English translation — אחרי ב

1.

In the Laws of Repentance the Rambam says¹

: The scapegoat atones for all sins of the Torah, the light and the severe,

whether one transgressed intentionally or whether one transgressed inadvertently,

whether it was made known to him or whether it was not made known to him, everything is atoned for by the scapegoat,

provided that he performed²

repentance,

but if he did not repent, the goat does not atone for him except for the light ones etc.

The Kesef Mishneh asks

(and more particularly — the Lechem Mishneh)

: In the Gemara³

it is - explained that this that the scapegoat atones without repentance is only according to Rabbi,

who holds that "for all sins of the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones",

meaning that according to Rabbi, Yom Kippur

(alone)

atones not only for light ones

(positive commandments and negative commandments)

but also for severe ones; in contrast, according to the Rabbis,

that Yom Kippur atones specifically with repentance,

it turns out that without repentance the scapegoat does not atone even for light ones.

And the Rambam rules like the Rabbis,

as he says in <b>the</b> halacha itself that the scapegoat atones

(for severe sins)

only when "he repented" — and so he rules in the halacha after this⁴

"And the essence of Yom Kippur atones <b>for those who repent</b>

(specifically)

" — and here the Rambam rules that the scapegoat atones for light sins without repentance?

From the commentators of the Rambam it is implied — and ostensibly so is the implication in the Gemara — that regarding the dispute of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda there is no difference between "scapegoat" and "the essence of the day"⁵

; from the rulings of the Rambam, however, it is implied,

that he distinguishes between them

(also when ruling like the Rabbis)

In the aforementioned halacha, the Rambam rules,

that the scapegoat atones for light [sins] &lt;b&gt;even without repentance&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in the halacha after this he says,

that "the essence of the Day of Atonement atones &lt;b&gt;for those who repent&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;

(specifically)

from the fact that he is general and does not distinguish between severe and light [sins] it implies simply that repentance is required also for light [sins],

by

(positive commandments and)

negative commandments that do not involve karet&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

— regarding the essence of the day.

So indeed,

that accordingly, the aforementioned difficulty is no longer so difficult — because according to the opinion of the Rabbis, "the essence of the day" in any case does not atone without repentance,

and nevertheless the goat indeed atones for light sins also without repentance&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— but it is still not understood, this very thing&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

: what is the reason for the distinction?

B.

Also one must understand the wording of the Rambam in the aforementioned halacha: "In this time¹⁰

that the Holy Temple does not exist and we have no altar of atonement <b>there is only</b> repentance,

repentance atones for all transgressions even etc." and he elaborates the halacha "and the essence of Yom Kippur atones for those who repent etc."

And at first glance,

since the Rambam emphasizes at the beginning of the halacha that "in this time etc. there is <b>only repentance</b>",

then how does it accord with what he says at the conclusion of the halacha "and the essence of Yom Kippur atones"?

In simple terms, one learns,

that with "beginning of the halacha and its end" the Rambam means two separate categories: with "in this time etc. there is nothing but teshuvah" his intention is that in this time there is no other manner of atonement through &lt;b&gt;action&lt;/b&gt; of man except through his doing teshuvah,

not as in the time of the Temple,

when the atonement comes through several other actions and things that atone — sin-offerings and guilt-offerings,

lashes and court-imposed deaths,

the scapegoat,

as the Rambam says in the previous halachos.

However, at the end of the halacha the Rambam speaks about that which Yom Kippur atones not

(through)

the action of man,

but from the aspect of the day itself — "&lt;b&gt;itself&lt;/b&gt; of the day of atonement atones".

And therefore the Rambam does not combine them together.

It is, however, not entirely smooth in the language of the Rambam — "&lt;b&gt;There is&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;nothing but&lt;/b&gt; repentance",

seemingly he should have said "&lt;b&gt;Man has&lt;/b&gt; nothing but repentance" and the like,

which would have brought out that there is no other atonement that a person can perform; the wording "&lt;b&gt;There is nothing&lt;/b&gt; but repentance" implies&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

that there is no other reality of atonement&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;?

3.

One will understand this by prefacing the change in the language of the Rambam regarding Yom Kippur — "And the essence of the day of Yom Kippur atones &lt;b&gt;for those who repent&lt;/b&gt;",

and he does not say "atones with repentance"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

and the like

(in the manner that he says regarding the scapegoat "and it is when he has repented").

And it can be said that with this the Rambam emphasizes the definition of the atonement of Yom Kippur and with what the atonement of Yom Kippur is different from the atonement of repentance,

What is being discussed in <b>the</b> halachah:

The atonement of repentance

(which in this chapter¹⁴)

is in relation to the object,

upon the sins — "Repentance atones <b>for all sins</b>"; and that which "the essence of Yom Kippur atones" is that

(not upon the sins,

but)

— "<b>for those who return</b>" — upon the person.

Now based on this it is understood that the Rambam begins the halacha "In this time etc. there is nothing except teshuvah" — and does not combine Yom Kippur with it: all these modes of atonement,

which the Rambam counts earlier,

speak about atonement for &lt;b&gt;sins&lt;/b&gt; — and this includes also the atonement of the scapegoat which "atones &lt;b&gt;for all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;sins&lt;/b&gt; of the Torah",

on the object; and in this the Rambam continues "in this time etc.",

that of the matters which atone for sins "there is nothing except teshuvah,

teshuvah atones for all &lt;b&gt;sins&lt;/b&gt;",

and consequently there is no place to combine with it the atonement of Yom Kippur,

which is not for sins but on the person.

(only in this time)

Even though also in the time of the Temple there is¹⁵

(according to several commentators¹⁶)

atonement for man from the aspect of "the essence of Yom Kippur atones",

it is however in the manner of like "within two hundred [zuz] includes one hundred [zuz]": in the time of the Temple the main atonement is through the scapegoat,

in a greater and stronger manner,

since the goat atones and nullifies the sins themselves; only "in this time when the Temple does not exist and we have no altar of atonement",

there remains from the atonement of Yom Kippur [that] "the essence of Yom Kippur atones".

4.

Based on this one can say,

that what the Rambam says "and the essence of Yom Kippur atones <b>for those who return</b>"

(in an unqualified manner)

— and not "atones with repentance"

(and the like)

— is because here his intention is not that a person does repentance for a specific sin,

on the "object"

(which repentance has specific definitions and conditions,

as the Rambam says in the chapter after this¹⁷

but rather that the person,

the subject,

is a "returner",

he returns himself in his entirety to God¹⁸.

: "Yom Kippur, nor the sin-offering, nor the guilt-offering atone except for &lt;b&gt;those who repent who believe in their atonement&lt;/b&gt; but those who spurn them do not atone&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

in it".

What from this that the Rambam says "those who repent &lt;b&gt;who&lt;/b&gt; believe in their atonement"

(not "&lt;b&gt;and who&lt;/b&gt; believe")&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

one may infer,

that by "those who repent"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

the Rambam does not mean a detailed level of repentance on the sins,

but a general movement of repentance,

which expresses itself in that he is not "spurning" and is "believing in their atonement"].

And in this consists the difference between the atonement of the scapegoat and the atonement of Yom Kippur,

that "the essence of Yom Kippur atones":

By the scapegoat,

since it effects the atonement "for all <b>sins</b> of the Torah"

"And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities etc." — as it says in the previous verse the language of the confession "And he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions for all their sins, and put them on the head of the goat"],

d.

h.

the scapegoat nullifies and wipes away the sins

(and in the language of our Sages²⁴

: "it whitens the iniquities of Israel"²⁵)

— it is required,

that together with the goat there should be the matter of repentance

("and he who did repentance")²⁶,

because specifically together with repentance on the sins is the goat able to atone "for all sins",

also severe ones.

But not so Yom Kippur, whose matter is to atone for <b>the man</b>,

the Most High forgives and atones for the <b>person</b>

(for the sins which he committed),

and in the language of the verse*²⁶

"For on this day he shall atone for you <b>to purify you</b> from all your sins <b>before</b> <b>the Lord you shall be purified</b>",

the atonement is "for you" that the Most High purifies the person himself —

(and as if it were said,

that "the essence of the day" effects,

that the Most High lifts out the person from the sins,

and not the opposite)

— it is not relevant that by the Jew the action of repentance should be directed upon the <b>sins</b> in a direct and detailed manner,

rather <b>he</b> should be a "returner" in his entirety²⁶

— "before the Lord",

that specifically then is "you shall be purified",

he has the atonement and purification of Yom Kippur.

