503 —שאלות על צמצום, תפילין ליתומים, ומנהגים חסידיים

B"H, 15 Tammuz, 5709.

Haraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter, addressing your questions in order:

a) Regarding what is written in Likkutei Amarim (part II, chapter 7) that some erred and understood tzimtzum literally—was the intent of those who erred about the first tzimtzum? Certainly so. All the debates about whether tzimtzum is literal or not are based on what is written at the beginning of Eitz Chaim, Otzrot Chaim and Mevo She'arim, which discuss the first tzimtzum. This is also explained explicitly in Yosher Levav by R. Avraham Chai Ricchi (Beit Alef Cheder Alef ch. 14) and elsewhere; it also appears somewhat in Likkutei Torah (additions to Vayikra). It should be known that even though here and in Iggeres HaKodesh the Alter Rebbe elaborates only on explaining the error that tzimtzum is not literal, they also erred further by saying that tzimtzum applies to Atzmut itself—which is not so, as explained in Torah Ohr at the beginning of Vayeira, Likkutei Torah there, Sefer HaMitzvot by tzt"z (as indicated in its index), and more.

b) If they erred in explaining the first tzimtzum as being before Atzilut of all worlds—why does the Alter Rebbe here say: "He removed Atzmut itself from this world," specifically? Two reasons can be given: (1) What compelled them to explain tzimtzum literally was that it is impossible to say Atzmut was not removed from this world; otherwise He would be found "even among lowly physical things." The Alter Rebbe thus seized upon the foundation of their view. (2) In other worlds one could say that after tzimtzum Atzmut returned and extended itself; thus there is no difficulty from Zohar or Ma'amarim cited later. But regarding this world they hold it is impossible for Atzmut to return because He cannot be found among lowly physical things. Not only in Atzilut can they answer that it returned and extended itself—even in worlds where "He and His life-force and vessels are not one," they can say so—similar to how we speak about the ray of kav in Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah.

c) Is this related to what the Alter Rebbe writes in Iggeres HaKodesh sec. 20 that "the ray of kav pierced the curtain"? By the way: It would seem it should read "pierced...and illuminates," since ha'arah (ray) is feminine—but so it appears in all editions I have seen. In my opinion it has no connection to our topic at all; for according to the Alter Rebbe, there was never a literal tzimtzum requiring correction through drawing down kav. In general, for all views drawing down kav does not nullify tzimtzum but only corrects certain details caused by it and gives ability to nullify tzimtzum through Torah and mitzvos—as explained in Chassidus regarding tzimtzum and kav. This is also clear from the analogy: "Through tzimtzum a hollow space was made within a perfect circle into which a thin line was drawn." Obviously even in analogy a line cannot fill a circle's space; likewise in application: kav illuminates even Atzilut yet still only "His life-force and vessels are one with Him," unlike chambers/angels of Atzilut—as written in Iggeres HaKodesh sec. 20—unlike before tzimtzum.

d) Can we say according to Eitz Chaim that kav's illumination stops at Atzilut so Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah are separate—and did Alter Rebbe innovate that kav pierced the curtain? See maamar Teku Tishrei 5650 (with long gloss near start): What Eitz Chaim writes (Shaar Aviyah) and Shaar HaHakdamot (Shaar Drushei Aviyah)—that ten sefirot of essence/light of Atzilut became ten sefirot of essence of Beriah—can be interpreted as what Iggeres HaKodesh says about kav piercing etc., so it's not an innovation of Alter Rebbe; perhaps his intent was only that he interpreted Eitz Chaim this way since it can be explained otherwise—see there. In any case even without piercing we can't say Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah are separate since kav enclothes all levels—as written also in Iggeres HaKodesh there: "the kav itself enclothed within end/feet of Netzach-Hod-Yesod...ending with Malchut d'Asiyah," as per Eitz Chaim Shaar Mem-Gimmel intro etc., and later Iggeres HaKodesh references Sefer HaGilgulim regarding how enclothing works. The distinction is already explained in maamar Sameach Tesamach (5657 near end): In Atzilut kav is revealed but in Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah it's concealed.

