English translation — בחוקותי ב

A.

In the verses in our parshah,

at the end of the rebuke,

it is said¹

: and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers etc. and I will bring them into the land of their enemies, or then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled and then they will make amends for their iniquity.

And in the next verse²

: and I will remember My covenant with Jacob etc.

The commentators ask³

: since it will be "and they shall confess their iniquity etc." — repentance,

how does it follow that "and I will bring them into the land of their enemies" comes <b>after</b> this,

i.e.,

i.e.,

that <b>this</b> brings punishments upon them?

Seemingly it should have stood <b>immediately</b> after "and they shall confess etc." "and I will remember My covenant etc."

Commentators answer on this various answers.

One must however understand: this is after all a question according to the plain meaning of Scripture,

and one does not find that Rashi should address it,

answer the question.

At first glance one could answer: on "and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers" it says in Torat Kohanim: "toward repentance are these words, that as soon as they confess their iniquities, immediately I return and have mercy on them, as it is said 'and they shall confess' etc."

And afterwards,

on the verse "and I will bring them into the land of their enemies" says the Torat Kohanim: "this is a good quality for Israel, that Israel should not say: since we have been exiled among the nations of the world, we will do as their deeds,

I will not leave them but

I place My prophets upon them and return them to the good under My wings.

They explain⁴

explaining,

that with this the Toras Kohanim answers the aforementioned question — how does "And I will bring them into the land of their enemies" fit after "And they will confess etc.",

which "regarding the aspect of repentance is said"⁵,

that "And I will bring etc." is

(not as it would appear from the simple meaning of the verse's language — a "curse and punishment",

but)

"a good designation and a good quality for Israel".

And since that &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; brings the explanation of Toras Kohanim on the verse "And I will bring etc." — "this is a good quality for Israel that they should not say etc. I will not leave them etc. and return them under the wings" — it turns out,

that Rashi thereby addresses the aforementioned question.

But it is a great difficulty to say that this

(to answer the aforementioned question)

is Rashi's intention with this explanation,

because

(in addition to this that according to this Rashi would have also needed to explain the &lt;b&gt;previous&lt;/b&gt; words in the verse "I too will walk with them in keri" and say how this is a "good quality for Israel"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;,

is)

from this Rashi

On "והבאתי" itself it is proven &lt;b&gt;to the contrary&lt;/b&gt;: Rashi brings a proof

(that "I will not abandon them but I will stand My prophets and bring them back etc.")

from the verses "והעולה על רוחכם גו׳ if not with a &lt;b&gt;strong&lt;/b&gt; hand etc."&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;,

from which it is understood that before "והבאתי גו׳" comes there was &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; any matter of repentance

(and therefore a "strong hand" is required).

Even more: here itself the verse continues "

(והבאתי גו׳)

&lt;b&gt;then&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;their&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;uncircumcised&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;heart&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;will be humbled&lt;/b&gt;",

i.e.

that

that only "then" — after "והבאתי גו׳" — will be "their uncircumcised heart will be humbled"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

the matter of repentance.

One can therefore not learn in the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning&lt;/b&gt; of Scripture,

that "והבאתי גו׳" is a "good promise" &lt;b&gt;reward&lt;/b&gt; for the &lt;b&gt;preceding&lt;/b&gt; "והתודו גו׳" — repentance.

And the question returns to its place: since already earlier there was "and they will confess their iniquity etc.",

why should afterwards come "I also will walk with them in casualness and I will bring them etc."?

And "then" — only afterwards — "their uncircumcised heart will be humbled"¹⁰?

B.

One will understand this by prefacing the general distinction between the commentaries of Torat Kohanim and Rashi on the verses:

In Toras Kohanim,

both on the verse "And they will confess etc." and on the verse "Then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled",

he <b>prefaces</b> "these words are on the side of repentance".

D.

E.

So here it speaks that Jews have <b>already</b> done repentance.

But <b>Rashi</b> does not bring down from Toras Kohanim the matter "these words are on the side of repentance".

On the other hand,

on the words "Then they will accept their iniquity" Rashi <b>adds</b>: "<b>they will atone</b> for their iniquity <b>through their sufferings</b>".

Which this is not in Toras Kohanim; after the explanation in "their uncircumcised heart will be humbled" — "these words are on the side of repentance" — the Toras Kohanim elaborates that after their repentance "I return and have mercy on them, as it is said 'Or then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled and then they will accept their iniquity'".

From the above diyukim one sees that according to Toras Kohanim there was teshuvah; but according to Rashi — the simple meaning of the verse — there was not yet any teshuvah.

And therefore Rashi must add,

that the atonement for the sins comes "through their sufferings",

because the Jews did not do teshuvah.

One must understand: what is the necessity in the simple meaning of the verse to learn

(not like Toras Kohanim,

that the Jews did not do teshuvah.

And superficially,

the verse

It says "and they will confess etc. that &lt;b&gt;their&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;uncircumcised&lt;/b&gt; heart &lt;b&gt;will be humbled&lt;/b&gt;" — so why does Rashi say that the atonement for their sins is

(not because they repented,

but)

but)

"&lt;b&gt;by&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;suffering&lt;/b&gt;"?

3.

And one could say,

that Rashi learns it from the fact that immediately after "then they will be reconciled for their iniquity" it says — "and I will remember My covenant with Jacob etc.",

that through &lt;b&gt;and I will remember&lt;/b&gt; the redemption will come

(as &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; explains that in the words "and I will remember My covenant with Jacob" it is hinted that Elijah will come and announce "the redemption of his children").

At first glance it is not understood: Since the "they will appease their iniquity" has already occurred — Jews have already received atonement for their iniquity — why do they need to come to the merit of the patriarchs in order to merit the redemption?

And especially as Rashi elaborates on how much one needs to come to their merit — "And if

(Jacob)

is not worthy, behold Isaac is with him, and if he is not worthy, behold Abraham is with him"¹²,

i.e.,

that is,

that it could be that the merit of one of the patriarchs is not sufficient,

but one will need to come to the merit of all three <b>together</b> — then it is certainly difficult: If even Jews need to come to the merit of the patriarchs,

why should there be a possibility that the merit of Jacob alone is not enough,

when Jews already have no iniquities?

In Or HaChaim¹³

it stands: "The confession will help

to ease from them the evil decrees but to return them to their place¹⁴

requires merit of the fathers".

But this itself requires explanation: the entire — and singular — cause for exile is — the sins

(And because of our sins we were exiled from our land),

and as it stands at the beginning of the rebuke¹⁵

: And if you will not listen to Me, etc.,

it is understood from this,

that immediately when the cause of the exile — "their sin" — is nullified,

must <b>automatically</b> be nullified the effect,

the exile,

and the redemption comes.

Now since here it was "And they will confess etc. <b>pay</b> their sin" — why must one come to "And I will remember etc." in order to merit the redemption?

4.

From this Rashi proves,

that although here the “they will find favor with their iniquity” arose — but among the Jews themselves there was no change.

It is only that "they will atone for their iniquity <b>through their sufferings</b>",

but not that they themselves changed¹⁶.

And therefore Rashi says on "then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled"

(not as in Toras Kohanim that this is a matter of repentance,

but)

that this is a continuation of "and I will bring etc.",

which <b>Rashi</b> explains

(as above)

that this is a conduct

&lt;b&gt;From above&lt;/b&gt; in a manner of "with a &lt;b&gt;strong hand&lt;/b&gt; I will reign over you",

From the aspect of the "strong hand" "their uncircumcised heart will be humbled": the sufferings etc. break the heart.

But this is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a matter of repentance.

And therefore one must arrive at remembering the covenant of the fathers: in order to merit redemption

(it is not enough to remove the iniquities through their sufferings,

but)

Jews must be changed.

Exile and redemption are two opposite states,

And in the language of the verse: in the time of exile there is a conduct of "I will walk with you in casualness"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not so in the time of redemption it is "and I will turn to you",

"and I will place My dwelling in your midst..

and I will walk in your midst"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

— revelation and illumination of the face from the Most High.

Therefore it is not enough to wipe away the sins,

rather there must be a change among Jews,

they should be ready for the opposite state of redemption.

And since here there was only "they will atone for their sin <b>with</b> <b>their</b>" — how will Jews come to the redemption?

So the verse continues and explains "And I will remember My covenant with Jacob etc." — this will come from the covenant that the Almighty made with the Patriarchs.

Since there is a <b>cutting</b> of a <b>covenant</b> with the <b>Patriarchs</b>,

the Almighty fulfills His promise with their <b>children</b>,

not looking at their status and situation

(from themselves).

5.

According to all the above it is also understood why Rashi does not need to explain how the "I too" fits

These etc. "And I will bring them etc." after "And they will confess their iniquity etc.":

Just as "their uncircumcised heart will be humbled" is not a matter of repentance

(according to Rashi)

as above,

but a result of the "strong hand" with which the Almighty rules over Jews "in the land of their enemies",

similarly regarding "and they will confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers",

that this is not a matter of confession that comes together with repentance,

but this is a continuation of the previous verse: at the time when there will be a situation of "they will rot in their iniquity etc. and also in the iniquities of their fathers"¹⁹,

it will bring about that Jews will confess regarding "their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers".

D.

E.

The confession is not an expression of their desire for repentance,

but rather as they feel "their sufferings" the pains of their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers,

they admit that their iniquity was not <b>worthwhile</b>,

but not that it was a sin

(a creeping thing).

And as the Kli Yakar²⁰

explains,

that even after the confession they remain "in their trespass which they trespassed against Me",

the confession is "like one who immerses while holding a reptile in his hand".

6.

But this is not yet smooth:

As mentioned earlier,

Rashi explains the verse "והבאתי אותם" that "this is a &lt;b&gt;good&lt;/b&gt; measure for Israel",

and from the fact that this comes immediately after "והתודו את עונם etc." it is understood,

that the "good measure for Israel" comes as a result of "והתודו".

It is not understood: if one would say that the confession is a result of the sufferings of the exile

But there is no repentance involved — as the Kli Yakar says "like one who immerses while holding a reptile" — why should this bring about "and I will bring them...

this is a good quality for Israel"?

One must say,

that although the confession is not a matter of repentance,

it is nevertheless a good matter that causes the Almighty to conduct Himself with Jews in a manner of the good quality of "bringing them back under the wings [of the Shechinah]".

7.

This will be understood by prefacing the explanation in the matter of viduy according to the halachah — that one finds several details in the definition of viduy:

At the beginning of Hilchos Teshuvah²¹

the Rambam rules "When one does teshuvah and returns from his sin, he is obligated to confess",

The viduy comes specifically after the person has already done teshuvah.

And as the Rambam explains in the following chapter²²,

that the matter of viduy is,

that he says out with his lips "these matters that he resolved in his heart".

4.

First there must be teshuvah, whose essence is "and he resolves in his heart not to do it again ..

he regrets the past etc."²³,

and afterwards these resolutions of the heart

("these matters that he resolved in his heart")

are brought out in speech through viduy.

In Chinuch²⁴,

in the explanation "Roots of the Mitzvah" of Viduy,

he gives a second aspect in Viduy: "Also <b>through</b> the mention of the sin in detail <b>he will be consoled</b> over it and will be more careful from it another <b>time</b>" — d.

5.

The Viduy helps for the <b>subsequent</b> Teshuvah.

And one may say,

that from the aspect of <b>that</b> aspect in Viduy,

there is a place for the aspect of Viduy even before one does <b>complete</b> Teshuvah in his heart,

because the Viduy itself will bring him to "he will be consoled over it".

And in the manner that the Rambam explains in Hilchos Taaniyos²⁵

the content and purpose of the four fasts,

and this is his language: "There are days on which all of Israel fast because of the troubles that occurred on them <b>in order</b> to awaken the hearts to open the ways of Teshuvah and this will be a remembrance of our evil deeds and the deeds of our fathers which were like our deeds now until it caused them and us those troubles,

that through remembrance of these things <b>we will return</b> <b>to do good</b> as it is said 'and they will confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers etc.'"

d.

h.

h.

That the "remembrance of these things" itself — the reminding oneself of that which "our evil deeds and the deeds of our fathers" caused "those troubles" — will bring to "we will return to do good".

And similarly, there is a manner of confession that comes before one does repentance,

that the purpose of this confession is,

that through it there should be "we will return to do good."

8.

But there is yet another manner of confession

(before repentance),

which is — as the Rambam says in Hilchos Teshuvah²⁶

— "who confesses verbally and does not finish

"to leave in his heart" and such a confession the Rambam compares to "one who immerses while holding a reptile in his hand".

At first glance it appears,

that such a confession is entirely not within the category of confession.

Because since the matter of confession is

(as the Rambam says right before this,

at the end of the previous halacha)

"to confess with his lips and to say these matters that he resolved in his heart",

it must therefore follow that if there is no "resolution in his heart" then there is also not the entire category of confession.

