Rambam, Laws of Repentance II
From the verse: “Is this not a complete repentance? He who comes to him with something that he has committed, and it is possible for him to do it, and he explains it and does it because of repentance, not out of fear or lack of strength. How? Then he who comes to a woman in transgression, and after a time has intercourse with her, and he stands by his love for her and the strength of his body, and in the state in which he committed it, and explains it and does not commit it, this is a complete repentance.”
There seems to be a contradiction here, since the same person transgresses the prohibition of separation. Maimonides explicitly says “we separated ourselves,” and does not distinguish whether we separated ourselves intentionally or accidentally. How is it possible that he committed a transgression on the one hand, and on the other, he made a complete repentance?
If you come and say that these are two different offenses, there is a contradiction here with Halacha B. It seems that if “we separated ourselves” apparently does not meet the definition of “and removed from his mind” (there is a reason for us to separate ourselves intentionally) according to the definition in Halacha B, it seems that not only is there no complete answer here, there is not even a basic answer here?
How do you explain this?
I once saw a discussion of this question in the book Teshuva Mehavah on the Rambam’s Teshuva. I think he quoted from the Shafa, who claimed that according to the Rambam, a person must put himself in a state of transgression as part of the process of repentance. It can also be explained that this is only an indication, like a witness testifying about him knowing mysteries, and not that it actually has to happen. If a person has reached a state where if he had been single, he would not have committed a sin, then he is a complete Baal Teshuva. Perhaps it is a matter of him having had intercourse with her with permission for some reason and not having committed a sin. Or he committed a sin under prohibition but did not deteriorate into the offense of entering.
Perhaps it can be explained that the Rambam did not mean that they were together in a closed room, but only that he was with her in an open place without other people, or that her husband was in the city, etc.
So the Rambam meant that he was alone with her in a permissible way without violating the prohibition of monogamy, and not that he violated the prohibition of monogamy.
Maybe it's his wife who came to her when she was pregnant.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
