6903 —הערות על צפנת פענח על מסכת מכות ומקורות קשורים

B"H, 23 Sivan, 5719.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n Rav Pealim Baal Meretz u'Baal Middot tznm"s etc. Menachem Mendel

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Here are some of the comments of the Rebbe shlita on the sefer Tzafnat Paaneach on Makkos, which will surely interest your honor.

General comment: It seems that the compilers and editors did not have access to the sefer Mar'eh Kohen by Rabbi Shmaryahu Menashe HaKohen Adler from London, which was published in several editions. I have in my possession edition three, and there (page 3 regarding Makkos 7a; page 26 for Makkos - 3 and 7; and more). Certainly in other editions as well he printed several letters from the Rogatchover Gaon, as he corresponded with great Torah scholars of his generation, as is evident in his book (page 1 column a).

Comment two: The interpretation that the reference is to Ketubot 26a is questionable. It seems to be a mistake of yud-daled for kaf-vav! Furthermore, by referencing Rambam nothing is added by this citation to Shas. The Rogatchover does not usually do this in his references. Although he brings several citations in Shas where seemingly one citation does not add to another, he does not usually cite Rambam unless it adds explanation. This is evident throughout his books and responsa. Most importantly—and surprisingly—they did not interpret the citation simply as referring to Ketubot page 14 regarding the law of a silent chalal (disqualified Kohen). There are several opinions in Shas and Rambam rules on this matter. From his wording it appears he also rejects the opinion of Raavad and Rashba—as brought in chapter 19 of Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah. Even though the citation "pek" is common in Rogatchover's references (meaning a difference of one page or one chapter), also in this very book see page 1 column c note 15. This is found often in his books and responsa, as well as according to stories from those who heard his Torah innovations orally. Thus, the citation here comes either to clarify details or at least to raise attention to them [just like the first citation—to Kiddushin 66b]—where (from the wording of the Mishnah) it appears there is no distinction whether one remains silent at testimony or not. The practical difference would be how he is judged after being rendered invalid if he was silent when called a chalal. Even though one could distinguish that with two witnesses he knows his statement will certainly not help so he remains silent—in any case it can be discussed based on opinions about a silent chalal in Shas—especially according to Rambam who rejects Raavad and Rashba's view. And this suffices.

At the end of the tractate (page 88 column a): Regarding distinguishing between four and three [elements], note what is explained in Sefer Kabbalah about why even though there are four elements only three are mentioned in Sefer Yetzirah... And indeed, the Rogatchover Gaon also studied Kabbalah—as known to several who spoke with him personally—even though he does not explicitly cite these books [except for what I found so far—in his commentary on Rambam Hilchot Avodah Zarah chapter 12 halacha 6], but perhaps here too "we have not seen is no proof," and one should search for such citations especially in his handwritten notes on Torah.

Also noteworthy: Regarding Shema time (essentially "per"—with all your might—which does not say "and you shall gather your grain"—Berachot 35b; also Rashbi interrupts Shema) until "geulah sheleimah," but prayer (requesting one's needs) until "devar sheker."

There (page 89 column b) note mem-bet: It is surprising that there is a reference to Rabbeinu Ephraim's commentary switching attribute of mercy for attribute of judgment—which seems forced to explain thus when it is clear and simple that Havayah (the Divine Name) transcends nature while Elokim numerically equals nature—and refers to G‑dly powers as they are vested within nature [see Moreh Nevuchim part II chapter VI; language etc.; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman hei and elsewhere], explaining further based on what was written earlier (in text): "Yaakov requested that everything—not be within nature but rather that Havayah be instead of nature."

There (page 98 column c) regarding Tanchuma commentary: It needs clarification since simply it can be explained that Tanchuma follows Rabbi Yishmael's view (Makkos end ch.3) that even those liable for death receive lashes like those liable for excision—but perhaps this explanation was rejected because at the beginning there Mishnah brings all liable for excision etc. In any case, the explanation given requires clarification: A) One who disregards a prophet's words does not receive lashes (Rambam Hilchot Sanhedrin ch.19 halacha 3). B) The law about disregarding a prophet applies not only to someone who heard directly but also all those relevant to whom prophecy applies—or perhaps they hold it's only those who heard directly; see Minchat Chinuch mitzvah 516 and notes by Harav Perla there.

There (page 102 column d) citing ToSefes Chayei Zayin section tav-kuf-mem-gimmel: There section tav-kuf-mem-gimmel Rogatchover explains Tosefta Keilim ch.1 mishnah vav: The High Priest's dog is dearer than yours etc.—but still lacks explanation why specifically his dog—especially since elsewhere regarding this very law they mention an ox instead—and perhaps in Tosefta it's discussing entering the Beit HaMikdash etc., emphasizing how great is connection with High Priest—that even a dog whose price may not be brought into G‑d's house (though prohibition applies only to one who offers it as stated in Sifrei there; what ToSefes Chayim ch.15 akem-zayin says at end forbidding bringing dog into synagogue—he brings no proof; see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman kuf-nun-gimmel seif alef; conversely Igrot Moshe siman mem-heh by Rav Moshe Feinstein writes certainly a dog isn't worse than a donkey! He doesn't mention above—and that's puzzling)—because it's owned by High Priest it's dearer than yours etc.

1) See Chait entry reish-peh-gimmel; Pardes by Ramak section tet-nun-vav paragraph gimel; beginning "Bereishit Bara" ter-nun-heh (by Rebbe Maharashab); etc.; see also Zohar I:5b.
2) Pardes by Ramak shin-yud-bet perek bet; Shelah Shaar HaOtiyot pe tet amud alef quoting Zohar; etc.

Your honor will surely confirm receipt of this letter. Many thanks.

With respect and blessing,
Secretary Menachem Mendel: Kosher NY

Summary

This letter highlights careful analysis of sources when studying Torah texts, emphasizing precision when referencing earlier works or interpreting citations. The Rebbe encourages thorough research into variant editions and deeper understanding beyond surface readings.