## Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra

###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:1:1)

**נפש כי תחטא ושמעה קול אלה.** אמרו במדרש בוא וראה כי כשנבראו העליונים והתחתונים בחצי השם נבראו, שנאמר (ישעיהו כ״ו:ד׳) כי ביה ה' צור עולמים, אל תקרי צור אלא צר, ולמה לא נבראו בכל השם כלו כדי שלא להזכיר בו את השם שלם, אוי להם לרשעים שמחרפין שמו של הקב"ה ומזכירין אותו תמיד חנם, ראה מה כתיב בקרבנות אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה', אינו אומר לה' קרבן, לה' עולה, ובני אדם מחרפין שמו חנם, זהו שאמר שלמה ע"ה (קהלת ה׳:א׳) אל תבהל על פיך ולבך אל ימהר להוציא דבר לפני האלהים. שנו רז"ל לא יהא אדם בישראל פרוץ בנדרים ואין לו להתמיד בשבועות אפילו על האמת, ומעשה בהר המלך שהיו שם שני אלפים עיירות וכלן חרבו על שבועת האמת, כיצד היה אדם אומר לחברו בשבועה שאני הולך למקום פלוני ואוכל ואשתה, והולכין ועושין ומקיימים שבועתן, ומה הנשבע באמת כך, הנשבע לשקר על אחת כמה וכמה. כשיבא הקב"ה לדון את הבריות הרי הוא דן הנשבעים בשקר עם המכשפים והמנאפים, הוא שכתוב (מלאכי ג׳:ה׳) וקרבתי אליכם למשפט והייתי עד ממהר במכשפים ובמנאפים ובנשבעים לשקר, אמר הקדוש ב"ה פה שנתתי לכם להיות מהללים ומשבחים אותי בו אתם מחרפים ומגדפים ונשבעים בשמי לשקר שכל הבריות לקלוסי בראתי, שנאמר (משלי ט״ז:ד׳) כל פעל ה' למענהו, ולא די לכם שאין אתם מקלסים אותי אלא שאתם מחרפים אותי, וזהו שכתוב (ישעיהו נ״ז:כ׳) והרשעים כים נגרש כי השקט לא יוכל ויגרשו מימיו רפש וטיט, מה הים הזה הגלים שבתוכו מתגאים ועולין וכיון שהגיע כל אחד מהם לחול הוא נשבר, וחברו רואה אותו שנשבר ונתגאה גם הוא ועולה ואינו חוזר בו, כך הרשעים רואין אלו את אלו מתגאין ואינן חוזרים, לפיכך נמשלו לים ואין להם נוח בעולם כי השקט לא יוכל, אבל הצדיקים יש להם השקט שנאמר (ירמיהו ל׳:י׳) ושב יעקב ושקט ושאנן ואין מחריד.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
נפש כי תחטא ושמעה קול אלה, “If a person will sin, having heard a sound (demand) for an oath, etc.” Tanchuma Vayikra 7, commenting on this introduction writes as follows: “take note that when both the creatures in the celestial regions and the ones in the terrestrial regions were created their creation was the result of G’d employing only one half of His name, i.e. Isaiah 26,4 כי ביה ה' צור עולמים, ‘that the Lord employed only the letters י-ה of His name when creating the universe.’ He did so in order that the sinners should not become guilty of desecrating His entire name when sinning.” Observe the sequence of the wording of the Torah in our verse. Instead of the Torah writing אדם כי יקריב מכם לה’ קרבן, the Torah writes אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה'. The reason that the name “for the Lord” appears only at the end is to prevent the possibility of someone dying after having uttered the words “for the Lord” without his being able to complete the sentence. This is how careful one has to be not to utter the name of the Lord in vain. 
This attitude is reflected in Solomon writing in Kohelet 5,1 “be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a word before G’d.” Our sages (Tanchuma Vayikra 7) said that Jews should not be rash with offering vows and they should not make a practice of uttering oaths (even true ones). .hey tell of a king called Har in whose time 2,000 towns were destroyed all because of a true oath, because the oath was not called for. What was the oath all about? A person (not just one) swore an oath to his friend that he would go to a certain place and eat and drink there. He completed the journey and kept his oath. All the towns in which they confirmed all their intentions by phrasing them as an oath were ruined. If this is what happened to towns whose inhabitants honoured their oaths, how much worse is in store for people who do not honour their oaths! When in the future, G’d will judge people, the ones who will be accused for swearing a false oath will be put in the same company as the witches, sorcerers, and adulterers. This is all based on Maleachi 3,5: “But I will step forward to contend against you and I will act as a relentless accuser against those who have no fear of Me; who practice sorcery, commit adultery, who swear falsely, who cheat labourers of their hire and who subvert the cause of the widow.” G’d said: “the mouth which I gave you was meant to be used to sing My praises. Instead you use it to defame Me.” This is what is meant by Solomon in Proverbs 16,4: “the Lord made everything for a purpose, for His sake.” Another verse commenting on this subject is found in Isaiah 57,20: “but the wicked are like the troubled sea which cannot rest, whose waters toss up mire and mud.” Just as the waves of the sea in their arrogance rise higher and higher only to collapse upon themselves and be broken as soon as they hit the sand along the shore and the wave following it does not learn a lesson from the fate of the preceding wave, so the wicked do not learn from the fate which has befallen other wicked people before by becoming penitents. This is why they are compared to the waves of the sea which do not know the meaning of ever coming to rest in the world. The righteous, on the other hand, do know the meaning of calm and quiet as testified by Jeremiah 30,10 who writes: “and Yaakov shall again have calm and quiet with none to trouble him.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:1:2)

**והוא עד או ראה או ידע.** פירש הרמב"ן ז"ל שאינם שלשה ענינים, כי אין עד בלא ראיה ולא ידיעה, אבל יאמר אם שמע קול אלה שנשאו עליו להאלותו בדבר שהוא עד בין בידיעה בין בראיה, אם לא יגיד ישא עליו עון.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והוא עד או ראה או ידע, “and he was a witness who either saw or knew, etc.” According to Nachmanides we are not dealing with three separate subjects here. There cannot be someone who is a witness unless he has seen and knows. The meaning of the verse is that if the witness in question has been appealed to by an injured party to come forward and to testify to what he has seen and what he knows of, he will bear guilt if he fails to come forward.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:1:3)

