923 —הבהרות על חבלה עצמית, תשובה ותפקיד המשיח

B"H, 16 Adar II, 5711.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n chov"b etc. Reuven Glick

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I hereby confirm receipt of your book Mishpetei Bnei Adam – three volumes – as well as your letter from the 7th of Adar II.

Regarding what you noted in your letter and also in your book (vol. II p. 124) about the words of the Yesh Shlom (Bava Kama 91b) concerning the prohibition against harming or shaming oneself for monetary gain: especially since the Yesh Shlom only refers to cases where one shames or harms himself in a mocking manner or similar; but if the shame or harm comes through work, it is permitted. From this you find difficulty with what is written in Shulchan Aruch HaRav Hilchot Nezikei Guf VeNefesh sec. 4 in the gloss, that from Rav's statement to Rav Kahana "skin a carcass..." and from Yaakov who ate in heat and cold it implies that shame and pain are permitted for monetary gain.

I am surprised at your distinction in the words of Yesh Shlom—how do you know to differentiate as you did? And what relevance do mockery and neglect of Torah have to our case of self-harm (and I do not have Yesh Shlom at hand to check his wording)? On the contrary: follow the reason for the prohibition against self-harm—because "a person has no authority over his body at all to strike it or shame it or cause it pain" (Shulchan Aruch HaRav)—meaning that regarding bodily pain, his status is like that of another's body. The reason is explained further by Radbaz on Rambam (Sanhedrin ch. 18 halacha 7): a person's soul is not his property but rather belongs to the Holy One Blessed Be He; see also Rambam Hilchot Rotzeach (ch. 1 halacha 4).

As for your proof from "By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread," "Man is born for toil," etc.—it is clear this depends on whether such conduct is customary; if so, then G‑d has given permission to use His property in this way since He said "Six days you shall labor." But if one adds beyond this—it is harming G‑d's property without His permission—and specifically because Yaakov boasted "I ate in heat and cold," etc., and Rav needed to warn "skin a carcass...," it proves this was not common practice at all. See Bava Metzia 93b: extra guarding, etc. (and apparently this depends on a dispute between Rabbah and Rav Chisda there). Also see Midrash Tanchuma Miketz on "El Shaddai": Fleeing from Esav to Lavan—see how many troubles I had: by day heat consumed me, etc.; Tur commentary on Torah (Vayetzeh 31:39) also explains that Yaakov did more than he was obligated.

You also commented on what is written in Tanya ch. 1 (and similarly Tur Orach Chaim Rosh Hashanah 29a): one who transgresses even a minor Rabbinic prohibition is called wicked—and all the more so one who neglects a positive commandment. You ask why derive this by kal vachomer when it is explicit in Shevuot (12b) and Zevachim (7b): "This positive commandment—if he does not repent—the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination."

This can be explained two ways: A) In Shevuot and Zevachim he transgressed two positives—the positive commandment itself and that of repentance; for from Rabbeinu HaZaken's wording in Igeret HaTeshuvah ch. 1 it seems he holds teshuvah is a Torah mitzvah—not like those who say it only applies if one wants to repent then confession becomes a mitzvah (see Minchat Chinuch sec. 364; Sefer HaMitzvot by tzt"z mitzvat vidui u'teshuvah; Perla's commentary to Saadia Gaon's Sefer HaMitzvot parsha 42; Zohar III p.124a etc.). Even according to that view, perhaps that's only during the year—but on Yom Kippur (which Shevuot discusses), everyone must repent (Rambam Teshuvah ch.2 halacha 7), as well as when bringing an offering for atonement (as discussed in Zevachim), so then there applies a positive commandment of teshuvah; but Tanya brings proof that immediately upon neglecting any positive commandment one is called wicked—and this should suffice.

B) Another explanation: From Shevuot and Zevachim we only see he is called wicked—it could be thought this means only slightly wicked; Tanya brings proof that he is considered seriously wicked because it derives by kal vachomer.

Note: I saw in your book you begin with kingship—based on Horayot's end that king precedes Kohen Gadol and prophet etc.—but even within kingship itself regarding Moshe Rabbeinu, there is room for question since Moshe's greatness was prophecy not kingship as you yourself note there p.202. In arranging kingship from highest downwards—it should begin with King Mashiach.

Even regarding prophecy: Rosh Hashanah ch.1 says among kings none arose like Moshe Rabbeinu—but from Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah ch.9 halacha 2 where Mashiach will be a great prophet close to Moshe Rabbeinu—it seems Rambam holds like those who say even among kings none arose like Moshe; but regarding being king—they said Mashiach will judge by scent alone (Sanhedrin 93b), which was actually done—see there—even according to those who say among kings there arose one like Moshe (i.e., Shlomo), he was not permitted to judge except with witnesses etc.; certainly judging by scent alone pertains to being king not prophet since prophets do not judge.

According to our version, these are two explanations in Tanchuma end Parshat Toldot about King Mashiach: "He will be wise...and exalted above Yitzchak" (not specifying Moshe since Moshe surpassed him in prophecy), but "exalted above Moshe" means Mashiach surpasses Moshe as king.

See Maharsh Buber's notes to Tanchuma there sec.134 where Mahartz Chayes raises difficulty with Rambam saying Mashiach will only be close to Moshe; also see my father-in-law's discourse Pesach Sheini 5709 (printed in Kuntres S.V.) that in future Mashiach will impart inner Torah even to Avos, Moshe Rabbeinu, Aharon etc.—as also implied in Likkutei Torah by Rabbeinu HaZaken Parshat Tzav D.H. VeHenif Yado ch.2.

Blessings for success in Torah study with Heavenly assistance and tranquility amidst good health.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies nuanced issues regarding self-harm for monetary reasons, distinctions about transgressing commandments and repentance, and explains how Mashiach’s role surpasses even Moshe’s as king while remaining second as prophet—emphasizing careful study of sources before drawing conclusions.