Parshas Vayikra
1. On the verse "נפש כי תחטא ומעלה מעל בה׳ וכחש בעמיתו בפקדון או בתשומת יד וגו׳" ("When a soul sins and commits a trespass against the L‑rd, and denies to his fellow regarding a deposit or a business loan, etc.")1, Rashi cites the words "נפש כי תחטא" ("When a soul sins") and explains: "אמר ר׳ עקיבא2: מה3 ת״ל ומעלה מעל בה׳, לפי שכל המלוה והלוה והנושא והנותן אינו עושה אלא בעדים ובשטר לפיכך בזמן שהוא מכחש מכחש בעדים ובשטר, אבל המפקיד אצל חבירו ואינו4 רוצה שתדע בו נשמה אלא שלישי שביניהם, לפיכך כשהוא מכחש מכחש בשלישי שביניהם" ("Rabbi Akiva said: Why does the Torah say 'and commits a trespass against the L‑rd'? Because anyone who lends or borrows, or who buys and sells, acts only with witnesses and a document; therefore, when he denies it, he denies the witnesses and the document. But one who deposits something with his fellow and does not want any soul to know of it except the Third between them — therefore, when he denies it, he denies the Third between them").
In simple terms, the explanation of this commentary5 is as follows: The term "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" applies specifically to one who denies a deposit, and not when he denies a loan — even though here too, just as with a deposit, G‑d surely knows that he borrowed the money —
because when one person gives another a deposit to keep in a manner where "he does not want any soul to know of it," without testimony and without a document, and the only safeguard is that the depositor and the recipient rely on the fact that G‑d knows of it, and they thereby bring Him in, as it were, as a witness to the deposit [and as the student has already learned in the Book of Bereishis6, that Lavan said to Yaakov: "אין איש עמנו ראה אלקים עד ביני ובינך" ("No man is with us; see, G‑d is a witness between me and you")] — therefore, by denying the deposit, he automatically denies the one "witness" between them: G‑d.
This explains7 why Rashi uses a unique expression here — "שלישי שביניהם" ("the Third between them") — and does not say plainly "the Holy One, blessed be He," or "the L‑rd," as in the wording of the verse. For by this he wishes to explain and emphasize that the reason "and denies ... regarding a deposit" is called "a trespass against the L‑rd" is that the depositor and the recipient have, as it were, brought G‑d in as a "Third between them," that is, as a witness; consequently it is "a trespass against the L‑rd," being a denial of the witness to the deposit.
According to this, however, there is a difficulty: When the verse spells out whom it means by "When a soul sins and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," it says (not only) "and denies to his fellow regarding a deposit" (but also, immediately afterward) "or a business loan," which means (as Rashi explains) "ששם בידו ממון להתעסק או במלוה" ("that he placed money in his hand to do business with, or as a loan"). How, then, does this fit with Rashi's statement that in the case of "one who lends or borrows, or who buys and sells," he denies not G‑d but "the witnesses and the document"8?
Commentators explain9 that "or a business loan" does not relate to "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," but is merely one more detail that follows in sequence and relates only to "and denies to his fellow." It is difficult, however, to learn this way, because the plain wording of the verse implies, as stated above, that the general category of "and denies to his fellow" itself (with all its details: both "a deposit" and "a business loan," and likewise "robbery," etc.) is an elaboration of "When a soul sins and commits a trespass against the L‑rd."
2. In addition to the above question (how Rashi's commentary, that "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" applies only to "and denies regarding a deposit," fits with the plain wording of the verse), there are also several difficulties concerning the wording of Rashi:
a) Rashi's aim here is not to explain the words "When a soul sins," but, as he himself makes clear, "Why does the Torah say 'and commits a trespass against the L‑rd.'" It is therefore entirely incomprehensible10: Why does he specifically cite the words "When a soul sins" and dwell upon them, while the words "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" he does not cite at all, and does not even allude to them by adding a "וגו׳" ("etc.")?
b) It is known that Rashi, in those of his comments that are based on statements of our Sages, does not mention the name of the author of the statement unless doing so adds some further explanation to the commentary in question. We must therefore understand: What further understanding of the comment "Why does the Torah say 'and commits a trespass against the L‑rd'" is gained through knowing that it was Rabbi Akiva who said this?
c) To understand what the "trespass against the L‑rd" consists of here, the explanation that "one who deposits something with his fellow, etc., denies the Third between them" would have sufficed. Why, then, must Rashi elaborate and convey this through the comparison with "anyone who lends, etc., denies the witnesses and the document"?
d) When two people have dealings with each other and bring in someone else as a witness — as a confirmation and an assurance of the matter — it is not at all appropriate to call that person the "third" between them. He becomes merely an intermediary between them, who confirms and clarifies the transaction between them, but not someone who can be counted together with them as a third — since he takes no part whatsoever in the transaction itself.
