Tanya Igeres Hateshuvah - Chapter 1 - Part 2

00:00 Okay, so we’ll continue here in Igeres Hateshuvah. We’re at the bottom, after the parentheses. The Alter Rebbe brought what the Gemara says at the end of Yoma: there are four categories of atonement, and teshuvah plays a part in each one. First, he discussed someone who violated a positive mitzvah. There, the Gemara says that as soon as he repents, he is forgiven on the spot. In other words, teshuvah brings forgiveness. Then it says that if he violated a prohibition, teshuvah holds the matter in abeyance and Yom Kippur atones. Then it continues—and this is where we are now, after the parentheses: If he violated a prohibition punishable by kareis or death by beis din, teshuvah and Yom Kippur hold the matter in abeyance, and suffering purifies. So what does the baraisa say in this third case? Teshuvah and Yom Kippur hold the matter in abeyance, and suffering purifies. For an offense punishable by kareis or death by beis din, neither teshuvah nor Yom Kippur is enough on its own. They hold the matter in abeyance, but suffering purifies. The Gemara uses the word “purifies”; before this, it used the word “atones.” Why does it say “purifies” here? The Alter Rebbe explains: it means completing the atonement. The word “purifies” is connected to atonement, but it means something stronger—the completion of the atonement. It comes from a word meaning scouring and washing, to polish the soul. That is what “purifying” means: scouring and washing. In Yiddish, we would say “lustering”—polishing something until it shines, until it has a gleam and a brightness. For atonement means wiping away the dirt of sin. The Alter Rebbe explains here in parentheses that these are not two separate things, as though atonement were one thing and polishing another. Rather, one is a continuation of the other. Atonement and polishing belong

02:34 to the same family. The difference is that atonement means wiping away. In the Holy Tongue, the word for atonement also carries a sense of cleaning, but it is cleaning in the sense of removing dirt. Polishing, by contrast, is more than cleaning: it leaves something gleaming and bright. So what is the Alter Rebbe telling us? That it is all one process. There are two elements here: teshuvah and atonement. Right? As the Gemara says, teshuvah plays a part in each category. There is teshuvah, and there is atonement. Teshuvah repairs the rebellion, as the Alter Rebbe said earlier in parentheses. A person rebels against the King’s rule and does not do what the King says. That rebellion calls for teshuvah. Once you do teshuvah, you have repaired the rebellion; you are no longer rebelling against the King’s rule. That is one side of it. But then there is atonement. For teshuvah to be complete, it is not enough to repair the rebellion; the damage must also be cleaned away. In other words, what do we learn from the baraisa at the end of Tractate Yoma? We learn that the work of teshuvah has two elements: what we call teshuvah and what we call atonement. Teshuvah addresses the rebellion, because every sin has two aspects. When a person sins, one aspect is the rebellion, and that is present in every sin. It makes no difference whether the sin involves a positive mitzvah, a prohibition, an offense punishable by kareis, an offense punishable by stoning, or one punishable by lashes. Whatever the offense, every sin a person commits involves rebellion against the King’s rule. Teshuvah is needed to repair that rebellion, and this applies to every

04:53 case. Then there is the damage. When we come to the damage, that requires atonement. As the Alter Rebbe explains here, atonement means wiping away. Something has become dirty; there is damage, dirt that needs to be cleaned. In the wording we just learned in Rashi on Chumash, in Parshas Chukas: “Let its mother come and wipe away her child’s excrement.” There is excrement, and it needs to be wiped away; the dirt needs to be cleaned. Sin causes dirt, so it needs to be cleaned. And here there is a difference between positive mitzvos, prohibitions, and offenses punishable by kareis or death by beis din. With a positive mitzvah, as we said, what is missing is the Divine light that a person was supposed to draw down but did not. So there it is a case of “that which is crooked cannot be made straight.” You had an opportunity to draw down G-dliness, and you lost that opportunity. It is gone; you cannot bring it back. So that is not the issue here. There is no question of atonement, because it is not dirt. It is not a matter of cleaning. With a prohibition, by contrast, there is damage, there is dirt, and that dirt needs to be cleaned. That is atonement in the sense of wiping away the dirt. That is the case with prohibitions. Then we come to offenses punishable by kareis or death by beis din. What does it say there? The point is not what we might mistakenly think. That is apparently what the Alter Rebbe wants to clarify in this second set of parentheses. When learning the Gemara, we might think that for offenses punishable by kareis or death by beis din, a person has no atonement until he undergoes suffering. The Alter Rebbe wants to explain that this is not so. Certainly,

06:52 teshuvah and Yom Kippur help even when the offense is punishable by kareis. Even when it is an offense punishable by kareis or death by beis din—suffering, that is—sorry, teshuvah and Yom Kippur bring about atonement. But with these offenses, which carry a particular punishment and are especially severe, atonement in the sense of wiping away is not enough. They also require polishing. More is demanded. Yes, and that is the Alter Rebbe’s precise point here. It is not that prohibitions require Yom Kippur, while offenses punishable by kareis require suffering. No. Yom Kippur helps with offenses punishable by kareis and death by beis din too. Right? Yom Kippur brings atonement for all sins, including those punishable by kareis or death by beis din. But there is something particular about these offenses: they require not only atonement but also purifying, polishing. They need a special kind of cleaning, something that leaves them gleaming, and suffering brings about that polishing. With an ordinary prohibition, because the damage is not as severe to begin with as it is with offenses punishable by kareis or death by beis din—as we can see from the fact that it does not carry such a punishment—it follows that the damage is not as severe. So wiping it away through Yom Kippur is enough to repair it completely. Nothing more is needed. By contrast, where the Torah prescribes a particular punishment, even though Yom Kippur also atones—that is, it cleans—special polishing is still needed. That is what “purifies” means. We can say that through this, the Alter Rebbe is teaching us a fundamental point about what he wants to explain throughout Igeres Hateshuvah. It is the point that

09:00 “For the matter is very close to you.” The Rebbe draws out the plain meaning of several details here; in a moment we’ll discuss how this relates to a few other matters. The Alter Rebbe, in Igeres Hateshuvah, comes to teach us this point. It is all based on the verse on which the entire Tanya is founded. Although, as we discussed, Igeres Hateshuvah was printed later, in practice, since it is included in the Tanya, the Rebbe understands that the verse “For the matter is very close to you” applies to it as well. In other words, when the Alter Rebbe wrote on the title page of Tanya that it is based on this verse, that includes Igeres Hateshuvah too. So the Alter Rebbe seeks to explain how it is “close to you”: doing teshuvah is in each person’s own hands; it all depends on us. That is why, regarding suffering as well, he wants to emphasize something. After all, if you say that suffering is needed to cleanse, it sounds as though, until a person has, G-d forbid, undergone suffering, he has not yet received atonement. So the Alter Rebbe stresses that we see from the Gemara here that this is not so. It says that suffering “cleanses”; it does not say that suffering “atones.” Certainly, even without suffering, there is already atonement—complete atonement. That is, not just teshuvah, but atonement too. The atonement is complete. What, then, is needed? There is also a desire for cleansing. But even before that cleansing has taken place, the atonement is there. This is the precise point he wants to add in these parentheses. The Alter Rebbe says, “as it is stated”—now, as he concludes, he also quotes the wording of the verse cited by the Gemara—“I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with afflictions.” Where do we learn that there are cases in which suffering is also needed? The Gemara cites this verse from Tehillim: “I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their

10:51 iniquity with afflictions.” A rod is a stick, and afflictions means suffering. Through the rod, through suffering, may G-d spare us, Hakadosh Boruch Hu says He will cleanse them. So that is the Gemara. Here ends the wording of the baraisa. Now the Rebbe asks several questions. First, a question about this last point: Why does he bring the verse here, saying “as it is stated”? Why is the verse relevant? If he quotes this verse, he should also quote the earlier verses. Where do we learn that, for failing to fulfill a positive mitzvah, one is forgiven immediately? There is a verse for that too, but he does not quote it. The Gemara quotes the verse, “Return, wayward children,” but the Alter Rebbe does not. For a negative commandment, the Gemara also quotes a verse: “For on this day He will atone for you.” The Alter Rebbe does not quote it here. He brings it later in connection with the subject, mentioning it in passing, but he does not write “as it is stated.” It is specifically for this last point that he writes “as it is stated.” Why does he quote it here? Why is the verse relevant? Either quote them all or quote none of them. Why quote the verse specifically regarding suffering? The Rebbe gives a very interesting answer, which is really the basis of what we said earlier. As the Rebbe explains, the Alter Rebbe quotes this verse to emphasize that this suffering must come only from Above: “I will visit.” A person might think that if suffering, may G-d spare us, is needed for cleansing, then he should undertake fasts and self-mortification—to atone, to bring suffering upon himself. He might strike himself and look for ways to afflict himself with suffering and self-mortification in order to rectify a sin punishable by kareis or by a court-imposed death penalty. That is why the Alter Rebbe

