Guilt-Offerings for Dishonesty
20 God spoke to Moses, saying,
21 “If a person sins, acting unfaithfully to God by falsely denying the claim of his fellow that (a) the latter gave him an article as a deposit on a loan; or that (b) the latter had given money into his hand, either in a business partnership or as a loan; or that (c) an object taken from the latter by robbery was in fact taken by him; or that (d) he, as an employer, withheld wages from his fellow;
22 or that (e) he found a lost article and denied having found it—and moreover, he swore falsely regarding any one of all these five cases whereby a man may sin in this way, hoping thereby to repudiate a monetary claim, then—
23 when he acknowledges that he has sinned, admits that he is guilty, and wishes to make amends, he must first return the article that he had robbed, the funds—i.e., the loan, the partnership money, or the wages—that he had withheld, the article that had been deposited with him, the article that he had found, or anything else regarding which he had sworn falsely. If he withheld money, he must pay for it first by restoring the value of its principal and then adding a fine equal to 25% of the principal, which now becomes one-fifth of the grand total. If he only repays the principal, then swears falsely that he also paid this fine, and later repents and wishes to make amends, he must pay the fine he previously avoided plus 25% of the fine, which now becomes one-fifth of the new total. If he then denies paying this new fifth, swears, and repents, and so on, he must keep adding its fifths to it until the amount of the fifth shrinks to less than the value of a perutah (25 mg or less than 0.01 oz of silver). He must give the money—the principal and the fine—to its rightful owner (i.e., not to his child or agent) on the day he repents of his guilt.
25 He must then bring his guilt-offering to God: an unblemished ram from the flock with the specified value, as above, for a guilt-offering, to the priest.
26 The priest will make atonement for him before God by performing the rites that will be detailed later, and he will thereby be forgiven for any one of all cases whereby one may commit a sin, incurring guilt through it. Additional details of the laws of guilt-offerings for dishonesty will be given further on, as will the remainder of the laws regarding guilt-offerings in general.”
Chasidic Insights
When no one is called to witness a deposit and no contract is signed, the two parties rely only on each other’s honesty and their mutual awareness that God is their witness. Denying having given someone a deposit in such a case is thus a direct, arrant act of unfaithfulness to God.
Moreover, ownership in general is only possible because God, the true owner of all creation, allows human beings to assume ownership of part of creation through means that He established. Thus, denying rightful ownership is tantamount to denying God’s ownership and mastery over the world. Nonetheless, committing any sin can be considered “acting unfaithfully to God.” When we sin, we are acting in opposition to God’s will; as such, any sin is no less a denial of God’s omnipresence than brazen idolatry.
Significantly, the Torah makes this point in the case of someone who contradicts his fellow. In areas pertaining to our relationship with God, it is easily understood that even a minor detail is a direct trespass against God. In areas pertaining to interpersonal relationships, however, it is common to erroneously believe that since these laws are ultimately intended to protect our fellow human beings, if we don’t follow them, it is only a matter between us and them and does not reflect upon our relationship with God (even if we acknowledge that it was God who gave them).
The Torah therefore specifies clearly and unequivocally that although it may seem that we are merely contradicting our fellow, doing so is also a direct affront and act of unfaithfulness to God. Even if a specific commandment serves a “social” purpose—such as the protection afforded the lender or owner in this case—its import is not limited to this purpose; it remains a command issued by God Himself, with all of the spiritual ramifications this entails.
Based on this idea, we may understand the law that when a person is given an object to guard by someone who owes him money, he may not withhold the deposit against payment of the debt. This law is suggested by God’s own example: Every night upon going to sleep, we “deposit” our soul with its Guardian, trusting that He will return it to us the following day. Over the course of the day, we may have incurred many debts towards God, yet He does not withhold our soul in the morning, but returns it to us, thereby giving us the opportunity to provide restitution.
Logically, it would seem that since the depositor has just as much an obligation toward the creditor as the creditor has toward the depositor, why should the creditor have to return the depositor’s object to him and then fight to collect his debt? However, as explained, the creditor’s duty to return the object is not only a duty towards the depositor; it is God’s command, and must be accepted as such—as a law that is spiritual in nature. The depositor’s dereliction in his debt and duty towards the creditor may lessen the obligation that the creditor feels towards him, but it must not affect the creditor’s duty towards God.
Nevertheless, this section concludes: “The priest will make atonement for him before God and he will be forgiven.” Despite the fact that our actions constituted an open trespass against God, God nonetheless holds open the door for repentance, allowing all our sins to be completely forgiven.
