Bein Adam leChaveiro (3a) – Differentiating between types of mitzvot
New from Shayla: A weekly series on halakhot of Mitzvot Bein Adam l’Chaveiro (interpersonal commandments)
Until I began to research this series, I assumed it was easy to distinguish between mitzvot bein adam laMakom (between a person and God) and bein adam lechaveiro (between one person and another). This assumption was upended when I started to examine the categories themselves and the individual mitzvot they purport to contain.
In the first two discussions on this topic, Rabbanit Dr. Adina Sternberg discussed how our creation in the image of God is cited as the source of several mitzvot that oblige us to honor this image in the human soul and human body. Indeed, from the outset, it is clear that interpersonal mitzvot often have an aspect of bein adam laMakom.
As we will see, some mitzvot we consider bein Adam laMakom also benefit people. For generations Jewish and secular scholars have proposed that the effects of our actions reverberate far beyond our limited understanding, throughout physical and spiritual realms. So why distinguish between interpersonal mitzvot and mitzvot between a person and God?
The question is compounded by the simple fact that these categories are never mentioned in the Torah. Furthermore, the way the Torah presents the mitzvot is counterintuitive to such a categorization. For one, the Torah often jumps from mitzvot we would clearly put in one category to mitzvot we would put in the other, and back again.[1]
Is this mitzvah bein adam laMakom or bein adam lechaveiro?
Let’s return to mitzvot we would generally assume to be in the category of bein adam laMakom. Shabbat is both “for the Eternal your God” and “so that your ox and your ass may rest, and the child of your handmaid and the stranger shall be revived.”[2] A similar duality appears with the Sabbatical year: “In the seventh year you shall let it rest and leave it [fallow] and the poor of your people shall eat,” and “The seventh year shall be a sabbatical year for the land, a shabbat year for the Eternal.”[3] These are just two examples of multifaceted mitzvot that contain elements of social justice while also preserving sanctity and attesting to God’s dominion.
Other mitzvot are plainly unclear, such as terumot and ma’aser rishon, the gifts to the Priests and first tithe to the Levites. One might think gifts of food to other people are interpersonal mitzvot, but God tells Aharon otherwise: “Behold, I have given you the charge of my teruma, I have given to you a consecrated portion from all the sanctified [things] of the Israelites, for eternal ordinance.”[4]
Accordingly, teruma is not a gift from one person to their fellow, Israelite to Priest; it is a gift from Israel to God, which God then gives to the Priest. Similar language is used with the tithes to the Levites.[5] The two other types of tithes are also confusing, seeming to benefit other people while also improving our relationship with God.[6] So are tithes bein adam laMakom or bein adam lechaveiro?
The mitzvah of “Honor your father and mother” should clearly be an interpersonal mitzvah, yet some claim it is a “mitzvah bein adam laMakom.”[7] Similarly, when Hillel told a potential convert that the entire Torah is a commentary to the rule “What is abhorrent to you, do not do to others” it indicates that the interpersonal is the basis of all mitzvot, rather than the relationship between a person and God.[8]
These ideas seem somewhat opposed to our understanding that at least some part of our obligation in interpersonal mitzvot stems from our creation in God’s image. They also strengthen the question: What makes a mitzvah “bein adam lechaveiro?”
Aveirot bein adam l’chaveiro
It may be hard to believe, but the mishna and gemara never mention the phrase mitzvot bein adam lechaveiro. Nevertheless, the phrase “aveirot (transgressions) bein adam lechaveiro does appear a few times, all in the context of teshuva (repentance).
The mishna in Yoma lists the steps that are necessary to atone for different types of aveirot (transgressions). The mishna discusses how some aveirot can be atoned for with teshuva alone, others need teshuva and Yom Kippur, and others also require suffering or even death. The mishna continues:
“Transgressions bein adam laMakom – Yom Kippur can atone. Transgressions bein adam lechaveiro – Yom Kippur can’t atone until the person appeases the other.”[9]
In other words, the spiritual requirements the mishna lists are only sufficient when repenting for aveirot bein adam laMakom. Aveirot bein adam lechaveiro have an additional component – asking for forgiveness and appeasing the person or people one wronged. And since this requirement is in addition to teshuva and Yom Kippur, it seems the mishna also considers interpersonal transgressions to be affronts against God as well.
