Rambam - 3 Chapters 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.

This halachah is a quote from Yoma 86b. However, the Talmud begins with the question: “What is an example of a Ba’al Teshuvah?” The Rambam adds the word “complete.” The Talmud mentions several examples of Teshuvah and this rung represents the most elevated level.

In Halachah 2, the Rambam describes the conditions necessary to show that a person’s repentance is complete and he will not return to sin. In this instance, however, his abstinence from sin is sufficient evidence that he has reached this level (Meiri, Chibur HaTeshuvah).

I.e., fear of other men; alternatively, not because of fear of Divine retribution,

Physical vigor.

In a different place, it is possible that other factors aside from Teshuvah would prevent him from sinning.

The expression Baal Teshuvah means “master of Teshuvah.” According to the Mabit (Beit Elohim, Sha’ar HaTeshuvah), it implies one has “subjugated” the attribute of Teshuvah, making it a permanent aspect of his nature.

A similar concept is implied by Avodah Zarah 19a in its interpretation of Psalms 111:1 “Happy is the man who fears God.” The Talmud comments: “Happy is one who fears God in the full power of his manhood.”
In a related matter, Sanhedrin 31b mentions Nathan bar Ukvah as a classic example of a Baal Teshuvah. Rashi’s commentary relates his story, explaining that he was strongly attracted to a married woman. His desire for her was so powerful that he became sick and had to be confined to bed.
Once this woman suffered a series of financial losses and was in dire need of money. She sent word to Nathan that if he would lend her the money, she would consent to his wishes. He eagerly did so.
When she came to him, he was suddenly overcome by the fear of God and sent her home untouched. Afterwards, his face shone with a Godly light which the Sages compared to the rays of Moses’ countenance.

The continuation of the verse refers to old age. It is placed in brackets because it is omitted by most printings of the Mishneh Torah.

I.e., he lacks the physical desire and vigor to sin.

For he is not turning to God with the same energy with which he turned away from Him,

For he has, nevertheless, turned to God out of his own volition and repented.

. The Yalkut Shimoni (Parshat Balak) states: The totally wicked of Israel who are filled with remorse and sorrow at the time of their passing merit a portion in the world to come.

Shabbat 151b explains how each of these metaphors refers to a different stage of physical ability.

Though a person is granted atonement even though he does not repent until his final moments, it is far better to repent during one’s lifetime. Man was created to live a life of connection to God within the context of our material world. Though he absolves himself of punishment by repenting at this time, he has not fulfilled the purpose for his creation.

Amending his deeds.

Purifying his thoughts. The Meiri, Chibur HaTeshuvah, writes:
A Baal-Teshuvah must inspect all of his deeds and thoughts, uprooting all evil attributes like anger, hatred, and envy from his inner being.
He must be as careful regarding thought as regarding actual sin, for when a person is caught up in these matters, he will have difficulty separating himself from them. Inevitably, thought will lead to deed.

The Torah itself mentions the concept of Teshuvah in Deuteronomy 30:2, “You shall return to God, your Lord.” Nevertheless, the Rambam chooses to bring this verse as support because:
a) It is a command, in contrast to the verse from Deuteronomy which merely relates that ultimately, our people will turn to God in Teshuvah. In this manner, the Rambam emphasizes that, not only are we granted the opportunity to repent, we are commanded to do so.
b) The continuation of the verse: “the depraved man, his thoughts,” alludes to the purification of thought mentioned by the Rambam.

Thus, the service of Teshuvah contains two phases: remorse over the past and the resolution to amend one’s behavior in the future.

I.e., God Who knows the hidden feelings within a person’s heart.

The Lechem Mishneh interprets the Rambam’s statements to mean that a person who repents should take God as a witness that his resolve is sincere. However, the Rambam’s words appear to imply that God must testify, not only with regard to a person’s present commitment, but also with regard to his future behavior.
It is possible to explain this halachah in the context of the previous one which alludes to the different levels within the service of Teshuvah. On the most basic level, Teshuvah requires a commitment never to repeat the sin again. However, if a person’s evil inclination forces him to sin after he has repented, the effect of his repentance is not nullified (Emunot V’De’ot, Discourse 5, Chapter 5). Accordingly, when questioning whether a person has repented or not, Torah law (Choshen Mishpat, loc. cit.) considers a person’s present actions without trying to determine what will transpire in the future.
Nevertheless, this does not represent the highest rung in Teshuvah. In its most complete sense, Teshuvah can have an effect on the future as well as the past. A person’s commitment can be so powerful that God will be able to testify that he will never return to sin. Though this is the highest rung of Teshuvah, the Rambam mentions it in the beginning of his discussion of the subject to emphasize how each Jew has the potential to reach this level.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the connection of this verse to the concept expressed by the Rambam and explains that it must be read as a continuation of the previous verses: “Israel, return to God, Your Lord, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take with you words and return to God….”
The connection of these verses to the concept of testimony is explicitly mentioned by the Yalkut Shimoni which relates that the word עד, Ad, translated as “to” should be figuratively interpreted as Ayd, “witness.”
Israel asks God: Master of the World: If we repent, who will testify on our behalf?
God replies: “I served as a witness regarding your evil as [Malachi 3:5] states: “I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and the adulterers, those who swore falsely, and those who oppressed a hired worker,’ surely, I will testify concerning your good.”

See the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

By making this confession, a person reveals the feelings of remorse contained within his heart. In addition, this review of his sins increases his feelings of regret and reduces the chances of his lapsing into sin again in the future (See Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 364).

Generally, a person who is ritually impure can regain his ritual purity through immersion in a mikvah. However, contact with a dead lizard imparts ritual impurity. Hence, in this instance, he remains ritually impure, because he never ceased contact with the source of impurity.

Homiletically, one can explain that though this confession will not bring atonement just as that immersion to which it is compared will not bring ritual purity, the act, itself, is a positive one. This confession may cause him to become embarrassed by his sins and may motivate him to abandon them entirely.

Based on the same principle, the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 364) states that if a person has stolen an article or damaged his neighbor’s property, his confession is of no avail until he makes restitution.

The verse states that, in addition to confessing, the person must modify his behavior and abandon his sins.

Instead of merely confessing “I sinned,” the person must mention the particular sin he committed and ask forgiveness for it. Thus, in his description of the mitzvah of confession (Chapter 1, Halachah 1), the Rambam adds the phrase: “I committed iniquity before you by doing the following….”

Yoma 86b records a debate on this issue between Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava, whose opinion is accepted by the Rambam, and Rabbi Akiva who does not require each sin to be cited individually.
Tosafot (Gittin 35b) explains the difference between these opinions. A person will become very embarrassed through specifically mentioning each sin he committed. This shame will motivate him to more complete and heartfelt Teshuvah. On the other hand, his confession of his many sins will raise questions as to whether he has violated other transgressions as well.
Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava considers the question immediately at hand, the intensity of the person’s Teshuvah, as most important and thus, requires particular mention of each sin. Rabbi Akiva is more concerned with the possibility of future difficulties and hence, considers a general confession as sufficient.
Though the Rambam accepts Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava’s opinion, many other authorities including Rav Yitzchok Alfase and Rabbenu Asher follow Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. Accordingly, the latter opinion is accepted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 607) and the alphabetical confessional prayer Al Chayt was instituted to include the particular mention of all possible sins.

Here, Moses specifically mentioned the sin committed by the people.

This expression implies a course of behavior that will lead a person to true and complete repentance. Also, these acts will to reinforce and strengthen a commitment to Teshuvah that has already been made.

The term used, צעקה, implies heartfelt and intense prayer.

Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) quotes Psalms 107:28, “They call out to God in their distress, He saved them from their afflictions,” as the source for this concept.

The Rambam does not state “to give charity.” In addition to whatever money a person gives, he must act in a charitable manner, performing deeds of kindness and actually doing favors for his fellowmen.

In this context, Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) cites Proverbs 10:2: “Charity will save from death.”

. Tanya, Iggeret HaTeshuvah (Chapter 3) relates that, in this instance, there is no need to comply with these restraints. Just as a person would give up all his financial resources if his physical health was at stake, similarly, he should be willing to make overly generous donations to gain atonement for his sins.

