Love your Fellow
SMG
There is a positive Mitzva to love your fellow as you love yourself. The rule is, ‘What you would hate [done to you], do not do to others.’ As it says in Gemara[i]
a gentile came to Hillel and demanded to be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot, prior to agreeing to convert. Hillel stated, “what you hate[1] don’t do to others. The rest is all an explanation of this rule; go study.”
and in the Yerushalmi[ii]
one who was sitting and slicing meat. And the hand (holding the meat) was hit by the knife. Would you have the damaged hand retaliate by slicing the offending hand in vengeance?
This Mitzva is applicable only to[iii] רעך – one’s comrade, in Torah and Mitzvos. But [as noted in the Gemara[iv]] those[2] evil doers who are rebuked and refuse to repent; for such people there is [also] a commandment to hate them, as it says[v] יראת ה’ שנאת רע, [α] and as it says[vi] הלוא משנאיך ה’ אשנא, ובתקוממיך אתקוטט. תכלית שנאה שנאתים, לאיבים היו לי.
[1] The original text is not ‘what you would hate done to you, do not do to other,’ but ‘what you would hate, do not do to others.’ Judaism includes as a basic tenet: to properly serve G‑d, an automatic hatred of evil which must be felt commensurate with the desire to do and be good.
[2] In the Gemara, Rav Naĉman son of Yitzĉok associates this verse and case with people who commit sexual sins in private. Accordingly, there aren’t other witnesses to allow for bringing such actions into the public arena, and thus the witness is unable to speak publicly about such matters as doing so would violate the laws of Lashon Ha’ra. In such a case the only recourse to the witness is to hate the evil of the sin.
The SMG seems to extrapolate that the same applies to those who have been rebuked and refused to listen.
[i] Gem. Shabbos 31a
[ii] Yer. Nedarim 9:4
[iii] Vayikra 19:18
[iv] Gem. Pesaĉim 113b
[v] Mishley 8:13
[vi] Tehillim 139:21-22
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] This does not contradict the negative Mitzva against the hatred of one’s fellow [see negative Mitzva 5] as related in the Gemara: Rav said, ‘it is permitted to hate one’s enemy as indicated from the verse[i] in “If you see your enemy’s[1] donkey…”’ Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok said, ‘it is even a Mitzva.’ He then brings the verse from Mishley as proof.
[With that in mind, this explains why] the SMG brings his proof from the verses in Mishley and Tehillim [rather than the verse brought by Rav], to show that [hating a deliberate sinner] is a positive Mitzva. This implication though contradicts that which is explicitly stated by the SMG [regarding positive Mitzva 81], in which the SMG clearly states that while it is permitted to hate a deliberate evil doer, one should also have pity on them and help out when needed – [which statement of ‘while it is permitted’] implies it is permitted to hate a deliberate evil doer and is not a Mitzvah [which is an obligation, not permission]. This is why the SMG quotes the verse which implies that [love of one’s fellow] is a Mitzvah [obligation].
The same thing applies to the positive Mitzvah of assisting a struggling porter [positive Mitzvah 80] where the SMG writes that it is permissible [not obligatory but permissible, to hate a deliberate evil doer].
As Yirmiyahu stated[ii] just like it is impossible to measure heaven and earth, so too Hashem will never reject the Jewish people.
[1] The only way a donkey can be defined as an enemy’s donkey is if there is a concept of an enemy who could own a donkey. Which means the Torah allows for the feeling of enmity.
[i] Shemos 23:5
[ii] Yirmiyahu 31:36
RASHI
Rashi, commenting on the story with Hillel, quotes the verse from Mishley[i] רעך ורעה ורע אביך אל תעזב – do not forsake your friend, the friend, and your father’s friend, and states, ‘“Friend” in the verse is a euphemism for G‑d.’ Rashi then interprets the verse to mean, ‘do not oppose Him, since you yourself would hate if your friend opposed you’. This follows what Rashi writes in Mishley itself where Rashi headlines יראת ה’ שנאת רע and says that the meaning of the verse is Fear of Heaven guides a person’s wisdom to hate evil.
