4826 —מזונות האשה מן התורה או מדרבנן, ותוקפם של מנהגים המובאים בתנ"ך

B"H, 11 Marcheshvan, 5717

Brooklyn.

To the Rav and Gaon, the veteran Chassid, a G‑d-fearing man, distinguished and honored, who is occupied with communal needs, a man of many deeds, Rabbi Menashe, may he live

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In reply to your letter of 4 Marcheshvan, continuing what you wrote^[1] about the words of the work Chochmas Shlomo^[2] on the question whether a wife's support is Biblical or Rabbinic, in which you quote its words and discuss them.

There are some remarks to be made on what you, honored Rav, wrote, namely:

a) It is obvious that for those who hold that a master is obligated to support his [Hebrew servant's] wife by Biblical law, from which it is proven that a husband's support of his wife is Biblical^[3], this very derivation proves that the support of his sons is Biblical, since the master is obligated to support his sons. Let us leave aside his words, where he strains himself and establishes it as referring to young sons; surely according to the Chochmas Shlomo too it must be said so.

b) Regarding what you wrote in answer to the question: that if you say the master is obligated to support his wife and yet a wife's support is merely a custom, then several derivations would be nullified; and you wish to explain that all these derivations are for a Rabbinic obligation.

I am surprised that you consider me to have erred, and to have said that all these "weighty laws" (Berachos 31a)^[4] are Biblical, especially since they are derived from the Prophets and Writings; and the same applies to the mourner's covering of the head^[5], and the like.

But it is obvious that in this it makes no difference whether we derive a Biblical or a Rabbinic obligation, since the point is whether a custom recorded in Tanach is an instruction that obligates us, or may be merely a narrative and remain optional. And if you say the latter view, it is understood that just as one cannot derive a Biblical obligation from customs recorded in the Torah, so one cannot derive an obligation from the words of the Prophets and Writings^[6], or a Rabbinic one, from customs recorded in the Prophets and Writings. This is simple, and therefore the above question was difficult for me.

c) A remark in passing, although it does not bear on the discussion itself: what is obvious to you, honored Rav, that since prayer is Rabbinic, all these "weighty laws" must necessarily be Rabbinic too, in my humble opinion the one does not depend on the other. For it is possible that prayer itself may even be optional, and yet when one prays before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, several requirements are placed upon him, even Biblical ones, requirements connected with the honor of the Omnipresent, the love of G‑d and the fear of Him: "For G‑d is in heaven and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few"^[7], and more and more; and in my opinion this too is simple.

d) On whether mourning is Biblical or Rabbinic, the views of the Acharonim, and also of the Rishonim, are collected in Sdei Chemed, Klalim, Maareches Alef, sub-section 350^[8], and the sources noted there; and in Pe'as HaSadeh there.

e) On the customs recorded in Tanach and their force, whether this makes them obligatory or they are merely a narrative, several details are explained in Toras Nevi'im by R. Tzvi Chayes; see there.

With blessing.

Publisher's notes

Printed in Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 322, and in full in Nesi'ei Chabad uVnei Doram, p. 168.

Rabbi Menashe (מו"ה מנשה): Klein, Brooklyn. Other letters to him: above, vol. 13, letter 4742; below, letter 4878.

Continuing what you wrote (בהמשך למ"ש): above, vol. 13, letter 4742.

For the continuation of the discussion on this subject, see Nesi'ei Chabad uVnei Doram, ibid., p. 169, and below, letter 4878.

Notes

[1] Continuing what you wrote (בהמשך למ"ש): a continuation of the halachic exchange in the earlier letters (see the publisher's notes at the end of the letter).

[2] Chochmas Shlomo (חכמת שלמה): the glosses of R. Shlomo Kluger on the Shulchan Aruch.

[3] A master is obligated to support his wife (חייב רבו במזונות אשתו): see Kiddushin 22a: from "his wife shall go out with him" (Shemos 21:3) it is derived that the master of a Hebrew servant must support the servant's wife, and from "he and his sons with him" (Vayikra 25:41), that he must support his sons. From this some proved that a wife's support is Biblical, for if the husband himself were not Biblically obligated, how could his master be? The Rebbe remarks: then the very same derivation proves that the sons' support is Biblical too.

[4] Weighty laws (הלכתא גברוותא): "How many weighty laws can be learned from these verses about Chanah" (Berachos 31a), many laws of prayer derived from Chanah's prayer (I Shmuel ch. 1).

[5] The mourner's covering of the head (עטיפת הראש דאבל): see Moed Katan 15a: a mourner must cover his head, derived from what was said to Yechezkel (Yechezkel 24:17), "Do not cover your upper lip."

[6] The Prophets and Writings (דברי קבלה): literally "words of tradition," the halachic term for the books of the Prophets and Writings.

[7] Therefore let your words be few (ע"כ יהיו דבריך מעטים): Koheles 5:1. Even if prayer itself were optional, one who stands in prayer comes under obligations concerning the honor of G‑d and the love and fear of Him, which may well be Biblical.

[8] Sdei Chemed (שדי חמד): the halachic encyclopedia of R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini; Pe'as HaSadeh is a section of it.