In Hilchot De’ot, Chapter 2, and in Shemoneh Perakim, Chapter 4, the Rambam explains that though, in general, a person must follow “a middle path,” if he has strayed from that path in one direction, he must correct that imbalance by turning to the opposite extreme. Similarly, in this instance, a Baal-Teshuvah must place a great distance between himself and those influences which tempt him to sin.

This is a further extension of the quality of “changing one’s behavior” mentioned in Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.).

The Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 2:1) states that “three things rend an [evil] decree” and does not mention changing one’s name or changing one’s place, for these two are merely intermediaries to stir a person to complete Teshuvah.

The Zohar (Vol. I, p. 133b) relates that after Abraham sent Hagar away, she reverted to the idol-worshipping practices of her native land. Later, she returned to belief in one God and changed her name to Keturah as a public statement of her repentance.

Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) cites the example of the people of Nineveh. “God saw their deeds; that they had repented from their evil ways.”

“Changing one’s place” as mentioned in the passage from Rosh HaShanah.

The Torah obligates a person who inadvertently killed a fellow Jew to seek exile in a city of refuge. However, the purging influence of exile is not confined to that specific instance and helps atone for all sins (Sanhedrin 37b). Thus, when Adam sinned, he was exiled from the Garden of Eden. When the Jewish people as a whole sinned, they were exiled from Eretz Yisrael (Petichah, Eichah Rabbah).
Accordingly, throughout Jewish history, many sages (e.g., Rashi, the Vilna Gaon) traveled in self-imposed exile for a number of years in order to gain atonement.

By nature, when a person moves into new surroundings, he is not known by the local people and must suffer many difficulties until he becomes appreciated by his new neighbors. These circumstances force him to adopt a submissive attitude.

The Ritbah (Rosh HaShanah loc. cit.) explains that these qualities enable a person to “humble and master his evil inclination.”
Similarly, in Sha’arei Teshuvah (Section 1), Rabbeinu Yonah lists humility as one of the fundamental requirements of Teshuvah, explaining how a Baal Teshuvah must not become angry, become upset with a fellow Jew, or disturbed by anything. His suppression of his feelings of anger will cause God to suppress His anger towards him.
The Sifra explains that this course of behavior will lead to full atonement as Leviticus 26:41 states: “When their stubborn spirit is humbled, I will forgive their sin.

There are two advantages to such a confession: a) the shame the person suffers will help him achieve complete repentance; b) the people who hear his confession will urge the person whom he wronged to forgive him (Rashi, Yoma 86b).

This public confession is not synonymous with the particular mention of one’s sins required by Halachah 3 (Bayit Chadash, Orach Chayim 607). Rather, it is an additional measure, to be carried out after privately confessing before God and apologizing and making restitution to the person against whom one has transgressed (Meiri, Chibur HaTeshuvah).

Here, also a particular mention of sins is required.

The Rambam interprets the lack of success mentioned by the verse as referring to incomplete Teshuvah. This interpretation is supported by the continuation of the verse: “He who confesses and forsakes [his sins] will be treated with mercy,” which implies that the entire verse centers on the concept of repentance.

Yoma 86b notes an apparent contradiction between the verse from Proverbs quoted above which requires public confession and the verse from Psalms mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah. It resolves that difficulty by making this distinction between the types of sins.

Doing so is dishonorable to God, for it publicly demonstrates that people sin against Him (Rashi, Yoma, loc. cit.).

. Berachot 34b relates that a person who makes a public confession of this nature appears to imply that he is not embarrassed about his behavior.

The Yalkut Shimoni (Hoshea 14) states:
Generally, if a person asks for forgiveness after embarrassing a fellow Jew in public, the latter will reply: “You shamed me in public and now, you want to apologize to me in private! Bring me all the people who heard you embarrass me and then, I will accept your apology.”
God does not follow this practice. Even though a person scoffs and scorns Him in public, God tells him: “Repent in private, just between Me and you, and I will accept your Teshuvah.”

Making individual mention of each sin as required by Halachah 3.

Stating merely: “I sinned,” without mentioning each sin individually.
The Ra’avad requires that a public confession be made concerning a sin which is already public knowledge. This will cause the sinner to experience greater shame and motivate him to turn to God with more intense feelings of repentance.
Sha’arei Teshuvah (Chapter 1, Section 8) accepts the Ra’avad’s opinion, but offers a different rationale. The public knowledge of a sin causes the desecration of God’s name. That can only be corrected by a public confession.
The Ra’avad’s opinion is also derived from the passage from Yoma mentioned above which also offers this distinction as a resolution to the contradiction between the two verses. The Rambam does not quote this opinion in accordance with the Talmudic principle that, when two opinions are offered, the final one should be accepted as halachah. The Ra’avad explains that this principle only applies when the different opinions contradict each other. In this instance, both opinions can be accepted as halachah.
The Migdal Oz cites a number of examples of public confession of sins against God in support of the Ra’avad’s position, e.g., Achan’s confession (Joshua 7:20). In practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, Chapter 607) omits mention of the need for a public confession in accord with the Rambam’s opinion. However, many Ashkenazic authorities (the Bait Chadash, the Magen Avraham, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and the Mishneh Berurah) accept the Ra’avad’s view.

Nevertheless, a person may make a public confession if there is a reason that necessitates it. Accordingly, Genesis 38:26 relates how Yehudah confessed his relations with Tamar in order to save her from capital punishment (Pri Chadash).

Indeed, three times each day in our prayers, we ask God, “Cause us to return, our Father, to Your Torah…. Bring us back to You in wholehearted repentance.” Similarly, in Halachah 4, the Rambam states: “Among the paths of repentance is for the penitent to constantly call out before God.”

Actually, there are only seven days between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. The figure ten includes the three days of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur as well.

These days are commonly referred to as “the Ten Days of Repentance.” Indeed, certain texts of the Mishneh Torah read “the Ten Days of Repentance between….”
In his Siddur, Rav Yitzchok Luria, the holy Ari, writes that this week has the potential to elevate all the days of the previous year. By repenting on the Sunday of the Ten Days of Repentance, a person can atone for all the sins he committed on Sundays throughout the previous year. Similarly, repentance on the Monday of that week affects the sins committed on that day.
The Maharsha (Yevamot 49b) explains the significance of these days as follows: God judges the world on Rosh HaShanah and seals that decree on Yom Kippur. The days in between may be used to nullify any harsh judgments through Teshuvah.
The Meiri (Rosh HaShanah 16b) stresses the importance of utilizing the unique nature of these days and uses very harsh language to describe those individuals who do not avail themselves of this opportunity and fail to repent at this time.

Accordingly, various different customs are instituted to accentuate the service during these days. The Rambam mentions these practices and the custom of rising before daybreak to recite the Selichot prayers during this week in Chapter 3, Halachah 4.
The Hebrew term יפה יותר, literally means “is nicer.” Homiletically, the Rabbis have explained that the Teshuvah performed during this week is on a higher level than Teshuvah throughout the entire year.
Generally, we conceive of Teshuvah as repentance for sins. However, the literal meaning of the term is “return.” This definition reflects a radically different perspective on the relationship we share with God.
Each Jew possesses a Divine soul which is a spark of God. This Godly potential represents the core of our beings, our real “I.” Teshuvah implies returning to this essential core, seeking contact with these inner powers, and establishing them as the dominant force in our lives.
Thus, no one is above Teshuvah. We must do Teshuvah, not only because of sin, but primarily, because of our distance from God. Even the most refined and developed people are limited by the very nature of their humanity. Teshuvah involves stepping above that humanity and expressing our infinite Godly essence.
Throughout the entire year, this aspect of Teshuvah may not be revealed. However, during the Ten Days of Repentance, when the service of the month of Elul and Rosh HaShanah has been completed, this higher level of Teshuvah can be reached.

The Rambam accepts the principle (Rosh HaShanah 16b) that “calling out to God is desirable at all times, whether a person’s judgment is sealed or not.” Nevertheless, the Ten Days of Repentance have an advantage over the entire year, for then, one’s call to God is answered immediately.

Though God is present in every element of existence at all times, His Presence is not manifest. During the Ten Days of Repentance, God makes Himself more accessible to man and allows us a greater opportunity to relate to Him. Furthermore, in these days, He stimulates our hearts and rouses us to His service.

An individual is given this special opportunity to come close to God only during the Ten Days of Repentance.

A community is considered as a new entity and not merely a group of individuals. Accordingly, they possess additional merit. Thus, Rosh HaShanah 18a declares that the Teshuvah of a community can nullify a harsh heavenly decree even though it has already been sealed.