Rashi then offers a second interpretation on the verse to mean an actual human friend, which would imply a meaning of ‘[do not do to your friend that which you would hate done to you,] such as brigandry, theft, adultery and the majority of the Mitzvos.’
Furthermore, on the verse[ii] ואהבת לרעך כמוך Rashi headlines those words and quotes Rabbi Akiva as saying, “this is a major rule of the Torah.” Seemingly then, Rashi holds the opinion that this is not just a commandment. It is a fundamental rule of the Torah. Either in terms of loving your fellow as yourself, or in terms of how that should guide your behavior to your fellow. And certainly, when taking into account the commentary on Mishley, the proverb from Hillel is a general guiding principal, that G‑d, as the only true friend to a person, should be respected as one who has your best interests at heart, and thus do not oppose what G‑d tells you to do.
[i] Mishley 27:10
[ii] Vayikra 19:18
Discussion
And even if required to hate an evil-doer, for whatever reason, the Jewish soul of that person does not deserve to be hated. Instead, one should have pity on it for being stuck with a person who is at that moment acting evilly.
As Yirmiyahu stated[i] just like it is impossible to measure heaven and earth, so too Hashem will never reject the Jewish people, why then would any Jew do so?
[i] Yirmiyahu 31:36
The Heart of Tanya
The Heart of Tanya refers to Chapter Thirty-Two (32) of Tanya, represented by the Hebrew letter ל”ב which forms the word לב – heart.
In reading the Tanya, this chapter seems to be a tangent when compared to the chapters before and after. This was done deliberately to emphasize that the heart of the Tanya, and indeed all of Ĉassidus, is the love of one’s fellow – which is the subject of this chapter.
And behold, by maintaining the state mentioned previously [in the earlier chapters of the Tanya]; namely, that one’s body be considered despised and rejected, and his only joy is that which the soul rejoices in – that is a straight and easy path to being able to fulfil the Mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך for all Jews, great or small.
Since one’s body is rejected and [considered] abhorrent by him, and the soul and spirit – who knows their greatness and level in their root and source in the living G‑d. Especially as all are equal, and all have one Father. This is why all of Israel are called literal brothers based on the source of their soul in the One G‑d; it is only the bodies which are separated. Therefore, those who assign primacy to their bodies and relegate their souls to secondary status, [such] are incapable of true love and brotherhood between them, but only that which is dependent[1].
This is what Hillel the Elder said[i] regarding the fulfillment of this Mitzva ‘this is the entire Torah, and all the rest is commentary etc.’[2], since the foundation and root [source] of the whole Torah is to uplift and raise the soul over the body, higher and higher to the root source of all the worlds – and also to draw the infinite light [of G‑d] blessed be into the Community of Israel as will be explained later[ii] [the term Community of Israel means] the source of the souls of all of Israel, so that they become unified one with one, precisely[3]. Which does not occur when there is disunity – [may G‑d have] mercy and [bestow] peace – among the souls, since ‘the holy one blessed be does not dwell in a flawed place’[iii] and as we say [at the end of the Amida] ‘bless us our father, all of us as one, with the light of your face’ as we will explain elsewhere at length.
As for the statement in the Gemara[iv] that ‘one who sees in one’s friend that he has sinned – it is a Mitzva to hate him and also to tell his teacher [if the teacher will believe him as if he were two witnesses] that he too will hate him’[4] that only applies to “one’s friend” in Torah and Mitzvos[5] for whom he has already fulfilled the positive Mitzva of[v] הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך [see positive Mitzva 11] עם שאתך – one who is with you[6] in Torah and Mitzvos[vi] – and who nevertheless has not returned from his sin, as is written in ספר חרדים.
However, one who is not your “colleague” [in Torah and Mitzvos] and who is not close to him; on this [person] Hillel the Elder stated[vii] ‘be like the students of Aharon; loving peace etc.[7] loving the creatures and bringing them close[8] to Torah.’ Meaning, even those who are far from the Torah of Hashem and his service, for which reason they are simply called ‘creatures’ – they must be drawn with thick cords of love. And all this [for a] maybe he will be able to bring them close to Torah and the service of G‑d. And even if not, he hasn’t lost out on the Mitzva of loving one’s friends [current Mitzva under discussion – positive Mitzva 9].
