Hilchos Teshuva Intro & Perek 1

Maybe just one word of hakdama before we begin the actual halachos. Within the incredible feat and achievement of Mishneh Torah, of the Yad HaChazaka, Hilchos Teshuva has a very special place, and that's for the following reason: that the Rambam was able to be makif, he was able to encompass kol HaTorah kulo is obviously a tremendous thing. And without diminishing an iota the magnitude of that, at the end of the day, the Rambam didn't create the discipline of Hilchos Chovel U'mazik. Okay, so he knew not only did he know Perek HaChovel, but he knew every Bavli, Yerushalmi, Sifrei, Sifra, v'chulu, and organized it and integrated it with countless chidushim. But at the end of the day, it wasn't a chidush to say that there's such a thing as Hilchos Nizkei Mamon, that there's such a thing as Hilchos Gezeila Va'aveida, there's such a thing as Hilchos Chovel U'mazik. It was a tremendous feat to be able to be makif each of these miktzo'os within Torah in within the Yad HaChazaka. Hilchos Teshuva, it's not only the Rambam created the miktzoa Hilchos Teshuva. Nizkei Mamon, there's a maseches Bava Kamma to work with, maseches Bava Kamma to work off. Hilchos Chovel U'mazik, there's a maseches Bava Kamma to work with. Here the Rambam, it's the Rambam dealt with a meimra here, a meimra there. The Rambam created the miktzoa, the area of Hilchos Teshuva, and it's a tremendous, tremendous thing. Okay, there's so much especially in these first two perakim to talk about, but let's at least try to hit on a couple of things. The Rambam writes as follows:

כל מצות שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתוודות לפני האל ברוך הוא שנאמר איש או אשה כי יעשו והתוודו את חטאתם אשר עשו זה וידוי דברים. וידוי זה מצות עשה.

Keitzad misvadin?

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

So noch a mool, keitzad misvadin?

אומר אנא השם חטאתי עויתי פשעתי לפניך ועשיתי כך וכך והרי ניחמתי ובושתי במעשי ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה.

That's what he says here in פרק א הלכה א. Later in

פרק ב הלכה ב: ומה היא התשובה הוא שיעזוב החוטא חטאו ויסירו ממחשבתו ויגמור בליבו שלא יעשהו עוד שנאמר יעזוב רשע דרכו וכן יתנחם על שעבר שנאמר כי אחרי שובי ניחמתי.

So in Beis Beis, the Rambam says that you have first is azivas hachet, then is kabbala l'haba, and then is the charata, then is the יתנחם על שעבר, right? So the azivas hachet, but more specifically the kabbala l'haba precedes the יתנחם על שעבר. That's the way the Rambam has in פרק ב הלכה ב. In the nusach haviduy here in פרק א הלכה א, so the Rambam says הרי ניחמתי ובושתי במעשי, the יתנחם על שעבר comes first, ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה, the kabbala l'haba comes later. So the order is reversed in the Rambam. The Avodas HaMelech asks the kasha. Another discrepancy... Is that in פרק א הלכה א, the Rambam says הרי נחמתי ובושתי במעשי. That part of ikar of viduy is a person has to be able to say boshti. In פרק ב הלכה ב, the Rambam says וכן ינחם על שעבר. It doesn't say וכן ינחם ויסבייש על שעבר. So on that kashya, some suggest that the busha isn't something distinct, but it's more of a person is מתנחם עד כדי כך that he is misbayes. And therefore in Beis Beis when he says vechen yisnechem, that includes וכן ינחם כפי שהוגדר לעיל פרק א הלכה א. Maybe. Okay. Maybe. So yitachen as follows. Bichlal פרק א הלכות תשובה is a very, very funny perek in terms of what exactly the Rambam is looking to cover in Perek Alef. It begins by as we read. Then he continues in Halacha Beis, he tells us about sa'ir hamishtale'ach.

לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתוודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל

shene'emar והתוודה עליו את כל עוונות בני ישראל. Tells us the difference by sa'ir hamishtale'ach between kalos and chamuros. That's the rest of Halacha Beis. Halacha Gimmel

בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים ואין לנו מזבח כפרה אין שם אלא תשובה. התשובה מכפרת על כל העבירות.

