452 —הבהרות על תשובות צ"צ, עדכוני הדפסה, וקרבן תודה

B"H, 22 Shevat, 5709.

Shab. Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Mehorabash.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your letter with the enclosed (your article in the journal Hayoman and a copy of the section omitted in the newspaper) reached me after some delay. Due to many preoccupations my reply is also delayed; please accept my apologies. Surely Haraha"ch vavac"h etc. Mehorach"e has conveyed to you what I wrote in my letter to him as well as those printed by our press that were sent (in Mehorach"e's package) for your honor, and you will surely confirm their receipt. If you publish a review of them or generally about Kehot's activities from 5708 etc., and send us a copy—thanks in advance are given to your honor for this.

Thank G‑d that preparations have finally been completed for publishing the book of Halachic rulings by tzt"z, which is already at the printer.

In response to your comments regarding certain points in tzt"z: After thanking you for your praise of Kehot's activities in your article, I will address your letter in order:

a) I already explained at the beginning of my notes (at the end of Shaar HaMiluim) that my intent was only to cite manuscripts and printings where tzt"z's novellae or responsa appear, and to indicate if the question also appears in books close to tzt"z—so one could say they influenced each other. But I did not intend at all to bring later authorities' opinions on matters discussed by tzt"z, for several reasons—including that there are now many collections of responsa and rulings; such notes would become a field unto themselves.

b) Your comment in Shaar HaMiluim, Chiddushim section p. 33b line two—that the word "she'eino (that is not)" is superfluous—is correct. The error arose because this passage existed only in one manuscript and that of a copyist, as I noted; I now see that even there it says "she'eino."

c) Your comment above—that it appears at greater length in tzt"z's responsa—was mistakenly not included among Chiddushim on Tractate Taharos; a similar note is printed among Chiddushim on Tractate Mikvaos (page 33 s.v.), where regarding mikvaos one must compare what appears in Miluim with what is written in tzt"z's responsa and chiddushim on Shas.

*c) There (page 16b), regarding Mizmor LeTodah on Erev Pesach: tzt"z justifies the local custom to recite it because "anyone who studies about an olah offering—even at night—it is as if he offered it during the day." You raise an objection from Rif who says it is forbidden to repeat Musaf prayer just as it is forbidden to offer Musaf sacrifices twice. I do not see any difficulty here: tzt"z explicitly bases his reasoning on "anyone who studies...," which does not relate to Musaf prayer per Rif (and Musaf verses are not essential in Musaf prayer). Therefore there is no need for your distinction that Mizmor LeTodah was not formulated by Anshei Knesses HaGedolah etc. If there is any difficulty, it should be from Parshas Korbanos—which we say because "anyone who studies...," yet its law is only during daytime as stated in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 1. Even more so one could ask why not say Mizmor LeTodah during Chol HaMoed Pesach? But clearly tzt"z brings "anyone who studies even at night..." only as an additional reason—to remove distinctions between lechatchilah and bediavad—and even this only justifies an existing custom.

d) Regarding bringing a Todah offering on Erev Yom Kippur—even though we do not bring offerings destined for disqualification—since one could feed it to children etc.—this cannot be said because bringing an offering destined for disqualification includes not only limited time or place but also limited eaters (see Bechoros 60b and Rambam Hilchos Pesulei HaMukdashin ch.6 halacha 6). In fact, from Mishnah Menachos ch.3 mishna 2 it seems limited eaters are more severe than limited time. Also, saying it's because there's a mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur seems forced—if so, why does tzt"z conclude: 'Erev Pesach is different since one can only eat until four hours into the day'?

e) What you wrote—that one must also avoid limited eating at night—is correct; this is explicit in Rambam Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos ch.10 halacha 12 based on Tosefta Zevachim ch.10.

f) In my opinion perhaps tzt"z seeks an answer (not a question) why we bring Todah on Erev Yom Kippur (since nowhere does he say we do not), distinguishing and emphasizing that when bringing the korban they were not concerned about limited nighttime—unlike Erev Pesach when daytime itself is shortened—and leaves explanation of this difference to the reader. Two points: a) In offering korbanos we find reasoning that nighttime does not change status—as with milu'im (see Kerisos 7b). Not so with Mishnah Zevachim (75b), which excludes shortened daytime—and certainly here with Todah on Erev Pesach; b) When daytime itself is shortened this changes the law of offering—obviously one cannot offer during prohibited times; but limited nighttime itself does not affect offering at all. Tzt"z emphasizes that when bringing they were unconcerned about this—which also removes difficulty from above Tosefta.

g) It still needs clarification why tzt"z did not simply distinguish that if we refrain from bringing Todah on Erev Yom Kippur then the altar would be idle from all edible offerings—if we do not bring those eaten for a day and night then certainly those eaten two days and a night should not be brought! Not so with Erev Pesach where this applies only to chametz loaves. One could argue conversely—to permit Todah offerings on Erev Pesach based on edible offerings brought Erev Yom Kippur; thus he distinguishes since shortened daytime makes all the difference.

I conclude with blessings.

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies editorial decisions regarding tzt"z's works, addresses complex halachic questions about Korban Todah timing before festivals, encourages scholarly feedback about Kehot publications, and emphasizes careful analysis when comparing sources.