Daf Ditty Yoma 86: Pardons all around (except Acher)
That is saying, that none of these will have a share in the World to Come, if he dies without repentance; but if he repents from his wickedness and died
1 in a state of repentance, he is, indeed, of the sons of the World to Come, as there is not a thing to stand in the way of repentance.
Even if one who denied the existence of God all of his life but in the end repented, has a share in the World to Come, for it is said: "Peace, peace, to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord; and I will heal him" (Is. 57.19).
All of the wicked, and apostates and their like who turned in repentance, whether publicly or secretly, should be accepted back into the folds of Israel, even as it is said: "Return ye backsliding children" (Jer. 3.22)
RAMBAM Mishneh Torah
Rav Zaddok Hakohen of Lublin, quotes the ruling "One must obey the master of the house in all regards - except when he says "leave" (Pesachim 86b) in this regard:
We must obey God's commandments at all times, except when he says, as he did to Acher, not to repent.
Liqutei Amarim section 16
But in the case of one who has caused desecration of God’s name, his repentance has no power to suspend punishment, nor does Yom Kippur have power to atone for his sin, nor does suffering alone have power to absolve him. Rather, all these suspend punishment, and death absolves him, as it is stated:
2
And the LORD of hosts revealed Himself in 14 די הָלְגִנְו ,יָנְזָאְב הָוהְי :תוֹאָבְצ םִא - mine ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated ְי רַפֻּכ וָﬠֶה ןֹ זַּה הֶ ,םֶכָל דַﬠ - ,ןוּתֻמְתּ רַמָא רַמָא ,ןוּתֻמְתּ by you till ye die, saith the Lord, the GOD of נֹדֲא יָ ,הִוהְ י .תוֹאָבְצ }פ{ hosts. {P} Isa 22:14
“And the Lord of Hosts revealed Himself to my ears: This iniquity shall not be atoned for until you die”
Abaye said: As it was taught in a baraita that it is stated:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy 5 ה ,ָתְּבַהָאְו תֵא הָוהְי , יֶה ֱא לָכְבּ - ְבָבְל ְבָבְל .heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might בוּ כְ ָ ל - , ְשְׁפַנ לָכְבוּ - . ֶדֹאְמ Deut 6:5
“And you shall love the Lord your God” which means that you shall make the name of Heaven beloved. How should one do so? One should do so in that he should read Torah, and learn Mishna, and serve Torah scholars, and he should be pleasant with people in his business transactions.
What do people say about such a person? Fortunate is his father who taught him Torah, fortunate is his teacher who taught him Torah, woe to the people who have not studied Torah. So-and-so, who taught him Torah, see how pleasant are his ways, how proper are his deeds. The verse states about him and others like him:
And He said unto me: 'Thou art My servant, Israel, in 3 ג רֶמאֹיַּו ,יִל יִדְּבַﬠ - הָתָּא -- ,לֵאָרְשִׂי ,לֵאָרְשִׂי '.whom I will be glorified רֶשֲׁא - ְבּ .רָאָפְּתֶא ְבּ Isa 49:3
3 “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified”
But one who reads Torah, and learns Mishna, and serves Torah scholars, but his business practices are not done faithfully, and he does not speak pleasantly with other people, what do people say about him? Woe to so-and-so who studied Torah, woe to his father who taught him Torah, woe to his teacher who taught him Torah. So-and-so who studied Torah, see how destructive are his deeds, and how ugly are his ways. About him and others like him the verse states that the gentiles will say:
And when they came unto the nations, whither they 20 כ ,אוֹבָיַּו לֶא - םִיוֹגַּה רֶשֲׁא - וּאָבּ ,םָשׁ ,םָשׁ וּאָבּ came, they profaned My holy name; in that men said of ,וּלְלַּחְיַו תֶא - םֵשׁ דָק יִשְׁ -- רֹמֱאֶבּ םֶהָל םֶהָל רֹמֱאֶבּ them: These are the people of the LORD, and are gone forth םַﬠ - הָוהְי ,הֶלֵּא וֹצְרַאֵמוּ וּאָצָי . out of His land. Ezek 36:20
“Men said of them: These are the people of the Lord, yet they had to leave His land” Through their sins and subsequent exile, such people have desecrated the name of God.
§ Further on the topic of repentance, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Great is repentance, as it brings healing to the world, as it is stated:
Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your 22 בכ וּשׁ ב וּ ָ בּ ִ נ י ם בוֹשׁ ָ ִ ב י ם , ֶ א ְ ר ָ פּ ה ,םיִבָבשׁ וּבוּ backslidings.--'Here we are, we are come unto Thee; for ;םֶכיֵתֹבוּשְׁמ וּנְנִה וּנָתָא , ָל יִכּ הָתַּא הָתַּא יִכּ , ָל וּנָתָא וּנְנִה ;םֶכיֵתֹבוּשְׁמ .Thou art the LORD our God הָוהְי .וּניֵה ֱא הָוהְי Jer 3:22
“I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely” which teaches that repentance from sin brings healing.
4
Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written in one verse: “Return, you backsliding children” (Jeremiah 3:22), implying that initially when you sinned, it was only because you were backsliding, i.e., rebelling. It was merely an act of immaturity and foolishness and could be ignored as if it had never happened. But it is written: “I will heal your backsliding” (Jeremiah 3:22), implying that He will heal the sin from this point onward, and that they are still sinners. He resolved this contradiction, explaining that this is not difficult: Here, where everything is forgiven as if the Jewish people never sinned, it is referring to repentance out of love; there, where the sin is still remembered despite the forgiveness and repentance, it is referring to repentance out of fear.
Summary
The Mishnah had stated: Repentance procures atonement for lighter transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and prohibitions.
The Gemara asks: If it procures atonement for the transgression of negative commandments, is it necessary [to state that it procures it for the transgression of] positive ones? — Rav Yehudah said: This is what he means, [It procures atonement] for [the transgression of] a positive commandment, of a negative commandment that is to be remedied into a positive one.[1] - But not [for the transgression] of an actual negative commandment? Against this, the following contradiction is to be raised: These are light transgressions [for which repentance procures atonement: transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments with the exceptions of: You shall not take [the Name of Hashem in vain] —
[The Gemara answers:] ‘You shall not take’ and others of the same kind. Come and hear: Rabbi Yehudah said: For everything from ‘You shall not take’ and below (i.e., less sever) repentance procures atonement, for everything from ‘You shall not take’ and up (i.e., stricter) repentance procures suspension [of punishment] and Yom Kippur procures atonement? —
[The Gemara answers:] ‘You shall not take’ and others of the same kind. Come and hear: Since in connection with Chorev, repentance is mentioned, as it’s written: Hashem will absolve [the sinner on account of repentance alone], one might assume that includes the [transgression of] ‘You shall not take’, therefore it says: He will not absolve. Then I might have assumed that with all others guilty of having transgressed negative commandments the same is the case, therefore the text reads: ‘[ Will not absolve he who takes] His name [in vain]. i.e., He does not absolve in [the taking in vain of] His name, but He does absolve those who violated the transgression of other negative commandments? - This is indeed a point of dispute between Tannaim; for it was taught: For what transgression does repentance procure atonement? For that of a positive commandment. And in what case does repentance suspend punishment and Yom Kippur procures atonement? In such as involve kares, death-penalty through the Beis Din and in actual negative commandments.
The Master said: Since in connection with Chorev, repentance is mentioned, as it’s written: Hashem will absolve. From where do we know that? Because it was taught: Rabbi Elozar said: It is impossible to say: He will absolve [always], since it says: ‘He will not absolve’; nor is it possible to say: ‘He will not absolve’ [always], since it is said: ‘He will absolve’; how is that to be explained? ‘He absolves’ of those who repent, and does not ‘absolve’ of those who do not repent. (86a2)
5 Rabbi Masya ben Charash asked Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah in Rome: Have you heard about the four kinds of atonements, concerning which Rabbi Yishmael has lectured? He answered: They are three, and with each is repentance connected. — If one transgressed a positive commandment, and repented, then he is forgiven, before he has moved from his place; as it is said: Return, O wayward children. If he has transgressed a prohibition and repented, then repentance suspends [the punishment] and Yom Kippur procures atonement, as it is said: For on this day shall atonement be made for you ... from all your sins. If he has committed [a sin to be punished with] kares or death through the Beis Din, and repented, then repentance and Yom Kippur suspend [the punishment], and suffering purges [the sin], as it is said: Then I punish their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues. But if he has been guilty of the desecration of the Name, then repentance has no power to suspend punishment, nor Yom Kippur to procure atonement, nor suffering to purge it, but all of them together suspend the punishment and only death purges [the sin], as it is said: And it was revealed in my ears by Hashem, Master of Legions, “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for you until you die.”
What constitutes “desecration of the Name”?
— Rav said: If, e.g., I take meat from the butcher and do not pay him at once.[2] Abaye said: That we have learned [to regard as desecration] only in a place where one does not go out to collect payment, but in a place where one does not go out to collect, there is no harm in it [not paying at once]. Ravina said: And the city of Mechasya is a place where one goes out collecting payments due. Whenever Abaye bought meat from two partners, he paid one zuz to each of them, afterwards he would bring them together and make a reckoning with both of them. Rabbi Yochanan said: In my case [it is a desecration if] I walk four cubits without [uttering words of] Torah or [wearing] tefillin.
Yitzchak, of the School of Rabbi Yannai. said: If one's colleagues are ashamed of his reputation, that constitutes a desecration of the Name. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak commented: E.g., if people say, May the Master forgive So-and-so. Abaye explained: As it was taught in a Baraisa: And you shall love Hashem your God, i.e., that the Name of Heaven be beloved through you. One should study Scripture and Mishnah, and serve Torah scholars, and his business with people should be conducted in a pleasant manner - what do people then say concerning him? ‘Fortunate is his father who taught him Torah, fortunate is his teacher who taught him Torah; woe unto people who have not studied the Torah; for this man has studied the Torah - look how pleasant his ways are, how refined are his deeds! Of him does Scripture say: And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, in, whom I will be glorified.” But if someone studies Scripture and Mishnah, serves Torah scholars, but is dishonest in business, and is unpleasant in his relations with people, what do people say about him? Woe unto he who studied the Torah, woe unto his father who taught him Torah; woe unto his teacher who taught him Torah! This man studied the Torah: Look, how perverse are his deeds, how ugly are his ways; of him Scripture says: In that men said of them, “These are the people of Hashem, and they departed His land.”
Rabbi Chama bar Chanina said: Great is repentance, for it brings healing to the world, as it is said: I will heal their waywardness, I will love them, freely. Rabbi Chama bar Chanina pointed out a contradiction: It is written: Return, O wayward children, i.e., you who were formerly wayward; and it is written: I will heal your waywardness?[3] This is no difficulty: In the one case the reference is where they return out of love, in the other, out of fear. Rav Yehudah pointed out this contradiction: It is written: Return O wayward children, I will heal your waywardness, but it is also written: For I shall be a Master unto you, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family? This is no contradiction: The one verse speaks [of a return] out of love or fear; the other, when it comes as a result of suffering.
Rabbi Levi said: Great is repentance, for it reaches up to the Throne of Glory, as it is said: Return, O Israel, unto Hashem your God. Rabbi Yochanan said: Great is repentance. for it overrides a prohibition of the Torah, as it is said: . . . saying: If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him, and marries another man, may he return to her again? Would that not bring profound guilt upon that land? But you have committed adultery with many lovers; and yet, you are now returning to Me? The word of Hashem. Rabbi Yonasan said: Great is repentance, because it brings about redemption, as it is said: And a redeemer will come
6 to Zion, and to those of Jacob who repent from willful sin; i.e., why will a redeemer come to Zion? Because of those of Jacob who repent from willful sin. Rish Lakish said: Great is repentance, for because of it willful transgressions are accounted as inadvertent errors, as it is said: Return, O Israel, unto Hashem, your God,’ for you have stumbled in your iniquity. ‘Iniquity’ is willful, and yet he calls it ‘stumbling.’ - But that is not so! For Rish Lakish said that repentance is so great that willful sins are accounted as though they were merits, as it is said: And if the wicked man turns away from his wickedness, and does that which is just and right, he shall live on account of them!? That is no contradiction: One refers to a case [of repentance] derived from love, the other to one due to fear. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan: Great is repentance, because it prolongs the [days and] years of man, as it is said: And if the wicked man turns away from his wickedness . . . he shall live on account of them.
Rabbi Yitzchak said: In the West they said in the name of Rabbah bar Mari: Come and see how different from the character of one of flesh and blood is the action of the Holy One, Blessed be He. As to the character of one of flesh and blood, if one angers his fellow with words, it is doubtful whether he [the latter] will be pacified through just words or whether he will not be pacified through words. But with the Holy One, Blessed be He, if a man commits a sin in secret, He is pacified by mere words, as it is said: Take with you words, and return to Hashem. Still more: He even accounts it to him as a good deed, as it is said: And accept that which is good. Still more: Scripture accounts it to him as if he had offered up sacrificial bulls, as it is said: And let our lips compensate for bulls. Perhaps you will say [the reference is to] obligatory bulls; therefore, it is said: I will heal their waywardness, I will love them freely.
It was taught: Rabbi Meir used to say: Great is repentance, for on account of an individual who repents, the sins of all the world are forgiven, as it is said: I will heal their waywardness, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him. ‘From them’ it is not said, but ‘from him’.
How is one proved a true penitent?
— Rav Yehudah said: If the opportunity which caused his original transgression comes before him on two occasions, and he is saved from it. Rav Yehudah indicated: With the same woman, at the same time, in the same place.
Rav Yehudah said: Rav pointed out the following contradiction. It is written: Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is concealed; and it is also written: He that conceals his sins shall not prosper?[4] This is no difficulty, one speaks of sins that have become known [to the public], the other of such as did not become known.[5] Rav Zutra bar Toviah in the name of Rav Nachman said: Here we speak of sins committed between a man and his fellow, there of sins committed between man and God.
It was taught: Rabbi Yosi ben Yehudah said: If a man commits a transgression, the first, second and third time he is forgiven, the fourth time he is not forgiven, as it is said: Thus says Hashem: For three transgressions of Israel [I have looked away], but for four, I will not pardon them, and furthermore it says: Behold, God does all these things with man two or three times. What does ‘furthermore’ serve for? — One might have assumed that applies only to a community, but not to an individual, therefore: Come and hear [the additional verse]: Behold, God does all these things with man two or three times.
Our Rabbis taught: As for the sins which one has confessed on one Yom Kippur, he should not confess them on another Yom Kippur; but if he repeated them, then he should confess them, on another Yom Kippur. — And if he had not committed them again, yet confessed them again, then it is with regard to him that Scripture says: As a dog that returns to its vomit, so is a fool that repeats his foolishness. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: All the more so is he praiseworthy, as it is said: For I know my transgressions, and my sin is before me always. How then do I [explain]: As a dog that returns to its vomit, etc.? In accord
7 with Rav Huna; for Rav Huna said: Once a man has committed a sin once and twice, it is permitted to him. ‘Permitted’? How could that occur to you? — Rather, it appears to him as if it were permitted.
It is obligatory to confess the sin in detail [explicitly], as it is said: [Moshe said to Hashem:] I implore! This people have sinned a great sin, and have made themselves a god of gold. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava. Rabbi Akiva said: [This is not necessary], as it is said: Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is concealed. Then why did Moshe say: And have made themselves a god of gold? That is [to be explained] in accord with Rabbi Yannai, for Rabbi Yannai said: Moshe said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: The silver and gold which You have lavished upon Israel until they said ‘Enough!’ has caused them to make a golden god. Two good leaders arose for Israel, Moshe and David.
Moshe begged: Let my sin be written down, as it is said: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me. David begged that his sin be not written down, as it is said: Praiseworthy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is concealed. This case of Moshe and Aaron may be compared to the parable where two women were flogged in court; one in punishment for acting corruptly (i.e., committing adultery), the other had eaten the unripe figs of Shemittah. Whereupon the woman who had eaten unripe figs of Shemittah said: I beg of you, make known for what offence this one (referring to herself) has been flogged, lest people say: This woman was punished for the same sin that the other was punished for. They brought unripe fruits of Shemittah, and hung them around her neck, and they were calling out before her: This woman was flogged because of Shemittah matters.
One should expose hypocrites to prevent the desecration of the Name, as it is said: And when a righteous man does turn from righteousness and acts corruptly, I will place a stumbling-block before him.
The repentance of the confirmed sinner delays punishment, even though the decree of punishment for him had been signed already. The tranquility of the wicked ends in calamity. Power buries those who wield it. One enters it naked and leaves it naked. Would that his leaving be like his coming in (i.e., without sin).
Whenever Rav went to judge cases of law, he used to say thus: “Out of his own will he goes towards death, the wishes of his household he is unable to fulfill, and he returns empty to his home. Would that the return home be like the going in.”[6] Whenever Rava went to judge cases of law, he used to say thus: “Out of his own will he go towards death, the wishes of his household he is unable to fulfill, and he returns empty to his house. Would that the return home be like the going in.” And when he [Rav] saw a crowd escorting him, he would say: “Though his excellency ascends to heaven, and his head reaches the clouds, yet shall he perish forever like his own dung; those who have seen him shall say: ‘Where is he’?” When Rav Zutra was carried shoulder-high on the Shabbos before the festival lecture, he would say: “For power is not forever; and does the crown endure unto all generations?”
Stain Remains
It is said the Kohen shall look, and behold! The tzaraas affliction had been healed from the metzora. Rabbi Refoel Hamburger wonders why the Torah refers to the person who has already been healed from tzaraas as the metzora.
Rabbi Hamburger suggests an answer based on the Gemara here that resolves a contradiction in the statements of Reish Lakish. In one statement Reish Lakish maintains that repentance is great because willful transgressions are considered to be inadvertent errors, whereas in a second statement Reish Lakish maintains that willful transgression are transformed into merits. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by stating that in Reish Lakish’s second statement, he refers to repentance that is motivated by love whereas in his first statement, Reish Lakish refers to repentance that is motivated by fear.
8 This idea can equally be applied to a metzora. One who contracted tzaraas repents because he does not wish to undergo the suffering of his condition and he does not wish to be subject to isolation from the rest of the community. This manner of repentance was not motivated by love for HaShem. Rather, his repentance was motivated by external factors, so the Torah still refers to him as a metzora, as he has not yet uprooted the sin from his being. Repentance in the Same Situation
The Gemara explains that a true penitent is one who committed a sin in the past and then the opportunity for the same sins comes again a first time and a second time and he is saved from the sin on both occasions.
The Sefer Chasidim writes that a person should not put himself into a situation where he is tempted to sin, because he may not be able to withstand temptation.
The Tzlach questions the words of the Sefer Chasidim from the commentary of the Kli Yakar in Parshas Chukas, who writes regarding the phenomena of the Parah Adumah that the Parah Adumah was capable of rendering pure those that were impure and conversely, rendering impure those that were pure. The Kli Yakar likens this idea to certain medicines that are beneficial for one who is ill but can prove fatal for one who is healthy. There is a parallel between remedying the body and remedying the soul. One who wishes to repent must be with the same woman that he sinned with the first time, at the same time of the year in which he had sinned, and at the same place where he sinned with her. Thus, the temptation to sin is particularly strong, as his Evil Inclination will entice him to respond exactly as he did before. By resisting the temptation, he demonstrates that he is a true penitent. Yet, according to the Sefer Chasidim, a righteous person is not permitted to endanger himself by entering into a such a situation.
The Tzlach adds that this is what the Gemara (Brachos 34b) means when it states that in the place where penitents stand, the completely righteous do not stand, i.e. the completely righteous cannot stand in a place of temptation. Publicizing Sins to Inspire others to Repent
The Nesivos in his commentary on Eicha, Palgei Mayim explains the verse that states (1:18) Hashem is righteous, for I disobeyed His utterance. Listen, now, all you peoples and see my pain etc. The Nesivos writes that although one normally should conceal his sins, when the punishment is horrific and there is a desecration of HaShem’s Name, it is necessary to publicize the sin. The reason it is permitted to reveal the sins is because then HaShem’s Name will be glorified and others will be inspired to repent.
The Beis HaLevi in Parashas Vayera writes in a similar vein that once one has been punished, he is allowed to reveal the sin to show that HaShem’s judgment is just.
We find that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 107a states that Dovid HaMelech prayed to Hashem that the sin that he committed with Batsheva should not be publicized, but his prayer was not accepted.
The Gemara in Avodah Zara 4b states that the incident with Batsheva was not fitting for Dovid HaMelech and the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf was not fitting for the Jewish People. Rashi explains that although the Jewish People could have withstood the temptation from their Evil Inclination, HaShem decreed that they should sin so that their repentance would inspire future generations to repent. An individual who sins will be motivated to repent because of Dovid HaMelech’s repentance, and if the masses sin, they will be motivated to repent because of the Jewish People’s repentance from worshipping the Golden Calf.
The Maharal writes that Tosfos understand the Gemara in Avodah Zara to mean that it was not fitting to have their sins publicized, as is stated in the Gemara here in Yoma. Yet, the sins of the Jewish People and the sins of Dovid HaMelech were revealed, so that they would serve as an inspiration to future generations to repent from their sins. Repentance is Part of the Divine Throne of Glory
The Gemara states that repentance is great because it reaches unto the Divine Throne of Glory, as it is stated Return, O Israel, unto HaShem your G-d.
9 This Gemara is difficult to understand, as repentance can only reach the Heavenly Throne, as is evidenced by the Medrash that states that wisdom, prophecy, and the Torah all offered various responses as to the retribution of the sinner, and only HaShem Himself responded that the sinner should repent from his sins.
There are many interpretations to this enigmatic Gemara, but we can suggest that the Gemara means that repentance is not just a one time performance like other mitzvos. The Gemara states that a mitzvah protects a person at the time he is performing the mitzvah. Repentance, however, is so beloved to HaShem that HaShem incorporates repentance into the Divine Throne of Glory.
We find that when Moshe ascended upon high and the angels dueled with him regarding the Jewish People receiving the Torah, HaShem instructed Moshe, “take hold of the throne of My Glory and give them an answer.” The word for answer in the Gemara is Teshuvah, which also means repentance. HaShem was alluding to Moshe that the correct response to the angels’ protests was that the Jewish People can repent from their sins, and in this regard man is superior to the angels. Thus, repentance is great because it reaches the Divine Throne of Glory, i.e. it is the response to the angels as to why man was created and why the Jewish People received the Torah. From Evil to Good
The Gemara states that repentance is so great that willful transgressions can be accounted for the penitent as merits, providing that one is motivated to repent by love.
Reb Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin writes that although a gentile is also capable of repenting, he will not be motivated to repent by love. Thus, although a gentile can remove the stain that was caused by his sin, he is not capable of transforming a willful transgression into a merit.
The source for this idea can be found in the Medrash Tanchumah regarding the priestly blessings. The kohanim would recite the words may HaShem lift His countenance to you. The Medrash wonders how this blessing can be recited if it said in the Torah regarding HaShem, Who does not show favor and Who does not accept a bribe. The Medrash answers that HaShem will show favor to the Jewish People if they repent, but the gentiles cannot merit this favoritism, as it is said may HaShem lift His countenance to you, and this excludes the gentiles.
Rabbi Mordechai Miller zt”l extends this idea to explain the Gemara in Shabbos 146a that states that when the primal serpent seduced Chava, he cast impurity into her, which she then passed on to future generations of men. The Jewish People stood at Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, so their impurity was removed. The gentiles, however, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, did not have their impurity removed.
It is the power of Torah that motivates a Jew to repent by love and thus a Jew’s willful transgressions will be accounted for as merits, whereas a gentile who does not study Torah cannot be motivated to repent by love.
[1] A lav hanitak l’aseh, a prohibition removed to the remedy of a positive commandment.
[2] He would learn from my bad example to treat debts dishonestly by delaying and ultimately ignoring the payment.
[3]The first part of the verse implies that having repented they are perfect as children, whereas the second part, which speaks of ‘healing’, implies that they still retain a taint of their former waywardness.
[4] The phrase ‘sin is concealed’ is understood in the sense of hiding it, not making it public by confession.
[5] Certain sins, such as have become notorious, one ought to confess publicly; secret sins one need confess to none but God.