Very good. Halacha Daled is the arba chilukei kapara. Aseh, lo saseh, chamuros, and chillul Hashem rachmana litzlan. Arba chilukei kapara. So what exactly is being covered in פרק א הלכות תשובה? So the pshatus is as follows. The fact that it is פרק א הלכות תשובה notwithstanding, Perek Alef is not about teshuva. For whatever reason, for whatever reason, and this is a diyun k'she'atzmo that perhaps we'll get into, the Rambam begins Hilchos Teshuva talking about the viduy. For whatever reason. And then gets into the famous question of what's the mitzvah viduy teshuva the stira. But leaving that all aside, whatever the reason, whatever the teretz, the fact is that the Rambam begins Hilchos Teshuva not so much talking about teshuva, not talking about teshuva, let's drop the qualifier, not talking about teshuva, he's talking about viduy. Apropos of that, and the Rambam tells us, the Rambam tells us that viduy is me'akev in kapara. That viduy is me'akev in kapara. If a person does teshuva but is not misvadeh, so there is no kapara. Apropos of that, what Perek Alef in Hilchos Teshuva is about is about kapara. That's what the common denominator is of the four halachos. Halacha Beis tells you about the kapara of sa'ir hamishtale'ach. Halacha Gimmel tells us what sources of kapara do we have left to us bazman hazeh and Halacha Daled tells us the arba chilukei kapara. So Perek Alef is not about Hilchos Teshuva. Perek Alef is not about Hilchos Teshuva, it's not about teshuva, Perek Alef is about kapara. About kapara. Again, why that is is because for whatever reason the Rambam begins with the viduy which is me'akev in the kapara of teshuva. And apropos of that, Perek Alef is about kapara, about kapara. So yitachen as follows. The Rambam holds, maybe just digressing for a minute, I should have mentioned this first. The Avodat Hamelech is metzayen that the Rabbeinu Yonah Sha'arei Teshuva also discusses this question of the sequence of teshuva. Whether or not the kabbalah l'haba precedes... precedes the nechama, the charata l'she'avar, or whether first is charata l'she'avar and then kabbala l'haba. And Rabbeinu Yonah introduces the following distinction. Very profound distinction, k'darko, obviously. Rabbeinu Yonah says it depends on the person. He says, if you have a person who his whole life has never really lived with very much kovid rosh. He goes to shul, he doesn't go to shul, puts on tefillin, so the shel rosh is over here, it's over here, so never, never really lived with any kind of kovid rosh. Okay. And now, a little bit he's beginning, there's a hisorerus. There's a hisorerus. A hisorerus. Such a person has to begin with kabbala l'haba because the depth of the nechama l'she'avar that a person is supposed to have, he's not yet capable of. He is not far enough along in the path of teshuva. He hasn't distanced himself sufficiently from his previous lifestyle to be able to really experience a profound sense of charata. So he feels the need for change. Once a person progresses along that path of teshuva and he realizes a need to change. So he starts to daven, he starts to be makpid on davening be'tzibur. A person lives that way for a while and he begins to realize what it is. Now, now he can have some kind of real charata l'she'avar, some kind of deep and profound sense of charata l'she'avar. But in the initial steps of teshuva, it's going to be too superficial. It's premature for his charata. It has to begin with a kabbala l'haba. So kabbala l'haba, from now on I'm going to daven. I feel there's something missing, I feel there's a need. Once a person genuinely experiences what it means to daven, now he can have a charata, all that time I didn't daven. Now he has an emessdike charata. So it has to be first the kabbala l'haba and then the charata l'she'avar. That's one type of teshuva, says Rabbeinu Yonah. But then there's another type of teshuva. Let's say you have a person, a person who his whole life, he's 70 years old, his whole life he's been מיום עמדו על דעתו, he's been very, very makpid on tefilla be'tzibur. Eich shehu it happens that one morning he oversleeps. Not only does he miss tefilla be'tzibur, he misses סוף זמן קריאת שמע, misses sof zman tefilla. So that person right away, this, this was such an aberration. It wasn't that cheit was his whole lifestyle, or that this particular cheit was a part of his lifestyle. It was a complete and total aberration. So that person can begin right away with the nechama l'she'avar because that person right away can genuinely experience that profound sense of remorse which constitutes the charata. That's what Rabbeinu Yonah says. But in the Rambam, to say that that accounts for the stira in the Rambam is very difficult, because there's no indication that in perek aleph the Rambam's talking about one such type of person, and that in perek beis he's talking about a different type. So in the Rambam, lichora, it's something else. The Rambam disagrees with Rabbeinu Yonah. And the answer to the stira is as follows: that perek aleph is not about teshuva. Perek aleph is again, halacha aleph is about viduy, and apropos of that, perek aleph is about kapara. Perek beis is about teshuva. Says the Rambam, if you want to know how you do teshuva, so I don't draw Rabbeinu Yonah's distinction. I think that even if the cheit was an aberration, but if first you have the kabbala l'haba, it came from somewhere. There was something in me, chatonu, nothing just happens. We don't just do things, and things don't just happen. It comes from something. If I did something wrong, it means If once, if once I didn't say krias shema bizmana, yeah, yeah, it's an aberration, but the other hand it also, so apparently it isn't the absolute anchor of my life the way it should have been, because otherwise it couldn't have happened even once. I think Rav Aharon Kotler has, I think somewhere in Mishnas Rav Aharon, I think I heard it quoted ba'al peh. I assume it's in Mishnas Rav Aharon as well. The Gemara says at the end of Berachos, a very sobering Gemara, that if a person is once mevatel krias shema, it's as if he never lained krias shema in his life. Pshat, at the end of Berachos, so what does that mean? Once I didn't say krias shema, because of that it's as if I didn't say krias shema my whole life? So says Rav Aharon, yeah, what it means is that if something is mamash an absolute, so it wouldn't even happen once. If I missed it once, not that כאילו לא קרה בכלל, but the krias shema that I thought that every day I was saying was an absolute ה' אלקינו ה' אחד and bim'sirut nefesh, and this is everything, there is nothing in life other than this. If that's what all my krias shemas had been until now, I wouldn't have missed it even once. If I missed it once, so it tells me something about all my past krias shemas. So ke'ein zeh, the Rambam says no, I think the model for teshuva is always that first a person has to distance himself from the chet, because then he'll always be capable of a deeper and more profound sense of charata. In perek aleph, the Rambam wasn't describing teshuva. In perek aleph, the Rambam again is talking about viduy. In viduy, so we move, we describe the past and then we describe the future. So once we describe within the nusach ha'viduy, so once a person is talking about the chet in the past, so then a person talks about what his attitude towards that chet in the past is. But perek aleph is bekhlal not about teshuva. Perek aleph again is about initially viduy and from there about kapara. In terms of the nusach ha'viduy, in terms of how you say it, so we organize it logically. A person has to begin with a hakaras hachet, he has to begin with a chatasi aviszi pashati. Nu, he's talking about the past, so let him talk about again his feelings of the past and then you move logically to the future. And that's the answer, perek beis is teshuva, perek aleph is viduy. Hashata d'asinu l'hacha, hashata d'asinu l'hacha, the other discrepancy that we spoke about is how come in perek beis the Rambam doesn't talk about busha. In perek aleph the Rambam says that nechamti u'voshti is ikaro shel viduy. Without the busha, the viduy is inadequate. And yet the Rambam in perek aleph, in perek beis, doesn't say a word about yisnachaim v'yisbayesh. So what's pshat? So lekhora is as follows. Why is it that busha is so pivotal that it's me'ikaro shel viduy? Again, how the Rambam knows it, okay, so we know it from pesukim.

אלקי בשתי ונכלמתי להרים פני אליך. בשתי וגם נכלמתי כי נשאתי חרפת נעורי.

Pesukim talk about busha. So where the Rambam gets it from we know. But what's pshat that it's the so little in the ikaro shel viduy here, mamash only essential components and essential features, so why is the busha so central? So the teretz is and be'emes Rabbeinu Yonah says this in sha'ar rishon of Sha'arei Teshuva, when he lists the ikarim of teshuva, so one of them is busha. That every chet, or virtually every chet, there is a common denominator. On the one hand, every chet has its own dynamic. The yetzer hara for rekhilus and lashon hara is not the yetzer hara for ma'akhalot assurot v'arayos. So different yetzer hara. So every chet has its own dynamic and because of that the tikun of every chet has be individualized. You have to attack the shoresh of the chet. Again, every chet has its own, its own, its own character and and its dynamic has its own character. But me'idach gisa there's also a common denominator to virtually every chet leaving aside tinok shenishba as a separate discussion and that is, that no matter how strong a yetzer hara a person may have, fill in the blank for whatever he did or didn't do, if a person would have been aware of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's presence, if he would have been thinking שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד so then he would have been misgaber on any yetzer hara. The yetzer hara for rechilus and lashon hara is not the yetzer hara for machalos asuros which is not the yetzer hara for atzlus. Different yetzer haras. But whatever the yetzer hara is that that a person succumbs to, if at that moment he would have felt acutely that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is

עומד עליו ורואה במעשיו שנאמר אם יסתר איש במסתרים ואני לא אראנו נאם ה'

so he would have been misgaber on any yetzer hara. So you have that common denominator to every chet that ein zeh says Rabbeinu Yonah אלא היות השם יתברך רחוק מכליותיו. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's not on the radar screen. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's not on the radar screen. Oh. What does boshas mean? Why do I have to be embarrassed if I did a chet? Most of my chataim I do, other people are not present. So why do I have to be embarrassed about? You don't know about it. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Who am I embarrassed for? Boshas is only in front of other people. There's no boshas beino uvein atzmo. A person can feel pain if he's in a room all by himself. A person can be hungry even if he's in a room all by himself. A person can only feel boshas in the presence of others. There's no boshas beino uvein atzmo. A person is not misbayesh. So the boshas of the chet obviously means before the Ribbono Shel Olam. Right? Oh. So why why do you have to have boshas? Because heyos again that the common denominator of every chet is אין זה אלא היות השם יתברך רחוק מכליותיו so mimeila a person has to be able to say boshti vegam nichlamti because if I still can't say boshti, so then I'm still lacking that awareness of being in Hakadosh Baruch Hu's presence. Oh. Now, says the Rambam here in פרק א' הלכה א'. This is in other contexts something that the the Rav highlighted, this lashon haRambam, that

כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתודות לפני הקל ברוך הוא.

When a person's being misvadeh, a person's been shav bitshuvah. The the kiyum shebaleiv of teshuvah has happened already. He's he's he's resolved l'haba. He's full of charatah. So now he's being readmitted. He's he's returning to Hakadosh Baruch Hu's presence. Now, when you're talking about the viduy which is lifnei hakeil, now there has to be the boshas. So the boshas is taka a din in the viduy which is lifnei hakeil. The teshuvah is coming back lifnei hakeil. I'm not yet back lifnei hakeil, I don't have to have the boshas because the boshas again, the boshas is how can I stand before you Hakadosh Baruch Hu having... let's let's say like this. Your your your father gives you the car and tells you be careful don't exceed the speed limit and and don't stay out later than 10 at night because then it's very dark and you'll be tired and your reflexes will will be slow. So what do you do? You stay out later than than than 10 at night and you exceed the speed limit and and you wreck the car. Wreck the car. So you feel terrible. You feel terrible, you're upset. When do you feel embarrassed? You feel embarrassed when you have to look your father in the face and tell him what happened. That's when you feel embarrassed. Until then you feel guilty and you feel terrible and and you want to disappear. But when do you when do you feel embarrassed? You feel embarrassed when you have to look your father in the face and say, yeah, you told me I shouldn't go 55, I was going 70. And you told me that I should be home before 10 o'clock, it was 11:30 at night and I was very tired and my reflexes were were slow. But that's that's when you have the boshas. So the teshuvah... Is nachon. But when a person is now חייב להתוודות לפני הא-ל, I've done the teshuvah, I feel terrible about it, I recognize what I did is wrong. I'm not going to do it again, I'm not going to do it again. But אף על פי כן I now have to have the mentchlichkeit of coming and saying that, now's when you have, now's when you have the boshes. So again, Perek Aleph the Rambam's talking about the viduy. And the viduy it's expressed logically, not necessarily in the sequence that the teshuvah happens, and it's when you're saying the viduy that you now lifnei HaKeil, it's the lifnei HaKeil which is mechayev in the sense of boshes. On a very different level, the Rambam says

כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתוודות לפני הא-ל ברוך הוא.

