@CS and Sechel
“After he says that one is obligated to simultaneously love and hate someone who is a sinner , Tanya goes on to ask on himself if so whats pshat in tahlit sin’ah seneitim which is quoted in masehta shabbat as requiring unqualified hate ?
Whereupon Tanya answers that this pasuk and maamar hazal are talking about an apikores who one is required to hate unreservedly.”
[yb to CS]
Complete distortion. He is explaining dovid hamelechs behavior, not giving guidance to people who can every jew who does something different than them an apikores or min.
[sechel to yb]
————————————-
Correct .
Sechels ‘explanation’ [think its not his – rather its his leaders] is a COMPLETE DISTORTION .
Nowhere in this perek does Tanya talk about Dovid.
Simple pshat .
He starts of with any yehudi.
Any yehudi’s obligation re love [or hate] towards other yehudim .
Again – OUR obligation toward our fellow yehudim.
Tanya delineates OUR obligation towards sinners.
He says it should be a mixture of love and hate.
Tanya asks on said statement , which was re OUR obligation towards sinners – which consists of said mixture of love and hate : How come Dovid hamelech says tahlit sin’ah [and gm ms Shabbat uses this to OBLIGATE US] with hate and no love.
So we have a contradiction whether the correct approach FOR US is a] mixture or b] hate only.
A contradiction regarding which approach WE – US should be taking.
Whereupon Tanya answers – if he is an apikores then the approach FOR US is – hate only
if he is not an apikores , just a sinner , then the approach FOR US is a mixture of love and hate.
Any neutral reader of the above . Please learn Tanya slowly for yourself , It is PLAIN and OBVIOUS.
Addition:
If sechel would be correct , why doesn’t Tanya answer simply ?
Hate only – thats for Dovid only
Mixture – thats for us.
Why does he need to differntiate between apikorsim and other sinners ?