The Road to Teshuva | Part 3, by Rav Moshe Taragin
Is Teshuva Too Foundational to be "A Mitzva"?
KMTT - the Torah Podcast
The Road to Teshuva | Part 3
So this is actually a shear or a discussion I was planning on having tomorrow on Mihasash and Monday, September 8th. I'm on the way back from Mahasana. Again, a lot of people in Chislar, don't typically associate September/Elle with a period of Hasanas. In Europe it was very uncommon, you're getting ready for Hodesh. Elle, you're getting ready for Erschutty and Kippur. Your mind should be on the Hasana or the Khrushbarjo, and certainly not during Erschutty and May Chiva. That was completely unheard of. After you and Kippur people had Hasanas, but not before. In Erschutty, things are obviously a little different. They're different every year because this is the time in between semesters, or right before the new year begins for young couples. Many of the men and women are in college, though. They're moving locations, starting new semesters, starting new college. The Israeli college year runs. It doesn't really end at a particular point, but the tests are more or less over right around now. You might bet, more at Gimmel later, opportunities to take tests, and then the semester resumes immediately after the Erschutty. So this is a big time of transition. So this is typically after the three weeks, and leading into Elle is when a lot of the weddings take place. So much semper, so much semper, so much semper, we need. And then on the wedding, I just realized I have to be at a shimah house tomorrow. So I won't be able to dive in with the Yeshiva Bachrim, and I won't be able to give this year. I'll notify them, but I wanted this to continue. For those who are listening on their own, the continuity shouldn't be disrupted. In the first year about what the truth is of Mitzvah, I mentioned how both were looking to see in the quarter of Sullivan. You'll claim that it's inconceivable that it's a volitionary, a volitional, excuse me, that it's optional, that it's voluntary. And I think it's inconceivable that the person would not want a rebuild and a reboot. In the second year, I asked a question, why did a Karishvara who not write in Mitzvah? From our perspective, in response to the not being in Mitzvah, of course, we don't see it as optional. We see it as morally compelling. Just like I mentioned, we've almost seen many aspects that aren't mandatory in a normative legal sense are still morally ethically compelling, and personally compelling. In the second year of the show I gave this morning, I spoke about why does a Karishvara who not write in Mitzvah, and I mentioned two possibilities. One is, inasmuch as true of us in exercise, the boldest exercise, pinnacle of implementing freedom of choice, not just about the world around you, but about the world within you, who you are, and authoring your identity and crafting your personality. So, since it's an implementation of free will, the Mitzvah has to be chosen freely. Because the decision to perform true of has to be free, and the experience of true of has to be the free decisions that human beings make, would be oxymoronic, antithetical for true to be a Mitzvah, and then for us to fill their operating freely to choose their own fate and their own destiny. The second issue I raised is that it's an opportunity in non-application, and that stretches the scope of, or the field of Chuvah. We don't study or repent merely for the obligations we failed at, the obligations we ignored, the errors that we violated, but also the opportunities we wasted. And by not framing Chuvah's mandatory, British brothel wants us to stretch Chuvah beyond the mandatory. But it's got something a little bit different, a lesser may experiential stamp on how you and I experienced Chuvah, and more from a, I'd say, Halach's stamp on how we evaluate Chuvah. Sometimes an experience can be so seminal and self-foundational that the term intentionally avoids referring to it as a or a Mitzvah. Let me give you two examples, and the two very different examples, but they dovetail, they overlap with one common ground. Is there a myth to believe in Hashem? That's a famous debate between, what I would say is most of the sharing we feel there is, and the Shitha's second-owning, which is the quarter by the matter, which is the quarter by the run by, and I believe in the beginning of the fact that Shitha is still the Cersei did not begin, but the Cersei did also. According to Khablu, Mahusai, the Ahakate Khablu is there outside. First, Akhirishpahr who wants us to accept Mahushemai, believe in Hashem, and only afterwards, Mitzvahr is now. The simple way to read this matters is that it's sequenced, say, "What comes first? What comes second?" But the Gohnam understood it, that