Ari Levisohn: Welcome to Into the Verse, where we share new and unexpected insights about the parsha or an upcoming holiday, diving deep into the verses to uncover the Torah’s own commentary on itself. 

Daniel Loewenstein: I’m Daniel Loewenstein, and today we’re going to talk about a hard topic: Selichot. It’s not hard because it’s controversial or because there’s something morally or philosophically questionable about it. It’s hard in other ways. First, the words are hard. A lot of Selichot is these series of poems that have complex, archaic Hebrew that’s hard to pronounce and hard to understand. Also, the meaning is hard. There are lots of poetic references that require a ton of background knowledge or some really good footnotes, and the verses that get quoted don’t always have that much context.

And of course, the emotions are hard. What I mean by that is that so much of Selichot is some iteration of, “We sinned, we are lowly, we deserve whatever has befallen us or whatever’s in store, and God, we’re relying on Your mercies.” And that’s a lot harder to utter authentically than something like, “Thanks, God, for all my blessings,” or, “Wow, God, the Grand Canyon sure is impressive,” right? Who wouldn’t find the kinds of things we say in Selichot a little uncomfortable?

Yet the text of Selichot seems to be asking us to step into these emotions. And I think, for many of us, there’s this distance, this chasm between what we’re okay feeling and what Selichot seems to want us to be feeling, that I think a lot of us just aren’t interested in crossing. 

I’d like to talk to you today about a possible way to come to terms with this issue, and the way I want to go about that is by taking you on a journey through my own research into Selichot. This journey started a few summers ago when my manager came over to me one day and said, “Hey, you know how Selichot is confusing and hard to connect with? We should help people out with that. So we’re going to do a webinar, and you’re going to present.”

I had no idea what to say, so I dove into research. And that led to a presentation, and then to more research, and eventually to a conversation with Rabbi Fohrman where we solidified some discoveries that really change how we understand what’s happening in Selichot. So I’d like to share that with you today, and by share, I mean share. We have footage of this journey through the text, starting back with that webinar, and I’ll be guiding you through it.

A Journey Through Selichot

So let’s dive in, and start with what I noticed. When I first started looking into Selichot, one thing that I saw right away was that there’s a lot taken from the 9th chapter of Sefer Daniel, the Book of Daniel. The very first line of Selichot: לְךָ אֲ-דֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים — Yours, God, is the righteousness, and ours is the shamefacedness; that comes from Daniel 9. And the refrain that immediately precedes each Selicha poem: הַטֵּה אֱלֹקי אׇזְנְךָ וּשְׁמָע — Incline Your ear and listen, God; that also comes from there. So I decided to look into this chapter of Daniel, and see why the text of Selichot used it so much.

Now in case you know about as much of Sefer Daniel as I did then, i.e., nothing, here’s the context: Daniel, living in exile after the destruction of the First Temple, is reading through the prophecies of Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) and he notices something, that, when he thinks about it, immediately makes him panic. Yirmiyahu had prophesied that the exile would end after 70 years, but according to Daniel’s count, that day has come and gone. And so Daniel, terrified that the Redemption seems to not be coming, launches into a lengthy prayer. He begins by laying out context, declaring that, “God, You warned us to keep Your commands. We sinned anyway. We ignored Your prophets. Everything that’s happened is our own fault,” those kinds of things. And then, he asks for God to hear and to witness the plight of the people, and to bestow His compassion upon His people and His city.

After all this, an angel comes to Daniel and tells him, “Daniel, you prayed beautifully, but you can relax. Your count was off, you misunderstood the prophecy, and the Redemption is still on track.”

That’s Daniel 9 in a nutshell.

A Familiar Tone

Now, as I went through the chapter, something jumped out at me. There was a part of Daniel’s prayer that sounded incredibly familiar. As he shifts from the very last bit of context, about how the people sinned and deserved everything they got, and moves into the prayer itself, I couldn’t help but hear echoes of another prayer from much earlier in the Torah.

