Repentance Rejected/2

Hashem's Response to Teshuvah

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is currently in progress

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), SefornoVayikra 26:40-41Devarim 31:17-18About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurVayikra 26:40About the Biur (Netivot HaShalom), ShadalDevarim 31:17About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, ?Netziv, R. D"Z HoffmannVayikra 26:40-42Devarim 4:30About R. David Zvi 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 it refers to bringing the nation back to Israel, but while it was still in the hands of their enemies.

"וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי"

"אָז יִכָּנַע לְבָבָם הֶעָרֵל וְאָז יִרְצוּ אֶת עֲוֺנָם"

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,

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), ?Biur? HaKetav VeHakabbalah, NetzivVayikra 26:40-41About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, ?R. D"Z HoffmannVayikra 26:40-42About R. David Zvi Hoffmann,

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, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Vayikra 26:40About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)

¹ 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.

² Ramban does not say this explicitly but in his singling out of Daniel, Ezra and Nechemiah as those who confessed it would seem that he too agrees with this point.

³ 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.

⁴ 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.

⁵ See the last suggestion that he brings.

⁶ 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.

⁷ See the fourth possibility that he raises.

⁸ He also raises the possibility that their confession was of the mouth but not the heart.

⁹ 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".

¹⁰ R. Avraham Saba (in his second suggestions) views the statement similarly and blames the people for accusing Hashem rather than justifying the punishment.

¹¹ R. Saba (first possibility) and Abarbanel (second possibility) also claim that the words of the people were themselves problematic.  Their statement proved that they did not recognize that their troubles were due not to Hashem's absence but rather to His providence.  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 their 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 add up.

¹² 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.