Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 111

Wednesday, January 6 1999

• Re: One People?
• Re: Moshe RO"H a Neshma Kllolis
• Confessions of a Misnagid
• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Brachos 15b
• RDE and RZW - not.
• Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Yaakov and ani esav bechorecha
• Yaakov and ani esav bechorecha
• RE: Lying
• Re: neshama k'lalis

>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> What things specifically do you consider
>> 'different' in hashkofos?

Let me give you some ideas as to these 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.

Are you saying that the concept of another person having protectzia is unheard
of? You are forgetting the gemara where Rebbe Yochanan ben Zakkai asked Rebbe
Chaninah ben Dosa to pray for his sick son. (Then there is another gemara that
says when you have some tzarrah you should go to the chocham for him to pray.
BB 116a)

>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."

If someone feels that just by going to a Rebbe, he gets a free ticket, that is
an error. There is an interesting mashal in Baar Mayim Chaim. He explains: If
someone is traveling in a forest on a wagon and one of the people is sick, he
just lies down on the carriage and he is taken along, but if he dies, then
they stop and bury him and go one without him. The same is when one goes to a
Tzaddik. Even if you are not yet a baal madreiga, your nashama is sick, as
long as you still have life a desire to serve HaShem) then going to a tzaddik
will help, but if you have no desire, you are like a dead man, and are left
behind.


>Additional problems relate to the apparent literalism e.g., the tisch is a
>mizbeach,

m'shchorav beis hamikdash, shulchano shel adom mechapar. (Chagigah 27a. See
the Chasam Sofer on this inyan in Toras Moshe parshas lech lecha about
malkitzedek wheere he says that the baal ahbayis is like a kohen.) Your table
is just like the mizbeach, and not just the tzaddik's table.

>that what the rebbe eats becomes kodshim

According to the Ari, teating is an avodah to HaShem. You should look there
some time and see what he writes.

There is very good sefer that is from a non-chasid called Yesod v'Shoresh
Ha'avodah. I believe he deals with some things that areusually associated with
chassidim.

>kever of Rav Nachman has the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel etc., .

Matah Ephraim (581) states that the kivrei tzaddik are Kadosh and tahor.
Likewise the Yavitz in his chadushim (BB 85) says that they do not bring
timah. (BTW there are many who disagree with that, but that is not the point.)


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

Before dealing with this issue and hopefully clarifying the issues and setting
them to rest, let me review what the points of disagreement are/were and
follow them through. There was a mention that in Lubavitch (and the cliam is
that by all chasidim) they hold that their Rebbe is a nshama klolious. And
that Moshe was the same. I countered that according to the Ari it was not true
with Moshe. This comes from Lekutei Torah. The concept of nshamah klolious
applies to a nashamah on the level of 'yechida' (I have seen hayom yom, and
other chabad sources cited as the source for this.) This level, however never
applied to Moshe, nor does it to any Rebbe.

What chassidim (non-chabad) believe is that one has a Rebbe based on his
shoresh nashama. If that shoresh relates to that Rebbe, then they relate.
However ONLY when this kesher is made, can we say that they relate. The
following story I have heard from my Rebbe Shlita many times. The Rov of
Chernoble was not from the Chasidim of Rebbe Mordechai of Chernoble. One year
on Pesach this Rov decided that since so many people in Chernoble go to Rebbe
Mordechai, he would also. As soo as he entered the room, Rebbe Mordechai said
to him, 'You need to do tshuva as you have chometz in your possession.' He
went home and searched until he found that a small beigel had fallen into the
water he had set aside for Pesach use. He ran back top the Rebbe and asked
him, 'If you had seen the chometz why didn't you send for meand tell me?'
Rebbe Mordechai answered, 'Until you came to me, I had no relation to you, and
couldn't see it. Once you had this relation I was able to see it.'

The menaing is that only when one has a kesher with a Tzaddik is there that
relationship, when not not. (Yosef, if you will look at  R. Tzadok in #159
that is exactly what he is trying to say.)

>The Mokor that MRO"H was a Neshama Kllolis in the Ariza"l is in Shaar Hapsukim
>Parsha Shmos, where he explains that MRO"H included all the people of the
>entire Dor Hamidbar and the Eirev Rav, that he explains us the meaning of the
>Possuk (Bamidbar 11:21) Sheish Meios Elef...Onochee Bikirboy, (like a Neshama
>to a Guf).

All of the Jews had this relationship to Moshe, However the true neshamah
kolilos - adam harishon, was kolel alll nashamas, and is on the level
of yechida. Moshe was not.

>Another source is in Lkutei Torah of the Ariza"l Parsha Sisoh on the Possuk
>(Shmos 33:5) based on the Mamar Chazal (In SHS"R) that Moshe is Shkul Kneged
>600,000, and he says just like Odom Hrishon included all Neshomos so Moshe
>RO"H included all Nishomos of Yidden, see also Shaloh Hakodosh in Parshas
>Sisah in which he shows how numericly Moshe equals 600,000.

Moshe only related to this who related to him not to all of those livi9ng in
his generation as a true klolious would have. He is kolel ONLY those who are
attached to him.

>Subject: Neshamah Kllolis in the "Toldos"

>Discussing from a Chasidishe POV. Here are some of the sources in the "Toldos"
>for the idea of Neshamah Kllolis.


The midragah of being on the level of yesod, is that of every tzaddik, it has
nothing to do with whether or not the nashamah is related to his or not. A
tzaddik is mashpiah to all souls. (There is no contradiction to saying that
Moshe is on the level of yesod, as the verse say, "v'yikach Moshe es atzmos
Yosef" Yosef is the level of yesod. Moshe is called in the Ari 'yesod aba'.
v'di l'huvin.)

>Parshas Vayakheil (67 column 1):
>"That is what it says "Vayakheil Moshe" who is a Tzaddik and is called Yesod
>Parshas V'eschanan (168 column 2):
>Because Tzadik Yesod Olom and thru him is the passage of the Shefa to the

As I said above this does not change anything.

>Parshas Ki Sovoi (193 column 3):
>(in explaining the Mamar Chazal that) Shmuel Hakatan was worthy that the
>Shchina rest upon in but his generation wasn't fit, because the sin of the
>generation causes a small sin Beshogeig to the head of the generation, and
>just like the sin of the generation reaches a little to the head of the
>generation likewise with the Hirhur Tshuvoh of the head of the Dor the people
>of the generation will repent in action since they are one unit.

This is, in fact, what R Tzaddok had said. Those nashamas that relate to a
person, can be influenced by the tzaddik to do tshuva.

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

Being educated in the world of Litvishe yeshivas has given me a bias in 
favor of the rationalistic approach to Yahdus.  We study Nigla, not 
Nistar.  My own family background is in Chasidus.  I am a direct 
descendant of R. Shimon Yaroslover, a Talmid Muvhak of both the Noam 
Elimelech and The Chozeh MiLublin.  You might think that I would 
automatically follow in the footsteps of my ancestors but after much 
searching and thought I have completely rejected Chasidus and here are 
some of my reasons. 

The study of Kabbalah is, let us say, incomprehensible.  We are asked to 
suspend rational thought and delve into a world of "Spheros" and like 
terminology which we have not the slightest clue about.  To say that 
such things exist in a supernatural world is quite meaningless to me 
because there is no way to "test reality", if you will.  It is no wonder 
that Kabbalah was discouraged from study, even before the days of 
Shabsai Tzvi.  My mind craves rationality and since I live in the 
"Natural" world, I want to study that part of the Torah which deals in 
our relationship to the Natural world.  It seems of little practical 
purpose to study about a supernatural world which one can not possibly 
have an interaction with. 

This leads me to my second reason.  R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his 
Classic work, "Halakhic Man" discusses three categories of Man.  
Briefly, there is cognitive man, who studies the physical universe; 
there is the diametrically opposite Homo-Religiosus, who strives for 
knowledge of the meta-physical world (and could not care less about the 
physical universe); and there is Halakhic man who synthesizes Cognitive 
man with Homo-Religiosus.  Halachik man's entire existence is based on 
how we interact with the Physical universe through the medium of 
Halacha.  This, of course is a gross oversimplification of the Rav's 
work, but I think it makes the following point: G-d gave us the Torah in 
order to tell us how to bring Him into the physical world.  Chasidus, 
which is representative of Homo-Religiosus, tries to elevate man into 
the meta-physical world.  The very idea of a Rebbe singing himself into 
a state of altered consciousness where he connects with G-d , i.e. 
"transcending" the physical world into the spiritual, or supernatural 
world seems to me to be nothing short of self delusion.  I don't believe 
that one can transcend his mortal existence in the physical world into 
the metaphysical.  Yet this is exactly what they claim to do!

