Salvation and Redemption in the Judaic Tradition David Rosen In presenting Judaic perspectives on salvation and redemption, distinction must be made between the national dimensions on the one hand and the personal on the other, even though the latter is of course seen as related to the national whole, for better or worse (see TB Kiddushin 40b). Individual Salvation Biblical Teachings Redemption and salvation imply the need for deliverance from a particular situation, condition, or debt. The Hebrew word for redemption, gəʾullāh, implies “the prior existence of obligation.” This word is used in Leviticus to describe the nancial redemption of ancestral land from another to whom it has been sold (see Leviticus 25:25); the nancial redemption of a member of one family bound in servitude to another family because of debt (see Leviticus 25:48–49); and the redemption of a home, eld, ritually impure animal, or agricultural tithe that had been dedicated to the sanctuary by giving its nancial value plus one-fth in lieu thereof (see Leviticus 27). In the case of a male who died childless, his brothers assumed an obligation to “redeem” the name of the deceased —that is, to save it from extinction by ensuring the continuity of his seed, lands, and lial tribute (see Deuteronomy 25:5–10; Ruth 4:1–10). In a case of murder, the gôʾēl was the blood avenger who sought to requite the wrong by seeking blood for blood, redeeming thereby, if not the “wandering soul” of the deceased, certainly the honor that had been desecrated (see Numbers 35:12–29; cf. Deuteronomy 4:42). When translated into the realm of divine activity, because God is Lord of the Universe and owns all, the notion of redemption from debt or obligation is irrelevant. Rather, it is through divine involvement in the release and deliverance of the oppressed and vulnerable that God is seen as Redeemer, liberating people from their tribulations (see 2 Samuel 4:9; 1 Kings 1:29; Psalms 11:6; 119:134), and as Savior/Guardian of the orphan and widow (see Job 19:25; Psalm 68:6; Proverbs 23:10–11). However, in a deeper theological sense, every person is seen as condemned through his or her sins, not in any inherited or vicarious sense, but simply because of the consequences of sin and the fact that “there is no person who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20). Just as the term sin is used in the Bible in terms of dereliction of duty toward others (see Judges 11:27; 1 Samuel 2:25; 2 Kings 18:14), so sin in the religious moral context is seen as the dereliction of the individual’s duty toward God in terms of covenantal obligations (see Psalm 25:5–7; cf. 2Samuel 12:13 and Jeremiah 14:20–21). It is, however, not seen as a tragic necessity but always as the fruit of will, and thus its guilt is always deserved. Because one can choose to do good, each individual is answerable for his or her wrongdoings. As sin therefore is seen as rebellion against God, the consequences should be extremely severe. Thus the idea that punishment for sin is death (see, for example, 1 Samuel 2:25; cf. Deuteronomy 29:19) is embodied in the formula that “each man shall die for his [own] sins” (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; cf. Numbers 27:3). The law of retaliation (talion) demanded that the offender should be punished according to his sin, although the possibility existed for substitution (see 2 Samuel 12:13–14), as well as for transferring the guilt to a scapegoat and expelling it (see Leviticus 16:22). The sin offering was accordingly seen not only as purication for the individual, but above all as a means of obtaining God’s forgiveness by serving as a “ransom,” or kōfer, for the sinner, which thus granted “atonement,” or kapparah. Kōfer was the legal term for the ransom or gift that was both to compensate and appease; in the case of manslaughter, restitution could be made by a gift to the victim’s family of an ox (see Exodus 21:30), while such kōfer nefesh, “ransom for a life,” was not permissible in the case of murder (see Numbers 35:31–32). Every such sacrice may be considered as a ransom, or kōfer, in the original sense of making a propitiatory gift for the purpose of atonement (ləkapper; see Leviticus 17:11). This idea of atonement is rooted in the perception of sin as causing a rift with and a distance from God and thus of the need to reconcile the soul of the sinner with God. In order to overcome this sense of estrangement from God, the sinner offers expiatory sacrices not simply to appease God, but to place the sinner’s soul in a different relation to him. The continued spiritualization of atonement accordingly leads to the perception of sacrice as peripheral to, symbolic of, or at least an extension of the essential internal process. Thus repentance itself is seen as having power to effect a reconciliation between the erstwhile sinner and the merciful God, who eagerly anticipates and accepts the sincere contrition of the penitent (see, for example, Isaiah 55:7; Jeremiah 4:1; Ezekiel 18:30–33; Jonah 3:10; Micah 7:18–19). In relation to this idea, as expressed in the Pentateuch, with Moses’ intercession on behalf of the errant Israelites, the essential divine attributes of compassion, forgiveness, loving-kindness, and tolerance are revealed (see Exodus 34:1–9; Numbers 14:17–20). The value of an atoning sacrice in this light is thus understood to be both an appeal to God’s forgiving mercy and an inspiration to the sinner to duly repent. But it is sincere repentance and God’s abundant love and compassion rather than the sacrice that effect the reconciliation, the full “at-one-ment.” While a variety of idioms are used to describe repentance, they are all subsumed by one verb, shûv, meaning “return,” which is prevalent in the Bible and from which ows the rabbinic concept of təshûvāh. The word combines within itself the two essential requisites of repentance—namely, to turn away from evil and to turn toward the good (see Isaiah 1:17; 33:15; 58:5; Jeremiah 7:3; 26:13; Amos 5:14–15; Psalms 15; 24:4; 34:15–16; 37:27). The motion of turning implies that through such effort—a power that God has given to all humankind—sinners can redirect their destiny. That this concept was not a total prophetic innovation but goes back to Israel’s ancient tradition is clear from Amos’s use of it as understood, requiring no need for explanation (see Amos 4:6–11). This text, furthermore, expresses the idea of divine punishment as an incentive to repent and gain salvation, an idea that features prominently in Job (see Job 34:14–33; 36:2–21). Aside, therefore, from its independence from sacrice, salvation from sin is thus perceived as overwhelmingly within the hands of the human person to achieve. Naturally this idea acquired substantial impetus during the exile, when the form of sacricial atonement was not available. Accordingly, prayer assumed a growing importance as a vehicle for reconciliation with God, as is seen through the book of Psalms (see Hosea 14:3); other means included fasting and ṣədāqāh (“charity,” or, better, “righteous response”; see, for example, Isaiah 58:1–3; Daniel 4:24; Joel 2:15–18; Zechariah 7:5). Rabbinic Teachings While the rabbis taught that all of Israel are allocated a portion in the world to come (see M Sanhedrin 10:1), it is only through obedience to the divine covenant, the Torah, that the attainment of such is guaranteed (see Sifre Deuteronomy 34:5; TB Sanhedrin 100a; TB Avodah Zarah 31; TB Taʿanit 11a–b; cf. Leviticus Rabbah 27). Because the human being is created with free will and is therefore culpable for his evil deeds (see M Avot 3:15–16) and because there is not a righteous person on earth who does only good and sins not (see Ecclesiastes 7:20), the attribute of divine justice would condemn all (cf. Genesis Rabbah 8:11). However, divine justice is perceived by the rabbis as functioning in tension with the divine attribute of mercy. The latter provides from the very outset the means to ensure salvation for all in the form of repentance, təshûvāh (see TB Pesahim 54a; TY Peʾah 17:1; Genesis Rabbah 1:4, 12; Lamentations Rabbah 3:5; Midrash on Psalm 57:90; cf. Pesiqta Rabbati 158b). Perhaps an awareness of the historic development of the idea of salvation from sin is expressed in the following passage: “They asked Wisdom ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them, ‘Evil pursues sinners'” [Proverbs 13:21]. “They asked Prophecy ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them ‘The soul that sins, it shall die'” [Ezekiel 18:4]. “They asked Torah ‘What is the sinner’s punishment?’ She said to them ‘Let them bring a guilt offering and it shall atone for him.'” “They asked the Holy One Blessed Be He ‘What’s the sinner’s punishment?’ He said to them, ‘Let him repent (do təshûvāh) and it shall atone for him'” (see TY Makkot 2:6). Thus in the aforementioned tension, it is the divine attribute of mercy that gains the “upper hand” as God awaits and assists the sinner to return to him (see T Sanhedrin 8:3; TY Makkot 2:6; TY Berakhot 4:2; TB Rosh ha-Shanah 17–18; TB Pesahim 119a; TB Yoma 86a, b; Sifre 60b; Sifra Behukotai 8:6; Canticles Rabbah 6:1; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7; Exodus Rabbah 19:3; Numbers Rabbah 10).