510 —הערות על מקורות הלכתיים, לימוד פנימיות התורה, וגאולה

B"H, 25 Tammuz, 5709.

Haraha"ch veHaraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"m etc. Mehar"a Shtern

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I received your letter. Although it seems I did not explain myself clearly to Haraha"ch etc. Mehoramz HaLevi, nevertheless, since everything depends on mazal (Tikkun Notzer Chesed; Chesed LeAvraham), and even (Zohar III 134a) books (hinting humorously from Yud end of Siman Ayin Reish in Orach Chaim; see Eruvin 53b), surely this is the measure. I have received your two books: Edus B'Yisrael and Kovat Ketvei Aggadah. Thank you for sending them along with the enclosed protest. May it be G‑d's will that the blessings of my father-in-law the Rebbe shlita be fulfilled in their entirety.

I will now offer some comments as I perused its pages, relying on our Sages (Bava Metzia 84a): 'He would challenge him... thus the teaching became clearer... Do I not know that what I say is correct?'

a) At the beginning of your book Edus B'Yisrael (page 1), you write that the service of eating terumah overrides reciting Shema in its time, bringing proof from Yoma 37b about the shift and standing groups who would advance or delay. This is not a proof: regarding those groups there is no concern they would miss Shema entirely—the postponement has a limit; also there is no other way except to advance or delay, otherwise the Temple service would never begin on time. But by advancing or delaying, even these same shift members next week will recite Shema on time—unlike eating terumah. Also, your logic itself does not seem correct to me: the prohibition against eating at Shema time is not an intrinsic prohibition (as with Shacharit prayer), but a decree lest one fall asleep all night. If so, what difference does it make if sleep comes via optional or mitzvah eating? There is no issue here of 'beginning with permission,' because according to your view this is something Chazal instituted l'chatchilah—that every purified Kohen eats his terumah at Shema time.

Accordingly—since eating is forbidden due to concern for sleep—there should be no distinction between optional and mitzvah eating. This also explains why we advance Taanit Esther even for a seudat sheva brachos; especially since we advance Shema and prayer even for matzah and bread on Pesach night and Sukkot—even though their times are all night by Torah law—and for that bread according to many poskim only until midnight by Torah law. See Berachos 27a.

b) There you write that terumah is kept in a guarded place. The custom was that all a Kohen's house and utensils were like this—see end of Chagigah (though terumah also has an obligation of guarding).

c) There you discuss preparation for a mitzvah being like the mitzvah itself—some cite Mekhilta d'Rashbi on Shemot 12:28: 'They went and did'—to give them reward for going as for doing (unlike Mekhilta quoted by Rashi there).

d) On Erev Pesach at the start of your notes on Shulchan Aruch regarding reciting Shema Yisrael—see Shaarei Teshuvah Siman 66; in Shulchan Aruch HaRav end of Siman 46 he quotes Parashat Shema Yisrael.

e) On Ashan at the start of your notes on Rambam Yesodei HaTorah ch.5 in Kesef Mishneh—you answer questions from Rachavat and Rivav: Torah study and rabbinic ordination are different because many Torah fundamentals depend on them. But this needs clarification: if so, even here one should say 'be killed rather than transgress.' Moreover, since forgetting Torah fundamentals results anyway, what difference does it make if the non-Jew intends for his own benefit or not? If you wish to answer according to Ran who holds that for positive commandments one should transgress—his reasoning is that they could nullify it anyway; so how does self-sacrifice help? Thus this applies also to Torah study and ordination.

f) In your book Kovat Ketvei Aggadah at its start (end of introduction), regarding the name of Moshiach mentioned in Midrash Zerubavel as Nechemiah ben Chushiel—you interpret this as an allusion based on 'be'itah achishenah' etc., similar to Menachem ben Chizkiyah—to prevent readers from reading superficially. You should add that Nechemiah ben Chushiel (mentioned also at end of Midrash Tehillim Psalm 60; in Midrash Otot Mashiach quoted in Midrash Talpiot) is Moshiach ben Yosef; while Moshiach ben David is called Menachem ben Amiel in Midrash Zerubavel.

g) There page 35: That the question about reclining was added after the destruction (so wrote Gra). See Rambam Hilchot Chametz u'Matzah ch.8 halacha 2 where he lists both questions together with roasting question—that was when they offered Pesach sacrifice.

h) There page 72: Cooling off from learning Penimiyus HaTorah! I would not have believed this had I not seen it explicitly written! Can it be told—a person connected to Rizhin dynasty brings many teachings and wonders from Baal Shem Tov and his students in his book—and surely knows from Baal Shem Tov's letters that Moshiach told him he will come when Baal Shem Tov's wellsprings spread outward—and after all this writes publicly that anyone who has not yet reached 'being inspired from above to conduct himself with extra holiness, purity, separation,' should only learn Nigleh! Consider: The Arizal said (as brought by our Rebbe in Iggeret HaKodesh ch.26) that specifically in these last generations it is permitted and a mitzvah to reveal this wisdom! Raaya Meheimna—Moshe Rabbeinu—said (Zohar III 124b): 'Because Israel will taste from the Tree of Life—which is Sefer HaZohar—they will go out from exile with mercy.' (See also Tikunei Zohar end of Tikkun Vav.) The Holy One reveals His secrets through Baal Shem Tov, his students and their students—even in our generation—all so redemption may come: freedom from evil inclination and subjugation to nations—and all this will be as above—in Raaya Meheimna—with mercy! Anyone able to influence must cry out internally: 'Dear Jews! Have mercy on yourselves and all Israel—spread Torah and words of Elokim Chayim!' And publicize what Rav Chaim Vital wrote in his introduction to Shaar HaHakdamot—that delaying this delays redemption itself; meaning one delays himself, all Israel, even as if G‑d Himself remains in exile! Instead it's printed now that meanwhile one should wait contentedly with learning Nigleh—and only when inspired from above with extra holiness etc., then begin learning Penimiyus HaTorah! Is Israel's suffering today not enough?! Is exile insufficient?! Or G‑d forbid do they not believe what our final redeemer Moshiach says—that when Baal Shem Tov's wellsprings spread outward he will come? These are also words of our first redeemer Raaya Meheimna—that because they taste Zohar they will go out from exile?! I have elaborated due to my great pain over this issue.

If my letter leads—even indirectly—to correcting this matter as soon as possible (obviously without anyone knowing someone raised it)—that suffices! And specifically a great man has enough strength to demand things I've said before you etc. (Eruvin 104a).

i) There end page 79: Our Sages said Pinchas is Eliyahu—and you ask why it doesn't say Eliyahu is Pinchas since Pinchas came first? Kedushat Levi Parshat Pinchas asks similarly—but note both expressions exist: 'Eliyahu is Pinchas': Zohar III p.215a; Rashi Bava Metzia 114b s.v.; Rashbam & Tosafot Bava Batra 121b. 'Pinchas is Eliyahu': Yalkut Shimoni Parshat Pinchas; Zohar II p.190a; Tiva Be'er Vayera VI:18; Sefer HaLikutim end Maamar Aleph; Asarah Maamarot Maayan Chokhmah IV ch.18; Bachayei Parshat Pinchas; Midrash Talpiot.

Straightforwardly: where discussing Pinchas—it says 'Pinchas is Eliyahu'; where discussing Eliyahu—the reverse! According to Kabbalah there are two opinions which came first: Zohar I p.46b (& see ibid p.13a & Zohar Chadash Ruth)—that Eliyahu was descended from Rachel—but Bereishit Rabbah ch.81 & elsewhere say Pinchas came first—see Pri Etz Chaim Shaar Kriyat Shema ch.8.

j) In Edus B'Yisrael p.188 Sanhedrin 105b—see Likutei HaShas by Arizal; explained also in Torah Ohr by our Rebbe beginning Vayigash.

In Kovat Ketvei Aggadah p.21 Erev Pesach: Sadness vs bitterness—see Tanya ch.31.

There—inyan Machloket Korach—is explained at length by Arizal & beautifully clarified in Likutei Torah by our Rebbe at end Parshat Shelach & Parshat Korach.

This letter became lengthy—all my ramblings aside...

With wishes for all good,
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

Summary

The Rebbe offers detailed halachic feedback while passionately advocating for spreading Penimiyus HaTorah as essential for redemption, urging correction of mistaken restrictions against its study—even among those who feel unworthy—and emphasizing its power to bring geulah with mercy.