Tanya Igeres Hateshuvah - Chapter 2 - Part 2

00:00 So we’re in the middle of chapter 2 of Igeres Hateshuvah. The Alter Rebbe is speaking here, and we’re coming to the subject of fasts. The Alter Rebbe says that although we discussed in the first chapter that fasts, self-affliction, and all of that are not mentioned in the Rambam, the Semag, or the works of halachah, that is because none of these things are needed for teshuvah—not only for teshuvah itself, but even for complete teshuvah. Teshuvah, and teshuvah in its completeness, comes through abandoning the sin, which is a matter of accepting the yoke of Heaven, and through confession and asking forgiveness. Fasts and self-affliction, on the other hand, are not connected with that. But then, in chapter 2, he began explaining what is needed for a person to be pleasing and beloved—not merely for no trace of the sin to remain, for him not to receive punishment, and for the blemish to be removed, but for him to be pleasing and beloved again as he was before the sin. For that, there was the burnt offering when the Beis Hamikdash stood. And now that we have no Beis Hamikdash, the Alter Rebbe goes on to explain this in the rest of the chapter. The Alter Rebbe says: “And now that we have no offering to elicit favor from Hashem”—now that the Beis Hamikdash has been destroyed and we have no offerings—“fasting takes the place of an offering.” So there is indeed a special value and purpose to fasting, because here fasting takes the place of an offering, as it says in the Gemara. The Gemara in Berachos says, “May the diminution of my fat and blood be as though I had offered them before You,” and so on. The Gemara in Berachos says that when the Beis Hamikdash stood, if a person wanted to arouse pleasure before Hakadosh Boruch Hu and restore the state he had been in before the sin, as we said, he did so through an offering. The fat and blood of the offering were placed on the altar, and through this, pleasure was aroused before Hakadosh Boruch Hu

02:22 and the person became pleasing and beloved. Now that there are no more offerings, the fat and blood must come from the person himself. “May the diminution of my fat and blood”—taking from the person’s own fat and blood—“be as though I had offered them before You,” and so on. It is explained in several sichos, based on the Ramban, that when the Beis Hamikdash stood and a person brought an offering, he would contemplate the offering and think about himself. With every detail of what was done to the offering, he would think: Really, this is what ought to be done to me. So when he looked at the altar and saw the fat and blood being burned, he would contemplate how the fat represents the richness and pleasure found in worldly things, while the blood represents warmth and passion, and how these need to be burned. They need to be offered to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so that all his pleasure and all his passion will be directed only toward G-dliness. This would bring the person to spiritual closeness, and through that he would cause pleasure Above. Now, after the destruction, in the time of exile, the Gemara says that the actual diminution of the fat and blood of a person’s body accomplishes the same thing as the spiritual service of offerings. So because of this particular point, there is indeed a value to fasting now. “And therefore we find that a number of Tannaim and Amoraim fasted very many fasts over a minor matter.” The Alter Rebbe says that, based on what we have just explained—that fasts are not connected with abandoning sin, but with becoming pleasing and beloved—we can understand why we find so many fasts in the Gemara: “Over a minor matter, they fasted very many fasts.” For example, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. He is now going to give three examples. This is one example. In other words, what is he trying to say? The emphasis is on “a minor matter.”

04:27 In other words, if fasting were connected with teshuvah, it would depend on what kind of sin it was. Would greater sins require fewer fasts? No. The stories he is about to bring about the Tannaim and Amoraim show that they fasted many times even over very minor matters, even very minor prohibitions. That shows that fasting is not connected with atonement. It is connected with becoming pleasing and beloved. And since what the Tannaim sought was to be pleasing and beloved, even the smallest matter could be significant. On the contrary, as it says, the righteous are held accountable even for a hairsbreadth, and so on. That is why they fasted many times even over minor matters: they sought to be pleasing and beloved. That was their goal. So where do we find this? He brings several examples, such as Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who permitted a cow to go out on Shabbos with a strap between its horns. The Gemara in tractate Shabbos tells a story about Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah. What was the dispute about ornaments? There are laws concerning animals—an entire chapter in tractate Shabbos asks, “With what may an animal go out?” With which ornaments, with which items, may an animal go out into the public domain? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah maintained that this strap between its horns was not considered an ornament. The animal could walk around with it in the public domain on Shabbos. The Sages forbade it. The Sages maintained that the animal did not need it; it was not part of the animal, so to speak, and it should be removed. Therefore, the animal was not permitted to carry it on Shabbos. Once, his neighbor’s cow went out. The Gemara tells us—plainly, there was a dispute between Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and the Sages, and the halachah follows the Sages, the majority over the individual.

