183 —ביאור חילול שבת במכילתא והבחנות הלכתיות

B"H, Sunday, 7th of Shevat, 5705.

To the honorable Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a verav pa'alim chov"b etc. Mehora"a Hakohen, shlita.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In continuation to my letter from the 8th of Tevet, which surely reached you in its proper time: In the commentary of the Mekhilta on Parshat Ki Tisa regarding the verse "Mechaleleha"—for all this time I was puzzled by the lengthy language about non-Jews besieging Eretz Yisrael, etc.—for what practical difference does it make how the desecration occurred? And even if we say that it means they specifically desecrated Shabbat with permission (as I wrote in my previous letter), still, the usual example in our Sages is pikuach nefesh and illness.

Until recently I saw in Shu"t Torat Chesed (by Reb Shneur Zalman of Lublin), Even HaEzer section 6 paragraph 2, where he writes in explanation of this Mekhilta—in relation to another matter—“From the fact that the Mekhilta mentions such a case where non-Jews besieged Eretz Yisrael, etc., it is clear that for that too it is only in such a case, that then it was permitted for all Israel to desecrate Shabbat with any melachot needed, etc., and Shabbat was completely desecrated for all Israel. But for an individual who is permitted to desecrate Shabbat for pikuach nefesh in a specific matter, etc.” End quote.

And from this it is clearly explained—and thus resolved—the distinction between Nazir and affliction on Yom Kippur versus Shabbat (as I wrote in my previous letter), that there it is a matter concerning one’s own body, unlike Shabbat. And based on all the above, it is understood.

With blessings for immediate teshuvah and immediate redemption,
M. Schneerson

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies a nuanced halachic point about communal versus individual Shabbat desecration during emergencies. He distinguishes between cases involving all Israel and those involving individuals, highlighting how these differences affect halachic rulings.