[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
Our parsha (Bechukotai) is famous as one of two weekly Torah portions that contain long “curses” (the other is KiTavo, in Deut). In truth, according to the inner dimensions of Torah, these are not curses but hidden blessings, but when looking at the simple meaning of the text (pshat), they certainly look like curses. Toward the end of our parsha’s curses, the Torah tells us how the Jews will ultimately do teshuva and return to G-d and His ways. The verses say the following, “And they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers…and I will bring them into the land of their enemies and this will certainly crush their wayward hearts and then their sins will be atoned” (Lev. 26:40-41). The follow-up verse (Lev. 26:42) says, “And I will recall the covenant with JacobŔ referring to G-d’s promise to Jacob and to all the forefathers to ultimately bring the Jews to the land of Israel.
The question is the following: The first verse quoted above says that the Jews will confess their sins. How does it follow that, in the very next verse we are told that G-d will lead them to the land of their enemies? The entire reason for the long exile in the lands of our enemies (since the destruction of the second temple in the year 70 CE) is the sins and transgression of the Jews. So, proper tshuva (return to G-d) and atonement should bring us back to the promised land, and not the opposite, into exile. It is contradictory to do tshuva and afterward have to go to the land of their enemies, yet that is what the verse seems to imply. And Rashi does not explain this, so there must be a simple explanation that even a five year old learning the Torah for the first time would be able to accept.
In fact, the Torat Cohanim, from where Rashi later brings his explanation, explains that the Jews did do teshuva, and that the confession (of verse 40) followed by exile to the land of their enemies (verse 41) was part of a larger process of teshuva. Rashi, however, does not agree. Only at the end of the verse (41), on the words, “and then their sins will be atoned,” does Rashi say, “their suffering [while in the land of their enemies] will atone for their sins.” That implies that the confession of the Jews (in verse 40) prior to exile in their enemies’ lands was not sufficient – it did not constitute proper teshuva, and only their subsequent suffering in exile could expiate for their sins. What forces Rashi to come to this conclusion?
It is possible to suggest that Rashi’s reasoning is based upon the third verse (Lev. 26:42) that follows in this progression, “And I will remember the covenant of JacobŔ From here, it is evident that recalling the covenant with Jacob is what lead immediately to the final geula and redemption. But at first glance, it is not understood; since the Jews (in verse 40) had already confessed their sins, so why was it necessary to “remember” the covenant with Jacob in order to bring the redemption? Perhaps this is what lead Rashi to conclude that it was not their confession, but rather the merit of their forefathers that led the Jews back to Israel. For, if the Jews no longer had any sins (since they confessed and did teshuva), why did they need the merit of the forefathers in order to earn redemption? Therefore, Rashi learns that the Jews did not truly do teshuva. The suffering in exile expiated their sins, but the Jews themselves did not do teshuva – they did not undergo any transformation of their own volition. It was only that their sins were wiped clean (through their suffering in exile), but since they did not ask for forgiveness, they did not do proper teshuva. And that is why, according to Rashi, they needed something additional - zechut avot – the “merit of their forefathers” – in order to be redeemed.
In order to merit to redemption, it was not enough for the Jews to free themselves of sin and transgression. The Jews themselves had to change inside. Exile and redemption are two opposite states. About exile, G-d says, “I will act with you bekeri – in what seems to be a haphazard and incomprehensible fashion. But about redemption, G-d says, “I will turn to you,” and “I will place my dwelling among you…and I will go with you.” Therefore, it is not sufficient to merely expiate our sins. There must be a fundamental change within, in order to prepare for the state of redemption. So, if all the Jews managed to achieve was to “atone for their sins through their suffering,” how could they achieve redemption? That is what the next verse (26:42) answers, according to Rashi – by way of merit of their fathers, with whom G-d made a covenant to return the Jews to their land – the Jews merited to redemption.
For that reason, Rashi did not find it necessary to explain how exile in the land of their enemies was an appropriate result of “confession.” As far as Rashi was concerned, the Torah was not reporting the teshuva of the Jews. It was only reporting that the Jews were admitting that it wasn’t a “good idea” to have sinned – they suffered far too much for their sins and therefore they regretted having sinned – but not that they truly changed inside. Thus, they confessed (in verse 41) and then they were exiled (in verse 42), all as a process leading up to redemption, but not including proper teshuva from within. Since according to Rashi, the Jews failed to do proper teshuva, it was not necessary to explain why they were lead into their “enemy’s land.”
Nevertheless, we are left with a small difficulty. On the verse (26:41), “And I will lead them to the land of their enemiesŔ Rashi comments that “this is a good thing for the Jews.” This verse follows upon their confession (in verse 40), and the implication is that the confession, even though lacking conviction, was still a good thing. So, we are forced to say that even though the confession was not true, nonetheless there was something good about it. What could be good or meaningful about a confession that is made without any conviction behind it? To answer this, we need to analyze what exactly is confession according to the Jewish sources…
According to the Rambam, confession (vidui in Hebrew) is something that takes place after one does teshuva. As Rambam writes in Hilchot Teshuva (in the beginning), “When one does teshuva and repents his sin, he is obligated to confess.” That is, when one already intends in his heart to forsake his previous bad ways and return to G-d, he should then confess. The verbal confession brings forth and expresses what is already present in the person’s heart.
