Do not hate your fellow
Verse: לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך
Command: Do not hate your fellow.
Vayikra 19:17
SMG
[There is a negative Mitzva prohibiting hating your fellow, as it says in the verse[i]] לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. Lashes are not applied for violations of this Mitzva since there is no action performed thereby. We learnt in Toras Kohanim which is also stated in the Gemara[ii], you might think that the prohibition applies to striking, יסטרנו – backhanding [α] or cursing [one’s fellow], therefore the Torah [adds the term] בלבבך; the Torah is talking about hatred alone [which is forbidden].[1]
[Elsewhere] in the Gemara[iii] we learnt regarding the story of the House of Garmu, expert in the ways of preparing the showbread [who refused to teach the secret to others], and the House of Avtinos expert in the preparation of the incense [and they too refused to teach others], whom the sages wished to demote, and were unable to:
The sages sent for experts from Alexandria Egypt; they were able to duplicate the baking of the bread but were unable to properly remove the bread from the oven so that the proper shape[2] was achieved, [the differences were] one lit the fire outside the ovens baking the outside, and one lit the fire inside the oven baking the inside. Their [the Egyptians] bread became moldy [during the week] and their [the House of Garmu’s] bread did not become moldy [during the week].
On hearing this, the sages decided to place G‑d’s honor above their own, based on the verse[iv] כל הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו and they reinstituted the House of Garmu in their position. When the sages sent a message to inform them that they were rehired, they refused to come back unless their wages were doubled – from twelve (12) mana per day to twenty-four (24). Rav Yehuda said it was doubled from twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48).
The sages asked them, why do you refuse to teach the secret of the baking to others? To which they answered, we have a tradition from our father’s house that this Base Hamikdash will be destroyed, and we are concerned that whoever learns this craft may decide to put it to use [after the destruction] by using it in idolatrous temples.
About this family, they had a good reputation in that they never used bread made from refined flour for their personal use – lest people think they used the materials for the showbread for their personal benefit.
Regarding the House of Avtinos’s refusal to teach how to prepare the incense; the sages sent for master craftsmen from Alexandria Egypt, who were able to properly prepare the incense, but couldn’t cause the smoke to rise in a straight pillar.[3]
On hearing this, the sages decided to place G‑d’s honor above their own, based on the verse[v] כל פעל ה’ למענהו [4] and they reinstituted the House of Avtinos in their position. When the sages sent a message to inform them that they were rehired, they refused to come back unless the wages were doubled – from twelve (12) mana per day to twenty-four (24). Rav Yehuda said it was doubled from twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48).
The sages asked them, why do you refuse to teach the secret of the incense to others? To which they answered, we have a tradition from our father’s house that this Base Hamikdash will be destroyed, and we are concerned that whoever learns this craft may decide to put it to use [after the destruction] by using it in idolatrous temples.
About this family, they had a good reputation in that none of the women in the family ever wore perfume, whether born into the family, or married into the family – lest people think they used the materials for the incense for their personal benefit.
We learned in a Beraissa, Rabbi Yishmael said, once I encountered one of their descendants, and I said to him – your ancestors wanted to enhance their own honor and diminish G‑d’s honor. Now, G‑d’s honor remains, but your honor has diminished.
Rabbi Akiva said, once Rabbi Yishmael of Luga told me that I [Rabbi Yishmael of Luga] and a descendent of the House of Avtinas went to the fields to gather herbs, and while doing so he was laughing and crying. I asked him, ‘why are you crying’ – to which he answered, ‘because I recall the honor of my ancestors.’
‘And why are you laughing?’
‘Because G‑d will return [the honor of this service] to us.’
‘But what reminded you of this?’
‘The herb to cause the smoke to rise is right in front of me.’
‘Show it to me!’
‘I can’t, we swore never to show this to anyone.’
Rabbi Yoĉanan ben Nuri said, once I found an elder with an old recipe in his hands. I asked him where he was from, and he answered that he was from the House of Avtinas. I asked him what he was holding, and he told me it was the recipe for the incense. I asked him to show it to me, and he gave it to me, saying ‘so long as my father’s House existed, this was never given to anyone. But now, it belongs to you. Care for it.’ When I told this to Rabbi Akiva, he said, ‘from now on it is forbidden to speak badly of them.’
