Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 104

Friday, January 1 1999

• Re: neshama klalis - R' Tzaddok
• Re: [none]
• Re: One People?
• Re: Potatoes
• Re: Yechida/Neshama Kelalis
• lubavitch outreach strategies
• Re;: Vegetarians
• [none]
• Re:Witty and Puppets
• Lubavitch Kiruv Tactics
• Re: Yaakov Avinu
• Erev Rav
• Re: Why Other Chassidim Do Not Engage in Kiruv
• Re: RMS's Remarks
• Re: RMS's Remarks
• Quotes
• Re: One People?
• yaakov, lubavitch
• Re: Avodah V2 #103

>>>>As to whether this applies to later generations - on which you and RCB say,
>if I understand you correctly: No...Likkutei Ma'amarim p. 84 col. 1:..."...And
>so too in every generation the soul of the parnes, the leader of the
>generation, is a soul that encompasses (nefesh ha'kolleles) all the souls of
>the generation, just as the king is the klal of the entire nation. And that is
>why he can lead them all, for his wisdom encompasses all of their wisdom, and
>so too his da'as and all his oul's kochos..."<<
>You wrote originally that "Moshe was the "kelali" - - or yechida - for his
>generation" and that is is this which was "ishpashet b'chol dor".
>R' Tzaddok writes:  T"T 159 - "Except for David and the Avos there was NO ONE
>Your conundrum is in explicating Tzidkas HaTzaddik in a way that meshes with
>your citation from Likutei Ma'amarim -  not in any position of mine.
>My own attempted analysis (for what its worth based on very limited knowledge
>- - I'd like to hear other's ideas): I prefer to return to Tzidkas HaTzaddik
>#172 - "There IS one soul which encompasses the entire dor, and all
>I believe the resolution to the apparent contradiction of these passages with
>#159 (top of posting) lies in the conclusion to the passage - "There exists
>To reiterate the point I made yesterday: in Tanya (ch 42, 44) we do find this

Chaim, I will let you continue with Rebbe Tzadok's works. You obviously know
his views better. To the majority of Chassidim he is a 'fringe' and not
representative of the majority. In fact I have seen where his works are
compared to those of Reb Nachman, being similar in approach (as opposed to
that of his Rebbes' Leibele Eigger and the Izbitze.) In fact he made a
commentary on sefer hamidos of Reb Nachman.

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

>Agudah is not monolithic. It is a coalition of a wide variety of people in
>the Frum world. Some are Chassidim and some hostile to Chassidus.

Dovid, there are no members who are 'hostile' to chassidus. Maybe 'hostile' to
Chabad. But it is impossible to say that with all those Chassidic Rebbes in
Agudah, that they are hostile to their fellow members. (Obviously they do
disagree on many issues.)

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

>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>  R. Tzadok is NOT considered as an 'authority' in any Chasidic group in
>> the world today. In fact the only person I know to have learned his seforim
>> was a Lubavitcher. If you know of Chasidic history in Poland, you have chosen
>> an obscure branch and claimed that this is an example of what Chassidus in
>> general believes.
>Why is the above so? Furthermore could you comment on the status of

He is not an authority because he didn't leave over any chassidim. There are
people who willread his works, but there is really no place where one can go
to see some one following his 'derech.' It doesn't exist.

>the Maharal, Toldos and the Mai Shiloch in Chassidus today?  Bottom

1. The maharal was big in Pershischa Chassidus. I assume that in Ger it is
still learned.
2. The Toldos is Kodesh Kadushim. No one can call himself a chasid who haas
not learned it. It is a direct source for the Toras HaBaal Shem Tov.
3. Mai Shiloach is learned by few people in the mainstream. There is a small
Radzyner chassidus in eretz yisroel, which would learn that as it is their
source. It would like the seforim of the Mittler Rebbe of Lubavitch. Very few
outside of Lubavitch would learn them. In the same way few chassidim learn Mai
HaShloach. (On the other hand Toldos like Tanya is a major classic that any
Jew who wants to call himself a chasid should learn.)