[6] The responsibility involved in rendering decision appeared to him as momentous as if the ethical dangers involved were physical ones. The stipend was insufficient to meet the needs of his household, and if he would err in judgment, he would be punished. There were no salaries for the judges. He was just entitled to compensation for his time. He prayed that he would not sin in judgment.
10
THE THIRTEENTH ATTRIBUTE OF MERCY
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1
Rebbi Dov Ber of Mezritch proposes that the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy ("13 Midos Rachamim," as enumerated in Rosh Hashanah 17b) correspond to the thirteen exegetical methods with which laws are derived from the Torah ("13 Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen," as listed in the beginning of Toras Kohanim, and as printed in the Sidur before the Shacharis service).2
Rebbi Dov Ber of Mezritch explains that the first of the Midos with which laws are derived from the Torah is the Midah of "Kal v'Chomer." This corresponds to the first Midah of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, the word "Kel" (Hash-m's name). ("Kel" is the first of the Thirteen Attributes according to the Arizal; see Chart to Rosh Hashanah 17b. In addition, according to Kabalah, the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy are alluded to in the verses of "Mi Kel Kamocha" (Michah 7:18-20), as discussed by the TOMER DEVORAH. The first Midah mentioned in those verses is "Kel.")
The Torah alludes to this correlation in the prayer of Moshe Rabeinu on behalf of his sister, Miriam, when she was smitten with Tzara'as. In order to arouse Hash-m's mercy for her, Moshe prayed for her with the name, "Kel" -- "Kel Na Refa Na Lah" (Bamidbar 12:13). Hash-m replied with a Kal v'Chomer ("Im Aviha Yarok Yarak...," see Bereishis Rabah 92:7 and Rashi to Bamidbar 12:14) to teach Moshe that in order to arouse the Midah of "Kel," one should apply the Midah of Kal v'Chomer. Similarly, Rebbi Levi Yitzchak adds that the Chachamim derive through a Kal v'Chomer that the dead will eventually be revived ("if those who never existed come to life, then certainly those who already have lived will come to life"; Sanhedrin 91a). When Miriam was afflicted with Tzara'as, Aharon said to Moshe, "Do not let her be like a dead person..." (Bamidbar 12:12). (Kedushas Levi, Parshas Ki Sisa)
The second of the Thirteen Midos is "Gezeirah Shavah," which corresponds to "Rachum" (according to the Arizal's count of the Midos Rachamim). A person who seeks to arouse his mercy, Rachamim, for a pauper should try to envision himself as a pauper; he should equate himself to the poor person, or make a "Gezeirah Shavah" between himself and the poor person. (Kedushas Levi ibid.)
The last of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy is "v'Nakeh," the subject of the Gemara here. This Midah corresponds to the last of the Thirteen Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen, which is the principle of "Shenei Kesuvim ha'Mach'chishim Zeh Es Zeh..." -- "when two verses contradict one another, a third verse compromises between them and resolves the contradiction."
The Bnei Yisaschar (Chodesh Elul 2:8) cites his Mechutan, Rebbi Tzvi Hirsh of Ziditchev, who explains that this correlation is evident from the Gemara here. The two statements of "v'Nakeh" and "Lo Yenakeh" seem to contradict each other. The Gemara resolves the
1 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-086.htm 2 Rebbi Dov Ber's proposition is quoted by MAGID DEVARAV L'YAKOV #147, ARVEI NACHAL, Parshas Vayetzei, and by others, and is discussed at length by REBBI LEVI YITZCHAK of BERDITCHEV (Kedushas Levi, Parshas Ki Sisa).
11 contradiction from a third verse, "v'Shavta Ad Hash-m Elokecha" (Devarim 30:2), which teaches the concept of Teshuvah. Thus, the thirteenth Midah sheha'Torah Nidreshes Bah reveals the meaning of the thirteenth Midah of Rachamim.3
RAV DAVID COHEN, shlit'a, in MAS'AS KAPAI (on Tefilah) adds that perhaps this is one reason why the Thirteen Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen are recited before Pesukei d'Zimra every morning. They are recited in order to arouse Hash-m's Thirteen Attributes of Mercy to which they correspond.
CONFESSING SINS FROM ONE'S PAST
The Gemara cites an argument with regard to whether or not one should confess his old sins each year, even though he confessed them in previous years. According to the Tana Kama, to confess one's old sins is abhorrent, while Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov maintains that it is praiseworthy.
Why does the Tana Kama say that i is abhorrent to confess one's old sins? What is the proper way to conduct oneself in practice?
RABEINU YONAH (end of SHA'AREI TESHUVAH) explains that there are three different ways in which one might confess his sins of previous years.
(a) One who confesses only his sins of previous years and omits mention of sins of the outgoing year certainly acts improperly. It is as if he says that he considers himself to be righteous and free of sin except for those sins which he committed in previous years. His confession lacks the element of humility needed for Teshuvah and displays a sense of arrogance.
(b) Similarly, one should not even mention his old sins together with his new sins, according to the Tana Kama, because doing so shows that he does not have confidence that Hash-m pardons those who do Teshuvah.
(c) However, requesting atonement in general is different from confessing specific sins. Part of the Mitzvah of Viduy is the sinner's iteration of each sin. This confession must be done every year for sins committed that year. On the other hand, since the penitent sinner performed the Mitzvah of Viduy last year, he should not mention any specific sins from that earlier year. Nevertheless, he should continue to request a general forgiveness for past misdeeds, just in case he did not fully repent for those sins. An additional benefit of requesting a general forgiveness for past sins is that if further afflictions have been decreed upon him because of the old sins, perhaps extra confession now will lessen the severity of his suffering. Furthermore, a request for forgiveness now will help for sins which he remembered only after last year's confession.
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4
3 See also Ma'amarei Rosh Chodesh 4:3, Elul 2:7, Magid Ta'alumah to Berachos 34a, and many other places in the works of the Bnei Yisaschar. 4 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_8688/
12 As we approach the end of Masechet Yoma, the Gemara turns to the most essential issue of this holy day – the atonement offered by Yom Kippur itself and the teshuva – repentance – associated with this time of year.
In a series of statements of Amoraim praising the attributes of teshuva, two statements made by Resh Lakish (who was, himself, a famous ba’al teshuva) are presented. In one of them Resh Lakish argues (based on the passage in Hoshea 14:2) that teshuva changes zedonot – sinful acts done on purpose – to shegagot – acts done by accident. In the second statement, (based on Yechezkel 33:19) he teaches that through the good offices of teshuva, zedonot are turned into zekhuyot – positive attributes.
To answer this apparent contradiction, the Gemara distinguishes between teshuva that is done because of love – when zedonot turn into zekhuyot – and when it is done out of fear of punishment – when zedonot become shegagot.
How can evil deeds become good ones?
The Maharsha suggests what is, perhaps, the simplest explanation: that someone who repents out of his love for God is inspired by his past behaviors to be more meticulous than others in his accomplishments in the realm of Torah study and fulfillment of mitzvot. Thus it is as though his sins are the driving force behind his drive to perform mitzvot, so the sins can be seen as having positive merit. Furthermore, the Maharil Habib points out in his Tosafot Yom ha- Kippurim that a person who, by doing teshuva, overcomes his desire to perform a sinful act is, by definition, accomplishing a more difficult task than someone who has never sinned and does not have the same desire. The ba’al teshuva is rewarded for overcoming this desire, a reward that stems from the performance of the original sin.
Rav Yehuda describes a ba’al teshuva as someone who is faced with the same scenario that led him to sin in the past, but overcomes his desire and refrains from committing the sin. The Rambam claims that finding oneself in the exact same situation – that is to say, being given the opportunity to do teshuva – is one of the indications that your teshuva has been accepted, something that not everyone merits.
Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 2:2) explains: “And what is teshuvah? The sinner should forsake his sin and remove it from his thoughts and resolve in his heart that he will no longer do it.”
Yom Kippur is the day when we stand in front of Hashem, confronting ourselves and cleansing away our sins in order to complete our teshuvah.5 Rav Yisroel Salanter notes that the resolution to forsake our sins is the hardest aspect of the service of Yom Kippur. Both Rambam and Rabbenu Yonah (“Shaarei Teshuvah - Gates of Repentance”) include the forsaking of one's sin as being among its most basic aspects. Yet, an obvious question arises. When we truly resolve, in the deepest recesses of our being, that we will never commit that sin again, doesn't Hashem consider us to be completely cleansed and forgiven? What if after Yom Kippur, or even months
5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20086.pdf
13 or years later, we stumble, and repeat that sin? Does it mean that, retroactively, our teshuvah was insincere? Sifsei Chaim explains that the answer is no.
On Yom Kippur Hashem is looking into those recesses of our beings far more deeply than we are able to look, and He knows the sincerity of the resolution that we made. And if one does repeat that sin, it is as a new person, with a new sin, for which the person, once again, must do teshuvah. Yet it is not quite so simple.
On Yom Kippur we stand in fear, trembling before the Master of the Universe. Since we cannot help but resolve to do what Hashem wants when His Presence is so close, perhaps that resolution merely reflects the environment we are in. We are too afraid to do otherwise. Or perhaps it is really a reflection of our deepest selves, wanting to turn completely back towards Hashem, and away from the sin which has distanced Him from us.
The analogy would be that of a young boy with a stern father, who tells him to throw away the candy he is holding because he's had too much. The boy naturally listens, because he cannot ignore the punishment which his father will immediately give if he disobeys, yet in his heart he still wants that candy. And if the father is called away after he discards it, he might quickly take back the sweets. Unfortunately some of us fool ourselves by the intensity of the day and think we have made a total commitment when, in reality, we are more like that young child. The resolve and the teshuvah are only external.
Yet the goal is to spend the month of Elul and the Aseres Y'mei Teshuvah - the Ten Days of Teshuvah - in making a total accounting of not just what we have done, but in planning what we can do to forsake those sins which have brought sorrow to our hearts and tears to our eyes. In doing so, we can genuinely leave that sin behind and finish Yom Kippur as a truly new person. That is the most difficult aspect of our task on this awesome day.
Great is repentance!
RABBI SETH GORENWRITES:6
Scattered throughout Jewish texts are numerous enthusiastic declarations about shalom— peace. “Great is peace!” they each begin, followed by further explanation and a biblical proof text. In Vayikra Rabbah, a late rabbinic commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says that peace is great because it includes each and every blessing, while Rabbi Hizkiyah posits that peace is great because it includes each and every commandment. In Tractate Yevamot Rabbi Yishmael points out that when Sarah worried aloud that her husband Abraham was too old to father children (Genesis 18:12), God reported to Abraham that Sarah was concerned about her own age (18:13) — proving that keeping the peace in a long-term relationship supersedes strict truth-telling. Centuries later, the philosopher and halakhist Moses Maimonides writes in the Mishneh Torah that peace is great “since the entire Torah has been given to create peace in the world.”
6 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yoma-86/
14 Our daf deploys this same formula to extol the virtues of teshuvah — repentance. “Great is repentance,” agree four rabbis, but for different reasons. Let’s start with Rabbi Yohanan:
Rabbi Yohanan said: Great is repentance, as it overrides even a prohibition of the Torah. How so? It is stated that God said: …If a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, may he return to her again? Will not that land be greatly polluted? But you have committed adultery with many lovers; and yet you return to me. ( Jeremiah 3:1 )
The biblical prophet Jeremiah often and loudly bemoaned that Israel had turned away from God, frequently employing a marriage metaphor — God being a spurned husband and Israel a wayward wife. In this passage, Jeremiah reminds us that Deuteronomy 24:4 explicitly prohibits a former husband and wife from reuniting as a couple if the wife has since married another man. And yet, Israel does return to God — an act that would override the law of Deuteronomy, were we to take this metaphor to its logical conclusion. That, says Rabbi Yohanan, is the power of repentance: It overrides even biblically mandated constraints, allowing God and the people Israel to recommit to each other.
As the page continues, other rabbis continue extolling repentance. Rabbi Yonatan tells us that repentance will hasten the final redemption, the messianic era. Reish Lakish offers a beautiful midrash that says repentance has the power to convert intentional sin, which carries the weight of heavy punishment, into unintentional sin — a mere “stumbling” — and thereby soften the punishment. The Gemara also knows of a different version of Reish Lakish’s teaching in which repentance carries an even more potent power — it can convert intentional sins into merits. It’s as if repentance has the power to downgrade a speeding ticket, which gives you negative points on your license in addition to a sizable fine, to a summary offense for not wearing your seatbelt — or even convert it to a Most Improved Driver award.
The final teaching comes from Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani, who quotes Rabbi Yonatan as follows:
Great is repentance, which lengthens the years of a person’s life, as it is stated: When the wicked man turns from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he will preserve his life. ( Ezekiel 18:27 )
So there you have it: Repentance is great. It breaks down seemingly impossible boundaries, it converts sins into merits, and it lengthens one’s life. For this reason, Yom Kippur is not just one of the most solemn and awe-filled days on the Jewish calendar; it’s also one of the most ecstatically joyful.
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7
As part of its discussion about repentance and atonement, today’s daf (Yoma 86a) speaks about the severity of ‘one who bears the sin of Chillul Hashem (Desecration of the Name)’ and it then proceeds to offer some varied examples of Chillul Hashem. For example, according to Rav, a Chillul Hashem occurs when someone who is known for their piety does not pay a local butcher for the meat which they purchase - even if the local common practice is to place purchases on account and then pay at a later date. Contrasting this, Rav Yochanan states that a
7 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com
15 Chillul Hashem occurs when someone known for their piety ‘goes four amot without studying Torah or wearing Tefillin’. Others, such as Yitzchak from the academy of Rav Yannai, explain that a Chillul Hashem occurs anytime when our behaviour or reputation makes our friends feel embarrassed. While a Beraita is quoted which suggests that a Chillul Hashem occurs when someone who is knowledgeable in Torah but who does not conduct their business affairs faithfully, or who does not speak pleasantly with others.
Clearly, all of these are important definitions. However, the question which occurred to me when learning these teachings is whether they all considered to be the same measure of ‘Chillul Hashem’ or whether some are worse than others. For an answer to this question, I would like to quote the Rambam’s Ma’amar Kiddush Hashem – which is sometimes referred to as his ‘Iggeret HaShmad’ (Letter of Apostasy) – whose translation by Rabbi Leon Stitskin can be found in Tradition (Summer 1977), for it is here where he explains the meaning of these teachings and their hierarchy within the laws of Chillul Hashem:
“The profanation of the Holy Name and its punishment ..may be divided into two parts. The first is of a universal, and the second, of a particular nature. The universal is, in turn, subdivided into two types.
The first type is of one who commits a sin out of spite, i.e., not for personal pleasure or delight, but rather to demonstrate his contempt and rejection of religion. Such an act is considered a desecration of the Holy Name. It is with reference to this type that the Blessed One said, "and you shall not swear falsely in My Name, and desecrate the name of your God" (Leviticus 19: 12)…
The second type refers to a person who displays a cynical disregard of public opinion with reference to his physical behavior and thereby is held up to public ridicule and slander. Such an individual, although he committed no sin, has nevertheless desecrated the Holy Name. Every person should be sensitive to public censure, just as one has to guard against sins committed against the Creator, as we read, "And you shall be pure before God and Israel" (Numbers 32:22). The rabbis further maintain:
R. Nahman, son of Yizhak said, "As people say, may the Lord forgive this man's actions." And they continue: "As for example, his friends, are embarrassed by the rumors concerning him"
Yoma 86a
The specific element is also divided into two types. The first, represents a self-respecting pious individual who performs an act which, while legally defensible, is unfit for a man of high repute, of whom generally more is expected than of an ordinary person, then he is guilty of having desecrated the Holy Name. This is the manner Rab defines the profanation of the Holy Name: "For example, if I would purchase meat and do not pay promptly", that is to say, it is not fitting for a man of his position to buy anything unless paid for at once without procrastination, although such a practice is permissible for others:
Likewise, the comment by R. Johanan is a case in point: "For example, if I walk fourpaces without phylacteries." The point here is that it is not fitting for a man of his calibre to do so. Thus we find in the Talmud the dictum concerning "the distinctiveness of the prominent individual."
16
The second type of the specific element delineates a learned person who conducts his commercial affairs with his fellowman with disdain and in an unseemly, hideous manner. He receives people in an irascible, contemptuous manner, devoid of any display of affable social behavior or the usual discreet and courteous amenities. Such an individual is guilty of desecrating the Holy Name.
Referring to them the sages say (Yoma 86): "But if someone studies Scripture and Mishnah, but is dishonest in business, and discourteous in his relations with people, what do people say about him? 'Woe unto him who studied the Torah, woe unto his father who taught him Torah: woe unto his teacher who taught him Torah!' This man has studied the Torah: Look, how corrupt are his deeds, how ugly his ways; of him Scripture says: 'In that men said of them: These are the people of the Lord, and are gone forth out of His Land!'''’
As the Rambam continues to explain – again based on our daf – “Clearly, the desecration of the Holy Name surpasses all other iniquities for which neither the Day of Atonement, nor personal suffering or penance can atone for completely.”
Thus, for the sake of ourselves, for the sake of Judaism, and for the sake of the Name of God, we should be exceedingly careful to avoid any action which proximate to being a Chillul Hashem.
Harav Aharon Lichtenstein writes:8
How do we categorize and describe teshuva: as an opportunity or as an obligation? The two terms are, of course, quite different. When we speak of opportunity, we generally have in mind
8 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/holidays/rosh-hashana/teshuva-obligation-and-opportunity
17 some fortunate, perhaps undeserved, option to which we are glad to have access, whereas obligation conjures up a sense of pressing demand, a categorical imperative grounded in an existential situation or mandated by an authoritative commander. One doesn’t need to think hard to realize that the answer is that teshuva is both. I would like to examine in what sense it is both and how these two aspects of teshuva are related.
Teshuva as Opportunity: Free Will
We can bring to bear two distinct elements upon the concept of opportunity, one general and one specific. Broadly speaking, teshuva is grounded in our faith in and experience of free will.
It certainly is no accident that the Rambam, probably the greatest champion of free will among the Rishonim, placed the concept of free will at the very heart of Hilkhot Teshuva. In the three central chapters (chaps. 5–7), the Rambam presents what is probably his fullest exposition of the concept and its significance.
Free will is granted to all people. If one desires to turn himself to the path of good and be righteous, the choice is his. Should he desire to turn to the path of evil and the wicked, the choice is his.
Hilkhot Teshuva 5:1
In halakha 2, he presents and rejects the opposing view, a theological, astrological determinism, insisting instead that “each person is fit to be righteous like Moshe Rabbeinu or wicked like
Yorovam.” After expounding upon the theme of free will over the course of two chapters, he draws his conclusion at the beginning of chapter seven:
18 Since free choice is granted to all people, as explained, a person should always strive to do teshuva and to confess verbally for his sins, striving to cleanse his hands from his sins in order that he may die as one who has performed teshuva and [thereby] merit the life of the World- to-Come. (7:1)
Thus, the prelude to discussing the need for teshuva is the concept of free will generally, the confident faith – so deeply rooted in the world of Halakha – that we have the capacity to manage our lives in accordance with our moral and religious will. This is the first aspect of the opportunity implicit in teshuva.
Teshuva as Opportunity: The Gift of Teshuva
But there is an additional aspect: the gift of teshuva, which is, itself, multiple. At one plane, it is free will writ large. One might have assumed that while freedom is a gift with which we are initially graced, this gift is given to us when we are a kind of tabula rasa, a blank slate unencumbered by sin and degradation; but once the albatross of sinful and immoral behavior has been cast around our necks, we no longer are able to move freely, and no longer possess that capacity for free choice. Indeed, the Rambam states that in extreme cases, such as with
Pharaoh, that is exactly what occurs (Hilkhot Teshuva 6:3). Fortunately, this is not the norm.
The freedom that characterizes our lives generally continues to be in force and allows us to move freely even after sin, even after we have distanced ourselves from God and from our true selves.
Apart from that, there are other elements of opportunity within teshuva that have nothing to do with our ability to repent, but rather with the results of teshuva, and the readiness of God to
19 accept teshuva. We are granted the opportunity of remission of sin; God is willing to waive whatever punishments we had justly deserved. And at the relational level, quite apart from canceling our terrible debts, God is willing to receive us again into His presence and reopen channels of communication. The Rambam, in the continuation of the seventh chapter, stresses this element particularly:
How exalted is the level of teshuva! Only yesterday this sinner was divided from God, the Lord of Israel…. He would call out [to God] without being answered…. He would perform mitzvot, only to have them thrown back in his face…. Today, [after having repented,] he clings to the
Divine Presence…. He calls out [to God] and is answered immediately…. He performs mitzvot, and these are accepted with grace and joy…and, furthermore, God longs for our mitzvot and good deeds. (7:7)[2]
Thus, the opportunity afforded by teshuva, the gift which, by divine grace, we have received, entails three components: (1) the element of free will, which remains operative, notwithstanding the fact that we have defiled ourselves; (2) the readiness on God’s part to forgive our sins; (3) His willingness to forget about the past, and to enable us to come unto
Him once again.[3]
Teshuva as Obligation
But, of course, teshuva, for us, is not simply an opportunity, an option of which we can avail ourselves to the extent that we wish. It is – wondrously – that, but not only that. Teshuva is also an obligation.
20 Now, it is well known that the Minchat Chinnukh questions the imperative nature of teshuva.
The Rambam, both in the heading before Hilkhot Teshuva and in the halakhot themselves, speaks of teshuva, but when prescribing actions he seems to focus upon viddui, verbal confession.[4] The Minchat Chinnukh (364:2) asserts that according to the Rambam teshuva is not counted as a mitzva; rather, it is viddui that is a mitzva. If a person wants to do teshuva, then the Rambam prescribes how it is to be done, just as if one chooses to wear a four-cornered garment, one must affix tzitzit according to certain specifications. There is no verse mandating, at least at the halakhic plane, that a person perform teshuva.
This is, however, an exceedingly strange position to assume. It is absolutely chilling to think that teshuva, the key to our present spiritual state and to our ultimate metaphysical destiny, should be merely a matter of preference and predilection. Is it conceivable that a particular action, viddui, is thoroughly legislated by the Torah, yet that which concerns the totality of our being, teshuva, is a matter of choice? Both the Torah and the prophets constantly hammer away at the theme, “Shuvu, shuvu, shuvu, Return, return, return,” speaking in the name of God to the individual, the Jewish people, and even the other nations! These convey a strong sense that one who is sensitive to his relationship to God, one who is concerned about spiritual values and his own spiritual existence, certainly will want to do teshuva, and surely must do teshuva.
Indeed, other Rishonim counted teshuva as a mitzva, and, to some extent, the Rambam himself can be construed as believing this.[5] In any event, regardless of whether we accept the position of the Minchat Chinnukh or we accept that teshuva is an independent obligation, the place of teshuva as a central value, as a lynchpin within religious life, is certainly secure.[6]
This obligation is, of course, multiple. Inasmuch as sin itself entails various components, likewise, teshuva, which is the corrective of sin, has various components. First, there is the evil
21 in the sin itself that needs to be corrected, be the sin bein adam la-Makom, in the man-God realm, or bein adam le-chavero, interpersonal. Second, at the level of bein adam la-Makom, there is obviously the affront to God in every violation of His will. Furthermore, sin defiles spiritually and religiously, and that requires a corrective. Likewise, at the level of bein adam le-chavero, sin defiles a society, a community, and one needs to perform teshuva for that defilement, too.
Finally, a sinner must repent for the offense to himself, bein adam le-atzmo. To sin, and to remain mired in sin is, first and foremost, to endanger ourselves, as sin is damaging to one’s personality, regardless of religious or spiritual consequences. A central aspect of our worldview is that one has responsibility not only to others, but also to oneself. The liberal notion that a person is master of himself and therefore can arrange his life and activities as he wishes, so long as he is ready to bear the consequences, stands totally in opposition to the worldview of
Judaism, and indeed to any religious perception. A religious perspective views human life and the human self as a gift or a charge given by God. Hence, we have a responsibility not only to the divine image in others, but to the divine image in ourselves. A person who curses himself or maims himself violates the same prohibition as one who curses or maims others. And, surely, just as we are enjoined to save others from impending disaster, so we are enjoined to save ourselves, and this relates not only to our physical lives, but a fortiori to our spiritual lives as well. Teshuva, therefore, is demanded of us, quite apart from what we need to do for God, or need to do for our surroundings. We need to do it for ourselves, as part of our responsibility to our Creator who has entrusted us with a nitzotz Eloka mi-ma’al, a divine spark embedded within us.
22 These elements of teshuva are clearly obligatory, whether teshuva is an independent mitzva or, even failing that, is a religious and moral imperative growing out of our sensibility regarding spiritual matters.
Linking Opportunity and Obligation
When speaking of teshuva as an obligation, there is an additional element to be borne in mind.
The Rambam states:
Yom Kippur is a time of teshuva for all, individuals and community, and it is the occasion of forgiveness and remission for Israel. Accordingly, everyone is obligated to repent and confess on Yom Kippur.
Hilkhot Teshuva 2:7
The Rambam presents a fact and then draws an inference from it. The fact is that Yom Kippur is a day which is favorable for teshuva. That being the case, says the Rambam – and there is a causal nexus here – all are obligated to do teshuva and recite the viddui. In effect, the Rambam has linked the two elements we are addressing: if you have the opportunity, you must avail yourself of it. So, apart from the fact that there might be a mitzva of teshuva, just as there is a mitzva of lulav, sukka, or shofar, there is an additional ground for teshuva being obligatory: the fact that it is possible renders it mandatory. The opportunity produces an obligation.
The same thought is presented by Rabbeinu Yona in Sha’arei Teshuva:
23 Realize that the penalty of the sinner who defers teshuva greatly intensifies itself each day.
[Why?] For he knows that anger has gone forth upon him and that there is a sanctuary to which he can flee, the sanctuary of teshuva, and still he persists in his rebellion and continues in his evil. Though it is within his power to emerge from the turmoil, still he does not fear the scorn and the wrath. His evil, therefore, is great. (1:2)
The reason the punishment increases daily is that person knows he has offended God and is justly liable for punishment, and, additionally, knows that there is an escape hatch, and yet he doesn’t avail himself of that opportunity. As an example, Rabbeinu Yona cites a famous midrash (Kohelet Rabba 7:32) about a group of imprisoned criminals who show some initiative and dig a tunnel underneath the jail. One by one, naturally, they leave, yet one of them remains behind. The jailer comes along, sees the tunnel open, and strikes the remaining criminal with his staff, saying, “Fool! The tunnel is open before you; how did you not avail yourself of it and rush to freedom?” The jailer, who, after all, should be reacting against this escape hatch, regards the remaining criminal as a person to whom freedom – which should be a central value – is of little moment. In effect, Rabbeinu Yona and the midrash are saying that the moment the opportunity is there, it engenders obligation, at least to a person who is morally and religiously sensitive; failure to avail ourselves of the opportunity becomes a sin all over again.
So, if we ask ourselves whether teshuva is an opportunity, a chesed granted by God, or an obligation, a demand imposed upon us, the answer is not only that it is both, independently; it is both, intertwined. The very existence of the opportunity imposes a fresh obligation. This is the meaning of the Rambam’s expression, “Accordingly.” It is inconceivable that a person who attaches significance to his own spiritual state should be totally impervious and insensitive to
24 the ability to restore his relationship to God and to cleanse himself. If, indeed, he does not seize the opportunity, this is both a symptom and a cause of spiritual weakness.
Opportunity and Obligation within a General Religious Worldview
Within the worldview of Chazal and of gedolei Yisrael, this sense of both the centrality of opportunity and obligation and their interaction can be viewed as a manifestation of a much broader concept. It can be placed within the more general context of our conception of divine service in particular and of human existence in general. Both opportunity and obligation are central concepts within our view of human life as it is and as it ought to be. At one plane, the sense of obligation, of duty, is both critical and central, whether at the moral plane – we think of humans as by definition committed, willy-nilly, to a moral and ethical life as part of having been created in the image of God[7] – or at the religious plane. If we were to take a single term that, more than anything else, we could regard as defining human existence and what frames our lives, it would certainly be the concept of mitzva. A Jew lives, first and foremost, as a called being, as a commanded being.
The very first Rashi in Chumash presents this idea not only surprisingly, but I would say audaciously. Rashi quotes the celebrated midrash in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak that the Torah ought to have started not with Bereishit but with the first mitzva – the implication being that what is important in Torah is the mitzvot. This perspective holds that Torah is, essentially, a legislative document that speaks to us in normative terms. The sense of being commanded is central to Jewish existence.
25 Although the Jew is commanded more thoroughly and extensively than others, divine command is also a universal category. The sense of human life as being guided, informed, and saturated by the sense of command is part of our conception of universal existence. In this context, let us examine two very striking verses in Bereishit, chapter 2. The first verse says,
“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may eat’” (2:16).
Then the Torah continues, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat of it, you shall be worthy of death.” The question arises:
Whereas the first verse says that God commanded Adam, the actual command, not to eat from the tree of knowledge, is only in the second verse. Why, then, is initial reference made to “Of every tree of the garden you may eat,” which is not part of the commandment?
The question, as I have formulated it, is grounded in the essentially secular conception that
God has commanded us only with regard to certain areas of life, and that He has left a large neutral area where our own will and preferences find expression; there we act as we want. He has “His four cubits” (Berakhot 8a), but the rest of the ballpark is ours. However, a religious conception does not view any aspect of human reality as devoid of God and His commanding presence. While the Halakha does, at times, distinguish between a devar mitzva (obligatory matter) and a devar reshut (optional matter), [8] fundamentally, the message is that the realm of devar reshut is not outside the ambience of God, but under His tutelage. Thus, not only is abstaining from the tree of knowledge a realization of the divine command, but eating every other fruit in the Garden of Eden – and anywhere else – is likewise part of serving God, part of the realization of “the Lord God commanded.” As a verse stated to Adam, it is of universal import.[9]
Seizing Opportunity in the Spiritual Realm
26
The sense that opportunity engenders obligation in the spiritual realm is not just a universal religious conception but also a central category of a Torah-based worldview. The failure to exploit spiritual potential, the failure to drink spiritual life to the lees, is not just some kind of pallid passivity, but, in the perception of Chazal, it is spiritual rot, described as such and condemned as such.
Let me cite several examples drawn from various areas of human life. The Gemara in Yevamot speaks of the mitzva of procreation. One would think that if a person is enjoined to procreate and he does not do it, his failure is only that he has not fulfilled a positive mitzva. While it is not ideal to miss a mitzva, he hasn’t taken an evil action; he simply has not done something good. But this is not how Chazal speak of him:
It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer states, He who does not engage in procreation is as though he [is one who] sheds blood…. Rabbi Ya’akov said, It is as if, so to speak, a person has diminished the stature of God…. Ben Azzai says, It is as though he sheds blood and diminishes the divine image. (Yevamot 63b)
All this where one has simply not availed himself of the opportunity to fulfill a certain mitzva, that of procreating and building a family.
Let us now take something more directly interpersonal. The Gemara in Berakhot (12b) states:
“Rabba bar Chinnana Sava said in the name of Rav: Anyone who is able to beg for mercy for his friend and does not do so is called a sinner.” For example, if a friend of his is ill, he could have said Tehillim or he could have implored God on his behalf; yet he didn’t do it, either
27 because he didn’t think of it, or he was busy with other activities. Again, we would say he hasn’t done the mitzva, but we might not have said he sinned. After all, it is not an absolute mitzva like procreation, but rather gemilut chesed, an act of kindness. Nevertheless, Chazal say, “He is called a sinner.”
Or, to take another area: regarding Torah study, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (99a) is literally frightening. The verse at the end of Shelach (Bemidbar 15:31) refers to a person very severely:
“A person has defamed the word of God and has countermanded His command.” Who is considered to have “defamed the word of God”? “Rabbi Nehorai says, He who can engage in the study of the Torah but fails to do so.” If one wants to understand how seriously Chazal regarded this, you need only to look at the other things listed there: one who maintains that the
Torah is not from Heaven, or a heretic, etc. And who joins this list? One who has an opportunity for Torah study and didn’t avail himself of it! Then there is the Gemara in Chagiga (5b) that lists three classes of people over whom God, so to speak, weeps daily. Who is the first on the list? “He who can engage in the study of Torah but fails to do so.” God, so to speak, weeps over the failure to translate opportunity into obligation, to avail oneself spiritually of that which was within reach.
Chazal saw the significance of opportunity and the need to translate it into obligation not only in abstract terms; they read Tanakh and saw central figures in the Bible in its light. For example,
Chazal say (Berakhot 7a) that when Moshe Rabbeinu asked God, “I pray, please show me Your glory” (Shemot 33:18), God said to him, “When I wanted to reveal Myself [at the time of the burning bush], you ran away. Now that you want, I don’t want.” Apparently, this gemara regards Moshe critically in the same vein we have been developing: he had an opportunity to see the revelation of the Divine Presence, but he didn’t have the spiritual resources or inner
28 strength for that encounter. This was a failing, and that opportunity, having been missed, was not to be restored.
Even more strikingly, the Gemara in Chullin (91b), cited by Rashi, [10] discusses Ya’akov
Avinu as he was leaving his father’s house. Based on an inconsistency in Ya’akov’s itinerary
– he seems to have arrived in Charan and then gone back to Beit-El – Rabbi Yitzchak says that
Ya’akov reached Charan and then realized what he had passed. “Is it conceivable that I passed by a place where my forefathers had prayed and I did not pray there?” I suppose most of us could do that quite readily and quite frequently. What Chazal are stating here is that Ya’akov, in what was a critical juncture in his life, suddenly realized, retrospectively, that he had had an opportunity and passed it up. It wasn’t a mitzva – there is no mitzva to pray specifically where one’s ancestors did – but it was an opportunity: to find inspiration, to define his mission and his future, and to derive strength from a return to his roots. He could have done all that, but he did not. He passed by the place at which his ancestors prayed as if it were a subway station.
The moment that Ya’akov realized that, he was struck with regret and guilt over having neglected a wonderful opportunity. But being Ya’akov Avinu, he didn’t just let himself be eaten away by remorse; he turned around.
A remarkable passage in the Yerushalmi extends this concept far beyond the spiritual area with which we are dealing.
Rabbi Chizkiya, Rabbi Kohen in the name of Rav stated: A person will stand in judgment
[before the Almighty] for every [fruit] that he saw and of which he did not partake. Rabbi
Lazar took this to heart and planted a little garden [with many types of fruit]. At least once a year he took pains to partake of each fruit.
29
Kiddushin 4:12
A person has the opportunity to partake of God’s world, to come in live contact, even as a consumer, with that which the Almighty has created, and that, too, is a form of contact with
God. Now, why must a person eat all types of fruit? He has his staple fruits that he enjoys, which he eats from year to year. Even if that means having a more circumscribed experience of God’s world, so be it. Yet for that one is going to stand in judgment! If the opportunity to eat a guava engenders an obligation to eat it, what are we to say of the opportunity to pray properly, to learn Torah properly, to engage in chesed properly, to be suffused with a sense of
God’s presence, to perform teshuva properly? We are expected to lead a life charged with a sense of obligation, on the one hand, and with a sense of the awareness of opportunity, on the other. We need to keep our eyes and ears open to know where opportunity is present, and to live a life suffused with the interaction of the two.
Bringing Opportunity and Obligation Back to Teshuva
These two concepts and their interaction have special relevance to teshuva. Life is, to a great extent, a field of opportunity; but at the same time, it is also a field of missed opportunities.
When an infant is born, the whole world is potential. Gradually, by the exigencies of life and the need for self-definition, the field of one’s activity narrows, and all kinds of opportunities that had, in theory, existed at birth dwindle and eventually disappear from sight. Beyond this natural constriction, there is our failure to seize opportunities that were within grasp. We were not sufficiently sensitive and aware; either we did not realize the importance of the value, or did not sufficiently take heed to look around us and see where the opportunity existed. As a
30 result, we missed so much valuable, significant spiritual potential. Retrospectively, we realize we could have structured our lives so much better, suffused it with greater value, organized it more efficiently, utilized time and effort more wisely. We could have set our priorities more correctly. We look back upon life, and, even when we don’t see active evil, we see so much waste. And waste is itself evil.
With regard to the prohibition of bal tashchit, of wasting property, the Gemara in Shabbat
(129a, 140b) teaches: “Bal tashchit as applied to one’s own person stands higher”; waste of human resources is more critical than waste of property. How much worse is the waste of spiritual potential, that gap between what we could have been, what we should have been, and what we are. Everyone has this gap; for some it is enormous, and for others it seems smaller, but there is always the gap. That gap is the waste of human potential that was inherent within us, of the divine image God gave us. We, somehow, “diminished the stature of God” within ourselves. We could have procreated spiritually, but we did not do it. Maybe it sounds too severe to translate this into a kind of bloodshed, choking off incipient life, but we can certainly speak of “diminishing the stature of God.” To the extent that we are spiritually sensitive, this is both pitiful and tormenting.
Along comes the opportunity of teshuva. Teshuva is not just an opportunity per se; it is the opportunity to amend for all the missed opportunities. Teshuva is the chance to redress the balance, to take all of that waste and not only neutralize it but energize it, even transforming it into a positive force. Chazal teach:
Reish Lakish said: Great is teshuva, for one’s intentional sins are counted as unwitting transgressions…. Is that so? Did not Reish Lakish say: Great is teshuva, for one’s
31 intentional sins are counted as merits?… This is not difficult; one is out of love, the other out of fear.
Yoma 86b
Where teshuva is properly experienced, even “intentional sins are counted as merits.” So, if one can speak of life, generally, as opportunity translated into obligation, teshuva is the opportunity to bring back all that we missed, to confront the torment and amend the failure.
Ultimately, it allows us to restructure and rebuild our lives, and perhaps even more, when teshuva is performed out of love, to build upon our failure, our waste, and our diminishing of the divine stature.
Teshuva: A Gate and a Window of Opportunity
When we speak of opportunity, we can refer to two separate concepts. There is, first, a kind of constant opportunity. One has the ability to involve oneself in Torah every day, every hour, within the limits of other obligations and commitments. Second, there are opportunities that are more specific, that arise at a particular time due to a confluence of circumstances, as when opportunity “knocks.” We might speak, then, of a “gate” of opportunity, and a “window” of opportunity. A gate is always open, so that you can walk through it whenever you want. In contrast, a window normally is shut, and during the fleeting moment when it is opened one can hope to extend his hand through it.[11]
Teshuva, as the opportunity to amend for the failure to exploit opportunity, can be viewed in both perspectives. In a certain sense, teshuva is always possible. Every moment, every day, a person can perform teshuva. “The gates of teshuva are eternally open” (Devarim Rabba 2:12), and the outstretched hand, as it were, of the Almighty is always there. But there are also
32 moments when He knocks on our window, when we experience “Kol, Dodi dofek, A sound, my Beloved is knocking” (Shir Ha-shirim 5:2). And then the obligation, grounded in opportunity, becomes that much greater. The constant opportunity is certainly challenging and imperative, but if, beyond that, God does not simply remain majestically ready to receive you, but reaches out to you and descends to you, woe to one who misses that, who relives the verse,
“Dodi chamak avar, My Beloved has slipped away” (Shir Ha-shirim 5:6). When the opportunity is sharper and more immediate, the obligation is much greater as well.
It is in this vein that we are to understand the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yona. Yom Kippur is
“the occasion of forgiveness and remission for Israel.” This is a time when God is not simply present in the recesses of His infinite being, but has descended to us. The verse commands us to “Seek out the Lord when He may be found, call upon Him when He is near” (Yeshayahu
55:6), and Chazal say, “These are the ten days from Rosh Ha-shana to Yom Kippur” (Rosh
Ha-shana 18a; Yevamot 49b). This is “when He is near”; this is the opportunity that beckons particularly. And if it beckons it obligates! “Accordingly, everyone is obligated to repent.”
Self-examination during the Ten Days of Repentance
What does this teshuva demand of us? Of course, we must view our lives honestly and in detail to see where and whom we have wronged. But that kind of introspection is not sufficient, for if teshuva is indeed the opportunity to amend for lost opportunity, we need to address ourselves to that loss, to that waste. We need to confront not simply the active sinner in us, but the indolent in us.
The Gemara in Berakhot (5a) states:
33 Rava, and some say Rav Chisda, said: If a person sees that painful sufferings visit him, let him examine his conduct, as the verse states, “Let us search and examine our ways and return to the Lord” (Eikha 3:40). If he checked and did not find [sinful behavior], let him attribute it to the neglect of the study of Torah.
The question arises: when he examined his conduct, did he not look into neglect of Torah study? I think the answer is clear. Of course, when a person examines his conduct, among the various areas he investigates is whether he is learning Torah: “The study of Torah is equal to all the others” (Pe’a 1:1). But he conducts his self-examination only at the level of whether he sinned by neglecting the mitzva of Torah study. Yet neglect of Torah is not just a question of a sin. While the Gemara in Sanhedrin castigated one who had the opportunity to study but did not, the Gemara in Chagiga discussed another dimension of neglect of Torah – one that caused the Almighty, so to speak, to weep! Why is He described as weeping only over neglect of Torah study, but not over desecration of Shabbat or eating non-kosher food? It is because the weeping is not over sins as such; it is over the waste of this wonderful resource of human life that could have been developed and was instead left to rot. When Chazal speak of attributing suffering that has no discernible cause to “neglect of Torah study,” they refer to the waste, the failure to energize spiritual potential.
That examination of deeds of which Rava speaks has various components. Broadly speaking, we certainly subscribe to the Socratic axiom that the unexamined life is not worth living – but we need to bear in mind what it is that we examine. We need to undergo self-examination at three different levels. There is the examination of which the Rambam speaks at the beginning of Hilkhot Teshuva, where a person examines his actions: I did this, or I didn’t do that. There is, at the other extreme, the examination of one’s self: who am I, and where do I stand in relation
34 to who I could be? Between these extremes, the Gemara quotes the verse in Eikha, “Let us search and examine our ways” (3:40), referring to the totality of our behavior. The Rav z”l used to speak frequently of “sin,” meaning specific actions, and “the ways of sin,” the whole context of lifestyle and personality out of which sin develops and by which it is sustained. This direction that life takes, this modality of activity, stands somewhere between the definition of self and the analysis of particular actions.
With regard to the concept of the waste of spiritual resources, of the failure to implement a kind of spiritual carpe diem, we need to examine ourselves at all three levels: we check our actions, we examine our ways, and, perhaps most profoundly and painfully, we investigate our very being, our inner self.
All of this is extraordinarily demanding and difficult. It is hard enough to do what we are supposed to do and abstain from that which we are proscribed from doing, clearly and narrowly defined. But, when we not only hold ourselves to a standard of what we do, but gauge ourselves by optimum, by potential, and therefore hold ourselves accountable for every opportunity we could have seized and did not – this is, as I said, painful, even tormenting. Yet here we encounter not only the obligation of teshuva, but the chesed of teshuva.
Teshuva as Tashlumin
I spoke earlier of a kind of opportunity to make amends for missed opportunity. In the world of Halakha, this is known as tashlumin. We have two models for this, and there is a clear difference between them.
35 First, there is a type of tashlumin where, if you missed the first opportunity, you have a second chance. The paradigm is Pesach sheni (Bemidbar 9:9–14).[12] If you didn’t bring the Pesach offering on the fourteenth of Nisan – not only, as in the passage in the Torah, where a person was at a distance or impure (Bemidbar 9:10), but even if you violated intentionally – you bring
Pesach sheni, the compensatory Pesach offering on the fourteenth of Iyar. Similarly, if you didn’t bring the mandatory festive offerings, the korbenot ha-regel, on the first day of a
Festival, you can bring them during the entire holiday.[13] Or, if you didn’t make havdala on
Saturday night, according to many Rishonim[14] you can make havdala until Tuesday, be-torat tashlumin, as a compensation. We don’t know why the Torah gave tashlumin for korban Pesach and didn’t give tashlumin for hearing the shofar or sitting in the sukka. Whatever the reason, with regard to certain mitzvot, there is a second chance.
The second type of tashlumin is applicable to prayer. The Gemara says that since prayer contains an aspect of rachamei, supplication for mercy, the halakha of tashlumin applies to it.
Unlike the earlier cases, here the Gemara explains why there is a second opportunity for prayer.
The reason is that prayer is an expression of our quest, our pleading, and a plea can never be shut off. Therefore, there is a halakhic difference between the tashlumin of korban Pesach and korbenot ha-regel, and the tashlumin of prayer. Regarding Pesach and regel, even if a person violated the mitzva intentionally the first time around, he still has tashlumin. It’s a gezerat ha- katuv, a Torah edict. With regard to prayer, however, there is tashlumin only for unintentional neglect of the mitzva, such as if he accidentally forgot, or if circumstances did not enable him to pray, but not if he omitted prayer intentionally. The Gemara implies that, fundamentally, prayer should not have tashlumin – it should be like most other mitzvot. But at the level of rachamei, mercy, prayer is essentially a plea, a turning to the Almighty, and those gates can never be closed. That being the case, if one wantonly missed the prayer, if one knew it was
36 taking place but did not want to stop what he was doing and pray – such a person is denied the opportunity to make it up later.
Teshuva is a kind of tashlumin, an opportunity to amend that which one did not avail himself of initially, and it is an opportunity grounded in rachamei. Rachamei here has a dual sense. On
God’s part, it is an expression of compassion and kindness. It defies all logic to turn back the clock, to restructure the past; this is divine chesed. On our part, it means a plea, turning to God out of the depths of our remorse and our desire, not only to amend but to build. And where there is rachamei on our part and on His, then, indeed, the great burden of trying to review one’s life, with all the concern and all the anxiety accompanying that review, is then channeled into teshuva. This introspection into one’s actions and into the path of one’s life, which in one respect is so difficult and perhaps tormenting, becomes – to the extent that it is our rachamei and His rachamei – so uplifting, so ennobling. It becomes, indeed, a manifestation and a realization of the opportunity to restore everything we had missed and which now, in the infinite kindness of the Almighty, we are able to sustain and to develop.
We do not want to be like the prisoner in Rabbeinu Yona’s midrash: not to be prisoners of ourselves, of our past, or of our failure. If we have within us the spiritual resources, the desire to move, to build, and to avail ourselves of that remarkable chesed of the Almighty – the chesed of teshuva, of forgiveness and atonement, of the remission of sin and of punishment, and, above all, the chesed of the restoration of our relation to Him – then what might seem almost an unbearably difficult task becomes a source of joy. Then we encounter the Almighty receiving us, opening the gates, “Petach lanu sha’ar…ki fana yom, Open the gate for us…for day is nearly past” (Ne’ilah prayer).
37 [1]. Excerpted with permission from Rav Lichtenstein’s book, Return and Renewal: Reflections on Teshuva and Spiritual
Growth, eds. Michael S. Berger and Reuven Ziegler (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2018). This sicha was delivered at the Gruss Institute in Jerusalem in Tishrei 5759 (1998), and was adapted by the editors from a transcript prepared by Michael and Rena Siev.
[2]. The concept of teshuva as a gift God has given us can also be found in the way Rabbeinu Yona opens his Sha’arei
Teshuva:
Concerning the principles of teshuva: among the Blessed One’s kindnesses to His creations is having prepared for them the way to rise from the pit of their deeds and to escape the trap of their offenses…. In His great goodness and uprightness, He has taught and exhorted them to turn to Him upon having sinned against Him…. Even if they have offended and rebelled exceedingly and been utterly faithless, He has not closed the doors of repentance to them.
This chesed is a gift, an opportunity conferred upon us by God.
[3]. These different aspects of free will can also be detected in the language of the prophets. They speak not only of teshuva
“from,” turning away from sin, as in the verse: “Turn, turn from your evil ways” (Yechezkel 33:11), but also teshuva “to,” exemplified by: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hoshea 14:2).
[4]. Hilkhot Teshuva 1:1 states:
If a person transgresses any of the mitzvot of the Torah, whether a positive commandment or a prohibition, whether willingly or inadvertently, when he repents, and returns from his sin, he must confess before God, blessed be He, as the verse states (Bemidbar 5:6–7), “Any man or woman who commits any wrong toward a fellow man…. They shall confess their wrongdoing.” This refers to verbal confession (viddui), and this confession is a positive commandment.
[5]. In the heading to Hilkhot Teshuva, the Rambam writes, “There is one positive commandment herein, namely, that a sinner should repent from his sin before God and confess.” The emphasis does seem to be more on the act of teshuva itself than on the detail of confession.
[6]. No less an authority than the Vilna Gaon insisted that there are values that may be of the highest order, even though they are not counted among the mitzvot. See his commentary on Megillat Esther, 10:3, s.v. doresh tov:
This refers to good deeds and proper middot, for proper middot are more crucial than all the [actions], as I have written that the proper middot are not written explicitly in the Torah, for they underlie the entire Torah. As the Gemara states, one should regard one who gets angry as an idolater (Shabbat 105b), and one who gossips is considered like a heretic (Arakhin 15b); and the same goes for all the middot.
[7]. Like Kant’s famous sense of wonder – inspired, as he said, by the starry heavens above him and the moral law within him (Critique of Practical Reason 5:161) – the force of moral law is certainly part of our tradition and part of our sensibility.
[8]. For example, a person can make an oath with regard to a devar reshut, but not with regard to a devar mitzva. See Rambam,
Hilkhot Nedarim 3:7–8.
[9]. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) uses this verse as a point of departure for the seven Noachide laws incumbent on all humanity.
[10]. Bereishit 28:10, s.v. ki va.
38 [11]. These relate to two terms in Modern Hebrew: hizdamnut, which by definition is of a particular time and occasion, and
efsharut, which connotes the possible, something that is always there.
[12]. There is a dispute in the Gemara regarding exactly how to define Pesach sheni (Pesachim 93a–b), but, for our purposes,
I will regard it as a tashlumin, compensation.
[13]. Here, again, there are two views in the Gemara (Chagiga 9a) whether this is regarded as tashlumin, compensatory, or not.
[14]. Tosafot, Pesachim 107a, s.v. Ameimar; Rosh, Pesachim 10:13; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 29:4; see Tur and Shulchan
Arukh, Orach Chayim 299:6.
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan on the Power of Repentance: A Reappraisal
Leonard Grunstein writes:9
The captivating story of Reish Lakish’s repentance after a chance encounter with Rabbi Yohanan is well-known.[1] Reish Lakish was a bandit leader[2] and former gladiator.[3] Rabbi Yohanan had gone out for a swim. Reish Lakish mistook him for a woman because of his striking beauty[4] and leapt into the river. Instead, he was confronted with Rabbi Yohanan, who
9 https://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/reish-lakish-and-rabbi-yohanan-on-the-power-of-repentance-a-reappraisal/
39 responded to the threatening posture of Reish Lakish with the disarming and inspirational response, “Your strength [is] for Torah.” Rabbi Yohanan did not reflect on Reish Lakish’s negatives, including his inappropriate life-style and conduct. Rather, he emphasized the positive and, in a complimentary fashion, suggested how much Reish Lakish could accomplish if he applied his obvious powers to Torah.
Reish Lakish didn’t miss a beat, retorting that Rabbi Yohanan should devote his beauty to courting women. Still, Rabbi Yohanan did not deride Reish Lakish’s fascination with physical beauty. Instead, he used the opportunity to deliver a powerful message. He offered that if Reish Lakish were to repent, he would have the opportunity to marry R. Yohanan’s sister, who was even more beautiful than her brother. Once again, Rabbi Yohanan deftly channeled Reish Lakish’s apparent ardor and innate strengths towards a positive outlet. Marriage and the sanctity of Jewish home life, including mutual respect and faithfulness between spouses, after all, are exemplars for the integration of the spiritual and material aspects of life.[5]
Reish Lakish was inspired, agreeing to give up his old life and devote himself to the pursuit of Torah study and its practice. The transformational effect was almost immediate. When he tried to go back and collect his weapons, he was emotionally unable to do so. The two became brothers-in-law, friends, and study partners. Each brought different life experiences, personalities, and perspectives to their discussions. It was not unusual for them to respectfully disagree in their conversations with one another.
Yet words are powerful tools, and can motivate others to do good or cause great harm, as portrayed in the continuation of the saga of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan.[6] The Talmud reports they were learning together in the beit midrash when a hapless contretemps erupted that led to unintended and catastrophic consequences. The halakhic matter under scrutiny was the law of ritual purity applicable to a sword, knife, spear, hand sickle, and harvesting sickle. The scholars debated the precise moment when the completion of the manufacturing process occurs, whereby the raw iron ore is transformed into a utensil and rendered susceptible to ritual impurity.[7] Rabbi Yohanan argued it was when the blade was formed upon being fired in the furnace. Reish Lakish disagreed, asserting that it did not become a vessel until it was hardened in water and sharpened through polishing. Was this just an argument about form versus functionality, or is there more to the discussion than meets the eye?
Consider: if it was a purely legal discussion, Reish Lakish could have done a much better job arguing his position.[8] He might have characteristically[9] argued legal precedent in opposition to Rabbi Yohanan’s position. His brief could have included the Mishnah in Keilim[10] directly on point, which contradicts the view asserted by Rabbi Yohanan. Indeed, Reish Lakish could have even confronted Rabbi Yohanan[11] with one of his own rulings that militated against the argument he was making. It is therefore difficult to accept that this was just another legal argument. There appears to be more to it; indeed, what happened next is supportive of this conclusion.
It began when Rabbi Yohanan made a gratuitous comment that was not well received by Reish Lakish. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the cogent reasoning of Reish Lakish’s position[12], Rabbi Yohanan remarked that a bandit knows the tools of banditry. He might have meant it as a backhanded compliment or presumed Reish Lakish was immune to this kind of trash talking. After all, each of them, on occasion, had engaged in the playful banter of friends and colleagues.[13] Moreover, they typically had vigorous exchanges of ideas. How did this one precipitously degrade into a clash of personalities? Apparently, Reish Lakish interpreted Rabbi
40 Yohanan’s remark as a sarcastic slight. Who would have believed that he would take so hard a reference to his former profession? In fact, while Rabbi Yohanan’s comment was unkind, it did confirm Reish Lakish’s expertise in the particular area under discussion. Reish Lakish might just as well have reveled in the notoriety, and strutted his stuff. Yet he didn’t. His reaction was emotionally charged. Reish Lakish painfully demanded to understand why Rabbi Yohanan was verbally abusing him.[14] Rabbi Yohanan seems to have misunderstood what Reish Lakish was saying[15], because he proceeded to explain how he had benefited Reish Lakish instead of addressing the hurt Reish Lakish felt.[16]
Indeed, this does not appear to be the only misunderstanding which occurred on that day. Reish Lakish responded to Rabbi Yohanan, “I was called Rabbi before and I am called Rabbi now.” Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam dispute what exactly Reish Lakish meant, as the term ‘Rabbi’ may be defined as any master[17] or teacher.
Rashi[18] interprets the retort to mean that Reish Lakish was a master when he was a gladiator or bandit leader before, and master of Torah now. From this perspective, the response was a clever play on words. Rabbeinu Tam,[19] however, views Reish Lakish’s statement more ominously, as harking back to an earlier time, before Reish Lakish became a gladiator and bandit leader. He asserts that Reish Lakish had studied Torah in his earlier life and had even become a Rabbi. He then lost his way and became the disreputable person Rabbi Yohanan encountered at the Jordan River. Under Rabbi Yohanan’s tutelage, he became a Rabbi once again. From this point of view, Rabbi Yohanan’s comeback takes on a taunting and even sinister tone.
Perhaps this is how Rabbi Yohanan understood it, as opposed to how (consistent with Rashi’s interpretation) Reish Lakish may have meant it. The difference in perspectives and the possible misunderstanding it entailed might help explain why Rabbi Yohanan reacted in the seemingly insensitive way he did. After all, the term Rabbi was a title of no small distinction conferred on those who were masters and teachers of Jewish Law. Rabbi Yohanan seems to have been particularly fastidious about the use of the title[20] and protective of the dignity of the position.[21] Thus, the response by Reish Lakish may have been perceived as extremely demeaning to the elevated title and status of Rabbi that Rabbi Yohanan sought to establish as the norm.
Reish Lakish’s perceived flippancy may also have triggered a more serious concern in Rabbi Yohanan’s mind about Reish Lakish’s commitment to his new life as a penitent. In Rabbi Yohanan’s view of repentance, there was no assurance of a permanent transformation (as more fully discussed below). Might he then have overreacted to the seemingly mocking manner in which Reish Lakish referred to his previous history of changing from one role to another and back?
The personal nature of the dispute deepened even further with Rabbi Yohanan’s reply that he benefitted Reish Lakish by bringing him under the wings of the divine presence. This insensitive riposte further struck at Reish Lakish’s vulnerability as a penitent. It also demeaned Reish Lakish’s own role in transforming himself. Reish Lakish had made extraordinary efforts and demonstrated iron will in overcoming his sordid origins to become a revered sage. Moreover, as opposed to Rabbi Yohanan’s initial words, there was no mistaking the intent of this second remark: Rabbi Yohanan was reminding Reish Lakish, the penitent, of his past life.
41 Indeed, the prohibition against reminding the penitent of his or her past life is ancient in origin and traces back to the Bible. The Mishnah[22] rules that the Bible’s prohibition[23] against exploiting someone else applies not only to monetary matters, but also to verbal mistreatment.[24] This includes reminding a penitent of his or her earlier deeds.[25] It even extends to telling someone suffering from an illness or affliction that it is a result of his or her own folly or misdeeds.[26]
Imagine the hurt Reish Lakish must have felt. He was first referred to as a bandit, even if only in jest or as a backhanded compliment. He was then further abused by being reminded that his repentance was only due to Rabbi Yohanan’s intervention. The dialogue is evocative of how exceedingly easy it is to violate the rules against verbal abuse. It doesn’t have to be meant as an insult to inflict harm; inadvertently uttering an insensitive or regrettable comment can also cause pain and suffering. It is well-nigh impossible to anticipate the impact a remark might have on any particular individual. Some people are more vulnerable than others and might silently take umbrage at a statement perceived to be callous or judgmental.
Both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan were devastated by the unfortunate exchange of harsh words. Reish Lakish became deathly ill.[27] After Reish Lakish passed away, Rabbi Yohanan also lost his zest for life. He bemoaned the loss of Reish Lakish and became deeply depressed. He too passed away a broken man.
It is a truly unfortunate tale of two great and wonderful people needlessly causing each other incredible pain and suffering. It begs the question: what motivated them to act and react in the way that they did?
Rabbi Yohanan, Reish Lakish, and Repentance
Another debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan might provide a clue as to why Reish Lakish had such a profoundly negative reaction, and Rabbi Yohanan missed the cues. The Talmud[28] records that Reish Lakish believed that a single pang of guilt in a person’s heart is more painful than a hundred lashes. While Rabbi Yohanan appears to have expressed a somewhat similar sentiment, he views the suffering of the penitent to be far less extreme than that claimed by Reish Lakish. He limits the pain inflicted to something worse than a few lashes.
The difference of opinion may appear to be just one of degree, but might extend beyond that to the very nature of remorse. Reish Lakish cites a verse in Proverbs,[29] which describes how an intelligent person’s reaction to words of rebuke is more effective than physically hitting a fool a hundred times. Words can hurt and the pain can be virtually immeasurable. They can leave an indelible imprint on the person.[30] Perhaps this is why Reish Lakish reacted so painfully to the reminder of his past misdeeds.
Rabbi Yohanan bases his view on an abstruse verse in Hosea,[31] which prima facie seems to have only peripheral relevance to his position.[32] The context, though, provides a clue as to why Rabbi Yohanan reacted so harshly to Reish Lakish’s riposte. The verse describes a form of ostensible repentance[33] that is not heartfelt but born of desperation, a sentiment hardly calculated to result in real and permanent change. Indeed, it would suggest a transitory condition. Thus, if circumstances changed and there were other prospects, the individual might just pack up and leave again.
42 Hearing Reish Lakish cavalierly brag about being a Rabbi one day,[34] gladiator and bandit leader the next, and then Rabbi again might have triggered this very concern. After all, no one is immune[35] to impure influences. Perhaps Rabbi Yohanan was worried that Reish Lakish’s bravado and trust in himself were misplaced. Anyone might be tempted to backslide and revert to an unsavory habit and lifestyle; why was Reish Lakish any different, even after all the years of sincere repentance? Moreover, Rabbi Yohanan may also have been concerned that others might be seduced by the charming story of Reish Lakish’s transformation into believing it was easy to be a villain one day and a saint the next: by the same token, the opposite might occur. This more pessimistic appreciation of the nature of repentance may help explain Rabbi Yohanan’s reaction that day.
In striking contrast, Reish Lakish had an entirely more optimistic perspective on the nature of repentance. He focused on the transformative effect it could have on the penitent. While he notes that repentance, even if inspired by fear of punishment, converts a person’s intentional sins into unwitting errors, he then posits that there is yet a higher level of repentance. It requires the purer motivation of love of God, which results in intentional sins being transformed into merits. These are wonderful sentiments,[36] but how does it all work in practice? How does this extraordinary transformation occur?
The Maharsha[37] describes repentance arising out of fear as the recognition by a person that he or she should not have sinned. In essence, had the person realized the consequences of sin, he or she would not have committed the sinful conduct. The sin is, therefore, retrospectively deemed to arise out of a moment of folly, not willful intent or rebelliousness. However, repenting because of love of God means doing more than just regretting and correcting the prior sinful behavior. It requires doing many more good deeds, which far outweigh the initial sin. The penitent actively seeks out opportunities to perform good deeds. Thus, in effect, the original sinful conduct generates exceedingly more good deeds than might otherwise have naturally occurred. This is why it may be said that the sin, which caused this new meritorious behavior, is accounted as a merit. In a sense, it establishes a new pattern of good behavior that supplants the prior sinful one.
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik[38] delves into the psychological and spiritual underpinnings of Reish Lakish’s thesis. He explains the notions of repentance motivated by fear versus love as the difference between blotting out sin and elevating it. The base level of repentance arising out of fear allows a person, figuratively, to be transported back to the time before the person embarked on the path of sinning. The intervening period of sin is wiped out as if it had never occurred.
The higher level of repentance out of love of God, though, is not a clean break with the past and the obliteration of memories. It permits the person to identify with the past and still return to God, with a strength and power that he or she did not have previously. The intensity of sin, drive that impels it, and sense of guilt and shame that overwhelm a person are strong forces that are redirected by the penitent towards doing good deeds. This is how the penitent, effectively, comes closer to God.
The power of sublimation is thus enormous. It channels energy into positive behavior. This positive aspect of sublimation creates a zest and vigor for leading a virtuous life, with greater intensity than might otherwise have been the case. Ironically, the springboard for this awesome effect is the sinful conduct. It motivates the sinner to channel previously antagonistic forces
43 into a cohered force now overwhelmingly directed in the positive direction of seeking out and doing good deeds.
Rabbi Soloveitchik also posits that with sin comes a sense of loneliness caused by God receding from the sinner. The spiritual vacuum created can be filled by chasing after God’s presence through doing good deeds. There is a compound effect that is veritably palpable of not only pushing forward, but also of being pulled in that positive direction.
These profound concepts help explain the source of the power that animated the transformation of Reish Lakish. All of his seemingly toxic character traits of aggression, physical strength, agility and mental acuity, previously harnessed in the pursuit of an evil profession, were miraculously transformed. They became the tools of a wise sage, pursuing the noble cause of studying and teaching Torah, as well as empowering the performance of good deeds.
Reish Lakish’s response to Rabbi Yohanan about being a Rabbi before and a Rabbi now, according to Rashi’s interpretation, now takes on a whole other dimension of meaning. He indeed possessed all the qualities of a great Rabbi before, but used his innate character traits and skills to become a gladiator and bandit leader instead. Then, triggered by his encounter with Rabbi Yohanan, he propelled himself forward by sublimating those same traits and skills to serve a higher purpose. He succeeded magnificently in transforming himself into the extraordinary person he became. Reish Lakish’s motto that a person should always incite his or her good inclination to overcome the wicked one[39] is consistent with this theme. In essence, it’s about positive motivation to do good and not just reining in baser instincts.
In light of the foregoing, we may suggest that the subject of raw iron being formed into a tool may be symbolic of a deeper philosophical debate. The Talmud sometimes describes the educational process of students studying Torah together as the grinding of iron tools one against the other to sharpen them.[40] The question may have revolved around the preferred pedagogic technique for educating a person to handle[41] impurity. There is, after all, no course of study that can immunize a person from sin. As the Talmud[42] notes, there is no death without sin. Instead, it’s about equipping a person to be able to deal with impure influences and not be permanently and fatally contaminated by them.
The reference to the hot furnace and its molten and harsh environment might symbolize the severe language used to condition and restrain a person’s baser instincts. In this construct, Rabbi Yohanan is expressing the view that it requires heat to steel a person to enable him or her to bear the impure influences in the world. It requires fiery, albeit harsh, talk to imprint the message of God. The person might then be formed into a tool that can bear contamination.
The water and gentler process of polishing may refer to the kinder approach of playing to a person’s strengths, instead of attacking his or her weaknesses.[43] Providing encouragement by emphasizing the positive, and reinforcing it over time through a polishing process, can have the salutary effect of energizing a person to overcome one’s faults and propel him or her toward personal growth and refinement.[44]
Rebuke, by contrast, often fails to effect positive change. Moreover, it can cause more serious problems of rebellion and depression. Indeed, no matter how well-intentioned this kind of approach may be, Reish Lakish was crushed by it.[45] Why should a person try if one no longer believes in his or her own self-worth? Preserving self-respect is critical, so that it can be a valuable ally in the internal struggle to be better. Remember, in their initial encounter at the
44 Jordan River, Rabbi Yohanan did not berate Reish Lakish about his tawdry circumstances or deride his weaknesses; he instead appealed to the gladiator’s strengths. As Reish Lakish lived it, his transformative experience was about engaging his positive impulses, not denying wicked urges. Reish Lakish’s positive attitude is inspiring. This might also be why Reish Lakish’s wife rejected her brother Rabbi Yohanan’s approach to tutor her children.[46] While the goal of refinement may be the same, each person’s path may be as different as humanity is diverse.[47]
The raw and compelling presentation in the Talmud stresses that even great Sages can make mistakes, and even seemingly tough people can be vulnerable. We can’t know each other’s hidden weaknesses, and it is irresponsible to think everyone is wholly alike. There are sensitivities we may never be fully aware of, or only recognize when it is too late. And sometimes, beyond not yielding the intended result, there are also unintended consequences which can prove catastrophic.
Bracketing the Narrative
The narrative about Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish is bracketed[48] by other tales, involving a who’s who of great Sages, that also illustrate these seminal principles.
This aggadic section begins with the tale of how Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai became a Roman sheriff. The story begins with Rabbi Elazar reproaching someone else for assuming the unseemly position of a Roman sheriff. A short while later he also finds himself in the same untenable position of being forcibly drafted to assume the role of Roman sheriff. [49]
Although he set about doing his assigned job correctly, intending to arrest only those he was certain were criminals, he was nevertheless disparagingly referred to as “vinegar the son of wine” by his rabbinic colleagues. The import of their demeaning remark was that he was like vinegar, the spoiled result of wine, in contrast to his father, Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, a man of genuine stature and distinction and thus like a fine wine.
They may have had a right to criticize him. After all, he was acting as an agent for a foreign power occupying Israel and enforcing laws that were not strictly in accordance with Jewish law. This included such matters as the relaxed evidentiary requirements under Roman law as compared to Jewish law, and the overly harsh and excessive punishments meted out by the Roman authorities. Nevertheless, the offensive language they used was abusive and unacceptable, and the fact of the matter is that it didn’t help; it only hurt.
Then, one fateful day, Rabbi Elazar encountered a laundryman who vilified him by using the same epithet of vinegar the son of wine. This time, though, the disrespectful remark was perceived by Rabbi Elazar as an insult to the office of rabbi rather than merely a personal slight. He thought the person wicked and had the offender arrested. In doing so, he veered from his usual ethic of only arresting those he was certain committed a crime. He later regretted his peremptory decision and sought to ransom the individual, but to no avail.
Rabbi Elazar’s instincts about the person, though, proved to be correct. Interestingly, he notes that the individual might have avoided these difficulties had he simply followed the advice of Proverbs[50] that a person who keeps his mouth closed and tongue in check keeps his soul out of trouble. In essence, harsh rebuke was not effective in changing Rabbi Elazar’s conduct. It only caused harm to all parties concerned, which could have been avoided had the parties only refrained from making the abusive remarks.
45 At the offender’s execution, those gathered tried to console Rabbi Elazar. They advised him that the offender was indeed extremely wicked, and, together with his son, had committed the unspeakably vile sin of having sexual relations with a young betrothed woman on Yom Kippur. Nevertheless, Rabbi Elazar continued to blame himself for his impetuosity. He had acted on mere suspicion, not certainty. This violated the commitment he made to himself only to arrest those he knew committed a crime, so as to justify his acting as Sheriff on behalf of the otherwise oppressive Roman regime. His self-rebuke and guilt were overpowering, and as a result he became ill and suffered mightily. He was also sensitive to what he perceived to be a negative perception of him by his colleagues. Nevertheless, he is viewed most favorably by the Talmud, and he more than atoned for any indiscretion by his afflictions and suffering.
The Talmudic text then concludes with a crescendo, offering an implicit paean to Reish Lakish’s life experience, and the positive and encouraging approach that best suited him. It records that Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi visited the town where Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon had lived and inquired whether the righteous person had a son. Rebbe learned that Rabbi Elazar did bear a child, but the son had lost his way. His name was Yosi, and he was an extremely handsome man and the darling of women of ill repute. In a decisive moment, Yosi willingly accompanied Rebbe. The latter ordained Yosi a rabbi and arranged for his uncle Rabbi Shimon ben Issi ben Lakonya to tutor Rabbi Yosi.
Rabbi Yosi found that studying was an arduous process. Early on, Rabbi Yosi would often say that he wanted to give up and go back home. Yet his uncle convinced him to stay, not by speaking harshly, but by complimenting the progress he had made. He said the Sages wanted to make Rabbi Yosi into a wise sage, envelope him with a golden cloak of ordination, and call him Rabbi. The encouragement worked: eventually, Rabbi Yosi vowed never to go back home and return to his old ways. Instead he matured and joined the distinguished academy of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi.
When Rabbi Yosi arrived at the academy and spoke, those who heard his voice said he sounded just like Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon, his father. They graciously accepted and praised him by applying to him the verse[51] “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life.” They also recognized the role of his uncle and teacher, praising him by invoking the same verse[52] they used to compliment Rabbi Yosi. It is a beautiful and most relevant aphorism that captures a theme common to most of these stories, to wit: “a wise man captivates people.”
The message is timely and cogent. Respectful disagreement does not permit ad hominem attacks. Even one who is well-intentioned must be extremely sensitive to how our words might be perceived by the listener. We may not intend to hurt someone, but that doesn’t relieve the pain a person may suffer as a result of a regrettable remark.
I remember well the lesson my mom taught us about how we must be careful with our words. She would invoke the Yiddish proverb that “a pattch fargeiyst ober a vort shteiyt,”’ “the sting of a slap dissipates, but the pain caused by a hurtful word endures.” She wanted us to be refined individuals, who understand that words could hurt and the pain was lasting. My dad, of blessed memory, a man of few words and great wisdom, would counsel, “You never regret what you didn’t say.”
Another critical lesson is that playing to a person’s strength, rather than decrying his or her weaknesses, can inspire a person to be better. Modern psychology[53] shares the Talmud’s view about the effectiveness of stressing the positive and avoiding the ill effects of outright negative
46 rebuke. I am reminded of a song[54] that I often heard in my own youth, in the 50s, on the radio and record player, about accentuating the positive. The Talmud’s view might be summarized along the lines of the original song, with some adaptation, as follows:
Accentuate the positive;
Don’t rebuke the negative;
Be kind and encouraging;
No reminding of past sins.
Pursuing enlightenment and endeavoring to achieve genuine nobility is a life-long process. No one is perfect and, as God intended, it’s all about genuinely striving to reach our full potential, through study and performance of good deeds and all the other commandments. The goal is to achieve the life of balance so aptly described by Maimonides.[55] Blessed be the journey from strength to strength.
[1] Bava Metzia 84a. See also Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 43:5.
[2] See Rashi’s commentary to Bava Metzia 84a. He was also a security guard in an orchard as noted in JT Moed Katan 3:1 .
