וְהִנֵּה חַכְמֵי הַמּוּסָר הָאַחֲרוֹנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בְּמִי שֶׁחָטָא חֵטְא אֶחָד פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת.

The latter-day scholars of ethics and spiritual piety disagree with regard to someone who committed the same sin many times. One can find in the writings of the Arizal the number of fasts that one should undertake to atone for one sin. For example, as we learned in the previous chapter, when a person gets angry, he should fast 151 times, and someone who neglected to pray should fast 61 times, and so on. The dispute arises regarding a person who violates the same commandment numerous times.

דְּיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת מִסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת לְאוֹתוֹ חֵטְא פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת כְּפִי הַמִּסְפָּר אֲשֶׁר חָטָא.

Some maintain that he must undertake the number of fasts prescribed for that sin many times, equal to the number of times he sinned. Those scholars argue that since the rectification of a given transgression is to fast a particular number of times, he must fast that amount for each instance of violation if he committed a particular sin more than once.

כְּגוֹן הַמּוֹצִיא זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה, שֶׁמִּסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת הַמְפוֹרָשׁ בְּתִיקּוּנֵי תְשׁוּבָה מֵהאריז״ל הֵן פ״ד תַּעֲנִיּוֹת, וְאִם חָטָא בָּזֶה עֶשֶׂר אוֹ עֶשְׂרִים פְּעָמִים עַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל צָרִיךְ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת עֶשֶׂר אוֹ עֶשְׂרִים פְּעָמִים פ״ד, וְכֵן לְעוֹלָם. דּוּמְיָא דְּקָרְבַּן חַטָּאת שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהָבִיא עַל כָּל פַּעַם וּפַעַם.

For instance, for someone who emits semen for naught, the number of fasts specified in the Arizal's penances is eighty-four fasts. If one transgressed this sin, for example, ten or twenty times, he must fast ten or twenty times eighty-four, and so too for other sins. This is comparable to a sin offering, which one must bring for each and every time he sinned. When a person violates a transgression for which he is obligated to offer a sin offering, he must bring one sacrifice. If he sins a second time, he must bring an additional offering, and so on. One sacrifice does not atone for two sins. Similarly, an individual should carry out the prescribed penance – whether eighty-four fasts, sixty-one, and so on – as many times as he committed the sin.

וְיֵשׁ מְדַמִּין עִנְיָן זֶה לְקָרְבַּן עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה עַל מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ עָבַר עַל כַּמָּה מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּעוֹלָה אַחַת, כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא פֶּרֶק קַמָּא דִזְבָחִים (ז, א).

The other scholars disagree and compare this type of penance to a burnt offering, which is brought for neglecting to fulfill a positive commandment. Even if one violated several positive commandments, he achieves atonement with a single burnt offering, as the Talmud states in the first chapter of Zevaḥim (7a). The thrust of this dispute is whether fasting facilitates atonement like the sin offering or whether it serves as a voluntary gift, like the burnt offering brought for neglecting to fulfill a positive commandment. This dispute is not just theoretical for someone who wants to undertake these practices. The difference between the two opinions holds huge practical import: Does the sinner undertake a series of fasts for every time he committed the sin, or is one set of fasts sufficient?

וְהַכְרָעָה הַמְקוּבֶּלֶת בָּזֶה לְהִתְעַנּוֹת ג׳ פְּעָמִים כְּפִי מִסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת דְּחֵטְא זֶה.

The accepted ruling in this dispute is to undertake the prescribed number of fasts for this sin three times. This ruling is a compromise between the two opinions. On the one hand, it does not demand a series of fasts for every single time the person sinned. Yet one set of fasts is not sufficient for the many times a person may have committed the same sin. Instead, three series of fasts are recommended.

דְּהַיְינוּ רנ״ב צוֹמוֹת עַל הוֹצָאוֹת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה,

This equals, for example, 252 fasts for wasteful emission of semen, For one such incident, a person must fast 84 fasts. Therefore, if he would violate that same prohibition many times, then he must fast 252 times, which is 84 multiplied by 3.

וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר חֲטָאִים וַעֲוֹנוֹת.

and such is the calculation for other sins and iniquities. The same applies to other sins. If a person sinned three times or more, he needs to fast only three times the number of fasts prescribed for that particular sin.

וְהַטַּעַם הוּא עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּזּוֹהַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ סוֹף פָּרָשַׁת נֹחַ (ח״א עג, ב): ״כֵּיוָן דְּחָב בַּר נַשׁ קַמֵּי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא זִמְנָא חֲדָא עָבֵיד רְשִׁימוּ כו׳ זִמְנָא תְּלִיתָאָה אִתְפַּשֵּׁט הַהוּא כִּתְמָא מִסִּטְרָא דָּא לְסִטְרָא דָּא״ כו׳.

The rationale for fasting three times is based on the statement of the holy Zohar at the end of Parashat Noaḥ (1:73b): "When a person sins one time before the Holy One, blessed be He, it makes an impression on his soul.... ​The third time he sins, that stain penetrates from one side to the other.... " When grime falls on a garment the first time, it makes a light stain on its surface. The second time, the stain penetrates the material, making it harder to clean. The third time, the stain penetrates through and through, causing discoloration in the entire garment. Similarly, when a person sins once, the flaw affects the more superficial aspect of his being. When he sins again, the blemish begins to penetrate and has a greater effect. The third time, it penetrates one's being, changing his very essence. Even if he were to continue to commit that sin a fourth and fifth time, it no longer affects his essence, which has already been altered by the blemish of the sin.

לְכָךְ צָרִיךְ מִסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת גַּם כֵּן ג׳ פְּעָמִים וכו׳.

Therefore, the fasts must also number three.... To undo one's bond to the sin, to restore the purity of his former essence, the process of repair must also be threefold. After presenting this deliberation of the "latter-day scholars," who debated the requisite number of fasts for penance, the author of the Tanya now goes on to examine the contemporary applications of these matters, according to both hasidic and non-hasidic sources.

אָכֵן כָּל זֶה בְּאָדָם חָזָק וּבָרִיא שֶׁאֵין רִיבּוּי הַצּוֹמוֹת מַזִּיק לוֹ כְּלָל לִבְרִיאוּת גּוּפוֹ, וּכְמוֹ בַּדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

Yet all this refers only to a strong and vigorous person, whose physical health will not be harmed whatsoever by multiple fasts, as was the case in the early generations. In previous generations, people were accustomed to fasting, and doing so did not overly impact their physical or mental health. Furthermore, the main service of early generations was Torah study, while today our work is primarily to engage in charity and acts of kindness. Impairment of the body through fasting did not diminish one's service of God in those days, while today, since the crux of our work is physical, extensive fasting would seriously interfere with it.

אֲבָל מִי שֶׁרִיבּוּי הַצּוֹמוֹת מַזִּיק לוֹ, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיּוּכַל לָבֹא לִידֵי חוֹלִי אוֹ מִיחוּשׁ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם,

However, someone who would be harmed by multiple fasts and may possibly develop an illness or ailment, God forbid, Some people may become ill through fasting. Although they do not become critically ill, they suffer from headaches or similar ailments. Fasting regularly would certainly prevent them from living functional lives.

כְּמוֹ בְּדוֹרוֹתֵינוּ אֵלֶּה,

as is the case in these current generations, This point is even more salient today, many generations after the author of the Tanya articulated it. It is not that people today are less robust than previous generations. They are simply more pampered. Nowadays, people are accustomed to eating at more regular intervals. Consequently, a skipped breakfast could mean that a person will be unable to function normally the rest of the day. By contrast, the Talmud describes how people used to eat: The average person ate his first meal at the fourth hour from the beginning of the day and a workman at the fifth. The fifth hour is approximately eleven o'clock in the morning. That means that workmen would wake up at five in the morning, eat their first meal at eleven, and then eat their second meal in the evening. This was the typical eating schedule of a person doing hard physical labor. If we add widespread poverty to the picture, not every person possessed the means for even that much. People were accustomed to living with much less food and with less constancy.

אָסוּר לוֹ לְהַרְבּוֹת בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת אֲפִילּוּ עַל כָּרֵיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן עַל מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה וּמִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת. אֶלָּא כְּפִי אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁעֵר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי לֹא יַזִּיק לוֹ כְּלָל.

is prohibited from undertaking multiple fasts, even as penance for severe transgressions punishable by karet or one of the court-imposed death penalties, and needless to say for violating positive commandments and prohibitions not punishable by karet . Rather, one may undertake only the number of fasts that he assesses about himself will certainly not harm him whatsoever. The parameter that the author of the Tanya gives here depends on the person: One may fast only to the extent that he is confident that he will not suffer damage as a result.

כִּי אֲפִילּוּ בַּדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, בִּימֵי תַּנָּאִים וְאָמוֹרָאִים, לֹא הָיוּ מִתְעַנִּין בִּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא אֶלָּא הַבְּרִיאִים דְּמָצוּ לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ,

For even in the early generations, in the days of the tanna'im and amora'im , the only ones to fast in this manner were the vigorous people who were able to afflict themselves. These were people who fasted extensively, even over minor infractions, without impairing their service of God.

וּדְלָא מָצֵי לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ וּמִתְעַנֶּה נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא בַּגְּמָרָא פֶּרֶק קַמָּא דְּתַעֲנִית (יא, ב).

However, someone who is unable to afflict himself and nevertheless fasts is called a sinner in the Talmud, in the first chapter of Ta'anit (11b). The Talmud debates whether a person who fasts is considered a sinner or holy. It concludes that a person who is unable to fast without making himself sick or weak yet fasts anyway is considered to have "sinned against his soul" (Num. 6:11).

וַאֲפִילּוּ מִתְעַנֶּה עַל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ כִּדְפֵירֵשׁ רש״י שָׁם,

This applies even if he is fasting as penance for specific transgressions that he has committed, as Rashi explains there, This appellation does not apply only to someone who fasts for no good reason, causing himself damage. Even someone who is justified in fasting, because he seeks penance for his sins, is considered a sinner.

וְכִדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא פֶּרֶק קַמָּא דִזְבָחִים (ז, א) שֶׁאֵין לְךָ אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב עֲשֵׂה וכו׳.

and as the Talmud states in the first chapter of Zevaḥim (7a), "There is no one among Israel who is not liable for violating a positive commandment.... " No Jew can claim that he has not neglected the mitzvah of Torah study at least to some extent. Meaning to say that when a Jew fasts, he does so to rectify the sins he has committed. Nevertheless, if it harms his health, the Talmud labels him a sinner.

וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן מִי שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל תּוֹרָה, שֶׁחוֹטֵא וְנֶעֱנָשׁ בְּכִפְלַיִים, כִּי מֵחֲמַת חֲלִישׁוּת הַתַּעֲנִית לֹא יוּכַל לַעֲסוֹק בָּהּ כָּרָאוּי.

All the more so, someone who is a master of Torah, who devotes his time to its study and yet fasts, is sinning and will be doubly punished, since the weakness induced by the fast prevents him from studying Torah properly. His double punishment is for fasting and for neglecting the positive commandment of Torah study. Even if he feels that he will benefit spiritually from the fast, he will lose everything as a result of neglecting the mitzvah of Torah study. In trying to repair his soul, he ends up doing more damage. Due to the weakness induced by the fasting, he is unable to accomplish what he is required to achieve with his Torah study and mitzvah performance. This also applies to other fields of expertise. For example, if a teacher of young children fasts, he will not be able to function in his sacred work.

אֶלָּא מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ – כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וַחֲטָאָךְ בְּצִדְקָה פְרוּק״ (דניאל ד, כד). וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַפּוֹסְקִים לִיתֵּן בְּעַד כָּל יוֹם תַּעֲנִית שֶׁל תְּשׁוּבָה עֵרֶךְ ח״י גְּדוֹלִים פּוֹלִישׁ וכו׳,

What, then, is his rectification if he cannot fast? He should do what is prescribed in the verse "Redeem your sins with charity" (Dan. 4:24). As the halakhic authorities state, one should give the value of eighteen large Polish coins to charity for each day of fasting for penance... This allotment of eighteen large coins, formulated by Rabbi Moshe Isserles (otherwise known as the Rema), is the approximate cost of an average daily meal. Just as a fast replaces a sacrifice in the sense that a person gives of his fat and blood, offered up in place of the food that he did not eat, so too charity, the giving of the monetary equivalent of one's daily meal, replaces a fast.

וְהֶעָשִׁיר יוֹסִיף לְפִי עָשְׁרוֹ וכו׳, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַמָּגֵן אַבְרָהָם הִלְכוֹת תַּעֲנִית (אורח חיים סי׳ תקס״ח סע׳ יב).

and a rich person should give more commensurate with his wealth and so forth, as the Magen Avraham states in the laws of fasts (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 568:12). The sum specified above is not absolute, but rather it should reflect the giving capacity of the penitent. In the language of the Magen Avraham, "The reason [that one can give charity instead of fasting] is that the suffering felt from relinquishing money is commensurate with the suffering he would have incurred by fasting. A wealthy person's hundred maneh equals a poor person's perutah." The conclusion, according to all the leaders of Hasidism past and present, is that fasting, even as penance or as a gift, is not proper and can even be dangerous. The fast does not always enhance a person's spiritual work in attaining repentance; on the contrary, it can be detrimental to it. A person once went to Reb Elimelekh of Lizhensk seeking penance for his sins. The man had been fasting and performing self-mortification practices for a long time, yet he did not feel that he was achieving the desired result. Reb Elimelekh instructed him to cease his fasting and to do the opposite: He should begin sleeping and eating well. After the man ate and slept his fill, Reb Elimelekh sent his son to speak with the man and explain to him the nature of sin. The son explained the irrevocable blemish caused by sin and how, in fact, nothing could repair it. After some time, the man could no longer bear eating and drinking while being aware of the harm his sins had wrought. This cognitive dissonance sparked his repentance. We see that in addition to the physical damage caused by fasting, it may not necessarily be the most effective path to repentance. Taking pride in fasting rituals only distances a person even more from authentic regret, while food and drink could precipitate the desired repentance more effectively. Nonetheless, in the next paragraph, as a sort of parenthetical comment, the author of the Tanya offers another perspective that does not entirely dismiss the practice of fasting.

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ הֶחָפֵץ קִרְבַת ה׳ לְתַקֵּן נַפְשׁוֹ לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ אֶל ה׳ בִּתְשׁוּבָה מְעוּלָּה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, יַחְמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לְהַשְׁלִים עַל כָּל פָּנִים פַּעַם אַחַת כָּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו מִסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת לְכָל עָוֹן וְעָוֹן מֵעֲוֹנוֹת הַחֲמוּרִים שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִיתָה עַל כָּל פָּנִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם בִּלְבָד, כְּגוֹן לְהוֹצָאוֹת זֶרַע לְבַטָּלָה פ״ד צוֹמוֹת פַּעַם אַחַת בִּימֵי חַיָּיו.

Nevertheless, every man of spirit who longs for closeness with God to rectify his soul and restore it to God with superior repentance, should be scrupulous to complete, at least once during the course of his lifetime, the number of fasts recommended for at least each and every one of the grave sins he has committed that are punishable by death, even if only at the hand of Heaven. For example, for wasteful emission of semen, he should fast a series of eighty-four fasts once in his lifetime. Although the author of the Tanya does not recommend fasting and suggests that in its stead a person should redeem a given fast with charity, he nevertheless leaves an opening to anyone who desires to choose this path, which does offer the added benefit of sacrificing a part of his actual flesh to God. This invitation is not aimed at every person and does not entail fasting for every sin. He speaks to the "man of spirit who longs for closeness with God," to a person who is capable and insists on being pushed. Even for him, the author of the Tanya suggests fasting only for the most severe transgressions and only once in his lifetime. This modified prescription should be carried out in the easiest way possible, as he will delineate below.

וְיָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתָן לַיָּמִים הַקְּצָרִים בַּחוֹרֶף, וְיִתְעַנֶּה כְּעֶשֶׂר תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל בְּחוֹרֶף אֶחָד אוֹ פָּחוֹת, וְיִגְמוֹר מִסְפַּר הַפ״ד צוֹמוֹת בְּט׳ שָׁנִים אוֹ יוֹתֵר כְּפִי כֹּחוֹ.

He may postpone them until the short days of winter and fast ten fasts, for instance, or less, in one winter and complete the eighty-four fasts over the course of nine years or even more, commensurate with his strength. Even if a person decides to undertake a series of fasts, he is allowed to make it easier for himself by waiting until winter, when the days – and therefore the fasts – will be shorter.

(וְגַם יָכוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל מְעַט כְּג׳ שָׁעוֹת לִפְנֵי נֵץ הַחַמָּה, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נֶחְשָׁב לְתַעֲנִית אִם הִתְנָה כֵּן.)

(Also, he can eat a small amount until approximately three hours before sunrise, and it is still considered a fast, provided he stipulated that he would do so before going to sleep.) A fast that begins in the morning starts at dawn. In the northern countries, the region where the author of the Tanya lived, this would be three hours before sunrise; in Israel, it would be less. If he stipulates beforehand that he plans to rise before dawn, he is permitted to eat before the fast begins in order to make the fasting even easier.

וּלְתַשְׁלוּם רנ״ב צוֹמוֹת כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל יִתְעַנֶּה עוֹד ד׳ פְּעָמִים פ״ד עַד אַחַר חֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם בִּלְבָד, דְּמִחֲשַׁב גַּם כֵּן תַּעֲנִית בִּירוּשַׁלְמִי (נדרים פרק ח הלכה ח). וּב׳ חֲצָאֵי יוֹם נֶחְשָׁבִים לוֹ לְיוֹם אֶחָד לְעִנְיָן זֶה.

To complete the 252 fasts as stated above, he may fast four additional series of eighty-four fasts from dawn until just after noon, as this is also considered a fast according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 8:8). Each set of two half days of fasting counts for him as one whole day of fasting in this context. According to an opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud, a fast does not have to span an entire day but rather can be for several hours. Accordingly, two half days count toward the number of fasts that one has undertaken. Therefore, if a person fasts eighty-four half days four times, it is considered as if he has fasted eighty-four whole days twice. Together with the original eighty-four fasts, this enables him to complete the series of three times eighty-four fasts, making a total of 252.

וְכֵן לִשְׁאָר עֲוֹנוֹת כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, אֲשֶׁר כָּל לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מָרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ וְחָפֵץ בְּהִצַּדְּקָהּ.

Likewise, for other sins of a similar nature, he can do the same to repair the damage they caused, as each heart knows its own bitterness and desires its vindication. The author of the Tanya does not specify here who needs to fast and for which transgressions because it depends on the person. An individual who cannot bear the bitterness he feels in his heart from his transgressions, who yearns so deeply to regain the purity of his soul, who by not fasting would suffer more than he would if he were to fast – these practices are for him.

אָכֵן מִסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת הָעוֹדְפִים עַל רנ״ב וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת, לָחוֹשׁ לְדַעַת הַמַּחְמִירִים לְהִתְעַנּוֹת מִסְפַּר צוֹמוֹת שֶׁעַל כָּל חֵטְא וְחֵטְא כְּפִי מִסְפַּר הַפְּעָמִים שֶׁחָטָא כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל,

However, there still remains the number of fasts he is required to undertake beyond the 252 fasts prescribed for that sin and other such sins in order to take into account the more stringent opinion that requires fasting the prescribed number of fasts for each and every type of sin, as many times as he transgressed, as stated above. As the author of the Tanya stated at the beginning of the chapter, the scholars of ethics and piety disagreed as to how many times a person who violated the same transgression multiple times should fast. The stringent view maintained that one should fast an entire series of fasts for every incident of sin. Although the author of the Tanya does not rule in accordance with that opinion, he does take it into account.

יִפְדֶּה כּוּלָּן בִּצְדָקָה עֵרֶךְ ח״י גְּדוֹלִים פּוֹלִישׁ בְּעַד כָּל יוֹם. וְכֵן שְׁאָר כָּל תַּעֲנִיּוֹת שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהִתְעַנּוֹת עַל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מִיתָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַל בִּיטּוּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא וּדְרַבָּנָן וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם, כְּפִי הַמִּסְפָּר הַמְפוֹרָשׁ בְּתִיקּוּנֵי הַתְּשׁוּבָה מֵהאר״י ז״ל (וְרוּבָּם נִזְכָּרִים בְּמִשְׁנַת חֲסִידִים בְּמַסֶּכֶת הַתְּשׁוּבָה), הַכֹּל כַּאֲשֶׁר לַכֹּל יִפְדֶּה בִּצְדָקָה כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל, אִי לָא מָצֵי לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ כַּנִּזְכָּר לְעֵיל.

Therefore, he should redeem them all by giving charity in the value of eighteen large Polish coins for each fast day. The same applies to all other fasts that one must undertake for lighter transgressions, those not punishable by death, and even for the neglect of positive commandments, whether those that are biblically mandated or those that are rabbinically mandated, and for neglecting Torah study, which is equivalent to them all, according to the number of fasts specified by the penances of the Arizal. (Most of these penances are recorded in Mishnat Ḥasidim , in the tractate on repentance.) Any and all of them one should redeem with charity, as stated above, if he is unable to afflict himself, as stated above. Besides the hardship of extensive fasting, doing so is virtually impossible. For example, a person who gets angry fasts 151 times. If he gets angry twice, he has hardly any days left to eat. And what if he succumbs to anger a third time? One can also give charity to rectify less serious sins as well, since charity counts as a sacrifice that a person offers from his life span in this world.

וְאַף שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה לְסַךְ מְסוּיָּים, אֵין לָחוֹשׁ מִשּׁוּם אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ,

Even if the charity amounts to a considerable sum, there is no concern with regard to violating the rabbinic edict not to squander more than a fifth of one's income for charity, Jewish law stipulates that the maximum amount of charity that one should give is a fifth, or twenty percent, of his income. The implied question here is, what if the total amount of charity from redeeming one's fasts equals more than a fifth?

דְּלָא מִקְּרֵי בִּזְבּוּז בִּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא מֵאַחַר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה לִפְדּוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ מִתַּעֲנִיּוֹת וְסִיגּוּפִים,

since it is not considered squandering in this context, as one is doing so to redeem himself from fasts and self-mortification. In this context, the giving of so much charity is not considered waste but rather acquisition. Although the money goes to charity, the giver's primary motivation is not to provide for the needy but to achieve rectification for himself, sparing himself the suffering of fasting.

וְלָא גָּרְעָא מֵרְפוּאַת הַגּוּף וּשְׁאָר צְרָכָיו.

This is no worse than spending large sums for healing the body or his other needs. When a person is ill or hungry, he would spend money without limit to take care of his needs. Here too he is spending money to heal his soul.

וּלְפִי שֶׁמִּסְפַּר הַצּוֹמוֹת הַמּוּזְכָּרִים בְּתִקּוּנֵי תְשׁוּבָה הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְעֵיל רַבּוּ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד,

Since the number of fasts prescribed in those penances mentioned above is immense, The author of the Tanya sums up his discussion of penances with one overarching comment: Since they serve to repair not only explicit transgressions of prohibitions from the Torah, but also those related to basic morality and refinement of one's personal attributes (the gradations of which are countless and unique to every person), the number of fasts can be endless.

לָכֵן נָהֲגוּ עַכְשָׁיו כָּל הַחֲרֵדִים לִדְבַר ה׳ לְהַרְבּוֹת מְאֹד מְאֹד בִּצְדָקָה, מֵחֲמַת חֲלִישׁוּת הַדּוֹר דְּלָא מָצוּ לְצַעוֹרֵי נַפְשָׁם כּוּלֵּי הַאי

therefore all who fear the word of God are accustomed nowadays to give immense amounts to charity because of the weakness of the generation, who are unable to afflict themselves to such a degree The amount of charity that early hasidim used to give relative to their income was immense. They gave not only of their discretionary income but also of their vital necessities. One reason is because the hasidic way of life was one of social and economic collaboration, almost familial, much more so than society at large. The other reason, as underlined here by the author of the Tanya, stems from the function of giving as a path to self-rectification. The need among hasidim for a soul-tikkun was felt with palpable intensity. Yet far from forming a dismal society of distressed individuals, it created a charitable community.

(וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר [איגרת הקדש י] עַל פָּסוּק ״חַסְדֵי ה׳ כִּי לֹא תָמְנוּ״ [איכה ג, כב]).

(as written elsewhere [Iggeret HaKodesh, epistle 10] regarding the verse "It is the Lord's kindnesses that have not ceased" [Lam. 3:22]). A glimpse into this approach to charity can be seen from many of the letters that appear in Iggeret HaKodesh, the next section of the Tanya. There it describes the abundance of charity given and the vital role it played in the hasidic world. The author of the Tanya states that "the Lord's kindnesses" mentioned in the verse refer to God's unlimited kindness. Just as He is infinite, so His kindness is infinite. He interprets the words of the verse that follow, ki lo tamnu, "that have not ceased," not as relating to God's kindness, but rather as referring to the Jewish people. Tamnu connotes completion, which implies perfection. The author's interpretation, then, reads as follows: "Since we are not whole and perfect, without any sin or blemish, we need His infinite kindnesses." The implication is that the only way to rectify a sin that caused a flaw in one's soul and altered the flow of blessings that he was supposed to receive from on high is by drawing from God's supernal kindnesses, which are beyond measure. This is achieved by giving charity without any limit or measure. This chapter concludes the discussion that began in chapter 1 and continued in chapter 2, wherein the author of the