So two things that the Rambam doesn't mention that we can wonder why he didn't. First of all, according to Reb Chaim's opinion that oneiss is a maaseh aveirah and that when the Torah says ולנערה לא תעשה דבר it's a p'tur onesh and not a hafkaat maaseh aveirah, so why doesn't the Rambam mention even be'oneiss's? Why doesn't the Rambam have teshuvah for oneiss? I think one of Reb Chaim's rayos is that the Torat Kohanim says that Sa'ir HaMishtaleach is mechaper everything, meizid, shogeg, oneiss, everything, you name it. So what do you need a kaparah for? If he mamash didn't do anything wrong, you don't need a kaparah. But if oneiss is a maaseh aveirah with a p'tur onesh, so then it's still nitan l'kaparah. So that was one of one of Reb Chaim's rayos and that was k'yadua that the Rav used to quote that Reb Chaim was of the opinion that oneiss is a maaseh aveirah. If oneiss is a maaseh aveirah, so then why isn't it mentioned here? No? So lechora it should have been the same way it's nitan l'kaparah, it should have been nitan l'teshuvah as well. So the Ramo says in Shin Mem Gimmel in Orach Chaim in the siman of

קטן האוכל נבלות בית דין מצווים להפרישו בית דין אין מצווים להפרישו,

so the Ramo says that קטן שעבר עבירה בקטנותו is טוב שיקבל על עצמו תשובה. Tov, it's a good thing that he should be mekabel upon himself the teshuvah. So mi-mah nafshach, what does the Ramo hold? The Ramo holds that a katan has a similar question to that what we were just discussing by oneiss, of course exists legabei katan. Does a katan have a maaseh aveirah but a p'tur onesh or no? He's be-klal not a bar mitzvah, so he doesn't have a maaseh aveirah either. So mi-mah nafshach, what does the Ramo hold? So clearly, and this is this is clear in the Biur Ha-Gra if you look there, that the Biur Ha-Gra understands pshat that according to the Ramo a katan has a maaseh aveirah. The Biur Ha-Gra there gives three marei mekomos, each one of which points to the fact that a katan has a maaseh aveirah. The Gemara in Sanhedrin is trying to figure out whether or not a beheimah which is nirba'at or which is רובע או רובעת את האדם is the beheimah niskeles only because would it be niskeles if you only had kalon without takalah? Kalon is just the the shame, the bizayon that such a davar mesua'av happened as mishkav beheimah and the takalah is that a person was nichshal in an aveirah. So what happens if you have one without the other? Would the beheimah still get sekilah? So let's say you would have kalon without takalah. So the Gemara quotes a braisa that if you have a katan ben tesha who was rova beheimah, so then the beheimah is niskeles. So the Gemara says here, here we have it, here קלון איכא תקלה ליכא because he's only a katan. And the Gemara answers. This is takala nami ika, but chas rachmana alei. So the Gaon is metzayein among other things that Gemara in Sanhedrin for this Rambam. So it's clear that what the Gaon is saying is that a katan has a maise aveira, and that's gufa the shakla vetarya in the Gemara whether the case of katan is takala leka or takala ika. And the Gemara's maskana is that takala ika, but chas rachmana alei. So a katan has a maise aveira. And a katan has a maise aveira, so why is it only tov sheyaseh teshuva? He should be mechuyav to do teshuva. If I know I did an aveira, so I should be mechuyav to do teshuva. So you see that the pshat in patur onesh is not as narrow as we think it is. It's not, you don't get the malkus, you don't get the skila. The pshat in patur onesh is that the maise aveira isn't mechayeiv. It was a maise aveira, but unlike what the norm is that a maise aveira is mechayeiv, what's it mechayeiv? It's mechayeiv malkus, it's mechayeiv korban, it's mechayeiv whatever. When there's a patur onesh, that says that this maise aveira is not mechayeiv. And the pshat is, the same way it's not mechayeiv onesh, it's not mechayeiv teshuva either. And that's what the real pshat in patur onesh is. It means that the maise aveira is not a mechayeiv. Not again, we usually understand it too narrowly. You don't get the malkus, you don't get the onesh. No, what that really flows from, what underlies that, is that the Torah said that such a maise aveira isn't mechayeiv. So the same way it's not mechayeiv malkus or misa or korban or tashlumin, it's not mechayeiv teshuva either. But on the other hand, a maise aveira it is. So that's what the Rambam is talking about the chiyuv teshuva. He's talking about the mitzvah, so ein hachi nami, ones is a maise aveira but there's no chiyuv teshuva. There's no chiyuv teshuva. And the Re'ma takeh also says there's no chiyuv teshuva. He says tov, but lemaise since there was a maise aveira, tov to do teshuva. Why doesn't the Rambam say that? Okay, so ein hachi nami, that's an interesting question. The other, the other interesting question here is what's not mentioned here in the Rambam. כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה. What about mitzvos derabbanan? When we're talking about the chiyuv teshuva on derabbanan. The kasha is even a little bit better when you think of the Rambam l'shitaso that the Rambam says in Hilchos Mamrim that a person can become a zakein mamrei over a din derabbanan. To become a zakein mamrei who's chayav misa, you have to disagree with the Beis Din HaGadol about a דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת, about a prat of a דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת. So what happens if he disputes the Beis Din HaGadol as to the status of chametz besha'a chamisha, chametz besha'a shishis? So the Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim that he becomes a zakein mamrei mid'oraisa for disputing the Sanhedrin HaGadol over the status of chametz besha'a chamisha, chametz besha'a shishis. The Ramban says it's nitan lehei'amen, how can it be? You can't become a zakein mamrei mid'oraisa over a din derabbanan. And it's not that he's saying it's a din d'oraisa, he's disagreeing whether he's saying that chametz besha'a chamisha is assur behana'ah. He's saying that chametz besha'a shishis is still muttar behana'ah or muttar beachila. He's disagreeing on a derabbanan'dike level, he's not claiming that mid'oraisa. So the Rav zichrono livracha used to say that the Rambam holds that a din derabbanan is a חפצא של דין מדאורייתא. De'hainu, what does that mean? De'hainu, that the authority for the din is derabbanan, the chomer ha'issur is derabbanan, but the Torah. But the Torah knows of that din. Again, משל למה הדבר דומה. משל למה הדבר דומה. So imagine that if in the United States instead of laws having to be legislated jointly by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, imagine the system were a little different. Imagine that each one could legislate independently. And the din was that if the Senate legislates, so then it's more chomer, then you can get jail time or maybe you can even get corporal punishment. But if the House of Representatives legislates, so then you can only get fined. But each one legislates independently. So then what would the status be of a law which was passed by the House of Representatives? Does it exist from the vantage point of the Senate? Afalpi it does. The fact that the Senate didn't legislate it doesn't mean that the Senate doesn't recognize it. It doesn't mean that the Senate doesn't acknowledge it. The Senate would acknowledge it, would recognize it and say, but yeah, we recognize it, what's more and and and we say that that that everyone is bound by it, but the chomer issur, the severity of the violation is going to be different. All right, so a mashal b'alma. So a derabannan, what's the source? The source is the Rabbanan. What's the chomer issur? It's derabannan, it's not a de'oraita. But it's a חפצא של דין מן התורה. It's a חפצא של דין מן התורה as well. So you could have even conjectured based on that, so what the chiyuv teshuvah for a derabannan is going to be mide'oraita or miderabannan? The chiyuv teshuvah for a... I don't know, so yesh ladun, you again, forgetting for a moment the the the opening sentence here in the Rambam, but you could have wondered that maybe the chiyuv teshuvah for derabannan should even be mide'oraita. The same way, I think the Yad Malachi has the shayla, right, so if a person is machshil someone else in an aveira he's over lifnei iver. So what happens if you're machshil a person of issur derabannan, are you over lifnei iver de'oraita? Also, a mashal b'alma. But either way, I don't know, it's I don't know, it's interesting that the Rambam doesn't mention anything about the derabannan. Lichora, the implication can't be that on no level that is there a chiyuv teshuvah for derabannan, that lichora can't be the implication. So why doesn't the Rambam spell it out lechol hapachos that וכן מדברי סופרים נעשות תשובה? All right, so maybe maybe that's self-understood and maybe what the diyuk points to is that this question we're raising that for whatever reason yesh l'chalek between zakken mamre and teshuvah. And and that the Rambam didn't need to spoon-feed us that maybe it's understood that if on a mitzvah de'oraita there's a chiyuv teshuvah de'oraita then on a mitzvah derabannan there would be a chiyuv teshuvah derabannan. Okay, tzarich iyun. Maybe just one one last he'ara. If you take a look just for a minute, could be we'll come back to some more of the inyanim of Perek Alef next week bli neder, but if you take a look for a minute in the beginning of Perek Bet, Halacha Alef: איזו היא תשובה גמורה? So here the Rambam is first talking about teshuvah. Again, until now the teshuvah was just a backdrop to talking about viduy. Perek Bet:

