Likkutei Amarim Chapter 30 - Part 5

00:00 We’re also up to chapter 30 here, near the top of page 39. The Alter Rebbe is speaking here about the soul-searching a beinoni must do in order to “be humble before every person,” by reflecting on “Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place.” The lowest of the low may be the way he is because of the places he finds himself in—he is in a place where there is a great deal of temptation from the yetzer hara—and also because of the state of his soul. His inner state is such that he has a burning fire; his yetzer burns like a blazing flame. That is the situation of the lowest of the low. Nevertheless, Hakadosh Boruch Hu demands that he overcome it through fear of Heaven, with the fear of Hashem before his eyes, and prevail over sin. How much more so is the beinoni required, in his own areas, to put in great and tremendous effort, just as the lowest of the low is required to do in matters of turning away from evil. The beinoni is required to do the same in matters of doing good. That is, look: the Alter Rebbe gives examples from the work of prayer, Torah study, and the like—several examples of the great and tremendous effort required, comparable to what is demanded of the lowest of the low in overcoming his yetzer hara. But the question arises: these are two completely different things. For the lowest of the low, we are talking about transgressions and desires. He is required to wage a great and tremendous battle over matters of turning away from evil. With the beinoni, by contrast, we are talking about matters that are already within doing good—doing good itself: learning with more vitality, with more eagerness. How can we compare them as though they were on the same level, the same plane? So the Alter Rebbe now comes to explain this in two exceptionally wonderful lines that are very, very fundamental. What does the Alter Rebbe say? The Alter Rebbe says: “What difference is there to me between turning

02:06 away from evil and doing good?” In one case, the lowest of the low is required to wage his battle over turning away from evil; in the other, the beinoni is required to wage his battle over doing good. He says: Don’t look at it that way. What difference does it make to me whether it is turning away from evil or doing good? “It is all the command of the holy King, the One and Only, blessed be He.” After all, what we are discussing here—both turning away from evil and doing good—is the command of the holy King, the One and Only, blessed be He. In other words, the Alter Rebbe is laying down a principle here, a central principle in the teachings of Chassidus and in Chassidus itself. When we speak about mitzvos, we generally speak of various distinctions among them. The broad division is between turning away from evil and doing good. More specifically, there is also the division into testimonies, statutes, and ordinances, and the division into lighter and more severe mitzvos, as discussed in many places. But, says the Alter Rebbe, there is an underlying basis: the essential nature of all mitzvos is that they are commands of the holy King, the One and Only, blessed be He. There is a way to look at mitzvos and see not the distinctions between them but the point they all share. If you look at mitzvos in terms of reason and understanding, each mitzvah has its own particular aspect. There are mitzvos of one kind and mitzvos of another. But if you look at mitzvos from the standpoint that a mitzvah is the King’s command—every word here adds another layer of depth. Why do we say that turning away from evil and doing good must be exactly equal? Because if you look at a mitzvah as the King’s command, then, as far as a king is concerned, there is no difference. We know that Chassidus explains that with a king, the point is kabbolas ol. If we are speaking about a teacher and a student, then there is understanding. When we speak

04:05 about a king, it is a command: what the king says. So what difference does it make whether it is something great or something small? In the very nature of kingship, there is no such concept as small or great. We say that one who rebels against the monarchy is liable to death. With a king, even the smallest act of defiance is rebellion against the monarchy. Because, by the very definition of a king, every command is fundamental; every command carries the full authority of the king. And if you defy it, that is rebellion against the monarchy. So from the standpoint of the King, there is no difference between turning away from evil and doing good. The Alter Rebbe adds another point. He does not simply say “the King”; he says “the holy King.” In other words, Chassidus explains that even within kingship there are levels. There is kingship as it is more invested in a relationship with the people, where there are indeed distinctions; and there is the holy King—kingship in its exalted state. As explained in the Rosh Hashanah maamarim in the series of 5666 and in several other places, there is exaltedness over a people and there is intrinsic exaltedness. Several levels are discussed with regard to kingship. So here we do not simply say “the King”; we say “the holy King”—the King in His intrinsic exaltedness. From that standpoint, even more so, what difference is there between turning away from evil and doing good? From the standpoint of kingship as it is invested in a relationship with the people, there may be closeness and distance, things of greater and lesser importance. But from the standpoint of the holy King, it is all the more the same thing, the same essential point. And now the Alter Rebbe adds still more. It is not only the command of the holy King, but the command of “the holy King, the One and Only, blessed be He.” The idea of “the One and Only” is this: we are speaking about the King. So He is not simply a king, but

