A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does deathbed repentance require special scriptural validation when the Rambam (רמב"ם) already established that imperfect teshuvah works? The answer reveals that deathbed teshuvah lacks kabalah al ha'atid, requiring unique Divine mercy that judges the person's present state as their entire relationship with Hashem (ה׳). True charatah must focus on abandoning Hashem rather than personal disappointment or consequences.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Teshuvah, particularly examining two challenging concepts. The first major topic is the Rambam's discussion of deathbed repentance (teshuvah b'yom hamitah). The Rambam states that even if someone repents on their deathbed and dies in a state of repentance, all their sins are forgiven, supporting this with a verse. The speaker questions why this requires a special verse, since earlier the Rambam already established that even imperfect repentance (where one lacks the same temptation or opportunity to sin) is still effective. The resolution offered is that deathbed repentance lacks the normal component of accepting responsibility for future conduct (kabalah al ha'atid), since there is no future. Therefore, it represents a unique form of Divine mercy where Hashem (ה׳) judges the person solely based on their present state, treating this moment as if it encompasses their entire relationship. This requires scriptural validation because it deviates from the normal requirements of complete teshuvah. The second major theme addresses the proper foundation of remorse (charatah). The speaker emphasizes that genuine regret must focus on having abandoned Hashem rather than on personal consequences or disappointments. Most people, when they feel regret after sinning, are actually disappointed in themselves or worried about punishment - this is not true teshuvah. Real repentance must begin with recognition that one has damaged their relationship with Hashem, who gave them a precious soul and the ability to control their physical desires for the purpose of serving Him. The speaker references Yirmiyahu's statement that 'no man repents of his evil, saying what have I done' - meaning people don't truly regret the evil they've committed, only its consequences for themselves. True teshuvah requires confession before Hashem (vidui lifnei haKel), focusing on the wrong done to the Creator rather than self-pity or disappointment. The shiur connects these concepts to interpersonal relationships, suggesting that just as deathbed moments represent the totality of a relationship when there's no tomorrow, we should always interact with others as if it might be our last opportunity. The speaker draws from Tractate Yevamot's placement after Moed Katan (which ends with laws of death) to illustrate this principle of treating each moment as potentially final, thereby ensuring maximum care in our relationships.
Hilchos Teshuvah
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 Halacha
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.
Up Next in this Series
Should teshuvah begin with regret for the past or resolve for the future? Rabbeinu Yonah teaches that occasional sins require charatah first, while habitual sins demand azivat hachet first - you cannot properly regret what you're still actively pursuing. The approach resolves apparent contradictions in the Rambam's sequence of teshuvah.
Why does Rabbeinu Yonah reverse the normal order of teshuvah for habitual sins, requiring one to first commit to stopping before expressing regret? For ongoing transgressions, genuine regret is impossible while maintaining intent to continue sinning. The shiur applies this principle to interpersonal offenses, showing how even forgiven wrongs may still require teshuvah to God.
What type of yagon (remorse) leads to effective teshuvah - sorrow over personal spiritual losses or over damaging the relationship with Hashem? The Tomer Devorah's teaching that neshama-pain awakens Divine mercy more than physical suffering reveals that authentic teshuvah requires focusing outward on relational damage, not inward on personal deficits.
Can korbanos be brought when the Beis Hamikdash is destroyed? The Rambam and Raavad debate whether "Hashem es Mikdasham" creates a din of Avoda during Churban. Rabbi Zweig develops a distinction: the Rambam holds kedusha Rishona enabled both korbanos and tefillah; the Raavad holds only tefillah remains when the edifice is gone, since Hashem's presence endures even without a physical structure.
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.
Why does the Rambam rule that one may not violate even a shvus (rabbinic prohibition) on Yom Tov to obtain a shofar, yet permit shofar blowing on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah despite the gezeirah of carrying it to an expert? The Lechem Mishneh wrestles with an apparent contradiction: in Hilchos Shofar 1:4 the Rambam treats shvus like a full lav vis-à-vis the mitzvah of shofar, but in 2:6 he allows shofar on Shabbos even though it involves overriding both a lav and an asei.
When is a melacha on Yom Tov permitted? The shiur develops the Rambam's three-tiered framework distinguishing melachos that are food preparation itself (always permitted), food processing (permitted only l'tzorech achilah), and non-food melachos (always forbidden). The Magid Mishneh's explanation of "ho'il" emerges: intention cannot create a melacha where the act itself is inherently permitted.
