Hilchos teshuva 4

כיצד מתוודין אומר אנא השם חטאתי עויתי פשעתי לפניך ועשיתי כך וכך והרי נחמתי ובושתי במעשי ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה וזהו עיקרו של וידוי.

The Ramban comments in his Igeres to the Chachmei Tzorfat when the whole controversy over Sefer Hamada and the Moreh Nevuchim was raging in the 13th century. So he writes bein hayeter, one of the things he says in defense of the Rambam. Again, obviously paraphrasing, not quoting verbatim. You know, in Mishneh Torah, the Rambam didn't create the unit of Hilchos Nizkei Mamon. Okay, so it was his mastery and genius that lav davka everything that ends up in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon was right there in Bava Kamma, and the Rambam had to synthesize from all over. Hilchos Teshuva, the Ramban says, the Rambam was the one who created that discipline for us. In Chazal you have a meimra here, you have a meimra there, there's nothing, there's no comprehensive treatment, and the Rambam took those pieces and created a Hilchos Teshuva. It's quite extraordinary. You know, in all of Mishneh Torah in a certain sense Hilchos Teshuva is certainly a candidate for the most extraordinary part of Mishneh Torah. Case in point, this nusach of viduy that the Rambam gives us, you don't find that nusach in one place in Chazal. There's no Gemara that says חטאתי עויתי פשעתי לפניך נחמתי ובושתי. The Rambam pieces that together. I mean everything is with a makor, it's not a yera li, the Rambam doesn't say yera li as a makor, but it's sort of a microcosm of what Hilchos Teshuva as a whole is. Chatasi avisi pashati, so we know the Gemara has a machloket Tannaim about it. But chatasi is shogeg in terms of the seder, chatasi is shogeg, avisi is meizid, and pashati is a meridah where a person maybe it's even a shtikel lehachis, not just that the person knows what he's doing is assur, but there's an element of lehachis. So sounds like from the introduction that the Rambam gave, that he's giving us the nusach viduy for when a person is doing teshuva for any cheit. Right? Kol mitzvos she'batorah, any mitzvah in the Torah, right? Any and every mitzvah of the Torah,

בין עשה לא תעשה, אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן.

