Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 32 - Part 7

00:00 Speaker 1 Page eighty-two. We stopped at the last line, “Love the creatures and bring them close to Torah,” after the period. The Alter Rebbe brings here the teaching of our Sages that there is a situation in which it is a mitzvah to hate someone. When you see that your fellow has sinned, it says there is a mitzvah to hate him. How does that fit with what we said earlier—that Ahavas Yisroel must extend to every Jew, great and small, without distinction? That seems like a contradiction. So the Alter Rebbe explains that this is a particular situation. It is not talking about just any Jew, but about someone who is your fellow—and not merely your fellow, but your fellow in Torah and mitzvos. Since he is your fellow in Torah and mitzvos, he knows their value. Second, the Alter Rebbe says that you have already fulfilled the mitzvah of “You shall surely rebuke” with him. Rebuke must be given out of love, as it says, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your fellow”—it is in the same verse. So the rebuke must come from Ahavas Yisroel. We see, then, that this is a situation where the person who is sinning knows what Torah and mitzvos are. You have also already fulfilled “You shall surely rebuke your fellow” with him, and you had Ahavas Yisroel for him when you rebuked him. Nevertheless, after all that, he continues to sin. Then the Torah commands you to hate him. Why? As we explained in the previous class, the hatred itself is what will stir him to do teshuvah. So that applies in a particular situation. But when we are talking about someone who is not your fellow in Torah and mitzvos, and therefore does not know the greatness of Torah and mitzvos, you cannot hold him responsible, as the Alter Rebbe said in chapter

02:12 Speaker 1 30, that unlearned Jews are considered like people acting under duress. So you cannot hate him. The Alter Rebbe also stresses that he is not close to you. This is not a person whose company, if you became his friend and spent a lot of time with him, would influence you for the worse, G-d forbid. He is not close to you. When these conditions are met—he is neither your fellow in Torah and mitzvos nor close to you—the Alter Rebbe says that, on the contrary, it is about him that Hillel the Elder said, “Love the creatures and bring them close to Torah.” Even a Jew who is only a “creature,” with no other virtue—the only virtue is that he is a created being. Now let’s learn it inside. He says that Hillel the Elder told his students, “Love,” and so on: “Love the creatures and bring them close to Torah.” It has to be “Love the creatures and bring them close to Torah.” The Alter Rebbe explains it here; let’s look inside. “Meaning”—this is what we are going through now—“that even those who are far from Hashem’s Torah and His service, and who are therefore called mere ‘creatures.’” A person who is far from Torah and mitzvos is called a “creature” for that reason: he has no other virtue. He does not observe Torah and mitzvos. He is not a person of Torah or mitzvos. All he has is the fact that he is a creature, that he was created—a creature of Hashem. Even such a person must be drawn with thick cords of love. You have to draw him with strong, substantial cords of love—with a great deal of love. This idea of “creatures” is like what we explained in the previous class. It is like the story in the Gemara about Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who said to a man, “Empty one, how…” and so on. The man replied, “Go and tell the Craftsman who made me.” In other words, this was a person who had no virtue. We are not talking about spiritual qualities and so on. And when Rabbi Elazar shouted at him, he awakened in him

04:06 Speaker 1 the point that he is a creature. That is, his only virtue is that he was created; he has no virtue beyond that. “The One who made me”—Hakadosh Boruch Hu created him. So he is completely far from all matters of Torah and mitzvos. Hillel says, “Love the creatures.” He does not say, first bring them close to Torah and then love the creatures: first let him observe Torah and mitzvos, and then I will love him. Just the opposite. He says to love him first. “Love the creatures.” The love must be without, without, without, without conditions. “Love the creatures.” That is the point. Why? Because he is not your fellow in Torah and mitzvos and is not close to you. Those two things mean that you cannot hate him, because he does not understand the value of Torah and mitzvos. And since he is not close to you, associating with him will not cause you to be influenced by him. On the contrary, there must be a bond of love—not just love, but cords of Ahavas Yisroel. And that is precisely the way to bring him close. “With all this, perhaps one may be able to bring them close to Torah and the service of Hashem”—“with all this, perhaps.” In other words, perhaps because you show him love, precisely through the love you show him, you will be able to bring him close to Torah and mitzvos. That is the meaning. The Rebbe explains this on the levels of pshat, drush, and sod. It does not mean that Hillel is saying two separate things; rather, one depends on the other. When Hillel the Elder says, “Be among the disciples of Aharon,” we should understand “Love the creatures and bring them close to Torah” to mean that the first brings about the second: by showing him love. “Love the creatures,” even though

05:44 Speaker 1 for the time being he does not observe Torah and mitzvos. He is completely far away. He is only a “creature.” By showing him love—“love the creatures”—that very act brings them close to Torah. It draws him close and may have an effect on him: “with all this, perhaps.” Even though the outcome is uncertain, perhaps he will accept Torah and mitzvos. That is how the whole idea fits together. The Rebbe explains that one illustration of this is in the parsha we read last week, Toldos. It explains why it says that Yitzchak loved Esav. The question is asked: How could Yitzchak love Esav? Yitzchak knew who Esav was. Although Rashi says that Esav used all sorts of tricks to deceive Yitzchak, Yitzchak was no fool. Yitzchak understood very well. He was wise. He knew exactly who Esav was. The proof is in the verse itself: when Yaakov arrived with the food, Yitzchak first said, “Are you really my son Esav?” And he observed that Esav was not accustomed to mentioning the Name of Heaven so readily. In other words, Yitzchak knew that Esav was not a tzaddik. He did not have all the qualities one might have thought. So why, then, did Yitzchak love Esav? The explanation is that this was exactly what was happening here. Esav had the halachic status of a Jew. The difference between Yishmael and Esav is that Yishmael did not have the status of a Jew; he had the status of a non-Jew. Esav, by contrast, had the status of a Jew who had strayed. According to Torah law, he had the status of a Jew. Esav had the status of a Jew, even if he was a Jew who had strayed. In any event, Yitzchak maintained that by loving Esav, he would bring him close. The point of Ahavas Yisroel is to bring someone close to Torah, by

07:27 Speaker 1 showing Esav love. He would ask Esav to prepare food for him, draw close to him and be his friend, and show him love. That itself might one day awaken Esav’s connection to his soul. He would do teshuvah. Our mother Rivkah knew and understood that this would not work. She understood that, on the contrary, showing Esav love would have the opposite effect. She knew Esav well. She knew that showing Esav love was not the way to set him right; the way to set Esav right was through Yaakov. That is why she wanted Yaakov to receive the birthright—not for his own sake, but so that through Yaakov, Esav could be refined. The full explanation is given there; this is not the place to go into it at length. What matters here is that it gives us an example of what the Tanya says: through that very love, by showing him an expression of love, you bring him close to Torah and mitzvos. And perhaps, perhaps he will be able to come close to Torah and mitzvos. It is also brought down that this was one of the Baal Shem Tov’s innovations. As described in accounts of his early years, the Baal Shem Tov was one of the hidden tzaddikim. Before the Baal Shem Tov became known, he belonged to a group of hidden tzaddikim. The hidden tzaddikim living then in Europe—in Russia, Poland, and all those places—were in contact with one another, and so on. The Baal Shem Tov, while still very young, was already one of the hidden tzaddikim. His father was one of the hidden tzaddikim. The Baal Shem Tov himself was one of the hidden tzaddikim. This was in the year 5472. In 5472, the Baal Shem Tov was

09:03 Speaker 1 He was only fourteen or fifteen, very young. So the Baal Shem Tov was the one who suggested to the hidden tzaddikim that they begin their work in the manner of “loving people and bringing them close to the Torah.” That meant doing good for Jews materially, even if they were not yet involved in spiritual matters. Until then, the hidden tzaddikim had connected with Jews mainly by giving them spiritual guidance. They would speak with them about Torah and mitzvos, though they did so discreetly. The Baal Shem Tov introduced the idea of helping a Jew materially—simply helping him, giving to him, showing him love in a material way. That was the Baal Shem Tov’s whole approach: help a Jew materially, and then move from the material to the spiritual. And that is what the Rebbe says here as well. This is what Hillel means: With people who are called “creatures,” Jews who do not recognize the value of Torah and mitzvos, how should we relate to them? Precisely with love. And through love, perhaps—just perhaps—we can bring them close to Torah and mitzvos. Now, in one of the sichos, the Rebbe asks a very simple question. According to what the Rebbe said earlier, Ahavas Yisroel must be “Love your fellow as yourself”—an intrinsic love, without any calculations. What does intrinsic love mean? Just as I love myself without any conditions, I must love another Jew without any conditions. “As yourself”—literally as yourself—to love a Jew with an intrinsic love. If so, what does this mean here? Why is bringing them close to Torah relevant at all? Why should my goal in loving people be to bring them close to Torah? It should simply say, “Love people.” That’s it. What does “bring them close to Torah” have to do with it, seemingly?

10:50 Speaker 1 Ahavas Yisroel should be entirely without any goals. We must love a Jew because he is a Jew. From Hillel’s words, “Love people and bring them close to Torah,” it sounds as though there should also be a goal: bringing them close to Torah. Otherwise, that does not fit with what we said earlier—that Ahavas Yisroel must be an intrinsic love, without calculations, conditions, or goals. An intrinsic love because he is a Jew. The Rebbe asks this in one of the sichos and explains it at length. It connects with something we discussed in an earlier class. If you remember, we spoke about the difference between Rabbi Akiva and Hillel. Hillel said, “This is the entire Torah,” whereas Rabbi Akiva said, “This is a great principle in the Torah.” The difference is that Hillel says Ahavas Yisroel is the entire Torah. Rabbi Akiva says it is a great principle in the Torah—meaning it is not the entire Torah, but a principle within it. Rabbi Akiva wants to emphasize that there is also Torah and mitzvos. From Hillel’s words, “This is the entire Torah,” one might think that Ahavas Yisroel is everything. By contrast, when you say, “This is a great principle in the Torah,” it means that there is Torah beyond it. We must know that Ahavas Yisroel must follow the Torah’s guidelines, and if the Torah says that in a certain situation one should not show love, then one must do as the Torah says. In other words, Ahavas Yisroel must follow the Torah’s guidelines. We have already discussed that particular point at length, so we will not go back over it. But here the Alter Rebbe is saying, in essence, that ultimately Ahavas Yisroel must find expression in Torah. Ahavas Yisroel

12:38 Speaker 1 must be such that it brings a person to observe Torah and mitzvos. Why? Why can’t Ahavas Yisroel be solely because he is a Jew? Chassidus explains that a Jew is connected to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. For that connection to be revealed, it must be through Torah. There is a well-known question. The Zohar says that there are three bonds, “three bonds bound together”: Yisroel and Torah, and Torah and Hakadosh Boruch Hu. And children ask in cheder: Those are only two bonds. Where are the three? Yisroel and Torah are one bond; Torah and Hakadosh Boruch Hu are a second bond. So what does “three bonds” mean? Where is the third? Chassidus explains that the third bond is between Yisroel and Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself. In other words, Yisroel is connected to Torah, which connects them to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and Yisroel also has a direct connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. What does this mean? A Jew’s connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu has two aspects. There is the intrinsic connection of a Jew to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This is what is meant when we say that Yisroel preceded the Torah: the very essence of a Jew is above the Torah, and from that perspective, a Jew is inherently connected to Him. This is why, when Moshe Rabbeinu saw that Hakadosh Boruch Hu wanted to punish the Jewish people, he broke the Tablets. Why? Because the Jewish people are above the Torah. Chassidus discusses extensively this quality of Yisroel, that they preceded the Torah. On the other hand, for a Jew’s connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu to be revealed down here, that must come through Torah and mitzvos,

14:25 Speaker 1 because Torah and mitzvos are what connect him. Since the soul descended below, it became separate. That is the difference between Torah and souls. Above, souls are connected even more deeply than Torah. But when a soul descends into this world, it becomes separate. It enters a body, becomes part of the body, and thereby takes on an existence of its own, seemingly separate. To reveal a Jew’s connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, we need Torah. Torah is light; its connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu remains revealed even now, down here. So when a Jew studies Torah, his connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu is revealed here below as well. In any case, what follows from this? This is why the Alter Rebbe says here, “Love people and bring them close to Torah.” True, Ahavas Yisroel is an intrinsic love: loving a Jew solely because he is a Jew. Nevertheless, how is a Jew’s connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu revealed in this world? Through Torah. Therefore, Ahavas Yisroel, too, must be expressed in a way that leads to Torah. That is the meaning of “Love people and bring them close to Torah”: the love one Jew has for another must be such that, because of that love, he brings the other Jew into connection with Torah and mitzvos. Quite simply. Chassidus teaches us that we must have unlimited Ahavas Yisroel for every Jew, even the most distant Jew in the world, and so on. Nevertheless, what form should that Ahavas Yisroel take? It should make me want to reveal his greatness. And for that intrinsic greatness to be revealed in him, that happens through Torah and mitzvos. Therefore, I will work to ensure

16:07 Speaker 1 that he puts on tefillin, wears tzitzis, and studies Torah. Because Ahavas Yisroel must not leave him—how do you say it?—leave a Jew who does not observe Torah and mitzvos in the same state. This is something we need to pay attention to. Chassidus speaks so much about Ahavas Yisroel and unconditional love for a Jew, but for some people, their Ahavas Yisroel stops there. He loves the Jew and leaves him as he is, not observing Torah and mitzvos, not putting on tefillin. The main thing is that there is Ahavas Yisroel. So the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that if I truly love him, I must want his qualities to be revealed. And a Jew’s qualities are revealed specifically through Torah and mitzvos. Therefore, I must want not only to love him, but genuinely to see him observe Torah and mitzvos, so that his connection to Hakadosh Boruch Hu will be revealed. That is accomplished through Torah and mitzvos.

