In a celebrated series of Pesukim in Parashat Nitzavim, Moshe encourages the Jewish people that “this mitzvah” that he is commanding them on that very day, is not beyond their individual or collective spiritual powers. It does not reside in the celestial realm, לא בשמים היא, that one might be required to ascend into those realms so as to possess it, nor is it across the far reaches of the sea, such that one might require an extended maritime voyage to acquire it. On the contrary, Moshe Rabbeinu concludes, ‘the thing’ is indeed very close to you, ‘in your mouth and in your heart to perform it.’
With the reference to that singular expression, it is not in the heavens, our minds are instinctively drawn to a series of rabbinic statements concerning the proprietary relationship between the Jewish people and the Torah, on one level, and the process of Torah study on the other. In what is undoubtedly the most famous utilization of the term, R. Yehoshua demands that the Heavenly intercession in support of R. Eliezer’s permissive view concerning the tanur shel achna’i be disregarded as Halakhic discourse is now the sole province of the Jewish people. A parallel passage, demonstrates that R. Yehoshua’s prerogative, while correct, is only one side of the coin, and that ‘it is not in the heavens’ is as much a responsibility as it is a privilege, thus precluding Yehoshua from recovering the Torah lost in the aftermath of Moshe’s demise through the medium of prayer. Finally, our Sages note the significance of the expression for the process of acquiring Torah, noting that humility is a prerequisite for mastery of Torah, as it is not found in those whose conduct is marked by pretentiousness and intellectual self certainty.
And yet, these Rabbinic statements, magnificent as they are, seem far from the simple reading of the verse. As noted by Ramban, in the context of the antecedent verses in Parshat Nitzavim, there can be little doubt whatsoever that the specific Mitzvah which is being referred to in these Pesukim is the obligation to repent. Indeed, the use of the dual mechanism, ‘in your mouth and in your heart to perform it,’ as noted by Ramban, is a reference to the dual character of repentance, which requires confession in the mouth and a profound emotional movement in the heart. Why then do Chazal so insistently and repeatedly interpret these verses as relating to the Torah writ large, and to the process whereby it is acquired?
II.
Perhaps two further questions can help illuminate our first query. As we find ourselves in the midst of the forty day period of repentance which commences with Rosh Chodesh Elul and concludes with Yom Kippur, we know that we are doing so in accordance with a forty day period observed by Moshe Rabbeinu at Mount Sinai.
And yet, of the three successive forty day periods which Moshe Rabbeinu observed on Sinai, from the day following the giving of the Torah through Yom Kippur, it seems strange that the forty day period we observe does not align with the middle forty days, during which Moshe Rabbeinu was pleading with the Almighty for the Jewish people, hoping to spare them from destruction. Indeed, we mark our period of repentance in accordance with the final forty day period of the triad, the one in which Moshe received the entirety of the Torah for a second time. Are we not, if we wish to capture the spirit of Moshe’s paradigmatic moment of repentance, quite simply observing the wrong time of year?
Finally, we know very well, and it is relevant to the invalidation of a shofar from a cow, of the principle of Ein Kateigor Na’Aseh Saneigor, that elements which are reminiscent of the sin of the Golden Calf can play no role in atoning for the Jewish people, at least in the context of the Kodesh Kodashim, the sanctum sanctorum. How, then, as our Sages teach us, could the first set of Luchot have been kept in the Ark? Were they not the ultimate reminder of the sin of the Golden Calf, and its aftermath, when Moshe, rightly, smashed the tablets? While it is true that the Talmud limits the scope of this principle, Ein Kateigor Na’Aseh Saneigor, to elements which are designed to bring atonement to the Jewish people, Rabbeinu Tam’s inclusion of the silver poles which rested in the Aron as subject to this principle, at minimum, raises the question with respect to the first Luchot, which are indubitably a far more direct link to the Golden Calf than the mere use of gold. At minimum, even if one does not concede that there is a technical violation of Ein Kateigor Na’Aseh Saneigor at risk, one can still wonder, in a more general sense, what the smashed Luchot were doing there altogether?
III.
It seems to me that the lynchpin in answering this series of questions resides with a seemingly quixotic statement of Reish Lakish regarding the capacity for teshuvah to, astonishingly, transform previous sins of a deliberate nature, into merits, Zechuyot. While a prior statement of Reish Lakish, that teshuvah can dilute, as it were, intentional sins into unintentional ones is surely novel in its own right, the latter statement almost defies any kind of logic. It is one thing to mitigate the past through serious repentance, but to transform it, to revise one’s personal history? This seems almost preposterous.
In internally reconciling Reish Lakish’s two statements, the Talmud notes that he reserved the Zedonot to Zechuyot transformation for those who engaged in Teshuvah Me’Ahavah, as opposed to those who were engaged in Teshuvah Mi’Yirah, repentance rooted in fear of the consequences of one’s sins. The latter suffices only to mitigate the sin from intentional to unintentional, and yet the stain very much persists. The former, astonishingly, goes two steps further: it not only removes the sin altogether, but it transforms it into a kind of merit.
