At the center of our prayers on Yom Kippur we find confession. The biblical source of this confession is the Temple service of High Priest on Yom Kippur. On numerous occasions the Torah repeats its command to the High Priest to confess the sins of the people of Israel, together with his own sins and the sins of his household (see Vayikra Chapter 16).
The text of the confession recited by the High Priest: “I have sinned, I have gone astray, I have done evil” is also taken from the biblical language that described this obligation to confess: “…and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins” (Vaykira 16:21). These words constitute a very general confession. It does not contain – nor could it possibly contain – an enumeration of every single sin carried out by the people of Israel, nor even those performed by his family or by him. Its entire purpose is appeasement and atonement, which are the main points of the High Priest’s service on this day.
We find this type of confession a number of times in the Bible. When King Solomon consecrates the first Temple and prays for its future, he asks that when the Jews make use of this type of language in their prayers for redemption while in exile, (see I Kings 8:47-50), that God should hearken to them. In Tehillim we find an entire psalm dedicated to a description of confession over communal sins, and in its center the traditional phrases are found: “We have sinned like our forefathers; we have gone astray and done evil” (Psalms 106:6). This, too, is a communal confession, as it contains no listing of personal sins or failings. What all of these confessions have in common is that they describe a situation of moving away from God and forgetting Him. The focus of the confession is on the general state of the Jewish people and the fact that God does not exhibit His presence in His world. Still, the confession does not ignore personal sins, rather it places them within a wider context – loss of a connection with God. Every single personal sin has its roots in God having been forgotten. As such, a general statement of confession may be more precise, as it gets to the true foundation of the problem. It cleanses the source of sin rather than simply dealing with its many and varied symptoms. Focusing on symptoms may fool the individual into believing that the sin was a one-time failing, which is why it is so important that the general confession avoids the one-time occurrences, which the sinner must confront on a daily basis. The purpose of Yom Kippur is to reset and return Man to an angelic state by creating a state of closeness that serves to correct the fundamental, universal, foundational sin. Since the destruction of the Temple, the job of the High Priest on Yom Kippur falls on all the people of Israel inasmuch as the focus of Yom Kippur activity has passed from the Temple to the synagogue. Each one of us is commanded to confess the sins of the entire community and to atone for them.
In contrast with this approach we find the view that confession must focus on the individual and must take into account every single sinful failing. Maimonides is a good representative of this approach, which also has solid foundations in the Bible and the Talmud (see, for example, Bavli Yoma 86b; II Samuel 12:13). Maimonides presents this type of confession as a commandment, brings sources for it and establishes it for all generations. These are the words of the Rambam:
…When he will repent himself and turn away from his sinful way, he is obliged to confess before God, blessed is He, even as it is said: "When a man or woman shall commit any sin..… Then they shall confess their sin which they have done” (Num. 5:6–7), which is a confession of words. Such confession is a mandatory commandment. How is the verbal confession made? The sinner says thus: "I beseech Thee, O Great Name! I have sinned; I have been obstinate; I have committed profanity against Thee, particularly in doing thus and such. Now, behold! I have repented and am ashamed of my actions; forever will I not relapse into this thing again."
(Laws of Repentance, Chapter 1)
As noted by Maimonides, the source for this teaching is the verse in Sefer Bamidbar (5:7) that teaches that an individual bringing a guilt offering for stealing must confess. In the case of a guilt offering it is clear that we are discussing the sin of an individual, and that verse relates only to situations of stealing. The Rambam, however, takes this confession out of context and applies it to all cases of repentance, no matter what sin was committed. He copies the language of the confession from the Yom Kippur prayerbook of the High Priest. All of this leads to a fascinating amalgam whereby a general confession becomes personal with the addition of one critical element: “particularly in doing thus and such.”
It might appear that the personal confession is difficult, complicated and the correct thing to do. How much courage a man must have to stand before a mirror and list all his sins and failings in detail! Still, the other approach would argue that it is nothing more than a description of external symptoms of a truly significant failing – forgetting God.
It is possible that both types of confession are appropriate for an individual, each one for a different type of sin. Among a person’s sins there are both occasional stumbles and full retreats. We must distinguish between a one-time lack of courtesy while driving and a general attitude of stinginess and small-mindedness. We must recognize the difference between someone who gets angry once and someone whose general personality is one of criticism, tactlessness and condescension. Someone who once uttered a curse word or once wore something improper is in a different category than someone who suffers from a lack of modest behavior before God.
It is also possible, however, that this is not the correct distinction, and that the difference is not so much different sins as different mindsets of sin. On the one hand, someone who refrains from offering charity to a poor person can write it off as a momentary failing of stinginess, but, on the other hand, it can be seen as forgetting – albeit momentarily – the true Master of gold and silver. The path of repentance for that sin depends on how it is viewed. Should we work on developing the trait of generosity, or, perhaps we must clarify for ourselves how we fell into the trap of “My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me” (Devarim 8:17). The experience of the “specific” sinner is an experience of multiple scruples, of probing the wounds leading to despair in the multitude of sinful deeds. The experience of the “general” sinner is somewhat more forgiving because it recognizes that experiencing God is a challenge that can never truly be realized in this world. But is also very demanding because it cannot be approached with piecemeal corrections, rather it requires existential change.
In our High Holiday prayerbook we meet both of these typologies. On the one hand we find: “We have sinned, we have rebelled, we have stolen…” which is not so much a list of specific actions as it is a description of missed opportunities, of rebelliousness and error. On the other hand, there is a list of dozens of specific acts: “On the sin we have sinned before you…” that includes all types of sins and sinful activities.
Nevertheless, this list of "On the sin…" has become a uniform confession of sin, in that we list not only our own sins but also a collection of possible sins, some ours and some that belong to our neighbors. The Arukh HaShulhan explains: “In the standard text of ‘On the sin…’ we do not relate to individual sins, since it is a version that is prepared for all to recite (Arukh HaShulhan, Orah Hayyim 607). It would appear that the approach of the High Priest is the one that wins out. Yet, many who pray on Yom Kippur feel a need to return to individual confession by means of written notes and explanations that they place in their prayerbooks for contemplation in the midst of the general confession.
The back-and-forth movement between these two approaches is preserved in the transition from confession to confession and in changing practices. It continues to exist in the texts of our prayers.
