Igrot Kodesh · Letter 3676 — Chinuch

B"H

27 Tammuz* 5715

Brooklyn

To the distinguished Chassid* who fears Hashem,

Rav* Yonah (Rav Y. Dresher, of Bogota; see letter no. 3742 regarding him),

Blessings and greetings,

I have duly received your letter of 23 Tammuz*, and I am surprised that you say nothing about how you utilized the days of the liberation of my father-in-law, the Rebbe*, whose merit protects us — the 12th and 13th of Tammuz*, dates of our deliverance and the freedom of our souls. If, Heaven forbid, you did not do so in its proper time by organizing Chassidic farbrengens* enabling commitment to the practice of Torah* and mitzvos* and the adoption of good resolutions, you will no doubt recall the saying of my father-in-law, the Rebbe*: "One concrete action is worth more than a thousand complaints."

The purpose of this letter is not to complain about the past, but to express the wish that you energetically seek the opportunity to gather all those who can be involved in such an activity. But in fact, all Jews without any distinction are indeed involved in Torah* and mitzvos*. The Commandment that is the foundation of the entire Torah* — "I am Hashem your Elokim*" — is stated in the singular and addresses each of them individually.

The purpose of such a gathering is to be encouraged, to adopt good resolutions for the future in everything that concerns the fear of Hashem and the mitzvos*. One must not tell oneself that one is isolated (literally, "alone in a field," as someone living in Bogota might think), for each person is an emissary of the Holy One, blessed be He, Creator of the world, Who directs it, Who governs every era and every place — in Bogota during the time of exile* no less than in the Holy of Holies when the Temple still stood. There is no need to elaborate on what is self-evident.

You pose a question about the Maharsha*, in his commentary on Tractate Shabbos* 105a, who says that the Tav is the sign of the plural. Yet you note that Nimretzes (furious, feminine) is in the singular. There is no difficulty here. The Maharsha* does not say that Nimretzes is in the plural, but rather that the Tav is, in general, the sign of the plural. He thus emphasizes that the verse could have said Nimratza or Nimretzes (adding to Nimratz, to indicate the feminine, either a Hei or a Tav). In the event, it chose the Tav — which is, grammatically, the sign of the plural — in order to indicate that this single curse included several within it (King David, speaking of his enemy, said: "He pronounced a furious curse against me").

All of this will be even clearer if one recalls that:

A) In various texts, our Sages* comment on verses by modifying the vocalization of words. Thus they say: "Do not read Banayich (your children) but Bonayich (your builders)."

B) The sign of the plural is Vav-Tav. Despite this, hundreds of words in Tanach* are missing this Vav. Thus Avos (fathers) is sometimes written Aleph-Beis-Vav-Tav and sometimes Aleph-Beis-Tav.

If the verse had said Nimratza, it would not have been possible to see in it an allusion to the plural. The word Nimretzes, on the other hand, offers this possibility if one adds a Cholam (corresponding to the vowel "o") to obtain the vocalization of the plural.

With my blessing for success in all that has been said and for giving good news regarding your material livelihood,