Here’s me, sharing what I found with Beth Lesch, a colleague at Aleph Beta, during the Selichot presentation:

Daniel: אֵת כׇּל־הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת בָּאָה עָלֵינוּ — All these bad things happened to us, וְלֹא־חִלִּינוּ אֶת־פְּנֵי  יְקוָה אֱלֹקינוּ לָשׁוּב מֵעֲוֺנֵנוּ וּלְהַשְׂכִּיל בַּאֲמִתֶּךָ — and we didn't entreat the face of God, the face of Hashem our God, to return from our sins and to ponder Your truth (Daniel 9:13). So, Beth, is there anything there that's tickling your Spidey-sense?

Beth Lesch: No, I’m drawing a blank. What are you thinking about, Daniel?  

Daniel: If you change the word חִלִּינוּ to וַיְחַל…

וַיְחַל אֶת־פְּנֵי יְקוָה אֱלֹקיו.

Beth: Oh, interesting. So I'm thinking Chet Ha’Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf).

Daniel: That's right. 

That is indeed right. In verse 13, Daniel says that, with all that befell us, לֹא־חִלִּינוּ אֶת־פְּנֵי  יְקוָה אֱלֹקינוּ— We didn’t entreat the face of Hashem, our God. And Moshe, when he interceded after the Israelites built the Golden Calf and God threatened to destroy them, Exodus, chapter 32, verse 11, tells us: וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת־פְּנֵי יְקוָה אֱלֹקיו — He entreated the face of Hashem, his God.

Essentially identical language, and the language parallels extend further.

Daniel goes on to begin his prayer in verse 15, and he says: וְעַתָּה  אֲ-דֹנָי אֱלֹקינוּ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ אֶת־עַמְּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וַתַּעַשׂ־לְךָ שֵׁם כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה חָטָאנוּ רָשָׁעְנוּ — Now, Hashem, our God, who took His nation out of Egypt with a strong hand and made a Name for Himself unto this day — we have sinned.

At first glance, there’s something very strange about this. Why would Daniel bring up the Exodus from Egypt, which had happened literally centuries earlier and with plenty of other miraculous acts occurring in the interim?

But, wouldn’t you know it, if you look at Moshe’s prayer during the Golden Calf episode, the first thing he says, the very next words in verse 11, are לָמָה יְקוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדוֹל וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה — Hashem, to what end does Your wrath burn against Your nation that You took out of Egypt with great might and a strong hand?

Moshe refers to God taking out the nation from Egypt with a strong hand, and Daniel refers to God taking out the nation from Egypt with a strong hand.

And finally, in verse 16, Daniel prays: יָשׇׁב־נָא אַפְּךָ — Turn back Your wrath, just as Moshe says to God in the next verse in Exodus: שׁוּב מֵחֲרוֹן אַפֶּךָ — Turn back from Your blazing wrath.

It would’ve been fair to chalk this up to coincidence if all Daniel had said was לֹא־חִלִּינוּ. “Entreating” gets mentioned plenty of times throughout the Torah. There might even have been grounds for staying skeptical after seeing the full parallel of פְּנֵי  יְקוָה אֱלֹקינוּ.

But add in “Egypt,” the “strong arm,” and “turning back from wrath,” all in the same order as they appear in Exodus, and it seems hard to deny that Daniel is leaning into the prayer of Moshe back at the Golden Calf.

Deja Vu All Over Again

It struck me when I read the texts a little more carefully, that the connections between these two episodes wasn’t just in the realm of language, but also in the realm of ideas. In other words, the arguments they’re making are similar.

See, when Moshe tries to get God to relent, he makes this appeal to God’s reputation. He says: לָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר בְּרָעָה הוֹצִיאָם לַהֲרֹג אֹתָם בֶּהָרִים וּלְכַלֹּתָם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה — Why should Egypt say, “God took them out in bad faith, to kill them in the mountains and to annihilate them from the face of the Earth?” (Exodus 32:12). In other words, “Why, God, are you setting things up so that Egypt can look at what You’re doing and mock You? Why give Egypt the fodder to sully You that way?”

