Achieving Divine Forgiveness via God’s Own Words

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parashat Shelach, 5766

 

Parashat Shelach is typically associated with the highly dramatic story of the “Meraglim” (spies)[1]—BaMidbar 13:1-14:39—immediately followed by a frantic and failed attempt to enter Canaan in spite of explicit Divine Opposition to such an act at this time—Ibid. 14:40-45. But “Shelach” also contains other material, albeit far less riveting and emotionally powerful, including:

          a)  the offering of optional sacrifices (Ibid. 15:1-16);

          b)   the separation of a tithe whenever a requisite amount of dough is manufactured (Ibid. 15:17-21);

c)   sacrifices required to atone for inadvertent transgressions on the part of either the entire community (Ibid. 15:22-26) or a single individual (Ibid. 15:27-32);

d)  the curious story of the individual who gathered wood on Shabbat (Ibid. 15:32-36);

    and e)  the Commandment to attach “Tzitziyot” (ritual fringes) to each of the corners of four-cornered garments (15:37-41).  

 

Tucked away in the first part of the section devoted to the protocol for repenting from unintentional sins ( c) above) is a verse that due to its incorporation into the liturgy for the eve of Yom HaKippurim (“Kol Nidrei”)[2] has been transformed from its relatively minor significance within the Bible[3] into both a powerful plaintive cry for as well as an expression of hopeful confidence in Divine Forgiveness and Understanding.

 

 

 

BaMidbar 15:26

 

And it shall be forgiven, all the congregation of the Children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourns among them, since all of the people were in ignorance.

 

A three-time repetition of this verse is followed by the recitation of two other verses from Parshat Shelach, describing an interchange between Moshe and HaShem, this time from the earlier story of the “Meraglim”:

 

Ibid. 14:19-20

Please Pardon the sin of this people according to the greatness of Your Kindness, and in the same way that You have Forgiven this people from Egypt until now.[4]

And HaShem Said: I have Forgiven them according to your[5] word.

 

Although the verses being recited from BaMidbar on Yom HaKippurim eve are out of order—15:26 preceding 14:19-20—one can read them as they appear in the prayers as making the following logical argument:

 

1)  Please forgive the present-day Jewish people who have sinned since they did not transgress deliberately (15:26).

2)  There is, after all, a double precedent for your doing so, i.e., how You Forgave the Jews after the egregious sin of the Golden Calf (14:19).

3)  As well as how You Forgave them after the sin of the Spies (14:20).

 

The creative usage of the verses in BaMidbar in the Yom HaKippurim liturgy seems to represent another manifestation of the principle that the best means by which one can “get through” to God is by using His Own Words,[6] as it were, the primary example being the invocation of the “Thirteen Divine Attributes” (Shemot 34:6-7)[7] in order to achieve forgiveness and atonement.

 

Rosh HaShana 17b on Shemot 34:6 “’VaYa’avor’[8] (And) HaShem (Passed) before him (Moshe) and Proclaimed”

R. Yochanan said: Were a verse not written (34:6) it would be impossible to say it.[9] This (the verse) teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wrapped himself (in a Tallit) like a “Shliach Tzibbur” and demonstrated to Moshe the order of prayer. He Said to him: Any time that Israel sins, let them carry out before Me this procedure[10] and I shall Forgive them.

 

Particularly during “Yomim Noraim” (the days of Awe, the period between Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim), when the Jewish people are encouraged to seriously engage in repentance from the past year’s sins, as part of the “Selichot” prayers that are recited starting in the month of Elul[11] and continuing through Yom HaKippurim itself, the refrain of the “Thirteen Divine Attributes” is invoked again and again, ostensibly as an appeal to the Divine to Make good on His Promise to Moshe after the “Chet HaEigel” that turning to HaShem in terms of His intrinsic Attributes will always achieve a positive result, and the prayers for forgiveness will not go unheard.

 

One can even interpret Moshe’s prayer on behalf of the Jewish people after the sin of the Spies in Parshat Shelach, as the first instance where someone, in this case Moshe himself, successfully makes use, at least in part—the Thirteen Attributes are not repeated word for word by Moshe in this instance—of the lesson that God Gave in Shemot 34 of how to pray when the Jews find themselves in trouble:

 

BaMidbar 14:17-18 (the verses that immediately precede 14:19-20 cited above wherein HaShem Declares that He has Forgiven the people)

And now let the Power of HaShem be great as You have Spoken (in Shemot 34?) saying:

1) HaShem is 6) Slow to anger, 7) Possessing great Love, 10) Forgiving sin and 11) transgression, and 13) Clearing…”

 

Yet, the fact that Moshe’s prayer in BaMidbar 14 is not an exact duplication of the list of Attributes that appear in Shemot 34, but rather a shortened, edited version leads one to wonder what might account for the variation between the two lists, particularly in light of R. Yochanan’s insistence that invoking the Attributes in Shemot 34, most probably in their entirety, is the key to God’s Forgiveness?

 

One commentator attempts to explain the differences between the lists of Divine Attributes in Shemot 34 and BaMidbar 14 from the perspective that whereas the earlier list was one that generally applied to all times, places and sins, the latter list was defined and informed by the specific sin of the Spies:

 

Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot on BaMidbar 14:17 (paraphrased)

a)  In Shemot, HaShem Wished to state that He Employs both Attributes of Mercy and Justice.[12] In BaMidbar Moshe is invoking only the Attribute of Mercy, and for this reason he states HaShem’s Name only a single time (“HaShem” once as opposed to twice). (This would also explain the omission of 3) “Mighty” which is similarly associated with Justice and Judgment.)

b)  4) “Merciful” and 5) “Gracious” are omitted because they always are paired with one another, and “Gracious” implies the imparting of gifts. In this case, Moshe does not want HaShem to Give the people anything tangible, just to Forgive them.

c)  8) “Possessing Truth” is omitted, because such language could suggest that Moshe was in favor of God Carrying out what He had Threatened to do in BaMidbar 14:12, “I will Smite them with pestilence and Disinherit them, and will Make of you (Moshe) a great nation and mightier than they.”

d)  9) “Saving reward” is not mentioned because perhaps they did not do the kindnesses that would earn them any such reward.

e)  12) “Inadvertent transgression” is omitted because these (10 out of the 12 spies[13] as well as the people accepting their report) were rebels,[14] as it is said (by Yehoshua in his plea to the people), (BaMidbar 14:9) “Only do not rebel against HaShem…”

 

Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot’s insightful explanation for the variations between Shemot 34 and BaMidbar 14, particularly point e) above, would appear to turn us full circle and wonder about the usage of BaMidbar 15:26 in the Yom HaKippurim liturgy. While the immediate context in BaMidbar 15 are the atonement offerings brought on behalf of the entire congregation that has inadvertently sinned, why are we so sure on the eve of Yom HaKippurim that every one of the Jewish people turning to God at this moment have only sinned accidentally, and in fact do not have more in common with the spies of BaMidbar 14 than the group of Jews being referred to in BaMidbar 15? Isn’t it presumptuous, and often inaccurate, to even imply that the sins that Jews assembled in the synagogue must now atone for were due exclusively to ignorance or imprecision rather than rebellion and premeditation? Even if someone is finally prepared to confess that he has not acted in accordance with the Commandments, doesn’t offering the rationale that the transgression was only accidental still provide a rubric for at least partial denial of the sin and consequently not allow the penitent to come to grips with this particular shortcoming? According to Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot, Moshe specifically avoided “sugar-coating” his appeal to HaShem for forgiveness for the spies and their followers by omitting any reference to inadvertent sin. And yet our liturgy juxtaposes Moshe’s plea in BaMidbar 14 with BaMidbar 15’s claim that any transgression was no more than accidental!

 

On the one hand, a narrow technical explanation for the liturgical inclusion of the verses from Parshat Shelach in the “Kol Nidrei” service could be offered in the following manner: BaMidbar 15:26 and 14:19-20 come upon the heals of  a renunciation of various forms of verbal commitments, including the following terminology:

 

All personal vows…from last Yom HaKippurim until this Yom HaKippurim,[15] and from this Yom HaKippurim to the next Yom HaKippurim, let them all be null and void, etc.

 

Consequently, the “inadvertent sins” of BaMidbar 15:26 within the “Kol Nidrei” context relate specifically to unfulfilled verbal commitments of the past year that in fact were not commitments, since a declaration of their nullification had already been made during last Yom HaKippurim. Nevertheless, because at the time of the sin, the individual was under the impression that he was breaking a vow, he needs to atone for his transgression.[16]

But one then wonders whether the subsequent verses from BaMidbar 14, describing God’s Forgiving the spies, aren’t completely out of place on Yom HaKippurim night[17] in light of the extreme differences in significance between not carrying out a verbal promise on the one hand, and challenging God’s Omnipotence and His Promises to Bring the Jewish people to the Promised Land, as well as Moshe’s ultimate authority, on the other. The inclusion of BaMidbar 14:19-20, referring to a transgression that Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot, for one, make eminently clear was not an inadvertent sin, suggests that we are dealing with more than mere accidental violations of oaths and vows when beginning our Yom HaKippurim prayers.

 

Dr. Joseph Hertz, former Chief Rabbi of the British Empire,[18] presents the following perspectives that expand the implications of “Kol Nidrei” beyond the issue of simply annulling past and/or future vows:

 

Of the various explanations, two may be mentioned. The first is by the late Dr. M. Friedlander:

1) It arose in connection with those who, in the early Middle Ages, refused to join in communal work, and submit to the laws of the community; or, who by any heinous action had shocked the Jewish conscience, and were in consequence excommunicated. Still, when Yom Kippur came, they longed to join their brethren in public worship. The religious authorities were loath to repel them; and by this solemn Declaration, such transgressors, “Avaryanim”, were suffered to participate in congregational prayer on the Day of Atonement.

That this was the original object of “Kol Nidrei” is rendered plausible by the fact that it is preceded by the announcement, “In the Name of God and in the name of the congregation, with the sanction of the Court Above and that of the court below, we declare it permitted to pray together with those “Avaryanim”.

 

2) The second explanation is the fruit of recent historical studies. They have shown “Kol Nidrei” to be a unique memorial of Jewish suffering and repentance. It arose in Spain, consequent on the religious persecutions of the West Goths in the seventh century. Entire Jewish communities were then doomed to torture and the stake, unless they foreswore their Faith, and by the most fearful oaths and abjurations bound themselves nevermore to practice any Jewish observance. In this way, when better times came, these unfortunates felt themselves perjured before God and man if they returned to their holy Faith, or kept even the most sacred of the Festivals. It was to ease the conscience of such distracted men and women that the “Kol Nidrei” declaration was formulated. In view of this origin of the prayer, that has only recently become known, and that alone explains its signal anomalies—Continental congregations that had formerly abolished the “Kol Nidrei” declarations reintroduced it; realizing that the awakening of historic memories and the forging of links with the past are vital factors in Jewish traditional life and worship; see “Vows and Vowing in Judaism”, BaMidbar.[19]

 

The two explanations that Rabbi Hertz offers for the significance of “Kol Nidrei” do help to justify the addition of the verses from Parshat Shelach which are  recited immediately afterwards (BaMidbar 14:19-20). As far as the second scenario regarding persecutions intended to create apostasy is concerned, clearly, the renunciation of faith offered by victims of the seventh century pogroms was made under duress, which is even less compromising and condemning than an actual inadvertent sin. Furthermore, the addition of a nullification of not only future vows, but also those of the past becomes crucial to assuage the guilty conscience of anyone who was forced to turn his back on Judaism. We can understand the virtue in trying to intercede on behalf of such individuals, as well as HaShem’s Acquiescing to such a request.[20]

 

But R. Hertz’ first explanation, in the name of R. Friedlander, lends a more subtle, and, therefore to my mind, more intriguing lense through which to view the role played by “Kol Nidrei” and its accompanying verses on the eve of Yom HaKippurim. While the sinful individuals in question apparently had thought that they wished to turn their backs upon Judaism, the Jewish people, or both, when finally confronted with the cold reality of not being able to join their co-religionists on the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the synagogue, they realized that their original assessment of their feelings and attitudes had been mistaken. The application of BaMidbar 15:26 to such people suggests that not only should people be forgiven for sins that at the time when they were committed, were violated inadvertently, but also for those transgressions that may have been carried out seemingly volitionally, and only afterwards, retroactively, do the perpetrators realize that their previous actions were wrong-headed. While such an emotional response is usually defined as “Charata” (regret), a key aspect of the process of repentance,[21] could the rationale employed by the “religious authorities” to now include such individuals have been motivated by defining their earlier actions as “inadvertent” in light of the subsequent change of heart?  Furthermore, the Biblical references that access the sins of the Golden Calf and the spies in this regard (BaMidbar 14:19-20) offer a further twist to this entire perspective. We have no evidence that the people regretted either of these two terrible sins; it is Moshe who argues on their behalf and pleads that their lives should be spared. In such an instance, even when the sinners continue to feel rebellious, can the intervention of others, who believe or at least state that the transgressors are ill-informed or motivated by spurious considerations, achieve the status of mere inadvertent sinners? If this is so, then the tremendous innovation of the entire congregation repeating over and over these verses is that we are in effect “channeling” Moshe and his concern for the people as a whole, rather than being focused exclusively upon ourselves and those close to us at the advent of the Day of Atonement, are urging God to View favorably our co-religionists, and eagerly awaiting any indication that HaShem will once again Declare in our own day, “…I have Forgiven them—the entire Jewish people—according to your—the prayers of each and every one of us’—word.”

 

Shabbat Shalom, and may we always be deeply concerned about the spiritual welfare of one another, not only on Yom HaKippurim, but every day of every year.