Yoma 86b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Great is repentance, for it overrides

as it were,

a negative commandment of the Torah!

For the people of Israel are compared to the wife of the Almighty. After the Almighty sent her away, and she was unfaithful to Him, she wishes to return to Him through repentance. The power of repentance overrides the Torah’s prohibition concerning a man who divorces his wife and she marries another man: "

Her first husband, who sent her away, may not again take her to be his wife, after she has been defiled."

As it is stated [

Jeremiah 3 ]

“Saying: If a man sends away his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s.

May he return to her again?

Would not the land be utterly defiled

and become guilty

—that land

where such acts were done!

And

if

you—

you have played the harlot

with

many lovers.

And

nevertheless you are able

to return to Me—

declares the Lord.”

Rabbi Yonatan said: Great is repentance, for it brings the redemption.

As it is stated [

Isaiah 59 ],

“And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and for those of Israel who repent of transgression.”

What is the reason for “And a redeemer shall come to Zion”—

because

there are

those of Israel who repent of transgression.

Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, for deliberate sins become for him like unwitting sins.

As it is stated [

Hosea 14 ]

“Return, Israel, unto the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity.”

Now, “iniquity” is deliberate, and

after the repentance

it calls it “stumbling” [

“for you have stumbled”], which is an expression of unwitting action, for he stumbled without intention.

And we object:

Is that so? But Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, for deliberate sins become for him like merits.

As it is stated [

Ezekiel 33 ]

“And when the wicked man turns from his wickedness and does justice and righteousness for them—

he shall surely live”—

through the power of everything that he did, even through the power of the transgressions, which were transformed for him into merits.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—

for one who repents

out of love,

so that they are transformed for him into merits.

Here—

for one who repents

out of fear,

so that they are transformed for him only into unwitting sins.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Great is repentance, for it lengthens a person’s years.

As it is stated [

Ezekiel 18 ]

“And when the wicked man turns from his wickedness—

he shall surely live.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak said; in the West

in the Land of Israel

they said in the name of Rabbah bar Mari: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, blessed is He, is unlike the attribute of flesh and blood.

The attribute of flesh and blood:

a person who

provokes his fellow with words—

it is uncertain whether he will be reconciled with him or whether he will not be reconciled with him.

And

even

if you say

that he

will be reconciled with him—

it is uncertain whether he will be reconciled by words or whether he will not be reconciled by words,

but he must appease him.

But the Holy One, blessed is He,

is not so.

Rather, if

a person commits a transgression in secret—

He is reconciled with him by words, as it is stated [

Hosea 14 ]

“Take words with you and return to the Lord.”

Moreover, He considers it a favor to him, as it is stated, “And take good.”

Moreover, Scripture considers it for him

through the appeasement of his words

as though he had offered bulls, as it is stated [

Hosea 14 ]

“And let us pay

instead of offering

bulls—

with the utterance of

our lips.”

Lest you say

that the appeasement is accepted like the offering of

obligatory bulls?

The verse states [

Hosea 14 ]

“I will heal their backsliding—

I will love them freely.”

Like a freewill offering, which is superior to an obligatory offering.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Great is repentance, for on account of one individual who repented, forgiveness is granted to the entire world.

As it is stated [

Hosea 14 ]

“I will heal their backsliding; I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him.”

“From them” is not stated. Rather, “

for My anger has turned away

from him.”

This teaches that the repentance of one individual is enough for the Almighty to heal the backsliding of everyone and love everyone because of that individual’s repentance.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a penitent?

Rav Yehuda said: For example, when a matter of transgression that

he had stumbled in previously

came into his hand, the first and second time, and he was saved from it

twice.

Rav Yehuda demonstrated

showed

[this]:

A penitent is a person who stood the test and did not transgress

with the same woman

with whom he had stumbled,

at the same period

of time, and

in the same place

where the transgression occurred.

Rav Yehuda said: Rav raises a contradiction: It is written [

Psalms 32 ]

“Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”

This implies that the one whose sin is not revealed is preferable to one whose sin is exposed.

And it is written

on the other hand [Proverbs 28

“He who conceals his transgressions—

shall not prosper”!

It is not difficult:

This is referring to a publicized sin,

where it is preferable that he confess his sin rather than deny it, for his shame will assist him in his atonement.

This—

where it is preferable to conceal the sin—is

with a sin that is not publicized,

for if he reveals his sin publicly, this will diminish the honor of Heaven, since every sin that is publicized diminishes the honor of Heaven. Therefore, it is preferable that he preserve the honor of Heaven rather than reveal that he sinned and be ashamed thereby.

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said in the name of Rav Naḥman

another answer:

Here—

with transgressions between a person and his fellow,

he must reveal his sin, so that others will ask his fellow to forgive him.

Here—

with transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent,

he does not need to ask other people to request forgiveness on his behalf.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: If a person commits a transgression the first time—

they forgive him.

The

second time—

they forgive him.

The

third time—

they forgive him.

But if he repeated it the

fourth time—

they do not forgive him,

even if he repents concerning it; rather, he requires another atonement.

As it is stated [

Amos 2 ]

“Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel—

I will forgive them.

And for four—

I will not reverse it,

their repentance will not benefit them.”

And it says: [

Job 33 ]

“Behold, all these things God performs

He forgives

twice—

three times with a man,”

but not the fourth time.

What is the meaning of “And it says”?

Why is the first verse insufficient?

This is what he is saying:

And lest you say: This applies—

that there is no forgiveness the fourth time, specifically

with the community

that sinned.

But with an individual—

no,

this rule was not stated; therefore

come and hear

another verse that states this rule also with an individual:

“Behold, all these things God performs twice, three times with a man.”

The Sages taught: For transgressions concerning which he confessed on this Day of Atonement—

he should not confess concerning them on another Day of Atonement.

And if he repeated them—

he must confess

also concerning the earlier ones on the

Day of Atonement

the

next.

And if he did not repeat them, and

nevertheless

returned and confessed concerning them—

concerning him Scripture says

Proverbs 26]

“As a dog that returns to its

v

omit

so

is a fool who repeats his folly.”

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: All the more so is he praiseworthy!

As it is stated [

Psalms 51 ]

“For I know my transgressions, and my sin is—

before me always.”

The verse teaches that a person should feel as though he has not been forgiven, but rather his sin stands before him.

And the Gemara explains according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

Rather, how do I establish

the verse

“As a dog that returns to its

v

omit”?

As [in the statement] of Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: Once a person has committed a transgression and repeated it—

it becomes permitted to him.

But is

“it becomes permitted to him”—

conceivable

to say?

Rather, say: It becomes to him like something permitted.

And the baraita continues and says:

And it is necessary for

the one who confesses

to specify the sin

at the time of his confession.

As

it is stated

concerning the sin of the Calf, when Moses specified their sin [Exodus 32]:

“Please! This people has committed a great sin: they made for themselves gods of gold,”

the words of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.

Rabbi Akiva says:

he need not specify it, and as the verse says,

“Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Akiva’s words:

Rather, what is what Moses said

when he specified the sin of the Children of Israel and said

“They made for themselves gods of gold” —

as [in the statement] of Rabbi Yannai.

Moses’ intention in these words was to lessen the magnitude of their sin, and not because it is necessary to specify the sin.

For Rabbi Yannai said: Moses said before the Holy

One, blessed is He: Master of the world! The silver and gold that You lavished upon Israel

so much

until they said, “Enough,” —

caused them to make gods of gold.

And the baraita adds concerning publicizing the sin:

Two good leaders stood for Israel: Moses and David.

Moses said: Let my offense be written

wherever my death is mentioned. For he preferred that his sin be remembered.

And such as

it is stated [

Numbers 20 ]

“Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me,”

and likewise wherever his death is mentioned.

David said: Let my offense not be written.

As it is stated

in the Psalms that David composed:

“Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”

And the Gemara explains what is stated in the baraita:

The case of Moses and David—

to what may the matter be compared?

To two women who were flogged in the court: one had acted promiscuously

with warning, and she receives lashes by Torah law,

and one ate unripe seventh-year produce

that had not fully ripened and ruined it, and she transgressed the prohibition against ruining seventh-year produce. [These lashes are only rabbinic, since the transgression is merely a “prohibition derived from a positive commandment,” for it is stated concerning seventh-year produce, “for eating,” and not for ruin].

That woman who ate unripe seventh-year produce said to them

to the court, and she received rabbinic lashes of rebelliousness:

Please, inform everyone on account of what she

I

am being flogged! So that they will not say

about me:

For what that woman

the other woman who committed adultery

is being flogged,

also

this woman

I

am being flogged.

Bring unripe seventh-year produce, hang it around her neck, and announce before her, saying: For matters concerning

produce of

the seventh year she is being flogged.

And the baraita continues and brings another halakha concerning publicizing the sin:

We publicize the flatterers [

the wicked who present themselves as righteous]

because of the profanation of the Name

that is involved: so that people will not learn from their evil deeds, thinking that this is the proper way to behave, for so the [presumed] righteous person behaves. And furthermore, when the punishment that is due them comes upon them, people will say: What benefit did the merit of his righteousness bring him!? [Rashi]

As it is stated [

Ezekiel 3 ]

“And when a righteous man turns from his righteousness

and becomes wicked,

and commits injustice—

I will place a stumbling block before him,”

so that they will now recognize that he is wicked.

And the baraita adds:

The repentance of

the wicked

who are absolute

and complete

holds back the calamity, even though a decree of calamity has been sealed against him!

The tranquility of the wicked

causes them to contemplate further wicked deeds, and therefore their tranquility

ends in disaster.

And authority [

government and power]

buries its owners!

He enters it naked and leaves it naked,

and gains nothing from it!

Would that his departure

from the “authority”

were like his entry

into it, so that he would not be harmed by it.

And the Gemara brings an example of the baraita’s statement concerning authority:

Rav,

who was a judge and held the authority of judgment,

when he would go out to judge a case,

when he went out to adjudicate a case,

would say this

about himself [in the third person]:

With his own will

by his own will

to kill

to kill himself [if he should err in judgment]

he goes out.

And

if

the will

the desire

of his household—

he would not do it,

for a judge has no livelihood from the judgment.

And empty

of money

he goes home

he returns, instead of earning a livelihood.

Would that his entry

returning home

were like his departure

to the judgment.

Rava, when he would go out to judgment, would say this: