It is abundantly clear that the halakhic view places great import on influencing the individual’s interaction with others in society. The relationship of man to his fellow stands as a formidable component of any Jew’s spiritual record, an irreplaceable element of one’s overall standing. It is thus not surprising that any reckoning of one’s religious status is considered incomplete if lacking a thorough analysis of this interaction, along with whatever methods are necessary to rectify any aberrations or disturbances that may arise within this context.

The Foundation: The Obligation to Ask Forgiveness

The Talmud introduces this concept clearly in the course of a discussion of the laws of Yom Kippur. The Day of Atonement effects forgiveness for all transgressions, under the appropriate circumstances and accompanying devices. Nonetheless, we are told: “Sins that are between man and God, Yom Kippur atones for them; Sins that are between man and his fellow, Yom Kippur will not atone until he appeases his fellow (Yoma 85b).”

This notion, the imperative to attain mechilah, forgiveness, from an aggrieved party, is more innovative than it may initially seem. While impositions upon the rights of others constitute a significant portion of prohibited behaviors, the necessity to beg the pardon of the victim is by no means obvious. It might equally have been assumed that just as God issued commands as to the behavior of one individual toward another, He, too, serves as the aggrieved party Who must forgive when these commands are trod upon. The very fact that this role is placed in the hands of the human being reflects profoundly upon the halakhic recognition of the individual as an independent entity, presiding over the circumstances of his standing with others and of theirs with him.

Through this reality the oppressor becomes subject to the mercy of his victim, the expiation of his sins contingent upon the good graces of those who have suffered at his hands. The Pri Megadim (Mishbetzotz Zahav, OC 606)explains that the control of the offended party extends beyond the damage incurred to him personally. The Talmud’s statement that interpersonal violations are not atoned for without mechilah is absolute; even to the extent that these same actions are to be considered for whatever reason an affront against God, He, too, will not grant His pardon prior to the attainment of that of the aggrieved person.

R. Shmuel Germaizin (quoted in Pri Chadash) puts forward a more extended version of this position; every transgression against man by definition contains an aspect of rebellion against God. Attaining the forgiveness of man is a prerequisite to being excused for the offense against God present in every sin. This formulation goes further in dealing not only with multileveled transgressions, as does the Pri Megadim, but also by identifying two elements automatically in every interpersonal wrongdoing. Moreover, the Vilna Gaon and others claim that no transgressions at all are forgiven until forgiveness is asked of offended people.

Thus, the acquisition of mechilah fulfills a vital goal, the securing of a pardon from the party empowered to grant it. However, it seems that the actual role of the request for forgiveness encompasses more than this. While the consent of the aggrieved individual is indispensable for spiritual housekeeping, indications exist that additional elements are present in the necessity of appeasing the offended.

The Problem of Unrequested Forgiveness and the Focus on Process

Were a waiver of claims the only goal of the process, it would follow that if the victim would forgive of his own initiative, without waiting for his oppressor to seek his pardon, the latter gesture would become redundant. Nonetheless, many authorities who concern themselves with this issue indicate that a request for forgiveness is necessary even if the other party has already excused the offense. R. Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber (Az Nidberu 14:30), among others, maintains that the obligation to seek mechilah is operative regardless. However, R. Yehoshua Ehrenberg (Responsa D’var Yehoshua 5:20) is inclined to believe that unrequested forgiveness is enough.

A story related by the Talmud (Yoma 87b) is cited by those who agree with R. Zilber as support for their position. Rav had been offended by a certain butcher, and, following the passage of some time, they had still not reconciled. As Yom Kippur was approaching, Rav took pains to........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)