1111u lil n11w1 - Israel Koschitzky VBM Parsha Digest, Year Ill, Parashat Pinchas 5781 Selected and Adapted by Rabbi Dov Karoll Quote from the Rosh To those who have, over the years, been privileged to hear Rav Amital, the day [Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur], the man an d the tefillot are all inextricably interwoven. The lilting cadences of his renditions remain a permanently haunting presence, pregnant with quiet vigor and laden with pervasive emotion. Who can forget the compressed humility of his \!JY)'.))'.) ')Yil '))il, or the plaintive lament of his rnJ7)'.) ')llil ill\!JY, its tragic sequence interrupted only for the gnawing, sobbing, query, of the survivor, asking, with the paytan and out of the profundity of his emunah, illJ\!J m illln 1r? "Is this Torah and its reward"? Or the tuneful optimism of the complex of l)~mm □ l'il, followed by the conclusion of NJ.7 N)'.)7\!J Nil' of kaddish? Or the reverential joy with which, figuratively holding a thousand mit'pallelim in his hand, he leads them, to the climactic resolution of keter? No one. What we, impelled by conscience and enriched by experience, can do is to strive to remember and to perpetuate; to harness our energies in order to assure that the world which nurtured Rav Am ital and which he then re-created, join the ranks of those which □ Ylm ')10' N7 □ l]Tl □ '"Tlil'il 7,n)'.) llJ.Y' N7. -Harav zt"I, Rosh Hashanah message 5771 [shared to commemorate Harav Amital's 11th Yahrzeit, 27 Tammuz] Parashat Pinchas Is the Zeal of Pinchas to be Emulated? By Harav zt"I Based on: https:// etzion .org.il/ en/tanakh/torah/sefer-ba mid bar/ parashat-pincha s/ pinchas-zeal-pinchas-be-emu lated

Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon, the kohen, turned back My anger from Bnei Yisrael, in his zeal for My sake among that I did not destroy Bnei Yisrael in My zeal. Therefore say, Behold, I give him My covenant of peace. (Bemidbar 25:11-12) There are people who by nature are zealous about everything, in every sphere. There are people like this who are immersed in some type of extremism, and when they move over to a different ideology, they become just as extreme in that view. Some maintain that Pinchas had this sort of zeal in his personality. As Rashi explains: The tribes scorned him, saying, "Look at this one, whose mother's father used to fatten calves for idolatry - and he has killed a price of a tribe of Israel!" Therefore the text traces his lineage back to Aharon. (Based on Sanhedrin 82) The text traces Pinchas's lineage back to Aharon - the same Aharon who, as we know, was a "lover of peace and pursuer of peace" (Avot 1:12). The Torah wants to tell us that Pinchas had not inherited his trait of zeal from Yitro, but rather from Aharon himself. Yitro was a figure who was altogether extreme: "There was not a single form of idolatry which he had not practiced" (Mekhilta, Yitro). Yitro jumped from one religion to the next, diving into each with enthusiasm and extremism. Aharon, in contrast, was a personality who was altogether at peace, a personality devoid of extremism. Nevertheless, it is precisely this sort of personality that sometimes arrives at an extremism that flows from truth, from spontaneous zeal for God. Rambam writes (Hilkhot lssurei Biah 12:5): One who is zealous is not permitted to harm [a Jew who lies with a gentile], except as the action is being performed, like Zimri, as it is written, "[the man of Israel] and the woman, through her belly" (25:8). But if he had already separated himself, one does not kill him. And if one kills him, he himself is to be killed. And if one who is zealous comes to the court to ask permission to kill him, he is not given permission - even as the action is being performed. An act of zeal can only take place "as the action is being performed," and it can only emerge from true spontaneity (not after seeking permission or clarifying legal issues), out of true zeal for God. In our generation the problem is that people are generally apathetic; nothing shakes their equilibrium. They view others desecrating Shabbat in public and feel no twinge in their heart. Once I was overseas and I saw a Christian priest on television, talking about 'the Mother, the Son .. .' etc. I was completely shaken by this kind of talk. I couldn't listen to it. The people sitting in the room, though observant Jews, continued drinking their coffee, sensing nothing. People become apathetic and nothing shocks them. We must feel zeal in certain areas. This does not mean that our zeal need necessarily be demonstrated outwardly - sometimes outward demonstrations only bring harm; one must know, from a halakhic point of view, when rebuke is necessary, when it is permissible, and when it is forbidden. However, all of that is only on the outside. Inside ourselves, we dare not remain apathetic. We must be zealous for God. Parashat Pinchas The Making of a Leader By Rav Alex Israel Based on: https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bamidbar/parashat-pinchas/pinchas-making-leader The Lord said to Moses, "ascend Mt. Avarim and view the land that I have given to the Israelite people. After you see it, you will be gathered to your people ... :' And Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, "Let the Lord, source of the spirit of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in, that the Lord's community not be like sheep that have no shepherd:' And the Lord answered Moses, "Take Yehoshua son of Nun, an inspired man, and lay your hand upon him. Have him stand before Elazar the priest and before the whole community and commission him in their sight. Invest him with some of your aura so that the Israelite community may obey. But he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall on his behalf seek the decision of the Urim before the Lord. By such means shall they go out and by such means shall they come in, he and all the Israelites, the whole community:' Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Elazar the priest and before the whole community. He laid his hands upon him and commissioned him - as the Lord had spoken through Moses. (27:12-23) In this passage, God issues a fearful, spine-chilling invitation to Moses, commanding him to ascend the mountain which borders EretzYisrael so that he may be "gathered" to his people. He is really informing Moses of his impending death. How does Moses react to this news? Moses responds here in the manner of the quintessential leader. He reacts selflessly, concerned solely with communal matters, worrying as to the fate of his nation even after his own death. His only concern is that there should be a figure of stature who will guide the nation ably and carefully, asking God to choose his own successor. We will return to Moses later, but for now let us focus upon the central issue of our chosen text. These verses revolve around the complex question of leadership. What is the essence of a suitable leader for Am Yisrael? What talents must he have? And does the leader have absolute control or is there a certain governmental system? Our parasha gives us certain clues. The traits which identify Moses' successor as outlined by Moses and God here will provide the key to understanding the essential qualities of a Jewish leader. Three phrases in particular invite our investigation: 1. Why does Moses refer to God with the phrase "Lord, source of the spirit of all flesh:' What Divine aspect does this highlight? 2. Moses defines leadership by talking of a person, "who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in:' What does this phrase refer to and what type of leader is Moses thinking of when he uses the phrase? 3. What is Moses transferring to Joshua by placing his hands upon him? The text refers to this act as investing Joshua "with some of your aura:' Others translate the word "Hod" as "authority," or "splendor:'What is being transferred from Moses to Joshua?

LORD, SOURCE OF THE SPIRIT OF ALL FLESH The Hebrew word "ruach" - usually translated as "spirit" or "wind" - comes up in 2 contexts within our story. The first relates to God, the second to Joshua. Moses addresses God as, "The Lord of spirit of all flesh:' And when God reveals Joshua's appointment, He says, "Take Joshua, a man who has spirit within him:' With this word link, we can establish a parallel vision where a characteristic of God is reflected in a quality of Joshua, and this makes him deserving of the leadership position. Moses said before God, "You know full well the minds of every one of your children and you know that no person is the same as another.