From which Ben Azay stated
‘in your name they called you, and in your place they returned you, and from yours has been given to you – and no man can touch that which is prepared for his friend. Therefore, do not hate your friend when he profits and worry that it will impact your own livelihood.’[5]
When a person sins against another [the victim] should not hate [the perpetrator] and be silent – as the Torah notes[vi] with regard to the wicked[6] ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב. Rather, it is a Mitzva to confront [the perpetrator] and notify him that ‘You have done such and such to me’ as it says in the verse[vii] הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך. And if [the perpetrator] repents and requests forgiveness, [the victim] must forgive him and should not be cruel, as it says in the verse[viii] ויתפלל אברהם אל האלקים as we learnt in the Gemara[ix].[7] However, if a person sees in someone else[8] something sinful [β], and he has rebuked him [properly] many times, which was not accepted – then it is permissible[9] to hate the person [γ], as we learnt in the Gemara[x] כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ which verse[xi] is talking about seeing in someone else something sinful, whereby it is permitted to hate him, as is also[10] stated in the verse[xii] יראת ה’ שנאת רע.
[1] Rabbi Tarfon there noted that he doubts anyone in his generation is capable of being rebuked – if one were to tell someone, “‘remove a splinter’ from your eye”, they would respond “’remove a beam’ from your eye”. Rabbi Elazar son of Azarya said, ‘I doubt if anyone in this generation knows how to rebuke’.
Rabbi Yoĉanan son of Nuri said, ‘heaven and earth can testify as to how many times Akiva was lashed because of me, and it only increased his [Akiva’s] love for me, as I would often complain about him to our Rabbi’.
[2] The showbread was shaped with curling sides. See positive Mitzva 196.
[3] Presumably indoors, as a miracle was what caused the smoke to be unaffected by the wind, and not the method of production. See Pirkey Avos Chp. 5
[4] Why is there a different verse in use? When describing the sage’s decision to place the honor of G-d above their own and to reinstate the House of Garmu – the bakers of the bread, the sages quoted the verse כל הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו, but when reinstating the House of Avtinos – the makers of the incense, the sages quoted the verse כל פעל ה’ למענהו.
The Ben Yehoyada suggests that the verse used for the House of Avtinos stresses that unlike the motives of the House of Garmu, the motives of the House of Avtinos were noble – as in fact the Gemara goes on to describe the meeting with their descendants who gave the recipe to Rabbi Yoĉanan ben Nuri.
The House of Garmu was reinstated due to the sage’s desire to have the best bread possible for the Mitzva, and the House of Garmu raised their prices accordingly, either in revenge for having been temporarily laid off, or because they desired wealth.
In contrast, the House of Avtinos desired that the name of heaven be sanctified, as by changing their wages, everyone would talk about the story – how the greatest craftsman in the world from Alexandria couldn’t duplicate a recipe from Halaĉa. Therefore, the sages quoted the verse כל פעל ה’ למענהו – which can be translated literally as ‘all employment for G-d is for G-d’s sake’.
[5] This is a reference to the Scarcity or Paucity mentality, which is a term in Economics referring to a perceived gap between total available resources and the assumed needs of the person. In other words, G‑d has enough for everyone, and there is no need to fight another for your livelihood.
[6] One of the most tragic stories told in Tanach. Avshalom and Amnon were brothers, sharing the same father – king Dovid. Avshalom had a virgin sister, Tamar whom Amnon coveted. Based on advice from his friend (uncle) Yonadav ben Shima, the brother of Dovid, he pretended to be sick, and asked for Tamar to take care of him. She did, and Amnon told everyone else to get out, whereupon he raped Tamar.
Once his lust was satisfied, he hated Tamar and sent her away. Avshalom let her hide in his house but did not speak out against Amnon. King Dovid heard about this and became angry, but he didn’t do anything. One day, Avshalom, who while harboring a hateful grudge against Amnon for the rape of his sister, never said a bad word about Amnon, asked the king to let Amnon go with him to the shearing of the sheep. King Dovid acquiesced, and Avshalom proceeded to get Amnon drunk whereupon he had him killed.
Rather than face the consequences, Avshalom fled to other countries. Dovid though harbored no ill will against his son, and in fact yearned for him having gotten over the loss of his other son.
[7] This verse is stated in regard to Avrohom praying for Avimelech and his household to be healed after they were punished for kidnapping Sara.
[8] I am unable to locate the source for the following:
I once saw the following teaching: since everything that happens to a person is divinely ordained and orchestrated, there are only two (2) possible reasons that a person can be placed in a position where he sees something negative about his friend. Either he is placed in that position to help his friend overcome that negative trait and / or reject it – or he is placed in that position because he himself has the negative trait he perceives in his friend, but due to being unable to properly self-diagnose, the trait is presented in a friend to allow this person to realize that what he is seeing applies to himself.
One might ask, how is it possible to discern for which of the two (2) reasons the negative trait is being revealed in his friend.
The answer is; if seeing the negative trait causes someone to feel negative emotions about the perpetrator, like anger, hatred or disgust, then those feelings will prevent him from properly helping the friend, so it must be the negative trait he is perceiving is really something that the person has mirrored within himself. But if the perception causes feelings of pity and a desire to help, then that must be the reason. He was placed in a position to help his friend.
The SMG is presenting the Halaĉic alternative to that analysis: if he sees something negative with his friend, and properly rebukes him – i.e. attempts to help him, and the rebuke is ineffective, then the negative trait being revealed must be one that is mirrored within himself, and he must develop negative associations with that trait so that he can fix it within himself.
[9] Permitted but not required.
[10] Also meaning that the hatred for evil should generally be directed to the actions of the person, not the person himself – as the verse denotes שנאת רע, not שנאת רשע. And even for those truly evil, one must have compassion on the G‑dly soul in exile within that person. See the Heart of Tanya quoted above. This is why the SMG says ‘Also’ meaning there are two aspects at play here, the permissible action of rebuke concerning the person who sinned [which when done properly fulfills the positive Mitzva 11], and the hatred of evil which is a component of fear of heaven.
[i] Vayikra 19:17
[ii] Gem Eraĉin 16b
[iii] Gem. Yoma 38a
[iv] Yeshayahu 43:7
[v] Mishlei 16:4
[vi] Shmuel II 13:22
[vii] Vayikra 19:17
[viii] Beraishis 20:17
[ix] Gem. Bava Kama 92a
[x] Gem. Pesaĉim 113b
[xi] Shemos 23:5
[xii] Mishley 8:13
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] Rashi explains that יסטרנו is a backhanded slap[1]. This is the quote from Rashi: ‘you might think that you should not strike regarding the rebuke, that is why the Torah said בלבבך – regarding the hatred in the heart’ etc. However, it is permitted to hit him regarding the rebuke – the prohibition is against hating him completely, which is in the heart.[2]
The SMK though explains this is talking about an evil person, which must mean that Rashi holds the verse is not talking about an evil person.
[β] This implies that we are talking about an otherwise Kosher individual since the verse prohibits one from hating [the perpetrator] in your heart, and one is required to show [the perpetrator] a friendly face – both of which are the words of the living G‑d.
[γ] As for what was said in the book on the positive Mitzvas [see positive Mitzva 9] that it is a Mitzva to hate him, that is not problematic since we find both statements in the Gemara [that it is permissible, or it is a Mitzva]. Rav said, ‘it is permitted,’ as he derives it from the verse regarding your enemy’s donkey – כי תראה חמור שנאך, while Rabbi Naĉman bar Yitzĉok states hating him is even a Mitzva based on the words from the Writings יראת ה’ שנאת רע – which implies a Mitzva.
As for why the SMG [only] notes here that it is permitted, that is because the verse כי תראה חמור שנאך does not imply that there is a Mitzva [to hate one’s enemy], rather [it implies] that it is permitted[3].
But in the book on positive Mitzvos [see positive Mitzva 9] where he is dealing with obligations – where there is a positive obligation to love your fellow and a corresponding obligation to hate evil people – this is why in discussing the positive Mitzva he quotes the verse from the Writings in order to teach us that it is a Mitzva. Later on, concerning the obligation to adjust the burden on a beast of burden [see negative Mitzva 169] – since the SMG starts with the verse כי תראה he uses the term that it is permitted [instead of obligatory].
[1] The Maharshal appears to have a different version of Rashi than we do. Our version says ‘כלאחר יד’ while the Maharshal quotes ‘מכה כלאחר יד’. The difference can be significant. It is possible that Rashi, by omitting the word מכה is referencing a common term used in the rules of Muktza on Shabbos – which would render the meaning to be ‘Indirect’. In that case, יסטרנו would be translated as ‘Indirect’. In Aramaic, the two meanings are similar, and the word root סטר is often used to mean slap. However, here, it would make sense if it did not mean slap. The full text of the Beraissa includes the following three things that are potentially not prohibited by בלבבך – hitting, יסטרנו, and cursing. If יסטרנו simply meant a backhanded slap, then how is that different than hitting him. But if it means ‘indirect’ then it could add a component where indirect damages are not included in the word בלבבך – for example letting your dog do his business on the lawn of an annoying neighbor.