05:53 the holy King. And beyond that, He is the One and Only. What is the idea of “the One and Only”? We are speaking about Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Hakadosh Boruch Hu is One and Only, and the commands come from there. At the level of “One and Only,” division is not possible. So this expresses the absence of division even more strongly. It is not only that these are the King’s commands, and not only that they are the holy King’s commands. We are speaking of a King who is the One and Only. Chassidus explains the difference between “one” and “one and only.” “One” can contain individual parts: the parts are united, but one can still speak of several parts coming together. “One and only” means utter simplicity, beyond individual parts. So Hakadosh Boruch Hu is the One and Only, and the commands come from that level. Since the commands come from the level of the One and Only, just as division is not possible in Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself at that level—“one and only” allows for no distinctions or divisions—so too, no division is possible among the commands of the King who is the One and Only. These are explanations, each deeper than the last. What does this lead us to say here? When you connect to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, who is the holy King, the One and Only, blessed be He, the whole distinction between turning away from evil and doing good no longer applies. Therefore, the very same demand made of the lowest of the low in his own areas—that in turning away from evil he wage a great and tremendous battle to overcome his yetzer—is made of a person in matters of doing good. He must wage a great and tremendous battle in the same way, with the same force, because what difference is there between turning away from evil and doing good? And the same applies to other mitzvos, particularly monetary matters, such as the work of tzedakah and the like. The Alter Rebbe says: Until now, he gave examples from Torah and avodah—Torah study and prayer. Now he brings another example as well.

07:52 From the third column: in other mitzvos, particularly matters involving money, such as the service of tzedakah and the like. There, too, there is a great and intense struggle in the service of tzedakah. The Rebbe explains in Igeres Hakodesh, section 12, that with tzedakah there is “the act of tzedakah” and there is “the service of tzedakah.” The act of tzedakah is giving in accordance with one’s nature, while the service of tzedakah is when a person exerts himself against his nature. As the Alter Rebbe explains in chapter 12 of Igeres Hakodesh—and the Rebbe brings this in the maamar Baal Yaakov[?], chapter 7—there must be great and intense effort in giving tzedakah against one’s nature. So this is what the Alter Rebbe is saying: even in tzedakah, we can find in the beinoni’s service the tremendous effort required in mitzvos, particularly in matters involving money. The Alter Rebbe continues: Until now, the Alter Rebbe has given examples of “do good” in the three areas of Torah, avodah, and acts of kindness. Now the Alter Rebbe goes on to say: You specifically want examples of “turn away from evil”? I can give you examples there too. We are discussing the fact that effort and exertion are demanded of the beinoni, and the truth is that this applies not only to doing good. Even when it comes to turning away from evil, we can find areas where the beinoni has work to do. So now the Alter Rebbe gives several examples concerning turning away from evil, even in a beinoni. The Alter Rebbe says: “And even with regard to ‘turn away from evil,’ every discerning person can find within himself that he does not turn away from evil completely, in every respect.” Even when it comes to turning away from evil, a discerning person—meaning someone who looks into things deeply—can find that he is lacking there too. Of course, he is a beinoni, so it is not easy to find

09:56 transgressions: he has no overt transgressions in thought, speech, or action. But there is also evil on a subtle level. If you look closely, you can find that even the beinoni is lacking in matters of turning away from evil. “That he does not turn away from evil completely, in every respect, in situations that require an intense struggle of the kind described above.” Sometimes even a beinoni needs a struggle of that intensity when it comes to turning away from evil, “or even less than that.” Sometimes the struggle need not be so difficult; it can be less intense, and the beinoni may still be lacking. The Alter Rebbe now gives examples of things a beinoni may need to correct in turning away from evil. “For example, stopping in the middle of an enjoyable conversation.” The Rebbe gives an interesting example: you are in the middle of saying something interesting. It is not forbidden; it is something permitted, even for a beinoni. He is in the middle of saying something, and he stops speaking midway through. He practices that kind of iskafya. It is hard. You are in the middle of sharing a vort, something interesting, and you want to continue the conversation, but you hold yourself back. That is turning away from evil—not in an overt sense, of course, but it is still an example. “Or telling a story that reflects poorly on another person.” Sometimes telling such a story is an actual transgression. But in a moment the Alter Rebbe will say: No, we are not talking about a situation where it is a transgression. Sometimes one can say something that reflects poorly on another person without it being a transgression. Even then, one should stop. “Telling a story that reflects poorly on another person, even if the criticism is very slight, and even if it is true.” A beinoni might tell something very slightly unflattering, and it might even be true. Why does he do it? “Even in order to clear himself.” He is not doing it because

