Difference between revisions of "Repentance Rejected/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic is currently in progress
m |
m |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<point><b>"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת "</b><ul> | <point><b>"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת "</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Partial or insincere repentance</b> - Ramban suggests that this verse, too, represents only a partial repentance, a recognition of wrongdoing without a full correction thereof.<fn>He does suggest that this is a movement in the right direction since the nation did at least regret their idolatrous ways, and that therefore even though Hashem does not stop punishing the nation, He lessens the punishment.  The intial "hiding of Hashems face" actively brought troubles, while this "hidnig" is just a lack of full redemption.</fn> R. Saba<fn>See the last suggestion that he brings.</fn> and Abarbanel instead posit that the nation might have repented for only some, but not all of their sins.<fn>Tzeror HaMor points out that verse 16 enumerates three sins, turning to idolatry, leaving Hashem and reneging on His convenant.  The people confess only to one, that they left Hashem, "עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי".  Thus, Hashem continues to punish them for their other and primary sin, "כִּי פָנָה אֶל אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים". <br/> Abarbanel goes further to suggest that the nation did not realize that "שיתןף", worshiping Hashem together with other gods, was problematic. Thus they recognized that they were wrong in leaving Hashem, and needed to return to Him, but never thought that they must also leave other gods.  It was for this that they needed further punishment.<br/><br/></fn> Alternatively, R. Saba<fn>See the fourth possibility that he raises.</fn> suggests that the repentance is not considered sincere since it was only only in reaction to suffering, and, as such, coerced.<fn>He also raises the possibility that their confession was of the mouth but not the heart.</fn></li> | <li><b>Partial or insincere repentance</b> - Ramban suggests that this verse, too, represents only a partial repentance, a recognition of wrongdoing without a full correction thereof.<fn>He does suggest that this is a movement in the right direction since the nation did at least regret their idolatrous ways, and that therefore even though Hashem does not stop punishing the nation, He lessens the punishment.  The intial "hiding of Hashems face" actively brought troubles, while this "hidnig" is just a lack of full redemption.</fn> R. Saba<fn>See the last suggestion that he brings.</fn> and Abarbanel instead posit that the nation might have repented for only some, but not all of their sins.<fn>Tzeror HaMor points out that verse 16 enumerates three sins, turning to idolatry, leaving Hashem and reneging on His convenant.  The people confess only to one, that they left Hashem, "עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי".  Thus, Hashem continues to punish them for their other and primary sin, "כִּי פָנָה אֶל אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים". <br/> Abarbanel goes further to suggest that the nation did not realize that "שיתןף", worshiping Hashem together with other gods, was problematic. Thus they recognized that they were wrong in leaving Hashem, and needed to return to Him, but never thought that they must also leave other gods.  It was for this that they needed further punishment.<br/><br/></fn> Alternatively, R. Saba<fn>See the fourth possibility that he raises.</fn> suggests that the repentance is not considered sincere since it was only only in reaction to suffering, and, as such, coerced.<fn>He also raises the possibility that their confession was of the mouth but not the heart.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>No repentance</b>– According to Seforno the people's statement is not a confession of wrongdoing at all, only a recognition that Hashem is not with them. In fact, this feeling that Hashem is lacking, precludes them from even trying to repent.<fn>He suggests that it even led them to turn to idol worshippers for help in their time of distress, thinking that Hashem was not an option.  This is what the text refers to when it says that Hashem will hide himself "כִּי פָנָה אֶל אֱלהִים אֲחֵרִים".  See the Netziv who similarly explains that the people concluded that they had no choice but to worship idolatry since Hashem had rejected them.</fn></li> | + | <li><b>No repentance</b>– According to Seforno the people's statement is not a confession of wrongdoing at all, only a recognition that Hashem is not with them. In fact, this feeling that Hashem is lacking, precludes them from even trying to repent.<fn>He suggests that it even led them to turn to idol worshippers for help in their time of distress, thinking that Hashem was not an option.  This is what the text refers to when it says that Hashem will hide himself "כִּי פָנָה אֶל אֱלהִים אֲחֵרִים".  See the Netziv who similarly explains that the people concluded that they had no choice but to worship idolatry since Hashem had rejected them. He suggests that the process of sin and punishment becomes cyclical. As the nation is punished with "הסתר פנים", they fell rejected and turn to idolatry, leading Hashem to push them away again.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Continued sin</b> -  Shadal goes a step further to posit that the nation's words are not a confession but a complaint.