[Avodah] All transgressions are sins?

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

(Caveat: RDE wrote, "There are a number of authorities who claim that the Rambam holds that there is no Torah obligation to do teshuva." Yes, I concede that such interpretations exist. It is obvious that this entire thread is going aliba the *other* authorities, who says that there are at least some cases where there *is* an obligation to do teshuva. This thread is trying to define the border between acts which require teshuva and acts which do not require teshuva.)

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Furthermore we are dealing with rather circular reasoning.
> Since it obviously causes a blemish when transgressing
> G-d's word it requires teshuva. Where does it say that every
> transgression causes spiritual blemish and where does it say
> that every transgression requires teshuva?

It seems to me when one is stuck in "circular reasoning", that is precisely whe defining one's terms becomes most critical. In the current case, we need to ask about three ideas:
1 - blemish
2 - transgressing G-d's word
3 - requires teshuva

What do these ideas mean? To what extent to they overlap? Are they identical, or are there cases which fit one but not another?

I do not recall ever hearing of an act which was a sin but did not require teshuva. But I *do* seem to recall hearing of cases which do not require *kapara*. If someone can give us examples of that, perhaps it will help here.

> It is either obvious that one must do teshuva or that teshuva
> is optional. I am going one step beyond that by asking whether
> sometimes teshuva is not needed for a transgression because
> not every transgression is a sin. To repeat my question. Where
> is it stated that every transgression is a sin that causes
> spiritual damage which requires repentance?

Again we need to define terms, and consider to what extent the definitions overlap. There seems to be a presumption that "transgression" is a broad category, which certainly contains all those acts which do require teshuva, and might also contain certain acts which do not require teshuva.

Yet, we do find examples of acts which do not meet the technical criteria for "sin", but DO require teshuva nevertheless. One such case was David Hamelech and Bas Sheva. If "sin" is defined as actions which violate Halacha, then this was a wierd case which requires teshuva even though it was not a "sin". But if "sin" is defined as actions which are "wrong", i.e. which G-d expects a person to avoid regardless of technicalities, then David was a simple case of a sin which does require teshuva.

What I'm trying to say is that if we have cases of acts which are *not* transgressions, and yet *do* require teshuva, then I doubt we'll find any examples of acts which *are* transgressions and yet *don't* require teshuva.

But I do admit that lo ra'inu aino raaya -- just because I can't find an example, that doesn't prove my case.

But I still maintain that the solution to the question (if there is one) can be found ONLY by carefully defining the terms. If we fail to define the terms adequately, then any proposed solution will be easily shot down by saying "That's not what I meant." But if we do work on defining our terms, aiming at a better definition of "transgression" or "sin", and at a better rule of "when is teshuva required", then the hope is that we'll be able to come up with a category of "transgressions which require teshuva", and a category of "transgressions which do not require teshuva".

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for the latest rates on money market accounts!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mK26VUg6kLNRxKCUU17lKJh8QzV9QVsRX15AmUOV3HsA63w/