2654 —הבעת תודה על הגליונות של פירוש הרמב"ן והערות על תיקון עירובין

B"H, 15 Iyar, 5714.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g veHaraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"m oseik beTzorkhei Tzibbur ba'al meretz veRav Pe'alim etc. Hertze Eisenstadt

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I received the proofs of the book "Commentaries on the Torah by the Ramban," together with your notes, and thank you for your effort in sending them to me. I enjoyed reviewing the pages and seeing how much work and wisdom you invested in these notes. According to custom, I am attaching here some of my own comments regarding the beginning of the Ramban's introduction. Also enclosed are some remarks on your treatise "Proposal for Correction of Eruvin." The explanation of our Sages on the verse "Ve'es Vahav B'Sufah" is already known.

On this occasion, based on the verse, I express my wishes to you for a proper and successful journey and to utilize your influence while in Eretz HaKodesh to uplift the pride of Israel with strength and dignity.

With honor and blessing.

Comments on the treatise "Commentary on Torah by Ramban," etc.
Line 3: The word "vehanora." Note: see Devarim 10:17. See also Yoma 69b there. I will begin my comment about this. Also in the introduction to Yad he uses future tense: "va'achalek haHalachot... achalek oto." In general it is somewhat puzzling to say that the book was written before its introduction. The contradiction between them—in Hilchot Shemitta v'Yovel (10:6) it says year 1070 from destruction, but in the introduction—year 1071; it has already been noted that even without this there is need for clarification, as in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh (11:16) it says year 1072 (as it should be) from destruction. Additionally, in Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh itself it seems somewhat that they were written in year 1100 from destruction (9:5). All this is understood based on what is known—that Rambam wrote Sefer HaYad, edited it, revised it, etc.—(see Rambam Schulsinger edition at end of vol. five). It is understood that he only changed in edition two those laws needing correction but not all manuscripts—especially since copies had already spread from edition one as cited in Igros HaRambam and his son etc. Therefore it's possible that chapter nine of Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh was written in edition one in year 1100 and entered as-is into later editions; chapter eleven underwent changes or corrections later, with its final editing being year 1072; and the introduction was written after Rambam could determine not only number of books but also laws and mitzvot listed per book—as he details at end of introduction—meaning all material was ready for him but before writing the book itself—as he concludes: "And now I will begin to explain each mitzvah's laws," etc. Based on all this it's also understood there is room for all opinions regarding when Rambam began working on Mishneh Torah (cited in Seder HaDoros and elsewhere; earliest opinion—year 1100 as above).

There: "be'eimah... beziya." Note: from Gemara Berachos 22a—and what Ramban adds here with "mora" requires investigation because according to Kabbalah these four expressions are precise and correspond to four letters of Hashem's name (see Likkutei HaShas by Arizal to Mo'ed Katan). By the way: In all editions I've seen there's an obvious omission whose content explains "ziya," which refers to external limbs corresponding to final hei of Hashem's name—the outer garment etc.; apparently a copyist skipped from third occurrence of "beshem" to fourth occurrence—unclear who has noted this! He could have preserved rhyme ending (kamatz vowel) by changing order—writing "beziya... be'eimah." Perhaps one can say that "mora" corresponds to tip of yud which sometimes hints independently—not included within yud itself; as our Sages say five names are called for it (Bereishis Rabbah ch.14), though Zohar (I:79b) includes them within four names; Berachos only lists four things—like Zohar above where mora is included within eimah—but this is not place for full discussion.

There: line four: "selichah... mechilah u'kaparah." Note Yerushalmi at end of Yoma; Acharonim on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 607; Shulchan Aruch HaRav there sec.7 and his Siddur.

There: line five: "bekidah, b'reichah, b'hishtachavayah." Note language of Gemara Berachos 34b.

There: line six: "beitza hanemalah." For now I have not found this expression elsewhere—it requires investigation; perhaps scribes erred and it should read "beitza hakinah," which is considered smallest living creature in world (Shabbos 107b), paralleling highest sphere—the most significant creation; see Rambam Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:9; Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah by Admur Hazaken ch.7 (83a).

Comments on treatise "Proposal for Correction of Eruvin":
Folio A1 sec.2—the view of Rashi—as ruled by Admur Hazaken in his Shulchan sec.345 par.11 and elsewhere; Responsa Beit Av Tenina sec.5; indexes count thirty Rishonim who hold like Rashi.
There A1—the reason that among number five hundred also Eretz Yisrael is included—one can say because at Marah they were commanded about Shabbos (see Tosafos s.v. techumin Shabbos 87b), so still had status like Bnei Noach according to several Rishonim—and even after Matan Torah aspects of Shabbos were defined at Marah.
Folio A2 sec.3—all agree public domain by Torah law—it needs investigation because seemingly all streets end ultimately with bridges or tunnels closed off by walls or partitions used for collecting taxes etc.—see Avnei Nezer Orach Chaim sec.345.
Folio A3—definition sea/river (practical difference re writing a get etc.)—one can say if its waters are gathered/stationary even if there are waves or flowing (Mikvaos ch.5 mishna4; Makkos 4a; Yevamos 101a etc.; see Responsa Tzafnas Paneach by Rav Yosef Margatzuv sec.58-59)—but truthfully everywhere depends on context—in Hilchot Eruvin depends if sometimes sandbars form/solidify.
Thus it's explained why Rishonim/Acharonim specify various rules/distinctions regarding these concerns among different rivers/valleys—even if not explicit in Talmud—and accordingly every section around Manhattan mentioned here must be clarified—see sources cited in Orchos Chaim (new) sec.343.
Folio A3—concern sea may form sandbar according to one opinion—it needs investigation since Rama rules so (see Yad Malachi rules Rama); Admur Hazaken brings into halacha Orach Chaim sec.363 par.38.
There—the view of Chatam Sofer—the view of Admur Hazaken there that it's good to be stringent like those who prohibit.
Folio A4 sec.8—that it's possible to see from tall buildings etc.—it does not seem correct at all to say that building a tower whose top reaches heaven within a very large enclosed area would turn entire area from public domain by Torah law into private domain—and cannot say anything visible via building/tower becomes private domain by Torah law—for then Talmud's question about encircling ocean would remain unresolved as told about Shlomo (Yerushalmi cited Tosafos s.v k'kadur Avodah Zarah 41a). Must conclude per above that one must see enclosure while standing at ground level.
In Bechoros (54a) it's sixteen mil—and perhaps here more so because there must be visual supervision/counting unlike enclosure with partitions.
Note Pesachim (94a)—can enter with horses/mules etc.; compare also regarding proximity measurement Moed Katan 22a—in our days when traveling by train ^[3], airplane etc.—this debate appears in books cited in Kol Bo by Rav Greenwald vol.I p.330.
Folio A5 s.v susiya—see Shulchan Aruch HaRav Orach Chaim sec.343 par.memorandum12.
There s.v gag—in disputed matters see sources brought in Maharsham's glosses Orchos Chaim (new) sec.358.

* * *

Regarding whether it is a mitzvah to establish Eruvin—see Eruvin 28a; Tur/Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim sec.365 paragrah13; Tosafos Meilah Beitzah 16b; Responsa HaRosh klal21; Rashbetz II sec37; Chatam Sofer Orach Chaim sec299; Responsa Beit Av Tenina siman1—and note entire last book discusses issues related to Eruvin including many details mentioned here.

For correction of Eruvin see also letter #2856 below.

Summary

The Rebbe expresses gratitude for scholarly contributions while offering detailed halachic insights into both textual nuances within classic works and practical issues concerning communal eruvin corrections—a model for combining appreciation with rigorous analysis.