>line - I am trying to find out the degree to which the Orthodox world
>shares common hashkofic views today.  Most of this discussion of
>Chassidus brings up concepts which are alien -  to put it mildly.

I would agree that some of the hashkofos might not agree with what you have
learned. I would STRONGLY suggest a small sefer that just came out called
'Derech HaChassidus.' It comes from some Alexander Chassidim, and even though
it is strongly biased to Pershischa Chassidus, the ideas there are common in
all chassidim. (i.e. non-Chabad.) What things specifically do you consider
'different' in hashkofos?

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

>Could you please find out specifically what the Divrei Chaim says?

He got it from Ropshitz (his Rebbe.) I have a Ropshitzer hagaddah which
discusses the inyan, but since it is packed away with my Pesech seforim, I
don't have access to it now. If you wouldn't mind let's leave this until after
Purim.

>> likewise made a shehakol was the Imrei Eish (a gadol from Hungary), The
>> Ropshitzer Rov (the Rebbe of the Tzanzer Rov), The Kamarna Rov (who
>> argued that since potatoes do not need the ground to grow they should
>> have a shehakol like like komos and patrious.) The Yismach Moshe (the
>> anscestor of the Satmar Rov) likewise made a shahokol, but he based his
>> view on the sefer HaOruch who said that komos and patrious are called
>> tartafel which is kartofel (potatoes) in Yiddish. (All this from the
>> sefer Otzar HaChaim.)

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

>I responded to the substance of your/RCB's remarks in my response to RCB.
>The argument that R' Tzadok does not represent Chassidus is so stunning I
>honestly am taken aback.

Why? Name one major chassidic group where he is part of their mesorah of
chassidus. (Ans: There are none.) In fact his works are much closer in style
etc. to Reb Nachman then to his Rebbes.

>But, if true, that means, of course, that we have no choice but to rely on
>you exclusively for the Chassidic viewpoint, right?

I have given you a source to start looking. It is called 'Derech HaChassidus.'
It is from Alexander, and is based on Pershischa chassidus. My group is NOT
from that cheder, but what appears there is definitly in line with what our
mesoras are. Also look at the work by the Chovas Hatalmidim called: 'Benei
Machshova Tova.' This is a discussion of what a Chassidishe chaberah should
be.

Yosef, the problem here is that your background is from Litvish and Chabad.
It's almost like someone blind trying to describe the difference between green
and blue.

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

As for outreach strategies, at least my local chabad rabbi very clearly
will tell folks chabad isn't the only game -- it is a derech which works
for some people and which is appropriate for some people -- he does have
strong feelings about facial hair and not trimming beards but not to the
point of not allowing folks who do so to daven from the almud.

As for cholov Isroel vs. cholov stam (which those of us on other jewish
lists have debated to death) -- show me one rav who will not argue
that cholov Isroel with a bli neder is preferrable.

>One more thing -
>I don't relate to meat as food.  When I see it or smell it, my brain
>computes it as dead flesh.  To me the thought of eating it is disgusting.
>Not valid enough?  How would eating meat be Simchat yom tov for me?  Would
>you feel better to de-program my brain??

Here is the issue/question: If your brain is '(self-)programed' to do
something that is not in line with halacha and minhag, what should you do?

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

As for minhagim and the Lubavithers letting one choose his derech.

If you tap a baal teshuva on the shoulder and ask if he had path to
Yiddiskiet led through a Chabad House, chances are the majority will tell
you yes.  In fact I think it is safe to say that over fifty percent of the
sudents (if not more) of students in Balie Tshuva Yeshivas started off in
Chabad or spent time with a Schliach. If we were only interested in pushing
people in our shitah this would not happen. Sadly we find that after having
Mesiras Nefesh for someone who then goes on to a non Lubavitcher Yeshiva at
times they come back with the kind of hatred for Chassidus that exists in
certain Litvahser circles. Some years ago on Baal Teshuva Yeshiva became
recognized for this and only when we told them that if they don't stop we
would openly boycott them did they stop.

As for Minhagim, and this is a differant discussion. Many people become
Chassidim, when they do this they observe Chassidshe Minhagim, be they
Sefardim, or Ashenazim. As for Chalov Yisroel and Reb Moshie, who was
greatly respected in Lubaivitch, that issue is a Maklokes HaPoskim, Reb
Zalmen Shimon Dvorkin-the Posek of Lubavitch-was cholek on him.

Dovid Eliezrie

"now that Rabbi Sherrer is no
longer among us, who tells the members of the Moetzes what to think and
say
and when?)"		-posting, talking about the Moetzes of Agudath Israel,
Avodah #97


 "By their reputations, both in their lifetimes and afterwards, I am
certain they did not think they were puppets."  -posting by same
individual about same group, in Avodah #102

I must express my disappointment in the active members of the list, many
talmidei chachamim among them, for not coming out and protesting the
aforementioned remarks, which are a tremendous insult to the kavod of the
some of the greatest  talmidei chachamim of the last forty years.   I'm
sure some of the list's esteemed members can find the appropriate maamar
chazal which begins with the words "Kol Ha'Mevazeh Talmid Chacham..." or
something similar.  

To quote the former senator from Kansas:  "Where's the outrage?"  

Raffy Davidovich
___________________________________________________________________
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]

David Eliezrie wrote:
> 
> As for minhagim and the Lubavithers letting one choose his derech.
> 
> If you tap a baal teshuva on the shoulder and ask if he had path to
> Yiddiskiet led through a Chabad House, chances are the majority will tell
> you yes.  In fact I think it is safe to say that over fifty percent of the
> sudents (if not more) of students in Balie Tshuva Yeshivas started off in
> Chabad or spent time with a Schliach. If we were only interested in pushing
> people in our shitah this would not happen. 


I question the above assertion.  I think most Lubavitchers do "push 
people into their Shittah".  I believe that the very essence of 
Lubavitch Kiruv is to make some one a Lubavitcher first and frum second. 
I have spoken to many a Baal Teshuva who have verified this to me. When 
ever I talk to Lubavitchers about this phenomenon they always say 
something to the effect that: "I'm the one who got him interested, why 
shouldn't I make him a Lubavitcher!" To the extent that there are Baalei 
Teshuva that start out through Lubavitch and continue the quest of their 
teshuva elsewhere attests to the fact that Lubavitch does not have a 
monopoly on emes and some of their baalei Teshuva are seeking answers 
elswhere. When Chabad feels they aren't going to succeed in making a 
potential Baal Teshuva a Lubavitcher then they feel others can have a 
shot at it.  Better than losing the soul completely. 

HM

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David Glasner wrote:

> shocked and appalled that you would attribute it to me.  Can't you see
> that I am trying to take what the Torah tells us about the Avot
> seriously and am trying to understand for myself what the Torah is
> trying to tell us?  It is very nice to just sit back and say oh well
> Chazal said this was fine and that was okay and the Rishonim didn't make
> a fuss, so who am I to ask questions.  But if I don't understand, I will
> continue to raise issues that I think are worth discussing.  If you can
> point me to places where these issues have been addressed, I will be
> most grateful.  I certainly make no claims to b'kius

No.

I don't accept your humility.

As RM Frankel has pointed out, you are the Dor Shevi'i (and have a fair
mastery of the Dor Revi'i) and are a significant scholar. In previous
Avos-Bashing discussions, others have pointed out Midrashim and Chazals,
and you have, for the most part, dismissed them - generally because of
fealty to what you perceive the text itself tells us. I see no reason to
believe you will not to the same here and now.

YGB

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

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:

> ===> But in that case, the indentification is made in terms of "Middos
> Ra'os" and not simply in terms of Shemiras Hamitzvos. 
> 

True. But al achas kamma v'kamma that the non-Shomrei Mitzvos are Erev
Ravniks.

> ===> Again, it could be that this applied to certain *personality types*
> and not simply people who were not chassidim or adherents of a
> particular Rebbe/shitta... 
> 

True again. That is only explicit in the Divrei Chaim.

> ===> Again, is the crucial point defined in terms of shemiras hamitzvos
> or in terms of certain very bad personality paradigms? 
> 

Both, viz. "V'da galusa revi'a de'dor d'resha'im, maleh nechashim
v'akrabim, rama'im k'nechashim v'akrabim, d'akrin milei d'rabbanan
v'dayanin l'shikra, alyhu itmar hayu tzareha l'rosh... b'ilein rish'aya
erev rav, v'da b'sof galusa." (Tikkunei Zohar 61a).

> ===> Nope.  A Tziyoni is NOT necessariy possessed of the particular
> middos ra'os that were described as being characterized by Amalek. 
> Thus, the signs as stated seem to do nothing except encourage sin'as
> chinom.... 
> 

Yes, but they fulfill - from the Eida Charedisnik's perspective -
statements like that of the Tikkunei Zohar.

YGB

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

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:

 
> 1. Have you read the whole Torah? What was it about? 2. If he was opposed to

Yes. I am not quoting out of context.

> 'kiruv' could you explain how come we have mikibal stories of Moshe (?)
> Deutch who was a BT from Germany who became a Tzanzer Chasid. (I have
> heard a number of interesting stories about him.) 3. If you red

If they come on their own, igla'ei milsa that they are not Erev Rav.

> carefully what you have written the Erev Rav (you know what the Zohar
> says these are?) are FRUM JEWS!!! Maybe if you have a real interest I

See what I wrote to RZW on that point.

> will tell you why there is at best limited kiruv efforts. (Belz has in
>

I am interested in a theological explanation with mareh mekomos, yes
please. 

YGB

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

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:

 
> Yosef, let me state this in the strongest terms. You are a Litvak with a
> Chabad background, where to do you get the chutzpah to tell me who is a

If there is anything I react to with more negativity that being lectured
at from a high perch, it is being pigeonholed. Sorry, I do not fit neatly
into the box in which you have placed me.

> non-Chabad Chassid, what OUR customs are about? Shirayim has 0 to do

Anyone can read, B"H.

> with dveykus. According to our Rebbes dveykus means that in mochshovah,

You are, once more, asserting without sources. You were finally, posei'ach
a pesach to me by conceding that Piasceszne is relevant to bona fide
Chassidus. Let me state that were there a R' Klonymus Kalmish among us
today, I would run to him.

(It is ironic, however, that the two outstanding representatives of
Chassidus that you have found are the Piascezner - who has no following
today, not unlike R' Tzadok; and Alexander, who are, today, a very small
Chassidus.)

Well, in fact, my understanding of shirayiim and the tisch in general is
grounded, as was clarified in "Forks" - in two sources: R' Rivkin in
Ashkavta d'Rebbe - who, while a Lubavitcher himself, had ample interaction
in Torah Vo'Da'as with what you call "mainstream" Chassidim - and, the
Piascezner. Please see "Mavo Ha'She'arim" Chp. 8. While the specific
aspect of the tisch known as shirayim is not described there explicitly -
it is evident what the tisch is meant to serve - dveykus with Hashem vias
the Rebbe.

The truth is, I find shirayim far more reasonable based on my
understanding than the one you propose.

I would like to add, that if tischen looked like the one described by
RKKS, you'd have a lot more Chassidim nowadays.

YGB

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

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> Yosef, let me state this in the strongest terms. You are a Litvak with a
> Chabad background, where to do you get the chutzpah to tell me who is a
> non-Chabad Chassid, what OUR customs are about? Shirayim has 0 to do with
> dveykus.
Woah!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to the basic respect owed to our average
poster let alone one of our most knowledgeable posters. This(as well as
other statements made in other posts) doesn't just
violate the wishy washy sometimes applied subjective laws of darchei Noam,
this is outright lack of kavod hatorah. We have heard a lot from Moshe
Shulman and a lot of it has been very informative but his great predjudice
and obvious dislike for lubavich has begun to interfere with the
credibility of his posts. I really believed that the bitter animosity
between Chassidus and Litvaks was something of the past, apparently not.
However, since I still enjoy reading the works of the Chasidic Masters
(aryeh Kaplan has done a wonderful job translating them) I ask the members 
of the list not to ruin the respect that I have for chassidus,
a
respect that I admit is from a distance being a strong litvak.
E.G.