[2] Perhaps the reason for this is because, by striking back, one assuages the emotions in the heart, which is why, with regard to the laws of Shabbos although causing destruction is not punishable biblically, in the case where a person struck his friend in anger and caused a wound – that is biblically punishable, since the act of striking the other fixes a person’s emotional imbalance which had previously been overcome with anger, and is now filled with remorse.
[3] The implication being that if there was no such enmity allowed, then there would never be an ‘enemy’s donkey’ which would be in need of assistance.
RASHI
Rashi does not comment on the first half of the verse.
Discussion by SMS
Even though the verse is written in the style of a לאו שניתק לעשה – a negative Mitzva which can be turned into a positive Mitzva – like the prohibition of do not steal, which comes with the associated command to rectify the committed theft by obeying the positive Mitzva of returning the stolen items. Here, the verse reads similarly: Do not hate your fellow at heart; rebuke him.[1] Nevertheless, it does not appear according to the simple way of viewing the verse that this negative Mitzva is derived from this verse. Had the Torah skipped the qualifying word of בלבבך, the feeling of the emotion felt ‘in the heart’ would still be understood from the use of the emotion word תשנא – hate. The addition of the word בלבבך implies that the hatred is only forbidden when felt at heart, and, as the second half of the verse implies, not expressed. On the other hand, when hatred is openly expressed as a means of rebuking one’s fellow, a simple understanding of the verse implies that not only is this permitted, but it is the only method by which rebuke can be properly initiated.
Unlike the modern liberal / progressive movement, which has been advocating for an approach where criticism is ostracized and telling a child “No” is seen as debilitating, the Torah approach is the opposite. A rebuke is only effective if it is expressed to some degree in a harsh manner. Unacceptable behavior is not acceptable, and suppressing the rebuke in the heart violates this verse.
[1] With the assumption that there only exists one reason to hate your fellow – if he is doing something wrong and refuses to change his ways.
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
Accordingly, I heard a novel interpretation from the Divrei Sha’agasi on the verse עזוב תעזוב it means both. ‘Leave [your enmity behind]’, and ‘help [him improve]’. This follows the Ĉassidic interpretation:
כי תראה חמור שנאך – when you perceive the mundane, the חומריות of the body as being hateful,
רובץ תחת משאו – [because it is] resting under its load, unwilling to grow in holiness,
וחדלת מעזוב לו – will you withhold your assistance?
עזוב תעזוב עמו – Help him [with the job of transforming the physical world into a place worthy of the divine presence].
Together.
- עם הארץ vs חבר
- דתי vs חילוני
- מתנגד vs חסיד
On the terms חבר vs עם הארץ used to separate Jews into the clique of those who are religious vs those who are not: These were terms developed during the time of the second Base Hamikdash to define those who are generally religious or otherwise. Those who were in the category עם הארץ, must be treated with kindness, but not mingled with, as they are not deemed educated enough to abstain from Tum’ah.
It should be noted: the second Base Hamikdash was destroyed precisely due to the resulting attitudes and disunity that developed as a result of dividing the Jewish people into חברים and עמי הארץ which divisions led to friction, resentment and eventually hatred between the classes. So perhaps it is high time to remove those distinctions from our lexicon.
Rabbi Akiva, the leader of the חברים, and the one who later defined אהבת ישראל as THE great rule of the Torah was himself a בעל תשובה having spent the first third of his life as an עם הארץ. When asked by his students to describe his feelings at the time towards the חברים, he said ‘I wanted to bite them like a donkey.’ The students asked, ‘Why like a donkey, why not like a dog?’ To which he answered, ‘Because a donkey’s bite breaks the bone, while a dog’s bite only tears into the muscle.’
The modern equivalent term of דתי vs חלוני, or חסיד vs מתנגד – these are just the same old divisive terms being retrofitted to fit today’s realities. It is time to put those differences aside and realize that we are all Jews. Rebuking might be permissible under the right circumstances and with the right individuals, but why bother? Why not spend that time and energy on forging and strengthening the strong bonds of love we have for one another, thereby fulfilling the positive Mitzva [9] of loving your fellow. And should a gentle rebuke be necessary – when it comes from the heart of one’s true friend, such a thing is not a rebuke, but an expression of support, where one tells his friend, I am here for you.