Bava Kamma 67
Our Gemara discusses the concept that a stolen item can eventually become owned by a thief if it becomes substantially changed (though he still must pay for the object). One of the criteria that establishes substantial change is if there is a change in the name and descriptor of the object. This can apply even to arbitrary name changes, such as if an ordinary myrtle branch which is now designated for the mitzvah changes from Asa (Hadassah) to Hoshana (Sukkah 31a.)
This is true metaphysically as well. In the process of repentance, the idea of a person changing their name to concretize change in behavior and perspective is recommended. As it says in Rosh Hashana (16b):
And Rabbi Yitzchak said: A person’s heavenly conviction for punishment is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them…a change of one’s name, as it is written: “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be” (Genesis 17:15), and it is written there: “And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son from her” (Genesis 17:16).
This is also codified in halacha (Rema, Shulchan Aruch YD 335:10): “And likewise is it the accepted practice to recite blessings [on behalf of] sick persons, in the synagogues, to give them an [additional] new name, for a change of name causes an evil decree passed upon man to be canceled.”
The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 2:4) endorses this practice too, but adds his own emphasis and interpretation:
Among the paths of repentance is for the penitent to a) constantly call out before G-d, crying and entreating; b) to perform charity according to his potential; c) to separate himself far from the object of his sin; d) to change his name, as if to say, “I am a different person and not the same one who sinned;” e) to change his behavior in its entirety to the good and the path of righteousness;
Notice how the Rambam adds, “as if to say ‘I am a different person and not the same one who sinned.’” The point is that changing the name is not magical. Rather it helps express, inspire and maintain a fundamental change that becomes internalized. The Rambam is often careful to treat rituals and practices in a rational manner and avoid acting as if they are magical. A most famous example comes from Hilchos Mezuzah (5:4) where he rails against those who write angels’ names inside a mezuzah, as if it were a talisman. Here too, Rambam wants the focus to be on the internal emotional spiritual work, not the external ritual. As the Mishna in Taanis (2:1) states in regard to the repentance of Nineveh:
It is not stated with regard to the people of Nineveh: And G-d saw their sackcloth and their fasting. Rather, the verse says: “And G-d saw their deeds, that they had turned from their evil way” (Jonah 3:10). And in the Prophets it says: “And rend your hearts and not your garments, [and return to the L-rd your G-d]” (Joel 2:13).
This teaches that prayer and fasting are insufficient, as one must also repent and amend his ways in practice.
However, we never should underestimate the power of symbolism in emotional and spiritual matters. The power of gifting flowers or jewelry to a lover is the same power as blowing a ram’s horn to cry out to G-d, or placing the Shema (a written account of the yoke of Heaven) on our arms, heads and doorposts (tefillin and mezuzos), or even throwing our sins into the water and reciting Tashlich. Humans cannot easily change internal states and attitudes without demonstrating and enacting them symbolically. (For a fundamental discussion on symbolism, psychology and religion, see Moreh Nevuchim III:32 and Chinuch 16.)
Yet, care must be taken not to treat the practice as an end unto itself, and as some kind of magical ritual. After all, to paraphrase the saying about motivation, “You can lead the horse to water, but you cannot make him say Tashlich.”
The Power of Rationalization: Bava Kamma 68
Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses why the cattle rustler who proceeds to slaughter or sell the animal, after he already stole it, incurs an additional penalty of four or five times the value of the sheep or ox respectively:
Rabbi Akiva said: For what reason did the Torah say that a thief who slaughtered or sold a stolen animal pays the fourfold or fivefold payment? It is because he has become entrenched in sin by slaughtering or selling the animal he stole.
What is this concept of becoming entrenched in sin? It is not merely habituation. Imrei Dovid (Mishpatim 21:29) points out if this was habituation, we should require three times to establish this pattern, as with the ox who repeatedly gores (shur ha’mu’ad). Imrei Dovid says that a human is not an animal, and though he has the capacity to function on autopilot, he also evaluates and considers his past and future actions. This is where intellect is both an asset and a liability. An ox “learns” to gore, or demonstrates its propensity to gore, based on repetition. However, a human, when he notices a sin, will either face the discomfort of his failings and repent. But, if he does not, when he cannot bear the pain of the cognitive dissonance, he will rationalize why it is permitted. That is why a person can become entrenched in bad behavior faster than an ox.
As the Gemara Yoma (87a) says, “Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes as if permitted to him.” Rav Yisrael Salanter was known to quip, “…And if he commits this sin a third time, it becomes a mitzvah to him!” Such is the power of rationalization. However, rational thought also allows one to overcome a thoroughly entrenched habit, by deep reflection and honest assessment.
