Chumashחומש

כי חטאת הוא. וְאֵין בַּדִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא קָרְבָּנוֹ מְהֻדָּר (מנחות ו'):

כי חטאת הוא [HE SHALL PUT NO OIL UPON IT, NEITHER SHALL HE PUT ANY FRANKINCENSE THEREON:] FOR IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — a sinner’s offering, and therefore it is not proper that his offering should be embellished by oil and frankincense (Menachot 6a).

חטאת הוא. נִקְמְצָה וְנִקְטְרָה לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה:

חטאת הוא IT IS A SIN-OFFERING — Here, too, the apparently redundant words intimate: if the קמץ has been taken from it and has been burnt for the purpose of (i.e. having in mind that it is) a sin-offering it is valid; if, however, this was done not for its purpose (i. e. the priest had another offering in mind when officiating) it is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 9).

על חטאתו אשר חטא. כָּאן שִׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעֲשִׁירוּת וּבְדַלּוּת נֶאֱמַר מֵחַטָּאתוֹ, וְכָאן בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת נֶאֱמַר עַל חַטָּאתוֹ, דִּקְדְּקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מִכָּאן, שֶׁאִם חָטָא כְּשֶׁהוּא עָשִׁיר וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן שְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹרִים וְהֶעֱנִי, יָבִיא מִמִּקְצָתָן עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן וְיָבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עַל חַטָּאתוֹ:

‎אשר חטא על חטאתו [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION ON HIS BEHALF] FOR THE SIN THAT HE HATH SINNED — Here Scripture varies the expression, for in the case of affluence (v. 6) and narrow means (v. 10) it is stated, “[and the priest shall make expiation for him] מחטאתו”, whilst here, in the case of utter destitution, it is stated מחטאתו) על חטאתו may mean: something from his sin-offering, i. e., a part of it, whilst על חטאתו implies something in addition to his sin-offering)! Our Rabbis from the niceties of the text derived from here the law that if one sinned whilst he was a rich man and set apart money for a she-lamb or a she-goat (the sacrifice prescribed for a well-to-do person; cf. v. 6), but then became impoverished somewhat, he has only to bring (purchase) from a part of it (the money) two turtledoves (or two young pigeons, the offering prescribed for the poor) and may retain the balance for his own use: if, being a poor mạn, he has set apart money for two turtledoves and then was reduced to even greater poverty, he has only to bring from a part of it a tenth of an ephah of flour; hence the use of the word מחטאתו in the sense explained above. If, on the other hand, being only of moderate means, he has set apart money only for a tenth of an ephah of flour, but became rich afterwards, he must add to it and bring the offering prescribed for a rich man. For this reason it is stated here על חטאתו — in addition to what was intended for his sin-offering (Keritot 27b).

מאחת מאלה. מֵאַחַת מִשָּׁלוֹשׁ כַּפָּרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בָּעִנְיָן — אוֹ בַּעֲשִׁירוּת אוֹ בְּדַלּוּת אוֹ בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הַחֲמוּרִים שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיוּ בְּכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, וְהַקַּלִּין יִהְיוּ בְּעוֹף, וְהַקַּלִּין שֶׁבַּקַּלִין יִהְיוּ בַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה, לְהַשְׁווֹת קַלִּין לַחֲמוּרִין לְכִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה אִם הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ, וְאֶת הַחֲמוּרִין לַקַּלִּין לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה בְּדַלֵּי דַּלּוּת (ספרא):

מאחת מאלה [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM] BY MEANS OF ONE OF THESE — i. e. by means of one of the three expiating sacrifices mentioned in this section: either by means of the offering prescribed for affluence or by that for poverty or by that for utter destitution (i. e., in the case of the offerings brought for each of the three sins mentioned above (vv. 1, 2—3 and 4) the offering must be brought according to the circumstances of the wrong-doer). But why is this stated? (i. e., why does it not merely state‎ אשר חטא ונסלח לו ‎ חטאתו הכהן על ‎וכפר עליו‎ since the different sacrifices have been mentioned previously)? But Scripture uses this term “by means of one of these”, because I might think that the most serious sins amongst them (i. e. those mentioned in vv. 2—3, which, if done wilfully, are subject to the penalty of כרת) should be atoned for by a she-lamb or a she-goat: the lighter ones (v. 1) by a fowl, and the lightest of all (v. 4) by a tenth part of an ephah of flour! Scripture, however, states, “[and he shall make expiation for him] by one of these” — in order to put on the same level the light sins with the most serious with regard to the duty of offering a she-lamb or a she-goat, if he (the offender) possesses the means. And, on the other hand, to put on the same level the most serious sins with the lighter in respect to the duty of bringing a tenth part of an ephah of flour as an offering in case of utter destitution (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 10).