>From: gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
>Subject: Jewish Observer,  etc.
>
>I was quoted--in part--as saying:
>
>>random? Also, if someone knows, please tell us, now that Rabbi 
>Sherrer
>>is no longer among us, who tells the members of the Moetzes what to
>think and say and when?)
>
>Gershon Dubin wrote:
>
>"Is this the person who is concerned about Darche Noam and proper
>treatment of Lubavitch and the Rebbe,  but with one wave of the hand
>makes naught of a person whose life was dedicated to  **serving**  
>and **listening to**  the gedolim,  not telling them what and when to 
>think >and say,   and at the same time portrays all the gedolim with
whom 
>Rabbi >Sherer worked,  from Rav Aharon Kotler down past Rav Moshe
Feinstein and Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky to present day gedolim,  as mindless
puppets of whatever Rabbi Sherer put into their heads?"

>To answer the question: No.
>To deflect your inference which I neither stated and nor intended: 
>the gedolim you mention were hardly mindless.  By their reputations,
both 
>in their lifetimes and afterwards, I am certain they did not think they 
>were puppets.
	I am still quite unclear as to what you were trying to say.  If I
misquoted you, I'm sorry,  but I'm afraid I still don't know whose
statement this is.  My comments on the statement if not the author still
stand.

>I am quoted as writing:
>
>>Anecdotally, I have heard of a wedding where the ba'al simcha warned
>>the band not to play any songs the words to which include 
>"mashiach."
>
>Gershon Dubin wrote:
>
>"What you might have heard was a request not to play the song 
>"Mashiach" which I also do not like to hear played at simchas,  not
because the word or concept of Mashiach is ch"v unacceptable,  but
because I am not inclined to rock music in any language.
>
>Chachamim hizaharu bedivreichem."
>
>Tikrena ainecha ma-she-yadecha kotvot.
>
>I posted the story as I heard it.  I can not tell from your post 
>whether or not you were the ba'al simcha I heard about; there has
already been posted on this list another variation on this story. Also,
"Mashiach" is not the only rock music song in the "Jewish music" genre. I
trust there is web site where I can get a list of what songs are naughty
and what songs are nice. Although it's a tefillas shav (as defined in
mas. Brachos), I hope your simcha was everything you wanted it to be.
	Absolutely,  as RYGB commented on the "Yidden" song,  I dislike all rock
music,  Jewish or otherwise, "Moshiach" or otherwise.  This is true
whether I am the baal simcha,  a guest,  or listening to an audio tape. 
My simchas were B"H what I wanted them to be,  but that was not at all
the point.  Again,  if I misquoted you, I am sorry;  the comment stands
regardless.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

Moshe Shulman wrote:

> I would agree that some of the hashkofos might not agree with what you have
> learned. I would STRONGLY suggest a small sefer that just came out called
> 'Derech HaChassidus.' It comes from some Alexander Chassidim, and even though
> it is strongly biased to Pershischa Chassidus, the ideas there are common in
> all chassidim. (i.e. non-Chabad.)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I was just in the seforim stores in Yerushalayim. No
one has heard of the above sefer. Who sells it?

> What things specifically do you consider
> 'different' in hashkofos?

Just to provide a general picture. The description of the rebbe - and how he
interposes with G-d is alien. I have never heard a rosh yeshiva, rebbe or rav who in
anyway implied that he had protectzia with G-d. He might know more than me, be a
bigger tzadik but to say my connection to G-d passes through him -  Never. One
chassidic rav told me "that a chassid feels that even if he is not perfect -
associating with the Rebbe gets him in to Gan Eden. A Litvak is on his own."
Additional problems relate to the apparent literalism e.g., the tisch is a mizbeach,
that what the rebbe eats becomes kodshim, that 770 is the beis hamikdash, that the
kever of Rav Nachman has the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel etc., .

