LEV572 Within the heart of man the issue is not merely "to love or not to love" but also "to love or to hate," for the repertoire of human feelings includes the very fierce and destructive negative emotion of hatred. Like its opposite, "love," the feeling of hatred has its roots in biology and represents a man's natural response to certain negative aspects of his situation which evoke in him fear or resentment or revulsion. Like the other emotions, hatred is clearly not all of one piece and is experienced as an entire range of feelings of varying intensities and nuances, from a mild dislike to a cold abhorrence to a raging, passionate detestation. But if hatred, like the other emotions, arises naturally in man, and God created man, then the emotion as such must be accepted as part of the grand design and as playing a needed and legitimate role within the life of man. The morality of Judaism does not condemn the emotion of hatred per se as evil but questions the uses to which it is put or who or what becomes the object of hate. Does the prompting of Jewish morality to love one's fellow man, as contained in the overlapping commands to "Love thy fellow man," and "Love the stranger," and "Love humanity," effectively preclude the legitimation of any sort of hatred for any man? It is interesting to note that Christianity imputes to the "Old Dispensation" the actual teaching of hatred of one's enemies: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,'… But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Matthew 5:43. The first point that must be made is that the original command to love one's fellow occurs in a set of sentences to which we are commanded not to hate [this and following verse]. While each of these commands is usually considered a separate injunction, they can be read in sequence as advice on how to approach one's enemy, personal or religious. A person has caused you harm or has offended you and the resentment has built up into hatred. You watch your neighbor mindlessly violate the sancta of Judaism and your indignation turns to hatred. The teaching of the Torah is: Do not permit the hatred to fester in your heart. Hate is toxic and if stored within tends to corrode the entire personality. Work through your hatred by "rebuking your neighbor." Tokhachah (reproof) is a process of confrontation and communication. Confront your neighbor and tell him how you have been hurt. Ask him why he is doing to you what appears to be wrong. Try to get him to see how wrong it is. Perhaps you can get him to change. In any event, "Do not bear sin upon him"; i.e., separate the sin, the evil deed, from the person (See Commentary of Abarbanel). As a result of your own verbalization, in which you clarify the true source of the wrong, the hatred can now be vented upon the evil deed rather than the person or can be confined to the evil within the person. ... Having treated the emotion of hatred, the Torah goes on to say that certainly, in no way, should these feelings be permitted to manifest themselves in overt acts of vengeance. On the contrary, you must treat the person you once hated the way you treat yourself--with forgiveness, with indulgence, and with actions denoting benevolence and love.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV552 But if he sees in him something indecent, it is permitted to hate him. R. Nachman B. Yitzchak said: It is a mitzvah to hate him, as it is written (Proverbs 8:13): "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil" (Pesachim 113b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV551 Biblical ethics reach their highest level with the commandment "You shall not hate your fellow person in your heart," which concludes with "love your neighbor as yourself" (this and next verse). The general trend of social ethics was summed up by the Jewish prophets who said, "Hate evil and love goodness" and "God has told you what is good, and what is required of you: do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). An excellent summation of biblical ethical teachings is contained in the well-known saying of Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to another" (Talmud Shabbat 31a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV576 The prohibited hate is the kind which is "in the heart" [this verse]. Hate can find an outlet in violent reactions, or it can remain quiescent in the heart. A prohibition of overt acts is feasible. However, what is the practical effect of a divine prohibition of an emotion? How can one control his heart to exclude from it an instinctive reaction of hate? Hate is part of man's psyche and will not disappear because it is outlawed. The rabbinical answer to these questions amended the scope of the prohibition of hate. In the opinion of the rabbis, the phrase "in my heart" changes the framework of the prohibition. In effect, the principal aim of the verse is to warn against keeping a grudge bottled up "in the heart," i.e., one must not keep his grudge secret. "Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor." A discussion of one's grievance is therapeutic and desirable. The rabbis regarded as particularly reprehensible any pretense of "business as usual," and needless to say an appearance of friendship, at a time when one bears a grudge in his heart (Bereshit Rabbah 84). The new interpretation stresses the need for purging one's hate rather than prohibiting the initial experience of hate.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV575 The medieval Sefer HaChinnuch, an exposition of the Torah's 613 commandments, notes that one who makes known his hatred does not violate the biblical commandment against hatred (although such a person violates the law to "Love your neighbor as yourself," and might well come to violate the Torah's prohibition against bearing a grudge [Leviticus 19:18).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV573 Express your anger directly to the person who offended you. Many people, afraid to confront the other person, instead share their anger with others, thereby besmirching their opponent's good name. The Rabbis understood the law [this verse] as meaning that when you have a grievance, you should neither hold it in nor share it with others. Rather, you should go directly to the person and inform him of what he has done to hurt you. There is much wisdom in William Blake's poem "A Poison Tree": "I was angry with my friend; I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe; I told it not, my wrath did grow." As a general rule, it is wisest not to confront the person with whom you are angry when you are at the height of your rage, since it is difficult at such moments to express your anger fairly. Obviously, we should also be cautious about expressing anger to someone in a position to do us harm; the goal of expressing anger is to improve our situation with the other party, not worsen it.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV574 The biblical law [this verse] implies that not all anger should be repressed. The Bible does not forbid all hatred, but only that which you are keeping secret. Therefore it is best to tell the person who has offended you why you are angry, because doing so might lead to a change in the person's behavior or to an apology--and to reconciliation. Rashi, commenting on Numbers 12:9, suggests that you should not become angry at someone without first telling the person what he is doing that has upset you. Once you have done this (and your reason is valid), then, if the person does not alter his behavior, you have the right to be angry at him.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV577 … the moral responsibility expressed in the maxim [extends] to any individual, even a stranger, who has it in his power to correct an offender. If he fails to do so, he shares the offender's guilt. This warning was spelled out by Nachmanides (13th cent.) in his comment on [this verse]: "If you fail to rebuke him, you are at fault, and his sin is also your sin." Some of the talmudic comments on admonition reflect a profound understanding of human nature. The failure of parents to correct their offspring is taken by the children as a sign of parental indifference. Reproach, on the other hand, is regarded as proof of concern and love.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV592 The duty of admonishing is open-ended. If unsuccessful at first, one must try again and again (Sifra, this verse).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV587 It is a positive commandment to upbrade a sinner as Scripture says, you shall surely rebuke your fellow [this verse]. He is to inform him that he does himself a wrong by his evil acts; and he is to inform him that he is telling him this only for his own benefit, to bring him to life in the world-to-come. It is his duty to reprimand him until he listens to him, or until he strikes him and says, "I will not listen to you." There are some early authorities who are lenient about this, holding that it is enough until there is an angry retort [that the other gives us and rejecting our efforts]. But even the first view applies specifically when the person violates a prohibition by Torah law, and when he estimates that it will be effective for the future, that the other person will not do this thing again. Even a person of lower stature is duty-bound to rebuke a person of higher stature. Whoever has it in his power to oppose [a sinner in his act] and does not do so, falls victim to the guilt of his sin. Now, even though it is a religious duty to rebuke him [a sinner], he should not shame him first. It is a religious requirement to accept rebuke and to bear the chastiser affection. We find in the teachings of the Sages (Talmud Bavli, Shabbath 40a) that even if a person willfully violates a prohibition enacted by the Sages, it is permissible to call him a transgressor.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT