2977 —הערות תודה ותובנות תורה לאברך פנחס הירשפרונג

B"H, the fourth day of Chol HaMoed Sukkos, 5715, Brooklyn.

Haraha"g veHaraha"ch vavac"h iy"a nu"n tzm"s cho"b etc. Moreinu HaRav Pinchas Hirshprung

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Due to an error, these sheets were not included with the letter of the Rebbe shlita; please accept my apologies for this oversight.

With wishes for a joyous festival, Secretary

P.S. On this occasion I gratefully acknowledge receipt of your gift, the sefer Minchas Solas vol. I. As a token of thanks and in appreciation of your gesture, I have noted some comments, even though I mentioned in haste that there was no time.

Mitzvah 1, section 1 at its end: "That one who is killed must come in gilgul (reincarnation), etc." — This requires investigation: if according to Nigleh in Shas, even one who is killed does not need to reincarnate as our sages say in Chagigah (5a), and there are differing opinions. And if according to the Kabbalists — it does not depend on the manner of death but rather whether he fulfilled his obligations during his lifetime or has not yet completed them (see Shaar HaGilgulim by the Arizal at its beginning, introduction 8 and elsewhere; Tanya ch. 29; Iggeres HaKodesh sec. 229 and more). Regarding what is stated in Chagigah — it must be said that she did not complete her obligations and yet her years were given to another; it can be explained based on what is known (Shaar HaGilgulim there introduction 9) that generally the measure of gilgul does not apply to women. There. According to what the Kabbalists wrote etc., according to what the Maharsha wrote etc., in my humble opinion it is surprising that there is an existing law from before this.

The well-known responsum of Noda BiYehudah (first edition Orach Chaim sec. 35) states that in such cases repentance does not help for punishments from a human court. Also noteworthy is what tzt"z writes on Mikvaos ch. 1 mishna 6 at its end (172a): "We do not learn etc." There. Section 2: Regarding the opinion of Yerushalmi and Tosafot Chad Mekamai that everyone fulfills with two males — based on this, the words of Zohar III p. 148a are simply resolved. There. Section 3: It is surprising he did not reference or illuminate from Shulchan Aruch HaRav Hilchos Talmud Torah ch. 3; see there.

There p. 139d: Paragraph "And behold Rashash." Note Kiddushin 21b in Rashba's commentary there; Responsa Bnei Tzion vol. I and others.

Regarding what you wrote from Mechilta — based on the above in Rashba and others, it seems puzzling why a verse was needed at all. The explanation shines forth in Tzafnas Paneach by Gaon of Rogatchov on this matter (and I do not currently have the sefer at hand) that it is precise regarding Mechilta: "The nations surrounded Eretz Yisrael and Israel desecrated Shabbos" — why all this lengthiness and such an extremely rare situation? Rather specifically here a verse was needed because Shabbos was entirely nullified.

There p. 142d section 5: According to Tiferes Yisrael it appears in Likkutei Torah by Arizal parshas Vayeira and in his Sefer HaMitzvos at the beginning of parshas Yisro.

Also that the youngest son is obligated for all those before him.

At its end p. 157c: Regarding love for a wicked person — see Tanya ch. 32 and in the sefer cited by tzt"z in his glosses (Sefer Kitzurim LeTanya p.36).

Summary

This letter demonstrates gratitude through thoughtful Torah discussion while highlighting careful analysis across halachic and mystical sources, encouraging deep study and appreciation for shared Torah insights.