Teshuva

St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology Teshuva Ghila Amati and Miri Freud-Kandel First published: 4 July 2024 https://www.saet.ac.uk/Judaism/Teshuva Citation Amati, Ghila and Miri Freud-Kandel. 2024. 'Teshuva', St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. Edited by Brendan N. Wolfe et al. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Judaism/Teshuva Accessed: 11 July 2024 Copyright information Copyright © Ghila Amati and Miri Freud-Kandel CC BY-NC ISSN 2753-3492 Teshuva Ghila Amati and Miri Freud-Kandel This encyclopaedia article aims to provide an exhaustive investigation of the concept of Teshuva in Jewish thought, with a focus on its historical trajectory and multifaceted interpretations. The term teshuva in Hebrew etymologically means ‘return’, suggesting a journey back to an original state or condition or to the divine. Originating from biblical precepts, Teshuva has undergone substantive elaboration in Rabbinic literature and further intellectual treatment in subsequent Jewish writings. This article underscores the theological gravitas of Teshuva. To bring depth and nuance to this investigation, it integrates the contributions of four seminal Jewish scholars – Moses Maimonides, Nachman of Breslov, Abraham Isaac Kook, and Joseph B. Soloveitchik – each offering a unique conceptual framework of Teshuva. Their divergent viewpoints serve as a prism through which the richness and complexity of Teshuva are elucidated. Keywords: Jewish theology, Teshuva, Repentance, Redemption, Atonement, Sin, Selfhood, Fear, Love 1 Table of contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Origins and historical development 1.2 Teshuva as a condition for redemption 2 Maimonides: Teshuva as repentance 3 Rabbi Nachman: Teshuva and the repentance of repentance 4 Rabbi Kook: Teshuva as a cosmological process and a return to selfhood 4.1 Teshuva as a return to selfhood 4.2 Three categories of repentance in Rabbi Kook’s teachings 4.3 Teshuva as a cosmological process 4.4 Teshuva and self-affirmation 5 Rabbi Soloveitchik: Teshuva and the dichotomy of fear-driven and love-driven repentance 5.1 Fear-driven repentance 5.2 Love-driven repentance 5.3 Self-creation and redemption through love-driven repentance 6 Conclusion 2 1 Introduction Jewish teachings on Teshuva occupy a significant space within Jewish thought and practice. The term teshuva in Hebrew etymologically means ‘return’, suggesting a journey back to an original state or condition or to the divine. While it is commonly translated in a religious context as ‘repentance’, implying a return to moral and spiritual alignment, in modern Hebrew it can also mean ‘answer’. This dual meaning enriches the concept of Teshuva in Jewish thought, framing it as not only a return to righteousness but also as a profound response or answer to a divine or moral calling. 1.1 Origins and historical development In biblical sources, the concept of Teshuva has a relatively constrained scope, and lacks the spiritual resonances that characterize its contemporary use. Rather, the verb shuv (to return) appears frequently in the Bible with a meaning similar to modern interpretations when used in the context of sin and atonement. Teshuva in the Bible lacks an independent and well-defined ritual and theological status. It is generally understood as the conditions required for individuals or the community to mend their relationship with God after committing sinful actions that cause a disruption. For example, verses such as ‘return to Me, and I will return to you’ (Mal 3:7) and ‘return us to You, O Lord, and we will return’ (Lam 5:21) aptly illustrate the biblical concept of Teshuva. In the Bible, both Israel as a nation and individual Israelites are implored by prophets speaking in the name of God to restore their divine-human relationship, turning away from the sinful, disobedient path they are treading. Finally, passages such as Jer 3:12; Ezek 18:21–23; Jonah 3:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:46–52; and Ps 51:1–4, among others, portray God as merciful, compassionate, and forgiving in response to the repentant sinner who acknowledges their sins, expresses remorse, and commits to modifying their behaviour. An essential illustration of Teshuva is provided by the story of Joseph and his brothers (Schimmel 1988). After selling Joseph into slavery out of jealousy, his brothers undertake a significant journey of repentance and transformation. When Joseph tested their repentance by framing his brother, Benjamin, for theft, Judah offered himself as a slave in Benjamin’s place, thereby choosing not to repeat their previous sin (Gen 42– 44). Therefore, the primary focus in the Bible is on the acts of atonement individuals must undertake to earn God’s forgiveness. Nonetheless, Teshuva is not explicitly identified as an institutionally valued act within these atonement rituals, and instead the act of confession that accompanies sacrifices often assumes this role (for a review on the use of the concept of Teshuva in the Bible and the Talmud, see Petuchowski 1968; Lambert 2004; 2015; Morgan 2012; Levine 1999). 3 The Rabbis clarified and expanded the biblical concept of Teshuva, bringing its full significance into the limelight and providing a more tangible blueprint for Teshuva than the Bible originally offered. Yet, they clearly were not the originators of this concept. Petuchowski (1968) argues that the insights shared by the Rabbis about Teshuva were effectively already present, albeit in an embryonic form, within Hosea’s earnest and impassioned call: ‘Return, O Israel, unto the Lord thy God, for thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity’ (Hosea 14: 2). In Rabbinic literature the role of Teshuva is amplified, and is considered in conjunction with the Day of Atonement. Rabbinic texts explore the limits and effectiveness of Teshuva, underscoring its theological significance within Judaism: death and Yom Kippur bring about atonement if there is Teshuva. Teshuva brings about atonement for minor transgressions against both positive and negative commands; for graver transgressions, it suspends punishment until Yom Kippur comes and accomplishes atonement. If a man says, ‘“I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,” he will be given no chance to repent [literally, to do Teshuva]’ (Mishnah Yoma, 8:8–9). In the Mishnah, Teshuva is given a position independent from Yom Kippur and is defined from both a Halakhic and institutional standpoint. Moreover, the transgressions for which Teshuva offers atonement and the circumstances where Teshuva is ineffective are established (Gruenwald 1991). Consequently, Teshuva assumes a theological significance, holding a central role in Judaism. Indications of Teshuva’s evolving nature during this period can be found in post-biblical Jewish writings such as the Book of Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls (on the Book of Ben Sira, see Segal 1971; Martínez 1999; Pancratius 1997; Gilbert 2002; Labendz 2006). It is not possible to cover the full array of meanings found in the concept of Teshuva as presented in Rabbinic literature within this framework. Nonetheless, what is crucial to acknowledge is the development in the content of the Teshuva concept throughout its various iterations from biblical times onwards. What appears as a narrow idea in its theological significance in scripture is revealed as a central theme in Rabbinic literature and in later Jewish thought. At each stage in the evolution of Jewish thought, efforts are made to reach new depths in the concept, whether in the realm of Halakhah and traditions, or in that of thought and morality (Gruenwald 1991). 