521 —דיון בדברי הרמב"ן ואדה"ז על כרת, המאירי ורש"י בקידושין

Shalom u'Vrachah! Your letters were received in due time. Surely, you are already accustomed to my delayed responses. What can I do—the distractions do not decrease; on the contrary, they increase. Thank you for participating in the meeting with Rabbi Herzog and for informing me about it. There is hope for good outcomes from this regarding matters concerning the refugees among Anash who are in Eretz HaKodesh, and that is sufficient.

Regarding what you wrote about the Ramban at the end of Parshas Acharei Mos: that there are three types of karet (spiritual excision), and among them is one where only the soul is cut off but the person lives a long life. On this it says "venichresa hanefesh..." (and that soul shall be cut off...), referring to those whose sins are many. You ask: apparently, this resolves the question raised by the Alter Rebbe in Iggeres HaTeshuvah chapter 4. The Ramban answers that this is why the Alter Rebbe wrote "kama ve-kama" (many), meaning that certainly among them are also those whose sins are not numerous. In my humble opinion, it cannot be explained this way: a) According to the Alter Rebbe’s explanation there—even when their sins are many, they cannot continue living because the cord has been severed and there is no vitality from elsewhere. It is a great stretch to say that when one's sins become numerous, in this specific aspect he becomes like the general nation after the destruction. b) At the end of that chapter, the Alter Rebbe brings regarding karet two verses—'venichresa hanefesh...'—which clearly shows he does not hold like Ramban’s view. Also in Chayei there he writes according to Ramban’s opinion. The Alter Rebbe’s view follows what is found in Kitvei HaAriZal (in Likkutei Torah by AriZal Parshas Bo; Sefer HaLikutim Parshas Lech; see also Sefer HaGilgulim ch. 6 and in Maamar Shem Olam HaTohu p. 63), which bring 'venichresa hanefesh' as referring to both body and soul without distinction.

Regarding what you wrote about Meiri (Kiddushin beginning of ch. 5 s.v. VeHaMishnah HaRishonah) concerning needs for Shabbat enjoyment—that perhaps he refers to what the Alter Rebbe writes in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman 320 Kuntres Acharon se’if katan 2—it is a nice hint, but further analysis is needed whether Meiri’s wording is so precise.

As for your question about Rash"i’s intent in Kiddushin (40a s.v. Amar)—in my humble opinion, according to its simple meaning it is not understood at all why Rabbi Tzadok says "he does this one and eats that one" (see Rif on Ein Yaakov). Especially since eating non-kosher food is not explicitly forbidden by Torah law with lashes, and relations with an Aramean woman only incur rabbinic lashes (makot mardut). According to Rash"i’s version that Rabbi Tzadok said this about himself and not about an Aramean woman—what then does "he does this one and eats that one" mean? Therefore Rash"i explains that Rabbi Tzadok learned from his experience with non-kosher food that one who has relations with an Aramean woman deserves to eat non-kosher food—a significant lesson.

For in our case everything happened under duress, and it is known that Hashem does not bring mishap through righteous people—but specifically regarding eating (see Tosafot Gittin 7a s.v. Ra'ah Aharon and elsewhere). So when such a forced event occurred, it could also happen even to tzaddikim. But when Rabbi Tzadok saw it was connected with eating something impure, he learned from this that even relations with an Aramean woman fall into this category; thus he could also learn his spiritual level from this event—and similarly in other cases.

Note from Avos D'Rabbi Natan (ch. 16b) about a similar incident involving Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen Tanna; but in Kiddushin it seems to refer to an Amora among two Amoraim.

Regarding your question on my ruling about baalei teshuvah being great etc.—that it seems clear from Bavli without dispute because halacha does not follow a student etc.—but I have not found such a rule stated explicitly in Shas itself (even if it were found generally in Shas but not regarding this specific dispute—I am doubtful if it would be fully decisive when elsewhere there is clear evidence otherwise). If such a rule applies even where there was no explicit disagreement—see Sdei Chemed vol. 1 klal 161 where he cites Rif etc.

Summary

The Rebbe explores complex halachic discussions around karet as debated by Ramban and Alter Rebbe, clarifies nuances in Meiri's commentary on Shabbat needs, analyzes Rash"i's intent regarding forbidden foods and relationships in Kiddushin, and reflects on how these insights inform spiritual self-assessment.