7382 —תיקונים והבהרות על מאמרי תורה ומקורות

B"H, 3 Menachem Av, 5720.

Brooklyn.

Harav HaAvrech Yaakov Emanuel.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

We acknowledge receipt of your letter from Monday and the previous one, as well as the continued newspaper clippings. In continuation to the comments on previous articles: In article six, regarding what you wrote about prophecy and that seemingly anyone can become a prophet if only they prepare themselves—this is not so according to Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah chapter seven in Lechem Mishneh; rather, preparation is necessary but after that it depends on the Supreme Will. See there law five. In general, this lengthy discussion—not only is it unrelated to the topic at hand but in any case all excess etc., especially regarding such a delicate matter as above—will only raise questions etc.

In article seven, where you wrote that Harav HaGaon of Kitov was the chief rabbi of Brody—that was actually R. Yehuda Yudel Horowitz. The Gaon was “standing on two courts” out of the four courts that were there (see at length R.G. Kitiver to Prof. Heschel HUCA 23).

In article eight, regarding your writing about Divine Providence—see Yahal Or to Tehillim 36:7 for the Alter Rebbe’s proof from Chullin 61a as a proof in Nigleh of Torah. (Elsewhere I noted how this proof could be refuted from other statements of Chazal—see Sefer Kehilat Yaakov entry Hashgachah—as opposed to the statement in Chullin mentioned above.)

In article nine about the Baal Shem Tov’s letter to his student, the author of Toldot Yaakov Yosef—it seems this is the only letter in his own handwriting and was printed in “Hatamim” as a facsimile. There regarding the well-known story about the rooster’s crowing—it should be corrected according to what is printed in Kuntres Torat HaChassidut.

Article ten at its end discusses a dangling limb that was cut off—it is worthwhile to note from Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter six mishnah five.

Article eleven contains sharp expressions regarding opponents (mitnagdim), and considering these matters are printed so anyone can access them—even without entering into whether these are appropriate—it is still not worthwhile for them to appear in print. Similarly with all lengthy discussions about bans etc.—it is not worthwhile. Why revive and mention forgotten matters which, as my revered father-in-law the Rebbe said, those who brought about these things are now in the World of Truth and deeply regret all of it.

In that same article: “A word is worth a sela.” It is better to copy “worth” in English. “VeKal”—it fits better to use “easy.” There too: sources for the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation “Elokim yevakesh et nirdaf” (“G‑d seeks out the pursued”)—to bring support from afar when most Torah commentators and Targum agree with this interpretation.

Article twelve: Regarding what you brought from Kuzari about movements during prayer rather than other books—the simple reason is that there it proves this conduct was so typical among Jews that Kuzari speaks about it specifically; whereas in other books it can be interpreted as referring only to some individuals who act this way.

Your writing about “one who blows breath blows from within himself”—this appears in several books. When I commented that I did not find its source, I meant specifically in Zohar where our master the Alter Rebbe cites it in Tanya Kadisha.

Articles thirteen–fourteen: It is completely missing that there should be dissemination of the wellsprings specifically with understanding and precisely as worded in Zohar. See also the attached sichah note 19.

End of article fourteen: Pentecost! What is lacking with using “Shavuot” (Kiddushin 70a)?

[Regarding your question whether R’ Adam Ba’SH is R’ Adam Luntz Ba’SH—and since he does not appear anywhere else or in Likkutei Dibburim similarly, it seems almost certain he is not.]

A while ago I wrote someone regarding behavior of certain individuals and offices in Eretz HaKodesh which was attributed there to internal exile—that is, an inferiority complex before every non-Jew. And when given a choice they prefer quoting a non-Jew over a Jew. Apparently regarding religious or non-religious people—this applies even according to your writing. This also influences readers who will rely on a book whose author comes from this perspective rather than its opposite etc.

Blessings for good news,

On behalf of my revered father-in-law the Rebbe shlita,
Secretary
Yaakov Emanuel
Shochat,
Toronto.

Additional letters to him—above letter 7SA and those referenced there.

Continued newspaper clippings: Regarding Baal Shem Tov see above letter 7SHMAH. Elsewhere I noted: see Likkutei Sichos vol. 7 p.64 note 41. Attached sichah: Likkutei Sichos vol.6 p.287 note 18.

R’ Adam Ba’SH: see also above vol.14 letter D’Tetkufnunbet.

Summary

This letter demonstrates careful attention to accuracy and sensitivity when publishing Torah scholarship, urging writers not to revive old disputes or use harsh language publicly but instead focus on clarity and constructive content for readers' benefit.