This letter was sent to R. Menachem Zev Greenglass, one of the leaders of the Lubavitcher community in Montreal.

B”H, 3 Menachem Av, 5710

Greetings and blessings,

I received your two letters together with the six galleys of the text dealing with frequently recurring laws,1 a letter from Rabbi Y. H. HaLevi, and the text Makor Chayim with the intent that it be returned. Thank you for the above.

With regard to Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch and Machne Israel:2 If [taking an active role] in these efforts could lead to a diminishment of your efforts in [collecting] maamad, it is obvious that you should be cautious in this regard.

With regard to the collection of frequently recurring laws: In general, in my opinion, it is difficult in such matters to establish a hard-and-fast policy as to what is most pressing to include in such a collection. In addition, certainly, not all places are alike. Conversely, however, even if [the treatment of a given subject] is not entirely suitable according to a [particular] approach, its [inclusion], nevertheless, leads to a benefit in that it prevents [a reader] from violating some of the prohibitions it mentions and encourages him to perform matters that he is obligated to.

I requested of Rabbi Chayim Mordechai Isaac Chodakov that he review the text and make some notes. They are enclosed.

According to my opinion, the references should be placed on the bottom of the page so they will not confuse the simple reader. Among the [possible] names — these are mere suggestions that come to mind — are: “A Compilation of Collected Laws, Vol. I,” “An Important Guide for Every Day, No. 1,” or the like.

One of my acquaintances commented to me previously on the lack of attention paid to guarding against undesirable speech by the members of the chassidic brotherhood. Perhaps it is valuable to mention this matter, at least in brief.

[Regarding] your statements that because you suffered anguish, you do not want to be involved with.... Do you really consider the two matters of equal importance? [Can] the temporary anguish endured by an individual [be] compared to the damage (that you understand) will be suffered over the course of many years and perhaps over an entire lifetime of a student and of many [students]? I am doubly amazed at your [conduct].

With regard to the question of a kindergarten: I spoke about the matter here at length with guests from Montreal. They cer­tainly communicated the matters to you as they are. The crux of the issue is the difference of approach between Lubavitch and the Hungarian [Jewish community]. The latter chose an approach of sequestering themselves [within their own community], while Lubavitch has not taken that path. Obviously, the intent is not that one must connect to all aspects [of secular society], but the general approach of the movement is to “take others along” even though this requires that one will have to proceed patiently according to their pace. [Indeed, even] the separation of the “higher waters” from the “lower waters” is considered as “division,” and that precludes [the Torah] from writing “[And G‑d saw] that it was good” [with regard to that day].3 Note the wording used by our Sages (Bereishis Rabbah 4:6): “A division that is for the improvement of the world and for its stability,” (i.e., the Torah testifies that [the division is] for the sake of “the improvement of the world”). Nevertheless, “[And G‑d saw] that it was good” cannot [be said with regard to it].

As is well known, there is a general principle (Eruvin 32b; [see] Tosafos, loc. cit.; Sdei Chemed, Klallim 6:26): “It is desirable for a Torah scholar to perform a slight transgression to save [another person] from a severe prohibition.” And the term “chassid” is applied to a person who puts himself in danger in order to save a colleague.4 There is much on which to elaborate regarding this. I told them that after the hours of the kindergarten, a cheder and the like should be established.5 Similarly, other matters that can be organized should be structured in a similar manner so as not to compel Canadian children [to adopt norms of observance that they would view as overly stringent].

..Regarding the text Nishmas Chayim,6 I heard nothing in this regard. In general, [the author] gained much merit for strengthening belief in reincarnation, but his book “mixes grain with chaff”7 as understood by anyone who looks into it.

I have the text Likkutei Maharich8 and I benefited from several references contained in it which provide sources for customs and the like.

I think the kuntres in Yiddish concerning taharas hamishpachah was printed in Warsaw previously (by AgudasHaRabbonim). Certainly you will be able to find one copy to print from (making changes according to the situation at hand and [the customs of] the Hungarian [Jewish] community).

With wishes for all forms of everlasting good and health to the members of your household. Please notify [me] about the above from time to time,

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson