Ashkenazim start saying selichos this Motzei Shabbos; Sefaradim have been saying them already for three weeks. At the heart of selichos we find two elements: the 13 middos harachamim (attributes of mercy) and the viduy (confession). At least two of the transgressions mentioned in the viduy relate to monetary matters: gezel (theft) and chamas (forced sale). This is certainly a good opportunity for every one of us to consider if he is guilty of any monetary transgressions, and, if so, how to make amends.
Three different elements are involved in absolution for monetary transgressions: monetary recompense (returning a stolen object, paying a debt for a transaction, or for damages etc.); reconciliation with the victim; and repentance towards Hashem. The element of recompense is self-evident, as this requirement is in no way dependent on wrongdoing. The requirement for repentance towards Hashem is evident in the inclusion in the viduy, which is between each Jew and his Creator.
There is some discussion regarding the scope of the requirement of reconciliation. On the one hand, the Mishnah (Yoma 85b) is emphatic that “For transgressions towards one’s fellow man, Yom Kippur does not atone until he reconciles with his fellow.” There is an element of bein adam laMakom regarding these transgressions, as we saw in the viduy, but it is in some sense subordinate to the reconciliation with the victim.
The Rambam (Teshuva 2 9) mentions all three elements: “Transgressions against one’s fellow, such as one who assaults someone, or curses or steals from him and so on, is never forgiven until he pays what he owes and seeks reconciliation with him.” (The Rambam then explains the scope of the obligation to seek reconciliation.)
In the laws of damages (5 9), the Rambam acknowledges that if one causes bodily harm, “he is not forgiven until he seeks and obtains forgiveness from the victim.” But regarding damage to property, he writes that “as soon as he pays what he owes, he is forgiven.”
The Nature of the Harm
The Lechem Mishnah suggests that the difference is rooted in the nature of the harm: “Damage to property” where no reconciliation is required refers to cases where the wrongdoer obtained no benefit from the wrong and also the victim did not experience any sorrow. All other cases require forgiveness from the victim, and those cases are discussed in the laws of teshuvah.
The Divrei Yirmiyahu (Teshuva 1) explains that the reconciliation in the case of bodily harm is part of the recompense itself, whereas in the case of damage to property, it is a distinct obligation due to the fact that distress was caused to the victim. There is much support for this distinction. The Yam shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 49) writes that in a din Torah for shaming someone, it is necessary as part of the ruling to compel the slanderer to apologize publicly Similarly, we find that in well-defined wrongs that are not actionable, Chazal determined that the victim is entitled to taromes – “resentment.” This resentment is a defined halachic category in monetary law (Mishnah Bava Metzia 4:6, 6:1) and is removed when the sides are reconciled.
According to this explanation, the Rambam in the laws of damages is not discussing the laws of repentance at all. He is only relating to monetary law. In that arena, damages to property are completely settled when the money is paid. If in addition the damage to property also caused distress to the victim, then that distress in and of itself obligates a reconciliation by virtue of the laws of repentance.
We see that the idea of reconciliation is a very broad principle in halachah. At this time of year, many people are very focused on the idea of reconciliation as a kind of box that needs to be checked in order for Yom Kippur to “function” properly – since even if a person has repented for a sin bein adam lechaveiro, the Day of Atonement doesn’t atone for unreconciled sins against one’s fellow man. That aspect is definitely important. But there is also a more fundamental aspect: in some cases a person hasn’t even rectified the original transgression, since sometimes reconciliation is a part of the recompense. This is the case if someone causes not only distress, but also embarrassment or harm to reputation.
There is also a third aspect of reconciliation which has nothing to do with sin at all. The Tur writes (Orach Chaim 606) “On erev Yom HaKippurim, everyone should focus on reconciling with anyone he wronged,” for “Yom Kippur doesn’t atone for transgressions against one’s fellow man until they are reconciled.” This is the “checking the box” reason. But the Tur continues, “We do this in order that all Israel should be whole hearted each person with his fellow, and the Accuser (Satan) will find no opportunity to indict them.” This reason applies even to a person who has done no wrong whatsoever. If you are experiencing resentment towards, or from, another person, this is the right time of year to endeavor to make a reconciliation, even if no one is at fault and even if the other person is at fault.
