[Avodah] All transgressions are sins?

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, December 13, 2007 5:20 pm, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I am looking for a clear source that every transgression of a negative
: comandment is a sin which requires teshuva.

Wish I could help. I have a hashkafic stance that compels that
conclusion, but no maqor.

Let's go back a step... What do you mean by "sin" - cheit, avon, pesha
more than one of the above, etc...? You talk about transgressions and
sins, it would be easier if you spoke the jargon which was created by
/our/ mindset. I can't separate the notions of "transgression" from
"sin" in my head clearly enough to know what you are driving at. "Sin"
is the usual translation for "aveirah". "Transgression" is a
translation more closely related to its shoresh -- aveirah is about
violating rules. Pesha, of rebellion. Avon speaks of gasat ruach and
arlas haleiv -- the impact of sin on the soul. Cheit, perhaps, as RSRH
puts it, of "taking the coal from the fire" (related, but not the same
shoresh, as "shema yachteh begechalim") -- another reference to the
impact on the soul.

Does every lav violated require teshuvah? Well, pretend we detoured
into Izhbitz and aveirah lishmah, a worldview in which there are
aveiros which count to your credit. Now to get to hashkafos I /can/
wrap my head around...

But otherwise, if the aveirah causes the obligation for a chatas,
asham or olah, wouldn't hat mean that vidui and therefore teshuvah are
necessary?

: 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 would not assume this. In pereq Lulav haGazul the gemara separates
ba'alus from mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. The stolen lulav may be the
gazlan's once the owner is meya'esh, but it's still a mitzvah haba'ah
ba'aveirah. It's ill gotten gains, but still gains and still ill.

2-1/2 days later, on Sun, December 16, 2007 4:23am, R Daniel Eidensohn
wrote:
:> 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.
:>
: There are a number of authorities who claim that the Rambam holds that
: there is no Torah obligation to do teshuva

I do not believe that this is a question of whether there is a need to
do teshuvah. Rather, it's whether there can be a mitzvas asei whose
expression is entirely beleiv. Can a person be order about how to
feel? The Rambam similarly turns "lo sachmod" into manipulating people
in order to get something, not the desire itself.

Thus, Hil' Teshuvah opens by telling you that a heartfelt vidui is an
asei, even though teshuvah is not similarly described. Of course,
vidui is impossible without teshuvah; however, teshuvah is beleiv, and
vidui involves the mouth.


Between those two posts, on Sat, December 15, 2007 9:58 pm, on the
thread titled "The Kuzari, vindicated", R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: You are confusing the giving of the Torah and Taryag mitzvos with
: judgment Judgment of one's goodness/badness pre-dates and post-dates
: matan torah.

I am putting the reply here because I found that many of my comments
here also relate to my aforementioned hashkafic stance.

Hashem made a beris with Adam haRishon. In the days of Noach, He made
a revised one, loosening the issur on eating meat to an issur on eiver
min hachai. That, as far as I can tell, is the expression of the
"[j]dgment of one's goodness/badness [that] pre-dates and post-dates
matan torah."

Now you're suggesting that matan Torah was a beris with a nation, to
the exclusion of the individual, but the individual is judged by how
well he complies to it. Not only the 7 mitzvos benei Noach, but even
the other 606, are subject to judgment. Even though any healthy nation
has a certain number of low-lives, and therefore being one of them
doesn't put mean the person caused the nation's violation of the
covenant. I fail to see how that is sound.

As to the confusion.... I am going to recap part of my "Grand Unified
Theory", which I think I posted here at least once before. Leshitasi
(admittedly an explanation of my position, not a proof thereof):

HQBH created us because it is the nature of good to have someone to
whom to bestow that good. (An idea found in R' Saadia and the Ramchal,
and numerous other places.)

Hashem Himself is the greatest good, and that means that being able to
Create, as He does, is part of what He wishes to bestow upon us. Thus,
the giving was perforce left for us to complete -- we participate in
the creation of ourselves, our ability to receive His Good, and to
bestow that good on the rest of His world.

In order to tell us how to do that, HQBH gave us mitzvos. He gave the
world the Jewish People to instruct them, and the Torah to instruct
the Jewish People. That instruction is in our essential tachlis --
perfecting ourselves to be recipients of His Good, and thus Givers
made in His Image.

What we call sechar va'onesh is therefore not a consequence of the
mitzvos, but their cause. HQBH told us what to do or avoid doing in
order to maximize our ability to receive His good. Onesh is more
similar to a person who feels unwell after violating a doctor's orders
than someone who is beaten for not following his sargent's.

This is how Nefesh haChaim can tell us that the avos deduced the
entire corpus of mitzvos and issurim by being able to feel their souls
well enough to know what they need.

>From this end of things, there can't be a violation without a need for
teshuvah, because if it didn't harm the soul and require healing,
Hashem wouldn't have told us to avoid it.

First, because I see things in terms of personal soul, rather than
kelal Yisrael's corporate soul, I can't even get started relating to
RRW's or R' Yeshayah Lebowitz's position. It's not simply a national
contract, it is a toolset on a road to a particular goal. And the
nation exists to serve the ability for individuals to reach the goal,
and in one case, to help other nations serve that function. Thus the
"goi qadosh".

Second, by seeing things as amenable to modeling as "medical" in
addition to the more usual judicial one, I avoid some of the
arbitrariness that I feel plagues RYL's position.

RYL's shitah, with its assertion that we follow the law for no reason
beyond it's the terms of the beris is acutely subject to the Euthyphro
dilemma. That either G-d's choice of laws was arbitrary, and the
difference between His choosing "lo sirtzach" vs "sirtzach" was
happenstance. Or, one is compelled to conclude that the inherent moral
superiority of "lo sirtzach" is a criterion by which Hashem chose,
something to which even He is subject.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv