8899 —על חברות בוועד, משוב דיפלומטי, ופירוש הרמב"ם

B"H, 14th of Marcheshvan, 5725.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n oseik b-tzt"z tznm"s etc. Moharshi Zavin

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the 6th of Marcheshvan with its enclosure. Enclosed is also a copy of my letter regarding the above (and also to the Minchat School, which you surely know about as well). Regarding the committee that was chosen—due to matters related to Tishrei—the confirmation of receiving the notice was delayed until now.

Practically speaking, what troubles me is that one of the committee members is the brother of one of the directors; seemingly this is not an issue, and even though I knew him when he was here as an upright person, nevertheless... Of course there are further questions (perhaps even more significant), namely that I did not see your name on the committee. Even though it is certainly not your role to be involved in choosing teachers etc.—especially according to my own view that the mitzvah I am most careful with is exclusively the Encyclopedia Talmudit, as I have written many times—still, in my opinion you should be on the committee as a deciding vote when the other four members cannot reach agreement.

Of these two questions mentioned above, one answers the other in a pleasant and respectful manner. I rely on your understanding whether it is necessary to reveal that this comment comes from me or if it would be more diplomatic for it not to be known that this suggestion for change originated here. The reasons given are clear and do not require bringing support "from afar—from across the sea."

Regarding your response to my comment on Rambam's commentary on Demai (1:2), where you resolve it by saying that Rambam erased his pen over it: In fact, this was not a slip of the pen or similar; rather there was a break (between writing and erasing) for some time apparently, since all printed editions of Mishnayos have specifically the version from Mishnah Aleph and thus Rambam's commentary is learned accordingly. I have not found anyone who has raised this issue so far; meaning according to this version Rambam's view in his commentary matches Rashi [and as explained according to Rashi on "Va'achalti Chatat Hayom"—this also resolves Rambam].

The reason for all this is not to distinguish between "onen" (one in mourning before burial) and "mi shemeto mutal lefanav" (one whose deceased lies before him)—for "achalti b'oni" (I ate in my affliction)—because even though in Mishneh Torah Rambam combines matters regarding onen with Ma'aser Sheni and kodashim together—and also combines their verses—seemingly this is not at all necessary: Ma'aser Sheni is not kodashim. When Rambam brings "b'oni," it follows his rule to bring the simplest derivation; then we can reconcile with what later authorities say—that onen and aveilut do not overlap since mourning begins after aninut ends (i.e., at burial). It occurred to me that according to our version in Rambam's commentary—Ma'aser Sheni differs because its prohibition comes from "lo achalti b'oni," whereas kodashim are prohibited by "achalti chatat hayom." The reason he does not mention this distinction explicitly in Mishneh Torah follows Rambam's general principle: he often does not write new laws unless they are explicitly stated in the Talmud.

Summary

This letter teaches us about careful consideration in communal roles and decision-making processes while emphasizing clarity and integrity when offering feedback. It also highlights deep analysis required when studying classic Torah commentaries such as those of Rambam.