Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The Netivot HaMishpat, Biurim (334:3), states that there is no need to repent for the inadvertent transgression of a Rabbinic command. Some commentaries explain that the Rambam intended to imply this concept by using the phrase, “mitzvot of the Torah.”

No punishment is administered by the court for failing to perform a positive command. Nevertheless, such actions are considered as acts of rebellion against God. Thus, Berachot 26a applies the verse, “A misdeed that can never be corrected,” to the neglect of the recitation of the Shema. Similarly, Zevachim 7b relates that a person who does not repent for his failure to perform a positive command is considered wicked and his sacrifices are not acceptable to God.

As evident from Halachah 4, in regard to Teshuvah, the violation of a negative command is more serious than the failure to fulfill a positive command.

Consciously performing an act against God’s will. In this category, there are two divisions:
sins committed because one’s desires overcame him; and
sins committed in open defiance of God’s will.

Even an inadvertent transgression requires Teshuvah. There are no total accidents. Had the person shown proper care, he would not have come to sin.
In contrast, if a person is forced to commit a sin, performing a forbidden act against his will, there is no obligation for him to repent (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Yoma 8:6, Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chayim 602:7).

I.e., feels regret,

I.e., resolves not to sin again

The Targum Yonatan (Numbers 5:7) interprets the Hebrew word for confession, וידוי, as a derivative of the word הודאה, “admission,” for the confession involves an admission of guilt. Targum Onkelos (Numbers, op. cit.) views it as a derivative of the word ודא “recognize.” Others commentaries note the resemblance to the word ידה, “hurl,” for the intent of the confession is the purging of the soul and the discharge of sinful behavior (Rambam LeAm).

The confession should be made “before God,” and not in public.

Though this verse is included in the passage describing the guilt offerings, the phrase “any of the sins,” implies that it applies to any transgression, even those for which the guilt offering does not atone (Sifri Zuta, Naso).

The confession must be verbalized. A mental resolve to abandon sin is not sufficient to atone for one’s sins.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 73) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 364) include this command as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.
The Rambam;s wording in this and the preceding phrases have created a controversy among the commentaries.

These expressions are borrowed from Yoma 66a which describes the confessional prayers recited by the High Priest on Yom Kippur.
The sins are mentioned in ascending order of severity: “I sinned” refers to inadvertent acts; “I transgressed” to intentional violations, “I committed iniquity” to sins committed with the intention of rebelling against God (Yoma 36b, see also Daniel 9:5).

The specific sin must be mentioned as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

Perhaps, the Rambam’s phraseology is borrowed from Jeremiah 31:18: “After I turned away, I regretted. After I was instructed,... I was embarrassed.” Ezra also mentions embarrassment in his confessional prayer which begins (9:5): “I am embarrassed and ashamed...”

Full repentance involves regret over one’s previous deeds and the resolution to correct one’s behavior in the future.

Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) States: “He should elaborate on the subject and ask for atonement, according to his own eloquence.” This implies that besides the statements mentioned above, a person should ask God for forgiveness in his own words.
Chavot HaLevavot and other texts include a request for forgiveness in the text of the confession. In contrast, in this text, the Rambam makes no mention of such a request.

A sin offering is required to atone for the inadvertent violation of one of the Torah’s prohibitions (Leviticus 4:27-30).

A guilt offering must be brought for the intentional violation of the following sins: a false oath taken denying possession of an entrusted article, robbery (גזלה) or misappropriation of funds (Leviticus 5:2l-25), and relations with a maidservant half-married to another man (ibid. l9:20-2l). Similarly, a guilt offering must be sacrificed for inadvertently using objects consecrated to the Temple for private purposes (ibid. l9:l4-I6).

Frequently, the prophets emphasized how sacrifice alone would not win Divine favor, for example:
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me,” declares God...
“I delight not in the blood of bulls or of rams... Bring Me no more vain offerings” (Isaiah 1:1 1-I3).
I did not speak to your ancestors concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. However, this is what I commanded them: “Obey My voice” (Jeremiah 7:22-23).
Proverbs 21:27 bluntly states: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.