But according to this it is not understood what the Rambam gives as the example of "one who immerses and a reptile is in his hand": if the whole matter of confession is not present,

it is then similar not to one who is "immersing

(but this is in the manner of)

and a reptile is in his hand",

but to one who altogether did not*²⁶

have any immersion²⁷

From this one sees,

that the essential matter of confession — saying in speech that one has committed a sin — even when there is not yet the resolve in the heart to abandon the sin,

is this itself a good matter — it is comparable to the matter of immersion,

which is an action that has the power to effect purity; the deficiency is only,

that

At the time of "he did not resolve in his heart to abandon" the confession is in the manner of "and the reptile is in his hand"

(In his heart he has a connection with the sin,

he still holds onto the "impurity"),

therefore he cannot become pure "until he casts away the reptile",

until he resolves in his heart etc.

9.

The explanation of this:

The concept of speech has in itself several qualities:

a)

Speech brings out,

reveals the matters which are found inside within his heart and thought of man.

b)

Speech has the property to evoke

(an addition)

awakening in the subject and content of the discussion

(as it is stated in the books²⁸,

that when someone is angry he should not speak at that time,

because through speech the anger becomes even more strengthened).

c)

When someone speaks out in speech a matter that is opposite from what he feels and holds in his heart inwardly,

then he feels at the moment a feeling of unease until a feeling of shame.

Because although speaking is only an external matter,

however, since a person is in his essence a "speaker"

(as explained in many places²⁹),

therefore it is necessarily that a matter which he brings out in speech should affect him and therefore it makes him "uncomfortable" when he says something that is in contradiction to what he feels in his heart.

Yud.

Regarding this, there are these three matters in the matter of viduy

(in the discourse³⁰)

The primary obligation of viduy is,

as above in the Rambam: "to confess with his lips and say these matters that he concluded in his heart" — the speech should bring out in the open the repentance in the heart.

And as the Chinuch³¹

explains this at greater length: "Because by confession of the sin with the mouth, the thought and knowledge of the sinner is revealed, that he truly believes that it is revealed and known before G-d, blessed be He, all his deeds, etc."

A second matter in viduy is,

that the viduy itself³²,

even before he makes the final resolution in his heart to abandon the sin,

awakens in him the feeling of teshuvah,

and as above,

that speech arouses the feeling of the heart³³.

A third matter in viduy is,

that the viduy itself is an "action" of teshuvah³⁴

: saying in speech "Ana Hashem chatati aviti pashati lefanecha ve'asiti kach vechach veharei nichamti uvoshti bema'asai ule'olam eini chozer ladavar hazeh"³⁵

(and the like),

even if at that time it is still "he did not finish in his heart to leave",

it nevertheless does affect at the time of action in a person,

he feels a feeling of shame about the past,

(also about that which his speech is not in accordance with his feeling in the heart).

Therefore the viduy is considered like an act of <b>immersion³⁶</b>

(which is — in general — purifying from impurity).

11.

According to all the above, it is also understandable that according to Rashi, the "והִתְוַדּוּ" is not a matter of repentance

(and the atonement for sins is "through their sufferings")

— and as the Kli Yakar says

(as above)

that the confession is "like one who immerses while holding a reptile in his hand" — nevertheless,

it has in itself a benefit,

that the one brings it to "וַהֲבֵאתִי etc.",

"this is a &lt;b&gt;good&lt;/b&gt; measure for Israel etc. and returns them under the wings".

Because the very essence of the confession,

even without a feeling of repentance in the heart,

is analogous to the matter of immersion.

And therefore&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

as a result of this,

the Almighty conducts Himself with Jews in a manner of the attribute of goodness,

is "returns them under the wings".

12.

Based on what was explained above — that in confession there are several levels and that the primary obligation of confession is the first aspect of it,

"to confess with his lips and to say these matters that he resolved in his heart"

(and not

(so)

the other aspects in confession that do not come together with repentance in the heart)

— one can also explain a puzzling matter in the Book of Commandments of the Rambam:

In the commandment of confession, the Rambam brings³⁸

from the Mechilta³⁹

: One might think that when they bring

(an offering)

they confess, and when they do not bring they do not confess,

the verse states*³⁹

Speak to the children of Israel and they shall confess,

And still one might understand confession only in the land; from where [to include] even in exile?

The verse states: "and they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers."

