שובה ישראל עד ד' אלקיך כי כשלת בעונך: קחו עמכם דברים ושובו אל ד' אמרו לפניו כל תשא עון וקח טוב ונשלמה פרים שפתינו: (Hoshei’a 14:2-3)
Return O Israel unto Hashem, your G-d, for you have stumbled through your sins. Take words with you and return to G-d; say to Him, “Forgive all iniquity and take good, and may our lips substitute for bulls.”
In these famous opening words of the haftorah for Shabbos Shuva, the prophet Hoshei’a exhorts the Jewish people to abandon their sinful ways and return to their G-d.
Is repentance an all or nothing process or is partial repentance also accepted by Avinu Shebashamayim?
The Talmud (Ta’anis 16a) states in the name of R. Ada b. Ahava: “A person with a sin who confesses and does not return from the sin… [is] comparable to one who grasps an impure sheretz (rodent). Even if he immerses in all of the waters of the world, the immersion will not be effective for him. If he throws it from his hand, once he immerses… immediately the immersion is effective…”
At first glance, this passage necessitates total abandonment of sin in order for the teshuva to be in any way effective. One could have interpreted this passage to mean that each individual sin is dependent on sincere repentance for that particular sin; lack of complete teshuva does not prevent the teshuva of some sins from being accepted. However, Chovos Halevavos (Sha’ar Hateshuva 7:7) writes explicitly: “That which ruins teshuva also is when the penitent does teshuva from some of his sins and continues doing some of them.” He then proves his point from the aforementioned Gemara in Ta’anis. The analogy to mikveh seems to further highlight this point. It is well known that if even if one hair remains out of the mikveh, the immersion is invalid. Analogously, even if one sin remains out of the penitence process, the teshuva would presumably not be effective.
Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 2:3) quotes the above Talmudic passage as follows:
Anyone who confesses verbally without committing in his heart to abandon (the sin) is comparable to one who immerses while a sheretz is in his hand. The immersion is not effective unless he lets go of the sheretz.
In addition, Rambam (ibid. 2:2) writes:
It consists of the sinner leaving his sin and removing it from his thoughts and his committing in his heart not to do it again… and he should also regret the past…. "ויעיד עליו יודע תעלומות"(seemingly meaning “and the Knower of all hidden things can testify”) that he will not return to this sin ever again as the verse states, “And we shall no longer say to our handiwork, you are our god!” (Hoshei’a 14:4).
Both of these passages in the Rambam, at first glance, also imply strongly that repentance must be complete in order to be accepted. The abandonment of the sin and the commitment to abandon the sin must be absolute to the extent that Hashem himself is able to testify that he will not return to the sin.
Notwithstanding the above, sources abound that penitence is indeed accepted even for one sin even while others are still being done or if one has not fully changed any particular sinful behavior.
The Vilna Gaon in his commentary to Mishlei (19:2-3) writes:
When one becomes accustomed to virtuous character traits they become second nature, but one must go in character traits from one level to another as one ascends a ladder, not jumping to a level that he isn't ready for. And this is the meaning of “One who hurries on his feet,” by jumping to a high level he will not attain, will lack everything, because he will fall from it.Thus, R. Eliyahu of Vilna teaches us that committing to too much all at once is not a stable or effective means of religious growth. The same logic readily applies to multiple sins of action or inaction and not just to character traits.
Famously, the Gemara in Kiddushin (49b) states that one who gives kiddushin to a woman conditional upon his being righteous, even if he is known to have been wicked his whole life until that point, she is mekudeshes to him (Rishonim - out of doubt), since perhaps he thought of teshuva in his heart. Certainly, he has not done the complete teshuva described by R. Bachya and Rambam! And yet the fleeting thought of teshuva already removes his label of rasha.[1]
Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Hateshuva 6) on the 13th attribute “v’nakei” of the 13 attributes of Divine mercy, states explicitly that this refers to one who has done teshuva for only some sins, and G-d nonetheless cleanses those sins as a result.
Commenting on the opening line of our haftorah, Ibn Ezra offers a terse explanation on the phrase “Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecha” - “little by little.” Although he does not provide the source for his comment, perhaps his source is that only gradual repentance can be stable and achieve the goal of ultimately returning fully to G‑d.
Finally, Rashi (see also Ibn Ezra from R. Yosef) on the phrase “v’kach tov” (ibid. verse 3) explains “the meager good deeds we have in our hands and judge us after them.” Rav Asher Weiss shlit”a inferred[2] from this Rashi that teshuva is not binary, all or nothing, but can be gradual and partial.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson zt”l, explained that this does not contradict the mikveh model since, after all, mikveh also partially purifies. Just as one who is temei meis (from contact with the dead) and also has some other tumah will be purified from the latter tumah via immersion in a mikveh even without mei chatas (para aduma ash and water), so too teshuva will atone for sins which the person is ready to commit to abandon.[3]
Even within seemingly incomplete teshuva on an individual sin such as where the person returns to the sin after repenting, many (Beis Elokim, Emunos V’deios, and others) explain that if the commitment was present at the time of teshuva to change, then future failings do not invalidate the teshuva. Even the Rambam’s insistence on ”ya’id alav yodei’a ta’alumos” is interpreted by Lechem Mishne as “he calls G-d as his witness” indicating the penitent’s sincerity; it does not mean that G-d could testify that the person would never actually return to the sin again.[4] Furthermore, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Chevron, Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, once told Rav Shlomo Hoffman zt”l, “Who says we pasken like this Rambam?” He then quoted Sha’arei Teshuva that the central aspect of teshuva is choosing the road toward the Good, notwithstanding the fact that there will be ups and downs.[5]
Even the Rambam’s recording of the mikveh analogy which seems to indicate that a confession without commitment to change does not achieve atonement at all since he has not thrown away the “sheretz” does not necessarily mean that the movement towards G-d cannot have some effect. Any movement toward Hashem Yisborach brings the penitent closer to his goal.[6]
Teshuva of course means “return.” The road back to G‑d and back to one’s true self[7] is not necessarily a short one. As Rav Hershel Welcher shlit”a would often note, “Religious growth is incremental!” May Hashem inspire us to have the courage, diligence and planning to return to Him in big ways or even small as we prepare to enter into the Holy day of Yom Hakippurim, wherein, in the famous words of R. Akiva, Hashem himself, so to speak, surrounds us with a mikveh of purification. שובה ישראל עד ד' אלקיך!
[1] Rav Soloveitchik zt”l distinguished between the removal of the label rasha and kappara or atonement. This can be used to resolve the seeming contradiction between this passage and the above sources. But see also Minchas Chinuch (364).
[2] Heard at a Teshuva Derasha in Ramat Beit Shemesh some years ago. He stated that notwithstanding the contrary position of Chovos Halevavos, his view does not represent the mainstream view.
[3] With gratitude to Rav Gidon Schneider for informing me of this teaching. Available here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16025&st=&pgnum=193.
[4] This interpretation is readily verified by the Biblical prooftext quoted by Rambam from our haftorah.
[5] Heard from Rav Breitowitz in a Teshuva Drasha.
[6] Rav Yisrael Salanter zt”l (Or Yisrael, 7) further taught that it is also meaningful to commit to avoiding a particular aspect of a sin or under certain circumstances. This is also accepted as teshuva for that particular aspect.
[7] See The Two Goats and the True Self.