5386 —הבהרות ועידוד בלימוד ובחינוך

B"H, 20th of Nissan, 5717.

Brooklyn.

Havavach iy"a nu"n etc. Zev Weber

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the 13th of Nissan, the yahrzeit of our master the Admor tzt"z and his predecessor. I hasten to reply that your previous letter caused no displeasure at all; in general, such matters are not my concern. I hope that by the time you receive this letter your health has improved, and that you are increasing in bringing the hearts of Jewish children closer to our Father in Heaven through education in purity and holiness—there is nothing greater than this. At the same time, it is understood and obvious based on what is written "uMibesarcha lo tis'alem" (and from your own flesh do not hide) that one must also increase fixed times for studying both revealed Torah and Chassidus, as well as strive to spread the wellsprings outward. However, this should be done according to what is written in Hilchos Talmud Torah by Rabbeinu HaZaken chapter 1 sections 11-12. May Hashem grant you success to share good news about this.

Regarding what you wrote about the Shabbos meals—that there seem to be contradictions in Zohar passages—the order follows Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Zohar II p.88b), as we say in Atkinu Seudasa: "Chakal Tapuchin Kadishin," "Atika Kadisha," "Zeir Anpin." What is written in Zohar II (88a): "One meal corresponding to Atika Kadisha... a second meal corresponding to Chakal Tapuchin..." has already been explained by Or HaChamah there that it refers to the ten sefirot as written, not the meals themselves. Similarly, what is written in Zohar III p.288b refers to the greatness of the middos—as explained by Ohr HaChaim on Zohar II p.88b. In Siman [section] by Rabbeinu HaZaken's discourses on Shabbos meals, this matter is explained according to Chassidus.

On your question regarding Rashi's commentary on "beged bagadta bi" (You have betrayed me with a garment)—and she herself gave it to Yaakov—it can simply be explained because he did not refuse. It can also be said according to those who say that even when permission is given without appeasement there remains inner distress (see Nosei Keilim on Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer section 16:5).

On your question regarding our Sages' statement (Bereishis Rabbah 81) that it does not say "and she conceived" with Zilpah because she was a firstborn—and yet with Pinchas's birth it also does not say "and she conceived." It is unclear how you know Pinchas was not a firstborn. See Chizkuni on Shemos 2:22. Seemingly there is a difficulty from Shemos (6:20) where it does not say "and she conceived," though Yocheved was 135 at Miriam's birth. But actually there is no question at all because Bereishis Rabbah deduces from the change of wording—saying: for all others it says conception except here. And Chizkuni's interpretation must be considered only an asmachta (supporting hint).

On your question about the change between Deuel and Reuel—it is also not difficult; many people in Tanach had more than one name, like Yisro/Chovav.

Blessings for good news.

Because of the sanctity of the festival, our master Admor shlita did not sign personally; I am signing on his behalf—the secretary.

Summary

The Rebbe encourages strengthening health and dedication to chinuch al taharas hakodesh while clarifying questions about Torah commentaries with detailed sources and explanations, emphasizing both learning and spreading Chassidus according to proper guidelines.