Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 112

Wednesday, January 6 1999

• Re: Chabad
• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Re: neshama k'lalis
• Re: Esav & b'chor
• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Re: Esav & b'chor
• Political Correctness
• Re: One People?
• Effect of seeing the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach
• Avodah V2 #111 -Reply
• Re: Moshe RO"H a Neshma Kllolis
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Avodah V2 #111 -Reply
• Avodah V2 #111
• Lying - response to Elie Ginsparg and Meir Shinnar
• [none]
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Confessions of a Misnagid

<<  
 I don't want to burst your bubble by Lubavitchers are frum Jews, all of them
that I know do their best to keep the halachas of Shulchon Aruch. 
>>

Agreed, but Shulchan Aruch *HaRav*, and THAT is exactly the point everyone has
been trying to make.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 1/6/99 9:48:37 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> 
>  ===> 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.

Please reread the Gemoroh, the Gemroh's first Rayo is from monies given for
bringing Korbonos. The Gemoroh is quite clear that *Kol Tzedokoh Vochesed* it
doesn't say Lyisroel, (Bnosof that so it says in Zohar, and when not Muchrach
we don't create Machlokes).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Eliahu Teitz asks, "What happened to "ki ish b'chet'o yumasu"?  How can my
sinning accrue to anyone else?"

You can ask the same question about the four people listed in perek Cheilek
who only died because of Adam and Chava's cheit. (Or, as I often gripe at the
end of the day, "I didn't eat the fruit, how come /I/ have to go to work?")

Similarly, the comment about tzadikim who die because of the sins of the
generation, and in particular, that the death of Shmuel HaKatan is in example,
is in the gemara.

I too am too much the Litvak to really be comfortable with the idea, and
appeal to the chevrah for explanations. How does this fit a framework of
chessed v'emes?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6027 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 6-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

<<
>> the Torah does not refer to Esav as the b'chor,

>See 27:19, (see also 27:37 and Rashi there).
>>

That is Ya'akov speaking, not the Biblical "narrator".  And the Rashi (on 36,
not 37 ) is also not the words of the Torah.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 1/6/99 3:12:55 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:

> Please reread the Gemoroh, the Gemroh's first Rayo is from monies given for
>  bringing Korbonos. The Gemoroh is quite clear that *Kol Tzedokoh Vochesed* 
> it
>  doesn't say Lyisroel, (Bnosof that so it says in Zohar, and when not 
> Muchrach
>  we don't create Machlokes).
>  
To make correction it's not the Zohar it's the Eitz Chayim, and the Tanya
brings this Gemoroh in support. however it is perhaps possible to say that the
latter reflects on the first, rather them being Muchrach Bimkomoi, however I
still maintain that the Loshon Hagimoroh seems clear to not make distinction.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/6/99 3:36:35 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> That is Ya'akov speaking, not the Biblical "narrator".

Did Yaakov not understand (C"V) that the issue here was the Godol not the
Bchor, why didn't he say Ani Esov Bincho Hagodol.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Zvi Weiss wrote:

> > 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 "..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".

I am rather puzzled by your comments. Rabbi  Bechhoffer had made an assertion that the
use of the term tinok shenishba had broadened in modern times. I was merely showing
that Rav Moshe had used the term according to the original connotation  in a modern
tshuva about 18 years ago. The tshuva was specifically written concerning the rational
for making an eruv in  Brooklyn. He did not assert that  there was or was not  a
difference  between Brooklyn and a smaller area - nor did I make any such assertions.
In fact I  made no pronouncements about what should be done with the tshuva. I simply
noted how Rav Moshe Feinstein had used the term. Your statement about "a rather selfish
attitude in citing a tshuva" doesn't sound very friendly. Do you feel that the tshuva
should be concealed? c.v. If you have any complaints about what tshuvos were included
in the 8th volume of Igros Moshe - the address is either Rabbi Mordechai Tendler or
Rabbi Shabtsai Rappaport.
BTW I was told that the earliest  broadened usage of the term tinok shenishba is found
in the Binyon Tziyon concerning wine.

                                                        Daniel Eidensohn

Moshe Shulman wrote:

> > 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?

My comments of protectzia was made in the context of that being *the* connection to
G-d.for *me*. The cases you cite do not conform to the chassidic concept of Rebbe.
The gemora clearly states that Rebbe Channinah ben Dosa was not superior to RYBZ.
Going to a chochom - means *any* talmid chachom. The Chassidim I know insist that
they would not go to anybody else for a beracha - because their source of beracha is
*only* through their Rebbe..

> >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.
>

No one has ever asked for  sharayim from me :). Obviously the concept is taken
literally only for a rebbe.

> >kever of Rav Nachman has the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel etc., .
>
> Matah Ephraim (581) states that the kivrei tzaddik are Kadosh and tahor.

This does not relate to the status of Rav Nachman's kever being equivalent to Eretz
Yisroel or 770 being equivalent to the Beis HaMikdosh c.v.

In sum - you are citing asmachtos for the chassidic concepts. No one except chassidim
understand these sources in the chassidic way.

Thanks for trying.

                                           Daniel Eidensohn

Dear All,
I have not commented on the Moshichistim in Lubavitch because many
others have responded.  However a conversation today brought out the
danger that exists.  A young woman, who has been studying for gairus for
two years with respected Orthodox rabbis, came to New York to study at a
chabad semminary for women.  She left within a week because all they
spoke about was the Rebbe as moshiach.  Others, also coming from
Christian background and with less exposure to Judaism related well to a
resurrected moshiach.
The rabbis who encouraged her to attend this seminary assumed that she
would be exposed to the kiruv that Lubavitch is famous for offering. If
this is what is being taught to recent baalei tshuva and potential
gairim in the first week and clearly not by isolated individuals, then
all of us including those in chabad who disagree, have an obligation to
warn these innocents.
Sadly,
Yosef Blau

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

<<<
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 thedispute
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. 
>>>

Aren't you assuming that it is impossible to formulate a "moral" defense of
white lies?  Beis Hillel may be saying that the moral offensiveness entailed by
a falsehood is outweighed by the obligation to bring joy and gladness to the
bride, just as for example the moral offensiveness entailed by a falsehood is
outweighed by the obligation to save a life or maintain peace within a family. 
Beis Shammai on the other  hand may be upholding a more absolute position
against lying.  The disagreement l'halachah may reflect a deeper
disagreement about how to assess the morality of lying.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 1/5/99 7:23:51 PM EST, mshulman@ix.netcom.com writes:

>  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. 

Can you please give an exact Maareh Mokom, as the Lkutei Torah LhoArizal in
Parshas Siso on the Possuk Vatoh Horeid Es Edyicho, says that Moshe RO"H had
*all* the Bchinos of Odom Horishon, (plus some).

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.

The issue of Yechidah while integral in this Inyan, is not the Nogeia to this
part of the discussion.

>  >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.

As mentioned before the Arizal said that Moshe had *all* Bchinos of Odom
Horishon.

>  
>  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.

What is your source for this?

>  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.

Are all Tzadikim Mashpia to all souls, or there is a Tzadik Hador that is
*the* Tzinor and thru all Einei Hoeidoh (including Litvishe Roshe Yeshivohs)
this hashpo'oh is directed to those people that have a direct connection to
him, (Bdugmas Moshe, Sorei Alofim, etc, and Bdugmas the 12 Sh'o'orim and the
13th Shaar).

>  >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.

However the "Toldos" says that he was the head of the entire generation, and
so is Muchrach in the Gemroh that says Sh'ein *Hador* Ro'ui, not that his
*students* weren't Ro'ui.

Just to add another source to clarify this idea, from the Ohr Torah of the
Maggid, in Parshas Noach.

"....in order to understand this we will preface what it says in the Zohar on
the Possuk Dor Holeich V'dor Boh, that there is no generation that doesn't
have in it a Tzadik like Moshe RO"H, meaning to say that Moshe was Kollul from
the entire generation which is 600,000, as the RaZaL said one women gave birth
to 600,000 in one Keres, and therfore it says Dor Holeich V'dor Boh and it
does not say Dor Holchim (in the plural YZ) Vchulu, because this refers to the
Tzadik thats is in the Dor and as the RaZaL said before the sunset (of one
tzadik there was the sunrise of the next Tzadik YZ), as it says V'tzadik Yesod
Olom.

And see Rashi Bamidbar 21:21 (twice Ach Toiv Lyisroel <g>).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

finding a Rebbe who is
> the shoresh of your neshomo - although, by now, for most Chassidim I
> assume it is hereditary, 

This is another problem I have with Chasidus.  The idea that, 
automaticly, the heir to the chasidic throne or dynasty is usually the 
first born male.  Unless that person is a complete dolt he becomes the 
Rebbe and is therefore  an inborn leader of what would be all of Klal 
Israel (if the chasidim could have it their way). To paraphrase the old 
advertising slogan (I think it was Wheaties in the late fifties) I  
don't think leaders are born.  They are made.  Through the yichus atzmo 
of hard work, great intelligence and high character development.

HM

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, David Glasner wrote:
> 
> Aren't you assuming that it is impossible to formulate a "moral" defense of
> white lies?  Beis Hillel may be saying that the moral offensiveness entailed by
> a falsehood is outweighed by the obligation to bring joy and gladness to the
> bride, just as for example the moral offensiveness entailed by a falsehood is
> outweighed by the obligation to save a life or maintain peace within a family. 
> Beis Shammai on the other  hand may be upholding a more absolute position
> against lying.  The disagreement l'halachah may reflect a deeper
> disagreement about how to assess the morality of lying.
> 
I definitely agree that the disagreement here reflects a deeper
understanding of the morality of lying. I would only differ with you in
the following way. You refer to  bringing joy to a bride or making
peace as over riding the moral problems of lying. I would say that there
is nothing wrong with lying to make peace. The subtle difference I'm
making (which you may in fact agree with) is that the only reason lying
is wrong is because it violates mdvar sheker(or other such issurim) 
(otherwise it would be ok to
lie) so whenever mdvar sheker doesn't apply (in the case of a bride acc to
Beis hillel) it is perfectly ok (even proper) to lie, because without the
issur we have no reason to believe anything is immoral about lying.
as we see that Hashem himself "lied" to maintain sholom between Sara and
Avraham
Elie Ginsparg

>Status: U
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:32:16 -0600
>From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org (Avodah)
>To: avodah-digest@aishdas.org
>Subject: Avodah V2 #111
>Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
>Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
>Precedence: bulk
>
>
>Avodah           Wednesday, January 6 1999           Volume 02 : Number 111
>
>>- --Zvi
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 10:05:33 -0500
>From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
>
>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).
See Maharsho there. He seems to connect it with geneivo. Besides, if he was
not permitted to do a din leatzmo then he automatically becomes subject to
the issur geneivo. See also Mordechai BK which i areffered to in my last
post.
>
>NW
>>
>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).
It seems to me that Rashi never attempted to justify yaakov's deception
with his commentary. He merely pointed out that the whole notion of
twisting the  truth was out of character for Yaakov (ish tam) and becomes
apparent in the way he phrases his answers. He displays a sense of
discomfort with the notion of lying. The justification for his lying rashi
dosn't deal with directly.

BTW, somebody mentioned in an earlier post about the fact that yaakov was
punished for deceiving esov and, if my memory serves me right , questioned
how one reconciles this with chazal's justification of the act. The answer
is simple, the intrinsic immorality of an act may not preclude our
obligation to commit it. Pikuach nefesh is a good example for this
(although there are shitos that pikuach nefesh is hutra). Another
interesting analogy to this might be what  chazal teach us about a taanis
cholom on shabbos.Fasting on shabbos for a bad dream carries uniue merits
and has the power the suspend a gzeiro ro'oh for 70 years (brochos?), yet
such a person must according to that same gemoro there fast another fast on
sun. for desecrating shabbos. Doesn't that seem paradoxical?


>
>1) If, as an ed at a bet din, I say such a statement, am I chayav a korban?
By shvuas bes din there is a special injuction in the shvuah "al daateinu"
for that very reason.
>
>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?
I believe the Chofetz Chaim in Shmiras Haloshon has a lengthy treatment of
the subject.

>>>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... 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,<<<

Actually, even a superficial reading of the sugya proves quite the opposite:
Beit Hillel's proof is because in the marketplace (i.e. the 'common sense'
definition of morality) it is common courtesy to praise the new object
purchased by a friend - regardless of what your true opinion might be (e.g.
when your wife asks you if you like the new dress she bought there is only one
answer to the question : - ).  Truth by any standard (even the dictionary!)
does not mean slavery to literalism.   

Agav, see Tos. d"h yishabchenu that learns the machlokes is not about the
definition of lying.

>>>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, <<<

Rashi doesn't spell out the conclusion you draw.  We may conclude from Rashi
that Ya'akov sought to minimize the APPEARANCE of a lie in the way he parsed
his words (in line with the Midrashic comment that his mother had to dress him
in Eisav's clothes) - however, a lie it may still be.  (This would answer all
but issue #2 that you raise).

-Chaim

>I think we have almost exhausted this round of the Chabad discussions.
>However I would like to share one or two points.

I hope we can lay this all to rest. However I think you misunderstand what is
being said. I am sure it is obviously herd to be objective about something you
have given your life to, but in the end, even if one disagrees, you can
understand their feelings.

>First is seems some of you and not very moved by our efforts with the
>Let me share a story on this issue.
>The same fellows who printed that booklet years ago have continued their
>meshugas despite the fact that the Rebbe answered two of them (there where
>three fellows who put it out, one of them is not alive) separately to cease
>and desist any efforts to link him to Moshiach and be involved in any
>activity of Moshiach etc. etc. ( A few weeks ago there was one of these
>answers posted around Crown Heights where the Rebbe at length berates Rabbi
>Sholom Ber Volper of Kiryat Gat to stop )
>Some in Lubavitch argued that  things changed after the famous Sicha to the
>28 of Nissan when he spoke on Moshiach. Some months later, after the Rebbe
>suffered from the stoke the issue was debated in Lubavitch. I was tired of
>Lubavitch is a community that has opened its doors to anyone and everyone.
>So we inherited all kinds of people. You can find them saying all kinds of
>things. The Rebbe made his Schluchim  his representatives and emissaries.

Dovid, this is all fine, but then the question is why don't you throw them
out? Remember the gemara in Gitten with Rebbe Yochanan and Aspasyonus? If they
are not controling the organization, then it should be possible.

>>From them you find his true message.
>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.

I think you miss the point he was making. He was NOT denigrating the work of
the shluchim (even if he might disagree with it), but saying that their work
is NO PROOF of anything.

>and should try to do something about it. While I have found the debate on
>MInhagim of Baalie Teshuva interesting and a nice intellectual debate the
>problems is not minhag avos. Most Jews today are three, four and even more
>generations removed from the minhag avos, not even their grandparents know
>what it was. They are assimilating faster than we can imagine.

I have no problem with BTs following the customs of the community which they
have adopted. The problem is that they make value judgements of other Jews
following equally valid customs.

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

>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

Yosef, I don't learn theology, nor do I have an interest in such things. I am
a Chasid, and have a derech that goes back to the Baal Shem Tov. (I would
even argue that it is probably much closer to that of the Baal Shem Tov then
some that you seem to favor.) Whether you agree or not is not a matter of
concern to me. I can only relate the facts. The FACT is that you will
not find a single Rebbe who did not go to another Rebbe before
becoming Rebbe. Nor will you find a Rebbe who did not teach that one
had to go to Rebbes. That is where Chassidus is learnt.

>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 -

Your complaint here is in some sense absurd. With regards to Lubavitch where
'learning' Chassidus is an intergral part of being a Chasid, not learning
other seforim from the talmidei HaBaal Shem Tov would be 'limiting.' However
for the other chassidim who do not consider 'learning' chassidus as integral,
it is an absurd complaint. For us, Chassidus is more of a Torah sh'baal peh,
then a torah sh'biksav. The whole purpose of 'learning' chassidus is not for
some intellectual exercise, but to gain insight into how to serve HaShem. My
question to you is why should someone use a limited time for learning
something that is of little practical value. Why should a non-Chabad chasid
learn Tanya and have to consider 'Is this a contradiction to the derech HaBaal
Shem Tov that I have b'kabalah?' (BTW there is quite a bit.) The same would go
for a non-Pershischa chasid. Their view of a 'Rebbe' would not be well
accepted by a Rizhyner chasid. I have yet to see you explain what the value is
of your position based upon the reality of what the derech HaBaal Shem Tov is.
m'kan nisht tanzen auf tzvei chasanos.

>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.

Actual that is not true today, although maybe in the future it will. In most
groups if you ask what their grandfather or great-grandfather was, it was a
member of another group.

-- 
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.

Interesting. SO you have now written out the Vilna Goan from the 'Litvishe'
world?

>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

He was the Chozeh's first cousin.

>The study of Kabbalah is, let us say, incomprehensible.  We are asked to

Not really, although I will admit it is not easy.

>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

1. Are you saying that the Vina Goan, Beis Yosef, Rema, Ramban and others were
irrational? 2. Again what YOU don't understand does not mean that NO ONE
understands it. 3. What does knowing Kabbalah have to do with being a Chasid?
I never heard that such a test was given.

>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

I assume you feel the same about olam habah and techiyas hameisim?

>Shabsai Tzvi.  My mind craves rationality and since I live in the

So the Vilna Goan was irrational.

>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.

>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!

So you don't believe the gemara in Gitten where R. Yishmiel Kohen Gadol went
and asked from heaven whether the gezeirah is from HaShem. And let's just
throw out Har SInai and Moshe's assention, and all the Nevuiim. (Need I expand
on this?)

>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.

Doubtful. His father R. Kopel Lekover who was a great Tzaddik in his own
right. The disagreements of R. Yisroel and his son were over the customs and
not Kabbalah. Opposition to Kabbalah is basically a new thing. For 500 years
it was accepted.

>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"

However after the sh'loshim he did say it. :) (On yeirtzheits he didn't. See
Ohel Shimon.)

-- 
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 ]