What are the connotatons of ?Vehayah ki Yecheta Ve?asheim??
Rashi: It means when he admits that he sinned and is guilty and does Teshuvah. 1
R. Bachye: It means that if Reuven retains money belonging to Shimon he sins not only against Shimon but also against Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu.
See Sifsei Chachamim.
?Vehayah ki Yecheta Ve?asheim?. Why does the Torah not insert the word ?bi?Shegagah? ? like it did in the prevous Parshiyos?
R. Bachye: Because Asham Gezeilos is one of the only four cases of Meizid in the Torah where one brings a Korban Chatas. 1
1. Someone who has relations with a Shifchah Charufah; 2. A Nazir who became Tamei; 3. Shevu?as ha?Eidus; 4. Shevu?as Pikadon.
What are the implications of "Veheishiv es ha'Gezeilah"?
What is the significance of the order in which the sinner atones - "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" ... "ve'es Ashamo Yavi"?
Seforno: We learn from here that his Korban does not atone for him unless he first returns the article in question and appeases the owner. 1
It is not clear however, from where the Seforno learns the obligation to appease the owner?
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) words "asher Gazal" and "asher Ashak"?
Rashi (in Pesachim, 32a) and R. Bachye #1 (citing Bava Kama 11a): "Asher Gazal" teaches us that, if the article depreciated by the time he appeared in Beis-Din, the Gazlan must pay according to what the article was worth when he stole it. 1
R. Bachye #2 (citing Bava Kama 55a): "Asher Gazal" teaches us that, as long as the article is intact, the Ganav is obligated to return it ? and not money. 2
Bava Kama #1 67b: To teach us that a person is only Chayav to add a fifth and to bring an Asham Gezeilos for what he stole or for the worker's wages that he failed to pay, but not on what his father stole or on the wages that his father failed to pay. 3
Bava Kama #2 67a): "Asher Gazal" teaches us that a Gazlan is only Chayav to return the article in its original state, but if he changed it, he is only obligated to reimburse the owner. 4
Bava Kama, 98b: "Asher Gazal" teaches us that, as long as a stolen article is unchanged from its original form and shape, the owner may return it ? even if its price has diminished, even if it is valueless. 5
Bava Kama, 112a: "Asher Gazal" teaches us that, if, after Ye'ush (the owner has given up hope of receiving his article), the Gazlan feeds his children, they are Patur from paying. 6 However if the article is still intact, they are obligated to return it.
Yerushalmi Bava Kama, 1:4: Asher Gazal" teaches us that a stolen article is not subject to assessment. If the Ganav or Gazlan break the stolen article or cause it to depreciate, or if they happen by themselves. In other words, he is not permitted to return the broken pieces to the owner and add the balance, but must either give him a new article or the value of a new article.
R. Bachye: And the same applies to Oshek and Pikadon, by which the Torah writes ?asher Ahak? and ?asher Hofkad ito?, respectively.
See R. Bachye and R. Chavel?s footnotes.
See Torah Temimah, note 140.
See also Torah Temimah, note 139.
Bava Kama, Ibid.): Such as a coin that has been withdrawn from circulation, fruit that has gone bad, wine that has turned sour, T'rumah that became Tamei, Chametz after Pesach (Seee Torah Temimah, note 141) that a Yisrael owned on over Pesach, an animal that was worshipped or raped and an ox that has to be stoned - before Bein-Din has sentenced it to death. In all these cases, the Gazzlan can say to the owner 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha!'
See Torah Temimah, note 142.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) phrase "O es ha?Pikadon asher Hofkad ito"?
Sifra: To teach us that if he no longer has the article in his possession, then he must pay its value.
