Teshuva: Focused on the Past, Focused on the Future.

What we started in Perek Vav yesterday as Rabbeinu Bachaye lists the the four gidrei, the four essential elements of teshuva, the same same four that Rav Saadia Gaon has. So for each of them after presenting, defining, he then compares or I'm not sure what the right word is, that אנחנו רואים כזה בין בני אדם, right?

כשמראה החרטה לחברו על מה שחטא לו היא הסיבה החזקה למחול לו.

After presenting aziva,

וכמו זה נראה בין בני אדם כי כאשר ימנע המריע לחברו מהרעה אליו אחר החרטה אז יראוי למחול,

the same for bakashas hamechila and the same too after he lists hakabala shelo yishne, וכזה נראה בין בני אדם. And in each case, meaning what we see is that how the person who was wronged, the person who's the aggrieved party in the presence of these, in response to these four elements, he'll be moved to be mocheil. He'll think that it's appropriate to respond with mechila. Okay, and there's something very fundamental that's being reflected here. If you go back to Perek Shlishi, when the Chovos HaLevavos presents the shiva devarim which are necessary preliminaries or axiomatic to teshuva, so let's briefly review.

הראשון שידע גנות מעשיו ידיעה ברורה כי אם לא יתברר לו זה לא תתכן החרטה ממנו עליו, והשני שידע אופן רוע מעשיו וגנותו כי אם לא יתברר אצלו כי מעשיו רע ומפועלו אינו טוב לא יתחרט עליו, והשלישי שידע בחיוב הגמול על מעשיו כי אם לא ידע זה אינו צריך מביא עליו החרטה, הרביעי שידע ששומרו לא נכתב בספר העוונות,

skipping,

כי אם יחשוב כי הוא מופקר ואיננו שומרו עליו לא יתחרט ולא יבקש המחילה ממנו, והחמישי שידע באמת כי התשובה אופן רפואת מדוויו,

skipping,

כי אם לא יתברר אצלו זה יתייאש מקבלת הבורא יתברך ומרחמיו ולא יבקש ממנו המחילה.

There's a common denominator to all of them. The Chovos HaLevavos is focused, with the exception of hashvii of the seven again axiomatic understandings, etc., with the exception of the seventh, they're all to arouse charata. They're all needed to provoke a charata. In Perek Dalet for each of the gidrei. for each of the essential elements of teshuva, Chovos Halevavos says כזה נראה בין בני אדם that this, he, this, this will move a person to be mocheil. Teshuva about, according to the Chovos Halevavos, is about the past. Teshuva's about the past. We commit a cheit; teshuva is rectifying the past. That's why he's so focused, so preoccupied, so honed in on the charatah, on the mechilah, because that rectifies, that sets straight the past. And and the most sort of dramatic and extraordinary expression of this is in Perek Dalet when he talks about kabbalah lehaba. So how does the Chovos Halevavos teitch the necessity of kabbalah lehaba as part of teshuva? אבל הקבלה שלא ישנה, so we would think that you don't need to teitch that, that's teshuva, right? That שלא לעולם איני חוזר לדבר הזה. No, he teitches

הקבלה שלא ישנה אותה על ידיעתו ברוע המעשה וגודל החטא.

The teitch of kabbalah lehaba is that the fact that there's a kabbalah lehaba reflects an understanding of how bad the ma'aseh in the past was. For the Chovos Halevavos, the focus of teshuva is on the past. Perek Beis, Halacha Beis: u'ma hi hateshuva?

הוא שיעזוב החוטא חטאו ויסירו ממחשבתו ויגמור בלבו שלא יעשהו עוד, שנאמר יעזוב רשע דרכו ואיש און מחשבותיו.

Again, in in all the standard dfusim, this continues as Halacha Beis. In in the manuscripts, the Finkel edition indicates that it's a separate halacha. The Rambam continues:

וכן יתנחם על שעבר, שנאמר כי אחרי שובי נחמתי ואחרי הודעי ספקתי על ירך.

