Ve-ahavta Le-reiakha Kamokha: The Great Principle of Ahavat Yisrael
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #28:
Ve-ahavta Le-reiakha Kamokha The Great Principle of Ahavat Yisrael
The Importance of the Mitzva
Many people identify Judaisms fundamental
principle of interpersonal relations with the directive (Vayikra 19:18):
Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha, You shall love your fellow as yourself. After all, the general language of
the commandment seems to be all-encompassing, including within it the call for
all possible interpersonal interactions to be guided by love. This assumption is furthered by at
least three additional sources that seem to support the understanding of this
principles preeminence.
Firstly (in lesson #07),
we have seen that the Rambam writes that all the various rabbinic mitzvot
of gemilut chasadim are biblical fulfillments of the mitzva to love ones
fellow as himself. Secondly, Rabbi
Akiva, the great tanna, explains the fundamental nature of this
commandment when identifying Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha as a great
principle of the Torah (Torat Kohanim 4:12). Lastly, the Gemara records the story
of a non-Jew who poses the challenge, Convert me on the condition that you
teach me the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai throws him out of
the room, while Hillel accepts this challenge, explaining:
That which is hateful to you, do not do to
your peers this is the entire Torah. All
the rest is simply elaboration. Go and
study it. (Shabbat 31a)
Though not explicitly quoting this verse, the
simple understanding of Hillels statement (the second opinion in Rashis
commentary there) is that it refers to this mitzva as the essential underpinning
of the Torah. Though we must
question why Hillel chooses to reword the verse, he expresses the same idea,
indicating its significance. The
basis of the Torah according to Hillel is treating ones fellow properly.
One might wonder, with an understanding of
this mitzvas importance, it is a little strange that we have not yet devoted at
least one lesson to this fundamental principle.
Notwithstanding the other important mitzvot and directives we have
discussed, should this great principle of the Torah not take precedence?
Let us turn our attention to the Torahs
presentation of the mitzvot themselves.
We have noted (lesson #26) that the Torah, in Parashat Kedoshim,
the parasha teaching us how to be holy, puts geneiva, stealing, at
the top of a list of interpersonal directives (Vayikra 19:11). Not only does the Torah not begin
with the positive requirement of loving ones fellow Jew, we do not find it
mentioned in the second or third spot either.
In fact, it is mentioned last, as the final directive in an extensive
list of primarily negative commandments (ibid.
verse 18). Why does the Torah not
begin its discussion with this positive great principle of the Torah?
Why is it relegated to the last spot? Furthermore, why, if it is preceded
by the opposite requirement, Do not hate your brother in your heart (verse
17), does the Torah place it in the same verse as less complementary
prohibitions, taking revenge and bearing a grudge?
It seems that the proper understanding of Ve-ahavta
le-reiakha kamokha specifically lies in an understanding of the related
prohibitions mentioned in the same verse.
Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha does not stand on its own, but
rather as the culmination of all the preceding principles. For this reason, we will introduce
this mitzva this week, but we will return to it in depth only after dealing with
the related mitzvot that are mentioned together with it. After analyzing this mitzva in the
greater context of interpersonal mitzvot, we will have the capacity to
grasp more of its essence.
What is This Love All About?
To properly fulfill Ve-ahavta le-reiakha
kamokha, one must know what it entails.
If one would take the words literally, You shall love your fellow as
yourself, one might assume that one must actually love others with the same
degree of love one has for oneself. But
is that really possible? Does it indicate
that anything one buys for oneself one must purchase for ones fellow as well? If so, anytime one is hungry for an
apple, one should buy for ones five friends as well. While this may be doable for some, it
is highly unlikely that anytime one purchases a family car or home, one should
be expected to do so for all of ones friends.
Can that really be what the Torah has in mind?
In a less dramatic manner, we may ask the
following question: is one allowed to make a lavish wedding or other meaningful
affair, or must one scale down the affair in order to love others more and be
able to provide more for the needy?
We also must define who is included in this
directive. Simply said, who is reiakha
mentioned in the verse? Must one
love all Jews, even those who are evil or dangerous, even those who have
chosen to do others harm?
The Verse and Its Depth
As usual, we will begin by looking at the
verses themselves and seeing the context and the language which the Torah uses
to teach us this mitzva. As
mentioned, the mitzva is presented in the context of interpersonal mitzvot
in Parashat Kedoshim, among the mitzvot required to fulfill the
Biblical mandate to be holy.
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against your countrymen, and you shall love your fellow as yourself. I am God.
