Teshuva: Its Meaning and Laws – Rabbi Michael Abraham – Lesson 1, Part B
This transcript was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- The Minskian insurance and the synthesis between possibilities
- Maimonides and the description of repentance
- Two aspects in Jewish law and two tracks in the world of repentance
- Halakhic implication: the four stages of repentance are not required in the greater repentance
- First proof: Elazar ben Dordaya (Avodah Zarah 17)
- Second proof: Kiddushin 49 and a thought of repentance
- The meaning of “Rabbi” in the story of Elazar ben Dordaya
Summary
General overview
There is a claim that the Minskian insurance does not work, but throwing it out is a mistake, because one should have started with it and then tried to understand how to synthesize the two possibilities. The distinction between the possibilities is useful for understanding each one on its own, and only then making a synthesis. A suggestion is also raised that Maimonides’ description of repentance, with distinct technical steps, may not “work” the way it seems to, but it is still Maimonides’ description, and one must go back to his wording, especially his wording about “what is complete repentance,” before trying to reconcile his statements. A principled claim is presented that in the laws of repentance there are two parallel tracks of repentance: a “small” halakhic-accounting repentance and a “great” essential repentance. Two proofs from the Talmud are brought to show that in the greater repentance there is no obligation to go through the four stages of repentance in a halakhically binding way.
The Minskian insurance and the synthesis between possibilities
You need to throw out the Minskian insurance because it does not work, but it is a mistake to throw it out. One should have started with it and then tried to understand how to synthesize the two possibilities, and the distinction between the possibilities is good because only then do you understand each one on its own, and then you can make a synthesis.
Maimonides and the description of repentance
Maybe Maimonides’ description did not work, but it is also in fact Maimonides’ own description. Maimonides describes repentance through distinct technical processes and steps, in order to paint a more general picture, and there is agreement that one needs to go back to his wording and see this further on. Maimonides has another kind of repentance when he writes “what is complete repentance,” and later more expressions of Maimonides will be seen, so for now there is no attempt to reconcile Maimonides, but rather to build the concepts, and it may be possible to see these two tracks in him.
Two aspects in Jewish law and two tracks in the world of repentance
In the introduction it was argued that there is a conceptual aspect and a halakhic aspect, and usually the conceptual aspect is the other side of the coin of the halakhic aspect, because the halakhic aspect says what one must and must not do, and the conceptual aspect explains why. In the world of repentance it is not like that, because what is called the conceptual aspect is actually an extra-halakhic aspect that does not explain the thought behind repentance, but offers another track of repentance. The claim is that there are two kinds of repentance and two parallel tracks, and therefore when Maimonides speaks about the laws of repentance and includes within them things that are connected neither to laws nor to repentance, it is not accidental, and this will be returned to later.
Halakhic implication: the four stages of repentance are not required in the greater repentance
The halakhic implication is that the four stages of repentance are not required when a person undergoes great repentance, and even if it happens there is no need to pass through those four processes in a halakhically binding way. Two proofs are brought from the Talmud to show that the laws of repentance in the accounting sense of the four stages of repentance were said only about the small repentance and not about the great repentance.
First proof: Elazar ben Dordaya (Avodah Zarah 17)
In the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 17 the story is brought of Elazar ben Dordaya, who had not left a single prostitute in the world with whom he had not had relations. He heard about a prostitute in the cities across the sea who would take a purse of dinars as her fee, so he took a purse of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers for her with utter self-sacrifice. At the moment of intimacy she passed wind and said: just as this wind will not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Dordaya will not be accepted in repentance. It remains open who exactly said this, with the possibility that it seems to be the prostitute herself. He went and sat between two mountains and hills and asked the mountains and hills, heaven and earth, sun and moon, stars and constellations to ask for mercy on his behalf, and they all replied that before they ask for mercy for him they must ask for themselves. Then he said: the matter depends on no one but me. He placed his head between his knees and wept bitterly until his soul departed. Then a heavenly voice came forth and said: Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya is destined for life in the World to Come. Rabbi cried and said: there are those who acquire their world in many years, and there are those who acquire their world in a single hour. And Rabbi said: not only are penitents accepted, they are even called Rabbi.
Elazar ben Dordaya did not, within a single hour, make a list of recognition of sin over his whole life, regret for each one, and acceptance for the future in the form of the four stages of repentance for every transgression, and yet he was accepted to life in the World to Come, was called Rabbi, and became clean as on the day he was born. The conclusion is that he performed an essential repentance, and if there is true principled regret and a change of spiritual direction, that is the great repentance that does everything at once, without any need for verbal confession and without any need to go through all the sins one by one within the framework of the four stages.