06:22 So once he saw his neighbor’s cow go out, and he did not protest. It had the strap between its horns, and he said nothing to her and did not object. The Gemara says: “His teeth became dark from fasting.” He fasted so many times afterward, when he regretted what had happened. Why hadn’t he done anything? Why hadn’t he said anything to her? So he fasted many times because he had not upheld the words of his colleagues. The Alter Rebbe says: What were his fasts about? What distressed him? That he had not upheld the words of his colleagues. Here we can see something remarkable about how carefully we need to read the wording of Tanya. There is something tremendous here. We read it quickly and don’t notice it, but there is a remarkable point here. After all, why does the Alter Rebbe bring up this whole matter? He wants to give an example of a minor transgression, and of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, one of the Tannaim, fasting many times over a minor matter. Why does the Alter Rebbe go into so much detail here? There is a remarkable point. On a simple level—and this is also what the commentators say—what was the sin? What was the sin for which he fasted? Seemingly, he fasted because he had failed to fulfill the mitzvah of protesting. There was a dispute between him and the Sages, and the Sages ruled that it was forbidden. So when he saw his neighbor go out with the cow wearing the strap, he had a mitzvah to protest. He should have objected and told her that it was forbidden. By not protesting, he failed to fulfill the mitzvah of protesting. That is one of the mitzvos. He did not do it. So that is why he undertook the fasts.

08:11 But the Alter Rebbe is precise: that is not it. The Alter Rebbe says: Why did he fast? Because he had not upheld the words of his colleagues. That is interesting. In other words, the Alter Rebbe is saying something novel here. What was the issue—that he had not upheld the words of his colleagues? Why does the Alter Rebbe give that particular explanation? In other words, what distressed him, what made him feel bad, and why did he fast? Not because he had failed to protest to her, but because he had not upheld the words of his colleagues. He had an opportunity to show that the halachah followed the Sages, to uphold the words of the Sages, and he did not uphold the words of his colleagues. A negative matter. So the Rebbe offers an insight here. We’ll soon see another point, but first, on the level of nigleh. The Rebbe says that the precision here is this: the Alter Rebbe wants to say that this was a minor matter. If we say that it was because he failed to fulfill the mitzvah of protesting, then it was not a minor matter. The Rebbe discusses this at length in a halachic analysis: What exactly is the status of a person who can protest but does not? Has he violated the mitzvah of protesting, or is he implicated in the particular sin being committed? Here the sin was a violation of Shabbos, so Rabbi Elazar would, as it were, have a share in that violation of Shabbos. Then it would not be a minor matter; it would be serious. The Alter Rebbe holds that this was not the issue here. Why doesn’t the Rebbe explain? I don’t know. We need to check; the Rebbe does not elaborate there or explain what the Alter Rebbe’s proof is. But the Alter Rebbe is precise throughout: there was the sin, but what did he do teshuvah for? For not upholding the words of his colleagues. He did not uphold the words of his colleagues. That is not a Torah prohibition,