However, the Sefer haChinuch, which is largely based upon the Rambam but gives his own definitions of the commandments, suggests another form of confession. Among the “roots of the mitzvah” of confession is that “on account of mentioning this sin in particular, it will cause the person to regret it and be more cautious another time.” That is, the confession may have an affect on how the person acts in the future. There is room to suggest that this confession may occur before the person has done full teshuva over his sin. After he has already begun to consider and regret his actions, the confession draws forth his full and complete contrition. By hearing his own voice, he does more and better teshuva on the transgression.
There is yet a third category of confession. As the Rambam says, “One who confesses verbally without having decided in his heart to forsake the sin…is like one who immerses in the mikveh while grasping an impure object.” The mikveh and the impure object cancel each other out, because at the very time that the person wants to purify himself by immersion in the mikveh, he simultaneously holds onto an impure object. That is, he confesses verbally without any intention of forsaking the sin. Yet, if nothing whatsoever took place when this person confessed, why did the Rambam characterized him as “one who immerses in the mikvehŔ At first glance, it would be more appropriate to describe him as someone who did nothing whatsoever – not even dipping in the mikveh – since no form of purification (teshuva) took place. From this we may deduce that the confession, as ineffectual as it may be, is still a positive act. Just as immersing in the mikveh is a positive act (it is just that the person prevents his own purification by holding onto to something impure), so confession has a positive influence. The only problem is that the person is “holding onto something impure” – harboring a resistance to forsaking the sin – and that prevents his complete teshuva for the time being.
Looking deeper into the subject, there are at least three traits that describe speech:
1) Speech may express and bring out inner thoughts and feelings in the heart of the person.
2) Speech has the power to draw forth greater and additional arousal in the subject being spoken about (as stated in the Rambam and elsewhere, that while one is angry, it is preferable not to speak at all, since his own speech may reinforce his anger).
3) When one says something that is the opposite of what he feels in his heart, it causes a feeling of discomfort, at least for the moment. After all, a human being is in essence a medaber – a “speaker,” and when he goes against his own nature, it is bound to have some kind of effect, even if only external. Saying the opposite of what he feels in his heart is bound to have some sort of effect upon him, causing some anxiety.
We can find all three of the above traits in the mitzvah of vidui –
confession. First and foremost is to confess as the Rambam describes, “To verbally confess and say those things that he decided in his heart” – meaning that our speech must bring out and express the teshuva in our heart. As the Sefer HaChinuch says, “Since in the verbal admission of sin, the sinner reveals his thoughts and opinion, [which is] that he now believes in truth that all of his deeds are known and revealed to G-d.”
There is a second path, in which the confession arouses a desire to do teshuva, even before he is completely resolved within to forsake his sin. He may have made an intellectual decision to do teshuva, but it is his verbal confession that arouses inside a deeper emotional commitment, with which he later does full teshuva.
And there is a third path, in which the confession itself is an act of teshuva. The person may have no conscious inkling or desire to do teshuva, and may in fact harbor a desire to continue sinning, but with his words, “I have sinned, I have gone astray, I have transgressed before You and I did such and such and now I regret and am ashamed of my deeds and I have no intention to ever repeat them in the future,” he forges an attitude of teshuva within himself. Even if at the time of confession, the person has not resolved to forsake the sin, and even if his words do not reflect how he consciously feels in his heart, nevertheless if by saying such words the person feels some shame and regret, the confession itself is an act of teshuva. And therefore the confession is considered like an act of teshuva that rectifies his past, just as immerson in the mikveh purifies the impure.
We might say that there are three ways of doing confession;
1) The main purpose of confession is to draw out and express an attitude of teshuva that already exists in the heart. Here, confession takes place after teshuva.
2) A secondary by-product of confession is to complete or perfect partial feelings of teshuva in the heart. That is, the person may have considered or thought it wise to do teshuva, but not committed himself to doing so. His verbal confession, even before he does complete teshuva, may cause that to take place.
3) Yet a third effect of confession is to “create” from nothing the feelings and attitude of teshuva that do not yet exist inside of himself. Noone is comfortable saying the opposite of what he feels inside, so even if the person does not intend to do teshuva, the very act of confessing his sins may arouse him to feelings of regret and shame, and ultimately to teshuva itself.
Rashi implies in his commentary that even after their confession (in Lev.
26:40), the Jews did not do full teshuva, and that is why they had to be lead into the “land of their enemies.” He explains that although their suffering in exile expiated for their sins, complete teshuva did not take place. The Jews did not transform themselves from within to totally regret their sins and return to G-d, and it was only their zechut avot – the “merit of their forefathers” – that enabled their return to Israel. Nevertheless, he implies that it was a good thing that the Jews “confessed” (in 26:40). That was because even such a confession, coming when the teshuva is at best partial and at worst non-existent in the heart, plays a positive role. Confession, even before the person has done complete teshuva, may lead to complete teshuva. The Jews confessed without having done complete teshuva, and that was why they were led (in verse 26:41) into exile in their “enemies’ land.” Nevertheless, it was a good thing that they confessed because that could lead to full teshuva at a later date.
And that is the difference between the initial redemption and the redemption of the future – in the future, the Jews will do teshuva with all of their heart, deeply regretting their past and transforming themselves. And that is why regarding the future redemption, the verse tells us, “And you returned to the Lord your G-d” (Deut. 30:1-2). Not as in our parsha, in which the verse says that, “Then their wayward heart will be crushed,” as in an object that need be worked upon (“crushed”) from without, but as in true teshuva from within – “and then you will return to the Lord your G-d.”
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 27, Pp. 207-216 Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem