Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

The commandment of a definite guilt-offering: To offer a sacrifice for well-known sins — that we will explain. And this sacrifice is called a definite guilt-offering. And it is a sacrifice of a ram that needs to be worth two sela (Keritot 22b). And there are some of these sins for which this sacrifice comes, that are whether he sinned inadvertently or whether volitionally; and there are some for which it only comes specifically for the inadvertent, but not for the volitional.

And one of these sins is: one who illegally has money of a Jew in his hand, from the worth of a small coin and up — for example, he robs him or steals from him, or [money] that remained in his hand from a deposit that was deposited with him or because of a loan or a partnership. The principle of the matter is that [in a case] if he were to admit to him, he would be liable to pay by law, and the robbed or oppressed — or his inheritor or his authorized representative — sues him for it, but he denies it and swears falsely about it; when he repents and regrets his sin and returns the “loot that is in his hand,” he is liable to bring this sacrifice that we said for his sin, besides the fifth that he is obligated to add on the principal and to give to the robbed, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), “A soul that sinned and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc.” And Rabbi Akiva says, “What do we learn to say [from] ‘a misappropriation from God?’ Because any lender and borrower act only with witnesses, [therefore] when he denies, he only denies the witnesses; but one who borrows without witnesses and denies it, he denies the Third Party among them — the Divine Presence — that is why it states, ‘and misappropriated a misappropriation from God and denies his kinsman, etc.’” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 22:4). And it is written after it (Leviticus 5 23-25), “And it shall be when he sins and is guilty” — meaning to say that he will repent, such that he takes responsibility for his own guilt — “and return the theft, etc. and he shall pay it from its principal, and a fifth shall he add upon it, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, a ram, etc.” And this is what is called the guilt-offering of thefts; and this is from those that come whether for the inadvertent or for the volitional.

And in this section, there are no guilt-offerings mentioned besides this one that we said. But in the section above, there is a definite guilt-offering mentioned, similar to this, that is also called a definite guilt-offering; and it is (called) the guilt-offering of misappropriations — meaning to say, [for] one who misappropriates and derives benefit from the consecrated things. And therefore, the expression meilah is applied to it, which is something very bad. And one who extends his hand to derive benefit from the money of the Heavens is similar to giving over (the property of others). And this guilt-offering comes only for the inadvertent, and as we wrote above in its place (Sefer HaChinukh 127).

And the Torah further also obligated this sacrifice of the definite guilt-offering — and it is a ram of two sela — for a nazirite that became impure, and as we will write, with God’s help, in the Order of Nasso (Sefer HaChinukh 277). And this is also whether he became impure volitionally or indavertently. And the Torah further also obligated this sacrifice for a metsora when he is purified from his tsaraat — and as we will write with God’s help in the Order of Zot Tehiyeh Torat Hametsora (Sefer HaChinukh 177). And there is no need to explain inadvertent and volitional about this, as the notion of inadvertent and volitional is not relevant here.

And the Torah further also obligated this sacrifice for one who has sexual relations with a designated maidservant; and as it is written in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:20-21), “If a man lays with a woman, etc. and she is a maidservant designated (charufah) for a man, but has not been redeemed with redemption, etc. there shall be an investigation, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering [ etc.] a ram of guilt.” And this is from those that come whether for inadvertent transgression or volitional (Keritot 9a). It comes out that with all of them, there are five definite guilt-offerings. And so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, count in the Mishnah, such that they said (Mishnah Zevachim 5:5), “These are the guilt-offerings: 1) The guilt-offering of thefts; 2) the guilt-offering of misappropriations; 3) the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant; 4) the guilt-offering of the nazirite; 5) the guilt-offering of the metsora.” And [regarding] the undetermined guilt-offering which is counted there, its name is upon it [to show] that it is not from the group of definite guilt-offerings. And from these five, three of them come whether they are inadvertent or volitional — and they are the guilt-offering of thefts, the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant and the guilt-offering of the nazirite; and one of them only comes for inadvertent transgression and not for volitional transgression — and that is the guilt-offering of misappropriations; and [for] the fifth — which is the guilt-offering of the metsora — the expression, inadvertent and volitional, is not relevant, as we said.