Second proof: Kiddushin 49 and a thought of repentance
The Talmud in Kiddushin 49 says that if a man says, “on condition that I am righteous,” then even if he is completely wicked, she is betrothed, lest he may have had a thought of repentance in his mind. Therefore there is a concern for betrothal, and it may be that he is righteous and she is doubtfully betrothed. The question arises: how can a completely wicked person, in the few seconds of stating the condition, carry out abandoning the sin, regret, verbal confession, and intention for the future regarding every one of his transgressions? The conclusion is that we are concerned that he may have done a true repentance, one that is accepted immediately and does not require all the stages.
The meaning of “Rabbi” in the story of Elazar ben Dordaya
It may be that the reason he is called Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya is to teach that there is a process of repentance that is not the repentance discussed by the halakhic decisors, one in which the four stages are not needed and within an hour one can acquire one’s world. Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya is called Rabbi because he taught that there are those who acquire their world in a single hour, as opposed to what we might have thought, that there are those who acquire their world over many years through the work of going transgression by transgression through the four stages, which is the small repentance.
Full Transcript
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You need to throw out the Minskian insurance. It doesn’t work. True, it doesn’t work, but it’s a mistake to throw it out. We should have started with it and then tried to understand how to synthesize the two possibilities. But it’s good that they were distinguished, because only then do you understand each one on its own. And then you can make a synthesis.
[Speaker B] And maybe Maimonides’ description also didn’t work. What? That’s actually also Maimonides’ own description. Maimonides describes repentance in these very technical, distinct processes, these kinds of steps, when really he’s trying to paint a more general picture.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I need to look at his wording. I agree, but for that we need to see a bit more, to go back to his wording. We’ll see that later on.
[Speaker B] Maimonides himself has another type of repentance when he writes, “What is complete repentance?” Right.
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You meant that Maimonides. We’ll see more, we’ll see more of Maimonides’ formulations, and that’s why I said that right now I’m not going to try to reconcile Maimonides. But afterward we’ll come back to Maimonides, and it may be that we can see these two tracks in him. But for now I’m just trying to build the concepts, trying to present the concepts. So let’s still try for a moment to examine these two mechanisms. I want to argue that what is called the laws of repentance—going back to the introduction—in the introduction I talked about there being a conceptual aspect and a halakhic aspect. I said that usually the conceptual aspect is the other side of the coin of the halakhic aspect. It’s not two different things. It’s talking about the same thing from two angles. The halakhic aspect says what you’re forbidden to do and what you’re required to do. The conceptual aspect explains why. In the world of repentance, that’s not the case. In the world of repentance, what is called the conceptual aspect is not a conceptual aspect. It’s an extra-halakhic aspect. It doesn’t explain the thought behind repentance. It offers another track of repentance. It exists parallel to the halakhic track, not behind it, not beneath it, not as its foundation. That’s the claim. The great repentance is not the essential idea that stands behind the process of repentance, an idea that explains to me what repentance is. No, no—there is an alternative repentance. There are two kinds of repentance. Okay? And therefore when Maimonides talks about the laws of repentance and inserts into them all sorts of things that are connected neither to laws nor to repentance, that’s not for nothing. Here I said I’d come back to Maimonides later. But let’s try to see this. One of the implications I want to argue for—a halakhic implication, going back to this morning’s stage—so the halakhic implication is that the four stages of repentance are not required when a person undergoes great repentance. They’re not needed. There’s no need to go through these four stages. It happens, but there is no need to perform these four processes in some halakhically binding form. I’ll bring two proofs for this. Let’s go back. In the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 17 the story is brought of Elazar ben Dordaya. “They said about Elazar ben Dordaya that he did not leave a single prostitute in the world with whom he had not had relations.” Look at how diligent he was in one chapter—he was careful about one transgression and did it to the very end. Once he heard that there was a certain prostitute in the cities across the sea, and she would take a purse of dinars as her fee. He took a purse of dinars—yes, there was one prostitute whose peak he still hadn’t passed—he took a purse of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers for her with utter self-sacrifice. “At the moment of intimacy she passed wind and said: Just as this wind does not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Dordaya is not accepted in repentance.” Who exactly said that? Some kind of reflection, a heavenly voice, a thought that arose in Elazar ben Dordaya? Maybe it was the prostitute, maybe. It seems to be the prostitute herself saying it to him. “He went and sat between two mountains and hills and said: Mountains and hills, ask for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we ask for mercy on your behalf, let us ask for mercy on our own behalf, as it is said, ‘For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed.’ He said: Heaven and earth, ask for mercy on my behalf. They said: Before we ask for mercy on your behalf, let us ask for mercy on our own behalf, as it is said, ‘For the heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall wear out like a garment.’ He said: Sun and moon, ask for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we ask for mercy on your behalf, let us ask for mercy on our own behalf, as it is said, ‘Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed.’ He said: Stars and constellations, ask for mercy on my behalf”—I’ll explain later why I’m reading all this literature—“They said to him: Before we ask for mercy on your behalf, let us ask for mercy on our own behalf, as it is said, ‘And all the host of heaven shall waste away.’ He said: The matter depends on no one but me. He placed his head between his knees and wept bitterly until his soul departed. A heavenly voice came forth and said: Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya is destined for life in the World to Come.” “There too”—that’s in the context of the Talmudic discussion, I’m leaving that aside. “Rabbi cried and said: There are those who acquire their world in many years, and there are those who acquire their world in a single hour. And Rabbi said: Not only are penitents accepted, they are even called Rabbi.” It’s not enough that he became a penitent—he became Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya. This story, really—I’ll get into its second part later—but I want to talk for a moment about the first part. He sat there, sobbed and sobbed, and his soul departed. Do you really think that while he was sobbing he took out a notebook and wrote down recognition of sin for his whole life, and for each one regretted it, accepted it for the future? He couldn’t afterward even stand the test and not return to that sin. He didn’t perform the four stages of repentance for each of the transgressions. Within one hour he went through this whole thing, was accepted to life in the World to Come, was called Rabbi, clean as on the day he was born. How does that happen? What about the stages? The indispensable parts? From where? That’s not repentance? Because Elazar ben Dordaya did an essential repentance. If he did an essential repentance and truly regretted it, nothing else is needed. No verbal confession is needed. On the contrary, there’s no need to go through all the transgressions he committed and regret them one by one. No need. What’s needed is to have that principled regret and to repent, to change your spiritual direction. If you truly did that, that is the great repentance. You did everything all at once. You don’t need the four stages. The laws of repentance in the accounting sense, in the sense of the four stages of repentance, were said only about the small repentance, not about the great repentance. The second proof for this is from tractate Kiddushin. The Talmud says there on page 49: “On condition that I am righteous”—even if he is completely wicked, she is betrothed, lest he may have had a thought of repentance in his heart. A man betrothed a woman on condition that I am righteous. He’s a notorious wicked person, Elazar ben Dordaya before repentance, goes and betroths a woman, a full-fledged wicked man, on condition that he is righteous. There’s no concern for betrothal at all? Everything’s fine? The Talmud says no, there is a concern for betrothal. Why? Lest he may have had a thought of repentance in his heart. And why—if he had a thought of repentance at some moment in his life, and the fact that he betroths on condition that he is righteous is even some sort of hint that maybe he really is thinking of repentance—after all, why should the betrothal hang on that? Just like that? It could be that this really is part of the repentance process whose end—it may be that you need some basis for this concern—but still there is a concern there, and since that is so, it could be that he is righteous and she is doubtfully betrothed. We are concerned about the betrothal. Again the question comes up: he thought of repentance in the middle of “Behold, you are betrothed to me on condition that I am righteous,” and in the few seconds it took him to say that, he carried out abandoning the sin, regret, verbal confession, intention for the future, for each of the transgressions? We’re talking about a completely wicked person. It’s not reasonable. So what is it? We are concerned that he performed true repentance, not that he “did repentance.” True repentance doesn’t need all the stages. It doesn’t need all the stages. True repentance is accepted immediately. More than that—even he is called Rabbi. It may be that the fact that he is called Rabbi Elazar ben Dordaya—that “Rabbi” is there in order to teach us something. Elazar ben Dordaya taught us that there is a process of repentance that is not the repentance the halakhic decisors talk about. You don’t need the four stages. Within an hour—and that’s what Rabbi says—“Not only are penitents accepted,” “there are those who acquire their world in a single hour.” “There are those who acquire their world in many years, and there are those who acquire their world in a single hour.” Rabbi cried and said: “There are those who acquire their world in many years, and there are those who acquire their world in a single hour.” And Rabbi said: “Not only are penitents accepted, they are even called Rabbi.” Why is he called Rabbi? Because he taught us this, that there are those who acquire their world in a single hour. In that sense he is our rabbi. That is what he taught us. Because we would have thought that there are those who acquire their world in many years. It takes work, you need to work on every transgression, the four stages—that is the small repentance. Elazar ben Dordaya taught us otherwise, and that is why he is called Rabbi.