S ome people feel they can relate better to mitzvos between man and his fellow and others would rather focus on G-d -oriented commandments. But really it’s all one package sensitizing us to the fact that we’re one family under Hashem’s umbrella.

We might have been led to think that mitzvos are divided into two categories: bein adam laMakom and bein adam l’chaveiro. A person might say “I’m not that religious; I don’t keep all the mitzvos between man and G-d but I’m careful about keeping the mitzvos between man and his fellow.” Or someone might say of another “Well he keeps the mitzvos between man and G-d meticulously but he’s not so concerned about mitzvos between people.” But they are both wrong because in reality the two categories are inseparable. There is a single concept of mitzvos and the division we hear so much about is only for the purpose of study.

This fundamental truth arises in part from a pasuk in this week’s parshah — or to be more precise from three words in the pasuk that seem out of place. The pasuk says:

“If a person sins and acts fraudulently toward Hashem denying to his fellow concerning a deposit or money given in hand or robbed or withheld funds from his fellow or found a lost article and denied it and swore falsely regarding any one of all these cases whereby a man may sin…” (Vayikra 5:21–22).

It is immediately clear that these verses deal with mitzvos bein adam l’chaveiro. But before we delve into the deeper meaning let’s first clarify each of the concepts that are mentioned:

“Or money given in hand.” Based on the Gemara Rashi explains that this refers to a person who took a monetary loan. When the time comes to pay it back he denies that he ever took the loan and swears falsely in the Name of Hashem to reinforce his claim.

“Or robbed.” Rashi adds in explanation “If he stole anything from another ” meaning even the most petty item. So it’s no exaggeration to say that this includes taking home hotel towels as souvenirs filling our pockets with packets of sugar or ketchup from a restaurant or helping ourselves to the free gift-wrap paper in a department store without having purchased a gift.

“Or withheld funds.” This according to Rashi refers to a hired worker’s pay. Attention employers or anyone who negotiates workers’ salaries in a private or public employment setting.

The Gemara draws a fine distinction between gezel (robbery) and oshek (wrongful withholding): “What is oshek and what is gezel? Rabi Chisda said ‘Go and come back; go and come back’ — that is oshek. ‘Your property is in my hands and I’m not giving it to you’ — that is gezel.”

According to Rabi Chisda’s definition of oshek quite a few bureaucrats must stand accused of it. “Go away and come back another day” has unfortunately become the norm.

“Or found a lost article.” Here we have another scenario where one might misappropriate another person’s property by applying the “principle” of “finders keepers losers weepers ” instead of the Torah’s commandment to return the item to its proven rightful owner. Once in possession of it a person might deny having found it or even go so far as to swear falsely that he didn’t find it.

All the situations mentioned in our two pesukim involve depriving one’s fellowman of what is rightfully his whether by laying hands on his property directly or indirectly by betraying his trust or by wasting his time (“Go and come back”). The bottom line is that depriving one’s fellowman of what is rightfully his is a sin and avoiding such behavior is one of the Torah’s commandments.

All this is rather simple and obvious. But what about the three words we haven’t yet discussed: u’maalah maal ba’Hashem translated as “and acts fraudulently toward Hashem.” What are these words doing here? What have they got to do with what follows — one who robs his fellowman or who denies having received property in trust who neglects to pay an employee or conceals a found object from its owner? This is an offense against civil law and against the human conscience but how does the purely “religious” idea of me’ilah misappropriation of sanctified property come into it?

Oh but this is the very crux of the matter. If a pasuk brings together two seemingly unconnected ideas then there must in truth be a profound connection between them. Here is how the great Tanna Rabi Akiva interprets the pasuk:

“What is to be learned from the words ‘and acts fraudulently toward Hashem’? A lender or a person negotiating a business exchange does so only with a signed witnessed agreement. Therefore if he denies that he entered into the agreement he is denying the validity of the signed statement and the witnesses. But one who deposits a trust with a friend doesn’t want a soul to know about it except for the third party between them. If the trustee denies that he accepted the deposit he is denying the third party” (Sifra Vayikra 372).

And who is this third party who has been denied when the trust between two people is broken?

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch answers:

“All falsehood in relations between man and his fellow is called me’ilah fraudulent behavior toward Hashem. If a person makes an agreement with another without witnesses then Hashem is the ‘third party between them’ (Toras Kohanim). Hashem is the guarantor of honest dealings between people. And we see here that this guarantor is called upon by the person whose trust has been betrayed. Therefore this is no mere human treachery. For a Jew has placed all of his service to Hashem (his entire conduct as a mitzvah-observant person) in the position of guarantor of his honesty. And if this service proves to be but an empty shell this is absolute fraud” (Rav Hirsch on the Torah).

As I understand Rav Hirsch’s interpretation trust between two people is founded not in a contract but in the inner Divine spark within them. If a person betrays this trust he is betraying that Divine spark. As human beings we feel such a betrayal deeply. We view betrayal of trust as more serious than many other crimes and are wounded to the depth of our souls when a close friend or spouse violates our trust. Even if we are robbed by a stranger the injury we feel stems mainly from having our faith in humanity shaken because this faith is essential to our ability to function in this world. Deprived of that faith we lose the basis of our security as individuals with rights over our possessions. Thus according to commentators both ancient and modern one who commits crimes of ethics between man and his fellow acts fraudulently against Hashem.

Interestingly the false swearing mentioned in our pasuk is not the reason for the additional words “and acts fraudulently toward Hashem.” In other verses in this chapter that discuss the punishment of one who swears falsely the expression maalah maal ba’Hashem does not appear. Only in connection with acts that deny others what is rightfully theirs do we see this expression. Other than in our verse the words maalah maal ba’Hashem appear only one other place further on in the chapter where they apply to misappropriating the sacred articles of the Mikdash. Thus the pasuk equates betrayal of human trust through denial of a person’s property or monetary rights with a direct affront against G-d Himself.

The pesukim that follows continue this theme:

“And it shall be when he has sinned and is guilty that he shall return the article that he had robbed or the funds which he had withheld… and he shall pay it… and he shall bring his guilt-offering to Hashem… and it shall be forgiven” (ibid 23-25).

The pasuk implies that the robber or the trustee who denies that something was deposited with him has committed two sins: The double expression indicates that he has sinned both against Hashem and against his litigant meaning that whoever commits theft against his fellowman sins against HaKadosh Baruch Hu as well. The attentive learner will also notice that the robber must first make reparations by restoring what he has dishonestly taken and only afterward comes the time for the offering to G-d as the offering does not atone unless he has appeased the injured party first.

Which brings us back to our basic truth: that all mitzvos whether they seem to be G-d -oriented or man-oriented are of one Source and one mission. (Originally featured in Mishpacha Issue 654)