And even those to whom he is close, and to whom he has rebuked, and they have not turned from their sins – about whom there is a Mitzva to hate them, there is also a Mitzva to love these [same] people. Both [Mitzvos] are true, hatred for the evil side [being displayed] by them, and love for the good buried in them – which is the G‑dly spark within them who gives life to their G‑dly soul. And one must also awaken mercy [pity] in one’s heart for that soul, since it is in a state of exile within the evil from the Other Side, which overcomes the wicked. And the mercy nullifies the hatred and awakens[9] the love as is known regarding [the meaning of] the verse[viii] (בית) יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם.[10] [11]
{And king Dovid did not state [in the verse[ix]] תכלית שנאה שנאתים וגו’ except about the heretics and apostates, who have no portion with the G‑d of Israel[12] as was stated in the Gemara[x] at the beginning of[13] chapter 16 of Shabbos}
[1] Reference to Pirkei Avos 5:16 ‘any love which is dependent on something, when the cause is nullified, the love is gone. [love] which is not dependent on something is never nullified. What is [an example] of love which was dependent on something, the love of Amnon and Tamar [which ended when Amnon raped Tamar, and he no longer desired her]. And [love] which is not dependent on something, the love of Dovid and Yehonasan [who even though they both had extreme political reasons to be enemies, they put aside such petty considerations and risked their lives for each other].
[2] The Gemara tells this story regarding three gentiles who eventually converted as a result of Hillel:
Our sages taught, there was a gentile who came before Sham’aye and asked him, ‘how many Torahs are there?’ to which Sham’aye answered, ‘two (2), the written Torah and the oral Torah.’ The gentile responded, ‘I believe the written Torah, but not the oral tradition; convert me on condition that I [only] learn the written Torah.’ Sham’aye scolded him and chased him out. So, he went to Hillel to be converted, and Hillel accepted. On the first day, Hillel taught him the letters א,ב,ג,ד. The next day, Hillel presented him with the same shapes, but claimed the names of the letters were reversed. The gentile exclaimed, ‘but yesterday you told me the opposite!’ to which Hillel responded, ‘did you not depend on me to teach you what each letter is? Depend on me also to teach you the oral Torah.’ [Meaning even the language itself can’t be known without the oral tradition, so certainly the meaning of the words can’t be known without it.]
There was another gentile who came to Sham’aye and said, ‘convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot.’ Sham’aye pushed him away with the ruler he had in his hand. So, he went to Hillel with the same request, to which Hillel responded, ‘what you hate do not do to others. The rest is all an explanation of this rule; go study.’
There was another gentile who was passing behind the study hall and heard the scribe reading aloud [while writing] saying the verse [Shemos 28:4] ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, חושן ואפוד ומעיל. He asked him, ‘who are these garments for?’ The scribe answered, ‘they are for the Kohen Gadol.’ So, the gentile said to himself, I want to convert so that they can appoint me to be the high priest [and he will get to wear those special garments]. So, he went to Sham’aye and said, ‘convert me on condition that I be made the high priest.’ Sham’aye pushed him away with the ruler he had in his hand. So, he went to Hillel with the same request, and Hillel converted him. Having done so, Hillel then tells him, ‘do we appoint royalty when they don’t know the protocols? Go study the protocols.’
So, the new convert went and studied Torah. When he reached the verse [Bamidbar 1:51] והזר הקרב יומת he asked, ‘about whom is this verse speaking?’ Hillel responded, ‘it is talking about even Dovid king of Israel.’ So, the convert derived a logical fortiori, ‘if regarding those born Jewish who are called the children of G‑d and as he loves them he called them [Shemos 4:22] בני בכורי ישראל and yet, when it comes to the high priesthood, the verse says, והזר הקרב יומת – a convert who comes with his stick and backpack, it certainly applies.’
He went to Sham’aye and complained to him, ‘would I have been worthy to be a Kohen Gadol? The verse says והזר הקרב יומת!’ and then he went to Hillel and told him, ‘Humble one! May blessings rest on your head as you have brought me close under the wings of the divine presence.’
