Igrot Kodesh · Letter 7242 — Faith & Bitachon

(End of the month of Adar* 5720)

By the grace of Hashem,

Thursday of Parshas* Vayakhel-Pekudei*

5720 from the creation,

To our holy master, the Rebbe Shlita* (note 1: This letter was addressed to the Rebbe by Rav Yisrael Yitzchak Piekarski of New York and the Rebbe added notes at the bottom of the page, which are presented here),

The Alter Rebbe*, in his Shulchan Aruch*, laws of Shabbos*, chapter 357, paragraph 1, says: "In a courtyard open to the public domain, measuring less than four cubits by four cubits, it is forbidden to pour water during Shabbos* in the summer. Indeed, since it does not have these four cubits, the two Se'ah* of water that a man customarily uses each day cannot be absorbed by such a place. It is therefore as though one were pouring them into the public domain. Admittedly, this pouring from the courtyard to the public domain is not forbidden by the Torah*, as stated in chapter 159, paragraph 6, the Magen Avraham*, chapter 328, paragraph 53, Tractate Sanhedrin* 67b, and the Ritva*, commenting on the Beis Yosef*, since the water is not poured directly there, but only at a distance from the point of outflow (note 2: The Rebbe notes: "It seems one should read: from its exit") toward this public domain. It therefore flows of its own accord and not by the force of the pouring, which is only the first cause."

It is clear that our master (note 3: The Rebbe notes extensively on the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch introducing a new law not found in the Beis Yosef's Shulchan Aruch nor in Tractate Eruvin, establishing that there exists a manner of pouring water into a courtyard that is Torah-forbidden, and explaining the sources cited) here intends to explain what is stated in Tractate Eruvin* 88: if someone throws water into a private domain and its flow continues subsequently into the public domain, he transgresses only a Rabbinical prohibition. Now, this seems astonishing, for the water does spread by the force of the one who poured it from the private domain to the public domain. Why then would the Torah* permit this? Our master therefore specifies that in this matter, there is no Torah* prohibition, since the water is poured in a place distant from the public domain, so that it does not actually reach there by the force of the person. It is otherwise if the latter pours it near the public domain, into which it immediately flows, which can be compared to a person who rolls an object from the private domain to the public domain.

As for what is indicated in the margin, "consult Tractate Sanhedrin* 67" — a reference that makes no allusion to any of this (note 4: The Rebbe provides an extensive note explaining that the reference to Sanhedrin 67b teaches about sorcery and Shabbos — that the same action, according to how it is performed, can be punishable by stoning or entirely permitted, and this principle applies to the Alter Rebbe's novel ruling about pouring water). In my opinion, this is therefore a printing error and one should read: "77b," a page that indeed discusses (note 5: The Rebbe notes that if it is indeed Sanhedrin 77b, the discussion concerns flowing water rather than one who intends to pour water on his fellow, and suggests an alternative explanation based on the teaching there that aspersion when forced can still confer sanctification) one who pours water on his fellow. One establishes, in this regard, a distinction between the first force and the second force, as Rashi* clearly specifies, showing that a distinction must be made between one who is near and one who is far. Our master further specifies that the person must be at a distance from the public domain, according to the view of the Ritva* (note 6: The Rebbe provides the text of the Ritva commenting on the Beis Yosef, distinguishing cases based on whether there are less than three Tefachim*), which I have unfortunately not found.

The formulation of Rabbi Yonasan*, cited by the Beis Yosef*, at the beginning of chapter 357, clearly establishes that a place somewhat distant from the public domain does not suffice. It is further required that the water be able to settle for some time before flowing outward. It seems that this view is that of the Rama*, in Tractate Sanhedrin* 4, which establishes a distinction regarding one who pours water on his fellow, between the first force and the second force. The text specifies that the most satisfactory interpretation is the following: the second force is that which follows a brief interruption, as stated in the chapter "The house and its upper story," page 117, referring to a water flow that stopped and then resumed because of arrows that were shot. This author rejects the commentaries distinguishing a near place from a far place. According to him, one must accept the interpretation of Rabbi Yonasan*, who considers that all the permissions stated here apply only when the water has settled for some time before flowing outward. According to our master, in contrast, it seems that the essential distinction is that between the near place and the far place.

One can support the assertion of our master (note 7: The Rebbe notes that this is why chapter 159, paragraph 7 is cited — referring to the Shulchan Aruch rather than the Talmud, to exclude the first explanation given by the Tosafos*) by indeed introducing a difference between what is near and what is far, comparing everything that is distant to this second force. This is why this act is permitted according to the Torah*, as the Talmud* states in Tractate Chullin* 107b, regarding irrigation channels. In such a case, if one does not bring one's hand close to the bucket, one cannot maintain that there is a force pouring the water, the distance making it a second force. Subsequently, I found this proof in the Sefer Siach HaSadeh*.

In prostrating myself before the honor of your holiness,

---

(End of the month of Adar* 5720)

I had (note 1: This letter was addressed to the Rebbe by Rav Shraga Feivish Vogel of London and the Rebbe added notes at the bottom of the page, which are presented here) contacts on the Tuesday of Parshas* Tetzaveh* and I affirmed, among other things, that every material object in this world is constituted of four fundamental elements (note 2: The Rebbe notes: "Our Sages* speak of four fundamental elements, but that does not mean they cannot be broken down and divided. They are 'fundamental' in the sense that everything is constituted of them. This is independent of the elements determined by chemistry. According to ancient commentators, this alludes to their properties — coldness, humidity, heat, dryness — but this point will not be developed here. This is why the Midrash* speaks of 'natures'") and that no others exist, as Chassidus* states. My interlocutor replied that such is indeed the view of the Rambam*, but that nowadays, all science admits (note 4: The Rebbe notes: "This was admitted some fifty years ago. Nowadays, however, one 'considers' that each element carries within it different aspects and that there therefore exists a great number, some of which remain totally unknown to us. According to some, these are indeed the four elements: thesis, antithesis, positive, negative") that there exist ninety-six fundamental elements and that in any case, the Rambam* (note 5: Who said: "It is not inconceivable that the ant, the wasp, or other animals, among birds or reptiles, are conceived by the mold found in food") expressed himself only in accordance with the advancement of science in his era.

In the Sefer HaMitzvos* of the Rambam*, at Prohibition no. 179, the conception he adopts is the following: if a prohibition is mentioned more than once without further specification, one is punished with lashes only once — and the Rambam* explains, among other things, why one who consumes a wasp must receive lashes six times. My interlocutor told me that such was the conception (note 6: The Rebbe notes: "Such is the conception of the Torah*, stated many times by the Sages* of the Mishnah*, for example in the Toras Kohanim* on the verse Shemini* 11:44, and by the Sages* of the Gemara*, in Tractate Shabbos* 107b. This principle is the basis of many laws") of the Rambam* regarding spontaneous generation. But currently, biology has established that this is unfounded (note 7: The Rebbe notes: "His assertion is only a hypothesis. In the mold, small eggs were found through microscopic observation. One can think that these species were born from them. However, there is no proof that this is indeed the case, as our Sages* state. One therefore cannot consider that they differ, in this, from all other animals").

My interlocutor agreed that I pose the following question to the Rebbe Shlita*: Is this concept of four fundamental elements an integral part of the Torah* (note 8: The Rebbe notes: "It appears, in particular, in Midrash* Bamidbar Rabbah*, chapter 14, paragraph 12, in the Zohar*, and in an incalculable number of other texts")? And what if one does not believe in it?

ז'רמב*

[שלהי אדר תש"כ?]

... ביום ג' תצוה הלכתי... בין הדיבורים אמרתי שכל דבר גשמי בעולם הזה הוא מורכב מארבע 1יסודות, ואין יותר מארבע יסודות כמבואר בחסידות, ואמר שכן מבואר ברמב"ם אבל היום 8מוסכם מכל Science שיש תשעים וששה יסודות. ובכל אופן, הרמב"ם אמר זה ע"פ השיטות בזמנו...

בספר המצות של הרמב"ם מצות ל"ת קע"ט, בשיטה של הרמב"ם אם הוזכר הלאו יותר מפעם א' ולא הוסיף אין לוקין אלא אחת. ומבואר בין דבריו בענין צרעה לוקה שש. ואמר שהרמב"ם אמר שזה 3שיטתו בענין Spontaneous generation, ועכשיו ב- Biology מוסכם שזה אינו 4אמת...

והסכים שאשאל מכ"ק אד"ש דבר א' והוא אם ענין זה של ד' יסודות חלק מן 5התורה, ואם אין מאמין בו - מה דינו.

1) [ארבע יסודות] שבדברי רז"ל אין פי' שאי אפשר לחלקם ולפוצצם, אלא שהם החלקים "היסודים" שכל דבר מורכב מהם. ואין זה שייך למספר של elements אשר ב- chemistry. ויש מפרשים קדמונים בדרז"ל "יסודות" - שהכוונה לתכונות שלהם: קור ולח, חם ויבש וכו'. ואכ"מ. ולכן נק' במדרש טבעים.

2) זה הי' מוסכם לפני 50 שנה, אבל עתה "מוסכם" - שכל אחד מהם מורכב מכמה חלקים. וכמה מיני חלקים ישנם - אין יודעים עדיין כלל. ויש משערים שהם ארבעה יסודות: Matter, Antimatter, positive, negative.

3) וזוהי "שיטת" התורה, והובאה בכ"מ מתנאים (תו"כ שמיני יא, מד ועוד ( ואמוראים (שבת קז, ב), וזהו יסוד לכמה הלכות.

4) כל ההסכמה היא בדרך השערה וז"ל: כיון שבמקום העפוש מצאו (ע"י microscope) ביצים קטנים, י"ל שמהם נתהוו מינים אלו. ואין ראי' אשר נתהוו מן העפוש כדרז"ל, וא"כ אין לומר אשר חלוקים הם משאר בע"ח.

5) כי נמצא בבמד"ר רבה פי"ד, יב. בזוהר במקומות רבו מלספור. ועוד.