והיתה לכהן כמנחה. לְלַמֵּד עַל מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, זֶהוּ לְפִי פְּשׁוּטוֹ; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָּרְשׁוּ: "וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן" — וְאִם חוֹטֵא זֶה כֹּהֵן הוּא, תְּהֵא כִּשְׁאָר מִנְחַת נִדְבַת כֹּהֵן, שֶׁהִיא בְּכָלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל (ספרא):

והיתה לכהן כמנחה AND IT SHALL BE THE PRIEST’S, JUST AS A MEAL-OFFERING — This is intended to teach with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner (i. e. a meal-offering brought as an expiation for the sins mentioned above) that what is left of it after the קמץ has been burnt may be eaten by the priests just as the remains of the free-will offering (cf. Leviticus 2:3). This is what the statement means according to its literal sense. Our Rabbis, however, explained והיתה לכהן to imply: that if this sinner be a priest, then it shall be as any other meal-offering brought as a free-will offering by a priest which comes under the law: (Leviticus 6:16) “[For every meal-offering of the priest] shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten”. (The words are to be construed thus:והיתה לכהן, but if it be a priest’s, כמנחה then it shall be exactly like any voluntary meal-offering that he brings) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 19 11; Menachot 73b).

כי תמעל מעל. אֵין מְעִילָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵאלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ (דהי"א ה'), וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּסוֹטָה וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל (במדבר ה'):

כי תמעל מעל — The term מעל everywhere in Scripture denotes “changing”. Similarly it stales, (I Chronicles 5:25) “And they committed a מעל against the God of their fathers; for they went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land” (i. e. they exchanged Him for their gods). And similarly it states of the faithless wife, (Numbers 5:12) “[If any man’s wife go aside] and commit a מעל in respect to him” (i. e. she changes her relationship to him for one to another man) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 1; Meilah 18a).

וחטאה בשגגה מקדשי ה'. שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ; וְהֵיכָן הֻזְהַר? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן חֵטְא, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן חֵטְא בִּתְרוּמָה, וְלֹא יִשְֹאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא (ויקרא כ"ב), מַה לְּהַלָּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן הִזְהִיר; אִי מַה לְּהַלָּן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, אַף כָּאן לֹא הִזְהִיר אֶלָּא עַל הָאוֹכֵל, תַּ"לֹ תִמְעֹל מַעַל — רִבָּה (ספרא):

‎'‎‎וחטאה כשגגה מקדשי ה‎‎ AND SIN IN ERROR, CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i. e. that one has derived some benefit from (made use of) a holy thing. And where is this prohibited, that Scripture should describe it here as sin? But the expression חטא is mentioned here and חטא is mentioned further on in the case of misuse of תרומה (Leviticus 22:9): “[They — the priests — shall therefore keep my charge] not to eat תרומה when they are in a state of uncleanness: (see Rashi thereon), lest they bear sin (חטא) for it”. How is it there? Scripture forbids it! (See Rashi on Leviticus 22:10). So here, too, by the term וחטאה it forbids it. (The translation is therefore: If a person commit a מעל, whereby it would be sinning even though it be in error). But if you should argue that the analogy may be put thus: How is it there? Scripture imposes the prohibition only upon one who would eat Terumah, so, too, here it imposes a prohibition only upon one who would eat of sacred things (‎וחטאה … ‎'מקדשי ה‎)! But Scripture uses here the double expression: תמעל מעל, and thereby it enlarges the scope of the prohibition to include a benefit (הנאה) of any description (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 11 2; Meilah 18b).

מקדשי ה'. הַמְיֻחָדִים לַשֵּׁם, יָצְאוּ קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים (שם):

מקדשי ה׳ CONCERNING THE HOLY THINGS OF THE LORD — i.e. those which are specially assigned to the Lord; therefore sacrifices holy in a minor degree are excluded from this law (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 1).

איל. לְשׁוֹן קָשֶׁה, כְּמוֹ וְאֶת אֵילֵי הָאָרֶץ לָקָח (יחזקאל י"ז), אַף כָּאן קָשֶׁה — בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים (ספרא):

איל is an expression for “strong”, “mighty”, as in (Ezekiel 17:13) “he hath also taken the mighty of (אילי) the land”.Here, too, איל means a ram which has grown strong, i. e. one two years old (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 20 6; cf. Rashi on Genesis 31:38).

בערכך כסף שקלים. שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁוֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים:

בערכך כסף שקלים WITH THE VALUATION IN SHEKELS OF SILVER — This (the plural שקלים) implies that it must have the value of at least two shekels (cf. Keritot 10b).

ואת אשר חטא מן הקדש ישלם. קֶרֶן וְחֹמֶשׁ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ:

הקדש ישלם‎ מן ‎חטא‎‎ אשר‎ ואת‎ AND FOR THAT WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED IN THE HOLY THING HE SHALL PAY both the principal and the additional fifth to the Temple treasury (cf. Keritot 26b).

ולא ידע ואשם, והביא. הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה מְדַבֵּר בְּמִי שֶׁבָּא סְפֵק כָּרֵת לְיָדוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע אִם עָבַר עָלָיו אִם לָאו, כְּגוֹן חֵלֶב וְשֻׁמָּן לְפָנָיו, וּכְסָבוּר שְׁתֵּיהֶן הֶתֵּר וְאָכַל אֶת הָאֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב הָיְתָה, וְלֹא יָדַע אִם זוֹ שֶׁל חֵלֶב אָכַל, הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וּמֵגֵן עָלָיו כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁוַּדַּאי חָטָא, וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן, יָבִיא חַטָּאת (כריתות כ"ב):

ולא ידע ואשם … והביא [AND IF A SOUL SIN, AND DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DONE …] AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY … HE SHALL BRING [A RAM … FOR A GUILT OFFERING] — This paragraph (vv. 17—19) is speaking of a person to whom there has occurred a כרת ‎ספק (i. e. it is speaking of a person who is doubtful whether he has inadvertently committed an act of such a character as to be punishable with כרת if done willfully), and he does not know whether he has actually committed a sinful act or not. For instance: חלב (fat forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of כרת) and permitted fat (שומן) lay before him, and he believed that both were permissible food (i. e. that both were שומן), and he ate one of them. Afterwards, however, people told him that one of these was חלב, but he does not know whether he had eaten that which was חלב. Then such a one has to bring an אשם תלוי (the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, lit., the guilt-offering in suspense, from תלה to “be in suspense”); and this protects him against punishment so long as he does not become cognisant that he has undoubtedly sinned, and if he becomes cognisant of this after a time he has to bring a sin-offering (cf. Keritot 22b, 23a).

ולא ידע ואשם ונשא עונו. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב עָנַשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיַּעֲנִישׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁיָּדַע, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לֵידַע מַתַּן שְֹכָרָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, צֵא וּלְמַד מֵאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוָּה אֶלָּא עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ עָלָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו. וְכִי אֵיזוֹ מִדָּה מְרֻבָּה שֶׁל טוֹבָה אוֹ שֶׁל פֻּרְעָנוּת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר מִדָּה טוֹבָה, אִם מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנוּת מְעוּטָה, רְאֵה כַּמָּה מִיתוֹת נִקְנְסוּ לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו, מִדָּה טוֹבָה הַמְרֻבָּה הַיּוֹשֵׁב לוֹ מִן הַפִּגּוּלִין וְהַנּוֹתָרוֹת וְהַמִּתְעַנֶּה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — עַאַכַּ"וְ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְגוֹ' (דברים י"ז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פֵּרֵט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ג'? אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא שְׁלִישִׁי לְהַחֲמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ לְעִנְיַן עֹנֶשׁ בַּהֲזָמָה; אִם כָּךְ עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם שָֹכָר טוֹב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה (סנהדרין ט'); רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ וְגוֹ' (דברים כ"ד) — קָבַע הַכָּתוּב בְּרָכָה לְמִי שֶׁבָּאת עַל יָדוֹ מִצְוָה בְּלֹא יָדַע — אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה, הָיְתָה סֶלַע צְרוּרָה בִּכְנָפָיו וְנָפְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וּמְצָאָהּ הֶעָנִי וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ, הֲרֵי הַקָּבָּ"ה קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ בְּרָכָה (ספרא):