**והאמת**כי בגוף הממון אי אפשר שיהיה עד בלא ראיה ובלא ידיעה, אבל אפשר להבין מלשון הכתוב שלשה ענינים כל אחד זה בלא זה עדות בפני עצמו, ראיה בלא ידיעה וידיעה בלא ראיה ועדות בלא ראיה ובלא ידיעה. ראיה בלא ידיעה, כגון שנתן לו מנה בפניו אבל לא ידע אם הוא הלואה או פרעון או פקדון שהיה שליח בשביל אחר שיקבל ממנו. ידיעה בלא ראיה, כגון שהודה פלוני בפניו שהלוה מנה אבל לא ראה הממון. עדות בלא ראיה ובלא ידיעה, זו חתימת העדים שזה מכיר חתימתן, ועדותו של זה תועיל לבעל דין אע"פ שאין בו לא ראיה ולא ידיעה, ועל פי עדותו של זה מוציאין הממון מתחת ידו של זה, וזהו והוא עד או ראה או ידע, ודרשו רז"ל אם לוא יגיד, במקום הראוי להגיד, כלומר בבית דין, שאם כבש לו עדותו בינו לבינו אינו נענש בזה אלא כשיכבוש עדותו בבית דין, דומיא דעכן אצל יהושע שלא היה מתחייב באותו הגדה אלא בבית דינו של יהושע, וזהו שכתוב (יהושע ז׳:י״ט) והגד נא לי מה עשית, שני בעלי דינין ועד אחד ושלשה ב"ד הרי ששה, ולכך הוסיף בו וא"ו, והגד נא לי, ולא אמר הגד נא לי. וכן בכאן כתיב אם לוא יגיד מלא בוא"ו, כלומר אם לא יגיד בב"ד, ונשא עונו, למדך שההגדה צריכה שתהיה בב"ד כי עמהם הם ששה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
In fact, if one speaks of money which is under dispute it is impossible to be a witness unless one has seen and has knowledge of what has been agreed upon. However, it is possible to understand the verse in such a way that it does speak of three separate situations. Each of the situations would be a testimony all by itself. There is such a thing as having witnessed something with one’s eyes without one understanding the meaning of what one has seen. Similarly, it is possible to have knowledge of something even if one has not seen it with one’s eyes. There can even be testimony involving neither seeing nor having knowledge. Let me illustrate: If someone observed Reuven handing over money to Shimon but he did not know whether this money was a loan, a repayment of a loan, or a deposit for safe-keeping, or even if the recipient was a messenger taking possession of the money on behalf of the person who had asked him to do so; in all these cases merely seeing something is not sufficient basis for relevant testimony. The reverse, i.e. knowledge of something without having witnessed the truth of the statement with one’s eyes could be that Reuven heard Shimon admit that he had borrowed money from him. Since at the time he admitted it he did not make repayment, Reuven is in no position to testify to a transaction. The testimony of such a witness may still be of benefit to the plaintiff even when there is neither knowledge of a transaction or the transaction having been witnessed in cases where the person called upon to testify knows the signature of the party or parties concerned and can affirm or deny them. His testimony may help the plaintiff recover his money on the basis of the debtor’s signature to a document being independently confirmed. You could therefore justify the meaning of the word או as meaning “or” in the words והוא עד או ראה או ידע “and he is (either) a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.” 
 On the words: אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו, “if he fails to testify he shall bear his iniquity,” our sages (Sifra Vayikra 11,5) comment that the meaning is that he fails to testify in a place where he is duty-bound to testify, i.e. at court. If such a witness withholds his testimony in private conversation with either of the litigant parties he is not guilty of anything. The Torah’s warning applies to him only if he fails to testify in a legitimate court. A Biblical example is Achan who was not obligated to reveal his misdemeanor before Joshua took him to court. This is why Joshua pleaded with him: (Joshua 7,19) “please tell me what you have done (i.e. confess).” Seeing that there have to be at least 2 litigants, one witness, and three members of the court, the letter ו in the word והגד, in that verse was added to allude to the 6 people involved. In our verse too the word לוא instead of being spelled לא as is customary, had the letter ו added in order to make the same point. It suggests that “if not,” the party concerned will be guilty of the penalty implied in the words ונשא עונו, “he will bear his guilt.” The allusion is that he is guilty only if he fails to testify in the presence of the 6 people represented by that letter ו.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:1:4)

**ויתכן**לפרש עוד והוא עד, כי באור הכתוב הוא שאם הוא כובש עדותו ולא יגיד זה בב"ד לא יאמר ומי יודע בדבר אם כובש עדות זה, לכך נאמר והוא עד שמו של הקב"ה עד, שכן מצינו לשון הוא שהוא שמו של הקב"ה ממה שכתוב (ישעיהו מ״ב:ח׳) אני ה' הוא שמי, וכתיב (תהלים ק) הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, וכתיב (שם יט) והוא כחתן יוצא מחופתו, וכתיב (במדבר י״ח:כ״ג) ועבד הלוי הוא, ורבים כן, ולכך יאמר והוא עד, שמו של הקב"ה עד, כי הוא בוחן לבות וכליות ויענישנו על זאת.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
One may also see in the words והוא עד, “and he is a witness,” that the meaning of the whole verse is that if he withholds his testimony by not testifying before a court thinking that he can get away with it seeing no one will ever know that he suppressed evidence so how could he be convicted of something? The letters in the words והוא עד refer to G’d being a witness to suppressed evidence even if there is no such evidence in a human court. This would not be the first time that the word הוא is used to describe G’d. One such appearance is in Isaiah 42,8 אני ה' הוא שמי, or Psalms 100,3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him.” A third example is Psalms 19,6 והוא כחתן יוצא מחופתו, “and He (G’d) is like a bridegroom emerging from His wedding canopy.” Still another example of the word הוא meaning “G’d” is Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, “and the Levite will serve G’d.” There are many other examples to confirm what we have said. It is therefore appropriate to translate the words והוא עד in our verse as “and He (G’d) is a witness.” He examines all of man’s motivations, thoughts, etc., and administers punishment based on what He discovers.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:1:5)

**ויתכן**עוד לומר כי תוספת הוא"ו במלת לוא ירמוז על ששת ימי בראשית, ובא להורות כי מי שכובש עדות לחברו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו כבש להקב"ה עדות של חדוש העולם שנברא בששת ימים, כי מתוך שאדם רגיל להכשל בעון קל יבא לסוף שיכשל בעון חמור.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
There is yet another possibility that the additional letter ו in the word לוא is an allusion to the six days of creation and that it is meant to teach us that he who suppresses testimony on behalf of his friend is considered as if he suppressed testifying to the fact that G’d had initiated the universe all by Himself in the space of six days. When a person becomes guilty of committing relatively minor sins he will eventually commit major sins such as heresy.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:5:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:5:1)

**והתודה אשר חטא עליה.** שנתן אל לבו וזכר החטא אחר שנעלם ממנו והיה מסופק בו, וחוזר לודאי, וזהו והתודה מלשון ודאי. ורז"ל דרשו שהכתוב הזה יורה כי כל חטאת טעונה ודוי, וכן דרשו בספרי בפסוק (במדבר ה׳:ו׳) ואשמה הנפש ההיא, בנין אב לכל המתים שיטענו ודוי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “he will confess that wherein he has sinned.” We speak about someone who was in doubt if he had committed an error and upon closer examination finds that he has indeed committed that sin inadvertently. This is indicated by the choice of the word והתודה, “that he makes himself confess, attains certainty.” 
Our sages (Sifri Nasso 2) say that the word teaches that every sin requires that it be confessed. The same explanation occurs elsewhere in the Sifri on Numbers 5,6 “this person has committed a sin etc.,” where the operative word is the repetition of the word נפש, meaning that by the sin he has forfeited his life. That verse is used as the classic verse demanding that every sinner is required to confess his sin in order that his guilt can be expiated. [Even sinners who are executed for their sins do not obtain atonement if they did not confess their guilt prior to execution. Achan, who was mentioned earlier, is a case in point. Ed.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:6:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:6:1)