12:45 needs to quote the verse here. The Alter Rebbe is not looking to quote verses; he is not copying out the baraisos. But this is something we need to know: it does not depend on you. A person is not supposed to bring suffering upon himself. Suffering comes from Above. “I will visit”—He brings it upon me. It does not say that you have to impose self-mortification on yourself. “I will visit”—He brings it upon me. This is entirely up to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, as the Alter Rebbe will explain later in the chapter: Hakadosh Boruch Hu decides whether to cleanse you through suffering. From this we understand, first of all, that a person should not seek out suffering. This is one of the principles of Igeres Hateshuvah that the Alter Rebbe will explain later: a person must protect his health and not mortify himself. Yes, one moment. A person must not mortify himself. That is one point, and it is important because it is one of the principles here in Igeres Hateshuvah. The Alter Rebbe will explain later that we must take care to preserve our health, with regard to self-mortification and so on. These are also principles of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings, and they are relevant to what we are learning here. They relate to the overall subject of this chapter. After all, the Alter Rebbe comes to explain here—not just in this chapter, but throughout Igeres Hateshuvah—what we learned: “For the matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.” The whole point is that the work of teshuvah is very close at hand. So the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize that what depends on us is the work of teshuvah; and for a negative commandment, Yom Kippur is needed—the service of Yom Kippur. Suffering is not something that depends on us. It is a matter of “I will visit.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu will decide whether or not it happens. That is not your matter; it is Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s matter.

14:52 Consequently, as far as my own service is concerned, nothing is lacking. Once I have done teshuvah and gone through Yom Kippur as well, when atonement was granted for the negative commandment, my atonement, from my side, is complete. If Hakadosh Boruch Hu wants something further from Above, that is no longer your matter. As far as the person is concerned, his work is utterly complete in this respect too. We’ll soon see this point itself more clearly. There are a few more details to it, but in this connection the Rebbe also cites what we say in the bedtime Shema every day. We ask Hakadosh Boruch Hu that it not be through suffering, G-d forbid. In the bedtime Shema we ask Hakadosh Boruch Hu to atone for us, and immediately say, “not through suffering, G-d forbid.” At first glance, if suffering is part of teshuvah, and a person has committed a sin punishable by kareis or by a court-imposed death penalty, then he needs suffering. So why do we say, “not through suffering, G-d forbid”? This is the point: not only does a person not need to—G-d forbid, he must not—bring suffering and self-mortification upon himself, may G-d spare us; he should not even ask for it. On the contrary, he should ask that it not happen through suffering. But then, how will the cleansing take place? Hakadosh Boruch Hu can accomplish it in other ways too. It is possible; it can happen without suffering. We will see later in these chapters how the Alter Rebbe explains that there are various other ways. It does not have to be specifically through suffering. And as the Rebbe often says in sichos and maamarim, Hakadosh Boruch Hu can indeed bring about the cleansing in other ways as well.

16:34 Or, as the Rebbe once said, suffering does not have to be physical suffering. Sometimes the suffering can be that you study in depth and toil, with the mental strain of trying to understand a concept. How does the saying go? [unclear]. That too is a kind of suffering that makes amends for all these matters. In any case, that is the point. But the Alter Rebbe—this is why the Alter Rebbe brings this verse here, because it bears on the main point he wants to emphasize. There is another very interesting detail the Rebbe points out. The Rebbe asks why the Alter Rebbe uses the wording “three categories of atonement.” True, that is the wording in the Gemara, but why give the number? That is a familiar question; the Gemara often asks why a number needs to be stated. Anyone can count for themselves. The Alter Rebbe could have begun, “We learned at the end of Yoma: If a person transgressed a positive commandment...” Why does he need to bring “three categories of atonement, with repentance accompanying each one”? Why is the number relevant here? When you look at the Gemara, it does say that, but there is a back-and-forth there. The Gemara begins—if you look at the Gemara in Yoma—Rabbi Masya ben Charash asks Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah; that is how it starts. He asks him, “Is it true that there are four categories of atonement?” And he answers, “No, there are three categories of atonement, with repentance accompanying each one.” That is what happens there. So in the Gemara it makes sense: he thought there were four, and the answer was that there are three. But in Tanya, why say “three categories of atonement” here? The Alter Rebbe does not mention at the outset that there might be four. He does not address that at all. He only states that there are three. So why is it relevant for the Alter Rebbe to say here that there are three categories of atonement? The Rebbe gives a wonderful explanation of this.