I think that this is probably one of the reasons that my ancestor, R. 
Shimon Yaroslover's father, R. Yisroel Leib Elbaum, was so 
quintessentially against Chasidus.  He was very upset that his son R. 
Shimon MiYaroslav, became a chasid.   From his own death bed, R. Yisroel 
Leib told his son, R. Shimon, that if he recited Kaddish Yosom with the 
words "VeYatzmach Purkonei VeKorev Moshichei, then he shouldn't say 
Kaddish for him.  This story is brought down LeHalacha in "Shaarim 
MiTzuyonim BeHalacha"

HM

> From: "Dovid Eliezrie" <tzedek@sprynet.com>
> Subject: [none]
> 
> 
> I was also disgusted -I know this is harsh but warranted by the following
> statement of Zvi Weiss

====> I did NOT make that statement.  It was appended into a response that
INCLUDED what I had posted along with other material.  However, I repeat
that I did NOT use that formulation.


> 
> "Various Christianities and Islam are also successful in sending missions
> all over the world.  Does that make them correct?  It's an argument from
> an irrelevancy.  We know that Chabadniks are very strong in their faith.
> So?"
> 
> How do you have the chuzpa to compare the work of Schluchim dedicated to
> bringing Jews  back to Yiddishkiet with Mesiras Nefesh to such groups.  Is
> our work to be compared to theirs as correct or not. Do you have no shame.
> Or has your hostility to Chassidus and Chabad blinded you so. For this you
> need to a special Al Chiet on Yom Kippur.

===> Again, I see no special "Al Cheit" since I did not say it.  I would
suggest that before you make statements of that sort, try to verify what
is going on.

On another note (and without defending the above), it is important to
realize that "success" does not equate to "correctness" on an intrinsic
basis.  In other words, the fact that ChaBaD is successful does not
*intrinsically* prove "correctness" of [halachic] POV.  All it shows is
that they are dedicated and selfless (both wonderful middos) but -
essentially - irrelevant to the discussion.  Similarly, if I found a kiruv
method that was unsuccessful because people were unwilling to "invest" in
it, I would not be able to critique the intrinsic correctness of the
method -- only the fact that people were unwilling to implement it.

> Dovid Eliezrie
> 
> ------------------------------
> From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
> Subject: Tinok Shenishba Today?
> 
> The above concern seems reflected in the Igros Moshe. O.H V 28.22  page 103
> Concerning making an eruv with the intent of saving the irreligious from sin
> since they were tinok shenisba He says "...and also today the majority of
> those who profane Shabbos are kofrin in the entire Torah so that perhaps
> everybody would agree that there is no obligation and even no mitzva to strive
> to create an eruv for them. But perhaps for the sake of those that don't know
> anything -  for those whose sinfulness and even their kefira comes from their
> being raised by sinners and therefore there would be a benefit or even mitzva
> to save them from sin by making the eruv since they are shogeg? They are,
> however, not really shogeg. Even though they were educated by their parents to
> sin and be heretics - NEVERTHELESS THEY SEE AND KNOW SHOMREI TORAH AND MITZVOS
> and they know that there are gedolim and more intelligent and rational people
> than their parents - THEREFORE IT IS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO
> OBLIGATION TO SAVE THEM FROM SIN...
> 
===> I would like to know if RDE honestly feels that this applies to Jews
in such communities that are OUT of the NYS area wehre people do NOT "see
and know Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos".  Seems to me that there is a rather
selfish attitude in citing a teshuva written in the greater NYC area and
applying it all over -- esp. when we see how the "ORthodox" are ROUTINELY
portrayed as "extremist" or "ultra".

