ibn Ezra) Now that we have read the warning not to steal, whence do we know the penalty for violating this commandment? It says שנים ישלם: “he has to repay twice the value.” (Exodus 22,3.) The commandment not to steal, in the Ten Commandments, dealt with stealing human beings, kidnapping.

ולא תכחשו NEITHER SHALL YE DEAL FALSELY [WITH ONE ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (Leviticus 5:21, 22) "[If a man sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge, or a deposit… or has found that which was lost] and denieth it (וכחש בה)", that he shall pay the principal and add a fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition (i.e. where is it forbidden)? From Scripture's statement here “neither shall ye deal falsely" (The Hebrew here is תכחשו, the same term as is used in the verse quoted — וכחש בה) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 3; Bava Kamma 105b).

לא תכחשו, denial that one had received a deposit for safekeeping from another Jew. Compare Leviticus 5,22.

If you steal, in the end you will deny. It seems that Rashi deduces this as the verse should have written “You shall not deny” without [writing beforehand] “and.” Because “you shall not steal” [applies to stealing] both from a Jew or from a non-Jew as Rambam writes at the beginning of the first chapter of Laws of Theft, and as Smag writes in Lavin 195, [whereas the next two commands of the verse only apply to acting against Jews]. Because grammatically, “You shall not steal” is not connected with בעמיתו (lit. “against one’s fellow [Jew]”) [at the end of the verse], because if it was [connected], it should have said מעמיתו (“from one’s fellow) and not בעמיתו. Furthermore, the cantillation interrupts it [from מעמיתו], i.e., the esnach [that signifies the end of a clause] under לא תגנובו. Therefore, the verse says “(You shall not steal), and you shall not deny, and each one of you...,” in order to hint that they are connected to each other as one causes the other, because “in the end, etc.” (Yaakov Tayrosh)

Our verse actually contains three prohibitions. 1) "Do not steal!" i.e. to not take someone else's money without that person being aware of it. 2) "Do not deal falsely!" i.e. do not deny that you have in your possession money belonging to your fellow man though you obtained this money legally. 3) "Do not lie!" i.e. do not deny that you have money of your fellow man in your possession and there are witnesses who testify to this. The Torah tells us that even in a case such as this where the claim of the thief is easily disproved and the money will be restored to its rightful owner, the thief is guilty of having lied.

לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, “do not deal falsely nor lie to one another.” The prohibition is spelled out here; where do we have the penalty for violating this commandment? According to the (Sifra) we find it in Leviticus 5,22 in the words: וכחש בה וחמשיתו יוסף עליו, “if he denies it he will have to add a fifth of its value when making good.”After G-d had commanded us to give some of what we own to Him, he also warns us not to deprive our fellowman of what is rightfully his. (Ibn Ezra, worded slightly differently)

ולא תשקרו NEITHER SHALL YE LIE [ONE TO ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (V. 22) “[If a soul sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge or a deposit…] and sweareth falsely (לשקר)" that he shall pay the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition to lie? From Scripture's statement here “ye shall not lie one to another”.

לא תשקרו, denying that one had received a loan.

The Torah also hints here that in the event a person violates the first of these three commandments and steals, G'd will see to it that the theft becomes known. Our sages in Chagigah 16 have stated that if someone commits a sin in secret G'd will make the sin public so that the sinner's wickedness will be exposed. This is why the Torah writes the prohibition to deny one's guilt immediately after writing the prohibition to steal. When the Torah wrote לא תכחשו, "do not falsely deny your guilt," it speaks of a situation where the culprit would be able to get away with his denial legally such as when he is confronted by only one witness; if the thief confesses, all well and good; if he denies the accusation, the Seer, i.e. G'd Himself, will act as the second witness against the guilty person; needless to say that in that event the culprit will not be able to get away with his lie; the Torah adds: "do not lie!" to teach that in addition to the culprit's denial having proven useless to him he will also have become guilty of the sin of lying.

לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו YE SHALL NOT STEAL, NEITHER DEAL FALSELY, NEITHER LIE, NEITHER SWEAR [ONE TO ANOTHER] - If you steal you will in the end come to deny it, then you will lie (in order to back up your first denial), and ultimately you will swear falsely (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 5).

The reason the Torah employs the plural here and in subsequent verses as opposed to the first ten verses in this chapter and the commandments starting with verse 16 may be to warn the victim of the thief not to take the law into his own hands and retrieve what has been stolen from him in that fashion. The words לא תגנובו therefore are addressed to both the original thief as well as the victim who resorts to stealing to retrieve his own property. The result of taking the law into your own hands would likely result in both of you becoming guilty of violating the related commandments לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו. As to the reason why also verse 12 is in the plural, I believe the reason is identical. If someone observes that the thief denies on oath that he has stolen someone's property, that someone may feel justified in recovering his property by swearing a false oath himself. This is why the Torah warns לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, not to swear a false oath by citing G'd as one's witness. Inasmuch as this would involve a desecration of the name of G'd, the Torah reverts to addressing such a person in the singular (in the middle of verse 12); this makes it plain that the Torah addresses only the person who profanes G'd's name in order to salvage his own property by swearing an oath. There was no need to include the thief seeing he was already included in the general prohibition לא תשעבו בשמי לשקר. It is also possible that the words לא תשעבו are a warning to the party who tries to make a second party swear an oath when he has reason to believe that that party will perjure himself. Better not to let him swear than to contribute to his desecrating G'd's name. In the worst case scenario then there will only be one person involved in desecrating G'd's name.