Is Repentance a Precondition for Redemption? and More Bava Basra 114-117

114

Truth or Compassion

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the halachic legal principle of ein ed na’aseh dayan, one who acted as a witness in a particular matter cannot become a judge with regard to that same matter.

In the Yamim Noraim liturgy, in the famous Nesane Tokef prayer we say:

אמת כי אתה הוא דין ומוכיח ויודע ועד וכותב וחותם וסופר ומונה ותזכר כל הנשכחות ותפתח את ספר הזכרונות ומאליו יקרא וחותם יד כל אדם בו 

It is true that you are the one who judges, and reproves, who knows all, and bears witness, who inscribes, and seals, who reckons and enumerates. You remember all that is forgotten. You open the book of records, and from it, all shall be read. In it lies each person’s signature. 

Some commentaries raise an objection to this based on the above teaching. How can God both serve as the witness and the judge? Yetev Panim (Derush L’Shabbos Teshuva)  answers that the reason for this principle is because it is incumbent upon the judges to seek various mitigating reasons to argue for the person’s innocence. A witness that actually saw the crime would have difficulty doing that. Therefore, a witness cannot simultaneously offer testiony and serve as a judge. However, God, who is beyond any bias, is able to serve both roles at the same time. A different answer is given by Midrash Shmuel (Avos 4:28): This principle is in place in order to provide a system of checks and balances so that the earthly court would arrive at the truest possible outcome. However, since God knows the truth, such a system is unnecessary, and He can serve both as witness and judge.

It seems that the difference between these two answers is the focus. Is Hashem judging from a perspective of Middas Hadin (strict justice) or Middas Harachamim (mercy).   Yetev Panim speaks of God advocating on behalf of a person’s innocence, which is divine mercy, while Midrash Shmuel speaks of arriving at clarity and truth, which seems to be more about Middas Hadin. At this special time of the year, may our enemies be met with truth and justice and may we be granted divine mercy.

115

Standing on Ceremony

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the primacy of the father in the line of inheritance:

This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.

The idea of primacy of the father in the line of inheritance also has metaphysical implications. Bais Yaakov (Vayeshev 39:3 and Vayechi 65:1) explains this in light of redemption and the Davidic Dynasty. To understand this, we need to first explore the concept of Yibum, the Levirate marriage. Even a simple reading of the verse indicates that somehow or another the process of the brother marrying the childless brother’s widow allows for a continuation of the deceased brother’s name and legacy (Devarim 25:7). From a mystical perspective, this is considered a form of redemption, allowing the deceased brother to continue his incomplete spiritual mission that is symbolically represented by being childless. Perhaps even the children that will come from the second union will be a reincarnation of the deceased brother. However, something is notably different about the first biblical case of Levirate Marriage versus the situation described in Devarim. Yehuda, who marries Tamar, is not the brother of the deceased, but rather the father (Bereishis 38). What is the significance of this? Beis Yaakov says, loosely based on the principle described in our Gemara, the father is really the prime inheritor, and therefore it ought to be incumbent upon the father to carry on his childless son’s name. Nevertheless, the Torah, ordinarily, is compassionate, and sees it as impractical and awkward that a father should marry his daughter-in-law. Therefore, the obligation of the Levirate Marriage is passed onto the next of kin, the brothers. We must then return to the question of why was Yehuda’s case different? 

The answer is precisely because it represented an unusual lowering of status, the fact that Yehuda reduced his dignity in order to save the soul of his son. This mirrors the messianic redemption process whereby God, so to speak, will also lower Himself on behalf of His children in order to redeem them. Meaning to say, at the right time, despite the sin, the indignities and the undeservedness of the Jewish people, God nonetheless will be there to redeem us. Maaseh Avos Siman Lebanim, the actions of our patriarchs set precedent for the future. Yehuda’s compassionate, and selfless act to lower himself on behalf of his son’s soul, set the precedent for God to do the same in the future. This is the essence of the Messianic Davidic line. God is deeply with us in our exile and suffering, and one day will bring Himself and us out of it.

116

Repeated Trauma

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph, speaking from a strongly judgmental standpoint, reflects upon the possible implications of somebody who dies without having an heir, and what type of spiritual lacunae brought this situation about:

“God shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God” (Psalms 55:20), Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him.

Rabbenu Gershom notes: In point of fact, Rabbi Yochanan did not leave any surviving sons (all 10 died, see Berachos 5b). Rabbenu Gershom suggests that Rabbi Yochanan must be the opinion who stated that this deficiency is regarding one who does not leave behind students, as opposed to one who does not leave behind a son, because after all, he did not succeed in leaving behind a son. His exact words are, “Rabbi Yochanan would not have called himself wicked.“

If we take what Rabbenu Gershom says at face value, this is odd. We hold our sages to a high standard of integrity. If indeed, Rabbi Yochanan believed the dictum applied to one who did not have a son, he would not edit the statement and refigure it as applying to one who did not leave behind students. And, if for whatever reason, he believed the dictum applied to one who did not leave behind students, it would not be influenced by his own personal circumstances. However, this is not really a question because that is not what  Rabbenu Gershom  meant. What he meant was, if indeed Rabbi Yochanan had believed that he had this deficiency, he would not have resigned himself to it. Rather, he would have repented and done something to correct the situation. The fact that he did not take action other than mourn and grieve the loss of these children, shows that for whatever reason, and divine justice these losses represented to him, he did not necessarily believe that it involved the problem of being wicked or deficient. Therefore, we must deduce that he could only understand it as relating to a person who is deceased without leaving behind students.