--Zvi

> 
>                                                            Daniel Eidensohn
> 
> ------------------------------
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #107
> 
> >> >> >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.
> >> >===> Could you explain why this is the case?  Was it that the Rebbe
> >> >happened to be a fan of the MaHaRal?  I am not trying to sound humorous.
> >> >But, it seems that "real chassidim" only learn certain material based upon
> >> >what their Rebbe chooses (?) or whatever seems "fashionable" (?) or if the
> >> >author happened to have had (originally?) a "big following".  What seems
> >> >*absent* is the intellectual quality of the work.
> >> A person is not a Chasid because he has read some sefer and likes it. Today
> >> many Litvishe gadolim will learn chassidic seforim. A Chasid is a chasid
> >> because he has a Rebbe and follows the derech that his Rebbe has set out.
> >===> OK.  You define that a *must* have a Rebbe to be a Chassid
> >*and* to be considered an expert on Chassidus.  You realize, of course,
> >that the two are not strictly linked.  I.e., a person may not be a Chasid
> >but STILL be an expert on chassidus.  Further, this does not really answer
> >why a Rebbe will choose some particular aspect to learn and [apparently]
> >"neglect" something else.
> 
> Not exactly, to be an expert on chassidus, you have to either be, have been,
> or live among chassidim enough to see what is going on.
> 

===> OK -- but that is slightly different from your original formulation.
I note, however, that it still negates the possibility of intellectual
investigation of Chassidus since you apparently consider it
*intrinisically* experiential.


> 
> >> (Breslov is not really an exception. The reason is that since Reb Nachman died
> >> they have always had a person or persons who were Rosh HaChabirah who was
> >> mashpiah the 'Breslov' derech.) This is VERY important to understand. A Rebbe
> >> gets his derech from his Rebbe, or father, all the way back to the Baal SHem
> >> Tov. My Rebbe is a direct descendant of the Tzanzer Rov, who was a talmid of
> >> the Ropshitzer Rov, who was a talmid of the Chozeh of Lublin, Rebbe Mendele
> >> Riminover, and before that of the Rebbe Reb Meileich of Lizensk, who were
> >> talmidim of the Rebbe Reb Ber who was a talmid of the Baal Shem Tov. That is
> >> where my derech comes from. As to why different Rebbes had different daruchim
> >> the reason is as follows: The Tepheres Shlomoh was once asked why it was thast
> >> each of the talmidim of the Chozeh was different and had different customs. He
> >> answered that each one received from his Rebbe according to the level of his
> >> nashama.
> >===> I did not ask why Rebbeim have different derachim.  I wanted to know
> >what determined what was learned and what was not.
> 
> It seems the problem is you don't like my answer. Rebbes favor certain seforim
> BECAUSE of the derech that they follow. My Rebbe would never recommend
> learning Chabad seforim (except Tanya, which was commonly learnt in the heim.)
> Likewise, my Rebbe does recommend certain seforim, (Kedushas Levi, Baar Mayim
> Chaim, M'Or v'Shamash) because they represent concepts and a derech that is in
> line with his. (This, ignores that any sefer from one in the line of
> tradition/mesorah to the Baal Shem Tov, is also automatically within the
> 'prefered class.) My great grandfather (grandmother's father) was a Gerer
> chasid, so I will learn sefas emes and other seforim from the Pershischa
> cheder. I mention to my son the work 'Derech HaChassidus', which comes from
> that cheder, and he wouldn't look at it, becuase it is not 'our derech.' I
> heard once the following story from my Rebbe Shlita. Rebbe Yakov Yisroel of
> Cherkassa was the son-in-law of the Mittler Rebbe of Lubavitch. After the
> chassanah he lived with his father-in-law, but would never go to listen to the
> Alter Rebbe talk. When asked about that he said that he was m'kabal chassidus
> from his father (Rebbe Mottale Chernobler) and wouldn't take from another
> source without his permission.  Eventually he asked his father and as given
> permission.
====> It is not that I do or don't "like" your answer -- it is that the
answer appears -- to a certain extent -- to be self-serving.  Rebbes
choose what they want to learn (and, hence what their disciples will
learn) based upon a "derech" -- which is sort of left unexplained.  EXCEPT
for material in the "preferred class" which is automatically "in".  It
seems to me that the approach -- as stated -- leads to major insularity
and downright *ignorance* of Chassidic concepts that simply had the bad
luck not to be "popular".  Note: I certainly understand that there is a
reluctance to learn material that is directly related to ONE "type" of
Chassidus if that is not one's own "type" [Hence, I understand the
reluctance to learn works of ChaBaD if one is not a ChaBaD Chassid].  My
query was in relation to works that do NOT seem to be specific to a
"type".  In particular, the works of R. Tzadok do not seem to be so
focused and the works of R. KK"S (HY"D) similarly do not seem so focused.




> 
> >> >> 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.
> >> >===> Why? Who are the current followers of the Toldos?
> >> The Toldos is the only sefer that contains what the Baal Shem Tov himself
> >> taught directly. He continually brings what he has heard.
> >===> but, you cannot have it both ways.  If what defines "what is learned"
> >is solely that the Rebbe learns it, it should not matter *what* is
> >contained in the sefer.  OTOH, if you look at what is IN the sefer, then
> >it is legitimate to "complain" that there is a narrowness of vision in not
> >looking at OTHER material.
> 
> See above, it answers this question.

===> The answer is appears to be simply "that is the way it is -- it is in
the "preferred class".


> 
> >> Since you HAVE read Muvi HaShiurim chapter 8 let me quote what he says:
> >>
> >> 'If one desires to become a chasid by learning seforim and to
> >> understand with
> >> his mind alone what is chassidus, and not make himself, his body and
> >> senses,
> >> his nefesh, riach, and nashamah to be a chasid, then he has not touched the
> >> corner of chassidus. Also if he doesn't go to a Rebbe ... he is no chasid.'
> >> (Bottom paragraph p. 39)
> >>
> >> 'The main points of Chassidus are not found in a sefer but in the chasidim
> >> themselves.' (Third line down from page 43.)
> >
> >===> And, Muvi HaShiurim is "authoritative" because......
> 
> Two answers. 1. Since what he says cooresponds to what is taught by many other
> Rebbes, it as been quoted because Yosef has claimed it as authoratative for
> him. 2. Yes it is since I have had discussions with my Rebbe about that work,
> and others by the same author. 

===> Point 2 appears to mean that there is NO such thing as "Chassidus",
in general -- there are only different theories of Chassidus -- each one
based upon one's Rebbe.

--Zvi


>

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:36:10 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #109
> 
> In a message dated 1/5/99 9:20:32 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> >  ===> The gemara appeared to apply this specifically to the instance of a
> >  Jew accepting Tzedaka from a Non-Jew -- that in *that context* there is an
> >  apsect of "Cheit" since the jew should only be accepting from other Jews.
> >  It is not clear that this applies to ANY act of Chesed that a Nochri may
> >  do
> 
> In addition that in bringing a Korban (one of the cases in the Gemoroh) no Yid
> benefits, and Mkablin Ndorim Undovos from non-Jews. The Gemoroh says that any
> and all Chesed they do is a Cheit (Loshon Hagimoroh *Kol Tzdokoh V'chesed*),
> and see end of first Perek of Tanya. 
===> Without getting into TanYa (I am aware that there is a statement that
only the souls of Yisrael are from K'lipas Nogah...), the Gemara is QUITE
specific about the application of the Pasuk.  It is specifically in the
fact that a Jew received Tzedaka from a Nochri.  The fact is that the
Gemara states specifically that we aRE allowed to accept Nedarim/Nedavos
from the Non-Jew and I do NOT see that the gemara applies any sort of
"sin" associated with such an action.


> 
> > AND it seems that the Netziv would clearly reject your formulation. As
> >  a side point: am I to understand that you feel that all the nochrim who
> >  helped/save Jews during the Sho'ah were actually *sinning* by so doing???
> >  You do not think that they were among the "Righteous of the World"???
> >  
> In  my post I wrote that perhaps when they are Shomrei 7 Mitzvohs (and esp. if
> they are obligated in Tzedakah) hence they have a Chelek Lolom Haboh, would be
> different, likewise in your scenerio. 
===> The point that the Netziv was that "Olam Chesed Yibaneh" and there is
a "given" that even the Non-Jew will be "Gomel chesed".  this appears to
have nothing to do with the 7 Mitzvos, per se.

--Zvi 

Eli Silberstein wrote:

Take for instance the issur of geneivo, no one would consider
the commitment of geneiva a neutral act if it where commited with noble
intentions. See for example Brochos 5b where rav chisda tried to steal from
his workers because they  stole from him and was then  rebuked by his
colleagues:"Bosor ganvo g'nov ve'taame to'im"( This was not just midas
chassidus.


I  have always understood that Rav Chisda was oseh din l'atzmo, nothing
worse. They did not call  him a ganav; his friends told him that what he did
"smacked" (the pun works) of genaiva. Concededly, enough to have a serious
kitrug (probably oshek sachar).

NW

Gemara Brachos 15b compares she-ol (grave) to rechem (womb) and proves by
juxtaposition of words that techiyas ahamaisim min hatorah. I remember
reading in a sefer noting that the two words are in fact separated--i.e. not
literally "aittzel,"--then bringing another gemara where the issue of
juxtaposition is the same, i.e. not true side-by-side, yet the limud is
accepted and thereby showing that being separated by a  word does not
prevent the drush presented in Brachos.  The problem is that I do not
know/remember where I saw this. Help.

NW

R' Dovid Eliezrie writes:

>I was also disgusted -I know this is harsh but warranted by the following
>statement of Zvi Weiss

>"Various Christianities and Islam are also successful in sending missions
>all over the world.  Does that make them correct?  It's an argument from
>an irrelevancy.  We know that Chabadniks are very strong in their faith.
>So?"

>How do you have the chuzpa to compare the work of Schluchim dedicated to
>bringing Jews  back to Yiddishkiet with Mesiras Nefesh to such groups.  Is
>our work to be compared to theirs as correct or not. Do you have no shame.
>Or has your hostility to Chassidus and Chabad blinded you so. For this you
>need to a special Al Chiet on Yom Kippur.

1) It was not Zvi Weiss who said this, it was me.

2) I did not mean to compare Shluchim to missionaries, or to offend you
or Lubavitch.  It was a simple rhetorical point, which RYGB evidently
understood (and agreed with).  "We do lots of kiruv" is not a response
to "We have a problem with the way you do kiruv".

While I disagree with a large portion, if not most, of what RMS has
written on the topic of Chassidic theology, I thank him - and RZW in
today's response - for teaching me that it is not just Chabad that limits
study to its own list of approved seforim - there are other Chassiduyos -
at least, apparently Bobov, for from what I can tell, that is the
Chassidus with which RMS is affiliated - that adopt a similar approach.
They may not rationalize it the same way - i.e., the Torah of a Yechida is
the only thing we can learn to save us from the paradox of Emuna Peshuta
vs. Talmud Torah - they may say it has to do with finding a Rebbe who is
the shoresh of your neshomo - although, by now, for most Chassidim I
assume it is hereditary, and there is little actual searching going on -
but the net result is essentially similar.

YGB

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

David Glasner posted an interesting question, the discussion of which has bogged
down in the issue of whether the posting, by suggesting a chet of Yaakov avinu,
was acceptable.  The actual question, however, is really independent of this
issue, and has not been answered. 

    To rephrase the question:  Hazal seem united that what Yaakov avinu did to
get the bracha was justified, although there seem to be different reasons of why
it was justified.  Thus, the Abarbanel brings down that lying for some ends,
especially based on nevuah, is acceptable, and brings several places from tanach
where neviim either lied or distorted the truth.  Several posters have brought
this explanation, which justifies Yaakov's actions based on Rivka's nevua. 

Rashi and others, however, try to go further to claim that because Yaakov's
answer could be parsed to be correct, there was no lie and no question, even
though it was intended to deceive.  Some of us find this explanation of Yaakov's
behavior  problematic (the Abarabanel calls it dahuk).  Is this principle, that
a statement that  can be parsed to be true, but is deliberately intended to
mislead, and would mislead any reasonable listener, is not a lie,  an accepted
halachic priniciple?  Some examples:

1) If, as an ed at a bet din, I say such a statement, am I chayav a korban?

2)  If I am in a position where lying is permissible (say for darkhe shalom), is
it halachically better for me to say something that can be parsed to be
literally true, even though it is clearly intended to mislead, or to say a clear
falsehood? (this seems closest to the case of Yaakov)  


3)  In a business deal, if I say such a statement, am I over any halacha?  Is
this considered substantially different than outright lying?

4) Are there any cases where I would be allowed (or even encouraged) to say a
technically true but misleading statement, but not be allowed to give an
outright lie?


Any halachic sources?

If the answer is, as I suspect, that in general  the principle is of very
limited use (perhaps to being halachically preferable in case 2), why do rashi,
ibn ezra and others emphasize the use of this principle for Yaakov?  We are
still dependent on the first justification - that Yaakov's actions were
justified by the circumstances (Rivka's nevua and commands).  

Meir Shinnar

David Glasner posted an interesting question, the discussion of which has bogged
down in the issue of whether the posting, by suggesting a chet of Yaakov avinu,
was acceptable.  The actual question, however, is really independent of this
issue, and has not been answered. 

    To rephrase the question:  Hazal seem united that what Yaakov avinu did to
get the bracha was justified, although there seem to be different reasons of why
it was justified.  Thus, the Abarbanel brings down that lying for some ends,
especially based on nevuah, is acceptable, and brings several places from tanach
where neviim either lied or distorted the truth.  Several posters have brought
this explanation, which justifies Yaakov's actions based on Rivka's nevua. 

Rashi and others, however, try to go further to claim that because Yaakov's
answer could be parsed to be correct, there was no lie and no question, even
though it was intended to deceive.  Some of us find this explanation of Yaakov's
behavior  problematic (the Abarabanel calls it dahuk).  Is this principle, that
a statement that  can be parsed to be true, but is deliberately intended to
mislead, and would mislead any reasonable listener, is not a lie,  an accepted
halachic priniciple?  Some examples:

1) If, as an ed at a bet din, I say such a statement, am I chayav a korban?

2)  If I am in a position where lying is permissible (say for darkhe shalom), is
it halachically better for me to say something that can be parsed to be
literally true, even though it is clearly intended to mislead, or to say a clear
falsehood? (this seems closest to the case of Yaakov)  


3)  In a business deal, if I say such a statement, am I over any halacha?  Is
this considered substantially different than outright lying?

4) Are there any cases where I would be allowed (or even encouraged) to say a
technically true but misleading statement, but not be allowed to give an
outright lie?


Any halachic sources?

If the answer is, as I suspect, that in general  the principle is of very
limited use (perhaps to being halachically preferable in case 2), why do rashi,
ibn ezra and others emphasize the use of this principle for Yaakov?  We are
still dependent on the first justification - that Yaakov's actions were
justified by the circumstances (Rivka's nevua and commands).  

Meir Shinnar

On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Pechman, Abraham wrote:
> 
> I heard Rabbi Sholom Gold (Toronto/New York/Har Nof) explain that the
> Torah's definition of sheker isn't lying (= saying something contrary to
> known facts). Rather it's saying something that's contrary to G-d's will.
> Emmes is saying something that is G-d's will. There are occassions when
> saying something that's contrary to known facts (what the dictionary would
> call a lie) is G-d's will. These include lying to not pay an unjust tax,
> lying to induce chalitza, et al.
> 
> Avi Pechman
> 
I don't remember if anyone noted this or not in the discussion (so I
apologize if I'm being repetitive) but I think we need to look at the
dispute between Beis hillel and Beis Shammai concerning how to praise a
Kaalah.(keizad merakdim) It seems that beis Shammai is against lying but
Beis hillel
maintains that such a lie wouldn't be a violation of mdvar sheker tirchak.
I have heard many explanations on the matter ,but at face value it seems
that we have a clear indication that the issur of mdvar sheker isn't
violated by the dictionary definition of lying rather chazal's definition
of lying, once again showing that morality is not decided in each person's
head, rather by chazal's wisdom and interpretation of the Torah. 
Elie Ginsparg

<<
 Shmuel Hakatan was worthy that the
 Shchina rest upon in but his generation wasn't fit, because the sin of the
 generation causes a small sin Beshogeig to the head of the generation,  >>
>>

What happened to "ki ish b'chet'o yumasu"?  How can my sinning accrue to
anyone else?

I guess I am too much of a litvak to accept any of these ideas.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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 ]