Likkutei Sichos Vol. 27 – Acharei 2
1. In the Laws of Repentance, the Rambam states: "The scapegoat atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, whether severe or minor, whether committed intentionally or unintentionally, whether the person was aware of them or not, all are atoned for by the scapegoat, provided that he has repented. However, if he has not repented, the scapegoat only atones for minor transgressions, etc."
The Kesef Mishneh (and more specifically, the Lechem Mishneh) asks: In the Gemara, it is explained that the scapegoat atones without repentance only according to Rabbi, who holds that Yom Kippur atones for all transgressions in the Torah, whether one has repented or not. This means that according to Rabbi, Yom Kippur itself atones not only for minor transgressions (positive and negative commandments) but also for severe ones. In contrast, according to the Sages, Yom Kippur only atones with repentance. Thus, without repentance, the scapegoat does not atone even for minor transgressions.
And the Rambam rules like the Sages, as he states in the very same law that the scapegoat only atones (for severe transgressions) when one has repented — and he rules similarly in the following law, that "Yom Kippur itself atones for those who repent (specifically)" — and here, the Rambam rules that the scapegoat atones for minor transgressions without repentance.
From the commentaries on the Rambam, it seems — and this is apparently the implication in the Gemara — that regarding the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi, there is no difference between the "scapegoat" and "Yom Kippur itself." However, from the Rambam's rulings, it appears that he differentiates between them (even when ruling like the Sages):
In the aforementioned law, the Rambam rules that the scapegoat atones for minor transgressions even without repentance, and in the following law, he states that "Yom Kippur itself atones for those who repent (specifically)," which implies that repentance is required even for minor transgressions, for positive and negative commandments that do not carry the penalty of karet — regarding Yom Kippur itself.
1. Indeed, according to this, the aforementioned question is not so difficult — because according to the opinion of the Sages, "Yom Kippur itself" does not atone in any case without repentance, and nevertheless, the scapegoat atones for minor transgressions even without repentance. However, it is still not understood: what is the reason for this distinction?
2. We also need to understand the language of the Rambam in the aforementioned law: "In this time, when the Beis Hamikdash is not standing and we do not have an altar for atonement, there is only repentance."
The Rambam continues the law with "repentance atones for all transgressions, even..." and concludes the law with "and Yom Kippur itself atones for those who repent, etc."
Seemingly, since the Rambam emphasizes at the beginning of the law that "in this time, etc., there is only repentance," how does this align with what he says at the end of the law, "and Yom Kippur itself atones"?
Simply, it is understood that with the beginning and end of the law, the Rambam refers to two separate categories: with "in this time, etc., there is only repentance," he means that in this time, there is no other form of atonement through human action except through his act of repentance. Unlike the time of the Temple, when atonement came through various other actions and things that atone — sin offerings and guilt offerings, lashes and capital punishments by the court, the scapegoat, as the Rambam states in the previous laws.
However, at the end of the law, the Rambam speaks about the fact that Yom Kippur atones not through human action, but because of the day itself — "Yom Kippur itself atones." Therefore, the Rambam does not combine them together.
Yet, the language of the Rambam is not entirely smooth — "there is only repentance," seemingly he should have said "there is nothing for a person but repentance," or similar, which would have expressed that there is no other atonement that a person can achieve; the phrase "there is only repentance" implies that there is no other existence of atonement.
3. This will be understood by first explaining the change in the Rambam's language regarding Yom Kippur — "and Yom Kippur itself atones for those who repent," and he does not say "atones with repentance," as he does with the scapegoat, "and that is when he repents."
It can be said that with this, the Rambam emphasizes the nature of the atonement of Yom Kippur and how the atonement of Yom Kippur differs from the atonement of repentance, which is discussed in this law:
The atonement of repentance (as discussed in this chapter) relates to the object, to the transgressions — "repentance atones for all transgressions"; whereas the fact that "Yom Kippur itself atones" is not for the transgressions, but — "for those who repent" — for the person.
4. Based on this, we can understand why the Rambam begins the halacha with "In this time, etc., there is only repentance" and does not include Yom Kippur with it. All the forms of atonement that the Rambam lists earlier speak about atonement for transgressions, and this includes the atonement of the scapegoat, which "atones for all the transgressions in the Torah," focusing on the object. Therefore, the Rambam continues with "In this time, etc.," stating that of the matters that atone for transgressions, "there is only repentance, repentance atones for all transgressions." Consequently, there is no place to include the atonement of Yom Kippur, which is not for transgressions but for the person.
[Accordingly, it is clarified why the Rambam does not mention the detail of "Yom Kippur itself atones" in relation to the time of the Temple (but only in this time):
Even though also in the time of the Temple there was (according to some commentators) the atonement of the person through "Yom Kippur itself atones," it is similar to "in general, two hundred includes one hundred": In the time of the Temple, the primary atonement was through the scapegoat, in a greater and stronger manner, since the scapegoat atones and nullifies the sins themselves. However, "in this time, when the Temple does not exist and we do not have an altar for atonement," what remains from the atonement of Yom Kippur is the "Yom Kippur itself atones."]
4. Based on this, we can say that the reason the Rambam states "and the essence of Yom Kippur atones for those who repent" (in a general manner) — and not "atones with repentance" (or similar) — is because here the intention is not that the person is repenting for a specific sin, focusing on the "object", but rather that the person, the individual, is a "repenter," returning in a general sense to G‑d.
[Similar to how the Rambam rules in the Laws of Unintentional Transgressions: "Neither Yom Kippur, nor the sin-offering, nor the guilt-offering atone except for those who repent and believe in their atonement, but those who scorn them are not atoned for." From the fact that the Rambam says "those who repent and believe in their atonement" (and not "and those who believe"), it can be inferred that by "repenters," the Rambam does not mean a detailed act of repentance for sins, but rather a general movement of repentance, which is expressed in that they do not "scorn" and "believe in their atonement."]
And in this lies the difference between the atonement of the scapegoat and the atonement of Yom Kippur, where "the essence of Yom Kippur atones":
In the case of the scapegoat, since it effects atonement "for all transgressions in the Torah" [as the verse states, "And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities" — as it says in the previous verse the language of confession "and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat"], meaning the scapegoat nullifies and erases the sins (in the words of our Sages: "whitens the sins of Israel") — it requires that together with the scapegoat there should be the aspect of repentance ("and he repented"), because only together with repentance for the sins does the scapegoat have the power to atone "for all transgressions," even severe ones.
5. In contrast, Yom Kippur, whose essence is to atone for the person, involves G‑d forgiving and atoning for the individual (for the sins he has committed). As the verse states, "For on this day He shall atone for you, to cleanse you from all your sins; before the L‑rd you shall be purified." The atonement is "for you," meaning that G‑d Himself purifies the person — (as if to say, the "essence of the day" causes G‑d to elevate the person from his sins, rather than the opposite) — thus, it is not necessary for the Jew's act of repentance to be specifically directed towards the sins in a detailed manner. Rather, he should be a "repenter" in a general sense — "before the L‑rd," for only then is "you shall be purified," and he receives the atonement and purification of Yom Kippur.
However, if within the person there is not even a movement of "repenter" — a turning towards G‑d [and certainly if he opposes the atonement, if he "scorns" and does not "believe in its atonement," as mentioned above in the laws of Shgagos] — then the atonement of Yom Kippur does not apply to him.
And this is similar to the concept of "the prosecutor cannot become the defender."
As the Rogatchover explains in the statement of Rabbi, even according to Rabbi's view, "for all transgressions in the Torah, whether he repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones" — Rabbi agrees regarding the punishment of karet on Yom Kippur, that if on the day itself there was no affliction of Yom Kippur or he performs work, then Yom Kippur does not atone — because since the sin touches upon Yom Kippur itself, in a manner that Yom Kippur (in its essence) becomes for the sinner a cause and reason for the sin, it is evident that the cause of the sin cannot be the atoner — "the prosecutor cannot become the defender."
6. Based on this, it emerges that the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages is about the power and manner of atonement of Yom Kippur:
According to Rabbi, Yom Kippur has the power to atone for the essence of the sins, as indicated by Rabbi's precise wording, "for all transgressions in the Torah, whether he repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones" — and therefore, Yom Kippur atones for all sins except for karet on Yom Kippur (and similarly "one who says I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone"), because in these cases, Yom Kippur itself is connected, as a cause and reason, with the essence of the sins themselves — and since in relation to these sins, Yom Kippur is a prosecutor, "the prosecutor cannot become the defender."
However, according to the Sages, Yom Kippur does not atone for the transgressions themselves, but for the person, as indicated by the wording of the Baraita) "Could it be that Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and those who do not repent, etc." — and not (as in Rabbi's wording) "whether he repented or did not repent, etc."
Therefore, for Yom Kippur to atone for the person, there must be the general condition of "repenter" as mentioned above, so that the person is not in contradiction and opposition to the atonement of Yom Kippur (because if he does not want the atonement of Yom Kippur — he does not allow for the application of the atonement of Yom Kippur).
6. Based on this, we can also understand the difference between the atonement of the scapegoat and that of "the essence of Yom Kippur atones" regarding minor transgressions:
Since the scapegoat atones and nullifies the transgressions themselves, there is naturally a distinction between the types of transgressions. For severe transgressions, due to the gravity of the sin, the scapegoat alone is not sufficient to atone; the act of repentance is also required. However, for minor transgressions, the scapegoat has the power to nullify them even without the act of repentance.
