Repentance Rejected/2

Repentance Rejected?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is currently in progress

Punishment Despite Repentance

Although the nation will indeed repent, Hashem will continue to punish them for their original sins.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonTafsir Vayikra 27:41Tafsir Devarim 31:17-18About R. Saadia Gaon, RalbagDevarim 31:16-18About R. Levi b. Gershom,¹ R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Vayikra 26:40About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)²

"וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם" – R. Saba understands this to be a full confession, but posits that a confession and repentance are not always enough to spare one from punishment.

"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת " – Ralbag posits that in this statement the nation recognizes and admits to their being deserving of Hashem's absence, leading them to return to Hashem.

"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם" – Despite the nation's repentance, Hashem continues to punish them, even harsher than before, for sometimes atonement can only come via suffering.  Though the nation had already been sent into exile (see verse 33), Hashem will now send them to yet other nations who might be crueler rulers than the earlier ones.

"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי" – Ralbag explains that despite the nation's return, Hashem will continue to hide His face as punishment for the nation's original sins of idolatry.

Power of repentance – According to this position, repentance is not a cure-all against punishment.  Sometimes, confession alone does not suffice to gain atonement; it is only by suffering further punishment that one can make full amends for one's deeds.  R. Saba points to the sin of "מעילה" in Bemidbar 5 as a parallel case in which despite one's confession of guilt, one is still penalized to pay an extra fifth.³

When did this happen?

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:RambanVayikra 26:16Vayikra 26:41Devarim 31:17About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Akeidat YitzchakVayikra #70About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelVayikra 26:40-41Devarim 4:29-31Devarim 31:17-18About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Devarim 31About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor),⁴ SefornoVayikra 26:40-41Devarim 31:17-18About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurVayikra 26:40About the Biur (Netivot HaShalom), ShadalDevarim 31:17About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, NetzivVayikra 26:40-41Devarim 31:17-18About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. D"Z HoffmannVayikra 26:40-42Devarim 4:30About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

"וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם" – This approach assumes that the confession mentioned was insufficient or lacking:

• Words without actions – According to Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, and Abarbanel, the confession was not a complete return to Hashem.  Although the people recognized and admitted to their sins, this was not accompanied by a change of ways.⁵
• Only leaders confess – Abarbanel and Seforno suggest that only the leaders of the generation such as Daniel, Ezra, and Nechemyah confessed, but the laypeople did not.⁶
• 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".⁷  As such, it is not a description of what the people will do, but rather merely Hashem's prescription of what they should do.  Thus, it says nothing about their actual repentance.

"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת " – These words, too, do not represent a sincere repentance, and according to some commentators even attest to further sinning:

• Partial or insincere repentance – Ramban suggests that this verse, too, represents only a partial repentance, a recognition of wrongdoing without a full correction thereof.⁸ In contrast, R. Saba⁹ and Abarbanel posit that the nation might have repented for only some (עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי), but not all of their sins.¹⁰ Alternatively, R. Saba suggests that the repentance is not considered sincere since it was only in reaction to suffering (מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת), and thus coerced.¹¹
• 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.¹²
• Continued sin – Shadal goes a step further to posit that the nation's words are not only not a confession, but actually constitute a complaint,¹³ while Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that they are themselves sinful as they attest to a lack of belief in Hashem's providence.¹⁴  Abarbanel, instead, sees in the people's statement  proof of their continued idolatry.¹⁵  The phrase "אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי" refers, not to Hashem, but to the foreign gods whom they felt that they had not adequately worshiped.

"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם" – Most of these commentators view this as a further punishment, aimed at bringing the nation to a full repentance.¹⁶ Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak posit that Hashem was to send the nation into another 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 exegetes¹⁷ view this as a fair punishment for those who have not fully repented, or who might have even continued in the idolatrous ways.¹⁸  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.¹⁹ While Abarbanel sees in this a two-fold punishment (הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר) for the nation's crimes of idolatry, Seforno instead 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.²⁰
• Lack of redemption – Ramban contrasts this "hiding of Hashem's face" with the earlier mention in verse 17 and suggests that this 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.²¹
• 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, thereby making the eventual cumulative punishment that much harder to bear.²²
• Lack of prophecy – Netziv suggests that the הסתר פנים is expressed through an absence of prophecy (and thus a lack of connection to Hashem).

"אוֹ אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם" – Ramban maintains that the verse means that the nation will be in the land of their enemies until either they fully repent or their sin is atoned for by adequate punishment.²³ 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.²⁴

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?

• Vayikra –According to Ramban and Seforno, the rebuke in Vayikra materialized during the end of the first Temple period, when the nation was exiled to Babylonia.  The confession refers to that of the leaders of the exile (Daniel, Ezra and Nechemyah), and the sending to an enemy land refers to returning to an Israel ruled over by enemies.²⁵
• Devarim – Ramban asserts that the rebuke of Devarim instead refers to the present exile.  Netziv, though, maintains that this specific prophecy was fulfilled already in the period of the judges when the nation felt that Hashem had rejected them by hiding His face,²⁶ 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 Vayikra26:40-41About the Sifra Vayikra, Lekach TovVayikra 26:40-41About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, Ibn EzraVayikra 26:40-41About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RalbagVayikra 26:40-41About R. Levi b. Gershom, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Devarim 31About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor),²⁷ HaKetav VeHakabbalahVayikra 26:40-44Devarim 31:18About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, NetzivVayikra 26:40-41About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. D"Z HoffmannVayikra 26:40-42About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

"וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם" – These sources understand this to refer to a full and sincere confession and return to Hashem.

"וְאָמַר... הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת " – According to this approach, these words, too, constitute a confession and true repentance.²⁸

"אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמָּם בְּקֶרִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם" – According to these commentators, this verse does not speak of any new punishment for the nation. The exegetes differ, though, regarding what they think it refers to instead:

• Past actions of Hashem – According to Ibn Ezra, these words speak of what Hashem had done in the past, not what He will do in the future.
• Part of nation's confession – According to Ralbag,²⁹ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, this statement is part of the confession of the nation.³⁰  The people not only admit their own wrongdoing, but also justify Hashem's punishment.³¹
• Consolation – Netziv suggests that the words are actually comfort for the nation.³² According to him, the word "בְּקֶרִי" means "contrary to".³³  Since the people felt that Hashem could not have providence over them in exile, Hashem tells them that, in contrast to what they think (בְּקֶרִי), He will, in fact, care for them even there.  He will bring them under his personal providence ("וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתָם") even in the countries of their enemies.

"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי" – This approach attempts to read the punitive connotation of these words out of the verse:³⁴

• Nation's confession – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah suggests that these words are a continuation of the nation's confession from the previous verse.³⁵  The people acknowledge not only their own crimes, but that Hashem's hiding of His face was a deserved punishment for their sins.³⁶
• Hiding of anger – R. Saba, in contrast, maintains that this statement represents Hashem's words but that He is speaking of hiding his face of anger, despite the nation's previous idolatry.³⁷

"אוֹ אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם"

• Most of these commentators can explain, like Ibn Ezra, that the verse is saying that the nation's confession and the punishment that Hashem had previously wrought will lead to submission and atonement.³⁸ 
• Netziv, instead, asserts that after the nation recognizes that their confession was heard and feels Hashem's providence in exile, they will submit and recognize that there is value in keeping Torah out of Israel as well, thus finally be able to fully repent of all sins against Hashem.³⁹

Power of repentance – This position is driven by the belief that Hashem does not punish one who has sincerely repented.

When did this happen?

¹ Ralbag reads the verses in Devarim in this way, but understands those in Vayikra differently.

² R. Saba understands Vayikra in this manner but explains the verses in Devarim differently (see positions below).

³ There, too, one finds the language of "וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם", but nonetheless, the law requires: "וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו".

⁴ R. Saba brings several different understandings of the verses in Devarim, most of which follow this general approach.  His fourth explanation there and his understanding of Vayikra do not.

⁵ Akeidat Yitzchak adds that the confession only came about due to their trials and as such is not considered sincere.  He compares it to Paroh's changes of heart which came only to rid himself of the plagues.

