Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the principle that certain prohibitions are not liable for flogging, while most are (when done with full intention and warning in front of witnesses). Abaye is of the opinion that one is not flogged for a general prohibition (lav shebchlalos), i.e., a single mitzvah in the Torah that includes many different prohibited acts.

Presumably, since the prohibition is more general and broad, the severity is lesser. Imagine a general parking ordinance such as “must park within one foot of the curb,” versus a specific sign, “Do NOT park here.” Generally speaking, the latter will have a higher fine or be a tow-away zone.

It seems that any time a negative commandment has some factor that lessens the intensity of the prohibition, it somewhat reduces the degree of punishment. There are other examples as well, such as:

A prohibition that is not performed by direct action (lav sh’eyn bo maaseh).

A prohibition that is inferred from a positive commandment (lav haba michlal aseh).

A prohibition that can still be corrected through a positive action (lav hanitak le’aseh), such as returning a stolen object.

Rav Tzaddok (Takanas Hashavin 13–15) enters into a fascinating discussion about what other types of leniencies might result from a prohibition being of a more diluted nature. The Gemara (Yoma 86a) discusses various categories of sin and how long, and what needs to be done, in order to achieve atonement:

“If one violates a positive mitzvah and repents, he is forgiven even before he moves from his place… If one violates a prohibition and repents, repentance suspends his punishment and Yom Kippur atones for his sin… If one commits a transgression that warrants kares or a sin punishable by death from the earthly court and then repents, repentance and Yom Kippur suspend his punishment, and suffering absolves and completes the atonement.”

Rav Tzaddok wonders: what category do these lesser lavin (negative prohibitions) belong to? Are they considered positive mitzvos, and then one can achieve immediate forgiveness, or are they in the category of a negative prohibition and require Yom Kippur as well?

Rav Tzaddok draws distinctions between the various subsets of lesser negative prohibitions. If you think about it, in essence there are two kinds of sins: those committed via action and those committed through inaction. It is logical to say, therefore, that since they are not committed via action, they do not require the same degree of repentance. Because it only happened in thought or passively, thoughts of repentance and true remorse should immediately achieve the necessary atonement.

Along these lines, it is logical to say that some of the categories of negative prohibitions are also passive and not considered full action.

Specifically, a prohibition that is not performed by direct action (lav she’eyn bo maaseh). And even regarding a prohibition that is inferred from a positive commandment (lav haba michlal aseh), we might argue that, although an action was taken, the root of the “prohibition” is to heed a positive directive. Therefore, this too might be considered an inaction. Furthermore, in regard to such a prohibition that can still be corrected through a positive act, we can argue that until it is corrected it has the force of the negative prohibition. But perhaps, once it is corrected, all that remains is something akin to the force of a positive prohibition. Therefore, theoretically, atonement could be achieved immediately.

However, once we come to a general prohibition, a lav shebechlalos, none of these mitigating factors apply. It is possible that atonement will not be achieved immediately, and one would have to also boost his repentance via the process of Yom Kippur. The only argument that we would have is that it is still somewhat of a lesser prohibition because it does not incur lashes, and the idea mentioned above that its generality makes it intrinsically more dilute.

Rav Tzaddok still wants to include the possibility of immediate atonement even for this kind of prohibition. He quotes the Sefer Asara Ma’amaros (בעשרה מאמרות [מאמר חקור דין ת”א רפי”ח]) written by Rav Menachem Mi-Panu (1548–1620), who holds that any prohibition that does not incur lashes also is subject to immediate forgiveness and atonement. Rav Tzaddok also says this might be implied from Rashi in Yoma (ibid., “upakadeti”), who suggests that the three different categories logically have to do with going from less severe to more severe. Therefore, one might say that until it reaches the threshold of severity of a full prohibition that incurs lashes, it would still be in the prior category subject to immediate forgiveness instead of having to wait until Yom Kippur.

One final point that Rav Tzaddok raises is regarding the sin of masturbation, wasting seed. Even though it is categorized by various teachings as a negative prohibition, with some teachings scripturally equating it to a form of adultery (see Niddah 13b), he leans in the direction that its real prohibition stems from a nullification of the command to be fruitful and multiply, and he brings proofs from various Rishonim to this. He suggests that the negative prohibitions that are quoted in other places in the Gemara and Midrashim might be asmachtos and not have the strength of an actual Biblical negative prohibition. Therefore, he believes that the prohibition of masturbation and wasting seed also might be subject to immediate atonement and forgiveness and not require Yom Kippur.