Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVII, p. 219ff.

I.

With regard to the mitzvah of ahavas Yisrael, we find two different statements from our Sages:[1]

1. "Rabbi Akiva states: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' This is a great general principle in the Torah;"[2]

2. the statement from Hillel ([who lived] several generations earlier): "What is hateful to you do not do to your friend. This is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary."[3]

The difference between the wording of these two statements is obvious. "This is a great general principle in the Torah" means that ahavas Yisrael is one of the Torah's general principles. It is even a "great" general principle, but it is still only one general principle.[4] (It is not the general principle of the Torah.) Hillel, by contrast, sees [ahavas Yisrael] as "the entire Torah."[5] The remainder is merely commentary.

For this reason, we can understand why Rashi, in his commentary to [this verse in] the Torah, quotes Rabbi Akiva's statement (but not Hillel's). For according to a simple perspective,[6] ahavas Yisrael is not the entire Torah.[7] It is merely the general principle that [motivates] the mitzvos between man and man.[8]

{For this reason, we see that Rashi, in his commentary to the Talmud,[9] (which also reflects the simple meaning of the text, albeit of the Talmud,)[10] [first] explains the statement that not doing what is hateful to a friend is "the entire Torah" as referring not to ahavas Yisrael, but [to our relationship with G-d]. "[The term] 'your friend' refers to the Holy One, blessed be He.... Do not violate His words."[11] (This is indeed "the entire Torah.")

According to his second explanation (and the fact that it is stated second is significant), Rashi interprets "your friend" as referring to a friend on this material plane, but he explains that according to this interpretation, [ahavas Yisrael does not encompass] the entire Torah,[12] but rather "[the prohibitions against] robbery, theft, adultery; and the majority of the mitzvos.}[13]

Explanation is necessary: [Both Rabbi Akiva's and Hillel's statements] are "the words of the living G-d."[14] We must therefore say that both statements and concepts are true and can be explained according to the inner dimension of the Torah. Nevertheless, a question arises: Since Hillel [considers] ahavas Yisrael as "the entire Torah," why does R. Akiva consider it (only): "a great general principle in the Torah"? (After all, 200 includes 100.)[15] Moreover, as mentioned previously, Hillel's statement was authored many generations [before R. Akiva's,] as stated above.

II.

The above can be understood based on the [explanation of another] statement by Hillel:[16] "Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace... loving the created beings and drawing them close to the Torah." What is the connection between "Loving peace... loving the created beings" and "drawing them close to the Torah"? Ahavas Yisrael motivates a Jew to seek out another person's welfare (not only with regard to spiritual matters, but) with regard to all things, the material as well as the spiritual.[17]

As is well known,[18] with that expression, the mishnah is clarifying that one should not compromise the Torah for the sake of ahavas Yisrael. "Loving the created beings" should be expressed in bringing them close to the Torah and not, Heaven forbid, [bringing the Torah close to them, i.e., one should not] adapt the Torah to the disposition of people at large and make compromises within it.

According to this interpretation, "drawing them close to the Torah" is a (secondary) point, clarifying how one should "love the created beings." The simple meaning of the verse, [however, leads to a different interpretation]: "Drawing them close to the Torah" is an extension and a consequence of "loving the created beings." "Loving the created beings" leads to - and is expressed by - "bringing them close to the Torah."

This concept is also reflected in ch. 32 of Tanya where the Alter Rebbe quotes [Hillel's statement] and explains: "This implies that even those who are distant from the Torah of G-d and His service... must be drawn close with thick cords of love. For perhaps it will be possible to draw them close to the Torah and Divine service." The [ultimate] intent of "draw[ing] them close with thick cords of love" should be to "draw them close to the Torah and Divine service." ([The Alter Rebbe, nevertheless, includes a proviso.] Even if one is not successful [in achieving that goal], "he does not forfeit the reward for the mitzvah of loving one's fellow Jew.")[19]

[Thus it seems that a Jew's love for his fellow man has an ulterior motive; it must lead to the recipient's spiritual advancement.] Now (previously in that chapter) the Alter Rebbe explains[20] that ahavas Yisrael stems from the fact that he is a Jew and he possesses a soul. (And "all souls are complementary and we share one Father. Therefore all Jews are actually called brothers.")[21] For this reason, one must love "every Jewish soul, great or small."21 (As the Maggid [of Mezritch] says:[22] "One must love an absolutely wicked man in the same way as one loves an absolutely righteous man.")

Since the love for the other person is (not dependent on the person's level of Divine service, but is rather) an essential love that stems from the soul, why is this love associated with "drawing them close to the Torah"?

III.

To explain the above: As is well known, our Sages state:[23] "[G-d's] conception of the Jewish people precedes all matters," even the Torah. For the Jews have precedence over - i.e., are higher - than the Torah. On the other hand, the Zohar states:[24] "The Jews connect themselves to the Torah and the Torah connects to the Holy One, blessed be He." That seems to imply that the Torah is higher than the Jewish people.[25]

Among the explanations given for [this paradox][26] is that the statement that the Jews transcend the Torah applies as they exist in their source. As the souls descend and [exist on] the physical plane, by contrast, the Torah transcends the Jewish people and a soul must connect to G-d through the Torah.

Thus there are two [seemingly] opposite [dimensions] of a Jew's makeup: Because of the dimension of the Jewish soul that transcends the Torah, "a Jew, even if he sins, remains a Jew."[27] No matter how many transgressions he will perform (G-d forbid), he does not forfeit his Jewishness. For the bond between (the essence of) the soul of a Jew and G-d is not dependent on his efforts in the Torah and its mitzvos.[28]

[The result of that connection] is, however, that every Jew will ultimately turn [to G-d] in teshuvah;[29] he will return to the Torah and its mitzvos. [The rationale is that] since the connection of a Jew (on the physical plane) to G-d is through the Torah, it is impossible for the essential quality possessed by a Jew to remain an isolated entity (without expression in the Torah and its mitzvos). Instead, it must lead him to the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos (and through this,[30] the essential quality of his soul that transcends the Torah will also be revealed.)[31]

IV.

These [concepts] lead to the two perspectives that apply to the endeavor of "lov[ing] your neighbor as yourself." The essence of that love stems from the [utter] unity that exists in the source of the Jewish souls,[32] as the Jews exist above the Torah, transcending the Torah's limitations. Accordingly, this love is expressed equally to all Jews, even to those who are "distant from G-d's Torah and His service."[33] For on this level, a distinction cannot be made between a righteous man and a Jew who is distant from the Torah.[34] Moreover, this love is not limited to the spiritual dimensions of the other Jew, but instead, encompasses all of his affairs, even his physical concerns,14 for these are the physical concerns of a Jew.

Nevertheless, since a Jew's existence is bound up with the Torah, as stated above, ahavas Yisrael (even the love which stems from the essence of the soul which is above the Torah) becomes a mitzvah of the Torah. We must love a Jew because the Torah commands us to. As a consequence, [this love is channeled through] the limits and specifications that the Torah establishes. (For example, no compromises in the Torah may be made because of ahavas Yisrael.) And indeed, there are some Jews whom the Torah commands us to relate to in a manner of: "With the utmost hatred, I hate them."[35]

V.

This reflects the concept that Hillel emphasizes (which is also underscored by the Alter Rebbe's statements in Tanya) that "lov[ing] the created beings" (those distant from G-d and His service) must lead to draw[ing] them close to the Torah. The love [that one has for his fellow Jew] stems from [the recognition of] their essential quality, the fact that they are Jews.

{[It is true that] we must love a Jew (and help him in all his concerns) even when we are not successful in drawing him close to the Torah.} [Nevertheless, we must operate according to the same rationale that we employ] with regard to our own Divine service. The essential positive quality that we are Jewish (i.e., the bond with G-d that transcends the Torah) cannot remain separate from the Torah, but instead, must motivate us to the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos (as stated in sec. III).

Similar concepts apply with regard to the love for those who are "distant from the Torah of G-d and His service." The fact that one feels their essential quality, [i.e.,] the fact that they are Jews, motivates him not to remain complacent because of this alone. Instead, it propels him toward efforts to transform them into Torah Jews.

Since the essential quality of a Jew comes into expression through the Torah, when a person remains distant from the Torah, it is impossible for him to have an authentic appreciation of the true peace and oneness that exists between him and all other Jews[36] (that they are "actually brothers because of the source of their souls")32 "Drawing them close to the Torah" - connecting them with the Torah and in this way, with G-d - enables the perception (in a revealed manner)[37] of the essential quality possessed by the Jews that transcends the Torah.

VI.

On this basis, we can understand the explanation of the two expressions used by our Sages with regard to ahavas Yisrael. Rabbi Akiva is speaking about ahavas Yisrael as we must - and as we actually - practice, [loving] a fellow Jew [by showing concern] for him as he exists [on this material plane], a soul enclothed within a body, according to the limitations of the Torah. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to say that it is "the entire Torah," because that would necessitate compromising the standards of the Torah for the sake of ahavas Yisrael (as the threat to Jewish life supersedes the entire Torah[38]). Instead, [ahavas Yisrael] is merely "a general principle in the Torah," [i.e., one like others,] and must be expressed through the guidelines of the Torah.[39]

Hillel, by contrast, also speaks about ahavas Yisrael, as it is expressed on the material plane (to a soul as it exists in a body), but [he speaks about it] as it relates to the source of the Jewish souls, the level at which "the Jews precede the Torah." At this level, the entire Torah exists for the sake of the Jewish people, for the purpose of expressing and revealing their [true] qualities. Since the [true] quality of the Jewish people (that they are "actually brothers because of the source of their souls") is expressed in a revealed manner through ahavas Yisrael, it is "the entire Torah and the rest is commentary."[40]

(Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Kedoshim, 5727)

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: Certain portions of this sichah were not included in this translation.]

2. (Back to text) Sifri to Vayikra 19:18; Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 9:4; Bereishis Rabbah 24:7.

3. (Back to text) Shabbos 31a.

4. (Back to text) Indeed, according to Ben Azzai (see the sources mentioned in fn. 2), there is another general principle of greater import.

5. (Back to text) [Moreover, the Hebrew expression uses two terms, kol and kulah, to emphasize that ahavas Yisrael encompasses the entire Torah.] See Turei Zahav (Orach Chayim 582:3) [which focuses on the expression in our Rosh HaShanah prayers: "Rule over the entire world"; there the two terms, kol and kulo, are also used. The Turei Zahav explains that sometimes we speak of a whole, although we mean only the majority. By repeating the expressions, it is emphasized that His sovereignty encompasses the world in its totality. Similarly, the emphasis here is that ahavas Yisrael encompasses the Torah in its totality.]

6. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: And Rashi defines his mission as explaining the simple meaning of the Torah.]

7. (Back to text) I.e., according to the simple meaning of the Torah and the Talmud, [ahavas Yisrael is not the entire Torah]. Only according to the inner, [mystic] dimension of the Torah can that be said, as explained by the Alter Rebbe in Tanya, ch. 32, and by the Tzemach Tzedek in Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas Ahavas Yisrael, and Or HaTorah, Shoftim, p. 838ff., et al. (See also Sefer HaErachim Chabad, erech Ahavas Yisrael, sec. 8.) These concepts are quoted in Kuntreis Ahavas Yisrael. See also the Maharal's text Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ahavas Reya, ch. 1, et al.

8. (Back to text) See the commentaries of the Raavad and the Korban Eidah to the Jerusalem Talmud, loc. cit.

9. (Back to text) Shabbos, loc. cit.

10. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: The Talmud, by definition, is less directly involved with the simple meaning of the Biblical text and also focuses on more sophisticated techniques of interpretation.]

