Likkutei Amarim Tanya - Chapter 32 - Part 8

00:01 Speaker 1 We’re on page two, in the line beginning “And also,” after the word “fellows”: “and also those close to him.” It’s in the middle of the line beginning “And also.” Let’s summarize what we’ve learned so far, and also go over a few points connected to it that we wanted to discuss but didn’t explain in the previous class. The Alter Rebbe is speaking here about two kinds of people. One is someone who is your peer in Torah and mitzvos. He committed a sin, and you rebuked him in various ways, but he did not turn away from his sin. In that situation, the Torah says you must hate him; it is a mitzvah to hate him. Even then, the hatred is only for the evil. That applies only when he is your peer in Torah and mitzvos, and you have rebuked him but he still has not turned away from his sin. But what about someone who is not your peer in Torah and mitzvos, someone you are not close to? At that point the Alter Rebbe says you must be “one who loves all people,” one of “Aharon’s disciples.” You must love him without limit, even if he is merely a person with no particular virtue. The only thing you can say about him is that he is a person, nothing more. You must love him, and through that love bring him close to the Torah. And even if you do not bring him close to the Torah through your love, perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that you love him will eventually help bring him closer. You really do have to try, as we explained in the previous class, to let that love lead you to bring him close to the Torah. After all, if you love someone, you want to give him the very best thing. And if you are a Jew for whom the soul is primary and the body secondary, that means Yiddishkeit is the best thing in your eyes. So of course you will want to bring him close to Torah and mitzvos. That is the very best thing. So loving all people will lead you to bring him close to Torah and mitzvos. But even if you did not succeed—

02:06 Speaker 1 If, for some reason, despite trying in various ways, you did not succeed in bringing him close to Torah and mitzvos, you have not lost the reward for loving your fellow. What does that mean? As we explained, the Alter Rebbe says that whether you brought him close or not, love for your fellow must remain in full force. Ahavas Yisroel. You must have Ahavas Yisroel for such a Jew without limits. You must try to bring him close, but even if you do not succeed, you have not lost the reward for loving your fellow. That is what we have learned so far. There are just a few points here, some very interesting explanations, that we did not stop to discuss. So I want to explain them now. First, the Rebbe notes a very interesting detail: Why does the Alter Rebbe emphasize, when quoting the teaching of our Sages, that Hillel the Elder said it? Earlier too, he says “Hillel the Elder.” Twice in this chapter, the Alter Rebbe mentions Hillel the Elder: when he discusses how the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisroel is the whole Torah, he says, “And this is what Hillel the Elder said.” And here too, when he quotes “Be among the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and loving all people, and bringing them close to the Torah,” he says “Hillel the Elder.” Why specify “the Elder”? The Rebbe explains: What does “Elder” mean? It means he was the president of the Sanhedrin. We see in the Gemara that “elder” was a title used for those who led their generation, the presidents of the Sanhedrin. So the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize that this applies to all the Jewish people. If you quote a saying or a story about some Tanna, a person might say, “That doesn’t apply to us. These are tzaddikim on very high levels. Perhaps it applies to someone who is a tzaddik, but we’re talking about a beinoni, or even someone

04:03 Speaker 1 who wishes he were a beinoni—an ordinary person. Perhaps this does not apply to him.” As we saw in Tanya itself, and we’ll come to a few examples. For instance, earlier in the chapter he quoted—yes, I think he also quoted Hillel there, didn’t he? He would say—sorry. Yes, there too he says “Hillel the Elder.” If I’m not mistaken, the Rebbe also explains that point there. Yes, he quotes Hillel saying, “I am going to do a kindness for the lowly and poor one.” Those are levels that do not apply to every person. But here the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize that the Ahavas Yisroel we are discussing applies to everyone. That is why he emphasizes who said it: Hillel the Elder. In other words, Hillel said it as president of the Sanhedrin, as the leader of the Jewish people. When the leader of the Jewish people says it, it is an instruction for all the Jewish people. That applies both to the first point—that Ahavas Yisroel is the whole Torah—and to the second point we are learning now, loving all people and bringing them close to the Torah. This is an instruction for all the Jewish people. Hillel the Elder said it. The Rebbe also asks an interesting question here: Why does the Alter Rebbe include the words “loving peace” when he quotes the teaching of our Sages? Seemingly, he should have started with “loving all people and bringing them close to the Torah.” After all, the Alter Rebbe’s whole point rests on the words “loving all people.” So he should have quoted only those words, “loving all people and bringing them close to the Torah.” Why does he also include the beginning of the teaching, “loving peace”? “Loving peace” does not seem relevant to our discussion. What it says about Hillel the Elder loving peace

05:55 Speaker 1 is another matter: making peace in the home, making peace between friends. And then there are all the stories told about Aharon the Kohen and how he brought peace between one person and another. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing here? Here the Alter Rebbe mainly wants to bring out the point about loving all people. There are several explanations. One interesting explanation the Rebbe gives is based on a Midrash. What does “loving peace” mean? The Midrash tells us that Aharon made peace between a Jew and Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is one of the interpretations in the Midrash. What does it mean that he made peace between a Jew and Hakadosh Boruch Hu? A Jew would commit a sin—sorry, an ordinary Jew would meet Aharon the Kohen. Aharon the Kohen would greet him warmly: “Hello, how are you?” and so on. Later, when that Jew wanted to go and commit a sin, he would think, “What will happen? Aharon the Kohen loves me; he greeted me. If he sees me tomorrow, he’ll look at me and want to say hello. How can he greet me? He’ll see me and know that I committed a sin. Aharon the Kohen is a tzaddik; surely he’ll notice that I committed a sin. How will I be able to look Aharon the Kohen in the face and accept his greeting?” So that Jew would hold himself back from sinning simply because he knew Aharon the Kohen was going to greet him. That is what the Midrash says. According to this story, then, we understand what it means that Aharon the Kohen loved peace. We learn that Aharon the Kohen also loved and drew close a Jew who was in the category of a rasha. That is

07:48 Speaker 1 the explanation. The Rebbe wants to demonstrate that even such a person is included. The Alter Rebbe’s point here is that even such a person must be loved. The words “loving all people” alone do not yet prove that one must love a rasha. “All people” could mean people with no particular virtues who are nevertheless not wicked. An ordinary person can simply be an ordinary person. The Baal Shem Tov, too, loved ordinary people, but that does not yet mean someone who is in the category of a rasha. But the words “loving peace,” according to the Midrash’s interpretation, refer even to someone who might actually commit sins—and Aharon loved him. So this lends further support to the point the Rebbe is making here: even someone who commits transgressions, who does not observe Torah and mitzvos, must be loved. We see how every word in Tanya is precise. He quotes words that one might think were included in passing, but we see that nothing is included in passing. You can learn so much from every word. Everything is precise. Of course, we know that, but when you see it, it takes on a different meaning. Then the Rebbe says something else about the words here: “And even if not, he has not lost the reward for the mitzvah of loving his fellows.” The Alter Rebbe’s wording is about a person who loves someone else but has not succeeded in bringing him close to Torah and mitzvos. He has not managed to influence him to put on tefillin, to observe this or that. But he still has the reward: “He has not lost the reward for the mitzvah of loving his fellows.” The wording “has not lost” sounds negative. “He has not lost the reward for the mitzvah of loving his fellows”—that sounds like a fallback, something that applies after the fact. If the Rebbe