⁶ Ramban does not say this explicitly but in his singling out of Ezra and Nechemiah as those who confessed it would seem that he too agrees with this point.

⁷ R. N"H Wessely points out that had this been a description of the people's repentance the verse would have read "יתודו" and not "וְהִתְוַדּוּ".  R. D"Z Hoffmann further supports the fact that "וְהִתְוַדּוּ " is a command by pointing to the same form of the word in Bemidbar 5:7.

⁸ 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.

⁹ See the last suggestion that he brings.

¹⁰ 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".
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.

¹¹ See the fifth possibility that he raises.  See above point that Akeidat Yitzchak explains the same regarding the verses in Vayikra.

¹² 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 feel rejected and turn to idolatry, leading Hashem to push them away again.

¹³ R. Avraham Saba (in his second suggestions) views the statement similarly and blames the people for accusing Hashem rather than justifying the punishment.

¹⁴ Such thinking naturally leads the nation further into sin and idolatry.  See also R. Saba (first possibility) and Abarbanel (second possibility) who similalrly suggest that the statement proved that the nation 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.

¹⁵ See above note that Netziv also assumes that the verse is suggesting that the people continued to turn to idolatry, but reads the verse differently than Abarbanel.  According to him, it is the feeling of alienation from Hashem that makes the nation veer away towards idols.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ See above note that some exegetes suggest that the nation only repented partially while others suggest that they did not repent at all.

¹⁹ Abarbanel suggests that this can be seen as a measure for measure punishment for the nation's previous doubts regarding Hashem's providence.

²⁰ As such, for Seforno there is an element of consolation in the statement as well.  He might be reacting to Christian claims that Israel's sins led to their ultimate rejection.

²¹ 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.

²² He reads, "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי... עַל כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" as if its says "הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי מכׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה".

²³ 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 R. Saadia Gaon who explains the same.

²⁴ 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).

²⁵ 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.

²⁶ 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.

²⁷ See above that R. Saba brings six different ways to understand the verses in Devarim.  Only his fourth explanation works with this approach.  His explanation of the verses in Vayikra differs as well.

²⁸ They differ in how they understand the phrase "כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי" with HaKetav VeHaKabbalah assuming it refers to Hashem's lack of providence and R. Saba asserting that it refers to the fact that the nation had previously pretended that they returned to Hashem, when really He was not in their hearts.

²⁹ Ralbag is somewhat ambiguous.  It is possible that he instead simply agrees with Ibn Ezra that these words constitute a description of what Hahsem did in the past.

³⁰ According to HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, all five verses (Vayikra 26:40-45) are part of the nation's confession.

³¹ The switch from third person to first person and from past to future tense is difficult for this understanding.

³² Cf. the Sifra and Lekach Tov who write, "זו מדה טובה לישראל", understanding that Hashem means that He will not abandon the nation to do as other nations but will instead send them prophets to make sure they stay on the right path.

³³ Above, in the phrase, "הָלְכוּ עִמִּי בְּקֶרִי" it would mean that the nation went against (contrary to) Hashem's will.

³⁴ Ralbag does not agree with this reading of the verse and suggests that in Devarim Hashem does in fact punish the nation despite their repentance.  Sevral of the other commentators do not address the verse at all so it is difficult to know if they are consistent in dealing with the problem.

³⁵ The first person formulation is somewhat difficult for this approach.

³⁶ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah is consistent in his understanding of both Vayikra and Devarim as discussing only the people's confession and not any subsequent punishment of Hashem.

³⁷ The difficulty with this position is that is has to understand the hiding of hashem's face in verses 17 and 18 as meaning opposite things.  In the first verse Hashem is hiding hi face as a punishment, while in verse 18 the same term is used to describe an act of mercy.

³⁸ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah asserts that these words too are part of the confession, with the nation acknowledging that punishment leads to submission.

³⁹ He maintains that earlier they only confessed sins against their fellow man, thinking that in exile they were not expected to keep the commandments and as such had only spoken of the sins of their ancestors.