And since the designated maidservant “has come to our hand, let us say a thing about her.” And even though it is not from this Order — since it is not from the tally of the commandments, I have no [other] place to speak about it besides here. The understanding of charufah is designated, meaning to say, betrothed. And they said in the Gemara at the beginning of the first chapter of Kiddushin 6a, that so [was it] in Yehudah, that they would call a betrothed woman, a charufah. And the verse is speaking about a Canaanite (gentile) maidservant that is half a maidservant and half a free woman. And this is that which is written about her, “but has not been redeemed with redemption” — meaning to say she is redeemed but not redeemed: for example, she paid her master half of her money. And she is betrothed (to an Israelite slave or) to another Israelite. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 3:13.) About this is it stated that if another man has sexual relations with her — whether inadvertently or volitionally — he is liable to bring this sacrifice that is called a guilt-offering, and it is a ram that is worth two sela or more. And because of this, the atonement of a sacrifice is enough for the one that has sexual relations with her — since her betrothal is not full betrothal as if she had been a free woman. As with a betrothed free woman, the one who has sexual relations with her is liable for the death penalty. But with this one, her betrothal is not full because of the half of her that is still in the category of being a maidservant; and therefore it is enough with the atonement of a sacrifice for the one that stumbles with her. The Torah was also lenient with her sexual relations to exempt one with a sacrifice even when volitional — which is not the way of other volitional transgressions, to exempt them with a sacrifice — since a woman maidservant, even though she is half redeemed, is light in the eyes of every man; and [so] stumbling is very easy with her, since the masses do not not think of her sexual relations to be a great sin. And hence their iniquity is removed and their sin is atoned with the sacrifice. And similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about other matters (Sanhedrin 106b), we can say here, “The Merciful One wants the heart.”

And nonetheless the maidservant is liable for lashes, as we cannot say about her that she is light in her [own] eyes — and that because of that, she did not guard herself from licentiousness. But still, she also is not liable for lashes unless she has intercourse in the regular fashion, is an adult and volitional. And about her is it said, “there shall be an investigation (bikoret tehiyeh)” — as our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Keritot 22a), “bikrei tehi (she shall be with verses),” meaning to say with lashes. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 22a), “She is lashed, and not he.” And because of this did the Scripture express the lashes with this language of “reading” — since they would read verses of rebuke over the one lashed while they were still lashing him, so that he understand and take instruction. And [these verses] are “And the Lord will make wondrous, etc.” (Deuteronomy 28:59).

It is from the roots of the commandment [that] a person not think that even though the matter of the prohibition of robbery is rectified by a positive commandment, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:23), “and return the theft” — that each one should go and rob what he wants from his fellow and imagine in his heart to say that when he has it and he returns the theft, his iniquity will be atoned and he will be purified from it; and behold, it will be as if he never did it. And this would be an opening for sinners. Hence the Torah made known that even with the repayment with the addition of a fifth, he [still] needs a sacrifice for atonement, for his having sinned. And I have already written above (Sefer HaChinukh 123) about this matter, that nonetheless, it does not save him from having transgressed the will of his Creator. And it is a pity on his head that He transgressed the will of the Master of the Heavens, [even if] he sacrificed several [fat] sheep (peace-offerings) for burnt-offerings. And there I also wrote that the sacrifice and the principal impede the atonement, but the fifth does not impede [it].

The laws of the commandment — for example, in which manner he would be obligated for this oath such that he be liable for this guilt-offering, and in which manner he would be exempt from it; in which way he would be liable for many guilt-offerings according to the number of the obligation of oaths, and in which way he would only be liable one guilt-offering; and the rest of its details — are elucidated in Keritot and in Shevuot. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 9.)

And the commandment of the liability for this sacrifice is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females. And [regarding] one who transgresses it and does not offer [it] — even though he has returned his theft — his sin will not be atoned. However, we can suppose that his punishment will not be so strong as it would have been, had he not returned the money. And the parable for this is about one who struck his fellow and became liable for a penalty to the king; and [then] he appeased the one struck, [such that] the only thing that remained upon him was the claim of the king.