National Teshuvah Gemurah

The first half of this blog post was originally published in September 2012 as the first of a two-part post. The second half is new, and picked up where the comments on the first post left off. The first half has been edited as well. 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

National Teshuvah Gemurah

The Question

The first year I learned Hilchos Teshuvah, my chavrusa (learning partner) and I got into a heated debate about the Rambam's definition of teshuvah gemurah (complete repentance*). The Rambam writes: 

2:1 - What is teshuvah gemurah (complete teshuvah)? This is when a person encountered the thing with which he sinned and it is possible for him to do it [again], but he separated himself and didn’t do it because of the teshuvah – not because of fear or weakness of ability. For example, if a person had illicit relations with a woman, and at a later time he became secluded with her, and he still loved her and had the physical capacity [to transgress again], and he was in the same city in which he [initially] sinned, but he separated himself and didn’t sin – then he is a baal teshuvah gemurah (one who has done complete teshuvah). This is what Shlomo ha’Melech says: “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth” (Koheles 12:1). 

But if he only did teshuvah in his old age, at a time when it was impossible for him to do what he did – even though it is not a superb teshuvah, it is beneficial for him, and he is a baal teshuvah. Even if he transgressed for his entire life and he did teshuvah on the day of his death, and he died in his teshuvah – all of his sins are forgiven, as it is stated: “before the sun darkens” (ibid. 12:2) – this is the day of death; this implies that if he remembered his Creator and did teshuvah before he died, then he is forgiven.

Our debate did not center on some abstruse point, but on a basic question of how to read the halacha. As far as we could tell, there are two viable interpretations:

Reading #1: One way to read the halacha is to take it at face value: in order to do teshuvah gemurah, one must actually undergo the experience of finding oneself in the same scenario - with the same woman, the same desire, and even the same location - in which he initially transgressed, and he must refrain from sinning because of his teshuvah.

According to this interpretation, there is something lacking in one's teshuvah process until that teshuvah is put to the ultimate test. Only by undergoing the trial of facing the temptation to transgress, and prevailing with the power of teshuvah alone, can one's teshuvah be considered "complete." This final is the makeh b'patish of meleches ha'teshuvah (the "final blow" of the craft of teshuvah), without which, one's teshuvah is incomplete.

Reading #2: The other way to read the halacha is to posit that the Rambam is merely presenting a paradigmatic case of teshuvah gemurah - one in which all of the factors are the same, in order to achieve something like a control in scientific experiments to rule out any confounding variables. Such an idealized scenario would act as the perfect barometer to measure the "purity" (for lack of a better term) of one's teshuvah. However, it would NOT be necessary to actually undergo the exact same experience with all of the same particulars. "Teshuvah gemurah" is merely a term which refers to the highest level of teshuvah, and the Rambam is just giving us a "keitzad" case - an exemplification of teshuvah gemurah; a litmus test; a giluy milsa b'alma. He is not telling us what we need to do in order to achieve teshuvah gemurah.

According to this interpretation, one's teshuvah is not necessarily incomplete after going through the entire teshuvah process. Rather, it is possible to achieve teshuvah gemurah by following all of the steps, but one cannot know whether one's teshuvah process was complete until one is faced with the same scenario. At that point, the nature of one's teshuvah will be revealed: if he refrains by the power of his teshuvah alone, then his teshuvah was evidently complete; if he transgresses again, or if he refrains because of some other factor, then his teshuvah - though effective - was incomplete.

Practical Ramifications: The practical ramifications of this distinction are huge. According to the first reading, teshuvah gemurah would be a rarity of rarities. How often does one find oneself in a scenario which in which ALL of the factors are the same as they were at the time of the original transgression? In the majority of cases, the exact same scenario cannot be replicated, which would make teshuvah gemurah impossible. Not only that, but a few halachos later (ibid. 2:4) the Rambam writes that a person who does teshuvah should "distance himself exceedingly from the matter in which he transgressed." It would seem, then, that any attempt to do teshuvah gemurah - according to this first reading - is ill-advised by Hilchos Teshuvah itself! Does the Rambam really expect a person to violate Hilchos Teshuvah and put himself at risk in an attempt to do teshuvah gemurah?

But according to the second reading, it is possible to achieve teshuvah gemurah without needing to be in any specific scenario. Teshuvah gemurah might only be manifest if one finds oneself in exactly the same circumstances, but it is nevertheless possible to achieve in any time, place, or situation.

Arguments can be made for both readings, and I won't recount them here. Suffice it to say, my chavrusa and I debated this point for over a decade. Over time, we switched sides a number of times. Each year we raised the issue afresh, and gained new insights into teshuvah in the process.

Possible Proof for Reading #2

Several years ago, however, I found what I believe to be a clear proof that the second reading is correct (i.e. that teshuvah gemurah doesn't require the baal teshuvah to actually face the same scenario again). This proof can be found deep in the under-explored regions of Hilchos Taaniyos (Laws of Fasts) Chapter 4. The Rambam is describing the procedure for how the community should engage in taaniyos (fasts) during severe droughts:

4:1 – During each day of the final seven fasts for rain, we pray according to the following order: we take out the ark into the street of the city, and all the people gather around and don sackcloth. They place ashes on the ark and on the Torah scroll in order to stimulate crying and to humble [the people’s] hearts. One of the people takes ashes and puts them on the head of the Nassi and on the head of the Av Beis Din, on the place where the tefillin rest, so that they will be ashamed and do teshuvah. Each and every person takes ashes and puts them on his own head. 

4:2 – Afterwards, one of the wise elders stands before them while they are sitting. If a wise elder isn’t available, then a wise man stands before them; and if there is neither an elder nor a wise man, then a man of stature should stand before them. He addresses them with words of rebuke: “My brothers, it is not sackcloth nor fasting that has an effect, but rather teshuvah and maasim tovim (good deeds). For we find by the men of Ninveh that it was not said of them, 'and God saw their sackcloth and their fasting' but rather 'and God saw their actions' (Yonah 3:10). Similarly, in the words of the prophetic tradition it is said, 'Tear your hearts, not your garments' (Yoel 2:13). And he should continue on these themes according to his ability until their hearts are humbled and they return in teshuvah gemurah.

Boom. Right there. The Rambam could have used a number of other phrases. He could have said, "until their hearts are humbled and they return in tehsuvah" and stopped there, or "until they return to Hashem in teshuvah" or "until they return in teshuvah shleimah" - but no. He specifically used the phrase teshuvah gemurah. Knowing the Rambam, he meant what he wrote, and he wrote what he meant. If he decided to use the phrase "teshuvah gemurah," then we have every reason to assume that he was referring to the same teshuvah gemurah from Hilchos Teshuvah 2:1.

I was thrilled to find this halacha. To my mind, it utterly negated the first reading of Hilchos Teshuvah 2:1. If teshuvah gemurah required a person to be in the exact same scenario as the initial transgression, then it would be impossible to get an entire community of people to do teshuvah gemurah en masse, in a matter of hours, all while sitting in front of the wise elder and listening to his rebuke.

I believed that this gave us sufficient grounds to say that the case described by the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah 2:1 is merely an idealized teshuvah gemurah scenario, and is not actually required in order to do teshuvah gemurah. Teshuvah gemurah is achieved by following all of the steps of regular teshuvah, but in a more perfect manner.

Refutation of Aforementioned Proof

I wrote all of this up as a blog post in September 2012. One of my good friends, Yaakov, then refuted my proof based on the context of Hilchos Taaniyos. Here are the opening halachos:

1:1 - It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to cry out and to sound the trumpets on every tzarah (catastrophe) that befalls the community, as it is stated, “[When you go to wage war in your Land] against an enemy who oppresses you, you shall sound short blasts of the trumpets, [and you shall be remembered before Hashem, your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies]" (Bamidbar 10:9), meaning to say: anything that afflicts you - such as drought, epidemic, locusts, and the like - cry out on them and sound [the trumpets]. 

1:2 - This principle is one of the darchei teshuvah (ways of repentance), that at a time of the onset of an affliction, and [people] cry out and sound the trumpets, everyone will know that it was because of their evil conduct that this bad occurrence befell them, as it is written, “Your iniquities have turned away these things [to you], and your sins have withheld good from you” (Yirmiyahu 5:25), and this will cause them to remove the affliction from upon them. 

1:3 - But if they do not cry out and do not sound the trumpets, but instead say, “This is a natural event which befell us, and this affliction is a chance occurrence” - behold, this is a derech achzarius (way of cruelty), and will cause them to cling to their evil conduct, and [this] affliction and others will increase. This is what is written in the Torah, “[And if, with this, you do not listen to Me,] and you walk with me with chance, then I will walk with you in the fury of chance, [and I will also chastise you, seven times for your sins]” (Vayikra 26:26-28), meaning to say, when I bring an affliction upon you to cause you to do teshuvah, if you say that it is chance, then I will increase upon you the fury of that “chance.”

Yaakov commented:

I don't think that this is a sound proof, since the context of the halacha is taanis ([communal] fast), hence the situation of cheit (sin) is still extant, since the tzarah is still extant. It is therefore teshuvah gemurah, even in the first sense (i.e. according to the first reading), in real time. 

To take an example from current events, it would be like exploring what error is leading us to have an economic recession (or having our enemies attack our embassies etc.) and correcting the error which is leading to the problem. It would be like doing teshuva while the woman is still in the room with you.

Yaakov was correct. Since the cheit in this context is a communal defect rather than a personal transgression, and since the communal cheit must still be extant - as indicated by the fact that the tzarah is still present - then teshuvah gemurah is still within reach according to both readings, not just the second one. Back to the drawing board.

Application to National Taaniyos

I haven't made any more progress on the question of teshuvah gemurah. However, in thinking about this issue this morning, I came to a realization that might help enhance our experience of national annual fast days.

Let's review the basic concept of these fasts. The Rambam begins Hilchos Taaniyos Chapter 5 with the following introduction:

There are days on which all of Israel fasts because of the catastrophes that occurred on them, in order to awaken the hearts [of the people] and to open the paths of teshuvah (repentance). This will be a remembrance of our corrupt actions and the corrupt actions of our fathers that were like our actions today, which ultimately reached the point that [these corrupt actions] caused these catastrophes for them and for us. Through the remembrance of these things we will return to do good, as it stated, “they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers” (Vayikra 26:40).

According to the Rambam, these national taaniyos are designated for doing teshuvah on communal chataim (sins) which were done by our predecessors and by ourselves. In other words, teshuvah gemurah is within reach because the chataim are still extant today.

This epiphany is of greater psychological than intellectual significance. I don't know about you, but I find that when I think about these tzaros (e.g. the siege of Yerushalayim on the 10th of Teves, the breaching of the city walls on the 17th of Tammuz, the destruction of the first and second Beis ha'Mikdash on Tishah b'Av, etc.), I relate to them as historical events, caused by sins in the past. Yeah, I've read the Rambam enough times to know that these sins still persist today, but I still think of these taaniyos as memorial days.

But this morning when I made the connection between teshuvah gemurah for personal cheit and teshuvah gemurah for communal cheit, and I realized that the annual public fast days are teshuvah gemurah opportunities for national cheit, my perspective of these days shifted. These public taaniyos weren't meant to be treated as commemorative days to reflect on events of the past, but as designated times to examine the problems of the past in order to diagnose and remedy the problems of the present.

Yaakov's analogy to a modern-day economic recession really clinched it for me. How many Jews relate to the tzaros commemorated by national taaniyos in the same way they relate to the state of the economy? How many of us examine the political infighting leading up to the destruction of the Second Beis ha'Mikdash with the same sense of passion, frustration, and urgency as we look at the political issues of today? How many of us read Chazal's analyses of the sins of our forefathers and view them as insightful op-ed pieces written about the problems that plague the Jewish world today?

To put it the way Yaakov did: How many people genuinely feel that the woman with whom our forefathers sinned is right here in the room with us, and the taanis is our litmus test to see how we will react to her advances?

Again, I don't think I'm making any new points here. And perhaps those who read this post will say, "So what?" But maybe this little review of Hilchos Teshuvah and Hilchos Taaniyos will trigger an "Aha!" moment for you like it did for me, and if that is the case, then we are one step closer to teshuvah gemurah.


* For the record, it pains me to translate "teshuvah" as "repentance." As a former professor of mine, Dr. Moshe Sokolow, pointed out:

In English, “repentance” derives from the same Latin root (poena) which produces the words “penalty” and “penitentiary,” and it complements the ostensible derivation of “sin” from the Anglo-Saxon “evil, or wickedness.” No such pejorative connotation, however, exists either in the Hebrew חטא [to miss (a goal), or to err] or תשובה [literally, return]. The compensation for a missed goal is a “do-over,” or “second chance.”

Unfortunately, translating "teshuvah" literally as "return" both looks and sounds awkward in writing, and I know of no better alternative.