English translation — ויקרא א

1.

The verse "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor in a deposit or in a pledge" etc.¹

Rashi brings the words "If a person sins" and explains — "Said Rabbi Akiva²

What³

the verse says 'and commits a trespass against the Lord,'

Because anyone who lends and borrows and carries on business does so only with witnesses and a document, therefore when he denies, he denies to witnesses and a document,

But one who deposits with his fellow and does not⁴

want any soul to know of it except the third between them,

therefore when he denies, he denies to the third between them."

Simply — the explanation in this commentary⁵

: That which "and commits a trespass against the Lord" refers specifically to one who denies a deposit — and not when he denies a loan,

although also here,

just as with a deposit,

the Omnipresent knows that he borrowed money —

Because when one gives another a deposit to hide in a manner that "he does not want any soul to know of it",

without witnesses and without a document,

and the only safeguard is,

only that the depositor and the bailee rely on that the Omnipresent knows of it,

and they bring Him in, as it were, as a witness on the deposit

that Laban said to Jacob: "There is no man with us, see God is witness between me and you"]

— therefore,

by that which he denies the deposit,

it is consequently a denial in the only "witness" between them — in the Omnipresent.

And with this it is understandable<sup>7</sup>

that Rashi uses here a unique expression — "the third between them"

(and does not say clearly: "the Holy One, blessed be He",

or "Hashem" — like the language of the verse)

— because with this he wants to explain and emphasize,

that that which "and he denies etc. in a deposit" means "a trespass against <b>Hashem</b>",

is because the depositor and the bailee have, as it were, brought in the Omnipresent as a "third between them",

i.e.

that is

as a witness,

and consequently this is a "trespass against Hashem" as a denial in the witness of the deposit.

According to this, however, it is difficult:

When the verse expresses whom it means with "A soul that sins and commits a trespass against the Lord",

it says

(not only)

"and lies to his fellow concerning a deposit

(but also immediately afterwards)

<b>or</b> — <b>in</b> <b>a</b> <b>hand</b> <b>deposit</b>",

which means

(as Rashi explains)

"that there is money in his hand to transact with or as a loan" — how does it accord with what Rashi says that in the case of "the borrower and the lender and the one who carries and the one who gives" he denies <b>not</b> the Most High,

but "by witnesses and by a document"⁸?

Commentators learn⁹,

that "or in a pledge" does not refer to "and commits a trespass against the Lord",

but rather as another detail that comes in continuation <b>only</b> to "and lies to his fellow".

It is however difficult to learn thus,

because from the plain sense of the language of the verse it is implied,

as above,

that the principle of "and lies to his fellow" itself

(with all its details: both "deposit" and "pledge" and also "robbery" etc.)

is an interpretation of "if a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord".

2.

In addition to the aforementioned question

(How does Rashi's interpretation fit,

that "and commits a trespass against Hashem" is only by "and denies a deposit",

with the simple meaning of the verse),

there are also several perplexities regarding the language of Rashi:

a)

Rashi is here not coming to explain the words "If a person sins",

rather,

as he himself warns: "Why is it necessary to say 'and commits a trespass against Hashem'" — is entirely not understood&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

: Specifically the words "If a person sins" he cites and focuses on them,

while the words "and commits a trespass against Hashem" he does not bring down at all and does not even allude to them by adding an "etc."?

b)

It is known,

that Rashi in his commentaries according to the words of our Sages,

does not mention the name of the author of the statement,

unless there comes through this an additional explanation in the stated commentary.

One must understand: what additional understanding comes in the commentary "What does it teach? And he commits a trespass against the Lord,"

through the knowledge that this was said by Rabbi Akiva?

c)

In order to understand with what here the "trespass against the Lord,"

would have sufficed the explanation that "one who deposits with another, etc., denies the third party between them" — why does Rashi need to elaborate and give to understand through the comparison of "anyone who lends, etc., denies the witnesses and the document"?

d)

When two people have a negotiation between themselves and they draw in someone else as a witness — a confirmation and assurance on the matter — it is not possible to call that one as the "third" between them: he becomes between them only a mediator who confirms and clarifies the negotiation between them,

but not one who can be counted together with them,

as a third — not taking any part in the negotiation itself.

