Explaining the concept of punishments as explained in Tanya | Chapter 4, Part 3

00:01 We’re in the middle of chapter 4 of Igeres Hateshuvah, at the line beginning “But teshuvah ila’ah,” and so on. This is where we’re holding. The Alter Rebbe began by asking several questions: What is teshuvah tata’ah, the lower level of teshuvah? What is teshuvah ila’ah, the higher level? What are the lower hei and the higher hei? And then there’s the whole question of why we sometimes say that teshuvah does not help for a particular sin—meaning that teshuvah tata’ah does not help, and teshuvah ila’ah is needed. What does that mean? After all, we’re talking about teshuvah from the outset. “Now, to understand all the above, at least in some small measure”—to understand what we’ve asked. “In some small measure,” or, as the Rebbe points out, the Hebrew uses two expressions: one means small in quantity, and the other means slight in quality. In other words, compared with everything that could be explained about teshuvah, what’s explained here in Tanya is only a small measure. In any case, “we must first explain what is stated in Scripture.” So, to understand the whole subject of teshuvah, the Alter Rebbe begins with an introduction. It’s a fundamental introduction to understanding what a neshamah is at all: what a Jew is, and what a Jew’s connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu is. That is what the Alter Rebbe will explain in chapter 4—the connection of a Jew, of the neshamah, with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. On that basis, we’ll also be able to understand the gravity of sin and transgression: what happens, what damage is done by sin and transgression. And then we’ll also be able to understand what teshuvah is and what it accomplishes—the idea of tashuv hei, “returning the hei.” We’ll see that tashuv hei, the lower hei and the higher hei, are not just Kabbalistic terms, but something central and fundamental to restoring a Jew’s connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This is one of the fundamental explanations we find in Igeres Hateshuvah. The depth of Igeres

02:11 Hateshuvah is that, to understand teshuvah in depth, we first have to understand a Jew’s essential connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Only then can we understand the depth of teshuvah. That is what the Alter Rebbe now begins to clarify in this chapter. So: “Now, to understand all the above, at least in some small measure, we must first explain what is stated in Scripture and in the words of our Sages regarding kareis and death at the hands of Heaven.” Among the punishments prescribed by Torah law are kareis and death at the hands of Heaven. One who commits a sin punishable by kareis suffers actual death before the age of fifty. That’s how it’s explained in the Gemara. A person who violated a prohibition punishable by kareis would actually die before fifty. And death at the hands of Heaven means actual death before the age of sixty. What is the Alter Rebbe emphasizing with the word “actual”? Why stress “actual”? As the Rebbe explains in his commentary on this, the Rishonim—the Ramban and Tosafos—disagree about what kareis and death at the hands of Heaven mean. Some say they do not necessarily mean physical death in the literal sense. Kareis can also mean the cutting off of the soul—a spiritual punishment of the neshamah. But according to Tosafos, as the Rebbe cites in several places, it means actual death, literally. That is the Alter Rebbe’s point: kareis and death at the hands of Heaven also had a literal effect on the physical body. With kareis, the punishment was actual death before fifty; with death at the hands of Heaven, it was actual death before sixty. The Alter Rebbe brings proof that this meant actual death: Hananiah ben Azur, the prophet mentioned in Yirmiyahu. Where do we see that it was actual death? From the story of Hananiah ben Azur in Yirmiyahu. Why is the Rebbe so attentive to this wording? There’s a wonderful sicha of the Rebbe on this line, in Likkutei Sichos, volume 9,

04:12 Parshas Shoftim. The Rebbe explains beautifully how every word of the Alter Rebbe is precise. There’s great depth in these words. We know the story of Hananiah ben Azur from the Book of Yirmiyahu. This happened in Yirmiyahu’s time. Yirmiyahu was the prophet who warned of the destruction. He came and told the Jewish people that the Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed, and he warned them so that they would do teshuvah and the destruction could be averted. Then there was a Jew named Hananiah ben Azur. He was, of course, a false prophet, and he said it simply wasn’t true. He claimed to have received a prophecy from Hakadosh Boruch Hu saying the opposite: there would be no destruction. Not only that, but all the vessels Nevuchadnetzar had taken would come back. Some things had already been taken—the exile had already begun, with Yechonyah and so on, a few years earlier. He said that everything would be returned: “In two years you’ll see that all the vessels, everything, will come back.” Yirmiyahu the prophet told him that he was a false prophet and that this wasn’t going to happen. There was a dispute between Yirmiyahu and Hananiah ben Azur. So Hananiah ben Azur was a false prophet. The Alter Rebbe mentions Hananiah ben Azur, the prophet in Yirmiyahu. What happened to him? The verse in Tanach says, “And he died that year.” He did not live out that year. Yirmiyahu had told him that this would be the sign that he was a false prophet, and so on. There are some very big questions here. I’m not going to go into the whole sicha now; you have to study it inside. It’s a subject of its own, and it’s wonderful to see how every letter of the Alter Rebbe is precise. It’s one of the wonders of Torah, the way the Rebbe sees both nigleh and Chassidus. Just one point: the straightforward question is that a false prophet is not

06:17 punished with death at the hands of Heaven; his punishment is death by strangulation. So why does the Alter Rebbe bring him as proof here? He’s talking about death at the hands of Heaven and kareis—why bring proof from Hananiah ben Azur? The point the Rebbe demonstrates is that Hananiah ben Azur’s punishment was... In fact, he had originally been a true prophet. He was a true prophet at first, and later became a false prophet. That’s precisely why the Jewish people believed him. Since he was originally a true prophet, he was actually liable to death at the hands of Heaven on another count, for being a prophet who withheld his prophecy. I don’t remember exactly, or something like that. In other words, he was a prophet, and he had already incurred death at the hands of Heaven. Wait—it’s in the Yerushalmi. Anyway. So the Alter Rebbe’s proof here is not about the ages of fifty or sixty. There’s no proof of that at all. Who says he was fifty or sixty? Tanach doesn’t say how old he was; it says he died that year. The proof the Rebbe draws from Hananiah ben Azur is only that it was actual death. Since there is a disagreement over whether death at the hands of Heaven means actual death or spiritual death, the story of Hananiah ben Azur shows that it was actual death, death in the literal sense. That’s the point. In short, there’s a long sicha. Anyone who wants to can study it inside, in Likkutei Sichos, volume 9, Parshas Shoftim. “And sometimes, even in the case of death at the hands of Heaven, punishment is exacted immediately, as we find with Er and Onan.” Now the parenthetical remark also makes sense in light of the Rebbe’s explanation. We can understand why the Alter Rebbe includes it. And according to... At first glance, it isn’t clear what the Alter Rebbe wants

08:06 To say. He said fifty years, sixty years. Then he says that sometimes, even with death at the hands of Heaven, punishment comes immediately, as we find with Er and Onan: it does not wait fifty or sixty years. Er and Onan committed the sin of wasting seed, and they died immediately. Now, what does the Alter Rebbe mean by bringing this up? The Rebbe says that this, too, continues the earlier explanation. Chananiah ben Azzur was liable to death at the hands of Heaven—actual death. The question is why he died that same year. Tanach emphasizes, “within the year”: he died that year. Why emphasize “within the year”? Shouldn’t it have waited fifty or sixty years? That is the question. What is the significance of Tanach’s wording? So the Alter Rebbe says: sometimes, even when the punishment is death at the hands of Heaven, although it generally comes at fifty or sixty years, Hakadosh Boruch Hu punishes immediately. Similarly, when someone is liable to kareis, He sometimes punishes immediately. As we see with Er and Onan, Hakadosh Boruch Hu did not wait until they were fifty or sixty; they died right afterward. And more than that. The Alter Rebbe goes on. In any case, what is the point? What do we see? We see that for sins punishable by kareis or death at the hands of Heaven, the punishment was actual death. The Alter Rebbe asks: “Yet in every generation we find many who are liable to kareis or death at the hands of Heaven, and they live long lives, with their years passing pleasantly.” Seemingly, we see that this did not always happen. We see many people liable to kareis or death at the hands of Heaven who nevertheless live well past sixty or seventy, and their years pass pleasantly. Here, too, why the precise wording “their years passing pleasantly”? Why does the Alter Rebbe say that? He is making a precise point. The Rebbe explains that one might answer: “A poor person is considered as dead.”

10:14 Such a person has not literally died, but since “a poor person is considered as dead,” the various hardships Hakadosh Boruch Hu brings upon them could be considered like the suffering of death. That would be the explanation: they did not literally die, but they suffered as though they had; a poor person is considered as dead. So the Alter Rebbe says no: we see people liable to kareis and death at the hands of Heaven who not only live long lives, but live long lives pleasantly. They live good, happy lives, without... So how do we explain this? What is the deeper question the Alter Rebbe is asking here? What is he trying to establish with this question? It sounds like a question for Tractate Sanhedrin or Tractate Kerisos—a complicated question for Tractate Kerisos. [unclear] What is the Alter Rebbe’s question here in Tanya? Why does he bring a question about kareis into the middle of Tanya—why these people remain alive? What exactly troubles him? As we will see, here too the Rebbe offers a wonderful explanation of this whole passage in Tanya. In fact, this is not a question only about kareis and death at the hands of Heaven. It applies to all... to those liable to the four forms of execution by beis din as well. The same question could be asked there. The Gemara says that even though the Sanhedrin was abolished and the four forms of execution by beis din are no longer administered, the law of those four forms of execution still applies. Hakadosh Boruch Hu... There are no longer executions by beis din, but from Above there are still stoning, burning, the sword, and strangulation—the four forms of execution by beis din, as the Gemara states in several places. And there, too, we can ask the same question: there are Jews who committed offenses punishable by...

12:11 Kareis—by the four forms of execution by beis din, and they, too, lived long lives, with their years passing pleasantly. Why doesn’t the Alter Rebbe ask about them? In fact, Tosafos does ask this question, and it is striking that Tosafos asks it about the four forms of execution by beis din, but not about kareis and death at the hands of Heaven. With the Alter Rebbe it is the reverse: he asks about kareis and death at the hands of Heaven, but not about execution by beis din. That is also interesting. In short, the Rebbe explains here that there is a general distinction between the four forms of execution by beis din and kareis and death at the hands of Heaven. When we speak about the Torah’s punishments, it is known that there are two kinds. Some punishments are called imposed punishments, and others are natural consequences. That is, some punishments follow naturally from the sin. Take a physical example: parents keep a small child from touching fire. What do they tell him? “If you touch the fire, you’ll get burned.” That is a punishment, but a natural one. It is the consequence: touch something dangerous and you will be harmed. The harm follows naturally from it. But suppose a child misbehaves and talks back to his parents. So the parents tell him, “Today you won’t get a treat,” or, “Today you’ll stand in the corner.” What kind of punishment is that? It is not a natural consequence. There is no direct connection between what he did and the punishment; they are giving him something that will upset him. Everyone else got a treat and he did not, so that distress is his punishment. Thus there are two kinds of punishment: natural consequences and imposed punishments. That is what they are called in the terminology of works of Jewish philosophy. The same applies to punishments from Above. The distinction between the four...

14:15 Forms of execution by beis din and kareis concerns spiritual punishments. Punishments from Above are natural consequences. Death at the hands of Heaven and kareis are not imposed punishments; they are natural consequences. In other words, a Jew commits a sin. That sin damages his soul, and the damage to his soul causes a severance, a separation from G-dliness. The loss of life follows from that. He may still be able to live for some reason—we will see later why—but at a certain point he no longer has life, because that is the natural consequence of the sin itself. The four forms of execution by beis din, by contrast, are something entirely different: an imposed punishment. There is no natural connection. It is not that if someone, G-d forbid, desecrates Shabbos, stoning follows naturally from that desecration. It is a punishment Hakadosh Boruch Hu assigned to beis din for certain transgressions; for those transgressions, the punishment is more severe. But there is no obvious, natural, direct connection between the sin and the punishment. These are therefore two different kinds of punishment, and the Alter Rebbe’s question here concerns the natural consequences. As for imposed punishments, such as the four forms of execution by beis din, the Alter Rebbe has no question about them. That is not the question in Tanya. What the Alter Rebbe wants to explain here—and this also answers why he brings up this entire subject—is the essence of sin. The whole point of this passage in Tanya is to understand its depth. Sin is not some isolated detail: “I got dirty; I did something wrong.” Sin is damage—damage to the bond. A Jew is literally a part of G-d above, and a Jew’s life is G-dliness. Without G-dliness, then...

16:12 That is not life. “And you who cleave to Hashem your G-d are all alive today.” When are we alive? When we are attached to G-dliness. Sin is a severing of that connection; it damages the bond. So kareis at the hands of Heaven is a natural consequence. And because it is a natural consequence, the Alter Rebbe asks: If the whole point is that the connection has been severed, how can the wicked continue to live? This is a natural consequence. The four death penalties imposed by a beis din, on the other hand, are not a natural consequence. They are entrusted to the beis din; the beis din has to administer the punishment. So there you could say: All right, there is no longer a beis din, so there is no longer a punishment. The Gemara does say that even though there is no beis din punishment, Hakadosh Boruch Hu administers it—but ultimately, since the punishment is not a natural consequence, the punishment Hakadosh Boruch Hu administers is not a natural consequence either. Hakadosh Boruch Hu is taking the place of the beis din. The beis din would have had to impose stoning; the beis din is not there, so Hakadosh Boruch Hu imposes it. But this still follows the rules of a beis din. It is not the same thing; these are different kinds of punishment. So there you can say that a Jew does teshuvah and Hakadosh Boruch Hu forgives him. A beis din cannot do that. A judge can only go by what his eyes see: the beis din sees that a person has sinned, and it cannot forgive him. Hakadosh Boruch Hu can forgive him. That is why one can give Tosafos’s answer: When a person does teshuvah, the punishment is eased, delayed, or waived. That is Tosafos, speaking about the four death penalties imposed by a beis din. The Alter Rebbe’s question is a more spiritual question, one that goes deeper into the matter. That is why his question is specifically about kareis and death at the hands of Heaven. It concerns punishments that come as a consequence of a Jew’s separation from G-dliness, where death is therefore a natural consequence. Since death

17:53 is a natural consequence, it would seem that this cannot be repaired. How exactly would that work? The moment a person sins, he has seemingly cut the connection. He has cut the connection, so there is no more life. What would you say—that he did teshuvah? How would that help? The damage has seemingly already been done. What good would teshuvah do? That needs an explanation: how teshuvah can repair the connection and join it again even after it has been severed. We need to understand that, and the Alter Rebbe will explain it to us. So these are two different issues. What Tosafos discusses and what the Alter Rebbe discusses are two different issues. And now we can also understand why the Alter Rebbe brings this up here: it is an introduction to the point he wants to emphasize. The Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize two fundamental ideas that form the basis of Igeres Hateshuvah. One is to explain the gravity of sin and wrongdoing. What happens when a person sins? What is the nature of sin and wrongdoing? Sin and wrongdoing damage a Jew’s connection with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This affects the life-force he draws from Him, and so on. Within that, we also need to understand why one transgression is merely a prohibition, another carries lashes, and another carries kareis or one of the death penalties imposed by a beis din. The Alter Rebbe will explain these distinctions in chapter 5. But that is one point: to explain sin and wrongdoing, and how they damage a Jew’s bond, his connection, and the life-force he draws from G-dliness. Conversely, he also wants to explain the tremendous power of teshuvah. Even when a separation has seemingly already developed, a barrier has arisen, and the connection has been severed—so that, in the natural course of things, the result should be the opposite of life—nevertheless, people have lived on for many years. That shows the tremendous power of teshuvah: through teshuvah, a Jew can restore even something—there are several details here, which we will see shortly as we continue in Tanya. In the time of exile there is

19:39 the sitra achra and kelipah, and that is why people can continue to live. But there is also the point that teshuvah has the power to restore the connection even after it has been severed. A Jew, rachmana litzlan, may have reached a state where, by nature, he should have been subject to death at the hands of Heaven. That applies to wasting seed, as the Alter Rebbe said in chapter 2: the punishment is death at the hands of Heaven, and it comes about naturally. Nevertheless, through the power of teshuvah he can return to life and restore that life. As the Rebbe cites from Likkutei Torah, in the maamar “Ani Ledodi”—this is not stated explicitly here in Tanya—there is a well-known analogy from medicine. If, G-d forbid, a person has a diseased limb, it can be healed. But if the head is severed from the body, it cannot. That is the end; a person cannot live with his head severed from his body. But imagine if medicine could reconnect the head and the body. Physically, there is no such thing. Spiritually, there is. That is the power of teshuvah. “Though my father and mother have forsaken me, Hashem will take me in.” The Rebbe explains in “Ani Ledodi” that even when “my father and mother have forsaken me”—when a Jew has committed a transgression punishable by kareis or death at the hands of Heaven, and has thus, in the natural course of things, caused a separation—there has been kareis; the source of life has been cut off. Nevertheless, through teshuvah the connection can be restored, reconnecting the Jew with Hakadosh Boruch Hu. That is the point. The deeper idea the Alter Rebbe wants to emphasize with this introduction is both the gravity of sin and wrongdoing and the tremendous power of teshuvah: even connections severed in this way can be restored.