Dissemination of Inner Torah as Catalyst for Redemption
To the great , and Torah scholar who fears Hashem,
Rav A. Shtern ,
I greet you and bless you,
I have duly received your letter and it appears that I did not clearly convey my intention to Rav M. Z. Halevi . Nevertheless, everything is conditioned upon a positive heavenly influence, in particular the one that conveys kindness, the attribute of . This is equally true for sacred books, as the states, and so it must truly be. In the present case, I have indeed received your two books, Edut and Kevutsat Kitvei . I thank you for sending them to me and you will find an enclosed check.
May Hashem cause the blessings granted by my father-in-law, the , to be fully fulfilled in you. Basing myself on the teaching of our Sages that it is only through asking questions that one arrives at a positive understanding, I will introduce here a few remarks:
A) At the beginning of your book Edut , page 1, you state that the consumption of agricultural tithes defers the need to recite Shema in its proper time, and you cite, in this regard, the example of those who formed the watch-groups in the and did so earlier or later, as explained in tractate 37b.
In fact, no proof can be drawn from the members of the watch-groups, because:
1. there is no concern that they will not recite Shema at all, since they can only be delayed for a limited time,
2. there is no other option but to do so earlier or later; otherwise the service of Hashem in the would never begin on time. In contrast, the members of the watch-groups, upon returning home, will again recite Shema at the normal time. Such a claim cannot be made regarding the agricultural tithes.
Furthermore, your reasoning cannot be accepted, in my humble opinion. Indeed, there is no prohibition in the evening against eating before Shema , as there is in the morning. It is merely a precaution, lest one fall asleep for the remainder of the night. From this perspective, no distinction can be made between a permitted food and a food.
It also means nothing to begin eating while it is still permitted to do so, because, according to your reasoning, the Sages instituted that, to begin with, a who has purified himself may consume the agricultural tithes during the time of Shema .
Thus, one may not consume these tithes out of concern that one will fall asleep. Nothing distinguishes a permitted food from a food. It is therefore possible to anticipate this consumption, including during a or Yom meal, especially since one recites Shema earlier in order to consume the or bread on the first evening of or .
B) You also state that these agricultural tithes were kept in a guarded place. Yet the same was true of the entire household of the , with all its contents, as explained at the end of tractate . Nevertheless, guarding is a .
C) At the same reference, you state that preparation for a is itself a . Some cite, in this regard, the of Rabbi Shimon ben on the verse 12:28: 'They went and did,' which states: 'They thus received reward both for going and for doing.' This commentary differs from that of , which is also based on the .
D) Regarding page 280, at the beginning of your remarks on the Shulchan , concerning the recitation of the verse Shema , you should consult the Sha'arei at chapter 6 and the Shulchan of the Admur at the end of chapter 46, which speak of a and not a verse.
E) On page 350, at the beginning of your remarks on the laws of the foundations of the Torah in the , at the beginning of chapter 5 and on the Kesef , you explain the specificity of rabbinic ordination, upon which several principles depend.
Now, one may question your explanation, because:
1. if that is the case, why should one not allow oneself to be killed rather than transgress it? If principles of the depend on it, there is no need to inquire into the motivation of one who wishes to eliminate it. Furthermore,
2. why state that, according to Rabbeinu , one may transgress, in such a case, a positive commandment, when he himself makes no distinction among the ? Self-sacrifice in such a case would be of no benefit.
And the same can be said of study and rabbinic ordination.
F) At the beginning of your book Kevutsat Kitvei , on page 25, you mention the name of the cited in the , that of son of , and you comment on it based on the verse 'in its time I will hasten his coming,' as in the case of son of .
As a precaution toward those who might read your book superficially, one should clarify that son of , who is also mentioned in the at the end of chapter 60 and in the Otot , reproduced in the , is in fact ben , whereas the ben is called, in the , son of .
G) On page 35, you state that the question regarding reclining was added after the destruction of the . This is also the opinion of the Vilna . You should consult, in this regard, the , laws of and , chapter 8, paragraph 2, according to which this question was recited simultaneously with the one concerning eating roasted meat, at the time when the sacrifice was still offered in the .
H) On page 42, you discourage those who would wish to access the hidden teaching of the Torah! I would not have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes! How can such a thing be imagined? The descendant of the of , who cites, on numerous occasions in his book, explanations and miracles of the Baal Shem and his disciples — does he not know the letter the Baal Shem wrote, affirming that the would come when his teachings spread outward? After all this, how can you write and disseminate that 'one who is not seized by the spirit of Hashem, who does not conduct himself with holiness, purity, and restraint, will study only the revealed part of the '?
Consider this! The Ari , cited by the Admur in Iggeret , states that in these later generations 'it is permitted and necessary to reveal this Wisdom.' , faithful shepherd of the Jewish people, states in the that 'the Jews will taste from the Tree of Life through the and will leave exile with mercy.'
Hashem revealed the hidden face of the through the Baal Shem , his disciples and the disciples of his disciples, down to our generation, in order to bring about redemption, liberation from the evil inclination and subjugation to the nations. As the states, all this will come to pass with mercy.
Whoever wields influence should therefore have cried out from the depths of his being: 'My brothers, children of , have mercy on yourselves and on all the Jewish people. Ensure the dissemination of the profound dimension of the . Know that Rabbi Chaim , in his introduction to Sha'ar , states that by failing to do so one delays the redemption — that is, one keeps oneself in exile, keeps all the Jewish people in exile, and keeps even the Divine in exile, if one may express it thus.'
Instead of all this, you print that one can still wait, that it suffices to study the revealed teaching of the , that when one has the time and is seized by the spirit of Hashem, adopting a conduct of holiness, purity, and restraint, one will then begin to study its profound dimension!
Are not all the sufferings that the Jewish people have endured until now sufficient? Is exile not long enough? Does one doubt, Heaven forbid, the words of the , the final redeemer, that he will come when the wellsprings of the Baal Shem 's teaching spread outward? And does , the first redeemer, not make the same affirmation by saying that one will leave exile through the ?
I have elaborated at length, for all of this causes pain. If the consequence of my letter is that you correct all of this as quickly as possible, I will be satisfied. Of course, no one should know that someone suggested this to you.
Only a great man can have sufficient resolve to retract what he has said, as explained in tractate 104a.
I) On page 69, you cite the statement of our Sages that ' is .' You ask why one does not say ' is ,' since the latter lived first. The Kedushat , in Parashat , poses the same question, and one may reflect on this, for one finds now one, now the other of these two formulations.
One can therefore simply conclude that one says ' is ' when speaking of , and ' is ' when speaking of .
According to , both formulations exist because each of them, in a certain sense, holds primacy.
J) Regarding Edut , page 108, commenting on tractate 105b, you should consult the Likkutei of the Ari , which is well explained in the Likkutei of the Admur at the end of Parashat and in Parashat .
My letter has been long, but all of this is merely discussion.
Wishing you all good,
Rav Menachem
Regarding , you will find a lengthy commentary at the beginning of the Yalkut and in the Orach , chapter 189.
You will also see, in this regard, the Nitzutzei , volume 1, page 245b.
Furthermore, the Nitzutzei , volume 3, page 252a, states to replace the with a .
Sources & References