09:56 It wasn’t a violation of Shabbos; he simply didn’t do it. There is a mitzvah to uphold the words of the Sages. It isn’t a positive commandment; it falls under the commandment of “Do not deviate,” and he simply didn’t uphold it. He had an opportunity to show support for the words of the Sages, and he didn’t. That’s a minor matter. So because the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize here that these were minor matters, and nevertheless they undertook fasts, he emphasizes that this was the problem—not that he failed to protest, but that he didn’t uphold his colleague’s words. This needs a little more explanation, but the Rebbe doesn’t explain further. Still, you can see how precise the details in Tanya are. Then he continues: “And likewise Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, ‘I am ashamed of your words, Beis Shammai,’” and whose teeth darkened from fasting. There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua. In a dispute among the Sages, Beis Shammai said something that Rabbi Yehoshua didn’t accept; he didn’t like it. Rabbi Yehoshua—that is, the Tanna Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya—said to them, “I am ashamed of your words.” Afterward, he regretted it. Why had he spoken dismissively? Why had he spoken in an unkind way? So his teeth darkened from fasting. And Rav Huna: once the strap of his tefillin turned over, and he undertook forty fasts over it. That’s another story. What happened with Rav Huna? Once, his strap turned over, and he walked around with it the wrong way up. So he undertook many fasts, and so on. We have three examples here. There is a very interesting sicha from the Rebbe in which the Rebbe examines why he brings three examples, and why in this order. It doesn’t seem to follow the chronological order of the Tannaim. Seemingly, Rabbi Yehoshua

11:54 ben Chananya was older; he lived earlier. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya was even one of the Levi’im in the time of the Beis Hamikdash. He was a colleague of Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenus. Both were students of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, at the time of the destruction. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, on the other hand, was the nasi after the destruction. That’s the story of “I am like a man of seventy years”—that was a generation later. In the Pesach Haggadah, it says, “An incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.” He comes third chronologically, but here the Alter Rebbe wrote it the other way around: first Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, then Rabbi Yehoshua, and then Rav Huna. Why these three? Why bring three examples at all, and why in this order? The Rebbe says something very interesting: there is a particular order here, in two respects. First, he presents thought, speech, and action. He wants to give an example of a minor matter in each of the three garments. The first example concerns thought. He didn’t protest; he didn’t do anything or say anything. But the fact that he didn’t uphold those words—that failure showed a dismissive attitude in his thoughts, as though he didn’t consider them important. So that was a failing in thought. “I am ashamed” was in speech: he said something unkind to them. And the strap turning over involved action. Minor matters, but in all three garments. That’s the order. Then the Rebbe gives another explanation: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a Kohen. As is known, he was a descendant of Ezra the Scribe; he was one of the Kohanim. Rabbi Yehoshua was a Levi. The Gemara also says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben—

13:43 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya was among those who stood guard in the Beis Hamikdash; he was a Levi. And Rav Huna was a Yisroel. The Rebbe also brings proof from the Gemara that Rav Huna was a Yisroel. So the order is Kohen, Levi, Yisroel. According to Kabbalah, too, there is a connection: Kohanim are associated with thought, Levi’im with speech, and Yisroelim with action. There is a spiritual connection between these matters as well. So you can see how precise it is that the Alter Rebbe chose three examples. He wants to say that in every form—whether in matters of thought, speech, or action—each has its own particular aspect. On the one hand, action is more visible, more substantial. On the other hand, thought is a subtler garment, so in that respect the failing there is more significant. In any case, the Rebbe addresses all three—thought, speech, and action—and shows that they undertook many fasts to correct these matters. That’s another point from the Rebbe. Very interesting. There is another detail, too: why forty fasts? The Rebbe asks, why precisely forty fasts? What is the significance of forty, of that particular number of fasts? There is a wonderful sicha from the Rebbe about it—a long, profound sicha—but I’ll mention just the main point. This was in 5739, the fortieth year. That was when the Rebbe began the whole major focus on Igeres Hateshuvah. Everyone knows that in 5739, the Rebbe began speaking about Igeres Hateshuvah again and again. At every farbrengen, the Rebbe explained a passage from Igeres Hateshuvah. It was also forty years since the Rebbe’s wedding, and the Rebbe spoke at length about the significance of forty, based on this phrase.