<fn>R. Avraham Saba (in his second suggestions) views the statement similarly and blames the people for accusing Hashem rather than justifying the punishment.</fn> Abarbanel, instead, sees in the people's words an attestation of continued idolatry.  Their words "אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי" referred not to Hashem but to the foreign gods whom  they felt that they had not worshiped sufficiently.<fn>R. Saba (first possibility) and Abarbanel (second possibility) suggest another way in which the people's words were themselves problematic.  Their statement proved that they did not recognize that their troubles were due to Hashem's providence rather than His absence.  R. Saba explains that Hashem's earlier words "וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא" were actually a show of kindness. Hashem punishes for each sin immediately (בַיּוֹם הַהוּא) without letting the sins add up until the punishment is too great to bear.  Since the nation complained about such daily punishments, though, and did not see in then the hand of Hashem, He decided to do as they requested, and hide  His face from their sins, allowing them to accumulate.</fn></li> | <li><b>Continued sin</b> -  Shadal goes a step further to posit that the nation's words are not a confession but a complaint.<fn>R. Avraham Saba (in his second suggestions) views the statement similarly and blames the people for accusing Hashem rather than justifying the punishment.</fn> Abarbanel, instead, sees in the people's words an attestation of continued idolatry.  Their words "אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי" referred not to Hashem but to the foreign gods whom  they felt that they had not worshiped sufficiently.<fn>R. Saba (first possibility) and Abarbanel (second possibility) suggest another way in which the people's words were themselves problematic.  Their statement proved that they did not recognize that their troubles were due to Hashem's providence rather than His absence.  R. Saba explains that Hashem's earlier words "וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא" were actually a show of kindness. Hashem punishes for each sin immediately (בַיּוֹם הַהוּא) without letting the sins add up until the punishment is too great to bear.  Since the nation complained about such daily punishments, though, and did not see in then the hand of Hashem, He decided to do as they requested, and hide  His face from their sins, allowing them to accumulate.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם"</b> – Most of these commentators views this as a further punishment, aimed at bringing the nation to a full repentance.<fn>R. D"Z Hoffmann is the exception and suggests that these words constitute part of the confession of the people rather than the actions of Hashem. For elaboration, see the approach below. </fn> Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak posit that Hashem was to send the nation into further exile, while Ramban and Seforno assume that He would bring them back to Israel, but while it was still in the hands of their enemies.</point> | <point><b>"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם"</b> – Most of these commentators views this as a further punishment, aimed at bringing the nation to a full repentance.<fn>R. D"Z Hoffmann is the exception and suggests that these words constitute part of the confession of the people rather than the actions of Hashem. For elaboration, see the approach below. </fn> Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak posit that Hashem was to send the nation into further exile, while Ramban and Seforno assume that He would bring them back to Israel, but while it was still in the hands of their enemies.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי"</b> – | + | <point><b>"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי"</b> – Most of these exegetes<fn>Shadal is an exception.  he reads the sentence not as further punishment but as Hashem's explanation to the complaining nation that they are to blame for his decision not to watch over them.</fn> views this as a fair punishment for those who have not fully repented, or who might have even continued in the idolatrous ways.<fn>See above note that some exegetes suggest that the nation only repented partially while others suggest that they did not repent at all. </fn>  They differ, though, in their specific understandings of the concept of "הסתר פנים"<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Abarbanel and Seforno understand Hashem's hiding of his face to mean a loss of providence and protection.<fn>Seforno | + | <li><b>Loss of providence</b> – Abarbanel and Seforno understand Hashem's hiding of his face to mean a loss of providence and protection.<fn>Abarbanel suggests that this can be seen as a measure for measure punishment for the nation's previous doubts regarding Hashem's providence.</fn> While Abarbnanel sees in this a two-fold punishment (הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר) for the nation's crimes of idolatry, Seforno emphasizes that this does not mean that Hashem's presence would not be amidst the nation, only that He would no longer be willing to save them from the evil they bring upon themselves.<fn>As such, for Seforno there is an element of consolation as well.  He might be reacting to Christian claims that Israel's sins led to their ultimate rejection.</fn> </li> |