(Vayikra 19:18)
The verse formulates the obligation of loving
ones neighbor in the affirmative, as opposed to Hillels formulation cited
earlier, articulated in the negative: That which is hateful to you, do not do
to your peers. Furthermore, Hillel
focuses on action, do not do," as opposed to the verses calling for love,
seemingly an emotional feeling.
Hillels statement would seem to be very clear in its intention: it prohibits
action. The verse, however, is very
vague. What is this love and how is
it accomplished in the heart, in the mind?
Some commentators, among them Yonatan ben
Uzziel, translate the biblical directive with Hillels words, revealing their
understanding that the verse essentially is expressing a prohibition of action
rather than a positive requirement of love.
The Maharsha (Shabbat 31a) points out that though the verse speaks
in the positive formulation, Hillel nevertheless expresses the obligation in the
negative because the mitzva is presented in the same verse as the prohibition of
revenge, indicating that it too is a prohibition of improper action. This begs the question: if, in fact,
the Torah is really expressing a directive of action, why formulate it as a
mitzva of love? This question will
actually lead us to a very fascinating difference of opinion regarding the
nature of this mitzva.
The commentators also deal with a number of
questions that arise in attempting to understand the verse. Firstly, regarding context, what is
the connection of this mitzva to the other mitzvot mentioned in this
section, especially the prohibition of revenge recorded in the same verse? Secondly, why is the language of the
commandment le-reiakha instead of et reiakha," the formulation
found regarding the obligation to love God (Devarim 6:5)?
After arriving at a proper definition of
the obligation of love, ahava, the most important word to understand is kamokha,
as yourself. Furthermore,
what is to be derived from the conclusion of the verse, I am God? How does that relate to the nature of
the mitzva?
The commentators are also bothered by the
seeming contradiction within Rabbi Akivas worldview. He describes this mitzva as a great
principle, but according to Bava Metzia 62a, he expounds the verse And
your brother shall live with you (Vayikra 25:36) to teach us that Your
life comes first, before the life of your friend. Though we will deal with this
issue at great length in the following lesson, some commentators use this latter
statement as the basis of their approaches, so we must discuss how it affects
our understanding of the basic mitzva.
Action or Emotion
The Rambams View
The various interpersonal mitzvot
mentioned in the verses cited above might all share a unified theme of how to
deal with one who has wronged you, as the Rashbam explains (Vayikra
19:17-18). This might lead one to believe that Ve-ahavta is also
focused on a directive of action; however, the Rambam seems to explain
differently. The Rambam expresses
the obligation of loving ones neighbor in its most basic understanding, an
emotional requirement of love.
To love one another as we love ourselves I
must have compassion and love for my coreligionist as I do for myself, as
regards his wealth, his body, and all that he possesses and desires. All that I desire for myself I must
desire for him; and all that I do not desire for myself or for my loved ones, I
must not desire for him. (Sefer
Ha-mitzvot 206)
This does not mean that the Rambam requires
one to develop an emotional bond only, without any ensuing action, as the Rambam
himself expresses the need to express the love through action. The Rambam, near the beginning of his
magnum opus, Mishneh Torah, in Hilkhot Deot 6:3, adds the element
of action as well:
Each man is commanded to love each and every one of
Israel as himself, as it is stated: You shall love your fellow as yourself. Therefore, one should speak the
praises of others and show concern for their money, just as he is concerned with
his own money and desires his own honor
In Hilkhot Avel (14:1), the Rambam
broadens the scope of Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha to mitzvot
codified by the rabbis:
It is a positive rabbinical mitzva to visit the sick
and to comfort mourners
These are the acts of chesed done bodily which
have no limit. Even though all of these mitzvot are rabbinical, they are
included in You shall love your fellow as yourself everything you wish
others to do for you, you should do for your brother in Torah and mitzvot.
Despite the Rambams recognition of the call
for action in the verse, the source of the requirement is his literal
understanding of the verse, calling for an emotional love for ones fellow Jew.
The Rambans View
The Ramban, on the other hand, explains that
one cannot take the verse literally, understanding that the intent of the
commandment is that one must not harbor jealousy of any kind to ones neighbor,
but should desire good for him, just as one wishes good for themselves. His understanding is based on the
various difficulties with the verse presented above.
The phrase Love your neighbor as yourself
cannot be meant literally, since man cannot be expected to love his neighbor as
himself. Moreover, Rabbi Akiva has
ruled that Your life comes first.
The Torah here enjoins us that we should wish upon our neighbor the same
benefits that we wish upon ourselves.
Perhaps, this is the reason for the dative instead of the accusative form
of the verb phrase; we find the same in And you shall love him as yourself
(19:34). Indeed, sometimes a person may
wish upon his neighbor certain benefits, but only wealth, not wisdom and the
like. But even if he wishes his
cherished friend well in everything, i.e. wealth, honor, learning, and wisdom,
he will not do so unstintingly; he will still insist on a larger share of the
benefits. It is this shortcoming
that the Torah condemned. Rather, a
man should wish his fellow well in everything, just as he does in his own case,
and he should place no limitations on his love. Therefore, in the case of
Yonatan and David (I Shemuel 20:17), it says that Yonatan loved him as
his own soul, since he had removed all jealousy from his heart, declaring And
you shall rule over Israel (ibid.
23:17).
The Rambans idea is based primarily on the
qualifying term kamokha, as expressed by other commentators who
follow in his footsteps (see Chizkuni).
According to the Ramban, kamokha qualifies the degree of love. Since no one can fulfill the literal
meaning of the verse, rather than an emotional directive, it is a call to wish
the best for ones friend, the same way one wants the best for oneself.
Other commentators similarly state that
Hillels statement, though formulated in the negative, is the only possible
understanding of the verse, for one cannot really love another as oneself. Therefore, Hillel explained that the
mitzva is one of action, ensuring that one does no actions that one would not
want done to oneself. This
understanding of kamokha focuses on the actions one would want done to
oneself.
Evidently, the Rambam feels that one could
actually love ones friend as one loves oneself (see next lesson), as the text
in Mesillat Yesharim quoted later reveals.
Others understood kamokha differently and focus on the nature of
the other person.
Others understand that kamokha is a
limitation: one is required to love the fellow who is righteous. The Rashbam (Vayikra 19:18)
arrives at a similar conclusion, but from a different part of the verse:
You shall love your fellow as yourself
only if he is your fellow, i.e. virtuous, but not if he is wicked, as it is
written, To fear God is to hate evil (Mishlei 8:13).[1]
According to another approach, kamokha
does not require the other to be righteous.
Rather, it refers to standards of behavior that an individual expects in
interpersonal relationships; one cannot expect to receive the benefits of these
standards from others without upholding them towards others. (Ha-Ketav Ve-kabbala puts together a
list: frankness and a lack of hypocrisy, respect, inquiring about ones welfare,
sharing in grief, cordiality, giving the benefit of the doubt, lending, et
cetera.) This understanding of kamokha
essentially calls for one to look at oneself, see what one actually needs
and do these things for others. One
might view this as egotistical, focusing on ones own needs and applying it to
others (see the Malbims explanation of ben Azzais opinion in the next lesson),
but Rabbi Akivas viewing this as a great principle seems to reflect the
benefits accrued by thinking in this manner.
There is no better measure for what actions of others may be hurtful or
appreciated than ones own feelings.
Ve-ahavta le-reiakha kamokha calls for man to spend time analyzing his
own needs rather than guessing about others needs in order to be able to
provide the same for others.
There is one caveat though that must be
expressed in this context: not all people are the same. That which does not bother one
individual may be extremely painful for another.
A number of commentators express this clearly: one must provide for
others what others in fact need. For
instance, the Peleh Yoetz (Ahava) writes that ones behavior toward
others should be based on others feelings, not ones own. If ones fellow want
something to be done for him, even if one would not need or want it, one should
do it for his fellow. The same applies in the negative. Even if one would not
mind a particular statement or action, one must not do it or say it to someone
who would be bothered by it.
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Though some commentators view the mitzva as a
call to emotional closeness and others as a duty of action, it seems that the
various understandings of the mitzva actually blend together to shape a persons
personality to become a giver, expressing love and simultaneously developing
feelings of love.
Rav Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, in his celebrated
Kuntres Ha-chesed, Discourse on Loving-kindness, develops a deep
understanding of Judaisms outlook regarding the proper balance between giving
and taking. While it would seem
that taking is the favored action of many, Judaism guides us to lead a life of
giving and to ensure always that we are giving more than we are taking. Contrary to common assumption, Rav
Dessler explains that giving is not an outgrowth of love; giving, in fact,
creates love.
Here we come to an interesting question. We see that love and giving always
come together. Is the giving a
consequence of the love, or is perhaps the reverse true: is the love a result of
the giving?
We usually think it is love which causes
giving, because we observe that a person showers gifts and favors on the one he
loves. But there is another side of
the argument. Giving may bring about
love for the same reason that a person loves what he himself has created or
nurtured: he recognizes it as a part of himself.
