5521 —עצה על הגשת מסמכים לבית המשפט לעניין מחיצה והצגת סמכות רבנית

B"H, 17 Sivan, 5717.

Brooklyn.

Havavach iy"a nu"n involved in Tzemech Tzedek Mohe Baruch Litvin

Shalom u'Vrachah!

After a long silence, your letter from Sunday arrived with the enclosure, which—according to your request—is being returned here. As you ask for my opinion and comments, without going into details (which surely before the lawyer uses it, he will review and edit it to align with what he wants to present to the judge), it is necessary to make a general comment: the entire Chapter B should be omitted.

My reasoning is understandable: since in the first chapter you bring the opinions of all Orthodox rabbinic bodies, showing they are united in their view on the issue of Chapter B (as noted), it is superfluous to bring proofs for their opinion. Even more importantly, these proofs could actually be damaging—and this is understandable why; for every proof you bring, the other side can argue against it. And even if he cannot refute the proof itself, he will try hard to find a proof for the opposite view. As is well known: "the gates of excuses are never closed."

Another important point is that by bringing proofs for the authority of these rabbinic bodies, two things result: a) that you yourself require something beyond the rabbinic ruling; b) that you think that whoever sits in court is the appropriate authority to decide whether Agudas HaRabbonim etc. are correct (even though even the judge himself does not believe he has such a right). The main thing is that this approach—asking a non-Jew (or even a Jew who is not qualified) whether he agrees with a rabbinic ruling—is precisely the approach of Conservatism and Reform!

Instead of Chapter B, it would be better to bring precise dates of the ruling from Agudas HaRabbonim etc., if possible including the original with an English translation, as well as proof that there are no other united Orthodox rabbis besides those listed in this chapter. Connect this with the fundamental point on which your lawyer must insist—that being an Orthodox shul, only a ruling from Orthodox rabbis is binding for it and not from Reformers—just as a ruling from priests would not be binding for a shul (even though they have faith), whereas Reformers are deniers of Torah Moshe and have no other Torah (since even non-Jews recognize that "Torah" refers specifically to Torah from Heaven).

I am pleased that you take upon yourself this example—makhseh ta'aseh—thus taking responsibility upon yourself, just as you bring verses about chatzotzros and menorah. The matter of chatzotzros was to gather Jews through Moshe Rabbeinu who received Torah from Sinai; and the menorah was to illuminate with holy oil not only in the Beis HaMikdash but—as our Sages say—even in this world. The analogy is clear: as everything he says should be done—stop arguing that it's not your matter but take upon yourself both chatzotzros and menorah—hammer away until it will be accomplished.

May it be Hashem's will—the Giver of Torah of Truth who also leads the world everywhere and at all times—that things should go much easier for you than you imagine and with great success.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches that when defending Torah principles in legal matters, one should rely on unified rabbinic authority rather than presenting debatable proofs. Clarity, responsibility, and persistence are essential for success.