The Land I Will Show You, sec. 5, chapter 6

The Sin that Caused the Shechinah to not Return to the Second Temple

Jan 11, 2024

6: The Sin that Caused the Shechinah to not Return to the Second Temple

It is taught:

“Until your people pass over, O Hashem, until the people pass over, whom You have purchased” (Exodus 15:16); “Until your people pass over, O Hashem” – this refers to the first entry; “until the people pass over, whom You have purchased” – this refers to the second entry. We can therefore say: Israel were worthy of experiencing a miracle in the second entry as in the first, but the sin caused it to be otherwise.1

Had it not been for the sin, the Children of Israel would have merited a miraculous entry when they ascended from the Babylonian exile. The question arises: What sin was responsible? Investigating this question will lead to a deeper understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish regarding the generation of the Babylonian exile and will also lend additional weight to what was explained in the previous chapter. Identifying the sin depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan (R"Y) and Resh Lakish (R"L). First, we assume that a miraculous conduct depends on the indwelling of the Shechinah; without meriting the indwelling of the Shechinah, the Children of Israel would not merit a miraculous conduct. According to Resh Lakish, who posited that the indwelling of the Shechinah was conditioned on a complete ascent to Zion, it follows that the neglect to ascend was the sin that caused them not to merit a miraculous conduct. And so did Maharsha explain: “Israel were worthy of a miracle in the days of Ezra but the sin caused... that is, that not all ascended”; and it seems that Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi also meant this when he wrote: "This sin is what prevented the fulfillment of God’s promise in the Second Temple."

Conversely, according to Rabbi Yochanan, another sin was the cause. Even if everyone had returned to Eretz Yisrael, the Children of Israel would not have merited the indwelling of the Shechinah; implying that we must find a sin that preceded their neglect to return, and indeed, so Rashi explained:

The sin of Israel in the days of the First Temple.2

It’s not a new sin, but an old sin from the days of the First Temple that they did not fully repent from, as Rashi elsewhere says:

But the sin caused it, as their repentance was not genuine in order not to sin.3

The Children of Israel did not genuinely repent from the sins they had committed in the days of the First Temple, and they influenced the state of the Second Temple era.

Thus, we learn that identifying the sin that prevented the return of the Shechinah itself depends on the dispute between R"Y and R"L. According to this, a significant question arises. Resh Lakish attributed the non-return of the Shekhinah to the neglect of returning, and Rabbi Yochanan opposed this view, arguing that Persian domination was what delayed the indwelling of the Shechinah. According to him, had it not been for the sin, they would have returned in a miraculous way – meaning independently, free from Persian rule, and thus the Shechinah would have dwelled. This is how Rashi explains the miracle in several places:

To come with a strong hand;4 to ascend by their own power and not be enslaved to a kingdom;5 to ascend by their own power despite the will of the Persian kings;6 to come with power and a miracle.7

If – according to Resh Lakish – the neglect to ascend was the sin, and if everyone had ascended, they would have been freed from Persian rule, then the fact that Persia ruled cannot be an argument against Resh Lakish’s view that if everyone had ascended, they would have merited the indwelling of the Shechinah. For even if the enslavement of the Children of Israel to Persia is what delayed the indwelling of the Shechinah, surely if they had not sinned, they would have merited, miraculously, to be free; thus, if the sin is that not everyone ascended, Resh Lakish is right in determining that this sin is the reason the Shechinah did not return, and apparently, Rabbi Yochanan’s claim is negated. Had everyone ascended, they would have merited to be free, and the Shechinah would have returned, even according to the conditions necessary for its return according to Rabbi Yochanan! What, then, is Rabbi Yochanan’s argument against him?

This will be explained in line with what was clarified in the previous chapter. Indeed, according to Resh Lakish, had everyone returned, a miracle would have occurred, and they would have been freed from Persian rule. But this is not the issue of the dispute between him and Rabbi Yochanan. All agree that the proximate cause that the Shechinah did not dwell in the Second Temple is this – that the Men of the Great Assembly brought the era of prophecy to an end; the dispute is only why they did so instead of fighting the inclination to idol worship. According to Resh Lakish, all the necessary conditions to properly acquire Eretz Yisrael were present, and the Children of Israel could have started anew, but they missed the opportunity; whereas according to Rabbi Yochanan, there was no possibility to acquire the Land properly under Persian rule. Why, Rabbi Yochanan asked, were they not given the opportunity to start anew? Why did this possibility not arise during the Return to Zion, in the second entry as in the first? Necessarily, because it had already been decided that they had a sin from which they had not cleansed themselves. The sin of Israel in the days of the First Temple still lingered among them; even before the question of who exactly would ascend from Babylon arose, it was already determined that the Children of Israel were not doing a perfect repentance. Only thus can we understand why things were flawed, so that they were invited to return under Persian rule. Resh Lakish does not see Persian rule as a hindrance to the indwelling of the Shechinah, so the fact that the call to return was made under its government does not prove that it was already decided that the Children of Israel were not worthy of the indwelling of the Shechinah, but Rabbi Yochanan attributes great significance to this fact and to him it serves as proof that the flaw was already fixed, with no possibility of correction at that time.

According to Rabbi Yochanan, even before the question of the ascent arose, it had already been determined that the Children of Israel were not making a “genuine repentance in order not to sin,” in Rashi’s words. What is repentance in order not to sin? Is there repentance in order to sin?! It seems that genuine repentance is as they said: “What is a ba’al teshuva? ...with the same woman, in the same period, in the same place.”8 Genuine repentance is repentance where the one doing it does not hesitate to stand in battle against the inclination to sin, confident that this time he will win; repentance that is not genuine is repentance where the returnee is aware that if he were to face the inclination – he would sin again. This is repentance in order to sin, meaning to sin if he could. What can this miserable ba’al teshuva do? To ignore the battle, as the Men of the Great Assembly did when they abolished the inclination to idol worship, because they knew they had no possibility of complete repentance.

In the next chapter, we will delve deeper into Rabbi Yochanan’s view and see how he understands the historical process of the people of Israel and what implications arise from his understanding regarding the way in which the nation will return to its greatness and to the question of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael in these times.

(For the next chapter of “The Land I Will Show You,” click here.)

The Hebrew book is available for purchase from me directly, in Judaica stores, and online, here:

Ha'Aretz asher Areka

Unapologetics

Discussion about this post