So Moshe wrote down this song on that day, and he taught it to the Children of Israel.     (Devarim 31:22)

 

“This song” – From “Haazinu hashamayim”  (32:1)  through “effecting atonement for the soil of his people.”  (Rashi on 32:22)

This refers to the Torah, for we have already learned that the Torah is called “song”. (Haamek Davar, ibid.)

 

It is important to understand how it is that the Torah can be called “song” – after all, is it written in the style of song?!

However, you must admit that it has the nature and virtue of song, in that it uses figures of speech. For it is known to all who have studied that the language of metaphor differs from prose in two respects:

                 A.            In poetry – unlike in prose – matters are not clearly explained. There is need for explication, – this verse refers to this event, and this passage alludes to something else.  This is not drush -– hermeneutical explication – this is very essence of poetry, even poetry penned by unprofessionals. Another axiom is that one well versed in the subject which produced a  particular metaphor, is capable of much greater and more joyous appreciation of the language employed than is one who is ignorant of the subject matter and tends to a more literal reading, thus possibly reaching false conclusions which were never the intention of the poet. This is the nature of the entire Torah – the text is never clearly understood, and notes and explanation of the literary devices are necessary.  This is not called “drush”; this is the plain meaning – pshat – of the text. Another axiom is that one cannot completely comprehend the word of God unless he refers to some Halacha or ethical teaching and Aggada which have come down through tradition from Chazal – for such a person, the light of exact meaning is exceedingly sweet.

                 B.             Song has the virtue of embellishment by allusions which are not relative to the subject matter of the song, for example, having the lines arranged alphabetically, or providing an acronym of the name of the poet – this is common to poetry but not to prose narrative. This trait sometimes forces the author to sometime ‘bend’ the language… This is quite common to all the Torah, for in addition to the plain-reading of the text, there are many secrets and veiled matters, and therefore the language of Scripture is not always precise.

(From “Kidmat Haemek” – The Netziv’s introduction to his commentary on the Torah”)

 

---

Remember us to life,                  O King who delights in life

Inscribe us in the book of life        For thy sake, O Living God.

---

 

REPENTANCE = ATONEMENT?

Pinchas Leiser

 

One of the more intriguing questions posed by religious thought is the “division of labor”  between man and God in perfecting the world and man. God is portrayed in many of our sources as one who desires the perfection of the world, who does not desire “the death of the wicked; but for the wicked to turn from his course and live.” Much has been written throughout the generations about the connection between repentance and atonement, and about the mutual tie between the two concepts.

            Many are acquainted with the berayta of Rabbi Yisrael on “chilukey kapparah” – the classification of modes of expiation. This berayta  is the basis for some of the Rambam’s “Laws of Repentance”, in which repentance is considered an essential – but not always  adequate – condition for atonement.

            The words of the Rambam at the beginning of “The Laws of Repentance” (1:2) pose problems and provoke thoughts – many of which were formulated by the Rambam’s commentators. So wrote the Rambam:

[2] The ‘sent away goat’ – because it was an atonement for all of Israel, the High Priest would confess upon it, in terms referring to all of Israel, as is written, “And is to confess over it all the iniquities of Children of Israel” (Vayikra 16:21)

The ‘sent-away goat’ atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, the light ones and the grave ones, whether done willfully or by mistake, whether beknown to him or unbeknown to him – all are atoned for by the sent-away goat.  All this, provided that the person repented. But if he did not repent, the goat atones only for the lighter infractions.

What are the lighter ones and what are the serious ones? The serious ones are those which incur capital punishment by the Beth Din, or kareth – a Divinely inflicted punishment. False and unnecessary oaths, even though they carry no kareth penalty, are among the serious ones. All other negative precepts, and positive commandments not subject to kareth punishment, are considered minor infractions.

            Rambam’s rulings are puzzling in many respects: According to his understanding, there is no single sacrifice which atones sans repentance. Even Yom Hakippurim in our time (1:3) provides atonement only for those who repent. Similarly – and this was noted by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his “Kessef Mishneh” – the Rambam’s system does not conform to any of the Tannaic positions consistently quoted in the Mishna and the Talmud Bavli.  Rebbi takes the most radical position – the sent-goat atones – even without repentance – for all sins, minor as well as major, with the exception of the three specially serious transgressions.  According to the dissenting Sages, the goat can never atone unless accompanied by repentance. The Rambam’s position represents a compromise between these two extremes.  The Rambam’s “arm bearers” grappled with this difficulty. Rabbi Yosef Karo, in his “Kessef Mishneh”, concludes “requires further study”.  The author of the “Lechem Mishneh”  suggests that the Rambam’s aim is to make the controversy between Rebbi and the Sages less polar. None of these commentators suggest an alternate source for the Rambam’s position. I have not examined latter day  scholars’ explanations; I assume that they deal with this question.    

            Rabbi Soleveitchik, z”l, also dealt with this question in his “On Repentance”. He draws an interesting distinction – a la the ‘Brisk method’ – between the atonement of the individual and that of the community. He reads the Rambam’s text very closely – “The ‘sent-away goat’, because it was an atonement for all of Israel” – he identifies as an offering belonging to the totality of Israel, to Klal Yisrael.  The confession of the High Priest, then, is not a confession of individual sins, but of the sins of the community.  He is not the agent of individuals, but the emissary of Klal Yisrael. This distinction helps Rabbi Soleveitchik explain the contradiction within the Rambam’s own words to the effect that the passage “the  sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” refers to the sacrifice – unaccompanied by teshuva – of the individual sinner A person who belongs to Klal Yisrael earns expiation through confession and the offering of the ‘goat to Azazel’.  This applies to all transgressions, excluding karet, because the essence of karet – being cut off – is the expulsion of the individual from Klal Yisrael.

            What, then, is the relevance of this brilliant analytic distinction for  a Jew living in a modern and post-modern reality, in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora, other than having provided a resolution to a problem in the Rambam’s opus?

            In my opinion, there is no single, clear-cut answer. Today, of course, there is no practical possibility of atonement without repentance. In the wonderful formulation of the Rambam: “Today, when there is no Temple and we have no altar of atonement, there remains only repentance. Repentance atones for all sins…”

            On a theoretical level, however, we might add a hermeneutic (drush) level to Rabbi Soleveitchik’s analytical examination.    

            The annulment of institutions or ceremonies which were prevalent in the past, opens the door to various explications. In certain instances, the sources take a clear and unequivocal  stand, for example: “With the increase of murderers, the [ceremony of] egla arufa -–the broken-necked calf – was cancelled; with the increase of adulterers, the  [ceremony of] the cursing waters [given the Sotah – the wife suspected of infidelity] was nullified.”  It is evident to all of us that a situation in which there is an “increase of murderers” is perceived to be a morally and spiritually degenerate reality.

            In other cases, things are less clear-cut. In contrast to the approach which considers the revival of sacrificial ritual to constitute “return of the crown to its  original position”,  we cannot ignore the fact that our Sages tended to assign to acts of charity and good deeds greater spiritual worth than to sacrifices. It is superfluous to state that the Rambam, in his Guide, considers the sacrifices to be a sort of “compromise” with the pagan world.

            A situation in which an individual can achieve atonement via the confession of the High Priest is, without doubt, quite advantageous; on occasion, we can sense the power potential of a public.  This power is beyond anything which the individuals comprising the community can amass; the individual draws his power from the masses. On certain occasions – such as on Yom Hakippurim – we are able to experience the tremendous spiritual power of communal prayer.

            In our own generation, society offered ‘sacrifices’.  Unlike the sent-away goat, these were very painful sacrifices. There is no doubt that the pain of all who pay a personal price for our existence here is unbearable. But as long as there was a tsibbur – a “community” – who felt that that the personal sacrifice was also its sacrifice, there was  a different feeling about the meaning of the sacrifice.

            It is not quite clear at what point the sense of “community” began to fade, and whether all its roots of decline can be identified; the tendency to blame the “other” (the ultra-Orthodox, the left, the settler, the hedonistic secularists, etc.) is widespread – and frighteningly simplistic.

            Perhaps, in the absence of “community”, the individual is charged with greater responsibility; in order to perfect himself, he has at his disposal only his own efforts. But beyond the opportunity for development, there is also regression in the  perfecting of the whole of society.

            For various and sundry reasons, we live in an era in which the concept of “community” has been weakened. “Knesset Yisrael”, as a spiritual concept, is independent of historical and others circumstances, but Jewish society is split and divided. I do not refer necessarily to political or ideological differences. When there is agreement on minimally common goals and on modes of resolution in cases of controversy, social cohesion need not be impaired. It is understood, then, that the ability to consider the sacrifice as a “communal sacrifice” is in proportion to  the weakening of the sense of “community.”

