Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the function of the Olah sacrifice: that it is essentially not for the purpose of atonement, but can also achieve atonement in its way. Rashi explains this means that an Olah sacrifice is not triggered by a violation of a prohibition, but still can atone for violations of positive commandments, as per Yoma 36a. In a related idea, Rava compares the Olah to a gift given to a ruler after he is pardoned, while the chatas sin offering is the actual pardon, which comes prior to the gift (Zevachim 7b).

Based on this, there is a beautiful idea in Rav Tzaddok (Takanas HaShavin 14) which explains the difference between the power of the Olah sacrifice and Yom Kippur on how it attains forgiveness. The Gemara Yoma Yerushalmi (8:7) draws a distinction between the Olah sacrifice and Yom Kippur: “If one offers an Olah but declares that it cannot achieve atonement, or it will not achieve atonement for me, the Olah remains effective and still atones. On the other hand, if one offers an Olah but declares, ‘I do not want it to atone for me,’ it does not atone, because atonement cannot be generated against a person’s will. However, Yom Kippur is more powerful. Whether the person declares, ‘Yom Kippur cannot, or will not, achieve atonement,’ or he declares, ‘I do not want it to atone for me,’ regardless, Yom Kippur atones. What is the difference? The Yerushalmi explains, ‘He has no authority to tell the King he does not reign.’” Rav Tzaddok explains it as follows. The Olah sacrifice is given as a gift after the pardon, as we saw. Since it is not directly being offered as atonement, the person’s declaration that it will not or cannot atone has no bearing on the process. He is still offering the Olah as a gift. Once it comes as a gift, in its own way, it automatically achieves atonement. This is why it will still work. On the other hand, if he says, “I do not want it to atone for me,” he is taking ownership of even its function as a gift, thereby stopping it from even secondarily achieving the atonement. However, the process of Yom Kippur is different. The atonement has not come from our gifts nor our appeasement; it comes from God Himself, revealing Himself. By the power of such a revelation, humans are closer to Him, and this automatically produces the atonement. This is what the Gemara means, that he has no authority against the King. The power of atonement from Yom Kippur that comes from revelation is not under the jurisdiction of the person’s personal process; it comes from the authority of God Himself.

This also can help explain the opinion in Kerisos (7a): “For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones… This is the halakha except for one who divests himself of the yoke of God, by denying His existence, and one who impudently reveals facets of the Torah in a manner that departs from their true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. With regard to these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone.”

Since Yom Kippur’s process of atonement does not come directly as a result of the person’s volition and repenting, but by the revelation, presence, and grace of God Himself, it does not absolutely require repentance. Nonetheless, certain sins that deny the sovereignty of God that thwart the process of God’s presence, such as denying God’s existence, breaking the covenant, and similarly being brazen against a foundation of the Torah, undermine the perception of God’s presence enough so as to disrupt the atonement. Otherwise, Yom Kippur is most powerful.

This speaks in general to two different possibilities of atonement. Even if a person is having difficulty with the formal structure of halachically prescribed atonement, such as confession and resolving not to sin in the future, and so on, we see here another path. Allowing for the presence of God, and connecting to God, may itself create an atonement through direct experience. In a certain sense, even if the past sin has not been wiped clean, the present attachment overrides in a different way.

This is similar to what some people do in a difficult and painful relationship with so many betrayals. Sometimes people say, it is too entangled and too difficult to even go back into the past. Let us just let go and go forward in a positive way. This can be effective when both individuals have enough trust and hope that there could be a good connection in the future without betrayal. Others may feel the need to have their past betrayal acknowledged, and also may need a deeper understanding of what went wrong and indications of accountability, before they can say, let bygones be bygones, and push forward to a better future.