(Back to text) Sichah of Lag BaOmer, 5701, sec. 8, p. 119 (reprinted in Kuntreis No. 78: Kuntreis Lag BaOmer, 5710.)
The sichah continues as follows: "Chassidic oral tradition has preserved for us three observations of R. Hillel of Paritch on the above custom. Firstly, there is a difference between Minchah and Maariv. Though this is not much discussed in the Shulchan Aruch, he stated it as if it were an unquestioned halachah that one may sit down to farbreng before Maariv. Secondly, the law applying to a group differs from that which applies to an individual. And thirdly, as he pointed out, what is davenen all about? It aims to create a sweet state of Divine gratification. And this is precisely what a farbrengen accomplishes...."
On the above-mentioned difference between Minchah and Maariv, the Rebbe Shlita has appended the following comment: "At first glance, considering the discussion in Tractate Shabbos (beginning of p. 10a), the contrary would appear to be true - that in this matter, the law governing [the time preceding] Maariv is more stringent that the law governing [the time preceding] Minchah. It would seem, therefore, that the point of the above statement is that since Maariv has a longer available timespan, there is more room for a lenient ruling concerning possible interruptions in the time before Maariv; i.e., to permit an interruption to begin a short time before the time for Maariv, according to the view of the Taz (Orach Chayim 235:3). However, it seems that the Alter Rebbe holds that the prohibition to embark on another activity begins half an hour before the onset of the obligation to pray Maariv (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 431:5).
"An additional consideration in the direction of leniency could perhaps be argued: In our days, unlike in the days of the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch, a farbrengen before Maariv is an unusual event, which is nevertheless held at this hour on Lag BaOmer (and likewise on Purim) because by nightfall its time will have passed. For this reason, then, it would be inappropriate to prohibit it, as pointed out in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 89:7.
"Even if it were objected that 'an ordinance whose reason lapses does not itself lapse' (cf. Sdei Chemed, Klalim 3:34), the prohibition in our case could well be regarded as an exception, since at the outset the Sages differentiated between undertaking common and uncommon activities before prayer.
"On this entire subject one should consult Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 232 and 235 and their commentaries, and the Chiddushei Mishnayos of the Tzemach Tzedek on Tractate Shabbos 1:2. At any rate, this is not the place for any longer treatment of the subject."
See also the sichah [of the Previous Rebbe] of Lag BaOmer, 5704, in Likkut 33, sec. 1 [and in English: Likkutei Dibburim, Vol. IV, ch. 33, sec. 1].