[3] See Gittin 47a, which refers to the fact that he sold himself to the Ludi, which the Jastrow dictionary interprets to mean gladiators. In Latin the word ‘Ludi’ may be translated as games (i.e., gladiatorial games of combat in the Roman arena). See also the use of the term Ludin in the JT Terumot 8:3 and Avodah Zarah 2:3. Cf. Rashi (Shabbat 10a s.v. “Ludim”) and Maharsha (Gittin 47a), who define Ludim as a nation of cannibals.
[4] See Bava Metzia 84a and Berakhot 15b describing Rav Yohanan’s extraordinary beauty.
[5] Sotah 17a.
[6] Bava Metzia 84a.
[7] The Hebrew term is tumah.
[8] See Hida’s Petah Einayim, s.v. “ha-sayyaf.”
[9] See JT Gittin 3:1, which notes that Reish Lakish does not typically disagree with Rabbi Yohanan on the basis of his own reasoning. Rather, he cites a Baraita that contradicts Rabbi Yohanan, and bases his opposing opinion on it. If it were just a difference of opinion, then he would typically yield and relinquish his own view in deference to Rabbi Yohanan. However, this does not always appear to be the case. For example, earlier in the JT Gittin (1:4), a debate between the two is reported regarding whether a shtar (in this case a loan document) witnessed by non-Jews is enforceable to collect a loan. Resh Lakish argues in favor of this relaxed standard and asserts that the shtar is valid and enforceable, so as not to shut off the flow of loans to borrowers. Rabbi Yohanan disagrees, arguing the shtar is invalid.
[10] Mishnah Keilim 14:5.
[11] See Hullin 25b, as well as, Rashi, s.v. “hoel.”
[12] Rabbeinu Hananel notes that Rabbi Yohanan bows to Reish Lakish’s expertise.
[13] They each had healthy and well-developed senses of humor, which enabled them to artfully turn a phrase. As to Rabbi Yohanan, see, for example, Behorot 18a, Bava Batra 107a, Megillah 11a, and Pesahim 62b. As to Reish Lakish, see, for example, Megillah 28b and Bereishit Rabbah 80:1. Interestingly, it was Rabbi Yohanan (Berakhot 31a), who taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai that it is forbidden to fill one’s mouth with levity in this world. Ritva, (Berakhot 31a s.v.
47 “assur”) explains that this is because it allows the evil inclination to take over in the midst of the self-satisfying humor of the moment. The Talmud goes on to record that Reish Lakish took this lesson of his teacher Rabbi Yohanan to heart, and never filled his mouth with levity in this world. How ironic that this illustrious pair of Sages, so committed to avoiding the evils of humor, appear to have fallen prey to it and allowed what might have been intended as innocent banter to get out of control, as depicted in Bava Metzia 84a.
[14] See Hokhmat Shlomo, s.v. “u-Mai Ahanat.”
[15] It appears he took the beginning of Reish Lakish’s remark, ‘what benefit did you provide me’ literally, instead of appreciating the substance of the entire statement as an expression of pain.
[16] The word used was “ahanat,” which might refer to hona’ah, meaning oppress or abuse, as in ona’at devarim below, or hana’ah, meaning benefit.
[17] One of the definitions of the term Rabbi, see also Avodah Zarah 17a, where the term is also used to denote a master, this time of weaving.
[18] See Rashi (Bava Metzia 84a s.v. “Rav Karu Lei”).
[19] As noted in the Tosafot (Bava Metzia 84a s.v. “Ei Hadrat Bakh”).
[20] See, for example, how he initially treated Shmuel when he was elevated to be Rav’s successor as head of the academy in Bavel (Hullin 95b) . When Rabbi Yohanan first corresponded with Shmuel, he did not address him as Rav, as he had done with Shmuel’s predecessor Abba Arihta, who was typically referred to as Rav in the Talmud. Shmuel had to work hard to convince Rabbi Yohanan of his bona fides; only then were his efforts rewarded by Rabbi Yohanan finally addressing him as Rav Shmuel.
[21] See, for example, JT Moed Katan 3:7 and Bava Kama 117a-b.
[22] Mishna Bava Metzia 4:10 and Bava Metzia 58b.
[23] Leviticus 25:17.
[24] Among other things, this also includes intentionally embarrassing someone by using a nickname (Bava Metzia 58b; see also Tur, Hoshen Mishpat 228).
[25] Preserving human dignity is so important that it even overrides a Rabbinic decree (Berakhot 19b). Indeed, the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59a) excoriates any person who publicly embarrasses another, describing all sorts of dire consequences for violating the prohibition. The Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) stresses how sensitive a person must be to avoid violating these strictures. Thus, even using the word “hang” in an instruction to hang a fish is inappropriate, when the directive is issued to a member of a family that experienced the hanging of an ancestor for a crime. This is because it might be perceived as demeaning. See also Shenei Luhot ha-Berit, Torah She-bikhtav, Sefer Vayikra, Torah Or, Kedoshim 57.
[26] Sifra, Behar, Chapter 42.
[27] The Talmud records that Reish Lakish’s wife reached out to her brother, Rabbi Yohanan, to reconcile with Reish Lakish and pray for his recovery. However, despite her tearful and extremely personal and heartfelt entreaties, Rabbi Yohanan stubbornly refused to do so. The emotionally charged dialogue is discomfiting. She begs him and he not only demurs, but offers instead to replace Reish Lakish’s role in supporting her and bringing up her children. She refuses her brother’s insensitive offer.
[28] Berakhot 7a.
[29] Proverbs 17:10.
[30] See Rabbi Ya’akov Tzvi Mecklenberg’s Ha-Ketav Ve-Hakabalah commentary on Exodus 6:6.
[31] Hosea 2:9. The verse speaks of an errant wife, abandoned by her erstwhile lovers, who must perforce return to her first husband. The allusion is to the ills of idol worship, which is compared to flirting with others, while the first husband is the one true God.
48 [32] The literary device employed in the verse is the image of an errant spouse, desperately having to return home alone to an original spouse after having been abandoned by her erstwhile interim companions. It is certainly a distressing situation, which accounts for Rabbi Yohanan’s use of the verse to support his contention. However, as Reish Lakish posits, it does not compare to the level of pain experienced by someone who has genuinely repented from a life of debauchery, yet is chided about his or her sordid origins.
[33] See Malbim’s commentary on Hosea 2:9.
[34] Per Rabbeinu Tam’s interpretation, as noted above.
[35] See, for example, the notorious case of Rabbi Elisha ben Abuya, who became the heretic ignominiously known as Aher (Hagigah 15a-b).
[36] Reish Lakish also has an interesting perspective about the nature and purpose of sin. In a somewhat humorous remark, he notes that had our ancestors not sinned, we would never have been born into this world. This is because, as Psalms (8:2-6) notes, everyone would have been immortal but for sin. This is a fascinating way of expressing the fact that no one is perfect: it’s not about looking back, but moving forward with the proper positive motivation. In this regard, Reish Lakish also cautions against looking back and regretting earlier good actions (Kiddushin 40b). He also notes that even suffering has its place, because it cleanses a person’s transgressions (Berakhot 5a).
[37] Rabbi Shmuel Eidels in his Maharsha commentary on Yoma 86b s.v. “Na’asu Lo k-Shegogot.”
[38] See Soloveitchik in On Repentance, The Thought and Oral Discourses of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ed. Pinchas H. Peli, the “Blotting Out Sin or Elevating Sin” (esp.pages 248-265).
[39] Berakhot 5a.
[40] See Ta’anit 7a, based on Proverbs 27:17, as well as Genesis Rabbah 69:2. However, it is important to note that while scholars may fight like enemies, when studying Torah together, they do not leave until they love each other (see Kiddushin 30b and Rashi, s.v. “et vahev ba-sufah”).
[41] The Hebrew term mekablin literally means able to receive.
[42] Shabbat 55a.
[43] See, for example, Bava Batra 21a, which discusses how the original system of yeshivot for educating the young in Israel was established. In connection with the initial effort that failed, it notes how a teacher’s angry remarks would cause an older student to rebel and get up and leave. The Talmud also prescribes methods of discipline that are not harsh. Thus, it states that corporeal punishment may only be administered for disciplinary purposes and then only with a shoelace (i.e., not with a belt or whip, so as not to injure the child). The Talmudic text goes on to say that if the child does not study (and presumably does not disrupt others’ learning), the child may remain in the company of his classmates. It notes that eventually he will pay attention to his studies (because of peer pressure). On this basis, Rashi on the text states that one should not reject the child or punish him excessively.
[44] It is much more effective to positively reinforce the good, rather than focus only on the bad, or use hurtful words. See, for example, Otzar ha-Midrashim, Alpha Beita de-Rabbi Akiva (Version 1) 10.
[45] So was Rabbi Kahana (See Bava Kama 117a-b).
[46] As Proverbs (22:6) counsels, educate a child according to his or her way, and then even when the child grows up, he or she will not depart from it. The Midrash Rabbah thereon notes that it is also important to do so while the person is young and before his or her character is hardened. As Kiddushin 30a notes, this certainly means before their mid-twenties. According to another Gemara (Bava Batra 21a), it is best to begin between the ages of six and seven.
[47] See Berakhot 58a and Eiruvin 13b. See also Bamidbar Rabbah 21:2 and 13:16.
[48] Bava Metzia 83b-85a.
[49] The Talmud does question this judgment by implication when referring to another case, where it notes that the option was available to flee the jurisdiction to another land where Rome did not hold sway.
49 [50] Proverbs 21:23.
[51] Proverbs 11:30.
[52] Ibid.
[53] See, for example, “Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative,” by Dona Mathews, PHD, dated 11/29/17, in Psychology Today.
[54] Johnny Mercer wrote the lyrics. The song was recorded in 1944 by Bing Crosby and the Barry Sisters.
[55] Maimonides, Shemonah Perakim, Chapter 4.
Transforming Our Sins
Rabbi Hershel Schachter writes:10
We have a very old minhag which dates back at least to the days of the Geonim to begin our observance of Yom Kippur with the reciting of Kol Nidrei. The older text of Kol Nidrei was based on the assumption that the chazzan, together with the two people standing at his sides, constitutes a beis din to be matir the nedarim which we all took over the course of the past year (from last Yom Kippur to this Yom Kippur.)
What is the special connection between hatoras nedarim and Yom Kippur? Several explanations have been given, the most famous of which is as follows: when a husband or a father is maifer the nedarim of his wife or daughter, the neder was in effect up until the time that he declares the ha'forah, and only from that moment and on is the neder is no longer in force (Nazir 21b.).
Beis din can be matir a neder, and the Gemorah (Kesubos 74b) asks how are they the baalei batim over my neder to declare it as null and void? The answer is that the beis din paskens that the neder was taken in error (b'ta'us) and therefore was never binding in the first place. The reason for this retroactive uprooting is that the individual never would have made the neder to begin with had he realized how difficult life would be or how uncomfortable things would be because of it, and therefore the beis din has the right to declare the neder to be a neder b'tous - a neder made in error.
The definition of ta'us with respect to nedarim is not the same as the definition of ta'us with respect to a purchase or a marriage. If a couple gets married and after many years realize that they are not for each other, they cannot declare their marriage to have been a kiddushei ta'us. Similarly, if one buys shares in a corporation and the value of the shares goes down, he cannot declare that as a mekach ta'us (see Making a Farce of the Halacha.) Everyone knows that marriages and businesses have their ups and downs. Only with respect to nedarim does the Chumash tell us that we have a different definition of ta'us. The Torah uses the expression "l'chol asher yi'vatei ha'adom b'shvua" which the Gemorah (Shavuos 26a) understands to imply, "h'adom b'shvuah, prat l'anus - to the
10 https://www.torahweb.org/torah/2020/moadim/rsch_yk.html
50 exclusion of a shevuah or a neder made in error. Regarding neder we work with a different definition of ta'us.
This retroactive uprooting is the connection to Yom Kippur. Our Daf (Yoma 86b) tells us that a person who does teshuva mai'yirah can accomplish that the aveiros that he violated b'meizid should be considered as if they were only violated b'shogeig, while one who does teshuva mai'ahava will accomplish that the aveiros that he violated b'meizid will be considered as if they were mitzvos. Just like regarding heter nedarim the beis din has the ability to undo the neder such that it is considered as if it was never binding in the first place, teshuva also has the ability to undo aveiros even though the aveiros were done many years before.
How is this possible? Rav Yosef Engel (Otzros Yosef, drush #3) suggests the following explanation: The navi, both in the words of this week's haftorah as well as in other pesukim, tells us, "shuva Yisroel ad Hashem Elokecha", i.e. that one who does teshuva has the ability to come closer to Hakodosh Boruch Hu. Time itself is part of creation so by definition Hashem is above time since he is not part of creation but rather He is The Creator. Once an individual achieves closeness to Hakodosh Boruch Hu, he too, in a certain sense, is above time and therefore can he undo the aveirah today that he violated years ago; he is no longer limited by time! His teshuva makes it is as if that at the time that he did the aveira b'meizid it was really b'shogeig or a mitzva.
The Gemorah (Shabbos 118b) tells us also that one who will be careful to observe Shabbos properly stands a better chance of having his aveiros forgiven if he does teshuva. This idea is conveyed in the Shabbos zemiros when we say "kol shomer Shabbos kados mei'chalilu", where the word mei'chalilo has the connotation of mochul lo, that his sins will be forgiven. What is special about Shabbos that it has the ability to bring about mechilas avonos? Rav Yosef Engel quotes kaballah sources to explain that from the very outset of sheishes yemei bereishis Hashem created the concept of time, but at the conclusion of the six days of creation Hashem instituted his Shabbos which gives us the ability to come closer to Hashem and return to the pre-creation status of lema'alah min ha'zeman. It is that ability to be lemaalah min hazman that enables B'nei Yisroel to undo the aveiros ex post facto. The umos ha'olam also have the ability to do teshuva, as is evidenced from sefer Yonah, but this concept of being okeir aveiros l'mafreiah, which is similar to the beis din's ability to be matir nedarim l'mafreiah, is reserved only for Benei Yisroel.
51
Illustration image: Jews Praying in the Synagogue on Yom Kippur. (Maurycy Gottlieb, 1878)
Rav Kook Torah
Chanan Morrison writes:11
Yom Kippur: Healing the Universe 12
The Sages made a surprising claim about the power of teshuvah: “Great is repentance, for it brings healing to the world... When an individual repents, he is forgiven, and the entire world with him.” (Yoma 86b)
11 http://ravkooktorah.org/YOM-KIPPUR-69.htm 12 Silver from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Olat Re’iyah vol. II, p. 364
52 We understand that one who repents should be forgiven — but why should the entire world also be forgiven? In what way does teshuvah bring healing to the world?
Responsibility for the World There are deep, powerful ties that connect each individual soul to the rest of the universe. Not only are we influenced by the world, we also influence it. In Orot HaKodesh (vol. II, p. 351), Rav Kook described this connection as a “powerful underlying influence.” This is not merely mankind’s industrial and technological impact on the world, as we utilize fire, water, electricity, and other forces of nature to do our bidding. “That is only a partial and superficial aspect of our impact on the world. The Kabbalists taught that the world’s essence, in all of its wholeness and scope, is bound to us with ties of subordination, accepting our influence. This understanding indicates that there is a fundamental integration between the nishmatiut [soul-quality] that operates in the world and our own nishmatiut.” This inner connection and influence on the rest of the universe implies a heavy moral responsibility: “How wonderful is the moral perspective that arises from this great responsibility — a responsibility for all of existence, for all worlds. We have the power to bring favor and light, life, joy, and honor in these worlds. This occurs when we follow the straight path, when we strengthen and gird ourselves with a pure fortitude and conquer paths of life that are good and admired, when we advance and go from strength to strength. “Yet it is also in our power to bring pain to every good portion, when we debase our souls and corrupt our ways, when we darken our spiritual light and suspend our moral purity.” (Orot HaKodesh vol. III, p. 63) Given our great responsibility for our actions, the Talmudic statement becomes clearer. Those who correct their ways repair not only the flaws in their own souls but also those aspects of the universe that they damaged. Their teshuvah truly “brings healing to the world.”
The Ne'ilah Prayer This dual responsibility — for the purity of our souls as well as the spiritual state of the entire universe — is hinted at in the final prayer of Yom Kippur. The Ne'ilah prayer, recited as Yom הָתַּא ןֵתוֹנ דָי םיִﬠְשׁופַּל ,Kippur’s gates of forgiveness are closed, concludes with a special passage (“You extend Your hand to transgressors”). In this prayer we confess that “There is no end to the fire-offerings required of us, and countless are our guilt-offerings.” What is the difference between these two phrases: “the fire-offerings required of us” (ishei- chovoteinu) and “our guilt-offerings” (nichochei-ashmateinu)?
Restoring the Soul’s Purity Our moral defects and lapses have a detrimental effect on the soul, sullying it with the imprints of failure and sin. We seek to cleanse these stains and restore the soul to its previous state of purity. To repair the damage we have caused to our own soul, we offer an olah offering before God. It is for this reason that the Torah commands us to bring an offering even if we have sinned unintentionally.1 This Ne'ilah prayer refers to these offerings as nichochei ashmateinu, “guilt-offerings.” This term indicates that our actions have tarnished the soul, as it says, “And the soul that was guilty
53 (ashmah)” (Num. 5:6). These offerings are nichochim since they produce a “pleasing fragrance” as they cleanse the soul and enable it to once again draw close to God.
Repairing the World There is, however, a second aspect to our spiritual failures. In addition to defiling the soul, our sins also debase and pollute the universe. Even private failings have a negative impact on the moral and spiritual state of the universe. For this reason the Sages categorized the wicked as those “who destroy the world” (Avot 5:1). The universe demands that we repair that which we have damaged. This repair is accomplished through teshuvah and offering a chatat offering. The Ne'ilah prayer refers to these offerings as ishei chovoteinu, “our required fire-offerings,” since they reflect our duty and obligation to correct that which we have damaged in the universe.
1 1. So explained the Ramban in his commentary to Lev. 4:2:
“The reason that one who sinned unintentionally brings an offering (korban) is because all transgressions bring disgrace to the soul, tainting it.... Therefore a soul that erred brings an offering, so that it may merit to become close (le-korvah) to its Creator.”
Those for who teshuvah will not help
קלח ;א ימכח הנשמה , המדקה , יקנע חורה נלש ונשחר ינ
54 ELISHA BEN AVUYAH was the third member of the group of four who penetrated the Pardes of knowledge. Because of his unusual ideas regarding Judaism, which were held to be harmful to the faith, he came to be called “Acher”—the one who is different—and it was said that his delving into the mysteries of the faith confused him to such a degree that he finally came to oppose it. In the idiom of that day it was said that he “cut down the plants.” 13
When Elisha was still a student at the academy, everyone believed that he had no other interests outside of the Torah, but he read many Greek poems and books of philosophy filled his pockets. Years later, when the Roman government sought to suppress the Torah and forced the Jews to break its commandments, Elisha advised the enemy and pointed out to the Romans which labors a Jew may perform on the Sabbath without incurring a sin.
The “unclean” books which Elisha read are referred to in the Talmud as “books of the erroneous” and “books of the heretics.” Because of the severe persecutions, the faith of many became weakened and they turned to these sects. It would seem that Elisha hovered between the two, but the spark of Judaism continued to bum within him. He had absorbed too much of the Torah to be able to break away from it entirely.
It is difficult at this day to define the teachings of the Gnostics. They pondered the mysteries of the Godhead and employed both rationalism as well as mysticism in their attempt to solve the problem. An important question for them was the determination of the material from which God created the world. Recognizing that the world was motivated by various forces, they concluded that God in heaven had no control over events on earth. At first they believed that the world was created out of a definite material which they could not describe and they also believed that there existed forces which were not subject to the control of God and that the angels participated in the government of the world. Later they altogether denied the existence of a God who rules the world.
These doubters were considered harmful to the Jewish faith and they were persecuted and expelled from Jewish society. They then joined other sects, but they were also expelled from there. These confused spculations brought Elisha to a state of extreme pessimism and depression and he was haunted by a voice from heaven which seemed to announce: “Repent, all lost children, except Acher, for whom there is no repenance.”
Elisha believed that people suffer for the sins of their parents and he declared that when he was still a child his father sinned in vowing to make a scholar out of his son, not in order to fulfill the commandment of studying the Torah but out of pride. He was also oppressed by the weight of the sin of his mother who happened to pass by a house of idol worshiping when she was pregnant and inhaled the odors of the unclean sacrifices.
Concerning his origin Elisha told that his father was one of the wealthiest men in Jerusalem. On the day of Elisha’s circumcision, his father prepared a great feast and invited all the prominent men of the city among whom were the two greatest scholars of the day, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanos and Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah. When the guests turned to idle conversation after the feast, Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Joshua, “Let them speak of that which interests them while we will go to another room and discuss matters of the Torah.” When they began to discuss the Torah, a cloud of fire descended from heaven and enveloped them. Seeing
13https://www.sefaria.org.il/The_Jewish_Spiritual_Heroes%2C_Volume_I%3B_The_Creators_of_the_Mishna%2C_Elisha_ ben_Avuya_%22Acher%22?lang=bi
55 this Avuyah said to them, “Do you wish to bum my house?” But they replied, “God forbid! We do not play with fire but are only discussing the Torah.” Avuyah then said, “If the power of the Torah is so great, then I vow that if my son will live to reach manhood I will consecrate him to the Torah.”
The Talmud relates that the name “Acher” by which Elisha was called was not given to him by the scholars but by a harlot. It is told that a decision was adopted in heaven that since Elisha embraced an “evil culture” and lost his share in the world to come, he was to be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of this world to the full. Elisha once encountered a harlot on the street and asked her to go with him but she said, “Are you not Elisha ben Avuyah whose name is renowned throughout the world?” He tried to prove that he was another person and, it being a Sabbath day, he pulled out a radish from a field and offered it to her. The woman then remarked, “If you do so, you must be someone else.” (Acher —a different one.) Since that time the name “Acher” clung to Elisha.
But despite Elisha’s heresies, he did not cease to study the Torah. Some even claim that he revered it to his dying day and praised those who fulfilled its commandments. Some of his sayings have become immortalized but it seems probable that the scholars refrained from acknowledging his authorship in many instances and even refused to quote them as having been stated by “Acher”. His statements generally dealt with secular and human problems. In only one instance is his name mentioned in connection with a regulation regarding דעומ ןטק כ ׳ ׳א . (mourning.1
Elisha was the teacher of Rabbi Meir, who was also a disciple of Rabbi Akiba and who was held in great esteem by his colleagues. The name of Rabbi Meir is frequently mentioned as the author of many opinions; but whenever it was suspected that Rabbi Meir’s statements were based on the opinions of his teacher Elisha, such statement were referred to as “others say” .( רחא י ם א ו רמ י ם )
Legends surround all of Elisha’s accomplishments from his childhood till the day of his death. Thus it was told that he sought to uproot the Torah and went from one academy to another driving out the pupils and handing over the teachers to be executed by the government. He then used to say, “Why waste the time of innocent children with such things? Would it not be better if they were taught to be masons or carpenters, hunters or tailors?”
Another legend tells that when Elisha entered “Pardes”, he saw the angel Metateron whose duty it is to write down all the good deeds of the Jews once every day and he asked: “How is it that we have learned that none ever sit down in heaven for no weariness exists there but I saw the angel sitting when he recorded the deeds of the Jews. Is it possible that there are two kinds of forces which guide the world?”
The angel was then scourged with sixty fiery lashes to prove to Elisha that he had no more rights than the others. It was then asked, “Why should the angel have been punished?” The answer was given that the angel should have risen when he saw Elisha. But despite the punishment the angel was given the privilege of erasing all the good deeds of Elisha from the book of records.
It is probable that Elisha headed an academy before he was overcome by doubts and of his pupils Rabbi Meir attained prominence. Rabbi Meir said that he considered Elisha as one does a pomegranate—he ate the heart of the fruit and threw away the skin. Rabbi Meir sought every
56 opportunity to listen to Elisha in an attempt to learn something new from him. Once on a Sabbath, Rabbi Meir was sitting with his pupils in the academy when he was informed that Elisha was riding by. Rabbi Meir went out to hear what Elisha had to say, but Elisha continued riding on his horse and Rabbi Meir followed him. When they approached the limit which one is allowed to walk on the Sabbath, Elisha said, “Turn back Meir for you may go no farther. By the walk of my horse I recognize that we have reached the limit of the distance one may walk on the Sabbath.”
