The Gemorah implies that the person who did a sin and didn't repent, his offering is זבח רשעים תועבה and is an invalid korban. However, the Rambam rules in (מעשה קרבנות (ג:ד that only the קרבן of a מומר or one who is משומד to an averah isn’t accepted. It is clear that the korban of a one-time offender is accepted and isn't invalidated because of זבח רשעים תועבה. This Rambam seems to fly in the face of the Gemorah? The Achronim say that the Gemorah doesn't mean that זבח רשעים will create aפסול in the korban because the person has a שם רשע. What the Gemorah means is that the korban won't atone for the owner (like a korban offered שלא לשמה,) because the person is still in violation of the issur. For something that the individual is still in violation of, there can be no atonement. That's the answer to the Minchas Chinuch's question, even if the person is no longer a רשע, as long as the sin he is bringing the korban for isn't fully atoned, there can be atonement through the korban. The Rambam is telling us when the korban actually becomes disqualified and that is only in the case of aמומר or משומד and that is derived from a different source different source, מכם להוציא מומר ראה רמב"ם הנ"ל וחולין ה: ועיין היטב ברש"י שם ד"ה דלאו חיובא שי"ל כונתו כנ"ל.
The Rambam records the law that one who brings a sacrifice must repent twice. Once at the beginning of the laws of Teshuva and a second time at the end of the 3rd Ch. Of מעשה קרבנות. Why does the Rambam repeat this law? The Briskors say we see that there are 2 dinim in the vidduy of a korban. One law is a din in teshuva. Part of teshuva is to recite vidduy and the teshuva process is expressed when offering the korban. This is what the Rambam in the Laws of Teshuva is teaching us. There is another law, that is a din in a korban that one must say what the korban is being offered for. That is the essence of the vidduy, not as teshuva. The proof is that the Rambam says even when offering a שלמים, which isn't offered as a כפרה one must sayדברי שבח when bringing the korban. Another proof to this difference is that the Rambam also says that the person says עויתי וכו עשיתי תשובה. In the Laws of Teshuva he adds additional text and doesn’t say that the person says I did teshuva. Why these differences in the two places? The reason for this is because when it comes to the korban, the person already finished his teshuva process and said vidduy, he is just coming to explain the essence of the korban is for his sin.
The Achronim ask how can one recite vidduy when offering the korban if it is done while leaning upon the korban and the Gemorah in Yoma 87b says that vidduy must be recited while standing? Now we understand that the vidduy of the korban isn’t that of teshuva, so it doesn’t have to be recited while standing (L’Tshuvas Hashana Laws of Teshuva (1:1) and Masaes Hamelech Zevachim (7b.))
Based upon the Rambam in the Laws of Teshuva its difficult
why didn’t the Gemorah say that the korban shouldn’t atone because it is
lacking vidduy? The Rambam in the
laws of Teshuva never mentions that an עולה requires vidduy. It would seem since it is not an obligation
to bring it for a sin, it will effect atonement even without vidduy, it
is only because of זבח
רשעים תועבה that it won’t affect atonement (see גרי"ד מירושלים.)
However, even though the Gemorah says the עולה isn’t מכפר, Rashi (1:4) says that an עולה atones for עשה
ולאו הניתק לעשה. The Rambam (מעשה קרבנות (ג:יד says the same thing. So is it a כפרה or not? (See Tosfos Zevachim, וצ"ב.) The Rokaoch laws of Teshuva 28 that says
even though teshuva alone works for an עשה, the person will still receive a little
bit of pain from heaven. Why is
this? The Gemorah says that the עולה comes as a present to Hashem. The Tanya in Egeres Hateshuva Ch. 2
explains that it is true that a person is cleansed from the sin through the process
of teshuva, the person’s relationship with Hashem is marred and in order
to get back in good graces one brings an עולה.
Since nowadays we don’t have the capability of bringing korbanot the
Kabbalists taught numbers of fasts that will get the person back into good
graces. The fasts aren’t part of the
process of teshuva, they are to remove the affects that the sin leaves. (See there how he explains that one can make
up the fasts through charity.)
It is clear that the Rambam understands that there is no atonement
via the שלמים
and that’s why he says that one says דברי שבח on the שלמים. The
Achronim point out that Rashi Taanis (23a) ד"ה פר הודאה is clear that even a שלמים requires vidduy of teshuva (see
Maharsha there) and that is how the Ralbag Divrei Hayamim 2 (30:22) explains
the verse there. [See also Tosfos Yoma
5a and Rash on Toras Kohanim (nedava 4:5.) However, it needs explanation for why would
there be vidduy if isn’t offered as atonement? Rashi Aracin (21a) ד"ה ממשכנין says that a shelamim atones for an עשה
(ומקורו מתנחומא
תצוה טו.) [However, it is noteworthy that the שמ"ק changes the text to עולה.] ]See Nitziv
Zevachim (29b) that it atones for the עשה of גמ"ח
where the details aren’t
clear, based upon that we can understand why it is different from the atonement
of the עולה. It is interesting that he feels the Rambam isn't a contradiction to Rashi for he understands that there is no vidduy said for a sin that isn't explicit. ]
(Based upon intro. to Emrei Chayn volume 4.)
who is emrei chan?
ReplyDelete