In the previous section we examined the mitzvah of "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha," love your fellow as yourself, and the precise limits of when hatred of a wicked person is permitted. Now we will see just how far the Gemara takes this principle, and from there we will return to the Alter Rebbe's own words in the chapter.
How far does "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha" reach?
The Gemara deals with the most extreme case imaginable: a person who committed a sin for which the Torah prescribes the death penalty, and the beis din has concluded that he must be put to death. (One should not imagine that in the days of the Sanhedrin executions were carried out every other day; this is the extreme case.) At first glance, what room is there to discuss the manner of his execution, how he might suffer less humiliation and less pain? On this Rav Nachman says something remarkable: "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha" teaches that one must choose for him a pleasant death, that he be put to death in the least painful way and with the least possible disgrace.
So about whom is "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha" being said in this extreme case? About a man going out to be executed, who committed the gravest of sins. The Torah of truth ruled that he must be put to death, and even so there is no contradiction: as long as he is alive, and in the appropriate measure, the mitzvah of "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha" applies to him, and one must look for the most dignified way to carry out the sentence. From here we see how far this principle extends and that it applies in every situation.
The only person whose hatred is permitted, as we have learned until now, is one who keeps Torah and mitzvos and fully understands the severity of what he is doing, and whom you have rebuked and who did not turn back. In that case you are given permission, and even a mitzvah, to hate him. Beyond that, no such case exists at all.
"Hillel the Elder said concerning this":
Every quotation the Alter Rebbe brings carries a strong emphasis, and we must pause on every word and appreciate the force of what is being said. Let us go in order. First, why "Hillel the Elder"? The intent is not old age in years. "The Elder" is a title used by Chazal for the leading sage of the generation: "the elders of the congregation" and "the elders of the city" are the distinguished ones, the eyes of the community.
There were two of them, Shammai and Hillel, and two approaches in conduct. Shammai conducted himself with exactitude, everything measured precisely according to the letter of the law (and heaven forbid to say that he transgressed anything in the Torah; he was a complete tzaddik, only that he acted precisely as the law requires). Hillel, by contrast, conducted himself beyond the letter of the law, as is well known from the stories told about him. By stressing "Hillel the Elder," the Alter Rebbe is ruling out a possible claim: "You may conduct yourself like Hillel and I will conduct myself like Shammai. Why am I obligated specifically to this extreme path of love without conditions and without limits?" The answer is this: Hillel was the leading sage of the generation, and the halachah was ruled according to him. Therefore his conduct is the conduct you are to emulate, and it is binding upon you.
"Be of the disciples of Aharon":
Here too there is an emphasis. It is well known that Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen conducted themselves in different ways. With Moshe everything was truth, straight as a ruler, exactly as it must be, with nothing beyond the letter of the law. Aharon's way was different: beyond the letter of the law, and in a manner of warmth and affection. Aharon would be walking down the street, meet a wicked man, and be the first to greet him; he would speak with everyone and draw everyone close. And indeed the Torah says that when he passed away the entire house of Israel wept for him, which is not said about Moshe Rabbeinu. This is why Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aharon" specifically: on this point one is not to learn from Moshe's way, but from Aharon's.
And what were Aharon's ways, in the language of the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos?
"Loving peace" - as related in Avos d'Rabbi Nassan: when Aharon would walk down the street and see a wicked man, he would greet him first and ask after his welfare. That man would think to himself: if Aharon knew who I really am, would he have greeted me first? He would not have looked at me at all. And tomorrow, when he sees me again, I will be ashamed. And he would resolve to change the way he lived, all because of that one greeting. By saying shalom to every single person, Aharon would draw him back to the right path.
"And pursuing peace" - when he would see two people quarreling, he would go to each of them and tell him that his friend deeply regrets what he did and is asking forgiveness, and he would say the same to the other one.
"Loving the creatures and bringing them close to Torah" - and on this point we need to go deeper.
"Loving the creatures": what does the term "briyos" mean?
The Alter Rebbe writes: "לומר שאף הרחוקים מתורת ה' ועבודתו... ולכן נקראים בשם בריות בעלמא" - "to say that even those who are distant from the Torah of Hashem and His service... and therefore they are called merely 'creatures.'" Normally one refers to people as "people" or "human beings," whereas "briyos," creatures, is the lowest of terms. Even about a flock of sheep one could say "I saw some creatures here," and the same about insects and the like. It is not a term that distinguishes humanity at all; every living thing is called this simply because it is a creation that the Holy One created.
And this is precisely the point: we are speaking of a Jew who is utterly distant from the Torah of Hashem and His service, who does not merit any more dignified title than "creature." And although this is the lowest title, it already contains a virtue, for there are those who are even lower than this, as we will see further on. His one and only virtue is that he was created by the Holy One; beyond that, no other virtue has been found in him. That is why the only name by which they can be called is "merely creatures."
And nonetheless Hillel comes and says, "loving the creatures" - "צריך למשכן בחבלי עבותות אהבה" - "one must draw them close with thick cords of love." Even those people in whom there is no virtue at all must be drawn, and drawn with warm love. An "avos" is a thick rope that cannot be torn in any way, and so one must draw him with cords of love, even though he is nothing more than a "creature."
The story of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon:
To sharpen just how low the title "creature" is, let us look at the well known story in Maseches Taanis: Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon was once returning from his teacher's house, riding on a donkey and strolling along the riverbank, and he was in a state of great joy. In the words of the Gemara: "and he was feeling haughty with himself because he had learned much Torah."
He happened upon a man who was exceedingly ugly. That man said to him, "Shalom aleichem, Rabbi" - and Rabbi Elazar did not return his greeting, but said to him, "Reikah" (a term of disgrace, from the word for empty), "how ugly that man is! Perhaps all the people of your town are as ugly as you?" The man answered him, "I do not know, but go and say to the Craftsman who made me: how ugly is this vessel You have made."
On its face the story is deeply puzzling. Is it conceivable to walk up to an ugly person and tell him, "how ugly you are"? Did Rabbi Elazar not know that this man was created that way by the Holy One, that he did not fashion himself, and that there is no complaint to be made against him? And even from the standpoint of basic derech eretz, is this a proper way to behave? The difficulty is so great that Rashi there explains that this entire episode was with Eliyahu HaNavi, and not with an ordinary flesh and blood person. But when one reads the story simply, it is a human being, and there is a secret hidden here.
Here is the explanation: Rabbi Elazar saw standing before him a man so far from the right path, from the path of Torah and mitzvos, from the path of culture and from the path of basic humanity, that he was simply beneath all criticism. With a person so distant, there is sometimes no way to draw him close and explain things to him: if you begin speaking with him he does not understand the language, because he has sunk so low. The only way is to give him a "shock," like a patient whose physical and medical condition has deteriorated to the point that he must be given an electric shock.
So he gave him the shock and said to him, "how ugly you are!" - and he did not mean his external ugliness at all, but his spiritual ugliness. And it had its effect and drew him close: immediately that man returned in teshuvah and said, "go and say to the Craftsman who made me," meaning: I believe that the world has a Creator, there is a Craftsman and there is a Conductor who made me, and I believe in Him. And with that, Rabbi Elazar accomplished exactly what he had intended. (There is a continuation to the story, which does not bear on our subject here.)
In summary: in this section we learned how far the mitzvah of "v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha" reaches, to the point that even for one who has been sentenced to death one must choose a pleasant death. We noted the emphases in the Alter Rebbe's wording: "Hillel the Elder," the leading sage of the generation whose rulings are the halachah, so that his conduct is binding upon us; "of the disciples of Aharon" specifically, the way of affection and of going beyond the letter of the law, whose content is "loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and bringing them close to Torah." We also explained that the term "briyos," creatures, is the lowest of all titles, whose only virtue is the very fact of having been created by the Holy One, and nevertheless such a person must be drawn "with thick cords of love," as emerges from the story of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon.
In the next section we will continue explaining the Alter Rebbe's words in chapter 32.