09:32 Speaker 1 If it had said “he has,” that would have sounded stronger. “He has not lost out” sounds like something said after the fact. It is as though the Rebbe is saying that once the Alter Rebbe revealed this, that is how it works. This is the Rebbe’s point: Once the Alter Rebbe wrote in Tanya, “And even if not, he has not lost the reward for the mitzvah of loving one’s fellow,” those words became an instruction of the Alter Rebbe in Tanya. So that itself is the greatest reward: through bringing a Jew close, one becomes connected to the Alter Rebbe. When a Jew reaches out to another Jew, someone far from Torah and mitzvos, and even if he has not succeeded in influencing him to observe Torah and mitzvos, he still loves him. The wording of Tanya itself might imply only that he “has not lost out.” But since the Alter Rebbe included this in Tanya, and it became part of Tanya, through it we become connected to the Alter Rebbe. That is the greatest reward: being connected to the Alter Rebbe by loving a Jew without calculations or limits. That is what the Rebbe does. I once saw something interesting. It was in 5748, if I’m not mistaken. I’m not sure of the year, but I’m almost certain it was 5748. A Jew was with the Rebbe then. Something very interesting happened at the Simchas Torah hakafos. Throughout Simchas Torah, a Jew stood beside the Rebbe who was a very prominent person in America. He was a very prominent Reform rabbi, and for some reason he asked to spend Simchas Torah with the Rebbe. He had his reasons; I don’t know exactly what happened there. In short, he was with the Rebbe throughout Simchas Torah. Someone had invited him, and he was a very well-known Reform rabbi, and he

11:34 Speaker 1 stood beside the Rebbe during hakafos. The Rebbe had him stand there. Everyone knows that at the Rebbe’s hakafos, you practically had to be made of the stuff chassidim are made of to withstand the crowding, the pushing, and all the commotion. So the Rebbe had him stand on the platform where the Rebbe would stand during davening. He stood on the platform right next to the Rebbe: the Rebbe’s lectern was here, and he stood beside it, while the Rebbe stood here. He simply stood there throughout the Simchas Torah hakafos and davening. He stood next to the Rebbe in the Rebbe’s shul; the Rebbe showed him a great deal of warmth. In short, afterward, complaints came from people who had heard about it. How could the Rebbe do such a thing? He was a Reform rabbi, and the Rebbe himself writes that one must keep a distance from the Reform movement, so as not, G-d forbid, to give the impression that showing warmth to this Jew means endorsing his conduct or his community. As long as he had not openly changed his position, one had to be very careful. The Rebbe gave a very good answer. I remember this clearly, and there was a period when this was discussed; that is why I’m telling you about it. The Rebbe answered as follows: Rabbis who issue halachic rulings must approach the matter according to halachah. So from a halachic standpoint, that is true: when it is a halachic matter, one must keep one’s distance. The Rebbe’s position was that one must not associate with a Reform rabbi. The Rebbe would forbid sitting at the same table with them or going to their events, and so on. The Rebbe was very, very opposed, so that no mistaken impression would result, G-d forbid. But when it came to Simchas Torah, to hakafos, to something that was not a question of halachic conduct, then

13:52 Speaker 1 the Rebbe said of himself that his role was not to issue halachic rulings. His role was to bring Jews close, and in that context the approach had to be different. In other words, at the very time the Rebbe demanded of the halachic authorities, the rabbis responsible for guiding these matters, that they act as halachah requires and maintain a cautious distance, the Rebbe himself showed this man warmth and ultimately brought him close. In the end, of course, he came to the Rebbe’s hakafos, saw what authentic Yiddishkeit is, and afterward did teshuvah, and so on. Yes, but one has to know how to make that distinction. That is how the Rebbe explained it. Yes. In other words, to love a Jew because he is a Jew, even though he is in a state of [unclear]. There is something else I remember on this subject. There is another story like this that happened once. I may not remember all its details correctly, but it is also a very interesting story, relevant to our times. They relate that once, at a farbrengen of the Rebbe, a Jew was sitting there who was very much not religious. Not only was he not religious; he fought against religion and so on. He was a complicated person. He wrote things against Torah and mitzvos. Once he was at a farbrengen of the Rebbe. Here is how the story goes. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Gurevitch, the mashpia in Migdal HaEmek, was here a few years ago and told the story, because he was there when it happened. He said he had been there.

