At the beginning of Shoftim, the verse states:
"By the testimony of two or three witnesses shall there be put to death he who is subject to the death penalty." The Rambam writes:
"The Torah decrees (G'zeiras HaKosuv) that neither the death penalty nor lashes are administered to an individual upon his own admission of guilt -- only upon the testimony of two witnesses."
The Rambam is saying that although it is an established principle that "The admission of a defendant is tantamount to the testimony of one-hundred witnesses," this only applies to obligating the person to pay money because of his admission; his admission of guilt, however, cannot make him subject to the penalties of death or lashes.
The Radbaz states, "Somewhat of a reason may be given for this: A person's soul is not his own possession but G-d's, as the verse states, 'Soul's are Mine.' Therefore a person's admission does not apply to something that does not belong to him. As to lashes -- it is 'half a death.' Money, however, belongs to the person. We therefore say that [with regard to money] 'The admission of a defendant is tantamount to the testimony of one-hundred witnesses.'"
The statement of the Radbaz need's further clarification: The entire world is "G-d's possession," as the verse states, "The earth and all therein is G-d's." Or as the Chinuch says, "Everything belongs to the Master of All" -- including man's possessions, as it says, "Silver and gold are Mine, says G-d." What, then, is the difference between a person's "soul" belonging to G-d and everything else belonging to Him?
We must perforce say that though the entire world belongs to G-d, there exists a major difference between man's possession of his soul and his money. Just what is this difference?
A person's soul and life were placed in his trust for safekeeping but do not belong to him. Thus the Alter Rebbe rules that "a person's body is not at all in his possession that he may smite it..." So that a person's being forewarned against damaging his body is not only because it is prohibited, but also relates to the matter of ownership -- a person doesn't own his body; G-d owns it and entrusts it to him for safekeeping.
A person's possessions and wealth, however, were given over to man in a manner that he truly owns them. Thus, the reason "one must be scrupulous not to lose, waste or damage" one's money and possessions is not because they don't belong to him, rather it is because of the negative prohibition of Bal Tashchis, the prohibition against acting in a wasteful and pernicious manner.
Man's ownership in no way contradicts G-d's ownership of the selfsame item, for the following reason. G-d's proprietary rights to the entire world, a direct consequence of His having created the world and ruling over it, is of a general nature; even after a person owns an object it still has not left G-d's possession and G-d can take it from him at any time.
Since a person actually owns his possessions and wealth, the law therefore is that with regard to his money "The admission of a defendant is tantamount to the testimony of one-hundred witnesses." This is not so regarding matters of life and limb which always remain in G-d's possession -- man does not own them and therefore cannot relinquish them through his personal admission and testimony.
Proof of this difference can be adduced from Birchas HaNe'henin, the blessings a person is obligated to make over something from which he derives pleasure:
Our rabbis state, "It is forbidden to derive pleasure from this world without first making a blessing. If he did so, it is as if he derived pleasure from an item belonging to G-d (Kodshei Shomayim), for the verse says, 'The earth and all therein is G-d's.'" Having made the blessing, the person receives permission from G-d to derive pleasure from that which is His.
However, this obligation only applies to something from which one's body derives pleasure, but not to the pleasure derived from wealth, receiving money, etc. What is the difference?
In light of the above the difference is very clear:
With regard to a person's body and soul which are entirely "divine possessions" and not one's own, their pleasures are similar to body and soul itself -- as objects belonging to G-d one may not derive pleasure from them without a blessing.
A person's possessions and money, however, were from the very outset given over to man's ownership and are not considered "divine possessions." A blessing therefore need not be made in order to permit the person to derive pleasure therefrom.
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, pp. 1108-1113.
