440 —סליחה, המחלוקת של נושא לעומת כובש עון, וגישות חסידיות

B"H, 8th of Shevat, 5709.

Haraha"ch vavaha"ch iy"a nu"m etc. Nachman Naamanov

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In continuation to my letter from the 2nd of Teves: a) Enclosed is a kuntres that was published for the merit of the public. b) Enclosed is what seems correct to me regarding the matter of "noso" (bearing) and "kovesh" (subduing)... Please share with the entire group. M. Schneerson

In response to the comment on what is written in the maamar "Kol HaMerachem," printed in Kuntres Yom Kippur, 5709: The attribute of "verav chesed" (abundant kindness) means that kindness outweighs judgment and therefore transgressions are passed over; however, the actual sin is not erased. The question here—explained at some length—is that there is a dispute in Rosh Hashanah (17a) whether "verav chesed" means He subdues sin or bears sin. The distinction is clarified according to our Sages (Pesikta d'Rav Kahana section vav; Pesikta Rabbasi; Yalkut Shimoni Pinchas; see also Aruch entry 'kavash' g): On the verse "kevasim bnei shanah" (year-old lambs), Beis Shammai say: lambs that subdue their sins, etc.; Beis Hillel say: anything that is subdued will eventually rise to the surface—rather, lambs that cleanse their sins as it says: "If your sins will be like scarlet they will become white as snow." Thus it must be that Rava's statement in Rosh Hashanah—that the sin itself is not erased—follows the opinion of "kovesh," but according to "noso," it is completely erased. This is all explained in detail in Maamar Teku Atar.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear: a) According to the opinion of "noso," how does "verav chesed" differ from "emes"? b) How can what is written in Maamar Kol HaMerachem be reconciled with Maamar Teku mentioned above and also with Likkutei Torah Maamar Mi El Kamocha, which states there is a dispute—kovesh or noso—and both are true: kovesh refers to subduing the essence of sin while noso means even the power of desire becomes included in holiness? Seemingly each maamar follows its own approach: In Kol HaMerachem it says that according to verav chesed, sin is not erased at all; in Likkutei Torah it says that while the essence isn't erased, its power of desire becomes included in holiness; in Teku it says that according to noso avon even intentional sins become merits.

The answer: There are two aspects here—according to nigleh (revealed Torah/law) and according to Chassidus. I will first write what seems correct regarding nigleh, then according to Chassidus.

The matter of verav chesed: There is a dispute in Rosh Hashanah whether it means noso or kovesh; regarding kovesh there are various opinions in Shas as explained at length by Rif, Rosh and their commentators. Since only Rabbi Yehuda in Arachin (5b) holds like noso but Tanna d'vei Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbah (Arachin there), and Rava—the later authority—all hold like kovesh and that sin itself isn't erased—the halachah follows this view as known from Talmudic principles. Even though some say these principles only apply to commonly practiced matters (Maharik cited by Tosefos Yom Tov Keilim 3:42), besides—as concluded there—that whenever possible we uphold such rules; it seems clear this limitation applies only where one authority was more expert than another for practical matters. But for principles dictated by logic—as here—they apply even where not practiced then (see also Kuntres Lubavitch vol. 10 p.82 note). Proof for our case: Rif omits entirely the opinion of noso and elaborates on kovesh.

It would seem difficult from Pesikta/Yalkut Shimoni above where Beis Shammai/Beis Hillel argue; Beis Hillel holds sin itself is erased—which matches noso—and we always rule like Beis Hillel everywhere (not just practical law), as implied in Eruvin 13b: whoever humbles himself... If so, if this dispute persists regarding korban tamid—which erases sin all the more so through G‑d's thirteen attributes—it should certainly erase! The difficulty increases since the dispute about kovesh/noso in Rosh Hashanah follows Beis Hillel's view—so this doesn't match our Talmud! The answer is simple: In Pesikta it's about korban tamid which only atones for positive commandments (see Iggeres HaTeshuvah ch.11); thus it's completely erased there—not so with thirteen attributes discussed in Rosh Hashanah which refer to negative commandments whose atonement is harder.

According to noso avon it's completely erased—but still differs from emes because emes has no limitation—a boundless inheritance—as explained in Kol HaMerachem. But verav chesed only applies when merits equal sins; it only removes earlier sins etc.—as per all opinions on kovesh (see Rif/Ran)—the dispute between noso/kovesh concerns whether sin itself is erased or not.

