Комментарий к Бамидбар 5:6

למעל מעל בה׳ [WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS AGAINST MAN,] TO ACT DECEITFULLY AGAINST THE LORD — Here, you see, Scripture writes down again the section dealing with a person who robs by violence from another, and swears falsely regarding it, — it is the same section that has already been stated in the Sedrah ויקרא (Lev 5:21), “[If a soul sin], and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deny unto his neighbour etc.” The reason why it is repeated here is because of two new points which are contained in it. The one is that it (Scripture) writes here, “and if they confess” which teaches that one is not liable to payment of the fifth (in addition to the capital; cf. Leviticus 5:24), nor to bring a guilt offering (cf. Leviticus 5:25) if he is convicted by the evidence of witnesses, but only when he himself confesses the matter (his guilt). The second new point is about something stolen from a proselyte (cf. Rashi on v. 8) — that it has to be handed over to the priests (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 2).

WHEN A MAN OR WOMAN SHALL DO ANY OF THE SINS OF MAN. [The sense of the verse] is as follows: “If a man does any of the sins by which one can transgress, of any sin which man commits against another man, and he deals falsely with his neighbor³⁷See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. [—that soul shall be guilty].” He states [here] to commit a trespass against the Eternal, which means that he swears by His Name falsely and is thus guilty before Him [as well]. Now because this sin has already been mentioned,³⁵Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. and here it only comes to introduce the new point concerning robbing a proselyte,³⁶Further, Verse 8. He deals with it briefly. He stated here a man or woman because since it is not usual for a woman to rob, [we might think that] perhaps Scripture does not make her liable to pay the additional fifth³⁷See Leviticus 5: 24. A fifth must be paid in addition to repaying the capital. or to bring a guilt-offering [when she confesses the sin]³⁸Ibid., Verse 25. like a man, [therefore He stated here a man or woman, teaching that her liability is in all respects the same as that of a man]. He mentioned [here], And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his,³⁹Verse 9. meaning to say that once they have given the heave-offering to the priest it becomes his [personal property], and he who robs it from him is to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the guilt-offering for robberies.³⁵Leviticus 5:21-26. See Vol. III, pp. 56-57. That is the reason why He mentioned it here. Or it may be that [this verse] comes to complete the laws of the priests regarding the heave-offering, since till now He only mentioned them by way of allusion, [stating] Thou shalt not delay to offer of the fulness of thy harvest, and of the outflow of thy presses,⁴⁰Exodus 22:28. See Ramban ibid., (Vol. II, pp. 398-400). and so also, they may eat of his bread,⁴¹Leviticus 22:11. but He did not explain the law of the heave-offering at all, that it is to be given to the priest; and as for the tithe, He [only] mentioned at the end of Torath Kohanim [i.e., the Book of Leviticus] that it is holy unto the Eternal.⁴²Ibid., 27:30. Now, therefore, He came to command that the heave-offering and the holy gifts should belong to the priests by the grant of the owners, who may give them to them as they please, meaning to say that the benefit of satisfaction [of choosing to whom to give it] belongs to the owner [and the priest may not come and take it by force, since the owner may have the pleasure of giving it to any priest he chooses].
The meal-offering of the sotah⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. is not mentioned together with the other meal-offerings in Torath Kohanim [i.e., Leviticus Chapter 2] because it is a meal-offering of jealousy⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. and does not come for atonement, therefore He completed the law thereof here [in the Book of Numbers]. Besides, since He traced the genealogy of the people by their fathers’ houses, He now gave them a law and judgment to ascertain who are the mamzerim⁴⁴The word mamzer, according to the final decision of the law, refers to a child born of a union which is prohibited, with the penalty of excision. It thus covers a child of any incestuous or adulterous relationship. who are not the children of their mothers’ husbands, when there arises a suspicion in a man’s heart concerning his wife.
Similarly He completed here [the laws of] the offerings with the law of the Nazirite, for [only] after the Tabernacle was put up and the impure people separated from the camp, He took of their young men for Nazirites,⁴⁵Amos 2:11. who crowded at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,⁴⁶Exodus 38:8. to stand before the Eternal to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name.⁴⁷Deuteronomy 10:8. Furthermore, a woman who makes the Nazirite vow is the opposite of the sotah,⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [and for this reason the law of the Nazirite follows that of the sotah]. Therefore He stated in the section [of the Nazirite], when either man ‘or woman’ utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite.⁴⁸Further, 6:2. Since the law of vows applies equally to men and women, why did Scripture mention here or woman? It is to hint that this woman who takes upon herself the Nazirite vow, is the opposite of the sotah whose law has just been stated in the preceding section. Our Rabbis have furthermore said:⁴⁹Sotah 2 a. “Why is the section dealing with the Nazirite placed next to the section dealing with the sotah?⁴³A sotah is a woman suspected of adultery, and is subject to the laws explained further on in Verses 11-31. The law concerning her meal-offering is found in Verse 15, where it is called a meal-offering of jealousy. [It is to tell us] that whoever sees a sotah in her disgrace should abstain [by means of a vow] from wine,” the reason being that harlotry, wine, and new wine, take away the heart.⁵⁰Hosea 4:11. And [the commandment that] the Nazirite should let his hair grow loose is because this is the opposite of [the habit of] young men who curl their hair in order to beautify themselves, for allowing the hair to grow loose causes anxiety in man’s heart,⁵¹Proverbs 12:25. and therefore the Nazirite is holy⁵²Further, 6:8. and must guard himself from impurity,⁵³Ibid., Verse 7. for he is like the priest who ministers before his G-d [who likewise must be pure for service at the Sanctuary].

