Midras Yeremia 2:22: Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Midrash Tanchuma, Bamidbar Rabbah & Otzar Midrashim

R. Jochanan said: "Repentance, is a great thing, for it tears (cancels) the [evil] decree against man; as it is said (Isa. 6, 10) Obdurate will remain the heart of this people, … nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts, so that they repent and be healed." R. Papa asked Abayi: "Perhaps these last words have reference only to the time before the [evil] decree has been pronounced?" "It is written," replied the latter, "so that they repented and be healed. Which [is the state of a] thing [that] requires healing? I can only say that such on which judgment had already been pronounced." An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: He who repents during the interval [between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement] is forgiven, but if he does not repent, even though he offered all the rams of Nebayoth (the best), he will not be forgiven. [Hence no judgment is canceled after it had been decreed.] This is not difficult to explain; the latter case refers to [the sins] of an individual, and the former refers to [those of] a community. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: (Deut. 11, 12) The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning, etc. In some instances the purpose is good, and sometimes it is harmful. How can this be explained? For instance, if Israel on the New Year [when judgment is passed] were found to be grossly wicked, it was decreed as punishment that very little rain fall for them; nevertheless, they later repented. What could be done in such case? The quantity of rain cannot be increased since the decree had already been issued by the Holy One, praised be He! therefore, He causeth the rain to come down at the proper time, whenever it is necessary for the sole benefit of the earth. As for the purpose to do harm. Suppose Israel was found to be perfectly righteous on the New Year; then sufficient rain was decreed them; but if in the end, they sinned, what could be done in such instance? The rain cannot be diminished, since plentiful rain had bean decreed previously. The Holy One, praised be He! however, causeth the rain to come not in the proper season, or on land where rain is not necessary. Now, [according to your opinion that for a community a decree might be changed], then why not annul the former decree, and have the amount of rain increased to its necessary amount? This here case is different, because it is possible to get along with a little amount of rain. Come, listen, from the following (Ps. 107, 23-28) They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these saw the works of the Lord … for He commanded, and raised the stormy wind, … they reeled to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, … then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and He brought them out of their distresses; oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, etc. The Holy One, praised be He! here inserted words [to intimate limitations] like Achin or Rakin to indicate that if they cried [for mercy] before the decree was pronounced only then would they be answered; but if after [the decree], they are not answered. [Hence this statement contradicts the former?] Nay, for those on a ship are also considered as individuals. Come, listen. The proselyte Beluria asked Rabban Gamaliel: "It is written in your Torah (Deut. 17) The Lord who forgiveth no persons and taketh no bribe; and it is also written (Num. 6, 26) May the Lord forgive thee." R. Jose, the priest, attended her (Beluria) and said: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this [your question] be likened? Unto one [a borrower] who lent money from his neighbor, set a time for its repayment in the presence of the king, and swore by the king's life [to repay it on time]. The time arrived, but he did not pay; and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him: 'I can forgive you only the offence against me, but I cannot forgive you the offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.' So also here; in the one place it refers to sins committed by a man against his associate, but in the other it refers to sins committed by a man against the Lord." But when R. Akiba came he explained (Fol. 18) that one passage refers to the time before judgment is rendered, and the other to the time after. [Hence after judgment is rendered no chance is left for reversal of sentence]. Here also refers to an individual judgment. However, as to the sentence pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ; for we are taught in a Baraitha: "R. Meir used to say, of two men who fall sick of the same illness, or two who enter a tribunal [for judgment] on similar charges, one may recover, the other may not; one may be acquitted, the other may be condemned. Why should one recover and the other not; and why should one be acquitted but the other condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed but was not answered. Why should one be answered while the other is not? The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered." But R. Eliezer said: "Because one prayed before the decree was pronounced and the other after the decree was pronounced." R. Isaac said: "Prayer is helpful to man after, as well as before, the decree has been pronounced." And an evil decree pronounced against a congregation you say, is subject to canceling [through prayer]? Behold, it is written (Jer. 4, 14) O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc.; and it is also written (Ib 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before Me. Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer [to the time] after the decree has been pronounced. There is no contradiction, for in the latter case it refers to a sentence pronounced with an oath, and in the former case it refers to a sentence pronounced without an oath. As R. Samuel b. Ami, and according to others R. Samuel b. Nachmen, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that a sentence, pronounced with an oath, cannot be annulled? From the following (I Sam. 3, 14) Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not he expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever." Raba, however, said: "This means that through sacrifices merely their sin cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law it may be"; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law, and by deeds of loving kindness, it can"; for he and Rabba [his teacher] were both descendants of the house of Eli [who were sentenced, as above; yet] Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis were taught that there was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Jochanan b. Zakkai of their trouble. "Perhaps," said he, "you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said (I Sam. 2, 33) All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age? Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they did live; and they were called after his name, the family if Jochanan.

R. Samuel b. lnya said in the name of Rab: "Whence do we know that a decree against a community is not confirmed." Is that true? Behold, it is written (Jer. 2, 22) The stain of thy sin remains before Me. But this is what he meant: Whence do we know that a decree issued against a community, even if confirmed, may nevertheless be cancelled? From the passage (Deut. 4, 7) As the Lord, our God, in all things that we call upon Him for. But it is also written (Isa. 55, 6) Seek ye the Lord while He may be found. Hence, is there a difference? The latter passage refers to an individual, the former to a community. When is the proper time for an individual [to repent]? R. Nachman, in the name of Rabba b. Abahu, said: "The ten days of repentence, between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement." (I Sam. 25, 38) And it came to pass, in about ten days thereafter, that the Lord smote Nabal. What is the reason for the ten days' waiting? R. Juda, in the name of Rab, said: "It corresponds to the ten meals which Nabal gave to David's servants." And R. Nachman, in the name of Rab, said: "This refers to the ten days of penitence [given to Nabal in which to repent]."

Our Rabbis were taught: It happened that Acher was riding upon his horse on the Sabbath, and R. Mair was walking behind him to learn the Torah from his mouth. He said to him: "Mair, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs that up to this point is the legal limit of the Sabbath." R. Mair then said to him: "Return thyself also." Whereupon Acher replied. "Have I not answered thee already what I have heard from behind the curtain?" R. Mair forced him to enter a place of learning. He said to a child: "Repeat for me thy verse," [which thou hadst studied today.] He quoted to him: (Is. 48, 22) There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked. He brought him to another house of learning. Acher said to a child: "Repeat for me thy verse." The child quoted to him: (Jer. 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me. He then brought him to another place of learning, whereupon Acher said to a child: "Repeat for me thy verse." The child quoted: (Ib. 4, 30) And thou, (Ib. b) that are spoiled, what dost thou, that thou clothest thyself with scarlet, that thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, that thou enlargest thine eyes with paint? In vain dost thou make thyself fair. He forced Acher to enter thirteen houses of learning and all quoted to him the same way. In the last one he said to the child: "Repeat for me thy verse." The child quoted to him (Ps. 50. 16) But unto the wicked (V'larasha) God saith: What hast thou to do to declare My statutes. That child was a stammerer and it sounded as if he had said Vle'elish [instead of V'larasha]. God saith, etc., whereupon Acher drew out a knife and cut the child into pieces and sent it to the thirteen houses of learning. According to others he only remarked: "If there had been a knife in my possession I would have cut him in pieces."