360 —צורת הנבראים ומעמד גוסס בהלכה

B"H, 27 Nissan 5708.

The Avrech Hanu"n Vavac"h Iy"a etc. Meir Shmuel. Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your question on what is written in the discourse "Vayarech Hashem," end of 5708, that the form of created beings—whether they are round spheres or square with corners—was not specified in the Act of Creation. For our Sages said (Yerushalmi at the end of Ma'asros, Nedarim ch. 3 hal. 2, Shevuos ch. 3 hal. 8; Tosefta at the end of Ma'asros) that there is no square from the six days of Creation—[in the discourse "VeHachochmah Ta'oz" 5663 it is written: "whether round or with corners or triangular"*].

First, it must be clarified whether this rule is agreed upon by all authorities and in all cases: a) Bavli and Yerushalmi—in Shevuos (29a and there): a vain oath... if I have not seen a snake as thick as a beam of an olive press, torn apart; and it asks: are all also torn apart? When its back is torn. It is difficult because it should have said "as a square beam," as explained in Yerushalmi there; then there would be no room for the initial question "are all also..." (see also Shirei Korban on Yerushalmi Nedarim there). But if we say that the Bavli does not hold by the rule that there is no square from Creation, it fits. Then we also understand simply the difference in answers between Bavli and Yerushalmi. Still, it requires further study because according to some commentators, "torn" means square (see Aruch s.v. Teref ches and Aruch Hashalem there).

b) Rashbag and Tanna Kamma—in Tosefta at the end of Ma'asros it seems that Tanna Kamma disagrees with Rashbag who states this rule, unlike the Yerushalmi's approach there. As above, this is somewhat forced because then two Talmuds or Rashbag and Tanna Kamma would disagree about reality.

c) There is no square from Creation among creatures but there is among foods—so concludes Yerushalmi from a Baraita there.

d) Also among creatures—only a square from all sides with completely smooth surfaces does not exist from Creation; but there can be a square that is round on one side or at least one surface is not smooth (Yerushalmi there).

e) According to Nodah B'Yehudah Even HaEzer (old edition sec. 22; new edition sec. 31), that "there is no woman who becomes pregnant from one act" means this is true for most cases but exceptions exist—the same could apply to "there is no square from Creation."

f) A plain square means its length equals its width (see Zevachim 62a), but by borrowed term even a long rectangle can be called a square. Perhaps this was meant in the discourse.

Based on all this, what was written in "Vayarech Hashem" above poses no difficulty.

It should be noted: a) According to what was written in Sefer Gilgulim ch. 3, what is known that salt crystals are cubic with smooth surfaces poses no problem.

b) Based on what was written elsewhere it becomes clear what is stated in Mechilta beginning Parshas Beshalach (brought in Yalkut Shimoni): "And they returned and encamped before Pi HaChiros." What were these Chiros? They were not sloped but rather like fortresses etc.—see at length there which seems unclear: what does it teach us? Why such lengthy style? It could have just said: these Chiros were like fortresses etc., see there.

This can be explained: he wants to clarify that camping before Pi HaChiros forced them to say they were confused—as written there: "confused means scattered." He details: they were not sloped (otherwise it's not such proof since if Egyptians caught up with them Bnei Yisrael could climb over on any side and escape), but rather like fortresses (like walls). They were not open on one side (see Yerushalmi beginning Shabbos and Aruch s.v. Tartot), so they couldn't escape through an opening; rather they were surrounded. They were not round (since two adjacent circles or columns allow someone passing between them to break only part of the circle at its narrowest point), but rather square (so they touch each other fully and must break through their entire thickness). They were not man-made (which another person could destroy), but made by Heaven.

If you ask: how could they be made by Heaven if there's no square from Creation? Therefore he concludes: "and their eyes were open," so their surfaces weren't smooth—and thus everything fits with Mechilta's lengthy wording and order.

Similarly regarding "not man-made": a) He explains their status wasn't forbidden even according to those who say Pi HaChiros was idolatry because these mountains weren't their gods (Avodah Zarah 45a)*.

b) He simply answers why G‑d told them to camp before Pi HaChiros even though it's forbidden to say "guard me beside idolatry" (Sanhedrin 63b); even if it's rabbinic prohibition, something explicitly permitted by Torah can't be prohibited by Sages—as known (see Yad Malachi klal ratza). See also Daas Zekeinim Mibaalei HaTosafos to Shemos 14:2.

c) The phrase "from six days of Creation" can be explained: i) Created by Heaven even if after Creation week—like tachash or mouth of earth—but possibly Adam's actions on Friday could have been square too; ii) Everything present during Creation week whether made by Heaven or man; but something created afterward could be square—needs further study.

d) In Chassidus/Kabbalah: In Avodas Halevi vol II p.73b brings from Limudei HaAtzilus that first tzimtzum was in form of a square and explains it; in Maamarim Ot Aleph letter vav: everything squared relates to female...the earth is squared; see Biurei Hazohar vol II p.180a; discourses Vayehi Binsoa Reshetov Taf-Resh-Samach-Tes and HaOseh Sukaso Redat Beur Inyan Igula VeRibua; Drush Birkat Hazimun explains concept of six days of creation—and more.

This has long been noted regarding what's told in Sefer Toras Shalom—that Admor Hazaken innovated a way to save Reb Pinchas Ba'al HaHafla'ah because Rambam rules that someone moribund counts as dead; so if he becomes moribund then recovers, judgment has already been fulfilled—and all agreed including Maggid Meisharim led by Maggid himself—and so it was done. I wrote there (pg.332) I did not find this in Rambam—on the contrary—and therefore I think it should read Rashi (Kiddushin 78b); same view held by Rach and Beit Shmuel Even HaEzer sec.121.

The intention seems to be that what's written in Toras Shalom isn't about dispute among poskim whether a goses can act legally but about his independent status—and it's explicit in Rambam (Erchin ch1 hal13): A goses has no value...since most moribund die he is considered dead—and thus there's no need for further assumptions.

But I cannot say so because: a) The whole style of story says Admor Hazaken searched for an opinion with some novelty which then required agreement from Maggid Meisharim et al.—and only then Reb Pinchas was saved; if it's just Erchin above—that's an undisputed Mishnah accepted everywhere! Why mention Rambam or any posek?

b) Even without story style—the event itself proves otherwise since Reb Pinchas had been sentenced above for death and Maggid sought advice how to save him; someone sentenced for death according to Torah has no standing—is considered dead since Torah decreed his death—as per Peirush Hamishnayos Erchin ch1 m3—which makes him more than just moribund where only most die while here he's certainly dead potentially! So what would adding illness/goses status help since he's still not actually dead according to this view? Strange indeed!

If you say it's meant as punishment/atonement suffering—it doesn't relate specifically to goses which can occur without suffering; should have just said he fainted then recovered which counts as dead per Nedarim 64b etc.—no distinction needed!

No reason to distinguish between someone sentenced for execution by human court who can't reverse versus heavenly court where teshuvah helps—the King reverses His decree—as per Peirush Hamishnayos—but if teshuvah helps why did Reb Pinchas need illness/goses status? He should have been spared via teshuvah alone! Needs clarification.

The correspondent elaborated further in his first letter reconciling Rambam's language even assuming he holds like Rashi that goses equals dead—even though plain reading doesn't indicate so and Hagahos Maimoniyos etc wrote Rambam holds he's alive—but perhaps that's why Lechem Mishneh tried possible explanations for difficulties/precisions in Rambam's words.

I don't know why he feels compelled into such forced explanations—there are always other answers! Even if everything he wrote was correct still I think Toras Shalom needs emendation! Consider: Admor Hazaken could have based his advice directly on Rashi/Rach/Beit Shmuel explicitly instead brought Rambam relying on several forced readings against Hagahos Maimoniyos etc.—this seems highly unlikely!

Signed with best wishes for good tidings for him and his parents may they live,
Rabbi Menachem Schneersohn

The Rebbe explores complex halachic discussions about physical forms found in creation versus food items, showing how different sources reconcile apparent contradictions regarding squares existing since creation. He also clarifies nuanced positions about when someone moribund attains legal status as deceased according to various authorities.