I do not necessarily long for the ancient ceremony of the “Goat for Azazel” as recorded  in the “Order of Service” of Yom Hakippurim.  I do pray that the day will come – may we merit seeing it – when we will be able to interpret the concept of “Eretz Yisrael is obtained through suffering” in a non-literal fashion. In the meantime, however, it seems that if life is dear to us, we must examine, each of us for himself, what is in his power to do in order to build anew a society which is marked by multiplicity but which is capable of defining common goals in a spirit of respect and mutual appreciation. There were times when sacrifices and shared suffering created “a covenant of destiny”, in the words of Rabbi Soleveitchik. In our day, it seems, this is not enough. There is an urgent need to define common and basic goals through wide communal agreement. Then, if we must pay a price, this society will see to it that it will be as low as possible and shared as equally as possible.

            The High Priest, according to Chazal tradition, was responsible for the spiritual condition of the generation; through his power and in his merit, human life was respected in society (so Chazal and some of the commentators explain the sentence of the accidental killer to life in the city of refuge “until the death of the High Priest”). Therefore, only a society able to nurture such a spiritual leadership can be represented by the communal sacrifice which the Priest offers and the confession which he utters.

“Today, there is only repentance.”

                                                Pinchas Leiser, editor of “Shabbat Shalom”, is a psychologist.

 

 

 

“You were rebellious against God… until this day”

 

… And it is written “you were” in the past tense, for they may have contemplated repentance in their hearts at that moment, similar to the law that if one who betroths a woman on condition that he is a complete tzaddik, even though it may be discovered that he is totally wicked, we rule that she is betrothed, because perhaps he contemplated repentance at that very moment.  (Kiddushin 49b).

(Ohr HaHayyim, Devarim 31:27)

 

Even Moshe, our Teacher, was justified only in telling Israel “You were rebellious” – in past tense – with the implication being “until this day.” In his great despair and sadness, Moshe foresaw that also after his death, the people would persist in their insubordination to God; yet despite this, he does not permit himself to tell them that they are rebellious at the time of his last words, because there is only one who is capable of reading man’s innermost thoughts. From this we learn a great lesson in the subject of repentance, which is dependent upon man himself – at all times, without limitations of time or place.

                                                                                                                                (Y. Leibowitz: ibid., p. 180)

 

 

 “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have fallen because of  your sin.”

Even if you have stumbled in your sin to the Lord your God [even reaching the Lord your God], repent.               

(Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotsk, quoted by Y. Leibowitz, Discussions on the Festivals of Israel and Its Appointed Times, p. 181)

 

The significance of Yom Hakippurim lies not in its being the Day of Repentance; it is rather the day designated to remind man of repentance, which is operative at all times and in every place.

                                                                                                                                (Y. Leibowitz, ibid., p.175)

 

Teshuva and Geula – Repentance and Redemption

When the Children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt, they were delivered thanks to the following five things: tribulation, repentance, merit of the patriarchs, mercy, and because of the promised end.

Tribulation – as is written (Shemot 2) “And the Children of Israel groaned.”

Merits of the patriarchs – as is written “and God remembered His covenant”.

Mercy – as is written, “and God saw the Children of Israel”

The promised end – “And God knew.”   

And so, in the future to come, we will be redeemed only thanks to these five things:

Distress – as is written, “when you are in distress” – thus, from distress.

“And you shall return to the Lord your God” – thus, from repentance.

“For the Lord your God is a merciful God” – thus, from mercy.

“He will not forget the covenant of your fathers” – thus, from the merit of the patriarchs.

“And all these things shall befall you in the end of days: – thus, from the end of days.

 

King David formulated all the above (Psalms 106):

“When He saw that they were in distress” -  thus, from distress.

“When He heard their cry” – thus, from repentance.

“He was mindful of His covenant” –thus, from the merit of the patriarchs.

“He gave them mercy” –thus, from mercy.

“Deliver us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations” – thus, from the end of days.                                                      (Devarim Rabba, Parasha 2)

 

Rabbi Eliezer says: If Israel repents, they will be delivered, and if not, they will not be delivered.

Said to him Rabbi Yehoshua: If they do not repent, they will not [ever] be delivered?! But The Holy One, Blessed Be He, will appoint a king whose decrees are as harsh as Haman’s, and Israel will repent and He will return them to the right path.

(Sanhedrin 97b)

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by:

The Moriah Fund

 

 

To our readers:

We will be happy to have you actively participate in “Shabbat Shalom” by:

·        Letters to the editor

·        Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)

·        Membership in Oz V’Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

1 Hebrew edition distributed in Israel       $1000

1 English edition distributed via email       $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person,  simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

Tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom.

 

New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel’s society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians

Our activities are funded by donations, volunteer efforts and one part time employee.