17:09 Speaker 2 So Hillel practiced the first—the first approach, though.

17:12 Speaker 1 Huh?

17:13 Speaker 2 Hillel did.

17:14 Speaker 1 We are talking about Hillel here. This is the same Hillel who said earlier—Hillel the Elder—that Ahavas Yisroel is “the entire Torah.” That same Hillel the Elder now emphasizes that loving people must also have the goal of bringing them close to Torah.

17:36 Speaker 2 Yes, but seemingly, the words “the entire Torah” mean the entire Torah.

17:42 Speaker 1 Yes, there the Rebbe says that we need to look at the sicha itself. The Rebbe explains that Hillel is speaking on a higher level than Rabbi Akiva. But the fact that Hillel adds, in Pirkei Avos, “and brings them close to Torah” tells us that he too holds that this lofty quality must be brought out in a revealed way. In other words, even according to the view that Ahavas Yisroel is an essential love, higher than Torah and mitzvos, for it to be revealed there must also be Torah and mitzvos. It’s a deep sicha. We need to study it inside. But let’s get to the practical point. So what is he saying here? In what way should Ahavas Yisroel be expressed? In a way that will bring people to Torah and mitzvos—and after all that, perhaps it will do even more. But the Rebbe says something else there: “And if not.” What does “and if not” mean? Even if he did not succeed in bringing the other person to Torah and mitzvos—he showed him Ahavas Yisroel, drew him close and loved him, and nevertheless, when it came down to actually saying, “Come put on tefillin,” the other person said, “No, thank you. Gracias.” Well, he isn’t interested. Despite all the Ahavas Yisroel he showed him, all the warmth and love, he did not succeed in inspiring him to actually observe Torah and mitzvos. “And if not”—he has not forfeited the reward for the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow. You might have thought that since the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos says, “Love all people and bring them close to Torah,” bringing them close is a condition: all the Ahavas Yisroel is for the sake of bringing them to Torah and mitzvos. And if I didn’t succeed, then all that love was worth nothing. It was only a means to an end, and if I didn’t achieve the end, the means has no value either. So the Alter Rebbe says: No. “And if not,” he has not forfeited its reward.

19:23 Speaker 1 Even if I did not succeed in influencing him toward Torah and mitzvos, the Ahavas Yisroel itself is complete, and for that one receives the reward. The reward for the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow—that is, the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisroel—is a matter in its own right. Although the Mishnah says we must try to bring it into the open through Torah and mitzvos, nevertheless, even when that effort does not succeed, the Ahavas Yisroel itself remains. Why? Because Ahavas Yisroel is a matter in its own right. As we said earlier, it has no limits. It is an essential love, stemming from the very fact that he is a Jew. That remains always, even if one has not managed to bring it into the open through Torah and mitzvos. The essential love, and the fact that he is a Jew, remain fully intact even if he has not come to Torah and mitzvos. That is why one does not forfeit the reward for the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow. This raises a very interesting question: Why use such unusual wording—“and if not”? It could have said “if not,” or “even if not.” What is “and if not”? It is an unusual expression. It comes from a verse in Tanach; those words appear in Daniel. But after all, what does “and if not” mean here? The Rebbe does not use the words of a verse for no reason. So the Rebbe offers a remarkable insight: The reason the Alter Rebbe uses “and if not” is to emphasize the “and”—as though he were saying, “whether yes or no,” either way. It is as if the Alter Rebbe is telling us that, when it comes to the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisroel, whether or not that love becomes revealed—whether I succeeded in bringing him to Torah and mitzvos or did not succeed—the Ahavas Yisroel has the same force. It is not that if I drew him close

21:00 Speaker 1 but did not succeed in bringing him to Torah and mitzvos, my Ahavas Yisroel is somehow less complete. Nothing is lacking in it. That is what the Alter Rebbe means by “and if not.” Whether yes or no, it is the same with respect to Ahavas Yisroel. True, we must try to bring him to Torah and mitzvos, but that is a separate matter. As far as the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisroel itself is concerned, whether I succeed or not, there must be Ahavas Yisroel either way—even if I did not succeed in bringing the Jew close to Torah and mitzvos.