Hello Everyone,
I think that today we studied one of the most striking passages in חובות הלבבות . Rabbeinu Bachya professes a Judaism which demands sincerity and totally honest self-examination. We have already seen examples of his ideas (especially in the third chapter on עבודת ה’), but today we saw an exceptionally sharp reminder of this call for honesty.
In the passage which we studied today, Rabbeinu Bachya listed things which negate or prevent teshuvah. Rabbeinu Bachya writes that a person who repents from some but not all of his sins has not done teshuvah. Citing a well-known metaphor from Chazal, Rabbei Bachya writes that a person who repents partially can be compared to a person who immerses himself in a מקווה while holding on to a rodent.
Rabbeinu Bachya clearly sets a very difficult target for a בעל תשובה to reach. Divine forgiveness is not given out for partial effort. Only when a person has completed the task of remaking his or her personality will Hashem acknowledge this act of “re-creation” by erasing the person’s past misdeeds .
It seems that Rabbeinu Bachya is alone in setting this high bar for teshuvah. The Gemarah cited by Rabbeinu Bachya reads as follows:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת תענית דף טז עמוד א
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: אדם שיש בידו עבירה, ומתודה ואינו חוזר בה למה הוא דומה – לאדם שתופס שרץ בידו, שאפילו טובל בכל מימות שבעולם – לא עלתה לו טבילה. זרקו מידו, כיון שטבל בארבעים סאה – מיד עלתה לו טבילה, שנאמר ומודה ועזב ירחם, ואומר נשא לבבנו אל כפים אל אל בשמים.
It would seem from the use of the word “בה” that the Gemara is criticizing a person who performs the actions of penance (such as confessing ) for a particular sin but is insincere about it. For that matter, when we read the passages in the Torah which discuss the various sin-offerings we see examples of penance and atonement for individual sins. The position of Rabbeinu Bachya seems to be excessively demanding. Why wouldn’t Hashem acknowledge a step-by-step progression from a life of sin to a life devoted to observance of the Torah?
We saw a discussion of Rabbeinu Bachya’s position in the work “.ברכת מועדיך”[1] The author of ברכת מועדיך first cites the 16th century בית א-להים who in his discussion of תשובה writes that teshuvah is different from all other mitzvoth. In other mitzvoth (e.g. the mitzvah of tzitzit) there is no validity or merit accrued to partial fulfillment of the mitzvah. Putting 3 sets of strings on a garment (instead of the required four) does not mean you have fulfilled 75% of the mitzvah. The three sets of strings are totally without significance. On the other hand, by teshuvah, even though ideally one would completely repent from one’s sins, if one partially repents that partial penance is rewarded with a degree of forgiveness by Hashem.
So how does Rabbeinu Bachya understand תשובה? The author of ברכת מועדיך offers two explanations. One possibility is that Rabbeinu Bachya feels that if a person chooses not to repent from certain sins then his תשובה is not honest. If a person changes his behavior because of an awareness of God’s will then how could that person choose to continue with any sins? If a person picks and chooses which mitzvoth to observe and which to ignore this person has not accepted the Torah as the guide for living. If a person ceases to violate the Sabbath, but continues to cheat his employees then he does not see God’s presence in his life. Partial penance may be admirable in other value systems and it may be a sign of spiritual growth. However as Rabbeinu Bachya explains, the essence of Judaism is the absolute acknowledgement of Hashem’s sovereignty. It is of course good when a Jew ceases to violate the Sabbath, but until he accepts the obligation to observe the entire Torah he is not a בעל תשובה.
The author of ברכת מועדיך then offers another explanation for Rabbeinu Bachya’s position.[2] Based on Rabbeinu Yonah’s explanation of the teshuvah of Yom Kippur, we can say that teshuvah achieves two goals. Teshuvah is the process which leads to forgiveness for our sins and this is certainly important. But teshuvah can lead to another goal. Teshuvah can lead to the purification of the sinner. The paradigm of purification is immersion in the mikveh and for immersion in a mikveh to be effective the immersion must be total. Hence the metaphor of the Gemarah that insincere penance is analogous to immersion in a mikveh while grasping a rodent. When Rabbeinu Bachya writes that partial penance is ineffective he is writing about the penance which leads to the purification of the sinner. Purification requires that the penitent be totally committed to תשובה. There is no such thing as being semi-pure or a semi-penitent.
Thanks to everyone who participated in today’s shiur. I wish refuah shleimah to our friends Yoel Chaim ben Chana Henya and Tehila Leah. Bye, Stuart Fischman
[1] Many thanks to Rabbi Dovid Fink for sending me this text.
[2] I would like to point out that Rabbeinu Bachya himself explains his position quite clearly with quotes from the תנ”ך and חז”ל and Rabbeinu Bachya certainly has every right to interpret the sources as he sees fit.