Igrot Kodesh · Letter 9515

By the grace of Hashem, eve of the holy
Shabbat* of the Parasha* "Rise up, O well, and respond to this song[1]" 5728,

Brooklyn, New York,

To the great Rav, distinguished Chassid* who fears Hashem and devotes himself to communal needs, of great knowledge, Rav Shlomo Yosef[2],

I greet and bless you,

I have duly received your letter of 4 Tammuz*, as well as those that preceded it[3]. I express my strong conviction[4] that during these propitious days — those of the liberation, the 12th and 13th of Tammuz* which are approaching — in those preceding and following them, each person will recall the account of the deliverance, the imprisonment which preceded it and the reasons that were at the origin of all this. And this remembrance will give rise to reflection, thought and a lesson to be drawn from these events, leading to action.

This concrete action will be the origin of concrete achievements, constituting the foundation and the profound dimension of these accounts — the dissemination of Judaism, of Torah*, of its revealed teaching and its hidden part, as well as of its Mitsvot*, to the point of the gift of one's own person.

The gift of oneself, of one's own will and of everything pertaining to it, will be carried out in true generosity. For even in a situation in which the promise is fully realized — "Hashem will inspire your dread and your terror" — one must nonetheless, constantly, fix literally in one's heart the necessity of giving of oneself for Hashem, in order to stand firm before every obstacle and difficulty, every enemy and every person who seeks vengeance, from without or within. And one will have the certainty that in the end, all limitations and impediments will disappear, that these actions will achieve success, that they will multiply and shine forth.

And the number of those acting in this matter — "the workers of the day," bringing the light — will grow ever larger, until they cannot be counted. Then will be fulfilled the promise that: "knowledge, wisdom and truth shall multiply. And the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Hashem," at our true and complete redemption which is imminent, by our righteous Moshiach*. With my blessing to give me good news, in good health,

M. Schneerson

P.S.: The descendants of Rav B. M. E.[5] have felt in their pure hearts the desire to immortalize his name. It would be good if this were done through a Kollel* situated at Torat Emet*[6]. One of the advantages would be its location in Jerusalem*, may it be restored and rebuilt. In addition, the means at their disposal will be sufficient for this, and there would be other advantages as well.

You raise remarks, in your letter of 3 Sivan[7], regarding the Pesach Sheni* of this[8] year: is there reason to be "on a distant road," as I stated in my note[9]? I will first clarify a point that is the foundation[8] of my reasoning. It concerns:
1. A prohibition punishable by excision of the soul[10].
2. Conversely, if all males above the age of thirteen are, for a few hours, on a distant road from Jerusalem*, may it be restored and rebuilt, this will constitute an important fact, and moreover a question arises: will those who are in any case on a distant road not strive to enter Jerusalem* precisely at that moment?

I concluded that in this matter there is a doubt — a doubt of a doubt[11] — that consequently those who are "on a distant road" will not approach, and that it is good for those who are inside to leave the city. A particular question arises for those who have never left the holy city of Jerusalem*.

I add that this is all the more so for the first Passover*, the laws of which concern women as well, as I indicated to those who questioned me at the time. I shall now go through the points in the order of your letter:
1. First[12], one of two things[8]: the answer is what I gave previously. A fortiori does the same risk exist for the first Passover*, and one who was not on a distant road at that time could indeed be considered as not having brought the offering deliberately. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious[8] that, according to the opinion that even if one was on a distant road for Pesach Sheni*, one is nonetheless subject to excision of the soul for having deliberately neglected the first Passover*[8] — despite this, one should not[8] therefore add another transgression regarding Pesach Sheni*[8] and, again, not do so deliberately — even if this does not alter the excision of the soul relating to the first Passover*[8].
2. One who is on a distant road for the first Passover* will also be exempted from excision of the soul — at least according to the opinion that one who does not voluntarily observe the first Passover* and is then on a distant road for the second is exempt from it.
3. Essential point[8]: all those who were on a distant road for the first Passover*, among whom the majority of the guests are included, will all benefit from being on a distant road also for the second Passover*, by reason of this doubt.

Regarding the immense question[13] that is raised about all generations[8], you know that the nations effectively dominated that place until last year's war[14].

Regarding my clarification[15] on the Talmudic expression: "the Torah*[8] has pushed him away" and, in particular: "he has been pushed away due to his impurity — let him therefore perform it in impurity," you object that according to the Minhat Chinuch*, it is not necessarily so. With all due respect, I need not justify his position:
1. when there is no punishment of excision of the soul,
2. when what he says contradicts a statement of the Talmud.
I add that, according to the plain formulation[8] and context of the Talmud, a distinction must be made between one who is pushed away due to his impurity and other cases of force majeure. This can be deduced from the fact that in all these situations, the Gemara* states: "they are impure[8]," whereas it could have said: "they are in a case of force majeure." In fact, in some cases it was necessary to say that they were impure, and this formulation was therefore systematically adopted.

In speaking of comparing the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud*, I simply meant that the Babylonian Talmud, when it states the law without specification[8], does not rule according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Jerusalem Talmud* maintains the controversy. Nevertheless, one must deduce from this that the principle whereby "when a single opinion opposes the majority, it is the majority opinion that is followed" admits of some exceptions.

Regarding[16] the conclusive ruling of the Rambam* and its unspecified formulation[8], the rules of interpretation of the Rambam* establish, as is known, that he does not cite notions established by deductions. A still more novel explanation can be found in the collection Tzafnat Paaneach* on the Torah*, in Parasha* Beha'alotecha*, concerning the community and the manner in which it overrides Shabbat*.

Fourth question[17]: regarding the absence of the priestly vestments and the altar on the eve of Passover*[8], we follow the opinion of Rabbi Yechiel of Paris. In his time, there was no prophet capable of identifying the location of the altar. Despite this, he wished to offer sacrifices. The later authorities have developed this idea at length. A booklet published on this topic has just reached me. It is the Karnot HaMizbeach*, which was published in Warsaw in 5688[18]. It raises all these questions and others that are equivalent[8], then provides answers, although one may genuinely question some of them.

It should be noted that the construction of the altar, in accordance with the laws of the Temple[19], at the end of chapter 2, can be carried out at a time when it is already possible to offer the Passover* sacrifice. Subsequently, there is still sufficient time to perform this sacrifice.

You raise a naive question[20]: where is there mention of a "distant road" with regard to the second Passover*[8]? We will give a naive answer[8]: the Mishna* of tractate Pesachim 95a asks: "What is the difference between the first Passover* and the second?" The same applies to the Rambam*, at the end of the laws of the Passover* sacrifice. No text I have seen claims that this list is not exhaustive and does not include the "distant road." See also the Tosafot*, at the same reference.

You excuse yourself[8] at the end of your letter[21]. In my humble opinion, it is clear that there is no reason to do so — on the contrary[8] — as tractate Bava Metzia* 84a states. I am accustomed to commenting on the assertion of our Sages in tractate Kiddushin 30b, according to which peace prevails at the end of the discussion of the Sages, because[8] the beginning was in the end.

Many times[22] — perhaps even systematically — the rule of interpretation "do not read this, but that" does not call into question the first reading, being limited to adding a second one, with the conclusion preserving both simultaneously. I have not, however, found this principle in the Talmudic Encyclopedia[23].

And I will conclude with a question and an urgent request, in a positive sense: when will volume 13 finally be published, and then volume 14? Each of them contains a great deal of good, and one should therefore not withhold from him to whom it belongs[24] — Heaven forbid.

Notes

(1) Numbers 21:27.
(2) Rav C. Y. Zevin, of Jerusalem. See, in this regard, letter no. 9407.
(3) See Likkutei Sichot*, vol. 12, p. 221.
(4) See the previous letter.
(5) Rav Baruch Mordechai Ettinger of Babruisk. See, in this regard, Ohalei Lubavitch, vol. 4, of Shevat 5756, from p. 59. See also letters no. 9547 and 9551.
(6) The Lubavitch Yeshiva* of Jerusalem.
(7) In order to facilitate understanding of this reply by the Rebbe, the corresponding paragraphs from Rav Zevin's letter will be presented as we proceed: "I received the text of the discourse of the Rebbe for Acharon Shel Pesach* and I appreciated these remarkable explanations, which express the grace of wisdom. But I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the Rebbe's conclusion: 'one must currently avoid being, on 14 Iyar, within fifteen Mils of Jerusalem,' meaning that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem — a quarter million people, may Hashem multiply them — should leave the city during Pesach Sheni! Even if one admits that this concerns only those who wish to observe the Mitsvot* in the best possible way — and certainly the Rebbe himself — 'even if there is only a doubt, and a doubt of a doubt': there are, thank Hashem, in Jerusalem, thousands, tens of thousands of upright men, Hashem-fearing, observing the Mitsvot in the best possible way. Should they all leave Jerusalem like Yehuda ben Durtai? This would be astonishing! On the matter itself, I have several questions and my limited means do not allow me to understand, as I will show."
(8) The Rebbe emphasizes numerous words throughout.
(9) This refers to the text of the Acharon Shel Pesach* discourse of 5728, published in Likkutei Sichot*, vol. 12, from p. 216. On the copy destined for Rav Zevin, the following was noted: "To Rav C. Y., Shlita, I greet and bless you. I thank you for having sent me your greetings through Rav H. L. May Hashem grant you a prompt and complete recovery and cause you to give me good news. M. Schneerson."
(10) Being in Jerusalem and not offering the Pesach Sheni* sacrifice.
(11) Subsequently, the situation was modified and the Rebbe wrote, in a letter of 13 Iyar 5735, published in the aforementioned Likkutei Sichot*: "I am following up on the analysis of what was written and said in the discourses of Acharon Shel Pesach* 5728. Because of our many sins and, in particular, because from the seventh day onwards it was announced, according to the terms of the verses I Kings 20:32-33: 'He is my brother... and he brought him up,' the situation was modified and it is no longer possible, at this time, to make the changes and build what is necessary to offer the Passover* sacrifice. There is therefore no need to refrain from being near Jerusalem*, may it be restored and rebuilt, on the eve of Passover* or on 14 Iyar. May Hashem cause the terms of the Rambam*, at the end of chapter 11 of his Laws of Kings, to be fulfilled very shortly: 'If the children of Israel repent, they will be immediately redeemed... he will rebuild the Temple in its place and He will gather the exiles of Israel.'"
(12) [Summary of Rav Zevin's objection regarding the logic of the first and second Passover*]
(13) [Summary of Rav Zevin's question regarding why scholars of all generations did not leave Jerusalem]
(14) The Six-Day War, which restored Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
(15) [Summary of Rav Zevin's objection regarding the Minhat Chinuch* and impurity]
(16) [Summary of Rav Zevin's third question on the Rambam's* ruling regarding Pesach Sheni* and impurity]
(17) [Summary of Rav Zevin's fourth question regarding the altar and priestly vestments]
(18) 1928. The title of the book means: "the horns of the altar."
(19) Of the Rambam*.
(20) [Summary of Rav Zevin's fifth question regarding whether "distant road" applies to Pesach Sheni*]
(21) Rav Zevin wrote: "I ask the Rebbe Shlita to excuse me for having dared to raise these questions. Nevertheless, it is a matter of Torah* and I wish to understand it."
(22) See the Halichot Eli*, chapter 3, as well as the Guide for the Perplexed*, vol. 3, chapter 43, the responsa of the Radbaz*, vol. 3, response no. 1068-643.
(23) Vol. 2, in the article entitled: "Do not read."
(24) According to the terms of the verse Proverbs 3:27: "Do not withhold good from its owner."

ט'תקטו

ב"ה,  עש"ק פ' עלי באר ענו לה, ה'תשכ"ח

ברוקלין, נ.י.

הרה"ג הרה"ח אי"א נו"נ עוסק בצ"צ צנמ"ס כו'

מו"ה שלמה יוסף שי'

שלום וברכה!

מאשר הנני קבלת מכתבו מד' תמוז והקודמיו.

אביע תקותי חזקה . . .

בברכה לבשו"ט מתוך בריאות טובה,

מ. שניאורסאהן

נ. ב.

בנוגע לרחשי לבבם הט' דיו"ח (הררבמ"א) שי' כו' להנציח שמו כו' – מה טוב שיהי' בכולל שע"י תו"א. ומהמעלות – בירות"ו וגם האמצעים שברשותם יספיקו. ועוד.

להערות כת"ר במכ' מג' סיון (בנוגע לפ"ש בשנה זו וכיו"ב – היש ענין להיות בדרך רחוקה, כמש"כ ברשימתי ), ובהקדמה [–] ויסוד הוא בשקו"ט שלי – שכיון שהמדובר: 1) בענין דשייך בו כרת, 2) לאידך גיסא – שהזכרים מבני יג"ש ומעלה יהיו משך שעות אחדות בד"ר מירות"ו לאו מילתא רברבא הוא (ועאכו"כ – שאלה שהם בלאה"כ בד"ר לא ידחקו את השעה ליכנס לירות"ו דוקא בשעות אלו),

מסקנתי שיש ספק וס"ס וכו' בנדו"ד, ולכן אלו שבד"ר לא יעלו ומה טוב שהנמצאים בפנים – יצאו.

– דיון בפני עצמו בנוגע לאלה שמעולם לא יצאו מירועה"ק –

ועוד להקדים – שכש"כ וק"ו שכן הוא בנוגע לפסח ראשון (ובהוספת – נשים), וכמו שאמרתי לאלה ששאלוני אז.

וע"ס מכ' כת"ר: 1) ראשית דבר הרי ממנ"פ כו' – המענה: (כנ"ל) בפ"ר מכש"כ שיש חשש הנ"ל, ומי שלא הי' בד"ר אז – לתא דמזיד בזה. ובכ"ז: פשוט שאפילו למ"ד דאפילו הי' בד"ר בפ"ש בכ"ז חייב כרת על שלא עשה פ"ר (כשבמזיד), אעפ"כ אל לו להוסיף פשע בפ"ש – ולהיות מזיד גם אז, אף שאין נפק"מ לכרת דפ"ר . 2) כשיהי' בד"ר בפ"ש – יפטר מכרת ג"כ עכ"פ לדעת מד"א דהזיד בראשון ובד"ר בפ"ש פטור. 3) ועיקר – כל אלו שהיו בד"ר בפ"ר (ובהם – רוב האורחים) ירויחו הכל ע"י שיהיו בד"ר בפ"ש (להספק הנ"ל).

שאלה עצומה על כל הדורות כו' – עד לאחרי המלחמה דאשתקד, הייתה יד האומות תקיפה כו'.

דיוק "שלי" בל' הש"ס שהתורה דחתו, ובפרט הדיוק בענין "מפני טומאה דחיתיו יחזור ויעשה בטומאה" – ומקשה ע"ז שהרי המנ"ח אומר שכ"ז לאו דוקא, במחכ"ת דהמנ"ח איני מחוייב לדחוק לתרץ דבריו 1) במקום דלתא דכרת 2) כשהם היפך הפי' הפשוט בש"ס. ועוד להוסיף – שע"פ החילוק ( כפשטות הל' והענין בש"ס) בין דחי' דטומאה (וד"ר) לשאר אונס, יובן מה שבכל הדוגמאות שבש"ס מפרט טמאין כו', אף שבכו"כ הי' אפ"ל אונסין וכיו"ב. ולא נצטרך לומר שכיון שבאחדים צ"ל טמאין – נקט כן בכולהו.

כוונתי בל"השוות הבבלי והירושלמי" היינו שלא נאמר דסתמי' דהבבלי פוסק דלא כר"י. ובירוש' נשאר במחלוקת (אלא שצריך ללמוד מהכלל דיוה"ך , שכמה יוצאים מכלל זה).

הלכה פסוקה ברמב"ם כו' סתמיות לשונו כו' . הרי ידוע בכללי הרמב"ם דאינו מביא דברים הנלמדים מדיוקא וכו'. וחידוש גדול יותר ממה שכתבתי – עיין בצפענ"ח (המלוקט) עה"ת בהעלותך (בענין צבור ודחיית שבת).

ואת רובע דאין בגכ"ה ומזבח בער"פ כו' – הרי לדעת ר"י מפריש קיימינן, שלא הי' בימיו נביא לקבוע מקום המזבח וכו' – ובכ"ז רצה להקריב כו'. וכבר האריכו בזה האחרונים. וז"ע אתי לידי קונטרס מיוחד לזה קרנות המזבח (וורשה, תרפ"ח) שקיבץ כל הקושיות הנ"ל וכיו"ב ומתרצם (אף שקצת דבריו – צע"ג).

ולהעיר – (לכאורה) בנין המזבח (הל' ביהב"ח ספ"ב) אפ"ל במשך זמן חיוב הקרבת ק"פ ועדיין שהות להקריבו.

שאלת תם : היכן מצינו דין ד"ר בפ"ש?

מענה תם : במשנה (פסחים צה, א) מה בין פה"ר לשני כו'. וברמב"ם (סוף הל' ק"פ) ולא אשתמיט בשום מקום (שראיתי) לומר דתני ושייר ד"ר. וראה תוד"ה מה שם.

בסוף מכ' כת"ר סליחה כו' – ג"ז לפענ"ד פשוט שאין כל מקום לבקשה זו כו', ואדרבא . וע"ד ב"מ (פד, סע"א)[.] ורגילני לפרש מחז"ל (קדושין ל, ב) את והב (ביותר, את לרבות) – ( ע"י שתחלתם בסופה) בסופה.

ובכמה מקומות (בכל מקום?) נמצא שהלימוד ד"אל תקרי" אינו שולל הקרי שבפי', כ"א מוסיף, ותרווייהו איתנהו למסקנתו. ולא מצאתי עד"ז באנציקלופדיא התלמודית.

ומסיימים בשאלה (והפצרה) בטוב: מתי סו"ס יו"ל הכרך הי"ג, י"ד וכו'? והרי הטוב בריבוי בכאו"א מהם, ולא ימנע ח"ו מבעליו טוב.