| − | <li>Ramban | + | <li><b>Lack of redemption</b> – Ramban contrasts this "hiding of Hashem's face" with the earlier mention in verse 17 and suggests that it is a less harsh form.  It only refers to Hashem's hiding His face of redemption, but not that His absence might bring in its wake extra suffering.<fn>This is consistent with Ramban's approach that the nation did repent, but only  partially.  As such they still deserved punishment but to a lesser degree than earlier.  Ramban's understanding of the two different types of הסתר פנים might be supported by the fact that the first case is accompanied by the phrase "וּמְצָאֻהוּ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת", while the second one is not.</fn></li> |
| − | <li>R. Saba offers a unique explanation of "הסתר פנים", suggesting that it refers to Hashem's hiding His face from the people's sins.  He views this as a punishment since it gives the sins time to accumulate making the eventual cumulative punishment all that harder to bear.<fn>He reads, "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי... עַל כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" as if its says "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי <b>מ</b>כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה".</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Ignoring of sins</b> – R. Saba offers a unique explanation of "הסתר פנים", suggesting that it refers to Hashem's hiding His face from the people's sins.  He views this as a punishment since it gives the sins time to accumulate making the eventual cumulative punishment all that harder to bear.<fn>He reads, "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי... עַל כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" as if its says "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי <b>מ</b>כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה".</fn></li> |
| + | <li><b>Lack of prophecy</b> - Netziv suggests that the הסתר פנים is expressed through an absence of prophecy (and thus connection to Hashem).</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>"אוֹ אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם"</b> – Ramban suggests that the verse means that the nation will be in the land of their enemies until they either fully repent or | + | <point><b>"אוֹ אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם"</b> – Ramban suggests that the verse means that the nation will be in the land of their enemies until they either fully repent or their sin is atoned for by adequate punishment.<fn>The word "אוֹ" does not contrast the going into enemy land with the rest of the verse but rather contrasts the last two clauses (יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל and יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם) with each other.  See <a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirVayikra27-41" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a> who explains the same.</fn> Abarbanel, in contrast, understands that Hashem is telling the nation that they have a choice between a second exile or total repentance which will atone for their sin.<fn>He views the word "אוֹ" as contrasting the punishement of exile with the chance to atone without punishment ( אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם).</fn></point> |
<point><b>Power of repentance</b> – This position assumes that if a nation fully and sincerely repents of its sins, Hashem will no longer punish them.  A confession alone though might not suffice.</point> | <point><b>Power of repentance</b> – This position assumes that if a nation fully and sincerely repents of its sins, Hashem will no longer punish them.  A confession alone though might not suffice.</point> | ||
<point><b>When did this happen?</b><ul> | <point><b>When did this happen?</b><ul> | ||
<li>According to Ramban and Seforno the verses in Vayikra refer to the generation of the first Temple that was exiled to Babylonia.  The confession refers to that done by the leaders of the exile (Daniel, Ezra and Nechemia) and the sending to an enemy land refers to returning to an Israel ruled over by enemies.<fn>Abarbanel disagrees regarding the last point and assumes that the sending to enemy lands is a threat to those living during second temple times, that they might be exiled yet again.</fn></li> | <li>According to Ramban and Seforno the verses in Vayikra refer to the generation of the first Temple that was exiled to Babylonia.  The confession refers to that done by the leaders of the exile (Daniel, Ezra and Nechemia) and the sending to an enemy land refers to returning to an Israel ruled over by enemies.<fn>Abarbanel disagrees regarding the last point and assumes that the sending to enemy lands is a threat to those living during second temple times, that they might be exiled yet again.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li>Ramban asserts that the rebuke of Devarim instead refers to the present exile.</li> | + | <li>Ramban asserts that the rebuke of Devarim instead refers to the present exile.  Netziv, though, asserts that this specific prophecy was fulfilled already in the period of the judges when the nation felt rejected by Hashem,<fn>See above that he suggest that Hashem's hiding of His face is expressed in the absence of prophets, a feature of the period of the Judges.</fn> leading them into a cycle of idolatry.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Relationship between rebukes of Vayikra and Devarim</b></point> | <point><b>Relationship between rebukes of Vayikra and Devarim</b></point> | ||
Version as of 06:29, 14 May 2015
Hashem's Response to Teshuvah
Exegetical Approaches
Repentance is Lacking
Though an initial read of the verses suggests that the nation repented, in reality their repentance was either incomplete or lacking altogether. As such, they needed further punishment.
