Parashas B’har-B’chukosai 5773

    After detailing the horrible things that will happen if we don’t keep G-d’s laws, we are reassured that things will never reach a point of no return. “And they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers, regarding the disloyalty they showed me, and even for having acted with me contrarily (or with casualness)” (26:40). One would expect the next verses to continue with G-d returning to them as well (as it eventually does); instead we are told that G-d will still “act contrarily (or with casualness) towards them,” and “bring them into the land of their enemy” (26:41). Why is G-d still punishing us if we have already started the t’shuvah (repentance) process?

S’fornu suggests that different people are being referring to; those who confess (and repent) will no longer be punished, while those who don’t will be. Similarly, Abarbanel says that the leaders will confess (S’fornu also implies it will be the leaders who confess), while the general populace continues to sin. However, the use of similar pronouns in the two verses seems to indicate that the same individuals who confessed will be the ones subject to punishment.

Ibn Ezra explains the punishments described after the confession to have occurred prior to the confession. He doesn’t explain why it was written afterwards if it occurred earlier, or why being punished has to be mentioned again. Alshich points out that the punishment described after the confession is less severe than the punishment described earlier, as the casualness (or contrariness) had been “with fury” (26:28), and instead of being “dispersed among the nations” (26:33) they will be in exile in a single land. [I’m not convinced that “the land of their enemies” indicates fewer lands than “the land of your enemies” (26:34) does.] Or Hachayim is among those who say that the punishment mentioned after the confession is part of the confession itself, with the nation acknowledging that they had been experiencing G-d’s punishment. However, the context and tense indicate that it is G-d talking about what He will do, not those confessing discussing what He had done.

Others (e.g. Chizkuni) suggest that confession is not enough, and until a full repentance is undertaken, they will still be punished. Nevertheless, if this confession was not the start of a full t’shuva process, why bother mentioning it? Was it just to teach us that confession without real change wouldn’t suffice? Would confession prevent “melting in their sins” (26:39) even if it wouldn’t prevent further punishment? A straightforward reading of the text indicates that the confession and subsequent punishment followed the “melting,” not that they affected different people; otherwise the words “or then” should have been inserted to separate them, as they were between those who confess/get punished and those whose hearts become humbled (26:41). Rabbi Peretz Steinberg, shlita (Pri Eitz HaChayim) quotes the Talmud (Yuma 85b) and Rambam (Hilchos T’shuva 1:4 and 2:4), which talk about attaining forgiveness, and how for some sins repentance alone isn’t enough (see Tzror Hamor’s second answer). If suffering and/or exile was necessary before the nation could be forgiven, we can understand why they had to happen even after repentance. However, there was plenty of suffering (and exile) already; why was more necessary?

One of the cornerstones of our faith is that G-d is still involved with His creations. Ramban (Sh’mos 13:16) says that the reason the Torah places such importance on remembering G-d taking us out of Egypt is because the miracles He performed prove that He did not just create the world and abandon it. However, G-d being active in the world He created does not necessarily mean that He intervenes on behalf of every creation, or even with every person, in every situation. As Rabbeinu Bachye writes (B’raishis 18:19), “And His supervision of it (the world) to [the extent of] saving him (a person) from happenstance (“mikre”) does not include every person, not even every “Yisrael,” but rather the righteous among them. For the Holy One, Blessed is He, saves the righteous from the happenstances that the rest of humanity is given over to.” In other words, one must attain a high spiritual level in order to qualify for personalized divine intervention. There is divine involvement with every individual vis-à-vis determining who deserves divine intervention (and when), but that does not automatically translate into G-d directly affecting things on behalf of that individual.

This concept is not limited to people on an individual basis either, as the entire nation can be left to suffer the consequences of happenstance, or, if they merit G-d’s attention, be protected from any potential danger. When Achan took some of the property from Y’richo despite the public ban against doing so (Y’hoshua 7:1), G-d was angry with the entire nation, not just Achan. As a result, their first attempt to conquer the city of Ai was unsuccessful, with 36 soldiers dying in the battle. Ralbag and Malbim ask how these individuals, who had no part in Achan’s transgression, could be punished, and explain that Achan’s sin caused the divine presence to leave the nation. Once we were no longer under G-d’s divine protection, war casualties became possible. Had the entire nation still been deserving of G-d’s intervention, these deaths would not have occurred. Similarly, when the verse in Eicha laments that “the young ones were taken captive” (1:5), Rabbi Yaakov of Lisa (a.k.a. the Nesivos), in Palgei Mayim, explains that since children are not yet held accountable for their actions, punishment cannot be directed at them. The fact that these sin-less ones are being taken captive proves that the nation was no longer being protected by G-d.

While one must earn the privilege of divine intervention, because we have the ability to attain that level, Meiri (Soteh 2a, d”h mi’pinos) refers to being left to the consequences of happenstance as a punishment. By not attaching oneself to G-d (and thereby not qualifying for His protection), the individual “deserves” whatever happens. Ramban (Eyov 36:7) says that this “punishment” can even include loss of life despite there being no transgression that, in its own right, warrants the death penalty.

When a person has not attained (or no longer merits) divine intervention, does the suffering he endures subtract from the amount of suffering deserved for the sins he committed (besides deserving to be “thrown to the wolves”)? This issue was addressed by Rabbi Y’honasan Eibeshitz (Y’aros D’vash 1:11): “There is no person who is [part of the nation of] Israel who is subject to [pure] happenstance. Rather, everything is either punishment or reward. However, the punishment is divided into two categories… The first category is when punishment is purposely sent by G-d in order to punish him for his sin and to benefit him in the end. The second category is when he has bad “mazal,” and according to the zodiac he will experience bad things, except that G-d protects him and defeats the heavenly hosts. And when he sins, G-d removes His supervision and leaves him to the norms of the world (e.g. the natural laws and the effects of human actions)… The difference between these two categories is that under the first category his sin will be cleansed and he will have received the full result of his sin (i.e. his full punishment), and then it will be good for him in the next world. However, under the second category there is no [direct] punishment, only the removal of G-d’s supervision, and what happened to him was because of his “mazal” and the happenstances of his nature (genetics?), and his punishment is still completely intact for the day of reckoning.” In other words, any consequence suffered because one is not worthy of divine protection is besides (not instead of) the eventual punishment to be received for any misdeeds. (This fits with Meiri considering the consequences of being subject to happenstance a punishment for not meriting divine protection; if these consequences are a punishment for that, how can they be the punishment for other, specific, sins too?)

If we apply this concept on a national level, the punishments received during the periods of expulsion and abandonment were designed to send a message to the nation, a spiritual wake up call. Once we heed the call, we can start the process of returning to G-d. However, the suffering experienced until then would not count towards the punishment due for the sins themselves, since that suffering was the result of “abandonment,” being left unprotected and subject to happenstance, and “furious abandonment,” being put in a situation where horrific things will occur as a result of being abandoned. Therefore, it is only after the t’shuvah process is underway that we can atone for our sins. First, we will confess (26:40) then the actual punishment comes, which will lead to our “sins being negated” (26:41).

It may be a little disconcerting that those not attached to G-d (and this applies to almost everybody, see S’fornu on Vayikra 13:47; make sure to see the unedited version, not the slightly sanitized standard edition) are vulnerable to anything and everything. It seems that G-d set the world up this way in order to motivate us to become closer to Him, so that we can merit His divine protection.