A more specific example regarding Lubavtish. A number of years ago  I was having a
friendly talk in the entrance way of 770 with a chasid who was an old acquaintance.
He tried persuading me of the virtues of being a lubavtisher. When I said it was not
for me he said, "You are an apikorus. In each generation that is one manhig who is
the prime tzinur to HaKodosh Baruch Hu. Everyone know that the Rebbe is that Tzinur.
You don't want to have the best connection to G-d but are satisfied by a minor
connection. You are an apikorus." He was serious and I was turned off.
This exclusivity or proprietary attitude toward yiddishkeit is troubling. It seems
reflected in your writings about chassidus. That I as a litvak - even though I can
read the sources - am not allowed to make assertions concerning chassidus which have
not been authenticated by "real" chassidim.. Such an attitude is equivalent to  me
asserting that any statement on hashkofa needed to be found in the Michtav M'Eliyahu
or found in the collected speeches of Rav Schach.

                                              Daniel Eidensohn

1.  Many years ago one of my friends, when I asked about the difference
between Yaakov lying and deceiving his father, suggested the following
two dinim in lying:

a. deception
b. uttering an untruth

a. acts on another, b. acts on oneself (even when one knows it to be
untrue).  So that, the implication of what Yaakov did is that, even when
a. is halichacally permitted/required, b. should be avoided whenever
possible.

2.  Moshe Shulman has raised the suggestion that Lubavitch take a new
rebbe and rejected it as unlikely.  Could one of you experts in
Lubavitch theology explain why.

David Riceman

> 
> David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV> wrote:
> Subject: Re:  Yaakov Avinu
> 
> Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> <<<
> Here we go again, denigrating the Avos. This time, Yaakov Avinu = Bill
> Clinton. Shomu Shomayim!
> >>>
> 
> Sorreee!  Even I as the unwilling representative of the Bash the Avos School
> on this list could not conceive of such an obscene equation and I am
> shocked and appalled that you would attribute it to me.  Can't you see that I
> am trying to take what the Torah tells us about the Avot seriously and am
> trying to understand for myself what the Torah is trying to tell us?

===> Actually, I did *not* see that at all!  The poster did not simply
say: "I do not understand something..."  On the contrary, there was an
entire firmulation of the "wrong" that Yaakov had done and how he was
repeatedly punished for that wrong!


> It is very
> nice to just sit back and say oh well Chazal said this was fine and that
> was okay and the Rishonim didn't make a fuss, so who am I to ask
> questions.  But if I don't understand, I will continue to raise issues
> that I think

===> But, before "making a fuss", why not try to figure out WHY the
Rishonim are not bothered by these matters.  In other words, try to think:
what must have been going on when a Rishon learned this parsha....




> are worth discussing.  If you can point me to places where these issues have
> been addressed, I will be most grateful.  I certainly make no claims to b'kius
> of all the relevant Midrashim and M'pharhim, so if, as is quite possible, my
> questions stem from ignorance, I shall be happy to receive instruction.  I
> would also observe once again, the same point concerning Ya'akov's
> deception of his father and the consequences that flowed therefrom was
> made some time ago on this list and did not elicit any outraged responses. 
> Perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that I was not expressing views that
> were beyond the pale.

===> I think that the issue was in HOW the matter was expressed and its
apparent connection with "current events" that particularly hit a nerve.


> 
> You do not address my basic question, which is why is the moral
> blameworthiness (which you acknowledge, though you believe it justified by
> extenuating circumstances) of Jacob's deception of his father is in any way
> mitigated by the mental reservation postulated by the Midrash.  I am troubled
> by these hidden mental reservations that somehow are supposed to make
> permissible what would otherwise be a lie.  The Midrash uses it to absolve
> Jacob from blame and a similar mental reservation is the linchpin of Clinton's
> defense (I hate to keep bringing him into this) but how is the geneivat da'at
> mitigated by resort to a mental reservation? 

