English translation — יום הכיפורים

A.

At the end of tractate Yoma in the Yerushalmi, a dispute is brought¹

Regarding the confession of Yom Kippur: It was taught, one must specify his deeds

(During the confession, one must specify the sins that one has committed)

The words of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

the version is: ben Bava],

Rabbi Akiva says: One does not need to specify his deeds.

Afterward³

the Yerushalmi continues

(and thereby concludes the tractate)

: It is written⁴

Mikveh Yisrael is Hashem, etc.⁵

Just as the mikveh purifies the impure, so too the Holy One, blessed be He, purifies Israel, and likewise

says⁶,

And I will sprinkle upon you pure water, and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your idols I will purify you.

One must understand: What is the connection between these two matters — the dispute whether "one must specify his deeds" and the subsequent homily "It is written: Mikveh of Israel ..

Just as the mikveh purifies ..

So too

(He)

(He)

says: And I will sprinkle ..

I will purify you" —

Which the Yerushalmi brings consecutively?

Simply, one learns that the conclusion of the tractate "the verse 'a mikveh etc.'" is connected to the mishnah and comes here to conclude with a good thing.

(But this has no connection to the topic that is immediately adjacent before this.)

— But,

as has been said many times⁷

: since every matter in Torah is precise,

it is simpler to say,

that that which the Gemara concludes here specifically with <b>this </b>"good thing",

it is because it has a connection and link to that which is adjacent to it⁸.

In this conclusion itself one must understand:

The discourse "It is written: Mikveh of Israel etc." is,

as above,

brought in the <b>Mishnah</b>⁹,

And thus the language of the Mishnah: Rabbi Akiva said: Fortunate are you, Israel; before whom do you purify yourselves, and who purifies you? Your Father in Heaven, as it is said: "And I will sprinkle upon you pure water etc."¹⁰

And it says: "Mikveh of Israel is the Lord"; just as a mikveh purifies the impure, so too the Holy One, blessed be He, purifies Israel — but there are two differences

(essential)

in the language of the Gemara compared to the language of the Mishnah:

(a)

In the Gemara they bring the two verses in a <b>reversed</b> order than in the Mishnah¹¹.

(b)

In the Mishnah only the beginning of the verse is brought: “And I will sprinkle upon you pure water”

(and the end of the verse is hinted at with an “etc.”),

whereas in the Gemara the entire verse is quoted.

From the fact that the Gemara is different from the language of the Mishnah, it is understood,

that in the Gemara’s exposition there is a meaning different from that in the Mishnah — one must understand: What is the difference in this between the Mishnah and the Gemara?

And one must say,

that the reason for the change in the exposition of the Gemara is connected with that which in the Gemara it comes in continuation to the dispute whether "one must specify his deeds."

B.

And with a prior explanation of the reason for the dispute,

whether "one must specify his deeds" or "one need not specify his deeds":

The Gemara brings on the verses: The one who says "one must specify his deeds" learns it

from the verse

"Please, this people has committed a great sin and they have made for themselves gods of gold,"

and Rabbi Akiva says "one need not, as it is stated

Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered."

But for the most part it is not a decree of the verse; and furthermore it can be said,

that as in many places similar to this,

the dispute in the exposition of the verses is connected with a dispute in logic.

Tosafos&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

explains their dispute

(according to a Yerushalmi&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;)

: the reason of the one who says "one must specify his deeds" is "because of shame ..

so that he be ashamed of his sins"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

; and the one who holds "he need not" is so that "they should not suspect him of other transgressions."

And one may say,

that the rationale of the dispute in this very matter — whether the reason of shame prevails or the reason of suspicion — is:

The concept of "he will be ashamed of his sins" pertains to the present to the &lt;b&gt;teshuvah itself&lt;/b&gt;: at the time when he has the feeling of great shame over his sin,

his regret over the past and good acceptance for the future is deeper and more truthful.

In contrast, the "loss" that comes out of suspicion — "that they should not suspect him of other sins" — pertains mainly to the &lt;b&gt;future&lt;/b&gt;,

loss of trustworthiness&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

and the like

(and perhaps

It is explained that when one suspects him of other sins,

it could be,

that one will sometimes throw this up to him,

and this is like the prohibition to say to a baal teshuvah "Remember your earlier deeds"¹⁹).

And based on this, a great dispute depends on the well-known question²⁰

— whether one must consider and decide in the present with a situation that will

(or can)

be in the future:

The posuk says that "one must detail his sins" holds,

that since the detailing of the sin pertains to the <b>teshuvah itself</b>

that it should be deeper and more truthful — one does not take into account the concern for the future;

However, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is

(as discussed once at length²¹),

that one must take into account the future

(he saw in every matter immediately

(in the present),

(in the present)

the consequences for the future²²)

— and therefore,

even though from the perspective of the present situation the detailing of the sin would bring to a deeper teshuvah,

one must be concerned about the loss that will result from this in the future.

3.

According to the explanation in the view of Rebbi Akiva, a practical difference emerges,

that that which one must specify his deeds is specifically aloud

(when another can hear),

but in a whisper, even Rebbi Akiva admits that one must specify his deeds²³.

But from the unqualified language of Rebbi Akiva it is implied that even in a whisper one need not specify his deeds²⁴.

And one must say an explanation in the method of Rebbi Akiva — which also it is connected with the method of Rebbi Akiva that the future decides the present:

There are several levels in teshuvah,

which in general divide themselves into two levels

(in the language of the Talmud²⁵)

— teshuvah from fear and teshuvah from love.

And one must say,

that the above-mentioned matter,

whether it needs to be specification of the sin,

is dependent on the difference between the two modes of repentance:

By repentance from fear it is appropriate to say,

that <b>one must </b>specify his deeds.

Because since his repentance is "from fear" — in order to protect himself from a punishment

(or because of receiving reward)²⁶

— there is indeed a difference regarding which sin he repents: the fear of a severe sin for which a great punishment comes is not comparable to the fear of a light sin for which comes a

Smaller punishment.

And therefore "he must specify his deeds" — because if he does &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;specify the sin,

there is lacking in the fear the feeling of the severity of the sin,

and consequently his regret is not complete.

But not so by repentance &lt;b&gt;out of love &lt;/b&gt;— in which he does not think about his punishment,

rather he is concerned with his love and &lt;b&gt;attachment &lt;/b&gt;to the Most High&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

— there is no

(so)

difference regarding which transgression it is about.

For in that point all transgressions are equal,

light ones as severe ones; through every transgression,

even a very light one,

one becomes separated

(opposite of love)

from the Most High&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore "he does not need to specify his deeds" — because in this&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

there is no benefit&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

from &lt;b&gt;specifying &lt;/b&gt;the sin.

4.

Based on this, one can explain the dispute between R' Yehuda ben Beteira and R' Akiva,

And with an introduction:

As discussed at length once³¹,

In all the modes of repentance, the same <b>point</b> of the content³² is.

Even the lowest mode in repentance,

its essence is

(as its name)

— that the person returns to the Almighty.

And this is the essence

The revelation of repentance from love that a Jew does repentance in order to be attached to the Most High.

But repentance only from the aspect of fear of being punished,

it is from the aspect of the concealment of the evil inclination,

"His inclination overpowered him"³³

and its nullification,

but the innerness also of that repentance — is that his soul returns to the Most High.

And therefore: according to the view of Rabbi Akiva,

that the future decides the present — Rabbi Akiva "sees" in the present its innerness,

which will emerge in the future²²

— he sees also the innerness of the matter of repentance,

that even though one is still at the low level of repentance

( — from fear),

it is "in potential" and in innerness already a matter of repentance from love

(in which it is not

(so)

relevant regarding which transgression it speaks*³³,

as above).

And therefore he holds that one need not specify one's sins,

as above.

ה.

According to the explanation in the view of Rabbi Akiva — that what he holds that "one does not need to specify his sins" is connected to his view that the future decides the present — one can explain another matter in this regard:

The Rambam³⁴

rules "and one needs to specify the sin,"

which is not like the view of Rabbi Akiva.

The commentators ask³⁵

: There is a principle³⁶

that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva against his colleague — why does the Rambam not rule like Rabbi Akiva?

answers the Kesef Mishneh

: because in the Gemara

(in Bavli)

is brought a statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: "It is written

Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, and it is written

He who covers his sins will not prosper,

it is not difficult: this is for a publicized sin, this is for a sin that is not publicized" — which the statement can accord only with the view of Rabbi Yehudah bar Bava

(that one must specify the sin),

because "for Rabbi Akiva, even a publicized one also not" — therefore "since Rav holds like him, so we rule".

So according to this explanation it turns out,

that according to the view of the Yerushalmi — where the aforementioned statement of Rav is <b>not</b> brought — the halakhah is like Rabbi Akiva

(for the halakhah is like Rabbi Akiva against his colleague)

And according to the above, the reason for the dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is understood,

whether the halacha is like R. Akiva or not — because,

as discussed several times⁴²

: one finds in several places that the method of the Bavli is that the present determines the future,

and according to the method of the Yerushalmi, one already reckons in the present with the situation that will be in the future.

The Babylonian Talmud is called "in darkness"⁴³

— because the order of study in the Bavli is like one who finds himself in darkness.

And one arrives at the conclusion through a give-and-take and questions etc.,

which conceal the truth; unlike in the Yerushalmi, it is like one who finds himself in a state of "light" — there is no abundance of give-and-take,

one sees immediately the correct conclusion.

And therefore⁴⁴

: in the Bavli — a state of "darkness" — one deals primarily with the present situation and not with the future,

because the future is concealed,

it is not seen in

(the "darkness" of)

the present; unlike in the Yerushalmi where everything is "light" — one already sees in the present also the future,

and consequently the future decides the present].

And likewise in our matter: according to the Bavli,

that the present decides,

one rules the halacha like R' Yehuda ben Bava that one must specify the sin; but according to the method of the Yerushalmi,

that the future decides the present,

then the halacha is like R' Akiva that "one need not specify his deeds".

6.

Based on all the above one will also understand the conclusion of tractate Yoma

(in the Yerushalmi)

— "It is written: 'The hope of Israel is the Lord, etc.' and likewise

(He)

says: 'And I will sprinkle, etc., I will purify you'"

(and its connection to the dispute whether one must specify his deeds)

The difference between the two verses — "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" and "And I will sprinkle

upon you clean water etc." — one can explain

(Based on the commentary of several commentators⁴⁵)

"And I will sprinkle upon you" is the assistance from Above for a Jew that he should repent — "The Holy One, blessed be He, awakens their hearts to repentance"

; "The hope of Israel is the Lord" points to the repentance that the Jew does

(Just as purification in a mikveh,

he shall come into water,

one goes to immerse oneself in a mikveh).

And accordingly, the order in the Mishnah is understood — first he brings the verse "And I will sprinkle upon you, etc." and afterwards "The hope of Israel is the Lord" — because this is the order of repentance:

Before he does teshuvah he is &lt;b&gt;distant&lt;/b&gt; from the Above, your sins separate&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

His sins separate between him and the Above — in such a state he is not so connected that he should become aroused by himself in teshuvah.

So the order in this,

That this begins from the side of the assistance from Above — "&lt;b&gt;And I will sprinkle upon you &lt;/b&gt;pure waters": The Above casts into a Jew from above thoughts of teshuvah&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

But the intention in this is not that he should remain only with the teshuvah that comes to him from above,

Rather that this should bring him to &lt;b&gt;toil&lt;/b&gt; by himself for his purification.

And this is what the Mishnah continues "and says, the hope of Israel is the Lord",

Which this is the purification through a mikveh that comes through his own service.

And based on this it is understandable why the Mishnah cites

(in the first verse)

only the words "And I will sprinkle upon you pure waters" and <b>not</b> the words "and you will be purified, etc." — because the emphasis in the first verse is on the awakening <b>from above</b>

("And I will sprinkle"),

and not so on "and you will be purified, etc."⁵⁰,

which relates primarily to the purification of Jews⁵¹.

The matter — that he must purify himself — is stated in the "and says <b>Mikvah</b> of Israel, the Lord".

7.

From this it is understandable,

that that which the Gemara reverses the order of the verses,

is a change in content:

In the Mishnah it speaks about the "Vezarakti" that comes before a person begins to do teshuvah; but in the Gemara,

where the verse "Vezarakti etc." is brought <b>after</b> the verse of "Mikveh Yisrael Hashem" and its effect,

one must say,

that the "Vezarakti" is also a matter in the <b>service of teshuvah</b> of the person

also "<b>Vetihartem</b> etc." which emphasizes the service of teshuvah of the Jew].

And on the contrary — this is an even <b>higher</b> teshuvah than the teshuvah of "Mikveh Yisrael" by itself,

which is why it is brought after "Mikveh Yisrael".

And one may say the explanation in this: "Vezarakti" means the purification through <b>sprinkling</b>⁵²,

which is connected specifically with living waters — the highest matter of purification

(which has the power to purify from impurity of the dead).

And this is what the Gemara hints: after the way a Jew does his service as much as he can do in his own service

(repentance in the manner of

immersion in a mikveh)

— raises the Most High a Jew to the highest perfection in repentance

(which is in the manner of the purification of "And I will sprinkle",

living waters).

And this is the connection of the matter to the dispute before this: Earlier the Gemara brings the dispute between R' Yehuda ben Beteira and R' Akiva whether one must specify his actions — what R' Akiva's opinion in this is

(as above sec. 4),

that since in every repentance,

even in the lowest level of repentance,

there is potentially the highest level of repentance,

repentance out of love,

there is no need for any specification of the sin.

And to bring out the matter, the Gemara brings the exposition "It is written 'Mikveh of Israel etc.' &lt;b&gt;And &lt;/b&gt;

(He)

says 'And I will sprinkle upon you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your abominations I will purify you',"

from which one sees,

that from the beginning of the service of repentance,

one reaches &lt;b&gt;the completeness &lt;/b&gt;of repentance — "And I will sprinkle etc."

Because in pnimiyus all the aspects of teshuvah are one matter — to return to Hashem.

13 Tishrei 5742)