לזכות אמי מורתי מרת הענא מרים בת חנה לברכה והצלחה וכל טוב סלה!
The Teshuva season is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER - ONLY DAYS AWAY. That requires us to become git git areingetun - very intensely wrapped up, in the laws and ideas of Teshuva. Let us begin beloved and sweet friends.... [I have a special הנאה writing this post as I spent much time today involved in bureaucracy, long lines, bills and the attendant עגמת נפש. Now back to the sweet and pleasurable part of life.]
The Rambam writes in the first halacha in Hilchos Teshuva:
כל מצות שבתורה, בין עשה בין לא תעשה, אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן, בין בזדון בין בשגגה, כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתודות לפני האל ברוך הוא, שנאמר: "איש או אשה כי יעשו וגו' והתודו את חטאתם אשר עשו" (במדבר ה, ו-ז), זה וידוי דברים. וידוי זה מצות עשה.
כיצד מתודין? אומר: 'אנא השם, חטאתי, עויתי, פשעתי לפניך ועשיתי כך וכך, והרי נחמתי ובושתי במעשי, ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה'. וזהו עיקרו של וידוי. וכל המרבה להתודות ומאריך בענין זה, הרי זה משובח.
וכן בעלי חטאות ואשמות, בעת שמביאין קרבנותיהן על שגגתן או על זדונן, אין מתכפר להן בקרבנם עד שיעשו תשובה ויתודו וידוי דברים, שנאמר: "והתודה אשר חטא עליה" (ויקרא ה, ה).
וכן כל מחוייבי מיתות בית דין ומחוייבי מלקות, אין מתכפר להן במיתתן או בלקייתן עד שיעשו תשובה ויתודו.
וכן החובל בחבירו והמזיק ממונו, אף על פי ששילם לו מה שהוא חייב לו, אינו מתכפר עד שיתודה וישוב מלעשות כזה לעולם, שנאמר: "מכל חטאות האדם" (במדבר ה, ו).
If a person transgresses any of the mitzvot of the Torah, whether a positive command or a negative command - whether willingly or inadvertently - when he repents, and returns from his sin, he must confess before God, blessed be, He as [Bamidbar 5:6-7] states: "If a man or a woman commit any of the sins of man... they must confess the sin that they committed."
This refers to a verbal confession. This confession is a positive command.
How does one confess: He states: "I implore You, God, I sinned, I transgressed, I committed iniquity before You by doing the following. Behold, I regret and am embarrassed for my deeds. I promise never to repeat this act again."
These are the essential elements of the confessional prayer. Whoever confesses profusely and elaborates on these matters is worthy of praise.
Those who bring sin offerings or guilt offerings must also [confess their sins] when they bring their sacrifices for their inadvertent or willful transgressions. Their sacrifices will not atone for their sins until they repent and make a verbal confession as [Vayikra 5/5]: "He shall confess the sin he has committed upon it."
Similarly, those obligated to be executed or lashed by the court do not attain atonement through their death or lashing unless they repent and confess. Similarly, someone who injures a colleague or damages his property, does not attain atonement, even though he pays him what he owes until he confesses and makes a commitment never to do such a thing again as implied by the phrase [Numbers, loc. cit..], "any of the sins of man."
The Lechem Mishna says that the last line of the Rambam is a reference to the pasuk איש או אשה כי יעשו אחת מכל חטאת האדם והתודו את חטאתם - A man or woman who does any sins of a man and he should confess his sin. He then asks why the Rambam cites the pasuk from Vayikra והתודה אשר חטא עליה "he shall confess" etc. with respect to sins that require a korban and it wasn't sufficient for him to cite that pasuk from Bamidbar that he marshaled at the end [and at the beginning of the halacha] מכל חטאת האדם?
He answers that the Rambam COULD have used the latter pasuk but the former pasuk is explicitly talking about the obligation of וידוי for one who is obligated to bring a korban. In fact, it is explicit in the Toras Kohanim [Medrash on Vayikra] that from this pasuk we derive the obligation to say וידוי with the korban, as the Rambam taught. [However, in the Sefer Hamitzvos [מצוה ע"ג] the Rambam learns from מכל חטאת האדם in contrast to what he writes in Hilchos Teshuva].