**והביא את אשמו לה' על חטאתו אשר חטא נקבה וגו'.** פרשה זו קראוה רז"ל קרבן עולה ויורד. ופירוש אשמו לקרבנו ולא היה אשם כי אם חטאת, כמו שאמר כשבה או שעירת עזים לחטאת, ונקרא הקרבן בלשון אשם מפני שהאשם סבת הקרבן, כשם שהכתוב קורא לחכמה לב מפני שהלב סבת החכמה כי המחשבה והחכמה בלב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והביא את אשמו לה' על חטאתו אשר חטא, נקבה מן הצאן, “he shall bring as his guilt-offering to Hashem a female from the flock, etc.” Our sages called this paragraph the עולה ויורד, meaning that although the expression אשמו occurs here the nature of the offering is not the kind of offering called אשם elsewhere at all. The offering known by the name אשם is invariably a male animal and here the Torah speaks of a female animal being the guilt-offering. Why then do we encounter the word אשמו usually translated as “his guilt-offering?” The reason is that his sin or guilt is the cause of his having to bring an offering. Just as on occasion a verse in Scripture refers to חכמה, “wisdom” as לב, “heart,” seeing that the heart is the seat or cause of wisdom, so here the Torah refers to the cause for the offering and calls it by that name.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:6:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:6:2)

**ודע**כי מה שקראו החכמים הקרבנות הללו קרבן עולה ויורד, מפני שאם היה עשיר בשעת חטאו ואח"כ העני מביא קרבן עני, חזר ונתעשר מביא קרבן עשיר, ולכך קראוהו קרבן עולה ויורד. קרבן עשיר כשבה או שעירה לחטאת, קרבן עני תורים ובני יונה, קרבן דלי דלים עשירית האיפה. וקבלו ז"ל כי דמי הכבשה או השעירה שהוא קרבן עשיר הוא שני שקלים כענין שכתוב באיל (ויקרא ה) בערכך כסף שקלים בשקל הקדש לאשם, ומעוט שקלים שנים, ויש לו להביא קרבן שיהיו דמיו שני שקלים לפחות, ושני שקלים הללו הן עשרה שקלים ערביים, וקרבן הדל שהוא תורים ובני יונה דמיו עשירית של דמי הבהמה, וקרבן דלי דלים שהוא עשירית האיפה דמיו עשירית של דמי תורים ובני יונה, וזהו שתמצא עשירת האפה חסר יו"ד רומז על שעורי שלשה קרבנות הללו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The term עולה ויורד, “ascending or descending,” given by the sages to the category of guilt-offerings discussed now is that the value of the offering is adjusted to the economic circumstances of the person who has to offer this sacrifice. If a person was wealthy at the time he committed the sin but became impoverished by the time he could bring his sacrifice, the Torah bases the sacrifice on his most recent economic circumstances. The same is true in reverse. Even though at the time he committed the offense he was poor and would have qualified for a less expensive offering to make expiation, if in the interval he became wealthy, inherited money for instance, he must bring a sacrifice commensurate with his present economic status. The Torah distinguishes between the rich, the poor, and the destitute. The former has to bring a sheep or goat, the person who is poor brings either two pigeons or two turtle-doves. The destitute brings a meal-offering consisting of a tenth of an epho of fine flour and oil. The Torah is explicit concerning the value of a guilt-offering consisting of a ram, writing that its valuation is 2 “holy shekalim,” i.e. four times the half shekel every male over 20 years of age had to “donate” for the Tabernacle for expiation of his participation in the sin of the golden calf as stipulated in Exodus 30,12. The author explains what the value of these two shekalim was in Arabic currency in his time, something not very relevant to us [approx. 28 grams or 1 ounce of pure silver in our weights. Ed.] It was presumed that the two birds which the poor had to bring was worth about one tenth of that, whereas the value of the meal-offering by the destitute was worth one tenth of the two birds, i.e. 1% of the value of the “wealthy” sinner. You find an allusion to this in the missing letter י in the word עשרית האפה instead of the normal עשירית האפה when the Torah discusses this measure.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:10:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:10:1)

**וכפר עליו הכהן וגו' ונסלח לו.** מן השמים, כי העון מתבטל עם הקרבן על ידי הקב"ה, וזה לשון וכפר מלשון (בראשית ל״ב:כ״א) אכפרה פניו, אבל הסליחה לגמרי אינה מסורה ביד בשר ודם אלא להקדוש ב"ה בלבד כענין שכתוב (תהילים ק״ל:ד׳) כי עמך הסליחה. וכן תמצא הלשון הזה בכולן, **וכפר עליו הכהן ונסלח לו**, חוץ משבועת בטוי שהזכיר שם וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו, ולא הזכיר ונסלח לו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
וכפר עליו הכהן....ונסלח לו, “and the Priest will provide him atonement....and it shall be forgiven him.” Forgiveness will originate in heaven as the guilt will disappear together with the burning up of the sacrifice. The meaning of וכפר as making atonement occurs for the first time when Yaakov brought gifts (similar to sacrifices) to his brother Esau hoping that he would forgive him (ואכפרה פניו) for obtaining the birthright by trickery (Genesis 32,21). There is a difference between what is described as כפרה “atonement,” and סליחה, “forgiveness.” The latter means that the guilt has been totally forgiven, is now “non-existent” whereas the former is merely concerned with culpability for the sin committed. It is not within the capacity of human beings to grant forgiveness; only G’d Himself can wipe the slate clean completely. This is why David writes in Psalms 130,4: “forgiveness rests with You.” The High Priest, while initiating the process of forgiveness, cannot complete it, only G’d can. When someone was guilty of שבועת בטוי, (verse 4) “a false oath,” there is atonement only. The Torah does not add the words that “it will be forgiven him.” [Swearing a false oath is hardly an unintentional sin qualifying for total forgiveness. Ed.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:15:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:15:1)

