Asking For Forgiveness

The Rambam Chovel U'mazzik (5:9) אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מַזִּיק חֲבֵרוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ לְמַזִּיק מָמוֹנוֹ. שֶׁהַמַּזִּיק מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁשִּׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. אֲבָל חָבַל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים אֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִקְרִיב כָּל אֵילֵי נְבָיוֹת אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ וְלֹא נִמְחַל עֲוֹנוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ מִן הַנֶּחְבָּל וְיִמְחל לוֹ:  The Lechem Mishna asks this contradicts what the Rambam writes in Teshuvah (2:9)  that it is not enough to return the stolen goods but one must appease the wronged party as well?  The Kesef Mishne Laws of Teshuva  points to two sources for the Rambam.  One is the Mishne Bava Kammah (92a)  אע"פ שהוא נותן לו אין נמחל לו עד שיבקש ממנו שנאמר (בראשית כ, ז) ועתה השב אשת וגו'.  The second is the Gemorah Yoma (85b) דרש ר' אלעזר בן עזריה (ויקרא טז, ל) מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יוה"כ מכפר עד שירצה את חבירו.  Why do we need two sources for this halacha? 

Rav Eliyahu Baruch explains we see in the Rambam there are two dinim in asking for forgiveness.  One is a din in teshuva, the limud in Yoma tells us that one's teshuva is not complete until they appease the wronged.  In Bava Kammah, as the name of the tractate indicates, it is a law in damages.  When it comes to paying for damage goods, the obligation is to reimburse the one damaged.  For that one does not need to ask for forgiveness.  However, is one causes bodily harm to another individual, no payment can fully make that up.  That is what the Mishna in B.K. sees from the story of Avimelech.  He was a gentile, not commanded in teshuva, his request for michela is a choval u'mazzik law, in order to compensate for causing damage to another person, appeasement is required.  That is why the Rambam limits this law to causing bodily pain for causing monetary damage it suffices to merely repay for the damage.  With this we can understand other differences in the Rambam in the two laws.  In Teshuva he writes, צָרִיךְ לְפַיְּסוֹ וְלִפְגֹּעַ בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְחל לוֹ. לֹא רָצָה חֲבֵרוֹ לִמְחל לוֹ מֵבִיא לוֹ שׁוּרָה שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם מֵרֵעָיו וּפוֹגְעִין בּוֹ וּמְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ. לֹא נִתְרַצָּה לָהֶן מֵבִיא לוֹ שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית. לֹא רָצָה מְנִיחוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ וְזֶה שֶׁלֹּא מָחַל הוּא הַחוֹטֵא.  Why does he add פיוס ורצוי ןמ the Laws of Teshuva but not in the Laws of Chovel U'mazzik?  Furthermore, why does he mention 3 times is the charm in the Laws of Teshuva but in Choval he indicates you must receive mechilah?  Because in Chovel, the point is to receive the pardon of the damaged for the damage caused, for that it is enough to receive a pardon.  On the other hand, if a pardon is not received, there still is a monetary obligation upon you.  For teshuva, more than a pardon is necessary, you must appease him.  On the other hand, once you did your obligation to attempt to do teshuva, 3 times, more is not required. 

The end of the Mishna in Bava Kammah says ומנין שאם לא מחל לו שהוא אכזרי שנאמר (בראשית כ, יז) ויתפלל אברהם אל האלהים וירפא אלהים את אבימלך וגו'.  The Rambam cites this halacha in three places.  In the Laws of Deot (6:6) he says וְאִם חָזַר וּבִקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לִמְחֹל לוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְחֹל. וְלֹא יְהֵא הַמּוֹחֵל אַכְזָרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ יז) "וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם אֶל האלקים.  In Teshuva (2:10) he adds that there is an issur not to be mochel.  אָסוּר לָאָדָם לִהְיוֹת אַכְזָרִי וְלֹא יִתְפַּיֵּס אֶלָּא יְהֵא נוֹחַ לִרְצוֹת וְקָשֶׁה לִכְעֹס וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּבַקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ הַחוֹטֵא לִמְחל מוֹחֵל בְּלֵב שָׁלֵם וּבְנֶפֶשׁ חֲפֵצָה.  In Chovel (5:10) he adds details for when one should be mochel, וְאָסוּר לַנֶּחְבָּל לִהְיוֹת אַכְזָרִי וְלֹא יִמְחל אֵין זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ הַחוֹבֵל וְנִתְחַנֵּן לוֹ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וְיָדַע שֶׁהוּא שָׁב מֵחֶטְאוֹ וְנִחָם עַל רָעָתוֹ יִמְחל לוֹ. וְכָל הַמְמַהֵר לִמְחל הֲרֵי הוּא מְשֻׁבָּח וְרוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ:  Why does he add that here?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 28 Chukas sicha 2) explains that it depends who the focus is on.  In Deot, the focus is on the person doing the mechilah, his deot.  From that perspective, one should grant mechilah once it is asked for and not be cruel to hold out for a more serious expression of regret.  In Choval, the focus is on the one who caused the damage.  One should grant mechilah to that person only after he has seriously fulfilled his obligation of seriously asking for a pardon in order to ascertain the damager fulfilled their obligation of asking for a pardon. In Teshuvah, the focus is on the appeasement of the damager to the one damaged for that is his obligation in teshuvah, he must appease the damaged party and hence he says when he has been appeased, it is forbidden for the damaged party to be cruel and withhold forgiveness.