Though the combined merit of the community is great, their prayers must still be sincere.
Psalms 78:36-38 states:
They flattered Him with their mouths and lied to Him with their tongues. Their heart was not straight with Him, neither were they faithful to His covenant. [Nevertheless,] He was full of compassion, forgiving iniquity.
On this basis, Ta’anit 8a states that the prayers of a community need not be totally sincere. On the contrary, God will forgive them even if their call to Him is not totally genuine. Accordingly, Rav Akiva Eiger questions why the Rambam requires the community to “cry out wholeheartedly.” As a possible resolution, he offers the thesis that at least one member of a community must pray with true sincerity for its plea for atonement to be accepted.

Throughout the entire year.

Yevamot 49b relates the following episode: King Menasheh judged the prophet, Isaiah, as worthy of death for contradicting Moses’ prophecy. “How can you restrict our connection with God,” the king complained. “Moses told us that God is close to us ‘whenever we call Him’ and your prophecy implies that there are only certain times ‘when He can be found.’”
Nevertheless, Rosh HaShanah 18a explains that Isaiah’s prophecy is not restrictive. On the contrary, Moses’ prophecy referred only to a community, while Isaiah’s explains that, during the Ten Days of Repentance, an individual can enjoy the same privileges.

This halachah continues the theme of the previous one, emphasizing how, out of His great love for the Jews, God ordained special times in which their Teshuvah would be more readily accepted (See Pesikta, Parshat Shuvah).

On the surface, there is no one “time for Teshuvah for all.” Immediately, after a person sins, he should repent. If a person has not sinned, there is no need for him to repent.
The Rambam’s statements can be explained as follows: Yom Kippur “is the time of Teshuvah.” The spiritual nature of the day obligates repentance. Just as the fifteenth of Nisan, the date of the exodus from Egypt, is eternally fixed as ‘the season of our freedom.” The tenth of Tishrei, the day on which God forgave the sin of the Golden Calf, is established as a day of repentance and atonement for all time.
Accordingly, even though a person has already asked for forgiveness for his sins, he must repent for them again on Yom Kippur. This concept is implied by the following halachah: “Sins which were confessed on one Yom Kippur should be confessed on another Yom Kippur.” Thus, since, “there is not one righteous man who will do [only] good and never sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20),” every individual has some aspect of his behavior for which he will have to repent on Yom Kippur.

This phraseology is borrowed from the Ne’ilah liturgy. The term “apex” is appropriate for the process of Teshuvah, and hence, the atonement it brings, begins in the month of Elul and is intensified as we draw closer to Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, this service reaches its peak and forgiveness is granted to the entire people.

Rabbenu Yonah (Sha’arei Teshuvah, Section 2:14) derives this obligation from the verses (Leviticus 16:29-30): “On the tenth day of the seventh month, you must fast…. Purify yourselves before God.”
The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 364) explains this obligation as follows: Yom Kippur is set aside as a day of atonement and that atonement will not be granted without repentance. Accordingly, each individual must do what is incumbent on him to achieve atonement. A person who fails to utilize this opportunity is considered to have nullified the positive command to repent.
The Levush (Orach Chayim 607) derives the obligation to confess from a comparison of Yom Kippur to the sacrifices. Both Yom Kippur and the sacrifices help the Jews atone for their sins. Hence, just as a person had to confess when bringing a sin offering (Halachah 1, Chapter 1), it is necessary to confess on Yom Kippur.
The holy Ari writes that the Teshuvah of Yom Kippur should be a natural and spontaneous movement. A person’s failure to cry on Yom Kippur is a sign that his soul is lacking (Pri Etz Chayim, Sha’ar Shofar).

It is interesting to note that in Hilchot Shvitat Esor, the collection of halachot devoted to the laws of Yom Kippur, the Rambam does not mention the concept of repentance at all. The description of the spiritual service of Yom Kippur is only mentioned here, in Hilchot Teshuvah.

The meal preceding the fast, Seudat HaMafseket.

The Rambam follows the text of Yoma 87b quoted by Rav Yitzchok Alfasi. Most printed editions of the Talmud state a different reason: lest one become drunk in the meal and be unable to concentrate in prayer.

The Ramban and the Rabbenu Nissim (Yoma, ibid.) maintain that the confession should be made at nightfall on Yom Kippur, before the evening service in order to enter Yom Kippur in a spirit of Teshuvah. Nevertheless, they also agree that the confession must be repeated in the evening service. In practice, most authorities do not accept this opinion. However, they recommend that the pious pay heed to it.

In his commentary on Yoma (ibid.), the Ramban explains that the confession must be repeated to atone for any wrongdoings that might have been committed that day for it is the final moments of Yom Kippur which bring atonement.
From a mystic perspective, the repetition of the confession can be explained as follows: Whenever a Jew ascends to a higher spiritual level, the Teshuvah which he previously underwent is insufficient. Each prayer service represents an elevation of our spiritual levels and, consequently, a higher level of Teshuvah.

The Ne’ilah service is described in Hilchot Tefilah 1:7. At present, Yom Kippur is the only day when these five prayer services are recited. The Kabbalists explain that this relates to the five different levels of soul which are purified on that holy day.

i.e., after reciting the final blessing, but before taking the three steps backward that mark a departure from the position of prayer.

Joined by the congregation.

The Amidah of the Sabbath and festivals includes seven blessings. The first and final three are blessings of praise, recited each day, while the fourth blessing is devoted to the theme of the day. Accordingly, it is appropriate to recite the confession at this point in the service. See Hilchot Tefilah 2:7.

The usage of the word “for” parallels “Joseph’s brothers’ statements (Genesis 42:21) “for, surely, we are guilty…” (Avudraham).

The confessional prayer is recited in the plural, because all Jews share mutual responsibility (ערבות). The fate of our entire people is interrelated and we share each other’s merits and deficiencies.

This line is recited before the confessional prayer “Ashamnu,” the alphabetical confessional prayer. It must be noted that the liturgy ordained by the Rambam at the conclusion of Sefer Ahavah reads:
Our God and the God of our fathers, may our prayers come before You and may You not turn away from our supplications. We are not so brash and stiff-necked as to declare before You, we are righteous and have not sinned, for surely we and our fathers have transgressed….
The Ashkenazic liturgy states Chatenu — “we have sinned,” as this halachah implies was the practice, before beginning the Ashamnu prayer. In contrast, the Rambam’s own text of the confession omits this line.

Yoma 87b relates:
If one states: “for we have sinned…,” nothing more is necessary, as Bar HaMadodi commented: “[The Chazan was] repeating the Amidah before [the Sage,] Shmuel who remained seated. When the Chazan recited ‘for we have sinned,’ he arose and recited it.” Accordingly, we may derive that this is the essence of the confessional prayer.
Though the Rambam’s statement is a direct quote from the Talmud, it has provoked much debate among the commentaries for it appears to contradict his statements in Chapter 1, Halachah 1:
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.
Similarly, in Halachah 3 of this chapter, the Rambam requires a person when confessing to mention specifically the sin he committed.
The Lechem Mishneh proposes that, in fact, the Rambam is relying on his previous statements and hence, does not mention the full text of the confession here. In contrast, the Turei Even suggests that here, the Rambam is not defining the confession necessary for a particular sin, for that is governed by the rules already stated, but rather refers to a general confession to be recited on Yom Kippur even if one is not aware of any particular sins for which he must confess.
Other commentaries explain that “we have sinned” is the basic element of the confession and hence, can be recited out loud. The particular sins should be added by each individual as part of his silent confession.

This statement is the subject of a debate among the Sages in Yoma 86b. Rabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov mentions the opinion quoted by the Rambam. However, other Sages maintained that, not only is one not required to confess one’s sins the following year, it is improper to do so. They compare such behavior to, “a dog returning to lick his vomit.”
Though the Tur (Orach Chayim 607) favors the opinion which opposes repetition of the confession, the Shulchan Aruch and most later authorities consider such repetition as praiseworthy.

However, if a person is unable to maintain the spirit of Teshuvah and reverts to sin, he is surely required to repent.