Repentance and Restitution
If a person sins, acting unfaithfully to God: The word for “sin” in Hebrew can also be understood to mean “a failing.” Even if one merely fails to offer assistance to a friend, this too is an act of unfaithfulness to God.
He must return the article that he had robbed: Allegorically, “robbed articles” refers to any element of creation that humanity, by sinning, has “robbed” from God and given over to the forces of evil. These elements of creation could be a physical object, a moment in time, or human potential. Our task in life is to return the world’s robbed entities to their rightful owner, i.e., to reorient everything that has been marshaled to the cause of evil toward Divinity, beginning with whatever we ourselves have “robbed” from God through sinning. This is the essence of repentance: restoring the world to its natural, Divine state. Through repentance, it is further possible for us to reach even greater heights than we had attained before sinning. Of course, this does not mean that we should sin in order to reach the sublime spirituality accessible through repentance. Even if someone steals with the intention of later returning the very same object, he has still transgressed. In the event that we transgress, however, God always provides us with the opportunity to fulfill the commandment of repentance.
Restitution and Divine Plan
On the face of it, the fine of an extra fifth is punitive rather than compensatory, as is underscored by the fact that the denier need only pay it if he had a change of heart and admitted that he had lied. If it were intended to compensate the victim, the fine would be applicable even if he were proven to be a liar through witnesses who contradict his story. Thus, it is clear that the fine is intended to be part of the atonement process, which can occur only if he repented, not if he was forced to admit his guilt. It would therefore be logical to assume that the fine should be paid to charity or some other beneficiary, since the victim has no claim to this fine.
Nonetheless, the Torah stipulates that the fine be paid to the victim. The reason, as explained in the commentary Keli Yakar, is that the extra fifth is indeed compensatory, to make up for the loss of income that could have been earned with the stolen money during the interim. If the thief does not make restitution for this lost income, we cannot consider him to have “returned that which he had stolen,” since there is still something missing. But if this is so, then, contrariwise, why does the Torah need to emphasize such an obvious fact?
To understand this, let us first examine the spiritual implications of a theft. We are told not to harbor a grudge against someone who has wronged us, for the fact that the wrong occurred proves that God willed it to be so. This is no excuse for the criminal, since he need not have been the agent of misfortune, and he is therefore indeed culpable for choosing to carry out this specific “mission.” But as far as the victim is concerned, his misfortune was preordained; had this criminal not chosen to be the agent, God would have found some other way of making it happen.
If so, one could ask, why should the thief make compensation to the victim altogether? The victim was preordained to lose this sum of money. Maybe we should just take from the thief the value of that which he stole, plus any applicable fines, and use them for some good cause?
The answer, obviously, is that the fact that the money was stolen only proves that the victim was supposed to lose it temporarily, not permanently. It is still his money, and it must be returned to him as soon as possible, for its return, too, is part of the Divine plan. The same reasoning applies even to the extra fifth being given as compensation for lost income: since it is possible to reimburse the victim completely so that he not incur any loss whatsoever, it is possible that even his feeling of loss was only supposed to be a temporary one, but at this point he is preordained to escape unscathed.
The Torah’s insistence that the fine be given to the victim is thus intended not merely as an instruction, but also as an explanation: the money must be given to the victim because it belongs to him. Any Divine plan that was involved in the money being taken away from him is not our concern; as far as we are concerned, it is his money and it must be returned to him in as complete a form as possible.
This serves as a lesson for all interpersonal dealings. When we have wronged a friend, our evil inclination immediately goes to work. “Why should you ask him for forgiveness? He obviously would have undergone the same pain in any case, so his trouble is not your concern. True, by being the agent you have committed a sin. But that is between you and God. Go ahead and repent, but there’s no reason for you to apologize to the other person!”
In light of the above, this argument is now easy to counter. Just as an extra fifth is paid in an effort to make the restitution complete (i.e., to make up for lost income), an apology helps to lessen the pain of the injury. One is obligated to attempt to right the wrong as much as possible, and an apology is a step in the right direction.
But our evil inclination does not stop here. “You are supposed to concentrate only on God,” he cries. “Even those commandments that are logical and understandable are to be fulfilled simply as Divine commandments. So, if the Torah demands that you beg your victim’s forgiveness, you must do so. But why should it actually bother you? You should only be bothered by your problems in your relationship with God. As a matter of fact, if you truly consider your victim important, you are denying that ‘there is no true existence other than God.’ ”
The truth is that this, too, is no more than the evil inclination’s trickery. Logical commandments must be treated as God’s decrees in the sense that their fulfillment may not be subject to our understanding, but that is not intended in any way to limit their logical and practical application, i.e., the necessity to behave in a moral and ethical manner born of true and sincere concern for others.