'למעול מעל בה, our traditional sources already told us that the subject is robbery from a proselyte who dies intestate before the robber confessed and made restitution. The robber had committed an act of desecrating the name of G’d in the eyes of the proselyte who must be appalled that a natural born Jew could be guilty of such a deed. This is why the sin of the robber in this verse is described as a “transgression against something sacred.”

איש ..כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, "anyone committing any of the sins people are liable to commit, etc." The Torah uses the expression למעול instead of the customary ומעלו מעל, "and have committed a trespass;" this is explained in Baba Kama 110 where the sages say that the verse speaks about a case of someone who perjured himself after having denied being in possession of money belonging to his neighbour. Although the Torah had already dealt with such a situation in Parshat Vayikra it repeats it here as there are numerous details of this legislation which had not yet been revealed. Amongst other details, our verse informs us that the person in question is deemed to have committed his sin at the time when he first denied being in possession of that money, not at the time when he denied it on oath. The very denial is considered sinful as it leads to the person having to swear an oath if his accuser takes him to court. If the accused is not taken to court he is able to make amends for his denial at any time. The verse says: כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם to inform us that the moment one does so one is considered as about to also trespass against G'd, i.e. to render a false oath.

חטאת האדם, This is also because of גזל הגר, robbery from a convert who left no children after death and to whom no restitution can be made, nor to any of his non existent heirs. This is the reason why this has been repeated here.

איש או אשה, “man or woman, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah mentions a woman here, although it is not usual for women to rob proselytes, is that we might have thought that if a woman had been guilty of this crime she would not have to do more than make restitution without adding the fifth mentioned here as a penalty; to make sure we do not err in this matter the Torah made sure that we understand that man and woman are subject to the same rules. [Nachmanides presumably is bothered that the Torah did not simply write אדם that would have included man and woman. Ed.]