18:33 I will just tell you the point briefly. Anyone who wants to can study the sicha inside. It is in Likkutei Sichos, volume 17, Parshas Acharei Mos, but I will only give the point that is relevant to understanding Tanya, because it is also a foundation for understanding all of Igeres Hateshuvah. The Rebbe makes this point: when you look at the Gemara there, it actually lists four things, right? Rabbi Masya ben Charash asks about four categories of atonement, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah tells him there are three, right? But when you actually read the Gemara, he lists four things. What does he say? He says, someone who transgresses a positive commandment. Then he says, someone who transgresses a negative commandment. Then he says, suffering, and sins punishable by kareis or by death at the hands of the court, right? That is what the Alter Rebbe brings here. After that, he writes about desecration of Hashem’s name—a fourth thing. For desecration of Hashem’s name, neither repentance nor Yom Kippur nor suffering suffices; rather, death cleanses, or death atones—I do not remember the wording. Death is necessary. So those are four things. Then the question is: wait, what happened here? There are four. Rabbi Masya ben Charash asks because he heard there are four categories of atonement. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah tells him, no, not four, only three. But when you look at what follows, he lists four things: positive commandments, negative commandments, sins punishable by kareis or by death at the hands of the court, and then desecration of Hashem’s name. So what is going on? The Maharsha asks this question, and his answer is very interesting. Here you see how the Rebbe taught us to look at the Alter Rebbe’s words in Tanya. When you look at the Maharsha, he asks the question and says: What are the three categories of atonement? They are

20:44 negative commandments, sins punishable by kareis or by death at the hands of the court, and desecration of Hashem’s name. Those are the three. A positive commandment does not require atonement. After all, it says that if a person transgressed a positive commandment, he does not move from there before he is forgiven. So all that is needed is repentance. He had asked about four categories of atonement. Rabbi Elazar tells him: No, there are not four kinds of atonement; there are only three. For a positive commandment, there is no further atonement, only repentance. Atonement applies to negative commandments, to sins for which suffering is needed, and to desecration of Hashem’s name. That is why he told him there are only three. In other words, according to the Maharsha, the three are the last three. Transgressing a positive commandment is not one of them. But the Alter Rebbe here disagrees with the Maharsha. The Alter Rebbe writes that there are three categories of atonement, and which three does he bring? Positive commandments, negative commandments, and sins punishable by kareis or by death at the hands of the court. The Alter Rebbe does not bring desecration of Hashem’s name. So you see that the Alter Rebbe learns it the other way around: the first three are the three categories of atonement, while desecration of Hashem’s name is not counted among them. That is why the Alter Rebbe begins with “three categories of atonement”: to emphasize that these are the three—the first three—not desecration of Hashem’s name, which is something else. But that is very nice, a wonderful explanation of how the Alter Rebbe disagrees with the Maharsha about the meaning of the Gemara. The problem is, what does that have to do with Tanya? Tanya is not a commentary on the Gemara. Why is it relevant in Tanya to know that the three categories of atonement are not as the Maharsha understands them, but are the first three? If the Alter Rebbe were writing a commentary on the Talmud, it would be very interesting to see that he disagrees with the Maharsha. But why, here in Igeres Hateshuvah, does the Alter Rebbe need to disagree with the Maharsha and explain that the three categories of atonement are the first three, and not desecration of Hashem’s

23:00 name? Here the Rebbe gives a wonderful explanation. What is really the reasoning behind the disagreement between the Maharsha and the Alter Rebbe? Why does the Maharsha say that the three categories of atonement are the last three, including desecration of Hashem’s name, while the Alter Rebbe holds that they are the first three? The distinction is straightforward. If we are talking about atonement for the soul in Gan Eden above, when the soul is judged in Heaven, then atonement for desecration of Hashem’s name belongs on the list too. A person dies and arrives above, and that is it. Death atones; death makes atonement possible for the desecration of Hashem’s name. So if by atonement you mean atonement for the soul above, for its judgment by Hakadosh Boruch Hu, then desecration of Hashem’s name is one of the categories of atonement. But in Tanya, the Alter Rebbe wants to speak about the avodah of teshuvah as part of a person’s service, not as something that happens in Heaven. The Alter Rebbe wants to explain that atonement does not mean atonement up above in Gan Eden. Atonement is part of the avodah of teshuvah. For teshuvah to be complete, it must also bring about atonement. As the Alter Rebbe will explain in the following chapters, through his teshuvah a person wants to be accepted and beloved as he was before the sin. Ultimately, teshuvah must also include atonement, so that no stain, no blemish remains, and the person is accepted and beloved by Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is part of teshuvah. So once a person has died, atonement for desecration of Hashem’s name no longer belongs to his service of Hashem; he is now a soul without a body. That is why the Alter Rebbe wants to say: Here in Tanya, we want to explain how the avodah of teshuvah is part of a person’s own service, and how it is within a person’s power—because “the matter is very close to you”—to repair all his deeds and attain complete teshuvah here below, as a soul in a body.

