Love Your Fellow
What is the Golden Rule?
ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha (Levit. 19:18) (‘love your friend as [you love] yourself’ (Rashbam); or, ‘love [and so look after] that which is your fellow’s, as your own’ (R’ A. ibn Ezra, Ramban); or, ‘if you do so [not take revenge or bear grudge] you will love him as yourself’ (Chizkuni’s first interpretation); or, ‘you must love your neighbor as [you love] yourself’ (R’ A. Kaplan)).
This is a major rule in the Torah
Rashi: Rabbi Akiva said, ‘This is a major rule in the Torah’ - it follows that we ought to try very hard to know what the rule means so that we can follow it. As can be seen from the above translations that are based on the various commentators, this is not simple. It should be noted that though Rashi does not explain the rule here, elsewhere he does: lo tovey lo (Deut. 13:9) (‘Do not desire him’) Rashi comments ‘Do not desire him, do not love him, as it says ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha but this person, do not love; and again, Rashi writes: If someone flouted the commandment written in the Torah ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha, and also someone who is evil – you may hate him (Prov. 3:30). In both comments Rashi is restricting the rule to people who are not evil.
Rashi (Toras Kohanim 19:45) says in the name of Rabbi Akiva, "Zeh klal godol baTorah." In the prelude of the Yam Hatalmud on B.K. he explains that all Yisroel is responsible one for the other. Because of this when a person sins it negatively affects his friend. Thus, if you love your friend you will refrain from sinning, as it would be damaging to your innocent friend. This is a basic behaviour for complying with all the Torah's commands, "klal godol baTorah."
Our Rabbis explain this verse as: "Ma d'aloch soni l'chavroch lo saavid," - that which is hated by you, to your friend do not do. Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains these words as follows: That which hates you, your evil inclination, do not make it your friend.
Rashbam argues that the rule applies only ‘if he is re’acha – if he is good, but not if he is evil, as it says yir’at hashem senot ra (Prov. 8:13) (‘the fear of G -d is the hatred of evil’), i.e., re’a is a person you find to be good, hence I have translated re’acha ‘your friend.’ Although Rashbam is the only commentator (in Toras Chaim) who deals directly with the word re’acha the other commentators do not necessarily disagree, and perhaps ‘friend’ would be the consensus translation. R’ A. Kaplan’s use of the traditional translation ‘neighbor’ requires justification; the Hebrew term re’acha clearly implies a relationship beyond simple proximity.
R’ A. ibn Ezra writes ‘Many maintain that this is an additional Lamed like the Lamed of le’avner (2 Sam. 3:30), but in my opinion it should be taken literally that one should love that which is good for one’s fellow as one loves one’s own soul’; i.e., lere’acha (‘that which is your fellow’s’).
Ramban writes haflaga (‘exaggerated language’) for he argues it is psychologically impossible to love another person as one loves oneself and furthermore R’ Akiva taught your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow (and it is unthinkable that R’ Akiva should contradict an explicit verse in the Torah). But the commandment of the Torah is that one should love one’s fellow in all matters as one loves one’s own soul with all benefits.... Scripture is negating jealousy and commanding that one should love the increase of well-being for one’s fellow as for oneself with unlimited love.
Rambam writes: Every person is required to love each and every one of Israel just as he loves himself as it says ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha, therefore one should speak well of him and be concerned for his goods as one is for one’s own, and cares for one’s own honor, and he who obtains honor by denigrating his fellow has no share in the world to come (Hil. Deos, 6:3). However elsewhere he writes: It is a positive Mitzva ordained by the Sages, to visit the sick, comfort the mourners, remove the dead, help the bride, accompany visiting wayfarers, perform all the needs for burial: carry on the shoulder, go before him to eulogize, dig and bury; and also, to make bridegroom and bride happy, and help them in all their needs; these are the rendering of physical kindnesses which have no limit. Even though all of these Mitzvot are rabbinical injunctions they are included in ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha - all matters that you wish that others do for you, do them to your fellow who observes Torah and Mitzvot (Hil. Avel, 14:1). The two statements require reconciliation. Does the Mitzva to help have its origin in the Torah or is it of Rabbinical standing? R’ Ezra, my son, pointed out that in the first statement Rambam includes a rather minimal level of kindness not including taking positive action: it would seem that Rambam is laying down that this is decreed by the Torah as the least due to ‘each and every one of Israel;’ while in the second statement Rambam is making much more wide-ranging demands, which he says are enactions by the Sages as an extension of the same rule. It seems that Rambam maintains that the Sages decreed these as due only to ‘your fellow who observes Torah and Mitzvot.’ If so, Rambam, like the commentators, is restricting the meaning of the verse.
Based on Morsels of Hebrew Grammar by Dr. Meshullam Klarberg
The Gemara in Shabbos (31a) cites the story of the gentile who came before Hillel asking him to convert him on condition that he teaches him the entire Torah whilst he stood on one foot. The K'li Yakar explains that Hillel understood that the man was serious and that he was not pulling his leg (excuse the pun). He realized that what he wanted was a fundamental principle that would serve as the key to the rest of the Torah. So he promptly converted him (in front of a Beis-Din of course), and said to him 'What you would not like others to do to you do not do to them. This is the entire Torah; the rest is merely an explanation. Now go and learn!'
The Pasuk that Hillel presented to him is Targum Yonasan's translation of "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho" (Love your fellow-Jew like yourself [Kedoshim, 19:18]). But then Yonasan ben Uziel was Hillel's star Talmid, so we now know the source of his (Yonasan's) translation.
The Maharsha asks why Hillel deviated from the straightforward translation, switching what the Torah presents as an Asei into a Lo Sa'aseh. And he answers by pointing at the preceding phrase "Do not take revenge ... ". Clearly, what the Torah is saying here is 'Do not take revenge from another Jew, just as you would not like him to take revenge from you' (refer to the Chizkuni's explanation cited in Parshah Pearls 'Miserliness v. Revenge'). Hence the Torah continues "Love your fellow-Jew - the antidote to revenge, which is based on hatred. In any event, the Maharsha concludes, the Pasuk cannot be taken literally, seeing as Rebbi Akiva comments on the Pasuk 'This is a major principle in the Torah', whilst elsewhere he maintains that 'Your life takes precedence over that of another Jew'.
The Ramban, based on the 'Lamed' in the word "le'rei'acho", translates the Pasuk to mean "Love on behalf of your friend what you would love on behalf of yourself." He too, declines to interpret the Pasuk according to its simple translation, because it is impossible to love another person to the same extent as one loves oneself. And this would serve as another reason for Targum Yonasan to switch the Asei (which is impossible to demand) to a Lo Sa'aseh (which is feasible).
Rashi too, equates the Pasuk quoted by Hillel with the Pasuk in Kedoshim, and clearly puzzled over the fact that half the Mitzvos are 'Bein Odom la'Mokom (between man and G-d), he explains Hillel's statement in two ways: 1. Based on the fact that the majority of Mitzvos are 'Bein odom la'chaveiro' (between man and man [an eye-opener in itself]); 2. That (based on the Pasuk in Mishlei (27:10 [with reference to Hashem]) "Re'acho ve'Re'a ovicho al ta'azov" (Do not forsake your Friend and the Friend of your father), "Re'acho" refers to G-d, as well as to one's fellow-Jew. That being the case, the Torah is commanding us here to treat G-d, as well as one's fellow man, with the same concern as we would like them to treat us. In any event, Hillel teaches us here that the ideal (and perhaps the only) way of building a meaningful and lasting relationship with others is by seeing in them a mirror image of oneself, by viewing their property, their persons and their dignity with the same care and respect as if they were one's own.
When Hillel told the man not to do to his friend what he would not like others to do to him, he did not mean that he should gauge the likes and dislikes of others by his own. This is not possible, since there is no reason to assume that his friend shares his own likes and dislikes. Therefore, Rashi explains that what the Pasuk means is that just as Reuven would like Shimon to avoid doing what he dislikes (whatever that may be), so too, should he avoid doing what Shimon dislikes (even though that may differ from the things that he dislikes).
That is why Hillel concluded with the words 'The rest is merely an explanation. Now go and learn!' Having undertaken to avoid doing anything that may hurt one's fellow-Jew (or according to Rashi's first explanation, that may contravene the wishes of G-d), all that remained was for the convert to discover what it was that people generally don't like done to them and what it is that contravene G-d's wishes. That was the explanation. That he would now have to go and learn.
After giving the same explanation in the name of the Rambam, the Ha'amek Davar cites a Yerushalmi (Nedarim, 9:4) which also connects the two Mitzvos, but in a very different way. The Yerushalmi interprets the Pasuk "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho" to mean that you should love your fellow-Jew like yourself, because, in effect all Jews are one, in which case he and you are part of the same body. And just as a person would not dream of avenging his left hand which was struck by his right hand, so too, should one refrain from avenging the wrong that was done to him.
Irrespective of which of the two reasons one adopts, it seems to me that, having linked "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho" to the prohibition of taking revenge (and bearing a grudge, which is mentioned together with it), one can go one step further: The Torah has just presented a comprehensive list of Mitzvos bein adam la'chaveiro - 'Do not steal", "Do not withhold the wages of a laborer", "Do not rob", "Do not keep a laborer's wages over-night", "Do not curse", "Do not perform an injustice", "Do not slander", "Do not hate" and "Do not take revenge or bear a grudge". Neither would one's right hand do these things to one's left, nor would one like somebody else to do them to oneself. Consequently, when the Torah concludes "Ve'ohavto le'Rei'acho komo-cho", it is saying - 'Don't do any of these things to somebody else!'
The K'li Yakar cites the Gemara at the end of Makos, which, based on the Pasuk in Chavakuk "ve'Tzadik be'Emunoso yich'yeh", teaches us that Chavakuk came and based all the Mitzvos on one Mitzvah - namely, that of Emunah (faith in G-d). How is it he asks, that the Gemara there cites the most fundamental Mitzvah as Emunah, whereas the Gemara in Shabbos (upon which this article is based), cites the most fundamental Mitzvah as "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho"?
In his answer, he explains that the former pertains to the Mitzvos bein adam La'Makom, the latter, to the Mitzvos bein adam la'chaveiro, a theme on which he elaborates in his own inimitable way.
The question remains however, why on the one hand, Hillel picked specifically the Mitzvah which serves as the basis for the Mitzvos she'bein adam la'chaveiro, whereas on the other, the convert asked for a Mitzvah which serves as the basis for the whole Torah (seeing as each one represents only half the Torah)?
Moreover, Chavakuk was clearly referring to a Mitzvah that represents the whole Torah, and not just for Mitzvos bein Adam la'Mokom? And so too, was the convert. Indeed, in both the explanations that we discussed last week, Rashi explains "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho" as the basis for the entire Torah - incorporating the Mitzvos she'bein Adam la'Makom, as well as those bein Adam la'Chaveiro!!
It therefore seems to me that each of the two Pesukim cited does indeed represent the entire Torah; Emunah is the basis even for Mitzvos she'bein adam la'Chaveiro, just as loving one's friend is the basis even for Mitzvos she'bein adam la'Makom - only they represent different aspects of 'basis'. Whereas Chavakuk presents "ve'Tzadik be'Emunoso yich'yeh" as a prerequisite to Torah, Rebbi Akiva ('Zeh k'lal Godol ba'Torah') saw "Ve’ohavto le’rei’acho komocho" as the Mitzvah, which more than any other, actually incorporates all the other Mitzvos, which is precisely what the convert was looking for.
R’ Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) of Volozhin in his commentary on our verse writes: It cannot be interpreted according to its plain meaning for as is well known your life has preference to the life of your fellow, and Rambam explained (in Hil. Avel, Ch. 14), ‘matters that you wish that others do for you,’ and it is self-evident that Man will not expect his fellow to love him as himself, rather they relate according to their closeness and normal behavior, and you are obliged to love people the same way. Accordingly, the rule should be understood in light of the previous prohibition lo tikom velo titor et benei amecha (ibid.) (‘You shall not revenge or bear grudge against the children of your people’), just as you desire that if you dealt badly with someone that they should not take revenge, but pass over your evil, so you should deal with your fellow, that is how the connection (of the parts of the verse) is explained according to Rambam. However, from the Yerushalmi (T.J. Nedarim, 9:4), I [Netziv] have learnt another explanation to the connection [between these two parts of the verse]. It says, lo tikom velo titor et benei amecha ... revenge against one’s fellow is similar to someone who is cutting meat and carelessly one hand cuts the other; would one think that the cut hand should take revenge on the first hand and smite it? Similarly, ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha negates taking revenge. Even though one’s own life and well-being have preference to that of one’s fellow he should regard the other as part of himself, as all Israel are one soul! This is an unrestricted interpretation.
If the entire Torah was to be taught while standing on one leg it could be encapsulated into the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. Rav Dessler offers a number of explanations. He writes that love comes about as a result of giving. When you give to others, you give a part of yourself. You see yourself in that other person. As the Jerusalem Talmud teaches, just like someone who accidentally cuts himself wouldn't consider taking revenge against his hand, so too all of Israel is one and the idea of taking revenge against oneself must be viewed as outrageous. One who is dedicated to helping others becomes one with them. There is no jealous slander, haughtiness or begrudging with oneself.
But there is an even higher level. If one loves his neighbor who was created in the tzelem Elokim {the 'form' of Hashem}, he is loving and honoring Hashem Himself. The more one humbles oneself before Hashem, the more he'll humble himself before his neighbor-the walking representation of Hashem in this world. Thus, through loving and honoring others, one can access that true infinity while still being here in this finite world.
Tosefes Beracha
Selection from Toras Kohanim and from Yerushalmi (Nedarim Ch. 9 Halacah 4):
Rabbi Akiva says this verse “Love Your Fellow” is a major principal in Torah(כלל גדול בתורה) . Ben Azai states this is learnt from: (בראשיה ה,א ) זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם
What is the disagreement? What does Ben Azai add to the words of Rabbi Akiva?
Ben Azai maintains that the word לרעך includes the people of the world. Thus, he cites the verse which specifies אדם which indicates all people of the world.
Rabbi Akiva also subscribes to this concept that the word רעך includes all people as potential friends. Refer to Pirkei Avos Chapter 3, Mishnah 4, where Rabbi Akiva states that beloved are the humans which were created in G-d’s image (צלם א-לקים) refers to all people since in context the next verse states that beloved are the Jews.”