V. 6. דבר אל בני וגו׳. Dieses Gesetz ist in seinen Hauptbestimmungen bereits im Wajikra 5, 20 f. gegeben. Es ist das אשם גזלה. Es ist dort die Bestimmung ausgesprochen, dass, wenn jemand eine aus irgend einer Veranlassung erwachsene Schuld dem andern abgeleugnet und, gerichtlich oder außergerichtlich, abgeschworen hat, er קרן und חומש dem zur Forderung Berechtigten zu zahlen und ein אשם als Opfer zu bringen hat. Wir haben dieses Gesetz dort auch bereits ausführlich besprochen und verweisen hierauf. Hier steht dies Gesetz wiederholt, zunächst um es durch zwei Bestimmungen zu ergänzen; erstens, dass (V. 7) חומש und אשם nur in Folge seines Eingeständnisses zu leisten sind. Wird er aber des Meineids nur durch Zeugen überwiesen, so hat er nur einfach קרן zu zahlen, dagegen lastet auf ihm das לא ינקה ד׳. (Schmot 20, 7) in der ganzen ungemilderten Wucht seiner Schwere (siehe zu Wajikra 5, 8). Zweitens (V. 8): dass, wenn nach geleistetem Meineid der Forderungsberechtigte ohne Rechtsnachfolger verstorben ist, dem קרן und חומש zurückzuerstatten wäre, beides den כהנים zu geben ist.

כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, “if they will commit any sin that people are in the habit of committing;” this paragraph concerns theft committed against the estate of a convert; the Rabbis derive this from the words 'מעל בה, “a trespass against the Lord;” seeing that the convert left behind no heirs, the thief or robber considered what he did as finder’s keeper. The Torah teaches that this is not so, but that the Lord is the One Who considers Himself as having been sinned against in this instance. A similar paragraph in Leviticus 5,21 has the words: וכחש בעמיתו, “and he denies having trespassed against his colleague,” as speaking of a natural born Jew. The reason why this paragraph follows that of the various types of ritual defilement is to remind us that this very defilement and the subsequent ostracism for at least seven days was a punishment for a trespass committed. (Ibn Ezra)

למעול מעל, “by committing treachery.” The Torah means that the guilty party not only stole, but swore an oath in the name of Hashem denying that he had done so. Seeing that the basic sin had already been discussed (Leviticus 5,15) and the only thing different here is the status of the victim, the Torah was very brief here. It goes on to mention:

ואשמה הנפש ההיא, and that soul will be considered guilty. Inasmuch as that person is guilty of perjury he has caused damage to his very soul. The Torah suddenly switched to the use of the singular although previously it had spoken about people (pl) committing sins. Afterwards, when the Torah discusses the sinner confessing his sin it again uses the plural, i.e. והתודו. You will note that the Torah did not write that the soul of the sinner i.e. נפשו is guilty, but it writes הנפש ההיא. This is a reference to the collective soul of the Jewish people which has become tarnished through one of its members committing perjury. You may do well to read what we have written in our commentary on Leviticus 7,20-21 about similar constructions. Inasmuch as the word ההיא is superfluous this is a hint that the Torah speaks about a soul other than merely that of the sinner in question. It is worth reading what the Zohar on Parshat Acharey Mot 67 has to say about Isaiah 26,9.

מכל חטאת האדם. So wie עון הקדשים (Schmot 28, 38), עון המקדש (Bamidbar 18, 1) die Sünde gegen die Heiligtümer und gegen das Heiligtum bezeichnet, so dürften hier auch חטאת האדם die Vergehen gegen den Menschen bedeuten; wahrscheinlich jedoch ist es auch hier der gewöhnliche Genitiv und verlässt sich hier das Gesetz auf die ganze ähnlich eingeleitete ausführliche Darstellung im Wajikra Wie denn ja auch hier aus dem Verfolg klar genug ersichtlich ist, dass es von einer ungetilgten Schuld, somit von Vergehen in Beziehung auf den Rechtsbesitz des Nächsten handelt. למעול מעל בד׳, ein jedes solches Vergehen gegen den Menschen ist zugleich eine Untreue gegen Gott, der der Garant und Bürge im Verkehr zwischen Menschen und Menschen ist. Es ist dies aber in erhöhtem Maße, wenn er im Eide zum Erweis der Rechtfertigkeit im Verkehrsleben aufgerufen und dieser Aufruf zum Deckmantel einer Unrechtfertigkeit missbraucht worden. Das dem Nebenmenschen schuldige Gut wird im Eide zu einem gottschuldigen Eigentum, zu einem "Heiligtum" erhoben, der Schwörende appelliert an seine "Gottesnähe", bekleidet sich gleichsam mit dem "Priestergewand", und die in solcher Weise an dem Nächsten geübte Untreue wird geradezu zu מעילה (siehe zu Wajikra 5, 15 u. 20 f). Dort heißt es ähnlich: נפש כי תחטא ומעלה וגו׳, und wird das Vergehen ausführlich erläutert: וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון usw. usw. או מכל אשר ישבע עליו לשקר usw. — ואשמה הנפש ההיא: durch eine solche meineidige Bereicherung des eigenen Besitzstandes hat der Schwörende eine Schuld der "Verödung" auf sich geladen (siehe Wajikra 5, 6 u. 20 f.).

.ואשמה הנפש ההיא, והתודו, ”and that soul shall be guilty, and confess;” Rabbi Natan claims that this is a line that can be used universally for all such trespasses, that the first step in rehabilitation of the sinner must be his confession of having committed this trespass. (Sifri)

And that is that He commanded us to confess the transgressions and sins that we have done before God and to say them together with [our] repentance. And that is confession. And its intent is that one say, "Please, Lord, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled and I have done such and such." And he should prolong the statement and request forgiveness about this matter according to the polish of his speech. And you should know that even the sins for which one is liable for the types of sacrifices that are mentioned - that He said that one offer them and it atones for him - do not suffice with the sacrifice when it is without confession. And that is His saying, "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man [...]. And they shall confess the sins that they did" (Numbers 5:6-7). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:5), 'and he shall confess that which he has sinned upon it' - it is to be upon the sin-offering when it is in existence, not after it has been slaughtered. It is only understood that an individual confesses for entering the Temple [impure]" - for this verse appears in Parashat Vayikra about one who renders the Temple and its sanctified objects impure, and that which is mentioned with it, as we explained; and so the Mekhilta there raises the possibility that we would only learn the obligation for confession from Scripture about one who renders the Temple impure. "From where are you to include all the other commandments? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' And from where [do we know] even [sins that bring punishments of] excision and death penalties of the court? It states, 'the sins,' to include negative commandments; 'that they did,' to include positive commandments." And there it says, "'From any of the sins of man' - for theft, for robbery, for evil speech; 'to commit a trespass' - to include one who swears falsely and a blasphemer; 'and be guilty' - to include all those guilty of death penalties. It might be even those who are killed according to the testimony of colluding ones. I only said, 'and that man be guilty.'" That means to say that he is not obligated to confess when he knows that he has not sinned, but rather what was testified against him was false. Behold it has been made clear to you that we are obligated to confess for all types of transgressions, big and small - and even [for] positive commandments. But because this command - that is, "And they shall confess" - appeared with an obligation for a sacrifice, it could have entered our mind that confession is not a commandment by itself, but is rather from those things that are an extension of the sacrifice. [Hence] they needed to clarify this in the Mekhilta with this language - "It might be that when they bring their sacrifices, they confess; when they do not bring their sacrifices, they do not confess. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' But still, the understanding of confession is only in the Land [of Israel]. From where [do we know], also in the diaspora? [Hence] we learn to say, 'their iniquities [...] and the iniquities of their fathers' (Leviticus 26:40)." And likewise did Daniel say, "To You, Lord, is justice, etc." (Daniel 9:7). Behold that which we have mentioned has been made clear to you - that confession is a separate obligation; and that it is an obligation for the sinner for every sin that he did. Whether in the Land or outside of the Land; whether he brought a sacrifice or did not bring a sacrifice - he is obligated to confess, as it is stated, "And they shall confess for their iniquities." And the language of the [Sifra] is, "'And he shall confess' - that is confession of words." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1).