6761 —הערות ביקורתיות על מהדורות בית הבחירה ונהלי כתבי יד

B"H, 12 Adar Sheni, 5719.

Brooklyn.

Havavach iy"a nu"n tznam"s etc. Harav Avraham

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Following our conversation, I took some time soon after to at least briefly review the book—your gift, Beit HaBechirah on tractate Bava Basra. In the usual manner with such books—by skimming—I also reviewed the second book you published, which is in my library: Beit HaBechirah on Mikvaot. As is my custom with these matters, I am writing below some notes for the sake of the matter's dearness.

I wish to make a general comment even before concluding: Our generation has become accustomed to making 'ears for the box,' etc., not only regarding the content of books but also concerning their authors and related matters. Therefore, after asking your forgiveness, I am surprised that in both aforementioned books there is no description of the manuscript from which the book was printed. More importantly: was this manuscript compared with other manuscripts (as you mention in your introduction to Beit HaBechirah on Bava Basra that there is a manuscript in the Vatican)? This is relevant to how one relates to this book—whether it is possible to be precise about every word—and it is customary at least to provide a facsimile of one page from the manuscript. Additionally, a few lines about the author's biography and his method of study and who his teachers were; these last two points are also essential regarding the book itself.

It is possible—and likely—that all this has already been published either by you or by others. However, it is well known that unlike previous generations, in our times very few people will research other books published in this field—especially when they are not well known—and even more so when there is no hint in the introduction as to where such details can be found [even though in my opinion even if there were references to other books, this would not suffice for our generation which lacks the necessary diligence for searching and studying such books; and regarding forming an attitude toward this book, it would suffice to add two or three pages summarizing only the conclusions on these points and referencing where further discussion can be found—for those who wish—to specific books or journals].

The importance of these details surely needs no explanation for someone like yourself; it is even more significant regarding Beit HaBechirah volumes whose purpose seems to be legal rulings rather than commentary or novel insights. Even though nowadays no one will rule halachically based solely on Beit HaBechirah, still for understanding how halachic decisions developed after Meiri it is important to know these things.

Another general note: Since several volumes of Beit HaBechirah have already been printed, certainly if one were to compare ambiguous titles cited within them it would clarify many doubts as to whom the author refers with certain titles—for example: "the early Geonim" or "the Geonim among the early ones (and Geonim of Spain)," which seems clearly refers to Rav Hai Gaon (and Rabbi Yosef Migash), while R.K. Schlesinger apparently thinks it refers to Rabbeinu Chananel though he does not decide definitively—as shown in his edition of Beit HaBechirah on Bava Kama.

I hope you will not take offense at my comments above and may you accept them as they were written—in good spirit.

With honor and blessing—to spread light from Torah scholars of earlier generations like radiant angels illuminating the earth and its inhabitants for every generation.

With blessings for a joyous Purim.

Enclosed with my letter—the sefer on Chassidut we discussed: Sefer HaTanya and Sefer Hamitzvot by tzt"z.

Perek Alef Mishnah Alef. Page 75. Note 2. Our Rebbe specifies "locked and fenced off," excluding etc.—Seemingly it would have been better for your honor to learn that Meiri excludes from Gemi"y’s approach—from what Meiri changed by omitting "and walked" from what appears in Shas—apparently you interpret that "locked and fenced off" explains what came before: "that each took possession of his portion." But if so, Meiri would disagree with all those who wrote that with "locked and fenced off," it suffices if one takes possession of his portion—see Tur Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat beginning Siman 157 and elsewhere; Shita Mekubetzet here; Tosefot Yom Tov—and it's forced to say that when he explains "that each took possession," he means one locked while another was silent. There remains difficulty from what he writes later: "and such as they said," meaning it's enough if one says so (and here you cannot answer that it's an either/or phrase; he uses Shas’s language). If you say there was an omission of a word either by typesetter or copyist—and originally Meiri had as in Shas: "that they walked and took possession," then his intent could be taking possession through walking as Gemi"y deduced—and adds another case: "and locked," specifically singular form—thus negating all previous deductions.

There—it says "there is no doubt...there is no custom..." In Note E: It could also be explained—based on what Meiri wrote—that even among partners who acquired together as one cannot claim he acquired intending partnership—see Beit Yosef Choshen Mishpat Siman 171 Sif Katan Lamed Gimel s.v. Ketav HaRashba; Rosh first chapter Bava Basra Siman Alef; novellae of tzt"z on Bava Basra chapter ten at its end.

Atshlab Note A: So holds also Rashba (cited in Darkei Moshe Siman Kaf Tet Sif Katan Gimel) and Ritva (New York 5714).

There Note G: The RaMAH is cited etc.—It needs clarification why your honor did not comment regarding debates about RaMAH’s opinion in Beit Chadash and Drisha there—especially since from Meiri’s continuation it seems he refers here to someone leaving after signing documents; according to Beit Chadash etc., RaMAH does not hold so.

The Meiri on Mikvaot Perek Alef Mishnah Alef page seventy-four Note G vav: I exerted myself greatly etc., but needs further study. If not for concern I would say clearly (especially since apparently only one manuscript was used) that above this point after the passage "and there is no difference between drawn water or undrawn water once they are not included among mikvaot," some words were omitted—their content being that some distinguish undrawn water regarding impurity just like mikveh—and between mikveh types confusion arose for copyist—and according to this:

• a) Why did Meiri omit here opinions of R”Sh and Raavad (who disagree with Rambam’s interpretation of all four mishnayot), though he usually cites them throughout this tractate?

• b) The difficulty noted above remains.

• c) The phraseology “and this was clarified in Tosefta” (which your honor noted in Note G) becomes understandable.

• A similar omission should be assumed also at page seventy-six Note B there.

• There Note E: Also in Perush HaMishnayot “by means of impurity.” Apparently similar expression “by means of P.”

• There page seventy-five Note A: Raavad—apparently should read Rambam.

• At its end paragraph sixteen: Thirty elders—it opens “with thirty-two elders!” And both R”Sh and Tosefta printed in Vilna Shas also conclude “thirty-two elders.” If you say there’s no scribal error here—it may be explained that R”T did not count himself due to humility nor Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi because he explains scripturally that elders acted so none could save lamb from Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s hand—a number of textual changes exist in Sifrei Chukat—and both versions need clarification regarding reading R”T as addressing Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi—with addition of title “Rabbi.”

• A portion was printed in Likkutei Sichos volume seventeen p.483 and completed based on secretariat copy.

• Harav Avraham: scribe.

Summary

The Rebbe highlights scholarly rigor when editing classic texts—insisting on transparency about sources, manuscript comparisons, author biographies, and clear referencing—to ensure future generations can properly understand foundational Torah works.