📋 Shiur Overview
The Attribute of Justice and the Attribute of Mercy, Love and Fear — Are They the Same Subject
Introduction: Erev Shabbat Bereishit and the Attribute of Justice
My teachers and rabbis, behold today is erev Shabbat Bereishit. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and afterwards it is stated “on the day that Hashem God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4). It is known to all what Rashi brings, that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the world with the attribute of justice, “it arose in thought to create it with the attribute of justice” (Rashi Genesis 1:1), and afterwards He joined with it the attribute of mercy.
Generally they teach us — and about this we spoke, perhaps, during Rosh Hashanah — that the attribute of justice is the attribute that we call the attribute of fear. That is, when the Holy One, blessed be He, conducts Himself with the attribute of justice, when He performs His actions in the way of justice, then because of this people are afraid, and a person is anxious and fearful. And in contrast, when the Holy One, blessed be He, conducts Himself with the attribute of mercy, people have more love.
And indeed the way of the Chassidic books is, that when the concept of the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy comes before them, they translate it: from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, the thing is called the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy, or chesed and gevurah in the language of Kabbalah, and from our side these attributes are called love and fear. This is the common style in the books of Chassidut, to translate these concepts this way.
The Difficulty: Love and Fear Are Not the Same Subject as Justice and Mercy
But one must delve into the matter and raise a difficulty upon it. The connection between the two things is not entirely clear to me, and one must ask — perhaps the audience knows, perhaps someone ponders this — for the subject of justice and mercy is not the same subject as love and fear. For one must take to heart that there are many other levels and many other structures to the concepts of love and fear.
What does it mean at all, love versus fear? Everyone knows that there is higher love and lower love, higher fear and lower fear, which we call fear of exaltedness versus fear of punishment, and the like. But I think that in every way — in the usual way, let us say in the “default” way of understanding love and fear — love is a positive emotion. Love means that I consider the thing good. Love is a relationship to something that I regard as good.
Fear, generally means that I am afraid of something that is bad. And one cannot say fear toward the Holy One, blessed be He — that a person fears the Holy One, blessed be He, because He is bad — rather fear of bad consequences that occur, bad deeds. And from the deed itself comes fear of sin, and this is not fear of Heaven, for fear of Heaven is another matter. And perhaps that action, which the Holy One, blessed be He, might punish for, is called fear of punishment — and about this they have already spoken, and the matter is not clear, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish. And in any case, fear is dread of something bad. This is its meaning. Love relates to what is good, and fear to what is bad.
The Ramban on Positive and Negative Commandments
As we have already learned, and here I come to speak, so regarding the subject of positive commandments and negative commandments, the Ramban explained that positive commandments relate to love. That is, I want the good, and what is good before the Master, before the King, namely what is truly good.
And many people are confused about this: they say “commandments,” and in their minds commandments mean that I must fulfill because I was commanded. And perhaps indeed a person is obligated to fulfill because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded, but what the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded is only a way to show that the thing is good. Whether the thing is good because He commanded, or it was already good before He commanded — I do not know. But according to all opinions, even when they say that a person does not understand and does only because it is a commandment, the simple meaning is that he knows: the Holy One, blessed be He, is the true reality, the Holy One, blessed be He, is the true knower of all creation, and He knows that these commandments are good. And this is what the Ramban calls the attribute of love.
And when the Ramban says that positive commandments are in the attribute of love, because one who loves the Master does what the Master loves — this is no different from one who would say that positive commandments are in the attribute of love because positive commandments mean that I do things that are good, that I regard as good, and fulfill them out of love. For positive commandments are a subject of doing good things, that a person loves what is good.
Love of God versus Love of the Commandment
And if we say, not so: the Ramban says that one must love the Holy One, blessed be He. The distinction between love of the Holy One, blessed be He — for they speak of love of God, and as is brought in the Rambam the language of love of the commandment — seems like a contradiction in this. But this is not a true contradiction. The distinction can only be in the question of whether we stand at the level that understands the mind of the Omnipresent, as it were, or we do not understand.
If we do not understand, then — where, they do not understand us — then perhaps the thing seems to us not good, and because we trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, we have faith, and we say that the Holy One, blessed be He, says that the thing is good, and therefore I love it because the Holy One, blessed be He, says it is good, and here the Holy One, blessed be He, enters. But when I understand myself, perhaps I love the thing itself, because I love it because it is good for me, I love the commandments because they are good.
And certainly perhaps even then it is true that there are more levels of benefit, more levels of goodness, that a person should love the commandments that are able to unite with the Holy One, blessed be He. Many times the Chassidim come with a claim against one who says so and ask: Do you love the world? Do you love the Holy One, blessed be He? Know, for the entire world is the work of Hashem, and there is no distinction in this. It is impossible to love a good thing in the world without loving within it the God who commanded them. And one can only speak of levels in this.
And this is what the Baal Shem Tov always teaches us, that when a person loves a created thing, he should make from it a kal vachomer to the Creator. This is like a mystery: there is a kal vachomer here, and it is within the thing itself, for the created thing is the vitality within it, the existence within it, the source of existence within it. But the intention of the Baal Shem Tov is — do not err, do not separate, do not love the thing, but stand in it at the higher level, because in every thing is truly found the true existence within it, and the source within it is the more true existence of every thing itself.
And in any case, and this he also knows, according to Chassidut perhaps the thing is called love — but not love of the commandment, but love of the Godliness in the commandment, the will of Hashem in the commandment. But whether this way or that way, all these are only levels within that same thing itself. Love means that I know the thing is good, and fear means that I fear something that is not good. This is the simple meaning, and I think the matter is settled, for therefore love is positive commandments and fear is negative commandments, and this is what the Ramban says. And what he says that it is love of the Master and fear of the Master, the matter does not contradict this; and not only does it not contradict, but these are the earlier levels that you seek to explain.
Mercy Is Not Chesed and Is Not Love
And if so, Yitzchak, I do not understand: what did they see to mix with this the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy? Besides the fact that the attribute of mercy is not the same thing as the attribute of chesed and the attribute of love — as everyone knows. For mercy is tiferet, mercy is the third attribute. Mercy is already a certain decision, and compassion is already a certain decision that comes after the attribute of justice.
So they say according to Kabbalah, but I think that even the simple meaning is so: compassion means that I have compassion on someone, and even though — this is the meaning of the Midrash — and even though the thing is not due to him, nevertheless there is compassion. And what is the nature of compassion? We have spoken of this several times, that it is not something without knowledge, and it is not just an emotion, but there is intellect in it, and it is built — as the Maggid of Mezritch always explains — that the decision is built on a higher level, built on knowledge. It is not a mistake, and the simple meaning is not that without choice one must have compassion; rather it is correct to have compassion. And all this structure and framework of compassion are, that one must have compassion even though it is not according to this attribute of justice. And this is certainly not love at all.
The Attribute of Justice Is a Good Thing That Must Be Loved
One might say, that the attribute of justice, that original “arose in thought” of the attribute of justice, is what causes there to be the bad parts that one must separate from? Why? On the contrary, exactly the opposite, I do not understand. The attribute of justice shows how things should be. The Holy One, blessed be He, is the attribute of justice, and the attribute of justice does not mean that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry. It does not even say the attribute of anger. Although sometimes it is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry, and this needs explanation, but the attribute of justice stated here is not the attribute of anger. The attribute of justice shows strictness — you can say strictness, or righteousness. Things must be as they should be. And this is the attribute of justice, and it is a good thing, and a person must love the attribute of justice.
The Holy One, blessed be He, Himself is said about Him “loves righteousness and justice” (based on Psalms 33:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, loves the attribute of justice, so that the attribute of justice is a good thing, and one must love it. And in other words, that same thing itself: just as the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself loves the attribute of justice — and this is a metaphor, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not have love, but the intention is that the attribute of justice is good in His eyes — so that same thing, when a person encounters the attribute of justice of the Holy One, blessed be He, it should also be good in his eyes, and he must love the Holy One, blessed be He, for that goodness.
And here the front is formed: sometimes there is a person whom the attribute of justice strikes. The simple meaning is that the Holy One, blessed be He, said that this is good, that it is true that it is good for him that he should have a lack, that he should have punishment, and it pains him. But if it pains him, it is not the attribute of justice that pains him. On the contrary, the more a person understands that the thing is correct and that it is proper that it should come, he is happy. And therefore one blesses the blessing of “the true Judge,” and even for simple suffering one must bless with joy and accept it with joy. And the intention is not that the person desires this — he does not pray for this, and he would want it to be good for him, that he should have good things — but the attribute of justice from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, shows that the thing is good for you.
The Attribute of Justice Is Not Punishment: The Blessing of Hagomel Lechayavim Tovot
We say the attribute of justice — but first of all, the attribute of justice is not punishment. And let us preface and clarify this. When one receives reward with the attribute of justice, when a person says Hatov VeHametiv, one does not say Hagomel Lechayavim Tovot. One should know that there is a blessing in which one says “Hagomel Lechayavim Tovot” (Berachot 54b), and this is said by the four who need to give thanks — those who go down to the sea and the like, those four mentioned in the psalm “Hodu” (Psalms 107) — they bless “Hagomel Lechayavim Tovot.”
And from here we see that I am not worthy of this, and even so the Holy One, blessed be He, gives good even to one who is liable. And what is the nature of this? It is simple, and as I saw this week explicitly — I do not remember where, and I say this to clarify — that it happened that a person was in trouble and was saved from it, and the trouble is the attribute of justice. The trouble itself shows that the person was liable, for to a person who is not liable, troubles do not come at all.
A person can be very happy, and certainly a person is happy that a miracle was done for him, that there was trouble and he was saved from it. But more than this a person should be happy when trouble does not come at all, and the thing shows that perhaps it is the attribute of justice, perhaps it is the attribute of mercy, perhaps it is the Holy One, blessed be He… And perhaps a person cannot always know if it is the attribute of justice or the attribute of mercy, but we assume, and one must assume, that all His deeds are with justice.
Question from the Audience: Why Do We Assume It Is with Justice When Something Bad Comes
I do not understand why when something bad comes we immediately assume it is with justice? For I understand that the Holy One, blessed be He, never gets angry. If so, one should not assume it is with justice, but should assume it is with chesed. Why should we not assume it is with justice? Presumably for the most part, most of the world is with justice. That is, I know that I am not worthy of this, we can understand something, a person has some comprehension.
Justice with Good Are Not a Contradiction
That is, I know that a person deserves to be punished for one transgression. I know, we can understand something, a person has some comprehension how much reward is proper for one transgression. When great punishment comes, they immediately say: I cannot imagine that he is wicked. Say to him: And from where do you know what punishment comes for one transgression? And so when great reward comes, when a person suddenly wins a lottery, I do not know, or he has tremendous success in his business and it amounts to more than he planned — presumably he should assume in the natural way that he did something good. And from where do you know? Does he have comprehension of the reward for saying one Amen, “there is one who increases”? What is bad about this?
It is true that there is a technical matter here: chesed can come more without merit, and even that thing can be. It is true that there are different ways that even justice comes without merit, for there are all those matters of… And in short, “there is no righteous person on earth who does good and does not sin” (based on Ecclesiastes 7:20) and there is no generation, and the general overcomes the particular, and all kinds of ways. The thing is not necessary, there is more, the thing is not necessary.
In any case the usual order, and this is what I seek to clarify — justice with good are not a contradiction; and not only are justice with good not a contradiction, but the justice itself is not bad. Justice with justice means that it is good that there should be the attribute of justice. For this purpose the attribute of justice was created, and one must love it. And when a person receives good things with justice, certainly he must love them. And sometimes when justice tells a person that it is good for him — yes, this is the meaning of justice — it is good for you that a bad thing should happen to you. You are not happy, the thing is bad, but it is good. And therefore he says a blessing, “Blessed are You Hashem” with joy, the true Judge: it is good for me, I am Yours, the thing costs me, pains me, but it is good for me.
Fear versus Hatred
And conversely, when it is not so — simply, often a person feels that the thing is not correct, not good, and then hatred is created. Yes, one must understand this reality: then he will call it fear, but essentially it is hatred, and then the person’s reaction becomes hatred, because it is not good for him. He will hate the thing, and will flee from that fear with hatred. Fear perhaps its reaction is hatred, and one must take to heart that when a person has an enemy, he fears him and also hates him.
And in contrast there is another thing in which there is fear without hatred. And one must understand when there is this and when there is that.
Summary: The Connection Is Not Clear
In any case, I do not see where the connection is, why the attribute of justice relates at all to the subject of fear. The attribute of justice relates exactly to the same degree also to the subject of love. And the attribute of justice one can say it is good thus, and that same thing one can say with the attribute of love. And the attribute of chesed is the more fundamental attribute, you can say, because the whole thing is for the sake of good, for the sake of chesed, “the world is built with chesed” (Psalms 89:3).
And certainly, what is the attribute of mercy if not the attribute of chesed? For the attribute of mercy is not the attribute of chesed. The attribute of chesed certainly precedes the attribute of justice, as everyone knows the order, and the attribute of mercy is that which comes after the attribute of justice. And the attribute of chesed is certainly good, without doubt. And on the other hand, even from the side of chesed there are things that one must fear, that it is proper to fear. And certainly not to fear because it is bad, but if one says that there is a fear that is more fear of honor, a certain submission that is generally called fear of exaltedness, the submission that a person has before something greater than him, as I said.
There is a person who fears an enemy, he fears and hates. And in contrast before a father or king standing beside him, he fears — fears in the sense that he knows the other is much stronger than him, knows that he must honor him, and if he transgresses he will be harmed, he will have troubles, including guarding his mouth, he will have troubles. But there is no hatred in him, on the contrary, there is appreciation, and he looks up to the greatness, and this is also called fear. And perhaps this is the usual fear — I do not know what is called fear of bad — perhaps this is the usual thing that is proper to call fear. And this can certainly come even from the attribute of chesed, and not only can it, but this is the usual thing. Yes, a person sees how great chesed is, how human chesed, chesed of flesh and blood, is small compared to the chesed of Hashem, compared to the chesed of all existence, and he will react with fear, with fear of exaltedness, with submission, and even with dread and awe.
And therefore I have no idea why the Chassidic books always say that chesed and justice are the same thing as love and fear. It seems to me that the thing is not connected at all. Perhaps about both there will be chesed, and about both there will be justice, and there is no connection at all between the two things. Not when you say that the Holy One, blessed be He, because He loves us, gives us love, and because He does not love us gives justice — even this is not true. And not when you say that when the Holy One, blessed be He, gives us with His attribute of chesed there should be love, and when He gives us punishment there should be fear. Both of these things seem to us not correct. Perhaps it is only according to derash — does the matter settle?
Whoever will resolve the difficulty for me, I will be very happy. It is a great difficulty. And I think that there is something here that one can learn from it, very strongly, and presumably there are deep secrets that one can learn from here, for I do not understand.
The Rambam’s Approach: From Love and From Fear
Now we will continue further. What I seek to arrive at, and what I want to speak another matter, is that we stood here in the middle of learning the Zohar, the introduction, the beginning of the “Pekudin,” which speaks of the fact that there are positive commandments and negative commandments relating to tiferet and to malchut, which are themselves called the attribute of love and the attribute of fear, the attribute of zachor and the attribute of shamor, day and night, and the like. In every single commandment there are these two things in detail, and in general there are positive commandments and negative commandments, that positive commandments relate to this one and negative commandments relate to this one.
And I seek to say another approach, that I noticed that it is proper to learn in this another approach. The approach was thus: all the time they learned the Zohar according to the Ramban, who learned in it about zachor and shamor. And I noticed that the Rambam has his own approach, that he explains that positive commandments relate to love and negative commandments relate to fear. And perhaps the matter settles better, and perhaps one needs to combine the two approaches. For at least regarding the subject we are now asking, it seems that the matter settles even better if we say the Rambam’s approach, and we will resolve with this somewhat the previous difficulty.
And we remember that the Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva, and in the commentary on the Mishnayot in Sanhedrin, and in many places — perhaps two more places, I do not know — explains the attribute for which our father Abraham was called “My beloved” (Isaiah 41:8). And the Rambam explains that “My beloved” means one who serves from love. And the thing is built on the language of the Sages in many places, that there is one who serves from love, and there is a distinction between one who serves the Omnipresent from love and one who serves from fear. And it is clear in the language of the Gemara in many places where they use this, that love and fear there are not, as they say, that he loved positive commandments more or feared negative commandments more. Rather from love and from fear mean here the same thing called in other places lishmah and shelo lishmah.
From Love: According to Knowledge, From Recognition of the Good
Meaning, from love namely one who has comprehension. Love is according to knowledge. Love means one who has comprehension, who understands. Like our father Abraham — and why is our father Abraham called the greatest of all, “Abraham My beloved”? Because our father Abraham did not have a teacher, and he did not have someone to tell him what to do. And he began, and the Holy One, blessed be He, did not tell him any commandment to do, and did not promise him reward or punishment except afterwards. And he served the Holy One, blessed be He, not in order to receive reward. And what is not in order to receive reward? From recognition of His goodness, from the recognition of what is good and what is correct, he did commandments and did what needs to be done. This is the meaning of from love.
From Fear: From Fear of Reward and Punishment
From fear means from fear of reward and punishment. Fear includes both reward and punishment, and the fear is not from punishment and the love from reward, as they say — the matter does not settle. Fear means when a person does not know, they rebuke him and tell him, “Thus you must do.” This is generally called fear, generally because of punishment, or because of reward and punishment, which is the same thing. Namely that I want it to be good for me and I do not want it to be bad for me, and he does from fear of punishment. This is the meaning of from fear.
The Rambam: Fear Depends on Negative Commandments
And behold the interesting thing, that the Rambam himself says even though the thing depends on positive commandments and on negative commandments. In the commentary on the Mishnayot in Avot, in the place where Antigonus of Socho said, he said thus: “Do not be like servants who serve the master in order to receive reward, but be like servants who serve the master not in order to receive reward” (Avot 1:3), and concludes the Mishnah “and let the fear of Heaven be upon you” (Avot 1:3).
And the Rambam asks, what is the connection of “and let the fear of Heaven be upon you” here? Did you think you would go from love? What is “do not remove”? “That you should not remove at once” means from love, do you think you are completely exempt from fear? The Rambam says, no, do not abandon fear. Still go, still there should be in you a certain fear. And why? Because fear is such an important thing.
And the Rambam brings a midrash or source, that we do not know it properly, and brings that it is said thus: “The lover will not delay a commandment, and the fearer will not transgress a transgression” (Rambam’s commentary on Mishnayot Avot 1:3). This language the Rambam brings. And so he says, this is its meaning: that you need both love not to delay commandments, and also fear not to do transgressions. And therefore he says, that fear is very important and especially for negative commandments.
The First Commandment to Man: Positive and Negative
Now one must understand the matter a bit better. I do not have a clear approach, I can say a certain explanation, a certain illumination in this. I seek to say a very interesting simple meaning that we learn in this week’s parsha, and one must take to heart in this. And I will first say the explanation, the illumination, that all that I say is only illuminations, to awaken the heart, to awaken the intellect, to awaken the spring.
It is known, the first commandment, “And Hashem God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Adam a commandment. And one should ask if it was a positive commandment or a negative commandment. Presumably everyone assumes it was a negative commandment, not to eat from the tree of knowledge. And in fact, one who looks at the verse sees that it is clearly built, that the language of the Scripture is clearly built on a manner of positive and negative. That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him “from every tree of the garden you may surely eat” (Genesis 2:16) — a positive commandment, “and from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden you shall not eat” (based on Genesis 3:3) — a negative commandment.
It turns out the explanation, that there is both a positive commandment and a negative commandment in the language of the command to the first man. Even though generally we learn that “from every tree of the garden you may surely eat” is permission, as they think that “six days you shall work” (Exodus 20:9) is permission — and even then the thing is not so clear, and perhaps it is “a negative that comes from a positive.” But the thing shows that there is an intention, at least to the language of the Scripture, there is an intention that one does not begin from the negative restriction, one does not begin from the restriction of fear, but begins from the positive commandment, from what one does in practice, and this doing is the limitation to what one does not do.
The Serpent and the Woman
And I further noticed, what does the serpent say? “And the serpent said to the woman, Has God indeed said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden” (Genesis 3:1). The serpent immediately opened with the negative, “You shall not eat from every tree of the garden.” And Chavah answers him — what does Chavah say? No, it was not said so. She immediately tells him no, the Holy One, blessed be He, said “from the fruit of the tree of the garden we may eat and from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God said, You shall not eat” (based on Genesis 3:2-3). And even though she already adds “and you shall not touch it,” it seems that she understood well that the serpent sought to begin from the negative commandment, and the woman says no, one must begin from the positive commandment, and after the positive commandment there is also a negative commandment.
The Wonder: Is It Possible to Do a Negative Commandment Lishmah
And we learn here that there is like a deficiency, that a person might want to do only positive commandments and forget the negative commandment relating to the attribute of fear. And we said that fear means shelo lishmah, that fear means reward and punishment. And this is truly a wonder.
A person can ask such a difficulty, and I think one must ask it: Is there such a thing that it is impossible to do a negative commandment lishmah? And a negative commandment must be shelo lishmah? That is, many times they say a simple thing — and I think one must stop getting used to saying these simple things — that one who goes only from love, namely who does because he has reason and desire in the thing, behold sometimes he has no reason, he has a great evil inclination, namely he has no reason, and this is called a negative commandment, a serpent comes to him and tells him, “there will be a negative commandment,” and then his great comprehension of love does not help him, and then only simple fear of punishment helps.
And this is another thing that is very common to say, books of mussar and Chassidic books love to say it, that they explain thus the Midrash, that the other Midrash shows like the words of Chovot HaLevavot, that you should be fearful, so that when you do the commandment you will do it from love.
Question on This Simple Meaning
And I must say that this is another thing I do not understand. I do not understand on what the thing is based. Is this the reality, that this is how the thing works? I do not know. I do not see that specifically people who have reason — and reason is only a word — one who has true comprehension of good, “good is Hashem” (Psalms 34:9), “taste and see that Hashem is good” (ibid.), that it is harder for him to overcome the evil inclination? It should be easier for him. And if you say, that at the time of the evil inclination he does not forget, that at the time of the evil inclination one does not forget the punishment — I do not know what difference the thing makes.
And what I can understand is a more fundamental thing, that there is such a type of person, perhaps many people who are not at the level, or who does not understand at all the goodness. If he understands the punishment, yes, fear of punishment. This is the meaning of fear of punishment. Fear of punishment was said for one who does not understand, like a father who tells his son, do not go to the street, I will give you a slap. The true reason not to go out to the street is not because of the slap, but the child does not understand this, and they tell him, fear the father’s slap. And so I said, come inside to learn, even though learning is better than that child. This I understand. But this way I do not understand.
And what does this have to do specifically with negative commandments? That same truth itself relates even to positive commandments. A positive commandment is also so: one who does not understand is not at the level of a positive commandment, is not at the level, and he also needs fear of punishment. And so if I understand, I stand in lishmah. Why specifically in negative commandments does fear relate more than in positive commandments? Besides what they will say that a negative commandment is generally in a place where there is temptation. I do not know, perhaps there is an evil inclination even not in negative commandments, but in negative commandments evil inclinations are common. All this thing I understand how the two things settle.
A Bold Innovation: In Truth There Is No Bad at All
But if we say a great innovation, and I think one can think such an innovation, based on what I hinted now in the portion of the tree of knowledge: that always, in truth, there is no such thing as bad. The tree of knowledge of good and bad told man that there is good and bad, and what did he think before? That there is no such thing as bad. For it is said “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and they expounded “good is death,” “good is bad.” There is no such thing as bad. And therefore, in truth, one who understands the world correctly, understands that the entire world the Holy One, blessed be He, made in His goodness, “in His great goodness… we shall not lack and we shall not lack… forever and ever,” “He is good and He does good… and He will do good.” The entire world is good.
If the World Were Rectified
And if the world were rectified, there would be no such thing as negative commandments, there would be no bad things. And if you ask, how could it be that before the sin there was already a negative commandment? The answer, that one should have understood that essentially it is a positive commandment, “from every tree of the garden you may surely eat.”
And there are such bold expositions that say, that if man had done now, fulfilled “from every tree of the garden you may surely eat,” there would no longer be a question from the tree of knowledge. And how could it be? For it is stated in the verse “and from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.” And one must understand, in what is that tree different? What is the distinction? Perhaps there is some logic in this: that when one fulfills the six days with desire properly, the Shabbat is automatically made, “and on the seventh day you shall rest” (Exodus 23:12), and this is not an obligation, and one does not need to fear, as the Chassidic books say — a person who lives a week properly
, automatically keeps Shabbat. Not that one needs to frighten “its desecrators shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14), this is not a Shabbat of “its desecrators shall be put to death,” but a Shabbat of “and on the seventh day you shall rest,” from reason, from rest. But if you begin from negative commandments, then you always remain there.
The Resolution: Negative Commandments Relate to the Attribute of Fear
Perhaps what they say that negative commandments relate to the attribute of fear, its meaning is that in the depth of the matter, if the world were rectified, if the first man had not eaten from the tree of knowledge — it is understood that he should have eaten, and the thing would not have affected him. But when he understands correctly, that from the perspective of lishmah, from the perspective of love, which is truly a perspective like before the sin, the true perspective of the essence of the world, then in truth there is no prohibition of negative commandments. It is permitted to do, as it were, like in the future to come it will return to its permission and the like. There are no negative commandments, there are no bad things in the world.
And it turns out automatically, that one who would be attached entirely only to the attribute of love and to goodness, perhaps automatically he would not do negative commandments, but a reality of negative commandments, which is stated about a reality that does not exist, thus it would not be.
And why does the Rambam say, and brings that Midrash, the Rambam quotes, that for negative commandments one specifically needs the “and you shall guard,” the “shamor,” the fear of punishment, because there is no other reason? In truth, from the side of good it does not interfere, from the side of good negative commandments do not interfere. But from the side of fear of punishment, because fear of punishment says that the world, perhaps the entire world, is still at the level of shelo lishmah, and then one needs to do from fear of punishment.
A Person Should Not Say “I Cannot”: The Reality of Negative Commandments
And perhaps even regarding that side in the Rambam, in the matter of “a person should not say I cannot eat pig meat” (Sifra Kedoshim), perhaps there are certain negative commandments, and perhaps not everything is equal. For what we speak here of negative commandments, namely those that we do not understand, that are less understood. And perhaps there are negative commandments that it is forbidden to do them lishmah, because to do them lishmah means to say that it is true.
As I explain according to Chassidut, and perhaps it is also hinted in the Rambam, “a person should not say I cannot eat pig meat.” Why is it said “a person should not say I cannot eat pig meat”? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, also made pig meat, and in the future to come pig meat will be purified. One who says “I cannot,” he is speaking against the work of Hashem. In the work of creation it is said “and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1), and even about the pig. A person is not permitted to eat pig today, we cannot eat pig properly today, for whatever reason it may be, because of the fall, because of the sin, because of the descent — the fall of the world from its level. But it is forbidden to ignore the good that is truly in it, but it is forbidden to do it properly.
There are things that one must do each thing according to what it truly is. A commandment that is true, that comes because this is how the world is in its source, that is good, one must do it with joy, do it from love. But not to do a transgression, that the reason the thing is a transgression is only because the world fell, is only because there is an aspect of shelo lishmah in the world — this is a reality, that after the sin, in the world of action, it is forbidden to do from love. One must do it from fear. And why must one do it from fear? Because the true understanding says that this is not a thing, this is not a problem according to love, but a problem according to fear alone.
One Who Loves the King: The Logic of Fear from Love
And if so, one can also resolve this: that one who loves the king, he also does not abandon, does not go. Why does the Rambam say that one who loves the king does commandments that the king loves? One can say exactly this logic, that one who loves the king does not do things that the king does not love. And this is like fear from love, and even complete love.
And the resolution is no: because one who truly loves the king, understands that there are no things that the king does not love. The king loves everything. If so, thus he will conduct himself. And there in the place where he is in this world, in the place where fear of punishment is lacking in him, about this they say that one needs to add the attribute of fear, one needs to add even the attribute of justice. Not the attribute of justice itself, because we do not know if this is the attribute of justice, but the attribute of fear, fear of punishment.
This is what I can understand, but all these are things that one needs to delve into them greatly whether they are correct, and this is the matter for today’s lesson.
📝 Full Transcript
The Attribute of Justice and the Attribute of Mercy, Love and Fear — Are They the Same Subject
Introduction: Erev Shabbos Bereishis and the Attribute of Justice
My teachers and rabbis, today is erev Shabbos Bereishis. “Bereishis bara Elokim es hashamayim v’es ha’aretz” (Bereishis 1:1), and later it says “b’yom asos Hashem Elokim eretz v’shamayim” (Bereishis 2:4). Everyone knows what Rashi says, that the Almighty wanted to create the world with the attribute of justice — alah b’machshava livro b’midas hadin (Rashi Bereishis 1:1) — and later He joined with it the attribute of mercy.
Usually we are taught — we spoke about this during the time of Rosh Hashanah — that the attribute of justice is the attribute that we call the attribute of fear. That is, when the Almighty conducts Himself in His actions in the way of justice, then a person has fear, dread. And when the Almighty conducts Himself with the attribute of mercy, people have more love.
In Chassidic works, the style is, when the concept of the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy comes up, that they translate it: from the side of the Almighty it is called the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy, or chesed and gevurah in the language of Kabbalah, and from our side it is called the attributes of love and fear.
The Question: Love and Fear Is Not the Same Subject as Justice and Mercy
But one must delve deeply and ask a question, because the connection of these two things is not entirely clear. The subject of justice and mercy is not the same subject as love and fear. Because there are many other levels and structures in the concepts of love and fear.
What Love Versus Fear Means
Everyone knows that there is higher love and lower love, higher fear and lower fear — fear of exaltedness versus fear of punishment, and so on. But in the normal “default” way that one thinks of love and fear: love is a positive emotion, love means that I hold that something is good. Fear means that I am afraid of something that is bad.
One cannot say fear toward the Almighty, that one is afraid of Him because He is bad. Rather one is afraid of bad results, of bad deeds — from the deed is fear of sin, not fear of Hashem; fear of Hashem is a different thing. And the action that the Almighty can punish is called fear of punishment (although it is not clear, because the Almighty is not punishing). In any case, fear is dread of a bad thing. Love has to do with what is good, and fear has to do with what is bad.
The Ramban on Positive and Negative Commandments
As we have learned, the Ramban explained that positive commandments have to do with love: I want what is good for the master, for the king, that is what is truly good.
People are often confused — they say “mitzvos” as if one must obey because one was commanded. It may be that one must obey because the Almighty commanded, but what He commanded is only a way of showing that it is good. Whether it is good because He commanded, or it is already good before He commanded — I don’t know. But according to all opinions, even when a person doesn’t understand and he does it only because it is a mitzvah, he knows that the Almighty is the true reality, the true knower of all creation, and he knows that the mitzvos are good. This the Ramban calls the attribute of love.
Love of Hashem Versus Love of the Mitzvah
When the Ramban says that positive commandments are with the attribute of love, because one who loves the master does what the master loves — is it not the same as saying that positive commandments mean I do things that I hold are good, and I do it with love.
The division between loving the Almighty (ahavas Hashem) and love of the mitzvah — which appears in the Rambam — is as if a contradiction, but it is not a true contradiction. The difference can only be whether we hold by the level to understand the mind of the Omnipresent as it were, or not. If we don’t understand, then it doesn’t look good to us; but if one has faith and trusts the Almighty, that He says it is good, I love it because the Almighty says it is good — here the Almighty comes in. But when I understand myself, it may be that I love the thing itself, because it is good for me.
Certainly it may be that even then there are still levels of goodness that one must love in the mitzvos, which can relate to the Almighty. Often the Chassidim have a claim: Do you love the world? The entire world is the work of Hashem, it is not possible to love a good thing in the world without loving within it the One who commanded them. One can only say levels in this.
This is what the Baal Shem Tov always teaches: when one loves a created thing, one should make a kal vachomer to the Creator, because the life-force within it, the source of existence, is the more true reality of each thing itself. But the Baal Shem Tov means: you should not make the mistake, not separate, not love the thing itself, but rather in the higher level.
According to Chassidus this can mean to love not the mitzvah, but the Godliness in the mitzvah, the will of Hashem in the mitzvah. But all this is levels within the same thing. Love means I know that it is good, fear means I am afraid of something that is not good. This is the simple translation, and therefore love is positive commandments and fear is negative commandments, as the Ramban says. What he says about love of the master, fear of the master, doesn’t disturb — rather it is the previous levels that one wants to explain.
Mercy Is Not Chesed and Not Love
So if so, I don’t understand: what does this have to do with the attribute of justice and the attribute of mercy? Besides the fact that the attribute of mercy is not at all the same thing as the attribute of chesed and the attribute of love. Mercy is tiferes, the third attribute. Compassion is already a certain decision after the attribute of justice.
So it is said according to Kabbalah, and also the plain meaning is so: compassion means I have compassion on someone, although — this is the translation of the Midrash — although he doesn’t deserve it. It is not just a feeling without intellect; as the Maggid of Mezritch always explains, the decision is built on a higher level, on knowledge. It is not that one has no choice but to have compassion, rather it is correct to have compassion. The structure of compassion is that one must have compassion although it is not according to this attribute of justice. And this is not at all love.
The Attribute of Justice Is a Good Thing That One Must Love
One will say that the original alah b’machshava of the attribute of justice causes there to be evil parts that one must go away from? Just the opposite, I don’t understand. The attribute of justice means how it should be. The attribute of justice doesn’t mean that the Almighty is angry — it doesn’t even say the attribute of anger. Sometimes it says that the Almighty is angry, one must explain it, but the attribute of justice that appears here is not the attribute of anger. The attribute of justice means strictness, righteousness, that things should be as they should be. This is a good thing, and a person must love it.
The Almighty Himself says ohev tzedek, ohev mishpat (Tehillim 33:5) — the Almighty loves the attribute of justice. This means to say it is good in His eyes, the attribute of justice. And the same thing: a person, when he encounters the attribute of justice of the Almighty, must also love the Almighty for the goodness.
Sometimes there is a person to whom the attribute of justice harms. The Almighty says that it is truly good that he should have some deficiency, some punishment, and to him it hurts. But it is not the attribute of justice that hurts him. On the contrary, how much a person understands that it is correct, that it comes to him so, he is happy. Therefore one says a blessing dayan ha’emes, and one must accept it with joy. It doesn’t mean that a person wants this — he would have wanted it to be good for him — but the attribute of justice for the Almighty means that it is good for you.
The Attribute of Justice Doesn’t Mean Punishment: The Blessing Hagomel L’chayavim Tovos
First of all, the attribute of justice doesn’t mean punishment. When a person receives reward, goodness, one says HaTov v’HaMeitiv, not Hagomel l’chayavim tovos. There is a blessing Hagomel l’chayavim tovos (Berachos 54b) that one says on the four who went down to the sea, those who need to give thanks, the four people who appear in the psalm Hodu (Tehillim 107).
Then one sees that “I don’t deserve it,” but the Almighty gives even one who is obligated a goodness. The plain meaning of this is simple, as I saw explicitly this week: when a person was in trouble and he was saved — the trouble is the attribute of justice, and it shows that the person was obligated. A person who is not obligated doesn’t come into any troubles at all.
A person is certainly happy that a miracle happened and he was saved, but even more happy he should be when no trouble happens at all. Perhaps a person cannot always know whether it is the attribute of justice or the attribute of mercy, but we must accept that all His deeds are with justice.
Question from the Floor: Why Do We Assume With Justice by a Bad Thing
[Question:] Why when a bad thing comes do we suddenly assume that it is with justice? The Almighty never gets angry — shouldn’t we assume that it is with chesed?
[Answer:] Why shouldn’t we assume that it is with justice? Generally the majority of the world is with justice. I know that I don’t deserve it — a person has some perception.
Justice with Good Is Not a Contradiction
I know that it comes with one sin; a person has some perception of how much reward comes for one sin. When a great punishment comes, one says “I cannot imagine that I am wicked” — but do you know what the punishment comes on for one sin? And when great reward comes, when a person wins the lottery or has tremendous success in his business, he must presumably assume that he did something good — do you know the reward for saying once “Amen yehei shmei rabba”?
True, there is a technical thing: chesed can be more without merit, and so too justice can be without merit, because of the matters of “tzaddik v’ra lo” and the general that overcomes the particular, and all kinds of ways. It is not necessary.
But the normal order: justice with good are not a contradiction. Justice means that it is good that there should be an attribute of justice, therefore one must love it. And when a person receives good things with justice, certainly he must love it. Sometimes the justice says that it is good for you to have a bad thing — not happy, it is bad, but it is good. Therefore he says a blessing with joy, dayan emes: it costs me, it hurts me, but it is good for me.
Fear Versus Hatred
Often the pain of a person is that he feels that it is not correct, not good, and then it becomes hatred. One will call it fear, but essentially it is hatred — he hates it, he wants to run away from it. When a person has an enemy he is afraid of him and also hates him.
But there is another fear that doesn’t have hatred in it, and one must understand when there is this and when there is that.
To Sum Up: The Connection Is Not Clear
In any case I don’t see why the attribute of justice has to do at all with the subject of fear. The attribute of justice has just as much to do with love, because one can say that the attribute of justice is good so. The attribute of chesed is even more fundamental, because the whole thing is for the sake of good, olam chesed yibaneh (Tehillim 89:3).
The attribute of mercy is not the attribute of chesed. The attribute of chesed is certainly before the attribute of justice — everyone knows the order, the attribute of mercy is after the attribute of justice — and the attribute of chesed is certainly good. On the other hand, the attribute of chesed also has in it things that one must fear. Not fear because it is bad, but fear which is fear of honor, a submission that a person has before something greater than him, fear of exaltedness.
There is a person who is afraid of an enemy — he is afraid with hatred. And before a father or a king who is on his side, he is afraid in the sense that he knows that the other is much stronger, he must respect him, and if he will transgress he will have troubles, including guarding his mouth. But he has no hatred — on the contrary, he has appreciation, he looks up to the greatness. This too is called fear, and perhaps this is the normal fear. This can certainly come from the attribute of chesed: a person sees how great the chesed of Hashem is, how small the chesed of flesh and blood is compared to this, and he reacts with fear of exaltedness, with submission, with dread.
So I have no idea why the Chassidic works hold in one saying that chesed and din is the same thing as love and fear. It seems to me that it is not connected at all: on both there can be chesed, on both there can be din. Not that when the Almighty gives us with His attribute of chesed one must have love, and when He gives us punishment one must have fear — both don’t seem correct. Perhaps it is only homiletically?
If someone can answer me this question, I will be very happy. The question is a great one, and presumably there are deep secrets that one can figure out from here.
The Rambam’s Approach: From Love and From Fear
Now we will go further. We were holding in the middle of learning the Zohar, the introduction of the Pekudim, which speaks that there are positive commandments and negative commandments that have to do with tiferes and malchus, which are called the attribute of love, the attribute of fear, the attribute of zachor, the attribute of shamor, the attribute of day, the attribute of night. In each mitzvah there are in detail these two things, and in general positive commandments belong to this and negative commandments to this.
I want to say another approach. We have learned the Zohar for a long time built on the Ramban on zachor and shamor. I noticed that the Rambam has his own approach, that positive commandments have to do with love and negative commandments have to do with fear. Perhaps one must combine the two approaches, because regarding our subject it seems that it fits better if one will say the Rambam’s approach, and we will answer a bit the previous question.
The Rambam, in Hilchos Teshuvah, in Perush HaMishnayos in Sanhedrin, and many other places, explains why Avraham Avinu is called “ohavi” (Yeshayahu 41:8): “ohavi” means one who serves from love. This is built on the language of the Sages, that there is a distinction whether one serves the Omnipresent from love or from fear. And it is clear in the language of the Gemara that love and fear don’t mean there as one says — whether he loved positive commandments more or feared negative commandments more — rather from love and from fear means there the same thing that is called in other places lishmah and shelo lishmah.
From Love: According to Knowledge, From Recognition of Good
From love is the translation of one who has understanding, he comprehends. Love is according to knowledge. Why is Avraham Avinu called the greatest, “Avraham ohavi”? Because Avraham Avinu didn’t have a teacher, didn’t have anyone who should tell him what to do. The Almighty didn’t tell him which mitzvah to do, didn’t promise him any reward or punishment — only later. So he served the Almighty shelo al menas lekabel pras, from recognition of His goodness, from the recognition of what is good and what is correct. This is the translation of from love.
From Fear: From Fear of Reward and Punishment
From fear is the translation of from fear of reward and punishment — both reward and punishment. It is not that fear is from the punishment and love from the reward; this doesn’t fit. Fear means when a person doesn’t know, one shouts at him, one tells him “you must do so.” That is, I want it to go well for me and not badly, he does it from fear of punishment.
The Rambam: Fear Is Dependent on Negative Commandments
The interesting thing is that the Rambam himself also says that this is dependent on positive commandments and negative commandments. In Perush HaMishnayos in Avos, where Antigonus Ish Socho said “al tiheyu ka’avadim hameshamshim es harav al menas lekabel pras, ela hevu ka’avadim hameshamshim es harav shelo al menas lekabel pras” (Avos 1:3), and he brings out “vihi mora shamayim aleichem” (Avos 1:3) —
The Rambam asks, what comes in here “vihi mora shamayim aleichem”? Would you have thought that you go entirely to do from love and are exempt from fear? The Rambam says no — “shelo taslak bas achas”, you should not abandon the fear, but still have a certain fear, because the fear is such an important thing.
He brings a source: “Ha’ohev lo yachmitz mitzvah v’hayarei lo ya’avor aveirah” (Perush HaMishnayos L’Rambam Avos 1:3). You must have both love not to abandon any mitzvos, and fear not to do any sins. Therefore he says that fear is very important especially for negative commandments.
The First Mitzvah by Adam: Positive and Negative
One must understand this a bit better. I don’t have a clear approach, only a certain illumination, to awaken the heart, to awaken the mind.
As is known, the first commandment, “Vayetzav Hashem Elokim al ha’adam” (Bereishis 2:16), the Almighty commanded Adam a mitzvah. One must ask whether it was a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh) or a negative commandment (mitzvas lo sa’aseh). Presumably everyone assumes it was a negative commandment, not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. But whoever looks into the verse sees that the language of the verse is very clearly built in a manner of both positive and negative: “Mikol etz hagan achol tochal” (Bereishis 2:16) — a positive commandment, “Umipri ha’etz asher besoch hagan lo sochal” (Bereishis 3:3) — a negative commandment.
Although one usually learns that “mikol etz hagan achol tochal” is permission, just as one thinks “Sheishes yamim ta’avod” (Shemos 20:9) is permission — even that is not so clear. It appears that there is an intention, at least according to the language of the verse, that one doesn’t begin with the negative aspect, with fear (yirah), but rather one begins with the positive commandment that one does, and only afterwards is there a limitation of what one doesn’t do.
The Serpent and the Woman
What does the serpent say? “Vayomer hanachash el ha’ishah af ki amar Elokim lo sochlu mikol etz hagan” (Bereishis 3:1). The serpent immediately began with the “lo” (negative). Chavah answers him: “Mipri etz hagan nochal, umipri ha’etz asher besoch hagan amar Elokim lo sochlu” (Bereishis 3:2-3). She already adds “velo sig’u,” but she understood very well that the serpent wanted to begin from the negative commandments, and she says no: one must begin from the positive commandments, and only afterwards is there also a negative commandment.
The Wonder: Whether It’s Possible to Fulfill Negative Commandments Lishmah
We learn here that there is something like a deficiency, that a person can want to do only positive commandments and forget about the negative commandments which relate to the attribute of fear (midas hayirah). And we said that yirah means shelo lishmah, reward and punishment. And this is somewhat wondrous.
One must ask: is there such a thing that it’s not possible to fulfill negative commandments lishmah, and negative commandments must be shelo lishmah? Many times people say a simple thing — and I think one must stop being accustomed to saying such simple things — that someone goes only from love (me’ahavah) because he has pleasure. But when he doesn’t have pleasure, when he has a great evil inclination (yetzer hara), that’s called negative commandments: a serpent comes to him and tells him, do a negative commandment here. Then his great understanding of love doesn’t help, but rather the simple fear of punishment (yiras ha’onesh). This is how mussar books and Chassidic books interpret the Midrash, that the other Midrash means like the Chovos Halevavos, that “mevo’o libo” you should have fear, so that when you do the mitzvah you should do it from love.
A Question on This Interpretation
This is also something I don’t understand. Where is this based? Does reality actually work this way? I have no idea. I don’t see that for people who have pleasure — which is just a word — the one who has a true understanding of the good, tuv Hashem (Tehillim 34:9), ta’amu ur’u ki tov Hashem (Tehillim 34:9), is it harder for him to overcome the evil inclination? It should be easier for him. And at the time of the evil inclination, one also doesn’t forget the punishment. I don’t know what difference it makes.
What I can understand is more a fundamental thing: there is such a type of person, many people who are not on the level or who don’t understand at all the goodness. If he understands the punishment — yes, fear of punishment. Like a father tells his son “don’t go in the street, I’ll give you a slap”: the reason not to go in the street is not because one gets a slap, but the child doesn’t understand, so fear the slap. That I understand.
But why specifically does this have to do with negative commandments? It’s exactly as true for positive commandments. Whoever doesn’t understand, is not on the level of lishmah, needs fear of punishment. And whoever does understand, holds by lishmah. Why does one say that for negative commandments fear is more relevant than for positive action? Except that one will say that negative commandments are usually when there is a temptation, an evil inclination — but there can also be an evil inclination not to do positive commandments.
A Bold Innovation: In Truth There Is No Evil
Except if one will say a great innovation, based on what I just hinted at in the matter of the Tree of Knowledge: that in truth there is no such thing as evil. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil told Adam that there is good and evil; before that he thought there is no such thing as evil. It says “tov me’od” (Bereishis 1:31) — “tov maves,” “tov ra.” The one who understands the world correctly, understands that the entire world the Almighty made with His goodness, “with His great goodness,” “He is good and He does good and He will do good.” The entire world is good.
If the World Were Straight
If the world were straight, there wouldn’t be such a thing as negative commandments, no bad things. But how can it be that before the sin there was already a negative commandment? One must understand that it was primarily a positive commandment, “mikol etz hagan achol tochal.”
There are such bold interpretations that say, if one would have fulfilled the “mikol etz hagan achol tochal,” there would no longer be any question of the Tree of Knowledge. How can this be? It says “umipri ha’etz asher besoch hagan”? Perhaps such an approach: when one fulfills the six days with desire properly, automatically comes the Shabbos, “uvayom hashevi’i tishbos” (Shemos 23:12). As the Chassidic books say, that whoever lives a week properly, automatically keeps Shabbos. It’s not a “mechaleleha mos yumas” (Shemos 31:14) type of Shabbos, but a “uvayom hashevi’i tishbos” Shabbos, from pleasure, from rest. But if you begin from the negative commandments, you always remain there.
The Resolution: Negative Commandments Relate to the Attribute of Fear
It may be that what one says that negative commandments relate to the attribute of fear means: when fundamentally, when the world would be straight, when Adam Harishon doesn’t eat the Tree of Knowledge — understand, he did have to eat; let it not be relevant — when he understands correctly, from the perspective of lishmah, from the perspective of love, which is truly a perspective from before the sin, of what the world is — then truly there is no prohibition of negative commandments. One may do it, as it were, like in the future to come it will return to being permitted. There are no negative commandments, no bad things in the world.
Consequently, someone who is completely attached to the attribute of love and goodness, will automatically not do any negative commandments, because no existence of negative commandments — what speaks of the existence that is not — will be by him.
And why does the Rambam say that for negative commandments one must specifically have the “ushmarten,” the “shamor,” the fear of punishment? Because there is no other reason. From the perspective of the good, the negative commandments don’t disturb; but from the perspective of fear of punishment — because it may be that the entire world is still on the level of shelo lishmah — then one must do fear of punishment.
Al Yomar Adam Ee Efshar: The Reality of Negative Commandments
It may be that to this side is hinted the Rambam regarding “al yomar adam ee efshar yavo asi chazir” (Sifra Kedoshim). What we’re speaking of here regarding negative commandments means those that one doesn’t understand, those that are less comprehensible. It may be that there are negative commandments that one may not do lishmah, because to do them lishmah means to say that they are true.
This is how I interpret according to Chassidus, and perhaps it’s hinted in the Rambam: why does it say “al yomar adam ee efshar yavo asi chazir”? Because the Almighty also made pig meat, and in the future to come pig meat will be purified. Someone who says “ee efshar,” speaks against the work of Hashem — in the work of Creation it says “vayar Elokim ki tov” (Bereishis 1), on the pig too. Someone may not eat pig today, we cannot properly eat pig today, because of the reason of the fall, of the sin, of the fallen state of the world. But one may not truly deny it.
There are things that one must do each thing according to what is truly so. A mitzvah that truly came because it’s original, the world is this way, it’s good — one must do with joy, with love. But not doing a transgression, where the reason why it’s a transgression is only because the world has fallen, because there is an aspect of shelo lishmah in the world. This is a reality: after the sin, in the world of action (olam ha’asiyah), one may not do it with love, but from fear. Why? Because the true understanding says that this is not a problem according to love, but a problem according to fear.
The One Who Loves the King: The Logic of Fear from Love
One could ask: why does he say that the one who loves the king does commandments that the king loves — one can just as well say that because he loves the king he doesn’t do things that the king doesn’t love, like fear from love (yirah mitoch ahavah)?
The answer is no: the one who truly loves the king, understands that there are no things that the king doesn’t love — the king loves everything. Therefore he will conduct himself this way. There where it is in this world, where fear of punishment is indeed lacking, one must add the attribute of fear — not exactly the attribute of judgment (midas hadin), because one doesn’t know if it’s called the attribute of judgment, but the attribute of fear, fear of punishment.
This is what I can understand, but these are all things that one must still think much more into whether they are correct. And this is the matter for today’s shiur.