This letter was addressed to R. Shneur Zalman Garelik, the Rav of Kfar Chabad.

B”H, 21 Shvat, 5711,
Brooklyn

Greetings and blessings,

In response to your letters of the 15th and 24th of Teves, and the 12th of Shvat:

With regard to Sh’viis:1 According to the information received here, the G‑d-fearing kibbutzim in our Holy Land do not intend to rely on the leniencies granted2 and [plan] to observe Sh’viis as mandated by Halachah.

I am amazed that you did not mention anything about the rains that finally descended.3 Were they able to save the entire crop or....4 Certainly, you will fill your next letter with good news concerning this and other similar matters.

With regard to your question whether [it is desirable to] prevent the practice of delaying a circumcision until after the Afternoon Service so that it can be attended by many people.

[Generally, the principle] “the eager hurry to perform mitzvos”5 outweighs [the principle] “Among the multitude of people is the glory of the King,”6 as evident from Rosh HaShanah (32b). Nevertheless, on the surface, it is possible to make a distinction with regard to circumcision, for it is preferable that it be held [in an atmosphere of] celebration, for[this mitzvah] was accepted [by the Jewish people with happiness] (Shabbos 130a). See also Megillah 16b, Kesubos 8a, and, in particular, Niddah 31b, which states [with regard to a circumcision]: “All are happy.” This takes precedence over [the principle] “the eager hurry to perform mitzvos.” Therefore when [the fast of] Tishah BeAv is postponed,7 a circumcision is delayed and held after the Afternoon Service [on Sunday] (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 559[:9]). The reason this law does not apply [when a circumcision is held] on Tishah BeAv itself is that there is not such a great difference in the degree of celebration allowed. In contrast, when the fast is postponed [until Sunday] , [the father of the child] breaks his fast [in honor of the circumcision].)

Sdei Chemed, Maareches Zayin, Klal 3, cites the gloss of Bichei Yosef, Orach Chayim, sec. 1, Chayei Adam, Klal 68, Re’eh Chayim, Parshas Lech Lecha, and Lev Chayim, Vol. II, sec. 127, [which state] that one should not delay the redemption of the firstborn for [the sake of enabling greater attendance]. He writes, as a given, that the same law applies with regard to circumcision.

In my humble opinion, however, a distinction should be made as [written] above. {One should not argue that, on the contrary, with regard to circumcision, one should especially endeavor to act early, since during every moment of the delay, the child is uncircumcised and “the foreskin is disgusting....”8 (For then, a question could also be raised regarding the delay on Tishah BeAv mentioned above.) For a distinction can be made here, because the Torah stated explicitly:9 “On the eight day,...” without making any limits on that day.

According to this [explanation], however, when circumcision is not being carried out on the appropriate day,10 there is a further need to [carry out the mitzvah] earlier, in addition to the principle “the eager hurry...” that is relevant with regard to all mitzvos (see Sdei Chemed, loc. cit.). Were this to be true, the law regarding circumcision on Tishah BeAv stated above applies only when the circumcision is being carried out on the appropriate day. This does not appear to be the case. An explanation could be offered. This is not the place for further explanation.}

In fact, we see that happiness is dependent on the attendance of many people and, at times, sadness is caused when some are prevented from coming.

In the present instance, there is an additional factor: a farbrengen of the chassidic brotherhood [will take place later in the day with those gathered for the bris] where matters involving the Torah and mitzvos and Chassidus will certainly be spoken about. And ultimately, “G‑d has commanded us to observe all these statutes to fear [G‑d]....”11

These reasons are sufficient, in my opinion, not to stand in the way of those who follow the practice [of delaying the circumcision so that more people can attend].

With regard to the division of the study of the Talmud and the division of the study of the Mishnah: Since the Alter Rebbe invested much effort in the establishment of the practice of dividing the Talmud, as explained in the conclusion of Iggeres HaKodesh [in Tanya],12 and the Rebbe Maharash writes in his teachings13 that everyone should complete at least one tractate a year, thus if there is no way at all for both to be observed, priority should be given to the first.14

I derived satisfaction from what you wrote about the Siyum (conclusion) of the [entire] Mishnah [that was conducted and your statement] that it is necessary that there be both strength and peace.15 (This is self-evident. And our Sages state (Sanhedrin 100b) that the Holy One, blessed be He, grants [the Jewish people] strength and might to accept His blessings.16 Therefore the verse mentions “strength” before “bless[ing] with peace.”)

In the farbrengen here,17 it was explained why the mishnah uses the wording “did not find a medium18 other than peace [to contain His blessing].” Seemingly, it should have merely stated that peace is a medium [for blessing]. Moreover, how is it possible for there to be a medium for a blessing that is unbounded? [As explained at that time,] these questions resolve each other. Certainly, there is a transcript [of the farbrengen]. This is not the place for elaboration on this matter.

With blessings and with greetings to your entire fellowship,

Menachem Schneerson