3559 —לסמוך על הרבי הרש"ב בפירושים קבליים ובהשתתפות בבחירות

B"H, 16 Sivan, 5715.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"ch iy"a nu"n oseik b'tzt"z Mohar"m HaLevi Shalom Grigls

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from the 12th of Sivan. The list is returned here as you requested. Regarding your renewed impression from the letter you received from Yeroshalayim, from R. Yeshayah Asher Zelig Margaliyot, etc., I have already written that I am surprised by this.

a) What he wrote that it is explicit in the writings of the Arizal that mitzvos are mochin d'Abba and not keilim—this is not understandable. There was no need to bring support from afar, since in Chassidus of our holy leaders this is quoted and explained at length: in Likkutei Torah, in the Siddur, in Derech Mitzvosecha, etc. Nevertheless, my father-in-law said in the name of his father, the Rebbe Rashab, that mitzvos allude to keilim; thus it must be that there is no contradiction here. In truth, his question is not understandable: a) In mochin d'Abba themselves there are both lights and vessels; b) Mitzvos, like all matters of Torah and mitzvah, allude to several things at once. It is known that mitzvos are mochin d'Abba and also correspond to the Avos (Chesed-Gevurah-Tiferes), and at the same time they are also in Malchus as lechem oni (bread of affliction), as brought in Arizal's writings and even in Zohar and Tikunei Zohar.

The same applies to what he wrote that there is no source in Arizal for saying that what we place on top of matzos alludes to lights—again: a) In these six things placed on matzos there are both lights and vessels; b) Even these six things allude to several concepts as above. There is no time now to search for this place in Arizal's writings (but see Maor Einayim, Kehilas Yaakov etc.). However: a) It is clear there cannot be a contradiction since this was said by the Rebbe Rashab; b) It is very likely a source can be found for this in Arizal's writings or possibly even in Tikunei Zohar.

What that rabbi concluded—that if these words had come from Admor Hazaken they would be accepted like those of Arizal—it is fitting to rely on Admor Rashab (the successor of Rabbeinu Hazaken) for such matters and even greater ones.

I am compelled by our sages' dictum to judge every Jew favorably—perhaps he did not write to him that these were words of Admor Rashab and therefore wrote what he wrote.

As for what he wrote about some kabbalists skipping certain passages from Chaverim when learning Pri Etz Chaim—it is obvious this is not our tradition. In fact, such matters are cited from Chaverim etc. in Chassidus and Likkutei Torah etc., as well as teachings from Ramak and R. Yisroel Sarug etc., unlike some Sephardic kabbalists.

This should be explained: The later authorities did not want to enter into doubtful areas; but Baal Shem Tov, Admor Hazaken and their successors—who had an oral tradition person-to-person (Baal Shem Tov from Achiyah Hashiloni who received from Eliyahu Hanavi)—knew which matters could be relied upon. It is also known that because of this they relied on Emek Hamelech (see Likkutei Torah Shir Hashirim 27a: Pri Etz Chaim isn't mentioned at all; where noted in Toiras Oir indices it's due to disputes among kabbalists).

b) Regarding participation in elections: We have only the words of our leaders—my father-in-law who even now stands among us—and for Israel's first Knesset elections he instructed participation. This shows not only permission but obligation.

Although joining a coalition government is forbidden (in my opinion), since it involves participating in decrees against Torah—anyone who holds citizenship and thus voting rights (by accepting citizenship one agrees voluntarily with their governance), if after this he does not participate in elections—and others follow his example—and thereby a law passes improperly due to lack of votes—the public mishap rests upon him too. I have yet to find someone with broad enough shoulders willing to bear such responsibility.

Of course these words do not apply to those who do not recognize or wish any connection with Israeli governance or refuse to go there for this reason—but those present there who participate even minimally—especially regarding elections where they highlight their zealotry—this makes no sense; worse still it harms the public as above.

Especially after seeing over past years how one deputy's vote could have prevented communal mishaps involving rabbinic or even biblical prohibitions—enough said.

You may write everything I have written here about elections to him—and may add sharpness—for however much you add it will not exhaust the subject.

Specifically after Matan Torah there was reason for Noach's conduct—to save himself without properly rebuking his generation—as stated in Zohar Hakadosh regarding "what was lacking." But after Matan Torah when all Israel form one complete body—as explained regarding Matan Torah: if even one out of six hundred thousand had been missing (even Micha who made an idol included), Torah would not have been given—as stated Devarim Rabbah ch. 7:8 and Mechilta d'Rashbi.

The books you mention are not with me—they pertain to Tikkun Hayesod; may his spirit find rest.

Summary

The Rebbe clarifies that relying on teachings from our leaders—even when they differ from other sources—is valid because their traditions are trustworthy. He emphasizes communal responsibility regarding election participation: abstaining can cause harm by enabling negative outcomes for many Jews.