The gemara mentions this distinction again in a discussion of two contradictory verses. Tehillim praises those whose sins are forgiven and hidden, while Mishlei teaches “one who hides their transgressions will not prosper.”[10] Should transgressions be hidden or publicized?
Rav Yehuda brings Rav’s explanation that people should publicize their teshuva for publicly known sins and hide teshuva for private sins. Alternatively, Rav Zutra bar Tuvia quotes Rav Nachman, who explains that one should publicly repent transgressions bein adam laMakom, but not transgressions bein adam l’chaveiro.
Putting this latter opinion together with what we saw above, teshuva for interpersonal transgressions has two unique characteristics – one must ask the person or people they wronged for forgiveness and appease them, and they should publicize their teshuva.
Rashi connects these two aspects and explains there’s a technical reason for publicizing the teshuva – so that others can help convince the person who was wronged to forgive the penitent. Meiri similarly teaches one must tell the individual how they wronged them, thus revealing a sin that may have been hidden, in order to ask forgiveness. According to both it seems that it is generally better to hide one’s sins, and only reveal them when it is a necessary element of teshuva.
Rambam, however, explains that people should publicly confess and repent for interpersonal sins, rather than hiding their transgression and maintaining their pride. Strangely, he considers it haughty to publicly confess and repent for aveirot bein adam laMakom.[11] Why? Several commentaries explain that publicizing such sins causes a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.[12]
What about the chillul Hashem of a publicly known transgression bein adam laMakom? Raavad argues that the opinions in the gemara are not mutually exclusive; to rectify the chillul Hashem of the sin, one must publicly repent for all transgressions that are publicly known, and not just interpersonal ones.
Avodat HaMelekh disputes Raavad and defends Rambam’s position. He cites a midrash in Rabbi Eliezer’s name to prove Rabbi Elizer maintained teshuva should only be public when repenting for interpersonal transgressions. The midrash brings a parable to illustrate God’s magnanimity. Normally, if a person seeks forgiveness from someone they disgraced in public, the offended would insist they find all the people who were there at the time to beg forgiveness in their presence. Yet God accepts those who repent in private, even if they blasphemed in public.[13]
How does private teshuva atone for a public desecration of God’s name?
The midrash indicates that God’s forbearance is itself a kiddush Hashem. God is merciful and slow to anger when disparaged but fierce and protective of our honor. This reinforces other aggadic statements indicating that God is more exacting with how we treat one another than how we act to God. Such as Bereishit Rabba on Parshat Noach:
“No remnant was left of the generation of the flood, but there was a remnant from the generation of the dispersion (tower of Babel)?! Since the generation of the flood was awash with thievery, as it says ‘they overtake boundaries, rob a flock and herd it,’ no remnant was left. But these (the generation of dispersion) since they loved one another, as it says, ‘the whole earth was one language,’ they had a remnant.’
“Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: Great is peace, for even if Israel is worshipping stars (foreign worship), but there is peace among them, the Omnipresent says, its as if I can’t exert control over them, since there is peace between them…”[14]
Shalom bein adam lechaveiro
The midrash focuses on the importance of peace between people in this world. Interestingly, while Chazal don’t mention mitzvot bein adam lechaveiro, and only mention aveirot shebein adam lechaveiro in one context, “bein adam lechaveiro” appears in several other contexts, notably those mentioning shalom (peace), such as hava’at shalom (making peace) and she’ilat shalom (greeting).[15]
The differentiation between mitzvot bein adam laMakom and bein adam lechaveiro appears in the writings of Acharonim, mostly after the time of Shulchan Arukh. The exception is Rambam, who uses and defines the term in a somewhat puzzling manner. Rambam dedicates a chapter of Hilkhot Geneiva, Laws of Theft, to middot, purposely false measures, such as different sets of weights to surreptitiously swindle buyers and sellers. He concludes:
“The punishment for [false] measures is greater than the punishment for arayot (forbidden sexual relations), for this is between one and the Omnipresent and this is between one and another. And anyone who denies the commandment of [accurate] measurements is considered like one who denies the exodus from Egypt, as it was the beginning of the commandment. Anyone who accepts the commandment of measurements affirms the exodus from Egypt, for it is the cause of all the commandments.”[16]
Once again, a mitzvah that seems interpersonal – stealing by way of false measurements – is also a denial of God’s sovereignty, whereas honest dealings affirm our faith that God’s omniscience and intervention has remained steadfast since the exodus from Egypt.[17] Forbidden intimate relations, on the other hand, involve other people, but Rambam considers them to be bein adam laMakom. Why?
