Teshuva & Viduy on D’Rabanans

כל המצוות שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתוודות לפני האל ברוך הוא שנאמר איש או אישה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם למעול מעל בהשם ואשמה הנפש ההיא והתוודו את חטאתם אשר עשו זה וידוי דברים וידוי זה מצוות עשה.

The Rambam doesn't mention the chiyuv teshuvah miderabbanan. So you'll say well that's because he's here defining the chiyuv teshuvah deoraita and it yitachen that the chiyuv teshuvah miderabbanan is only miderabbanan. Okay so that's maybe, maybe that's true, maybe that's not true. But אפילו אם תמצי לומר כן so then he should have added and the same way there's a chiyuv mideraita mideraita there's a chiyuv miderabbanan miderabbanan. It's obviously lo nit'am lehaye'onah, lo nit'am lemachsher, and על אחת כמה וכמה ליהנא that there is no chiyuv teshuvah miderabbanan but there's only yesh. But yet the Rambam doesn't say it. Yet in Al Chet and again derekh agav that doesn't mean mideoraita. In Al Chet so we'll say that even the Rambam has in his Siddur על חטא שחטאנו לפניך במכות מרדות. And this makkot mardut is miderabbanan. It's pashut that there's a chiyuv teshuvah miderabbanan and yet the Rambam doesn't seem to say so. So what do we make of that? So according to the Derashot HaRan the teretz is as follows. The Rambam in several places, amongst them Shoresh Alef of Sefer HaMitzvot says that the pasuk of lo tasur is the source for Chazal to be gozer gezerot. It's the source of their authority to be gozer gezerot. Chazal said not to be metaltel muktzeh beshabbat. Chazal said not to do a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה בשבת even though min hatorah according to Rabbi Shimon it's muttar, we pasken like Rabbi Shimon. So we have to abide by it because לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל. So the Ramban is massig and says if all gezerot derabbanan, the Ramban in the hassagot on Sefer HaMitzvot, if all derabbanans are rooted in lo tasur so the Rambam just made all derabbanans a deoraita. And yet clearly we distinguish between derabbanans and deoraitas. Safek derabbanan lekula, safek deoraita lechumra, so many, so many nafka minot by derabbanans and deoraitas. It sounds like the Ramban is to say that me'ikara kakh gazaru, that when the Chachamim would gozer derabbanans they would gozer that the safek should be muttar. He says I can't believe anyone would ever say that. So the Ramban goes on, he has his mahalech. So the Derashot HaRan thinks that the answer for the Rambam is, yeah, what the Ramban rejects out of hand as being the inconceivable is what the Rambam thought. That when Hakadosh Barukh Hu wrote in the Torah לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל effectively he signed a blank check. So if you sign a blank check, whatever anyone fills in on that check has your authority on it, has your authority now attached to it. לא תסור אין הכי נמי the Ran says, the Derashot HaRan says what the Ramban says I can't believe anyone would ever say, well the Derashot HaRan said the Rambam did say. And that ein hachi nami, effectively if you say this mahalech, effectively every derabbanan is a deoraita. Right again, if the way you understand derabbanans is with the blank check analogy, so effectively every derabbanan is deoraita. So according to the Derashot HaRan it's not a kasha. According to the Derashot HaRan the Rambam... The Rambam says you have to do teshuva for all d'oraisas. Every d'rabbanan is a d'oraisa. A person was m'taltel muktzeh, lav d'oraisa. Person did melacha d'rabbanan, lav d'oraisa. The Rambam says you have to, the S'fas Emes in Parshas Ki Savo says you have to do teshuva. But what if you don't learn pshat like that in the Rambam? The Rov of Bnei Brak used to say a different mahalach to answer the Ramban's kasha in Sefer Hamitzvos. According to this mahalach, when you're over d'rabbanan, you're over d'rabbanan. You're not being over, you're not being over d'oraisa. You're only over d'oraisa if you deny Chazal's authority that made the d'rabbanan. But if you acknowledge the authority but you just were over on this, on this d'rabbanan, you're over d'rabbanan, you're not over d'oraisa. So what do we do then? How do we kushya b'duchta? Why doesn't the Rambam mention the mitzvas teshuva? So let's jump ahead for a minute. Take a look, rabosai, in Perek Hey, Halacha Beis. Perek Hey, Halacha Beis.