25:13 So here we won’t get into desecration of Hashem’s name. Here we’re dealing specifically with the first three, in connection with “For the matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it”—the work of teshuvah. For a positive commandment, we say that once a person does teshuvah, “he does not move from there until he is forgiven.” For a negative commandment, Yom Kippur is also needed. And where suffering is required, it serves to cleanse. For sins punishable by kares or death by the beis din, there is suffering and there are lashes. So here in Tanya, the Alter Rebbe specifically sets out to explain these matters. That is why he is precise: “three categories of atonement”—these three specifically, and not the fourth. And therefore, the Rebbe says, the Alter Rebbe also concludes, “Here ends the wording of the beraisa.” Why does the Alter Rebbe write that? Why is it relevant to say, “Here ends the wording of the beraisa”? On the simple level, it’s because there are several parentheses in the middle, and a person could get confused and not know where the beraisa ends. So he writes, “Here ends the wording of the beraisa.” But the Rebbe says there is also a hint here. The Alter Rebbe writes “the wording of the beraisa” to emphasize that the three categories of atonement end here. What follows, about desecrating Hashem’s name, is no longer part of a person’s own work. Desecrating Hashem’s name cannot be rectified while the soul is in the body. It is a very grave matter, and its rectification comes only afterward. Here, though, we want to explain the matters that depend on a person’s own efforts—“For the matter is very close to you”—something I can tell a person to do. In any case, these are the Rebbe’s words. The Rebbe discusses this at length in the sicha. It’s a wonderful sicha; one needs to study it inside. I just want to make one point: perhaps, based on this sicha and this explanation, we can also understand what the Alter Rebbe intends with all the first parentheses. In the previous class we asked what the Alter Rebbe intends with those first parentheses. Why is it relevant

27:00 here to explain positive and negative commandments, and the apparent contradiction: when does a positive commandment override a negative commandment, and when is it the other way around? What does that have to do with this? So we explained it. The Rebbe also explains that the Alter Rebbe wants to convey the greatness and importance of fulfilling a positive commandment. We need to know that it brings light into the world. It isn’t just a matter of taking care not to make a mess. We spoke about that. But according to this explanation of the Rebbe’s, we can say that all the parentheses are relevant as well. Again, the Alter Rebbe wants to explain what depends on a person’s own efforts. The aspect of teshuvah that depends on a person—what a person needs to do and has in their own hands—can be completed fully. What isn’t in your hands isn’t in your hands. “For the matter is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it.” The Torah comes and tells you: know that “the matter is very close to you.” The work of teshuvah is close to you. There are things that I cannot rectify. They don’t depend on you; they don’t depend on you. May such things not happen. That is what the Alter Rebbe wants to explain here. Regarding a positive commandment, we say that with teshuvah, “he does not move from there until he is forgiven.” But what about the act I didn’t do? I was supposed to fulfill a mitzvah and didn’t. That act cannot be made up; there is no way to rectify it. So in that respect, no—and consequently, that isn’t what is being asked of you, either. What teshuvah asks of you is to rectify the rebellion. That is in your hands, and for a positive commandment it is fully rectified through teshuvah. There is no longer any rebellion, and he is forgiven. Yes, there is still the act you didn’t do. You didn’t

29:06 do it, and that cannot be rectified. So on the one hand, this explains how serious it is and how careful we must be with positive commandments, as the Alter Rebbe says. But on the other hand, when it comes to the work of teshuvah, teshuvah for a positive commandment is complete through that work, through teshuvah. With a negative commandment, you also need to clean away the stain, and teshuvah alone is not enough. So Hakadosh Boruch Hu gave you Yom Kippur, which cleans away the stain. And regarding sins punishable by kares or death by the beis din, suffering is needed. So you are told that, generally speaking, this is not your concern. What is in your hands, you have completely, and you can do it. What isn’t in your hands isn’t in your hands. But of what is in your hands, we say, “For the matter is very close to you.” So for a positive commandment, there is teshuvah. For a negative commandment, there are teshuvah and Yom Kippur. And regarding sins punishable by kares or death by the beis din, there is teshuvah; teshuvah and Yom Kippur hold the punishment in abeyance, and then, if Hakadosh Boruch Hu wills, He will bring suffering to cleanse the person. That’s the general point, to help us understand the plain meaning here.