‎ו אשם ונשא עונו‎‎ולא ידע AND HE DOES NOT DISCOVER THAT HE IS GUILTY, AND BEARETH HIS INIQUITY — R. José the Galilean said, “See, Scripture (God) punishes him who has no sure knowledge that he has sinned (in as much as it requires him to bring a guilt-offering); how much the more does it follow that He will punish him who does know that he is sinning and yet wilfully does it. — R. José said, “If you wish to know the reward prepared for the righteous, go and learn from the case of Adam Horishon, who was charged only with a negative command (not to eat from the עץ הדעת) and who transgressed it, — see how many kinds of death-penalties were on this account decreed as a punishment against himself and all his descendants! Now, which measure is greater, — that of good (of reward), or that of punishment? You must admit that it is that of reward (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:6). If, then, the measure of punishment is the lesser, consider that if so many kinds of death-penalties were decreed as a punishment against himself and his descendants, surely, in the case of the measure of good which is the greater one, if a person refrains from eating sacrifices which have become abominable (פגול) or which have been left over beyond the prescribed time (נותר), or if he fasts on Yom Kippur, how much the more certain is it that he will acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations! — R. Akiba said, “See, it states, (Deuteronomy 19:15) “at the mouth of two witnesses, or, at the mouth of three witnesses [shall the matter be established]. — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses, why does Scripture afterwards specifically state that this may be done by three? But it is to bring the third witness under the law there stated — to be severe with him and to make his sentence exactly like that of these (the first two witnesses) in respect to punishment in case of “plotting” (evidence that is rebutted by proof that the witness was not present on the occasion to which he has testified; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 19:16). Now, if Scripture exacts punishment so severely from one who has only joined himself with sinners (he is so described because as a single witness he could not hope that his evidence would be effective), just as it does from the sinners themselves, how much the more certain is it that He will give a reward to him who attaches himself to those who practise meritorious deeds just as it does to those who themselves practise meritorious deeds! (Sanhedrin 9a; Makkot 5b). — R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: In Deuteronomy (24:19) Scripture states, “When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgotten a sheaf in the field, [thou shalt not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless etc.]”, and, you see, it states immediately afterwards: “that the Lord thy God may bless thee etc.” Scripture (God) thus gives the assurance of a blessing to one through whom a meritorious deed came about (the feeding of the stranger, etc.), without himself knowing about it (since he forgot to remove the sheaf from the field)! You must now admit that if a Sela was tied up in the skirt of one’s garment and it fell from it and a poor man finds it and supports himself by it the Holy One, blessed be He gives the assurance of a blessing to him (to the man who has lost the Sela) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 12 7-13).

בערכך לאשם. בָּעֵרֶךְ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה:

‎ לאשם בערכך [HE SHALL BRING A RAM …] ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION FOR A GUILT OFFERING — i. e. according to the value stated above (v. 15, viz., at least 2 shekels).

אשר שגג והוא לא ידע. הָא אִם יָדַע לְאַחַר זְמַן, לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בְּאָשָׁם זֶה עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא חַטָּאת, הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה? לְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְפָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג (שם):

‎ידע‎ והוא לא‎‎ אשר שגג [AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE EXPIATION FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS ERROR] WHEREIN HE ERRED AND DISCOVERED IT NOT — Consequently if it came to his knowledge after a time that he has sinned, he is not atoned for by this guilt-offering which he has already bought, but remains unatoned until he brings a sin-offering. To what may this be compared? To the law of the Heifer whose neck was to be broken (as a kind of expiation when it was unknown who has committed the murder) when, on some particular occasion, its neck was actually broken and the murderer was afterwards found — when he surely has to be put to death (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 2).

אשם הוא אשם אשם. הָרִאשׁוֹן כֻּלּוֹ קָמוּץ, שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם דָּבָר, וְהָאַחֲרוֹן חֶצְיוֹ קָמָץ וְחֶצְיוֹ פַּתָּח שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן פָּעַל; וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִקְרָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ הוּא, כְּבָר דָּרוּשׁ הוּא בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, אשם אשם — לְהָבִיא אֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה שֶׁיְּהֵא אַיִל בֶּן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים, יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצֹרָע, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הוּא (שם):

אשם הוא אשם אשם — The first of these similar words is entirely (i. e. both syllables) punctuated with Kametz because it is a noun, whilst the last is punctuated half with Kametz and half with Patach, because it expresses the idea “he has done something” (i. e. it is a verb in the Kal, 3rd person masc. sing, perfect). — And if you say, surely this is a verse that is unnecessary, since it has stated in the previous verse, “he shall bring the ram for a guilt-offering”, then I reply that it has already been expounded in Torath Cohanim as follows; אשם אשם — this repetition is intended to include in the law of אשם תלוי also the אשם שפחה חרופה (the guilt-offering for dishonouring a maid-servant betrothed to another man; cf. Leviticus 19:12), viz., that it must be a ram of the value of two Sela’im. One might think that I include also the guilt-offering brought by a Nazarite (cf. Numbers 6:12) and the guilt-offering brought by a leper (cf. Leviticus 14:12)! Scripture, however, states “הוא” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 21 7).