===> I see no indication from the Midrash that the "mental reservation" is
what made anything permitted.  Yaakov acted as he had to because he was so
ordered by his mother.  Yet, even when he *had* to say something deceptive
(and this is described as a tremendous "nisayon" for Yaakov because it
goes against ALL of his being which is one of "emes") -- he tried to do so
in as "un-sheker" a way as possible, if you will.  The point of the
Midrash to me is that even at *this time* Yaakov struggled to somehow
minimize the sheker...  It would seem to me that you "over-invested" this
midrash -- especially as various commentaries ALL mention that there WAS
some
deception here  (cf Netziv, RSRH, etc.)


> 
> Whether it is p'shat in the pasuk or not, I will not dispute now.  My
> main point
> is that if Jacob really replied to his father's direct question about
> who he was
> with a statement that, in the context, he knew and intended for his father to
> interpret in a false way when he, because of a mental reservation, could
> interpret in a different way, I don't see how the moral blameworthiness of his
> conduct is any way less than if he had responded with a straightforward,
> unambiguous (honest) lie.  That is the question to which I am seeking a
> response


===> Again, the "moral blameworthiness" seems to be much more concentrated
upon the fact that he listened to his Mother.  I owuld point out that I
beleive there are midrashim that when Yaakov was called forward so that
Yitzchak could feel him, he was terrified and G-d sent Malachim to help
Yaakov move forward...  Obviously, this had the "highest degree" of
approval regardless of the fact that there was a deception involved (note
the midrash that the "scent of Gan Eden" entered with Yaakov.  And, the
Netzivpoints out that afterwards, Yitzchak gave Yaakov a "Yasher Koach"
for performing the deception...  As noted above, the ambiguous answer was
because (I think) of Yaakov's OWN struggles...


> 
> And as I already noted, I am not suggesting a comparison between them.  I
> am questioning the use of a mental reservation as a way of escaping blame
> for lieing.

====> then it should not have been mentioned.
> 
> Excuse me, are you saying that it is just a coincidence that the Borei
> u'Manhig ha-olam chose to reward Leah for her desire to marry Jacob
> through an act of deception.  Was there no other way available to the
> Almighty to bring about the union of Jacob and Leah but through Laban's
> deception?  If Jacob was not being punished, the Torah makes it quite clear
> that he was not at all happy about what had happened.

===> Since you and I were not there and we know that Yaakov only was
interested in Rachel (or was interested in marrying her FIRST), that may
indeed have been the only way for LEah to marry Yaakov.  Again, keep in
mind that Rachel was a participant as well here and we do NOT find that
yaakov was angry with HER.  Unless you have a clear source, however, I
think that it is not a good idea to assert that someone is being
"punished".  The fact that Yaakov was unhappy -- in part because it means
that his "consummation" was an act of z'nus since he did not know with
whom he was intimate (see Or HaChaim, I think) --- does not indicate that
there is necessarily a punishment.  You also have to realize that Lavan as
a "Ba'al Bechira" has the ability to "act" against even a Tzaddik like
Yaakov (that is why G-d had to make a "special appearance" to warn Lavan
to leave Yaakov alone).  the whole issue of how ba'alei bechiro can act
even against the righteous is (I think) pretty complex (and beyoind the
scope of the discussion here) but certianly provides a framework that
explains the matter WITHOUT asserting a punishment....




> 
> All's well that ends well?  That he finally received adequate compensation for
> the tweny years of hard labor that made Laban wealthy does not mitigate his
> suffering during the twenty years.

===> Sorry -- in this case, I do not think that /yaakov was tricked at
all.  Lavan TRIED to trick him but was foiled.  So, this would prove
nothing at all....  What "suffering" do you refer to?


> 
> Her nevuah did not include the instruction to plot with her son to deceive her
> husband.  She could have told her husband about her nevuah.  As we
> discussed earlier, Sarah was not shy about giving Abraham instructions about
> the proper roles of his two sons.  And Abraham was ordered to follow her
> advice.