“God,” Moshe seems to be saying, “Can’t You see what kind of talk will emerge from this, and what impact that will have on Your Name?” And Daniel appears to be doing the same thing. He calls out, “God, who took us out of Egypt and made a great Name for Himself, unto this day we have sinned.” So he brings up Egypt and ties that in with, as he calls it, the Name that God has made for Himself, which sounds a lot like God’s reputation.

If you think about it, Daniel had plenty of options for how to refer to God in this prayer. He could have said, “God, who is compassionate,” or “God, who forgives sinners,” or “God, who is our Father in heaven, we have sinned.” Why refer to God as the “God of the Exodus, the God of the great Name?” Unless Daniel is really doubling down on that link to Moshe’s prayer; not just using its language, but invoking the same argument.

He’s saying that God’s reputation, how the world sees Him, should motivate God to bring about the end of the exile, just as Moshe thought it should motivate Him to stay His hand after the Calf. The world sees the Jewish nation broken, defeated, scattered, and that reflects on God. He should do something about that if He really cares about His reputation, which, based on the way Moshe successfully leaned on reputation in his prayer all those centuries ago, it seems He does.

The Big Problem

So I’d made this discovery, and I was hoping it would unlock something deep and important about the prayer of Daniel, and in turn, something about Selichot. But what happened was basically the exact opposite.  When I stepped back and really thought about these two accounts, instead of gaining clarity, I became confused. It was clear that the two accounts were parallel; Daniel was definitely harkening back to Moshe. But there was a problem. Something wasn’t making sense. Something wasn’t making sense at all.  

There's a big, big problem, or a big, big difference, between what Moshe is doing and what Daniel is doing. I mean, you know, there are any number of differences, so we don't have to play the “What is Daniel thinking?” game — this Daniel, not that Daniel.

Beth: But it’s such a fun game!

Daniel: When Moshe made his case to God, to say, “God, why destroy Your reputation? You have facilitated this great Name for yourself, You've taken down the mightiest nation and the entire world, and what's going to happen if You destroy these people?”

So nothing had happened yet. Everything was still okay, and God was on the verge of acting and doing something that was devastating, that would be, you know, mutually assured destruction, in a certain sense. Obviously, not literally God; destruction of the Israelite nation and destruction of God’s reputation. Moshe says, “Let's figure out a way around this where we can get forgiveness and renew our relationship in a meaningful way, and Your Name can be spared.”

Beth: Okay. Whereas in Daniel, the timeline is different. Remind me of the context again.

Daniel: Daniel is living as a courtier under Darius during the exile, awaiting the fulfillment of the prophecy of redemption.

Beth: So, we're talking post-consequence. I mean, God hasn't destroyed the people altogether, but He has allowed a foreign captor to come in and exile them. Well, it sort of feels like Moshe has some leverage, right, that Daniel doesn't have but yet is somehow attempting to grasp.

Daniel: Exactly, right. Like, to the extent that the argument is going to make sense for Moshe. Like, what's the leverage here?

Leverage — that was the key issue for me. Because here, Daniel is modeling his prayer after Moshe, and it’s true that, on a superficial level, that seems like a great idea, right? Who wouldn’t want to model themselves after Moshe, who talked God down from destroying the nation? But when you get into the substance of Moshe’s argument, it all hinges on the fact that God’s reputation is intact and pristine, and if God ignores Moshe’s prayer and carries on with His plan, His Name will be severely damaged.

So Moshe’s argument is all about leverage, pointing out the consequences if God doesn’t stay His hand, and none of that argument fits with Daniel’s circumstances. He’s living in a post-exile world where God didn’t stay His hand, and the hit to God’s reputation has already happened. So any leverage-based arguments just don’t seem like they would work here. So why model himself after Moshe? What leverage does he think he has?

A Potential Solution

At the webinar, I shared my thoughts about this question. As you listen, think about how my answer lands for you:

Daniel: So Daniel seems to be using the same argument. and I think that this question — I don't know that I have an answer as much as to have an appreciation for what he's trying to do. He's saying, like you said, the Jewish people, as spread out as they are and as post-consequence as they are, they're not done, right? They're still there, and the cord hasn't been severed. Not only are they not done, but they still have this reputation attached to God, attached to the Israelite God who made a Name for Himself in all the ways that He did throughout history.