Rashi interprets the verse to mean “I don’t feel that I have been granted atonement for them, and they are constantly before me.”
Tanya, Iggeret HaTeshuvah (Chapter 11) explains that the word, Negdi, translated as “before me,” should be interpreted as “from afar” as in the verse (Numbers 2:2): “They should camp around the Sanctuary from afar.” Thus, the verse from Psalms implies that a person should always remember his sins and thus, remain humble. However, the awareness of them should not prevent him from serving God with joy. On the contrary, the renewal of the connection to God through Teshuvah should be a source of happiness.

Yoma 85b derives this principle from Leviticus 16:30: “You will be cleansed of all your sins before God.” It may be inferred that Yom Kippur will only cleanse a person of those sins which are “before God” alone.

With regard to injuring one’s fellow man, Bava Kama 92a explicitly states: “Even though one reimburses [the injured party], he is not forgiven until he asks for forgiveness.” As proof of the concept, the Talmud cites Avimelech’s behavior towards Abraham and Sarah (Genesis, Chapter 20). In addition to returning Sarah, he gave Abraham gifts of “sheep, cattle, male and female slaves” to appease him.

Cursing a fellow Jew is primarily a sin against God. Therefore:
a) it is punished by lashing rather than by financial restitution (Hilchot Sanhedrin 26:2);
b) The person who uttered the curse is lashed even though his colleague forgave him (ibid.:6).
Nevertheless, since the curse also embarrasses and upsets the person cursed, it is also considered a sin between man and man.

Sefer HaKobetz cites the comments of Bava Kama 60b on Ezekiel 33:15 “a wicked man who… returns what he has stolen,” “Even though he restores the stolen property, he is still wicked,” as the source for the Rambam’s statements.

As implied by Halachah 5 and Chapter 1, Halachah 1, it is necessary to repent and ask God for forgiveness for wrongs committed against one’s fellow man because a transgression against one’s fellow man is also a sin against God.

I.e., makes financial restitution for the damages he caused.

Asking for forgiveness and assuaging the emotional discomfort he caused.

Hilchot Chovail U’Mazik (5:9) states:
A person who injures the body of his fellow man cannot be compared to one who damages his property. Once a person who damages the property of his fellow man pays him what he is obligated to pay him, he receives atonement.

Without causing him monetary damage.

The Bayit Chadash, Orach Chayim, 606) states that a person who wronged his fellow man must ask for forgiveness himself. It is not sufficient to charge an agent with making such a request. However, other authorities do not make such a stipulation.

Yoma 87a derives this concept from Proverbs 6:2-3: “If you are snared by the words of your mouth… do this, and deliver yourself… humble yourself and bring many friends.”

Phrasing his apology and request for forgiveness in a different manner (Maharil, Bayit Chadash, Orach Chayim, 606)

An allusion to these three requests may be taken from Joseph’s brothers’ request that he forgive them (Genesis 50:16): “We appeal to you, please. Please, overlook…. Please forgive….” The word “please” is mentioned three times (Yoma, loc. cit.).

The Mordechai (Yoma, loc. cit.) requires one to collect ten people and inform them of his efforts to appease his colleague, lest others think of him as being to proud to seek forgiveness.

The Pri Chadash states that a person is forbidden to request forgiveness from his fellow man more than three times. However, the Bayit Chadash and the Magen Avraham allow one to make the effort if doing so will not disgrace the honor of the Torah.

Yoma (loc. cit.) derives the latter principle from Samuel’s statements to the people II Samuel 12:23): “Far be it from me that I should sin against God by not praying for you.”
The Talmud notes that previously the people acknowledged their mistakes: (ibid.:19) “We have added to our sins this evil.” Accordingly, it states that the obligation to grant forgiveness only applies when the guilty party acknowledges his wrongdoings.

Yoma (loc. cit.) relates that Rav once snubbed Rabbi Chaninah. For thirteen years, he would come to him on Yom Kippur eve to beg forgiveness.

Bava Kama 92a cites the behavior of Abraham who forgave Avimelech and prayed for his recovery.

Pirkei Avot 5:11 states “One who is hard to anger, but easily pacified is pious.”

Citing the example of Rabbi Chaninah who refused to forgive Rav mentioned in the previous halachah, the Rama (Orach Chayim 607) states that a person may withhold forgiveness if his intention is for the welfare of the other person.

Yoma 87a brings several examples of Sages who would go out of their way to allow a person who wronged them to ask for forgiveness.

On the contrary, by seeking revenge or bearing a grudge, a person violates a negative command. See Leviticus 19:18.

Many authorities (the Mordechai, Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and Hagahot Maimoni) state that a person need not forgive a person who slandered him behind his back. However, the Rambam does not make this distinction.

. Yevamot 79a states that the Jews are distinguished by three characteristics: “They are merciful, sensitive to shame, and generous.”

Literally, “the gentiles with an uncircumcised heart,” a phrase borrowed from Ezekiel 44:7.

This phrase is taken from Amos 1:11.

When King Saul was pursuing David, he slew many Gibeonites in the city of Nob. For years, the Gibeonites recalled this bloodshed. God noticed the ill-feeling they carried in their hearts and punished Israel for the deeds of their leader. For three years, the land was parched with drought.
When King David enquired concerning the reason for the lack of rain, God told him to appease the Gibeonites. They refused to forgive the sins against them until they were given seven of Saul’s sons to kill. They slaughtered these men in cold blood and hung their corpses in public view. When David saw that they lacked the basic traits of kindness inherent to the Jewish people, he decreed that they never be allowed to marry a native born Israelite.

A person is only required to go to grave of his fellow man to ask for forgiveness if he wronged him during his lifetime. If he slandered him after his passing, he may request forgiveness from him in any place (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 606:7).

In this way, his confession will be made public as required by Halachah 5.

The Yam Shel Shlomo (Yoma 87a) allows a person who lives more than a modest journey away from the deceased’s grave to send an agent to the grave to make amends for him.

For as mentioned, wrongs against one’s fellowmen are also considered sins against God.

While a person is alive, it is necessary to apologize to him before confessing to God. However, after his death, the order is reversed (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

In this instance as well, a particular confession is required. Each sin should be mentioned individually.

Who will divide it as part of the deceased’s estate.

Who will keep it in trust for the heirs or if no heirs are found, distribute it as they see fit (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Bava Kama 9:5).

Berachot 57a states that even the “sinners of Israel are filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate is with seeds.”

For, “there is not one righteous man who will do [only] good and never sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

As explained in Halachah 2, the reckoning of merits against sins is not only a quantitative matter. Rather, God, in His infinite wisdom, makes this account considering the nature as well as the number of our deeds.

Rav Saadia Gaon explains that this term is to be interpreted in a relative sense, meaning “more righteous than others”. Similarly, Tanya (Chapter 1) states, regarding the true definition… of the category of “the righteous,” our Sages declared (Berachot 62b): “the righteous are motivated [solely] by their good inclination.”

Berachot (ibid.) describes a wicked person as one motivated by his evil inclination.

The latter term means “someone in the middle.” Berachot (ibid.) describes him as a person motivated by both inclinations and constantly involved in a struggle between them.

Even if many righteous men live in a country, it is judged as a whole and its fortunes determined according to the behavior of all its inhabitants (Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 3:4).

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam’s statements, noting there are many wicked people who live long lives. He agrees that the wicked will be denied the opportunity to live out their full lifespan (citing Yevamot 50a), but argues that it is obvious that the sentence against them is not immediately executed.
A number of different defenses are offered for the Rambam’s statements. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the reckoning of sins and merits is carried out “according to the wisdom of the Knowing God,” it is possible that individuals who appear wicked have certain merits which outweigh their transgressions.
The Lechem Mishneh explains that the “death” referred to in his halachah is death in the world to come, i.e., a sentence to Gehinom. However, it is difficult to understand his statements in terms of the continuation of the halachah which discusses the fate of a country and the entire world.
The Ramban (Sha’ar HaG’mul) maintains that this judgment applies to life and death in this world and explains that there are certain mitzvot which are propitious for a long life. Thus, if a wicked man fulfills such a mitzvah, he will receive that reward even though, in judgment, he would not merit that verdict.

The verse emphasizes how God, Himself, administers judgment and how Israel’s sins are the direct cause of the retribution she receives.

The righteous individuals living in that country will not perish as implied by Abraham’s complaint to God before the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18:23): “Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked? (Lechem Mishneh)” Nevertheless, they will also suffer because of their association with a wicked nation and their fortunes will be lost (Merkevat HaMishneh).
Other commentaries explain that the obliteration of a country mentioned in this halachah does not necessarily imply that all its inhabitants will perish. Rather, it is the national identity of the people that will be doomed to oblivion.