The Torah’s punishments are primarily intended to bring a person atonement and not as acts of retribution.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Makkot 3:15, Nazir 6:4, the Rambam emphasizes that it is Teshuvah and not the punishment itself which brings atonement. In contrast, the Ramban (Makkot 23a) and other commentaries maintain that the punishment is sufficient to atone for one’s sins even if it is not accompanied by Teshuvah.
The Mishneh L’Melech (Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:7) asks: Since, according to the Rambam, it is Teshuvah and not punishment which is important, if a person has already repented, why should he be punished by lashing?
The Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 175) offers a possible reply, noting that in Halachah 4, the Rambam explains how a sinner cannot gain atonement for certain sins until they are expiated by suffering. Similarly, in this instance, the lashes take the place of suffering and thus, grant the sinner the opportunity to gain atonement.

Thus, Joshua told Akhan (7:19): “My son... make confession to Him and tell me what you have done,” before executing him.

The Sifri Zuta, the source for the Rambam’s statements, also mentions robbery and theft. Some commentaries explain that the Rambam’s omission of these offenses was conscious. The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 34) states that according to the Rambam, a thief or robber who voluntarily returns a stolen object is acceptable as a witness even though he does not repent. Similarly, the voluntary restitution of the stolen article is itself sufficient to gain atonement.
Other commentaries object, arguing that many authorities do not accept the Tur’s interpretation. Even those who do may differentiate between the acceptability of a witness and atonement for sin.

Bava Kama 92a explains that atonement will only be granted for inflicting pain against a colleague if one asks his forgiveness in addition to reimbursing him financially. Furthermore, since injuring a colleague is also a transgression against God, one must ask Him for forgiveness as well (See Kessef Mishneh ; Meiri, Chibur HaTeshuvah). See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

Payment of one’s obligations should precede the confession. (Sha’arei Teshuvah, Rabbenu Yonah, Section 4:18).

Yoma 67a relates that they would tie a scarlet thread, symbolic of the sins of Israel, from the goat’s horns to a rock. When the goat was pushed to its death, this thread would turn white, revealing how the Jews were granted atonement for their sins as Isaiah (1:18) prophesied: “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.”

From the Rambam’s phraseology, it appears that the High Priest serves as an agent (shliach) for the entire Jewish people and his confession takes the place of those of each private individual. On this basis, the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 364) states that a person need not confess himself and may entrust an agent with that responsibility.
Other commentaries explain that there are certain mitzvot that are incumbent on the Jewish people as a communal entity. The High Priest confesses for the violation of these mitzvot and other sins of a more general nature. However, each individual must himself confess for his personal sins.
The Meiri (Chibur HaTeshuvah) offers a different perspective, explaining that the High Priest’s confession was instituted to rouse the nation to Teshuvah.

The Meiri (ibid.) writes that it is the Teshuvah aroused by the sacrifice of the goat and not the goat itself which atones for Israel’s sins.

The commentaries on the Rambam often differentiate between cheftza [an object] and gavra [an individual]. Not only does the goat bring the person atonement, it atones for the sins themselves [cheftza].

There is no way in which an individual can bring a sacrifice to atone for his willful transgressions. Nevertheless, the goat sent to Azazel atones for these sins.

A sin offering can only be brought for a sin which a person performed without knowledge and later became conscious of. A person may not bring a sin offering unless he is aware of a specific sin that he performed. In contrast, the goat sent to Azazel atones for all sins, even those of which one has no definite knowledge.

The Rambam does not intend to imply that a person who is obligated to bring a sin or guilt offering is freed of that responsibility because of the goat sent to Azazel. On the contrary, Hilchot Shegagot 3:9 specifically requires that these sacrifices be brought. Rather, the intention is that the goat sent to Azazel conveys a fuller measure of atonement to those who have already brought these sacrifices.

Sh’vuot 13a records a debate among the Sages: Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi maintains that Yom Kippur atones for a Jew’s sins whether he repents or not. In contrast, the other Sages maintain that Yom Kippur only atones for a person when he repents.

The Kessef Mishnah takes issue with the Rambam’s statements: If the Rambam follows Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion, the goat should atone even for severe sins. If he follows the opinion of the Sages, atonement is not granted, even for minor sins, unless an individual repents.
Other authorities explain that the Rambam’s statements are based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 8:6, which states that Yom Kippur atones for the neglect of positive commandments even without repentance. However, the Jerusalem Talmud only makes that statement in regard to positive commands, while according to the Rambam, atonement is granted for the transgression of the lesser negative commandments as well.
The Meiri, Chibur HaTeshuvah, resolves this difficulty within the context of his thesis that atonement comes because of Teshuvah and not because of the goat itself. Accordingly, he states that it is impossible that the service of Yom Kippur would not rouse a person slightly to Teshuvah. Though this movement to repentance might not be sufficient to atone for a person’s severe sins, it would be powerful enough to atone for the lighter ones.
Other commentaries explain the difference according to the principle that the goat has the power to atone for the sins themselves (the cheftza). When it is accompanied by Teshuvah, it can atone for the severe sins. When Teshuvah is lacking, it can atone only for the lighter ones. In contrast, Yom Kippur itself atones “for those who repent,” for the individuals (gavra) and only when they repent.

. Karet involves premature death at the hand of God and other punishments.

Because by swearing falsely, a person profanes the sanctity of God’s name.

All positive commandments with the exception of circumcision and the Paschal sacrifice (Keritot 1:1)

The Rambam mentions both the lack of the Temple and the altar for as stated in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah (2:4), if the altar is constructed in its place, all the sacrifices can be offered even though the Temple itself is not standing.

Teshuvah is the only means to gain atonement for one’s sins.
Hilchot Shegagot (3:10) emphasizes that even when the sacrifices were brought, atonement was not granted unless a person repented. Nevertheless, today, the repentance necessary to gain atonement must be on a higher level than the Teshuvah required when a sacrifice was offered.

In general, Teshuvah mitigates the severity and facilitates the atonement of all sins. In particular, as explained in the following halachah, there are different gradations in the atonement caused by Teshuvah depending upon the nature of the sin involved.

Teshuvah also atones for the sins themselves [cheftza]. This concept can be inferred from our Sages’ statement (Yoma 86b) that Teshuvah motivated by love transforms a person’s sins into merits. The sins themselves become a positive force.

Kiddushin 40b couples this statement with the comment that a person who was righteous his entire life and rebelled against God in his final moments will lose all his initial merit. Accordingly, our Sages have always counseled our people to spend their final moments of life in repentance and good deeds. See also Chapter 2, Halachah I.

The Maharshah (Kiddushin, loc. cit.) states that the verse implies that the sinner repented for all his misdeeds. However, This regret is only partial, his sins will not be entirely absolved.

As mentioned above, in contrast to the goat sent to Azazel and Teshuvah, Yom Kippur atones “for those who...” i.e., for the individuals [gavra], and not for the sins [cheftza].

The previous halachah mentions the debate between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and the Sages (Sh’vuot l3a) whether Yom Kippur itself is sufficient to gain atonement or Teshuvah is also necessary.
Though the Rambam accepts the Sages’ opinion, he mentions that it is the “essence of Yom Kippur” and not Teshuvah which brings atonement. Teshuvah is a preliminary step to prepare a person for the purifying influence of Yom Kippur. However, if the person does not repent, he does not enable the purifying influence of Yom Kippur to affect him.

The Babylonian Talmud (Keritot l8b) states that it is only in Yom Kippur’s final moments that atonement is granted. However, the Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 8:7) mentions other opinions which maintain that atonement is granted even at the beginning of the day.
The difference between these opinions would be the judgment of a person who died on Yom Kippur: Did the influence of Yom Kippur cause his sins to be atoned or not?

One might ask: How can the mere passage of a day, even a sacred day like Yom Kippur, cause a person to be granted atonement for his sins?
The commentaries explain that each Jew possesses a spiritual essence that is totally bound to God. On Yom Kippur, that essential connection comes to the surface. Its revelation totally obscures any previous sins, for at this level of connection, there is nothing which can separate a Jew from God. Thus, it is the spiritual bond we share with God expressed on Yom Kippur and not the mere passage of time which brings atonement.

I.e., it has a mitigating effect on all sins as mentioned in the following clauses of the halachah.

As explained, even when Yom Kippur does not bring complete atonement, it has a tentative effect

Completely, without the need for any influences besides Teshuvah.

The Rambam’s statements are taken from a passage from Yoma 86a which begins:
Rabbi Matia ben Cheresh asked Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in Rome: “Did you hear of the four categories of atonement which Rabbi Yishmael expounded?” He replied: “They are three and Teshuvah must accompany each one of them.... “
The Talmud continues, listing the four categories quoted by the Rambam

I.e., all positive commands with the exception of circumcision and the Paschal sacrifice.

The verse implies that God’s healing will come as soon as His children return to Him.

Two explanations are given for the word תולה, translated as “has a tentative effect”:
a) temporarily protects a person from Divine retribution (Yefay Mareh);
b) begins the process of atonement which is completed on Yom Kippur (Mayim Chayim).
From the phraseology used in the continuation of the Halachah: “Teshuvah and Yom Kippur have a tentative effect and the sufferings which come upon him complete the atonement,” it appears that the Rambam follows the latter view.

This statement applies in the present age when the court does not administer the punishment of lashing. However, when lashes were administered by the court, despite his repentance and the passage of Yom Kippur, a person who violated such a sin could not receive full atonement until he received his punishment.

The continuation of the verse includes the phrase “of all your sins.” Nevertheless, that phrase should not be interpreted as a contradiction to this statement, implying that Yom Kippur atones for all sins.
Rather, the verse includes two clauses, the first, “This will atone for you...” refers to Yom Kippur. The second, “Purify yourselves before God of all your sins,” relates the positive command to repent for one’s transgressions (Sha’arei Teshuvah, Rabbenu Yonah).
Other commentaries explain that Yom Kippur has an effect on “all your sins.” Although it does not completely atone for our severe transgressions, it, like Teshuvah, has a mitigating effect and conveys a certain measure of atonement.

And prevent the sentence of premature death at God’s hand from being executed.

From the phrase “which come upon him,” Iggeret HaTeshuvah (Chapter 1) derives the concept that there is no need to couple one’s repentance with fasts or other penances. Sufferings should be left “to come upon him” by Divine decree. This is also implied by the verse from Psalms “I [God] will punish.... “
Nevertheless, many texts of mussar suggest fasts and penances to avoid suffering at the hand of Heaven and to expedite the conclusion of the soul’s atonement (See also Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayim, Responsum 175). In the present age, however, most authorities suggest that we devote our energies to positive activities without inflicting suffering upon ourselves.

Even though Yom Kippur has passed many times (Pri Chadash).

The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 364) emphasizes that once a sinner repents, he is to be accepted by the Jewish community as an equal even before he endures suffering.

Rabbenu Yonah suggests that a person who violated such sins involve himself in charity, deeds of kindness, Torah study, and other mitzvot which protect from suffering and atone for one’s sins.

Rashi, Yoma 86a, defines the desecration of God’s name as “sinning and causing others to sin.”

Since by desecrating God’s name, the person caused other people to sin as well, the effects of his behavior in the world at large prevent him from reaching atonement.

The Akeidah, commenting on the passage from Yoma, explains that the concept of atonement is not relevant after a person’s death when his soul is separated from the body. In this manner, it explains why Rabbi Elazar reduces the number of categories of Teshuvah mentioned in Yoma (loc. cit.) from four to three.
The Rambam obviously does not accept this opinion and views the concept of atonement as applicable after death as well. Indeed, the texts of Musar are filled with descriptions of the punishments undergone by the soul to gain atonement.

As implied by Halachah 2, death only grants atonement if preceded by Teshuvah.

This prophecy, initially made to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, applies to all others who emulate their behavior and desecrate God’s name.