Right? Why davka that a person has to accumulate the seven chatayim to be doing teshuva and being misvadeh? So if he's doing teshuva for one cheit, so what was it? Was it a cheit, was it an avon, or was it a pesha? And yet you don't get the impression the Rambam, sort of choose, check off the box which is appropriate here. If it's chatasi, say chatasi, if it's avisi, say avisi, if it's pashati, say pashati. Sounds like that even though the person right now is being misvadeh for cheit A which happened at such and such a time, so the nusach ha'viduy is chatasi avisi pashati. So then let's just take a look, not everyone agrees with what we just said. I think take a look in the Minchas Chinuch. I think if I'm recalling correctly, maybe the Minchas Chinuch, please double check this, maybe the Minchas Chinuch says that you take a choose, which is the appropriate phrase, which is the appropriate word. But the pshuto shel devarim is not like that. Pshuto shel devarim in the Rambam is no, that this is always the nusach ha'viduy, chatasi avisi pashati. So what's the pshat? So either or both of the following two, possibility number one is that what the nusach ha'viduy reflects is that even though there obviously is a dominant characteristic in what a person does. I didn't know that this was cheilev, I thought it was shuman. Sounds shogeg and clearly we'll classify it as such and there will be a chiyuv chatas because it is shogeg. Mi'idach gisa it is often, maybe not always, but very often the case that the more a person cares, the fewer mistakes and the fewer accidents happen. It's very often the case that the more important it is to me and the more I'm makpid not chas v'shalom to put something non-kosher into my mouth, it becomes to that degree less likely that it will happen accidentally. So was it shogeg? Yes. Is there an element of meizid to it on a certain level? Yeah, often that is the case, that there is again not on a level that says that he doesn't bring a chatas, but on a certain level there is an element of meizid within shogeg. Let's say the shogeg wasn't a mistake and it wasn't נתחלף לו חלב בשומן. Let's say the shogeg was chesron yediya, that I didn't know the halacha. So was I shogeg? Yes, I was shogeg, I didn't know this was assur. Is there an element of meizid? Is it sometimes, if not often the case, that if I would have cared more and I would have learned more that I would have known that it was assur? Yeah. It's certainly sometimes is the case, maybe even often the case. Why didn't he make it a pesha? Ein hachi nami, you're right. So far it doesn't, so far it's only chatasi avisi. You're right, you're right. Now that sort of again to maybe express it a little bit harshly. That indifference, again whether the indifference that allows for a mistake, mistaking cheilev for shuman, that indifference which allows me to to remain ignorant of what itachen I I I should have known. So on the one hand it's meizid, but on the other hand, I don't know, is it that, is it clear that that doesn't cross the line from from avon to pesha? Pesha means something which is done rebelliously. And and the Ribbono Shel Olam sort of says, you know, you're you're welcome in my world and you know here are the rules, here's the here's the book with all the rules, read the book and and abide by them. I don't know, so is it only meizid if I'm if I have that indifference? It's it's so clear that there's no element of of pesha in doing that? That that's one mahalach in the Rambam. The other mahalach in the Rambam is, no, leaving this aside and let's just go with again the the simple pshat. No, when shuman and cheilev get mixed up, that's shogeg, when I when I'm very hungry and there's nothing else on hand and I take the cheilev, that's meizid, when there's shuman and cheilev and I bedafke take the cheilev, that's pesha, what maybe doesn't have to be that dramatic. So what's what, how do we understand that even though there's there's one chet here that's under the microscope for which I'm doing teshuvah, for which for which I'm being misvadeh, that I say all three leshonos of chatasi avisi pashasi, so משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's let's say, I don't know, Reuven and Shimon have some kind of altercation. And and Reuven gets very angry, he insults Shimon, he assaults Shimon, and causing him bodily injury and also ripping his ripping his jacket. Okay. So then Reuven is contrite. And and he comes over to Shimon and says, you know the other day I was out of line and I apologize for ripping your jacket. Or okay, so maybe he says I apologize for for punching you in the in the face. But but that's the only thing he mentions. So on the one hand, is is it legitimate to sort of tackle and and address, you know, multiple offenses one by one? It certainly is legitimate. But me'idach gisa, if at the if at the same time there isn't an acknowledgment that there are other things that that I need to address and and redress, there's something very wrong about it. So maybe the pshat is like this, ein hachi nami this chet in particular, I don't know, it was either chatasi, it was either avisi or it was pashasi. But Ribbono Shel Olam, you know, I recognize that even though right now I'm klapping al chet for this, asisi kach ve-kach, I'm klapping al chet for one specific chet, I'm not I'm not implying, I'm not insinuating that that's, you know, the only thing that needs to be set straight, that that's the only thing that needs to be addressed. But it is legitimate and and valid and and and proper, you know, that a person is thinking in in specifics and and in a detailed way and because of that, yes, it's totally legitimate to asisi kach ve-kach, but it should be in the context of of a broader acknowledgment. The Rambam gives us this highly compressed, highly condensed ikkar of viddui, so it's quite clear that every word is absolutely essential. So why is boshti so essential? Again, we know where the Rambam gets it from, he gets it from psukim. בשתי וגם נכלמתי כי נשאתי חרפת נעורי. Psukim that we say at the end of Slichos, בשתי וגם נכלמתי להרים פני אליך. The psukim in Navi speak in terms of boshti, so we know where the Rambam got it from, and itachen that there's even, that one even can see from the psukim how central it is, but how do we process that? What's missing if a person would be able to say

חטאתי עויתי פשעתי עשיתי כך וכך והרי ניחמתי במעשי ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה?

What's missing if he can't say Ribbono Shel Olam, I'm ashamed at my behavior? What's missing? So I think we spoke a little bit about this, or maybe we didn't, I don't know whether we did or didn't comment about this aspect of the Rambam in perek gimmel when he's about the remez of t'kias shofar. But maybe for now, if you take a look in perek beis, halacha aleph, where the Rambam quotes a Gemara in Yoma. The way the Rambam paraphrases it, eizu t'shuva gmura,

זה שבא לידו דבר שעבר בו ואפשר בידו לעשות ופירש ולא עשה מפני התשובה לא מיראה ולא מכשלון כח.