Sources:Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, R. Avraham Saba, Seforno, Biur, Shadal, ?Netziv, R. D"Z Hoffmann
"וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם"
- Words without actions – According to Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, and Abarbanel the confession was not a complete return to Hashem. Though the people recognized and admitted to their sins, this was not accompanied by a change of ways.1
- Only leaders confess – Abarbanel and Seforno suggest that only the leaders of the generation such as Daniel, Ezra and Nechemiah confessed but the laypeople did not.2
- Command form – According to the Biur and R.D"Z Hoffmann the word "וְהִתְוַדּוּ" does not mean "and they will confess" but rather "and they shall confess".3 As such, it is not a description of what the nation will do but rather Hashem's command of what they should do and thus says nothing about their actual repentance.
"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת "
- Partial or insincere repentance - Ramban suggests that this verse, too, represents only a partial repentance, a recognition of wrongdoing without a full correction thereof.4 R. Saba5 and Abarbanel instead posit that the nation might have repented for only some, but not all of their sins.6 Alternatively, R. Saba7 suggests that the repentance is not considered sincere since it was only only in reaction to suffering, and, as such, coerced.8
- No repentance– According to Seforno the people's statement is not a confession of wrongdoing at all, only a recognition that Hashem is not with them. In fact, this feeling that Hashem is lacking, precludes them from even trying to repent.9
- Continued sin - Shadal goes a step further to posit that the nation's words are not a confession but a complaint.10 Abarbanel, instead, sees in the people's words an attestation of continued idolatry. Their words "אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי" referred not to Hashem but to the foreign gods whom they felt that they had not worshiped sufficiently.11
"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם" – Most of these commentators views this as a further punishment, aimed at bringing the nation to a full repentance.12 Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak posit that Hashem was to send the nation into further exile, while Ramban and Seforno assume that He would bring them back to Israel, but while it was still in the hands of their enemies.
"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי" – Most of these exegetes13 views this as a fair punishment for those who have not fully repented, or who might have even continued in the idolatrous ways.14 They differ, though, in their specific understandings of the concept of "הסתר פנים"
- Loss of providence – Abarbanel and Seforno understand Hashem's hiding of his face to mean a loss of providence and protection.15 While Abarbnanel sees in this a two-fold punishment (הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר) for the nation's crimes of idolatry, Seforno emphasizes that this does not mean that Hashem's presence would not be amidst the nation, only that He would no longer be willing to save them from the evil they bring upon themselves.16
- Lack of redemption – Ramban contrasts this "hiding of Hashem's face" with the earlier mention in verse 17 and suggests that it is a less harsh form. It only refers to Hashem's hiding His face of redemption, but not that His absence might bring in its wake extra suffering.17
- Ignoring of sins – R. Saba offers a unique explanation of "הסתר פנים", suggesting that it refers to Hashem's hiding His face from the people's sins. He views this as a punishment since it gives the sins time to accumulate making the eventual cumulative punishment all that harder to bear.18
- Lack of prophecy - Netziv suggests that the הסתר פנים is expressed through an absence of prophecy (and thus connection to Hashem).
"אוֹ אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם" – Ramban suggests that the verse means that the nation will be in the land of their enemies until they either fully repent or their sin is atoned for by adequate punishment.19 Abarbanel, in contrast, understands that Hashem is telling the nation that they have a choice between a second exile or total repentance which will atone for their sin.20
Power of repentance – This position assumes that if a nation fully and sincerely repents of its sins, Hashem will no longer punish them. A confession alone though might not suffice.
When did this happen?
- According to Ramban and Seforno the verses in Vayikra refer to the generation of the first Temple that was exiled to Babylonia. The confession refers to that done by the leaders of the exile (Daniel, Ezra and Nechemia) and the sending to an enemy land refers to returning to an Israel ruled over by enemies.21
- Ramban asserts that the rebuke of Devarim instead refers to the present exile. Netziv, though, asserts that this specific prophecy was fulfilled already in the period of the judges when the nation felt rejected by Hashem,22 leading them into a cycle of idolatry.
Relationship between rebukes of Vayikra and Devarim
No Punishment
The verses which speak of Hashem's punishment are reinterpreted so that the text contains no reference to punishing the nation after their repenting.
Sources:Sifra Vayikra, Lekach Tov, Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, R. Avraham Saba, ?Biur? HaKetav VeHakabbalah, Netziv, ?R. D"Z Hoffmann,
Punishment Despite Repentance
Although the nation will indeed repent, Hashem will continue to punish them for their original sins.
