Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 115

Thursday, January 7 1999

• Re: Infallibility
• Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1
• lubavitch
• Chasidic Leadership Yirushoh
• Inherited Titles
• Re: One People?
• Re: Effect of seeing the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Chabad
• Re: Lubavich
• Re: Lubavich
• Shulchan Aruch haRav
• Re: Lubavitch
• Yerushas Ha'Nesi'us in Jewish History
• Let's Come Full Circle: RYE and Lubavitch, Majority vs. Minority
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Lubavich
• Re: Avodah V2 #113

Apropos infallibility, apart from the Beit Din HaGadol in the Lishkat
haGazit to whom we are required to listen to whatever they say, in other
cases the gemara is specific: (Yevamot 92a) "Horu bet din she'shak'a chama,
ul'vasof zarcha chama, ein zo hora'a ela ta'ut" and this is brought down
as halacha by the Rambam in Hilchot Shegagot 14:3.

Josh

R. M shulman writes: <<ALL the concepts of chassidus go back to the
Baal Shem Tov.>>

I am NOT well-versed in Chassidus, but I am in history.  Ponder this:
1) Besht sets out to form a NEW derech - a revolution that dveikus no longer 
requires being an "insider" (ie alegiance to the current rabbinic authorities)
2) He forms Chasidism
3) Now the ultimate of chaissidism has become (acoording to M. Shulman 
v'sayoosso) how much one PRECISELY conforms to the Besht's teachings (remmber 
there is NO chidush to chasissism, it is THE undisturbed Mesora from teh besht 
that counts not ruach hakodesh or whatever).

Question: how long did the Besht's revolution against the prevaling rabbinic 
Orthodox authorities take to substitue its own "orthodoxy" of Besthism?
Answer: apparently not long.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 

What determines whether an institution is on the list of official chabad
institutions, especially considering some of the more vocal meshichisten
do have institutional positions and records of scholarship (i.e., Majeski,
Marlowe) of chabad -- others do not (Springer, Butman, et al).  When I was
in New York at a baal teshuvah function two weeks ago or so the Lipskier
yeshiva was mentioned as a legitimate alternative (in addition to hadar
hatorah, machon chana, tiferes bachurim, etc.) by the organizers for people
seeking further learning.

While I basically agree with R.D. Riceman's main point that simple yirushoh did
not as a matter of course always follow the rebbe's oldest son - i'm afraid
some of the specific examples and general dates cited are in error.  Thus R.
Riceman writes that:  <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.>. 

Satmar did not emerge in the late 19th century.  Satmar is really Sighet which
harks directly back to the first chassidic Teitlebaum, the Yismach Moshe (a
contemporary of the Chozeh and talmid of R. Elimelech MiLuzinsk - though the
Teitlebaums didn't hit Sighet till the middle years of the century. also my
great grandfather's great grandfather, but who's counting) at the end of the
18th century-beginning of 19th. When R. Yoel was niftar in the US, the
contemporary Sigheter rebbe (R. Yoel's nephew) essentially re-united the Satmar
with the "original" Sighet line. The most famous Sanzer rebbe (R. Chaim
Halberstam) was already niftar sometime close to mid-19th century.  Ger is
started as an independent chasidus by R. Yitzchoq meier (the Chidushei haRim),
a talmid-choveir of the Kotzke- who broke with the Chozeh (to follow the Yid
and then R.S. Bunim) and should thus be assigned to the first half of the
century. Not sure either why 1812 is picked on for start of lubavitch dynasty
since the alter rebbe started as a student the great maggid well before that
date.  

Also the description of the "splitting" off of the Atzei chaim's chassidim to
follow satmar is flawed. If anything the actual sequence supports the
"primogeniture" aspect of the yirusha rather than the opposite.  The true story
is that the Atzei Chaim (a grandson of the Yeitiv Leiv) originally got his job
specifically because he was the oldest son. Now, he was also a stirling talmid
chochom but that is not what got him the nod. His younger brother R. Yoel then
needed a job, and since the main family seat - Sighet - was now occupied, he
suffered the fate of many younger sons, he was shipped off to the boonies
-Satmar (St Mary's. how's that for irony)- to open a shop there.  Subsequently
the Atzei Chaim died quite young, and again - reinforcing the importance of
yirushoh by eldest son, rather than re-import R. Yoel from Satmar to the "main
line" position, the community leaders turned to the Atzei Chaim's son, R.
Yekusiel yehudah (R. Zalman Leib) as the next Sighter rebbe. The Satmar
meanwhile, by dint of his extraordinary personal qualities (a truly outstanding
talmid chochom, a charsmatic qano'ie, and a brilliantly quick and wicked wit)
attracted from scratch a large and ever growing following.  The eclipse of the
home front new Sigheter rebbe by his dynamic uncle, R. Yoel, also has to be put
in perspective.  The new Sigheter rebbe was very young, essentially still a
talmid (indeed, my uncle the Berbeshte Rebbe a"h, was dayan in Sighet, took
care of things for the chassidim and was more or less in charge of the
Sigheter's education during this early period.) and implication of competition
for chassidim is temporally out of sync. This scenario really does not support
any suggestion of chassidim "voting with their feet" to follow the satmar. 
tragically, the Sigheter, R. Zalman Leib, and the Berbeshter and many of the
jews of Sighet perished in Auschwitz. (a poignant memoir was published
relatively recently by R. Prof. David Weiss-Halivni who was on the ramp at
Auschwitz with the Sigheter rebbe that day in 1944 and provides an eyewitness
description of the circumstance of the young Sigheter rebbe's's selection by
Mengele for the death line. Halivni, still a teenager, was directed towards the
worker line.) 

<When the Imre Chaim of Vizhnitz died in 1972, both sons became rebbe,..>. 
Just to reinforce R. riceman's words here, this is hardly a new thing. If
anything it was the typical response - frequently most of a rebbe's children 
became rebbes themselves. Ironically, if memory is properly serving me while I
dash this off at the end of my work day, Vishnitz itself started in precisely
the same way, as a second son taking part of the chassidim. i think five of the
Ryzhiner's (arguably the most powerful/important tzadiq of all during the first
half of the century, and, I think, a great granson of the maggid -but i might
be off by one generation either way) sons became tzadiqim.  One of the
sociological crises of chasidism is widely recognized to have occurred in the
mid to late 19th century with the proliferation of all the ainikloch from
families of tzadiqim, many of whom weren't ro'uie to be tzadiqim but tried to
set up shop anyway.  this systemic problem was surely at the root of many
intra-chasidic problems and disputes, such as the feud between Sanz and the
Rhyziner descendents. 

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

Before we point fingers at Chassidus for inherited titles, let's look at the
Roshei Yeshiva of Lakewood. <grin> Or, for that matter, those of Sura and
Pumpedisa.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6028 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 7-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>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

You appear to be confusing two ideas. 1. Being a Tzaddik whose prayers
are heard (i.e proteksia) and 2. being that Rebbe who can help you come to
that level of avodas HaShem that is your potential.

>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..

Again there is a problem with a misunderstanding on your part. These sources
describe not just chassidic Rebbes but also the sefardic chocham, who would do
likewise. (remember the Baba Sali?) I don't know of any chassidim who would
deny that other Rebbes then their own can and do have 'proteksia.' (There are
probably some, but they are just fools, and have no support from chassidic
seforim.) For example the Rimnetzer Z'L was well known to have given brochos
that were fulfilled. As to why chassidim do not go to other Rebbes for such
things. 1. You will at times find those that do. 2. If your own Rebbe has
proteksia, why do you need another.

I think underlying this objection is an unstated question that you have: I
know my Rosh Yeshiva is a scholar etc, why can he not give brochos. For this I
have no answer. According to the Talmud he should be able to.

>> >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.

It seems that the Chasam Sofer, who was not a chasid, did understand it that
way. Interestingly it should be pointed out that there is a serious error that
many Litvishe make. Non-chasidim like the sefardim and many gadolim (Chasam
Sofer, R. Yosef Shaul of Lemberg etc) while not chasidim did not oppose them.

>> >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.

I am neither a Breslover nor a Lubavitcher. Maybe one of them can give an
explainatin of what they mean. However with regards to Breslov, if they are
tryng to say that since Reb Nachman is buried there the land is holy just like
Eretz Yisroel is holy because it is 'Jewish land', then that is basically what
the Matah Ephraim is saying. I don't think they are saying that if a fruit
tree happened to be growing there one is required to give meisar. :) As to
Lubavitch, if they are saying that it is a mikdash m'at, then that is no
problem. Otherwise, it is up to them to explain. I have NEVER heard of any
Rebbe refering to his shul in a way like that.

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

>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.

I heard a similar story with regards to Morristown a few years back.
Fortuinatly the rabbi who sent the fellow there (who was also a Lubavitcher)
was able to keep him in Yiddishkeit.

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

>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

Do you have a problem with the family of Hillel HaZaken? His position also was
passed via heredity.

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

><<
>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.

I must add my personnal account. When I was younger I had an interest in
Chabad, and the Moshiach business had a lot to do with my seperating myself
from them. (In addition to some other things I saw which were not in accord
with what I had learned about the derech HaBaal Shem Tov.)

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

>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Isaiah Beilin wrote:
>>   their theology is really an attack on the Rebbie. Let us be honest. It is he
>>   who made all this happen. But, you all don't have the guts to say it, lest
>>   the Lubavicher will be completely upset.
>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.

I would say that this is the view of the situation from all chassidim who are
not Chabad. If he thought he was Moshiach, then he was mistaken.

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

>We mean for them to intervene. But, if you think that the Rebbie said it
>then attack him.
>But, you realize that the Rebbie who was a zadik clearly did not commit an
>averah.

If the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the source of this belief (i.e that he is Moshiach
and will rise from the dead to be Moshaich) then he is guilty of worse then an
averah. It is a chillul HaShem. Er hut gemacht chassidus tzu zein a Purim
shpeel in de oigen un de velt.

>  Most important we must develop
>  (a) Derech Eretz for the Rebbie

? The only thing that is negeiah is "motrzeh laz al h'meisim", which many here
are trying to avoid.

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

The following--comment and response--were posted by Rabbii Teitz:

<<
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

Although I by now skip both the Lubavitch discussions and the chssidus
discussions when reviewing my list, the above was sufficiently brief, so I
read it.  My comment is that I was once told by someone that until the
chayei Adam and possibly later, Shulchan Aruch Harav was studied on a
regular basis by European Jewry (possibly all chassiduyos--as opposed to
misnagdim, I'm not sure).

NW

>>From private e-mail I received:
>This is similar to the defense offered by a local Chassidishe rebbe in
>whose shtibl I sometimes daven who is close to Lubavitch but also
>rational.  When we would talk he would consistently defend the Rebbe by
>saying that anyone who was surrounded by people telling him he was always
>right was bound to become crazy.  This is a defense?

I heard that it was because of the fall of the Russian communists.

>With regard to AZ [Avoda Zara] - what do you make of their praying toward
>the Rebbe (westward) after his stroke rather than toward the Aron Hakodesh
>in 770? Is this meaningless? Stupid? Would you at least concede that for
>some it may have had some more forbidden meaning? Would you concede that
>since a minority did turn toward mizrach to daven that facing the Rebbe
>had more than accidental significance for the majority of those present?
>Me again:
>I must concede the point - that certainly smacks of AZ.

And praying to pictures?



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

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> Do you have a problem with the family of Hillel HaZaken? His position
> also was passed via heredity. 
>

This was only because his descendants were worthy. Hillel himself received
the nesi'us when Bnei Beseira stepped down because they felt Hillel was
worthier. At the time of the zugos the Nesi'us was certainly not
hereditary. When Chazal were no longer satisfied with RG they deposed him
and appointed REBA. 

YGB

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

It has occurred to me, that the Lubavitch conversation began as an
offshoot from the RYE conversation. I believe there are two lessons to be
learnt from RYE to nidon didan.

1. I believe it was RYEb who was asked by a noble man in Prague, if Jews
are commanded to follow majorities (rov), why do they not follow the rov
of the world that are Christian? If I recall correctly, RYEb responded
that we only follow a rov b'makom safek, not in a vadai. But I hope
someone here remembers the story mor eacccurately.

The point I would like to make is as follows: Even if the majority of
Lubavitchers are off the derech, that does not necessarily mean that core
Chabad philosophy is "bad". In this vein, I think we all have great
respect for Lubavitchers who are members of the chaburah of Ovdei Hashem
we call Avodah, and whatever we feel about the rest of Chabad, we must
reaffirm that respect.

(That deos not mean we need agree. I think we should discuss issues that
we disagree on, for that enriches us all.)


2. As I understand Dr. Leiman's understanding of the Noda b'Yehuda's
position on RYEb, he held that there was truth to at least some of RYEm
allegations, yet his shikkul hada'as was to "cover up." Let us understand
this carefully. If RYEb had, c"v, been a heretic, then I am sure R'
Yechezkel Landau would not have been hesitant to denounce him. Everyone
knows the NbY's virulent opposition to Chassidus, and the apocraphyl story
of the copy of the Toldos he kept as a footrest. He was quite capable of
vocal opposition.

Rather, the pshat is azoi: RYEb might have had a slight tendency towards
Sabbateanism - what it was, we have ascertained - among ourselves, the
greatest collection of minds in the world today :-) - that we are not sure
what it is. But it was certainly something obscure, arcane, and ambiguous.
Ie., it was a very slight deviation. The NbY doubtless felt, "ein tzaddik
ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov v'lo yechta" - no one's perfect. RYEb slipped
up a little. But on the whole - his tziddkus and gadlus out weighed by far
his deviation, and he deserved his place in the parthenon of Jewish
heroes as the Tumim, Plesi, etc.

(Kind of like I think the Berditchever said that when the Gra was nftar
they wanted to punish him in Shomayim because he persecuted the Chassidim,
but the seforim he wrote protected him.) 

So too, even though the Lubavitcher Rebbe made mistakes, he deserves his
place in the parthenon of Jewish history, as a hero of the generation to
rebuild Yiddishkeit.

YGB

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> Before we point fingers at Chassidus for inherited titles, let's look at the
> Roshei Yeshiva of Lakewood. <grin> Or, for that matter, those of Sura and
> Pumpedisa.


The advantage that the Yeshiva system has is that very often, the 
succesion line follows the son in law, who is usually hand picked for 
his daughter by her father, and is ususally a great Talmud Chacham in 
his own right, earnining that zchus thru his own merit. Hence, the next 
in line to be the Rosh HaYeshiva very likely is worthy of that title on 
his own anyway.  This is rarely the case with Chasidic dynasties as was 
pointed out by Mechy Frankel. Chasidic Rebbes try to give over the 
Yerusha to their sons, or brothers or nearest blood relative. For 
example, the Boyaner Chasidim have as their Rebbe, the grandson of the 
previous Rebbe, a title he received by inheritance at a very young age. 


HM

Moshe Shulman wrote:

> 
> Do you have a problem with the family of Hillel HaZaken? His position also was
> passed via heredity.

Heredity should not be an impediment.  Neither should it be the main 
requirement for leadership.

HM

>>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

I guess you don't understand so well. He has said that if the L. Rebbe
said/believed that stuff then he was wrong. If it is just his followers saying
this, then they are wrong. In any case NOW he knows that this view was wrong,
whether he said it or not.

>  that have published are hiding this. Now, how you will not convince
>thousands of followers
>  that their Rebbie is wrong.

How many 'thousands' Lubavitchers are there in the Anash book? How many
'thousands' believe this narishkeit?

>  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

Reb Moshe wrote a number of things that our Rabbanum argued with. Never has a
view been ascribed to him that would make us doubt his sanity.

>  But, again let us follow the Rambam (and Kuzari) who said that even a
>false Mosaiah

Are you saying that without the L Rebbe the goyim in Lubavitch wouldn't have
know about the ikkarim of Judaism?

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

>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:09:48 -0600 (CST)
>> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
>> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
>> >====> 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.

? One serves HaShem will everything, both with ones intellect and with ones
physical nature. (If someone says he has only Torah learning, even Torah
learning he doesn't have.) (BTW can you give me a rational explaination for
chukim?)

>> :) 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.

The problem is that you thing 'liturature' = 'chassidus'. That just is not
true.

>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.

I do follow the derech of my Rebbe and no other. I wil however learn seforim
that I enjoy learning (in addition to those my Rebbe has told ME to learn.)
Another point. A Rebbe will not instruct two people to do the exact same
thing. For example, both my closest friend and I went to my Rebbe about a
particular inyan in avodah. He was told to do one thing, and I was told a
different thing. I am sure anyone who has been a mashpiah understands this
idea.

>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.

To see chassidus as only an intellectual exercise of learning seforim, then
you are wrong. It is a method of serving HaShem, with learning, and
performing mitzvos. The Rebbe Reb Boruchel, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov
relates that his grandfather was asked that since he was against fasting what
is the main purpose of his derech. He answered; 'Ahavos HaShem, Ahavos
HaTorah, Ahavos Yisroel.' Is that so irrational?

>> >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???

I never said nothing. There are some common things in all works.

>> >> >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...

You do not believe that there is anything in Judaism that is true and we must
believe that you cannot intellectually understand?

>> 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....

But there are very few, and even less who can play two intruments at once.

-- 
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 ]