Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 114

Thursday, January 7 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Brocho on potatoes and meat
• [none]
• Re: potatoes
• Lubavich
• Lying
• miseducating geirim
• Succession in Chadism
• Fwd: tinok sheh-nishba
• Fwd: Chabad
• Re: Avodah V2 #113
• Fwd: Re: tinok sheh-nishba
• Re: Confessions of a Misnagid

<<
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...
>>

As much as I do not want to take on R. Moshe, I must disagree with his
perspective on this.  The situation is not as simple as R. Moshe makes it out
to be.  First, many non-Orthodox do NOT think that anyone frum is "more
intelligent and rational" than they are.  Second, they do not see this as
being particularly important.  To them religion is what they understand, not
what someone else tells them.  So seeing a frum person would not impact on
them in the slightest to change their way of life.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

   The CS himself (OC 50) paskens against Talmidei Rabenu Yonah. See 
   Biur Halacah (208) where he uses this shita as a snif to support "rice".
   Also, see Taharat Mayim from Rav Talushkin who uses this shita to
   extend it to (possibly) corn-turkish wheat.

   But, if you look closely, the Rabenu Yonah himself does not seem to know
   how to apply it. It is olny orez and dochen and one other kitniyos brought 
   in SA. (I am not sure of the English name for that item)

   But, look in Mishne Brurah and you will see that he emphasizes "kitniyot"

   I believe to extend it to potatoes and meat is a mistake. The loshon of
Rabenu
   Yonah is "mozon". It means a staple. This brings up the issue of the
fact that
   bizman hazeh we use bread out of tradition. I can eat supper without it.
(And, I do)
   And, not to escape the benchen. But, this is a discussion as to what
llafes es
   hapas means. (See Rashi vs. Tosfot) Our eating habits have changed.

   Shaya Beilin

> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:22:35 -0500
> From: Rabbi Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net>
> Subject: Effect of seeing the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach

> 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


For the record most Shluchim - at least all that I know - are boycotting
this institution. The list of Chabad institutions put out by the world
headquarters does not list it as a Chabad institution.

D. Eliezrie

<<
I did not look up the Rabbanu Yonah, but my understanding of that shittah is
that a food when eaten in moderate quantities (like mozonos, oraz etc) that
are filling (d'zayin), which would apply to potatoes, requires a mazones. 
>>

Michael Poppers suggested that it has to be from the ground, and not shehakol,
so let me re-ask my question this way: if I eat my fill of ANY vegetable, or
fruit for that matter, what would the b'racha be?  I still see this ONLY
applying to types of grains, and not to ANY other sort of vegetation.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote 
>

>Oh no, you are quite mistaken. I think we are all ready to "attack"
>(strong word. Let us say dispute, disagree and reject) the Rebbe if
>necesserary. Some have and will. I believe:
>
>
>1. Either the Rebbe did not say these things, they are distorted.
>
>2. If the Rebbe said them, he was not lucid when he did.
>
>

>As above. I think most of us do not believe in infallibility. People can
>certainly be wrong - even great people. (BTW, there is a chiluk between
>committing sin and being wrong - that I am noting for you on your
>premise.)
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
  The sichot I am referring to are documented. They were delivered by an
  individual who was of sound mind and body(weak heart) . However, it
appears that you
  are admitting that the Rebbie is part of the PROBLEM (that you imagine
exists)
  And, if you aren't then we can fence a while until you will have to admit
it. Others
  that have published are hiding this. Now, how you will not convince
thousands of followers
  that their Rebbie is wrong. As Eli Weisel said "an objective chosid is
not a chosid"

  It is not a matter of infallibility. It is a matter of authority. Surely,
there is no one in
  the group that I am writing to that feels qualified to make that
statement. I MAY BE WRONG
  ABOUT THE LAST STATEMENT. MAYBE SOME OF YOU ARE QUALIFIED. If I told
  you Reb Moshe gave a bad pesak I am sure I would receive that response
(even if I
  wrote a solid pilpul to prove my pint). I cannot judge the Rebbie. He was
a recognized 
  godol batorah. Please give him his due respect. Try to understand before
critiquing

  But, again let us follow the Rambam (and Kuzari) who said that even a
false Mosaiah
  has a positive value. We won't forget the 13 ikorim which is a
requirement to join
  this elite group. 

  Shaya Beilin

>>>if you take Tos literally to mean that beis shammai holds kalla naeh is a
violation of mdvar sheker--then why is he maikal by a purchase, and how do you
explain beis hillel--chazal are metaken you to do issurim?????).<<

B"Sh is meikel where people's common sense perception of morality is not
violated - Tos. says he was meikel, not I!  How do you learn Tos?  B"H say its
not an issur.  (If you would like it in lomdush lingo - the market lie acc. to
B"H is hutra and can be said about the kallah.  B'Sh say the market lie is
dechuya by your need not to be insulting; you don't make a takkanah for a
dechiya).
 
>>>The Ritva (quoted in the shita mekubetzes) says explicitly that beis
hillel's reason is that any statement which is made for peace doesn't violate
mdvar sheker which fits in with my understanding that the gemara is debating
the application of the issur and therefore the definition of a lie.<<<

Maybe its not dvar shekker because the definition of shekker is determined by
people's perception of moral falsehood?  Your facts are right; conclusion
unwarranted.   (2) The Ritva does not prove there is a debate about the geder
haissur.  He merely explains Beis Hillel.  Does Beis Shammai disagree with the
defintion of m'dvar shekker (your approach), or do they agree with the
definition of sheker and argue on whether a takkanah shoudl be made (Tos)?  

>>>See also Tos Rid who says that we learn from beis hillel that one should
say a "dvar Hamikabel" even if it's sheker--must be becuase in halacha such
isn't a violation of Mdvar sheker and thus not a assur lie<<<

Your facts are true, yet the conclusion unwarranted.  Perhaps, as I wrote, the
Rid simply means a lie which is a davar hamekabel is not perceived by people
to be morally wrong and is hence not a violation of dvar shekker.  

>>>Please explain where you got the idea that the market place
represents "common sense morality" , I would say it's an example to
explain the parameters of mdvar sheker as defined by halacha<<<

I lost you.  The gemara is citing people's behavior as proof of the
parameter's of a din.  We can call it 'natural law' - the halacha incorporates
common sense morality into halacha.  The opposite shita (which I thought you
held) is the Chazon Ish who would argue that morality does not exist absent
law/halacha - its not a lie or truth until determined by halacha.  If you take
that approach, instead of reading the gemera's reference to the market as the
'sibah' that there is no lie, it is a 'siman' that there is not halachic
problem otherwise there should be some din that prevented people from lying
such in business.  This is an old debate among Ba'alei Mussar, Chazon Ish,
etc. - my only point was it cannot be resolved from the 'superficial' or even
the complex reading of the sugya.

-Chaim  

> From: Rabbi Yosef Blau <yblau@idt.net>
> Subject: Effect of seeing the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach
> 
> 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.

Within the last fortnite I was consulted about a similar situation.
(Given the pressure of exams I don't recall who contacted me.) I hope
it's the same woman but one suspects the problem is widespread.

    You recently wrote that among Chasidim, "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)."

    It doesn't quite work that way, nor has it really ever.  For the first
150 years of Chasidic history, the succession was usually from rebbe to
talmid.  The Baal Shem was followed by the Maggid of Mezrich, who was
followed in turn by several of his talmidim, such as Reb Elimelech of
Lizhensk.  But there is no Lizhensker rebbe today; his chasidim went to the
Chozeh of Lublin and Reb Menachem Mendel of Rymanov.  The Chozeh's chasidim
split between the several of his talmidim, and so on.  Lubavitch as a
hereditary dynasty emerged in 1812.  Stolin and Chernobyl appeared around
the same time.  However, Belz, Sanz, Satmar, and Ger all emerged in the late
19th century.

    Even in recent times, the succession does not necessarily go to the
oldest son.  Chasidim tend to be very picky about committing themselves, and
are very good at voting with their feet.  The Atzei Chaim of Sighet was
leader of 20,000 chasidim when he died in 1926.  However, rather than follow
either of his sons, his chasidim basically went to his younger brother,
Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, who in 1934 became known as the Satmar Rebbe. When he
died, the leadership went to the Atzei Chaim's younger, surviving son.  In
Ger, the Bas Yisroel was succeeded first by his older brother and then by
his younger brother, before the current rebbe took over.  When the Imre
Chaim of Vizhnitz died in 1972, both sons became rebbe, reflecting a split
in the Vizhnitzer ranks.  The previous Klausenberger rebbe was a younger
son.  So was the Rashab of Lubavitch.  In Slonim, a son-in-law was chosen
over a son.  The list goes on and on.

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman

<<
(Seeing as how the Beis Yosef in OC 385:2 uses the term wrt a tzadoki)
How does today's non-Orthodox differ from the tzadukim (or Karaites, for
that matter)?  It seems to me that these groups all have/had some
knowledge of or access to rabbinic teachings.  
>>

A tinok sheh-nishba by definition is one that had no opportunity to know,
that's why it is a TINOK, a small child (or infant).  The other groups
mentioned rejected parts of our tradition, the captive infant has no idea of
our traditions to reject them.

<<
Firstly, we call even "shanu u'pirshu's" tinokos she'nishbu.
>>

I do not agree with this statement posted here.  A person who was observant
and then rejected it can hardly be called nishba.  I would like to know what
basis there is for calling them such.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Rabbi Teitz has a uncle who had a friend who asked him to sign a
document etc. etc. years. ago etc. etc
>>

Just to keep the record straight, I have the friend and it was my friend's
uncle, and this goes back over 20 years, long before all the public craziness
over messianists.  Already back then, and as I said, even to the first years
of this past rebbe's control, people were appalled by his veiled claims of
being Mashiach.  This is not so easy to sweep under the rug as you've got a
friend, and he sees a yechi kippa.  This cuts to the very core of Chabad
chassidus, which is why I feel the ONLY way they can join back into the ranks
of the rest of Orthodoxy is to repudiate their belief that their rebbe must be
the yechida, a concept which to me still looks an awful lot like Christianity.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

> 
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:09:48 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
> 
> >> >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.
> 
> It is not different, you made two comments. One has to do with being a Chasid,
> which requires a Rebbe. The second is to have an understanding and that could
> come about ONLY if you live (or have) among chassidim.

===> thank you for the clarification.

> 
> >====> 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
> 
> The problem here is that you look upon Chassidus as ONLY being some type of
> intellectual exercise. It is not. It is a method of serving HaShem.

===> It has always been my impression that one serves Hashem with their
intellect and understanding.  Are you now claiming that Avodas Hashem is
irrational (C"V)??  I see no error in asserting that one's approach to
Avodas Hashem should not appear self-serving.


> 
> >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
> 
> :) Do you know what you are trying to say? You are throwing out the ikkar of
> Chassidus and taking the tufil. ALL the concepts of chassidus go back to the
> Baal Shem Tov. If not then they are not chassidus. You can't point to a true
> 'new concept' of chassidus since then, as there were none. The 'new' things
> you can point to are all chitzoniyus issues. One Rebbe placing a greater or
> lesser emphasis on X. You seem to see Chassidus as (Litvisher derech +
> Chassidic theology.) And that is just wrong. (To my Chabad friends here: After
> discussing this topic for a while with our Litvisher friends, I understand why
> the Alter Rebbe modified the Baal Shem Tov's approach to try to appeal to
> them.)

===> That misses the point.  If you are willing to accept any literature
simply because it is in a "preferred class", there is an inconsistency.
Of course, I can understand that Chasidus "derives" from the BeShT.
Similarly, I can see that different Rebbeim placed different emphasis upon
different aspects in THEIR Avodas Hashem.  However, in trying to
understand the overall "framework" -- it seems "defective" to ignore any
amplification that does not "come" from one's Rebbe.  And, if the emphasis
is GOING to be on the "Rebbe's Derech", then there is no logical "basis"
for a "preferred class" at all.  Just follow ONLY what the Rebbe learns
and nothing more.
Of course, once you say that being intellectual is not "chassidish" and
represents a Litvish aberration, then I can begin to understand what you
state -- but then you also end up with the idea that your concept of
Avodas Hashem is NOT necessarily a rational one -- and may appear to be
self-serving to some degree.


> 
> >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
> 
> Zvi, I learn from ALL Chassidic groups. (You haven't noticed that I have
> recommended a work about Polish Chassidus, I have R. Tzudok's seforim, I
> have RKK, and I know a bit of Chabad.) BUT I see no advantage in it. For me it
> is ony for interest. Those things that are not in accord with my derech, I
> ignore.

=-==> You see NOTHING in those other works that helps you in your
derech???


> 
> >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.
> 
> RKK's works are very similar to other Chassidus'. Eish Kodesh and Derech
> HaMelech follows typical Chassidic methods and ideas. (In fact I would
> recommend Eish Kodesh highly.)
> 
> >> >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".
> 
> Is this the first time that you have seen something in Judaism that 'just is'?

===> In the case of Haskafa: yes.  And, to so assert that it "just is"
seems to represent intellectual laziness...


> 
> >> >> '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.
> 
> Close. There are different interpretations. It's similar to niggunim. Two
> people can sing the same niggun, but each does it a little different. But the
> underlying niggun is obvious to anyone who understands music. For someone not
> so knowledgable in music, it just 'sounds different.' To one more knowledgable
> he can discuss what makes it different, etc. If you look at the seforim, it is
> just like looking at the instruments of an orchestra. There is more to music
> then just instruments.
===> Certainly -- but we also find that there are those who are skilled
with MULTIPLE instruments when making music....


