Elisheva for you, is forgiveness an act or a feeling?

Tazzee...the sentence "the more I think about this topic the more hazy it seems to get in my definition", made me smile. I freely admit, I'm the kind of person who prefers to bat things around in my head before I write them down, after a while too much discussion just make my head hurt.
For me with regard to this, Forgiveness has been a feeling. Strictly internal. I'm not sure if it's noticeable to the outside world but it sure is noticeable to me.

Finalytime: Excellent question! I'm not sure. Neither exactly, maybe a process lived out through acts? To be completely honest, it is pretty hard for me to see them as separate. Feelings motivate acts, but what counts in the end is the acts that express them. Even my prayer during the rape was fundamentally an act, not a feeling. (as I perceive it). That may be a Jewish thing - to see our relationship to the world through our acts.

On a related note:

Matt (and anyone else interested),

I've been thinking more about your question about forgiveness in Judaism. I was kind of surprised at the difficulty I had giving an answer or at least spinning out a few sources. I think the real difficulty here is that forgiveness plays a very, very different role within Judaism and Christianity. In Christianity it is the starting point for so many discussions about both God and human kind. In Judaism, forgiveness isn't really a topic on its own. There isn't even a formal commandment (mitzvah) of "forgiveness". The obligation to forgive is derived from other rules of human relationships: for example the prohibition against cruelty.

The starting gate concept in Judaism is teshuva (return, repentance). That isn't to say that forgiveness is unimportant. In fact it is very, very important. However, when forgiveness is discussed within Judaism it is primarily discussed in the context of repentance.

In the case of God, God forgives us when we confess and repent. Unlike Christianity,forgiveness is a given. We don't believe God needs something extra to forgive beyond our own desire for reconciliation with God. It is in God's nature to forgive. The fact that God can be both infinitely just and infinitely merciful at the same time is simply considered part of the mystery of God. A classic text used to explore the difficulty we humans have with God's willingness to both judge and forgive is the end of the story of Jonah, where Jonah sits under his tree and is furious at God for forgiving the people of Nineveh.

As for interpersonal forgiveness, one of the more well known sources is Rambam's Hilchot Teshuva (Ways of Repentence). According to Rambam, a person who repents is obligated to make peace with and appease the person whom he or she has offended. At first the person must simply go to the person and ask what is necessary to make amends. If the person refuses to answer, then the repentant person should go get three other people to mediate and approach the wronged person as a group to ask how to make peace. If the person refuses, the repentant person must try a total of three times using mediators. If the wronged person still refuses any sort of reconciliation, then the repentant person can let it go and move on. Even more interestingly, Rambam says the person who refuses to forgive becomes the sinner. (!) Rambam explains his position by saying that it is "forbidden to be cruel and refuse to be appeased". (2:10).

This sounds a little like a guilt trip if it is taken out of context. To understand Rambam's position I think we also need to understand how Rambam defines repentance. It is much more than a feeling. In the same book he earlier defines several pre-conditions: (a) a verbal out-loud confession to God (b) payment of any reparations/fulfillment of punishments that are necessarily (c) a sincere desire not to repeat the mistake along with active efforts to insure that one will in fact not repeat the mistake. He defines a person with complete repentance as "a person who confronts the same situation in which he sinned when he has potential to commit the sin yet he abstains and does not commit it because of his teshuvah alone and not because of fear or lack of strength". (2:1).

Clearly Rambam is not talking about an active abuser. Nor is he talking about a person who cannot forgive because forgiveness would make them suicidal or otherwise unable to function. If forgiving would make one suicidal, it would actually be a mitzvah (obligation) _not_ to forgive. One is not allowed to cause one's own death.

There isn't a lot of debate about the above that I've ever seen, maybe not any. I strongly suspect that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe knew and agreed with all of the above. So, I'd have to assume his three step process concerns a situation where the wounded person is finally convinced of both the safety and sincerity of reconciliation. In that case, I'm wondering as an experienced therapist and liver of life how you would envision reconciliation without letting go of anger, at least at the person you are trying to reconcile with? Since this is a process of appeasement, this would clearly not be a one-sided letting go, but a process that would be worked through together.

Ok, sorry if I am repeating others as yet I have not had chance to read through everyones input.

What is forgiveness? Speaking for me,I'll try and explain

Forgiveness is a word that is brandished about freely and far to often, it seems to be a word that suggests forgive and everything will be ok, in this context its a "doing" word, and often used without thought, realism, or recognition of the consequences of forgiveness. Yet how can you do forgiveness?? and yet it is word that in its purest form (to me anyway) inspires hope, respect and warmth. But how can one forgive another if they are blind to ones own flaws.

Forgiveness is finding peace with being human and acceptance of ones own humaness. By accepting ones self, ones history, choices, responses, mistakes, achievements and the such like without attaching to it other labels such as guilt and blame. If one truly forgives one self' s humaness it leaves a pathway to choose to forgive another.

By choice I mean that if one chooses not to forgive another then somewhere they must be able to forgive themselves for coming to that decision. I forgive myself for the hurt blame and shame I held as a consequence of my rape, but I choose not to forgive my rapist for I am not responsible for his actions, therefore if i did forgive him my forgiveness changes nothing.

As a consequence of this the anger hurt, self hatred that perhaps were his in the first place have ceased to be such a dominant factor in my life and as a result am able to move forward with more acceptance toward others.

So the risks with forgiveness are more to do with appeasing others, with such dichotomys like "forgive and forget" which in my mind translates to "you forgive so we can forget".

Forgiving another before ones self potentially condones and affirms the consequences of the act. Choosing to forgive or not, accentuates ones own identity and free will.

So in short forgiveness is not a doing word but an introspective process of finding acceptance. Not of the person but of the personal consequences of the act itself.

Another consideration is:

The choice to forgive or not also depends on whether the other party asks for forgiveness and the motivation behind that request. Does one forgive to appease the others guilt or shame and does this happen without down grading ones own sense of well being. Does one forgive because they have been told they ought or should? Or because that is right for them.

Might come back to this again, real food for thought!

Beth, this is amazing research, and I am TOTALLY going to use it and credit it (to "my friend Beth..."), unless you object for some reason.

Would it be fair to say that in Rambam's prescription for repentance/forgiveness, since the onus is on the offender to confess/seek amends before being forgiven, a victim is NOT obligated to forgive in the absence of that confession? I mean, it seems that the teaching is clear: the offender must approach and make three efforts to right the wrong, and THAT is the act that precedes forgiveness, if any. So would it be correct to infer that the victim who feels unable to forgive is certainly within their rights to withhold that forgiveness, with regard to an offender who has made no propitiation? THAT would be a marvelous teaching!

"a person who repents is obligated to make peace with and appease the person whom he or she has offended. At first the person must simply go to the person and ask what is necessary to make amends. If the person refuses to answer, then the repentant person should go get three other people to mediate and approach the wronged person as a group to ask how to make peace. If the person refuses, the repentant person must try a total of three times using mediators. If the wronged person still refuses any sort of reconciliation, then the repentant person can let it go and move on. Even more interestingly, Rambam says the person who refuses to forgive becomes the sinner. (!) Rambam explains his position by saying that it is "forbidden to be cruel and refuse to be appeased". (2:10).

This sounds a little like a guilt trip if it is taken out of context. To understand Rambam's position I think we also need to understand how Rambam defines repentance. It is much more than a feeling. In the same book he earlier defines several pre-conditions: (a) a verbal out-loud confession to God (b) payment of any reparations/fulfillment of punishments that are necessarily (c) a sincere desire not to repeat the mistake along with active efforts to insure that one will in fact not repeat the mistake. He defines a person with complete repentance as "a person who confronts the same situation in which he sinned when he has potential to commit the sin yet he abstains and does not commit it because of his teshuvah alone and not because of fear or lack of strength". (2:1)."

To me this is sorta like Yes Hello...but it's like my thoughts can barely go there because there is no structure. There's no rule no law of the land so to speak. The guy who raped me raped me on a date...I had my clothes off by the time I realized what was gonna happen.

He's resume is on LInk'd In.com but what would I do what could I say to get any feeling of justice.

Rape sometimes effects one's ability financially...no body can bring my ability to orgasm with a partner back to me other than getting lucky and finding my way there!!!

It is funny that I never had images of doing bodily harm to the abusive guy ... he did his crying talking about how he envision boys and girls together as a kid. Said how he was reading all these books written by women now ect. I killed his energy he left with me alot but not him in the after math. And yeah his changing didn't help me and the effects I had to suffer. However the rapist never did or said anything...I often imagined getting him and causing bodily harm. Not so much anymore ... but I do think of sending him something by email just to say this is what you did I tell everyone and I just don't know what to say that would make me feel vindicated.

Yes someone must make actions to amend or else it is not a true repent.

