7558 —מינויים רבניים, פירוש התורה, ומסורת מול חידוש

B"H, 6th of Shevat, 5721.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g Haraha"ch iy"a nu"n oseik b'tztz chov tznem's haRashi shiy.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

After a long pause—which caused me concern—and as appears from your letter there were external reasons for this, your letter from Rosh Chodesh Shevat has been received. Addressing matters in order:

a) Regarding HaRav—It is by no means certain that the matter has been postponed for several months, since negotiations are being conducted behind the scenes with commercial proposals of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," etc., among important parties involved in this issue. Who knows what each day will bring—new developments may arise that will affect the course of negotiations. Also—and this is important—as I have written to several of Anash to publicize my clear position on this matter (to my surprise there are still those who doubt it, perhaps due to their own inclinations), they find ways to attribute their opinion to me—even when it is completely contrary. Publishing through your honor an excerpt from my letter regarding practical action on three points: namely, a) the harm in delaying the elections; b) that this necessitates someone actually being elected—and regarding Ashkenazim there is only one candidate; c) regarding Sephardim—it is a disgrace to Torah and the rabbinate to remove a rabbi from his post—would dispel attempts to attribute baseless claims to me and perhaps also influence the course of events.

b) Regarding your writing about the rabbinate in Jerusalem—the Holy City may it be rebuilt and established—I do not know the candidates you mention. In any case, I am entirely in agreement with you regarding your own candidacy: this is not at all an appropriate matter for you.

c) Regarding commentary on Tanach—about a "scientific commentary" by Prof.... and as if I expressed an opinion about it—I am greatly surprised by this rumor. It seems this is the first time I have even heard of such a commentary's existence (even though one is not obligated to know everything). In any case, even based on points in your letter—this person is not at all suitable to compose a traditional commentary on Tanach. What I said about versions and readings—I immediately explained what I meant: similar to Prof. Kittel's edition where he collected variant readings from printed Sifrei Torah and manuscripts in footnotes. Obviously there was never any discussion about Biblical criticism or similar matters—G‑d forbid.

d) To your comment about what is mentioned in my letters or words—interpretations from Metzudat David and Metzudat Tzion—this is based on what Chassidic teachings bring down: these interpretations were taught in traditional rooms where generations of children learned Torah and later lived their lives according to Torah and tradition.

e) To your question why not innovate new commentaries—especially since we find such things attributed even to Rashi as brought by his grandson Rashbam—the distinction is clear based on the words of Rabbeinu HaZaken (brought by my revered father-in-law the Rebbe Rashab in Hemshech Ta'arav—in a section not printed), that all authors up until Taz and Shach composed their works with ruach hakodesh (divine inspiration)—this was also quoted in Hayom Yom for 6 Shevat. Incidentally, after some time I found this also in Sefer She'erit Yisrael (Derush for Sukkot by Maharid of Vilednik) quoting "the Ribash," apparently referring to the Baal Shem Tov.

f) Furthermore—it is more surprising that there are those who do not wish to suffice with earlier commentaries—at least regarding peshat (simple meaning)—with which Tanach was studied and explained fully. Even considering discoveries etc., a note in the margin suffices; there is no need for a new commentary altogether. Considering our generation's situation—it is astonishing that specifically young people wish to return to sources; but those who fought maskilim (enlighteners) in their youth imagine that today's generation also wants to fight, so they use tactics and weapons that are entirely unnecessary. If using unnecessary physical weapons is improper (Shabbat 63a), how much more so spiritual ones—they can even be harmful. This can be clearly seen throughout literature: what modern style calls apologetics has caused trouble until today [including Ohr HaChaim derush by Tiferes Yisrael's author, books by Rabbi Hirsch etc., going back generations—even Philo ('Yedidyah') Alexandri sought well-meaningly but irrelevantly/untruthfully to adapt].

The saying attributed to Zohar: "Man d'nofach mitochay nafakh" (whoever blows does so from within himself)—in Tanya beginning ch. 2, Iggeres HaKodesh 15 etc.—as far as I know does not appear in our editions of Zohar or Tikunei Zohar but does appear in early works.*

Certainly preparations are underway for Yud Shevat—the yahrzeit of my father-in-law the Rebbe—the tenth of Shevat approaching—with focus as stated in his letter concerning his own father's yahrzeit (the Rebbe Rashab). May it be G‑d's will that preparations and activities succeed so that on this auspicious day its influence extends over the entire year—with tranquility, joy, and gladness of heart.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches that tradition holds great value over constant innovation; established commentaries suffice for understanding Torah unless truly new circumstances arise. He cautions against unnecessary apologetics or changes motivated by outside pressures rather than authentic need.