It seems Rambam applies the terms of “mitzvot bein adam laMakom” and “mitzvot bein adam lechaveiro” based on the objective of the mitzvah, rather than the obligation or prohibition itself. Next week we will delve deeper into the way he uses these terms to explore the inexorable link between mitzvot bein adam lechaveiro and mitzvot bein adam laMakom.
Finally, we will explain why a series devoted to understanding the halakhot of mitzvot bein adam lechaveiro begins by rejecting the premise that such a category of mitzvot exists.
[1] For example: Shemot 22:15-22; Vayikra 24:15-22.
[2] Shemot 18: ; 23:12.
[3] Shemot 23:11; Vayikra 25:4
[4] Bamidbar 18:8
[5] Bamidbar 18:21-24. “Behold I have given the Levites all the tithes of Israel as a portion.” The Torah continues that this is an exchange – the Levites serve God in the Temple in place of the Israelites, to protect the Israelites, whose lives would be in danger if they served improperly. The text makes it clear this is more than an interpersonal exchange. Interestingly, the Levite must separate teruma to give to the Priest.
[6] Ma’aser sheinu, the second tithe, is separated in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the shemita cycle, to be eaten in the place of the Temple, “and you shall eat there before the Eternal your God and you shall rejoice, you and your household, and the Levite who is in your gates.” Is this part of a mitzvah to rejoice before God, or to rejoice with the family?
In the third and sixth years ma’aser ani is separated and given to the poor – Levites, orphans, and widows. There is already a mitzvah to give charity, this ma’aser is in addition: “so that the Eternal your God shall bless you in all the works of your hand that you do.”(Devarim 14:28-29)
Similar language is used for the pilgrimage festivals.
[7] For example: Ramban Shemot 20:12; Sefer HaChinukh and Minhat Chinukh Mitzvah 33:1.
[8] TB Shabbat 31a
[9] Mishna Yoma 8:9
[10] TB Yoma 86b cites Tehillim 32:1; Mishlei 28:13.
[11] Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Teshuva 2:5
[12] Kesef Mishneh, Steinzaltz commentary ad loc.
The issue of sin, repentance, and chillul Hashem is interesting. The gemara brings a discussion where Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya quotes Rabbi Yishmael’s understanding of the atonement required for different types of sin. He states that even teshuva, Yom Kippur, and suffering is not enough to cleanse the sin of chillul Hashem, and it is only atoned for after death.
[13] Also, Rosh HaShana 17b. What about the chillul Hashem aspect? On a technical level, because people do not have to publicly repent for transgressions bein Adam laMakom, we can assume people have repented even without witnessing it, which may itself be a way to repair the chillul Hashem.
[14] Bereishit Rabba 38:6.
[15] For example: Mishna Pe’ah 1:1; Mishna Ta’anit 1:7; Tosefta Sanhedrin 1:2; Avot d’Rabbi Natan 1:29 and nuskha 2 Chapter 24, 25, 35; TY Brakhot 2:1; TY Pe’ah 1:4:1; TB Shabbat 127a; Moed Katan 15a; Bereishit Rabba 93:1; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer Parsha 4.
[16] Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Geneiva 7:12. Based on TB Yevamot 21a; Bava Batra 88b; Sifra Bamidbar; Midrash HaGadol Bamidbar 35 (Although this midrash was probably compiled around the same time).
[17] Maggid Mishna ad loc.