(Strive for Truth, Vol. I, pp.126-127)
Rav Dessler explains that the root of the word
ahava is hav, give.
It is giving that creates love by affecting the mindset of the giver. In addition, he cites Derekh Eretz
Zuta (ch. 2): If you want to keep close to the love of your friend, make it
your concern to seek his welfare.
Some of his concluding remarks reflect the connection we have posited between
those opinions who view the mitzva as one of emotional love and those who view
it as an obligation to give, because, as he explains (ibid. p. 130), the two go hand in
hand.
Someone who has been granted the merit to
reach this sublime level can understand the command, You shall love your
neighbor as yourself in its literal sense: As yourself: without distinction;
as yourself: in actual fact. By
giving to him or yourself, you will find in your soul that you and he are indeed
one; you will feel in the clearest possible manner that he really is to you as
yourself.
The Religious Aspect of this Love:
As noted, the verse commanding ahava of
others concludes, I am God, seemingly relating the obligation of love to a
religious connection with God.
Secondly, Rabbi Akivas terminology, referring to loving ones fellow as a great
principle of the Torah, seems to attribute religious significance to this love.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman explains that the
concluding phrase indicates that I am God who created all; by that right, God
demands the unity of humankind, through ethical treatment, that acts as the
source of people coming together.
Avnei Ezel (quoted in Nachshoni) explains
Rabbi Akivas statement by stating that this unity depends solely on the Torah,
its mitzvot and faith in the Creator of man.
The unity that men create by means of their
own humanitarian or social ideologies cannot endure, for they have no true
basis. In fact, we can all see what
has befallen man as a result of democratic universalism or material socialism. When there is no I am God as the
basis for the love of ones fellow, love has no enduring practical basis.
The Baal Shem Tov sees another meaning in I
am God. Gods treatment of man will
mirror mans treatment of others.
One who does not treat others with respect should not expect others to do so as
well.
The religious nature of this mitzva is also
expressed through its significance for other mitzvot, as expressed by the
Chinnukh (Mitzva 243):
This is a major principle of the Torah,
meaning that many mitzvot of the Torah depend on it, for one who loves
his neighbor will not steal from him, will not commit adultery with his wife,
will not cheat him out of money, and will not harm him in any way. There are numerous other mitzvot
in the Torah that depend on this, as anyone with intelligence will realize. The logic behind the mitzva is well
known, for just as he does to his fellow, so will his fellow do to him, and in
this way there will be peace among mankind.
God Acts out of Love of Man
The importance of showing love towards others
is analogous to another obligation of love, loving God. The Ramchal, in his masterwork
Mesillat Yesharim, enters into a
lengthy discussion of how one expresses their love of God through chasidut
(see lesson #16): performing actions to bring joy to God rather than for their
own needs. He adds that one should
develop concern for the welfare of the Jewish people and the world, and one
should perform deeds on behalf of the Jewish nation. Towards this end, he expresses the
following startling statement:
The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves only him
who loves Israel; and to the extent that one's love for Israel grows, so does
the love of the Holy One, Blessed be He, grow for him. (Mesillat Yesharim, ch. 19)
The Ramchal then continues that any striving
chasid should make it his business to exert himself on behalf of the Jewish
people.
These are the true shepherds of Israel, whom
the Holy One, Blessed be He, greatly desires: who sacrifice themselves for His
sheep; who concern themselves with their peace and well-being and exert
themselves for it in every way possible; who always stand in the breach to pray
for them, to nullify stern decrees and to open the gates of blessing for them.
The situation is analogous to that of a father, who loves no man more than the
one whom he sees to have a genuine love for his sons. Human nature attests to
this. And this is the idea behind the statement concerning the high priests (Makkot
11a), "They should have pleaded for mercy on behalf of their generation, but
they failed to do so." We also find a
similar statement there, "A man was eaten by a lion at a distance of three miles
from R. Yehoshua ben Levi, and Eliyahu did not appear to him for three days." We
see, then, that it is the saint's duty to seek the good of his generation and to
exert himself for it.
Concluding Remarks:
We have only begun to analyze this mitzva,
which comes at the end of the list, as the climax of the interpersonal
directives. With an understanding of
the importance of the mitzva, there is a simultaneous acknowledgment of the
difficulty involved in its practice, along with the questions that arise
regarding the proper fulfillment of these laws.
In the next lessons, we will discuss the balance between ones own
personal needs and their providing for others: may man be partial to himself?
[1]
The nature of ones obligation to love evildoers is a complicated topic. Due to its applicability to a number
of other principles, we will have to wait a little to discuss it.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!