איזו היא תשובה גמורה זה שבא לידו דבר שעבר בו ואפשר בידו לעשותו ופירש ולא עשה ממנו התשובה לא מיראה ולא מכשלון כח.

Keitzad?

הרי שבא על אשה בעבירה ולאחר זמן נתייחד עמה והוא עומד באהבתו בה ובכח גופו ובמדינה שעבר בה ופירש ולא עבר זהו תשובה גמורה.

So the only variable, it's a controlled experiment, the only variable is himself, is his own yirat chet, yirat shamayim. Hu she'Shlomo amar וזכור את בוראיך בימי בחורותיך. So where's the, where's the raya from the pasuk? How is this pasuk talking about the, about the scenario of doing teshuva? Again,

איזו היא תשובה גמורה? זה שבאה לידו דבר שעבר בו ואפשר בידו לעשותו ופירש ולא עשה ממנה תשובה לא מיראה ולא מכשלון כוח. כיצד? הרי שבא על אישה בעבירה ולאחר זמן נתייחד עמה והוא עומד באהבתו בה ובכוח גופו ובמדינה שעבר בה ופירש ולא עבר זהו בעל תשובה גמורה.

Is it the same age and stage of life? Hu sheshlomo amar וזכור את בוראך בימי בחורותיך. So clearly where's the pasuk talking about teshuva? Uzchor es borecha. Uzchor es borecha. So we mentioned before in terms of when talking about why boshas is meikar shel viduy, as Rabbeinu Yonah highlights that the common denominator to virtually every cheit is that a person forgets Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Forgets Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Mimaila it's very good that the Rambam is quoting the pasuk that when Shlomo HaMelech is talking about uzchor es borecha that remembering Hakadosh Baruch Hu is a way of referring to the process of teshuva. The process of teshuva. The process of teshuva l'cheit represents shichchas Hashem, represents shichchas Hashem and the tikkun for that, the teshuva is therefore a process of uzchor es borecha and that's the Rambam's definition for teshuva. Teshuva means again on one level it means a person rachmana litzlan forgot Hakadosh Baruch Hu. I'm doing teshuva, it means I'm now remembering Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The Rambam says the same thing again in the famous Rambam about tekias shofar in

פרק ג הלכה ד אף על פי שתקיעת שופר בראש השנה גזירת הכתוב רמז יש בה כלומר עורו ישנים משנתכם ונרדמים הקיצו מתרדמתכם וחפשו במעשיכם וחזרו בתשובה וזכרו בוראכם.

Vezichru borachem. To have to remember Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's the, again, the essence of teshuva is the uzchor es borecha. Okay, so next next Thursday bli neder we'll continue with perek bais.