Therefore one must understand,

why Rashi calls here the Most High as "&lt;b&gt;third&lt;/b&gt; between them"

(not "one" or "this")

: indeed,

that the depositor and the bailee relied upon the Most High that He would be a witness between them — but they did not include Him as a &lt;b&gt;third&lt;/b&gt;

(partner)

in relation to the deposit itself — now why should He be called by the name "third"?

3.

Besides the above-mentioned questions in Rashi here on the spot,

there is also a difficulty from a previous Rashi:

On the verse "If a person commits a trespass against the Lord"¹¹

Rashi says "There is no מעילה <b>anywhere except</b> change".

One must understand: what kind of change is there by "and he denies to his fellow",

that because of this the verse says about it "<b>and commits a trespass</b> against the Lord"¹²?

Commentators explain¹³,

that this denial itself,

that he wants to take for himself something that belongs to another — it presents itself as a <b>change</b> of domain.

But it is not understood: In the verse it says "and commits a trespass <b>in</b> the Lord"?

e.

that the trespass

(which according to Rashi's explanation is everywhere meant as change)

must here be interpreted as a change in the domain of the <b>Most High</b>

(as in "when a person commits a trespass etc. against the Lord's sanctuary",

where one transfers the item from the domain of the sacred to the domain of the profane).

But according to the aforementioned commentators, the "trespass" consists only in a change of domain from one person to another?

i.

4.

Is the explanation in all the above:

The question

(main)

that arises here by Rashi regarding the matter of "and commits a trespass against the Lord" is

(<b>not</b> because of these words themselves,

but)

due to the words "a soul when it sins" that stand before this:

If it would have stood only "ומעלה מעל בה׳",

one could

(with difficulty at least)

learn*&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

that every case of transgressing the will of the Most High

(and in particular,

the swearing falsely in the &lt;b&gt;Most High's&lt;/b&gt; name)

the Torah calls a "מעל בה׳"

(and אין מעילה ..

except change),

because thereby he shows that he exchanges the Most High for,

to distinguish,

a mundane thing,

i.

e.

he does not reckon with &lt;b&gt;His&lt;/b&gt; importance,

but as if it were,

to distinguish,

a mundane thing.

Since however that earlier it already stands in the verse "נפש &lt;b&gt;כי תחטא&lt;/b&gt;",

it becomes consequently difficult: because of what does the verse say both "תחטא" and "ומעלה מעל בה׳" which according to the above is indeed the same thing?

And therefore Rashi places himself

(not on the words "ומעלה מעל בה׳" themselves,

but)

on the words "נפש כי תחטא" and asks,

"מה תלמוד לומר ומעלה מעל בה׳״ — since it already says "נפש כי תחטא" is "מה ת״ל ומעלה מעל בה׳"^14,

Because of what*¹⁴

does the verse say <b>both</b> expressions¹⁵.

And to this Rashi answers*¹⁵

"לפי שכל המלוה כו׳ אבל המפקיד כו׳״,

that the <b>two</b> expressions — "כי תחטא״ and ״ומעלה מעל בה׳״ — refer to the following two details:

"When you sin" is said in connection to "and he denies &lt;b&gt;the deposit&lt;/b&gt; etc.",

where it deals with money regarding business or a loan — and since here he is only "denying through witnesses and through a document",

it is merely a "sin" — not a matter of "trespass against HaShem"; and the expression "and commits a trespass against HaShem" the verse says in relation to "and he denies a deposit",

because one who denies a deposit is "denying the third party between them".

And accordingly it becomes understandable why Rashi elaborates and also mentions the detail of "the borrower etc.",

because thereby he explains the words "A soul when it sins"*&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

But according to this the question arises: the wording "כי תחטא" stands indeed &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; "ומעלה מעל בה׳",

now why do their interpretations come afterwards in a reverse order — first "בפקדון"

(continuing from "ומעלה מעל בה׳")

and then "בתשומת יד וגו׳״

(— "נפש כי תחטא")?

This very question Rashi addresses with one letter: the wording in the Sifra is "המפקיד אצל חבירו &lt;b&gt;אינו&lt;/b&gt; רוצה שתדע בו נשמה",

but in Rashi's commentary it is said&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

"ואינו רוצה כו׳":

With this vav,

that Rashi adds,

he emphasizes in a clear manner that also by a deposit it can be portrayed that one should give to hide with witnesses and a document,

and therefore¹⁷

deposit is placed before loan,

because by "and he denied the deposit" there is

(also)

a case that relates to "a soul when it sins" — and since "deposit" expresses both terms and also "and committed a trespass against the Lord"),

therefore it comes before "and he denied the entrusted property of a convert",

before loan which is usually "with a document and witnesses".

6.

The explanation of the verse's wording "and committed a trespass against the Lord" — from which it is implied

(as above sec. 3)

that through his denying the deposit,

he changes

(and removes)

the deposit from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He — Rashi expresses through the wording "the <b>third</b> between them":

By this that he says that the Supreme One is a "third",

a third to the depositor and the depositee,

Rashi makes clear that here it is not dealing only with this that the depositor and the depositee made the Supreme One into a witness upon the deposit

(because as above end of section 2,

with this that one is only a witness also — a matter — he is still not called a "third")

; here is also meant the Supreme One's &lt;b&gt;ownership&lt;/b&gt; over the deposit,

and therefore specifically is He called "third" — He is the third owner:

One owner is the depositor,

to whom belongs the deposit; the second "owner" becomes the depositee*&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

because in his possession is found the deposit and especially when he is &lt;b&gt;and denies&lt;/b&gt;,

he denies the deposit he is &lt;b&gt;in actuality&lt;/b&gt; the owner over the deposit; and the third owner is the Supreme One — He is the &lt;b&gt;true&lt;/b&gt; owner of the deposit,

because it is indeed "to Hashem&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

the earth and its fullness".

And this is the explanation of "denies the third party between them": that which the object belongs to the depositor,

is it then because &lt;b&gt;the Almighty&lt;/b&gt;

(the true Owner of the entire world)

gave it to him&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

; is when the depositee denies the deposit and wants to take from him the object,

it means a denial in the ownership of the Almighty — "denies &lt;b&gt;the third party&lt;/b&gt; between them",

and therefore it is called "and commits a trespass against the Lord" — that through his denying this,

it consequently comes out as if he removes, so to speak, the deposit from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And although according to this it turns out that also by denying a loan there is the concept of "denying" in the Above's ownership over the money — because &lt;b&gt;the Above&lt;/b&gt; gave it to the lender — it is nevertheless not comparable:

By a loan,

since "whoever lends etc. does so only with witnesses and a document",

he did not here connect the loan,

in a special manner,

with the ownership of the Above; but by a deposit,

where "he does not want any soul to know of it &lt;b&gt;except a third&lt;/b&gt; between them",

he indeed in this specifically relied on the "third between them",

i.

e.

the depositor believed the bailee only because he reckoned that the bailee would not go against the ownership of the Above,

and by denying the deposit he is therefore "denying the third between them" and is "unfaithful with G-d".

7.

After all this, an explanation is still required in this: When one denies the other's deposit,

it is true indeed that he does a thing that is against the will of the Most High,

but after all, the object remains — also after the denial — in the domain of the Most High — so why is it still called a "ma'al baHashem",

a <b>change</b> in the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He?

True,

it is indeed not a strong question,

because as said,

he goes here against the Most High's order in the matter of ownership,

and that means consequently as if he had taken out a thing from the domain of the Most High — but still it is not so simple.

Therefore Rashi indeed warns about this — but only in a hint-like manner — by adding the name of the author of the discourse <b>R. Akiva</b>:

The reason that on the first day the Levites in the Holy Temple would say the psalm "To God belongs the earth and its fullness",

says

(R. Yishmael in the name of)

<b>R. Akiva</b> "because He acquired and gave acquisition"²⁰.

And <b>Rashi</b> explains on this: "That is to say,

acquires in order to give acquisition".

And since

(according to <b>R. Akiva</b>)

that which the Most High "acquired" the world is

(<b>only</b>)

"<b>in order</b> to give acquisition" — that the Most High's ownership itself over this object,

is, as it were, dependent on that He gives it and makes it belong to a certain person — then it follows automatically,

according to <b>R. Akiva</b>,

that if someone does not allow the "to give acquisition",

he causes, as it were,

(also)

in the "acquisition" of the Holy One, blessed be He.

8.

It previously

(s.v.)

was discussed,

that that which "and he lies about his neighbor's property" is divided in the verse into two manners: "If a soul sins" and "and commits a trespass .

against the Lord" — although in &lt;b&gt;every&lt;/b&gt; manner it is a "trespass" against the Most High

(adding to the matter of that which the Most High gave him,

he thereby makes, as it were, a change in the property of the Holy One, blessed be He, as above)

— it is because when he relies initially on witnesses and a document,

he is not "lying" &lt;b&gt;openly&lt;/b&gt; against the "third party between them"

(as is the case in "and he lies about a deposit" where he initially relied on the third party between them and it is therefore a more open denial of the Most High),

and therefore there is

(openly)

only a matter of "if a soul sins",

but not "and commits a trespass against the Lord".

From this it is understood,

that the difference between "if a soul sins" and "and commits a trespass against the Lord" is only in relation to revelation,

i.

e.

that by "if a soul sins" the trespass against the Lord is not so noticeable openly, but inwardly the trespass is present also by "if a soul sins",

— and this means in &lt;b&gt;every&lt;/b&gt; sin,

even one that is merely "chet" from the language of deficiency&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

— when someone

(does not commit a transgression,

but he)

misses something in his service,

and even when that which is missed is but a "small thing"

(&lt;b&gt;for example&lt;/b&gt; like the "nefesh ki techeta" literally,

which speaks even when he denies only a shaveh perutah)

This means,

that although this appears merely as a simple sin

(but not a matter of heresy, may it not be said, and heaven forbid)

— it is &lt;b&gt;inwardly&lt;/b&gt; a matter of "denying the third between them",

like a matter of heresy, may it not be said&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

; and even more: it is also a &lt;b&gt;misappropriation&lt;/b&gt; of God — he thereby &lt;b&gt;changes&lt;/b&gt;, as it were, in the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He.

— Through his not fulfilling the task incumbent upon him to make from his portion in the world a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed,

he removes, as it were, that portion from the domain of the Holy One, blessed be He.

9.

That which the Torah inserted the instruction of "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord"

(and as explained above)

specifically by "and deals falsely &lt;b&gt;with his neighbor&lt;/b&gt;",

it is in order to emphasize,

that this is so

(also)

regarding matters between man and his fellow

(and not only regarding between man and the Omnipresent)

One should have no mistake and think,

that regarding matters between man and the Omnipresent,

it is understandable that every detail "touches" upon the ownership of the Most High; regarding between man and his fellow however,

although that the commands about this are indeed &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; the &lt;b&gt;Most High&lt;/b&gt; — it is nevertheless in order to protect "his fellow",

is even when he should wrong him,

it touches primarily a &lt;b&gt;person&lt;/b&gt; but not the Most High —

Therefore the Torah states clearly,

that "if a soul sins",

is although this is in a manner that externally it pertains only to "his fellow"

(not to the Most High, heaven forbid),

nevertheless it is already a matter of "and commits a trespass against the Lord"²³

; and even when he merely "lacked"

("sin — language of deficiency")

doing his fellow a favor,

etc. — it is,

inwardly,

already a matter of "trespass against the Lord",

as above.

10.

But it is, however, "nothing stands before repentance"²⁴

Is the parshah therefore concluding: "And he shall atone for him etc. and it shall be forgiven him"²⁵.

So that not looking upon that which he was in a state of "When a soul shall sin"

(Which that itself is already inwardly a "treachery against the Lord",

as above),

And even when there was by him <b>openly</b> the "and committed a treachery against the Lord",

Is as soon as he does teshuvah,

Is "and he shall atone etc. and it shall be forgiven him",

And so too in general: And when a soul shall sin — becomes

("Because of our sins)

— we were exiled",

Israel does teshuvah <b>and immediately</b> they are redeemed"²⁶,

With the coming of Mashiach our righteousness,

Very soon and in our days²⁷.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra 5730)