Parshat Nasso answers

Naso 5728.

Alef.

BaMidbar 5:5-10

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass against the LORD, and that soul be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty. But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be the LORD'S, even the priest's; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him. And every heave-offering of all the holy things of the children of Israel, which they present unto the priest, shall be his. And every man's hallowed things shall be his: whatsoever any man giveth the priest, it shall be his. 

VaYikra 5:20-6

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein; then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found, or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty. And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven, concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby. 

1. The internal logic why if a person does not confess, then he is only obligated to restore what he took, but should he confess, then there is an additional fine for him to pay, i.e., a Chomesh, because in the first instance, the perpetrator is not really interested in any sort of atonement. The trial is simply to make sure that the victim receives his property back in full. The spiritual status of the thief is not our concern when it clearly is not his concern. On the other hand, when he confesses, indicating his remorse, commitment not to repeat the offense, etc., then we are not solely concerned with the restoration to the victim, but also the atonement process for the law breaker. Going the extra mile by paying a fine would be further indication of his interest in atonement.

2.  The indication that we are dealing with even the case of where the victim is a convert is the phrase, “But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt.” The most likely scenario for such a case is where because a convert is viewed as “Tinok SheNolad” (a baby that has been just born), which in effect, cancels his previous relationships to parents, siblings and the like, it is highly likely that there will not be any heirs should he have died in the interim.

Beit.

1.  RaMBaM’s view as reflected in Hilchot Gezeila VeAveida, Chapt. 7, Halacha 8, is based upon the fact that in BaMidbar, the only time the text states that the perpetrator adds a “Fifth” is when it is also noted that he confesses: “…then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty.”

2.  Since in VaYikra the Tora states that a fifth is added even when there is no confession:

“then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found, or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.”, it follows that the case in BaMidbar which discusses adding a fifth when there is confession can be understood to require an additional fifth to the one that would have been required even had there been no confession.

3.  Ibn Ezra is referring to RaMBaM as someone who rather than is concerned with the implications of the verses, establishes what the Halachic tradition is. Whereas Ibn Ezra feels constrained by the Peshat of the verses, leading to a “narrowness of mind”, RaMBaM accepts the various Derashot based upon hermeneutic principles and consequently ends up with a  broader perspective regarding the meaning of the Tora.

Gimel.

1.  The two views focus upon what is added by the word “VeAshem”. According to RaShI (expanded upon by Klee Yakar) the Tora is describing a person who has made an 180 turn and whereas before he had sinned, he now recognizes that what he had done was wrong and wishes to atone. RaMBaN understands “VeAshem” as the individual compounding his sin by not only stealing but then swearing falsely in order to avoid admitting that he had done something wrong.

2.  The advantage of RaShI’s approach is that it accounts for the very next phrase in the text:

              “a) to commit a trespass against the LORD, b) and that soul be guilty; c) then they shall confess their sin which they have done.” According to RaMBaN there is no word that constitutes a transition from the state of sinning to the state of repentance. However according to RaShI, the sinner has already turned with the word “VeAshem” (and he is guilty). Consequently it is highly expected that he would be confessing at the next instant.

3.  The first instance of “guilty” in v. 6 refers to the individual’s own status, i.e., how he sees himself in his own eyes. RaShI: he realizes that he is guilty; RaMBaN: he continues to act in a guilty manner by swearing falsely. In v. 7, the term “guilty” refers to the individual who has been victimized by the process, i.e.,” against whom he has acted in a guilty manner.”

4.  It would appear that VaYikra 5:5 would parallel RaShI since the verse follows the same structure in terms of the term Ye’esham is followed closely (albeit not immediately) by the act of confession. This would seem to allow for an interpretation of self-realization that a sin has been committed.

Daled.

Whereas the “Vav HaChibur” in v. 6 is dividing between the initial sin and the self-realization of having committed a transgression, the “Vav HaChibur” at the beginning of v. 7 would be a continuation of that self-realization process, i.e., confession that objectifies the inner sense of having done wrong. The second “Vav HaChibur” in v. 7 is a separate external action entailing returning the lost object. Whether or not the perpetrator regrets having committed his transgression, it will be required of him to make restitution. So that last section of the verse is set apart from the preceding section.

Heh.

The additional reason given by RaMBaM in the Guide for the Perplexed, Part III Chapt. 41 for the relative lesser punishment applied to a Gazlan than a Ganav, based upon the punishments of four times the principle for stealing a sheep and then either killing or selling it, as opposed to the punishment of five times the principle for stealing a cow and either killing or selling it, is due to the principle that the easier it is to commit the sin, the harsher the consequence. Since it is easier to catch a cow in order to steal it than to catch a sheep, the amount exacted is greater. By extension, the fact that the Ganav can more easily rationalize what he is doing in the sense of expecting to get away with it, we require him to pay double, while the Gazlan who openly takes something from someone by force is not necessarily taking the easier path, and therefore he is only liable to the principle and possibly an additional Chomesh.

Vav.

The term “VeShilem” that appears in VaYikra has the clear connotation of returning money. If the object is still intact and being returned, one could say that that is not a case of “VeShilem”, compensation, but rather simply returning the object itself. Consequently there is the possibility that Chomesh would have to be added only when money is being substituted for the object itself, but not when the object is actually restored. Consequently, in BaMidbar, when the term “VeHeishiv” (and he will cause to return) along with the payment of a Chomesh, it is reasonable to say that this is a case where the object itself is being returned and nevertheless a Chomesh is required. The logic behind the Hava Amina would maintain that it is worse when a person is given money instead of the object itself. While money is fungible, the owner will have to go through the trouble of acquiring a replacement for what was taken. Due to the additional trouble imposed upon the victim, perhaps we would require the perpetrator to pay more. Ka Mashma Lan (we learn otherwise) that whether the object itself is returned or money is given in its place, a Chomesh will still be necessary to be paid.

Zayin.

Bava Metzia 54a.

R. Yoshia: The Chomesh plus the principle results in five equal portions. Therefore the Chomesh is 25% of the principle and the sum total of them all together is 125%

R. Yonatan: The Chomesh is 1/5 or 20% of the principle. The resulting sum would be 120%.

The Sifra agrees with R. Yoshia because the text states, “…and add unto it the fifth part thereof…”, which suggests that the principle is kept whole, and if an additional part has to be added, it is the fifth after the fine has been added to the whole. In other words, if in the end I wish there to be five equal parts, I take one fourth of the principle and add it to the whole, resulting in 125%.

             

4