Q&A: They Do Not Give Him the Opportunity to Repent — Why Not?
They Do Not Give Him the Opportunity to Repent — Why Not?
Question
One who says, “I will sin and then repent,” etc. — they do not give him the opportunity to repent.
A. Why not? [Without grandiose spiritual plans — just, say, he lazily avoids separating tithes and priestly gifts.]
B. If he sinned anyway, do heaven and the heavens of heavens now have prosecutors and defenders who are supposed to allow him to repent after all (just as they allow for any other sin)? Suppose, for example, that he is the only one who knows about it.
C. Is there any meaning to repenting for the past itself (as distinct from resolving for the future), if there is no reward and punishment or destruction of spiritual worlds?
D. He said, “I will sin and then repent,” and sinned, and immediately afterward died by circumstances beyond his control. If right after the sin he already wanted to begin the process of repentance, but from Heaven he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control — then what do they want from him? True, he is missing some of the formal protocols (regret, confession, resolution for the future), but those are seemingly only signs. And with signs, apparently, in the simple sense, coercion is considered as though one had done it.
Answer
A. So that he should not count on that and permit himself to sin.
B. I assume that in the end everyone is allowed, but perhaps it will be harder for him.
C. בהחלט. A person should repent for a bad deed he did. Even in a secular worldview, when a person harms another, there is value in his repenting. Even without receiving any sort of reward for it.
D. If he truly wanted to repent, then he is a penitent. One does not need to “do repentance”; one needs to return. Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya turned from a complete sinner into a completely righteous person in mere moments. If a wicked man betroths a woman on condition that he is completely righteous, we are concerned that the betrothal may be valid, lest he may have repented. Here too, it can happen in a single moment.
Discussion on Answer
[By the way, regarding “Rabbi” Elazar ben Dordaya, I once heard: why did they call him “Rabbi”? If he repented, then he is a proper Jew, but where does the title “Rabbi” come from? And they answered that he taught the world precisely this — that there is one who acquires his world in a single hour.
It still needs scrutiny, because we learned that on our own from his actions. If I see a police officer coming to catch a thief and infer that there are police officers in the world, does the thief deserve credit for having taught me something? And one cannot say that from the outset he intended to acquire his world in a single hour, because he did not know that his soul would depart then (otherwise that too would be prohibited).]
First, if he sins, it is not certain that he will repent. So it is preferable to prevent the sin from the outset. Second, you assume that a sin leaves no mark if repentance was done. I am not at all sure of that.
C. Correct. It does not change the past, and still there is value in repenting (the regret itself). It is a more complete personality.
D. I didn’t understand this pilpul. I said that if he wanted to repent, then he is a penitent. The question whether such a case will happen, or whether Heaven will prevent it — that is another question (which I addressed earlier).
Perhaps you heard it from me. These things are written in my article on repentance:
Thank you.
(As for the explanation that Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya is called “Rabbi” because he taught the world (one thing) — that there is one who acquires his world in a single hour — I heard that from Rabbi Nachum Broyde, though I think he was quoting someone else. I don’t remember reading the article (or anything else of yours on repentance), but it’s certainly possible that I once did read it. In any case, I’ll read it of course (thanks for that too, and for the reference)).
A. It’s still not clear to me why he shouldn’t count on it. Everyone (the person and God) comes out satisfied, like a legal workaround within Jewish law. What remains bad in the sinner or in the world after he has repented?
B. Thanks. (If they make it harder for him than for others, that still seems strange to me, but fine.)
C. I didn’t really understand. In a secular worldview I understand everything as indications for the future (or of present personality), since the past and its consequences no longer change.
D. Meaning, if he still holds to his earlier intention (to repent), then immediately after the sin he is already a penitent (and heaven did not succeed in withholding from him the opportunity)? So this whole matter is talking about someone who sinned and then changed his mind and no longer wants to repent, and then they say that in such a case he will not be given the opportunity to change his mind yet again?