1) (Vayikra 5:21) ("If a soul sin, and commit a profanation against the L–rd, and deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor") Why is "his neighbor" written twice? "his neighbor" — to exclude (from a guilt-offering for denial) the Exalted (i.e., the sanctuary); "his neighbor" — to exclude others (i.e., idolators). I might think (that this applies even) if one said to his neighbor "I ate today," and he had not eaten; "I went to this and this city," and he had not gone — it is, therefore, written "if he sin … and deny." This applies only to a denial preceded by a sin and not to a denial not preceded by a sin. 2) Rebbi says: "and he deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, (Vayikra 5:22) or if one find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely": All of these are of a monetary nature — to exclude such things which are not of a monetary nature. 3) "and commit a profanation against the L–rd": R. Yossi Haglili says: to include lower order sanctities, which are the property of the owner. Ben Azzai says: to include peace-offerings, excluding the beast tithe, which is not considered his property. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Ben Azzai was speaking only of a bechor (a first-born). R. Shimon says: Both holy of holies and lower order sanctities, for which a man is responsible, come under "and he deny to his neighbor." Those for which he is not responsible come under "against the L–rd and he deny." 4) R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "and commit a profanation against the L–rd"? Because the lender and the borrower and the taker and the giver act only in the context of writ and witnesses, therefore, when one denies, he denies the witnesses and the writ, but one who deposits a pledge with his neighbor wants no one to know about it but the "Third Party" among them, and when he denies, he denies the "Third Party" among them. 5) "and he deny to his neighbor": I might think (a denial) of words; it is, therefore, written: "a pledge," which is (a denial) of money — to exclude what is not money. 6) (Why all these forms of denial? For if that of a pledge alone were written), I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of a pledge? Because he has no right to spend it — as opposed to the case of a loan, where he does have a right to spend it. It is, therefore, written "or a deposit" (i.e., a loan). Then I might say: Why (is there an expiatory guilt-offering) in the case of the others? Because they (the objects) were given to him freely — as opposed to the case of theft, where (the object) was not given to him freely. It is, therefore, written "or a theft." Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For something is taken from the possession of the owner — as opposed to the case of withholding the wages of a hired man, where nothing is taken from the possession of an owner. It is, therefore, written "or if he oppress his neighbor." Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For both of them know (that the second "took" something) — as opposed to the case of finding a lost object, where both do not know, (but only the finder). "and he deny it" (the object, and not (having seen) its finder (and denying having seen him). Ben Azzai says: There are three kinds of (oaths in connection with) lost objects: knowing of it but not knowing of its finder (and denying under oath that he had seen it in that neighborhood, which might have led to the owner's inquiring about it and recovering it); (knowing) of its finder, but not of it (i.e., of its identifying signs); (knowing) neither of it nor of its finder. 7) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For it is possible to know them (i.e., to see the damage) — as opposed to cases where it is impossible to know them, such as: mixing wine with water, oil with (extract of) galubia (a kind of grass), honey with mei mayan, resin with ass milk, myrrh with nettles, horse-bears with sand, folium with vine-leaves. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for such cases) (Vayikra 5:22): "and he swears over falsehood" — over anything which contains falsehood. 8) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that) do not damage (others) — as opposed to things that do damage, such as: one man's wounding another, a possession against a possession (e.g., one ox against anther), a man against a possession, a possession against a man. It is, therefore, written (to include liability in such instances) (Vayikra 5:22): "(and he swears falsely) in one of all these things that a man does to sin in them." 9) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that are subject to) payment of the principal — as opposed to double payment, "four and five" payment, (payment for) rape, inducement (to intercourse), and libel. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for these) (Vayikra 5:21): "and he commit a profanation against the L–rd." 10) "one of all," "in it" and "in them" and "of all" are clauses of exclusion — to exclude: one saying to his neighbor, "You injured me on the Sabbath" and the other denying it; "You set fire to my sheaves on the Sabbath" and the other denying it; a father saying to his son, "You struck me and wounded me," and the son saying, "I did not strike you and wound you." It is, therefore, written, (in respect to these instances): "one of all," "in it" and "in them," and "of all," for exclusion. Why do you see fit to include the others and to exclude these? After Scripture includes it excludes. I include the others, where capital judgment is not involved, and I exclude these, where capital judgment is involved. 11) R. Shimon said: I might think that if one said to his neighbor: You raped or enticed my daughter, and the other denied it — (or) if one's servant said to him: You knocked out my tooth or: You blinded my eye, and he denied it — I might think that he were liable; it is, therefore, written: "and he deny to his neighbor a pledge, or a deposit, or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, etc." What is common to all of the above is that they are not (i.e., they do not involve) penalty payments — to exclude the aforementioned, which are penalty payments.
Sifra Chovah Chapter 22
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.