16:04 Speaker 1 He related that in the middle of the farbrengen, one of the prominent rabbis in New York came in. He was among the leading opponents of the Reform movement. I think he is still alive. His name was Rabbi Hollander. In any case, he was a Jew who fought against the Reform movement and other such things.

16:24 Speaker 2 Someone was here.

16:25 Speaker 1 Ah, he was here too, yes. So Rabbi Hollander came in during the Rebbe’s farbrengen and went up onto the platform. He looked around and saw that Jew sitting there at the farbrengen, behind the Rebbe. You could see from his face that he became very angry, and he left the farbrengen. He was very close to the Rebbe. Rabbi Hollander was very close to the Rebbe and often came to farbrengens, but for some reason, when he saw this man, he left and did not return. He just went. It was strange. Anyway, the farbrengen continued. At the end of the farbrengen, the Rebbe began singing “Tzamah Lecha Nafshi.” He said that when the Rebbe began singing “Tzamah Lecha Nafshi,” that Jew, the man sitting there, began to cry intensely. His whole body began to shake, and he simply melted. I don’t have the details with me now. In short, the farbrengen ended. The next day, or later that week, a very sharp letter by Rabbi Hollander appeared in the Jewish newspapers. It was a strong protest against the Lubavitcher Rebbe: How could a Jew known for fighting against Torah, mitzvos, and religion be allowed to sit at the Rebbe’s farbrengen? It was a very sharp letter of protest. Well, a week later, that other Jew—the one who was not religious—wrote a reply. I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that at the end of his letter he wrote that he wished Rabbi Hollander would experience, at Ne’ilah on Yom Kippur, the awakening to teshuvah that he himself had experienced when the Rebbe sang “Tzamah Lecha Nafshi.” That was the story. In any case, what do we have here? The Alter Rebbe teaches us that we must have Ahavas Yisroel. Through

19:05 Speaker 1 This is “love your fellow creatures and bring them close to the Torah”: Ahavas Yisroel for a Jew must be without limits. Right? Moving on. The Alter Rebbe continues: “And even those close to him whom he rebuked.” Now the Alter Rebbe makes a third point. Until now, we said, the Alter Rebbe discussed two groups: those who are your peers in Torah and mitzvos, about whom it says that it is a mitzvah to hate them if they persist in wrongdoing; and those who are distant from Torah and mitzvos, whom you must love and try to bring close. Now the Alter Rebbe continues with a third point: “And even those close to him whom he rebuked, and who did not repent.” He concludes that it is a mitzvah to hate them. The Alter Rebbe is returning to the first group—people close to him whom he rebuked and who did not repent, whom we said one must hate. It is a mitzvah to hate them. But the Alter Rebbe says: “It is also a mitzvah to love them.” This is something new. Besides what we said earlier—that the mitzvah to hate applies only under very, very specific conditions, when the person is your peer in Torah and mitzvos and you rebuked him but he did not repent—the Alter Rebbe teaches an even greater novelty. Even the person whom the Sages said you must hate, you must love at the same time. That is an even greater novelty. At the very time you hate him, you must also love him. It is also a mitzvah to love him. How can that be? What would it look like? How can there be two opposites? If I love, I love. If I hate, I hate. How can you say I love and hate the same person? One of them must be false: either the hatred is not genuine or the love is not genuine. Can there be both genuine love and genuine hatred for the same person? The Alter Rebbe says: “And both

21:11 Speaker 1 are true.” It is not a contradiction. Both feelings—the love and the hatred—can exist together, and both can be genuine. Why? The Alter Rebbe says: “Hatred on account of the evil within him.” What do I hate? I do not hate the person; I hate the evil within him. “And love on account of the hidden good within him.” I do love him. Why? I love the good within him. What is that good? “The spark of G-dliness within them that gives life to their G-dly soul.” The Divine spark within every Jew—that is what I love. So there is no contradiction. It does not mean I am, how do you say it, fickle. Ah, there is a word. What do you call someone who is fickle? Ah, a two-faced person. A hypocrite, a hypocrite. I do not know what the word is. No, that is not the word. Strong, not strong. No, no—in short. No. Ah. He loves, he hates. So there is no issue. The Alter Rebbe makes a remarkable point here about this whole subject, and unfortunately, in our generation this is something in which we are very weak. It is one of the most important foundations of Ahavas Yisroel: even at the time you hate him, that does not release you from the obligation to love him. The mitzvah here says that in such a situation there is a mitzvah to hate; at that very same time, you love him. Why? Because I do not hate the person. I hate the thing, the actions, the deeds. That is one of the mistakes people make today. Today, when someone has a quarrel with another person—and of course, that is not at all what we are talking about here—but even if someone has a problem with another person because he is not the same sort of chossid, because he has a different approach, a different outlook,

23:30 Speaker 1 different character traits, a different temperament, and so on—whatever the reason may be. Or he behaves improperly, or does things that are really, really wrong. The moment I have a problem with that thing, I write off the entire person. I hate all of him. I cannot stand him anymore. I cannot talk to him anymore. I cannot be alone with him anymore. And it all began with just one particular act. But because of that act, I end up hating him entirely. And not only him: eventually it spreads to his family. I hate all his family’s friends. It even becomes a matter between communities.

24:15 Speaker 1 We see this today when there are differences and all kinds of issues. Yes, the hatred spreads. It becomes hatred between families, between groups, between communities—an entirely different situation. And where did it all begin? With some act. You have to know how to distinguish between the two. Even when, according to the Torah, there is something here that must be rejected, and so on, the hatred is for the evil within him. Do not hate the person; hate the evil that is there. If that is what I hate, then at the same time I can love him too. What do I love about the person? I love the spark within him, the spark within him. That is what I love. He is a Jew, and because he is a Jew, he remains a Jew, so I love him. At the same time, what do I hate? The evil that is present. This is very, very, very, very fundamental. Rabbi Zakutoper[?] once said something wonderful. He said: Take the word “machlokes”—dispute. What is the word “machlokes”? Mem, ches, lamed, kuf. All right, those are the letters of “machlokes.” Then he said: Machlokes begins with a mem. What is a mem? A mem is closed on all sides, with a tiny opening at the bottom. A dispute begins with a tiny fire, a small opening where a little piece gets burned away. Everything had been whole and closed; all the friends were one group. Then a small hole appears in the middle, then something else small happens, and suddenly it grows and becomes a ches. A ches means the whole... it is no longer just something small; it has burned away the entire bottom. In other words, by now he has completely dismissed the other person. He cannot stand the person at all. After that, he says, the ches becomes a lamed. What is a lamed? A lamed rises upward. Not only is he wicked and must be hated, or killed, or whatever; his father and grandfather too, the whole... they are also part of the problem. That is the lamed. Then, he says, it becomes a kuf. A kuf means that even those who are already buried in the grave—a kuf has a tail that goes downward—even those in the grave, who are already dead, they too were criminals, they too... They must also be included. They are all part of the same group. But in the end comes the last part, the end. At the end it has a leg. A leg comes out of it. How do you say it—he sticks a leg out? He says: This hatred remains for generations and will not go away. It will continue to the grandchildren. That is the meaning of “machlokes”: it begins with something small and keeps spreading. And that is what the Alter Rebbe says here: even when, according to the Torah, there must be hatred, at that very same time there must also be love.

26:19 Speaker 1 To kill him—or rather, they feel they have to go after his father and his grandfather too. All of them are part of the problem. That’s the lamed. Then, he says, it becomes a kuf. The kuf has a tail extending downward: even those already buried in the grave, those who have died—they too were criminals, and they too have to be dealt with. They’re all part of the same package. But finally comes the last part. At the end it has a leg. What does it mean that it “puts down a leg”? He says: this hatred remains for generations and will not pass. It will continue to the grandchildren. So that is the meaning of machlokes: it starts with something small and keeps spreading. And that is what the Rebbe says here: even when, according to the Torah, there must be an element of hatred, at that very same time there must also be an element of love.