It is not understood: Granted, that which there is a difficulty that viduy is only when one brings a sacrifice is understood,

as the Rambam explains there beforehand: "And because this commandment came, that 'and they shall confess' with the obligation of the sacrifice, it would arise in thought that viduy alone is not a commandment in itself but it is

among the things that follow after the sacrifice,

it was necessary that they explained this in the Mechilta"⁴⁰.

But it is not understandable: How will it be a difficulty that viduy is only in Eretz Yisrael, that one needs a special teaching that there is viduy also in exile?

The Chinuch⁴¹

explains this: And still I would say that viduy is only in the Land,

that is to say, even though they confess without a sacrifice, nevertheless one would not be obligated in viduy except in the Land,

for there is the main atonement and there are the sacrifices and the main thing is all there.

But the explanation requires elucidation: The mitzvah of teshuvah and the mitzvah of viduy are indeed an obligation of &lt;b&gt;the body&lt;/b&gt; in all times — so what is the difference here that in Eretz Yisrael "the essence of atonement and the name of the sacrifices"?

And based on the above, one can explain it: Since the definition of the obligation of viduy is the expression and revelation of that which "he resolved in his heart,"

there would be a possibility,

that in exile,

where it can be that the viduy is not entirely from the teshuvah in the person's heart,

but rather mixed into it is the pain of the sufferings of exile,

i.

e.

that what causes his viduy — the exile,

the sufferings of exile,

it consequently turns out that this is not the concept of viduy as an expression of the teshuvah in the heart,

but rather &lt;b&gt;in the manner&lt;/b&gt; of the second and third ways mentioned above,

one can therefore think that such a manner of viduy is not an obligation.

One learns from the verse "And they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers" that also the confession of exile

(even though thereby there is not the "resolution in the heart" with completeness,

because the repentance comes primarily from the sufferings of exile),

nevertheless, also for such a confession there is an obligation

(to add it with repentance).

13.

Based on this — that the general matter of repentance in exile

(which comes from the sufferings of exile)

is not the matter of repentance in its completeness — one will also have an explanation why one must come to "And I will remember etc." also according to the commentators that "And they shall confess etc. when their uncircumcised heart is humbled" is indeed a matter of repentance:

Since the repentance begins,

only from the side of the sufferings of the exile,

this is not a true change in the reality of Jews.

Therefore one must come to the merit of the fathers in order to merit the status and condition of redemption.

And based on this will be sweetened the novelty of the future redemption — as the Rambam rules⁴²

as halacha that Israel are redeemed only through repentance and then continues "the Torah promised that in the end Israel will do repentance at the end of their exile and immediately they are redeemed" — that one must say the intention of the Rambam in this,

that the Torah promises that Jews will attain repentance from the side of <b>their</b> reality.

D.

E.

Although that earlier there will be

(as it is stated in the verse⁴³

which the Rambam <b>brings</b> there*⁴³)

"All these things will come upon you etc.",

But then afterwards will be "&lt;b&gt;and return&lt;/b&gt; until Hashem"&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

: The repentance will relate to the &lt;b&gt;Jews&lt;/b&gt;.

that the Rambam emphasizes thereby that he places the matter concerning repentance at the end of the exile in the seventh chapter of the Laws of Repentance,

only after he elaborates in two chapters&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

concerning the matter of free choice,

that every Jew has free choice,

and then says at the beginning of the seventh chapter: "Since each person's power is given to him, so should a person strive to repent and confess etc." — which one can say is the intention of the Rambam in this*&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

The true essence of teshuvah is when it comes from his free choice,

and consequently a person must exert himself to do teshuvah from his free choice and not⁴⁶

wait until they will compel him to do teshuvah from above; and in continuation of this matter the Rambam says "the Torah promised that ultimately Israel will do teshuvah at the end of their exile"⁴⁷

— that Jews will do that <b>teshuvah</b> — a teshuvah that comes from the free choice of man].

And this is the difference between the matter as it stands in our parshah regarding how it stands in the verse "and you shall return etc." mentioned above: in our parshah the language of the verse is "then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled" — here the action of the Jews is not emphasized

(the word "the uncircumcision of the heart"),

but rather that the heart is a passive object,

will be <b>humbled</b> from the sufferings of the exile.

Not so in the true and complete redemption through Mashiach our righteous one will be "and you shall return unto the Lord your God",

the repentance of the Jews

by their own power.

The sufferings of the exile will only be like an awakener,

but afterwards comes the repentance from the Jews themselves⁴⁸.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Bechukosai 5728,

and Yud Kislev Parshas 5735)