אל יעלה במחשבתך דבר זה שאומרים טפשי אומות ורוב גולמי בני ישראל שהקדוש ברוך הוא גוזר על האדם מתחילת יצירתו להיות צדיק או רשע.

It shouldn't even be a fleeting thought, this position which people advocate of predetermined, predetermination. It's not, it's not even worthy of a fleeting thought.

אין הדבר כן אלא כל אדם ואדם ראוי להיות צדיק כמשה רבינו או רשע כירבעם או חכם או סכל או רחמן או אכזרי או כילי או שוע וכן שאר כל הדעות.

A person can't determine his IQ, but he can determine whether he acts like a wise person or whether he acts like a fool. That's what the Rambam means, או חכם או סכל. Chacham doesn't mean, it's not a factor of what his IQ is, that's, that's, that's Hakadosh Baruch Hu through genetics determines. But a person can be, he can have an IQ that's off the charts and he can act like a fool, and he can have an average IQ and he can act very wisely and very, very prudently.

או חכם או סכל או רחמן או אכזרי או כילי או שוע וכן שאר כל הדעות.

V'ein mi sheyekfihu no one is coercing him v'lo gozer alav no one is decreeing v'lo mi shemoshcho there's no external force that's pulling him l'echad mishnei hadrachim

אלא הוא מעצמו ומדעתו נוטה לאיזה דרך שירצה. הוא שירמיהו אומר מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב.

Unlike Rashi, for the Rambam this isn't, Rashi understands this verse as rhetorical, that Yirmiyahu was saying מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב and for Rashi, ra'os and tov refer to punishment or reward, and it's a rhetorical question. But for the Rambam, ra'os and tov refer to the actions we do, and it's not a rhetorical question, it's a statement of fact. מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות והטוב, comma,

אין הבורא גוזר על האדם להיות טוב ולהיות רע. וכיוון שכן הוא נמצא זה החוטא הוא הפסיד לעצמו.

He behaved self-destructively.

לפיכך ראוי לו לבכות ולקונן על מה שעשה לנפשו וגמל לה רעה נפשתינו. הוא שכתוב אחריהן מה יתאונן אדם חי גבר על חטאו.

That's the next pasuk in Eicha.

וחזר ואמר הואיל ורשותנו בידינו ומדעתנו עשינו כל הרעות ראוי לנו לחזור בתשובה ולעזוב רשענו שהרשות עתה בידינו.

Since we had bechira to be chotei in the first place, the same way we had bechira to be chotei in the first place, we now have bechira to do teshuva. So the Rambam writes that Yirmiyahu HaNavi is talking of ra'uy for us lachazor bi'teshuva. Ra'uy for us lachazor bi'teshuva. So how do you translate ra'uy? I said we'll translate that as it's befitting. It's, in Yiddish it's past, right? It's past. But, but maybe not. Just to give one, two examples, if you turn to Perek Alef of Hilchos Avodah Zarah, the Rambam describes Avraham Avinu's search for and discovery of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He recognizes Derech Ha'emes and discerns path of tzedek.

וידע שיש שם אלוה אחד והוא מנהיג הגלגל והוא ברא הכל.

Jump around a little bit, וידע שכל העולם טועים. All of the, the whole, the whole world is in error and what's the source of this error? זה שעובדים הכוכבים והצורות עד שעבדו אמת מדעתם. Even though originally when they started bowing down to the kochavim and to the idols, they did it al da'as that Hashem is, is the only God, but lemaisa a person is, his thoughts are drawn after what's tangible, what's concrete, what's visible, so if he bows down to kochavim he becomes a believer in kochavim.

כיון שהכיר אברהם אבינו כיון שהכיר וידע התחיל להשיב תשובות.

He began to polemicize, to engage in polemics.

כיון שהכיר וידע התחיל להשיב תשובות על בני כשדים וערך דין עמהם. ולומר שאין זה דרך האמת שאתם הולכים בה.

This paganism, this is the emes. Shiber ha'tzlamim, the famous Midrash the Rambam is referring to, shiber ha'tzlamim and he began to inform the people, look at this rabbosai, שאין ראוי לעבוד אלא לאלוה העולם. A bit of a shprach, a mamosh a shprach. It's not, it's only past to be oved Hashem. It's not past to be oved the Avodah Zarah. I don't know, it's a little bit of a, of a rather typed formulation. But just in case you missed it the first time, the Rambam continues:

ולא ראוי להשתחוות להם וראוי לאבד ולשבר כל הצורות כדי שלא יטעו בהן.

One more example, if you go to Perek Alef of Hilchos De'os, there's more of this, there's more of this shprach. If you go to Perek Alef of Hilchos De'os, Halacha Gimmel. In Halacha Alef u'Vais the Rambam has described the extremes of the spectrum when it comes to character traits. And then he says in Halacha Gimmel that these extremes that we've been describing, we've been speaking of,

שני קצוות הרחוקות זו מזו בכל דעה ודעה אינן דרך טובה ואין ראוי לאדם ללכת בהן ולא ללמדן לעצמו.

Derech Ha'yeshara, Halacha Dalet, is middah beinonit she'bechol de'ah va'de'ah. And then ultimately the Rambam is going to tell us at the end of Halacha Hey, Halacha Vav,

ומצווים אנו ללכת בדרכים אלו הבינונים והם הדרכים הטובים והישרים שנאמר והלכת בדרכיו.

And the chiyuv, again, that the person should go with the middah beinonit. So what does it mean אין ראוי לו לאדם to go to either of the extremes? Again, it's not just that it's past, it's also. So it's clear that at least sometimes what the lashon ra'uy means in the Rambam is something that's muchrach u'muchach u'muchraz. Mikoch hasevara. It doesn't need a pasuk, it doesn't need a masorah, it's just so overwhelmingly clear and compelling mikoch hasevara. That's at least sometimes how the Rambam uses the lashon of raui, and that's what Avraham Avinu was telling the world, was telling all of his contemporaries, his generation. Doesn't make a difference, maybe you don't have a Rav, you don't have the masorah from Shem and Ever, it doesn't make a difference, that it's raui to be oved Hashem, and it's raui lehishtachavos to Hashem, and it's raui le'aveid es ha'atzlamim. You can't hide behind an excuse of nevuah or I don't have the masorah from Noach. All of this is raui. All of this is מוכרח ומוכרח מתוך הסברה. That's what the Rambam says in Hilchos De'os also. Even before you get to the pasuk of vehalachta bidrachav, it's something which is מוכרח ומוכרח מתוך הסברה. Come back to our Rambam in Perek Aleph of Hilchos Teshuva. So clearly the Rambam is saying that the chiyuv teshuva is the same. Chiyuv teshuva doesn't need a pasuk. You don't need a pasuk that there's a chiyuv to do teshuva, because the sevara is on more than one level. Let's see which or all of these levels the Rambam had in mind, but the sevara on more than one level, chiyuv teshuva again is something which is raui, which is מוכרח ומוכרח מתוך הסברה. How so? Rachmana litzlan, when a person does an aveira, whether b'meizid or b'shogeg, there's an element of merida against Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Again, obviously what degree is gonna vary depending upon whether it's meizid or shogeg. The Rambam said don't do it, and you did it. Now, ein hachi nami, so once the person finishes eating the shtikel neveila, he finishes speaking the lashon hara, in that sense the aveira is not ongoing. It's finished. But if the person just leaves that where it is and there's no teshuva, on a certain level the merida is ongoing. If there's no reaction on the part of the chotei to the fact that he was chotei, so then that merida again, the concrete action is finished, but it continues to reverberate on a certain level. Bein adam l'chaveiro, if one insults another and isn't mifayeis, so again, the sound waves are—so they've ceased, the person's not saying it a second time, but the status quo now is the insult, the status quo now is the hard feelings. And that continues to reverberate. So teshuva is raui. On another level, a person does a cheit, he distances himself from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So again, the cheit is over, he finishes the shtikel kezayis neveila, on that level, on the level of the concrete action the cheit is over, but in terms of the distance created, so that remains. So teshuva is raui. Come back to Perek Aleph. So this is the answer to the age-old problem in the Rambam. Again, it's mechazek what the Minchas Chinuch says.

כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו,

the Rambam doesn't say chayav la'asos teshuva, chayav lashuv mei'cheto. Kesheya'aseh teshuva, the doing the teshuva is the background, is the context to chayav lehisvados. And then the Rambam says very narrowly that וידוי זה מצות עשה. So the Minchas Chinuch, harei kahn yadua, already focuses on... And says the mitzvah is the viduy. Talking about a mitzvah of viduy and not a mitzvah of teshuva like by other mitzvos. You put on a beged of arba kanfos then you're chayav for tzitzis. It happens with teshuva then you're mechuyav to misvados. And so the poshut pshat lefi the Ran is the averah is the mechayev teshuva. But that's not, that's not mikoyach a posuk. That's not mischadesh in the posuk. What's mischadesh in the posuk is viduy. Viduy is not a sevara that it's booy, it's rauy to do teshuva. It's not muchach and muchach from the sevara that you have to be misvadeh. If the posuk hadn't said והתוודו את חטאתם אשר עשו, we wouldn't have said that, that sevara. So that's why the Rambam says כשיעשה תשובה ישוב מחטאו, not that there's anything optional about the teshuva. But in terms of what's mischadesh in the posuk, it's not the chiyuv teshuva what's mischadesh in the posuk. What's mischadesh in the posuk is v'hisvaddu. השתא דאתינו להכי, so again we come back to our question. Where's derabbanan? Why doesn't the Rambam ever tell us the chiyuv derabbanan? So maybe the answer is that ein hachi nami, I don't know. Is it possible the Rambam holds that there's no chiyuv viduy by derabbanan? Because again what's now the omission in the Rambam is a different omission. It's not the chiyuv teshuva, right? The omission what the Rambam isn't telling us here, it's not that he's wanting a he'aroh coming your way derabbanan. I don't know if you can figure out what I'm saying. It's kind of, it's kind of wild. So what the Rambam didn't say, what he isn't saying is that the Rambam didn't tell us that there's a chiyuv viduy by derabbanan. What Halacha Aleph is codifying is the chiyuv viduy. So that omission that we noted at the outset isn't an omission in the scope of the chiyuv teshuva. It's an omission in the scope of chiyuv viduy. So we said initially it's lo me-ta'am ha-he'aroh, it's lo nitan le-he'amer, it's לא ניתן להעלות על הדעת that there's no chiyuv teshuva by derabbanan. But maybe it is ניתן להעלות על הדעת, maybe it is lo me-ta'am ha-he'aroh, maybe it is nitan le-he'amer there's no chiyuv viduy by derabbanan. Maybe, maybe the fact that Chazal were misaken it's derabbanan, I don't know, maybe, maybe there isn't a chiyuv viduy necessarily on the derabbanan. Wouldn't this still be using the Drashos ha-Ran that derabbanan are different than de'oraisah? Or you said the, the, this answer B, one do you want to say that for Drashos ha-Ran, but wouldn't this answer still be using Drashos ha-Ran that Chazal established derabbanan in a different way than de'oraisah unless they explicitly said otherwise? No, but Drashos ha-Ran, Drashos ha-Ran says that every davar derabbanan is me-ein de'oraisah. What we're saying is לא כדי לזלזל בכל הלא חוכו, we're not saying that when a person is over on a derabbanan he's over on the derabbanan. He's over on the davar derabbanan, which is why takkeh the Rambam didn't say it. According to the Ran, the Rambam said it. But according to the, the alternative approach to the Rambam, so then it's takkeh omitted here. There's something missing here. The Rambam never said that Halacha Aleph applies derabbanan. So what we're answering is, well, once we recognize that Halacha Aleph is not telling us the chiyuv teshuva, because that's not the chiddush of the Torah. That's booy, that's booy for a person to do teshuva. The chiddush of Halacha Aleph is the chiyuv viduy. And that's what the lashon of the Rambam is, וידוי זה מצוות עשה, chayav is le-hisvados. So then ein hachi nami, maybe the answer is, I don't know, what's the ta'am de-devar, I don't know. But the point is it's not inconceivable. It's not inconceivable that there shouldn't be a chiyuv teshuva for the derabbanan. It's not inconceivable that there shouldn't be a chiyuv viduy for derabbanan. You can sleep well tonight entertaining that idea. You cannot go to sleep tonight thinking that there's a possibility there's no chiyuv teshuva on a derabbanan. But don't sleep on... tonight you can sleep well. If the Rambam holds there's no viduy on derabbanan, why does he mention ma'asros? So maybe there's no chiyuv, I don't know that it's not. How does he go with the proper address around? Go with the problem of just the distinction between safek d'oraisa. So all that's built in. Maybe when Chazal would go there az d'rabonon, so if they wouldn't say anything, it would automatically be safek d'oraisa l'chumra. But when it goes there, this is an issur d'oraisa vadai. It's not an issur d'oraisa safek. I mean what the Ramban thinks is off the wall, so off the wall. The Ran has to, I guess we have to understand it.