2335 —הבהרות על אכילת שבת, חינוך לקטנים, ותפירה בשבת

B"H, 7 Teves, 5714.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"n etc. Avraham Zusya

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your comments in your letter—without specifying the time of writing—A) Regarding what is written in Torah Chaim at the end of Parshas Lech Lecha (page 96 beginning of side B), that even eating on Shabbat is material for the body due to the physical pleasure which is not refined and is a mixture of good and evil from the Tree of Knowledge—this seems not to fit with what is written in Torah Chaim Parshas Vayakhel (pages 667 and 687), that eating on Shabbat is not material because "your own affairs you shall not pursue on My holy day" does not apply. The explanation is that although both places use the term 'material,' the difference is that there is no evil in eating on Shabbat; rather, it is material like something permitted, which can also exist in Shabbat eating. All the more so from what is written in Torah Chaim Parshas Lech Lecha above—that even love from the animal soul that comes with feeling derives from this etc.; see there. Incidentally, these topics are discussed in Torah Ohr at the beginning of Parshas Chayei Sarah and in Siddur Seder Seudat Shabbat (second meal, "Yigaleh Lan Ta'amei") as well as Derech Mitzvosecha page 179; see there.

B) Regarding your attempt to interpret Admur Hazaken's words in his Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 186:3 as holding that the mitzvah of chinuch for a minor falls also upon the minor himself—I cannot agree with this because Admur Hazaken's opinion is actually the opposite, as he writes at the beginning of Siman 39 (even though it is enclosed in parentheses).

C) The explanation of Admur's words in Siman 186 and his reasoning: The concept of chinuch for a minor is not due to matters relevant only while he is young but rather due to its effects when he grows up. Therefore, measurements during childhood do not change anything here—even if he eats an amount or less than an amount—since their effect when grown does not change; thus it remains a single rabbinic obligation even if he eats less than a shiur (measure), whereas for Hallel blessing etc., it would be two rabbinic obligations. See also what I wrote you in my letter from 27 Shevat last year.

Blessings.

B"H, 27 Shevat, 5713.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g haraha"ch iy"a nu"n etc. Avraham Zusya

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your second letter: Regarding sewing—it seems I hinted at this previously—that sewing involves two aspects: A) joining two separate things by means of a third thing; B) that what joins must be by means of a sewing thread—that it enters tightly into a hole etc. Joining can also be done with a metal thread—as one thread in the Mishkan was gold (thus resolving your question about iron wire). Therefore one who glues papers or hides together with a third substance (glue) is also liable. This explains also the difference between joining parts or sewing: sewing uses a third thing; joining parts does not. This also explains why when holes are wide and round and prepared, threading through them does not constitute sewing since it’s not tight. Similarly, inserting hooks into loops is permitted since there’s no third thing joining them. This differs from what you cited from Korban Nesanel prohibiting joining garments with a pin—there’s no condition for permission as above. Accordingly, zippers are permitted since there’s no third thing joining them—they are considered like jointed vessels which may be joined on Shabbat since it’s made to open and close regularly (see Taz and Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 313:6 and Admur’s Shulchan Aruch there:21). Even if there were a thread joining zipper parts—it would still be permitted like threading through wide round holes; it’s not like tight sewing. Even though zippers are tight—the tightness of metal-on-metal isn’t comparable to fabric-on-fabric—as explained regarding chatzitzah for immersion (Shabbat 57a). Let us not add further.

Note: 1) Based on this it’s clear why tightening shoes with laces threaded through holes on both sides—even if the metal ring around the hole is missing—is like threading straps above; nobody objects to this practice. 2) Above regarding inserting hooks into loops—the intent seems to be hooks sewn onto one side of garment and loops sewn onto other—not like those in Mishkan curtains where hooks were separate items; according to above this would be derivative of sewing.

B) Regarding drawing down holiness via actions by minors or women performing time-bound positive commandments—I wrote that these draw down holiness as optional mitzvos. You ask about Torah Ohr Devarim Moshe Yedaber sec.4 where only non-Jews are excluded—this follows the rule that only main points are listed unless all details are needed elsewhere.

C) You ask about a minor who knows how to shake lulav—the father fulfills his chinuch obligation through him; why then should nothing be drawn down by his action? I do not understand your difficulty—since here the minor merely enables fulfillment by his father (like circumcision), but does not draw down holiness himself—this is obvious.

D) You question from our Sages (Shabbat 149b): “Mine and yours—what difference?” He replied: “There’s no comparison between breath tainted by sin versus pure breath.” From here you infer that drawing down holiness occurs but differs depending on sin or purity—I do not understand your question; obviously women drawing down holiness by taking lulav parallels men doing so via lulav or tefillin (like Michal daughter of Shaul)—but these are optional versus obligatory mitzvos respectively.

E) Additionally, teaching Torah to minors differs from other mitzvos according to one interpretation by tzt"z in his rulings/novellae on Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah ch.1 halacha 1—he deduces that once a child recognizes letters he himself becomes obligated—a great novelty since even minors have an obligation from Torah law unlike other mitzvos.

F) Your doubt regarding chinuch—it’s rabbinic according to Admur as stated at start of Hilchos Talmud Torah and cited by tzt"z there (excepting Talmud Torah itself). So too in his Orach Chaim Siman 243; even where he writes “positive commandment” regarding chinuch for minors apparently refers to rabbinic level.

G) On mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah—I referenced Tanya ch.8: “He did so—and called/prayed etc.—the mitzvah was fulfilled yet its vitality does not ascend…” See also Hilchos Talmud Torah ch.4 end sec.3: then all Torah/mitzvos are removed from klipah… This clarifies Tanya ch.17: truly wicked cannot begin serving G‑d without first repenting—even though experience suggests otherwise; based on Hilchos Talmud Torah we understand they instead empower klipah further.

H) Your comment about tzt"z novellae on Shas Gittin p.73b questioning whether sunrise marks Shema time per Admur—I never heard explicit ruling but my view is clear: mere doubt (“tzarich iyun”) doesn’t warrant changing established practice—as seen also at end of Piskei Dinim re: Shehecheyanu blessing for Megillah reading Purim day where despite personal inclination otherwise he maintains established custom per directive received Purim year [unclear] Lubavitch—to recite Shehecheyanu before morning Megillah reading.

Blessings.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies nuanced halachic issues about physicality versus spirituality in mitzvah observance—especially regarding minors’ obligations and practical laws such as sewing or using zippers on Shabbat—emphasizing careful distinction between rabbinic and biblical obligations throughout Jewish practice.