Your question is asked by CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER GITIN 55a DH VE'AL HA'MARISH: The Takanah of Marish was only for Yisrael, while in contrast the people of Ninveh should have been obligated to remove the beam and this is not merely a Chumra?

Chasam Sofer answers that if one looks carefully at the verses in the Book of Yonah, one can understand the sort of Teshuvah they did in Ninveh. It states that they returned "from their bad way" and from "the CHAMAS in their hands".

There are 2 questions: (1) why does the verse specify both Teshuvah from their "bad way" and also from "Chamas"? (2) why is the word "Chamas" (taking something forcibly even if it was paid for) used instead of "Oshek" (holding something which one owes to one's friend?

Chasam Sofer gives an ingenious answer. He quotes RAMBAN who writes that even after the Takanah of Marish, one still transgresses the prohibition of Chamas because even though one paid the original owner the value of the beam, nevertheless since he sold the beam against his will, this constitutes "Chamas".

Chasam Sofer explains that in Ninveh it was both (a) the thief, and also (b)the original owner, who did Teshuvah. The Teshuvah from the bad way ("Derekh") refers to (b), the original owner behaved with "Derech Eretz" between man and fellow-man, and agreed that the thief should not have to demolish his house in order to remove the beam, but was satisfied to receive the money.

The Teshuvah of (a) was that he did not even want to transgress Chamas. Even though the beam in his hands was not actually "Gezel", because the owner had waived ("Mochel") this, nevertheless he did not want his friend's beam to be in his possession even though he had paid for it. Therefore he demolished his entire house.

It appears to me at first glance that the fact that Sefer Yonah tells us about the Teshuvah of Ninveh, and that this was used as an example for Klal Yisrael on fast days, suggests that in principle the Teshuvah of everyone in the world - on the Mitzvos that each individual is commanded on - is basically similar.

However I would like to suggest that there is at least one difference - this concerns the Mitzvah of "Viduy" (confession). If one looks carefully at the way the RAMBAM opens HILCHOS TESHUVAH 1:1, one notices that he does not say explicitly that there is a Mitzvah to do Teshuvah. Rather he writes that if a person commits a transgression, then when he does Teshuvah, he is obligated to perform the positive commandment of Viduy.

The Rambam's source is Bamidbar 5:6-7. There Moshe Rabeinu is commanded "Speak to the children of Yisrael", that they should do Viduy. Therefore it appears that Bnei Noach do not possess this Mitzvah. With the Teshuvah of Ninveh also, one does not find that they did Viduy, but rather prayed to Hash-m to save them, and abandoned their bad ways. It seems that the special Mitzvah of Viduy - to tell Hash-m that we did "Aveiros" and what they were, is unique to Klal Yisrael.

Generally speaking though, it seems that the outlook on Teshuvah is ultimately global. See Gemara Kidushin 40b that the world is judged according to the majority. By doing one Mitzvah, how happy a person can be, that he tilted himself and the whole world, to the balance of merit, and saved the whole world! [see Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 3:1-2]

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

1) It appears to me at first glance that the fact that Sefer Yonah

tells us about the Teshuvah of Ninveh,

and that this was used as an example for Klal Yisroel on fast days, suggests that in principle the Teshuvah of everyone in the world - on the Mitzvos that each individual is commanded on - is basically similar.

However I would like to suggest that there is at least one difference - this concerns the Mitzvah of "Viduy" (confession). If one looks carefully at the way RAMBAM opens HILCHOS TESHUVAH 1:1, one notices that he does not say explicitly that there is a Mitzvah to do Teshuvah. Rather he writes that if a person commits a transgression, when he does Teshuvah, he is obliged to perform the positive commandment of Viduy.