After a while, the three converts happened to come together in one place, and they declared, ‘Sham’aye’s authoritarianism sought to drive us from the world, but the humility of Hillel brought us close under the wings of the divine presence.’
This is perhaps the meaning of the term used by the Alter Rebbe later on in the chapter וכולי האי ואולי – that one should go to extreme lengths to draw others ‘with thick bonds of love’ and all that and maybe. One never knows how this Mitzva will affect the other, and it could be that a single act of loving kindness can change someone’s world.
[3] ‘Precisely’ means the turn of phrase is specific and accurate: normally, the phrase would be ‘one with the other’ but this unity precludes the possibility of anything which could be considered an “other”.
[4] The Gemara there provides the following context:
Rabbi Yoĉanan said, there are three (3) people about whom G‑d announces [their goodness] daily: a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin [with women], a poor person who returns a lost object to its owner, and a rich person who tithes circumspectly.
Rav Safra was a bachelor who lived in a city, and when this Beraissa was taught in front of Rav Safra, his face lit up. Rava [though] said, this [Beraissa] doesn’t refer to the master [Rav Safra], it refers to people like Rav Ĉanina And Rav Oshiya who were cobblers in Israel, and they would sit [set up shop] in the marketplace of the prostitutes, and they would make shoes (possibly for free) for the prostitutes. The prostitutes would enter their shops and see the sages, but the sages would not raise their eyes to look at the women (so that the women shouldn’t be ashamed). When these women would swear, they would swear in the name of these holy Rabbis of the land of Israel.
Not only did the sages not hate these women for the evil and degrading jobs they were forced by circumstance to engage in, but they wouldn’t even cause them shame by giving them a look. Not satisfied with that, the Gemara continues:
There are three (3) people whom G‑d loves: a person who does not get angry, a person who does not get drunk [because he doesn’t drink, not because he has a naturally high tolerance for alcohol], and a person who does not take offense. There are three (3) people G‑d hates: one who says one thing, but means another, one who knows testimony for his friend, but refuses to testify, and one who is the only witness, and testifies negatively about his friend.
Like when Tuvya sinned, and Ziggud came alone to testify about him [Tuvya’s behavior] in front of Rav Pappa. [and Rav Pappa instructed that] Ziggud be lashed. Ziggud complained, ‘Tuvya sinned, and Ziggud is being lashed?!’ [Rav Pappa] answered him, ‘correct, as the verse [Devarim 19:15] says לא יקום עד אחד באיש – and you are testifying alone. [Doing so] just ruins his [Tuvya’s] reputation.’
A rebuke, or telling the authorities about a person’s bad behavior, can only be done for the benefit of the person.
[5] Meaning one who is a colleague at the same level in Torah study and Mitzva observance. Otherwise, a person is not considered a colleague, but is either a teacher or student.
[6] The word עמיתך also can be considered a conjunction word – made up of both the words עם אתך.
This Gemara quotes Rav Yosef who continues that one is required to judge one’s friend favorably – give him the benefit of the doubt, based on the verse [Vayikra 19:15] בצדק תשפוט עמיתך.
One may not jump to the conclusion that the sinner has actually sinned, or that he is doing so maliciously. Who knows what reasons and causes drive a person to sin.
[7] It is unclear as to why the Alter Rebbe did not quote the remainder of the saying which was ‘chasing after peace.’ Perhaps because this part of the saying related to Aharon’s work at reconciling married couples, which is not the subject currently being talked about.
[8] One brings them close to Torah – there is no need to compromise on the Torah to do so. Simply bringing them close will cause them to draw near, as one candle flame tilts toward bonfire.
[9] There is a concept expressed in the verse [Mishlei 27:19] כמים הפנים לפנים, כן לב האדם לאדם: Just like a person sees his reflection in water, so too according to how much one knows his friend loves him, that is how much the face will reflect [back to the other].
