Repairing And Reformation

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (16b) says א"ר יצחק ד' דברים מקרעין גזר דינו של אדם אלו הן צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעשה.  Rashi explains שינוי מעשה is שב מרעתו.  The Ritva asks ולא נהירא דהא פשיטא שאם אינו שב מדרכיו כטובל ושרץ בידו הוא שאין מועיל לו שום תשובה? 

The Mishna Yoma says לִפְנֵי מִי אַתֶּם מִטַּהֲרִין וּמִי מְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם, אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וְזָרַקְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַיִם טְהוֹרִים, וּטְהַרְתֶּם, וְאוֹמֵר (ירמיה יז, יג): מִקְוֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל ה.  Why the need for two pessukim? 

The Shem Mishmuel (Rosh Hashana 5571) explains the Rashi that there are two types of teshuva.  One is a person who sees they are on the wrong path and stops going further and for that one also needs the צדקה צעקה שינוי השם to rip up the decree for one has corrected themselves going forward but the past was never corrected. Then there is a greater form of teshuva where one is able to turn around and go backward and fix the past. This is a deeper form of teshuva and that is the teshuva Rashi is referring to when he is saying this form of a שינוי מעשה, where the person becomes totally reformed, doesn't require anything else to rip up the decree. 

In light of this we can understand the Mishna. The Mishna is referring to these two types of teshuva. There is the teshuva of mikva, where one goes in one plunge and takes removes the tumah, that is the teshuva of stopping to go on the wrong path. It is a quick change for the better.  The taharah of mikveh represents instantaneous disengagement from sin.

The second possuk compares teshuva to the sprinkling of water.  Sprinkling goes on a person drop by drop. This represents gradual internal reformation, a slow, deliberate reconstruction of the soul. This is the  greater form of teshuva which takes time for one to reconstruct their inner essence, their entire approach to life and to transform the person into a שינוי מעשה, a new individual.

Standing Viduy

The halacha is that one must stand while saying viduy (S.A. 607:3.) Why must viduy we recited while standing? The Mishne Berurah explains that standing demonstrates  greater sense of subservience and will establish a better confession. The Kaf Hachaim quotes the Yafe L'lev that is based upon the possuk in Nechemya (9:2) ויעמדו ויתודו על חטאתיהם וכו. The Mishne Berurah cites the Pri Migadim is unsure is this law of standing is מעכב. 

The Magen Avraham says one must be carful not to lean on something that if it is moved, the person will fall for that is considered sitting not standing. Rav Wahrman develops based upon various sources an idea that this rule only applies when standing is required innately but if one stands only for honorific purposes or for other external factors, then even when standing by being propped up, sine it still appears as if one is standing, it suffices. With this difference, he suggests according to the reason of the Mishne Berurah ,it should suffice with leaning for the standing f viduy (this would be not like the Mishne Berurah who quotes the Magen Avraham here that holds it does not work.) With this he answers the question of the Emrei Emes of how can one do viduy on a korban while doing סמיכה if one is leaning on the animal and the person will fall if it is removed? According to this, this suffices for the standing of viduy. 

Another answer Rav Wahram suggests is to differentiate between the types of viduy. Viduy as part of teshuva requires standing but the viduy on a korban is not part of the teshuva process, it is a viduy that it is a halacha in the korban. Part of bringing the korban is to say why one is bringing the korban and that entails a viduy but that viduy does not require standing. 

A third approach to the requirement of standing during viduy is suggested by Rav Yerucham Olshin. He suggests that the Rambam stresses many times in the Laws of Teshuva starting with the lists of mitzvot on the top that teshuva is done לפני ה. He says that this law of לפני ה requires standing in the same way as one stands during the amidah for being present לפני ה. (With this it is also understood why the viduy on Yom Kippur is incorporated into the Shemoneh Esrei for they are the same yesod.) With this he suggests that the Rambam does not mention the requirement of standing while doing viduy (which the Pri Migadim points out) because it is already included in the Rambam's words that teshuva is לפני ה.

The Mishne Berurah (620:2) says that one must day viduy ten times within the prayers of Yom Kippur corresponding to the ten times the Kohan Gadol mentions Hashem's name on Yom Kippur. In the Shaar Hatzion he adds that the viduy after maariv doesn't count since it is not part of the Shemone Esrai. It is clear from the M.B. that the viduy of Yom Kippur must be said within the context of prayer. Why? Presumably because of this law of teshuva being said לפני ה. But then this law should always apply not just on Yom Kippur? Rav Yehoshua Eichenstein explains based upon R' Yona that Yom Kippur has a unique mitzvah of teshuva based upon the possuk לפני ה תטהרו and it is that mode of teshuva that requires it be said in prayer.  (In other words, regular teshuva according to R' Yona is not לפני ה, it is a maaseh mitzvah like any other but the Rambam vies all viduy as an act of repairing the broken relationship with G-d and hence one must come before G-d to ask for forgiveness.) However, the Rambam holds all teshuva is לפני ה yet doesn't have to be done in tefillah so why is Yom Kippur different?  As mentioned in 'Obtaining Tahara' from Rav Solevetchik, the viduy of Yom Kippur accomplishes more than a regular viduy, it accomplishes a level of taharah. Says Rav Eichenstein, Rabbenu Yonah says ועוד יתפלל בעל התשובה אל השם. למחות כעב פשעיו וכענן חטאתיו. ושיחפוץ בו וירצהו ויעתר לו כאשר אם לא חטא, to obtain taharah one has to pray. Therefore, since the viduy of Yom Kippur is to obtain taharah it goes together with the prayer which effects taharah.

Why Eat

The Tur in siman 597 cites a machlokes Rishonim if there is an obligation to eat on Rosh Hashana. The debate would seem to center on if there is an obligation of שמחת יום טוב on RH or is that limited to the three regalim. However, the Shulchan Aruch rules one should eat on RH yet he also says in siman 582 that one does not say מועדים לשמחה in the prayers of RH, presumably since RH is not a day of simcha?  The Tur gives another reason to eat on RH besides being a fulfillment of שמחת יום טוב. The Tur evokes the Midrash that he cites in siman 581 that we dress up on RH since we show bitachon that Hashem we give us a favorable judgement.  based upon this, the Tur says one should eat as well. If so, there is no contradiction in the Shluchan Aruch for he holds it is not a day of simcha but nonetheless one should eat to show one's trust in a favorable judgment.  With this idea we can understand the comment of the Magen Avraham in the name of the Magid Masherim that one should not eat meat or have wine on RH.  But that is simcha?  Because we are not eating due to the law of simcha, rather to show bitachon in Hashem's judgement but that is nonetheless tempered by the severity of the day.  This may explain the opinion of Rav Natrunay Gaon (cited in the Tur) that one should not fast on the first day of RH but can on the second.  What is the difference, both days should have an obligation of simcha? (See Bach.) Because he holds we are not eating because of simcha, only to show that despite the severity of the din, we have bitachon in a favorable judgement. That demonstration is limited to the first day which is the main day of judgment but the second day is like the other days of the עשרת ימי תשובה where one may fast (even on Shabbos in his opinion.) (Based upon Minchas Asher, Yarech L'moadim siman 11-12.)

Repeat Or Do Not Repeat

Tosfos Berachot (12b) says צריך לחתום המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט ואם לא אמר מחזירין אותו. וכן זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים מחזירים אותו אם לא אמר. דכל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים אינו יוצא ידי חובתו.  The Rosh agrees to Tosfos regarding המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט but disagrees about זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים because they are not mentioned in the Gemarah and therefore do not constitute as part of the text of the beracha.  Rabbenu Yona cites a differing opinion about forgetting המלך המשפט since in the regular text of מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט the word מלך appears as well.  

Rabbenu Yona later in Berachot (24a in the Rif pages) says even according to the opinion of Tosfos that one should repeat Shemone Esrai if one omits זכרנו ומי כמוך וכתוב לחיים ובספר חיים, that would only apply on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, not during the rest of the days of repentance.  What is the difference between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur vs. the middle days? 

The source of adding petitions into the berachot is from Maseches Sofrim (Ch. 19) cited in the Tur siman 582 but there it only mentions adding on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  The Tur says now the custom is to add during all the 10 days of repentance.  However, we see the main time of saying it is limited to  Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.  Hence, Rabbenu Yona holds it then that these additional petitions become part of the beracha but not during the other days when it is a later custom.  Yet, for omitting המלך הקדוש והמלך המשפט Rabbenu Yona holds during all 10 days one would repeat Shemonei Esrai because that it the text of the beracha for this time frame and if one says the wrong ending one is lacking in saying the proper beracha (based upon Gevuros Yitzchak.) 

The Bris Of The Tzibbur

At the end of the tochacha, the possuk says  אֵ֩לֶּה֩ דִבְרֵ֨י הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲֽשֶׁר־צִוָּ֧ה ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֗ה לִכְרֹ֛ת אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מוֹאָ֑ב מִלְּבַ֣ד הַבְּרִ֔ית אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַ֥ת אִתָּ֖ם בְּחֹרֵֽב.  What is the nature of this bris?  In Netzavim it explains, הנסתרות לה' אלקינו וְהַנִּגְלֹ֞ת לָ֤ׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵ֙ׄיׄנׄוּ֙ׄ עַׄד־עוֹלָ֔ם לַעֲשׂ֕וֹת אֶת־כׇּל־דִּבְרֵ֖י הַתּוֹרָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת 'יןבי Chazal explain teaches us the principle of arvus that one is responsible for the actions of other Jews.  In other words, the bris of חורב was an obligation on every individual to keep the Torah but the bris of ערבות מואב gives an obligation on the obligations of others as well.  This is why the tochacha in Ki Tavo is said in a singular form but the one is Bechukosai is said in the plural form.  Why the difference?  Because the first tochacha is said to every single individual but the second one is said to the totality of Klal Yisrael.

Why was this the time to have a bris on arvus?  Because it is only at Har Grizim and Har Eval, inside of Eretz Yisrael that Klal Yisrael become a single unit.  It requires Eretz Yisrael to join Klal Yisrael to be one body (see Rogatchover Sanhedrin 43b, teshuva 143, tefillah 2:17, Avnei Nezer 314.)  As Klal Yisrael enter the land they are no longer mere individuals but become a collective unit with responsibilities for the tzibbur at large (based upon Rav Hershel Schachter on the parsha, article from Rav Yitzchak Ginsburgh.) 

Rashi says that the obligation of bikkurim started only after the land was fully conquered and divided.  Why should those that where already harvesting fruits wait so long?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) says since bikkurim has to be brought as an expression of ושמחת בכל הטוב, one's simcha can't be complete until every Jew has received their portion in the land.  In Eretz Yisrael every has their own portion of land, every one has their own mission but in in comes together as one unit.  If one part is missing, the portion of every individual is lacking as well.