**נפש כי תמעול מעל וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה'.** הקדים כאן בפרשת הקדש מעילה לחטא, ובפרשה פקדון ודברים שבין אדם לחבירו הקדים חטא למעילה, הוא שאמר נפש כי תחטא ומעלה מעל בה', וכן הזכיר כאן וחמישיתו, ובפרשת פקדון וחמישיתיו, והטעם בכל זה כי לשון מעילה הוא מזיד, כאמרו (עזרא ט׳:ב׳) ויד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשונה, ולשון חטא הוא השוגג מלשון (שופטים כ) ולא יחטיא, ולכך הקדים בהקדש שהוא מחקי הקב"ה מעילה לחטא, ושם הדבר שוגג ועל כן אמר לשון חטא שהוא השוגג, אבל בחקי הבריות בתביעות שבין אדם לחברו הקדים חטא למעילה ושם הדבר זדון, ולפיכך הזכיר מעילה באחרונה, וכל זה מחסדי הש"י כי החמיר יותר בחקי הבריות בין זה לזה יותר ממה שהחמיר בחקו יתברך.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
נפש כי תמעל מעל וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה, ”if a person commits treachery and sins unintentionally against Hashem’s holies;” in this instance the Torah prefaces the expression מעל, “commits a trespass,” before mentioning the word חטא, “sin.” On the other hand, in the paragraph dealing with someone denying that he had received an object in trust for safe-keeping, etc., (verse 21) the order of describing the sin is reversed, i.e. first we have the word תחטא before the word מעלה. Another difference between both instances involving מעילה and unintentional sins not being described as “trespass” is the requirement to repay punitive damages, i.e. “one fifth.” The reason for all this is that here the Torah does not speak of unintentionally committed sins. There clearly was an intent to defraud either the Temple treasury or a fellow human being. Proof that the word מעילה implies deliberate wrong-doing is found in Ezra 9,2 where the subject is the mixed marriages of Jews to Gentiles. The author stigmatizes the leaders of the people for setting a poor example to the rest of the population by being the first ones to indulge in this sinful practice, calling it מעל. [One does not engage in the wholesale practice of marrying unconverted Gentiles through an error. Ed.]
 When the Torah uses the word חטא, however, this describes a sin committed erroneously, inadvertently. We have proof that this is the meaning of the word from Judges 20,16 ולא יחטיא, “and he would not miss (fail to hit his target).” A miss certainly would have been unintentional.
 When the Torah deals with trespass against holy, sacred property, where no human being suffers from the intent to defraud, the Torah mentions the nature of the sin, “trespass” first. Seeing G’d did not “suffer,” He is able to treat the sin as if it had been committed unintentionally. The verse may be translated as “a person commits a trespass sinning unintentionally, etc.” In verse 21 however, where the sinner defrauds a fellow human being the Torah emphasizes the sinful nature of the act by mentioning the word תחטא before defining the sin, i.e. “a trespass.” The noun מעל implies the sinful, deliberate nature of the act. [The author feels that the last word is the word which carries the emphasis in both instances, the first word being like an adjective though it describes the action. Ed.] It is typical of the Torah to treat sins committed against one’s fellow human being as more difficult to atone for than sins committed against G’d directly.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:15:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:15:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:15:2)

**והנה**זה עקר גדול בלשון, והפרש עצום יש בין המלות בהקדמת המאוחר ובאחור המוקדם אע"פ שנראה שהכל אחד ואינו מעלה ומוריד, וכענין שכתוב (מלכים א כ׳:כ׳) תפשום חיים ואמר חיים תפשום, והוא מה שאמר בן הדד מלך ארם על העם שיצאו משומרון, אם לשלום יצאו תפשום חיים ואם למלחמה יצאו חיים תפשום, פירוש תפשום חיים תפשו אותם והניחו להם חיים, כלומר אל תהרגום, ופירוש חיים תפשום כי צוה להרגם ולתפוש חיותם מהם. ומצינו במקומות רבים שהקב"ה חזק משפט הנהגותיהן של בריות אשר בין זה לזה וחס על כבודם יותר מכבוד עצמו, שכן מצינו באברהם ע"ה (בראשית י״ב:ג׳) ומקללך אאור, יחס הנקמה לעצמו ית' ואמר אאור, ובכבוד עצמו אמר (שמואל א ב׳:ל׳) כי מכבדי אכבד ובוזי יקלו, ולא אמר אקל. וכן בענין ירבעם כשהיה מקריב לע"ז לא יבשה ידו וכאשר הקל בכבוד הנביא ושלח ידו כנגדו יבשה ידו, הוא שכתוב (מלכים א י״ג:ד׳) וישלח ירבעם את ידו מעל המזבח לאמר תפשוהו ותיבש ידו אשר שלח אליו ולא יכול להשיבה אליו. נמצאת למד שחס הקב"ה על כבוד נביאיו יותר מכבוד עצמו. וכן בענין החיל של מלך ארם לא הכו בסנורים בבואם כנגד הקב"ה כשהיו הולכים לבתי תועבותם לעבוד פסיליהם, וכשבאו כנגד אלישע לתפשו כתיב (מלכים ב ו׳:י״ח) ויכם בסנורים כדבר אלישע. ומה שכתוב וחמישיתיו בפרשת פקדון יש לפרש שאחר שחטא וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון או בתשומת יד והוסיף על חטאתו פשע שנשבע על זה לשקר, ראוי שיוסיף חמישיות הרבה. ודרשו רז"ל שאין הכונה לשלם חמישיות הרבה בבת אחת, אבל בא לומר שאם היה מסרב ולא רצה לתת החומש יתחייב לשלם חמישיות הרבה תחת הסרוב שלא רצה לשלם חומש אחד. 
ודרשו רז"ל **נפש כי תחטא ומעלה מעל בה'**, א"ר עקיבא מה ת"ל ומעלה מעל בה', לפי שכל מלוה ולוה אינן עושים אלא בעדים ובשטר, לפיכך כשהוא מכחש הוא מכחש בעדים ובשטר, אבל המפקיד לחברו אינו רוצה שידע בו אדם אלא השלישי שביניהם לפיכך כשהוא מכחש מכחש בשלישי שביניהם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
It I also an important rule in the Hebrew language, or at least in Biblical Hebrew, that when the order of certain words is inverted there is an important message in such apparently arbitrary use of the sequence of these words. Let us consider the example of תפשום חיים or חיים תפשום, which we translate in English as “capture them alive” (compare Kings I 20,18 where both expressions are used in the same verse, and it appears at first glance as if there were no difference between the two instructions of Ben Haddad). Seeing that Ben Haddad commanded that the men in question be captured alive regardless of whether their intention had been peaceful or hostile, why did he change the wording, using the expression “capture them alive” in the event that they were peaceful, and the expression “alive you shall capture them” in the event that the men’s intentions were hostile? The meaning of the words תפשום חיים “capture them alive” is “do not only not kill them when attempting to capture them, but let them continue to live.” In the second command the emphasis on the word חיים first means that you are to “capture their lives,” i.e. to kill them.
 Let us illustrate what is meant by G’d reacting more sternly to wrongs committed between people than to wrongs committed by His creatures against Himself. In Genesis 12,3 G’d states that “he who curses you (Avraham) I will curse,” i.e. G’d personally will avenge Avraham’s injured dignity. By way of contrast we read in Samuel I 2,30 that “those who honour Me I will honour whereas those who spurn Me shall be dishonoured.” G’d did not say that He, personally, will dishonour the people who spurn Him, whereas He, personally, will honour people who show Him respect. In connection with Jerobam, King of Israel, who had dared offer a sacrifice to an idol on the altar he had built illegally, we find that G’d punished him immediately, making his arm lame, because he had given orders to arrest the prophet who had spoken out against the altar. G’d had failed to take visible revenge on Jerobam who had built the altar and sacrificed to idols upon it. Again we have proof of how concerned G’d is with the dignity of his creatures, in this instance “the man of G’d.” [even the ones who spurn Him. Ed.] In Kings II 6,18 where the subject is war between Aram and Israel during the days of Elisha we find that while G’d never struck the soldiers of Ben Haddad’s army with blindness although they had been worshipping idols all their lives, when Elisha asked G’d to strike them with blindness G’d obliged so that they could not capture him. Here too you see that G’d’s concern for His creature, Elisha, was greater than His concern with insults the same people had heaped upon Him.
 Concerning the payment of a penalty of 20% (25% respectively) for having violated another person’s trust, the Torah writes in verse 24 of our chapter וחמישתיו יסף עליו. We need to understand the sequence of the paragraph as follows: after the person to whom a deposit had been entrusted denies that he either received it or had not yet returned it, he aggravates his sin by swearing an oath that what he said was true, he ought by rights to pay many such extra 20% penalties. This explains the plural form of the word חמישתיו instead of חמישתו which we would have expected. The extra penalty would be imposed for the original refusal to pay a single extra 20%. Actually, in practice, the Torah does not impose the multiple penalty payments; however the Torah wants to be on record that strict Justice would have demanded that the guilty party now pay several times what he had to pay before he swore a false oath. [Here too we see that in practice G’d waived the penalty for the insult addressed to Him by means of a false oath, whereas the original denial vis-a-vis the wronged party did carry such a penalty. Ed].
 Sifra Vayikra 21,3 commenting on the words 'ונפש כי מעלה מעל בה, where the word “against G’d” is peculiar seeing that the trespass was directed against a fellow human being, states in the name of Rabbi Akiva that all loans, etc., should have been executed with a document, witnessed, etc. The party who extended a loan without insisting on a written receipt is partly at fault for causing the borrower to be tempted to deny his liability seeing the lender could not offer proof of the borrower’s indebtedness to him. Seeing this happened, the borrower now has to have his denial of the debt witnessed by witnesses and a document.
 The person who entrusted his belongings for safe-keeping to a third parry without witnesses did so precisely because he did not want a third party to know anything about the whereabouts of the object. This is why he is not criticised by the Torah as having trespassed against G’d in what he did and how he did it. The word 'בה therefore alludes to the third party to the transaction described, i.e. G’d. Only He knows about it in addition to the two parties directly involved.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:17:1)

**ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו.** פרשה זו במי שבא ספק כרת לידו ולא ידע אם עבר עליו אם לאו, כגון שהיה לפניו חלב ושומן וכסבור ששניהם היתר ואכל אחת מהן אמרו לו חתיכה אחת של חלב היתה, ולא ידע אם אכל של חלב או של שומן, הרי זה מביא אשם תלוי ומגין עליו כל זמן שלא נודע לו שודאי חטא, ואם נודע לו מביא חטאת. אי נמי כגון אשה במטה ספק אשתו ספק אחותו. ודרשו רז"ל בפרק הריני נזיר, ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, על דבר זה ידוו כל הדווים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “and he did not know and became guilty, he shall bear his guilt.” According to Rashi this paragraph deals with someone who may or may not have committed a sin for which he penalty is the karet penalty when it has been committed intentionally. The classic example given in the Talmud is a person who has both permissible and forbidden fat in front of him and has eaten some, believing both kinds to be permissible. When he was told subsequently that one of the two pieces of fat in front of him had been חלב, i.e. fat the deliberate consumption of which carries the karet penalty, he has to bring an offering known as אשם תלוי, a “guilt-offering that is pending;” [his culpability is “suspended” until he can be sure of what he did eat. Ed.]
 Another scenario described by our verse could be that of a woman in a man’s bed of whose identity he was not certain, i.e. if she was his wife or his sister. He had slept with her not having made sure of her identity. Our sages in Nazir 23 understand the words “he did not know and becomes guilty, carrying his guilt” as astounding. It is amazing that if a person who is faced with two distinct choices such as in the first example has to bring an אשם תלוי, is it not clear that if someone who did not even have two different entities in front of him is surely guilty of bringing at least such an offering?


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:17:2)

**ויש**לשאול שהרי בפרשה של מעלה כשהודע אליו חטאתו חייבו הכתוב קרבן וקרא שם הקרבן חטאת, וכאן שחטא בשוגג ג"כ ולא נודע לו חטאו יחייבנו הכתוב קרבן ויקראנו בשם אשם. וידוע כי לשון חטאת מלשון שגגה ולשון אשם מלשון שממה, להורות שהחוטא חטא בדבר שהוא ראוי שיהיה שמם בו, ואם כן איך יחמיר הכתוב בלא הודע יותר מהודע, שהוא קורא קרבן הודע חטאת וקרבן של לא הודע אשם, ועוד שקרבן הודע שעיר עזים וקרבן לא הודע איל שדמיו מרובים יותר.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
One may raise an objection to the entire line of reasoning involved here. In the earlier paragraph the party who has committed a sin in error has to bring a regular sin-offering (compare 4,28), whereas here where the person is not even certain that he has committed a sin at all the Torah refers to his offering as אשם, which has a much stronger connotation of sin than the word חטאת, a term reserved for offerings atoning for inadvertent sin. Why should the Torah give the impression that the person who does not even know if he committed a sin is guilty of something more than the person who does know that he committed a sin, but in error? The very expression אשם is related to the word שממה, wasteland, something desolate, i.e. a very negative connotation. It is called thus to remind the sinner that he has become guilty of destroying his entitlement to life, so to speak. So why treat the possible sinner as worse than the definitive sinner?
 Furthermore, why is the offering of the person who is aware of having sinned the female she-goat, something we characterized earlier as indicating less guilt than when one has to bring a male animal, whereas the person whose guilt has not even been established as yet has to bring a male animal, אשם, as if his sin were more severe than that of a person who knows definitively that he did commit such a sin? (The author adds that the ram has more blood than the she-goat, so that shedding more blood is symbolic of a greater sin).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:17:3)

**אבל**הטעם בזה מפני שהחטא הנודע לו הוא דואג ומצטער עליו והדאגה על החטא הוא מזבח כפרה ומין אחד ממיני התשובה, וכענין שכתוב (תהלים לח) כי עוני אגיד אדאג מחטאתי, אבל זה שחטא ולא נודע לו לא דאג ולא נצטער ולא התודה בו, לפיכך ראוי שתחמיר עליו התורה יותר, ומזה קרא החוטא אשם, הוא שכתוב ולא ידע ואשם, וקרא קרבנו אשם, הוא שכתוב אשם הוא אשום אשם לה', כלומר אשם הוא קרבנו של זה, אשום אשם, כשלא נודע חטאו שלא דאג ולא נצטער עליו, לה' ליודע הנסתרות, ולפי שאין לו ידיעה בחטאו זה כי אם לה' לכך הזכיר בו אשום אשם לה', וכענין שדרשו בשעיר של ראש חדש שנאמר בו (במדבר כח) לחטאת לה', חטאת שאין מכיר בו אלא ה'.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
The answer to these questions is that once one knows that one has committed a sin the very knowledge weighs upon one and produces the guilt feelings desired by G’d. When a person is in doubt about having committed a sin altogether his conscience does not bother him so much as he tries to convince himself that he may not have committed a sin altogether. In order to bring home to the person who is not certain that he has indeed committed a sin, the Torah, by treating this “maybe sin” as if it were more serious than the definite sin, hopes to achieve the psychological effect it desires. Having achieved this result the “maybe sinner” may resort to confession of his laxity in not making certain that what he ate or whom he slept with was permissible beyond the shadow of a doubt. This is why the person described in verse 17 is called אשם as if he were someone guilty of a serious sin. This is also why the word אשם, אשום אשם appears three times in verse 19 of our chapter. The matter is comparable to what our sages explained in connection with the sin-offering on the new Moon in Numbers 28,15 where the male goat is described as לחטאת לה' as “a sin-offering for the Lord.” Seeing the Torah had not mentioned any specific sin this offering was to atone for, the sages (Shevuot 9) concluded that the meaning of the words are that only the Lord is aware of what possible sin this animal is to expiate for.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:17:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:17:4)

