[Avodah] All transgressions are sins?

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked:
> I am looking for a clear source that every transgression
> of a negative comandment is a sin which requires teshuva.
> ...
> Where does it say that violation of every negative
> commandent constitutes a sin which causes spiritual
> degradation that requires teshuva? Obviously a negative
> commandemnt means don't do it. But is it a spiritual
> blemish?

I can't imagine what could possibly lead someone to think that one might violate G-d's Word and not have to apologize to Him for it.

"Is it a spiritual blemish?" How can it NOT be? Maybe we need to define our terms. I've been led to understand that a "spiritual blemish" is something which separates me from the Source of sprituality. It seems to me that disobeying Him would meet that criterion.

"Where does it say...?" -- Lamah li k'ra? Sevara hu!

Please forgive me if any of the above sounds flippant and insulting. I do not mean to insult the question nor the questioner. My intention, rather, is to underscore how very basic this quesion is, and to remind everyone (myself included) that it is the most basic questions which tend to have the most difficult answers.

> In particular I am studying the prohibition of ona'ah -
> fraud. It is prohibited for someone to overcharge by a
> sixth. If he overcharges more the sale is invalid while
> if he overcharges less than a sixth it is assumed that
> the buyer is mochel - and presumably there is no sin.

I personally have NOT learned this topic in depth, so what I suggest may be totally off-base. But I'll suggest it anyway.

Why would there be a presumption that the buyer is mochel and that there is no sin? That is certainly an innacurate description of how *I'd* feel if I was overcharged "only" 10%. Or even if I was overcharged "only" 2%.

My understanding is that the buyer is NOT presumed to say, "It's only a small amount; I'll be mochel." Rather, what he probably says is, "It's only a small amount; Not worth making a fuss over." These two are VERY different. (In the former, an offense was forgiven; in the latter, the offense was *not* forgiven.)

As I said, I have not learned this topic in depth, and so I pose this question to those who have done so:

Suppose I sell something to you. The facts of the case are that I overcharged you by 10%, but neither of us realizes this. The halacha is very clear that the sale is valid; the object is yours and the money is mine. There is no question who owns what. Later, one of us, or both of us, realizes that I overcharged you. There is *still* no question about who owns what. But other questions arise: Do I need to apologize to you? Can I really keep the extra money, or should I return it?

It might not be ona'ah, but there are a whole bunch of Bein Adam L'Chaveiros which I *have* violated and need to do teshuva for. At the very least, I've hurt your feelings. I probably wasted some of your time too. I've deprived you of whatever it was that you would have otherwise spent that money on. And so on.

(It seems that this next paragraph is regarding the case where the overcharging was *above* the 1/6 cutoff point. Or maybe it was exactly *at* the 1/6 mark?)

> Is it necessary to do teshuva for overcharging by a
> sixth? The halacha is that if you are overcharged you
> have a finite amount of time to complain and then go to
> court to collect the overcharge. After that time has
> passed you can not collect in court. If you don't
> complain by that time it would seem to be assumed you
> are mochel. If you are mochel how can there be a sin?

Please consider the word "mochel". One cannot be mochel, unless there is something for that mechilah to apply to. Regardless of whether the mechilah is for an offense or for a debt, the thing is very real. In the case at hand, I'd say that if the victim chooses not to exercize his right to a refund of the overcharged money, this clearly demonstrates that he does *have* a right to that money. And if he does have a right to the money, it can only be because the seller got possesion of it on illegal grounds.

> Basically I am asking whether there is a group of
> prohibitions which when violated do not constitute sins
> even though they do require payment.

Good question. May I suggest mining the sugya of "chetzi shiur" for further evidence. "Chetzi shiur" is an odd case which might fit some of the characteristics of what you're looking for. It is clearly forbidden, and does require teshiva, even though it is not punishable. At least not by the Beis Din Shel Mata, though I'm not sure about the Beis din Shel Maala.

Perhaps a comparison of Chetzi Shiur and Ona'ah will show similarities to demonstrate that Ona'ah does cause spiritual blemish even when below the 1/6 cutoff. Or perhaps it will show differences to demonstrate that Ona'ah does not cause spiritual blemish provided that it is below the 1/6 cutoff.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m6eMAfyT1XxLRNtZDSDqS2PPIFWk6nYzLAHKhH8P5CEjC1E/