כל מצוה שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתוודות לפני האל ברוך הוא.
So the Rambam describes two varieties or forms of avera, zadon and shogeg. What if a person does something bederech misasek? What if a person does something and he's ones? So misasek then this but let's talk about misasek first. What's the definition of a misasek? The difference between a misasek and a shogeg is someone who's shogeg is fully aware of what he's doing but he's unaware that it's assur. So he knows he's putting the light on. Either he forgot that it's Shabbos or he doesn't know that you're not allowed to put lights on on Shabbos but he's fully aware that he's putting the light on. That's shogeg. A misasek is he leans against the wall and he doesn't realize that there's a light switch there and that in leaning against the wall he's going to be putting the light putting the light on. Misasek is chisoron yedias hamaase. He doesn't he's unaware of what he's doing. So Rav Akiva Eiger holds that with the exception of Shabbos in kol hatorah kulah that misasek is a maase avera but just patur korban. That even if it would be a דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת, misasek has a patur korban which is a drasha in the Gemara but Rav Akiva Eiger says the pshat in that is agam that it's a maase avera but there is a patur korban. Rav Chaim was of the opinion that misasek is not a maase avera in kol hatorah kulah as well not only in Shabbos. Rav Akiva Eiger thinks Shabbos is different because melachos Shabbos has to be a meleches machsheves and if a person is a misasek so that's not doesn't qualify as meleches machsheves. But in kol hatorah kulah Rav Akiva Eiger was of the opinion that misasek agam that there is a patur korban is a maase avera. And Rav Chaim said no that misasek in kol hatorah kulah is also not a maase avera. So according to Rav Chaim it's straightforward why we wouldn't expect misasek here in terms of chiyuv teshuvah that the Rambam should be mentioning misasek it's not a maase avera so there's obviously no chiyuv teshuvah. According to Rav Akiva Eiger so lachora we do have an open an open question. What about ones? If a person is ones to do something is is that a maase avera? So here I think it's the Chemdas Shlomo who has a teshuvah where he says that he thinks that ones is not a maase avera and Rav Chaim held that it is a maase avera and Rav Chaim had kama vechama rayos to that. It says it's mechaper on onus also. That that even if the aveira that happened b'onus, that's also part of the kapara of the se'ir hamishtaleiach. If there's no maise aveira, there's nothing which is nitpas in kapara. Reb Chaim also pointed to the fact that the Rambam has in the Minyan Hamitzvos and Sefer Hamitzvos as well, מצוה רצד in the Lo Sa'aseis is שלא לענוש האונס שנאמר ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. Rambam has it as a mitzvas lo sa'aseh not to give an onesh to someone who's onus. Reb Chaim pointed to this also. I'm sort of saying it a little bit too quickly and simplistically. If the din of ולנערה לא תעשה דבר is megaleh that there's no maise aveira, that onus is not a maise aveira, so the mitzva as the Rambam states it doesn't doesn't make any sense. If there's no maise aveira, so to punish someone who's onus is no different than I don't know if you'd give him malkus, it's no different than hitting any one of Yisrael, and if you give him misa, it's no different than than than than killing anyone. So maybe the Rambam should have said ladun ha'onus that that the onus is chaf mipasha, but to say it the way the Rambam does shelo la'anosh ha'onus mashma no, it is a maise aveira. On some level he did something, an aveira for which there's a chiyuv malkus, for which there's a chiyuv misa, and אף על פי כן, so Beis Din is muzhar not not to punish him. So Reb Chaim was of the opinion Reb Chaim was of the opinion that again mis'aseik is not a maise aveira, but onus is a maise aveira. So then according to Reb Chaim, so the Rambam here we need to understand mitsad that he doesn't mention doesn't mention onus. Again, so for Reb Chaim onus is taka a p'tur onesh. The fact that that someone who's onus doesn't get the onesh Beis Din, so that's a din of p'tur onesh. It's not a din that the that the maise isn't considered a maise aveira, but it's a p'tur onesh. There's an amnesty, that he doesn't that he doesn't get an onesh, but but there was a maise aveira. Is he- I'm- Hello. Do you- to see over your shoulder Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Chelek Beis? Like the the third shelf there. Koton, this is the Rama in shin mem gimmel, here in Orach Chayim. קטן שהכה לאביו או עבר עבירה בקטנותו אע"פ שאין צריך תשובה כשהגדיל מ"מ טוב לו שיקבל על עצמו איזה דבר לתשובה ולכפרה אע"פ שעבר קודם שנעשה בן עונשין.
