3599 —חזית דתית מאוחדת, רמאות פוליטית, ומנהגי ספירת העומר

B"H, 2nd of Tammuz, 5715.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vaharaha"ch iy"a nu"n osek b-tzt"z tznam"s etc. etc. Yeshaya Yitzchak Bilitzki

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from before Shavuos (which was somewhat delayed in transit) and the one before that. It is clear how painful it is that the matter of a united religious front has not come to fruition. It is even more astonishing that after seeing with our own eyes the reality of party politics—where even leaders who are truly religious in their private lives unhesitatingly sell out religious gains for a questionable 'bowl of lentils' in party matters—the power of concealment and double darkness of our exile is so great. Especially the concealment that comes from the level of sitra achra, which has been given permission to dance in the palace of the King, in a land where "the eyes of Hashem are upon it from the beginning of the year to its end." Not only do they themselves not feel what they are doing—and apparently do not even understand it—but they also manage to deceive G‑d-fearing people and entice them, when only pure yirat shamayim (fear of Heaven) is at play here; there is no personal agenda involved, not even a party agenda! And although our Sages ruled that "in matters destined to be revealed all are believed," (Bava Metzia 6a), how much more so regarding something already revealed—yet still, party members have the audacity to declare the complete opposite, and this too succeeds—even though anyone can read what was printed in each party's newspapers just days earlier by these same people now declaring otherwise!

b) From all this one can understand how great will be the light of the true redemption, since Hashem has promised that then we will say: Odecha Hashem ki anapta bi (I thank You Hashem for being angry with me; Your anger will turn and You will comfort me) (Yeshayahu 12:1)—that even such concealment as described above, done specifically by those who have only a faint shadow of true intent (see also Tanya ch. 24), will also be acknowledged when Matz (Moreh Tzedek) is revealed and brings our brothers out from exile—both those exiled in Eretz HaKodesh and those abroad—from deep pits and darkness that would bewilder even healthy human intellect.

c) Thank you for connecting with our friend Mr. Shazar. As for your note that he writes to me—I have not yet received any letters from him.

d) Regarding the book Pelech HaRimon: The section on Sefer Shemos has just been completed at press; it contains over 400 pages. When necessary it will be sent to you.

e) Certainly if you receive good news regarding your son's health you will not withhold sharing it with me. Thank you in advance...

g) Regarding your question about changes concerning Lag BaOmer—that in certain discourses etc., it appears as "ba-Beit," even though the counting formula on all days including Lag BaOmer itself uses "ba-Lamed," which is explained at length. However, your reasons for changing the wording apply also on other days during Sefirah—in writing letters etc.—and conversely, also on Lag BaOmer itself; since its themes discussed in Chassidus affect also previous days because refinement and avodah progress step by step—you cannot reach hod she'b'hod without passing through prior levels. Meanwhile only one rationale seems clear to me regarding this change—and it's quite simple: There are many opinions favoring counting with "ba-Beit," but practically our innovation was instituting our custom to count with "ba-Lamed." It is understood they were particular about changing only the actual counting formula—to match all opinions regarding "ba-Omer" versus "la-Omer," but were not particular about this change in less precise matters such as dating letters etc., similar to how in Tanya's first three sections every place where it says "etc." or "so forth" is exact (and I believe this follows Chazal's rule about every phrase), but in Iggeres HaKodesh they were less exacting—as I noted in my introduction to Tanya's indexes. For obvious reasons I did not wish to publicize this rationale.

h) Enclosed is a booklet about Hemshach HaMaasar which will surely interest you.

With honor and blessing,
M. Schneersohn

P.S.: By now word has come that Keren Hatzalah's meeting will be held next Monday; I ask you to cable accordingly both directly and via Rabbi Hutner—who surely maintains contact with them—so there will be time for them to urge support for Encyclopedia Talmudit since this year they threaten much less funding than last year; thus special effort is needed. Every bit may help.

Regarding whether [to count] with "ba-Beit" or "ba-Lamed," see above; also note from Iggeres HaKodesh end sec. 13.

On what I wrote previously regarding Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim sec. 158: a) That Taz (not just his 'I heard people say') is more lenient than Magen Avraham—as explained by Admor Hazaken—since he emphasizes repeatedly: since an action was done for liquids etc., it becomes considered liquid etc.; whereas Magen Avraham requires 'if he crushed... intending only for food.' Thus Taz and Magen Avraham disagree across all cases between these two extremes—including when intended both for food and drink (where there is no conclusive action so it depends on subsequent actions), etc.

b) How does Admor Hazaken know to explain Magen Avraham thus? This does not affect what was said above—for whatever Taz's view may be, according to Admor Hazaken Magen Avraham disagrees with 'I heard people say.' So Admor Hazaken must have proof for his interpretation—not just because another reading isn't possible—and perhaps his proof comes because Magen Avraham brings support here from Netilat Yadayim Shabbat 19a: honey originally food now food.

c) The point raised about Admor Hazaken's phrase 'to permit also here'—clearly refers back to his earlier statement 'nevertheless... he may eat with a spoon or knife,' ending with those very words: 'one may also permit here using spoon or knife.'

d) The logic that non-Jewish intent at time of crushing does not help (which I cited only as an additional consideration)—is because whether something will later become food or drink makes no difference for non-Jews; unlike other cases you cited. In such cases there isn't yet any reality for question or doubt so there's no place yet for decision-making—and there are several examples like this. One could say intent helps due to ownership by whoever thinks about it; therefore in some areas non-Jewish intent doesn't help—as explained by Tzafnat Paneach supplement vol. 1 p.14—and this isn't the place for further discussion.

Summary

The Rebbe laments political deception among religious leaders who forsake spiritual values for party gain but assures that ultimate redemption will reveal G‑d’s purpose even within darkness. He addresses halachic nuances on Omer counting customs and clarifies points regarding Jewish law interpretations.