11:53 he wants to speak badly of someone else, but to justify himself. Someone suspects him of something, and he wants to clear himself of the accusation, so he says that so-and-so gave it to him. We are not talking about something bad or forbidden, some instance of lashon hara or a desecration. No. He is simply clearing himself by telling what happened. And the Alter Rebbe brings an example of such an incident: “As is known from the case in which Rabbi Shimon said to his father, Rabbeinu HaKadosh…” It is known that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi had three sons. One of them was named Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara at the end of Kesubos discusses this. This particular passage is in Bava Basra: Rabbi Shimon said to his father, Rabbeinu HaKadosh, “I did not write it; Yehudah Chayata wrote it.” He had brought a get. The get had been made in an unusual way. The Gemara in Bava Basra, toward the end of Bava Basra, discusses a plain get; there are various kinds of gittin. There it speaks about a particular kind of get made with stitching. In short, it was a complicated get. They brought it to Rabbeinu HaKadosh, and he was upset: Why bring this? Why make such a complicated get? He did not like the way it had been prepared. So Rabbi Shimon, the son who had brought the get, explained where it had come from. It was not an invalid get; no sin had been committed. He just wanted to explain the get’s history. He told his father, “I did not write this get. Yehudah Chayata wrote it.” Yehudah Chayata was one of the Tannaim. Presumably his name was Yehudah Chayata—chayata means tailor, so presumably he was a tailor. In any case, he wrote the get, and Rabbi Shimon said that he had written it. And the Gemara says that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi

13:37 told him, “Keep away from lashon hara.” See the Gemara there, at the beginning of chapter 10 of Bava Basra. The Gra points out: Why does the Alter Rebbe write “see there”? Because there is a novel point in the Gemara. If you look at it, you see that this applies even when he did not mean to embarrass him. In short, the Gemara indicates that this is something extremely subtle. The Rashbam indicates that he acted with good intentions. Nevertheless, because Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi saw in it a trace of lashon hara, however subtle, he rebuked him: “Keep away from lashon hara.” So the Alter Rebbe brings this example to illustrate lashon hara on the subtlest level—something a person can find within himself as well. Incidentally, the Rebbe makes a very interesting observation about the words “in every respect.” “He does not turn away from evil completely, in every respect.” What is the significance of that expression? It appears in bentching. But why does the Alter Rebbe use it? The Alter Rebbe does not choose expressions just for their flourish. Why say that he does not turn away from evil completely, “in every respect”? The Rebbe says that the expression refers to the Patriarchs—Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. It appears in bentching. The Gemara in the first chapter of Bava Basra says that there were three whom Hakadosh Boruch Hu gave a taste of the World to Come in this world. These were the Patriarchs, to whom He gave “bakol, mikol, kol.” Of Avraham it says, “And Hashem blessed Avraham with everything”; of Yitzchak it says, “And I ate of everything,” referring to the food brought to him in Parshas Toldos; and of Yaakov it says, “I have everything.” So “bakol, mikol, kol” refers to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and all of this

15:31 This refers to completeness. All of Gan Eden is called “kol,” because “everything in heaven and on earth” refers to the revelations of Gan Eden. So they already had that in this world. What does this have to do with our discussion? The Rebbe explains that, in one’s avodah, every person must have the completeness of all three approaches. [unclear] Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Every Jew must have all three. In this world, these are, generally speaking, the three approaches the Rebbe discussed earlier: Torah, avodah, and acts of kindness. And here, notice how precise the wording is. Look at the example the Alter Rebbe gives immediately afterward: stopping in the middle of a pleasant conversation. Pleasant conversation is the approach of kindness, associated with Avraham Avinu. That was Avraham’s way. Then there is speaking disparagingly of someone: that is gevurah, Yitzchak’s approach. And afterward he writes, “even if it is true.” Truth is Yaakov: “Grant truth to Yaakov.” So the Alter Rebbe’s wording brings in precisely three things: Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. The Alter Rebbe is hinting that a person must be expected to attain completeness in his avodah in all three approaches. That is why he says “bakol, mikol, kol.” If he is lacking in one of them—whether in the aspect of Avraham, Yitzchak, or Yaakov—that is what it means that he has not completely turned away from evil in all three. In any case, the Rebbe concludes by quoting: “And similarly, many things that are very common, particularly regarding sanctifying oneself in what is permitted to you, which is a Torah obligation, as it is written, ‘And you shall sanctify yourselves,’ etc. And the words of the Sages are more stringent than the words of the Torah,” and so on. These are the Alter Rebbe’s various examples of how even a beinoni can have matters that need correction, matters he needs to work on. Accordingly, a person must take stock of himself: Is he doing his avodah with tremendous effort, as tremendous effort is demanded of each and every person?

17:34 “But all these and the like are among the sins a person tramples underfoot, and they have also come to seem permissible to him because he transgressed and repeated the transgression,” and so on. What happens is that people do not take these things seriously. They are sins a person tramples underfoot; and because he has transgressed and repeated the transgression, they have come to seem permissible to him. That is why a person can stumble in these matters. We will stop here, though this is not yet the end of the discussion. With Hashem’s help, in the next class we will discuss how the Alter Rebbe concludes: why a beinoni must be humble in spirit even before lesser sinners. That is how the Alter Rebbe ends the chapter.