As far as I can tell there is no obligation to forgive someone who hasn't made amends. Ever notice how few Jews (0?) have stood up in the last 60 years and said "I forgive Hitler and the SS. I'm healed from the Holocaust"? The only speech I know that comes close is the one where Elie Weissel, nobel prize laureate, challenged the German Bundestag (parliament) in 2000 to ask forgiveness from the Jewish people.

The closest Judaism comes to an obligation to forgive can be found in Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear his sin.". But this isn't called forgiveness (m'chila) in Judaism. It is the mitzvah of rebuke (hochiach). Elie Weisel's challenge to the German parliament is certainly an example of fulfilling this command. Depending on the circumstances it could mean anything from respectfully telling your spouse/parent/child why you are mad at them to reporting a crime or hanging up anti-rape myth posters around a college campus. It would also include Matt's idea of purging and various other's ideas of letting go since holding onto the pain in a destructive way (hate in the heart) is really a form of bearing someone else's sin.

When it comes to confrontation of an abuser the situation gets complicated. An abuser in denial specializes in trying to get other people to bear their sin. So I'm not sure whether live confrontation of an unrepentent abuser is a fulfillment or a violation of this command. It would really depend on individual circumstances.

The following link contains Elie Wiesel's speech in 2000 (scroll down about half way). I think he has a lot of important things to say about both forgiveness and bearing witness. He may be talking about holocaust survivors but I think a great deal of what he says also applies to us survivors of rape and/or abuse. He's also a great story teller. Read it to the end. I hope you will find it healing: http://www.alpha-canada.org/sfpt/Amnesia/German_Parliament_President_Holocaust_Remembrance_Day_Speech_27Jan2001.htm

We're on the same page...Elie Wiesel is a big influence on my writings on this topic. (I once did therapy with a neo-nazi skinhead, and spent several sessions listening to "Night," read by Wiesel, with him. Needless to say, the impact was incredible.)

And I can't help wondering how many of us would feel _a lot_ more comfortable with the idea of letting go if we understood it as a form of rebuke rather than forgiveness. I WILL NOT BEAR _YOUR_ SIN.

Neo-Nazi skin head? Good thing you _are_ 6'5". :-)

I struggle with the words for my interpretation of forgiveness. I think a rebuke is a much great description. You are always so eloquent!

THAT was a perfect description Elisheva! MMMMMWAH! PERFECT! Took the words right out of my head! Thank you

It's enlightening to hear the concepts described in so many different voices here.

Rebuke was the essence of what I considered my level of "forgiveness" . It all was based upon my acceptance and understanding that God did not want this for me...thus I could more easy shed any of his sin I carried through my own burdened perceptions.

Thus:

"Forgiving another before ones self potentially condones and affirms the consequences of the act. Choosing to forgive or not, accentuates ones own identity and free will."

And although we've been talking about this not until I read things written this way made me realize I still haven't gotten to that point on a couple of the issues my own reaction and relation to the rape causes. I still have more rebuking to do ; )

Especially "forgiving" myself for the selfishness response of not ever wanting to share my gifts with humanity. In that was especially the gift of orgasm in sexuality for and with a man. It's funny cause at the time I felt and saw that it was all a part of everything that you do.
I still have to get to rebuking this.

So every time I threw and broke something in rage I crossed the line! I know it was always such a dull empty thud just looking that all I had left was a broken thing. Nothing gained. I can think of three things I did that to.

My chair was innocent ... and by golly I liked it well enough ... I am feeling freaked out now. In fact it represented the good part of what I was angry about...I had studied ecology but got let go in a strange way from a director of the company where I hoped to work my way back into the field.

Do you think a rapists victim is like the chair in my intense moment of rage?

I'm having a hard time with this concept right now. Like if I am capable of hurting my chair isn't it different from hurting a human. Well I mean of course it is but is their a little bit of it in a small degree of crossing a line ... of uncontrolled rage that just results in negative destruction.

Nah, I think you're over-identifying your anger with your rapist's aggression if you compare a chair you attack to a person HE attacked. Rage does not put you parallel to a rapist, just like the object of rage--a chair--does not make it parallel to a victim. Sometimes rage is just rage, and an object is just an object. I think it's abusive to destroy an object for the purpose of intimidating others, but an occasional harmless cathartic release isn't evil. It IS different from hurting a human. I think physical catharsis can even be healthy; as a therapist I've had notebooks, pens, books (including my own), and other objects fired at me by patients.

I slide them back across the floor and say, "again!"