By choosing the example of the flood, the Rambam also implies that the righteous will, like Noah, be saved (Lechem Mishneh).

Accordingly, Avot 2:1 teaches “Be as careful in [the performance of a seemingly] minor mitzvah as in [the performance of] a major one, for you do not know the reward given for the mitzvot.”

It must be emphasized that the judgment referred to here refers to the person’s fate in general. It is in this context that one mitzvah may “outweigh many sins.” However, in particular, the sins will also be taken into consideration and God will not “take the bribe” of many mitzvot to forgo the judgment appropriate for any individual sin (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 4:28; See also Ramban, Seforno on Deuteronomy 10:17).

The narrative cited by the Rambam describes the death of Aviya, whose father, Jeroboam, was the first king of the ten tribes.
Jeroboam had already set up idols in Dan and Bethel. Nevertheless, when his son fell sick, he urged his wife to disguise herself and go to Achiyah of Shilo, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, to pray for his son’s recovery.
The prophet recognized Jeroboam’s wife and told her that all her descendants would be doomed for her husband’s sins. Aviya would die, but he would be more fortunate than any of his brothers. Of all of Jeroboam’s seed, he alone would merit to be buried and mourned by Israel, “because in him, there was found a good quality.”
Mo’ed Katan 28b explains that even though Aviya had also emulated the wicked ways of his father, he had one redeeming virtue. He had removed the guards his father had set up to prevent the people from going to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals. That merit was sufficient to earn him the privilege of burial.

In general, our Sages stated that a sin extinguishes the light of a mitzvah. However, there are some sins which powerful enough to snuff out many mitzvot.

Kiddushin 40b offers a different interpretation of this verse. See the notes to Halachah 4.

God weighs the nature of the mitzvah or the sin, the nature of the person and his spiritual service, and also the circumstances associated with the deed, in arriving at His judgment.

Chapter 1, Halachah 3, quotes the continuation of this verse: “The wickedness of the evil one will not cause him to stumble on the day he repents his wickedness” to emphasize that, “even a person who acted wickedly throughout his life, but repented in his final moments will not be reminded of any aspect of his wickedness.” Just as sincere regret over one’s sins can wipe away the blemishes they cause, misplaced regret can also blot out a person’s previous merit.

The verse might be interpreted to imply that if a righteous man succumbs to temptation and sins towards the end of his life, his previous merits will be lost. However, Kiddushin 40b rejects that inference, explaining that sins cannot nullify a person’s previous merit entirely.

To determine whether he will merit a portion in the world to come or will suffer in Gehinom (Rosh HaShanah 16b).

From this phrase, a quote from Rosh HaShanah 16a, it may be inferred that God judges every one of His creations on Rosh HaShanah and not only the Jewish people.

The Hagahot Maimoni emphasizes that the judgment on Rosh HaShanah centers on our material concerns. Similarly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 1:2), the Rambam writes that a person is judged for “health, sickness, life, and death, and the other needs of man.”

Here, the commentaries also deal with the same question raised by the Ra’avad discussed in the notes to Halachah 1.

Nevertheless, through sincere repentance, a person can reverse the verdict against him.

Rosh HaShanah 16b states:
Three books are opened on Rosh HaShanah: one for the completely wicked, one for the completely righteous, and one for those in between.
The completely righteous are written down and sealed for life immediately.
The completely wicked are written down and sealed for death immediately.
The [verdict] of those in between remains tentative from Rosh HaShanah until Yom Kippur. If they merit, they are written down for life. If they do not merit, they are written down for death.
There are a number of differences between the Rambam’s phraseology and that of the Talmud. Among them:
The Talmud mentions the “completely righteous,” while the Rambam mentions “the righteous.”
The Talmud speaks of the verdict being “written down and sealed,” while the Rambam only mentions its sealing.
The Talmud does not mention the “sealing” of the verdict of “those in between,” while the Rambam does.
As mentioned in the introduction, the Rambam composed the Mishneh Torah as a text of halachah, i.e., a guide to the practical observance of the mitzvot, and only mentioned other concepts when they have halachic ramifications. Nevertheless, he elaborates on the concept of Divine judgment because as evident from the following halachot, the awareness of this judgment will have an effect on our behavior in the High Holiday season.

Rambam writes (Guide 3:48): that there are two perspectives on mitzvot: The first views mitzvot as Divine decrees which totally transcend human understanding. In contrast, the second attitude maintains that though the source of Torah is God’s will which transcends our comprehension, the purpose of Torah is “to refine the world.”

By nature, the shofar has a startling effect on those who hear it, as Amos (3:6) prophecies: “Will the shofar be sounded in the city and the people not tremble.” Similarly, the Pesikta D’Rav Kahanah explains that the shofar’s call is intended to startle its listeners and motivate them to sincere Teshuvah.

A sleeping person is insensitive to the world around him. So, too, we often become so wrapped up in material things that we lose consciousness of the spiritual realities.

Vayikrah Rabbah 29:6 states that the very name shofar (שופר) alludes to the need to improve (שפר) our behavior.

Though the Rambam mentions repentance, he does not mention the confession of sins. On Rosh HaShanah, when God sits in judgment, no mention is made of sin (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 684:2). On the contrary, the stress must be on making a strong resolve for the future. Nevertheless, the Sh’loh and other authorities recommend reciting the confessional prayer in between the different sections of the sounding of the shofar.

This phrase does not appear to refer to the previous teachings regarding the sounding of the shofar, but rather, the first three halachot of this chapter which describe the manner in which God judges the world.

In the Hebrew, the word “entire” is repeated, כל השנה כולו to emphasize that this awareness must be constant. Kiddushin 40b, the source for this statement, uses the expression, לעולם, “at all times.”

Thus, each person’s behavior can have an effect on the future of the entire world.

Kiddushin (ibid.) derives this concept from Ecclesiastes 9:18: “One sin may obscure much good,” i.e., through one sin which tips the balance to the side of guilt, all the merit of one’s mitzvot may be lost. The Rambam uses that verse to derive a different concept (see Halachah 2) and hence, does not mention it here.

With regard to bringing destruction, the Rambam does not mention “others.”

This is a very fundamental concept. If a person would realize that his personal future and that of the entire world is affected by his behavior, he would never sin.

This refers to both concepts mentioned above: the description of the process of judgment and the inspiring call of the shofar.

Rosh HaShanah 17a states: “Anyone who shows mercy to the creations merits Divine mercy,” a quality that is necessary in these days of judgment.

As mentioned above, Rosh HaShanah 16b states that “Four things rend the [evil] decree against a person:” They include charity (as above), crying out to God (as in the Selichot prayers mentioned below), changing one’s name, and changing one’s behavior (the performance of good deeds). These activities are intended to abrogate any negative judgments that might have been issued against a person on Rosh HaShanah.

Though the Rambam mentions the unique nature of the Ten Days of Repentance in Chapter 2, he does not elaborate on the customs associated with those days there. Chapter 2 deals primarily with the spiritual aspects of Teshuvah and the renewal of an individual’s bond with God. In contrast, this chapter deals with man’s judgment and the power of Teshuvah to abrogate harsh decrees.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 58:1, mentions that it is customary to begin recitation of these prayers, called Selichot, at the beginning of the month of Elul. The Ramah notes that Ashkenazic custom is to begin Selichot a few days before Rosh HaShanah. In certain communities, Selichot are not recited after Rosh HaShanah.

The Hagahot Maimoni states that the final hours of the night are a fit time to arouse Divine mercy.

Adding the merit of communal prayer in a sacred place.

Rosh HaShanah 17a relates that after God accepted the Teshuvah of the Jews for the sin of the Golden Calf, He wrapped Himself in a tallit and showed Moses the order of prayer, teaching him the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. He promised: “Whenever Israel sin, they should recite this order of prayers before Me and I will forgive them.” The recitation of these Thirteen Attributes is the central point of the Selichot prayers.