**במדרש**ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר הרי הכתוב ענש את מי שלא ידע, על אחת כמה וכמה שיעניש את מי שידע. רבי יוסי אומר אם נפשך לידע מתן שכרן של צדיקים צא ולמד מאדם הראשון שלא נצטוה אלא על מצות לא תעשה, ועבר עליה ראה כמה מיתות נקנסו לו ולדורותיו, וכי איזו מדה מרובה, של טובה או של פורענות, הוי אומר מדה טובה, אם מדת פורענות מעוטה ראה כמה מיתות נקנסו לו ולדורותיו, מדה טובה מרובה היושב לו מן הפגולים והנותרות והמתענה ביום הכפורים על אחת כמה וכמה שיזכה לו ולדורותיו ולדורי דורותיו עד סוף כל הדורות. רבי עקיבא אומר הרי הוא אומר על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יקום דבר, אם מתקיימת העדות בשנים למה נאמר בשלשה אלא להביא שלישי להחמיר עליו כאילו הועיל, ולעשות דינו לענין עונש והזמה כאילו על ידו תתקיים העדות, אם כן ענש הכתוב לנטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה, על אחת כמה וכמה שישלם שכר לנטפל לעושי מצוה כעושה מצוה. ר' אליעזר בן עזריה אומר הרי הוא אומר (דברים כד) כי תקצור קצירך בשדך ושכחת עומר בשדה לא תשוב לקחתו וגו' למען יברכך וגו', קבע הכתוב ברכה למי שבאה על ידו מצוה בלא ידיעה, אמור מעתה היתה סלע צרורה בכנפיו ונפלה ממנו ומצאה העני ונתפרנס בה, הרי הכתוב קובע לו ברכה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
A Midrashic approach (based on Sifra Vayikra 12,7-13):The author quotes Rabbi Yossi Haglili as saying concerning the words ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו, “here the Torah punishes a person who is unaware for his very being unaware.” From this we can only deduce that if people who were unaware of having committed a sin are held responsible for their lack of awareness, how much more so must people be guilty and face punishment when they have been aware of wrongdoing!
 Rabbi Yossi adds the following thought. If you want to get any idea of the degree of reward in store for the righteous, consider the case of Adam, first man. Adam had been commanded only a single negative commandment. When he violated the commandment untold number of deaths were decreed on mankind, i.e. his descendants for thousands of years. We have it on the authority of G’d Himself that when determining reward for commandments performed G’d employs a multiple of the ratio He demonstrated when He punished people for sins committed (compare Exodus 20,6). How much reward may be expected for people who abstain from violating negative commandments such as fasting on Yom Kippur, not eating sacrificial meat past the time limit allocated for it, etc., etc. Surely, by comparing what happened to the descendants of Adam because he violated a negative commandment, how much reward is in store for all the people not violating 365 commandments most of which they are capable of violating!” 
 Rabbi Akiva draws attention to the following: The Torah writes that for a matter to be considered as definitive two or three witnesses are required (Deut. 17,6). If two witnesses suffice for a court to arrive at a valid judgment, why did the Torah bother to mention that three witnesses suffice? The reason the Torah mentions a third witness is to impose an additional responsibility on the third witness. Assuming three witnesses testified falsely that they had seen someone commit a crime at a certain location at a certain time, and it turns out that the testimony is refuted by other witnesses who testify that the first three were seen at a different location at the time in question, the third witness cannot claim exoneration by saying that his testimony never made any difference in the first place as only two witnesses had been required to establish guilt or innocence. In other words, we find that the Torah punishes anyone who even incidentally assists the sinners. If that is so, how much will G’d reward people who, while not actually performing certain commandments, enable others to do so by their actions?
 Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah points out that the Torah (Deut. 24,19) wrote: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a bundle in the field, you shall not turn back to take it....G’d will bless you in all your handiwork.” The Torah in this instance promises a blessing to people, who though unaware of it, were instrumental in a good deed being performed through their oversight (Sifra Vayikra 12,7).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:21:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:21:1)

**או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו.** הפרש יש בין גזל לעושק, וזהו שכתוב (ויקרא י״ט:י״ג) לא תעשק את רעך ולא תגזול, פרט כל אחד בלאו בפני עצמו כי שני דברים הם, גזל המודה לו שיש בידו הגזלה אבל אינו רוצה להשיבה אליו, עשק הוא שמכחיש ואמר כבר החזרתיו לך וכבר פרעתי לך שכירותך, וזהו שאמר בבבא מציעא (קיא, א) איזהו גזל ואיזהו עשק, יש לך בידי ואיני נותן לך זהו גזל, נתתיו לך זהו עשק.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
או בגזל או עשק את עמיתו, “or by robbery or by defrauding his fellow.” There is a difference between “robbery” and “defrauding.” This is why the Torah writes in Leviticus 19,13: “You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery.” Each of these actions is considered violation of a separate law, commandment. A person may be guilty of robbery even when he admits that he has committed this deed as long as he has not made restitution. “Defrauding” implies that the guilty party denies his guilt by claiming to have already made restitution or having paid the rent, as the case may be. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 111) determines that “robbery” means someone admitting having someone else’s property in his possession and refusing to give it back, while “defrauding” means that the accused party claims to have returned the object or money in question.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:23:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:23:1)

**והיה כי יחטא ואשם.** כפל הלשון, להורות כי הוא חוטא להקב"ה ולבעל דינו, ולמדך כאן כי מי שיש בידו גזל וחטא בו לחבירו גם להקב"ה חוטא, והחטא הזה שבפרשה הוא מזיד, ולכך התחיל נפש כי תחטא, ולא אמר כי תחטא בשגגה, ובכל החטאים כלם הזכיר בהם בשגגה בכל פרשה ופרשה. וידוע כי כל הקרבנות לא יבואו רק על השוגג אבל מצינו מהם ארבעה בלבד שמביאים קרבן על המזיד, והן, הבא על השפחה, והנזיר שנטמא, ושבועת העדות, ושבועת הפקדון.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והיה כי יחטא ואשם, “it will be when he has sinned and realises his guilt, etc.” The reason why the Torah repeats the words meaning “he has sinned,” using both the term יחטא and אשם is to bring home the point that in all these instances the sin is two-fold. The sinner committed a crime against his fellow man but he also sinned against G’d the Law giver. The sin discussed in this verse is an intentional one. This is why the paragraph commences with the words נפש כי תחטא instead of writing merely כי תחטא בשגגה, “if he sinned erroneously.” All the other instances in which the Torah has used the term חטא the word בשגגה, “inadvertently,” or words to that effect accompanied the term חטא (compare 4,2; 4,22; 4,27; 5,15). It is a well known fact that most sin-offerings are brought only in respect of unintentionally committed sins. There are only four instances when a guilt-offering is prescribed for sins committed knowingly; they are: 1) if someone slept with a Gentile servant girl (slave); 2) a Nazirite who defiled himself; 3) swearing a false oath as part of one’s testimony. 4) swearing a false oath concerning matters entrusted to him (compare Keritut 9).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:23:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:23:2)

**והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל.** היה מספיק הכתוב לומר והשיב את הגזלה למה הוצרך אשר גזל, שלא תאמר והשיב את הגזלה דמי הגזלה, לכך הוצרך אשר גזל לומר אותו דבר עצמו שגזל, שכל זמן שהגזלה בעין חייב להשיבה בעין אם היא אצלו בעין, ואם כבר ערב אותה בממון המותר, הדין בזה לשלם דמי הגזלה, והוא שאמר רז"ל בבבא קמא גזל מריש ובנאה בבירה בית שמאי אומרים מקעקע כל הבירה כלו ומחזיר מריש לבעליו ובית הלל אומרים אין לו אלא דמי מריש בלבד מפני תקנת השבים, והלכה כבית הלל. ותשובת אנשי נינוה שהעיד עליהם הכתוב (יונה ג׳:ח׳) ומן החמס אשר בכפיהם, ואמרו עליהם רז"ל גזל מריש ובנאו בבירה מקעקע כל הבירה כולה ומחזיר מריש לבעליו, לפנים משורת הדין עשו. ודרשו רז"ל **אשר גזל**, כעין שגזל, לומר לך שאם הוזלה לאחר מכאן חייב לשלם כשעת הגזלה, והוא הדין גם כן בעושק ובפקדון, ועל כן הזכיר בהם אשר עשק, כעין שעשק, אשר הפקד אתו, כעין שהפקד אתו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל, “he has to return the object which he had obtained through robbery;” It would have been sufficient for the Torah to write: “he shall give back the object obtained by robbery.” Why did the Torah add the words “which he has robbed?” The Torah taught that it is not sufficient to return the value of the object but that the actual object which has been obtained by robbery must be returned. (assuming it is still in existence and in its original condition). If, assuming we are speaking about coins, it had already become mixed with other coins so that it cannot be identified with certainty, the guilty party has to make restitution in kind (Baba Kama 66). The text of the Talmud, (omitting mentioning the divergent views expressed by some scholars) is: “if he stole (robbed) a beam and has used it in building an upper floor in his house and he now tears down the entire upper floor and restores the beam to the owner he has done more than the law requires of him.” [The school of Hillel decreed this so that the guilty party would not be discouraged from making restitution.] 
 The type of repentance which the people of Nineveh (whom the prophet Jonah had threatened with destruction) performed was of that nature. We are told in Jonah 3,8 that the king of Nineveh issued orders to his countrymen that “they shall turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice of which he is guilty.” Our sages in Baba Kama 11 commenting on the apparently redundant words אשר גזל, “which he obtained through robbery,” read the words as if they meant “which are similar to having been obtained through robbery.” They mean that assuming the original object has become worth less by the time the guilty party is willing to make restitution, he has to base the restitution on the value at the time he committed the crime. The same rule also applies in the case of deposits or wages withheld that someone is accused of and has first denied. The Torah also repeated the unnecessary words אשר עשק in order to make this point quite clear.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:24:1)

**לאשר הוא לו יתננו.** למי שהממון שלו, כלומר לנגזל, כי יתחייב להשיב הגזלה לנגזל בעצמו. או יהיה ענין לאשר הוא לו, למי שראוי להיות הממון שלו, כלומר שיחזיר ליורשי הנגזל אם מת הנגזל.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
לאשר הוא לו יתננו, “he shall give it to its owner.” This means that the party who had first been guilty of denial has to give both principal and premium to the injured party. Restitution is not effected through the good offices of the court but directly by the guilty party to the injured party. It is also possible that the words לאשר הוא לו mean that the money is to be returned to the party entitled to it, i.e. the heirs of the person from whom it has been taken against his will, if that person had died in the interval.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:24:2)

**ביום אשמתו.** ביום שיתבונן וישיב ללבו אשמתו שגזל ממנו, זהו ביום אשמתו ויכלול עוד בו היום שגזל ממנו, ולמדך שהוא עומד במרדו כל שאינו מחזירו, שהרי העבירות שני חלקים, האחד עבירות שבין אדם למקום שהנפש מתנכרת להקב"ה במחשבות רעות ופעולות רעות, ואין החוטא חומס בזה כי אם לנפשו, וכענין שכתוב (משלי ו) משחית נפשו הוא יעשנה, והשני עברות שבין אדם לחברו, כגון שבזה אותו בדבורו או שהכה אותו על גופו, שהחוטא הזה הוא חוטא לאחד, אבל הגזל הוא חטא כולל כי הוא חוטא גם לאלהים, ולכך איסור הגזל חמור, כענין שאמרו רז"ל סאה מלאה עונות אין מקטרג בכולן אלא גזל, ודור המבול לא נחתם גזר דינם אלא על הגזל, שנאמר (בראשית ו) קץ כל בשר וגו' כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם, וכן מצינו ביחזקאל הנביא ע"ה שהזכיר לישראל כמה עברות בפרשת (יחזקאל כב) התשפוט את עיר הדמים והודעתה את וגו', הוא שכתוב בדמך אשר שפכת אשמת ובגלוליך אשר עשית טמאת וגו', ואמר קדשי בזית ואת שבתותי חללת, ואמר אנשי רכיל היו בך למען שפך דם נשך ותרבית לקחת וגו' ואותי שכחת נאם ה', ובאחרונה הזכיר הגזל, שנאמר והנה הכיתי כפי אל בצעך אשר עשית.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
ביום אשמתו, “on the day he admits his guilt.” The day in question is the day that he realizes his guilt. This day may even be the very day on which he committed the wrong. The Torah teaches us here that as long as the guilty party has not actually refunded the object in question he is considered as still as guilty as before. 
There are basically two categories of sin; 1) sin against the Creator not involving one’s fellow, i.e. acts of rebellion against G’d. 2) crimes committed against fellow human beings. The first category of sin originates in a person becoming estranged from his G’d by not realizing that he is a constant recipient of G’d’s kindness. Such a sinner basically commits his “violence” against himself and his life. The matter is comparable to what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 6,32: “anyone who commits adultery with a woman (consenting adults) lacks understanding; he who wants to destroy himself does such a thing.” The sinner just described committed his sin “only” against one party, i.e. against G’d.
 The second category of sin is that committed vis-a-vis his fellow man. For instance, he may abuse his fellow man verbally, or he may even inflict bodily harm upon him. When doing this the guilty party also sins against G’d at the same time. This is why the crime of robbery is such a severe crime. Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 33,3) said that if a person is guilty of a whole measuring cup full of sins, the one which demands justice from G’d is only the crime of robbery. The decree to wipe out the generation of the deluge was issued on account of their being guilty of robbery, indiscriminate lack of respect for other people’s property The Torah spells this out unmistakably in Genesis 613, “the end of all flesh has come before Me...for the earth has become full of violence, robbery.”
 We also find that when the prophet Ezekiel listed a whole slew of sins committed by the Jewish people (Ezekiel 22,2-13) that it was the sin of shedding (innocent) blood, i.e. violence which led to the city of Jerusalem’s destruction being sealed. The abuse of widow, orphan, and the poor are mentioned. The desecration of the Sabbath, spurning sacred offerings, committing the sin of slander, all serious sins, did not bring about the final decree of destruction, but robbery and murder did (compare verse 13 in that chapter).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 5:24:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/5:24:3)