But what's the difference between again, the way the Rambam writes it is vechein yisnacham. What what would be if the Rambam hadn't written vechein yisnacham but had written veyisnacham? What's the difference in meaning? Moshe, what's the difference in meaning? I think vechein veyisnacham would be going back on the previous part as part of the act of, veyisnacham A, B, C, right? Ya'azov hachotei cheito, yesirenu mimachshavto, veyigmor belibo, okay, I'm stopping now to quote a pasuk, veyisnacham, it's one chain. It's another link in the chain. What's vechein yisnacham mean? It separates, it's an in addition to the teshuva. In addition to having to do this separately—not really needs to be a little bit modified but at the moment it's totally correct—separately, additionally yisnacham al she'avar. And and what's the prooftext? כי אחרי שובי נחמתי. Achrei shuvi, not as part of my teshuva, but supplementary to. So for the Rambam, teshuva is about the present and the future. For the Chovos Halevavos, teshuva is about the past. And again, that's why in Perek Gimmel everything is you're not—you can't do teshuva because if you don't know it was bad, if you don't know speaking lashon hara is bad, you won't have charatah. If you don't know that what you did was lashon hara, you won't have— have charata, you won't have charata, you won't have charata, you won't have charata. And again, the most, the most obvious reflection of this is that he teitches kabala l'haba as that that reflects what your perspective is on the past. And that stands in very, very sharp contrast. Rav Saadia Gaon you can't tell. Rav Saadia Gaon, he lists the same four, Rav Saadia Gaon is before the Chovos HaLevavos, he lists the same four as the Chovos HaLevavos, but you can't tell. You can't tell. But the Rambam is very clearly disagreeing with that. And the Rambam is saying it's halacha l'maise again, everyone has although halacha l'maise, well, I go back to Perek Aleph Halacha Aleph. Keitzad mitvadeh?

אומר אנא השם חטאתי עויתי פשעתי לפניך א א עשיתי וכך וכך והרי ניחמתי ובושתי במעשי ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה וזהו עיקרו של וידוי.

Perek Beis Halacha Beis.

ומה היא התשובה הוא שיעזוב החוטא חטאו ויסירו ממחשבתו ויגמור בלבו שלא יעשהו עוד שנאמר יעזוב רשע דרכו ואיש און מחשבותיו וכן יתנחם על שעבר שנאמר כי אחרי שובי ניחמתי ואחרי הודעי ספקתי על ירך ויעיד עליו יודע תעלומות שלא ישוב לזה החטא לעולם שנאמר ולא נאמר עוד אלוהינו למעשה ידינו אשר בך ירוחם יתום וצריך להתודות בשפתיו ולומר עניינות אלו שגמר בלבו.

Ad kan sof pasuk. What didn't the Rambam mention? Kapara v'zikuch? Yeah, that's true. But what else did he mention? What didn't the Rambam mention? Nice, because I read that under my thumb at the end. He says it himself but I read it very softly so it wasn't audible. But what doesn't the Rambam mention? ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה? That's the yigmor b'libo. He doesn't mention bakashas mechila. He doesn't say viduy. Just to put all the cards on the table, or all the sefarim as the case may be. But he does mention in Sefer Hamitzvos, but he does not in the Yad. In Chovos HaLevavos, that's unimaginable. That the whole thing is about setting the past straight. That's why Chovos HaLevavos is so focused, is so focused on the past. Again, that's the whole thrust of Perek Gimmel, Perek Dalet, that's everything we've been seeing this week. The whole thing is he's focused on the past. The Rambam is focused on the present and future. By virtue of cheit, so a person has to, has to fix himself. Teshuva is about the present and the future. The essence of teshuva is the kabala l'haba. There's no way the Rambam would ever, ever teitch kabala l'haba as עושה על ידיעתו ברוע מעשיהו. No, that's teshuva. Teshuva is to change, to be different mikan l'haba. Inami, you also need the charata. Inami, achrei shuvi nichamti, maybe a different time to discuss exactly how it fits. But clearly there's a profound difference in understanding and perspective here between Chovos HaLevavos and the Rambam. How does Chovos HaLevavos understand achrei shuvi nichamti? So you remember the mashal of like this: the mashal for Chovos Halevavos would be, I don't know, you're playing catch with someone and someone makes a wild throw and breaks the neighbor's window. So what you have to be focused on is fixing the damage that, you know, making up for that recklessness. That's the mashal of Chovos Halevavos. Let's say a person, I don't know, recklessly, not recklessly, whatever, he breaks his leg. So what's pshat when he goes to the orthopedist? The pshat is that he's looking to make amends for the past? No. Because in the present and the future he wants to heal. He wants to move about easily on both legs for the rest of his life. It's not, his focus is not on the past. The dagesh chazak is, okay, this is where I'm holding. I, whatever, I was climbing recklessly, I wasn't careful on the ladder or whatever the person did, and as a result I broke my leg. So I don't want to live life, you know, I don't want to live life that way as a baal mum. Maybe he talks about busha for the Rambam being an integral part of teshuva. Is that not also, is it not a big part of cultivating that busha, looking at the past? 100 percent. I mean, listen, your question is very good, so I should try to clarify and elaborate a little bit. Bedivrei hakol, the trigger, bedivrei hakol, the need for teshuva is because of what happened in the past. But that, just as you know whether I'm trying to set things straight with my neighbor for breaking their window or whether I'm trying to set the broken bone in my foot straight, either way I'm reckoning with the consequences of the past but that notwithstanding, there's still a very profound difference between whether or not the emphasis is on the past or the emphasis is on the present and the future. I don't know you need to think more about the implications of this but there's a profound difference here profound conceptual difference between the Chovos HaLevavos's approach and the Rambam's approach. Rambam

