7488 —על עריכת פירוש חדש על התנ"ך והאחריות הכרוכה בכך

B"H, 2 Kislev, 5721.

Brooklyn, NY.

Harav Hagaon Havavach Iy"a Tzanmas Osek b'tzt"z etc. Moharshi

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In continuation to your letter regarding the proposal to edit and rephrase a commentary on Tanach—a traditional commentary that would also be understandable to the new generation—and the suggestion that I participate in this project, and even more so, that I take responsibility for it, etc., and following conversations I had here about this matter with Mr...—I have come to clarify my position on this matter and the content of my oral response in those discussions.

I will begin regarding my participation in this project, by prefacing that such a highly responsible undertaking—if any part of it is invalidated, the entire work is invalidated. Even if only in some place an unsuitable interpretation enters and is printed as such, it blemishes the whole project. From this it is understood that only someone who has the time and leisure to devote as much as necessary to review every part of the commentary thoroughly can be responsible for it, reviewing with proper scrutiny to prevent any deviation from tradition—the straight path. It is also clear that in such a project there can be no concept of appointing an agent or representative; such responsibility cannot be fulfilled by trusting others or relying on them. Especially according to the saying of the Tzemach Tzedek: "A word spoken is for many; written—for all generations; printed—for generations upon generations." Therefore I must decline this proposal—not only refusing responsibility but also not allowing my name to be associated with the project, since naming implies participation in responsibility.

b) Regarding the project itself: I believe it is correct—but only if done by trustworthy people and then reviewed by several authorities who are absolutely reliable in such matters. To explain: Although words of Tanach have already been explained by earlier commentators—from Rashi through Metzudat David and Metzudat Tzion—who have special authority because they approached explaining Tanach as sacred work without any ulterior motives (even spiritual ones), let alone personal agendas or desires to show nothing is hidden from them (as Rashi often says "I do not know," etc.), their authority is further emphasized by their having received tradition from generation to generation regarding true interpretation of Scripture; likely many interpretations were transmitted since Tanach was written. The Rambam's words about Lashon HaKodesh are known: due to generational distance some matters were forgotten which makes understanding difficult—thus there was tradition about this too. Nevertheless, since styles change and some things once simple are now not so simple etc., it is good that such a commentary be prepared. We can rely on what great sages before us permitted—translating these commentaries into Yiddish (Ivri Teitsch) and spreading them among those unable for whatever reason to study Rashi or later commentaries themselves. But obviously—the main condition for any such project must be (as our Sages say) old wine in new vessels: only style and language should be new; the old wine must be those interpretations relied upon by previous generations—from Rashi through Metzudat David and Metzudat Tzion.

c) As we find among early commentators who clarified their explanations by bringing expressions from other languages—as Rashi does with Old French—so too should this new commentary include similar clarifications.

d) It is also understood that comparisons with other languages should be added—as our Sages say "Anochi" is Egyptian (Tanchuma on that verse). Likewise, where appropriate archaeological discoveries should be cited and illustrations added; even among accepted commentators there is precedent for this (e.g., Rambam's Commentary on Mishnah and Aruch), though later printings omitted some illustrations apparently for technical reasons.

e) Since this project will be done by people—and every person has unique traits—and since as stated above an essential condition for editing this commentary is that it must specifically be old wine as above—it is necessary that those editing not be innovators but rather have talent for collecting and organizing material. Especially since experience shows these traits usually contradict each other: one gifted at innovation often lacks skill at collecting/transmitting others' words accurately—inevitably adding his own novelty until eventually novelty overtakes tradition.

f) It is also clear—the entire purpose of this project is to transmit accepted interpretation of Tanach in the clearest possible style; thus there is no place here even to cite opposing views just in order to refute them—instead simply present the accepted explanation as it stands. Anyone wishing specifically "to know what to answer" (as per Pirkei Avot) can look elsewhere.

g) Another fundamental question: Is there room in such a commentary for Midrashic teachings of our Sages—even occasionally—as commonly found in Rashi? After all, learning Tanach aims not just at understanding its literal meaning but also "to know its Giver." This requires consideration; perhaps best would be placing these teachings alongside or below the main commentary—not within it.

h) Much more could be said on these points; I mention only main topics which I believe are essential—and if they cannot all be fulfilled fully—the entire project could cause great harm instead of hoped-for benefit—and that's enough said.

I would appreciate your comments—especially detailed feedback on all above points—and thank you in advance.

Summary

The Rebbe stresses that editing a new accessible commentary on Tanach demands utmost fidelity to tradition and careful oversight; he declines personal involvement but encourages faithful execution by reliable experts using established commentaries as their sole basis.