It’s Not Just about Hashem
And these are the ordinances that you should place before them. (Sefer Shemot 21:1)
Two classes of commandments
A large portion of Parshat Mishpatim is devoted to laws. Most of the laws in the parasha can be apportioned between the following groups:
- Laws governing the treatment of servants and of the less fortunate and underprivileged.
- Laws regarding personal injury and property damage.
- Laws of jurisprudence.
As a class, these laws establish the rights of the individual and standards of behavior. These standards regulate our interactions as individuals and groups within the community. Within the scope of these laws is the regulation of both commercial and personal interactions.[1] This class of mitzvot is commonly referred to as mitzvot ben adam le’chavero – interpersonal commandments. The balance of the mitzvot of the Torah are described as ben adam la’makom – commandments defining one’s relationship with Hashem.[2]
What is the significance of this classification? Is there a fundamental difference between these two classes of mitzvot? On the surface, it seems that the distinction is superficial rather than fundamental. Let’s consider this assertion more carefully.
And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you, even when you pray at length, I do not hear; your hands are full of blood. Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow. (Book of Yeshayahu 1:15-17)
The importance of the interpersonal commandments
The Torah repeatedly equates those mitzvot that are ben adam le’chavero to those that are ben adam la’makom. For example, the Aseret HaDibrot – the Decalogue – gives similar attention to both classes of commandments. In the above passages, the prophet Yeshayahu chastises the people for their treatment of those who are less fortunate. He emphasizes that Hashem will not respond to the prayers of a nation that disregards the affliction of its oppressed. It is clear from his admonition that the ben adam le’chavero commandments are on equal footing with those that address our relationship with Hashem. If the Torah repeatedly equates these two classes and the prophet admonishes us to not distinguish in the attention we give to them, then is there any fundamental distinction between the classes?
Sins against others should be openly confessed
Maimonides makes a remarkable comment in his discussion of repentance that suggests a fundamental distinction between these two classes of commandments. Repentance is an obligation and privilege. One who sins is required to repent and therefore, it is an obligation. However, it is also a privilege. Through repentance a person may atone for one’s sins.[3] Part of the process of repentance is the verbal declaration of one’s specific sin and one’s commitment to repentance. Maimonides explains that it is appropriate for this declaration – vidui – to be made publicly. In other words, one should willingly and publicly acknowledge one’s failings. Maimonides adds that this applies only to sins committed against one’s fellow. However, one should not publicly declare sins committed against Hashem. A public declaration of one’s sins against Hashem is regarded as arrogant. These sins, a person should privately acknowledge and declare.[4]
The difficulty with these comments is obvious. All commandments – those that address our relationship with Hashem and those dealing with our interpersonal relationships – are derived from a single source. All are included in the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. All are commandments of Hashem. When one sins against another human being, one concurrently sins against Hashem. How can Maimonides distinguish between these two classes and require that those committed against Hashem should be privately confessed and sins committed against our fellow should be publicly declared? The sin committed against our fellow is also a sin against Hashem!
We are directly responsible to one another
Maimonides is communicating a profound message. He is explaining to us that although Hashem is the source and legislator of all commandments, there is a difference between those mitzvot that are ben adam le’chavero and those that are ben adam la’makom. In legislating commandments that are ben adam le’chavro, Hashem made us directly responsible for our actions to our fellow. Therefore, when we violate one of these mitzvot, the Torah treats the sin as directly against another human being and only indirectly against Hashem.
Let’s use an illustration to clarify this distinction. The CEO of a corporation appoints an executive who will oversee marketing. This director of marketing heads a department with many employees. To whom are these employees responsible? It is true that the authority of the department head is derived from his appointment by the CEO. However, these employees are not directly responsible to the CEO. They are directly responsible to their department head and only indirectly responsible to the CEO.
This illustration demonstrates the principle Maimonides is applying. One who is in authority can endow another with authority over others. Once this is done, these others will become directly responsible to the endowed person and only indirectly to the higher authority. Hashem endowed every human being with rights, responsibilities toward others, and privileges. When we violate the rights of another, act irresponsibly toward another, or deprive another of one’s privileges, then we have violated our obligations toward this individual. Hashem made us directly responsible to our fellow human being.
When we sin against Hashem, we do not publicly advertise our wrongdoing. When we sin against an individual, we have sinned against Hashem as well but not directly. Directly, we have sinned against an individual whom Hashem has endowed with rights and privileges and in regard to whom we have been negligent. Therefore, when we repent we give precedence to the wrong directly committed. We publicly confess and declare our sin.[5]
The requirement to actively seek the forgiveness of one whom we wrong
This comment of Maimonides explains another interesting law of repentance. When a person sins against another, one must secure the wronged party’s pardon. This applies even if there are other penalties. In other words, even if one must make payment to the injured party, this payment does not suffice to atone for the wrongdoing. The sinner must make the required payment and also secure the pardon of the wronged individual.
This requirement is completely reasonable. However, there is a further requirement. The sinner must appease the injured party. He must ask for his pardon. In other words, it seems that if the injured party spontaneously forgives the one who wronged him, the sin is not atoned. Atonement requires that the sinner reach out to the injured party and seek forgiveness.[6]
This requirement seems strange. If the injured party freely and fully forgives the person who has wronged him, why is this not adequate? Why must the sinner sue for forgiveness? The explanation emerges from Maimonides’ understanding of ben adam le’chavero commandments. These commandments make us directly responsible to one another. When one sins against another, one neglects this responsibility. Atonement is achieved only when the sinner acknowledges and renews one’s acceptance of this responsibility. When the injured party spontaneously forgives his antagonist, this requirement has not been met. The sinner has not restored his commitment to his responsibilities toward others. Only when the sinner seeks the pardon of the wronged person, does he redress his neglect of his responsibilities toward others.[7]
In summary, the classification of commandments as ben adam le’chavero is not superficial. It expresses a profound message. We are not only responsible to Hashem. Hashem endows human beings with rights, privileges, and responsibilities to one another. When we violate one of the ben adam le’chavero commandments, we have sinned against Hashem; He legislates all commandments. However, we have also sinned against a person endowed by Hashem with rights and privileges, and we have disregarded our responsibilities toward this person. We can only redress this wrong through restoring our relationship with this person and renewing our acceptance of our duties toward others. This requires our active pursuit of reconciliation.
[1] According to Maimonides, there are 44 commandments in Parshat Mishpatim. Among the first 33 commandments, 29 are ben adam le’chavero.
[2] Sometimes a third category is identified. These are mitzvot ben adam le’atzmo – commandments regarding one’s internal life or personality. However, many or all of these can be apportioned between the categories of ben adam le’chavero and ben adam la’makom.
[3] Repentance alone atones for some sins. For other sins, repentance atones when combined with other measures. However, in all cases repentance is an essential component of the atonement process. See Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 1:4.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 2:5.
[5] This has long been my understanding of Maimonides’ comments. However, I am pleased to have recently heard a similar interpretation of these comments from Rav Yisrael Chait in a recorded lecture.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah 2:9.
[7] Maimonides begins his discussion of this issue by commenting that when one sins against another, repentance and observance of Yom Kippur do not secure atonement. This comment is consistent with and indicative of his understanding of ben adam le’chavero commandments. He is explaining that although every sin is a violation of Hashem’s will and requires reconciliation with Hashem, a sin that is ben adam le’chavero, directly violates our relationship to another individual. Therefore, reconciling oneself with Hashem cannot, alone, atone for such a sin.