[Avodah] partial teshuva

[Micha Berger]

I think there are two distinct questions, but also that the difference
is not the relevent point. But just to be clear, there is no reason to
assume that teshuvah as a means of reparing past damage is necessarily
teshuvah as one of the 613 mitzvos.

The gemara's case (already mentioned by RAM; Qiddushin 49b) of qidushin
"al menas she'ani tzadiq" is common Shabbos Shuva derashah fodder. As
is the story of R' Elazar ben Durdaya (AZ 17a) who got his title and his
olam haba from "only" incomplete teshuvah. But both of those are about a
change in the person from rasha ("afilu rasha gamur" -Qiddushin, "shelo
hiniach zonah achas ba'olam" -AZ) to tzadiq, not about qiyum hamitzvah.

An extreme example, the Chinukh reads Rambam Hil' Teshuvah 1:1 as saying
the mitzvah is vidui, not teshuvah itself! After all, the Rambam writes:
"Kol hamitzvos shebaTorah... im avad adam al 1 meihen... KESHEya'aseh
teshuvah veyashuv meichet'o, chayyav lehisvados." WHEN a person does
teshuvah, there is a chiyuv to do vidui.

RYBS saves the Rambam from this implication by making a chiluq between
maaseh mitzvah (vidui) and qiyum hamitzvah (yashuva meichet'o). Pashut
peshat is like the Chinukh. And in any case the Chinukh himself qualifies
as a data point for my purposes, to show that rishonim didn't assume the
requirements of the mitzvah needn't be the same as the requirements for
repairing the past.

(Notably, this doesn't discuss teshuvah from a personal flaw rather
than specific cha'atim. I believe the Rambam addresses this other kind
of teshuvah with the second form of vidui in 2:8.)

LAD, I think there is only one mitzvah where partial qiyum is
stil a qiyum, but I think it's a derivative of the above about
teshuvah-as-repair. There is a strange Peirush haMishnayos lehaRambam
on Menachos 4:1. The mishnah has 4 halakhos, and the Rambam's comments
on the first two appear to contadict.

a- Tekheiles isn't me'aqaves the white strings, nor visa versa. The
Rambam says that even so, they are one mitzvah (#84 in Seifer haMitzvos).

b- Tehillah shel rosh isn't me'aqeves the shel yad, nor visa versa. The
Rambam counts these as separate mitzvos (#79 and #80) among the 613, and
refers you to his explanation in Seifer haMitzvos. But that proof that
they are distinct mitzvos is that they must be if each is not me'aqev
the other!

Why is it a proof for tefillin, but for tzitzis the Rambam can say that
even so, it's one mitzvah?

Li nir'eh, it's something tzitzis inherited from teshuvah. "Velo
sasuru acharei levavkhem ve'acharei eineikhem, asher atem zonim
achareihem." Tzitzis is framed by HQBH as a tool for teshuvah. To *stop*
straying after what we see and covet "that we are currently straying
after." Teshuvah perforce can never be performed entirely. No matter how
much I repair, there is always more to work on. And therefore a tool
for teshuvah-as-repair needn't have all the elements and reminders of
the full mitzvah in order to be of qiyum-level value.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
micha at aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning