Is It Possible to be Forgiven by God without Repentance? Bava Basra 87-89

Looking for an Opening

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the practice of making sure that no significant amount of liquid is left behind in the seller’s vessel, to be scrupulously honest:

Anyone who sells wine, oil, or similar liquids is obligated, after he transfers the liquid into the buyer’s vessel, to drip for him three extra drops from the measure.

There is also an aggadic instance of three drops in the Talmud (Menachos 29a):

This world was made with the Hebrew letter “Heh”. This letter is composed of one horizontal line resting on two vertical lines, yet the left vertical has a break between the top of the leg and the roof.

Rashi (ibid) says these three lines represent the three drops that were used to create the world out of the elements of water, fire and air, according to Sefer Yetzira.

The Gemara goes on to study the implications of the structure of this letter “Heh”:

ומפני מה נברא העולם הזה בה”י מפני שדומה לאכסדרה שכל הרוצה לצאת יצא ומ”ט תליא כרעיה דאי הדר בתשובה מעיילי ליה

And for what reason was this world created specifically with the letter heh? It is because the letter heh, which is open on its bottom, has a similar appearance to a colonnade, which is open on one side. This alludes to this world, where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil.

And what is the reason that the left leg of the letter Heh is suspended, i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is because if one repents, he is brought back in through the opening at the top.

וליעייל בהך לא מסתייעא מילתא כדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב (משלי ג, לד) אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולענוים יתן חן בא לטהר מסייעין אותו בא לטמא פותחין לו

The Gemara asks: But why not let him enter through that same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would not be effective, since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, which is symbolized by the small opening in the side. In accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who comes in order to become pure, he is assisted from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening to do so.

The Rashba (ibid) wonders, why is it harder to come back through the bottom than the side? And, why not utilize both openings?

I would like to suggest that the Gemara is referring to two kinds of repentance pathways. Sometimes a person can retrace his steps and go back the way he came. That is an unusual feat, requiring not merely a change in action or shift but a complete undoing of the past. Most people cannot achieve that, so God is kind and allows the person to find a new opening, a new angle of approach or frame of mind to live better in the future.

In modern metaphors, do you replace the entire motherboard or do you fix the loose or burned wires in the circuit? For many people, the pathway to repentance is better facilitated by changes in current behavior. It is important to consider that God can choose to be gracious in that way, however if one has hurt people they may require not just new behaviors, but also restoration and repair of the past in order to have their dignity recovered.

The Truth that is in the Heart

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the extraordinary integrity of Rabbi Safrah. His standard of honesty was so high, that even if he only resolved in his mind to make a sale at a certain price, he would stick with his inner resolution, despite the buyer revealing that he would be willing to pay more. This kind of practice is considered one of many ways that a person “speaks the truth in his heart.”

The idea of “speaking the truth in one’s heart” is based on a verse in Tehilim (15:2). The commentaries offer a number of other intriguing ways to fulfill the idea of speaking truth in one’s heart.

For example, Radak, on this verse warns against accepting things only on faith, as that cannot be a full truth in one’s heart. If one is not deeply convinced of something and does not allow for intellectual exploration and logical consideration, their belief can be shallow. He holds it is a responsibility of a religious person to not just believe, but to come up with reasons and rationale that support the belief and make it stronger.

There is an old argument amongst Jewish thinkers with some holding that simple faith is superior, while others, following the path of the Radak and other Spanish Rishonim maintain the importance of having knowledge that comes from intellectual conviction. The introduction to the Lev Tov edition of the Chovos Halevavos where you can find an anthology of different opinions and source materials throughout the ages.

Likkutei Halachos, CM, Laws of Theft (5:21, 51) understands the idea of “speaking truth in one heart” in a new and creative way. He says one of the reasons that tattoos are forbidden is because the idolaters would demonstrate their faith with ostentatious acts, such as tattooing demonstrations of faith on their body. This does seem to be an archetypal pattern of human behavior, witness the phenomenon of pop stars, enamored of Kabbalah, tattooing the Tetragrammaton on their bodies.

Additionally, nighttime is a period of fear and confusion. It represents when God is hidden. At night a person cannot navigate by what he readily sees and is apparent, so he must rely on intuition and inner wisdom. Symbolically, this is why morning and afternoon prayers were legislated as obligations, while the evening prayer was originally instituted as voluntary (see Berachos 27b, although the custom now is to treat it an obligation, see Mishna Berurah 106:4.) The idea of being, that the truth in the heart can only be arrived at intuitively by each person in their own way, and cannot be mandated in a uniform manner. This is why seeking God at night was not made into an obligatory prayer.

The idea that real truth is found by looking inward, and sensing in the heart, is reminiscent to Me of the quiet, still voice that God uses to manifest himself in Melachim (I:19:11-12):

“Come out,” He called, “and stand on the mountain before GOD.”And lo, GOD passed by. There was a great and mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks by GOD’s power; but GOD was not in the wind. After the wind—an earthquake; but GOD was not in the earthquake.

After the earthquake—fire; but GOD was not in the fire. And after the fire—a soft quiet sound.

Ironically, as we often find in Jewish philosophy, the very same texts are used to prove one point and its opposite by a different group. For example, here Likkutei Halachos uses the phrase “truth in the heart” to connote an intuitive truth found inside, not a logical and reasoning truth.

Is it Possible to be Forgiven by God Without Repentance?

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the moral obligation to be absolutely scrupulous when it comes to honest weights and measures. This obligation and prohibition extends to the degree that one is not even allowed to have an accurate measures around the house, despite using them for other purposes, with no intention to defraud anybody:

A person may not keep in his house a measure that is too small or too large, even if it is used as a chamber pot for urine.

Bas Ayin (Teztaveh) understands this prohibition metaphorically; the house is his internal chambers of the heart. His actions on the outside should mirror his beliefs on the inside. This is related to the principle of “speaking truth in one’s heart” that we saw in yesterday’s blog post, daf 88.

On the topic of being true to one’s heart, and we are in the month of Elul, I thought it would be good to discuss the common and difficult psychological sugya of repentance even when one knows he will sin again.

The three key components of repentance are (Rambam Laws of Repentance 1:1):

Confession
Expressing Regret
Resolve to not repeat the sin

Items one and two are generally possible, even when feeling conflicted, because most people regret their sins to an extent that they can be sincere in serious moments. However, how sincere can number three be, as when in regard to many sins of modern life, there is a strong likelihood that it will be willfully repeated, and not just by accident or under unusual temptation.

At first glance, the news is not good. Here is what the Rambam says about incomplete repentence (ibid 2:2-3):

וּמַה הִיא הַתְּשׁוּבָה. הוּא שֶׁיַּעֲזֹב הַחוֹטֵא חֶטְאוֹ וִיסִירוֹ מִמַּחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ וְיִגְמֹר בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֵׂהוּ עוֹד .וְצָרִיךְ לְהִתְוַדּוֹת בִּשְׂפָתָיו וְלוֹמַר עִנְיָנוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ:

What constitutes Teshuvah? That a sinner should abandon his sins and remove them from his thoughts, resolving in his heart, never to commit them again. Similarly, he must regret the past as [Jeremiah 31:18] states: “After I returned, I regretted.” … He must verbally confess and state these matters which he resolved in his heart.

כָּל הַמִּתְוַדֶּה בִּדְבָרִים וְלֹא גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לַעֲזֹב הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְטוֹבֵל וְשֶׁרֶץ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַטְּבִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּשְׁלִיךְ הַשֶּׁרֶץ

Anyone who verbalizes his confession without resolving in his heart to abandon [sin] can be compared to [a person] who immerses himself [in a mikvah] while [holding the carcass of] a lizard in his hand. His immersion will not be of avail until he casts away the carcass.

However, there is an intriguing dispute in the Gemara (Shavuous 13a) regarding whether Yom Kippur can effect forgiveness even without repentance:

דתניא רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר חוץ מפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ומפר ברית בבשר שאם עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר ואם לאו אין יום הכפורים מכפר

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented, or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. For these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone.

However, the Gemara (ibid) records the opinion of the Rabbis, that Yom Kippur does not bring about forgiveness without repentance. The halacha is in accordance with the majority, and so Yom Kippur does not provide forgiveness without repentance (see Rambam , ibid, 1:3 and Shulchan Aruch, OC, Ramah 607:6.)

And yet, this is not an open and shut case. To begin with, Ramah is verbose, perhaps hinting at another possibility, but not saying it outright so as not to encourage moral laziness. He states (ibid):

יוה”כ אינו מכפר אלא על השבים המאמינים בכפרתו אבל המבעט בו ומחשב בלבו מה מועיל לי יו”כ זה אינו מכפר לו: (רמב”ם פ”ג מהלכות שגגות):

Yom Kippur only atones for the repenters who believe in its (Yom Kippur’s) atonement. However, one who is contemptuous toward it and thinks to himself, “how can this Yom Kippur help me,” for such a person, Yom Kippur does not atone.

Ramah adds a number of clauses that Rambam did not say (even though he refers to him as the source of his ruling). He did not merely describe the person as not repenting, but added a specific disparaging attitude toward Yom Kippur in his description.

We might wonder, is the Ramah suggesting that ordinarily Yom Kippur has the power to effect forgiveness even without repentance, so long as the person at least believes in Yom Kippur. This might include a person who enters Yom Kippur in a penitent state of mind and attitude, even without doing proper repentance for each and every sin, because he is validating and activating the power of Yom Kippur, which brings about forgiveness broadly. The only person then who does not get the Yom Kippur amnesty is one who completely disregards and disrespects the day.

Rav Shlomo Kluger, in his sefer on the Days of Awe (Kehillas Yaakov) goes further, offering a number of creative ideas to argue that we can nowadays follow Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi’s position, that Yom Kippur achieves forgiveness without full repentance. Why is this so? We have a general rule of psak that in a situation of great duress we may follow the minority opinion (Mishna Eduyos 1:5 and Shu”t Ginas Veradim EH:Klall 2, Siman 1.) Since our generation is weak and unable to resolve fully not to sin, without the blanket forgiveness of Yom Kippur, all might be lost. Rav Kluger argues, what could be a greater duress than that?

I will conclude with a final argument from Rav Kluger (Kehillas Yaakov, Yom Hakippurim, Derush 34), a tour de force in creative halachic and legal gymnastics. We have a principle that if one prays for his friend and he is suffering from the same difficulty, God answers one’s own prayers first (Bava Kamma 92a). Therefore, if you pray on Yom Kippur for God to forgive the Jewish people, even if you have not made complete repentance, if God answers your prayers for your fellow Jews, then He will answer your request first, and so you will receive pardon.