2 When I depart from them, I request that you appoint a person who will tolerate every one of them in their individual uniqueness:' This Midrash (Tanchuma) explains God's title as the source "of the spirit of all flesh" as meaning that He knows the inner workings of all humans. He created us and understands the complexity of human psychology: the diversity in temperament, personality and ideology amongst human-kind. According to the Midrash, Moses addresses God with this title because he feels that the next leader will need this Divine trait. National leadership needs an individual who understands people. A leader must be able to relate to all the diversity that constitutes humanity, with all their peculiarities and idiosyncrasies: extreme and moderate, honest and fraudulent, aggressive and calm, tolerant and intolerant. And indeed, Joshua is the person. He is a man with this "spirit" within him. The Netziv (Ha'amek Davar commentary) offers a different interpretation. He explains the phrase "spirit of all flesh" to mean that (16:22) "spirit is comparable to flesh in that they both follow one's self-interested desires:' So, when Moses prays to God in this way, he is expressing man's whimsical attraction to that which satisfy his urges, be they physical or more ephemeral. God clearly is the contrast to this - "The rock, His deeds are perfect .. ." (Deut 32:4). God is a "rock," unswayed by selfish motives. But how is this relevant to the leadership issues that we have raised? The Netziv answers (27:18): "Joshua, A Man Of Spirit: HIS spirit. i.e., He is independently minded and not swayed or diverted by self-centered desires or other pressures:' So most people have a "spirit," a consciousness, which is controlled by "flesh," self-indulgent desires. Joshua, on the other hand has a self-sufficient "spirit:' He is a principled, resolute individual. He will not be swayed by the crowds. So we have 2 approaches here. The Midrash sees Joshua's "spirit" as his empathy, his tolerance, his sensitivity. The Netziv sees Joshua's strength as his resolute independence of mind (a trait which he demonstrated in the "spies" episode). It is this ability to stand above the pressures of national government which singles Joshua out for the leadership position.

IN AND OUT Moses defines his concept of a leader as a person, "who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in:' What is meant by this cryptic phrase? By cross-referencing with the book of Samuel, we can see that these phrases refer to waging war: "They said, ... We want a king ... and he will GO OUT BEFORE US and fight our wars" (I Sam. 8:20). "It was you who led Israel in war (lit. led Israel to GO OUT, and COME IN) " (II Sam. 5:2). Why does Moses single out this trait? Because a war leader is the primary need of the nation at this historical juncture, as the critical challenge facing the fresh leader is the imposing task of the conquest of Canaan, a campaign of massive military proportions. For Moses to seek a military man is most appropriate. If the military reading is the correct interpretation, then Rash i's comment is quite apt: WHO WILL GO OUT BEFORE THEM: Rather than the gentile kings who stay behind ... sending their soldiers ahead to war... (the Jewish war leader) leads them to war at the head of his troops and returns at their head.

GOD'S ADJUSTMENT It is interesting, however, to note that God "adjusts" Moses' request somewhat. Moses' talks of a leader who will "lead them out and bring them back:' God tells Moses that Joshua "shall stand before Elazar the priest... by his word shall they go out and ... come in" (v. 21 ). God is telling Moses that Joshua must consult with the High Priest before taking the nation to war (the High Priest is to consult God via the prophetic tool ofthe"Urim"). Why do we need this detail? Because apparently God is changing the status quo. Moses was both the civil AND religious leader: the prophet extraordinaire and the supreme leader. Moses took his issues directly to God. But future leaders will not necessarily be bestowed with both leadership skills and spiritual excellence. Now a new system is being set up. The king must take advice from a higher authority before he takes the nation to war. Indeed, even after the prophetic powers ended, the halakha still reflected this innovation:"The king cannot take his people out to a non-defensive war without the approval of the High Court of 71 scholars" (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim). This adds a fascinating and advanced ethical measure. Even the monarch, the Officer in Chief of the army and the governor of the land, is restricted in his ability to wage war, having to take it to a higher body for discussion and approval.

SEMIKHA The act of a person laying their hands upon another object and resting one's weight upon it is known as "semikha." This action is also found in other realm s, such as in the sacrificial rite (L ev. 1:4), when one brings a personal sacrifice, resting his weight on the animal , as if to transfer his personality onto it.

3 Here too, Moses rests his hands upon Joshua. What is being transferred from Moses to Joshua? The Hebrew word used is "Hod" meaning splendor, but what might that mean? Maybe a clue lies in this action being taken in a public ceremony. Why does this happen in front of the community? Because what is being transferred is not something tangible or physical. This ceremonial act may be to create an impression in the eyes of the nation. This public symbol is the official transferal of authority, Moses publicly expressing that he supports Joshua as leader. The message that this simple act sends is more powerful than any words that Moses could express. In the words of Rabbeinu Bachya, God told Moses, "Honor him publicly in the presence of the entire nation."

PART II - MOSES' AGENDA Thus far, we have not focused upon Moses' role here, but we should devote some attention to it. Moses is invited to Har Ha-Avarim - the mountain of "passage" or "transition." Moses is undergoing a serious transition. He is about to die. He is handing over his people whom he has shepherded for 40 years to a new leader, a new land and an unknown future. This pre-death period has to be one of the most emotional and fearful of his life. So what does he choose to say at this time? One approach sees the dialogue between God and Moses as a calm , gentle, caring interaction. God invites Moses to Har Ha-Avarim so that he may view the land, as the Italian commentator, Shadal, explains that he wanted to show him how close he had brought the people to their destination, and thus that his efforts were not in vain. Thus, God demonstrates a sensitivity to Moses' feelings. Likewise, we can read Moses' appeal to God as an expression of his heartfelt concerns, care and worry. The request to God reads as a simple plea: Please make sure that the flock which I shepherded for so long have another shepherd to lead them after I am gone. In this reading, Moses reflects his altruistic humility. He could have much to be angry about. He could pursue his personal agenda, but he does not. He turns his attention to the issues that matter in a mood of optimism, selflessness and dignity. But the Midrashic scholars peel back th e layers of the text to reveal a textual undercurrent that reveals a more strident tone in Moses' words. We begin with the "narrator's" introduction to Moses' appeal to God. If we read attentively, we notice something familiar about the introduction: "And Moses spoke to the Lord, saying ... " (27:15). These words closely correspond to a phrase that is often used to preface a command from God to Moses. "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying," appears frequently. Here the thrust is reversed. Is this a coincidental turn of phrase, or is the text trying to express Moses' command-like stance before God? We might suggest that the Torah presents this speech of Moses less as a request or a plea but, rather as a command - a demand! Moses is boldly issuing God with a command. But what is the nature of this command?

ACCUSATION In this context there is a Midrashic insight (brought in Midrash Rabba) which is so sharp that it is impossible to overlook. It reads the verses here with a fresh angle, reading Moses' appeal to God with a defiant, bitter and resentful tone. The midrash brings a parable of a king who wished to marry an orphan girl, who refused repeatedly before agreeing to marry him. He later wished to divorce her, to which she replied, do as you wish, but promise to treat your next wife better than you treated me. This is compared to Moses who initially refused to lead the nation and was later told he would not lead the people into the land. Moses implored God to treat the next leader better than He treated him, "that he will go forth before them and come in before them" (27:17). To this point, we have envisioned the humble Moses who altruistically places the communal agenda above his own personal feelings. But this Midrash suggests a certain resentment, maybe a more "human" side to Moses. The Mid rash notes the repeated usage of the verb, "to come." This verb is used in God's decree to Moses restricting him from the promised land and Moses uses it here, too. The Midrash suggests that the great Moses, although he will not attack God, finds a way to express his pain at his unfortunate situation.

IN CONCLUSION Our parasha begins the preparations for settling the land of Israel. A census is performed with the aim of dividing up the Land. The daughters of Tzelofchad realize that the settlement and division of Canaan is a reality, claiming their own portion in the land. And in the passage that we discussed, we see another symbol of the desert taking a step back and the symbol of a new generation rising

4 up. Moses, the leader of the desert generation prepares to step down, with his student Joshua appointed to take over. The issues that we have discussed are relevant to the Biblical debate but equally so to leadership today. In an era in which leaders are judged by the photogenic looks and their sound-bite speeches, we remind ourselves of that blend of personal integrity and practical applicability that the Torah seeks in its leaders. Shabbat Shalom . Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service Shiur #26: Loving God (XVI): You Shall Not Hate Your Brother By Harav Baruch Gigi

Based on: https:/ / etzion .org.il/en/philosophy /issues-jewi sh-thought/topical-issues-thought/loving-god-xvi-you-sha II-not-hate-your Introduction To complete the picture in the topic of loving Israel, we must turn our attention to the inverse of love, hatred. We will address the topic of hatred of Israel, examining the 2 opposite commandments associated with it: the prohibition of "You shall not hate your brother in your heart" (Vayikra 19:17) and that derived from the verse, "I hate those who hate You" (Tehillim 139:21).