So the identical circumstances arise. Everything is replicated. The same challenge, the same temptation for cheit, the person's at the same stage of life, all external circumstances are the same, there's no secular laws now that would inhibit him that didn't inhibit him the first time, everything is replicated, upirash velo avar, and this time the person resists temptation and doesn't do the aveira, זו היא תשובה גמורה. Now the Rambam quotes a pasuk in Koheles that speaks of tshuva gmura. Hu she'Shlomo omer,

וזכור את בוראך בימי בחורותיך עד אשר לא יבאו ימי הרעה והגיעו שנים אשר תאמר אין לי בהם חפץ.

Shlomo HaMelech says to the young people, to the young generation, remember Hakadosh Baruch Hu in your youth, before the days of infirmity and old age. Don't wait till that stage of life to do teshuva, but bimei bachurosecha, in your youth. So this is the pasuk that describes what the Rambam is talking about of tshuva gmura. But what does the pasuk say? The pasuk doesn't say anything about teshuva, the pasuk says zechor es borecha. So it's clear that zechor es borecha is what teshuva ultimately is all about. And the reason for that is, leaving aside the category of a tinok shenishba, leaving aside that category, there is a common denominator to all cheit. On the one hand, every cheit is different, there are different yetzer haras, there are different weaknesses we have, there are different flaws we have, there are different susceptibilities that we have. But there is one common denominator to all cheit, which is, no matter how flawed a person is, no matter what weaknesses a person has, if a person would be aware of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's presence, he would be inhibited from cheit. It doesn't matter how much of a yetzer hara a person has to cheat, if he knows that there's a camera going and the camera is going to catch him cheating, and then that someone's going to look at the film and they're going to get him, and that he's going to face severe consequences, it doesn't matter how strong that yetzer hara is to cheat, it doesn't matter how unprepared he is for the examination, it doesn't matter how weak he is morally, he's not going to cheat. He's not going to cheat. If the prospective bank robber knows that when he walks into the bank he's going to be gunned down by the bank guards, he's not going to, he's not going to attempt to rob the bank. Rabbeinu Yonah says it explicitly in Sha'arei Teshuva, in Hashaar Harishon, when he's listing the esrim ikarei teshuva. So maybe it's the sixth, is busha. He speaks of this, that every cheit is אין זה אלא היות השם יתברך רחוק מכליותיו. That again, leaving aside the category of tinok shenishba, the common denominator of all cheit is שכחת הקדוש ברוך הוא, which means, that gives rise to the Rambam's equation that zechiras haboré is teshuva. Now, what's sort of unique about the feeling of busha is that, I don't know, let's say if you compare and contrast it to something like pain. So, if a person, I don't know, falls and rachmana litzlan twists something or breaks something which causes tremendous pain, so it doesn't make a difference whether there's no one in the room, whether there's five people in the room, or there's five hundred people in the room, he's feeling that same pain. What he says while he's feeling the pain may depend on who is or who isn't around, but the pain is the same. But let's say, let's say a person walked into a room and his ich veis his shoelaces were untied and he trips over his own feet and falls flat on his face, so is he going to be embarrassed? So the answer obviously is, it depends. If the room was empty, you know, if he looks around after getting up and there was no one there, so he's not going to feel embarrassed. He's not going to feel, he's not going to feel embarrassed. If the room was full of people, he's going to feel very embarrassed. So busha results from knowing that others see our foolishness, our incompetence, our vulnerability, etc. That's pshat in busha. A person has to be able to say boshti because the cheit, what allowed for the cheit was being oblivious to the presence of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And the teshuva is that a person now is aware of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's presence. When I did the cheit, I wasn't embarrassed to do the cheit because you weren't on the radar screen, Ribbono shel Olam. Now that I'm doing teshuva, so you are front and center on the radar screen, on my radar screen, and given that, so I now have that sense of shame and humiliation at my cheit. Okay, we'll stop here, bezras Hashem.