e) Should an orphan begin putting on tefillin when he turns twelve? This custom is mentioned among late authorities—in Sefer P'nos HaBayis (by R. Zvi Hirsch Michelsohn), siman 85 citing it as common practice—and people say its reason is to merit the deceased parent (though it's unclear what merit there is since it's not relevant nor even for education purposes—unlike Kaddish where sons answer Amen etc.). Another reason given: Since caretakers are lacking for him or at least one parent he must be taught early—but seemingly it's not such difficult learning needing extra effort. As for starting specifically at twelve: Pnei Moshe on Sukkah finds a source from Gittin (52a): An apotropos buys tefillin for an orphan; but if he's thirteen he's already an adult per Rivash/Responsa Maharibal II:15 who says heirs must fulfill parent's wishes—so Gittin must refer to under-thirteen. But that's a weak proof; where do we get twelve from? P'nos HaBayis cites Kapot Temarim on Sukkah implying even orphans start at thirteen. Aruch Hashulchan writes it's improper since care must be taken with tefillin's sanctity; Ohr Hachaim by Rabbi of Munkatch adds one shouldn't start even one day before thirteen—even orphans. The widespread custom is to teach boys tefillin two or three months before thirteen as brought by Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch siman 37; thus unless there are special reasons otherwise do not add time for orphans beyond other boys—and when teaching him tefillin better teach him Torah/mitzvos instead. Besides these reasons there's concern he may be counted toward a minyan etc.; also since Alter Rebbe doesn't bring this custom it's not a strong reason—for he was careful not to bring new rulings absent from earlier authorities like Rif/Rambam per rules among poskim—and from our Rebbeim: My father-in-law began putting on tefillin privately with blessing at age eleven.

f) Does reciting Barich Rachmana fulfill Birkat Hamazon biblically? All three blessings are biblical but Barich Rachmana does not substitute after-the-fact except for Birkat Hazan (Berachos 40b). It's clear also because perhaps women are exempt from Birkat Hamazon since they're not included in inheritance/covenant/Torah—all part of second blessing. Note: Alter Rebbe ruled (Birkas Hanehenin ch.13 sec.4) that when using this text one must say: Rachmana Elakana Malka d'Alma—as per Rashi Yoma cited by Taz/Birkei Yosef Orach Chaim siman 219—and his later Siddur differs from Shulchan Aruch where he omits Elakana/d'Alma—and there's no difference between blessings here.

g) Should one answer Amen after blessings students recite during study? The Gemara (Berachos 53b), codified without doubt by Tur/Shulchan Aruch rules one does NOT answer Amen—I don't understand why there's any doubt here.

h) When teaching children obligated-in-blessings etc.—may G‑d's names be pronounced during study even outside obligation times? Gemara/Shulchan Aruch permit pronouncing/teaching them when instructing minors—it proves there's no prohibition for teacher because it's part of study—a mitzvah! So too apparently there's no prohibition for student since Torah study itself takes precedence—even more than teaching one's own child (Kiddushin 29b; Hilchos Talmud Torah ch1 s7). However explicitly it's forbidden based on how Alter Rebbe changed wording from Magen Avraham/Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman 215 s5—the Magen Avraham wrote "an adult learning blessings from Gemara doesn't say [G‑d's name]", but Alter Rebbe wrote "it's forbidden for an adult learning [blessings]", i.e., studying them—the Magen Avraham's explanation needs clarification but that's aside here. Perhaps Alter Rebbe's basis is Gemara mentions 'children' not just 'students', because if possible to teach during obligation time don't do so otherwise—even rabbinically—unlike minors always exempt; though Amen may be answered after minor's blessing due to education involving both father/child—but that's unrelated to permitting others who aren't responsible for his education—therefore no difference whether child currently being educated or not; once permitted it's permitted even for father though that's somewhat forced reasoning.

i) May a minor hold a Sefer Torah after hagbah etc.? I've seen this done without anyone objecting.

j) Is there any difference when reciting Yud Gimel Middos Harachamim alone between Shacharis/Mincha/Selichos? I've never seen or heard any difference—the law is simply ruled Shulchan Aruch siman 565 s5—and Siddur Tehillat Hashem complete edition is just a photographically reproduced earlier siddur without time yet for proper editing.

k) When should Chazak recited after Torah reading at Mincha on Shabbos begin? See Shaar Hakolel ch29—but our custom per my father-in-law's instruction is to begin saying Chazak just before finishing rolling up Sefer Torah—to hurry both rolling up/sealing process and reciting Yehalelu so as to finish Chazak right after returning scroll—and ideally connect it as much as possible with prayer.

l) I have now received the photo you sent for Sefer Hatmunot as a memorial in my father-in-law’s chamber; note what Alter Rebbe writes Iggeres Hakodesh sec21 about alacrity—pay attention to his wording: alacrity (“And Avraham rose early”)—remarkable (perhaps hinting at saddling his own donkey)—to show others (“so others will see/learn”—see maamar Yud Beis Tammuz about baal teshuva working with others—Avraham’s test was opposite his nature “Now I know you fear...”, which distinguishes baal teshuva vs tzaddik)—his joy/desire (“face/ratzon means delight”—see end maamar Chelek Hapelech 5709 about joy/delight).

m) Surely you know my father-in-law’s wish to record stories/life histories of elder chassidim—it would be proper you record your father's life etc., send them to Otzar HaChassidim archive—and encourage those influenced by you likewise.

Please confirm receipt of this letter.

Summary

The letter addresses deep questions on mystical concepts like tzimtzum alongside practical halachic guidance regarding education customs such as tefillin for orphans and proper conduct when teaching children mitzvos, while emphasizing preserving chassidic heritage through recording elders’ stories.