Rabbi Meir then said, “Will you not return also?”, but Elisha answered, “I have told you long ago that I heard a voice from behind the scenes that all strayed children may repent except ‘Acher’.” Rabbi Meir insisted that they return to the academy. The first boy whom they met, Elisha asked what he had learned on that day and the boy replied, “There is no peace for the wicked, says God.” (Isaiah, 48:22) They then approached another academy and Elisha again asked the first boy whom they met what he had learned and the boy answered, “Even though you wash in much chalk and use much soap the stain of your sin will remain.” (Jeremiah, 2:22) They thus made the rounds of thirteen academies and in every instance the children recited verses which were bad omens. Finally they approached the thirteenth academy and the boy said that he had learned the verse, “To the wicked God says, why do you speak of my laws?” (Psalms, 50:16) The boy stammered while reciting and it seemed to Elisha that the boy said wicked). Elisha became very angry and some say that he drew a dagger) עשר instead of לא עשי עשי לא and killed the boy while others claim that he merely said, “If I had a dagger I would now kill you.”
Another time Elisha is said to have asked Rabbi Meir for his interpretation of the verse, “One against another God made them”. (Eccles. 7:14) Rabbi Meir said that whatever God created, He also created its opposite; He created high mountains and low hills; He created the seas and the rivers. Elisha then remarked, “Rabbi Akiba explained this verse otherwise. He said that God created just men and wicked men; He created a Paradise and a Gehenna. Every Jew may therefore choose between two shares, one in Paradise and one in Gehenna. If he is a just man he takes his own and his neighbor’s share in Paradise; if he is a wicked man he takes his own and his neighbor’s share in Gehenna.
Elisha also asked Rabbi Meir’s explanation of the verse, “She may not be valued in gold or in glass and vessels of pure gold are not her equal.” (Job, 28:17.) Rabbi Meir declared that the verse refers to the Torah which can not be valued in gold but is broken as easily as glass. Elisha said, “Not so did your teacher Rabbi Akiba say. He said that just as golden and glass vessels may be mended after they are broken, even so may a sinful scholar be made whole again.”
“Will you not repent now?” Rabbi Meir said. But Elisha answered, “I am lost for I heard a voice that all may repent except Acher.”
The Talmud further relates that when Elisha died it was said in heaven that he can neither be judged nor can he have a share in the world to come. He could not be judged because he devoted himself to the Torah and he lost his share in the world to come because of his sins. Rabbi Meir said that it was better that he be judged that he may afterward regain his share in the world to come. “When I die,” Rabbi Meir said, “you will see smoke coming out of Elisha’s grave for I will certainly bring him to judgment because of his knowledge of the Torah.” Afterward Rabbi Meir also told that when Elisha was nearing death he wept because of his sins and it seemed that he repented in his heart.
57 After Elisha’s death his daughter (the Jerusalem Talmud says his daughters) came to Rabbi Jehuda the Nasi to ask for bread. Rabbi Jehuda asked her who she was and she said, “I am the daughter of Elisha.” Rabbi Jehuda wondered that such a wicked man had children who remained Jews but the daughter pleaded, “Remember his Torah and overlook his deeds.” Fire then descended from heaven and enveloped Rabbi Jehuda. Rabbi Jehuda wept and said, “If this happens to those who dishonor the Torah, how much more can happen to those who glory in it?”
Some historians maintain that one of the reasons for Elisha’s abandonment of Judaism was his great envy of Rabbi Akiba. Elisha felt humiliated that a man of unknown origin who began his studies in his later years should be elevated to such a high position by the people. He then said, “He who learns when a youth may be compared to one writing with ink on new paper, but when one begins his studies after he is old it may be compared to writing on erased This is more exactly expressed in Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan: “He תובא קרפ ׳ד הנשמ .ט״י (paper.”2 who studies in his youth absorbs the words of the Torah into his blood and they come clearly out of his mouth; but he who studies when he is old does not absorb the words of the Torah into his blood and they come out of his mouth indistinct.”
From Rabbi Akiba’s statements we may conclude that he was an enemy of Elisha. Rabbi Akiba opposed Greek philosophy and said that whoever studies it loses his share in the world to come. Since Elisha devoted himself to Greek writings we may assume that Rabbi Akiba’s words were directed at him.
Elisha seems to have had no sympathy with the movement of rebellion against Rome. When the Roman government began to persecute the students of the Torah, Elisha maintained, as did many other scholars, that one must not endanger his life for it.
A Talmudic legend traces the beginning of Elisha’s doubts to his having seen a man climb a tree to remove a nest containing both fledglings and the mother bird. Although this was against the commandment of the Torah, nothing happened to the man. The following day he saw another man removing a nest with fledglings but the man sent the mother bird away, as the Torah commanded. Although the fulfillment of this commandment is to be rewarded by long life, the man was bitten by a snake when he descended from the tree and he immediately died. Elisha then asked, “Where is the long life that was promised to the man?” Others said that he began to doubt when he saw the tongue of Rabbi Jeduha the Baker (or of Rabbi Hutzpith the Interpreter) dragged around by dogs. Elisha then came to the conclusion that there was no reward for just men and he also lost his belief in the resurrection of the dead.
We have already remarked that there probably exist numerous opinions of Elisha whose authorship is not acknowledged. But Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan contains a chapter devoted to Elisha’s sayings and to his opinions regarding men of great learning who also commit good deeds and men who only possess great learning. Elisha there says that a man of learning and of good deeds may be compared to a structure built on a foundation of stone while the walls are made of bricks; even the greatest flood cannot undermine such a structure. But a man who possesses much learning but no good deeds may be compared to a structure with a foundation of bricks and walls of stone. Such a structure is easily undermined.
Another statement of Elisha in the same book well characterizes the man. He said: “A man may study for twenty years and forget all his knowledge in two years so that he would not
58 know to differentiate between the clean and the unclean and he would confuse the opinions of one scholar with those of another until he finally would have to remain silent.”
It thus becomes obvious that Elisha was a man of contradictions. At times he honored the Torah and was a friend of the scholars. On other occasions he was an enemy of the Torah and aided the Roman government in persecuting the scholars. He was always full of regrets and contemplated repentance but he was deeply convinced that he was beyond repentance because of his many sins.
Elisha’s greatest crime was his treason to his people and his aiding the enemy at a time of persecution against the Jews. His intentions might not have been treasonable and it is possible that he honestly believed that bowing to the will of the Romans was the best policy. But history has proved this opinion to be false and the attempts to placate the Romans have ended in catastrophe. It is therefore no wonder that Elisha was condemned.
Elisha ben Abuyah: The High Road to Heresy
Wendy Amsellem writes:14
Elisha ben Abuyah was an acclaimed first century Torah Sage who is most famous for losing his faith and leaving his community. Naturally, Elisha’s apostasy was of tremendous interest to subsequent generations of sages. We will examine rabbinic texts that locate a wide variety of possible reasons for Elisha’s behavior. Of especial interest is Elisha’s continuing relationship with his disciple Meir and the implications this has for interactions between heretics and believers. “What Went Wrong”
Despite a promising start as a First Century Sage and Scholar, Elisha ben Abuyah leaves the path and becomes a notorious heretic. How did that happen? We will study an array of Rabbinic texts that seek to explain Elisha’s apostasy and explore the potential reasons why a believer would lose faith. “The Heretic’s Disciple: Elisha and R. Meir"
Even once Elisha ben Abuyah becomes a heretic, his student R. Meir continues to learn from him. Why does Meir persist in studying with Elisha? Why does Elisha keep teaching Meir? We will explore their complicated relationship and examine the nature of pedagogic loyalties. “Coming Back”
Is it possible for Elisha to rejoin the rabbinic community? Who is positioned to help him and what is at stake in his return. Sources:
14http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.guidebook.com/service/VGx5JMmtg3hqeS7B2czwuQCy8snZDajA/ElishaBenAbuyah.pd f
59
60 61 62 63
64 R. Yehuda Amital is quoted as saying in a sicha:15
So, for R. Amital, of course Elisha b. Avuya could have repented, had he only believed in his ability to do so. It was not G-d that closed the gates of repentance in front of Acher; rather his own self-image as one who G-d would never take back prevented him from repenting.16
A Scholar Gone Astray
Rabbi Ari Kahn writes:17
And you shall return to the Almighty your God, and shall obey His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul.
Devarim 30:2
One of the axioms of Judaism is the belief in the possibility of spiritual rehabilitation. No matter how mired in sin, man can lift himself up and return to God.
The Talmud tells of one man who believed that he could not return; he felt that he had forfeited that option, that the opportunity was lost. His name was Elisha, and his father's name was Avuya - but don't go looking for him in the Talmud; he is not easily found.1 His name has been removed, consciously and purposefully expunged. He is known only as Acher - the "other", and his tale begins with a mystical journey gone awry.
ASCENT
Our Rabbis taught: Four men entered the 'Orchard', namely, Ben 'Azzai and Ben Zoma, Acher, and R. Akiva. R. Akiva said to them: When you arrive at the stones of pure marble, do not say 'water, water!' For it is said: He that speaks falsehood shall not be established before My
15 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/104020/elisha-ben-abuya-and-repentance תוחיש ישאר ה ישי הב ומל דע םי :Shiur No 48 Gush Etzion 16 17 https://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/57606397.html
65 eyes (Tehilim 101, 7). Ben 'Azzai cast a look and died. Of him Scripture says: Precious in the sight of God is the death of His hasidim (Tehilim 116, 15). Ben Zoma looked and became demented. Of him Scripture says: Have you found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for you, lest you be filled, and vomit it (Mishlei 25, 16). Acher uprooted that which had been planted. R. Akiva (entered in peace and) departed in peace. (Talmud Bavli Chagigah 14b)
Four great scholars embarked on a magical mystical journey. One died, one lost his mind, the third - Acher lost his faith. Only one, Rabbi Akiva, returned unscathed. What caused this extreme response? The scant details in the Talmudic account of this journey may help us understand what happened: The four scholars entered what is called Pardes, a word literally translated as "orchard" but interpreted here by the commentaries as "Paradise" - the Garden of Eden.2 These same commentaries debate whether this was a physical journey or one which transpired only in the psyche of the travelers; either way, the revelation was real: They glimpsed a higher world.3
One would assume that if any human being, all the more so a Torah sage of the caliber of these four, merited a glance of this higher world, of Heaven, of Paradise, the experience would be elevating, confirming. This would seem to be the experience of Rabbi Akiva.4 We may even venture to say that Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma did not necessarily have negative experiences in the Pardes: Ben Azzai departed this world because he attained a higher form of existence,5 and Ben Zoma reached such an elevated level of consciousness that he was no longer a "normal" man. He was incapable of assimilating this experience into normal human existence. As for Elisha/Acher, something went terribly wrong. What could have led to such a drastic about- face? What could have brought him to apostasy? The Talmud described his reaction as "kitzetz bneti'ot" (uprooted that which had been planted): Perhaps as an extension of the metaphor of the Pardes/Orchard, he is described as having cut down the saplings. He uprooted or defaced the new trees growing in the orchard; he attacked and destroyed the foundations. Rather than enlightenment, he embraced heresy.
What happened?
The Talmud elaborates:
Acher mutilated the shoots. Of him Scripture says: (Kohelet 5:5) "Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; [and do not say, before the angel, that it was an error; why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?"]6 What does it refer to? - He saw that permission was granted to Metatron7 to sit and write down the merits of Israel. Said he: 'It is taught as a tradition that on high there is no sitting and no emulation, and no back, and no weariness. Perhaps, - God forbid!8 - there are two divinities!' [Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and punished him with sixty fiery lashes, saying to him: 'Why did you not rise before him when you saw him?' Permission was [then] given to him to strike out the merits of Acher. A Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice) went forth and said: ' "Return, my mischievous children" (Yirmiyahu 3, 22.) - all but Acher.'
Chagigah 15a
This passage is remarkable: Acher was on a sufficiently high spiritual level to ascend to Paradise, to witness the Heavenly Court at work, to see firsthand that every human action is, indeed, recorded - and yet he blasphemes! Surely, almost anyone else who saw what Acher was privileged to see would have immediately and unshakably confirmed his faith and clinched
66 his fidelity to God. But somehow Acher's twisted, troubled mind saw scandal and not justice, he saw weakness and not strength. His conclusion is belief in dualism, though it is not easy for us to see how he drew this conclusion. Presumably, when he saw Metatron sitting down, he interpreted it as a sign of fatigue, and assumed that there must be another power capable of sapping the angel's strength. This conclusion seems preposterous to us, and forces us to conclude that before Acher entered the Pardes he already held this position; he embarked on his mystical quest seeking confirmation, no matter how contrived, of his own twisted beliefs.
Entering heaven can be dangerous; making a mistake, speaking falsehood9 in heaven proves spiritually debilitating. The angel who is in charge of recording the deeds of Israel is too formidable a foe. All of Elisha's deeds are ripped out of the book - this is the meaning of the verse "Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; and do not say, before the angel, that it was an error; why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?" (Kohelet, Chapter 5:5). The works of Elisha's hands, his good deeds and his scholarship, are expunged; his visit to the Pardes comes to an end as a voice reverberates from the heart of heaven which seems to seal his fate: "Return, my mischievous children - all except Acher." The window of opportunity for rehabilitation has closed. From heaven, God lovingly calls out to all sinners, His 'mischievous children', to return, to come home. But not Acher; he alone is cast out. The loving Divine Voice excludes the Tanna who has gone astray.10
DESCENT
Elisha is erased; Acher - literally an "other", a sinister being whose very name is not to be uttered, takes his place. And as his good deeds are dissipating like a cloud on the horizon, as the door of teshuva closes, Acher weighs his next step. He chooses to take a walk on the wild side:
[Thereupon] he said: Since I have been driven forth from that other world, let me go forth and enjoy this world. So Acher pursued evil ways. He went forth, found a harlot and demanded her (services). She said to him: Are you not Elisha ben Avuyah? [But] when he uprooted a radish from of its bed on Shabbat and gave it to her, she said: 'It is another [Acher].'
His conclusion is astonishing: He knows with certainty that there is a God; he has seen, with his own eyes, that there is a World to Come, and that all human actions are recorded for a final reckoning of reward and punishment. He also knows that he will not be permitted to repent, so he makes his calculations and embraces sin, pursues evil. He chooses to side with that other power, the power that pulls him toward the abyss. He seeks comfort in the arms of a wayward woman, and it is she who dubs him Acher.11
But the story does not end there. The Talmud tells us that Elisha ben Avuyah's greatest student, Rabbi Meir, does not abandon him. Ironically, Rabbi Meir's family has made their own journey: his father was born a non-Jew,12 a pagan, and he made his way to Judaism. Now his son's teacher takes a journey in the opposite direction. Remarkably, even after Acher abandons the path of Torah, Rabbi Meir clings to him. The Talmud records their conversations, which are peppered with debates on theological issues. Acher apparently tried to lead Rabbi Meir toward a belief in dualism by posing provocative, leading questions he thought would support his opinion:
After his apostasy, Acher asked R. Meir [a question], saying to him: What is the meaning of the verse: God has made even the one as well as the other? Kohelet 7, 14. He replied: It means
67 that for everything that God created He created [also] its counterpart. He created mountains, and created hills; He created seas, and created rivers. Said [Acher] to him: R. Akiva, your master, did not explain it thus, but [as follows]: He created the righteous, and created the wicked; He created the Garden of Eden, and created Gehinnom. Everyone has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehinnom. The righteous man, being meritorious, takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in the Garden of Eden. The wicked man, being guilty, takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in Gehinnom. R. Mesharsheya said: What is the Biblical proof for this? In the case of the righteous, it is written: Therefore in their land they shall possess double. Yeshayahu 61, 7. In the case of the wicked it is written: And destroy them with double destruction. Yirmiyahu 17, 18.
After his apostasy, Acher asked R. Meir: What is the meaning of the verse: Gold and glass cannot equal it; neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold? Iyov28, 17. He answered: These are the words of the Torah, which are hard to acquire like vessels of fine gold, but are easily destroyed like vessels of glass. Said [Acher] to him: R. Akiva, your master, did not explain thus, but [as follows]: Just as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, though they be broken, have a remedy, even so a scholar, though he has sinned, has a remedy. [Thereupon, R. Meir] said to him: Then, you, too, repent! He replied: 'I have already heard from behind the Veil: Return you mischievous children - all except Acher.'
NO WAY HOME
Acher is brilliant, and not easily swayed.13 Entrenched in his position, he does not budge. But he is not only brilliant, he has a wonderful excuse: God does not want him back. He has heard a Heavenly Voice; he, who has seen heaven with his own eyes and heard a voice from heaven speak directly to him, feels the path back to heaven is forever closed. Rabbi Meir does not concur; he waits, looking for an opening to cajole and bring back his wayward teacher.14
Our Rabbis taught: Once Acher was riding on a horse on the Shabbat, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn Torah from him. Said [Acher] to him: Meir, turn back, for I have already measured by the paces of my horse that thus far extends the Shabbat limit.15 He replied: You, too, go back! [Acher] answered: Have I not already told you that I have already heard from behind the Veil: 'Return ye mischievous children' - all except Acher.
Acher's excuse of "hearing voices" is not easily countered, but Rabbi Meir apparently does not believe this edict. He looks for another way to gain insight into the judgment of Heaven, for Rabbi Meir believes Heaven always leaves room for return. He continues to look for a sign, an understanding, an open window that will allow his teacher to regain his "place at the table." He turns to an "oracle" of sorts, travelling with his teacher from one study hall to then next, seeking the spark of divine spirit possessed by pure, innocent children engrossed in Torah learning:
[R. Meir] grabbed him and took him, to a schoolhouse. [Acher] said to a child: Recite for me thy verse![The child] answered: 'There is no peace, said the Almighty, unto the wicked' (Yishaiyahu 48:22). He then took him to another schoolhouse. [Acher] said to a child: Recite for me thy verse! He answered: 'For though you wash yourself with nitre, and take much soap, yet your iniquity is marked before Me, said the Almighty God (Yirmiyah 2:22). He took him to yet another schoolhouse, and [Acher] said (Talmud - Chagigah 15b) to a child: Recite for me thy verse! He answered: 'And you, that are spoiled, what do you, that you clothe yourself with scarlet, that you bedeck yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain do you make yourself fair… (Yirmiyahu 4:30). He took him to yet another
68 schoolhouse until he took him to thirteen schools; all of them quoted in similar vein. When he said to the last one, 'Recite for my thy verse,' he answered: But unto the wicked God said: 'What have you to do to declare My statutes?( Tehilim 50:16). That child was a stutterer, so it sounded as though he answered: 'But to Elisha God said'. Some say that [Acher] had a knife with him, and he cut him up and sent him to the thirteen schools; and some say that he said: 'Had I a knife in my hand I would have cut him up.'
One after the other, the children deliver a disturbing, even ominous message of despair to Acher: his soul is sullied and cannot be cleansed. Acher, tormented by his own demons, vents his anger on the innocent. Had he merely threatened violence and abused the child verbally, the narrative would be upsetting, and our estimation of Acher greatly reduced. But the Talmud considers the possibility that Acher actually murdered the thirteenth child and sent his remains to the others as some type of ominous warning of his own.
THE ENEMY WITHIN
So many questions arise: How could this have happened? Why didn't someone stop him? How could he possibly get away with such violence? In a parallel source in The Jerusalem Talmud that tells the story of Acher, more details are shared, more background revealed. While the version of Acher's story in the Talmud Bavli contains a great deal of theological material, with the crucial scene being played out in heaven, the Jerusalem Talmud's approach is more historical, focusing on events which transpired here on earth. Despite some minor divergences, the two stories can be merged to create one complete picture.
The Jerusalem Talmud asks, "Who was Acher?" The answer is straightforward and shocking: "Elisha the son of Avuya who murdered teachers of Torah." Successful students had their lives cut short by Acher's maniacal attack on all that was holy; this is the Yerushalmi's explanation of "kitzetz bneti'ot" cutting down the "young plants". He entered the study-hall, surely flanked by Roman thugs, and uprooted the students - killing some, directing others to more "worthwhile" professions.
But this is not all, according to the Jerusalem Talmud: Acher joined the Romans, and used his Torah knowledge to insure that the Jews would publicly desecrate the Shabbat. When the Jews found a loophole in the law, he taught the loophole to the hated Romans, so they could erase Jewish identity and squash all hope of religious survival. It would come as no surprise to us to learn that the infamous Roman decree forbidding Sabbath observance was the work of Acher, the former Torah scholar. Elisha ben Avuya's was the ultimate fall: from Rabbi to executioner; from a teacher of great Torah scholars in their search for holiness, to teaching pagans who sought to extinguish holiness. The transformation of Elisha to Acher is complete.
The only question that remains is, can he return? Can he rekindle his relationship with God? Is teshuva a viable option for the rabbi who became a vile, ruthless criminal, the architect of the destruction of Judaism? Acher believes the answer is "no". His former protege, Rabbi Meir, thinks the answer is "yes". Heaven seems to side with Acher - at least in this argument.
R. Meir was sitting and expounding in the House of Study of Tiberias, when his teacher, Elisha, passed in the street, riding a horse on the Sabbath. It was told to R. Meir, 'Behold, Elisha, your teacher, is passing [riding a horse] on the Sabbath.' He went out to him, and Elisha asked, 'What was (the topic of) your sermon today?' He answered him, 'The verse, "So God blessed the latter end of Iyov more than his beginning (Iyov 42,12).' [' How did you explain it? ' he asked,] and
69 he told him, '"Blessed" means that He doubled his wealth.' Elisha said to him, 'Your teacher Akiva did not explain it thus; but "So God blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning" means that He blessed him for the merit of the repentance and good deeds which were his from his beginning.'
It must have been humiliating for Rabbi Meir to be told that his teacher is desecrating Shabbat, riding by on a horse - the favored mode of transportation of the ruling Romans. Acher, in the role of an aristocratic Roman, tramples upon the holy Shabbat. Rabbi Meir closes his book and seeks out his teacher, and he engages him in a discussion of the Book of Iyov and its examination of theodicy: "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Rabbi Meir hopes to drive home the idea that the end of Iyov's life-story brings him full circle, and Iyov reaps the rewards of his righteousness; In the end, Iyov is blessed with more than what he lost, as if to say, 'all's well that ends well'. 16 This message must have been particularly poignant , coming from Rabbi Meir, who had known more than a fair share of suffering:17 He lost two sons,18 and his other teacher was martyred.19
Rabbi Meir did not choose a topic of conversation with Acher lightly; he directed their exchange toward the lesson he felt Acher needed to review.
R. Meir asked, And how do you explain, 'Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof'? He inquired, 'What have you to say on it?' He replied, 'You have, for example, the man who acquires a stock of goods in his youth and loses money on it, but in his old age he makes a profit out of it. Another illustration of 'Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof': You have a man who begets children in his youth and they die; he begets children in his old age and they survive. Another illustration of 'Better is the end, etc.': You have a man who commits evil deeds in his youth but in his old age performs good deeds. Another illustration of 'Better is the end, etc.': You have the man who learns Torah in his youth and forgets it, but in his old age he returns to it; that is an instance of 'Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof'. Elisha said to him, 'Not so did your teacher Akiva explain it; but his interpretation was: Good is the end of a thing when it is good from its beginning.20
FOUNDATIONS
Elisha/Acher claims that something can only be good in the end if it was good in the beginning, a deterministic position generally opposed by the Jewish idea of Free Will. In fact, the status and scholarship achieved by Elisha's adversary, Rabbi Akiva,21 whose humble origins are well- known, are a prime example of Judaism's rejection of Acher's thesis, as is the life of Rabbi Meir himself, whose father converted from paganism to Judaism. Yet Acher remains unconvinced; he explains why he was doomed to failure from the outset.
So it happened with my father, Avuyah, who was one of the great men of Jerusalem. On the day of my circumcision, he invited all the eminent men of Jerusalem to sit in one room, and R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua sat separately, in one room. After the assembled dignitaries had eaten and drunk, some recited songs and others alphabetical acrostics. R. Eliezer said to R. Yehoshua, 'They are occupied with what interests them, so shall we not occupy ourselves with what interests us?' They began with subjects connected with the Torah, then with the Prophets, and after that with the Scriptures. The words were as joyful as when they were given from Sinai and fire surrounded them; for were they not originally delivered from Sinai with fire, as it is said, 'The mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven (Devarim 4:11)? My father thereupon remarked, "Since the might of the Torah is so great, should this child survive I will
70 dedicate him to the Torah." Because his intention was not for the Name of Heaven, my study of the Torah did not endure with me.