This brings us to another fascinating fact about Rabbi Yochanan. When his prized talmid and study partner, Reish Lakish died, Rabbi Yochanan was so disconsolate that he went insane from grief (Bava Metzia 84a). I heard in the name of Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz that we see from here Rabbi Yochanan’s great love for Torah, and an inability to live without it. Despite the fact that he lost and robustly grieved for his sons (as described in Gemara Berachos 5b), it was only the loss of his study partner that drove him to the point of insanity.

I have a different thought regarding this same observation about the life of Rabbi Yochanan. It is well known in clinical studies of trauma, that repeated exposure to similar trauma makes a person more susceptible to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (See Breslau, Naomi & Chilcoat, Howard & Kessler, Ronald & Davis, Glenn. (1999). Previous Exposure to Trauma and PTSD Effects of Subsequent Trauma: Results From the Detroit Area Survey of Trauma. The American journal of psychiatry. 156. 902-7. 10.1176/ajp.156.6.902.)  Therefore, we might say it is not so much that Torah was more important to Rabbi Yochanan than his own children. Rather, it was the succession of repetitive severe losses that finally drove from over the edge.

117

Is Repentance a Precondition for Redemption 

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses how the Land of Israel was allocated to the incoming generation of Jews as they completed their wandering of forty years:

Rabbi Yoshiya says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, as it is stated: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55), which teaches that the Jewish people would inherit Eretz Yisrael according to the names of their fathers, i.e., those who left Egypt. 

Rabbi Yonasan says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance” (Numbers 26:53). But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55)? 

Ben Yehoyada explains this dispute to be based on the circumstances and manner in which the Jewish people merited the land of Israel. He says, God told Avraham that his children would be enslaved for 400 years (Bereishis 15:13). Yet, we have a tradition (as it states in the Haggadah) that God shortened the time, and the Jews left Egypt after 210 years (see Rashi Bereishis 15:13). On what basis was the term of servitude reduced? Ben Yehoyada conjectures that There are two possible reasons. Either the intensity and suffering of the servitude was so great that they essentially accomplished whatever needed to be accomplished spiritually in half the amount of time, or they merited the land of Israel as a result of the faith they showed during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Rabbi Yoshiya, who holds Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, is of the opinion that the Jews merited the land of Israel, as a result of the increased suffering in Egypt. That is why the land is allocated based on the Jews, who were part of the exodus. On the other hand, Rabbi Yonasan who holds Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael is of the opinion that the Jews merited the land of Israel due to their faith and endurance during their wanderings of 40 years.

I believe this parallels a discussion about the basis for the final redemption, when the Maschiach arrives. In a fine article written by Rav Gavriel Kadosh, he reviews the two possible circumstances under which the Messiah will arrive. First, we see it represented in narrative in the scripture:

It states in circumstances under which the Messiah will arrive. First, we see it represented in narrative in the scripture:

It states in. Devarim (30) that after going through the various afflictions of exile, the Jews will take it to heart and repent, and God will save them. However, it states in Yechezkel (36) a narrative that seems to be predicated, not on repentance first. Rather, God will reach out to the Jewish people and purify their hearts and give them a new spirit and purify them. This second narrative indicates that the Messiah can come not prompted by repentance, but rather by God, choosing, out of love and mercy to redeem us regardless. We mights say then that Rabbi Yoshia required suffering and repentance in order for the Jews to merit the Promised Land, while Rabbi Yonasan held that they can become elevated by God promoting them to a new level, as they experienced the revelations at the Red Sea, Mount Sinai and the Clouds of Glory.  

A similar discussion takes place in Gemara (Sanhedrin 97b) about whether repentance is necessary for redemption, or will God out of mercy bring the Jews out of exile, and it seems that the dialogue ends with the latter opinion. In fact, Ramban (Devarim 32:2) States this explicitly, that there is no precondition of repentance ultimately.

On the other hand, Rambam (Laws of Teshuva 7:5) is unequivocal in stating that the Jewish people will only be redeemed via repentance. We may say this is typical of Rambam’s overall philosophical perspective that there are no shortcuts for spiritual elevation, and good intentions alone do not achieve what needs to be achieved in order for the soul to reach immortality. There must be an actual intellectual apprehension of wisdom and consonance with God’s will in order for the soul to be redeemed. (This is a complex discussion, but I will provide some references for you to study further: See Rambam, Laws of Kings 8:11, and Rambam commentary on the Mishna, Makkos 3:16.) Regardless, there is an optimistic and uplifting way of understanding the Rambam’s position, even if on the surface of it, it seems harsher than that of the Ramban. A careful reading of the words show that though penitence is a precondition, there is a prophecy and a promise that the conditions will result in leading the Jewish people to that state, so that they will be redeemed. In other words, the survival of the Jewish people,and their repentance are an ironclad guarantee. So, one way or the other, God has our back.