0243 - Child's Obligation - Contradiction

00:00 After the farbrengen of Shvu Es Tov Shen Lamad Alef, someone wrote to the Rebbe based on something that the Rebbe explained in the farbrengen, that l'chore you could explain based on that pshat in the Tzemach Tzedek. The Tzemach Tzedek in his Pirush on the Rambam. The Rambam writes that a father is mechuyav to teach his son Torah mideravva. The fact that the father has to see that his son does the mitzvos, mitzvas chinuch that's only miderabonon. But to teach a son Torah, that's mideravva. And then the Rambam says, "Ni shelo limdei aviv, chayav lalamed et atzmo k'she yakir." If his father didn't teach him, then he has to himself learn k'she yakir, which means when he understands. The Rambam doesn't write k'she yagdil, that means that when he becomes a gadol, now he's supposed to learn himself. He writes k'she yakir, that means even while he's a katan, when he starts recognizing what Torah is, he is mideravva mechuyav to learn himself. And the Tzemach Tzedek writes that because his father is mechuyav to teach him mideravva, so v'meila the son is also mechuyav to learn Torah mideravva himself. So this person says that based on what the Rebbe wrote, said by the farbrengen in Shvu Es Tov Shen Lamad Alef, you could explain the pshat in the Tzemach Tzedek like this, that because the father is mechuyav mideravva to teach his son the katan, so the katan is part of the mitzvah of the father. So since the father is mechuyav mideravva and the

01:23 katan is part of that mitzvah, he becomes mechuyav himself. In other words, the chiyuv of the father mideravva transfers to the son. So l'chore that's the pshat in the Tzemach Tzedek. And the Rebbe wrote beksav yakir kodesh, "Ein zeh shayach leimar bezeh she'eini bar daya upashut." You cannot say this concerning somebody who's not a bar das. The reason a katan can't have a chiyuv, why he's not mechuyav bechalal because he's not a bar das. So even if you're gonna say it transfers for the fa- from the father, you can't say it because a katan is not shayach to be a bar chiyuv, to be chayav upashut. It's simple like that. When we saw the answer of the Rebbe, it was very hard to understand because the Rebbe himself in Shvu Es Tov Shen Chaf Ches explained that same inyan. He explained pshat in the Tzemach Tzedek that what the Tzemach Tzedek means is because the son is part of the mitzvah of the father, it transfers on the son from the father, and the Rebbe explains it. And here the Rebbe wrote, "Ein zeh shayach leimar bezeh she'eini bar daya." You can't say it by somebody who's not a bar daya and actually underlined the word bar daya upashut. And the pele is even more later on in Likutey Sichos, Chelek Zayin, the fourth sicha to Parashat Kedoshim, the whole sicha is based on this inyan, that according to many opinions, a chiyuv of the father to do with the son transfers on the son

02:43 and the son becomes mechuyav. So there's a contradiction here. The Rebbe himself spoke about the Tov Shen Chaf Ches, and this letter the Rebbe wrote Tov Shen Lamed Alef. So like this you could say, "Well, maybe the Rebbe changed his mind, had charota." Could be, who knows? But l'pela it's not like that because later when the sicha came out in Likutey Sichos, there the whole beer is there. So it's a kind of mystery to understand what the Rebbe meant when he wrote these words, "Ein zeh shayach leimar bezeh she'eini bar daya upashut," when the Rebbe himself explained this is the pshat in the Tzemach Tzedek.