15:25 Rav Huna fasted forty fasts. What is the significance of forty fasts? The Rebbe cites what is written in the sefarim: forty fasts are, in principle, a general number for the Jewish people. We’ll soon see that there are different numbers for different sins, but forty is the standard number, the general number. Why specifically forty fasts? The point the Rebbe makes is fundamental to the whole of Igeres Hateshuvah: teshuvah means that a person becomes a new being. That is the essence of teshuvah. Through teshuvah, a person becomes an entirely new person. That is what defines teshuvah. As the Rambam puts it in Hilchos Teshuvah: “I am another person, and I am not the same person who did those deeds.” A completely different person. He changes his name; he becomes a different person. That is the whole work of teshuvah. Now, as is known, when it comes to the formation of a new being—a fetus—there is a period of forty days. In halachah, during the first forty days of a fetus’s formation, one may still pray for it to change from male to female. In other words, the concept is that formation takes place over forty days. That is when its essential nature takes shape. Afterward come nine months in which the hair, nails, and organs develop, but the essence of the fetus takes shape in forty days. This also explains why Moshe Rabbeinu was on the mountain for forty days; why we say that there are forty days of teshuvah from Rosh Chodesh Elul until Yom Kippur; and why a mikveh must contain forty se’ah. We see the number forty in many contexts—in Torah, in prayer, and in the forty days that Moshe Rabbeinu prayed. The same applies here, regarding

17:15 of fasts. Since fasting is connected with teshuvah, there is also a reason for the specific number forty: it is the number associated with becoming a new person. He also brings—it's written in the Kabbalistic works—that a three-day fast is equivalent to forty days of fasting. That is why Esther asked them to fast for three days. You can see how even things mentioned in passing in Tanya have depth to them. The Alter Rebbe continues: “And this is what the Arizal taught his students.” The Alter Rebbe says that, on this basis, we can also understand why the Arizal taught his students, according to the wisdom of Kabbalah, the number of fasts for various transgressions and sins, even those that do not carry kareis or death at the hands of Heaven. We can understand why, when the Arizal taught the subject of fasts according to Kabbalah, he taught them all kinds of fasts even for transgressions that do not carry kareis at the hands of Heaven, as we said earlier. With kareis at the hands of Heaven, there is the matter of [unclear]; there is the matter of suffering, although we said that a person should not seek out suffering. So when the Arizal said to undertake fasts even for matters that do not carry kareis, clearly this is something entirely different. That other matter is something that comes upon a person on its own, as we said—suffering associated with kareis and death imposed by beis din. Here we are talking about something else: being pleasing and beloved, the completion of teshuvah. After completing teshuvah, a person wants to rise to a higher level, to be pleasing and beloved. That is why the Alter Rebbe is precise in writing that the Arizal taught this to his students, according to the wisdom of Kabbalah. It is something particular, not something equally suited to everyone. When the Arizal taught his students the wisdom of

19:09 Kabbalah, he gave them guidance in teshuvah on a higher level, where teshuvah is meant to make a person pleasing and beloved, at a higher level of connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. For example, 151 fasts for anger, and so on. Here, too, the Alter Rebbe gives three examples. One is anger. The Kabbalistic works say that when a person gets angry, he should undertake 151 fasts. Why 151? Because the Hebrew word for anger has a numerical value of 150, and with the kollel—the additional one for the word as a whole—it becomes 151. What is the point of the kollel? It means he has to correct not only the details but also the general point here. So that is 151 fasts. This is the worst of them: anger has more fasts than even other transgressions. Why? Because according to Kabbalah, anger is an extremely serious sin. This is also reflected in the revealed teachings. We see that the Rambam writes that when it comes to anger, one should not lean right or left; one has to be careful of anger. In fact, the Rambam later says one must go to the opposite extreme. But in Kabbalah it goes even further. The Zohar says extremely severe things about it: when a person becomes angry, his soul leaves him; he burns his soul. Very, very harsh words are written about anger. It is a trait that burns the body. It penetrates to the deepest place, and therefore the rectifications for it are very, very demanding. So he said 151 for anger, and even for a rabbinic prohibition such as ordinary non-Jewish wine. That is not wine used for idolatry; it is ordinary non-Jewish wine, which is prohibited by rabbinic law. If a person drank such wine, the prescribed number is 73 fasts. What is the significance of 73 fasts? It is also written that the Hebrew word for wine has a numerical value of seventy, and adding its three letters brings it to 73.

