Few commands in all of Scripture are more celebrated, or more often quoted, than the one we encounter in this week’s parsha. It has been echoed in every major civilisation, inscribed into the conscience of the world, adopted as a kind of universal shorthand for goodness itself. No one, as a rule, dissents.
That verse is none other than loving one’s neighbor as one loves oneself:
וְאָהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
Beautiful.
And inspiring.
Who would say otherwise?
And yet, I have a question.
How is it to be done?
It is a practical question. Not abstract, not theoretical — a question of moment to moment, of situation to situation, of what one does when the ordinary tests of life arrive. How is one to live this mitzvah?
Simply to feel warmly towards others?
To be kind?
Maybe it means I should smite more?
Or be civil and politie?
Maybe all of the above.
The key word there is “maybe”.
If I told you that I put on tefillin, we would all have a clear image in your mind of what I did.
If I told you that I ate matzos on seder night, another clear image would arise.
And we would all, for the most part, have the same image in mind.
But what if I tell you that I loved someone like I love myself. What would come to mind? What image would you have? How would you envision or describe it?
Is there some concrete action (or category of actions) that comes to mind?
Some sort of emotion or feeling that you conjure up?
In short, what does it mean to actually fulfil this mitzva?
That is my question.
I shall not attempt to answer it in full. I shall not survey all the sources or every approach. I shall take (mainly) Rashi, and walk through the verse and its context line by line. Literally, as our main focus will be on just two lines.
And in doing so, I will try and come up with something akin to a definition or principle or concept that we can refer to and say — this is it. This is an example of actually loving someone as we love ourselves.
Sounds good?
Great — then lets begin.
Where to begin
Well, truth be told, beginning is a bit of a problem. What I want is context. In other words, I want to zero in on Sefer Vayikra, chapter 19, verse 18 (our verse) and work our way back to to some sort of starting point. The first verse in this sub-section.
The problem is, I don’t know where that verse actually is.
I could go back to verse 15. That would make structural sense, as it comes right after a pesucha — what one can argue is the Torahs equivalent of a new section.
The problem is that it is hard to see how that sentence relates in particular to ours. That line is about favortism in court cases. That is to say, not showing favoritism in a court case.
As such, it is directed towards judges. And I don’t think that our line is directed solely towards judges.
As such, I’ll look elsewhere. The next verse, for example. That talks about not speaking loshon hora and not standing idly. Definitely more promising. But, for our purposes, I’ll skip that one to.
But not without first making one crucial observation. It ends with an interesting phrase:
אֲנִ֖י י׳ I am Y-K-V-K
That phrase may not seem so promising, but if we look closer, we’ll notice that our line ends exactly the same way:
וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י י׳ And you will love your fellow man as you love yourself, I am Y-K-V-K
This phrase shows up periodically in the Chumash. And one can (and should) wonder — what’s it doing here. What does this little addition add?
For now, we’ll leave that question on the side. Instead, though, we’ll made an (hopefully) educated assumption — that this functions as a mini-break.
That is to say, we are in a major section — we know that from the pesucha. But maybe there are sub-units within that section. And perhaps this tiny little phrase demarcates the division between these sub-units.
Or, put otherwise. The first two sentences of this section are related in some way. And so are the next two sentences. But they are each related in different ways.
If so, that means we have found our immediate context. A small context — just two verses. But a context nonetheless.
And, as I hope to show, it will be more than a good enough context for our purposes.
Beginning Again
Now we can actually begin. We’ll start with the verse:
לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃ Do not hate your brother in your heart, reprove your fellow and do not bear a sin on account of him.
We have begun.
But have you noticed how we have begun?
With hate.
In short, the opposite of love.
But it’s not just any type of hate.
It’s a hate that is in our hearts.
Does this mean that if I outwardly hate him it’s okay? That’s it’s only secret, hidden hatred that is forbidden?
Perhaps, but let’s first look at the next few words.
לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ Do not hate your brother in your heart, reprove your fellow
Let me slightly rewrite this — in what I think this phrase means:
Do not hate your brother in your heart, rather reprove your fellow
That word rather is not written, but it is understood. It is, as they say, implicit (as opposed to explicit).
And with that, a picture is starting to emerge. Don’t keep your hatred buried deep inside, rather express it. But, express it in a particular way. A way that is expressed (pun definitely intended) by the Hebrew phrase הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙.
In other words, if we want to know what we are supposed to do, then we need to know what this word means. Ideally, that would send us through Tanach on an exploration for the meaning of this word.
But for now, we’ll have to settle for a working hypothesis — and hope and pray that we find the time for that exploration some other time.
I’ll start my working hypothesis by making an observation. We are speaking here of emotions. One man hates his fellow.
Which means, that I do not think we are talking here about logical proofs. to hochiach does not mean to “prove” to him that you are right and he is mean.
I don’t think the context allows for such an understanding.
