Likutei Sichos Vol. 1, Acharei (p. 253)

I. The Core Question: Are Stringencies a Hindrance?

In this Sicha, the Rebbe addresses a common argument: that a person should not take on additional stringencies (Humros) beyond what is explicitly required by the Torah. The concern is that by adding too many "fences," a person might become overwhelmed and eventually drop even the essential Mitzvos. The Rebbe dispels this notion, explaining that for the average person, these protections are actually a necessary component of Divine service.

II. The Scriptural Basis: "Ushmartem Es Mishmarti"

The foundation for all Rabbinic decrees and personal fences is the verse in Parshas Acharei: "Ushmartem es mishmarti"—“You shall guard My guard.”

• The Talmudic Interpretation: The Sages explain this as "Asu mishmeres lemishmarti"—“Make a guard for My guard.”

• The Mechanism: The Mitzvos are God’s "guard" for us. However, we are commanded to create a second layer of protection (a fence) to ensure those Mitzvos are never violated.

• Two Applications:

  1. D'Rabanan: General decrees made by the Sages for the entire Jewish people.

  2. Personal Gedarim: Personal boundaries an individual sets for themselves in areas that are technically permissible, to ensure they don't slide into prohibition.

III. The Counter-Arguments

The Rebbe brings three common arguments used by those who oppose extra stringencies:

1. "Sufficient is what the Torah prohibited": Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi), people argue that we shouldn't "look for trouble" by creating new prohibitions.

2. Accounting for Pleasure: The Yerushalmi states a person will be judged for every permissible fruit they saw but did not eat. This suggests that abstaining from the permissible is actually a fault.

3. The "Tree of Knowledge" Proof: The snake was able to convince Chava to eat the fruit only because she added to God's command by saying, "Do not touch it." When she touched it and didn't die, the snake argued she wouldn't die from eating it either. Thus, adding "don't touch" caused the sin of "don't eat."

IV. The Rebbe’s Rebuttal: One Shepherd, One Torah

The Rebbe explains that it is a mistake to view Torah laws and Rabbinic laws as two separate systems.

• Kulam MiRo'eh Echad: All laws come from One Shepherd (Hashem). The Torah itself commands us to listen to the Sages and to "Guard the Guard."

• The Difference in Law: While we are more lenient with Rabbinic doubts (Safek D'Rabanan L'Kula) than Torah doubts, this is not because Rabbinic laws are less important. It is because the Torah itself dictates that this is how a Rabbinic law should be treated.

• Sanctification (Kadesh Atzmecha): Beyond avoiding sin, there is a positive Mitzvah of "Kedoshim Tihyu" (You shall be holy). This means "sanctifying yourself in that which is permitted." By delaying a meal or abstaining from a specific physical indulgence, a person trains themselves to control their Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination).

V. The Exception: The Level of "Merkavah" (Chariot)

The Rebbe resolves the proofs from the Yerushalmi and the Tree of Knowledge by distinguishing between levels of people:

• Adam HaRishon in Gan Eden: Before the sin, Adam was a Merkavah—a chariot to God. A chariot has no will of its own; it goes wherever the rider (Hashem) directs it.

• No Need for Fences: For someone on this level, there is no "evil" to worry about. In fact, for a Merkavah Jew, abstaining from the physical is a loss, because their every action elevates the sparks of holiness in the world. For them, not eating a fruit is a "missed opportunity" for elevation.

• Our Reality: For everyone else, fences are an advantage and a necessity. If a stringency is taken on to protect one's service to Hashem, it is not "extra"—it becomes a part of the Mitzvah of Ushmartem Es Mishmarti itself.