551 —הערות על המאמר אודות הגר"א וקבלה

B"H, 18 Kislev, 5710.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch benesek havavac"h iy"a etc. Leiner

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I confirm with thanks receipt of your article "HaGra: The Man of the Revealed and the Hidden." Out of fondness for the subject, I will share here—based on the pages—some comments. As our Sages say (Bava Metzia 84a): "He said: A teaching that supports you... When I would say something, they would challenge me... and I would answer... and thus the teaching was clarified... Do I not know that what I say is correct? (in wonder)."

a) Page 168. Regarding what Radak wrote (II Samuel 15:21) about Keri and Ketiv—the same is written by Radak in his introduction to his commentary. The readership of "Talpiot" is not limited to those who are strictly observant and unmovable; therefore, in my opinion, not everything written by great commentators or Jewish scholars on such topics should be quoted as-is. Just as one should not quote in a journal what Abarbanel wrote (in his introduction to Jeremiah) about Keri and Ketiv in Jeremiah—and even if quoting is necessary, one must add a clarification that this is not universally accepted, etc. In this case, Radak's explanation is contrary to the view of our Sages (Nedarim 37b)—which was cited in your article itself. Regarding Keri and Ketiv according to Chochmat HaEmet—see what is written in Otzarot Chaim from the Maggid of Mezritch on Parshat Korach (quoted in Likkutei Torah at the end of Parshat Vayikra), and in Likkutei Torah Shir HaShirim commentary on "Levavtini," ch. 6: Ketiv refers to the world of thought (the concealed world), while Keri refers to the world of speech (the revealed world).

b) Page 171. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda Mishlam—see Tosafot s.v. "O" at the end of Gittin; this is a version from a Baraita. Also see Shomer Emunim by Rabbi Yosef Ergas, second introduction at the end of section one.

c) Page 174. That Rambam knew Kabbalah—a similar story was told by my father-in-law, the Rebbe shlita, who received it from his teacher (his father), who received it from his teacher back to the Baal Shem Tov: that Rambam was a great mekubal (printed in Sefer HaSichos—Summer 5709 p.41). I already noted there in a marginal note that this seems difficult based on what is written in Shaar HaGilgulim by Arizal introduction 36 and Sefer HaGilgulim in Likutim—that Rambam did not study Chochmat HaEmet, which fits his spiritual root. I also referenced there Shem HaGedolim by Chida, etc.

d) Page 180. That the Vilna Gaon intended with Ruach HaKodesh regarding "Sod Hashem l'yerei'av," that Nachshon died at Kivrot HaTaavah—it seems questionable for several reasons; mainly because the Vilna Gaon himself explains his reasoning as follows (on what is written there that Nachshon died in the second year): He died at Kivrot HaTaavah because he was among the officers in the camp. His intent: all those who left Egypt would have entered Eretz Yisrael were it not for the sin of the spies (perhaps that's why only those who left Egypt inherited land), except for those who died as punishment, etc. The death of tzaddikim in year two—when Nachshon died—is found explicitly: "And it consumed at the edge of the camp," which Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya explains as referring to officers or leaders among them—even though this happened at Taverah; but based on what is written in Massei (33:16), it appears Taverah is included within Kivrot HaTaavah. Thus perhaps this also explains (Beha'alotecha 11:34): "He called that place Kivrot HaTaavah"—the same place mentioned there (13:3), since no journey occurred between them; see Sifrei there. All this according to Vilna Gaon’s view. What complicates matters is what Arizal writes (Devarim 10:22) that Taverah and Kivrot HaTaavah are separate encampments (Keter and Binah). But I am puzzled because our Sages clearly indicate Nachshon died at Kivrot HaTaavah—in Sifrei on "Veha'asafsuf asher b'kirbo," Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says these are elders mentioned as "Gather for Me seventy men," and Yalkut Shimoni lists them by name including Nachshon among them. It remains difficult why neither Vilna Gaon nor Mei Hashiloach brought this clear proof.

e) Page 188. That Vilna Gaon's students disagreed with him regarding Kabbalah—the most striking example concerns a fundamental issue: tzimtzum. The Alter Rebbe holds with those who interpret tzimtzum non-literally and absolutely rejects the opposing view (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah end ch.7). The Vilna Gaon interpreted tzimtzum literally (Likutim at end of his commentary to Sifra D'Tzniuta). Apparently because of this they burned Sefer Tzava'at Harivash in Vilna (Beit Rebbe ch.12; see letter from Alter Rebbe printed there). Rav Chaim Volozhiner interpreted tzimtzum non-literally (Nefesh HaChaim part III ch.7), but did not mention that this matches "the sect's view" rather than his teacher's.

f) Page 184. Examples from halachic authorities who disagreed theoretically but not practically are cited in Sdei Chemed Klalei Haposkim at its end.

g) Page 188. "In summer ^[5]536." So it appears in several printings of Shulchan Aruch Admur Hazaken; but it is an obvious error since Maggid Meisharim passed away in ^[5]533—it should read ^[5]532 instead, as written explicitly in manuscript responsa found among my father-in-law’s collection. In Sefer She'erit Yisrael by Rabbi Yisrael Dov Ber Willadnik (section one chapter seven paragraph four): It says one may not erase mistakes from books because every error has a root etc., even an obvious error may not be erased except by writing on the side that it is an obvious error etc.; therefore a true scholar must state all versions found in a book.

I conclude with respect and best wishes.

Summary

The Rebbe demonstrates how scholarly rigor requires careful citation practices when dealing with complex Torah topics like textual variants or mystical concepts such as tzimtzum—and stresses adding clarifications when presenting controversial views so readers are not misled.