נפש כי תחטא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַה תַּ"ל וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה'? לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַמַּלְוֶה וְהַלֹּוֶה וְהַנּוֹשֵֹׁא וְהַנּוֹתֵן אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא בְּעֵדִים וּבִשְׁטָר, לְפִיכָךְ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ, מְכַחֵשׁ בָּעֵדִים וּבַשְּׁטָר, אֲבָל הַמַּפְקִיד אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה שֶׁתֵּדַע בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה אֶלָּא שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְכַחֵשׁ מְכַחֵשׁ בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם (שם):

ונפש כי תחטא IF A SOUL SIN [AND COMMIT FAITHLESSNESS AGAINST THE LORD] — R. Akiba said, What is the force of ‎‎‎מעל בה׳‎‎ ומעלה here, where it does not speak of betraying “holy things of the Lord” as in v. 15, but of betraying one’s neighbour? Because whoever lends or borrows money or does business with another, does it as a rule only in the presence of witnesses or by a document, therefore when he repudiates the matter, he repudiates the witnesses or the document; but he who deposits something with his neighbour does not wish any living soul to know about it except the Third Being (God) who is between them; therefore when he repudiates the deposit, he is repudiating the Third Being who is between them (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 4).

בתשומת יד. שֶׁשָּׂם בְּיָדוֹ מָמוֹן לְהִתְעַסֵּק אוֹ בְּמִלְוֶה:

בתשומת יד A CHARGE — He denies that he has put (שָׂם) money into his (the neighbour’s) hand (יד, i. e. that he has put money at his disposal) for the purpose of doing business in partnership or as a loan (cf. Onkelos and Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6).

או בגזל. שֶׁגָּזַל מִיָּדוֹ כְּלוּם:

או בגזל OR A THING TAKEN AWAY BY VIOLENCE — He denies that he has violently taken something from his possession,

או עשק. הוּא שְֹכַר שָֹכִיר (שם):

או עשק OR HATH WRONGED [HIS NEIGHBOUR] — This refers to withholding the wages of a hired man (cf. Leviticus 19:13; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22 6 and Bava Kamma 103b).

וכחש בה. שֶׁכָּפַר על אחת מכל אֵלֶּה אשר יעשה האדם לחטא וּלְהִשָּׁבַע עַל שֶׁקֶר לִכְפִירַת מָמוֹן:

וכחש בה AND DENIETH IT — i.e. that he denies על אחת מכל REGARDING ONE OF ALL these things (those mentioned above), אשר יעשה האדם לחטא THAT A MAN DOETH (is apt to do, cf. Numbers 5:7, said of a similar case ‎מכל חטאת האדם) TO SIN and to swear falsely with the object of repudiating a money claim.

כי יחטא ואשם. כְּשֶׁיַּכִּיר בְּעַצְמוֹ לָשׁוּב בִּתְשׁוּבָה, וּבְדַעְתּוֹ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת כִּי חָטָא וְאָשֵׁם:

יחטא ואשם‎‎ כי‎ means when he comes to a recognition of himself (recognises his duty) to repent of his sin and makes up his mind to confess that he has sinned and has incurred guilt).

בראשו. הוּא הַקֶּרֶן, רֹאשׁ הַמָּמוֹן:

בראשו — This means the principal — the capital (ראש) money.

וחמשתיו. רִבְּתָה הַתּוֹרָה חֲמִישִׁיּוֹת הַרְבֵּה לְקֶרֶן אַחַת, שֶׁאִם כָּפַר בַּחֹמֶשׁ וְנִשְׁבַּע וְהוֹדָה, חוֹזֵר וּמֵבִיא חֹמֶשׁ עַל אוֹתוֹ חֹמֶשׁ, וְכֵן מוֹסִיף וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּתְמַעֵט הַקֶּרֶן הַנִּשְׁבָּע לוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה (בבא קמא ק"ג):

וחמשתיו [AND HE SHALL ADD] THE FIFTH PART [MORE THERETO) — By using the plural וחמשתיו the Torah includes in this law of restitution the many additional fifths possible in respect to one principal — that if he denies the fifth (i. e. he asserts that he has repaid both capital and fifth, but has not really paid the latter, for which a claim is now made against him) and takes an oath that he has paid it, but afterwards admits the claim, then he must now bring (pay) a fifth in addition to this fifth (a fifth of the original fifth which now has become the קרן in addition to it), and so he keeps on adding a fifth to the original fifth until the principal about which he takes an oath becomes less in value than a P’rutah (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 103a).

לאשר הוא לו. לְמִי שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן שֶׁלּוֹ (שם):

לאשר הוא לו [AND HE SHALL ADD THE FIFTH PART MORE THERETO AND GIVE IT] UNTO HIM TO WHOM IT APPERTAINETH — i. e. to him whose is the money (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Section 13 12; Bava Kamma 108; also Bava Kamma 103a).