2502 —הודאה על ספרים, הערות על קריאת התורה ותורה שבעל פה

B"H, 3rd of Adar Sheni, 5714.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a tzm"s chov bnu"m etc. Aharon Chaim HaLevi

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the two Sefarim: Machaneh Ephraim and Binyan Halachah, and thank you very much for this gift. Certainly, you will continue in the future to send the publisher’s works via you to the library—thank you in advance.

For the sake of affection for the matter, I have appended here at the margin a few notes that I jotted down hastily as I glanced through the pages of the books.

May Hashem grant each and every one to be "veshechintei," and increase us in Torah, prayer, and teshuvah (as our Sages say: Shabbat 114a; Tikunei Zohar introduction; Bechoros 44b; Devarim Rabbah 3:6; Kiddushin 40a; Zohar Bereishis 26b "d'vei pur").

With respect and blessings for success.

P.S. Regarding Binyan Halachah at its beginning (page 1): "Matters transmitted orally are not permitted to be written."—In general on this topic see also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim Siman Tav (and it is puzzling that it is not cited in Ein Mishpat on the Gemara there), what is written there and what is brought in Sdei Chemed Klalim Daled, Mem Daled; Pe'at HaSadeh Daled Daled and Kaf Bet; Orchot Chaim to Siman Mem Tet page 2. The source is in the sugya of Taanis. The explanation there actually shows that it is permitted to say it publicly, as the Gemara says: "And does an individual etc. [read] publicly? Rather all enter and read," so one must say that the prohibition is because one reads while others listen (fulfilling their obligation through him). This fits with the simple language of Sefer Mitzvos Gadol cited below. So too rules Rabbeinu HaZaken in Shulchan Aruch Siman Tav. See also Magen Avraham and Machatzis HaShekel there page 3. The reason for the prohibition is because it must be given as it was received.—See Responsa Radbaz vol. IV siman Alef Reish Hei. Note also regarding laws of Torah reading—see Zecher Chov Berochot 206a and there.

And according to what is explained in Binyan Halachah that there is no difference regarding these prohibitions between Torah reading and public Torah study—there are still questions: a) Why did Rambam not bring these laws regarding public Torah study? It is obvious he would not rely on what he wrote in his introduction (and even there it is only narrative, not legal ruling), or in Moreh Nevuchim. b) How was this prohibition permitted—as per Rambam Hilchos Tefillah ch.12 halacha 8—in reading by the Kohen Gadol only on Yom Kippur? c) The allowance to read Megillah while sitting—even though public Torah study should be standing according to this view as stated in Yerushalmi on this very Mishnah—and Megillah should not be less than other oral teachings which require awe etc.? And mainly—from where do we derive that according to Rambam these prohibitions apply to public Torah study? In my opinion—we have only what Rambam explicitly states—that for Torah reading it is forbidden to read not from a scroll, and likewise forbidden to translate from a scroll—as per Yerushalmi. And Rambam holds that Yerushalmi explains Bavli’s words here (as also written in Binyan Halachah)—see Tosafos “Veha’amar” Yoma 87b; Tosafos Yeshanim “HaMelech” Yoma 79a; see also what’s written in Sdei Chemed Klalei HaPoskim II sec.1—or perhaps he disagrees with Bavli [but] nevertheless rules like Yerushalmi since Mishnah Yoma (68b) simply states that he reads only on Yom Kippur by heart which proves unlike Bavli Gittin (60b). The superiority of Torah reading can be explained in several ways—one being that it is a communal obligation rather than an individual one (as argued by Milchamot Megillah ch.1 “ve’od amar”; see Tzafnat Paneach Hilchos Tefillah ch.12 halacha 5), whereas Megillah reading was therefore also permitted sitting—and its prohibition against oral recitation comes from a special teaching—and likewise Torah reading by Kohen Gadol—it’s required for his service (Yoma ibid.). If not for my hesitation I would say that all readings of korbanot—on Yom Tov, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur—are different from other Torah readings (see Tosafos Megillah 30b; commentary of Riva Tosafos Yeshanim Yoma 70a), but where possible they did not differentiate due to “lo plug,” unlike Kohen Gadol’s reading.

Still further explanation is needed: if so why was Oral Law never written down by our Sages? There are many possible answers—even if there was no prohibition they still did not write it: a) because of Bavli’s view—if indeed he disagrees with Yerushalmi; b) due to “I wrote for him most of My Torah…”—Gittin ibid.; c) as brought in Moreh Nevuchim part I ch.71; etc.; see also Zohar I:253a; Likkutei Torah by Rabbeinu HaZaken discourses for Sukkot p.80b with his notes He’aros Chaim (14a) where he references Shulchan Aruch Admor Hazaken regarding ownership during Isru Chag.—I received Responsa Chesed Yehoshua (NY 5713) which discusses this at length section 23—it’s worth noting their words.

Summary

The Rebbe expresses gratitude for receiving new Sefarim and provides thoughtful halachic analysis about distinctions between written and oral law, especially concerning public Torah reading practices. He encourages ongoing learning while raising important questions about established rulings.