1.2 Teshuva as a condition for redemption Regardless of the limits to its theological significance in the Bible, an intrinsic connection between Teshuva and redemption is present in both biblical and Rabbinic literature (see Wright 2003: 248 [vol. 2], ‘repentance […] was what Israel must do if her exile is to come to an end’; for different approaches see Lambert 2006; Reimarus 1970: 66–67). The book of Deuteronomy is often associated with a notion of free will, suggesting that Israel’s fate 4 lies in its own decisions. As one of many passages that appear to support this idea states, in a resonant admonition: And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. (Deut 30:1–3, JPS Tanakh) These verses link the idea of Teshuva with the concept of the ingathering of the exiles. This pattern of sin-exile-repentance-redemption, often considered central to Deuteronomistic ideology, suggests the efficacy of human agency in Israel’s reconciliation with God. Renewing obedience to God, with contrition for past sin, thus becomes the major religious desire during exile. This notion is seen by many scholars as dominating not only biblical theology but also the preoccupations of those living in the late Second Temple period (see Urbach 1975; Beer 2011; and for a refutation of this view of the connection between Teshuva and redemption, see Lambert 2006). A similar connection appears in Rabbinic literature: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the Jewish people repent they are redeemed, and if not they are not redeemed. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If they do not repent, will they not be redeemed at all? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will establish a king for them whose decrees are as harsh as those issued by Haman, and the Jewish people will have no choice but to repent, and this will restore them to the right path. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b– 98a) Building on these ideas, the concept of Teshuva underwent dynamic development through the course of Jewish history. Jewish thinkers sought to broaden its meaning through diverse avenues such as Halakhah (Jewish Law), customs, philosophical thought, and moral theories. This historical trajectory reveals different types of Teshuva that reflect the continuously evolving nature of Jewish thought and practice. In order to examine various models of Teshuva, we will begin with Maimonides’ approach. 2 Maimonides: Teshuva as repentance Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides; 1138–1204) undeniably occupies a distinguished position in the history of Jewish philosophy. His expansive ideas constitute the 5 foundation for a revolutionary framework of Jewish thought. His elucidation of Teshuva is comprehensively detailed in his literary works (for an introduction to Maimonides, see Halbertal 2014). He first introduces the topic of Teshuva at the conclusion of his Sefer HaMadda (Book of Knowledge), emphasizing the philosophical nature of repentance. Maimonides also incorporates the concept of Teshuva within his Hilkhot Teshuva (Laws of Teshuva), validating its Halakhic legitimacy within his philosophical discourse. While the laws of Teshuva are traditionally associated with the period between Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the preparatory month of Ellul, Maimonides amplifies its broad and timeless relevance, indicating how its significance extends beyond this specific timeframe. Certain aspects of Maimonides’ Hilkhot Teshuva address the significance of repentance in relation to Yom Kippur and its procedural components. However, his main emphasis is on Teshuva as a spiritual and ethical journey, analogous to the lifestyle of an individual capable of reaching intellectual heights – that is, the lifestyle of his paradigm of the sagephilosopher (see Shatz 1997). According to Maimonides, repentance acts as the channel through which individuals can revitalize their souls and repair their relationship with God after committing sins. Maimonides posits that repentance is accessible to everyone, regardless of their past actions. He maintains in his writings that, in the absence of the Temple, the only path to atonement is through repentance (Angel 2011: 107). Moreover, he suggests that repentance can absolve all sins, thus enabling even a wicked individual who sincerely repents to transform into a righteous person through contemplation and adherence to God’s laws and commandments. There are instances where atonement may not be fully achieved within one’s lifetime. An extreme instance is when an individual desecrates the Name of God. Even if the individual repents, confesses, and experiences suffering directly linked to the sin, and even when the Day of Atonement arrives, the process of atonement for this individual only commences after death. Maimonides bases his understanding of repentance on two critical attributes of human nature: the possession of a soul and the exercise of free will (Stern 1979). The soul serves as the means through which we can recognize God, and its nurture is crucial for the process of repentance. Despite the philosophical dilemmas it presents, free will forms the bedrock of human accountability and the capacity to comprehend and repent for one’s sins (on Maimonides, free will, and its limits, see Leibowitz 1987: 72; Sokol 1998; Altman 1974; Pines 1960; Harvey 1984). The initial step towards reconciliation and communion with God is repentance. Although we cannot grasp God’s true essence, Maimonides posits that it is feasible to develop into a virtuous person through contemplation and obedience to God’s laws and mandates via repentance (Meister 2008: 103). 6 From Maimonides’ perspective, Teshuva represents a central value in an individual’s life, extending beyond specific periods such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. It involves extricating oneself from immoral and heretical viewpoints and transitioning towards a path of goodness and ethical conduct. Maimonides posits that true repentance necessitates a comprehensive, multi-stage process that includes acknowledgement of one’s guilt and renunciation of sin. In practical terms, this requires full renunciation of the sinful act, genuine regret, verbal confession, and an unwavering commitment to avoid repeating the offence. He emphasizes that verbal confession is an integral part of the process, as it promotes awareness of one’s actions and their consequences (regarding the act of confession in the Jewish Tradition, see Kleonicki 2006). The individual should verbally confess and articulate their sin, thus enhancing awareness of their actions. As Maimonides explains: ‘The sinner shall repent of his sins before the Lord and make confession’ (Maimonides 2012: 81b). For Maimonides, repentance and confession are inseparable; one without the other lacks efficacy. One could confess without ever achieving true repentance in their heart before God. The confession, intended for the Almighty, should comprise an admission of wrongdoing and the recognition that this wrongdoing constitutes a sin. The sin should be specifically named and described in as much detail as possible, and repentance should be accompanied by shame and a resolution never to repeat the sin. These fundamental components are crucial for the Teshuva process to be considered thorough and effective. Maimonides defines the highest level of repentance as perfect repentance, characterized by subsequent opportunities to repeat and avoid the same sin. If an individual sins, repents, and confesses sincerely from their heart and mind, finds themselves in the same situation in which they initially chose to sin, and this time resists the temptation, they achieve perfect repentance. Maimonides states: What is perfect repentance? It is when an opportunity presents itself for repeating an offense once committed, and the offender, while able to commit the offense, refrains from doing so because they are penitent, not out of fear or lack of vigour. (Maimonides 1975: 84) Joseph’s brothers’ selfless act in Genesis 42–44 towards Benjamin exemplifies Maimonides’ view of perfect repentance. Despite having the opportunity to repeat their earlier sin, the brothers chose a different path, demonstrating true remorse and a changed character. Therefore, repentance cannot be deemed ‘perfect’ unless the same situation arises again. The test of free will for the individual comes from possessing the ability, desire, and opportunity. As Leo Strauss notes in his interpretation of Maimonides’ thought: ‘[a]n old man cannot perfectly repent for the sins he committed in his youth by virtue of his youth. From this, it follows that there cannot be any perfect repentance on one’s deathbed’ (Strauss 2013: 565). 7 In Maimonides’ view, Teshuva serves as a potential vehicle for leading individuals to the world to come, a state of spiritual accomplishment akin to that of angels, representing independent intellects liberated from corporeal existence. Teshuva is not confined to specific actions but is a transformative process that elevates individuals to higher levels of human existence, closer to the Divine Presence (Laws of Teshuva 7, Halakhah 6–7). Maimonides’ perspective on Teshuva can be construed as a process of intellectualization, where repentance involves profound contemplation of God, the self, and creation. The intellect plays a vital role in this account of repentance, equipping individuals to discern good and evil and make morally-sound decisions. Through the cultivation of the intellect and adherence to God’s will, repentance becomes a pathway to achieve closeness to the Divine and spiritual perfection. Consequently, Maimonides offers a comprehensive concept of Teshuva, with its benefits encapsulated in the following statement: Great is Teshuva for it brings man closer to the Shechinah (Divine Presence) […] if you turn back in Teshuvah, cleave unto Me […] How wonderful is the advantage of Teshuva: Last evening this man was separated from the God of Israel […] and today he cleaves to the Shechinah. (Laws of Teshuva 7, Halakhah 6–7) Moreover, Maimonides’ conception of Teshuva demonstrates selectivity. Certain matters captivate him more than others, and some individuals may simply be incapable of engaging in the advanced and lofty processes of Teshuva. As will be explored in section 4.3, such selectivity is absent in Rabbi Kook’s approach. According to Rabbi Kook, all facets of existence ideally participate in the processes of Teshuva. 3 Rabbi Nachman: Teshuva and the repentance of repentance Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772–1810) revitalized the Hasidic movement by integrating Kabbalistic principles with profound Torah knowledge. Throughout his lifetime, thousands of individuals followed his teachings, and his legacy continues to thrive through various Hasidic movements such as Breslov Hasidism. (For a biography of Rabbi Nachman, see Green 1979; and for a well-informed collection of essays on Rabbi Nachman, see Nahmani 2011). Breslov presents an innovative account of repentance, diverging from traditional interpretations firmly embedded in early Jewish literature, like those propounded by Maimonides (on Rabbi Nachman and rectification (Tikkun), see Mondshine 1982; Mark 2011; for a review of the two different kinds of Teshuva for Rabbi Nachman, see Rozenberg 2011). Instead, he emphasizes a continuous and progressive concept of repentance, encouraging individuals to acknowledge the shortcomings of their initial 8 repentance and, consequently, to repent for the act of repentance itself. This perspective exemplifies the incorporation of introspective thought within Halakhah. The philosophical underpinnings of Rabbi Nachman’s teachings on repentance find parallels in Rabbi Kook’s work. For instance, Rabbi Kook argues that heretics receive a higher divine revelation than devout individuals. From a conventional legal viewpoint, such an assertion might seem improbable. However, Rabbi Kook seeks to articulate this from a more elevated standpoint, specifically from the perspective of original and divine will. The next section will focus on Rabbi Kook’s view of Teshuva. The notion that repentance is an unending journey is central to Rabbi Nachman’s teachings (Likutey Moharan I, 6). Even when an individual confesses and solicits forgiveness with utmost sincerity, devoid of ulterior motives, the act of repentance presents its own challenges. Consequently, one also needs to repent for earlier acts of repentance, acknowledging the deficiencies in previous confessions. This repetitive act of repentance is essential as a means of addressing how understandings of Godliness evolve over time. As a result, past repentance may appear inadequate and materialistic when compared to current comprehension. This suggests an ongoing need for spiritual growth and introspection. Rabbi Nachman delineates two forms of repentance: the repentance of ‘this world’ and the repentance of ‘the world to come’. The former is tied to religious awareness within our earthly existence, constrained by our existential limitations. It involves rectifying our religious actions and behaviours based on societal and Halakhic norms. However, Rabbi Nachman posits that while this form of repentance is necessary, it remains constrained in its spirituality and understanding of God’s boundlessness. This form of repentance addresses the rectification of an individual’s religious conduct in this world but also exhibits a longing for personal validation and self-justification. As a result, the individual does not directly confront God. Despite the inherent issues with this form of repentance, Rabbi Nachman does not propose its renunciation. He suggests acknowledging its limitations, viewing it as the initial stage of the rectification process. In contrast, the repentance of ‘the world to come’ signifies a higher level of spirituality, exceeding the confines of this world, focusing on a genuine desire for truth and connection with the infinite Creator. This form of repentance transcends the legalistic and societal boundaries of earthly repentance, seeking a profound connection with the divine. In this repentance, the individual repents for the repentance of this world. Rabbi Nachman perceives both forms of repentance as necessary, advocating for individuals to engage in both concurrently. Acknowledging the limitation of the repentance of this world is critical, as it transforms the act of admitting ‘I have sinned’ into a spiritual endeavour, facilitating a connection with 9 the divine. Confession is no longer perceived as an absolute, but as a gateway to the second repentance, the repentance for God’s honour (Kavod Elohim). Thus, the concept of repentance for the world to come, associated with Binah (wisdom) in Kabbalistic terms, represents an additional step in the spiritual correction process. This involves repenting for the repentance of this world (connected with Malchut, divine majesty) while acknowledging the inadequacies of one’s initial repentance in the face of God’s boundlessness. Rabbi Shagar (Rozenberg 2011), a twenty-first-century Torah scholar and a religious postmodern thinker, posits that Rabbi Nachman’s interpretation of repentance aligns with the philosophical concept of irony as presented by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. This ‘Kierkegaardian irony’ requires individuals to maintain a dual awareness – recognizing the limitations of