7282 —משרת רבנות בתל אביב, מנהג הגבהה, וכתיבת תש"כ

B"H, Eve of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, 5720. Brooklyn.

Haraha"g Haraha"ch iy"a nu"n oseik b-tzt"z tznam"s Moharshi. Shalom u'Vrachah!

After a pause that your honor was not accustomed to until now, your letter was received from Motzaei Shabbat Kodesh. I await further good news regarding the rabbinic position, and I have written about this as well to Haraha"ch etc. Harashd Zislin and also to Shab Haraha"ch etc. Hara'az Slonim. As appears from your letter, the rabbinate at the Chabad synagogue in Tel Aviv was only an internal matter... It is understood that my intention is not to criticize the past, but rather regarding the near future: it is worthwhile to make every effort so that the aforementioned rabbinate will have official standing, enabling influence beyond the synagogue's boundaries, as mentioned above.

To elaborate further on this matter: I am interested to know your honor's opinion regarding a suitable candidate for rabbi at the Chabad synagogue in Tel Aviv.

Regarding your letter about writing TShK (5720), and wishing to rely on what is printed in some calendars where a final Kaf appears as a regular Kaf in the middle of a word—this does not serve as proof by kal vachomer or kol shekein reasoning. The explanation for writing a regular Kaf at the beginning or middle of an abbreviation cannot be because of final letters. Perhaps the writer meant to negate confusion with a bent Nun that looked similar to a bent Kaf or similar cases.

Also regarding what you wrote that in some maamarim and letters from our Rebbeim concerning the year TKK (5520), it appears with a regular Kaf at the end—I believe I already commented on this in my letter responding to a question from Jerusalem (a copy was sent to you)—that one cannot bring proof from isolated cases, especially since among Bnei Yisrael there is often poetic or allusive language [for example—the well-known "Hemshach Tik'u Teran," which is often cited with a regular Nun; and in several writings and letters, maamarim from that year are referred to as "the year Renat"]. The discussion concerns ordinary daily writing; thus, I believe these are not valid proofs as you wrote in your letter...

Regarding what you wrote about customs of Hagbah etc.—it seems from your letter that this has already been instituted several times in the synagogue, with the claim that this was practiced in the synagogue where my father-in-law the Rebbe prayed—although initially perhaps your reasons for opposing changing the custom were correct, especially since this was also practiced by elder Anash when they came to Eretz HaKodesh. But now the question is: should one touch upon someone's point of connection to our Rebbeim—even if it expresses itself excessively? This can be connected with our Sages' story (Sukkah 32b) about "since it came from his mouth," even though certainly Rav Kahana himself did not insist on two-and-one specifically—only that it came from his mouth; therefore his student should be careful to act accordingly, which highlights their connection—and all the more so here where it is an actual practice.

Furthermore, anyone who sees—the change will prompt him to ask for its reason and he will receive an answer: this is our Rebbeim's custom etc., as our Sages said "until Chevron." As mentioned above: The main point here is that restoring now an old custom weakens the stance that one must strive to follow my father-in-law's synagogue customs.

With honor and blessing for good news,
M. Schneersohn

Summary

The Rebbe urges making efforts for official recognition of Chabad's rabbinic post in Tel Aviv while upholding traditions such as Hagbah customs and precise Torah writing practices. He emphasizes maintaining strong connections with previous generations through these customs.