The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shgagos:
אין יום הכפורים ולא החטאת ולא האשם מכפרין אלא על השבים המאמינים בכפרתן אבל המבעט בהן אינן מכפרין בו כיצד היה מבעט והביא חטאתו או אשמו והוא אומר או מחשב בלבו שאין אלו מכפרין אף על פי שקרבו כמצותן לא נתכפר לו וכשיחזור בתשובה מבעיטתו צריך להביא חטאתו ואשמו וכן המבעט ביוה"כ אין יום הכפורים מכפר עליו לפיכך אם נתחייב באשם תלוי ועבר עליו יום הכפורים והוא מבעט בו הרי זה לא נתכפר לו וכשיחזור בתשובה אחר יוה"כ חייב להביא כל אשם תלוי שהיה חייב בו:
What is implied? A person was in a state of rebellion, but brought a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, saying or thinking in his heart that these will not generate atonement. Accordingly, even though they were offered as commanded, they do not generate atonement for him. When he repents from his rebellion, he must bring another sin-offering and/or guilt-offering.
Similarly, when one is in a state of rebellion on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him. Therefore if he was obligated to bring a tentative guilt-offering and Yom Kippur passed while he was in a state of rebellion, Yom Kippur does not generate atonement for him. When he repents after Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring all the tentative guilt-offerings for which he is liable.
The issue of a מבעט - rebellious person, is a machlokes in Krisus [7a] between Rav Yochanan and Resh Lakish and the Rambam rules like Rav Yochanan.
The question is - is his rebellion just a פסול in the atonement of his sin or is it even a פסול in the korban? The Rash Mi-shantz [תו"כ דיבורא דחובה פ"א ה"ז] clearly implies that the issue is not just that his rebellion creates a פסול in his כפרה but actually renders the korban pasul - see there. [Trying to keep things short. The Twitter generation....:-)]
According to Rashi [Krisus 7a] who says that the reason מבעט doesn't receive כפרה for his korban is because a korban must be brought לרצונו we can understand the notion that מבעט is a פסול in the עצם הקרבן because it is not לרצונו.
However, Rashi in Shvuos [13a] writes that חטאות and אשמות are only מכפר on those who do teshuva because it says והתודה אשר חטא עליה and והתודו את חטאתם and therefore if a person is מבעט there is a חסרון in the teshuva and וידוי. According to this approach we must understand how the KORBAN becomes pasul. Why are חייבי חטאות ואשמות any different from חייבי מלקויות? When a person who is חייב מלקות is מבעט when he receives the מלקות we find nowhere that he needs to receive another set of מלקות. So why is a מבעט obligated to bring another korban after he repents on the rebellion?
Here we get to a HUGE yesod: וידוי on the korban is NOT just a detail and part of the laws of teshuva but actually part and parcel of the חיוב קרבן. This means that even if one already did teshuva and vidui, when he brings his korban he must do וידוי again. This is similar to Yom Kippur which requires a special וידוי בשעת כפרה and even if a person already said וידוי before Yom Kippur another וידוי is necessary on Yom Kippur [see the Levush תכ"ז]. In a similar vein when one brings a korban, בשעת כפרה a special וידוי is mandated.
That is why the Toras Kohanim says מנין שטעון וידוי ת"ל והתודה אשר חטא עליה - How do we know that a korban requires וידוי ? From והתודה אשר חטא עליה. The Gr"a writes that it is derived from the superfluous word עליה - meaning that as one is doing סמיכה he must do וידוי. Again, this is because there is a special דין that וידוי is required WITH the korban and not before.
The Rash Mi-shantz writes [תורת כהנים פ"ה ה"ד] that the reason a goy may not do semicha on the korban is because וידוי is done בשעת סמיכה and goyim are not שייך to כפרה. From here we again see that וידוי is part and parcel of the korban and thus if there is no וידוי that also disqualifies from סמיכה [which of course is also a דין in the korban]. If וידוי was just a דין in teshuva then of course it shouldn't affect the semicha.
Now we understand beautifully the Rambam in Hilchos Shgagos who says that when the מבעט repents from his rebellion, he must bring ANOTHER חטאת or אשם. Since he brought it originally without proper teshuva, the whole korban is pasul [and doing teshuva later is not enough].
Now we can also answer the question of the Lechem Mishna, why the Rambam cited the pasuk והתודה אשר חטא עליה to require וידוי for חייבי חטאות ואשמות and didn't suffice with the pasuk he utilized to prove that וידוי is needed for חייבי מלקויות- namely מכל חטאת האדם. The reason is that מכל חטאת האדם is talking about the חיוב וידוי מדין תשובה while the pasuk והתודה אשר חטא עליה is talking about the חיוב וידוי מדין הקרבן and if he was in the category of מבעט another korban is required when he repents.
This of course also explains the need for Rashi in Shavuos [that we quoted earlier] to cite BOTH psukim.
In summary: Two sources for וידוי reflecting two types of וידוי. The וידוי as part of teshuva and the וידוי as part of the חיוב קרבן.
Breathtaking. And there is yet more [ברצות השם ובלי נדר no obligations:-)]!!!
[עפ"י שארית יוסף להרה"ג ר' שמואל וואהרמן סימן י"ב]
