10035 —חנוכה, פירוש רש"י, וגישת לימוד התורה

B"H, Days of Chanukah, 5731.

Brooklyn, NY.

Sh"B Haraha"g Haraha"ch iy"a nu"n his work is heavenly etc. Chaim

Shalom u'Vrachah! Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the fifth night of Chanukah. Also, your report about the additional Rashi. See at the end of the letter.

Regarding Chanukah... all faces are called, see there.

With blessings mazt mazt for the wedding of your son Avraham Tzvi sheyichyeh.

P.S. For the love of the matter – regarding your book: to interpret a verse not in its place – this is not according to the straightforward meaning (which is Rashi's approach), and it is not a way to teach a five-year-old (for scripture), especially when the explanation comes after the verse it explains and is not found there in its place. And it is logical that in its place there is no need for an explanation, but the second verse raises a question and so on in that verse and its answer by means of a novel interpretation, or that the novel interpretation is only for extra clarification and at the time of learning that verse there was no need for it or there was no source for it, or in its place the novel interpretation is obvious and does not need to be explained, or another reason accordingly.

And according to this: Bereishis 1:1 – "et" – also according to peshat comes to include (see Rashi there 4:1-2), but sometimes it comes only for stylistic beauty (there 1:4 and countless places). And according to this in its place even Rashi does not explain "et hashamayim etc." as including their offspring etc., which is contrary to the plain meaning of subsequent verses (that they were created as needed on their day). Only the question on "yehi me'orot" (unlike earlier "let the earth sprout vegetation," etc.) forces us to say they were already created – allowing us to explain "et hashamayim" as including etc., and not only for stylistic beauty etc.

There 3:14: In its place there is no source for this novel idea from such-and-such section. – And accordingly also clarifies Rashi's precision in Yirmiyahu "we learned from here." And it's simple.

There 3:17: In its place one need not explain that "atzavon" does not necessarily mean a feeling opposite joy, since earlier he already explained "atzavoncha" as pain (that comes through raising etc.) effort. And Rashi did not bring this verse from Koheles because after it – since there it speaks about physical toil similar to what is discussed in Koheles. And it's simple. And up until here suffice with brevity.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches that Torah study must respect context and clarity; interpretations should fit both peshat and educational needs. Especially when teaching children, explanations must be appropriate for their level and rooted in textual context.