Perhaps this model can serve as a paradigm for the distinction between the intermediate period of forty days which Moshe observed at Sinai and the final period of forty days, when he received the Torah anew. As is stated explicitly by Moshe Rabbeinu in Sefer Devarim, the intermediate period of forty days was marked by profound fear, “כי יגרתי מפני האף והחמה אשר קצף ה’ עליכם להשמיד אתכם”. In pursuit of this narrow, albeit obviously vital goal,Moshe was successful, ׳׳וַיִּשְׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֵלַי גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַהִוא׳׳, the Almighty hearkened to Moshe Rabbeinu’s entreaty, and there was no destruction of the Jewish people. Yet, the stain persisted. As noted by Moshe in the succeeding verses, the Calf still required obliteration. At this stage, the shattered Luchot could indeed only be seen as an object of sin, reminiscent of the cataclysm which had transpired.
The final days, however, represented a new phase, something analogous to what the Talmud describes as Teshuvah Me’Ahavah. Love of God is characterized by a desire to be close to Him, to come to understand Him as deeply as is possible, despite the infinite chasm between the Divine and the human. Even the most cursory reading of the final period of forty days, when Moshe ascended Sinai for the third time, reveals that this is precisely what transpired. Moshe Rabbeinu had already saved the Jewish people from destruction. The question had shifted to whether or not the Almighty would make his presence felt in the Jewish camp, or whether he would merely send an angel. Moshe pleads, time and again, for Divine closeness, to know God. It is no accident that in this context that God reveals his thirteen names to Moshe, the ultimate reflection of intimacy and knowledge of the Divine. For Ramban, the fact that Moshe learned God’s thirteen ‘names’ during these final forty days is of particular significance in so far as he understands the entirety of the Torah to be composed of Divine names. further establishing the connection between the final forty days and an acceptance of the entire Torah.
Moshe Rabbeinu, during this final phase, receives the entirety of the Torah in the context of unprecedented Divine intimacy and love. It is indeed a return unto God, and his Torah out of a love of Him, Teshuvah Me’ Ahavah par excellance.
In accordance with Reish Lakish’s view, it is only at this point, following Teshuvah Me’ahavah, that the first set of Luchot no longer reflect sin and consequentially, fracture, but, astonishingly, Zedonot Na’Asot Lo Ki-Zechuyot, they become an embodiment and reflection of the unbreakable bond between the Almighty and His people. Indeed, Luchot V’shivrei Luchot Munachot Ba-Aron.
IV.
In our collective observance of these final forty days, we aspire not to the intermediate days of Teshuvah Mi’Yirah, of simply looking to avoid the calamity of death and destruction, but the far more ambitious aspiration of Teshuvah Me’Ahavah. We are not satisfied by averting a catastrophe alone, but we strive to re-energize and revitalize our entire relationship with Him, through a full embrace of His Torah, and not merely by narrowly repenting on those elements in which we may have been in breach.
Undoubtedly, Chazal also knew what the Ramban pointed out, that the specific mitzvah being referenced in this celebrated passage in Nitzavim was the mitzvah of Teshuvah. One cannot, in all candor, read the Pesukim in any other fashion, without a near complete disregard for Peshat.
And yet, in a deeper sense, Chazal could not have been more accurate in their application of these Pesukim to the entirety of the Torah, and the specific process of learning Torah at that. After all, Chazal well understood that the paradigmatic Teshuvah were the final forty days, when Moshe Rabbienu accepted, on behalf of the Jewish people, the entirety of the Torah anew, with a commitment not merely to never repeating the sin of the Golden Calf, but, with far greater ambition, a sense of an overwhelming and intensive love of God, a desire for closeness with him, and an instinctive, reflexive commitment not only to rectifying specific sins which were committed, but to embracing the entire corpus of the revealed Divine will, the Torah itself. As Rambam noted, the direct outgrowth of fully developed love for Him is an immediate acceptance of all of His commands, ובזמן שיאהוב אדם את ה' אהבה הראויה מיד יעשה כל המצות מאהבה.
Indeed, Ramban himself, if read carefully, seems to have understood precisely this point, as he noted, even in interpreting the mitzvah in question as teshuvah, “וישובו בלבם אל ה',ויקבלו עליהם היום התורה לעשותה לדורות, ”that they will return in their hearts unto Hashem, and accept upon themselves, on this day, the Torah, to fulfill it in perpetuity.” Teshuvah Me’Ahavah, a return to Hashem, motivated by a love of Him, is nothing less than a Kabbalat Ha-Torah, an embrace, now and forever, of His revealed word.
For footnotes please email koltorah@koltorah.org