**ודרך**משל לא הכה כפו עד שהזכיר הגזל מתוך חומר האיסור אשר בו, והזכיר אחריו (שם) היעמוד לבך אם תחזקנה ידיך לימים אשר אני עושה אותך, ואע"פ שעון הגזל הוא לאו הניתק לעשה ויש לו תקנה בהשבה, מ"מ ראוי להיות האיסור חמור מאד, כי לפעמים לא ימצא הנגזל או שמת או שהוא דר במקום רחוק או אם ימצא הנגזל ולא ירצה למחול אותו, גם לפעמים יאבד ממונו ואין לו יד להשיב הגזלה, שכן העושר בעל תמורה, מתחלף ממקום למקום, ואם הוא קרוב היום אל העושר כהרף עין ירחק ממנו בגובה העפיפה גדולה מן הנשר, וכן אמר שלמה ע"ה (משלי כג) התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו כי עשה יעשה לו כנפים כנשר יעוף השמים, גם לפעמים שלא יכיר הגזלן לנגזל, כגון הגוזל לרבים ולמי יחזיר והוא אינו יודע למי גזל, ועל זה אמר הכתוב ואת אשמו יביא לה' כי אחר שהשיב את הגזלה ונקה עצמו ממנה הצריכו הכתוב קרבן לחומר האיסור, כי בעוד שיש בידו גזל אין הקרבן מועיל ולא התשובה מכפרת שהרי אין התשובה יוצאת מן הדברים רק מן המעשה, והמעשה הוא השבת הגזלה, הוא שאמר הנביא (ישעיה א) רחצו הזכו הסירו רוע מעלליכם וגו', ואמר (שם) למדו היטב, וכתיב (שם) אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו, ואמרו חביריו לאיוב (איוב יא) אם און בידך הרחיקהו ואל תשכן באהליך עולה, יזהירו בכתוב הזה בענין הגזל בנגלה ובנסתר, אם און בידך הרחיקהו, זהו בנגלה, ואל תשכן באהליך עולה, זהו בנסתר, כלומר מה שהוא נסתר בתוך האהל חייב לחפש אחריו ולהוציאו משם אם הוא גזל, וזהו שאמר אחר כך (שם) כי אז תשא פניך ממום והיית מוצק ולא תירא, כי אז תשא פניך ממום, כלומר תוכל ללכת בפנים מגולים כנגד מה שהוא בנגלה, והיית מוצק ולא תירא, כלומר תהיה חזק בסתר ואין לך לירא בנסתר, ומזה אמר דוד המלך ע"ה מדבר בתפלה ומתודה (תהלים נא) לך לבדך חטאתי, למד שהיה נקי מחטא הגזלה ולא היה בידו חטא אצל שום אדם כי אם בינו לבין המקום יתעלה, וזהו שאמר לך לבדך חטאתי. וכן מצינו שהתפלל להשם יתברך במקום אחר שינקה אותו מהנסתרות והם העונות ששגג בהם ולא יזכור אותם, והוא שאמר (שם יט) שגיאות מי יבין מנסתרות נקני, כי מן הזדונות הוא נשמר מהם ונזהר מלהכשל בהם, ודבר ידוע כי כל הנזהר מהן שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו וזוכה לרב טוב הצפון, הוא שאמר (שם) גם עבדך נזהר בהם בשמרם עקב רב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
When G’d spoke about “pounding His hand” in Ezekiel 22,13 this occurred only after He had mentioned the sin of robbery, seeing that this is such a grievous sin. In the following verse G’d says: ”can your courage endure or your hand be strong in the days when I shall deal with you?” Although the commandment not to rob is the type of commandment which is linked to the positive commandment of making restitution, i.e. it can be atoned for relatively easily, the sin is very grievous as one cannot always locate the injured party when one is finally ready to make restitution and as a result the sin remains unatoned. Even if the victimised party is located but does not want to forgive the robber, he has no way of rehabilitating himself. Alternatively, the robber may have become a poor beggar and as such is simply unable to make amends. For all the above-mentioned reasons the sin of robbery is very serious although tied to the positive command- ment of making restitution.
 Material wealth has a way of disappearing as we know from Solomon (Proverbs 23,5) “riches grow wings, fly away heavenward like an eagle.” Even a wealthy robber may not have much time to make restitution then. Another problem with robbery is that the robber may often not even know whom he has robbed, such as when he robbed money belonging to a group of people. How can he make restitution when he does not even know to whom he owes how much? Concerning this latter eventuality the Torah wrote: “he has to bring his guilt-offering to the Lord” (verse 25), so that after he has made restitution he can at least be clear vis-a-vis Hashem. Having made restitution he is then in a position to bring the guilt-offering as spelled out in verse 26, i.e. that the Priest will provide him with atonement.
 There cannot be effective repentance based on words and on an offering unless it has been preceded by action, i.e. restitution. This is what the prophet Isaiah 1,16 meant when he said: “wash yourselves clean, put your evil deeds away from My sight.” He also said (verse 17) “learn to do good!” Furthermore, it is written in verse 18 of the same chapter: “if your sins be as crimson they can turn snow-white.” Job’s friends (Job 11,14) said to him “if there is iniquity with you, remove it; do not let injustice reside in your tent.” In this verse they warned Job not to be guilty of the sin of robbery either in public or in private. The first half of the verse addresses the sin of robbery which is plain for all to see, the second half mentioning his tent, speaks of concealed acts of robbery. His friends ask Job to examine if he had been guilty of that sin (which could account for the afflictions he was suffering). His friends continue by promising him relief if he found he had been guilty of this sin and had taken steps to make restitution. This is the meaning of “life will be brighter than noon, etc.” (verse 17). They add: “you will be secure, for there is hope, and entrenched you will rest secure; you will lie down undisturbed.” His friends promise him that he will be secure both in public and in private. Even when you find yourself in difficulty you will not have cause to be afraid.
 David echoes similar sentiments when he says in Psalms 51,6: “I have only sinned against You (G’d).” David implies that he is free of such sins against his fellow man as robbery or sins related to it. We find that David offered a similar prayer on another occasion (Psalms 19,13) “who can be aware of errors? Clear me of unperceived guilt.” David did not pray to be protected against sins he was aware of. He wanted relief only from sins committed unwittingly in circumstances where no one had seen him commit them and which he did not remember having committed. He implied that he had been careful not to become guilty of deliberate sins. It is a well known fact that he who is careful to avoid sinning will have his reward stored up by G’d; this is what Isaiah 40,10 referred to when he said: “see his reward is with Him, his recompense before Him.” The same sentiment is echoed by the words (Psalms 19,12) “Your servant pays them heed; in obeying them there is much reward.”