267 —סוגי החוטאים בפרק ל"ב של תניא והבחנות הלכתיות

B"H, 1 Adar 5707.

Brooklyn, NY.

BaYom HaZeh Ba'u Midbar Sinai (On this day they came to the Sinai desert). 5707.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from the 13th of Cheshvan, I have read it once and twice, but I cannot agree with the categorization you make, as it does not align with the religious and halachic perspective in general, nor with Tanya chapter 32 in particular. In halacha, the main "touchstone" is the reason and manner of committing a transgression—whether it is done out of desire and incidentally or to provoke and habitually—not the nature of the transgression itself.

An example from our times: One who says it is true there is a single G-d (and thus fulfills belief in G-d), but claims He is not alone as First—there exists primordial matter from which He created the world—this person is considered a min (heretic), like an idolater (see Moreh Nevuchim II:25 where it seems this is not true dualism), even though in common language he would not be called a meshumad (apostate). Lesser than this—even if called meshumad by people—is one who registers himself as a non-Jew out of desire and then lives a life of wantonness out of desire because there is no one to rebuke him to correct his ways. For sources on this see Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah ch.3, commentaries there, etc., as I wrote in my first letter.

Another example: One who abandons what is permitted and eats what is forbidden may be lent with interest; one who was captured as a child among non-Jews and knows nothing of Torah may not be lent with interest (Yoreh Deah 159)—those who disagree do so for other reasons.

Regarding what you wrote about Tanya: If we use your terms and insist on three categories, they would be: (a) Those whom it is a mitzvah to love without any hatred at all (those who observe Torah and mitzvot; irreligious Jews who are not in category three nor close enough for rebuke); (b) Those for whom there must be both hatred and love (those close enough for rebuke but do not repent); (c) Only hatred (minim and apikorsim as defined by Rambam etc.). The general difference between irreligious Jews in category one versus three is whether their actions are out of desire or to provoke; all those in category three act to provoke (see Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah end of siman there; Radak Beit Cheder; Responsa Maharash Halevi Yoreh Deah siman 29).

As for what Rambam writes there about "a mumar for the whole Torah... at a time when decrees are made...": Or Sameach already notes Rashi Avodah Zarah 54a, where Rashi concludes: after seeing Israel's hand weakened he turns his heart to idolatry; see also Lechem Mishneh there. Similarly, Yoreh Deah end of siman 158 gloss: "apostates... are like those who sin to provoke," refers to generic apostates whose status still needs clarification—see Tosafot "Ani" Avodah Zarah etc.

I will now address your proofs:

a) Regarding category three: Tanya says they have no share in the G-d of Israel—based on the above, not everyone called meshumad colloquially falls into this group, nor does everyone in this group currently bear that label. See Rambam there: minim... one who says He is not alone as First... apikorsim... those who deny Moshe's prophecy... deniers of Torah even one verse—all these are not necessarily called meshumad today.

b) In Tanya he cites Rosh Perek 16 Shabbat regarding "those who disguise themselves"—Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Yishmael refer there to early Christians (see Aruch Hashalem entry On, Bi Avdan cited regarding censorship omissions). This sect at that time did not wish to separate from Israel; on the contrary—they praised Israel (until Shaul from Tarsus came they did not even want contact with gentiles). They considered themselves fully Jewish, observed most commandments including Torah study, disdained idol worship—the dominant religion then—and so forth. See Shabbat at end of that sugya: "I did not come to detract from Moshe's Torah," etc.; yet they had some aspect of idolatry (unclear which), mocked certain rabbinic teachings (see censored Talmud passages cited also in Otzar Yisrael entry Yeshu). Thus they were not meshumadim as we now define it but rather free-thinking Jews—transgressors or minim.

c) The minim mentioned in Shabbat refer to Christians—true—but: i) The Christians then do not match today's concept of meshumadim; ii) If our master meant minim = meshumadim he would have written "meshummadim," or "mumarim," or those converted to Islam etc.—the usual terms used when censorship was an issue—and would not have used a term precisely defined elsewhere in halachic literature if that was his intent; iii) In Tanya he adds also apikorsim—so he must mean at least two types.

d) Choshen Mishpat 266: Apikorsim among Israel are meshumadim—but not idolaters—I do not know what proof this brings or its relevance since it continues: or one who sins intentionally—even eating non-kosher or wearing shaatnez intentionally—even though generally in Talmud/early authorities "meshummad" specifically means an idolater even if otherwise fully Jewish. But when forced conversions began—not just idolatry per se but joining another religion—the meaning shifted until now its main connotation is leaving Israel entirely, living only among gentiles, indifferent to Jewish suffering etc.—even here some question this—see Aruch Hashalem entries Mad Gimel and Meshummad.

The Ba'er HaGolah Choshen Mishpat 266 note Peh quotes Rambam Hilchot Avodah Zarah ch.4 halacha 10 from Braita Avodah Zarah ch.2 daf 26b and Gemara there; see Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah siman 158 where I copied it.

e) In Shulchan Aruch HaRav Hilchot Metzia u'Pikadon end siman 39: Apikorsim are deniers of Torah; Hilchot Nizkei Guf v'Nefesh siman 10: Minim among Israel are those who deny Torah—you seem to infer from here that there's no difference between min and apikores—but clearly Hilchot Nizkei Guf v'Nefesh has a textual error—it should read "apikorsim," as written elsewhere including Metzia u'Pikadon and all sources cited regarding these laws. It's also clear from the wording itself: "one who sins intentionally is a min—and minim among Israel are..."—the double language makes no sense unless corrected as above; also proven from Kuntres Acharon on that section where he writes it's unlike our case's apikores.

f) Regarding "apostasy" in Talmudic usage and censorship distortions see Aruch Hashalem entry Meshummad as above.

g) Regarding the book (in English) on Bereishit—it contains both good material and errors; some explanations are novel but some things are untrue. The author refused changes; since overall good outweighs bad—and especially given current missionary propaganda here—it can serve well against them. Over recent years it has influenced many circles toward love for Torah/Judaism and inspired deeper study. The book can be purchased directly from its author for seven dollars; if you wish to buy it let me know and I will arrange shipment.

Summary

The Rebbe explains that halachic distinctions among sinners depend primarily on intent rather than labels or specific acts. He clarifies how Tanya chapter 32 defines categories differently than common usage or secular understanding, emphasizing careful analysis before applying such terms.