their understanding while earnestly pursuing Teshuva. The individual must acknowledge the shortcomings in their repentance while continually striving for deeper spiritual growth and connection with the infinite. On Rosh Hashanah, the Day of Judgment, Rabbi Nachman suggests that the focus should be on the repentance of ‘the world to come’ rather than the repentance of this world. This superior form of Teshuva enables individuals to stand before God with awe and humility, acknowledging their relative insignificance compared to the divine infinity. This form of repentance calls for an authentic encounter with the infinite, moving beyond the material and legalistic aspects of repentance and fostering a deeper spiritual connection. Thus, Rabbi Nachman’s approach challenges the traditional perception that views repentance solely as an act of seeking forgiveness for one’s sins. Instead, he encourages individuals to perceive repentance as an ongoing spiritual journey, wherein they continuously strive to deepen their connection with God and their understanding of the divine truth. According to Rabbi Nachman, the process of Teshuva is not linear but dialectical. It involves individuals recognizing their own limitations while aspiring to reach higher levels of spiritual awareness. 4 Rabbi Kook: Teshuva as a cosmological process and a return to selfhood Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), an Orthodox rabbi, theologian, mystic, and celebrated Jewish legal scholar, is considered one of the forefathers of Religious Zionism, an ideology that amalgamates Zionism with Orthodox Judaism (see Ravitzky 1996; De Lange 2005; on the use of Kook in contemporary religious nationalism, see Gorenberg 2006; Inbari 2012; Inbari 2021: 15–36). Rabbi Kook extensively referred to the topic of Teshuva in numerous writings and notebooks, even devoting an entire book to the subject: Orot ha-Teshuva (1925), edited by his son, Zvi Yehuda Kook. Rabbi Kook conceives Teshuva as one of the primary ideas in Judaism, a process that is both individual and 10 cosmological, manifesting in the spiritual, intellectual, and even scientific development of the world. His teachings on Teshuva are profound and transformative, infusing the traditional concept with fresh contemporary meaning. Rabbi Kook perceives Teshuva as an invigorating celebration of spiritual freedom, relevant to individuals, the Jewish people, and the entire world. His views stem from his deep comprehension of Kabbalah, philosophy, the zeitgeist of his era, and his unique inner life (for further readings on the subject of Teshuva in Rabbi Kook, see Gruenwald 1991; Ish Shalom 1991; Ben Shlomo 1990: 62–75; Lifschitz 1969). 4.1 Teshuva as a return to selfhood Rabbi Kook’s insights into Teshuva offer a unique perspective that enriches the traditional understanding of ‘sin’ and ‘repentance’ within the divine-human relationship. He relates these notions to the concept of selfhood, portraying sin primarily as a transgression against oneself; repentance then functions as a journey back to the true self, the authentic essence of one’s existence (see Ish Shalom 1991; and on the place of the self in Kook’s view of freedom and nationalism consider ; 2023). This introspective journey extends beyond the individual sphere and permeates cosmic processes and all planes of existence, encompassing the collective identity of the nation and of humanity itself. In Orot ha-Teshuva, Rabbi Kook provides a general yet unequivocal definition of Teshuva. He writes: ‘Teshuva is fundamentally a movement towards originality, towards the heavenly source of life and being in their perfection’ (Kook 1925: ch. 12, section 8). This definition applies to different levels of existence – the individual, the nation, and humanity (see Kook 1925). This passage also underscores the inseparability between returning to oneself and returning to God. By re-establishing a connection with one’s true self, an individual simultaneously forms a bond with God (Amati 2023; Ish Shalom 1993). This nexus between human selfhood and the divine is a key aspect of Rabbi Kook’s philosophy. Within this framework, repentance emerges as a unifying force that binds humans and God, enabling individuals to transcend divisions and experience authentic freedom through expressing their true selves. Conversely, sin is perceived as a force fostering division and constraining selfhood. Kook writes: This obstinacy in insisting on a single view and focusing upon it, tied by the ropes of sins that have become habit, whether in the form of deeds or views, is a malady caused by sinking into a slavery so cruel that the light of freedom offered by repentance cannot shine forth in its strength; for repentance aspires to true and original freedom, divine freedom that knows no slavery. (Kook 1925: ch. 5, section 5) 11 4.2 Three categories of repentance in Rabbi Kook’s teachings Rabbi Kook elucidates three distinct categories of repentance in his teachings: naturalphysical repentance, faithful repentance, and intellectual repentance (Lifschitz 1969). (1) Natural-physical repentance (Ha-Teshuva Tivit-Gufanit) is tied to transgressions against the principles of nature, ethics, and Torah that harmonize with the natural order and equilibrium. This form of repentance relates to sins that disrupt the harmonious operation of the natural world. It envelops repentance emanating from physical frailty or illness, and transgressions against ethical norms and aspects of the Torah connected to the laws of nature, such as excessive devotion or disregard for bodily welfare. (2) Faithful repentance (Ha-Teshuva Ha-Emunit) personifies a process of spiritual realignment, a return to the path dictated by religious tradition and divine edicts. It entails a renewed commitment to upholding one’s faith and leading a life in consonance with its teachings. (3) Intellectual repentance (Ha-Teshuva Ha-Sichlit) is the pinnacle form of Teshuva that arises only after an individual has achieved natural and faithful repentance. It calls for deep introspection and self-analysis, demanding a willingness to critically examine one’s actions and motives and their wider repercussions. This form of repentance surpasses the recognition of the physical or spiritual fallout of one’s actions, delving instead into a comprehensive understanding of their ethical and moral implications. During intellectual repentance, individuals strive towards personal growth and self-enhancement, guided by logic, wisdom, and a sturdy ethical consciousness. This level of repentance involves a continuous commitment to learning, self-reflection, and moral behaviour. According to Rabbi Kook, this stage of repentance is characterized by being ‘filled with infinite light’ (Kook 1925: ch. 1), representing an enlightened state of mind that encourages growth, transformation, and continual progression. At this level, sins transform into merits. It was seen above that Rabbi Nachman emphasizes the continuous and progressive nature of repentance, urging individuals to constantly grow and deepen their connection with God. This aligns with Rabbi Kook’s understanding of Teshuva as a process that involves the ongoing improvement and refinement of the world. These perspectives therefore underline that the journey of Teshuva is not a one-time event but a lifelong process of spiritual growth and evolution. 4.3 Teshuva as a cosmological process Rabbi Kook perceives Teshuva as more than an individual pursuit; he views it as a universal phenomenon. According to his teachings, the entire world, including all components of existence, endures in a perpetual state of Teshuva. This act symbolizes 12 an inherent drive within all beings to better themselves, conquer their limitations, and return to their primal source (Kook 1925: ch. 15, section 10). Therefore, the evolution and refinement of the world are intimately tied to its aspiration to improve, purify itself, and reach loftier echelons of existence. Human repentance, as per Rabbi Kook, signifies a progression towards the amelioration of all reality. It strives not merely to enhance its power and capacity for action but also to elevate and purify itself. The cosmic will that impels the world towards perfection is essentially a drive for repentance, almost as if the world itself partakes in repentance. This cosmic repentance is crucial to the evolution of life. The motion of Teshuva is not confined to a select group of individuals; it permeates the universe in its entirety. The impulse within humans to repent merely symbolizes an expression of the universal quest for selfenhancement, power augmentation, and transcendence of finite nature and limitations (Ben Shlomo 1990: 67–68). Kook maintains: The world must inevitably achieve complete repentance. The world is not static, but it continues to evolve, and a truly comprehensive evolution must yield a complete state of health, both material and spiritual […] The spirit of repentance hovers over the world, endowing it with its basic character and developmental impetus. (Kook 1925: ch. 5, section 3) The interconnectedness between an individual’s act of Teshuva and what Rabbi Kook terms as ‘the great cosmic Teshuva’ aligns effectively with their shared objective: a return to their authentic divine essence. Each act of Teshuva signifies a return to a primordial state. Personal repentance guides an individual back to his inherent self, to ‘the root of his own soul’, to his authentic ‘I’, which is fundamentally good – the facet disregarded when sinning. Similarly, the global act of repentance facilitates ‘the rectification of all existence, whose corruption arises when it forgets itself’ (Kook 1925: ch. 15, section 10). According to Ben Shlomo, the primary essence that the world ‘forgot’ is its integral unity with its Divine origin. Therefore, ‘through Teshuva, all things reunite with God; the fact that Teshuva operates in all words returns and reattaches all things to the realm of Divine perfection’ (Ben Shlomo 1990: 69). This interpretation of repentance involves a dialectical principle: the Divine origin, known as ‘the root of being’, to which all entities aim to return, is recognized as ‘the absolute good’, a state where all distinctions dissolve and all oppositions reconcile. However, for the process of return and reintegration through Teshuva to transpire, the necessary precondition is the descent of the worlds and their separation from this unity. This descent services the larger scheme of ascent for the ‘cosmic reality’, delving into the deepest depths and darkest corners, with the goal of climbing back from these points through the 13 mechanism of universal repentance. Essentially, the ultimate aim, although never fully realized, is for creation to negate its own existence and realize complete unity with God (Ben Shlomo 1990: 68–69). Thus, the ‘upward’ journey reflects the ‘downward’ path: just as creation moved from divine perfection towards a state of potential enhancement in the world, so too does ‘Teshuva’ proceed in the reverse direction. It commences from the lowest stage at the dawn of evolution and ascends back to its origin in the Divine (Ben Shlomo 1990: 69). 4.4 Teshuva and self-affirmation Rabbi Kook’s interpretation of Teshuva underscores the crucial role of self-affirmation within the repentance process. He envisages Teshuva as the transformation of one’s ‘vigorous will’ – a force that may have previously engendered sin – into a potent instrument for goodwill and blessings. Unlike traditional perspectives associating repentance with sorrow, fear, or punishment, Rabbi Kook’s view emerges from the joy and vitality individuals experience when aligning with their true selves. Teshuva, according to him, does not imply suppressing natural desires and impulses; instead, it focuses on channelling them towards virtuous endeavours. In conclusion, Rabbi Kook’s interpretation of Teshuva, portraying it as both a personal return to one’s true self and a cosmological process, offers a transformative viewpoint on repentance. This perspective is reminiscent of the continuous evolution and development emphasized by Rabbi Nachman, with its unique stress on both the cosmological and the individual aspects. This comprehension of Teshuva encompasses the individual, the Jewish community, and the world at large, underscoring their interdependence and reciprocal influence. Teshuva is depicted as a positive and enabling force that empowers individuals to align with their inherent essence and establish a relationship with the divine. It symbolizes the universal desire for improvement, reconnection, and a return to God. Rabbi Kook’s teachings on Teshuva delineate a path towards spiritual development, moral elevation, and a harmonious interaction between humanity and the cosmos. 5 Rabbi Soloveitchik: Teshuva and the dichotomy of fear-driven and love-driven repentance In numerous works, including a segment in Part II of Halakhic Man and the conclusion of his essay ‘Sacred and Profane’, Rabbi Soloveitchik (1903–1993), a distinguished twentieth-century American Orthodox Scholar, Talmudist, and modern Jewish philosopher, touched upon the subject of repentance. It is worth noting that he did not pen a significant work solely dedicated to this topic. Yet, from 1954 to 1980, he imparted annual public discourses in Yiddish on repentance to a sizeable audience in New York City. These lectures, attended by many, were carefully transcribed, translated, and edited by Pinhas 14 Peli, with the revised versions published in both Hebrew and English. Others were edited by Arnold Lustiger and Moshe Krone (see Peli 1980; Krone 1986; Lustiger 1998). In the absence of a single work where Rabbi Soloveitchik focuses on Teshuva, a thorough understanding of his perspective on repentance emerges through an examination of various themes and ideas presented across his diverse works: these are the essays ‘Sacred and Profane’; ‘Kapparah ve-Taharah’ [Absolution and Purification]; ‘Bi’ur haRa o Ha’alato’ [The Extirpation or Sublimation of Evil]; ‘Ha-Yahas beyn Teshuvah liBehira Hofshit’ [The Relationship between Repentance and Free Will]; and ‘Kapparah, Yissurim, ve-Geulah’ [Absolution, Suffering, and Redemption], all of which are to be found in Peli 1980. A notable distinction underscored in his discussions is the contrast between repentance motivated by fear (Teshuvah mi-yirah) and repentance driven by love (Teshuvah me-ahavah). This differentiation draws from a passage in the Talmud which reconciles conflicting statements made by Resh Lakish about the impact of repentance. Resh Lakish asserted: ‘[g]reat is repentance, for deliberate sins are accounted to him as inadvertent sins’ (symbolizing repentance out of fear), and ‘[g]reat is repentance, for deliberate sins are accounted to him as meritorious deeds’ (symbolizing repentance out of love; Yoma 86b). This distinction is thoroughly explained by Kaplan (2004). Moreover, it has been argued by different scholars that Rabbi Soloveitchick’s view of repentance was influenced by Max Scheler, Hermann Cohen, and Bergson’s philosophy (for further reading, consider Kaplan 2004; Blau 1994; Goldman 1996). 5.1 Fear-driven repentance The concept of repentance, which incorporates the acknowledgment of one’s misdeeds, genuine regret for past wrongdoings, and a steadfast commitment to abstain from such actions in the future, epitomizes for Soloveitchik a form of repentance impelled by fear. Within the framework of religious duties specified in Halakhic terms, this modality of repentance accomplishes its intended objective, though it possesses certain limitations since it addresses only an isolated sin or specific behaviour. Here, individuals wrestle with guilt arising from their transgressions, endeavouring to eliminate its enduring impact on their lives (Peli 1980: 28–29, 218–222; Soloveitchik 1983). Nevertheless, it is vital to underscore that their overarching mindset, lifestyle, and spiritual core remain predominantly untouched. As such, this kind of repentance stems from a superficial selfexamination that is devoid of in-depth contemplation. It arises from a vague feeling of dissatisfaction, discomfort, and regret following the transgression, coupled with a fear of imminent adverse repercussions and penalties. Despite its origin in fear, this mode of repentance fulfils the requirements delineated by the Jewish Law. By conducting the requisite act of liturgical confession, individuals can access God’s boundless mercy to achieve atonement and absolution – a concept, Soloveitchik acknowledges, known to 15 both Christians and Jews (‘Sacred and Profane’ in Peli 1980: 24–25; for further reading of repentance, see Kaplan 2004). This absolution, an act of divine forgiveness, is granted to sinners through God’s benevolence. Through divine mercy, God relieves the sinner of their guilt and cancels the need to pay for the transgression. Each sin exposes the transgressor to God’s wrath, yet God, in response to this repentance motivated by fear, opts to overlook the offence. However, it is crucial to highlight that this act of grace does not wholly erase the actual act of sin or the person’s guilt. Instead, God views the sin as if the offender was oblivious to the depth of their actions. This partial forgiveness provokes a subsequent act of mercy from God. In a second act of mercy, God offers sacrificial, cultic, and ritualistic procedures to enable comprehensive forgiveness. These rites empower the sinner to attain total atonement for their unintentional sin, derived from fear-driven repentance. Rabbi Soloveitchik postulates that this type of absolution, termed kapparah, possesses a ‘theological, transcendent, and non-rational’ nature. These provide humanity with a chance to forge a bond with the transcendent and inscrutable nature of God, thereby achieving forgiveness (Peli 1980: 24–25). 5.2 Love-driven repentance The concept of repentance from love, as elucidated by Rabbi Soloveitchik, stands in stark contrast to repentance from fear, and is explained in his essays ‘The Extirpation or Sublimation of Evil’ ; ‘The Relationship between Repentance and Free Will’; and ‘Absolution, Suffering, and Redemption’. While the latter merely involves extricating oneself from a specific sin, the former extends far beyond, necessitating a comprehensive transformation of one’s life-path and spiritual perspective. The emphasis is not solely on the individual transgressions committed, but also on the character traits that led to their commission. Repentance from love demands a profound longing for proximity to God and an understanding that it was not only specific sins but also their overall existence, cognition, and spiritual state that estranged the individual from God. In this context, according to Soloveitchik, the Hebrew term 'Teshuvah' should be interpreted literally, as ‘turning’ rather than ‘repentance’. The sinner had turned away from God but is now facing divinity. Accompanying this directional change is a requisite transformation in their entire spiritual stance and position (see Kaplan 2004). The process of repentance out of love necessitates two interconnected actions. First, the transformation of the person’s entire character through self-sanctification and selfpurification, which constructs a new self and soul, effectively creating a new identity from the wreckage of the old. Second, repentance out of love involves the elevation and reformation of one’s past, turning intentional sins into springboards for positive 16 transformation and goodness. These two acts are dialectically related, as reconfiguring the past contributes to the transformation of the entire personality, and vice versa. Repentance driven by love quenches the sensation of guilt tied to one’s sins, stripping the individual of their status as a wrongdoer. This status-change does not necessarily demand attaining atonement; it exists independently of the need for absolution. While confession is deemed a crucial step towards obtaining atonement, the act of repentance alone is enough to shed someone’s wicked status, even in the absence of confession. Repentance out of love transcends obtaining atonement or absolution (Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man; 2008: 110–111, 159–160 [notes 119 and 120]). Moreover, repentance out of love not only eliminates guilt, akin to repentance out of fear, but also purifies and sanctifies the individual. This is a process of self-purification enacted by the person themselves, rather than bestowed by God as an act of mercy, as is the case with repentance out of fear. Through repentance out of love, intentional sins can be metamorphosed into virtuous deeds. This particular understanding of repentance as self-creation and alteration of the past necessitates a distinct comprehension of time. Scholars assert that Soloveitchik’s perception of time, which deviates from the scientific and linear understanding, is significantly influenced by Max Scheler (Kaplan 2004) and Bergson (Goldman 1996; Blau 1994). Rabbi Soloveitchik posits that this transformation is not achieved through divine intervention but through the individual’s conscious decision and volition: ‘Purification is conditional upon drawing near and standing directly before God [...] The act of purification is something each man must perform by himself, each man in his own heart’ (Peli 1980: 19). In contrast to repentance out of fear, where God’s forgiveness is an act of mercy and deliberate sins are merely transformed into inadvertent ones, repentance out of love leads to God’s forgiveness as an act of justice, and the sin is reformed into a virtuous act. The penitent sinner, by reshaping their sins into sources of goodness, becomes a distinct individual. God does not need to overlook the sin but, in conjunction with the repentant sinner, elevates and transfigures it. In this process, God is perceived as a compassionate parent (Kaplan 2004). Rabbi Soloveitchik emphasizes that self-purification (taharah), which is associated with repentance out of love, does not rely on ritualistic rites or the Temple. While the act of atonement (kapparah) may be linked to the Temple and its ceremonies, self-purification and repentance out of love can be attained solely by an individual. The act of taharah is predicated on an intimate relationship between the individual and God, independent of external rituals or sacrifices. Even following the destruction of the Temple, individuals can still transform deliberate sins into virtuous deeds through self-purification (Peli 1980: 19– 20, 186–187). 17 Rabbi Soloveitchik’s dichotomy of repentance, which is driven by fear and fuelled by love, brings to mind the perspectives of Rabbi Nachman. Repentance motivated by fear may align with Rabbi Nachman’s Teshuva of ‘this world’, where individuals acknowledge their transgressions and seek forgiveness due to the fear of divine consequences. Conversely, repentance inspired by love may typify the Teshuva of the ‘world to come’, a stage in which individuals endeavour to establish a profound connection with God and embark on a journey of comprehensive personal transformation. 5.3 Self-creation and redemption through love-driven repentance According to Rabbi Soloveitchik, repentance motivated by love is not simply a process of self-transformation and self-purification; it additionally embodies an act of self-creation. He writes: An individual is inherently creative; he was imbued with the capacity to create at the very outset of his existence. When confronted with a situation of sin, he utilizes his creative capability, returns to God, and morphs into a self-creator and self-designer. Through repentance, man fabricates his own identity, his own “I”. (Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man; 2008: 113) An individual exploits his creative power through repentance, emerging as a self-creator and self-designer. Most importantly, love-motivated repentance is a redemptive act. Rabbi Soloveitchik writes, ‘the sinner who returns in repentance [out of love] assumes the role of his own messianic king, liberating himself from the confining pit of sin’. Repentance borne from love possesses the transformative capacity to transmute evil into goodness, sin into sanctity, and hostility into love (Peli 1980: 236). Thus, repentance driven by love encompasses self-purification, self-sanctification, the metamorphosis of deliberate transgressions into commendable actions, self-creation, and self-redemption (consider Goldman’s [1996] perspective on the aspect of self-creation, where it is analysed within the framework of Bergson’s concept of duration, as well as through the lens of the phenomenology expounded by Max Scheler and Husserl). Ultimately, Soloveitchik contends that repentance fuelled by love not only brings about individual redemption, but also forges a bond between the individual and God. They transform into a dwelling place for the divine presence (Shekhinah). Thus, for both Rabbi Kook and Soloveitchik, creativity in Teshuva is not merely a passive act of remorse or regret but an active process of self-renewal and self-affirmation. This process involves individuals taking an active role in shaping their own destinies and becoming architects of their spiritual transformations. Creativity in Teshuva 18 requires courage and vulnerability as individuals confront their past, acknowledge their shortcomings, and take the initiative to change their ways. Additionally, the integration of these perspectives accentuates the redemptive quality of creativity in Teshuva. Both Kook and Soloveitchik underscore that Teshuva is not solely about seeking forgiveness but also about ascending to a higher spiritual level. This act of self-redemption is achieved through creative acts of self-purification, self-sanctification, and the transformation of intentional sins into virtuous deeds. 6 Conclusion The concept of Teshuva has a rich and multifaceted history within Jewish thought and practice. Originating in biblical sources as a means of restoring the divine-human relationship after committing sins, Teshuva underwent significant development in Rabbinic literature. During this period, it achieved a central position within Judaism, exemplified by its association with the Day of Atonement and its designation as a powerful tool for individual and collective redemption. Throughout Jewish history, prominent thinkers have offered unique perspectives on Teshuva, each contributing to its comprehensive understanding. Among these eminent figures, Moses Maimonides stands out as a trailblazer in Jewish philosophy. His approach to Teshuva encompasses both its philosophical and Halakhic aspects. For Maimonides, repentance is a transformative journey of the soul, characterized by contemplation, adherence to divine laws, and the pursuit of spiritual perfection. His emphasis on the cultivation of intellect and the ability to discern good from evil highlights the importance of individual agency in the process of Teshuva. Beyond Maimonides, the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik offer further dimensions to explore the meanings and draw out the opportunities associated with the concept of Teshuva. Rabbi Nachman’s innovative interpretation challenges conventional understandings, calling for continuous growth and introspection. Rabbi Kook’s cosmological perspective expands Teshuva beyond individual repentance, encompassing the entire universe’s redemption. Rabbi Soloveitchik’s exploration of repentance from fear and love emphasizes the transformative power of Teshuva, enabling individuals to reshape their past and elevate themselves spiritually. The various models of Teshuva presented by these thinkers share common themes: a call for ongoing introspection, acknowledgement of one’s shortcomings, and the pursuit of a closer relationship with the divine. Each perspective highlights the transformative potential within every individual and the possibility of achieving spiritual redemption through the Teshuva process. 19 As Jewish teachings on Teshuva continue to evolve, this concept remains at the core of Jewish spirituality. From its origins in biblical times to its elaboration in Rabbinic literature and the profound insights of modern Jewish thinkers, Teshuva represents an everevolving journey towards greater self-awareness, connection with God, and spiritual fulfilment. Integrating historical perspectives with the contributions of these prominent Jewish scholars produces a comprehensive understanding of the profound and enduring significance of Teshuva in the Jewish tradition. As this essential aspect of Jewish life continues to inspire and guide future generations, Teshuva remains a timeless pathway to self-improvement, reconciliation, and spiritual growth. Attributions Copyright Ghila Amati, Miri Freud-Kandel (CC BY-NC) 20 Bibliography • Further reading ◦ Dobkowski, Michael. 2004. ‘Forgiveness and Repentance in Judaism After the Shoah’, Ultimate Reality and Meaning 27, no. 2: 94–107. ◦ Dratch, Rabbi Mark. 2003. ‘Forgiving the Unforgivable? Jewish Insights into Repentance and Forgiveness’, Journal of Religion & Abuse 4, no. 4: 7–24. https:// ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ • doi.org/10.1300/J154v04n04_02 Lambert, David A. 2016. How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liebes, Y. 1980. ‘R. Naḥman of Bratslav’s "Hattikkun Hakkelali" and His Attitude Towards Sabbatianism’, Zion 45, no. 3: 201–245. Schwartz, Dov. 2008. The Philosophy of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, Vol. I: Halakhic Man: Religion of Halakha. 4 vols. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. Schweid, Eliezer. 1991. ‘Repentance in Twentieth-Century Jewish Thought’, in The World of Rav Kook’s Thought. Edited by Benjamin Ish Shalom and Shalom Rosenberg. Jerusalem: Avi Chai, 349–373. Works cited ◦ Altman, Alexander. 1974. ‘The Religion of the Thinkers: Free Will and Predestination in Saadia, Bahya and Maimonides’, in Religion in a Religious Age. Edited by S. D. Goitein. Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 25–51. ◦ Amati, Ghila. 2023. ‘Discovering the Depths Within: Kook’s Zionism and the Philosophy of Life of Henri Bergson’, Religions 14, no. 2 https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel14020261 ◦ Amati, Ghila. Forthcoming. ‘Freedom, Creativity, the Self, and God: Between Rabbi Kook and Bergson’s Lebensphilosophie’, Harvard Theological Review ◦ Angel, Marc D. 2011. Maimonides – Essential Teachings on Jewish Faith & Ethics: The Book of Knowledge & the Thirteen Principles of Faith – Annotated & Explained. Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths. ◦ Beer, Moshe. 2011. ‘Al Maaseu Kapparah Shel Baale Teshuvah Besifrut Chazal’, in Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud: Teachings, Activities and Leadership. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 216–239. ◦ Ben Shlomo, Yoseph. 