But by a person there is not even any movement of "shav" — a turning to do oneself to the Above

he is "begging" and not "believing in his atonement",

as above in Hilchos Shgagos]

— then upon him the atonement of Yom Kippur does not apply.

And this is like <b> </b><b>u'v'd</b> "ein kategor na'aseh s'negor"²⁷.

And as the Rogatchover

explains the statement of Rava,

that even according to Rabbi — that "for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones" — but "Rabbi admits regarding karet of the day,"

that when it came upon him there was no affliction of Yom Kippur or he does work,

then for this Yom Kippur does not atone — because since the sin touches upon Yom Kippur itself,

in a way that Yom Kippur

(its negation)

becomes for the sinner a cause and factor for the sin,

it is therefore understood,

that the cause of the sin cannot be the atoner — an accuser cannot become a defender.

5.

And based on this it comes out,

that the dispute of Rabbi and the Rabbis is regarding the power and manner of atonement of Yom Kippur:

According to Rabbi, Yom Kippur has the power to atone for the object of the sins,

and precisely the language of Rabbi³⁰

"<b>For all transgressions</b> of the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones" — and therefore Yom Kippur atones for all sins except for kareit of that day

(and similarly "One who says, 'I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone'"³¹),

since³²

that in these cases Yom Kippur itself is connected,

as cause and factor,

with the object of <b>the sins</b> itself — and since in relation to the sins Yom Kippur is a prosecutor,

therefore "a prosecutor cannot become a defender."

But according to the Rabbis, Yom Kippur is not an atoner for the <b>transgressions</b> themselves,

but for the person,

and precisely the language of the baraita³³

(which the Gemara says³⁴

that this is according to Rabbi Yehuda

(the Rabbis))

"It might be thought that Yom Kippur atones <b>for those who repent</b> and for <b>those who do not repent</b>, etc." — and not

(as in the language of Rabbi)

"whether one repented or did not repent, etc." —

And therefore,

in order that Yom Kippur should atone for the person,

there must be with him the general condition of "return" as above,

so that the person should not be in contradiction and opposition to the atonement of Yom Kippur

(because if he does not want the atonement of Yom Kippur — he does not give a place for the actualization of the atonement of Yom Kippur).

<span>6.</span>

Based on this is also understood the difference between the atonement of the scapegoat and that which "the essence of Yom Kippur atones" — regarding light sins:

Since the scapegoat atones and nullifies the "sins" themselves,

it is understood,

there is in this a difference between the types of sin: by severe sins,

due to the severity of the sin,

the scapegoat does not have the power to atone alone&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

rather there must also be the action of repentance,

but by light sins the scapegoat indeed has the power to nullify them also without the action of repentance&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

But that "the day of Yom Kippur itself atones &lt;b&gt;for those who repent&lt;/b&gt;" specifically,

is not because regarding "those who do not repent" there is a weakness in the atoning power of Yom Kippur,

but because the person is "opposing" the atonement — since by him is lacking

(not only the action of repentance,

but)

even the general movement of "return" to God,

therefore it is altogether not applicable that the atonement should take effect upon him.

And for this reason there is in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; no difference between light and severe: here the quality of the substance of the sins is not relevant,

rather the state of the person,

that &lt;b&gt;he&lt;/b&gt; should not be in a state that contradicts and opposes the atonement,

as above&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

Based on all the above, we can sweeten the language of the Rambam in the aforementioned halacha in Hilchos Shegagos: "Yom Kippur etc. does not atone except for those who repent, who believe in its atonement, but one who kicks ...

on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him" — for at first glance:

In Hilchos Shegagos the Rambam speaks about the obligation of sacrifices,

d.

h.

in the time of the Temple — the Rambam should have, at first glance, said

(not in a general language "&lt;b&gt;Yom Kippur&lt;/b&gt; atones",

which the simple meaning is "the essence of Yom Kippur",

but)

explicitly "the &lt;b&gt;scapegoat&lt;/b&gt; etc."

