114 —מחלוקת על ימי הדין, ביטויים חסידיים, ובריאת המאורות

Shalom u'Vrachah! On the tenth of Kislev, 5704. My friend, the esteemed and elevated Haraha"g vavaha"ch Mehorash Zalmanov—Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to what you wrote regarding the question brought in Kuntres U'Maayan—to my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe—beginning from the end of Maamar 17, about the contradiction in our Sages' words: In Beitzah 16a it says a person's sustenance is determined from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur, while in Rosh Hashanah 16a it says a person is judged every day. You write that a great authority asked you: (a) Rabbi Yosi, who says a person is judged every day, is an individual opinion; the Rabbis disagree and hold judgment is on Rosh Hashanah. (b) In Mikraei Kodesh by Rabbi Yosef Mamiga (vol. II ch. 10 onward), he concludes that according to Rabbi Yosi there is no difference between Rosh Hashanah and other days regarding judgment; Rosh Hashanah is just set aside to remind and awaken people to do teshuvah every day without distinction. (c) Why was it not mentioned in Kuntres U'Maayan that Mikraei Kodesh discusses this contradiction?

What seems clear to me: (a) Even if we say the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yosi and for us there’s no question about daily judgment, still for Rabbi Yosi the question remains: what is special about Rosh Hashanah if judgment happens daily? It’s surprising that this was raised as a difficulty since Kuntres U'Maayan itself explains: 'It must be said that even though our Sages said a person is judged every day, how does this fit with what was said above that sustenance is set from Rosh Hashanah? Certainly even Rabbi Yosi who says daily judgment agrees that the main judgment is on Rosh Hashanah.' Further clarified in Likkutei Torah at end of Parshas Korach: 'Even though daily judgment is Rabbi Yosi's view and Rav Nachman's—not so for the Rabbis—still it must be that even for them, main judgment is on Rosh Hashanah; otherwise... And our Sages' statement about sustenance being set from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur applies according to all opinions without dispute. Yet they still hold there’s also daily judgment.' Additionally: The questioner assumes as obvious that halachah follows the Rabbis alone—not Rabbi Yosi—and so writes Mikraei Kodesh vol. II ch. 11. But this needs examination; actually, it seems more logical that halachah follows Rabbi Yosi because (1) It’s known in Talmudic rules that when Amoraim debate one Tanna’s reasoning, halachah follows him; Rav Chisda (Rosh Hashanah 16a) analyzes Rabbi Yosi’s words. The fact that other Amoraim discuss Rabbis’ view in Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 18a) doesn’t contradict this since their discussion concerns heavenly matters or can apply even according to Rabbi Yosi. (2) All those who hold an individual's decree cannot be torn up (see Rosh Hashanah 17b and Niddah 70b), unlike Rabbi Yitzchak, must also agree with Rabbi Yosi since we pray for those who are sick or suffering as stated in Rosh Hashanah 16a—it would be forced to say not everyone prayed for them; especially since Gemara simply asks 'according to whom do we pray nowadays,' implying everyone did so. Likewise in Nedarim (49b), though one could argue there it was incidental.

Note: One cannot bring proof that halachah follows Rabbi Yosi from the rule 'halachah follows Rabbi Yosi over his colleagues,' especially if it's only over one colleague not many (see Tosafos Eruvin 46b s.v. 'keRabbi,' and further discussion in works on Talmudic rules). Here each colleague has his own opinion so they count as individuals as implied in Eruvin 47a where there are disputes among Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosi. Nor can we say since it's a dispute in a Baraita but anonymous Mishnah follows Rabbis—that halachah follows anonymous Mishnah (Yevamos 43b).

(b) What Mikraei Kodesh concludes (vol. II ch.12) that according to Rabbi Yosi—and all the more so Rav Nachman—a person is judged daily just like on Rosh Hashanah with no difference at all...and what we say 'all creatures pass before Him' means only on this day but also applies every other day—this needs examination even if we say halachah does not follow them; how could they hold such a view? As Likkutei Torah asks there—especially after Zohar elaborates on how Rosh Hashanah is a great day of judgment etc.—and since Rabbi Yosi was among Rashbi's circle how could he disagree with all this? It's even more difficult from Zohar III (31b–32a), which elaborates on notes written on Hoshaana Rabbah and scents—and Rabbi Yosi speaks among them—so how could Mikraei Kodesh's author reconcile such an explicit contradiction?

(c) Why did Kuntres U'Maayan not mention that Mikraei Kodesh discusses this contradiction? The purpose of this kuntres was to clarify matters based on Arizal's foundations and Chassidus; it wasn’t its purpose to cite every source discussing these issues elsewhere. The citation from Sefer Asarah Maamaros was only brought as support for interpreting our sugya in Rosh Hashanah—that perhaps there’s no real dispute between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbis but rather two perspectives.

* * *

You also asked about what’s written in the introduction to Kuntres U'Maayan (page 25b): When Iggeres HaKodesh about nineteenth Kislev—the New Year for Chassidus Chabad—was publicized they said 'Chabad lives! May Hashem grant that Chagat should come alive!' Your question: How can such language be used regarding Chagat which are holy Sefiros?

Certainly you understand—as does your questioner—that the intent refers to Chabad Chassidim whose approach emphasizes intellectual contemplation leading to love and awe of G‑d; through publicizing Iggeres HaKodesh their vitality increases—thus 'Chabad lives.' By saying 'Chagat,' he meant Polish Chassidim whose approach centers around faith in tzaddikim and love/awe of G‑d inspired by them. Apparently your issue is just with the wording.

But really we already find similar expressions: Our Sages said (Zohar III 113a), 'Va'asitem osam' ('You shall make them')—written as 'atem' ('you')—G‑d considers it as if you made Me,' almost exactly like what’s written in the introduction! Even regarding Sefiros themselves this appears openly in Torah—in Berachos 32a G‑d says to Moshe: 'You have given Me life with your words.' Many books elaborate on this idea—that man's service fulfills a need Above (see Avodas HaKodesh intro & start of Avodah section; Shlah intro Drush Shaar HaGadol etc.).

The idea—in brief—is explained in Chassidus based on Maharanash's preface to Pri Etz Chaim: There are aspects within Sefiros themselves which lack nothing nor can be added by anyone's service—from highest crown down—all remains unchanged regardless of human action; but through man's service additional light descends from Above causing great refinement—the addition far surpasses their original measure (see Likkutei Torah Shir HaShirim s.v. Lehavin Inyan HaTaam...). It's explained elsewhere that some mitzvos depend on 'the head of the King,' some on His body or hands etc.—when one uses intellect for Torah study it draws down into supernal mochin; likewise arousing love/awe or doing kindness draws into supernal chesed/gevurah/tiferes regarding added light as above.

This explains why Chassidim use such language—as told in the introduction—even if they’re not prophets they are sons of prophets: Through intellectual engagement especially with inner Torah—Chabad comes alive below within man learning—and thereby draws down infinite light into supernal Chabad above (see Likkutei Torah Shir HaShirim s.v. LeSusasi II); through work within one's own chesed/gevurah/tiferes one draws additional light above into those Sefiros.

* * *

And since I’ve mentioned Sefer Mikraei Kodesh I wish to comment on something puzzling I saw there—in those chapters he concludes that although luminaries were hung up on Wednesday they stood at heaven’s edge like grass until Adam’s creation Friday when they began moving/illuminating; thus Rosh Chodesh Tishrei was set then—not Wednesday.

With apologies etc., this seems very strange: (a) It should be obvious—the blessing over seeing sun/moon at their appointed times occurs Wednesday not Friday (Berachos 59b); from Rav Yehoshua we know even according to Rav Eliezer who says world created in Tishrei. (b) Since luminaries were created Sunday—as he himself writes—and only began moving/illuminating Friday according to him—why did moon complain Wednesday when hung up? Either she should have complained immediately upon creation or when she began functioning—not when hung up! Nor can one answer she first objected about being hung together—as per Chagigah 12b—for if so she wouldn’t care now so why require her diminution?

(c) In Targum Yonasan Bereshis 1:16 sun/moon were equal for one hour minus two hundred seventy-two parts—a precise duration explained elsewhere—not like Radal’s emendation—even here same problem arises: Either count from creation or from when they began functioning but not from hanging up! (d) In Baraita d’Shmuel ch.6 Egyptian sages said sun created in Leo fifteen degrees/moon Cancer fifteen degrees etc.—so new moon occurs after two days plus quarter during which moon moves thirty degrees—from Cancer till Leo—which shows clearly luminaries started moving immediately after creation—not later as Tosafos ‘Letekufot’ suggests—it’s only for calculation purposes not actual movement just like ‘Molad tohu’ isn’t actual movement.

Though I haven’t found anyone else who holds luminaries were created Tu B’Av—I see no reason to multiply disputes nor claim sages disagreed also about planetary motion immediately after creation.

In short—I don’t understand Baal Mikraei Kodesh’s view; once we merited Arizal’s teachings it becomes clear—in Eitz Chaim Shaar Miut HaLevanah ch.2 he writes: On Wednesday all three aspects grew until becoming full partzufs; then moon complained and was diminished—that happened Wednesday; then Friday she grew again until Adam sinned—and mystically/peshat these explanations align.

The concept of moon’s diminution per Chassidus see Or HaTorah by tzt"z Parshas Bereishis etc.

Blessings for immediate teshuvah and immediate redemption,
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies complex issues regarding daily versus annual judgment, explains how spiritual work affects higher realms using precise sources, addresses nuanced language among different groups of Chassidim, and analyzes interpretations about creation events—all emphasizing depth and accuracy in Torah study.