פרק ב הלכה ג. כל המתוודה בדברים ולא גמר בליבו לעזוב הרי זה דומה לטובל ושרץ בידו.

If a person he clops al cheit but he hasn't resolved not to repeat the cheit. So the Rambam says it's

דומה לטובל ושרץ בידו. שאין הטבילה מועלת לו עד שישליך השרץ.

Tefila can be metaher but not if one is oduk, not if one is holding tight onto the source of tumah. So vidui ein hachi nami is an instrument of kappara but not if one is holding tight to the source of the cheit. But why did the Rambam write

כל המתוודה בדברים ולא גמר בליבו לעזוב או לא ניחם על מה שעבר?

There should have been two tziyurim that invalidate a vidui. One should be if he's lacking the resolve about the future and the other should be if he's lacking the remorse about the past. The Rambam is not mevatel that vidui. Again is he missing something? Absolutely. Is it meakeiv? Yitachein yes. But there's a miktzas kiyum even if a person can honestly tell the Ribbono Shel Olam כזה וכזה עשיתי ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה and he says that with sincerity. Agam that he hasn't reached the stage of saying nichamti with sincerity the Rambam is not mevatel that. There's a miktzas kiyum there. I don't know exactly how that plays out bedinei shamayim; the Ribbono Shel Olam knows, but there's a miktzas kiyum there. There's absolutely something essential missing. Ikro shel vidui includes nichamti uvoshti. This isn't optional. It's not mitzva min hamuvchar. But ba'idach gissa the Rambam has a miktzas kiyum. That's what halacha gimmel signifies and again that's leshitaso. That's another expression of what we're talking about. For the Rambam teshuva is about the present and the future. יעזוב רשע דרכו ואיש און מחשבותיו. I'm not doing it now and I have no intention of doing it. Teshuva is about present and future. Yes there is a requirement a requirement it's not stam mah it's a requirement of le'she'avar as well. But again it's acharei shuvi nichamti. It's vechein yitnacheim. It's hard to imagine that the Chovos HaLevavos again I think we discussed already how the Chovos HaLevavos understands the Gemara in Ta'anis of דומה לטובל ושרץ בידו we spoke about that but the Chovos HaLevavos couldn't recognize a miktzas kiyum where there's kabbala la'ba but no charata le'she'avar. Chovos HaLevavos would not have such a thing. On the other hand maybe the Chovos HaLevavos I don't know if he would he wouldn't but the Rambam isn't interested in the charata le'she'avar alone but he does affirm that there's a miktzas kiyum in מתוודה בדברים וגמר בליבו agam that he is yet to be mitnacheim al she'avar.