Elisha recounts the reason and circumstances in which his father, a wealthy and influential man, decided to dedicate his newborn son to a life of Torah scholarship: It was for the power. He saw a power in Torah which had previously eluded him. Attracted by this power, he sends his son to study. Acher feels that because of these tainted origins, his study was destined to fail.22
They continue the conversation; Acher rides on his horse on Shabbat, and Rabbi Meir follows by foot:
What do you say is the meaning of the verse, 'Gold and glass cannot equal it (Iyov 28:17)' - what have you to say on it?' R. Meir answered, 'These are the words of the Torah which are as difficult to acquire as vessels of gold and glass.' He said to him, 'Not so did your teacher Akiva explain it; but his interpretation was: as vessels of gold and glass can be repaired if broken, so can a disciple of the Sages recover his learning if he has lost it.'
Elisha then remarked, 'Turn back.' 'Why?,' R. Meir asked. 'Because this is the Sabbath limit.' 'How do you know?' 'By the hoofs of my horse [which tell me that he] has already gone two thousand cubits.' R. Meir exclaimed, 'You possess all this wisdom and yet you do not repent.' He replied, 'I am unable.' 'Why?' He said to him, ' I was once on my horse riding past the Temple on the Day of Atonement which occurred on the Sabbath, and I heard a Bat Kol crying out, " Return, my mischievous children (Yirmiyahu 3, 22), Return unto Me, and I will return unto you (Malachi 3:7), - with the exception of Elisha ben Avuyah, who knows My power and yet rebelled against Me!" 'How did this happen to him? He once saw a man climb to the top of a palm-tree on the Sabbath, take the mother-bird with the young, and descend in safety. At the termination of the Sabbath he saw a man climb to the top of a palm-tree and take the young but let the mother bird go free, and as he descended a snake bit him and he died. Elisha exclaimed, 'It is written, "Send away the mother bird, but the young you may take for yourself; that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days (Devarim 22, 7)." Where is the well- being of this man, and where is the prolonging of his days!' He was unaware how R. Akiva explained it, 'That it may be well with you in the World [to Come] which is wholly good,' And that you may prolong your days' in the world which is unending. Some say that it was because he saw the tongue of R. Yehudah the baker in the mouth of a dog and exclaimed, 'If it happened so with a tongue which labored in the Torah all its days, how much more so will it be with a tongue which does not know nor labor in the Torah!' He went on to say, 'If this is so, there is no reward for the righteous nor is there a resurrection of the dead.' Still others say that it happened because when his mother was pregnant with him, she passed by idolatrous temples and smelled [the offerings]. They gave her some of that kind [of food] and she ate it, and it burned in her stomach like the venom of a serpent [and affected him].
Elisha cannot completely divorce himself from Judaism, from the dialectic of learning. He seems aware of the power of God and Torah; rather than reject this power, he calls himself a dualist, for he sees and values two distinct powers. He enjoys the banter with Rabbi Meir, but only up to a point. When Rabbi Meir turns the tables on him, makes demands or raises expectations, it becomes uncomfortable and Acher rides on. When Rabbi Meir broaches the topic of repentance, of the ability to fix that which was broken, he is told to go back.
71 The version of their discussion recorded in the Talmud Bavli focused on a philosophical exegesis of the verse regarding vessels of gold and glass; the version of their discussion recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud adds the dimension of a living, breathing, real-life encounter. Two men are travelling together on Shabbbat, discussing a critical point of faith; the apostate teacher, in a symbolic gesture, "coincidentally" notices that they have reached the permitted boundaries for Shabbat travel - at precisely the moment Rabbi Meir has asked him to return, to come home, to abandon his horse, his Roman clothes, his new- found friends and the prestige they have bestowed upon him. Acher protests; he cannot return, for his fate is sealed. He has heard a Heavenly Voice denying him the ability to return. In this version of the story, the voice emanates from the remains of the shattered walls of the Temple in Jerusalem.
What brought him there? Are we to believe that he "happened" to be riding, and he "happened" to arrive at the holiest place for Jews, on the holiest day of the year? His journey has purpose, the day on which it occurs is significant, and there is meaning to the location.
Elisha/Acher was raised to embrace Torah because of its power, but that power seems to have vanished. Shattered, burned ruins replace the glory of the Jewish people - the House of God. Acher looks at the ruined Beit Hamikdash, and concludes that there is another power, something even greater, which destroyed the Temple. He embraces that power, and seeks to align himself with the Romans who now seem more powerful than the Jews. Is this not the lesson that his father always wanted him to learn - to follow the power, to align himself with the most powerful force he could find? When he sees the martyrdom of the great Torah sages, he aligns himself with the executioner; he chooses 'ruthless murderer' over 'rabbi'. Rabbi Meir read Acher's inner thoughts accurately: It was, indeed, the problem of theodicy, "why bad things happen to good people," that led Acher into the embrace of the evil Roman Empire, the epicenter of the most glorious power mankind had ever known. Elisha cannot reconcile an all- powerful God with the martyrdom of the scholars, the exile of the Jewish People, the destruction of the Kingdom of God on earth. He turns away, to the polar opposite, in search of that greater power that he believes has overcome the God of Torah.
Acher's words display a great deal of anger. He seems to lament the years he "wasted" on Torah study, and he tries to "save" others from a life of holiness and Torah study. It is his anger which leads him to the place where the Temple once stood, to what is, in his eyes, a sign of the diminished power of Judaism and the glory of the Romans. But he does not deny the existence of God or His involvement in human history: he himself tells Rabbi Meir that from the ruins of the Beit HaMikdash a voice rang out, calling on every Jew to return to God - with one exception. Elisha ben Avuya cannot return. His estrangement is irrevocable.23
THE CORE
Why is Elisha/Acher the exception to the concept of teshuva? Admittedly, his deeds were particularly dastardly; his repentance would require more than a simple gesture. Why does Heaven bother with the fallen Rabbi, going as far as a personal communication, to tell him that his teshuva will not be accepted? Moreover, if Elisha/Acher has not rejected his belief in the truth of God and the message he receives, why does he care what the Bat Kol says? If Judaism is true, if the Torah is divine, why is he so concerned what the results of his teshuva will be? Would it not be sufficient to take the path of truth, to console himself with the knowledge that he can spend the rest of his life acquiring truth, gaining understanding? I have often wondered why Rabbi Meir did not counsel his teacher - "You do your part, return to God and a life of Torah, and let God worry about the rest." 24 Herein lies the crux of Acher's sin: Acher's
72 transgressions were certainly numerous, his actions heinous, but they all shared a common core: Above all else, Elisha/Acher was a pragmatist. He was fully aware that his entry to a life of Torah was born of an attraction to the glory and power of Torah; his dedication to that life, to that truth, was lost when he saw something more powerful. His allegiance was, and always had been, a matter of pragmatism. It was this same pragmatism that led him down the path of decadence, for only a person motivated solely by pragmatism can say, "If I have lost my share in the next world, I may as well enjoy this one". A man who seeks holiness and truth would not have drawn the same conclusion.25
Had the Heavenly Voice warmly welcomed Elisha home, his pragmatism may have led him in that direction, but such repentance would have been imperfect. Instead, God tells him that he is not welcome, putting him in position to do the right thing - perhaps, for the first time in his life, to do the right thing for the right reason: not "what's in it for me", but because it is right.
NO EXCEPTIONS
There are no exceptions to teshuva. We - all of us, each and every one of us, can repent, at any time.26 The teshuva of any individual is as unique as the person who must perform it. A man like Elisha Ben Avuya, who was so gifted, so brilliant, and had the best education, also had great responsibilities. His fall was profound; therefore, the teshuva necessary in his case was extraordinary. What is instructive is that God did not call him to return; in a sense, Acher lost the sya'ata d'shmaya, 27 the help from Heaven that tugs at the heart of the sinner and awakens him to repentance.28 But God did not abandon him altogether: God did engage Acher in dialogue, even if to say "you cannot return".29 God wanted even the teshuva of Acher, but true teshuva, not a perfunctory repentance. What God wanted from Elisha/Acher was repentance that would go to the very core of his existence, and jar him to the point of transformation. The core of his sin was pragmatism; therefore God led him on a path of complete rehabilitation; He removed any possible cost-benefit calculation that would have flawed Acher's teshuva, by saying "Return, my mischievous children - except Acher," and removing any hope of reward from the equation. Had Elisha repented, he would surely have been accepted. Had he rejected pragmatism and the power of Rome, and chosen instead closeness to God, to truth and to morality - even though he was forewarned that the closeness to God would not be reciprocated - he would, in effect, have embraced decency with no promise of reward, with nothing to "gain" beyond truth itself. Had he chosen this path, he would surely have been embraced by the Shechina.
In fact, the Jerusalem Talmud intimates that, on his deathbed, Acher expressed remorse:
Some time later Elisha b. Avuyah became ill, and it was told to R. Meir that he was sick. He went to visit him and said, 'Repent.' He asked, 'Having gone so far will I be accepted?' R. Meir replied, 'Is it not written, 'You turn man to contrition (Tehilim 90, 3), up to the time that life is crushed out [the penitent is accepted]?' Then Elisha ben Avuyah wept and died. R. Meir rejoiced in his heart, saying, 'My master seems to have departed in repentance.'
While we need not play the role of "God's accountant" and concern ourselves with the judgment that awaited that tortured soul in the World to Come, we may learn a tremendous lesson from this passage in any case: Elisha ben Avuyah shed a tear of regret with his dying breath. Even at the last moment of life, anyone - no matter how far they have gone, no matter how heinous their crimes, no matter how long they have turned their back on God, on truth, on teshuva - can repent. When it comes to teshuva, there are no exceptions; all are welcome home. Some are
73 invited through the front door, while others, like Elisha ben Avuyah, may need to "sneak" in, but there are no exceptions.30
NOTES
1. In the Mishna, one teaching is cited in his name: Avot 4:20. The fact that the Mishna was edited by his student Rabbi Meir may account for his inclusion in Avot, together with the other great sages. The only teaching in the Gemara which remains in his name is found in Moed Katan 20a, yet some claim it was another rabbi with the same name and not the nefarious Acher. See notes of Rav Yaakov Emden to Moed Katan 20a.
2. See comments of Rabbenu Chananel on the passage in Chagiga 14b; also see Rashi's comments on this passage, and the version of Rashi's comments in the Ein Yakov.
3. See comments of Rashi and Tosafot.
4. According to the Maharsha, Rabbi Akiva knew when to stop; the others went too far.
5. See Rashi, Talmud Bavli 14b, and the Maharsha.
6. As in many instances in Talmudic literature, the sages quote only the first part of a verse/prooftext, in a sort of shorthand. The section of the verse that is most critical to the discussion is actually the second part of the verse, which not explicitly recorded in the Talmud, rather than the first half of the verse which is cited.
7. According to tradition, Metatron was once a human named Chanoch who was elevated to the status of angel, and became the Great Scribe of the Heavenly Court. See Targum Yonatan Bereishit 5:24. For more information regarding the identity of this angel see Mal'achei Elyon by Reuven Margoliot, Mossad Harav Kook, page 73ff.
8. I assume that Acher himself did not say "God forbid"; this is most likely an editorial comment inserted by the redactor of the Talmud, who would not, could not, repeat such words of heresy.
9. This may have been the meaning of Rabbi Akiva's cryptic warning: "R. Akiva said to them: When you arrive at the stones of pure marble, do not say, 'water, water!' For it is said: He that speaks falsehood shall not be established before my eyes.(Tehilim 101:7.)" Rabbi Akiva warns them against superficiality ; seeing the gleam of the marble and thinking it is water means that one sees the surface and assumes they know what lies below. The mystical path is fraught with danger, and the greatest danger of all is one's own superficiality. Mystical experience will not solve one's crises in faith, perhaps only heighten it.
10. In a sense this should provide an answer to our question: God indeed calls to and invites all sinners to repent, which should teach us that teshuva is available to all sinners. Why Elisha is an exception will be dealt with below. I have previously written about another notorious sinner and his path back to God. See "Rabbi Eleazar ben Dordaya: A Story of Teshuva". http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48922222.html.
11. It is Elisha Ben Avuyah himself who opines that if a Torah scholar goes astray with a forbidden woman, the desecration of God's name is even more profound. See Midrash Mishlei, Parsha 6.
12. See Introduction of the Rambam to the Mishna Torah, and Gittin 56a: He [the Emperor] sent against them Nero the Caesar. As he was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel. He said: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the blame on me. So he ran away and became a proselyte, and R. Meir was descended from him.
13. See the description of his brilliance recorded in Midrash Rabbah Rut Parsha 6 (Lerner edition).
14. There are those who quote the Baal Shem Tov as asserting that this Bat Kol was a lie, a figment of the imagination of Acher.
74 15. Based almost exclusively on this line, Milton Steinberg paints Elisha/Acher with a sympathetic brush in his popular As a Driven Leaf. Unfortunately, Steinberg ignores all the passages that counter his sympathetic portrayal, and the uninformed reader is left with a skewed impression of a sinister individual.
16. There is an opinion expressed in the Talmud that the Book of Iyov not a historical book, rather the entire book should be read as a parable. Iyov, a righteous man, can regain his health and his wealth, rebuild his family with newly- born children and be consoled for those he has lost. In real life the loss of a child is surely the cause of much pain - even if new children are subsequently born. Talmud Bavli Baba Batra 15a: A certain Rabbi was sitting before R. Samuel b. Nahmani and in the course of his expositions remarked, 'Iyov never was and never existed, but is only a parable.
17. Eventually, the Roman inquisitors came for Rabbi Meir himself. See Kohelet Raba 7:19: R. Meir was being sought by the [Roman] Government. He fled and passed by the store of some Romans. He found them sitting and eating swine's flesh. When they saw him they said, 'Is it he or not? Since it may be he, let us call him over to us; if he comes and eats with us [it cannot be he].' He dipped one of his fingers in the swine's blood and placed another finger in his mouth, dipping one finger and sucking the other. They said one to the other, ' If he were R. Meir, he would not have done so. They let him go and he fled. The text was therefore applied to him, 'THE advantage of knowledge is, that wisdom preserves the life of he that possesses it.'
18. See Midrash Mishle chapter 31: Rabbi Meir sat learning Torah on a Shabbat afternoon in the House of Study. While he was there, his two sons died. What did their mother, Beruria, do? She laid them upon the bed and spread a linen cloth over them. At the end of Shabbat, Rabbi Meir came home and asked her, 'Where are my sons?" She replied, 'They went to the House of Study." He said, "I did not see them there." She gave him the havdalah cup and he said the blessing for havdalah. Then he asked again, 'Where are my sons?" She said, 'They went to another place and they are coming." Then she gave him food to eat, and he ate and said the blessing. Then she said, "I have a question to ask you." He said, "Ask it." She said, "Early today a man came here and gave me something to keep for him, but now he has returned to ask for it back. Shall we return it to him or not?" He replied, "He who has received something on deposit must surely return it to its owner." She replied, "Without your knowledge, I would not return it." Then she took him by the hand, brought him to the bed, and took away the cloth and he saw his sons lying dead upon the bed. Then he began to weep and said about each, "Oh my son, my son; oh my teacher, my teacher. They were my sons, as all would say, but they were my teachers because they gave light to their father's face through their knowledge of the Torah." Then his wife said to him, "Did you not say to me that one must return a deposit to its owner? Does it not say, "The Lord gave, the Lord took, blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21 )?
19. Rabbi Meir was also a student of Rabbi Akiva; we can only guess if Acher had a hand in Rabbi Akiva's death as well. See Brachot 61b.
20. This dovetails with the sole teaching quoted in the name of Elisha Ben Avuyah in the Mishna: Chapters of the Fathers 4:20: Elisha b. Avuyah said: he who learns [when] a child, unto what is he [to be] compared? - unto ink written upon a new writing sheet; and he who learns [when] an old man, unto what is he like? - unto ink written on a rubbed writing sheet.
21. See Talmud Bavli Brachot 27b, Pesachim 49b, Kethuboth 62b. Brachot 27b: We can hardly appoint R. Akiva because perhaps Rabban Gamaliel will bring a curse on him because he has no ancestral merit. Pesachim 49b: It was taught, R. Akiva said: When I was an 'am ha-arez I said: I would that I had a scholar [before me], and I would maul him like a donkey. Said his disciples to him,' Rabbi, say like a dog!' 'The former bites and breaks the bones, while the latter bites but does not break the bones,' he answered them. Ketuboth 62b: R. Akiva was a shepherd of Ben Kalba Sabua. The latter's daughter, seeing how modest and noble [the shepherd] was, said to him, 'Were I to be betrothed to you, would you go away to [study at] an academy?'
22. The Talmud in other places opposes this approach and says, 'Let a person start for less-than stellar reasons, and eventually they will serve God for the correct reason.' See Pesachim 50b. Moreover, the rabbis value his learning, though performed for the wrong intentions, and later treat his children favorably in the merit of his learning, despite the atrocities he committed. See Midrash Rabbah Rut Parsha 6 (Lerner edition).
23. Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik says that Acher misunderstood the voice: Acher could not return, but Elisha could. See "The Rav Speaks," page 193 ff.
24. The Shl"a HaKadosh suggests that had Acher really repented, his Teshuva would have been accepted. This idea is echoed by Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev. See Kedushat Levi, commentary to Pirkie Avot Chapter 2.
75 25. The Tiferet Shlomo, Moadim-Rrimzei Purim, reports that his teacher, the Maggid of Mezritch, once prayed so much for a sick person, that he was told from Heaven that he had gone too far and had forfeited his share in the World to Come. Despite his initial shock, he immediately consoled himself and said - "Now I can really pray, with no holds barred". Likewise, the Maggid said, Acher should conducted himself: he had the unique opportunity to serve God with absolutely nothing to gain, which is the purest form of devotion. Of course, the pragmatic Acher would have found the suggestion repulsive. A similar idea is taught in the name of the Baal Shem Tov; see Kol Mevaser volume 2 Chagiga.
26. The Mishna says that if a person sins anticipating that they will repent, or anticipating that Yom Kippur will cleanse them, it will not work: In his commentary to Mishna Yoma 8:9, the Rambam explains that this means that God will not help him on that day to do what he needs to do to repent, but repentance is always available. If one says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, no opportunity will be given to him to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and the Day of Atonement will procure atonement for me, the Day of Atonement procures for him no atonement. Mishna Talmud Bavli Yoma 85b.
27. See the Rambam cited in the previous note.
28. See Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Kedushat Levi Parshat Ki Tavo.
29. See Rav Yehosha Heschel of Apta, in Ohev Yisrael, who made a similar observation.
30. Rav Zaddok Hakohen of Lublin, in Liqutei Amarim section 16, quotes the ruling "One must obey the master of the house in all regards - except when he says "leave" (Talmud Bavli Pesachim 86b) in this regard: We must obey God's commandments at all times, except when he says, as he did to Acher, not to repent.
The following is a summary of the concluding section of a Yiddish lecture by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, given in November 1961 at a convention of Mizrachi-Hapoel Hamizrachi held in Atlantic City, NJ. It bears particular relevance to Yom Kippur that occurs on a Shabbos, as it does this year. I express my gratitude to Professor Barry Landy of Cambridge, U.K.
Do you think that Acher heard the heavenly voice well – and understood it correctly?
The Rambam (Hil. Teshuvah 7:5) states “the Torah has promised us that at the conclusion of the exile, the Jewish people will repent, and then immediately be redeemed.” We believe that no matter how deeply a Jew may be sunken in sin, and living a purely physical existence, there remains burning within him a ner Elokim nishmat ha-adam (“a spirit of man that is the lamp of God”-Proverbs 20:27). Therefore, one should never discount the possibility of his repentance. The Sages recount that when Acher rode a horse on Shabbos, his student R. Meir pleaded with him, saying “even you should repent.” According to the Talmud Bavli (Chagigah 15a), Acher responded, “I have heard it proclaimed from behind the partition ‘return O backsliding children (Jeremiah 3:14), except for Acher.’” As opposed to the Bavli, the Yerushalmi (Chagigah 2:1) quotes Acher as saying, “I once was riding a horse on Shabbos Yom Kippur past the Holy of Holies, and I heard a heavenly voice (bas kol) coming from the Holy of Holies declare, ‘return O backsliding children, except for Elisha ben Avuya.’”
Do you think that Acher heard the heavenly voice well – and understood it correctly?
God forbid! After all, how can a heavenly voice make a determination that contradicts a foundation of the Jewish faith that “even if one is a heretic all his life, if he repents in the end, he is forgiven, as it says, ‘tashuv enosh ad daka’ (‘You return man to contrition’-Psalms 90:3)
76 i.e., even (as the Yerushalmi puts it, at dichduchah (the moment when life is crushed).” How is it possible that the heavenly voice could deprive the great Tanna of this opportunity? True, he “caught a glimpse and was diminished,” but even then he obviously was still capable of hearing the heavenly voice, as he reported to his beloved student R. Meir. Acher certainly would not have told him a lie. What then did the heavenly voice want from Acher, who was such a profoundly and tragically alienated scholar?
There is something else we must ask. If the heavenly voice did not want Acher to repent, it should not have connected with him in the first place. And even then, why did it begin with the demanding words “return O backsliding children” – and then conclude with the awful damnation of “except Acher?”
I believe that we can find the true intent of the heavenly voice by examining the differing versions of this story as found in the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. And so we can ask: how in fact did the heavenly voice address this sinner? Did it call out to him using his real name, Elisha ben Avuya, or did it use his pseudonym Acher? The answer is very simple. The endearing words “return O backsliding children” were surely addressed to Elisha ben Avuya himself; it was he whom the heavenly voice pleaded with, and sought to draw near, like a mother who always finds something positive in her child. However, the concluding phrase, “except for Acher,” was addressed to Acher. In this, the Talmud Bavli records the correct version of the words of the heavenly voice, by which the Shechinah sought to bring Elisha closer to herself while repulsing Acher. Why? Because the real Tanna, who was a Sage of Israel whom Rebbe (R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi) even quotes in Pirkei Avos (Avos 4:24), never sinned, never betrayed Knesset Yisrael, never identified with the Romans, and never sought to tear Jewish children away from Torah and the fear of Heaven. It was another person, Acher, who was the traitor.
Moreover, upon careful examination it becomes clear that the betrayal occurred in a remarkable way. One morning an alien soul insinuated itself into Elisha, convincing him that he was not really a student of the Sages of the mesorah, that Knesset Yisrael was not his mother, and that its future was not his future. Suddenly Elisha the Tanna was displaced by Acher, and it was Acher who deserted the beis midrash, produced heretical works, desecrated the Shabbos, and rejected everything holy and precious. All the while, the real Elisha remained hidden in the depths of his personality, an Elisha who never betrayed God or the Jewish people, but was a hostage of the pseudo-personality that was Acher.
Elisha knew God’s power, but he did not know his own power
And so it came to pass that on a certain Yom Kippur that coincided with Shabbos, Acher became deranged and publicly mounted a horse and rode it on the pathways of the villages, towns and cities of the land of Israel, as Jews looked out the windows of their synagogues in disbelief. “Who is this boor who has the audacity to violate the holy aura of Shabbos
77 Shabbason?” they asked each other, stunned and confused. Then suddenly something remarkable happened. Inside that tragically misguided personality, the long dormant soul which had been lethargically sleeping in the depths of his being awoke, and in a moment pushed Acher’s hand to lead the horse in the direction of the Holy of Holies.
After all, why would Acher suddenly ride by the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, while publicly violating the day? Acher must himself have wondered what drew him to the Holy of Holies on the very day that was so powerfully connected to that place. Suddenly, the hidden soul, captive daughter of the King, demanded that she be heard, saying, “Elisha, you are not Acher! The dark soul who has enthralled you is not your friend, but your worst enemy! Elisha, identify rather with me, with your past, with your teachers and your colleagues! Come to me, push Acher away, he is not you, he is the very devil! Do you not see that you are drawn to the Holy of Holies like a magnet? It is Yom Kippur today, and God is waiting for all of us to come back to him. Elisha, do you not hear the heavenly voice that calls out to you to repent? As you pass by the Holy of Holies, do you not remember how the rebbe would speak of the avodah (Temple service) of the Kohen Gadol on this day? Elisha, assert yourself, listen to the heavenly voice, return O backsliding children!”
And thus did Elisha ben Avuya hear the heavenly voice that called on him to disassociate from the Acher who was his pseudo-personality, his false identity. But tragically, fate decreed that Elisha would make a terrible mistake. Instead of accurately hearing the words “except for Acher” (that were the actual words of the heavenly voice, as recorded in the Bavli), he erroneously heard “except for Elisha ben Avuya,” as the Yerushalmi records him hearing it. How did it happen? He had come to believe that he and Acher were one, and that he could thus not separate from Acher. What he heard was shaped by what was in his mind. And so he turned the horse away, and in that tragic moment the pure soul of the great Tanna disappeared, never to be heard from again.
The Yerushalmi concludes the story with the words, “he knew My power, but rebelled against Me.” Do you know why Elisha rebelled against the Creator, in spite of his greatness in Torah? Because he did not appreciate his own strength, and thus betrayed God. It is as if to say, Elisha knew God’s power, but he did not know his own power to overcome his outer Acher, and thus he turned away from God. His own weak self-awareness and his failure to “know himself” were the real cause of his tragic sin.
Indeed, Rabbosai, we have for many years worked with the non-religious, with sinners, because in each one we have recognized an Acher-like tragedy. We have believed that in every non- religious Jew there can be found an Elisha ben Avuya, who might from time to time arise, protest, and run toward the Holy of Holies, even if he is riding a horse on Shabbos Yom Kippur. Were it not for the hidden Elisha ben Avuya within them, they would not sacrifice for Eretz Yisrael and its people as they do. Many times, we engage in a bitter fight with the Achers. We struggle bitterly with their stubbornness, even as they do much damage. But even in the thick
78 of such battles, we have never forgotten that deep inside all the Achers, there dwell Elisha ben Avuyas who are trying to purify them. True, many times they avoid the Holy of Holies so as not to hear or understand a heavenly voice. They prefer to not identify with holiness and the mesorah. Sometimes they feel that their way back to God is blocked, with no way through, so convinced are they by Acher, who is after all a master debater and dialectician.
But the day will yet come, when the heavenly call to return will be heard clearly, and the inner Elisha ben Avuya will arise from within the depths of their personalities. Then the great miracle will occur when “all of your children will be taught of Hashem, and great will be the peace of your children” (Isaiah 54:13).
More than fifty years after these ideas were articulated, their echoes reverberate with undiminished force. Many are the lessons and conclusions that a Jew, any Jew, can take from them. Here are but a few thoughts – I’m sure others can find their own.
NOTES
1. On the most significant level, the personal one, the Rav challenges us to connect with our “inner Elisha,” the authentic spiritual personality dormant and hibernating in the recesses of our being, covered by layers of Acher-like pseudo-personality, overpowered by superficialities and accretions born of upbringing, habit, environment, social influences, spiritual lethargy, weak self-esteem, or diminished self-knowledge. As the Rav said on another occasion, “mi-ma’amakim karati kah” (“Out of the depths have I called Thee, O Lord,” Psalms 130:1) should be understood as proclaiming “I call out to God from deep down inside me, i.e., expressing my real, if hidden, spiritual self.” The challenge we all face is to recognize our strength and potential, to fan the dormant embers of our “ner Elokim” so that they can overcome the debilitating distractions that stand in the way of our fullest spiritual development. 2. This is particularly true when Shabbos occurs on Yom Kippur, in the confluence of the day replete with contradictions, i.e, of both oneg (pleasure) and innui nefesh (deprivation), when we are exquisitely conscious of the constant challenge to properly apportion the needs of our bodies with the longings of our souls, thereby to harmonize our inner and outer selves so as to live as wholesome and integrated beings in both essential dimensions of our lives. 3. When we see the incisive truth hidden in the two conflicting Talmudic passages at the basis of this story, and marvel at how the Rav harmonized them not only with each other but with penetrating psychological insights, who cannot be enthralled by the profound wisdom hidden deep inside the prism that is Torah she’be’al Peh, as uncovered and taught by the brilliance of a true Gadol in Torah? How can one not be inspired to engage in Torah study, to plumb the depths of these inspired texts? 4. We are never to give up on any Jew, no matter how distant and then we learn the lesson that we are never to give up on any Jew, no matter how distant, no matter how alienated from his spiritual home, or her halachic hearth. We must appreciate that each Jew is a precious, unique, component of our glorious people, possessed of untold potential spiritual growth and accomplishment that could be realized if only we ourselves would reach out to them with love and sensitivity, as R. Meir reached out to his fallen mentor and rebbe. Only religious misconceptions, misunderstandings of divine intent, stand in the way. 5. So too we are reminded that whether it is in the State of Israel, or anywhere else, a Jew who acts with devotion, financial sacrifice, or military bravery, intending to strengthen the Jewish people or the Jewish state, must be recognized – whether or not he or she knows it – as motivated by the force of their Jewish neshamah, their pintele Yid. And therefore, even when we stand on opposite sides of the aisle, engaging with them in vigorous and principled argument on behalf of the Torah and truth, we must act toward them at all times with ahavas Yisrael, and heightened areivus (a profound sense of mutual co-responsibility.) 6. As was the case with Acher no Jew, no communal leader or rabbi, no matter how accomplished or respected by peers and colleagues, is beyond acting in ways that – good intentions notwithstanding – can profoundly harm our people and our faith. Indeed Elisha ben Avuya himself is a powerful lesson of this fact. The Rav explains elsewhere that he, being particularly aware of the power of Torah, was the one who convinced the Romans that the way to defeat the Jews was to uproot their Torah, not merely to defeat them militarily or politically. And thus the Romans turned to the religious persecution of the Jews, as recorded in the asarah harugei malchus (the ten martyrs killed by the Roman rulers of Judea) litany found in the Yom Kippur Mussaf. Clearly, the more prominent the person, the greater his potential to cause damage and injury to the Jewish soul as well as its body-politic. 7. The Sages did not think for a moment to entice Acher to return by amending Judaism or diluting the mesorah When the zeitgeist (or spirit) of the times diverge from that of the Torah, and many are inclined to question the age- old verities and values that have sustained our people and our faith, we dare not seek to bring them back to the fold by changing or diluting our standards or our principles. Despite his logical and theological critiques, the Sages did
79 not think for a moment to entice Acher to return by amending Judaism or diluting the mesorah. Indeed, the history of contemporary Jewish denominational life confirms that they were right – that such an approach does not bring prodigal children back to their Father in Heaven. It only weakens the institutions and groups that embrace such reforming strategies. What is called for instead is a redoubled insistence on fealty to a life replete with Torah, mitzvos and mesorah, accompanied by ever more outreach to our brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters, no matter how far they may have wandered from the Holy of Holies and God Himself.
The Curious Jew Looking for God in humanity. Chana writes:18
The brilliance of As a Driven Leaf is the same as its innate flaw: it recreates Elisha ben Avuyah in the image of modern man.
This is not the Elisha ben Avuyah whose life is supported by the texts, few of those as there are. This is Elisha ben Avuyah, the conflicted, tortured, modern man, the man of science and reason, the man who is studying Euclid's Elements of Geometry in an attempt to logically dissect and understand Tanakh.
Milton Steinberg has done something necessary and beautiful in writing this book- he has allowed modern man to find an ally, someone with whom to share his anguish and pain, someone to whom he can relate. The Elisha ben Avuyah portrayed within the pages of this book is a man of deep feeling, a man who does what he thinks is right or what is best because he firmly believes in his underlying principles. He is not a spiteful creature, cruel and destructive without reason. His actions are understandable; the man himself comes across as extremely human.
From the texts themselves, we simply know:
Four men entered the Garden (usually interpreted as the Kabbalistic realm of theosophy and hidden teachings). Ben Azzai died; Ben Zoma went mad; Acher (Elisha) destroyed the plants (an idiom for "committed heresy"); R. Akiva departed unhurt. (Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 14b)
Acher (Elisha Ben Abuyah) cut down his own offspring. Of him scripture says: "Do not let your mouth make your flesh sin" (Ecclesiastes 5:5). What is this about? He saw that Metatron happened to be granted authority to sit to record the merits of Israel, and he said: "It is a tradition that on high there is no sitting and no strife, no division and no toil. (So) perhaps there are two supreme Powers." Heaven forbid! Then they brought him to Metatron and they smote him with sixty bands of fire. They said to Metatron: "When you saw him, why did you not stand up before him?" Then authority was granted (Metatron) to erase the merits of the apostate. A heavenly voice went forth and said: "'Return you turncoat sons!' (Jer 3:22), except for this apostate." (Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 15a)
18 http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2007/07/as-driven-leaf.html
80
He (Elisha ben Abuyah) found a whore, and wanted her. But she said, "Aren't you Elisha?" So he violated Shabbat by picking a radish from the ground and gave it to her, and she said, "He is Acher ('another one')." (Jerusalem Talmud, Hagigah 2:1)
Once he was sitting and studying in the plain of Gennaseret and he saw a man who ascended to the top of a date-palm and took the dam with the young, and descended safely. At the conclusion of the Sabbath, he saw another man who ascended the tree and took the young, but let the dam go, and when he descended a snake stung him and died. Whereupon he said: It is written, Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days (Deut. XXII, 7). Where is the goodness, and where the length of days for this man? But he was unaware that R. Akiba had publicly expounded 'That it may be well with thee' in the world which is entirely good, 'And that thou mayest prolong thy days' in the world of eternity. (Midrash Rabbath to Ruth, VI: 4 and Talmud Kiddushin 39b)
He saw the tongue of R. Judah the Baker in the mouth of a dog. He thereupon said: If this is the reward of the tongue which toiled all its days in the Torah, how much more so the tongue which has not the knowledge and has not toiled! And he said: Since that is so, there is no reward for the righteous, and no resurrection of the dead. (Midrash Rabbah on Ruth: VI, 4)
When his mother was pregnant with him she passed by idolatrous temples, and she smelled the dish, and they gave her some of it to eat, and she ate it, and it spread through her like the venom of insects. (Midrash Rabbah on Ruth: VI, 4)
R' Chaim HaQuoton has an excellent piece on the different views regarding Rabbi Elisha's apostasy:
The Talmud tells[35] that one time Elisha Ben Avuyah entered the Garden of Eden (Paradise). There he saw G-d sitting with Metatron, who as the “Scribe of HaShem” was writing down the merits of the Jewish nation. Elisha Ben Avuyah reasoned that just as one is supposed to stand in the presence of a King, one should also stand in the presence of the Lord, and the fact that Metatron sat with G-d must show that Metatron was His equal. Although G-d struck Metatron with sticks of fire (pulsa denura) to show His sovereignty over the angel[36], Elisha Ben Avuyah already made up his mind that they are equal. Because of this false premise, Elisha Ben Avuyah turned into an apostate and began preaching heresy. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) writes[37] of varying opinions as to what was the forbidden theodology that Elisha Ben Avuyah accepted: He was a Karpotian Gnostic, a follower of the philosopher Philo Judeaus, a Christian, or a Sadducee. A dispute is also recorded[38] amongst sages of the Gaonic Period as to what Elisha Ben Avuyah’s forbidden teachings were. Rabbi Hai Gaon[39] wrote that Acher (Elisha Ben Avuyah’s name given in the Talmud after he became an apostate) succumbed to the Zoroastrian beliefs of the Magi. He believed in dual-deism including a good god, Hormizd[40], and a god of evil, Ahormin (Ormuzd and Ahriman). Rabbi Saadiah Gaon[41] writes the he believed in a dual-deism of a main god and a secondary, inferior god who ruled alongside each other.
We also know more generally that he "was a student of Greek, loved Greek poetry, and apparently had more than a surface knowledge of horses, architecture, and wine. He read
81 forbidden books, which he kept concealed in his clothes" (Chaim Potok in his Foreword to As a Driven Leaf, 8).
From this, Milton Steinberg paints a searing portrait of a man as conflicted and confused as any modern man, a person who truly desires to learn and understand and whose intellect leads him to make the choices he does. He treats Elisha ben Avuyah in a sympathetic fashion, allowing his relationship with the whore to actually become a dignified, doomed love for a beautiful courtesan, explaining how it was possible for him to turn against his people, describing the great respect he felt for the Sages even when he was not one of them, suggesting that he was the victim of a loveless, unhappy marriage.
He edits and twists the facts to suit his purpose (for example, he neglects to mention the fact that Elisha is survived by two daughters, instead determining that he had no children) and for much of the book, I was concerned that many people would read it and assume that this was true. That was until I encountered a disclaimer, peculiarly positioned at the end of the book rather than the beginning, and heaved a sigh of relief. I would suggest reading the Author's Note before reading the actual book; I assure you that you will feel much better after having done so. As he explains, "In brief, As a Driven Leaf springs from historical data without any effort at rigid conformity or literal confinement to them" (Steinberg 480).
Steinberg exercises some really beautiful techniques when writing this book: for example, rather than an actual walk through Pardes upon which Elisha sees Metatron sitting and believes there to be two Gods, he has the four (Ben-Azzai, Ben Zoma, Elisha and Akiva) getting together in a study-group to delve into works of heresy in order to counter them. From there, at different points during the work, each man is positioned in a garden (always a different garden!) and meets his respective fate. It's literary brilliance. Also brilliant is the guilt thrust upon Elisha, whose idea it initially was to have the other three help him with his slipping dedication to religiosity, and who unfortunately ends up dragging the other two down.
The book also evokes the spirit of the Talmudic era; I now have a feel for what it would have been like to live during that time period, how the Sages would have interacted, the public lectures they would give and the way their students would treat them. I can imagine all of it, which is excellent, because it gives me a context in which to understand stories in the Gemara. Chaim Potok wrote in his introduction, "I had been studying Talmud from the age of eight, lived deep in its winding argumentations and dialectics. But nothing I ever heard or read before was able to bring the world of the rabbis so vividly to life for me as Milton Steinberg's novel" (Potok 9.) That is high praise.
The major difference between the texts and As a Driven Leaf is simply this: as far as I know, Rabbi Elisha ben Avuyah never denied the existence of God. I personally do not know of any place in the Talmud where he makes an outright denial of God. I could be wrong, in which case I would appreciate the correction, but at the moment, I cannot find such a place.
He says there are two Gods, perhaps (including Metatron); he says there is no resurrection or
82 reward or punishment (due to the episode with shiluach ha'kan), but does he ever say "There is no God?" No, I don't believe he does.
I have been searching all morning for a supposed quote of his in reaction to seeing the boy die by shiluach ha'kan, the quote being, "There is no justice and there is no Judge." I've pulled lots of people into my search, including Josh Yuter (who rocks on several levels) and I just don't see this quote in the Gemara. In English, the Gemara regarding this section reads:
R. Joseph said: Had Aher34 interpreted this verse [regarding shiluach ha'kan/ kibud av v'eim resulting in longevity] 35 as R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would not have sinned.36 Now, what happened with Aher? Some say, he saw something of this nature.37 Others say, he saw the tongue of Huzpith the Interpreter dragged along by a swine.38 ‘The mouth that uttered pearls licks the dust!’ he exclaimed. [Thereupon] he went forth and sinned.39
~Kiddushin 39b
Okay. So where did this misquotation, "There is no Justice and there is no Judge" come from? Why, from the book itself, from As a Driven Leaf
Incidentally, even if the quote does exist, his saying "there is no Judge" does not mean there is no God; it simply means there is no righteous God. God may still exist; He is simply not righteous or just in the eyes of Elisha ben Avuyah.
All right. Compare this to the way in which Elisha ben Avuyah is presented in the book, namely, as an atheist:
At once Elisha knew the answer to the question he had never ventured to face before.
A great negation crystallized in him. The veil of deception dissolved before his eyes. The only belief he still cherished disintegrated as had all the others. The last tenous chord that bound him to his people was severed.
And when the sages droned on, their words buzzing like flies, revulsion swept Elisha. He could no longer tolerate their deliberate blindness. In cold desperation he silenced them.
"It is all a lie," he said with a terrible quiet in his voice. "There is no reward. There is no Judge. There is no Judgment. For there is no God."
The wind blew in from the sea across horror-stricken faces. The sun weltering so long in its own blood, died slowly.
83
~page 250
This is problematic.
This works as long as we are reinterpreting Rabbi Elisha as modern man. And in As a Driven Leaf, we are doing exactly that. In this work, Rabbi Elisha is a mathematical, scientific mind who wishes to prove God's existence and is unable to do it; his doubts are only reinforced by cruel scenarios such as the one where the child dies before his eyes. Hence he becomes an atheist and determines that there is no God.
But was Rabbi Elisha this 20th century man? In my opinion, absolutely not. The respect he still holds for the Torah is illogical if he does not believe in God. Most importantly, the answer he gives R' Meir when he is asked why he cannot repent makes no sense if he believes there is no God. Why answer "I have heard the voice behind the curtain saying, "Return o' backsliding children, except for Aher?" The answer would be simple- I will not repent because I am right, and more importantly, there is no God! I have nothing for which to repent and there is no God to listen if I tried!" But that is not the answer he gives.
Of course, for Steinberg to work with his conception of Elisha ben Avuyah, he has to change the entire scenario around. We therefore have a very careful but important change:
"No," Elisha said wearily, "it's too late. How could I live where I am so hated? I am shut off from returning as though a voice from heaven had proclaimed, 'All may repent, save only Elisha the son of Abuyah!' "
"But, master," meir pleaded, "back there is all that you have failed to find- a faith- a God..."
~474 Ah, very sneaky, Milton Steinberg, but very, very good! "I am shut off from returning as though a voice from heaven had proclaimed, 'All may repent, save only Elisha the son of Abuyah!'
Steinberg does not grant credence to the notion that Elisha actually heard that voice; he realizes that is ludicrous. After all, if Elisha heard a bat kol then obviously he must believe in God- there is someone calling down from Heaven, after all. So now, it is as though he heard that voice. This is one of Steinberg's greatest departures from the text.
Also, he undermines Elisha's Torah learning. In his version, Elisha recognizes that R' Meir cannot proceed further because they "approached the roadside marker set up to indicate to the
84 observant Jew the farthest boundary beyond which he might not walk on the Sabbath" (474). In the Gemara, of course, and in Midrash Rabbah to Ruth, the fact that Elisha realizes that this is the Sabbath border demonstrates how much he loves his religion and how involved he still is with it, even though he breaks the law:
'Up to this point is the Sabbath limit.' He asked, 'Whence do you know?' He answered, 'From the footsteps of my horse which has already traversed two thousand cubits.' Said Meir to him, 'You possess all this wisdom and you will not return?' He responded, "It is not within my power." He asked, "Why?" He answered: "I was riding on my hose, and was passing by the College on a Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath, and I heard a voice break forth and say, "Return, O backsliding children (Jer. III, 14). Return unto Me, and I will return unto you (Mal. III, 7) - all except Elisha b. Avuyah, who knew my Power, and yet rebelled against Me!" Now, since I personally find the tale of a man who believes in God but who turns his back on Him because he finds God to be immoral or injust far more compelling, I wish Steinberg had written his work according to the texts. But I think the majority of people would favor the modern approach, and the modern man is the one who incorporates science, reason, philosophy and atheism rather than the emotions or a vision of Metatron (a vision that occurred in Heaven, more reason that Elisha would have to believe there is at least one God.)
...all except Elisha b. Avuyah, who knew my Power, and yet rebelled against Me!
Far different from, "There is no God," isn't it?
This is not the man "whose struggle to live in two worlds destroyed his chances to live in either" but the deliberate rebel, the man who fought God because he chose to, because he believed him injust, who believed in his existence but still refrained from repentance.
Now, of course, I must touch on the pivotal question. Is it true that God forbade Elisha ben Avuyah to return to him? Is that possible?
No! And this is what Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik explains in his Five Addresses.
The Talmud Babli gives the exact words of the heavenly voice. The Divine Presence roused and drew Elisha b. Abuya to it, but pushed away Aher. Why? Because the true Tanna, the Sage of the Sages of Israel whose Torah Rabbi quotes in the Ethics of the Fathers, never sinned, was never traitorous to Klal Yisrael, never joined the Romans, never sought to tear Jews from Torah and the fear of God. Someone else was the traitor; another personality- Aher. The treachery came about in a strange way. One fine morning Elisha b. Abuya did not recognize himself; he made a disastrous mistake about himself. A gilgul, a dark ugly soul, entered within him, betwitched him and persuaded him that he is not the disciple of the Sages of tradition, that he loathes all that is holy, that Knesset Yisrael is not his mother, that its future is not his future. [...]
85 For a moment Elisha reigned his horse and the heavenly voice reached him "return O backsliding children- except for Aher." The heavenly voice meant for him to throw off the other one, the foreign personality, that he reject his false identity- "Come to me O backsliding child, leave Aher outside!" But a tragic fate caused Elisha to err and instead of hearing "except for Aher", he heard according to the reading of the Yerushalmi his name clearly expressed- "except for Elisha b. Abuya."
He thought that he and Aher were one, and that he, Elisha b. Abuya, could not leave Aher behind, alone. He whipped up his horse and was gone, and at that moment the pure personality of the great Tanna was lost, for he no longer recognized himself.
(197)
Genius with the two different names referring to two different personalities (or two different sides of a personality.) Excellent point and it makes me happy. I love close reading.
And to make it even happier (for some points of view), there is actually an approach that Elisha did repent:
After some time Elisha b. Abuyah was taken ill, and they came and told R. Meir, "Elisha your master is sick.' He went to him and appealed to him, 'Return in penitence. ' He said to him, "Will they accept me after all this?" He responded, "Is it not written, Thou turnest man to contrition (Ps. XC, 3), even when one's life is crushed. At that, Elisha b. Abuyah burst into tears and died. And R. Meir rejoiced and sai, 'It appears that my master passed away in the midst of repentance. And when they buried him, fire came to consume his grave. They came and told R. Meir, 'The grave of your master is aflame,' and he went and spread his garment over it, and said to him 'TARRY THIS NIGHT in this world which is all night, AND IT SHALL BE IN THE MORNING, IF THE GOOD ONE WILL REDEEM THEE, HE WILL REDEEM THEE [...] and the fire subsided. Midrash Rabbah to Ruth 6:4,
R' Meir redeemed Rabbi Elisha ben Avuyah; he argued passionately in his defense, arguing that he must be saved for the sake of his Torah. This is probably the most beautiful argument I have ever heard:
Is there not a Mishnah to this effect? The case of a scroll may be saved together with the scroll, and the case of phylacteries together with the phylacteries. Elisha will be saved by the merits of his Torah.
(Midrash Rabbah to Ruth 6:4, page 80)
And so it was that R' Meir succeeded in giving Rabbi Elisha a place in Heaven.
As a Driven Leaf portrays an Elisha who is completely and thoroughly broken, who is not even left with the strength of his convictions at the end. It is a moving, shocking, beautiful portrait of the man- one that I will be unable to forget. It portrays R' Meir weeping at his grave in the midst of a storm, having heard that his resting place was struck by lightning; he is a man completely consumed by suffering, unable to argue before God and grant his Master a place in
86 Heaven.
The texts are much kinder to Elisha; if he does not repent, it is because of a tragic misunderstanding- if he does, so much the better! No matter the case, R' Meir's love for him will redeem him, and that is the true beauty of the story. R' Meir is willing to share his merit in order to help his Master.
These are two different men facing two different battles- the man of As a Driven Leaf as compared to the man of the Talmud. Both of them are significant battles. But these men speak to different audiences. The Elisha who has been recreated in the image of modern man speaks to him; he portrays his struggle, his difficulty and his pain. The Elisha who knew God and still rejected him portrays a wholly different man, in my opinion, a stronger and more compelling one...
But the message that speaks to me- and always has- is R' Meir's. R' Meir fought on behalf of his Master; he did not dismiss him and strove to save him. And he won that battle, was willing to share his merit in order to bring another into Heaven alongside him.
I have always thought that that is our true task- that we must amass as much merit as we can, for when we die, we should like to do the same for all the people we love- to bring them into Heaven as well, to allow them entrance to the realm they were compelled to deny.
87