Q&A: On Choice as the Essence of the Process of Repentance
On Choice as the Essence of the Process of Repentance
Question
In the recent classes on repentance, the Rabbi said that there cannot be a commandment regarding repentance, because the very fact of commanding already presupposes choice.
I don’t understand, then, how persuasion to repent is relevant (which, according to the Rabbi, Maimonides does throughout two chapters in the Laws of Repentance). After all, even if they explain to me why it is worthwhile for me to “take the reins,” or that this is the right thing to do, in the end if I decide to do it—then I’ve already chosen. In other words, what is different between a command and persuasion besides the form of address? The act of choosing is identical in both situations; it’s just that here it is because of the command, and here it is because I understand that it is right.
Or, in short: what does it even mean to “choose to be a chooser”?
Answer
You asked a difficult question. There are columns 172-3 on weakness of will, and you can read a bit there. In general, if one indeed accepts that a person chooses whether to choose or not, then it is possible to speak with a person and persuade him to be a chooser (to choose to choose). A command presupposes that he has already chosen to choose, whereas persuading him to choose presupposes that he has the power of choice, and calls on him to use it in order to decide to choose.