We must therefore understand why Rashi calls G‑d here "the Third between them" (and not "one" or "this one"): True, the depositor and the recipient relied upon G‑d to be a witness between them, but they did not bring Him in as a third (a partner) with respect to the deposit itself. Why, then, should He be called by the name "Third"?
3. Besides the above questions on Rashi's commentary here in its own place, there is also a difficulty arising from an earlier comment of Rashi:
On the verse "נפש כי תמעול מעל גו׳ מקדשי ה׳" ("When a soul commits a trespass ... from the holy things of the L‑rd")11, Rashi says: "אין מעילה בכל מקום אלא שינוי" ("Me'ilah [trespass], everywhere, means nothing other than change"). We must understand: What change is there in "and denies to his fellow," on account of which the verse says about it "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd"12?
Commentators explain13 that this denial itself — the fact that he wants to take for himself something that belongs to another — constitutes a change of domain.
This, however, is not understood: The verse says "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," meaning that the trespass (which, according to Rashi's commentary, always means change) must here be interpreted as a change in G‑d's domain (just as with "When a soul commits a trespass ... from the holy things of the L‑rd," where one transfers the item from the domain of hekdesh to the domain of the mundane). But according to these commentators, the "trespass" consists only of a change of domain from one person to another!
4. The explanation of all the above:
The (primary) question that arises here for Rashi concerning "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" stems (not from these words themselves, but) from the words "When a soul sins," which come before them:
Had the verse said only "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," one could have explained (with some difficulty, at least)13* that the Torah calls every instance of transgressing G‑d's will (and especially swearing falsely in G‑d's Name) a "trespass against the L‑rd" (and "trespass ... means nothing other than change"), since by doing so he shows that he exchanges G‑d for — to draw the necessary distinction — a mundane thing; that is, he does not take His importance into account, but treats it as though it were, to draw the distinction, a mundane matter.
But since the verse has already said "When a soul sins," a difficulty results: Why does the verse say both "sins" and "commits a trespass against the L‑rd," which according to the above are one and the same?
This is why Rashi focuses (not on the words "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd"14* themselves, but) on the words "When a soul sins" and asks, "Why does the Torah say 'and commits a trespass against the L‑rd'": Since it already says "When a soul sins," why does it need to say "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd"14; for what reason15 does the verse state both expressions15?
To this Rashi answers14: "Because anyone who lends, etc., but one who deposits, etc." — meaning that the two expressions, "sins" and "commits a trespass against the L‑rd," relate to the two details that follow:
"Sins" is said in connection with "and denies regarding a business loan, etc.," which deals with money for business or a loan; and since here he only "denies the witnesses and the document," it is simply a "sin," and not a matter of "trespass against the L‑rd." And the expression "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" the verse states in reference to "and denies regarding a deposit," because one who denies a deposit "denies the Third between them."
Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi elaborates and also mentions the detail of "one who lends, etc.," since with this he explains the words "When a soul sins"15*.
5. According to this, however, the following question arises: The expression "sins" comes before "commits a trespass against the L‑rd." Why, then, do their explanations afterward come in reverse order — first "regarding a deposit" (following on "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd"), and then "a business loan, etc." (corresponding to "When a soul sins")?
Rashi resolves this question with one letter: The wording in the Sifra is "המפקיד אצל חבירו אינו רוצה שתדע בו נשמה" ("One who deposits something with his fellow does not want any soul to know of it"), but in Rashi's commentary it says16: "ואינו רוצה כו׳" ("and does not want, etc."):
With this vav that Rashi adds, he emphasizes clearly that even with a deposit it can at times happen that one gives it for safekeeping with witnesses and a document. Therefore17 the deposit is stated first, before the loan, because within "and denies regarding a deposit" there is (also) a case that relates to "When a soul sins." And since "deposit" explains both expressions (also "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd"), it therefore comes before "and denies regarding a business loan, etc.," before a loan, which is ordinarily "with a document and witnesses."
