No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) place ta'anis in Hilchos Zmanim instead of Hilchos Teshuvah, despite stating that fasting's purpose is teshuvah? The Rambam distinguishes between two types of teshuvah: complete teshuvah for sins (requiring charata, vidui, and kabbalah) versus teshuvah during punishment (requiring only awareness that suffering comes from Heaven for specific sins). This resolves the machlokes between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua about whether teshuvah is necessary for redemption.
Rabbi Zweig begins by examining a textual difficulty in Sanhedrin 97b regarding the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua about whether teshuvah is necessary for redemption. He notes differences between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (תלמוד) versions of this discussion. The main focus turns to understanding why the Rambam (רמב"ם) places the laws of public fasting (ta'anis) in Hilchos Zmanim rather than in Hilchos Teshuvah, despite stating that the entire purpose of fasting is for teshuvah. Rabbi Zweig proposes a fundamental distinction: there are two completely different types of teshuvah and vidui (confession). The first type, found in Hilchos Teshuvah, deals with teshuvah performed directly for sins one has committed. This requires a complete process including regret (charata), confession (vidui), and acceptance not to repeat the sin (kabbalah al ha'asid). The second type, found in Hilchos Ta'anis, deals with teshuvah required when one receives punishment (onesh) from Heaven. Here, the punishment itself provides the atonement, but only if the person understands why they are being punished. This requires acknowledging that the suffering comes from God for specific sins, but doesn't require the full metamorphosis of character demanded in regular teshuvah. Rabbi Zweig traces this distinction through various sources, including the Midrash about Reuven being the first to do teshuvah (teshuvah for sin) versus Adam and Cain who did teshuvah after receiving punishment. He explains that the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua reflects this fundamental difference: Rabbi Elazar requires teshuvah on the sin itself, while Rabbi Yehoshua holds that suffering combined with awareness of why one is suffering is sufficient. The shiur concludes by applying this framework to understand why we still observe the four fasts commemorating the destruction of the Temple - we remain in a state of ongoing punishment (exile) and must understand its causes for it to provide proper atonement.
Dedicate a Shiur in Aggadita
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.
How long must Hashem tolerate the Jewish people's rebellious behavior? A Midrash compares this to the halachic question of carrying a child holding muktze on Shabbos. The analysis reveals that rejecting Eretz Yisrael represents a deeper spiritual corruption than individual acts of avoda zara.
Sanhedrin 97b
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!
What did Dovid mean when he reduced the 613 mitzvos to twelve principles? The Gemara reveals that mitzvos have two dimensions: fulfilling the obligation and achieving personal completion (hashlomah). Dovid identified twelve core principles that encapsulate the essential character development aspect of all mitzvos.
