English translation — חוקת ב

A.

In our parshah,

the Torah relates

(the portion of the copper serpent)¹

"And the people spoke against God and against Moses etc. and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people etc. and the people came to Moses and said, We have sinned etc. pray to the Lord that He remove the serpent from us. And Moses prayed for the people."

Rashi stands on the words "And Moses prayed" and explains: From here, for one from whom they ask forgiveness²

that he should not be cruel by forgiving.

And some versions read "cruel to forgive"³.

The source of this interpretation is in Tanchuma⁴

and there it is said: "to make known the humility of Moses that he did not delay to plead for mercy for them and to make known to you the power of repentance, because once they said 'we have sinned' he immediately was appeased to them, for the one who forgives does not become cruel to them, and so it says⁵

And Abraham prayed to God and God healed⁶

Abimelech and his household"

(and afterwards he brings another verse that is in Job).

And according to this it must be understood: why does Rashi say "from here for one who is asked for forgiveness" when one can already learn this from the previous verse "And Abraham prayed etc.",

as is proven from Tanchuma⁷?

that "even though he gives him

(when one injured his fellow, even though he paid him all five items<sup>9</sup>)

he is not forgiven

(for the pain of the shame with which he shamed him<sup>10</sup>)

until he requests [forgiveness] from him, as it is said<sup>11</sup>

And now return the wife etc.'<sup>12</sup>

And from where [do we know] that if he did not forgive him, that he is cruel"<sup>13</sup>

(or according to the second version<sup>14</sup>

"And from where [do we know] that the forgiver should not be cruel")

as it is said, 'And Avraham prayed to God, and God healed Avimelech etc.'"<sup>15</sup>.

So according to this it is puzzling,

why Rashi explains in the plain sense of the verse that this is learned "from here",

by Moshe,

and not

(as in the Mishnah,

that one learns it)

from "And Avraham prayed to God"?]

Further: in this event with Avraham there is yet a greater wonder in the manner and obligation of forgiveness: both from the aspect of the severity of the sin – that which Sarah his wife was taken to the house of Avimelech is ostensibly a greater injury and pain<sup>16</sup>

like that which "they spoke about Moshe"; and both from the aspect of the forgiveness and removal of punishment – there it says "and Avraham prayed" etc.

(and immediately and at once)

"and God healed" etc.,

and in our portion there was in this a condition,

"Make<sup>*16</sup>

for yourself a serpent ..

and it shall be that everyone who is bitten and looks upon it shall live",

the punishment did not depart immediately and at once.

B.

Seemingly one could say,

that according to the plain meaning of Scripture

(Rashi teaches)

specifically in our portion there is no matter of requesting forgiveness:

The Jews said "We have sinned because we spoke against Hashem and against you; pray to Hashem";

Not so with Avimelech, there was no request for forgiveness: his saying¹⁷

"What have you done to us and how have I sinned against you that you have brought upon me and upon my kingdom a great sin; deeds which should not be done you have done with me..

What did you see that you did this thing" does not have the content of a request for forgiveness,

And on the contrary – a formulation of a claim against Avraham,

that there was no request for forgiveness there<sup>19</sup>

: "One who injures his fellow, even though the injurer did not request [forgiveness] from the injured, the injured must plead for mercy on his behalf, as it is said, 'And Abraham prayed to God'"]

And therefore Rashi says specifically "From here

(one learns)

for one who is asked for forgiveness that he should not be cruel in forgiving."

One cannot, however, answer in this way,

because then the question becomes even stronger: why do we not learn from "And Abraham prayed",

that even without a request for forgiveness one need not be cruel not to forgive –

(and all the more so after a request for forgiveness).

that from "And Abraham prayed" it is not at all proven that he forgave,

That is, that he prayed for mercy – without the request for forgiveness from Avimelech and without the forgiveness on his part,

in the manner of his prayer for Sodom etc.

(And so one will also learn the explanation in the Tosefta)

– because

(In addition to the difficulty to explain²⁰

that he prayed for mercy even though he had not forgiven him,

is)

If so, then there is also no necessity for the lesson from our parshah,

where it states exactly the same wording "And Moses prayed" as by Abraham

("And Abraham prayed").

And perforce one must say that from "and he prayed" is a proof that there was the matter of forgiveness²¹

– and consequently one can learn from "and Avraham prayed" exactly as from "and Moshe prayed",

and the difficulty returns to its place,

as above].

3.

At first glance one must say,

that according to Rashi²²

one cannot learn from "and Avraham prayed",

because there was not required any request for forgiveness

(on the part of Avimelech)

and

(consequently)

no forgiveness on the part of Avraham:

The claim of Avimelech was indeed

: "In the innocence of my heart ..

I did this" and the Almighty accepted it,

"I also knew that in the innocence of your heart you did this, and I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not allow you to touch her"

That is,

that he did not intend to do an injustice to Avraham,

and therefore the matter of asking forgiveness is not applicable

(and forgiveness).

And so it is implied from the verse in the word of G‑d to Avimelech "And now, return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live" – he only needs to return Sarah

(that alone will already be enough that)

"he will pray for you and you will live",

and as Rashi explains "Return the man's wife – and do not think that perhaps ... or he will hate you and will not pray for you ... for he is a prophet and knows that you did not touch her, therefore he will pray for you".

But from the verse²⁵

"And Avimelech took sheep and cattle and servants and maidservants and gave to Avraham etc.'",

about which Rashi says "in order that he should appease and pray for him",

it is understood that here there was indeed required a request for forgiveness from Avimelech and an appeasement from Avraham²⁶,

and as is also proven from the fact that we do not find that Avraham refused to accept Avimelech's gift²⁷.

And it is understood simply what is needed

(request for forgiveness and)

appeasement: because after all Avimelech had indeed sinned

(and with a very severe sin)

against Avraham

(and Avimelech's intention does not change it),

and consequently a request for forgiveness is required^*27

from Avimelech and appeasement from Avraham²⁸.

– And the difficulty remains in its place: Why should one not learn from "And Abraham prayed" – "From here ..

4.

One will understand this with an introduction of the precision in Rashi's wording "that one should not be cruel by not forgiving".

In Tanchuma²⁹

the wording is as above "that the forgiver does not become

(to them)

cruel",

"that the forgiver should not be cruel"³⁰

and the like,

and in this manner in the Mishnah³¹

; Rashi, however, changes and says

(not "that the forgiver should not be cruel",

that one should not be cruel by not forgiving"?

"that one should not be cruel by not forgiving"³².

And one must say,

that the novelty in this is

(not so in the essence of forgiveness,

but)

but)

in the manner of forgiveness.

The explanation in this: forgiveness can be in several manners,

and among them: a)

One forgives the other the sin that he committed against him in order that the other should not be punished; b)

He forgives him not only because he wants to prevent him from a punishment,

but he has no grievance in his heart; c)

It is a forgiveness with a whole heart in a manner that he has become entirely absorbed – the forgiven one is "appeasing and beloved before him as before the sin"³³.

In a slightly different style: In the first manner, he forgives the other's sin,

which harmed the forgiver; in the second manner, he forgives the person who sinned; in the third manner – also uproots the sin from its root,

no trace remains at all³⁴.

And the practical difference between them is: When he is only concerned that the other should not be punished because of the committed sin,

he in his forgiveness exerts himself only insofar as it pertains to the punishment of the other through the particular sin; but in the second manner, and especially when the forgiveness is wholehearted, he is concerned with the good of the other,

the forgiveness is in a manner that he involves himself in it with greater intensity,

until he brings it about that the other should be

(become)

entirely as is proper.

Until just as before he committed the transgression

(against him),

"as before the sin".

5.

And this is the difference between "And Avraham prayed",

the forgiveness of Avraham,

and the forgiveness in our parshah:

By Avraham it says "And Avraham prayed to the G-d and G-d healed Avimelech etc. and they gave birth" – the prayer and request of Avraham was regarding the healing of Avimelech etc.,

that the punishment that came upon Avimelech and his household should be removed.

In our parshah it stands

(Not merely simply "and Moses prayed to the Lord"

(as in the prayer of Abraham: and Abraham prayed to God),

rather the verse adds and emphasizes)

(And Moses prayed)

for the people"³⁵

– he was concerned with the condition of the people – he was concerned not only that the punishment be nullified

(of the serpents etc.),

rather that the condition of the people be rectified.

And therefore the verse continues,

that upon this came the answer from the Most High "Make for yourself a seraph": "for yourself" according to the plain meaning of Scripture means "from your own"³⁶

(in the manner that Rashi³⁷

interprets regarding "Make for yourself two silver trumpets")

– and at first glance,

since this pertains to Jews,

who "spoke against God and against Moses",

it would have been more fitting that the seraph be specifically from their own,

from the community,

Only with this did the Most High show Moshe that he should act in a manner

("Go – from your own")

that it should be evident that the matter is relevant to him,

Which proves that he is on their side in this.

What was the purpose of the making of the copper serpent,

not

to effect the healing of Jews,

but to awaken Jews that there should be "Israel looking upward and subjugating their hearts to their Father in heaven"³⁸

– they should repent not only regarding speech and what pertains to it – but³⁹

subjugation of the heart to heaven

(which is why there was the command^*39

"And place it on a pole" and "And it shall be that if a serpent bites a man, and he looks at the copper serpent, and he lives",

as Rashi explains the verses later in the portion⁴⁰).

And this is the reason why the healing did not come immediately after Moses' prayer as in "And Abraham prayed to God

(and immediately)

and God healed Abimelech etc." – but through "And Moses made etc. and placed it on the pole etc. and he looked",

because the intention is not only the absence of punishment,

(only)

but

(also)

to bring the Jews to repentance⁴¹

– "subjugating their hearts to their Father in heaven".

6.

And this is the precise language of Rashi "from here that one who is asked for forgiveness should not be cruel in forgiving",

not "that the forgiver should not be cruel"

(plainly)

The language "that the forgiver should not be cruel" speaks about the person himself – that he should not be cruel

that is,

when one does not forgive the other and because of this he receives a punishment, this is cruelty,

and this – that the forgiver should not be "cruel" – is indeed known⁴²

from "And Abraham prayed"⁴³

And the novelty in this matter in our parshah is,

That "from here"⁴⁴

one learns "that he should not be cruel in forgiving": the language does not speak about the person

(in general),

(in general)

(because if he will not forgive him he will have a punishment)],

but in relation to the act of forgiveness,

that in this matter of forgiveness "he should not be cruel

(in forgiving)

that the forgiveness itself should not be in a manner that he is "cruel":

When the forgiveness is only to remove the punishment, this is not a true forgiveness,

it is a cruel forgiveness,

because the forgiver has a grievance in the heart,

anger and the like against the forgiven; but when he forgives him with a whole heart⁴⁵,

then this is a forgiveness which is pure of "cruelty"⁴⁶.

Further, this is smooth according to the version⁴⁷

"cruel to forgive" – cruel in the forgiveness.

According to the version it is also understood – how does the copyist come to change Rashi's commentary to "from forgiving" – because he did not understand how "cruel" and "to forgive" can go together – he added a mem – "from forgiving".

This is not the case if you will say to the contrary,

If Rashi wrote "מלמחול" – how does the change come

(– error)

"למחול"?

And an example and a kind of cruelty in forgiveness – one who gives charity to a poor person with a sour face – who lost his right even if he gave him a thousand gold coins⁴⁸.

7.

According to all the above, one can also explain several changes in the language of the Rambam – regarding the above matter,

that the forgiver should not be cruel and should forgive – which he brings

(at least)

three times⁴⁹

In Hilchos Deos⁵⁰

: "When one person sins against another, he should not hate him and remain silent etc., but it is a mitzvah to inform him etc.",

and elaborates "And if he returned and asked him to forgive him, he must forgive and the forgiver should not be cruel, as it is said⁵¹

etc."

In the Laws of Repentance⁵²

: It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and not to give in, but rather he should be easy to appease and hard to anger, and at the time when the sinner asks him for forgiveness, he forgives with a whole heart and a willing soul.

In the Laws of One Who Injures and Damages⁵³

: And it is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel and not forgive

(him⁵⁴)

This is not the way of the seed of Israel, but rather since the injurer asked him and pleaded with him a first and second time, and he knows that he has repented from his sin and regretted his evil, he should forgive him, and whoever hastens to forgive is praiseworthy and the spirit of the sages is pleased with him.

One must understand the reason for the variations in language and details in the three places:

a)

In Hilchos De'os it states "And if he returned and asked him to forgive him, he must forgive and the forgiver should not be cruel etc.",

but not so in Hilchos Teshuvah and in Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik it is said in the language of forbidden – "It is forbidden⁵⁵

for a person to be cruel",

"It is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel"?

b)

In the laws of Chovel and Mazik, the Rambam discusses the details when and how he should forgive: "Since the injurer asked him and pleaded with him a first and second time, and he knows that he has repented from his sin and regretted his evil, he should forgive him,"

But in the laws of Teshuvah

(and in a similar manner in the laws of De'ot)

he does not bring the conditions and details regarding the forgiver,

that he should forgive only after a request for forgiveness two times etc.

(Similar to this he says in the previous halacha⁵⁶

regarding the one who asks for forgiveness,

"If his friend did not want to forgive him, he brings before him a row of three people etc. If he did not agree to them, he brings before him a second and third etc.")⁵⁷

– and he states here other details: "Rather, he should be easy to appease and hard to anger, and at the time when the sinner asks him to forgive, he forgives with a whole heart and a willing soul, and even if he caused him distress and sinned against him greatly, he should not bear a grudge nor take vengeance, and this is the way of the seed of Israel and their proper heart etc."

c)

The precise nuances of the expressions: In the laws of De'ot he says "and the forgiver should not be cruel",

In the laws of Teshuvah "it is forbidden for a person to be cruel",

In the laws of Chovel and Mazik "and it is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel".

d)

And in this manner, the continuation of the language is not: The Laws of Repentance "It is forbidden for a person to be cruel and not to give in",

the Laws of Injury and Damage "It is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel and not to forgive

(to him)

and in the Laws of Dispositions there comes altogether no addition.

8.

And one can say the explanation in this according to the above:

There is no need for forgiveness; there are three types and divisions:

A)

In the laws of Chovel and Mazik, the Rambam discusses the definition of forgiveness as it is a law in "Chovel and Mazik",

connected with the injury and damage – so that the sin of the other Jew should be atoned for and he will thereby be freed from the punishment.

b)

In the Laws of Repentance, the Rambam defines the concept of forgiveness as it pertains

(not so much to the specific sin and punishment,

to the repentance of the sinful person,

so that the repentance of the forgiven one should be proper: through that⁵⁸

which the forgiver forgives the other

(with complete forgiveness),

the other – through his repentance – will be "appeasing^leg

and beloved ..

as before the sin",

clean and completely acceptable⁵⁹.

c)

In the Laws of Character Traits, the Rambam discusses how it is a detail in character traits – the qualities of a person⁶⁰,

forgiveness as it pertains to the qualities of the forgiving person himself.

That this is what the Rambam begins the halacha in Hilchos De'os "When a person sins against another, he should not hate him and remain silent etc. rather it is a mitzvah on him to inform him etc.": The "he should not hate him" and the mitzvah "to inform him" is not

(so)

from the side of the sinner but from the side of the injured person himself,

that he should not hold hatred in his heart against the other,

but)

rather

(on the contrary)

"it is a mitzvah to inform him and say to him etc.".

And continuing from this he says "And if he returned and asked him to forgive him, he must forgive and the forgiver should not be cruel",

not mentioning thereby the prohibition in the matter or that he should forgive him after asking forgiveness two or three times,

because here the Rambam speaks

(mainly)

about the benefit and advantage for the forgiver and his "De'os"; from the side of the opinions and traits of the forgiver "if he returned and asked him to forgive him, he must forgive and the forgiver should not be cruel",

that even when he asks him the first time he should not have cruelty in his heart and forgive⁶¹.

Not so, the laws of Chovel and Mazik – there the Rambam speaks about that

(manner 6)

The definition of forgiveness that pertains to the atonement of the injurer for the sin,

and as he says there in the previous law⁶²

"He is not atoned for nor is his sin forgiven until he asks from the injured party and he forgives him."

And therefore it is relevant "since the injurer asked him and pleaded with him a first and second time and he knows that he has repented from his sin and regretted his evil, he should forgive him",

that specifically when he sees through the other's effort and humility that "he has repented from his sin and regretted his evil" – then it is fitting that he should forgive him so that the sin should be atoned for the other and he should not be punished for it.

In the Laws of Repentance, however, the Rambam speaks about forgiveness that pertains to the completeness and perfection of repentance of the one who injures, etc. – about which he says in the preceding law

"Neither repentance nor Yom Kippur atone except etc. But transgressions between a person and his fellow, such as one who injures his fellow...

or robs him and the like, is never forgiven him until he gives his fellow what he owes him and appeases him. Even though he returned the money that he owes him, he must appease him and ask him to forgive him, etc."

– Therefore he continues that "it is forbidden for a person to be cruel and not yield, but rather be easy to appease, etc."

(Although superficially this is entirely related to the laws of character traits and opinions),

because the ways and modes of forgiveness,

in a manner of "forgiving with a whole heart and a willing soul, etc." pertain

(also)

to the completeness of the repentance of the one who injures; that is, the forgiveness must be not only for the removal of the punishment for the particular sin,

but a complete forgiveness until he becomes appeased and beloved before him.

And therefore there is not here the emphasis on requesting forgiveness three times,

but rather "at the time that the sinner asks him to forgive, he forgives with a whole heart and a willing soul" which shows that not only did he forgive him his sin,

but rather he is entirely appeased before him.

9.

And this is also the reason for the other changes of language: in the laws of one who injures and damages he says "it is forbidden for the injured party to be cruel and not forgive him" and in the laws of repentance – "it is forbidden for a person to be cruel and not be appeased":

In the laws of Chovel and Mazik, the main thing required is the matter of forgiveness which is connected with the act of injury in order to remove the punishment,

Therefore the language "It is forbidden for the injured party ..

he should forgive him"⁶⁴

In the laws of repentance, however, his forgiving is,

as above,

not limited to removing only the punishment for the harm

(whether through injury,

cursing and robbing or provoking,

as the Rambam lists there earlier),

rather he as a person – as a Jew who desires the good of his fellow,

must become "grasped"

(not only to forgive him to the extent of removing the punishment,

rather)

so that

(also)

the second one should attain completeness of repentance.

And based on this, one can resolve the contradiction and difficulty in the words of the Rambam

(as the Lechem Mishneh asks<sup>65</sup>)

: in Hilchos Chovel U'Mazik, the Rambam says "that one who damages the property of his fellow, once he pays what he is obligated to pay, he is forgiven" – and he does not need to ask that person for forgiveness; and in Hilchos Teshuvah, the Rambam counts among the sins between a person and his fellow that "he is never forgiven until he gives his fellow what he owes him and appeases him",

"or one who robs him and the like"?

Because<sup>66</sup>

regarding the type of atonement for the sin of damaging

(only)

the property of his fellow,

about which it speaks in Hilchos Chovel U'Mazik,

no request for forgiveness is necessary;

But regarding the completeness of man's appeasement,

as it is discussed in the laws of repentance,

it can be said that regarding this it requires "for his appeasement and to ask from Him that He forgive him" also regarding damage to another's property in any manner whatsoever<sup>67</sup>].

10.

He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel<sup>68</sup>.

Just as this is regarding Jews that "the way of the seed of Israel and their upright heart" is to forgive "with a whole heart and a willing soul"<sup>69</sup>

and to forgive immediately,

so that also regarding the forgiveness for the particular sin, the Rambam rules in the laws of one who injures and damages: "And whoever hastens to forgive is praiseworthy, and the spirit of the sages is pleased with him",

Is then from this understandable "all the more so" in the measure of the Holy One, blessed be He, that "forgiveness is from the attribute of mercy and His holy attributes are not in the category of boundary and limit"⁷⁰,

that He is quick to forgive Jews for all undesirable things,

and in a manner of grace and kindness and mercy in the revealed and manifest good,

which itself arouses and helps the Jews that Israel immediately repent,

and immediately they are redeemed⁷¹,

with the true and complete redemption.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Chukat 5744)