Kapłańska 5:21 Halacha: Shev Shmateta & Sefer HaChinukh

(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.

And one of these sins is: one who 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 his authorized representative — 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 principal 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 principal, 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.