But the fact that "the essence of Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent" is not because, concerning "those who do not repent," there is a weakness in the atoning power of Yom Kippur. Rather, it is because the person is in opposition to the atonement. Since he lacks (not only the act of repentance but) even the general movement of "returning to G‑d," it is therefore entirely irrelevant for the atonement to apply to him. For this reason, there is no difference between minor and severe transgressions: here, the quality of the severity of the transgressions themselves is not relevant, but rather the state of the person, that he should not be in a state that contradicts and opposes the atonement, as mentioned above.
7. Based on all the above, we can better understand the wording of the Rambam in the aforementioned law in Hilchos Shgagos: "Yom Kippur does not atone except for those who repent and believe in its atonement, but one who scorns Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him" — at first glance:
In Hilchos Shgagos, the Rambam discusses the obligation of offerings, i.e., during the time of the Temple —
The Rambam should have seemingly stated (not in the general language "Yom Kippur atones," which simply implies "the essence of Yom Kippur," but) explicitly "the scapegoat, etc." (or the offerings of Yom Kippur and the like) — because during the time of the Temple, the primary atonement was through the scapegoat (and not "the essence of the day").
8. Based on the above, we can say: The primary definition of scorn (mevazeh) is relevant in connection to Yom Kippur and not concerning the scapegoat. This is because the atonement through the scapegoat is not dependent on the individual; the confession of the Kohen Gadol on the scapegoat encompasses "all the sins of the children of Israel," and not as sins are connected to a specific individual — as is precise in the wording of the Rambam, "the scapegoat, because it is an atonement for all of Israel"; and according to this, from the perspective of the scapegoat itself, the entire concept of "scorn" that would nullify the effect of the scapegoat's atonement on the sins would not be relevant at all [unlike with a sin-offering and guilt-offering, which, being a sacrifice — an atonement for the individual, it is understood that through "scorn of their atonement" he contradicts and negates the atonement of the sin-offering and guilt-offering].
The reason it is relevant that the concept of "scorn" could nullify the atonement of the scapegoat is only as a result of Yom Kippur: the effect of the atonement of the scapegoat is not in the category of atonement by itself, like a sin-offering and guilt-offering, but because it is the scapegoat of Yom Kippur, which "on this day He will atone for you," and in the words of the Rashba, "the primary atonement of the scapegoat is due to the strength of Yom Kippur" — and therefore, if one scorns Yom Kippur, which is the "strength" of the scapegoat, he thereby opposes and nullifies the atonement from the scapegoat.
Only when one "believes in its atonement" of Yom Kippur, is there the atonement of the scapegoat, and it thereby atones for all the sins.
8. The difference between the atonement of the scapegoat and the atonement of "the essence of the day" according to the inner dimensions of the matters — we can say:
Through every sin, two things occur: a) Through the act of the sin (together with the desire within it), a "prosecutor" is created; evil is brought into the world (in the language of Kabbalah and Chassidus: it adds vitality to the klipah). b) There is a blemish in the soul.
To nullify the prosecutor (the soul and body of the "klipah") — this is accomplished by the scapegoat, which "atones for all the sins in the Torah" (and for severe sins, repentance is also required with it — to nullify the pleasure he had when committing the sin, which gave rise to the soul of the klipah), and consequently, the blemish that it caused in his soul is also nullified.
However, what the essence of the day atones for is because it establishes the
9. The explanation in this is as follows:
On Yom Kippur, the essential bond between the essence of a Jew's soul and the Almighty is revealed. This bond is not subject to any limitations or boundaries and is beyond expression in any movement, not even in the movement of teshuvah (repentance). This connection cannot be achieved through actions and service, because all human actions, no matter how elevated, inherently possess some measure and limitation. Rather, this connection exists naturally within every Jew, stemming from the essence of their soul, which is a "veritable part of G‑d above." Even now, while in the body, it is "embraced and united with You... unique in unifying You."
Since this connection is beyond all measures and forms, just as it cannot be created through service, it also cannot be weakened or blemished by the lack of service or by transgressions. In this level of connection, no blemishes or sins can reach. Therefore, "the essence of Yom Kippur atones," because on Yom Kippur, this bond between the essence of a Jew's soul and the Almighty is revealed, and when this level is revealed, all blemishes automatically fall away.
In those levels where sins have reached and caused blemishes, atonement must be achieved, and this comes through the scapegoat in conjunction with the service of teshuvah. However, the atonement of Yom Kippur occurs because it illuminates a level where there was never any blemish to begin with, as mentioned above — "before the L‑rd, you shall be purified."