Rambam's source is Bamidbar 5:6-7. There Moshe Rabeinu is commanded "Speak to the children of Yisroel", that they should do Viduy. Therefore it appears that Bnei Noach do not possess this Mitzvah. With the Teshuvah of Ninveh also, one does not find that they did Viduy, but rather prayed to Hash-m to save them, and abandoned their bad ways. It seems that the special Mitzvah of Viduy - to tell Hash-m that we did "Aveiros" and what they were, is unique to Klal Yisroel.

Generally speaking though, it seems that the outlook on Teshuvah is ultimately global. See Gemara Kidushin 40b that the world is judged according to the majority. By doing one Mitzvah, how happy a person can be, that he tilted himself and the whole world, to the balance of merit, and saved the whole world!

[see Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 3:1-2]

2) It appears from our Gemara that the conduct of the people of Ninveh concerning the animals was in fact commendable (it would appear from Talmud Yerushalmi though, that it was not commendable - possibly we will have to explain this later on, BS'D ).

Even though it would appear from the declaration " If you do not have mercy upon us we will not have mercy on the animals ", that this was a blackmail sort of threat, Chalilah, to Hash-m, nevertheless RASHI DH IM puts this in a more positive light, when he explains that they were saying that just as Hash-m teaches to be merciful to all his creations, this should also include being merciful on the people.

EIN YAAKOV, in the name of ETZ YOSEF, explains further that the idea was to arouse the people's mercy on the animals (by placing the children separate from their mothers and to show the babies need for their mothers' care). This would arouse the compassion of the people of Ninveh for their animals. The fact that the compassion of the people of Ninveh was aroused on the animals would have a similar effect in

Heaven - that Hash-m would have mercy on the people, because of the principle that "Anyone who is merciful on others will be dealt with mercifully by Hash-m".

KOL TUV

D. Bloom

1) Even though I wrote that according to our Gemara the people of Ninveh behaved well in the incident concerning the animals, nevertheless it seems that TALMUD YERUSHALMI (2:1 end of p.16 in my edition) disagrees with Bavli and understood that their behavior was not so commendable.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said there that the people of Ninveh did a "deceptive Teshuvah" ("Teshuvah shel Ramayos") in order that their Teshuvah should be accepted [see KORBON Ha-EIDAH]. They separated between the calves, who they placed indoors, and between their mothers, who were left outside. Similarly the young donkeys and foals were separated from their mothers. The babies cried for their mothers and the mothers cried for their babies. To the sound of this wailing the people of Ninveh said to Hash-m "if you do not have compassion on us we also will not have compassion on the animals". In effect the people of Ninveh were cruel to the animals.

However it seems that there are also other differences between Bavli and Yerushalmi, because Yerushalmi (top p.17) learns from the words stated concerning Ninveh "and from the Chamas in their hands" that Rabbi Yochanan explained that they only returned the forcibly grabbed possessions in their hands, but they did not return what they had already placed in their closets and boxes.

There seems in general therefore to be a difference between the approach of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi towards the Teshuvah of Ninveh - according to Bavli it was highly positive, whilst according to Yerushalmi there were also less praiseworthy aspects to it.

2) It appears from MEIRI that the takona of Marish applies also to Bnei Noach (not like Chasam Sofer wrote as we cited above). Meiri writes that even though the takona of the Chachomim states that one does not have to demolish the building in order to return the beam, nevertheless the people in Ninveh were stringent about this.

In the notes to Meiri, he cites HISORARUS TESHUVAH 2:27 (by R. Shimon Sofer, a grandson of Chasam Sofer). There he discusses whether Teshuvah is effective for Bnei Noach to remove their punishment. He suggests that this was indeed the doubt of the king and the people of Ninveh who said (Yonah 3:9) "Who knows if Elokim will return and have regret and remove his anger and we shall not be lost?".Of course their Teshuvah was accepted and Hash-m saved them.

Hisorarus Teshuvah also cites Rambam HILCHOS MELACHIM 10:4, that if a Ben Noach worshipped idols and then converted to Judaism, he is exempt from the punishment.

KOL TUV

D. Bloom