> 
> - -- 
> Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:05:32 +0200
> From: "Dr. Saul Stokar" <sol@mri.elscint.co.il>
> Subject: Mitzva of Zedakah for a Gentile
> 
> In Avodah V2 no. 107, Yitzchok Zirkind cited some sources for
> the question of whether Zedakah is a mitzva for a Ben Noach. I would
> like to add the following sources, cited by R. Reuven Margoliot in his
> book "Margaliot Hayam" on Sanhedrin (notes for 56b, section 8) viz:
> 
>  [1] Yadot Nedarim (R.Y. Natanson), Yad Shaul Y.D. section 224 (the
> section number is rubbed out in my book and the middle digit is
> uncertain)
>  [2] Teshuva Meyirah (R. Aderet), pp. 51-53
>  [3] Cli Chemdah, beginning of Parshat Vayera.
> 
> By the way, the Ran's proof (Ran to Sandhedrin op.cit.) mentioned by
> R.Y.Z. seems quite compelling.

===> How does this relate to the concept of Chessed?  In particular: Olam
Chesed Yibane which appears to be a normative for behavior in this world?

--Zvi


> 
> Saul Stokar
> 

<<
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...
>>

As much as I do not want to take on R. Moshe, I must disagree with his
perspective on this.  The situation is not as simple as R. Moshe makes it out
to be.  First, many non-Orthodox do NOT think that anyone frum is "more
intelligent and rational" than they are.  Second, they do not see this as
being particularly important.  To them religion is what they understand, not
what someone else tells them.  So seeing a frum person would not impact on
them in the slightest to change their way of life.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Moshe Shulman wrote:

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

Of course not. The Gra was the preeminent genius of the last 300 years 
or more and of course he wanted to study Kal HaTorah Kula of which the 
nistar is part of.  I never said Kabbalah is not a part of the Torah.  
All I said is that it incomprehensible to me.  (Klipos? Spheros?)  I 
suspect that those who do study it today don't really understand it 
either.
> 

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

> 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.

Again these were preeminent geniuses of their time.  Notice how little 
they wrote about their experiences with Kabbalah. If I am mistaken and 
much was written that I am not aware of, we ceratinly don't study it.  
Why IS that?

 3. What does knowing Kabbalah have to do with being a Chasid?
> I never heard that such a test was given.

I was talking about the Philosophy of Chasidus.  With the Notable 
exceptions of Ger, and Kotsk, we know that Chasidus does not make great 
demands on their Chasidim to study, the concept of Emunah Peshutah being 
the primary form of Emunah in HaShem.  This way the Rebbe is vested with 
even greater power as he is the only one that does study at a high 
level.  Is not the Tanya the recognized as the Primer of Chasidic 
Philosophic thought? Is it not based in Kabalah? Are there other such 
works?  If there are, do they not encompass as their primary source,  
Kabbalah?  I think most Chasidim are happy to concede learning and 
knowledge to the Rebbe and absolve themselves of major learning.  They 
are happy to go to the Rebbe for Kvittlach and Brochos  (another bone of 
contention I have with Chasidus).

> 
> >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? 
As  one of the Rambam's thirteen principles of faith I am compelled to 
believe in it. I do believe in spiritual world, If not then I could not 
believe in G-d.  My problems are not in belief of the spiritual world.  
My problem is with attempts to study it.  In MOST cases,  I believe (at 
the very least) that one's time can be more vastly productive by 
studying the revealed word of G-d.

>>  My mind craves rationality and since I live in the
> 
> So the Vilna Goan was irrational.

Studying Kabbalh does not make one irrational.  It is the claim by 
lesser minds theat they understand kabalah that makes me want to 
question either their rationality, or their objectivity. In many cases 
people that say they understand Kabalah are just deluding themselves.

> 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?)

 The above examples prove nothing.  In each case nobody transcends the 
plane of the natural world.  It is G-d who transcends the Supernatural 
world to communicate with man who IS in the natural world.  This 
includes Nevuah.  Nevuah is G-d Talking to Man.  Tfila is Man talking to 
G-d.  It is as simple as that.  In any case Nevuah ceased with the close 
of the era of the Neveim, so, that is certainly not an issue for today.

> >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.

I'm surprised you know so much about my heritage, although it is brought 
down in Toras Shimon, Ohel Shimon section.  I have misplaced my copy but 
as I recall it was a battle royal!  R. Shimon's father was a fierce 
misnagid.  And went to great length's to dissuade his son from becoming 
a Chasid.  I don't recall per se whether kabbalh was an issue (although 
I can't see how it wouldn't be) But it was more than a fight over 
customs.  It was in essence, in familial microcosm, the very battle that 
Misnagdim, led by the Goan, were fighting against the very institution 
of Chasidus.  Even if you know nothing else about chasidus, The fact 
that the Gra was so against it, shows that it was a lot more than just 
variant minhagim that he was upset about.  He feared the onset of a new 
Sabbatianism.  Well, fast forward to today and look to Lubavitch 
Chasidus.   Maybe he was right after all.


HM

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


[ 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 ]