A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can we honestly commit on Yom Kippur to never sin again when experience shows this is unrealistic? The shiur resolves this through a Rambam (רמב"ם) analysis distinguishing two types of teshuvah: separating past identity from present (teshuvah gemurah) versus seeking atonement (kapara). We commit that past sins will no longer motivate us - not that we'll never sin from any cause.
Rabbi Zweig addresses the fundamental anxiety of Yom Kippur - how can we honestly commit to never sinning again when experience shows this is unrealistic? He resolves this through a detailed analysis of an apparent contradiction in Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Teshuvah between chapters one and two. In chapter one, the Rambam describes vidui as first expressing regret and embarrassment, then committing to the future. In chapter two, he reverses this order - first committing to the future, then regretting the past. Additionally, the language differs: chapter one uses 'dibur' (speech) while chapter two uses 'sifsasav' (lips). Rabbi Zweig explains that these represent two entirely different processes. Chapter two describes 'teshuvah gemurah' - the fundamental change where one separates their past from their present identity. The Rambam's example of the same woman, same place, same circumstances tests whether past actions still define present identity. The greatest drive to sin comes from the feeling 'this is who I am' based on past behavior. True teshuvah means one's past no longer motivates present actions. This requires a personal commitment (hence 'lips' - concretizing internal decisions like in hilchos nedarim) rather than communication with God. Chapter one deals with 'kapara' - atonement for past sins, requiring communication with Hashem (ה׳) (hence 'dibur' and 'lifnei Hashem'). Even after achieving teshuvah gemurah, one still owes a 'debt' for past actions. This explains why vidui in chapter one focuses on regret - it's about rectifying the past relationship with God. The commitment 'v'yad alav yodea talumos' means God can testify that past sins will no longer be motivating factors, not that the person will never sin again from any cause. This understanding makes Yom Kippur meaningful and honest - we commit to divorcing our past from our present identity, which is both achievable and transformative.
Hilchos Teshuvah 1:1, 2:1-3
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Holidays
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why don't the last eight verses of the Torah require a minyan to read? The shiur develops a fundamental chiddush in the Rambam: Simchas Torah has two distinct takanos of Kriat HaTorah — Zot HaBracha is read from the din of Yom Tov (inyan hayom), while VaYom Moshe is read from the din of Shabbos (siyum haTorah). This explains why a new minyan is required for the last eight verses, and why the Raavad's minhag of having the oleh read (not the baal koreh) signals that the final aliyah is purely Talmud Torah, not shemiat dvar Hashem.
May a man who has already fulfilled his shofar obligation blow shofar for a woman on Rosh Hashanah? The Baal Itur forbids it while Rav Yehuda permits it. The shiur develops that the core dispute is not about violating shvus for another's benefit, but whether a man's blowing creates a "tekiah shel mitzvah" that enables the woman to be yotzei.
When must one interrupt eating or other activities to perform a mitzvah? The Gemara distinguishes between yesh shos (time remains) and ein shos (no time left), and between d'Oraisa and d'Rabbanan obligations. The Rambam's view—that one need not interrupt unless the mitzvah cannot be done later—contrasts sharply with the Rosh and Ran, who hold that mitzvah bo'liyos al tachmitzena requires immediate action even when time remains.
Does answering "amen" add anything when one is already yotzei through shomeia k'oneh? The shiur examines the Rambam's presentation in Hilchos Brachos perek 1, halachos 10-12, questioning why the Rambam states that one who answers amen is "k'mevorach" when earlier he ruled one is yotzei even without answering amen. The shiur explores whether amen provides an additional ma'alah beyond basic yotzei status and analyzes several seemingly contradictory Rambam passages.