The Prohibition: You Shall Not Hate Your Brother in Your Heart We read in the Torah : "You shall not hate your brother in your heart. Reprove your kinsman, but incur no guilt because of him" (Vayikra 19:17). Rambam writes in Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (Negative Commandment 302) that the serious prohibition of hatred is primarily about concealed hatred. Revealed hatred does not violate this prohibition, though it can violate other prohibitions (vengeance, bearing a grudge), and fail to fulfill the mitzva of loving one's fellow. According to Rambam, the prohibition of hatred refers to hatred "in one's heart," not hatred that is displayed to others outwardly. In contrast, according to 1 interpretation that Ramban suggests, there is also a prohibition to demonstrate hatred outwardly. According to Ram ban (Vayikra 19:17), the verse only mentioned hatred in one's heart because people regularly conceal their hatred, and the Torah address the common cases. But in Ramban's second interpretation, which he states is the primary one, he links the prohibition of hatred to the mitzva of reproving one's kinsman, explaining that the verse is teaching not to keep one's hatred hidden, but rather one should reproach the offender. By so doing, he can either justify himself or regret and correct his action. According to this position, the purpose of the prohibition against "hatred in one's heart" is to encourage one to reprove his kinsman and to enable the repair of the relationship between him and his friend. Nevertheless, it seems that Ram ban views the prohibition of hatred as a double prohibition: 1. The general prohibition of hatred: It is prohibited to hate your fellow Jew, whether outwardly or in your heart. 2. The prohibition of hatred in one's heart: If a person sins toward you, you are obligated to reprove him so that you can clear the air, sorting things out and not allow the hatred to remain simmering within your heart. It seems that even Rambam would agree regarding the 2 nd prohibition of hatred, as he writes in Hilkhot De'ot (6 :6) that one who is wronged by another should not silently despise him, but rather reprove the offender and then accept his request for forgiveness. Yere'im even adds that if one reproves another person and it turns out that the person indeed acted inappropriately toward him and does not beg forgiveness after being reproved, one is permitted to hate this person.

I Hate Those Who Hate You There are 2 places in rabbinic literature where we find permission - or even a mitzva - to hate. The first source is in Sifrei Devarim (Re'ei 9:9), regarding the inciter, which states that the general principles such as loving one's fellow, aiding with his animals, and not standing idly over his blood do not apply to such a person. Rambam enumerates this mitzva in Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (Neg. Comm. 17). However, Ramban, in his glosses to Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (Negative Commandment 28), rejects Rambam 's position on this matter. In Ram ban's commentary on Devarim, he explains that the verse prohibits assenting to the inciter, rather than loving him, and thus that this verse is unrelated to hatred (see Ramban, Devarim 13:9) . Based on this, Ramban rejected Rambam 's position, concluding that the Torah does not prohibit loving the inciter.

5 The second discussion is found in the Talmudic passage that addresses the question of whether one may hate a Jew who has sinned. The question derives from a verse that relates to the requirement to help one's fellow Jew unload and reload his animal: "When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden ... you must raise it with him" (Sh. 23:5) . The gemara (Pes. 113b) asks how one has an enemy, maintaining hate. The gemara explains that if he sinned publicly, all should hate him, and it must be speaking of a case where one has privately seen the person sin . It can be inferred from this passage that there is a mitzva to hate a person who sins. If the person did so before witnesses, it is a mitzva for every person to hate him . However, if one saw him sinning alone, it is a mitzva only for him to hate the sinner; there is no obligation to spread word of the incident. Thus, according to Rambam's position, there is a Torah prohibition to love the inciter, while Ramban disagrees with this point. However, according to all views, there is a mitzva to hate those who sin . This can be inferred from the verse in Mishlei cited by the gemara: "To fear the Lord is to hate evil." This notion is expressed explicitly in Tehillim as well: "O Lord, You know I hate those who hate You, and loathe Your adversaries. I feel a perfect hatred toward them; I count them my enemies" (Tehillim 139:21) . Yere'im derived this same concept from the verse describing the prohibition of hatred (198) : "From where do we know that the Torah did not warn against [hating] an indecent person? As it says : 'You shall not hate your brother' - and mitzvot require kinship." Or Ha-Chayim, in his commentary on the Torah (Vayikra 19:17), wrote similarly that the prohibition of hating one's "brother" only applies to those who follow the mitzvot. But those who show hatred of God, like apostates and heretics, should be shown hatred.

Hatred of Wickedness - Not of the Wicked Even after having made these points, it is important to emphasize a point made by Tosafot, commenting on the passage in Pesachim (113b) . The Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (32b) states that one should help load an enemy's animal rather than a friend's, in order to subdue his inclination. Tosafot ask that our Gemara states that he has a mitzva to hate. They answer that once he shows hatred, the fellow will hate him back, due to reciprocity (see Mishlei 27:19), and thus "they will attain complete hatred" [beyond the mitzva requirement], so he should subdue his inclination and help the enemy. Tosafot establish that even when it is a mitzva to hate another, one must take care not to hate him excessively, so that this does not lead to "complete hatred." Tosafot's main point seems to be that there is an obligation to hate the wickedness, not the wicked. This is similar to what Beruria said to her husband, R. Meir: "[It is written,] 'May chata'im (interpreted as sins) disappear' (Tehillim 104:35), and not chot'im (sinners)" (Berakhot 10a). A more reasonable approach was suggested by R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Ba 'al Ha-Tanya), who explains (Tanya, Likk. Amarim 32) that even in cases where one is obligated to hate another due to his sin, "there still remains the duty to love them also." One hates "the wickedness in them" and loves "the aspect of the hidden good .. . which is the divine spark in them," animating their divine soul. According to Ba'al Ha-Tanya, there is indeed a mitzva to hate sinners once they have been rebuked and have not heeded this rebuke. However, this does not supplant the mitzva of loving one's fellow Jew, which stems from the root of every Jew's soul. The purpose of hatred is to hate wickedness and to distance it from one's heart, so that one can internalize the reality of evil and allow himself to avoid it. However, we must be sure to view this hatred as the left hand that pushes away, while the right hand draws near. While one hates, he must also arouse the love within himself and focus it on the element of goodness within the root of the sinner's soul, so that he is not permanently alienated. Thus, there is hope that the sinner will return from his sin when he recognizes one's love for him. He will hopefully become stronger and will muster his internal foundations of goodness to banish the evil and darkness from within him . The Talmud (Arakhin 16b) cites R. Tarfon who asserts that no one in his generation accepts reproof, for those who give rebuke are insufficiently pure. R. Elazar ben Azaria adds that no one in his generation knows how to give proper reproof. Since there is no one today who can properly reprove his fellow, Chafetz Chayim wrote that there is no place for hatred, even toward sinners, since hatred is only permitted once one fulfills the mitzva of reproof. This notion - that one may not hate until after reproving the sinner - fits with the implication of the verses in Parashat Kedoshim, as well as with Ba'al Ha-Tanya's interpretation cited above. Therefore, Ba 'al Ha-Tanya added that when the sinner is not one's kinsman, and thus one may not reprove him, not only is one prohibited from hating him, but one must strive to love him and draw close to him . This is based on a teaching of Hillel the Elder in

