Coping with sin might be an inescapable feature of religious life, as the pasuk states, "for there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin" (Koheles 7:20). Indeed, the existence of the Ten Days of Repentance as an annual fixture on the Jewish calendar attests to the universal and constant need for correction and improvement. Nevertheless, there is a world of difference between one who succumbs to temptation and engages in errant behavior, even on a continual basis, and the individual for whom transgression has become a lifestyle and deeply held identity, perhaps even a source of pride. When performance of a sin metastasizes from a lapse in judgement or lack of self-control into a policy and ideology, not only is teshuvah unlikely, for there is no basis for regret, the core values of the Torah and mitzvos are in danger of becoming confused and distorted.
For this reason, the accountings of the Mishkan are introduced with the words "eileh pekudei haMishkan" - "these are the accounts of the Mishkan" (Shemos 38:21) which the Medrash (Pekudei 51:8) relates to the phrase uttered upon the emergence of the Golden Calf, "eileh elohecha Yisrael" - "these are your Gods Yisrael" (Shemos 32:4). According to the Medrash, "Hashem said to Yisrael, when you fashioned the Golden Calf, I was angered by the word eileh, now that you have made the Mishkan, I have been appeased by the word eileh." What was implied by the word "eileh" specifically that aroused the anger of Hashem more so than the actual creation of the Golden Calf itself? Moreover, how was this issue tempered and remedied by the subsequent usage of the word "eileh" upon the completion of the Mishkan?
In his Peirush Maharzu, Rav Zev Wolf Einhorn explains that the word "eileh" connotes a measure of pride, as if to display prominently and exhibit that which was accomplished. When the process of creation was completed, the pasuk states, "eileh toldos hashamayim ve'haaretz" - "this is the history of the heavens and the earth" (Breishis 2:4). On that occasion, Hashem proudly praised the world and boastfully proclaimed "Look at what I have created" (Medrash Bereishis 12:1). Yielding to the desperation of the moment and producing the Golden Calf was undoubtably a grave mistake. But when Bnei Yisrael paraded the Golden Calf about announcing "eileh elohecha Yisrael," in essence flaunting that which they had done without any remorse, it exacerbated their sin and transformed it into a matter of principle. Only by later celebrating the Mishkan in a similar fashion and proudly declaring "eileh pekudei haMishkan" were their values and beliefs properly repaired and restored.
As part of the avodah of Yom Kippur two identical goats were presented before the Kohen Gadol. After drawing lots, one goat was designated as a sacrifice before Hashem in the Beis Hamikdash while the other was dispatched into the wilderness to be brought to Azazel. Upon the head of the goat sent to Azazel, the Kohen Gadol would confess all the iniquities of Bnei Yisrael. According to the Gemara (Yoma 61a), the role of the second goat was to atone for the lone sin of defiling the ritual purity of the Mikdash and its consecrated objects. If all the sins of Bnei Yisrael were carried away by the goat sent to Azazel why wasn't the transgression of contaminating the Mikdash included? In addition, the division of labor here seems lopsided. One goat was sufficient for redressing the entire spectrum of sin while the other was necessary just for violating the rules of the Beis Hamikdash?
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Kol Ram, Achrei Mos) suggests that the two goats were atoning for two different kinds of individuals and distinct iterations of sin. There are those who are driven to sin by virtue of their unrestrained instincts, lusts, and cravings. For them the goat sent to Azazel is adequate. However, there are others who pursue an evil course of action as a matter of personal conviction, for they believe it to be right and good. They are guilty of blurring the boundary between holy and profane by introducing impure concepts and foreign actions into the sanctuary of Jewish thought and practice. In this instance the real problem is internal, in the Mikdash of one's mind, where authentic concepts have been infiltrated by poisonous ideas and constructs. It is this brand of sinning, which constitutes the pollution of holy spaces, that is addressed by the goat brought as a sacrifice in the Beis Hamikdash.
When confronting the reality of sin, it is important to bear this distinction in mind. Even Orthodox communal institutions that are otherwise equipped to support those who are struggling with their personal religious observance may not be able to accommodate those who openly and proudly identify with positions and lifestyles that are not compatible with the views and attitudes of the Torah. In our private lives as well, there is a periodic need for cheshbon hanfesh not only regarding our behaviors but also in relation to our entrenched stances and perspectives.
There is a great disparity between the duration of the exile after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash, which lasted for seventy years, and the length of the exile after the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash, which is still ongoing. In grappling with this phenomenon, the Gemara (Yoma 9b) explains that during the first Beis Hamikdash they were guilty of adultery, idolatry, and murder which are exposed and obvious sins and therefore easily rectifiable. In the case of the second Beis Hamikdash their primary shortcoming was baseless hatred, which is, by its nature, concealed and obfuscated and therefore continues to evade detection and remediation. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Drash Moshe, Drush 29) adds that baseless hatred lingers because we have adopted it as one of the principles that we proudly tout. All too often we believe that our hatred is not baseless at all, but rather justified and righteous, and hence our failure to rectify this sin is not a behavioral flaw but an ideological one.
As we enter the month of Nissan and the season of renewal it is an appropriate time to rethink and reassess our actions and as well as our perspectives and perceptions. In that merit, may we witness the redemption and see "sins cease from the land" (Tehillim 104, 35).