The gemara says that the punishment for faulty weights and measures is worse than the punishment for arayos because teshuva is not a possibility since there is no way to actually return to all the people who were ripped off. R' Elchonon asks, why is this considered a "chumrah" of middos u'mishkalos? Since technically teshuva should work, just that there is a technicality that he doesn't know who to return to, it isn't a "chumrah" of middos u'mishkalos. Furthermore, he is an o'nes in the ability to do teshuva so why is the punishment so severe? Perhaps the gemara is saying that by other aveiros where teshuva is usually a possibility, even if in one particular situation he is an o'nes from being able to do teshuva, the aveira isn't inherently more severe since at the time it was violated, teshuva was assumed to be a possibility. But, when it comes to bad weights and measures, he knows from the start that it will be impossible to return the money to the customers, yet he decides to do the aveira anyway. The fact that he is an o'nes from being able to do teshuva doesn't lighten the issur since he knew from the beginning that he wouldn't have the ability to do teshuva. Based on this approach, the question of tosafos is answered. Tosafos asks, how is this worse that arayos where a mamzer is born which is a מעוות לא יוכל לתקון and teshuva is not a possibility? Even if we assume like the assumption of Tosafos that when a mamzer is born, teshuva isn't a possibility, it still isn't as severe as bad weights and measures because at the time of the ma'aseh aveirah they didn't know for sure that a mamzer would be conceived. Whereas, by selling with bad weights and measures it is obvious from the start that teshuva wouldn't be a possibility, yet he chooses to do it anyway.
3 comments:
Interesting answer; i like it; however can it be asked that we say kol ha'omer i'll sin and will do teshuva his teshuva is not accepted' so a fellow is obviously not contemplating the notion of teshuva at the time of the aveira and therefore from his perspective the ability to do teshuva or not is irrevalent in the context of the stringency of the aveira ?
perhaps a small he'ora on your 'he'ora'
Thank you! As i was writing this answer, i was wondering how this fits with אחטא ואשוב. I think that the it can be reconciled by saying that he isn't sinning with the thought that teshuva will take away the aveira (which is a bein adam l'makom calculation), but he does consider the fact that on a bein adam l'chaveiro level he will always be able to make it up to the person. whereas, when he cheats on the weights and measures he realizes that he will never be able to repay those who he stole from.
I hear; though what about any aveira bein adam lamokom i.e. eating a 'dovor osur' where we find it's possible to do teshuva yet there i would think it's not possible to make your differentiation as you say by aveiros bein adam l'chaveiro?
Maybe we're forced to say that subconsciously one knows that there is no teshuva and that ought to have an impact on his actions even though one doesn't think through the reality of him doing teshuva (or not) at the time of doing the aveira.
Also on another point - i would think the fact that he can't do teshuva is not a halachic o'nes since he brought himself into this situation and is a big discussion in Rishonim, I believe.
Thank You
(I'm not learning the sugya but just wanted to check it out...)
Post a Comment