4993 —הארות על צדקה, דיונים תלמודיים, ולימוד חסידות

B"H, 1st of Teves, 5717. Brooklyn.

Haavrech vavac"h iy"a nu"n etc. Avraham Avish Mordechai

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from the first day of Chanukah.

a) The directive of our master the Alter Rebbe, author of Tanya—the halachic authority in the hidden dimension of Torah—and the Shulchan Aruch—the halachic authority in the revealed dimension of Torah—that "one who spends [on charity] should not spend more than a fifth" applies under ordinary circumstances. However, when it is done for healing the soul, this is different; see also his Iggeres HaTeshuvah at the end of chapter 3.

b) The question of our Sages (Kesubos 67b) regarding Mar Ukva—why did he give more than a fifth [to tzedakah], even though he was considered like a baal teshuvah (as brought in Rashi Sanhedrin 31b)? There is no contradiction to the above since this was after he had already completed his teshuvah—meaning his healing was complete. This is as explained by the Alter Rebbe in Iggeres HaKodesh section 10.

c) The statement of Rav Pappa bar Shmuel (Bava Basra 73b): "If I had not been there, I would not have believed." The words of Rabbi Yochanan (ibid. 75a), who said: "If you had not seen it, you would not have believed," do not apply here for several reasons: (1) Rabbi Yochanan's student mocked the words of the Sages, which is not so in our case; (2) Rav Pappa only said he would not have believed—which can be interpreted as doubting whether things were literal—not like one who mocks and rejects the entire matter; (3) The student's mockery was public and prior to seeing it, whereas Rav Pappa's statement came after witnessing it and believing; (4) It is known that according to several early authorities, these stories in Bava Basra are only allusions—see also Zohar III:223b and its commentaries on Shas and Ein Yaakov at that place. From this it is understood that "if I had not been there..." has no connection to the mockery by that student.

d) Our Sages say (Bava Basra 74b) that the Holy One killed the angelic prince of the sea at creation. He questions this from another teaching (Chullin 41b): "One does not slaughter into seas," because people might say it's for the prince of the sea. The question is unclear: what difference does it make if the prince died? After all, one who slaughters for idols made of wood or stone—which are also lifeless—is still forbidden. Also, perhaps someone might slaughter without knowing about our Sages' teaching in Bava Basra.

e) He also asks from another teaching (Pesachim 118b): At the Exodus from Egypt, G‑d told the prince of the sea... See Shemos Rabbah ch.15 that the prince in Bava Basra refers to Oceanus and not other seas; whereas in Pesachim it's referring to the prince of Yam Suf—as is clear. In truth there is no difficulty at all: after one prince was killed another took his place—for everything must have a ministering angel above. Also note that regarding these teachings about Bava Basra there are differing interpretations: some say Rahav is the prince of Oceanus; elsewhere Rahav refers to Egypt's minister or Yam Suf's minister; and there are other opinions as well.

You do not mention your general study schedule but certainly from now on you will establish a fixed time for learning Chassidus—as stated by our master, with consistency both in time and soul. May Hashem grant you success.

Blessings,
In the name of His Honor our Rebbe shlita,
A. Kuint
Secretary

Summary

This letter explores nuanced halachic perspectives on tzedakah limits and Talmudic narratives about faith and skepticism toward sages’ words. It concludes with encouragement to set regular times for studying Chassidus as essential for spiritual well-being.