21:06 All these things have explanations according to Kabbalah—why in one case the kollel adds only one for the word as a whole, and in another it also counts the letters. There are explanations for these matters, and so on. And likewise, the Arizal writes that for neglecting a positive rabbinic mitzvah, such as prayer, there are 61 fasts, and so on. Why 61 fasts? It is written that, according to Kabbalah, prayer is connected with “I.” “And I am prayer.” We say, “I am prayer” [unclear], or “I am prayer.” In Psalm 109, the wording is “And I am prayer.” The word “I” is used in connection with prayer. Its numerical value in Hebrew is 61, corresponding to the sefirah of malchus, which is the source of prayer. Therefore, when a person neglects a prayer, he must fast 61 times, the numerical value of “I.” Now, the Alter Rebbe says here that prayer is rabbinic. The Rebbe points out that we cannot infer from this that the Alter Rebbe intends to take a position against the Rambam by saying that prayer is rabbinic. The Ramban, or the Ran and the Rosh, hold that prayer is rabbinic. The Rebbe says we cannot necessarily infer that the Alter Rebbe means to reject the Rambam. Here he is referring to an individual prayer, not prayer in general. He is talking about someone who missed Minchah or Maariv. In any event, even the Rambam holds that if someone fails to recite one particular prayer, that prayer is a rabbinic obligation. The mitzvah of prayer in general is from the Torah, but here the person missed one prayer. So that is consistent with the Rambam. In practice, the Alter Rebbe rules in halachah that prayer is rabbinic, but in Tanya we see that, in Likkutei Amarim, the Alter Rebbe says prayer is from the Torah. In Likkutei Amarim, chapter 53, the Alter Rebbe explicitly says prayer is from the Torah. In other words, the different positions are used in discussing this. The Rebbe wants to say: do not take

23:02 this as proof that the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize that prayer is rabbinic rather than from the Torah. He means the prescribed text of prayer. This particular prayer is rabbinic. Even according to the Rambam, it is rabbinic. The Alter Rebbe concludes: “In general, fasting is a wondrous means of arousing the Supreme Will, blessed be He, like a sacrifice, of which it is said, ‘a pleasing aroma to Hashem.’” This is another point the Alter Rebbe adds here: fasting is a wondrous means of arousing the Supreme Will. That is something else. Until now, the Alter Rebbe spoke about fasting as a way of giving pleasure to Hashem, so that a person can be pleasing and beloved as he was before the sin. That is one aspect of the service of teshuvah, but at a higher level of teshuvah. After completing teshuvah, a person wants to reach a higher place. Now the Alter Rebbe concludes the chapter by saying: Know that, in general, there is another aspect to fasting. Fasting is a wondrous means of arousing the Supreme Will, as it says in Yeshayahu: “Is this what you call a fast, and a day of favor to Hashem?” This implies that a fast that is pleasing to Him is, at any rate, a day of favor. So this is what we have learned in these two chapters. On the one hand, the Alter Rebbe rules out fasting as part of teshuvah itself, and certainly as a means of atonement and cleansing from sins. In other words, it is not part of the essence of teshuvah. On the other hand, fasting does have a place for three reasons. At the end of chapter 1, he spoke about fasts as a form of prayer, asking Hakadosh Boruch Hu for the three things he mentioned there—yes, fasts as prayer. In chapter 2, he spoke about another kind of fasting: becoming pleasing and beloved after teshuvah. And at the end of chapter 2, he adds that fasting also has value as a wondrous means

24:50 of arousing favor. On fast days there is a time of Supreme favor. A fast is an auspicious day, a day of favor to Hashem, when through fasting one can accomplish great and extraordinary things precisely because it is a day of favor to Hashem.