Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 095

Monday, December 28 1998

• Menorah, Accurate Name Calling, RYE role.
• Re: Menorah, Accurate Name Calling, RYE role.
• Re: Avodah V2 #94
• refocus of discussion
• The Rebbe (ZTL or Shilto?)
• Re: The Rebbe (ZTL or Shilto?)
• Re: Accurate Name Calling
• Re: Accurate Name Calling
• Re:Chasidim & Misnagdim
• Re: refocus of discussion
• Re: Defamation in the Gemorrah
• [none]
• Re: chasid vs misnagad
• Re: Avodah V2 #90
• Re:RYEmden, Sabbateanism & Lubavitch

after being away from the avoda loop for a bit, I find, perusing the
accumulated traffic, that i have happily missed the RYE**2 thread, and only
want to make a few random comments on some unrelated issues.

1.  The Menorah
While i've probably missed a few of these, I gather that some of the posters
are questioning, or bringing shitos which question, whether the menorah in
Titus' arch is a fair/accurate representation of the bais miqdosh menorah,
curved arms and all.  I'd like to add here that the Titus menorah is very far
from being the only contemporary "snapshot". Archeologists have uncovered
numerous artistic renditions -including contemporary coins which depict the
menorah and they all seem to show curved arms.   A good summary description,
including drawings of the various depictions, is provided in one of the
articles in Volume 5 of Sperber's Minhogei Yisroel series, which, at least in
my hasty read, I had not yet seen referenced in this discussion.  Sperber also
discusses the problem of the massive "base" depicted in the Titus menorah as
opposed to our sources references to "raglayim" and the consistent depiction of
three raglayim in the other contemporary bayis sheni depictions. Sperber, who
does not at all question the authenticity of the Titus depiction, assumes that
the base was added during the spiffing up by Herod after the year -37, after an
artistic fashion common in pagan temples. In any event, the pictures would seem
to provide convergent testimony that the bayis sheni menorah arms were indeed
curved. 

2.   Accurate Criticism and (inaccurate) Name Calling
I noticed at least two instances here, one of which was called to account and
one which was not.  In one instance RYGB referred to Shabsai Tzvi as an
ignoramus (i think - or something like that anyway). When called on this, he
dismissed it as a quibble. Thus I'm still not sure whether he meant that he
still believes ST was an ignoramus non-withstanding the particular objection
raised, that he was a sephardi chacham, or that calling him an ignoramus as
opposed to describing him in some other denigrating - but perhaps more accurate
- fashion didn't matter.  

In another instance a poster took a few passing shots at Heinrich Graetz - I
quite forget the context - calling him inter alia "the incredibly stupid HG". 
Now, Graetz may have been lots of things, but as the greatest jewish historian
of 19th century and a seminal scholar, being "incredibly stupid" was not one of
them. And yes, he did develop contempt for many traditional rabbonim, and he
held many "non-orthodox" religious views, and yes, there are many other things
he got completely "wrong" (e.g. his complete dissing and neglect of anything
related to qabboloh/mysticism/chassidus)  but i still remember Prof Agus a"h (a
somewhat marching-to-a-different-drummer well-off-the-scholarly-wall kind of
guy himself, but that's another story), remarking that right through the mid
twentieth century you could still get a Ph.D in jewish history by proving
Graetz wrong about some matter. i.e. a scholar to be reckoned with.

Now the broader methodological problem here revolves around the inyon of
credibility - of the name caller.  Inaccurate criticisms only serve to distract
attention from, or completely discredit, whatever substantive remarks may
actually have been made. it is for this reason for example, that certain
publications put out by some organized jewish groups may get treated with
reflexive contempt by others from a different camp, though much accurate
information may actually be purveyed. 

I've gone on about this because I think these sorts of false "piling ons" are
the start of a slippery slope to demonization. (and i do not mean to criticize
RYGB or other posters on this list who are usually careful about their wording
and certainly have impressed as people dedicated to emes - not that it means I
necessarily agree that they have successfully discerned it).  My personal
feeling is that this tendency, to allow oneself to characterize those outside
our own camp anyway we wish, as though no rules of factual emes need apply once
someone's been placed michutz lamachaneh is the source of many ills in the
jewish communities (of all persuasions) today.  How else to explain the reports
that a prominent orthodox leader could be characterized as a "sonei yisroel" by
a prominent rosh yeshivoh from another camp, and the chilul hashem, sinas
chinom,etc which flown from just that single event.    

3.  RYE's Role
A Lustiger writes:<It should be noted that however you regard R. Emden's
attacks on RYEibeschutz, it appears to be universally recognized that
Sabbateanism died as a direct result. If it were not for R. Y. Emden's attacks,
we might still..> 

I think this overstates RYE's contribution a good bit.  After all, it was ST's
personal conversion to islam generations before before RYE's anti-sabbatean
crusade(STS) which really snuffed it as a mass jewish movement. RYE was really
trying to stamp on still glowing embers, nor was he the only one.

Mechy Frankel		   frankel@hq.dswa.mil         michael.frankel@dtra.mil

On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:

> dismissed it as a quibble. Thus I'm still not sure whether he meant that
> he still believes ST was an ignoramus non-withstanding the particular
> objection raised, that he was a sephardi chacham, or that calling him an
> ignoramus as opposed to describing him in some other denigrating - but
> perhaps more accurate - fashion didn't matter. 

The latter. "Ignoramus" was irrelevant in light of indisputable
"apostate."

YGB

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

> 
> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:22:52 -0500 (EST)
> From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #93
> 
> > 
> > Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:51:48 -0600 (CST)
> > From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #90
> > 
===>[thank you for the prompt comments.]

> 
> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:38:24 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #93
> 
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:
> 
> > ===> I seem to recall that R. Chaim of Volozhin was VERY opposed to the
> > BeSHT's presentation on this matter.  My primary issues, however, is
> > that we *know* that we have been given Mitzvos (including limud Torah)
> > and the concept of "emuna peshuta" being the "highest" means of
> > attachment -- even if it is in conflict with the fulfillment of Mitzvot
> > themselves seems untenable. Note: I am not questioning the value of
> > "emuna peshuta".  I am posing an intellectual challenge to being able to
> > assert that it is superior to the attachment achieved by Shemirat
> > Hamitzvot.  Also, the fact that this is a "new" theology indicates that
> > this was NOT necessarily the BeSHT's intent. 
> > 
> 
> True, true, and I too subscribe to R' Chaim's thought - but we cannot ask
> a "kashia" from RCV on the Besht.

===> No. but I think that it is legitimate to ask Lubavitchers how THEY
deal with the objections of R. Chaim.  The objections appear legitimate
AND their "application" of what they claim to be based upon the BeShT
leads to paradoxes that require [what appears to be] self-serving
approaches.



> 
> > ===> Is a source supplied that "lov is irrational"?  Or is this an
> > assertion based upon earthly emotions and feelings?
> >
> 
> I do not recall. I suspect there is. If nudged, I might actually look it
> up :-) .

===> I am sure that you realize that there can be a significant
difference...



>  
> > ====> I am not saying that the Ba'al Hatanya did not get the mantle for
> > *Toras Hachasidus* -- only that we cannot automatically infer that such
> > a person is ALSO the "Yechida Klalis". 
> > 
> 
> Not me or you - but a Lubavitcher, yes. As to the rest of your queries -
> all valid - I am reaching the outer limits of my expertise and
> inclination. Sorry!

===> Sorry -- on what basis could a *Lubavitcher* make such an inference?
Just because it sounds good..???  I understand that there is little point
in prolonging this.  BUT for those who *defend* the Lubavitch thought (and
try to claim that even a dead person could be MAshiach as per the Gemara
in Sanhedrin), I think that it is legitimate to point out that this
"hashkafa" seems -- at the least -- "convoluted", "forced", and
problematic.


> 
> > ===> You will note that I raise it as a question -- not as an assertion. 
> > However, there seem to be problematic elements here and I can certainly
> > see why some groups (esp. the "old-time" litvish types) regard them with
> > such antipathy...  --Zvi
> >
> 
> No doubt!  
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

can we focus our discussion to the different aspects of chassidism so we
can actually learn something worthwhile from these posts. The condeming of
lubavich as a whole is no different then  condeming any other group
which has problems. We all know messiachism is bad, no one on the list (at
least that I know of believes the Rebbi is G-d or even still alive) who
are we preaching to . Where are all those people who were so quick to
defend the excellant boys in Yu who are learning yoman vlayla when Yu (as
an institution who allows cable in the dorm)
came under attack. Why aren't
they supporting the thousands of yarei shamayim lubabvich Chassidim who
are following the way they believe is proper to serve Hashem. There can't
be double standards on a list which religiously follows the laws of
Darchei Noam , if these laws are to deserve our respect. How can we take
seriously the complaints of members who object to the tone used in some
peoples posts when making a legitimate point, when major groups of Jews
are being called kofrim and we're advised not to drink there wine, becuase
of individuals(maybe even full groups of people) who have distorted a
legitimate way of Avodas Hashem. Like any other group we need to deal with
the negative element and learn from the positive element. And wheteher or
not gedolai Torah must condemn the messiacist or not surely isn't our
point of disscusion because I'm not sure how many gedolai torah are on
this list, and as Micha reminded us gedolai torah have already spoken--so
what are we doing. Let's not lose our credability  as a group and start
living by
double standards, let's leave the rest of this discussion to the fine
points of chassidus a subject worth exploring.
E.G.

Assuming that the rebbe was niftar...
What is it that makes us expect the Rebbe as Moshiach?  If Moshiach can come 
from the dead, why not Moshe Rabbeinu or Dovid haMelech?  Why is it importatn to
affirm the importance of the rebbe after his death to the exclusion of hundreds 
of other Gedolkei Yisroel?

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Assuming that the rebbe was niftar...  What is it that makes us expect
> the Rebbe as Moshiach?  If Moshiach can come from the dead, why not
> Moshe Rabbeinu or Dovid haMelech?  Why is it importatn to affirm the
> importance of the rebbe after his death to the exclusion of hundreds of
> other Gedolkei Yisroel? 

I believe I explained this (as an aside I should note it is extremely
difficult to get a knowledgable Lubavitcher to explain these things, as
they, it seems, hold b'shitta "ein megalin ela l'tzinu'in," so, while I
believe my descriptions are, on the whole accurate, caveat emptor!) - the
Moshiach is the yechida kelalis of all generations. As time progresses,
the yechida kelalis is more encompassing. Thus, the last yechida kelalis
must be Moshiach.

YGB

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

Michael Frankel wrote:

> a poster took a few passing shots at Heinrich Graetz - I
> quite forget the context - calling him inter alia "the incredibly stupid HG".
> Now, Graetz may have been lots of things, but as the greatest jewish historian
> of 19th century and a seminal scholar, being "incredibly stupid" was not one of
> them. And yes, he did develop contempt for many traditional rabbonim, and he
> held many "non-orthodox" religious views, and yes, there are many other things
> he got completely "wrong" (e.g. his complete dissing and neglect of anything
> related to qabboloh/mysticism/chassidus)  but i still remember Prof Agus a"h (a
> somewhat marching-to-a-different-drummer well-off-the-scholarly-wall kind of
> guy himself, but that's another story), remarking that right through the mid
> twentieth century you could still get a Ph.D in jewish history by proving
> Graetz wrong about some matter. i.e. a scholar to be reckoned with.

The passing shots against Heinrich Graetz were not gratuitous. I did not 
say that he was incredibly stupid. As I mentioned in my original post, 
Graetz was a student of R. S. R. Hirsch. As I further mentioned he 
became an apostate and totally rejected his religious heritage. Once 
someone experiences the Derech HaChaim of the Torah and then rejects it 
can easily be referred to as "infinitely stupid". Stupid in the sense 
that he fried his Olam Habah.  No one can question his scholarship in 
chronicling  the history of the Jews. But even a cursory reading of his 
masterwork will appall anyone with even a modicum of Yiras Shomayim. 
When looking into to his writings on RYE vs RYE, one can't help but 
notice his denigration of both individuals as evil and  self serving.  
Even if you believe RYE was a secret Sabbatean, you can try to write 
about it in at least somewhat of an objective and therefore 
intellectually honest manner, without denigrations.  But Graetz would 
have non of that.  His hate for Torah Judaism infiltrates his every word 
and he is literally blinded by that hate. This colors everything that he 
writes about in reference Torah Judaism and gives rise to doubt about 
the accuracy of his work.

HM

In a message dated 12/28/98 8:05:43 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> Once 
>  someone experiences the Derech HaChaim of the Torah and then rejects it 
>  can easily be referred to as "infinitely stupid". Stupid in the sense 
>  that he fried his Olam Habah. 

See Brochos 17b Govo'ee Tipshoee.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Seeing all the talk on Chasidim & Misnagdim I figured to write in a cute
story.  When Reb Meir Shapiro set out to establish the now famous
Chachmie Lublin Yeshiva (the architectural blueprint for modern Yeshivos
as we know them today) he wanted to incorporate the strong points of both
the Chasidish and Misnagdish Yeshivos (a plan which reportedly had the
Chofetz Chaims enthusiastic approval, or more accurately, when the
Chofetz Chaim heard from R'Meir Shapiro that he planned to incorporate
"Yeshivish Lomdus" into the curriculum, he then gave his enthusiastic
support).  In it effort to research this plan he traveled to many
different type of Yeshivos to see first hand their "Mehalach".  When he
came back he was asked to describe the difference between the two styles.
 He said that he will answer with a Mashal of two chavrusos who we
learning together, one Chasidish and one Litvish.  They were learning the
Gemara which describes the levels of Hillels talmidim.  There the Gemara
says of Yonasan Ben U'ziel that any bird which flew over him was
incinerated (because of the holiness).  The two chavrusos pause for
reflection.  The Litvak asks the Chasid "so what have you been thinking
about"?  His friend answers "I am trying to appreciate the level of
Kedusha that is being describes.  Imagine, a bird could burn from it" 
The chasid then asks, and what were you thinking?  The Litvak answers "I
was trying to decide what the halacha would be with regard to the bird,
would he have been Chayiv as a Ma'azik?  Was he only a Gerama? Etc...." 
That R' Meir Shapiro said this describes the difference between the two
Yeshivos!!

Ben
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

> can we focus our discussion to the different aspects of chassidism so we
> can actually learn something worthwhile from these posts. The condeming of
> lubavich as a whole is no different then  condeming any other group
> which has problems. We all know messiachism is bad, no one on the list (at
> least that I know of believes the Rebbi is G-d or even still alive) who
> are we preaching to . Where are all those people who were so quick to
> defend the excellant boys in Yu who are learning yoman vlayla when Yu (as
> an institution who allows cable in the dorm)
> came under attack. Why aren't
> they supporting the thousands of yarei shamayim lubabvich Chassidim who
> are following the way they believe is proper to serve Hashem. There can't
> be double standards on a list which religiously follows the laws of
> Darchei Noam , if these laws are to deserve our respect. How can we take
> seriously the complaints of members who object to the tone used in some
> peoples posts when making a legitimate point, when major groups of Jews
> are being called kofrim and we're advised not to drink there wine, becuase
> of individuals(maybe even full groups of people) who have distorted a
> legitimate way of Avodas Hashem. Like any other group we need to deal with
> the negative element and learn from the positive element. And wheteher or
> not gedolai Torah must condemn the messiacist or not surely isn't our
> point of disscusion because I'm not sure how many gedolai torah are on
> this list, and as Micha reminded us gedolai torah have already spoken--so
> what are we doing. Let's not lose our credability  as a group and start
> living by
> double standards, let's leave the rest of this discussion to the fine
> points of chassidus a subject worth exploring.
> E.G.