Instead, here is what I propose — clearly communicate to him why you feel as you do.
Yeah, I know, that’s a bit long for a translation. But it’s the idea I want to get across. What the Torah is saying is that if you have negative emotions towards someone out, that you need to find a way to communicate how you feel and why — in a way that will “work”.
We’ll define “work”, in a second.
But first, let’s explore those negative emotions.
Hatred, you may say, is a bit stronger than negative emotions. And in English, you are right. But I wonder about in Hebrew. As I have noted before, Hebrew words are richer than English ones. English is a more exact language — with many more words which describe nuances which don’t exist in Biblical Hebrew.
On the flip side, a single word in Hebrew can carry a much richer array of meanings and associations than English can.
Richness vs specificity. They each have their advantages. And they each have their challenges when translating.
Thus the problem with the translation “hate”. Yes, that is one of the meanings of our verse. But I don’t think it is the only one. I think sinah (שינא) encompasses the full array of negative thoughts and emotions that one has towards another.
And, as such, the Torah is telling us — don’t keep it bottled up inside. Rather, find a way to communicate to the other person why you feel as you do.
Perhaps they wronged you.
Perhaps they insulted you.
Perhaps they ignored you.
Perhaps they caused you financial damage.
The list is virtually endless.
The point is. They did something that has changed how you see and feel about them.
And they are evidently clueless about that.
Your goal, therefore, is to find a way to “demonstrate it” to them. Not “prove it” to them, but communicate it in a way that they get it.
A small illustration
At this point, I think an example may help.\
I am currently reading a book about marketing. It is, like most self-help books, full of stories. Too many stories. But this one is worth it — if for no other reason then for this dvar Torah.
This story involves a consultant who has been hired to help teach a division of a real estate agency how to better advertise their services. The problem is that this particular division was rather successful.
True, they could do better. But they were doing well. And that was a problem — because it meant that they wouldn’t listen.
In other words, they had no interest in listening to what some outside “consultant” had to tell them about advertising real estate. They had been doing it for years. Were successful. And didn’t need any more help.
And so, our “hero” had a problem. A communication problem.
But our hero would not be a hero if he didn’t have a solution (and this story would also be pointless if he didn’t). And so, we fast forward to the day of his presentation.
He starts off by going to the local drug store and buying the local paper. He then proceeds to get some masking tape and covers up each and every headline on the front page.
So far, so strange.
He then walks into the conference room, newspaper in hand and hangs it up on the wall for all to see.
Now, this group may not be interested in what he had to say, but they were curious about this newspaper.
“What’s the deal with the newspaper,” one of them asked?
“And why the masking tape,” asked another.
“Fair questions” he responded. “But before I answer your question, I’d like you to answer mine. What’s the problem with this page?”
“Well,” one of them replied. “You can’t really know what you want to read.”
“Right,” he replied. “I imagine you all know why”.
“Sure, there are no headlines. And without the headlines, you have no idea if you are interested in the article or not.”
“Exactly,” he replied. “And with that said, I’d like to turn the page and have you take a look at the latest ad that you published in this very same newspaper”.
A collected “aha” fell over the crowd.
“What’s the problem with this ad,” he asked.
“There’s no headline. And if there is no headline, then our customers don’t know if they want to read our ad.”
“Bingo!”
And with that, they listened eagerly to the rest of his presentation.
That, I would like to suggest, is a brilliant example of a “demonstration”. It wasn’t a logical proof. It was a means of helping someone else see what you see.
And that, I believe, is what our verse is saying. Not in terms of marketing and money. But in terms of emotions and feelings. Find a way. Your way. A way that works. To enable them to see why you feel the way that you feel.
But, there is a problem — as noted in the continuation of this verse.
Is it Just About Your Feelings?
So far, our verse makes sense.
Do not keep negative feelings about your brother burried up inside of you, find a way to communicate how you feel to your fellow man
Yeah, I know. Loose translation. But it works.
But then the next part:
וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא and do not bear a sin on account of him.
What is this addition doing here? What sin are we worried about? We are just having a conversation. I’m attempting (perhaps clumbsily) to express how I feel and why I feel that way.
Isn’t that good?
Isn’t that mature?
Isn’t that what the Torah wants me to do?
Yes. But not only yes. Let us take a look at Rashi:
לֹא תַלְבִּין אֶת פָּנָיו בָּרַבִּים Do not publicly embarrass him
Yes, says the Torah.
You should express yourself.
And you should do so in a loving and sensitive manner.
But let us use our imagination and see why this may not be enough.
You are at a gathering. It could be anywhere. At shul. A wedding. Your home. It doesn’t matter.
The point is that there are people there. You, friends. And the guy you (currently) can’t stand.
And you decide to be a tzadik. You aren’t going to keep it in any longer. You are going to patiently and lovingly explain to him why he upset you so.
And you succeed. He gets it. And so does everyone else. And that is the problem.
Yes, says the Torah. Skillfully and lovingly and respectfully “rebuke” him. But don’t do so in a way that will lead him to be embarrased. Because if you do, you will have sinned against him.
Him, you say?
The guy who insulted me?
The guy who double crossed me?
The guy who (fill in the blank)?
Yes, that guy. When you learn how to successfully and skillfully express what is going on inside for you, don’t do so in a way that will embarrass him.
Of course, it’s not just about embarrassment. That’s just an example. The point is. He wronged you. You hate him. You are expressing that to him. And in that situation, you still need to be concerned about him.
Let’s continue.
Revenge, Grudges & Love
We can move on, now, to the next verse:
לֹא־תִקֹּם וְלֹא־תִטֹּר אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי ה’׃ Do not take vengeance and do nor bear a grudge against the children of your people. [Rather], love your neighbour as [you love] yourself. I am Y-K-V-K.
Two words — revenge and grudge. We need definitions. Or, more accurately, representative examples. We may not realize it yet, but we do.
And (once again) Rashi is here to help. He describes to scenarios. One describes revenge. The other bearing a grudge. I will paraphrase.
Scenario #1
Reuven needs a sickle.
Shimon has a sickle.
Reuven asks to borrow Shimon’s sickle.
Shimon says no.
Reuven goes home.
Time passes. The rolls are reversed.
Shimon needs a hatchet.
Reuven has a hatchet.
Shimon asks to borrow Reuven’s hatchet.
Reuven says no — and adds:
Just like you didn’t lend me your sickle, I’m not lending you my hatchet
That, says Rashi, is revenge — aka nekama.
Scenario #2
Reuven needs a hatchet.
Shimon has a hatchet.
Reuven asks to borrow Shimon’s hatchet.
Shimon says no.
Reuven goes home.
Time passes. The rolls are reversed.
Shimon needs a sickle.
Reuven has a sickle.
Shimon asks to borrow Reuven’s sickle.
Reuven says yes — and adds:
Sure, I have no problem lending you my sickle. Unlike “others” who wouldn’t lend me their hatchet.
That, says Rashi, is bearing a grudge — netira.
The switch
Now, you may have noticed that Rashi has a subtle switch between the two “stories”. In the first case, Reuven initially asks for a sickle. In the second, for a hatchet.
I’ll leave you to explore why. I have a couple of ideas — but for now, I’ll keep them to myself. Instead, I’ll encourage you to see what you come up with.
For now, let’s just note what the Torah is telling us.
Reuven is in need. Shimon is not there for him. Shimon hypocritically asks Reuven to help him in the exact same way that he refused to help Reuven.
This is a scenario ripe for either revenge or a grudge.
Revenge, I won’t help him just like he didn’t help me.
A grudge. I bear up and guard my negative feelings and interact with him purposely from that place of anger and resentment.
That, the Torah says, we should not do. Instead, we should love them as we love ourselves. What now, do you think that means? What is it that the Torah is directing us to do? And, in these situations, what would it mean to love them as we love ourselves?
I think the answer is clear. We should lend Shimon what Shimon needs. We should relate to his needs irregardless of whether or not he was there for us when we needed him.
Indeed, it is exactly the opposite. You know what it is like for Shimon to not be there for you. And you know what it would have been like if he had been there for you.
That is the place that you need to relate to him (and everyone else) from. Take that knowledge, and let that be the basis of your interactions.
Love him — i.e., give to him from a place of caring and concern — as you would like him to love you.
That doeesn’t mean that you let him take advantage of you. We aren’t talking about a situation where you suspect that Shimon won’t return what you lend him.
No, the only issue is that you naturally have a desire and inclination to take revenge and/or bear a grudge. And comes along the Torah and says that that should not be the principle by which you interact with others.
Rather, you should see what they need and how you can help them. And act accordingly — regardless of whether or not they would do the same for you.
The Great Principle
One last point.
Rabbi Akiva says that this principle is a klal gadol baTorah.
I wish to offer a suggestion. I do not know whether it fully captures the meaning of klal gadol — but I shall offer it.
A klal in the Torah is a principle. Principles are what we live by. They guide us. They show us how to do things. So — in the life of Torah, in the study and the living of it, this klal must always be with me.
Take, for example, the famous question of what intention one should have when they put on their tallis: “not to hit the person standing behind you with your talis as you wrap it around your head”.
In other words. You want to grow in ruchniyos. You want to do mitzvos.
Great. But do so within the principle of v’ahavta l’reacha k’mocha. Make sure that when you are connecting to G-d that you are still connected to everyone else.
But honestly, I think this is just half the story. The other half is that when you do connect to G-d, do so in a way that enables you to connect to everyone else.
In short, when you learn and live the Torah — make sure you are doing so with the principle of v’ahavta l’reacha k’mocha standing right beside you.