A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) place free will exclusively in Hilchos Teshuva (תשובה) rather than Yesodei HaTorah? The shiur argues that teshuva begins not with correcting specific sins but with recognizing that free choice grants us ability, not right—we must abandon the arrogance of self-centeredness and reposition Hashem (ה׳) at the universe's center. Only then can we achieve immediate closeness to Him.
This joint symposium on teshuva (תשובה) explores fundamental questions about the nature of repentance through two complementary presentations. The first speaker examines three puzzling aspects of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Teshuva: why the Rambam delays any mention of free will until Hilchos Teshuva despite its being a foundational axiom; why Perek Aleph emphasizes that teshuva doesn't always work immediately while Perek Zayin stresses its overnight effectiveness; and why Perek Zayin begins with "since everyone has free choice, therefore a person ought to do teshuva"—as if free choice has special relevance to teshuva beyond all other mitzvos. The resolution centers on understanding what teshuva fundamentally addresses. Using the story of Natan HaNavi's parable to Dovid HaMelech, the speaker demonstrates that sin has two dimensions: the concrete harm caused and the deeper problem of arrogance—the sinner's claim that he has the right to decide what happens in the world. When Natan presents the parable of the rich man stealing from the poor man, Dovid initially fails to recognize himself because he's focused on the sin itself rather than the underlying arrogance. Stealing from a poor man versus a rich man makes no halachic difference, but the level of self-centeredness required to devastate someone who has nothing reveals the core problem: the sinner has positioned himself as the center of the universe, displacing Hashem (ה׳).
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Rambam Hilchos Teshuva (Perek 1, 7); Shmuel II (Natan HaNavi's parable to David)
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 Mussar
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 is vidui (confession) the central mitzvah in Hilchos Teshuvah, rather than teshuvah itself? The Rambam distinguishes between teshuvah (establishing a prospective relationship with Hashem) and vidui (achieving kapara for the past). Vidui transforms the focus from self-improvement to recognizing Hashem as the "baal davar"—the injured party—and communicating directly to Him, which is what undoes yesterday's aveiros.
Why does the Rambam locate the essence of teshuvah in vidui (confession) rather than behavioral change? The shiur explores how vidui works even for shogeg (unintentional sin), showing that confession restores relationship with God even when one has pushed Him out of one's world. The connection between vidui and todah (thanks) reveals the deeper meaning of confession.
What does kapara really mean—erasing the sin or restoring the sinner? The shiur builds on Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 1:3 to argue that kapara is not about making sins disappear but about going forward in a relationship with Hashem. The story of Yishmael read on Rosh Hashanah—"ba'asher hu shom"—teaches that the din focuses on who we are now, not on fixing the past.
Why does the Rambam say only teshuvah brings kapara, then add that Yom Kippur itself brings kapara? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: Yom Kippur features two distinct judgments—one on the yachid's personal aveiros (requiring the mizbeach, now only teshuvah), and one on the tzibbur as a whole (where the sa'ir hamishtale'ach and Yom Kippur itself bring kapara). Each individual stands in both courts.