6 Masekhet Avot: "Be like the students of Aharon. Love peace and pursue peace, love humanity, and bring them close to the Torah" (Avot 1:12). Rashbatz, commenting on this statement (Magen Avot, Avot 1:12), explains we should learn from Aharon, who loved peace and turned people away from sin . He cites Avot De-Rabbi Natan (12 :3), which explains that he would encounter people he knew had sinned in a friendly way, and they would be ashamed and would be led to think of repentance. Despite what might be inferred from this passage, it seems that the love Aharon showered even upon sinners was altruistic. Sometimes, it would indeed cause sinners to turn away from their sin, but sometimes Aharon's tactic would not draw them closer to the proper path. In any case, even when he was unsuccessful, he did not change his attitude or his love toward them. As Ba 'al Ha-Tanya wrote (Tanya , Likkutei Amarim 32) regarding this mishna, even for people who are removed from Torah, "one must attract them with strong cords of love," so one might be able to draw them close to Torah . But "even if one fails, one has not forfeited the merit of the mitzva of neighborly love." R. Tzvi Yehuda Kook advanced a similar idea based on an inference from the language of the mishna. The mishna does not say that Aharon would love humanity in order to bring them close to the Torah, but that he would love humanity and bring them close to the Torah . On this approach, the basis of all that we have discussed is that one's love of Israel must center on the root of every Jew's unified soul. One must strive to attain this love even toward those who are removed from the Torah . The permission to hate such people in certain circumstances only applies to one you can reprove and, by doing so, bring closer by arousing his awareness of the severity of his actions. Even for such a person, one may only hate the wicked element within him, still loving the element of goodness within the root of his soul.

Hatred of Minim and Heretics Today In a Talmudic passage, in discussing the prohibition of saving the literature of minim (heretical sectarians) and heretics from a fire on Shabbat, the gemara states that one must burn such books even if they contain God's names within them (see Shabbat 116a). Thus, it is allowed - and even a mitzva - to hate the minim and heretics who have no part in the God of Israel with a "perfect hatred." It is regarding these minim that the Talmud establishes the law of "They may be cast in, and need not be brought up" (Avoda Zara 26b). The meaning of this law is that there is a mitzva to cast such people into a pit, killing them there. If such people fell into a pit, one is permitted to remove the ladder, so that they will not be able to climb out. The reason for this is that by being minim, they denied the existence of the God of Israel, disconnecting themselves from their root in the soul of Israel. This is a harsh, significant message, but we must emphasize what 2 of the greatest Jewish scholars of recent generations wrote on the matter. First, Chazon lsh wrote in his commentary on Yoreh De'ah (2 :16) that this law only applied in times "when God's providence is revealed," and the righteous people of the generation were under clear divine providence. Heretics at that time were diverting from the norm, and their eradication was a corrective to the world. But nowadays, "when faith has been excised from the weak members of the nation," such an act would only add to the breach, as it would be perceived as destruction and violence, rather than as a corrective. Instead, "We must help them return through cords of love, and bathe them in a ray of light as far as our arms can reach ." According to Chazon lsh, the purpose of this law is to "mend the breach" caused by heresy. Thus, in a situation in which such an act would serve to make the breach worse instead of mending it, it is a mitzva to bring these heretics closer "through cords of love." R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook believed that nowadays, true heresy does not exist. Thus, he explained in one of his letters (lggerot Ha-Re'iyah 20), that the strictures about heresy only applied to those who affirmed heresy with certainty. But nowadays, he asserts that most non-believers "are at most doubtful [of the existence of God]."

Conclusion It is said in the name of Ba 'al Ha-Tanya that the proof of love between one person and another is when one loves what the other person loves. Therefore, since God loves Israel - "I have shown you love, said the Lord" (Malakhi 1:2) - loving one's fellow Jew is proof that one loves God. Based on this idea, "Love your fellow as yourself" is a means of fulfilling "You shall love the Lord your God." We can add to this notion by suggesting an explanation of the root of Hillel's statement to the non-Jew who approached him in order to convert - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend" (Shabbat 31a) . The passive act of not harming one's friend that Hillel described serves as a stepping-stone to love of others, which leads, in turn, to the love of God. Translated by Daniel Landman To subscribe, or for comments, questions or sponsorship opportunities, please write us at: [email protected]

7