Commentary for Bava Kamma 221:21

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הגוזל עצים</strong></big><br><br>

that the atonement has not yet been made. WHERE HE PAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT DID NOT PAY THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR. Our Rabbis taught: Whence could it be derived that if he brought the Principal due for sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 16. ');">³⁴</span> but had not yet brought the trespass offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with ibid. 15. ');">³⁵</span> or if he brought the trespass offering but had not yet brought the Principal due for sacrilege, he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says: <i>With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall be forgiven him</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16, ');">³⁶</span> Again, whence could it be derived that if be brought his trespass offering before he brought the Principal due for the sacrilege he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says, <i>'With the ram of the trespass,'</i> implying that the trespass [itself]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the payment of the Principal as supra p. 642. ');">³⁷</span> has already been made good. It might be thought that just as the ram and the trespass are indispensable, so should the Fifth be indispensable? It is therefore stated: <i>'With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall he forgiven him</i>,' implying that it was only the ram and the trespass which are indispensable in [the atonement for the sacrilege of] consecrated things, whereas the Fifth is not indispensable. Now, the law regarding consecrated things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁸</span> could be derived from that regarding private belongings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6-8. ');">³⁹</span> and that of private belongings could be derived from the law regarding consecrated things. The law regarding consecrated things could be derived from that regarding private belongings: just as 'trespass' there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6-8. ');">³⁹</span> denotes the Principal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 650, n. 14. ');">⁴⁰</span> so does 'trespass' here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁸</span> denote the Principal. The law regarding private belongings could be derived from that regarding consecrated things; just as in the case of consecrated things the Fifth is not indispensable, so in the case of private things the Fifth is similarly not indispensable.

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 221:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.