6. The explanation of the verse's wording "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" — which implies (as stated above, Section 3) that by denying the deposit he changes (and removes) the deposit from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He — is expressed by Rashi through the wording "the Third between them":
By saying that G‑d is a "Third," a third to the depositor and the recipient, Rashi makes clear that this is not merely a matter of the depositor and the recipient having made G‑d a witness to the deposit (for, as stated above at the end of Section 2, someone who is merely a witness to a transaction is not yet called a "Third"). Rather, what is also meant here is G‑d's ownership of the deposit, and that is precisely why He is called "Third": He is the third owner:
One owner is the depositor, to whom the deposit belongs. The second "owner" becomes the recipient17*, since the deposit is in his possession, and especially when he denies it: when he denies the deposit, he is in actual fact the owner of the deposit. And the third owner is G‑d. He is the true owner of the deposit, for "לה׳18 הארץ ומלואה" ("The earth and its fullness are the L‑rd's").
This is the meaning of "denies the Third between them": The fact that the object belongs to the depositor is only because G‑d (the true Owner of the entire world) gave it to him19. Thus when the recipient denies the deposit and wants to take the object from him, this constitutes a denial of G‑d's ownership — "denies the Third between them,"
and for this reason it is called "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd": By denying it, the result is automatically as though he removes, as it were, the deposit from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He.
And although it follows from this that also when denying a loan there is the matter of "denying" G‑d's ownership of the money — for G‑d gave it to the lender — it is nevertheless not comparable:
With a loan, since "anyone who lends, etc., acts only with witnesses and a document," he has not connected the loan, in any special way, with G‑d's ownership. With a deposit, by contrast, where "he does not want any soul to know of it except the Third between them," he has specifically relied in this matter upon "the Third between them." That is, the depositor trusted the recipient only because he reckoned that the recipient would not go against G‑d's ownership. Therefore, by denying the deposit he "denies the Third between them" and "trespasses against the L‑rd."
7. After all this, one point still requires explanation: When someone denies another's deposit, it is indeed true that he does something against G‑d's will. But ultimately the object — even after the denial — remains in G‑d's domain. Why, then, is it nevertheless called a "trespass against the L‑rd," a change in the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He?
True, this is not a strong question, for as stated, he is going here against G‑d's order of ownership, and this is therefore as though he had removed an item from G‑d's domain. Nevertheless, it is not so smooth.
Therefore Rashi does in fact clarify this — but only by way of allusion — through adding the name of the author of the statement, Rabbi Akiva:
The reason why on the first day of the week the Levi'im in the Beis HaMikdash would recite the psalm "The earth and its fullness are the L‑rd's" is, says (Rashi in the name of) Rabbi Akiva, "על שם שקנה והקנה" ("because He acquired and transferred ownership")20. And Rashi explains this: "כלומר, קונה כדי להקנות" ("that is, He acquires in order to transfer ownership"). Since (according to Rabbi Akiva) G‑d's having "acquired" the world is (only) "in order to transfer ownership" — so that G‑d's very ownership of this object depends, as it were, on His giving it and making it belong to a particular person — it follows automatically, according to Rabbi Akiva, that when someone does not allow the "transfer of ownership," he diminishes, as it were, (also) the "acquisition" of the Holy One, blessed be He.
8. It was stated earlier (at the end of Section 6) that "and denies to his fellow" is divided in the verse into two categories, "When a soul sins" and "commits a trespass against the L‑rd," even though in each case there is a "trespass" against G‑d (for by taking the object from the one to whom G‑d gave it, he thereby makes, as it were, a change in the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated above). The reason is that when one relies from the outset on witnesses and a document, he does not openly "deny" the "Third between them" (as is the case with "and denies regarding a deposit," where he relied from the outset on the Third between them, and it is therefore an open denial of G‑d). Therefore there is (overtly) only a matter of "sins," but not of "commits a trespass against the L‑rd."
From this it is understood that the distinction between "When a soul sins" and "commits a trespass against the L‑rd" pertains only to what is revealed. That is, with "When a soul sins" the trespass against the L‑rd is not so openly discernible, but inwardly the trespass is present also with "sins" —
and this means with every sin, even one that is a "chet" only in the sense of a lack21, when someone (does not commit a transgression, but) falls short in something in his Divine service, and even when what he fell short in is an utter "trifle" (similar to "When a soul sins" in its literal sense, which applies even when he denies merely the value of a perutah).
This means that although it appears to be merely an ordinary sin (and not a matter of denying G‑d, Heaven forfend), it is inwardly a matter of "denying the Third between them," akin to a matter of denying G‑d, Heaven forfend22. Moreover, it is also a trespass against the L‑rd: He thereby changes, as it were, the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He. By not carrying out the task imposed upon him, to make of his portion of the world a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed, he removes, as it were, this very portion from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He.
9. The reason the Torah placed the lesson of "When a soul sins and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" (as explained above) specifically with "and denies to his fellow" is to underscore that this is so (also) with respect to matters between one person and another (and not only with respect to matters between a person and G‑d):
One should not make the mistake of thinking that with matters between a person and G‑d, it is understandable that every detail "touches" upon G‑d's ownership; but with respect to matters between one person and another, although the commands concerning them are indeed from G‑d, their purpose is to protect "one's fellow," and so even if he should wrong him, this primarily touches a human being, and not G‑d —
Therefore the Torah states clearly that "When a soul sins," even though it is done in a manner that outwardly relates only to "his fellow" (and not to G‑d, Heaven forfend), it is nevertheless already a matter of "commits a trespass against the L‑rd"23; and even when he has merely [OCR unclear] it is, inwardly, already a matter of "trespass against the L‑rd," as stated above.
10. But "אין לך דבר העומד בפני התשובה" ("Nothing stands in the way of teshuvah")24 —
Therefore the passage concludes: "וכפר עליו גו׳ ונסלח לו" ("And [the Kohen] shall atone for him ... and he shall be forgiven")25. That is, regardless of his having been in a state of "When a soul sins" (which in itself is already, inwardly, a "trespass against the L‑rd," as stated above), and even when the "trespass against the L‑rd" was openly revealed in him, as soon as he does teshuvah, "[the Kohen] shall atone ... and he shall be forgiven."
So too in general: "When a soul sins" results in ("מפני חטאינו") גלינו ("because of our sins we were exiled"); and "ישראל עושין תשובה ומיד הן נגאלין" ("the Jewish people do teshuvah and immediately they are redeemed")26, with the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu, בקרוב ממש ובעגלא דידן ("very soon indeed, speedily in our days")27.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra, 5730.)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 5:21.
2) Toras Kohanim here (ch. 22).
3) In the first printing: ומה (with a vav). (And although in this printing an entire line of this comment of Rashi is missing, this is no proof that the words that were printed were also copied mistakenly.) See also below, note 14.
4) In the Re'em here (and so too in Toras Kohanim here): אינו (without a vav). But in נו״א here, and so in most printings of Rashi: ואינו. See also below, Section 5.
5) See similarly Gur Aryeh here (at the beginning of his remarks). See also below, note 8.
6) Vayeitzei 31:50.
7) But see below, end of Section 2.
8) This question applies also to "by robbery" and "or oppressed his fellow," for since he did not rely on the Holy One, blessed be He, from the outset, this is not "and commits a trespass ... against the L‑rd." In the Gur Aryeh here: "The Holy One, blessed be He, is the third party between them ... he denies the Holy One, blessed be He, upon whom he relied; and not specifically a deposit, but even robbery, although he did not rely from the outset ... since no one knows of this except the Holy One, blessed be He, and he assumes that he will not deny, etc." However: a) In simple terms, the concept of "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" applies when he relied upon G‑d, as in Rashi's wording "the Third between them," as stated above in the text. b) According to his explanation, the order in the verse is not understood: Why did it interrupt with "a business loan" between "a deposit" and "by robbery"? See also the Re'em here, according to whom "by robbery" too does not relate to "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd."
9) Re'em here.
10) Especially since the statement of Rabbi Akiva in the Sifri here is on the words "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," and not on "When a soul sins"!
11) 5:15.
12) As the commentators on Rashi there have asked. And the Rosh there concludes, on the strength of this question, that the words "בכל מקום" ("everywhere") are superfluous. See there.
13) Gur Aryeh there.
13*) See similarly Divrei David, cited in Sifsei Chachamim on our parsha, 5:15, who explains it this way according to Rashi. However, this matter is not written in Rashi, not even by allusion. It must be said that the meaning of "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," according to Rashi, is that he alters the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, in keeping with Rashi's wording "denies the Third between them," as explained below, Section 6.
14) Based on this, it is all the more fitting that Rashi begins his commentary (according to the version in the first printing; see above, note 3) "ומה תלמוד לומר ומעלה כו׳" with a connective vav, since the question "Why does the Torah say 'and commits a trespass, etc.'" comes in continuation of "When a soul sins," which he cites before it.
14*) See also Divrei David on Rashi's commentary here.
15) One should not object that even according to this, Rashi should have cited (before his commentary) the words "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd," or alluded to them with "וגו׳," since he explains these words too. For "and commits a trespass against the L‑rd" in Rashi's commentary is not Rashi's own statement; rather, he is citing the wording of the verse as it stands, and therefore he does not cite it at the outset. (Compare the word "לאמר" in Rashi on Vayakhel (35:4), which he does not cite before his commentary (see at length Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 7, p. 221 ff.); and at the beginning of our parsha, in the comment beginning "ויקרא אל משה" (the second), where he cites "וידבר" in the middle of his commentary. And elsewhere.)
15*) Which refers to "a business loan." The reason why here Rashi puts "one who lends and borrows" before "one who buys and sells," whereas in the comment beginning "בתשומת יד" he writes "that he placed, etc., to do business with (and afterward) or as a loan": In this comment (on "When a soul," etc.), where he wishes to explain that "he acts only with witnesses, etc.," he first writes "one who lends and borrows," since there it is more obvious that they act only "with witnesses, etc.," and then he adds that also "one who buys and sells" — even though the owner of the money (also) has an interest in it (for most times he profits) — nevertheless "acts only with witnesses, etc."; whereas in the comment beginning "בתשומת יד" (which comes to explain these very words), he first puts "to do business with," since this is closer to the meaning of "תשומת יד" as "that he placed in the hand" of the recipient, and then he adds also "or as a loan," even though usually the borrower comes and asks, and it is not the lender who places it in his hand of his own accord.
16) See above, note 4.
17) Even without this, Rashi would have written "ואינו רוצה" with a vav, since with a deposit too, people sometimes deposit with witnesses and a document. The intent here is that through this he also resolves the order in the verse.
17*) See Mishpatim 22:7 and Rashi there.
18) Tehillim 24:1.
19) Note also Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Bereishis (in the first comment): "כל הארץ של הקב״ה היא כו׳ ברצונו נתנה כו׳" ("The whole earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, etc.; by His will He gave it, etc.").
20) Rosh Hashanah 31a, top.
21) As in: "והייתי אני ובני שלמה חטאים" ("and I and my son Shlomo will be lacking") (I Melachim 1:21), and Rashi explains: "חסרים" ("lacking").
22) See Tanya, ch. 24, that every sin is akin to the sin of idolatry. Note also Rashi on our parsha, 5:15: "אין מעילה כו׳ אלא שינוי וכן הוא אומר וימעלו אחרי אלקי עמי הארץ" ("Me'ilah ... means nothing other than change; and so it says: 'and they trespassed after the gods of the peoples of the land'").
23) [OCR unclear]
24) Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah, end of ch. 3; Iggeres HaTeshuvah, beginning of ch. 4. And in Yerushalmi, Peah, ch. 1, end of halacha 1: "בפני בע״ת" ("in the way of a baal teshuvah").
25) 5:26.
26) Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah, 7:5. And in Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 1: "תיכף ומיד" ("right away and immediately") (see below, p. 19, note 39).
27) On the addition of "בעגלא דידן" ("speedily in our days") to "בקרוב ממש" ("very soon indeed"), see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 23, note 61.
Key Lesson
Everything a person has is his only because G‑d, its true Owner, gave it to him; so every wrong done to another, and even a small shortcoming in one's Divine service, is inwardly a trespass against G‑d's ownership. Yet nothing stands in the way of teshuvah: as soon as a person returns he is forgiven, and when the Jewish people do teshuvah they are redeemed immediately.