To understand this halachah, it is necessary to quote two Talmudic passages which the Rambam used as sources:
[Michah 7:18 describes God as] One Who “pardons iniquity.” The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:“[Implied is that] He forgives them one by one….” Ravvah states:
“[Though] the sin [is forgiven, it] is not erased. If [the person] possesses a majority of sins, it is considered among them” (Rosh HaShanah 17a).
Rabbi Yossi bar Yehudah relates: “If a person transgresses a sin once, he is forgiven. [If he transgresses] a second time, he is forgiven. [If he transgresses] a third time, he is not forgiven” (Yoma 86a).
The passage continues describing the differences between an individual and a community as quoted by the Rambam who considers these two passages as complementary.

The first two sins are forgiven, one after the other, as the School of Rabbi Yishmael taught.

As implied by Ravvah’s statement “the sin is not erased….”

Among God’s attributes is the quality רב חסד, “inclined to kindness.” Thus, though the scales of a Beinoni are equally balanced, this tendency tips the person’s judgment towards the positive side (Rosh HaShanah 17a).

He is judged as righteous and no further attention is paid to the sins committed once or twice that were held in abeyance. This allows him to reach a totally clean slate, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

A new judgment is made.

The Rambam’s version of this passage (Yoma 86a) is based on the text quoted by Rav Yitzchok Alfasi. Most contemporary publications of the Talmud interpret the verse from Job as a correlation, and not a contrast to the verse from Amos. On the basis of these textual differences, the Ra’avad and other commentaries object to the Rambam’s statements.

Halachah 1.

Thus, according to the principle of רב חסד described above, when he is judged after his death, he is immediately granted a place in the world to come without having to expiate his sins in Gehinom.

Zechariah (13:9) prophesies: “I will pass them… through the fire and will refine them as silver is refined.”
Rosh HaShanah 17a explains that the subjects of this verse are “’the sinners of Israel with their bodies’… To whom does that term refer? To a forehead, upon which tefillin was never placed.”
The Talmud proceeds to explain: Though a person’s sins and merits are equally balanced and hence, he would normally be absolved from the punishments of Gehinom as explained, if he is one of “the sinners of Israel with their bodies,” i.e., he neglected the mitzvah of tefillin, he is forced to pass through Gehinom’s fires.
Tefillin is considered such an important mitzvah because it is one of the “signs” (See Deuteronomy 6:8) of the relationship between the Jews and God. In this context, Menachot 35b interprets Deuteronomy 28:10, “All the nations of the world will see that God’s Name is associated with you and they will be in awe of you,” as a reference to the tefillin worn on the head. By wearing tefillin even once, a Jew makes a permanent spiritual impression on his head and arm. Based on this principle, we can appreciate how important the performance of this mitzvah is, even when it is fulfilled once as a single, isolated experience.
It must be noted that the Ramban (Sha’ar HaG’mul) and other commentaries explain that Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) does not refer to tefillin alone. Tefillin is only given as an example and the term, “the sinners of Israel with their bodies,” refers to a person who totally neglects the performance of any mitzvah.

And condemned to Gehinom.

And are condemned to Gehinom. Eduyot 2:10 states that the judgment of the wicked in Gehinom takes no longer than one year. Eruvin 17a is even more generous, explaining that Abraham allows the wicked to remain only momentarily in Gehinom. Afterwards, he personally descends and redeems them.

Once their sins are expiated through suffering there.

Sanhedrin 3 10:1, the source for these statements, quotes the continuation of the verse from Isaiah: “They are the branch of My planting, the work of My hands…,” implying that God is the source for each Jew’s soul. Thus, this phrase explains the former: Each Jew will ultimately merit a portion in the world to come because his soul emanates from God. Though he may have performed many unworthy deeds, these are surface blemishes that temporarily obscure his essential Godly nature. True, he must suffer retribution to cleanse himself of them, but eventually, his essence will surface and he will be able to assume his place in the world to come.

The Rambam devotes Chapter 8 to the description of the nature of the world to come.

In Hilchot Melachim 8:10-11, the Rambam defines this term as gentiles who accept the seven universal laws given to Noah and his descendants because they were commanded as part of the Torah.

Sanhedrin 10:1 states that Bilaam will not be granted a portion in the world to come. Thus, it can be inferred that righteous gentiles would be granted that privilege for otherwise there would be no need to exclude him explicitly (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah).
In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:4, the Rambam writes that the world to come will be granted only to “the righteous, i.e., Israel,” seemingly implying that gentiles will not have a portion in this eternal good. Perhaps, the discrepancy between these two statements can be resolved according to the Zohar Chadash (Ruth 78:4) which relates that even though the gentiles will be granted a portion in the world to come, their portion will be separate and distinct from that of the Jews.

Though the previous halachah states, “All Israel have a portion in the world to come,” there are exceptions to that principle. Certain individuals are denied that privilege because of the severe nature of the sins they committed.

In Chapter 8, Halachah 1, the Rambam writes:
The good that is hidden for the righteous is the life of the world to come….
The retribution that the wicked will suffer is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die….
This is the intent of the meaning of the term כרת in the Torah… to be cut off in this world and in the world to come. (See the notes to that halachah.)
On this basis, the commentaries ask why the Rambam does not include all those who violated a commandment punishable by כרת in the halachah. They explain that for the sins mentioned here, in addition to the punishment of being “cut off from the world to come,” the transgressors “are judged,” and suffer retribution for their sins.
Thus, there are three categories of sinners:
a) Those who commit “minor” sins. They suffer retribution in Gehinom for a maximum of twelve months and then, are granted a portion in the world to come;
b) Those who commit sins punishable by כרת. They are “cut off” and do not merit the life of the world to come.
c) The thirteen categories mentioned here. In addition to being denied a portion in the world to come, they suffer eternal judgment and retribution.

In Gehinom.

The sins committed by these individuals are more severe than those performed by “the wicked of Israel.” Hence, a short period of punishment is not sufficient for them.

The source for the Rambam’s statements is Rosh HaShanah 17a which lists all the individuals mentioned by the Rambam and states: “They will descend to Gehinom and be judged there for all generations…. Gehinom will be destroyed and they will remain.”
The Maharsha explains that the latter statement should be interpreted to mean that even after Gehinom will be destroyed these individuals will remain in eternal shame. However, the text, Esser Ma’amarot develops the principle that the soul of each Jew is an eternal spark of Godliness. In that context, it interprets the passage to mean that, ultimately, Gehinom will be destroyed and then, these souls will emerge, having expiated their sins.

See the following halachah.

See Halachah 8 for an explanation of both of these categories.

God’s punishments are “measure for measure.” An individual who does not believe in the resurrection of the dead lacks belief in the eternality of the soul. Hence, his soul is denied that eternal good.

Because of the fundamental importance of this and the previous concept, the Rambam includes them in his Thirteen Principles of Faith (principles 11 and 12).
In Hilchot Melachim 11:1, the Rambam writes:
In the future, the Messianic king will arise and renew the Davidic dynasty…. Anyone who does not believe in him or does not await his coming, denies not only [the statements] of the other prophets, but [those of] the Torah and Moses, our teacher.
A Jew’s faith is not complete unless he anxiously waits for Mashiach to come. Mashiach’s coming will initiate an age in which we will have the opportunity to fulfill all the mitzvot. Our entire life will revolve around the study of Torah and the knowledge of God. Similarly, in the world to come, the righteous will:
“Sit and delight in the radiance of the Divine Presence,” i.e., they will comprehend the truth of Godliness which they cannot grasp while in a body (Chapter 8, Halachah 2).
A Jew who does not desire and yearn for these goals demonstrates that he has blemished the very essence of his soul. Hence, he requires the retribution of Gehinom to purify himself of those failings.

. In Halachah 9 which explains this category, the Rambam speaks about מומרים, apostates. Certain texts of the Mishneh Torah substitute that term for מורדים in this halachah.

Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) adds the phrase “as Jeroboam and the like.” However, in Halachah 10 which describes this category, the Rambam emphasizes that he is not necessarily referring to people who caused others to commit such grievous sins. Even someone who causes his colleagues to neglect the performance of a slight mitzvah is given this punishment.

These categories are described in Halachah 11.

II Chronicles 36:8 mentions “the acts of Yehoyakim and his abominations which he carried out.” Sanhedrin 104b relates that Yehoyakim boasted: “My predecessors (the evil kings, Amon, Achaz, and Menasheh) did not know how to arouse God’s anger. I will show you how to provoke Him.”

See Halachah 12.

See Halachah 13.

