Continuing our discussion of the Kal V’chomer discussed on the previous daf, the Rosh (“אינו דין”) discusses the following scenario:
A person, while fully immersed in the Mikvah, touches a dead sheretz (a number of crawling animals that the Torah considers impure when dead), and then while still holding the sheretz, touches a vessel.
There is a debate amongst poskim as to what point of the immersion process sheds the impurity and endows the status of pure. Is it the immersion or is it the emergence from the Mikvah? Kesef Mishne (Avos Hatumah 6:16) holds it is the emergence that endows the purity, however this Rosh seems to imply that it is the immersion that endows the purity. It is noted that his example is described as still holding onto the sheretz while also touching another object, implying that if he had already let go of the Sheretz, he would become immediately purified. Regardless, the ironic situation of a person simultaneously attempting to purify, while being exposed to the cause of the impurity, is also used as a famous metaphor for deficient repentance (Ta’anis 16a):
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ עֲבֵירָה, וּמִתְוַדֶּה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּהּ, לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁתּוֹפֵס שֶׁרֶץ בְּיָדוֹ, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ טוֹבֵל בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ טְבִילָה. זְרָקוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁטָּבַל בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה — מִיָּד עָלְתָה לוֹ טְבִילָה,
Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A person who has a transgression in his hand, and he confesses but does not repent for his sin, to what is he comparable? To a person who holds in his hand a dead creeping animal, which renders one ritually impure by contact. As in this situation, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his immersion is ineffective for him, as long as the source of ritual impurity remains in his hand. However, if he has thrown the animal from his hand, once he has immersed in a ritual bath of forty se’a, the immersion is immediately effective for him.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמוֹדֶה וְעֹזֵב יְרֻחָם״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״נִשָּׂא לְבָבֵנוּ אֶל כַּפָּיִם אֶל אֵל בַּשָּׁמָיִם״.
As it is stated: “He who covers his transgressions shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy” (Proverbs 13). That is, confession alone is futile, but one who also abandons his transgressions will receive mercy. And it states elsewhere: “Let us lift up our heart with our hands to God in Heaven” (Lamentations 3:41), which likewise indicates that it is not enough to lift one’s hands in prayer; rather, one must also raise his heart and return to God.
There are subtle distinctions in how the Rishonim interpret this metaphor. For example, Rashi (ibid) gives an example of a person who is repenting for theft, but still has not returned the stolen object. Rashi could have given a different example, such as confessing insincerely, but he does not do so. Instead, he uses something concrete, such as physically not having returned the stolen object. This implies that if a person confesses to the sin, even if he is unable to resolve to no longer sin, it may still have some value according to Rashi. By contrast, let us look at the words of the Rambam (Teshuva 2:3):
כָּל הַמִּתְוַדֶּה בִּדְבָרִים וְלֹא גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לַעֲזֹב הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְטוֹבֵל וְשֶׁרֶץ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַטְּבִילָה מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּשְׁלִיךְ הַשֶּׁרֶץ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וּמוֹדֶה וְעֹזֵב יְרֻחָם (משלי כח יג).
Anyone who verbalizes his confession without resolving in his heart to abandon [sin] can be compared to [a person] who immerses himself [in a mikvah] while [holding the carcass of] a lizard in his hand. His immersion will not be of avail until he casts away the carcass.This principle is implied by the statement, [Proverbs 28:13], "He who confesses and forsakes [his sins] will be treated with mercy."
It would seem from the words of the Rambam, that the importance is an internal resolution, to no longer sin, and otherwise, the metaphor of a useless purification process is applicable. (See Kessef Mishne ibid, and Orchos Tzaddikim 26.)
Maaseh Rokeach (on Rambam ibid) goes a step further:
נראה דמכ"ש אם חזר לעשותו דהא עכ"פ המעשה עדיף
“It would appear that surely, if the person returned to his sinful actions this metaphor would apply, because after all, his actions betray his intention.”
The Maaseh Rokeach is applying a stringent moral standard; if the person will return to the sin, it is a retroactive indictment of his original resolve. This is a high standard indeed, and actually it seems to contradict a Midrashic teaching (Bereishis Rabbah 53:14) and Rashi (Bereishis 21:17) which discusses how Yishmael was judged on the basis of his current deeds, and not his future deeds:
באשר הוא שם. לְפִי מַעֲשִׂים שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה עַכְשָׁו הוּא נִדּוֹן, וְלֹא לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא עָתִיד לַעֲשׂוֹת (ראש השנה ט"ז), לְפִי שֶׁהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מְקַטְרְגִים וְאוֹמְרִים רִבּוֹנו שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי שֶׁעָתִיד זַרְעוֹ לְהָמִית בָּנֶיךָ בַּצָּמָא אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לוֹ בְּאֵר, וְהוּא מְשִׁיבָם עַכְשָׁו מַה הוּא, צַדִּיק אוֹ רָשָׁע? אָמְרוּ לוֹ צַדִּיק, אָמַר לָהֶם לְפִי מַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁל עַכְשָׁו אֲנִי דָנוֹ, וְזֶהוּ בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם. וְהֵיכָן הֵמִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּצָּמָא? כְּשֶׁהֶגְלָם נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מַשָּׂא בַּעְרָב וְגוֹ' לִקְרַאת צָמֵא הֵתָיוּ מָיִם וְגוֹ' (ישעיהו כ"א), כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָם אֵצֶל עַרְבִיִּים, הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְשׁוֹבֵיהֶם בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִכֶּם הוֹלִיכוּנוּ אֵצֶל בְּנֵי דוֹדֵנוּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל וִירַחֲמוּ עָלֵינוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֹרְחוֹת דְּדָנִים (שם) – אַל תִּקְרֵי דְּדָנִים אֶלָּא דּוֹדִים – וְאֵלּוּ יוֹצְאִים לִקְרָאתָם וּמְבִיאִין לָהֶם בָּשָׂר וְדָג מָלוּחַ וְנוֹדוֹת נְפוּחִים, כִּסְבוּרִים יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵם מְלֵאִים מַיִם, וּכְשֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וּפוֹתְחוֹ, הָרוּחַ נִכְנֶסֶת בְּגוּפוֹ וּמֵת:
WHERE HE IS — According to the actions he is now doing shall he be judged and not according to what he may do in future. Because the ministering angels laid information against him, saying, “Master of the Universe, for him whose descendants will at one time kill your children with thirst will You provide a well?” He asked them, “What is he now, righteous or wicked?” They replied to him, “Righteous.” He said to them, “According to his present deeds will I judge him.” This is the meaning of what is written: “[For God hath heard the voice of the lad ] באשר הוא שם in that condition in which he now is” (Genesis Rabbah 53:14). Where did he (Ishmael) kill Israel with thirst? When Nebuchadnezzar carried them into exile — as it is said, (Isaiah 21:13, 14) “The burden upon Arabia … O ye caravans of Dedanites, unto him that is thirsty bring ye water! etc.” When they were bringing them near the Arabians the Israelites said to their captors, “We beg of you bring us to the children of our uncle, Ishmael, who will certainly show pity to us”, as it is said, “O ye caravans of the Dedanites (דדנים)”; read not דדנים but דודים, kinsmen. — These indeed came to them bringing them salted meat and fish and water-skins inflated with air. The Israelites believed that these were full of water and when they placed them in their mouths, after having opened them, the air entered their bodies and they died.
This explicitly shows that Hashem does not judge based on future actions, so how would the Ma’aseh Rokeach respond to this? Perhaps he would answer, when one is innocent and hasn’t yet sinned, God does not judge on future actions. Or, we can say even for a particular sin, if it was never committed, one is innocent until he actually commits the sin. If on the other hand, the person already sinned and now is repenting, his future actions indicate present-day lack of sincerity. Be’er Mayyim Chayyim (Vayikra 14:2) makes a similar point, stating that one must not only repent but also eradicate the roots of the attitude or mindset that leads to sin. In psychological terms, we might say that means the underlying conditions, assumptions and beliefs that primes a person towards certain dispositions. Be’er Mayyim Chayyim says that if one does not do this as part of his repentance, this is “close to“ immersing in the mikvah while still holding a sheretz. It is notable that he says “close to“, so in this way he diverges from the Maase Rokeach.
One final beautiful thought from Rav Tzadok (Peri Tzaddik, Vaeschanan 15:2). The Gemara Sanhedrin (17a) states that one of the requirements to become a judge on the Sanhedrin is to come up with halakhic arguments that can purify a sheretz. He interprets this allegorically. A judge must display the ability to look at each Jew favorably, even the person who performs an insincere repentance, that is the person who immerses while still holding onto a sheretz. This Judge still knows how to purify that particular kind of “sheretz” (or shall I say, “Shaygetz”), understanding that the external process can still be a gateway to deeper reform.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)