11. (Back to text) There are glosses to Rashi (Nachlas Yaakov as quoted by the Sifsei Chachamim, Maskil LeDavid) which maintain that this is also the intent in Rashi's commentary to the Torah. That, however, requires much explanation.

12. (Back to text) This clarifies why Rashi brings this as a second interpretation. [Hillel was speaking to a potential convert.] Now a convert must accept the observance of all 613 mitzvos. And therefore it was necessary for Hillel to have in mind the entire Torah.

    {Nevertheless, the first interpretation is also not sufficient, [because it is also problematic]. (Firstly, the interpretation of "your friend" is not literal. According to that interpretation, Hillel should have said "the Holy One, blessed be He" or the like. [Why did he have to speak in allegory?]) Moreover, [according to this interpretation,] it is not understood why [Hillel] uses negative terminology: "What is hateful... do not do," instead of using a positive expression. According to the interpretation that "your friend" refers to another person, by contrast, this can be understood. See the Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha to Shabbos, loc. cit.}

13. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: I.e., it relates to those mitzvos that concern our relationship with our fellowman. These are the majority of - but not all - the mitzvos.

14. (Back to text) Eruvin 13b.

15. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: I.e., within a greater sum, a lesser sum is surely included.]

16. (Back to text) Avos 1:12.

17. (Back to text) Thus we see that the Baal Shem Tov would seek to help others with regard to their material situation without making the favors he performed conditional to any spiritual [improvement on the part of the recipient]. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. I, p. 261.)

18. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, p. 316; Vol. XV, p. 198.

19. (Back to text) This explanation also clarifies the Alter Rebbe's choice of wording: "he does not forfeit...." Seemingly, he should have stated: "he still receives the reward...." Since, however, the intent of "loving the created beings" is "drawing them close to the Torah," one might think that if one is not successful in that purpose, one in fact forfeits the reward for the mitzvah. See fn. 37.

20. (Back to text) See Derech Mitzvosecha, loc. cit.; Sefer HaErachim, loc. cit., Kuntreis Ahavas Yisrael, loc. cit.

21. (Back to text) Tanya, ch. 32.

22. (Back to text) Quoted in Sefer HaMaamarim 5700, p. 117. See Kuntreis Ahavas Yisrael, notes to p. 7; see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XII, p. 217, fn. 17, and further fns. 34 and 35.

23. (Back to text) Bereishis Rabbah 1:4; Tanna D'Bei Eliyahu, ch. 14.

24. (Back to text) The quote to follow is how the passage is cited in Chassidus (Likkutei Torah, Rosh HaShanah, p. 59a; Shir HaShirim, p. 16d, et al.). See also the Zohar III, 73a.

25. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: For apparently, the Jews need the Torah to connect to G-d.]

26. (Back to text) Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, loc. cit; the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah SheHikdimu 5672, Vol. I, ch. 76; Vol. III, p. 1403ff; the maamar entitled Az Yashir, 5700, ch. 33, et al.

27. (Back to text) Sanhedrin 44a.

28. (Back to text) The series of maamarim entitled BeShaah SheHikdimu 5672, Vol. III, p. 1252.

29. (Back to text) Tanya, ch. 39; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3.

30. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: I.e., the fact that a person who transgressed returns to Torah observance reveals that he possesses a potential that indeed transcends the Torah. For it is this inner connection that motivates the change in his conduct.]

31. (Back to text) Therefore even [the potential for] teshuvah (- which transcends the Torah as evident from the fact that it can compensate for a deficiency in the observance of the Torah -) is revealed through the Torah. (See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah SheHikdimu 5672, Vol. III, p. 1408; the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah 5666, p. 235, et al.)

32. (Back to text) See Tanya, ch. 32.

33. (Back to text) With the exception of the "heretics and apostates" (Tanya, op. cit.). (See also fn. 35.) See also Sefer HaErechim Chabad, loc. cit., sec. 5, which describes [how love can embrace even such individuals].

34. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, p. 300, which explains that the Maggid's statement cited above (see fn. 22) that one must love an "absolutely wicked man in the same way as one loves an absolutely righteous man" is not a complete expression of ahavas Yisrael. The statement implies that one differentiates between a righteous man and a wicked man, and with regard to love stemming from one's essence, such distinctions do not exist.

35. (Back to text) Tehillim 139:22, as interpreted by Shabbos 116a; see Tanya, loc. cit.

    The explanations in sec. V clarify why the Alter Rebbe quotes this concept in Tanya, loc. cit. (although even from a simple perspective this idea is necessary to complete the explanation of the concept). Seemingly, it contradicts the concepts stated previously: a) that ahavas Yisrael stems from [the fundamental connection between] the soul, and b) a Jew, even though he sins, remains a Jew.

    The revelation of the soul's qualities comes about through the Torah (as will be explained). Now [such individuals] have completely severed their connection to the Torah, [to the extent that] "they have no portion in the G-d of Israel." (In their present situation,) it is impossible for the qualities of their soul to be expressed (in contrast to people at large who are "distant from G-d and His service"). Hence, [toward them,] it is impossible to express ahavas Yisrael that stems from the soul in a revealed manner.

    {This concept follows as a consequence to the explanation of the concept stated previously [in ch. 32 in Tanya]: that "loving the created beings" leads to "drawing them close to the Torah," as will be explained.}

36. (Back to text) On this basis, we can appreciate why in Tanya, loc. cit., the Alter Rebbe quotes the words (of Hillel's statement): "loving peace." For "drawing them close to the Torah" establishes peace between him and people at large, since it gives them the potential to enable "the soul to be given primacy over the body."

37. (Back to text) Nevertheless, even if he is not successful in "draw[ing] them close to the Torah," they still possess (in a hidden manner, at least) the essential quality of the Jewish people. Hence, "he does not forfeit the reward for the mitzvah of loving one's fellow Jew."

    Based on Sichos Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5737, it can be explained that after the Alter Rebbe revealed this concept ("he does not forfeit..."), the consequence [of ahavas Yisrael] is greater than merely not forfeiting [the merit of this mitzvah]. For indeed, he receives a great profit: by fulfilling the Alter Rebbe's command, he binds himself with him.

    ["Not forfeiting"] (as opposed to saying "he is granted a reward") is relevant only when it is obvious that he [already] possessed a reward (see Berachos 10b; Nazir 15a).

38. (Back to text) Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 6.

39. (Back to text) See Sichos Shabbos Parshas Yisro, 5740, which explains that the connection between being "of the students of Aharon" and "drawing them close to the Torah" resembles the convergence between "kindness and truth" (Tehillim 85:11) which [our Sages] (Shmos Rabbah 5:10) [associate with the meeting of Aharon (kindness) and Moshe (Torah and truth). Implied is that even the kindness personified by Aharon (the level of "abundant kindness") that transcends the spiritual cosmos and that motivates an unbounded measure of love to be extended to people at large must correlate with the truth of the Torah (personified by Moshe).

    On this basis, we can also explain the statements of Hillel and Rabbi Akiva. Hillel was characterized by the attribute of kindness {Zohar III (Raya Mehemna), p. 245a; the introduction to Tanya, et al.}. Therefore, he emphasized the importance of ahavas Yisrael as it transcends (the limitations of) the Torah.

    Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, is identified with the Torah (see Menachos 29b; Sanhedrin 86a) and was one of the disciples of the House of Shammai (Rashi, Bava Metzia 37b; S'dei Chemed, Klallim, Maareches Ayin, Klal 87) who were characterized by the attribute of truth (see Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 48c). Hence he emphasized ahavas Yisrael as being "one of the great general principles in the Torah."

40. (Back to text) [Trans. Note: Perhaps, for this reason, Hillel felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of "drawing them close to the Torah," which implies that "the Torah should not be brought close to them," i.e., that compromises should not be made in the Torah for the sake of the Jewish people.]