Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 086

Tuesday, December 22 1998

• RYE/RYE -- way off topic
• Re: RYE/RYE -- way off topic
• Re: Bas Kol:Psak or Encouragement?
• Tradition magazine
• RYE - on topic!
• RYE/RYE:Conclusion
• Re: RYE/RYE:Conclusion
• apology
• Pnei Yehoshua and RYE/RYE
• Re: Menorah
• Re: RYE - on topic!
• Re: Menorah
• RYE/RYE etc.
• Re: Menorah
• Re: RYE/RYE
• Re: RYE - on topic!
• Re: Menorah

This will, beli neder, be my final public post on this subject.  It is
not substantive (except for a few paragraphs near the end about the
Lubavitch messianists), but primarily attempts to defend myself against
some fairly bizarre accusations.  Those interested in the drama and
dynamics of debate should read further.  Those seeking to learn
something new about the RYE/RYE controversy need not.

For some reason, R. Daniel's last two posts have set up straw man
arguments which he attributes to me.  Thus, when I wrote that he was
applying da'at Torah to history, he responded that the gedolim were not
engaging in mind control.  A true statement, but one that has nothing to
do with my position.  When I wrote that I thought there was a to'elet in
publicly resolving this controversy, R. Daniel told me that what  really
bothered me was being told not to rely on my senses.  It is
disconcerting to find these views attributed to me based on a
long-distance psychoanalytic reading of my posts.  I have tried to
formulate my posts very clearly.  But in this debate what I write has
ceased to be as important as what someone believes I am thinking.  At
this point, then, I see little point in continuing the debate, except to
publicly deny what I have been falsely accused of.

For those who came in late: My position was and continues to be that, as
a historical issue, R. Ya'akov Emden's accusations were either true or
not and that contemporary Gedolim seem content merely to disregard the
issue.  R. Daniel believes that the gedolim have concluded a) that R.
Emden and R. Eyebeschuetz were both tzadikim and b) to say anything bad
about either is slander.

Now we enter the Twilight Zone:

R. Daniel writes:

>With your above confession  - the original issue of deciding between these
two
>gedolim has become largely irrelevant to the discussion. You acknowledge that
you
>don't have any solid evidence that has convinced you of any clear conclusions
>concerning guilt or innocence. Therefore my overriding concern that  Rav
Yonason
>Eybeshitz was being slandered is not your  issue. What seems to be concerning
you
>is the suspicion that there was a deliberate cover-up - silencing of debate
and
>that there are still skeletons in the closet that need to be aired out. Your
>belief has been reinforced by what you describe as a systematic cover-up of
>historical data to create the illusion of homogeneity and continuity.

To quote the eloquent RYGB: "Huh?"

Though I have not studied all of the evidence, the evidence is there and
has been and should be studied.  I do not believe that there was a
"systematic coverup."  As we know, the controversy divided the rabbinate
of Western Europe and left a lot of scars.  In the early years after the
petirot of RYE and RYE, I believe there was a conscious -- and wise --
decision not to try to resolve the controversy because of the terrible
hillul Hashem it would cause.  I think that concern no longer applies
and we should resolve it.  I think that the current situation, where the
olam ha-Torah relies unthinkingly on sefarim that may have been written
by a crypto-Sabbatean (in the case of R. Eyebeschuetz) or a motzi shem
ra on a gadol ha-dor (in the case of R. Emden) is untenable.  I also
believe that open study of this controversy will help guide us in
dealing with contemporary messianic schismatics.

>There are two possibilities - 1) the issue has been clarified to the best of
our
>ability and to the satisfaction of legal and halachic standards  and they are
both
>tzadikim  Admittedly there can be aspects that we will never know - but in
the
>courtroom of justice the evidence is strong enough to bring in a verdict of
>innocence. 2) there is and was a conspiracy to conceal the TRUTH. This
reminds me
> - - who killed President Kennedy? Have they figured out who really killed
Rabin? Was
>Diana killed to keep a Muslim away from the throne. Was Clinton's impeachment
a
>Jewish plot?

Please see my previous paragraph.  Besides the Noda Bi-Yhudah, mentioned
by RYGB, you have not mentioned any source which has attempted to
resolve the controversy "to the best of our
ability and to the satisfaction of legal and halachic standards."  You
have not cited any gadol who has affirmed they are both tzadikim.  As I
said before, I know of no 20th century gadol who has convened a
"courtroom of justice" and weighed the evidence.  Indeed, this is
exactly the process I am advocating!

> You are not only
>questioning the motives of the rabbonim involved in the original disputants
- but
>now you are asserting that all of our rabbinical leadership since that time
is
>covering up something?! And if we could only uncover this something it would
be
>the philosopher's stone to turn all our base disputes into beams of pure
golden
>truth?!

I do not believe I wrote anything of the kind.  I have the utmost
respect for our gedolim and their motives.  I believe that current
disregard for the issue is simply a kind of hesech ha-da'at, rather than
an irrational affirmation that both are tzadikim.

>BTW I asked both Rav Sternbuch and Rav Elyashiv a couple months ago - what to
do
>with certain Chassidic groups (wasn't Lubavtich) whose haskofa seems to
border on
>avoda zara. Both of them - independently said. A group which is shomer torah
and
>Mitzvos - but has krum hashkofa - is to be viewed as mistaken individuals.
Rav
>Sternbuch added that in contrast - the Conservative Movement which makes no
>attempt to cling to Torah and Mitzvos - has lost the status of achicha.

This is very interesting.  I am certain the Rambam would disagree
violently with that position, and I would be happy to start a new thread
on this topic.  For what it's worth, the category of Jews who keep
mitzvot but whose hashkafah is krum is an old one and is sometimes
called "Orthoprax."  A number of Conservative rabbis of the previous
generation (and a few of the current one) fit this category.  I wonder
if R. Sternbuch and R. Elyashiv would consider them mistaken
individuals, but would count them in a minyan and rely on their
shehitah.

>Whether the Lubavitcher Rebbe is considered Moshiahc is not an issue of
kefira
>while Shabtzai Tzvi - was an apikorus. A number of talmidei chachomim have
told me
>that except for some really extreme cases - people worshiping the Rebbe - at
most
>we are dealing with is a case of error - not kefirah. Thus the cases are not
>comparable according to the authorities I have talked with..

Please do not misunderstand me: I would never ever think, suggest or
imply that one could compare the Lubavitcher Rebbe, lehavdil elef alfei
havdalot, to Shabbetai Zevi.  The notion is monstrous.  What is
comparable -- in some ways -- is the actions of a small number of
followers.  In both cases we have individuals who believed a living
person was mashi'ah, who continue to believe so after his petirah -- or
deny that he is dead, who (in extreme cases) are addressing tefillot to
him.  What is scary is that this exact pattern unfolded then and is
repeating itself now.  With all due respect to the talmidei hakhamim to
whom you have spoken, I think there is reason for concern and almost
anyone with a historical sensibility is likely to share it.

>Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you.
We finally agree!

>Are you stating you really don't think
>that we are concealing the horrify facts of possible kefira but your whole
concern
>all along is that the establishment is creating or preserving a false
ideological
>image? That your concern is that this is just another example of concealing
the
>fact that a number of major gedolim actually read newspapers? That Hirsch
really
>enjoyed secular knowledge?

No.  I was relating to your oft-repeated statement that we must not
speak lashon ha-ra about Gedolim.  I think the point is an important one
but requires some clarification.  I do not believe it is an issue to be
trivialized.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 98-12-22 11:01:29 EST, you write:

<<  For what it's worth, the category of Jews who keep
 mitzvot but whose hashkafah is krum is an old one and is sometimes
 called "Orthoprax."  A number of Conservative rabbis of the previous
 generation (and a few of the current one) fit this category.  I wonder
 if R. Sternbuch and R. Elyashiv would consider them mistaken
 individuals, but would count them in a minyan and rely on their
 shehitah.

Eli Clark
 >>
Kutim, gerei arayot?
Would we differentiate between accepting their shceita and their chidushei
tora?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:

> Daniel Edensohn writes:
> : They didn't know that  the rule of majority applied even when the minority
> : was sharper - until told by the Bas Kol. Your explanation of "sufficient
> : confidence" is interesting - that means that the Bas Kol didn't posken but
> : provided psychotherapy?
>
> As I said, the explanation isn't mine, it's Tosfos'. Although, I didn't mean
> confidence in themselves, but confidence in the idea that rov is followed even
> outside the Sanhedrin.
>
> As for your opening statement, it is k'neged Tosfos. They clearly state that
> the bas kol was merely confirming what would be concluded by halachic process,
> and wasn't mechadeish anyuthing.

