[Avodah] Tanya and Gentiles

[Michael Makovi]

Some time ago, the discussion came up as to how Chadnikim can be so
universalistic towards gentiles as they are, given what the Tanya
says.

I found the following interesting, both sent to me by R' Rael Levinsohn:

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/Brill.htm
s.v. "An example of the possibilities...", and the ensuing paragraphs.

Also, Rabbi Tzvi Freeman (of Chabad.org) explained as follows:

"First of all, you have to realize that there is no new dogma in the
Tanya. The Tanya comes to enlighten us about ideas that are found in
classic Judaism, as you see the citation from the Gemarra. The whole
issue about the souls of non-Jews comes up in the Kuzari, the Maharal,
the Arizal and many other important works.

"The Tanya explains to us the Arizal's point of view. According to the
Arizal, everything that exists has a spark of G_dliness within
it--only that this spark may be very hidden. Sometimes it is so hidden
that this thing becomes totally self-centered, unable to do anything
that it does not benefit from.

"In most parlance, this is not called evil. This is called how human
beings operate. Psychology, sociology--all the human sciences are
based on the premise that whatever we do, we do to avoid pain and/or
receive pleasure. Truly, 99% of the mitzvahs that the common Jew does
falls in the same category.

"But in the parlance of the Arizal and the Tanya, this is called evil
or klipah and sitra achra--the opposite side of holiness. The Tanya
doesn't put anyone down--it simply raises the bar.

"Nevertheless, within every human being there is a spark of true good.
After all, as the Torah repeats four times in Genesis, and again in
the Mishnah, all human beings are made in "the image of G_d." If
anyone knows of the equality and dignity of all human beings, they got
it from one source and one source alone and that is the Torah.

"The job of the Jew is to release that spark. And in those non-Jews
who are Bnai Noach, there is already a certain redemption of that
holiness. This should answer what you write about the "average
American today". As the Rebbe spoke, we have already succeeded in the
birur of Esau. Western civilization since the Reformation is really
nothing more than goyim acting like Jews.

"(Although, I must add this: When we gather all the nations of the
world together what do they resolve? That Israel must be condemned.
And not just Africa and Asia, but Europe believes so, as well. And in
Washington, the State Department never let go of its animosity,
continuing today into James Baker's nefarious ploy to sidestep and
sabotage Israel. From the Rebbe's perspective, the birur is complete.
>From our perspective, it seems there is still much to be done.)

"So what is the relation of Jews and non-Jews? Look at it this way:
For an ordinary Jew to discover and awaken the spark within, he needs
a tzadik, as explained in chapter 2 of Tanya. Quite simply, what the
tzadik is to the Jew, the Jew is to the non-Jew.

"The non-Jew recognizes this, albeit in a distorted manner. Paul
Johnson describes anti-semitism as "patricide". Thomas Cahill, an
Irishman, writes that the non-Jew hates the Jew because he reminds him
of G_d. In fact, they worship a Jew--a tortured, agonized Jew. They
got it right and wrong all at once.

"A common accusation is that Judaism is racism. This simply doesn't
work. Jews are not a race. They come in all colors--white, black,
brown and yellow. There are no racial distinctions on who can become a
Jew. Furthermore, ask yourself: Is there any other faith that says you
don't have to become one of us in order to have a share in the world
to come? Believe what you want, eat what you want, smoke what you
want--as long as you keep the basic rules of Noach, you're in."

If I understand him correctly, he seems to be saying that the Tanya's
claim is not an absolute ontological one, but rather, that it is a
very time-based judgment. That is, in the time of the Tanya, most
gentiles were self-absorbed and focused on self-gratification; in
Tanya-itic terminology, their souls were in/from(?) the klipah(ot).
But any gentile, ancient or contemporary, who is moral and upstanding,
his soul would not be in/from the klipah(ot). The judgment of the
Tanya's was not on gentiles per se, but rather, precisely on only
those gentiles who lived at his time, and even those gentiles could
have freed their souls from the klipah had they so chosen. This would
be the same as the Meiri's claim (viz. the Gemara's ancient gentiles
were evil and immoral, with but few exceptions, but our gentiles today
are not so), albeit in Kabbalistic terminology.

I remember seeing in the "Lessons in Tanya" perush, a footnote in
chapter one on this whole issue; it claimed ancient gentiles were from
the klipah, but today's are not. I found this immensely disingenuous
and displeasing, for I interpreted the perush as saying that in the
past, gentiles were ontologically and metaphysically distinct, but
today, a mysterious and inexplicable change in their souls has
occurred. But according to Rabbi Freeman's interpretation, the perush
makes sense: in the past, gentiles happened to have been selfish and
self-absorbed (= klipah), but it was their own doing, and not a
metaphysical or ontological necessity. Today, if gentiles are
different, it is because they themselves have freed themselves from
the klipot by their own behavior (probably due to our educational
efforts, but this is not relevant to our present discussion, why they
chose to change; the point is that they chose to change, and it was
not blind necessity).

Mikha'el Makovi