===> I did not know that you were such an expert on the subject of nevua.
First of all, if a Navi is nto instructed to tell his/her nevu'a to
others, there is no requirement for him/her to do so.  There is no
indication (for example) that she told her initial information that she
received re the pregnancy to Yitzchak.  I would add that the Netziv points
out that she had a VERY "inhibited" relationship with Yitzchak and
basically did not try to tell him AMYTHING.  The Netziv EXPLICITLY
contrasts the situation with Sara and Rivka and shows how Rivka NEVER
"spoke up" to her husband.  This is what I meant above: you are quite
willing to dismiss the assertions of others (based upon various
commentaries) without yourself *checking* stuff out -- or, at least,
ASKING THE question rather than making the assertion.



> 
> You are assuming that my motivation is to find fault.  I know that it may be
> difficult for you to believe this, but that is not my motivation.  It
> is rather to try
> to understand what the Torah is telling us.  Jacob's delay infulfilling
> his vow
> doesn't help me to understand his conduct in deceiving his father for the
> sake of somehow receiving blessings that were intended for his brother.  

===>You have only yourself to blame.  When you go asserting punishments
that the Torah and ChaZaL do not appear to mention, it sounds as if you
are, indeed, finding fault.  In trying to understand the conduct, I would
suggest that you choose one or more of the Meforshim and try to follow
the approach consistently.  For example, choose jsut RSRH and see where
that leads you...

> 
> But does the Zohar try to mitigate the deception by introducing a mental
> reservation?


===> Again, I think that you over emphasize the "mental reservation".

--Zvi


> 
> David Glasner
> dglasner@ftc.gov
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
> Subject: Two rabbinical stories - Yakov & Rivkah
> 
> A poster wrote "(As an aside, Leah's reaction by the duda'im "Hme'at
> kachtach es ishi..." is quite difficult to comprehend.  It was DUE TO
> RACHEL that Leah was even ABLE to successfully
> marry Yaakov -- how could she make such an accusation to Rachel??  This
> requires much "talmud" because on the surface, Leah appears to us as a
> lady who is totally "kefuyat tova".....)"

> 
>      He explained that in reality the bas kol mem yom kodem hvlad had
> announced that lder one was going to marry the older one, and the younger
> one was going to marry the younger one.  So she had reason to be scared!
> This explains what Leah was saying - mmichah lamadity that you are now the
> bechor so I am supposed to be your wife!  Also by the dudaim she says to
> Rachel you stole my husband - min hashamayim he was supposed to marry me!
> Lavan was also fulfilling the will of Hashem.  This is why Yakov, Rochel
> and Yosef are always worried that Esav is going to take Rochel.  He can now
> that she is his wife!  (He said it's a seperate shiur how Rochel can also
> be Yakov's wife.)

====> I am sorry -- this does not explain Rachel's willingness to help
Leah [she could have just "warned her off"]; it does not explain that
(apparently) AFTER this response is when Yaakov "disliked" her; it does
not explain how she could say with assurance "min hshamayim" Yaakov was
for LEAH when it was ONLY with Rachel's help that this was achieved.  And,
it appears that the main reason that there was the worry about
Rachel/Eisav waas that when she did not conceive, there was a fear that
Lavan would insist that she divorce Yaakov [and marry Eisav]... Also,
because of her beauty, Yosef was worried about Eisav's potential for
"pillage". 



> 
>      Now on to the "big question" - what's pshat in Yitzchak wanting to
> give the brochoh to Easv?  Yitzchak must of had some idea of who Esav was (
> "hakol kol Yakov",  shem Hashem shagur bpiv, don't steal it...) Yitzchak
> though new that klall yisroel needed two areas of abilities.  We needed the
> ish tam yoshev ohel, but we also needed the gibor and melech.  Yitzchak
> wanted to broker a partnership between the brothers to accomplish this.
> (Rivkah knew this wouldn't work because Esav would not lower himself to the
> daas Torah of Yakov. )

===> See RSRH at beginning of Toldos who asserts that indeed there could
have been a partnership had Eisav been given the appropriate chinuch!
--Zvi

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


[ 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 ]