So a funny pshar, right? So on the one hand the Rama says that for an aveira that a person committed bekatnus, he's not chayav to do teshuva. But on the other hand it's good that he should do teshuva. So ma nafsha? If it wasn't a ma'aseh aveira, what's he doing teshuva for? If it was a ma'aseh aveira, why isn't he chayav to do teshuva? What's this pshara that it's tov to do, that it's tov to do teshuva, but there's no chiyuv to do teshuva? So the Gaon has on the Rama's mikol makom, that even though he's not chayav to do teshuva, that it's good to do teshuva, so the Gaon has a few interesting marei mekomos, and one of them he says is עיין סנהדרין נה נ"ו. If a beheima was nirba, so then the din is that not only the person who committed the aveira, mishkav beheima, gets skila, but you give skila to the beheima also, you kill the beheima also. So there are two reasons: One is takala, since the beheima was the source of takala for the person. And the other is kalon, the other is the shame, as long as this beheima is around, so then a sort of a memory, and there's something that keeps alive the memory of this shameful act. So do you have to have takala and kalon in order to give the animal skila? What happens if you have one without the other? What happens if you have kalon without takala? So the Gemara wants to bring a rayah as follows: What happens if the mishkav beheima involved either a koton or a ktana? Right? Either the ktana was nirbas by the beheima or the koton was rove'a the beheima. What happens if the mishkav beheima involved a koton or ktana? So the Gemara thinks that over here קלון איכא תקלה ליכא. There's the shame of this shameful act having happened, but there's no takala, I mean they're ktanim, there's no takala. And so the Gemara wants to bring a rayah from here that kalon is enough to give skila, because the braisa says that once the ktana is bas gimel, once the koton is ben tes, so then the beheima would get skila al yadam if there was mishkav beheima. And then the Gemara is doche the rayah and says no, תקלה נמי איכא ורחמנא הוא דחס. No, there is a takala, if the koton ben tes is bo'el habeheima, if the ktana bas gimel is נרבעת על ידי הבהמה, there is a takala. So the Gaon says what the question of whether or not there's takala by the koton is the question of whether or not a koton has a ma'aseh aveira. So the Gaon is giving marei mekomos. that a katan does have a ma'aseh aveira. So that means the Gaon now clarifies for us this psak of the Rema that we're trying to figure out, but what is it? Is it a chiyuv? Is it a ma'aseh aveira? Is it not a ma'aseh aveira? So the Gaon is clearly telling us the havana in the Rema is that it is a ma'aseh aveira. If it is a ma'aseh aveira, so why isn't there a chiyuv teshuva? If if when he was nine years old when he was ten years old it is a ma'aseh aveira, so why not say that when he's thirteen years old he now has a chiyuv teshuva? So the teretz is that you see that there's such a thing as a ma'aseh aveira, but a ma'aseh aveira that's not mechayev. And the pshat in ptur onesh is is broader than just ptur onesh. What ptur onesh reflects is that the ma'aseh is not mechayev. Yes it was a ma'aseh aveira, but it doesn't impose liability. Yes there was a ma'aseh aveira but it's not it's not mechayev. So mimmela says the Rema very well. Is he chayav to do teshuva? No, because because the ma'aseh aveira of a katan is not is not mechayev. Should he do teshuva? Yes he certainly should do teshuva because he did a ma'aseh aveira and tov lo what does he need that that stain for? tov lo that that he should do teshuva. So ptur onesh really is it's not again a narrow gziras hakasuv of ptur onesh. No, it represents, it reflects something deeper, dahinu that the ma'aseh isn't mechayev. And therefore the same way the ma'aseh's not mechayev an onesh, it's not mechayev teshuva either on the one hand. But m'idach gisa he did a ma'aseh aveira. So that's the Rema's shitah, tov lo that that he should do teshuva. So lichora that's the same pshat here regarding ones. ones, that's what the Toras Kohanim says, it is a ma'aseh aveira. Ella mai but there's a gziras hakasuv of ptur onesh. No, and the pshat in the ptur onesh of ones is the same as the pshat of the ptur onesh of a katan, dahinu again it's not just this narrow gziras hakasuv of ptur onesh. No, it's that a ma'aseh be-ones isn't mechayev. A ma'aseh be-ones isn't mechayev so it's not mechayev teshuva. But it is a ma'aseh aveira. That's what the Toras Kohanim says, it's itpasi bekappara. And that's why it's certainly a person can do teshuva, should do teshuva. He's not mechuyav to do teshuva. על חטא שחטאתי לפניך באונס וברצון a person certainly can and should do teshuva, but is he mechuyav to do teshuva? No. Exactly parallel to to this Rema by katan. And maybe you can say the same teretz for Rabbi Akiva Eiger by by mitasek. Maybe Rabbi Akiva Eiger will tell us the same thing for why the Rambam doesn't mention mitasek. Where is that Rambam and Marei Makomos again? The Gemara quotes a Baraisa that once a katan is ben tes, another Baraisa or Mishna whatever, that once a ktana is bas gimmel, so one of the many dinim that is triggered is that the behema would be niskela al yadan. If a katan ben tes is roiveh behema the behema would be niskela al yado, if a ktana bas gimmel is נרבע על ידי בהמה the behema would be niskela al yadan. Says the Gemara, so you see clear that over here there was no takala because they're ktanim. They didn't do anything wrong, there's no takala, but there is kalon, it's still it's still a shameful act that the katan or ktana was involved in. So you see that kalon is enough to give the behema skila. And the Gemara pushes back and says no, there was takala, but Rachmana hu d'chas, which means that the hagdara by katan and ktana is not that there's no ma'aseh aveira. No, takala ikka takala, there is a ma'aseh aveira but it's with a ptur onesh. And it should be a Zechus for us and for all of Klal Yisrael. Alright, so we'll stop there for today's Shiur.