Yom Kippur theology

[cellio]

This year the contrast between two statements in the machzor (special prayer book for these holidays) struck me. We have both of the following statements:

1. For transgressions against God Yom Kippur attones, but for transgressions against other people, YK does not attone until you have made peace with that person. [1]

2. The "release": I forgive those who have wronged me and please don't punish them on my account, and I hope they say the same about me. (This is a paraphrase.)

If I am "off the hook" for something I did via #2 (the other person made this blanket statement) but I never actually made amends, how can I attone under #1 -- we didn't make peace? Or is the point to be strict on my own actions (I must make peace) but liberal on others'? I could think that #2 is for unknown offenses (I can't make amends if I don't know I wronged you), except that the text of the release says "intentional and unintentional".

(Am I correct in assuming that #2 is not a liberal innovation? I've never actually used or studied a traditional machzor, though I am motivated to find one now because a number of the translations [2] in ours struck me as wrong and I want to know what the Hebrew really says.)

[1] There's what amounts to a good-faith exclusion here, so you can't be hosed by someone who consistently refuses to forgive you.

[2] Reform prayer books before Mishkan T'filah feature a mix of loose translations and "alternative readings" (usually but not always marked as such). I am in the position of knowing enough Hebrew to see the issues but not enough to be able to just translate the text myself.

Comments

[magid.livejournal.com]

2. I'm not familiar with this one. Where does it show up?

[geekosaur]

Strict in your own actions/liberal in others' seems to be consistent with Chaza"l's general approach. Beyond that I can't say.

[kmelion.livejournal.com]

AFAIK, the Orthodox POV is the main importance is not in the granting of forgiveness, but in a person asking for it.

It usually takes a lot more for a person to ask someone for forgiveness, to give a heartfelt apology, to gather up the courage to even face the person they've wronged than it is for someone to grant forgiveness.

If a person asks forgiveness 3 times and is refused, s/he has fulfilled the Halachinc obligation and while it may not be squared away with the person they've wronged, it's been cleared with God.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

Those "alternative readings" really bother me. It's as though the book is telling me "say these words in Hebrew, (potentially) make this promise or oath or commitment, or accept this religious principle, but we're not gonna tell you what you're really saying". There's a good deal of that in "Gates of Repentance", which my new temple uses. But even in the old traditional texts we used in the Conservative schul back in Boston, this sort of thing went on. I don't know what the motivation is -- "modernization", I suppose, in the Reform text, and the Conservative text has something about "the Rabbinical interpretation" of Kedusha -- but to me it's simple dishonesty in a rather surprising venue.

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

CCAR hasn't issued a Mishkan T'filah for the HHD yet, have they? We're still using GofR (in fact, our copies are still un-gender-neutral, which is weird when the rabbi converts on the fly to gender-neutral)

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Re 2, I know the phrase "let no one be punished on my account" was somewhere in the C liturgy I grew up with (Silverman machzor, 1930s), and I believe it's traditional. I'll try to find the wording once my machzors (and the car they're in) return.

ETA: On the theological point, I think there's a tension between the idea of sins being weighed and numbered, as it were, and the idea that what you're really there to do is teshuva, turn your own heart. I'd venture that the first idea is generally older than the second, which I think of as a medieval concept developed heavily by Rambam. There's a certain degree of ambivalence in the liturgy about just who is capable of granting the cleansing effected by atonement -- whether it's something you can do yourself or whether it's something others do to you. And since you're there all day... why do we have to choose?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I suggest the ArtScroll Interlinear machzor for this purpose. It's a VERY traditional machzor, and it does its translation word-for-word, so you can see what each WORD means, which gives you a MUCH better feeling for the flow of the Hebrew, and takes a lot of the "trust the translator" feel out of it.

It's not a liberal invention, not at all. The Artscroll includes the variation of the formula written by the Chofetz Chayyim -- which says, "I forgive everyone everything, unless it's money they owe me that's collectible under law, or if they wronged me saying, 'Hey, he's just gonna have to forgive me at Yom Kippur,', but, other than that, I forgive everyone everything."

Of course, in halacha, there are other exceptions beyond that, as well -- people who are completely unrepentant, for instance.

I'm not 100% sure of the halachic ways those two things are integrated, but I have some philosophical/psychological ideas, and a guess about a halachic thing.

First -- the formula says, "I forgive; let no one be punished on my account."

However, if the person feels no guilt about the thing, then it's not ONLY you that has been wronged -- being unrepentant about what you've done is against Hashem.

So -- if the person feels repentant, and wants to change, and you have said that formula, then, even if you've never talked about it, you've both done your parts. If you can forgive that person, and that person desires forgiveness, then it works.

If that person is NOT repentant, then they WON'T be forgiven, even if you've forgiven them. Forgiveness has to be asked for, as well as given, as well as granted.

Psychologically, forgiveness is a way of cutting away a spiritual/psychic weight from you. And THAT can be done regardless of the other person's actions or mental state.

[sethg]

I would reconcile the two by saying that if the offender has an obligation to appease the victim to the point where the victim is willing to forgive the offender; on the other side, it is meritorious, but not an absolute obligation, for the victim to be easily appeased. The most extreme form of being easily appeased (the degenerate case, as the mathematicians would say) is to forgive the offender before the offender even approaches the victim.

I think even after the victim has given forgiveness in this circumstance, the offender has to recognize his or her sin and regret it before getting a full pardon from Upstairs, but I'm not sure. I should ask my rabbi about that part.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

Part 2, or at least that sentiment, appears in Orthodox liturgy in the bedtime Shema, as well as YK stuff.

As for part 1, yes, the sinner must seek forgiveness from the wronged party, and while refusing more than 3 times is considered mean, not everything counts towards that. What I understand the halakha (Rambam, Shulchan Arukh) to say is that one should apologize. If rebuffed, return with 3 people who the offended person likes to help you plead your case (I'll vouch that he is a good person & sincere in his apology). If rebuffed yet again, return with a minyan to help you plead your case & to show that you apologize publically. At that point, the offended should probably forgive you (presumably you also need to do whatever other sorts of reparations are applicable, such as returning the stolen object or paying for the injury you caused or so on).

In terms of reconciling them, consider what R' Herschel Shechter said: We have to walk in G-d's ways. Even G-d doesn't forgive those who are completely unrepentant. But if one has hirhurei teshuva (considers repentance) then G-d does forgive one. So it is meritorious and a relief of a psychological burden to do the same.