With your permission I'd like to talk about a concern that weighs heavily on me. It's a personal concern because of my own shortcomings and inadequacies in this area, but for that reason alone I wouldn't, I wouldn't discuss it. But it's also a broader concern, a communal concern, ultimately a Klal Yisrael-dik concern. The concern is about, I don't know, choose, choose your term. Fighting, machlokes, discordance, contentiousness. So let's perhaps begin by just reading a couple of sources and then begin to try to reflect and proceed from there בעזרת השם בלי נדר. The Ba'al HaTanya writes based on a Zohar HaKadosh: הנה בכלל עובדי השם יש ב׳ בחינות ומדרגות חלוקות מצד שורש נשמתם למעלה מבחינת ימין ושמאל.
Our neshamos derive some from yamin, from which are characterized more by chesed, and some derive from smol, characterized more by geburah. The Ba'al HaTanya proceeds to explain that Beis Shammai was primarily שורש נשמתם מבחינת שמאל העליון, not purely, not exclusively, but primarily, predominantly from the smol, from geburah, and by contrast Beis Hillel שהיו מבחינת ימין העליון, which is why the case is that usually Beis Shammai machmir and Beis Hillel are meikel. That's one mareh makom. Another mareh makom, a medrash, I think the Rav did a lot to make this a famous medrash. בשעה שבא הקדוש ברוך הוא לבראות את אדם הראשון, when Hakadosh Baruch Hu was poised, kavyachol, to create Adam, נעשו מלאכי השרת כתים כתים. There was a factionalism, there was a dispute amongst the malachei hashareis. מהם אומרים אל יברא ומהם אומרים יברא. Some advocated that Adam, humanity should be created, and others opposed it. The medrash then says that Shalom, the malach representing, personifying, I don't know if a malach personifies, but whatever, the malach representing Shalom אמר אל יברא דכוליה קטטה. No, there's so much contentiousness. Where you have people, where you have people, you have contentiousness. So it's quite clear that disagreement, discordance, contentiousness are part of the general human condition and in particular part of our Jewish reality. The Ba'al HaTanya explains why legitimate disagreement exists, why disagreement of two albeit differing opinions but two valid and legitimate opinions exist, because of that there are just fundamental differences. What the Ba'al HaTanya explains in terms of Kabbalah, you know one understands even in more exoteric terms. At at the end of the day if two people, again both being objective, can look and analyze and think and can come to different different opinions. Ultimately it means there's a difference in terms of how, given the keilim HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave them, how they see things. So that generates legitimate disagreement on its highest level of אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים. But the Midrash describes how so much illegitimate disagreement exists. Add to that shgi'os mi yavin, the Malbim says that refers to shgi'os, mistakes in iyun, in understanding. And there's lots of machlokes, not of elu v'elu, of two equally valid or equally legitimate opinions but of right and wrong. And and those disagreements of right and wrong are not only between shomrei Torah u'mitzvos and השם יאיר עיני כולנו those who are not yet shomrei Torah u'mitzvos, but even among shomrei Torah u'mitzvos there are plenty of disagreements which are not elu v'elu, but which are questions of right and wrong. And yet both types of machlokes notwithstanding, the Rambam writes מצווה על כל אדם לאהוב את כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו.
And and without being ma'arich when you juxtapose the Rambam in Hilchos De'os to the Rambam in Hilchos Evel, it's clear that the Rambam is talking about even someone who's not achicha ba'Torah u'mitzvos. He's not talking about a small class of Jews such as mosrim either. But in Hilchos Evel where the Rambam expands the scope of Ahavas Yisrael, he stipulates that it's achicha ba'Torah u'mitzvos. In Hilchos De'os where there's a more narrow implementation of Ahavas Yisrael, it means כל אחד ואחד מישראל even if he's not achicha ba'Torah u'mitzvos. And על אחת כמה וכמה if he is achicha ba'Torah u'mitzvos even though he may be wrong, and even though we may passionately and vehemently and legitimately disagree and and reject and critique, and אף על פי כן מצווה על כל אדם לאהוב את כל אחד ואחד מישראל.
And it's important to understand that this mitzvah of Ahavas Yisrael is is not something contained or compartmentalized. Rashi in VeZos HaBracha, the Chafetz Chaim quotes this on the pasuk ויהי בישורון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם יחד שבטי ישראל. So Rashi writes דבר אחר בהתאספם יחד באגודה אחת ושלום ביניהם הוא מלכם ולא כשיש מחלוקת ביניהם.
HaKadosh Baruch Hu exercises the special hashgacha pratis, the special favorable hashgacha pratis. He takes his cue in so doing from us when we're agudah achas, when we're one unit, when the when we're one cohesive unit, so then הוא מלכם ולא כשיש מחלוקת ביניהם. So the the consequences, the fallout of lack of Ahavas Yisrael are tremendously, tremendously far-reaching. But the question is lema'aseh given how pervasive machlokes is, given how profound many areas of of machlokas are. So how is it possible to to cultivate Ahavas Yisrael? How is it possible to remain aguda achas? So when applicable, when the Baal HaTanya's perspective and explanation for the source of machlokas is relevant, so then the avoda is to reinforce that maybe it's my chavruta sitting across the table from me, maybe it's maybe it's a family member, or maybe it's a different community than the community that I belong to is equally entitled to an opinion, and that yitochen that their view is as valid as legitimate as the one that I personally or the one that the community of which I'm a part espouses and lives by. The there's a volume Chidushai Sridei Eish and in the the hakdama, so the his talmid quotes a letter that he wrote, I think that the Sridei Eish wrote to Rav Dov Katz. Rav Dov Katz wrote the four volumes on Tenuat HaMusar with sketches of the various Gedolei Yisrael who were active in supportive of the Tenuat HaMusar. And then the Sridei Eish wrote to him that now that you've completed that, you you should write another volume about those Gedolei Yisrael who opposed the Musar movement. And and he writes, I don't know if this is the exact lashon, but but it's something to this effect, that it's a choli ra'ah that we only present our opinion, the opinion that that we subscribe to, the opinion that we live by, and and are dismissive of the other. So he taka wrote after that, he has a volume on the Pulmus HaMusar where he taka talks about those who who were opposed to to the Tenuat HaMusar. The Gemara in Eruvin says the Bat Kol when it it lauds Beis Hillel is היו שונים דבריהם ודברי בית שמאי. So that's the perspective to to reinforce when we're if relevant, if applicable, when we're involved in a disagreement, a dispute, where yitochen that both sides are are equally valid, equally equally legitimate. But again, many many times our disagreements are not eilu v'eilu and our perception and yitochen correctly is no, is that we are right about something and and others are wrong. So how how does one cultivate Ahavas Yisrael? And the wrong isn't just an abstract wrong. It's a wrong that one sees has really really negative consequences and has a negative impact. There's reason to be vehemently opposed. There's reason to be passionate about the issues. So here it's crucial that we understand that in halacha basic kavod and even higher than that, even the the threshold of Ahavas Yisrael of which the Rambam speaks in Hilchos De'os doesn't in any way imply endorsement of the person to whom one accords that kavod, whom one showers with that ahava. It doesn't endorse the other person's views, it doesn't validate his behavior. משל למה הדבר דומה. משל למה הדבר דומה, the same way when the the family bonds that we instinctively maintain, all kinds of profound disagreements notwithstanding, also in no way validate the other person's behavior necessarily, or endorse the other person's views. They just reflect the fact that this is my brother, this is my parent, this is my child, this is my cousin. But maybe it's not a mashal. Maybe it's more than a mashal. Maybe maybe that's the actual case. So kavod and ahava don't mean that a person is being weak on principle. It doesn't mean that a person is being mevater on principle. It doesn't mean that he's endorsing, validating, or legitimizing. It means that mistake notwithstanding, this is still acheinu b'nei Yisrael. It's quite fascinating, this my son brought to my attention, that the Rambam in Hilchos De'os when he says מצוה לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל doesn't mention the din that he later writes in Hilchos Rotzei'ach. השונא שנאמר בתורה הוא מישראל לא מאומות העולם והיאך יהיה לישראל שונא מישראל והכתוב אומר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך אמרו חכמים כגון שראהו לבדו שעבר עבירה והתרה בו ולא חזר בו הרי זה מצוה לשנאו עד שיעשה תשובה.
So there's a mitzvah to be soneh a ba'al aveira. So why doesn't the Rambam mention this as an exception to the מצוה לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל? So clearly the answer is that it's not an exception. That the sinah that the Rambam's talking about here is not one that's personalized. And hayos that the sinah isn't personalized, it coexists alongside the מצוה לאהוב כל אחד ואחד מישראל. Simultaneously, a person hates a ba'al aveira and loves him. How is that possible? If the sinah isn't a personal sinah, if it's not, if you don't personalize it, so then the two can coexist. But when a dispute becomes personalized, when I'm opposed not only to the other person's views, behaviors, approaches, hashkafos, and all that maybe totally legitimately and totally correctly, when I'm not only opposed to that, but because of that I'm opposed to him, so then the sinah and ahava are mutually exclusive. But kol zman that I'm opposed again to someone's views, again when warranted, when legitimate, I'm opposed to someone's behavior when warranted, when legitimate, but it's not personalized, I'm not opposed to him. So then it's not an exception. And that's why the Rambam doesn't mention this in Hilchos De'os because agam notwithstanding the fact that mitzvah lisnoso, that's not, it's not a category which is an exception to the mitzvah, the mitzvah le'ehov. It's difficult to exaggerate how important this avoda is of knowing how to disagree, how to argue, and how to fight. Difficult to exaggerate just how vital it is that we master that in our day and age.