To awaken love in another person, one simply needs to let him know how much you love him. This can be illustrated with what happened with Yaakov Aveinu. When fleeing for his life from his brother Eisav, Rivka Imeinu commands Yaakov [Beraishis 27:44] to stay with his uncle Lavan עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיך – until your brother’s anger has subsided. But how was Yaakov to know when that was? Since he was living far away, it would be impossible for him to know this, to which Rivka provides the answer in the next verse עד שוב אף אחיך ממך – when your brother’s anger subsides from yourself, meaning when Yaakov himself would no longer feel anger and resentment to Eisav for chasing him out of his home and wanting to kill him, that is when Yaakov would know that the anger had subsided in Eisav’s heart.
And this in fact occurred. Rivka identified those days as ימים אחדים, and when Yaakov gets engaged to Rachel his love for her caused Yaakov to forget the anger he had for Eisav and covered over the resentment he felt to the point where Yaakov felt those days had arrived, as the Torah states [Beraishis 29:20] ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים באהבתו אותה.
[10] Although not a book on Kabbala and Ĉassidus, in order to explain the statement above, we will need to briefly step into those fields.
Each of the three (3) forefathers bequeathed to the Jewish people an emotional attribute used in service of G‑d. Avrohom bequeathed kindness and love [which is why he was known far and wide for his hospitality to the point where he even prays for Avimelech’s [even after he abducted Sara – Beraishis 20:17] and Yishmael’s welfare, Yitzchok strength and judgement, and Yaakov bequeathed mercy.
Kindness and love without judgement results in life being given even to those who need to be rooted out – like Avrohom’s prayer [Beraishis 17:18] that Yishmael, forefather of the evil arabs, should live. It is only Yaakov, who learned from both Avraham and his father Yitzchok, who is able to bequeath the attribute of mercy to be used in the service of G‑d; which is why Reuvain was not driven away when he had pity on his mother being treated with less dignity then her former maidservants, and why Shimon and Levi were not driven away when they showed mercy for Dina – even though they placed Yaakov’s family in peril, and why Yehuda was not driven away when it was revealed that he had fathered a child with his erstwhile daughter-in-law.
Mercy is able to transform kindness and love from being an enabling force for people who haven’t done the right thing, to an uplifting force which encourages them to improve.
[11] Technically, the verse reads בית יעקב – Ĉassidus though is the section of דרוש שבסוד, and accordingly lessons can be derived that aren’t exactly in line with the literal statement in the verse. Nevertheless, I do not know why the Altar Rebbe doesn’t note this.
[12] Because they have renounced such a connection.
[13] The Alter Rebbe is the one who adds this section in brackets, and here he seems a bit vague on identifying the source of the statement – perhaps because he does not want these concepts to be part of the body of the Tanya, nor should the source be easily found. The quote is a full two-sided page after the start of the chapter. Furthermore, there is a similar quote from Mesechtas Semachot 2:10 which is far harsher, but which the Alter Rebbe does not wish to quote. Even the full quote of the Gemara is not that harsh; the full quote is:
Rabbi Yishmael [identified] a fortiori [to allow holly books written by heretics to be burnt], if to make peace between man and his wife, the Torah says ‘let my Name, which is written in holiness, be erased on the water [see positive Mitzva 56 – re the Sota water] (so that a husband can put aside his suspicions and jealousy), these [heretical works] which cause jealousy and enmity and conflict between the Jewish people and their father in heaven – certainly [may be erased]. About whom Dovid said [the verse in Tehillim 139:21-22]… And just like we do not save them from the fire, we do not save them from a collapse or from water, or from anything that destroys them.
Even the Gemara refuses to be clear on this matter and writes the term ‘them’ which could either refer to the heretics themselves who should not be saved – as is in fact the Halaĉa, or the books written by the heretics which cause strife. Meaning it is possible to learn the Gemara as a recommendation to allow heretical works to burn – since those works, and not the heretics themselves – are what causes the strife and enmity mentioned. This is the Gemara which was referenced by the Alter Rebbe imprecisely and only in parenthesis.
[i] Gem. Shabbos 31a
[ii] Tanya Chp. 41
[iii] Zohar I 216b
[iv] Gem. Pesaĉim 113b
[v] Vayikra 19:17
[vi] Gem. Shavuos 30a
[vii] Pirkei Avos 1:12
[viii] Yishayahu 29:22
[ix] Tehillim 139:22
[x] Gem. Shabbos 116a