And I guess the novelty of what Daniel's argument is is that there's still a way for God to enhance His own reputation, even in this post-consequence world. Because as long as that link between Israel and God is alive in the collective knowledge of the world, then if God does something to bring back the glory and restore the nationhood of these people, He’s doing himself a service also.

So that was my suggestion. Basically, Daniel is trying to use the carrot since he can’t use the stick. He can’t leverage God with the prospect of losing His reputation, but building on the same principle Moshe used, that God linked His Name with the fate of the Children of Israel, maybe Daniel can entice God into redeeming the people with the prospect of restoring His Name. 

So what do you think? How does that sit with you? For me, it felt like a fair approach at the time, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt that the question was just a lot better than the answer. I talked it over more with Beth, but every time I thought I had a breakthrough, it just felt wrong. I needed help, needed fresh eyes and an open mind that could see things I was missing. Fortunately, I was able to get on a call with Rabbi Fohrman.

A Talk with Rabbi Fohrman

Rabbi David Fohrman: Before we even begin with details, just give me an overview of what you want to share with me. That's what you want to do? In other words, go through Egel HaZahav (the Golden Calf) and Daniel, chapter 9?

Daniel: Yeah, basically.

As we started talking, I walked Rabbi Fohrman through the basics of what I’d noticed: The context of Daniel 9, the parallels between Daniel 9 and Exodus 32, the whole idea of reputation, and, of course, the question — where’s the leverage?

Rabbi Fohrman and I talked for a while, and I just want to give you a heads-up, I’ll be playing most of that conversation for you now. Something magical happened in our talk — a convergence of creativity, careful reading, common sense, and out-of-the-box thinking that led us to something profound, and I really want you to experience that with us. So here’s a big clip. Back in a bit.

Daniel: That's honestly basically the gist of the argument. 

Rabbi Fohrman: So, if you don't mind, I just want to challenge you a little bit, right?

Daniel: Yeah, go for it, please.

Rabbi Fohrman: So when you see parallels, you have to do more than just see the parallels. You also need to do a compare and contrast, which you're starting to do, right? Let's look back at the three parallels and tell me how each of those parallels is not just a compare, but also a contrast. Let’s start with the first one, וַיְחַל. Which passuk (verse) was that?

Daniel: Thirteen.

Rabbi Fohrman: Yeah. So for me, for starters, the וַיְחַל of Moshe wasn’t לָשׁוּב מֵעֲוֺנֵנוּ, right? And also, the וַיְחַל of Moshe, just in tone, was a much… I mean, what Moshe is doing is… There are several stages in what Moshe is doing. The first stage in Moshe's doing, he’s just trying to stave off them being destroyed. Later on, he's going to ask God to forgive the people. But interestingly, the one thing that Moshe never does, I don't think, at the Egel, is what Daniel's doing here.

Does Moshe ever express teshuva (repentance) on behalf of the people? I don't think he ever does. Think about what Moshe does do in the Egel: “Please don't destroy us, it'll be bad for Your reputation.” Then later, מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ, if you do destroy us (Exodus 32:32). And then this ultimatum to forgive the people, right? The אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה, which is the vidui (confessional), right (Exodus 32:31)? And You have a choice: Either You should bear this in or You should destroy them and destroy me too, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

He basically does everything but express teshuva. He is not expressing remorse, which is what teshuva is, which is exactly what Daniel is doing with the חִלִּינוּ, which I think is really interesting. לֹא־חִלִּינוּ אֶת־פְּנֵי  יְקוָה אֱלֹקינוּ לָשׁוּב מֵעֲוֺנֵנוּ, right? So that's one thing I would say is interesting. Let's go to the next of the parallels you have. What's your next one?

Daniel: Fifteen.

Rabbi Fohrman: וְעַתָּה  אֲ-דֹנָי אֱלֹקינוּ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ אֶת־עַמְּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וַתַּעַשׂ־לְךָ שֵׁם כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה חָטָאנוּ רָשָׁעְנוּ. Isn't it interesting? Compare and contrast how Moshe is using that phrase and how Daniel is using that phrase.

Daniel: Right. So, I mean, the way Daniel is using that phrase — again, I think if you read it carefully, he's doing the same thing as Moshe, but a little differently. But how Moshe is using it, Moshe's saying, you know, לָמָּה, meaning “For what — to what end are you going to be angry at this nation you took out of Mitzrayim (Egypt)? לָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר בְּרָעָה הוֹצִיאָם (Exodus 32:12). “Look, what's going to happen to Your Name if you do that?” Right?

Rabbi Fohrman: Yes.

Daniel: And Daniel says: אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ אֶת־עַמְּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם — You took us out of Mitzrayim, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וַתַּעַשׂ־לְךָ שֵׁם — You've made a Name for Yourself.

Rabbi Fohrman: Sure. I grant you that that's all comparable, yeah. But I'm still asking you, is your sense that he's really doing the same thing as Moshe?

Like, if I intimidate you, Daniel, and you're literally that — keshmo kach hu (he is as his name), right? You're Daniel. If I play God and I say, you know, who are you to lecture me about my justice and all of this? If you're really being Daniel here, what would you say? Are you lecturing me about my justice?

Read the verse and listen to the language and tell me what you're feeling: וְעַתָּה  אֲ-דֹנָי אֱלֹקינוּ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ אֶת־עַמְּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וַתַּעַשׂ־לְךָ שֵׁם כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. Now look how he finishes it as opposed to how Moshe finishes it: חָטָאנוּ רָשָׁעְנוּ (Daniel 9:15). Words that never — I mean, yes, in a way, Moshe will later on say, אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה…וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא (Exodus 32:31-32). But you're not saying that, right?

What you're saying is, “I want You to know, God, we get it that we've sinned. We get it that we've been evil.” And not only that — where's that part where he says, like, “We don't deserve this, and You're the Tzadik (Righteous One) and we're not?”

Daniel:  It's yud-daled (fourteen).

Rabbi Fohrman: Right. So you never heard words like this from Moshe: כִּי־צַדִּיק יְקוָה אֱלֹקינוּ. He's saying, like,” God, I want to make sure we've got this exactly straight, I am not accusing You of wrongdoing. I think it's totally justified for You to destroy us. That is not my argument, and I'm not in Your face at all.”

The Same Argument Played Differently

The way I read his argument here, חָטָאנוּ הִרְשַׁעְנוּ, the only way to read it without being in your face — it's almost the same thing as Moshe. It's almost like the same thing logically, but it's just a different tone. I'll give you an example: If you look at these Masterclasses — you know Masterclass?

Daniel: Yes.

Rabbi Fohrman: So one of them is Hans Zimmer, the composer. I didn’t go through Hans Zimmer's Masterclass yet, but I just looked at the trailer, and even in the trailer he said something really interesting. He said, “All music is conversation.” In conversation, there are exclamations, there are questions, and there are answers.

He shows you, like, “Here is this note. I'm going to play something, and this is a question. Now I'm going to play it to you again, and this is an answer. Now I'm going to play it to you as a question that's going to be this really shocking, in-your-face question. But now I'm going to play it to you as a soft, meek question.” And it's the same notes exactly; it's just played differently. And it's the same thing over here.

In other words, yes, the externalities of the argument are the same, but it's much meeker. What Moshe's saying is, “God you can't afford —” It's almost like, imagine a Mafia boss saying, you know, “Sure, it would be a shame if something happened to your reputation, God.” That’s Moshe. Moshe is like, “I'm boxing You in. לָמָה יְקוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ? Where do You think You get off, being angry at Your people?”

And that's where Daniel is different. Daniel is like, “Look, I am not challenging the justification of You getting angry at the people. But despite the fact that I'm not challenging that, I will note the same thing that Moshe is noting, which is that Your reputation is tied up to ours, for better and for worse. So I'm not going to come along with Moshe and be in Your face and not even talk about the sins that we've done and say that You can't afford to destroy us because of the hit to Your reputation. I would never have the gall to do that.” And it's almost like, “Galus (exile) has chastened me.” It's like, “We're in galus, we're chastened, and I accept it, and all of that. Still in all, our reputation is tied up in Yours.”

And because of that, what he's doing is he's almost — here's the modification of the argument: “I would feel so terrible if we were destroyed because of the hit that Your reputation would take. Not that You can't do this, but it's a prayer. It's that the ultimate chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s Name) would be the destruction of Klal Yisrael (The nation of Israel) because look what it does for Your Name in the world.”

“You've invested so much in us, and it would be terrible if the experiment in Klal Yisrael, which is a thousand years old by the time Daniel is writing, if that experiment would come to an end because we are in galus. But the Torah does say that there's a way back from galus, but the 70 years are up and I'm looking at the end of the experiment. So, I'm thinking, like, was the Torah wrong? Is this really all going to go down to pieces?”

“If it did, I can't say we don't deserve it. But I will say, boy, what a chillul Hashem. Look how sad that is. Look at the chillul Hashem. I feel bad for Your Name, God.”

That's a whole different argument, even though technically it's the same argument.

Daniel: Right.

Rabbi Fohrman: So his interposition of חָטָאנוּ רָשָׁעְנוּ is really important. Moshe is seeking to avoid discussing that. It's not even like, if you interviewed Moshe and Daniel, they would argue as to whether the people have done a terrible sin and should do teshuva. But for some reason, Moshe is like — it's a really good question. Why did Moshe choose that route? Moshe doesn't choose the route of teshuva.

It's interesting that Moshe feels that he can't or won't take it upon himself to represent to God that the people are regretful for what they've done, and the people have to do that themselves. Whereas in the Daniel story, it's interesting that Daniel does take it upon himself, kind as leader of the people, to express that regret, חָטָאנוּ רָשָׁעְנוּ, on behalf of everyone.

Connecting with Selichot

Hi! It’s Daniel from the present, popping in for a quick second. Rabbi Fohrman is pointing out that Moshe is really brazenly arguing that God doesn’t have a choice, and Daniel is kind of meekly arguing that it would just be so sad for the story of God’s chosen people to come to an end. Now, that by itself doesn’t get us to a new way to connect with Selichot. That part comes next.

Daniel: It's really interesting that in Selichot, we use both, right? You know, הַטֵּה אֱלֹקי אׇזְנְךָ (Daniel 9:18).

Rabbi Fohrman: That actually is really interesting. That's fascinating actually, because you are using Moshe and Daniel in Selichot, because you’ve got —

Daniel: Consistently.

Rabbi Fohrman: That's very interesting. That's fascinating. No, but what part do you really use in Moshe? וַיַּעֲבֹר יְקוָה  עַל־פָּנָיו is what you use, right?

Daniel: Right.

Rabbi Fohrman: But that's a different part. We don't use the Daniel parts of Moshe. In other words, the parts that Daniel's quoting from, we don't use, right? We use God's revelation of the Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim (Thirteen Attributes of Mercy) from Moshe, which is a soft, so to speak, part of Moshe. We don't use the hard part of Moshe.

But here's what I want you to think about. Wouldn't it be cool, Daniel, if Chazal (our Sages) or those who put together Selichot had an answer to your questions about what it all means, and were expressing it in the Selichot themselves, specifically in the fact that they were drawing on both Moshe and Daniel, when Daniel himself draws on Moshe?

But interestingly, they don't draw on what you would've expected them to draw of Moshe, which is Moshe's version of Daniel, but they draw it in another version of the story, which is not present in the Daniel story. And what part are they drawing from? They're drawing from the revelation of the Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim. And now, look at the end of pasuk yud-chet (verse eighteen). Could it be that Daniel, there, is providing your answer? כִּי  לֹא עַל־צִדְקֹתֵינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ מַפִּילִים תַּחֲנוּנֵינוּ לְפָנֶיךָ כִּי עַל־רַחֲמֶיךָ הָרַבִּים. Isn't that interesting? 

In other words, the answer he's providing is maybe the difference between Moshe and Daniel. We have this question: Why was Moshe different? Why didn't Moshe do what Daniel was doing? It's much nicer; it's a less risky approach, right? Like, you know, he's climbing Mount Everest and he just happens to succeed. But to stick it to God like that, and you think it's going to work, and it worked?

So, look at the revelation of the Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim. Maybe Daniel is post-Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim and Moshe is pre-Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim. Maybe Moshe didn't know he could do what Daniel was doing and get away with that, because God hadn't revealed himself as such a softie for rachamim yet. It's in the story that God reveals that aspect of him, and that's what Daniel's calling on.

So, Daniel can do what Moshe wasn't sure he could do. In other words, maybe that's why Moshe avoids this flat out, like, “We've sinned and we're sorry and regretful.” Because for all Moshe knows, that just gives God the opportunity to say, “Ah, so your modeh (admit) that what you did was an absolute travesty and it was incredibly terrible and that I'm righteous and just in destroying them. You’re modeh to that, so the court case is over.”

Daniel: Yeah.

Rabbi Fohrman: So Moshe has no way of knowing that that's not going to happen. So maybe he can't afford to do that, so he tiptoes around in all the ways.The most he'll say, whenever he gets close to it, when he says: אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה; vidui, which isn't even teshuva, which isn’t even regret. It's just a vidui. He couples it with his biggest in-your-face moment: וְעַתָּה, right? You should just have to…or if not, destroy me, right? So, you can't have both ways.

It's not like I'm appealing to His nature.. Maybe that was the chiddush (novelty) to the Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim; that God was coming out like, “Okay, look, Moshe, just relax. I need to tell you something about Me. I'm not who you think I am. I actually have it in My nature to forgive, despite all of this talk of destroying them.”

And he’s like, “Oh, really? That's really interesting.” And then He says, “And in the future, you could always come…” and this is Chazal, right? “In the future, you could always invoke these middot.” And it's almost like Daniel is listening to Chazal who says, “In the future, you could always invoke these middot, and I'll always respond.” And Daniel is saying, “I'll take you up on that, God. And therefore, I'm going to feel comfortable doing what Moshe didn't feel comfortable. Not just recognizing this — I'll be comfortable seeking teshuva and showing my terrible regret, and therefore, I'm going to reformulate what Moshe said.”

“Moshe's right that You took us out of Egypt. Moshe's right that Your Name is bound up in my name. Moshe's right about all of that, but I'm not using that to force Your hand. Not using that to smoosh Your face in the mud, and now You have to save us.”

“I'm using that to say that because, of course, you're just in destroying us. כִּי עַל־רַחֲמֶיךָ הָרַבִּים — I'm being somech (reliant) on your rachamim. And if I look at this from the face of Your rachamim, and I, someone who's interested in You, say that it would be such a shame to destroy us, look at what it does to Your Name. Can you find it in You to not let this experiment die?”

“I am in the same position as Moshe. I'm looking at the end of the Jewish experiment, just like Moshe. I'm looking at the desecration of God's Name, just like Moshe, but I have a radically different way of seeing it because of what You revealed to Moshe.”

And that I think is a great takeaway, because it says to us what it means to live in a post-Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim world; that we can be real with regret without this fear over our heads, that it means it's the end.

Daniel: Right. That's a very logical takeaway. To say, you know, God is just, and if I'm causing more harm than good in the world, then can I really turn to Him and say, “God, please let me live anyway?” Probably not; He has a world to run. If you need to kick a kid out of school to save the rest of the school, then you have to make the hard decision. So to say that, that I can still ask God to have rachamim, is a chiddush.

Rabbi Fohrman: Right. And I think that, by the way, a really cool aspect of it is that thing we were talking about at the end, that the framers of Selichot drew on both Moshe and Daniel, probably understanding that Daniel was drawing on Moshe. But isn't it interesting that they didn't draw on that part? What a great — like I always say, there’s a keystone clue that flips your paradigm. That's the keystone clue that flips your paradigm. Oh, but what part do they draw on? The Yud-Gimmel Middot HaRachamim? Oh, very interesting. Look at this pasuk; you see that Daniel’s relying on that. Oh, he's living in a post…that's where you change your whole paradigm.

Putting It All Together

Daniel: Hi — me again, in the present. And I hope you felt the excitement of discovery with us as we put the pieces together, and that sense of wonder when Rabbi Fohrman laid out his theory, and it just made everything fit. He made an observation that flipped my whole question on its head: Daniel’s prayer makes more sense than Moshe’s. Sure, yes, Daniel’s prayer lacks leverage — but does it make sense to walk into a conversation with God trying to wield leverage, to force God’s hand? Doesn’t it make more sense to come before God repentant, heart in hand, and ask for compassion in the hopes for a better future? What Moshe did was clever and daring and admirable, but it just doesn’t seem like it was reasonable. So maybe the real question we needed to grapple with wasn’t what Daniel was thinking, but what Moshe was thinking.

And that led Rabbi Fohrman to the key insight: maybe the reason Moshe was so forceful and bold wasn’t just because he was pre-consequences and he still had leverage, but also because he was pre-revelation of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, which are only revealed at the end of the Golden Calf story, in chapter 34. God hadn’t spelled out explicitly how deep His mercies were, and without that knowledge, Moshe might genuinely not have known that he could offer a prayer like Daniel’s and expect it to work.

Most of us don’t blink at the idea of God being merciful and compassionate. There’s almost a sense that it’s part of the job description; like, what else would God be? But the truth is that, in a very real way, mercy makes no sense.

There’s an eye-opening Aleph Beta course on the Book of Jonah all about this concept, by the way, if you want to go and have a look.

But if you think about the relationship between mercy and justice, mercy isn’t fair. It’s literally giving you what you don’t deserve. You’ve done wrong, you deserve to die or to suffer, to learn harsh lessons or make restitution — and we just skip all that and say, “Forget about it.” It takes the whole concept of action-reaction, of fairness and consequence, and just throws it out. For God to be merciful — it’s almost a kind of miracle. It breaks the laws of metaphysics the same way splitting the sea breaks the laws of regular physics. So it’s really not obvious that we should just expect God to do that.

So maybe Moshe had good reason to wonder whether honest, meek contrition really was the best way to save the children of Israel. Like Rabbi Fohrman said, maybe all that would do would just be an admission of guilt, and that would just further damn the people. And maybe the revelation of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, in which God declares Himself רַחוּם ,חַנּוּן, and נֹשֵׂא עָוֺן - compassionate, grace-granting, and sin-bearing - maybe it’s a way bigger deal than we typically think it is.

It’s the moment where God confirms that He’s prepared to break those laws of metaphysics, that He doesn’t just relate to us as a judge who needs to uphold justice and the law, or a manager who needs to stay focused on the interests of the company. We’re not automatically going to get fired if we’re not pulling our weight, even if that’s the most logical, most fair thing to do. God also relates to us like family, where honesty and making amends go a long way.

I think knowing that makes saying Selichot a little easier. Because the challenge of Selichot isn’t that we haven’t sinned — it’s that we don’t like to think about that. We find it threatening to acknowledge that and be honest about it. But the Thirteen Attributes, I think they can take away some of that discomfort. Because they’re an invitation to be honest and authentic and vulnerable, without having to fear how exposed and defenseless that leaves us.

So that’s the punchline. After so long wondering, where’s the leverage, the really obvious answer seems to be that there is no leverage. And there doesn’t need to be. The point Daniel seems to be making, and the point the authors of Selichot seem to be emphasizing, is that God is merciful. And therefore, we are safe, even when we make ourselves vulnerable and admit that we may not be deserving. We don’t need bravado or boldness or bargaining chips to have the decrees against us annulled. God is merciful. We can just ask.

Credits

This episode was written and recorded by: Daniel Loewenstein.

Editing was done by Daniel Loewenstein and Evan Weiner.

Our audio editor is Hillary Guttman.

Our production manager is Adina Blaustein.

Our senior editor is Ari Levisohn. 

Thank you so much for listening. From all of us at Aleph Beta, we want to wish you a very meaningful Yamim Noraim, High Holidays, and we’ll see you back for our next episode before Sukkot.