What seems correct according to Chassidus—in brief—is that generally there are three modes: iskafya (subjugation), ishapcha d'kelipas noga (transformation of kelipas noga), ishapcha d'gimmel kelipos hatmeios (transformation of three impure kelipos). Iskafya means struggle—two sides are comparable but one ultimately prevails during battle over the other; this belongs within Zeir Anpin where there's right/left—sometimes one prevails sometimes another. Ishapcha means transformation—the opposing force's essence changes—which can only happen when there's no comparison between them or when opposition has no foothold within what's overcoming it; this belongs above limitation. Within this itself there's ishapcha d'kelipas noga—not overturning order but elevating kelipas noga into holiness—Arich Anpin above limitation but still root for hishtalshelus/emanations; then ishapcha d'gimmel kelipos hatmeios which overturns order entirely—this can't come from Atik Yomin which roots emanations but only from Ein Sof shining through Atik Yomin's face (see Likkutei Torah Teitzei end biur Dvarim Velo Ava). The thirteen attributes exist within Zeir Anpin, external Arich Anpin and its inner aspect too (see Likkutei Torah end Re'eh). Thus even within Zeir Anpin's thirteen attributes there can be either predominance from Arich Anpin's face or its external aspect—so three possibilities arise: kovesh where sin isn't erased at all—just iskafya; noso where transformation occurs but only for kelipas noga—not essence of gimmel kelipos hatmeios; or total transformation—even gimmel kelipos hatmeios become good. This explains different interpretations for verav chesed—it refers sometimes specifically to Chesed d'Arich Anpin but also includes Chesed shining into Zeir Anpin receiving from Chesed d'Atik Yomin called cheifetz chesed—and sometimes called Chesed d'Atika Kadisha itself (see Likkutei Torah Devarim Hashem Yechatu Merivav end Re'eh etc.). Thus there's room for debate how to interpret verav chesed—as kovesh/noso/or as Likkutei Torah suggests: noso applies only to power of desire not essence of act itself. But tikkun emes—which has no hair/obstruction—is pure revelation alone... thus it's Atik Yomin where total transformation always occurs.

The practical application can be explained per end Hemshach B'Shishah Ksavim Tof Resh Ayin Beis part Shelah Ulam p.Rag onwards—that there are three ways gevurah can be sweetened: iskafya—sweetening through abundance of kindness when animal soul defeats evil inclination during battle—the advantage being it's initiated below so even animal soul awakens/elevates itself; ishapcha—as with bitter waters made sweet by throwing wood from Tree of Life per Zohar II 60a—the water itself becomes sweet through abundance of light from G‑dly soul refining animal soul—but that's an arousal from above as at Matan Torah so may be temporary—as with bitter waters made sweet by inserting certain woods or Jericho waters made sweet by Elisha using salt—a form of gevurah so animal soul feels discomfort with its state rather than G‑dly soul feeling bitterness over being clothed within animal soul since G‑dly soul never reaches such bitterness as animal soul experiences elsewhere explained... As with lightweights during Ne'ilah or returnees from Assyria when great shofar sounds—for Ne'ilah arousal too comes from hidden strength/gevorah... In general this describes baal teshuvah whose intentional sins become merits—the difference between incense versus sacrifices—the myrrh which comes from impure animal blood becomes incense itself—and Rabbi Yehuda permits even eating it (see Toras Ohr Dvarim Chayev Inish II).

Note well: According to Likkutei Torah Mi El Kamocha it's impossible for noso avon to apply except regarding power/desire—not actual sinful act—but elsewhere regarding intentional sins becoming merits we must say there are three things: sinful act itself, spark of holiness within it, power/desire behind it—the intent there refers only to act not spark within which can also ascend—even gimmel kelipos hatmeios via baal teshuvah/nisayon—as seen elsewhere including Biur Acharai at end Tanya Mevoar l'tztz"z—and what Likkutei Torah says Biur Zos Chukas p.Raf Vav: 'But it's difficult since gimmel kelipos hatmeios cannot be refined now until future times'—needs further study.

On a lighter note one could say per Talmudic rules/nigleh birurim from Eitz HaDaas—as explained Kuntres Eitz HaChaim Admor Hazaken—the halachah follows only kovesh not ishapcha—and that's true for Kol HaMerachem said year-round as well as thirteen attributes year-round—even those recited during Elul are an arousal from above awakening arousal below—a male initiates first resulting in female offspring—not transformation—but according to Chassidus especially discourses on Aseres Yemei Teshuvah—as explained Likkutei Torah end Re'eh—and like Likkutei Torah V'Tak'u mentioned above—the thirteen attributes during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah bring 'before Hashem you shall be purified,' turning intentional sins into merits.

Summary

This letter analyzes forgiveness through both halachic debate and deep Chassidic thought, distinguishing between subduing versus transforming sin and showing how different spiritual levels affect teshuvah’s impact—from partial cleansing up to complete transformation into merit.