Torah Review

Since 1995, Vaad Hanachos B'Lahak has printed a new booklet of the Rebbe's Torah almost every week. At first it was a weekly Reshima, a note from the Rebbe's private journal, and when all of the Reshimos were published a farbrengen or maamar that has yet to be printed or sometimes yet to be found.

This week's Torah:
Shabbos Noach 5724

For Chasidim who eagerly await the coming of Moshiach for a simple reason, that they will be able to hear new Torah once again, this is a shot in the arm against the current Golus.

On page 20 (chapter 26), the Rebbe discusses the Halachah brought in the Gemara in continuation of the statement (Brochos 31a) that one should depart from a friend in the midst of a discussion of a Halachah. This is in the context of the many guests who had arrived to spend Tishrei with the Rebbe departing after that Shabbos.

The Halachah is, one Amora mentions to another that these palm trees of Bavel are said to have grown here since the time of Adam Harishon. The other Amora responds that this reminds him of a thought on the Posuk "that no man has settled in", that only the lands that Adam Harishon decreed should be settled have been.

Interesting Halachah, no? There are other attempts to find the Halachah within this story. The Rebbe presents his view, that this refers to the Psak Din of the Rambam (according to his clarifiers/commenters) that although a Lulav taken from a tree used for pagan worship (an Ashera) is forbidden, if this tree had originally been planted for pure reasons, and is now used for pure reasons, even if in between it was an Ashera, the Lulav is kosher. If the tree was planted as an Ashera, even if it is now used for purity, the Lulav will not be kosher. Hence the statement of the Amora that these palm trees had been standing since Adam Harishon, and were never used for Avoda Zara, as A"Z did not present itself until Enosh.

The Rebbe also mentions that the later Psak Din of the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe is that there is no difference what it was planted for: it should never be used for Lulav if it was ever used as an Ashera, and if you do take a Lulav and use it you have fulfilled your obligation, whether it was planted as an Ashera or not.

What is interesting here is that they have included two answers that the primary recorder of the Rebbe's Torah (Reb Yoel Kahan) received from the Rebbe. Although his questions are not included, which makes it difficult to piece together the meaning, it seems that they may have asked how the Psak Din of the Alter Rebbe fits with the Rebbe's interpretation in the Gemara, for if there is no difference in Halachah as to why the tree was planted, there is no use in knowing if Adam planted it.

The reply of the Rebbe seem to be that although the Alter Rebbe may disagree in the practical, ultimate Halachah, he might still agree that Min HaTorah this tree is only okay for Lulav if it was not planted as an Ashera. The discussion in the Gemara would then be referring to the Halachic status of these palm trees Min Hatorah. The second reply is much more cryptic, and I cannot make out what it is referring to with any certainty. Please feel free to help me out!