(or the sacrifices of Yom Kippur and the like)

— because in the time of the Temple the main atonement is through the scapegoat

(and not "the essence of the day")&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on the above, it can be said: The essential definition of kicking applies in relation to Yom Kippur and not regarding the scapegoat.

Because the atonement through the scapegoat is not dependent on the particular individual; the confession of the High Priest upon the goat encompasses "&lt;b&gt;all the sins of the children of Israel&lt;/b&gt;",

and not as the sins are connected with a particular individual — and precisely the language of the Rambam "the scapegoat because it is an atonement for all of Israel"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

; and accordingly, from the perspective of the scapegoat itself, the entire matter of "kicking" that would nullify the atoning action of the goat regarding the sins would not be applicable at all

since they are a sacrifice — an atonement for the particular individual,

it is understood,

that through "kicking in their atonement"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

he contradicts and nullifies the atonement of the sin-offering and guilt-offering&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;].

That which it is indeed applicable that the matter of "kicking" should nullify the atonement of the scapegoat,

is only as a result of Yom Kippur*&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

: The atoning action of the goat is indeed not in the category of an independent atonement,

like a sin-offering and guilt-offering,

but because this is the goat of &lt;b&gt;Yom Kippur&lt;/b&gt;,

that "on this day he shall atone for you"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in the language of the Rashba&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

"the essential atonement of the scapegoat is due to the power of Yom Kippur" — and therefore,

if he kicks on Yom Kippur,

which is the "power" of the goat,

he thereby opposes and nullifies the atonement from the perspective of the goat&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;.

Specifically at the time when one is "believing in its atonement" of the day of Purim,

there is the atonement of the goat and it thereby atones for all the sins.

8.

The difference between the atonement of the goat that is sent away and the atonement of "the essence of the day" according to the inner dimension of the matters — it can be said:

Through every sin two things become: a)

Through the act of sin

(together with the desire therein)

a "prosecutor" is created⁴⁵,

it brings evil into the world

(in the language of Kabbalah and Chassidut: it adds vitality to the kelipah).

b)

It causes a blemish in the soul.

So in order to nullify the prosecutor

(the soul and body of the "kelipah"⁴⁶)

— this is done by the scapegoat⁴⁷,

which "atones <b>for all sins</b> of the Torah"

(and for severe sins also requires repentance with this — to nullify the pleasure that he had in committing the sin,

which generated the soul of the kelipah⁴⁶),

<b>And consequently</b> also the blemish that this caused in his soul is nullified.

This however that the essence of the day atones is this because it sets up the person in such a level that regarding it there is not the entire matter of the blemishes⁴⁸.

The explanation in this⁴⁹

On Yom Kippur, the essential bond of the essence of the soul with the Above is revealed among Jews.

That this bond has no measures and limitations upon itself and is above being able to express itself in any movement whatsoever,

even not in the movement of teshuvah.

And this connection cannot be created through actions and avodah — because all actions of people, however high they may be,

they still have some measure and limitation,

rather this exists in every Jew by nature⁵⁰,

from the aspect of his essence of the soul,

which is "a part of G-d from above literally"⁵¹,

and also now

(in the body)

it is "embraced and cleaving to You ..

yechidah to unify You"⁵².

Since the connection is above all measures and depictions,

just as it cannot be created through avodah,

so too one cannot weaken it or cause a blemish in it through lack of avodah or through sins.

In that level of connection, no blemishes and sins reach.

And therefore "the essence of the day of Yom Kippur atones",

because on Yom Kippur the bond of the essence of the soul with the Above is revealed in every Jew,

and at the time that the level is revealed,

all blemishes automatically fall away.

In those levels where sins have reached and have caused a blemish,

one must effect an atonement,

and this comes through the scapegoat combined with the work of repentance;

But the atonement of Yom Kippur comes through that which there shines such a level where from the outset there is no blemish,

as above — "&lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; the Lord you shall be purified."

(From the talk of the night of Hoshana Rabbah 5746)