Derech Chaim - XNUMX
BSD ARA XNUMX
The Ramban in his commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (beginning of chapter L) states that there is a mitzvah to make teshuva. This mitzvah is learned from the verse (ibid.): "And Shabbat to the Lord your God." On the other hand, Maimonides in the Laws of Repentance (XNUMX: XNUMX, XNUMX) writes that this verse is a promise from God that the end of Israel will make repentance. Does Maimonides' method also have a mitzvah to repent?
הposition (Mitzvah Shasad) and others have already pointed to an apparent contradiction at this point. On the one hand, bThe Book of Commandments (Mitzvah Ag) Maimonides writes:
It is he who commanded to confess the sins and iniquities we have sinned before Gd will ascend and say them with the answer.
There is no commandment here to make an answer. The matter of confession is mentioned here as a conditional mitzvah: if a person makes a confession, he must say a confession with the execution of the confession (and all this with the bringing of the sacrifice). The very act of making teshuva does not seem like a mitzvah here (as in slaughter, whoever wants to eat meat must slaughter legally. Slaughter is a conditional mitzvah, but eating meat per se is certainly not a mitzvah).
From this a husband concludes Education facilitator (Mitzvah Shasad), that if a sinful person does not return, he has no punishment at all for not repenting (he is punished only for the past offense). He adds that even if he repented and did not confess, he did not cancel a mitzvah made by Davidoi, since this is not a positive mitzvah (it is an 'existential' mitzvah, the one who does it has a reward, but whoever violates it and does not do it does not cancel anything).
On the other hand, in the numerator of the mitzvos that precede the laws of repentance, Maimonides writes as follows:
One commandment is made, and it is that the sinner returns from his sin before God and confesses.
Hence a seemingly different picture emerges. The person who has sinned is commanded to return from his evil deeds, and in addition he is also commanded to confess. Here the answer is presented as made matzah, and it has two components: to make an answer and to confess. This is in contradiction to what we saw in the words of Maimonides bThe Book of Commandments. In the explanation of Maimonides' method, different directions were stated, and in the present case they do not really elaborate on this contradiction. We will offer here a different direction, based on an understanding of the role of The Book of Commandments And understanding the matter of the answer.
As can be seen from a study of the four roots that precede MaimonidesThe Book of Commandments His, Maimonides puts into his quorum only mitzvos that have an explicit commandment in the Torah. Mitzvot that are learned from a midrasha (see there in the second root), or from Sabra, or from the Knesset, are not included in our quorum. If so, there may be debts from Dauriyta that are not mentioned inThe Book of Commandments. The conclusion is that the fact that a mitzvah does not appear there does not necessarily mean that it is not a mitzvah from the Torah.
Is there an explicit commandment in the Torah regarding the commandment of repentance? We have seen above, that according to Maimonides the verse "And the Sabbath to the Lord your God" is a promise and not a commandment. Still, bA strong hand Maimonides brings the duty to repent as an absolute duty. The solution to this is that while there is a charge, it originates from a sabra and not a bible, so it does not appear inSafamatz. In contrast, bA strong hand Maimonides brings all our halakhic duties, whether from the Torah, from a midrasha, or from Durban or a custom, and therefore the obligation to repent also appears there.
We have found that at least according to Maimonides the obligation to make an answer is based on Sabra. If there is indeed a channel that God has created for us to return to and atone for our sins, then simply from Sabra we must use it (see the Midrash that appears in Brish Shaarei Teshuvah To R.I., about the underground that is rowed in the prison, through which every prisoner is supposed to go).
This is also the reason why in H. Teshuvah Maimonides not only lists the laws, but also describes the process of Teshuvah, and recites the virtue of the author of the Teshuvah (see Ibid. F) that underlies the possibility and obligation to make an answer. We do not find this type of writing in the other halachic files of Maimonides. It turns out that all of these are meant to convince us that an answer must be made, and that it can be done. The reason why Maimonides in his halakhic book tries to convince us to do a mitzvah, is that there is no commandment in the mitzvah (= the answer). Its foundation is in Sabra, and therefore Maimonides must convince us that it is nevertheless obligatory to do so, and this is none of the most important commandments (and see Lacham PG HG, who wrote that he who did not repent in the act will be sued for it, and woe is a sin in itself. Contrary to the words of theposition The above that not replying is certainly not an offense. And perhaps there is a division between doing and the rest of the year).
In the margins of our remarks we note that usually the lack of commandments regarding halakhic duties is due to the fact that they are not important enough to be included in halakhic dauriyta. But there are commandments for which the lack of a commandment stems precisely because of most of their importance and thoroughness. In the mitzvos that are foundations in the work of Gd, the Torah is careful not to command us, so that we do so out of iteruta deltata.
The rabbi in his letters writes a similar basic principle regarding the work of virtue. He clarifies there that in fundamental things in the work of God the initial conception that one who does not command and do is great is upheld. For this reason the Torah did not command us about them. The duty to answer is a prime example of this.
Our Father and King, we have returned in complete repentance before you.
I wish the entire Beit Yeshiva, the Rosh Yeshiva Shlita, the dedicated staff, all the dear students and their families in general the entire Beit Yisrael, good writing and signature in the book of Tzaddiks. May it be a year of success and holy rest. A year of health (especially for the dear boy Israel Yosef ben Ruth ben Tolila and for all of us). A year of aliyah in Torah and work, and success in all our deeds.
 And he is onhuman life, AndShaarei Teshuvah R.I.
 Although the GRIP in his interpretation toThe Book of Commandments Of Rasg, explains that the Rasg method has a mitzvah to eat meat when our condition is good, which is learned from the verse: But this is a unique method, and certainly the law of slaughter also exists in a situation where a person just wants to eat meat, even when its limit is not wide and there is no mitzvah in eating it.
 His vision is simple: if indeed repentance without confession was a sin, that is, cancellation did, because then the condition of one who sinned and made repentance without confession is worse than one who sinned and did not repent at all. This is unlikely of course.
 There are many examples of mitzvos that include some details. For example, the commandment of four species, or the commandment of tassel (light blue and white). See about this in root XNUMX of Maimonides.
 Some have thus explained the absence of the mitzvah of Yishuv Ai from the numerator of the mitzvos, although there is some evidence that Maimonides also agrees that this is a mitzvah from the Torah.
 See also the articles "Contribution and Challah: Between the Commandments and the Will of God", Noon Kaz (and there I distinguished between two types of such mitzvos).