Elie:
I know these posts are somewhat of a rehashing of a subject discussed a 
long time ago. But the problem of Lubavitch has not been solved.  There 
are Lubavitchers who are members of this list and I think it is 
important for them to know the depth of animosity to their present 
views.  It is likewise important for them to know the details of our 
objections.  In this way they can hopefully reflect on their veiws in 
the light of the those presented here by non-lubavitchers.  Perhaps they 
can answer some of our perplexing questions.  Perhaps they can rethink 
their own positions and encourage other Lubavitchers to do so. No one 
really knows the depth or breadth of their belief that, at the very 
least,  the Rebbe is Moshiach and will be ressurected at Techiyas 
Hameisim.  My understanding is that the vast majority of Lubavitchers 
believe at least that much. 

You are right about the Yiras Shomayim that most Lubavitchers have.  
They are some of the most Medakdek Jews on the Planet.  They go to great 
lengths to be Mekayim the Torah as they understand it.  There are  great 
numbers of them, far too great to just write off. 

I do not think that the situation here is all that comparable to that of 
the Sabbateans.  They through their leader, Shabbsai Zvi, were 
encouraged to abandon all the mitzvos of the Torah.  Quite the opposite 
is true of Lubavitchers.  The Rebbe always encouraged more and more 
careful observance of the mitzvos.  As I said in my previous post,  
Lubavitch has a lot to offer. They have proven that they have what it 
takes to succeed.

They need to reject this Moshiach nonsense and integrate into the rest 
of Klal Yisroel!

HM (Dad)

In a message dated 12/24/98 9:56:41 AM EST, margol@ms.com writes:

>  My question is  - why did that have to be included in the
>  gemorrah.  Isn't it just lashon horah?  What does one learning the
>  gemorrah gain from this maaseh - that rav bar shva didn't think Ravina
>  was chashuv? 

The Gemoroh does not say that he wasn't a Taalmid Chochom, the criteria for
Hefsek is Chashivus of the guest vs. the Chashivus of the one who is saying
Hallel, the Gemoroh is saying should one see that a Taalmid Chochom does not
address another one during Hallel he should not learn from this that
Halachicly one is not allowed to be Mafsik, (Bdugmas the Mishnoh in Eidus
"Lomoh Nishnu Divrei Hayochid"), rather that he is more Choshuv then the
Taalmid Chochom who just entered, (as there are many G'dorim which are Nogeia
to many Halochos Rav Muvhok, Rav, Choveir, Talmid Choveir, Talmid).


Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE3289.EEED73C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"There is a contradiction in these two paragraphs of which you may =
beunaware. R. Chaim Dov Keller, whose article was reprinted in Volume =
92, ison the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah (or at least the nesius) of Agudath =
Israel.Clearly, the "Orthodox organizations" have not "stayed away from =
the issue"or his very negative article would never have been printed in =
the JewishObserver. He is not merely another "writer...with a long =
history of animusfor Lubavitch": as close as anyone can, he is =
expressing the opinion ofAmerican Chareidi Orthodoxy, especially given =
the fact that in his firstfootnote, he indicates that had consulted with =
his colleagues on the Moetzes
before publishing the article. "

He was who I had in mind when I metioned.  His history of hostility is =
long and illustrious. In the wake of his article there were a series of =
communications between Lubavitch and Agudah which I was personaly =
involved in. I am considering posting the prime corrospondence from us =
to them on this list. What became clear  to many in Agudah was that the =
situation was differant from Kellers vision which was a distorted view =
of the reality. In fact Rabbi Keller told a Lubavitcher Schliach prior =
to his writing that he would speak to him about the article. Then he =
told him that he was not writing it, then it appeared. Clearly he was =
not interested in the truth-nor the fact that prominent Orthodox =
leaders, including Rabbi Fryshman of Torah Umesorah told him  prior to =
the publication of the article  that Rabbi Moscowitz does not believe in =
what he claims he does.=20

The extensive conversations between Lubavitch that came in the wake of =
the article brought about a new understanding of the issue and what we =
are doing. I think that Aguda today sees things differently.=20

Dovid Eliezrie


------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE3289.EEED73C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&quot;There is a contradiction in these two paragraphs of which you =
may=20
beunaware. R. Chaim Dov Keller, whose article was reprinted in Volume =
92, ison=20
the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah (or at least the nesius) of Agudath =
Israel.Clearly,=20
the &quot;Orthodox organizations&quot; have not &quot;stayed away from =
the=20
issue&quot;or his very negative article would never have been printed in =
the=20
JewishObserver. He is not merely another &quot;writer...with a long =
history of=20
animusfor Lubavitch&quot;: as close as anyone can, he is expressing the =
opinion=20
ofAmerican Chareidi Orthodoxy, especially given the fact that in his=20
firstfootnote, he indicates that had consulted with his colleagues on =
the=20
Moetzes<BR>before publishing the article. &quot;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>He was who I had in mind when I metioned.&nbsp; His history of =
hostility is=20
long and illustrious. In the wake of his article there were a series of=20
communications between Lubavitch and Agudah which I was personaly =
involved in. I=20
am considering posting the prime corrospondence from us to them on this =
list.=20
What became clear&nbsp; to many in Agudah was that the situation was =
differant=20
from Kellers vision which was a distorted view of the reality. In fact =
Rabbi=20
Keller told a Lubavitcher Schliach prior to his writing that he would =
speak to=20
him about the article. Then he told him that he was not writing it, then =
it=20
appeared. Clearly he was not interested in the truth-nor the fact that =
prominent=20
Orthodox leaders, including Rabbi Fryshman of Torah Umesorah told =
him&nbsp;=20
prior to the publication of the article&nbsp; that Rabbi Moscowitz does =
not=20
believe in what he claims he does. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The extensive conversations between Lubavitch that came in the wake =
of the=20
article brought about a new understanding of the issue and what we are =
doing. I=20
think that Aguda today sees things differently. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Dovid Eliezrie<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BE3289.EEED73C0--

>> Two points-first in response to RYGB is it really impossible to be both
>> davek like a chasid and still be a talmid chochom, is it a conceptual
>> thing that you can't have both goals or is it a reality (if it's a
>> reality it will answer many questions you have about me:)) please
>> elaborate I think the list will find it interesting

>In fact, in R' Klonymos Kalmish Shapiro's definition of Chabad Chassidus,
>he makes the point that Chabad pursues intellectual dveykus, while other
>Chassidus (including Piaczesna) pursues emotional dveykus.

ALL non-Chabad chassidim believe (as the Baal Shem Tov) that diveikus can be
acheived without the intellectual contemplation that Chabad says is required.
With that said, ALL non-Chabad Chassidim divide avodah into two classes. 1.
The majority of the people whose ikkar avodah is emunah peshutah etc. 2. The
benei aliyah who delve into 'intellectual' aspects of chassidus. For example
that second part of Tanya is explained in parshas Bereishis of Bar Mayim Chaim
(I forgot which number.) There are few ideas in Tanya that are not found in
other places in Chassidic seforim. The MAIN difference is that non-Chabad
REQUIRE one to start FIRST with emunah peshutah and avodah tamah, and THEN
proceed to mochin. This was the major complaint about the derech of the Alter
Rebbe by those who opposed it. Personnaly I think what we see in Crown Heights
proves that those Tzadikkim ZT'L were correct.

>But, as my uncle said to me once, the problem is that the Chabad Chassidim
>that the previous Rebbe found in America were of the Polish School, not
>the classic White Russian School - and that ruined Chabad (producing what
>I defined yesterday as the 70's theology).

I have to disgree. Lubavitch was and is a VERY Russian Chasiddus.

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

>Yes, perhaps, but in Lubavitch they believe that the mantle of the Magid
>went down to the Ba'al HaTanya, etc.

ROTFL Revisionism at its best.

>might have sinned. (BTW, I would wager that if you asked a Satmar Chossid
>if R' Yoel ever sinned; a Gerrer if the Sefas Emes ever sinned, and a
>Klausenberger if the Divrei Chaim ever sinned, you would get the same
>answer. Speaking of the latter and infalliility, did you know that the

I would wager you are not correct. There is a story told that once the
Ropshitzer Rov went to tashlich as the Chozeh from Lublin was returning. The
Chozeh asked him where he was going. The Ropshitzer Rov answered, 'I am going
to pick up the Rebbe's aveiros.'

>Chassidim that shtam from the Divrei Chaim - including Bobov etc. - still
>make a "shehakol" on potatoes because the Divrei Chaim identified them as
>"kemaihim u'pitrios?"

I don't know who told you that, but it is an error. The reason has to do with
sufik brochos. (BTW I DO make a shehakol on potatoes.)

>> will enable him to achieve those gilu'im....
>It seems the neshama of yechida is mis'aber in each Nosi - this concept of
>ibbur neshomo is an ancient Kabbalistic one. They didn't make it up.

Yes, but that yechida should be in their Rebbe, is new. The Ari does not say
that it is in the gadol hador. Moshe DID NOT have it.

>> ===> I do not doubt the care with which YGB presented this material.  My
>> question is that maybe this stuff is *real* kefira...
>Again, except for the lunatics who have equated Rebbe with G-d, r"l, we
>might find the theology strange, but I think one would be hard pressed to
>call it kefira. I will make this post more strident under separate cover.

But what of those who pray to the picture of the L. Rebbe, and expect to have
their prayers heard?

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

>>He is 100% correct. First, who outside of Lubavitch COULD say anything? Name
>>me one Rov or Rebbe who if they said something OPENLY (believe me they say it
>>privatly) it would help? Lubavitch has been isolated from the rest of the
>>chasidic and yeshivish world for a long time. Because of that anyone who would
>>say anything is already 'anti-Lubavitch.' It is really up to them to fix the
>>problem.
>At present, the overall attitude of the overall Orthodox community towards
>Lubavitch is somewhere between tepid support and bemused indifference. If
>the Moetezes Gedolei Hatorah were to issue a strong condemnation of the
>Meshichist strain in Lubavitch, as well as the Lubavitch leadership which
>maintains an ambiguity regarding the Meshichists, the RCA would
>wholeheartedly join in. As far as the internal dynamics in Lubavitch, you
>might be correct - there would be a Meshichist backlash. However, klapei
>chutz, there would be a sea change in how the rest of us relate to
>Lubavitch. How long will funding for Chabad Houses continue  when it becomes
>known that 90% of shomrei Torah umitzvos rejects Lubavitch as heresy? How
>effective will Lubavitch kiruv efforts be were a Jews for Judaism type
>organization to appear to counteract Lubavitch just as it does Jews for
>Jesus? How long will Lubavitch exist out of town were Torah Umesorah Day
>Schools no longer to admit Lubavitcher children? How long would a
>Lubavitcher hashgocha last were we to boycott those products?  Just as
>Sabbateanism in RYEmden's days, the meshichist heresy would be gone in a
>matter of years.

I really think you don't understand the situation. Rabbi Keller's letter was
posted here, I know that one of those he showed it to was very big in Agudah
and on the MGH. They will not come out more then that. It is just not
productive. Ask anyone associated with Lubavitch what the result would be.
Ask what would happen if the major Rebbes of Belz, Viznitz, Ger and Bobov
would come out against this PUBLICALLY what would it do. (Privately is another
matter.) It's not as if Lubavitch has any real interaction with the rest of
the chereidi world.

>Lubavitch would then quickly join its rightful place among Ger, Belz, and
>Bobov as another hasidic grouping universally accepted in the broader frum
>community.

It would take much more than that for them to be accepted back in.

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

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


[ 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 ]