1990. Poetry of Being. Translated by Shmuel Himelstein Tel Aviv: MOD Books. ◦ Blau, Yitzchak. 1994. ‘Creative Repentance: On Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Concept Of Teshuva’, Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 28, no. 2: 11–18. ◦ De Lange, Nicholas Robert Michael, and Miri Freud-Kandel. 2005. Modern Judaism: An Oxford Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21 ◦ Feldman, Seymour. 2005. ‘Maimonides – A Guide for Posterity’, in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy Edited by Kenneth Seeskin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 324–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521819741.013 ◦ Gilbert, Maurice. 2002. ‘God, Sin and Mercy: Sirach 15:11–18:14’, in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference: Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger Wenzel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 118–135. ◦ Goldman, Eliezer. 1996. ‘Teshuvah U-Zeman Be-Hagut Shel Ha-Rav Soloveitchik [Repentance and Time in the Thought of R. Soloveitchik]’, in Emunah Bi-Zemanim Mishtanim. Edited by Avi Sagi. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 175–188. ◦ Gorenberg, Gershom. 2006. The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977. New York: Macmillan. ◦ Green, Arthur E. 1979. Tormented Master: A Life of Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav. Judaic Studies Series Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. ◦ Gruenwald, Itamar. 1991. ‘The Concept of Teshuvah in the Teachings of Maimonides and Rav Kook’, in The World of Rav Kook’s Thought. Edited by Benjamin Ish Shalom and Shalom Rosenberg. Translated by Shalom Carmy. Jerusalem: Avi Chai, 282–304. ◦ Halbertal, Moshe. 2014. Maimonides: Life and Thought. Translated by Joel A. Linsider. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ◦ Harvey, Zev. 1984. ‘Perush Ha-Rambam Le-Bereshit 3:22’, Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 12: 15–22. ◦ Inbari, Motti. 2012. Messianic Religious Zionism Confronts Israeli Territorial Compromises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ◦ Inbari, Motti. 2021. ‘Prophetic Disappointment and Ideological Change Among Israeli Settlers’ Rabbis: The Case of Rabbis Yehuda Amital and Shmuel Tal’, Religions 12, no. 11: 10–17. ◦ Ish Shalom, Benjamin. 1991. ‘Religion, Repentance and Personal Freedom’, in The World of Rav Kook’s Thought. Edited by Benjamin Ish Shalom and Shalom Rosenberg. Avi Chai: Jerusalem, 373–421. ◦ Ish Shalom, Benjamin. 1993. Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook: Between Rationalism and Mysticism. Translated by Ora Wiskind-Elper. Albany: State University of New York Press. ◦ Kaplan, Lawrence. 2004. ‘Hermann Cohen and Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik on Repentance’, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 13, no. 1-2: 213– 258. https://doi.org/10.1163/105369904777138613 ◦ Kleonicki, Leon. 2006. ‘Jonah’s Challenge’, America 195, no. 9: 3. ◦ Kook, Abraham Isaac. 1925. Orot Ha-Teshuvah. Edited by Zvi Yehudah Kook. Jerusalem: N.A. ◦ Krone, Moshe. 1986. Yemei Zikkaron. Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization. 22 ◦ Labendz, Jenny R. 2006. ‘The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature’, AJS Review 30, no. 2: 347–392. ◦ Lambert, David. 2004. Topics in the History of Repentance: From the Hebrew Bible to Early Judaism and Christianity. Harvard University. Unpublished PhD thesis. ◦ Lambert, David. 2006. ‘Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68, no. 4: 631–650. ◦ Lambert, David. 2015. How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture. New York: Oxford Scholarship Online. ◦ Leibowitz, Yeshayahu. 1987. The Faith of Maimonides. New York: Adama Books. ◦ Levine, Samuel J. 1999. ‘Teshuva: A Look at Repentance, Forgiveness and Atonement in Jewish Law and Philosophy and American Legal Thought’, Fordham Urban Law Journal 27: 16–77. ◦ Lifschitz, H. 1969. ‘The Concept of Repentance in the Philosophy of R. A. I. Kook’, Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies: 209–234. ◦ Lustiger, Arnold. 1998. Before Hashem You Shall Be Purified: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the Days of Awe. Edison, NJ: Ohr Publishing. ◦ Maimonides, Moses. 1975. ‘Eight Chapters’, in Ethical Writings of Maimonides. Edited by Raymond Weiss and Charles Butterworth. New York: New York University Press. ◦ Maimonides, Moses. 2012. Moses Maimonides on Teshuvah: The Ways of Repentance. A New Translation and Commentary. Translated by Henry Abramson. Middletown, DE: Smashwords. 2nd edition. ◦ Mark, Zvi. 2011. Revelation and Rectification in the Revealed and Hidden Writings of R. Nahman of Breslav. Magnes Press: Jerusalem. ◦ Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Volume 2. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ◦ Meister, Chad V. (ed.). 2008. The Philosophy of Religion Reader. London: Routledge. ◦ Mondshine, Y. 1982. ‘On R. Nahman of Bratzlav’s "Hattikun Hakkelali" and His Attitude Towards Sabbataianism’, Zion 47, no. 2: 223–198. ◦ Morgan, Michael L. 2012. ‘Mercy, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Ancient Judaism’, in Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian. Edited by Charles L. Griswold and David Konstan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137–157. ◦ Nachman of Breslov. 1995. Likutey Moharan. Translated by Ozer Bergman and Moshe Mykoff. Jerusalem/New York: Breslov Research Institue. ◦ Nahmani, Moshe, and Dael Rodrigues (eds). 2011. The World Has a Heart. Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth. 23 ◦ Pancratius, Beentjes. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden: Brill. ◦ Peli, Pinchas, and Joseph Dov Soloveitchik. 1980. On Repentance: In the Thought and Oral Discourses of Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik. Jerusalem: Oroth Publishing House. ◦ Petuchowski, Jakob J. 1968. ‘The Concept of "Teshuvah" in the Bible and the Talmud’, Judaism 17, no. 2: 175. ◦ Pines, Shlomo. 1960. ‘Studies in Abul Barakat Al-Baghdadi’s Poetics and Metaphysics’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 6: 195–198. ◦ Ravitzky, Aviezer. 1996. Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ◦ Reimarus, Hermann Samuel, Charles H. Talbert, and Ralph S. Fraser. 1970. Fragments. Lives of Jesus Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. ◦ Rozenberg, Shmon Gershom. 2011. ‘The Human, the Finite, and the Infinite’, in The World Has a Heart. Edited by Dael Rodrigues and Moshe Nahmani. Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth, 205–223. ◦ Schimmel, Solomon. 1988. ‘Joseph and His Brothers: A Paradigm for Repentance’, Judaism 37, no. 1: 60. ◦ Segal, Moshe Tzvi. 1971. The Complete Book of Ben Sira. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. ◦ Shatz, David. 1997. ‘Freedom, Repentance and Hardening of the Hearts: Albo Vs. Maimonides’, Faith and Philosophy 14, no. 4: 478–509. ◦ Sokol, Moshe. 1998. ‘Maimonides on Freedom of the Will and Moral Responsibility’, The Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 1: 25–39. ◦ Soloveitchik, Joseph. 1983. Halakhic Man. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. ◦ Stern, M. S. 1979. ‘Al-Ghazzali, Maimonides, and Ibn Paquda on Repentance: A Comparative Model’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47, no. 4: 589–607. ◦ Strauss, Leo. 2013. Leo Strauss on Maimonides: The Complete Writings. Edited by Kenneth Green Hart. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ◦ Urbach, E. E. 1975. The Sages: Concepts and Beliefs. Magnes Press: Jerusalem. ◦ Wright, N. T. 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Volume 3. London: SPCK. 24