it's not a sequence, but it's a precondition and a prerequisite. Without Khablu's Mahasam, the system of Mitzvahr's is hollow, is irrelevant, is meaningless. So therefore, belief and faith in Akhirishpahr was not a Mitzvah, it's what we'd call a pre-Mitzv or a proto-Mitzvah. It's the underbelly, it's the foundation, it's the Chassus of Mitzvahs. And because it's self-foundational, it can't be called a Mitzvahr, going to the Gohnam, because streamlining it into one of the 613 cells of a honeycomb of a hive would turn it into just that. I self-contained isolated experience, rather than a predicate or a foundation. Chantness is a Mitzvahr. Sitz is a Mitzvahr. Yibam is a Mitzvahr. But Amuna Akhirishpahrho is a pre-Mitzvahr. It's more important than a Mitzvahr's foundation of Mitzvahsr. A similar phenomena is exhibited when it comes to Talmatarra. Now unlike Amuna, there is no Sheetahr, which holds his own Mitzvahr to learn Torah. Of course not. When it comes to Amuna, there's a Mahalakus. Our Mitzvahr probably poskins. Again, it's not an afkimina, whether it's a Mitzvahr or not a Mitzvahr. We still believe in Akhirishpahrho especially, it's prerequisites. But regarding Talmatarra, it's certainly a Mitzvahr. But yet the Torah is very coy about not writing a Mitzvahr to learn Torah. The classic reference point is the Pasthik and Kriyajmab. Is she Nantam live on echah vedibar kabam. If you have to teach, you have to learn. So it's implied. Implicit when the Mitzvahr teaching is learning. And it's the same question. If Talmatarra sells central, why not just come out and say it? Now there are Pasthik and Mitzvahr that seem to be more frontal. But traditionally, most of you showed him derived, and some of you showed him that point to those Pasthik. Classically, most of you showed him point to the Pasthik abhishin Nantam live on echah, as the Mccar for the Mitzvahr of Talmatarra. Same question. Why does the Torah sell evasive? Why is the Torah so cryptic in its description of the Mitzvahr of Talmatarra? Why is it so nebulous? And the answer is again, that Talmatarra is too important to be a Mitzvah. As the Ramam writes, when he describes Talmatarra Nehaskarushma, "Shu tamu toha galdal sha kal kalibo." Without Talmatarra, we don't know asham. We can't fulfill as well. And the hab of religious identity vanishes. And it disappears. It's the core of religion. Even though there's a Mitzvahr, the Torah wants to avoid articulating the Mitzvahr in the way that it would articulate the Mitzvahr of Lulahr, or sukkah, or al-hil-as-matsahr. So the two are very different phenomena. One is about faith, which may not be a Mitzvahr, going to the Gonim. And even if it is a Mitzvahr, going to the Mitzvahr, again the Torah doesn't articulate it in a language of commandment. And al-hil-as-a-sham just describes it. Asham. And with Talmatarra, it's obviously a Mitzvahr, but again the Torah isn't at forthright in the scrubbing as a Mitzvahr. Similar phenomena, similar feel surrounds Chubahr. There is a danger of streamlining and shrinking Chubahr into a Mitzvahr relating to a particular period relating to specific activities. During Elol, during the first two weeks of Tishrei, is the time of Chubahr, dear sukkahr, sashm, behe matsahr. Krahubhi al-Sokharov. And even if we don't limit it to a time frame, it could be limited to a particular action. I've sinned, I want to conduct a moral inventory, miss as I've failed at. As the pons to, which was implicit in the earlier Shrin, veering Chubahr as this lifelong process of searching for a better use, searching for a deeper relationship, recovering from the inevitable failures. That visit human experience, Adlam insad and varets. Asham. Asham. Asham. Asham. To claim that there really isn't a Mitzvahr. That there really isn't a Mitzvahr. We've brought in the scope and the sweep of Chubahr beyond Mitzvahr's scenarios to include voluntary decisions we've made in life. Well, if Chubahr's volitional, where we enter, it will also be attuned to the choices we've made that lie outside of Halakhic parameters. The third issue is because it highlights or showcases the supremacy, the seminal nature of Chubahr. That it's too important to be a Mitzvahr. And of course, even if you disagree with the Mitzvahr, there's a big debate in the rambamr. If you're like the rambamr, there's a Mitzvahr. The phenomena of its command being camouflaged or concealed, that phenomena still speaks to Chubahr being surpassing or being an experience which surpasses a particular Mitzvahr. And a particular cell of this honeycomb of Mitzvahr, that I can just briefly deliver to us. So, very brief, I'm about to get home. Mitzvahr, on Tuesday, we'll pick up again. But it's about to shine with light shear and I'll move to some other topics of Chubahr.