I really don't understand your reading of the gemora and Tosfos. I don't see where
in the gemora it that the question was whether they should follow the majority
even outside the Sanhedrin. There is nothing which says that the Bas Kol was
merely saying "me too".

The gemora (Yevamos 14a)  notes that prior to the Bas Kol it was not known whether
to follow the majority when the opposition (Beis Shammai was sharper). Tosfos'
question is "Why do we ignore the Bas Kol of Rabbi Eliezer [that the Halacha is
always like him] and say in fact that he is Shamuti and the halacha is not like
him while by Bais Hillel it established that the Halacha is like Beis Hillel?
Tosfos answers because the bas Kol of Rabbi Eliezar only occurred out of respect
for him when he asked for Heaven to prove that he was right. In addition in the
case of Rabbi Eliezar the Bas Kol was against the majority i.e., the Rabbonim and
obviously the halacha could not be like [bas Kol] but the Bas Kol of Beis Hillel
we posken like it because Beis Hillel was the majority while Beis Shammai was
sharper....

The Tosfos HaRosh is even clearer. "Furthermore we can say the case of Rabbi
Eliezar was different because the Bas Kol came to contradict the majority and we
know that halacha follows the majority but here Beis Hillel was the majority but
Beis Shammai was sharper we follow the Bas Kol to posken like Beis Hillel.

Maharsha states that the gemora notes the problem " [prior to the Bas Kol] that
Beis Shammai was wiser [Rashi] and even though the Torah states simply that we
follow the majority it is possible that the rule of following majority is only
when they are all equivalent. This can be deduced because "don't argue in a
dispute [RIV]" the word RIV is written RV. implying when there is  wisdom i.e.
Rav don't follow the majority principle. You should know that this issue was only
relevant prior to the Bas Kol...see Tosfos.."
The Ohr Someach tries to explain the Rambam's blanket statement that prophecy does
not come concerning Halacha with the above facts. He suggests that a Bas Kol will
announce who it is appropriate to follow in Halacha as a general rule.The Bas Kol
is describing the person not  a particular case. Thus it didn't rule that the
Ovens were Tahor but rather that R' Eliezar is the man to follow as a general
rule. That Beis Hillel is the one to follow. .

In sum, we never follow the Bas Kol to override an established principle in
Halacha i.e., following a minority against the majority. However, in the case of
Beis Hillel we didn't know  if the majority can overrule a minority of wiser
people. The Bas Kol established that in fact majority applies here also.[this is
also the interpretation of Encyclopedia Talmudis]. The Bas Kol poskened halacha
that we would not have been able to answer without it. Could you please explain
how you read Tosfos to come up with your conclusion that Bas Kol was not
mechadeish?


                         Daniel Eidensohn

The summer 98 edition of Tradition Magazine features a full issue symposium
on the ''sea change in american orthodox judaism''  with many
rabbis/leaders/professors from accross the spectrum [ though maybe deficient
at the right- and far-right- end (but as the editor pointed out they were
offered a place, and for whatever reason didn't elect to be included)]. I
think in retrospect this issue will be important for where many of us
[except for the haredi world] were at the end of the century---our
challenges, triumphs, hopes and angsts.

OK, let me restate what I am still waiting to see one of our learned
chabura clarify. The analogy REC drew to Lubavitch will help me, so I can
point out that there is an inverse relationship between talmid chochom
status and the propensity to say "yechi" - i.e., the more times a
Lubavitcher Chossid has traversed Shas, the less likely he is to engage in
"Rebbe Shlita" babble.

Now, this concerns an individual - the Rebbe - who was a gaon and tzaddik.

SZ, on the other hand, l'havdil, was an ignoramus and apostate. This had
been known for almost three quarters of a century by the time RYEb came of
age. And RYEb was a scholar of epic magnitude and a tzaddik to boot - just
read the Ya'aros Dvash.

RYEm knew all this, yet felt there was evidence of Sabbateanism in RYEb's
writings (amulets).  Logically, this could not have been something like
"Yechi SZ" or "Baruch HaBa Melech SZ" (see above). Rather, it must have
been that there was some nekuda in Sabbatean Kabbala - say, for
illustrative purposes, that Chesed, always on the right in accepted
Kabbalistic systems, and Gevura, always on the left, were exchanged in
Sabbatean Kabbala, this appealed to RYEb, he followed such a scheme in his
amulets, an RYEm found this out. Etc.

To my mind, this is the only way in which we could possibly understand
RYEb to have had Sabbatean leanings.

I appeal to someone to seek out persons knowledgable in this vein and get
back to us!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Clark, Eli wrote:

> For those who came in late: My position was and continues to be that, as
> a historical issue, R. Ya'akov Emden's accusations were either true or
> not and that contemporary Gedolim seem content merely to disregard the
> issue.  R. Daniel believes that the gedolim have concluded a) that R.
> Emden and R. Eyebeschuetz were both tzadikim and b) to say anything bad
> about either is slander.

I think the above is a good summary of our present positions and is exactly where
we started.

> Though I have not studied all of the evidence, the evidence is there and
> has been and should be studied.  I do not believe that there was a
> "systematic coverup."  As we know, the controversy divided the rabbinate
> of Western Europe and left a lot of scars.  In the early years after the
> petirot of RYE and RYE, I believe there was a conscious -- and wise --
> decision not to try to resolve the controversy because of the terrible
> hillul Hashem it would cause.  I think that concern no longer applies
> and we should resolve it.  I think that the current situation, where the
> olam ha-Torah relies unthinkingly on sefarim that may have been written
> by a crypto-Sabbatean (in the case of R. Eyebeschuetz) or a motzi shem
> ra on a gadol ha-dor (in the case of R. Emden) is untenable.  I also
> believe that open study of this controversy will help guide us in
> dealing with contemporary messianic schismatics.

I still find the above astounding. but agree with you there is no need to go in
circles anymore

> >Please see my previous paragraph.  Besides the Noda Bi-Yhudah, mentioned
> by RYGB, you have not mentioned any source which has attempted to
> resolve the controversy "to the best of our
> ability and to the satisfaction of legal and halachic standards."  You
> have not cited any gadol who has affirmed they are both tzadikim.  As I
> said before, I know of no 20th century gadol who has convened a
> "courtroom of justice" and weighed the evidence.  Indeed, this is
> exactly the process I am advocating!

I am not aware of any gadol or even any Rav who thinks it is  relevant to second
guess the accepted position of gedolim down the ages. No significant talmid
chachom - that I have heard of  - agrees with your perceived need for further
investigations. As Dr. Leiman has stated the rabbonim view the issue as resolved,
closed, finished. Nobody but nobody is sitting anxiously by his seforim shelf
wondering which seforim he needs to throw out or what commentaries he must burn.
Nobody  thinks that if there would be a top notch investigatory body we will
discover something which will help us deal with contemporary problems. Since you
apparently do - who do you have in mind  to constitute your "courtroom of justice"
?  When is it getting started? In sum, the burden is on you to do something.

One final note. It might  seem to some of you -  as  silent observers of the
serious and sometimes heated exchange between Rabbi Clark and myself - that not
too many others care one way or the other That this is simply a tempest in a
teapot.  The issues, however strike at the heart of what a Jew is, what he views
as mesorah and what is his relationship to gedolim. They are far from neutral
academic issues -  but rather they are concerns that  people, at least in the
charedi  world,  feel extremely strongly about. I would like thank Rabbi Clark for
investing the time and energy in presenting his perspective - one which I
obviously do not share.

                                   Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 98-12-22 14:40:18 EST, you write:

<< 
 One final note. It might  seem to some of you -  as  silent observers of the
 serious and sometimes heated exchange between Rabbi Clark and myself - that
not
 too many others care one way or the other That this is simply a tempest in a
 teapot.  The issues, however strike at the heart of what a Jew is, what he
views
 as mesorah and what is his relationship to gedolim. They are far from neutral
 academic issues -  but rather they are concerns that  people, at least in the
 charedi  world,  feel extremely strongly about. I would like thank Rabbi
Clark for
 investing the time and energy in presenting his perspective - one which I
 obviously do not share.
 
                                    Daniel Eidensohn
  >>
Please don't take my (our) silence as lack of caring or that I (we) think this
is a tempest in a teapot but rather that the issues do strike at the heart of
what a Jew is. While I happen to agree strongly with one of you, I think it
impossible or highly improbable that I (we) could ever convince the other that
their view is incorrect since hashkafic matters are notoriously difficult to
prove. I also imagine that people not in the charedi world also might feel
extremely strongly about this issue. Perhaps this too is an elu velu issue
which history will decide:-)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

I note in reviewing my recent post that I allowed my irritation to lead me into excess personalization
of the discussion of the issue.  I apologize to H. Maryles for that.

Melech Press

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

Wasn't the Pnei Yehoshua (R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk) involved in the RYE/RYE
dispute ? IF so, he must have written *something* to substantiate the
allegations.

Josh

In v2n84, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> writes:
: In Likutei Sichos Vol. 21 pg. 168 and on, The Lubavitcher Rebbe Discusses this
: at length and concludes to make Menorahs like the Rambam (as is also known his
: objection to round Luchos), he brings Rashi Shmos 25:32, "B'alachson".

This puts me in an odd position. Whereas to some, the Lubavitcher Rebbe is
their Rebbe muvhak, that's not true in my case. I said that perhaps the
Rambam's da'as yachid should be neglected -- particularly since the arch and
many koheins' homes in Y'lem indicate otherwise. If I'm willing to take this
attitude WRT a rishon, why would citing an acharon change my mind.

BTW, I don't see where the Rambam says that the arms of the menorah are
straight. Rashi says "yotz'im b'alachson", however, the Rambam quotes the
version of the b'raisa (Mileches Hamishkan 10) and M'nachos 28a that we have,
"nimshachim vi'olim".

Also, Rashi's description of the top gevi'ah, kaftor vaferach all encircling
the branch at the same height, or his notion that the 2 other geviim were one
after the other and did not nest, neither fits the images.

To make things worse, the b'raisa (M"H 10) clearly states that all 11 menoros
in Sh'lomo's Beis Hamikdash were kosher, not just the middle one (taken from
the Mishkan). That reopens the question: If the menorah on the arch wasn't the
real one, which one was it? Is it possible that the machlokes was about
Betzalel's menorah, what it was lima'aseh, and not about what shape need the
menorah have. Perhaps the other 10 were curved, which is not a p'sul in the
menorah -- so they too would be kosher.

According to my source, "Ma'aseh Chosheiv" (perek 7), the reason for the
curved branches is to resemble the "gilgalei harakia" that carry the 7 "kochvei
leches". The b'raisa (Middos, see Yalkut Pikkudei 419) says the 7 lamps
correspond to the "kochvei leches". He also cites the Chochmas Hamishkan 4b,
who says the arms were curved.

As to the luchos... It is generally considered (not just by the Lubavitcher
Rebbe) that the curve-topped thin tablets are as real as the horns on Moshe's
head -- both mistakes popularized by Michaelangelo.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6013 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> SZ, on the other hand, l'havdil, was an ignoramus and apostate.

Scholem writes page 111 " Sabbatai was 18 years old when he was ordained
Chacham. Indeed, his opponents would call him a fool or madman but never an
ignoramus.

In a message dated 12/22/98 5:00:01 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> This puts me in an odd position. Whereas to some, the Lubavitcher Rebbe is
>  their Rebbe muvhak, that's not true in my case. I said that perhaps the
>  Rambam's da'as yachid should be neglected -- particularly since the arch
and
>  many koheins' homes in Y'lem indicate otherwise. If I'm willing to take
this
>  attitude WRT a rishon, why would citing an acharon change my mind.

My point was not to turn you into a Lubavitcher :-)

It was to give a Mareh Mokom for one who wants to study this issue in depth,
the Rebbe deals with all the Issues that you brought up, I unfortunately do
not have the time needed to mention all his Rayos and arguments, my second
point was that this is not a Daas Yochid.

However Lotzeis Bloi Kloom Ee Efsher, so just a few points -

>  BTW, I don't see where the Rambam says that the arms of the menorah are
>  straight.

There is Ksav of Rambam that he drew himself, also his son R' Avrohom Al
Hatorah brings it.

>  To make things worse, the b'raisa (M"H 10) clearly states that all 11 
> menoros
>  in Sh'lomo's Beis Hamikdash were kosher, not just the middle one (taken
from
>  the Mishkan). That reopens the question: If the menorah on the arch wasn't 
> the
>  real one, which one was it?

Among the points the Rebbe brings out WRT whether it could be from those from
Shlomo Hamelech, is the fact that the base on the arch is not according to the
Halacha either.

>  According to my source, "Ma'aseh Chosheiv" (perek 7), the reason for the
>  curved branches is to resemble the "gilgalei harakia" that carry the 7 "
> kochvei
>  leches". The b'raisa (Middos, see Yalkut Pikkudei 419) says the 7 lamps
>  correspond to the "kochvei leches". He also cites the Chochmas Hamishkan
4b,
>  who says the arms were curved.

Besides the Kabbalistc angle, the Rebbe points out that the M"C bases it on
the fact that the Rambam seems to hold that it was round, something that is
only a Mashmous and the picture that the Rambam himself made shows
differently.

Even though I was Mkatzeir Bmokom ShOmru Lhaarich I would add that the Rebbe
deals with Mkoros that they were like an Atarah to the middle Neir which
implies that they were round, and he explains what they mean, and he also
refers to Toroh Shleimoh.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
  

It seems to me that the bottom line is the inherent danger of sin'as chinom, and
the constant repetition of the same types of aveiros that literally plagued the 
Talmiddim of R. Akivo.  It's hard for me to fathom how any frum Yid can attack 
another in light of the self-destruction of those Talmiddim for which we still 
mourn over 1,800 years later!


IMHO one may disagree - even vehemently - without losing basic kovod for each 
other.

I heard a beautiful story re: the Chofetz Chaim. A speaker at an Agudo 
convention was attacking a leading Mizrachi figure, and the Ch. Ch. left the 
meeting.  When asked he said he did not wish to hear any Loshon Horo.  
Undoubtedly the Ch. Ch. opposed Mizrachi haShkofo, but (IMHO) he did not want 
that opposition to be personal.

If Torah may not be used as a "kardom lachpor boh", AAKVK it should not be used 
as a refuge or cover for promoting sin'as chinom.  

My 2 cents.
Kol Tuv,
Richard Wolpoe

I find the menorah discussion fairly interesting and believe it would be
beneficial if some of the quoted sources are elaborated on, but first I
have a couple questions--who told us that the artist of the arch of titus
cared
to make an accurated drawing, maybe it was easiar to make a menorah that
looked the way the arch depicts it then the real thing. Who said the
artist of the arch was drawing the menorah from the beis hamikdash, maybe
it was an elaborate menorah from a wealthy persons house in jerusalem and
was being brought back as spoils. or a menorah from another important
place in Jerusalem. I'm sure my questions reveal that I know
little or nothing about the history of the arch of titus, but I think
these questions need to be addrtesed before we dismiss anyones opinion
(especially the Rambam--even if he's a daas yachid) based on a picture by
a non-jew(I'm assuming the artist was a non-jew)
E.G. 

>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> >Chaye Adom, Rav Chaim Volozhner...as well as Admurim e.g, Satmar who learned
>the
>> I willhave to look it up, but I recall that in v'Yoel Moshe he comes out
>> against Chemdas Yomim. (He mentions the custom that is mentioned there of
>> duchanen for the kohanim everyday as a forbidden custom.)
>My error it was the Yetav Lev - Sighet not Satmar.

Do you have the source in Yetiv Lev? (BTW he was the Satmar Rov's grandfather.)

-- 
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Scholem writes page 111 " Sabbatai was 18 years old when he was ordained
> Chacham. Indeed, his opponents would call him a fool or madman but never
> an ignoramus. 
> 

Quibble!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Why do all participants in this debate not take heed of the Rambam's
treatment of the tzitz - re the discussion in the Gemara whether it was
one or two lines, Rabbanan say two and R' Eliezer says HE SAW IT IN ROME
(see the parallel!) and it was one line - the Rambam paskens that it
should be made on two lines - but that sometimes it was made on one line.

V'hu ha'din b'nidon didan!

On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> In v2n84, Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> writes:  : In Likutei Sichos
> Vol. 21 pg. 168 and on, The Lubavitcher Rebbe Discusses this : at length
> and concludes to make Menorahs like the Rambam (as is also known his :
> objection to round Luchos), he brings Rashi Shmos 25:32, "B'alachson". 
> 
> This puts me in an odd position. Whereas to some, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
> is their Rebbe muvhak, that's not true in my case. I said that perhaps
> the Rambam's da'as yachid should be neglected -- particularly since the
> arch and many koheins' homes in Y'lem indicate otherwise. If I'm willing
> to take this attitude WRT a rishon, why would citing an acharon change
> my mind. 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]