This and the following two categories are not mentioned in the passage from Rosh HaShanah cited previously. However, the Rambam has an explicit source for these categories as well. The Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 1:1, states that murderers will not be granted a portion in the world to come.
[That source also states that idol-worshipers and those who are involved in forbidden sexual relations will also receive the same punishment. The Rambam includes idol-worshipers in the category of Minim, but does not mention those who violate sexual prohibitions in this halachah. The commentaries have questioned the reason for this omission.]

“Slander” is not an appropriate translation for the Hebrew, lashon hara. Slander involves the recitation of lies, while lashon harah refers to the spreading of unfavorable gossip even if it is true.
Peah (ibid.) mentions that lashon hara is equivalent to all the three sins: idol worship, murder, and illicit sexual relations. Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 53) states explicitly that one who speaks lashon hara is not given a portion in the world to come. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:16, Hilchot De’ot 7:1-6.

Pirkei Avot (3:11) states “A person who breaks the covenant of Abraham (i.e., circumcision)… does not have a portion in the world to come.” See also Hilchot Milah 3:8.

The delineation of these five categories of Minim is not found in any previous text. Though the Rambam has a source for each of his statements, the grouping is his original work (Lechem Mishneh).

The Aruch explains that the Sages derived the term Min as follows: the early Christians referred to themselves as מאמנים — “the faithful.” As a gesture of scorn, the Sages shortened that expression to מנים, literally meaning “sorts,” i.e., all sorts of deviant believers. Later, they expanded the use of the term to apply to others who deny fundamental principles of faith. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:5 where the Rambam defines the term, Min, in a slightly different manner.

The Hebrew expression אין שם, literally, “there is not there,” should not be interpreted as applying to a particular place. Rather, the usage of the word שם in this context is a common Arabic literary technique which the Rambam imported into the Hebrew language (Shmuel Ibn Tibbon, Introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed).

The Midrash Tehillim states: “The Minim declare: ‘The world is an independent entity.’” Similarly, Berachot 12b defines the term Min by quoting Psalms 14:1: “The fool says in his heart: ‘There is no God.’”

Shmot Rabbah 29:1 states that the Minim follow many gods. This runs contrary to the fundamental principles of Jewish faith as Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7 states: “God is one, not two or more…. His oneness is not a combination of other entities,… but rather a unique oneness to which there is… no resemblance in the world.”

The principle that God possesses neither a physical, nor spiritual body or form is discussed by the Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (1:8-9). In those halachot, he emphasizes how all the anthropomorphic references in the Bible and Midrashim are metaphors for spiritual qualities.
Though the Ra’avad accepts the basic principle mentioned by the Rambam, he questions the Rambam’s description of those who do not accept it as Minim: “Many greater and better individuals than he followed the said opinion on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible….” Indeed, these statements were among the reasons for the great opposition to the Rambam’s works among the Rabbis of France and Germany.
[From the other perspective, the Kessef Mishneh questions how the Ra’avad could describe anyone who maintains that God possesses a body or form as “greater and better” than the Rambam. In fact, certain commentaries desired to amend the Ra’avad’s text to soften his remarks.]

Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah begins: “The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence.”
The Ra’avad distinguishes this category from the second by explaining that such a person does not believe in another god. Rather, he believes, to quote Bereishit Rabbah 1:9, “that God is a magnificent artist. He, however, had excellent tools to help Him;” i.e., before creation, God did not exist alone. There were various types of primeval matter that existed with Him.

This is the simple interpretation of the word מזל. According to the Kabbalah, that term refers to the spiritual source of a creation in our physical world.

Avodah Zarah 26b states “Who is a Min? An idolater.”

The fifth of the Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith (Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, Chapter 10) states that it is improper to serve any being other than God. See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1 which states:
In the era of Enosh, the people made a great error…. Enosh was among those who erred. Their mistake was as follows, they said: “Since God created these stars… to control the world, placing them in the heavens and thus, bestowing honor upon them, it is proper to praise them… and honor them. This is the desire of God — that we should magnify and honor those whom He magnifies and honors….”
They did not say that there is no god except for this star…, but rather, their error was that they imagined that their empty [worship] was His desire.

To be placed in this category, it is sufficient to accept merely one of these mistaken beliefs. It is not necessary to accept them all.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1, the Rambam defines the term Epicurus as: “An Aramaic term, implying the lack of appreciation of authority, the scorning of the Torah or its students.”

Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (7:1) states: “One of the fundamental principles of faith is that God causes prophecy to rest upon men.”

In addition to the acceptance of the general principle of prophecy, the Jewish faith revolves around the principle of the supremacy of the prophecy of Moses.

The tenth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith begins: “[to believe,] in contrast to the opinion that ‘God has departed from the earth,’ that He knows of the deeds of man and has not abandoned them.” See also Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:10.

The common denominator between these three is that they do not accept the basic principle that God is concerned with man’s behavior and has granted him a means of relating to Him.

Sanhedrin 99a interprets (Numbers 15:31) “He scorned the word of God… his soul shall be cut off” as referring to one who says Torah does not originate from God.

The eighth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith is that:
Torah originated in the heavens… that it came entirely from God. Moses was like a scribe, receiving dictation.
[Thus,] there is no difference between… “Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz” and “I am God, your Lord”…. One can’t say that this is the Torah’s heart and this, its shell. Rather, every word of Torah contains wisdom and wonders.
In other words, an individual who says that a verse in the Torah is “a marvelous truth,” a profoundly relevant ethical principle,” “a spark of Divine insight,” but not an integral part of the revelation at Sinai, is “denying the Torah.”

The Rambam begins his introduction to the Mishneh Torah:
All the mitzvot which were given to Moses at Sinai were given together with their interpretations as implied by [Exodus 24:12] “I will give you the tablets of stone, the Torah, and the mitzvah.”
“The Torah” — refers to the Written Law.
“The mitzvah” — refers to its explanation… the Oral Law.”

The Sages. Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:11 states that a person who denigrates the Sages, “will not receive a portion in the world to come and is included among those who ‘scorned the word of God.’”

Avot D’Rabbi Nattan 5:2 relates that Antigonus of Socho had two talented students, Tzadok and Beitus. When Antigonus taught: “Do not be like students serving a master in order to receive a reward,” they turned away in disgust, commenting “Is it proper for a worker to toil the entire day without receiving any recompense?” They began splinter groups which rejected the core of Jewish practice and coveted material wealth. They found that they could not convince the majority of the people to reject the Torah entirely, so they adopted a different tactic. They claimed that they were true to Torah, but the only Torah that was Godly was the Written Law. The Oral Law, they maintained, was merely a human invention. This thesis was only a ruse to sway the people from the performance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, the Sages would refer to all those who deny the Torah and its tradition as Sadducees (from Tzadok) or Beitusees (from Beitus) (Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 1:3).

Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (9:1) states:
The Torah declares clearly and explicitly that the mitzvot will remain forever, without change, detraction, or addition…. “God is not human, that He should waver.”

These bracketed words were included in the original text of the Mishneh Torah, but omitted in most published editions due to censorship.

For, regardless of which argument is advanced, the ultimate result of such an approach is the negation of Torah practice.

The Rambam does not deal with gentile nonbelievers.

Mumar in Hebrew.

In most aspects of Torah law, there are no differences between the two categories. However, certain distinctions do exist. For example, a mumar with regard to the entire Torah is prevented from bringing sacrifices to the Temple. However, if his apostasy is limited to a particular mitzvah, his sacrifices may be accepted (Chullin 5a).

The frequent commission of a sin reveals the lack of respect and scorn with which this person regards the Torah (Chovot HaLevavot, Sha’arei Teshuvah).

I.e., it does not involve the punishment of כרת.

There is no tangible benefit that can be gained from such practices.

Some authorities maintain that a person deserves to be classified as a mumar for the frequent repetition of a sin even though he commits the sin for his own benefit.
However, the Rambam maintains that to be classified as a mumar, one must choose to break a command even though he will suffer no loss in fulfilling it; for example, a person who has two equally tasty cuts of meat before him, one kosher and one traif and he eats the traif one with the sole intent of spiting God (Gittin 47a).

The term used by the Rambam, חוזר, literally means “returns.” That phraseology is problematic since, on the surface, this statement applies to all Jews, even native-born Israelites.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements, explaining that a person who worships false gods (the gentiles’ faith) is a Min, a more severe category than an apostate. The Kessef Mishneh explains that here, the Rambam may be referring to a person who adopts a gentile faith in order to avoid persecution as part of the Jewish people, however, in his heart, he believes in God.

Who caused the people to worship idols and prevented them from making pilgrimages to the Temple.

See the notes to Halachah 8.

Similarly, in Chapter 4, Halachah 1, when the Rambam lists the individuals who are prevented from repenting, he includes in the category of “those who caused the many to sin,” a person who prevented others from performing a positive command.

As implied by the II Kings 21:16: “Menasheh shed much innocent blood until he filled Jerusalem [with blood] from one end to the other, in addition to his sin of making Judah sin….”

Through persuasion. Though they do not physically compel the others to sin, they are still considered responsible for causing these transgressions.

In contrast to the sins mentioned previously, the affront committed by this individual is against Israel and not against God. Hilchot Eivel 1:10 equates these individuals with Epicursim and apostates, calling them “the enemies of God” and explaining that no mourning rites are held after their passing.

Ta’anit 11a states: One who separates himself from the community will not merit to see the comfort of the community…. When the community is in difficult straits, a person should not say, “I will go home, eat, drink, and carry out my affairs with peace of mind….” Rather, he should suffer together with the community.

See the notes to Halachah 6.

The harshness of their sentence does not result from the severity of the particular sin they committed, but rather the attitude of public defiance with which it was carried out. Accordingly, Pirkei Avot 3:11 states that they are given this punishment even when they have many good deeds.

This may be inferred from Numbers 15:30: “When a person commits a sin highhandedly,… he is blaspheming God and that soul will be cut off from his people” (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot, loc. cit.).

Pirkei Avot (loc. cit.) mentions a list of “those do not have a portion in the world to come” including, according to most texts, המגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה — “one who interprets the Torah in a manner contradictory to its true intent.”
The Rambam’s text of Avot omits the words שלא כהלכה and, in his commentary, he interprets המגלה פנים בתורה as the public violation of Torah law, referring to such behavior as “the ultimate denial [of the Torah].”

Rabbenu Yonah (Avot, loc. cit.) includes people who insult and defy the authority of Torah Sages in this category.

Mosar, מוסר, in Hebrew.

Bava Metzia 83b states that even when a person is guilty, we should not hand him over to the gentile authorities. Accordingly, when Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon apprehended thieves, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha rebuked him: “How can you hand over the nation of our God to be killed.”
“I’m only pruning the brambles [the wicked] from the vineyard [Israel],” Rabbi Elazar protested.
“Let the owner of the vineyard [God] prune His own vineyard,” Rabbi Yehoshua replied.
Similarly, Gittin 7a relates that Mar Ukvah asked Rav Elazar: “What should I do? There are people who are bothering me and I am able to have them arrested by the king. Can I inform upon them?”
Rav Elazar answered: Psalms 39:1 teaches ‘I will keep a curb on my mouth while the wicked man is before me.’” See also Hilchot Choveil UMazik 8:9.

In these matters, Hilchot Choveil UMazik 8:2 does not differentiate between a gentile and a Jew.
It must be noted that, at present, when the Rabbinic courts do not have the authority to enforce punitive measures, leniencies may be granted with regard to employing the authority of secular law enforcement authorities in both monetary and criminal matters. Nevertheless, before one approaches such authorities, it is proper to consult with a Rabbinical court. See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 388:12.

Furthermore, such a person may be killed in order to prevent him from betraying a Jew’s life or money to gentiles (Hilchot Choveil UMazik 8:10). Bava Kama 117a relates that Rav Kahanah killed a man because he said he would give over another Jew’s money to gentiles.

Rosh HaShanah 17a describes these rulers as “those who cast excessive fear.” The Maharsha explains that it is necessary for a ruler to be revered and feared by his subjects. Nevertheless, there is no need for “excessive fear.”

Were the ruler’s intent to be for the sake of heaven, his deeds would be excusable. Indeed, we find many of the righteous kings and sages who were granted authority used the power with which they were vested in order to influence the people to Torah practice.

The 24 categories are:
5 Minim.
3 Epicursim.
3 Who deny the Torah.
Those who deny the resurrection of the dead.
Those who deny the coming of the Messiah.
2 apostates.
Those who cause the many to sin.
Those who separate themselves from the community.
Those who proudly commit sins in public.
2 who betray Jews to gentile authorities.
Those who cast fear upon the people.
Murderers.
Slanderers.
One who extends his foreskin.
Rabbenu Chananel in his commentary to Ta’anit 5a notes the significance of the number 24, explaining that both the prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, rebuked the Jews for 24 categories of sins.

Since each Jew possesses an eternal Godly essence, it follows that he will merit a portion in the world to come. However, the terrible sins committed by these individuals sever their connection with this Divine potential.

Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, quotes his father as explaining that the reason these individuals will not receive a portion in the world to come is not because of the severity of the sins they committed, but rather, because this course of behavior will prevent a person from acquiring the merits necessary to acquire a portion in the world to come (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

Rabbenu Yonah explains that a special admonishment is made concerning these sins because we generally do not consider them as severe transgressions.

The bracketed addition was made on the basis of Hilchot De’ot 6:8 which states: “A person should take care not to embarrass another person in public… or call him by a name which embarrasses him.”

Bava Metzia 58b mentions that such a person, “descends to Gehinom and will never ascend.”

Rashi, Bava Metzia 58b, explains that this applies even if the use of the nickname has become so widespread the person is no longer embarrassed when called by it. Rav Ada bar Ahavah told his students that he merited long life because he never referred to another person with a nickname (Ta’anit 20b).

Bava Metzia 58b compares embarrassing another person to murder. In both cases, the person’s complexion changes from healthy red to pale white.

See the Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah 2:1, Hilchot De’ot 6:3.

Sanhedrin 99b equates these individuals with Epicursim and those who proudly commit sins in public.

In Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:15, the Rambam uses this expression to describe a person who eats a large meal before a festival commences and thus, does not enjoy the festive meals.

By intentionally causing a sacrifice to be disqualified (פיגול) or by making personal use of sacred objects (מעילה).

Though Chapter 1, Halachah 4 states that death atones for one’s sins, that only applies when it is preceded by Teshuvah (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 3:13).

Among these 24 individuals are some who committed sins which “hold back Teshuvah.” Nevertheless, as will be explained, even such a person can repent for his sins if he sincerely desires.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, a person may wipe away all his previous sins by repenting at the time of his death. However, he must persevere in his repentance and not change his mind before he dies.

The essence of every Jew, no matter how low he has sunk, is a spark of God. Teshuvah means “return,” reestablishing connection with that infinite Godly essence. Once that connection is established, nothing can prevent this infinite Godliness from being expressed.

The Hebrew, כפר בעקר, literally means, “denies the fundamental principle.”

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

Sanhedrin 99a interprets the verse as addressed to “the distant (transgressor) who comes close (repents).”

I.e. accept his Teshuvah and grant him atonement.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 2:5, the Rambam writes that the repentance of idolaters and Minim should never be accepted.
This apparent contradiction was brought to the Rambam’s attention during his lifetime. In one of his Responsa (101), he resolved the issue by explaining that his statements in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim refer to the attitude of the Jewish people. They should never regard such an individual as a Baal-Teshuvah for it is possible he is merely feigning repentance in order to gain public acceptance.
In contrast, this halachah is referring to acceptance by God, who sees the true feelings of every individual. If a person’s repentance is sincere, regardless of the severity of his previous sins, God will accept him.
Even with regard to acceptance by men, the Rambam urged tolerance and consideration. At the conclusion of his epistle, Kiddush HaShem, he writes:
It is not proper to drive away those who profane the Sabbath…. Rather, we must draw them close and urge them to perform mitzvot. Our Sages of blessed memory explained that even if a person voluntarily sinned, when he comes to a synagogue to pray, we should accept him and not deal scornfully with him.
They based their statements on the words of Solomon (Proverbs 6:30): “Do not scorn the thief when he comes to steal;” interpreting it as “Do not scorn the sinners of Israel when they secretly come to steal mitzvot.”

Though particular mention of all one’s sins should not be made in public, a general confession is requiredץ

By God as can be inferred from the continuation of the verse “I will heal their backsliding.” The Or Sameach explains that God’s healing His “faithless children” implies that He will bring them to the level of complete Teshuvah.