1715 —דיון הלכתי על מילה במזג אוויר מעונן וסיפור על ר' זלמן ניימארק

B"H, 20 Tammuz, 5712.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch iy"a nu"n chov"v etc. Avraham Yaakov

Shalom u'Vrachah!

It has been some time since I received your letter, and due to many preoccupations I have not had the opportunity to respond as is fitting. Even now, time does not allow for length, but I will answer briefly:

You mention in your letter what the Beit Yosef writes in Siman 262 s.v. 'Garsinan' in the name of the Ritva quoting his teacher (the Ra'ah), that on a cloudy day (Yoma De'iva), one who does not wish to rely on 'Shomer Pesa'im Hashem' (the L‑rd protects the simple) is permitted to postpone a bris milah from its proper time and does well. You ask why this opinion was not ruled in his Shulchan Aruch, especially since it concerns pikuach nefesh (saving life), and you remain with a question.

In my opinion, your question is not correct, for one should not ask why he did not rule or bring an individual opinion in his Shulchan Aruch when all the early authorities disagree with the Ritva (as they did not bring up the matter of Yoma De'iva or Yoma Deshuta in their works). Among them are the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh—who are pillars for Beit Yosef’s rulings—and from them it is evident they disagree with the Ritva: Rabbeinu Yerucham and R’ Manoach are also cited there by Beit Yosef. And if you still wonder why these authorities did not rule that it is forbidden to perform milah on a cloudy day, it can simply be said that they followed the conclusion of the Gemara: 'Shomer Pesa'im Hashem.' There is also proof from Yevamot (71b) where Rav Papa could have answered that it was a cloudy day at the time of action and then the clouds dispersed (though this is also difficult according to Rabbeinu Yerucham). The reason for this approach may be that it is considered a remote concern that a cloudy day would harm an infant indoors in bed—similar to what tzt"z writes in his rulings on Yoreh De’ah Siman 263. Even someone aware of the concern for Yoma De'iva may still rely on 'Shomer Pesa'im Hashem,' as appears from Yevamot 12b and our own sugya. Furthermore, even according to Ritva, only permission is given to postpone; this itself implies one may also rely on 'Shomer Pesa'im.'

Besides all this, see also Shut Chaim Sha’al I:59; tzt"z Shut Even HaEzer end of Siman 11; Sdei Chemed Asifat Dinim Milah Siman 2 sec. 13; and note there too that Ritva’s dispute relates to their view regarding three women using a mooch (cotton), which these poskim omitted.

I saw in your book’s introduction that you mention your grandfather z”l. I will copy here what I have recorded from my father-in-law, my revered teacher and Rebbe zatzal: Reb Zalman Neimark was rabbi in Stradov. When people wanted to cause confusion regarding his grandfather (the Rebbe Maharash) concerning bloodletting issues, he took responsibility upon himself saying: “Give me an hour!” He then sat in prison for several years.

When he heard the maamar 'Kol Haneheneh' from Rebbe Rashab n”a he said: “Amcha lo chafatzti (Your people I do not desire), I do not need Mashiach! Now one can be absorbed into essence.” And when they left the table and went into water, his father (the Rebbe Rashab) went in alone while all of us waited outside; Reb Zalman said using Rambam’s words: “Not etc., nor does immersion purify; rather it is a decree… Just as I am a Jew who needs the mikvah—not he needs the mikvah—but I decreed a decree…” End quote.

I am enclosing herewith the booklet published for the festival of redemption of my father-in-law—the days of redemption and segulah—12th and 13th Tammuz which just passed. Surely this will interest you. Please forgive my delayed response until now.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies halachic reasoning regarding bris milah on cloudy days by referencing major authorities and emphasizing reliance on 'Shomer Pesa'im Hashem.' He enriches his response with an inspiring story about Reb Zalman Neimark’s dedication and spiritual depth.