Q&A: Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 2
Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 2
Question
From the passage: “What is complete repentance? It is when a person is confronted with the very matter in which he sinned, and it is possible for him to do it, yet he separates himself and does not do it because of repentance, not out of fear and not because of lack of strength. How so? If he had illicit relations with a woman, and after some time he was secluded with her, while still loving her, still physically capable, and in the same place where he sinned, yet he separated himself and did not sin, this is a complete penitent.”
It seems there is a contradiction here. After all, that same person is committing another transgression here — the prohibition of seclusion. Maimonides explicitly says, “he was secluded,” and he does not distinguish whether this seclusion was intentional or accidental. How can it be that on the one hand he committed a transgression, and on the other hand he achieved complete repentance?
And if you would say that these are two different transgressions, there is still a contradiction with halakha 2. It seems that if “he was secluded,” then apparently this does not meet the definition of “removing it from his thoughts” (since there must have been some reason he intentionally entered seclusion). According to the definition in halakha 2, it seems that not only is there no complete repentance here — there is not even basic repentance?
How do you explain this?
Answer
I once saw a discussion of this question in the book Teshuvah Me-Ahavah on Maimonides’ Laws of Repentance. If I remember correctly, he cited the Sefat Emet, who argued that according to Maimonides a person must put himself into a situation of sin as part of the repentance process. It can also be explained that this is only an indication, like “until He who knows hidden things testifies about him,” and not that it must actually happen in practice. If a person has reached the point that, were he to be in seclusion, he would not sin, then he is a complete penitent. Or perhaps the case is that he was secluded with her permissibly for some reason and did not come to the actual transgression. Or he violated the prohibition of seclusion, but did not deteriorate into the transgression of intercourse.
Discussion on Answer
Maybe it is referring to his wife, with whom he had relations when she was a menstruant.
Maybe it can be explained that Maimonides did not mean that they were together in a locked room, but only that he was with her in an open place without other people, or that her husband was in town, and the like.
So Maimonides meant that he was alone with her in a way that was permitted, without violating the prohibition of seclusion, and not that he violated that prohibition.