Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 121

Tuesday, January 12 1999

• Re: Venting
• Re: Avodah V2 #120
• Re: Tinok Shenishbah
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Infiltration of Chasidus
• Gezel on well water
• Ein don Yechidi elo echod
• Re: Avodah V2 #119
• Re: Avodah V2 #119
• Re: chassidus: perfection
• Re: tzadikim litfasim al hador
• Re: going to rebbes
• Re: chassidishe story
• Re: tzadikim litfasim al hador
• Yitzchok and Yaakov's deception
• Re: Yitzchok and Yaakov's deception
• Re: Yitzchok and Yaakov's deception

On 01/11/99 Chaim Brown wrote:

>After reading two weeks of incessant anti-Chabad rhetoric I couldn't agree
>more - not that I take one side over the other, but I fail to see what venting
>on this list accomlishes. 

I think we have to differentiate between merely expressing anger (venting) and
seriously discussing an issue about which there is much to say.  I did not
believe that most of the discussion here was either incessantly anti-Lubavitch
(despite my own already-expressed strong opinions).  In fact, as I reviewed
the amount of space spent on the issue it appears to me that defense of them
occupied considerably more space than the criticisms.  The questions raised
are serious and we ought not to allow the unpleasantness of the issue to deny
the legitimacy of its discussion, as long as we focus on content and avoid
mere repetition.

Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:08:06 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1
> 2. Hereditary Rebbes.
> While the Rebbe considered the Tzaddik HaDor was never hereditary (nor is till
> this day.) That sons became Rebbes (like Rabbanum) was from the beginning. For
> example it is well known that the Baal Shem Tov wanted HIS SON to take over.
> Only when it became apparent that HE DID NOT WANT IT, did it go to the Rebbe
> Reb Ber. Of the talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov MANY were founders of Rabbanic

===> Minor comment: according to the Collection by r. Zevin ZT"L known as
Sippurei Chassidim, the son of the BeShT *did* assume the leadership (for
approx. one year).  At the Shavuos following the Petirah of the BeShT, his
som stated that his fater (the BeShT ZT"L) had appeared to him and told
him that "the whole package" had moved over to the Maggid Reb Ber.  At
that point, he got up and "trasnferred" the leadership.  This incident was
cited to show the tremendous strength of character that the BeShT's son
exhibited.

--Zvi
> dynasties that you would recognize. For example Viznitz (Rebbe Koppel Chasid
> father of Rebbe Mendel Kossover), Skvere (Rebbe Nachum Chernobeler), Zvil,
> Skolya (Rebbe Mechele Zlotchover) Boyan (Rebbe Reb Ber) Kretchenov/Nadvorna
> (Rebbe Aryah Leib of Premeshlan). Need I mention more?
> 
> - -- 
> Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Rabbi YGB has overlooked the gemora in Shabbos 68 and the explicit
> psakim of the Rambam (Shegagos 2/6, 7/2) that a Tinok Shenishbah brings
> a chatos for sins done in ignorance.  I reiterate my point that there is
> a substantial difference both in Halacha and Hashkafa between him and a
> Mumar. 
> 

But that's not the same Tinok She'Nishba!

That's a true TSN - one who has never heard of Judaism, like the similar
case brought there in the Gemara of Ger Sh'Nisgayer ben Ha'Nochrim - who
never heard of Shabbos.

It is not the same as a Conservative or Reform Jew!

YGB

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

Moshe Shulman wrote:

 
> If you are saying it is rarely the case that a worthy person is chosen, athat
> is false. If you are saying that it is rare that a son-in-law is chosen, that
> is true, since there are usually sons.

This is exactly my point.  Obviously a son will not be chosen if he 
doesn't have some basic leadership ability for which he is trained from 
the day he is born.  But if a son in law is more worthy, he will NOT get 
the nod over a son.A MAJOR FLAW!

> 
> >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.
> 
> And for which he is worthy.

He may be worthy but the primary reason he got it is Inheritance.

HM

Eli Turkel wrote:

> 
> Just a general comment - with all the recent discussion of rebbes I
> find that many roshei yeshiva are becoming more like rebbes.
> People go to them for blessings and ask their opinion about marriages
> business opportunities etc. All the thing that litvaks made fun of
> chassidut seems to have infiltrated the litvak world as well.

This is a phenomenon that has been bothering me for quite some time.  As 
a matter of fact there are many things from chasidus that have 
infiltrated the Yeshiva world, some of them good, e.g. married women 
covering their hair is probably a direct result of the chasidic 
influence as this halacha was falling into disuse in the litvishe 
community as  pointed out in the aruch hashulchan.  

On the other hand there are many minhagim the chasidim have given the 
Yeshiva world that are not that great. Like the increased popularity of 
Peyos(earlocks) on litvishe kids.  There was a time not so long ago that 
a litvishe kid would not be caught dead with peos. But today it is the 
rule rather than the exception.  We now have a phenomenon where many 
roshei yeshiva themselves dont have peyos but the kids do.  What is the 
point of having those kind of Peyos(Chasidishe, not the long Chazon 
Ish)?  Don't use many of the gedolei Israel as examples of Peyos 
wearers.  Gedolim arer in a special category and those that have peyos 
are doing it for some kind of Hiddur Mitzvah most likely, in the same 
vein wearing Kapotes.

The most troubling thing for me is the chasidic concept infiltrating the 
Litvishe community is that of "Brochos from the Rebbe" or in the case of 
the Litvishe community, the Rosh HaYeshiva, or Gadol (such as R. Shlomo 
Zalmen, or R. ElYashiv).  What is Going on?  

Is it possible we are embarking on a "slippery slope" concept in 
reverse?  The idea that a Birchas Hedyot is good, lets go to the best 
Hedyot we can because G-d will listen better to his tefilos (brachos)? 
Even if that's true don't we run the risk creating a system where the 
Rosh HaYeshiva just becomes another Rebbe with  some special connection 
to G-d.  Of course we won't call him a Rebbe, but De Facto he will be 
one. Doesn't this system lend itself to ubuse?

Let me relate to you the following 2 stories.  

Story 1

I will not use names so as not  to besmirch any respected Rosh Hayeshiva 
with a Shem Ra.  But I can assure you the story is true because of the 
very close perosnal relationship I enjoy with one of the parties 
directly involved. This individual confided in me that he/she was having 
a very difficult time with getting married so he/she decided to get 
brachos from any one he/she could.  One of the individuals he/she sought 
out was a very prominent rosh Hayeshiva in the Litvishe community.  He 
asked "do you have any maaser money to give to my Yeshiva?" After giving 
an affirmative response he/she got the "bracha".  Brachos for Money?  I 
guess so!  A good deal for the Yeshiva, but not so great for the 
applicant.  It took about 6 long and difficult years for that bracha to 
be mekuyam! Of course I gave that person a bracha much more recently so 
it was probably my bracha that was the effective one :)

Story 2

Not to let chasishe Brachos off the hook, the following happened to a 
very close personal freind of mine.  A very prominent and respected 
Chasidic Rebbe, worldwide, was aproached by my freind for a bracha for 
his dying father.  The Rebbe gave him a sealed envelope and was told 
never to open it.  That father died. After a few years my freind decided 
to open up the "bracha letter" just to see what was inside.  It was a 
mimeographed (remember mimeographs?) form letter stating, in effect, to 
whom it may concern: this is an official bracha of the  (so-and-so) 
Rebbe.

What say you all to this?

HM

Ramban (2:16) writes that the shepards of Midyan tried to commit robbery by
taking the water Yisro's daughters had drawn from the well. Question: by what
means were bnos Yisro koneh the water - presumably the trough was public
property, not their keilim, and the well was a public place - in short, all
they did was draw the water.  Unless there was some specific law to Midyan
that declared this robbery, is it really a violation of dinim?

-Chaim   

<<
This is an interesting question. Could you explain to me what the Gemara says
(San. 110) Kol HaMaharhar achar Rabbo k'ili maharhar acher hashachinah.
In a more serious vein, Rebbes who have gone outside the acceptable have
spurned serious conflict. For example, Tzanz - Sadagura that occured over 100
years ago. 
- -- 
Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website<<

Ein hochi nami re: a Talmid.  My point is if a litvhisher Rish Yeshiva wnet off 
and did something, he would feel Peer pressure.  right or wrong it was obvious 
that many Roshi Yeshiva did not concur with the the Hashkofo of RYD Soloveichik 
of YU.  It is arguable that he was THE gaold hador (whatever that means) yet it 
was also clear that the yeshivishe world was not intimidated by his gadlus...

Now take a Chasidishe rebbe.  Whether he is totally convntional or totally 
unconventiaonal he is not held in chekc by 
1) his Chassidim
2) his peers (ie otehr rebbes)

Question: he does hold him in check?  If you tell me it's his own tsidkus, then 
how about Shaul, Dovid, and Chizkiyahu?

So it's not about talmiddim or chassidim holding a leader in check it's about 
the idea of Shiv'im zekeinim.  Rembmer R. Akivo held that bar Kochbo was the 
Mosiach and his colleagues told him (I forget the source) that Akivo you'll see 
grass growing out of the palms of your hands....

And remember what happened to Rabban Gamliel when his peers felt he wnet too 
far.

And recall my question re: Yochonon Koehn Gadol, what happened to HIS talmidim 
when he became a tseduki?  Now if a Koehn Gadol isn't a Godol who is <smile>

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 1/10/99 8:52:47 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> After reading two weeks of incessant anti-Chabad rhetoric I couldn't agree
>  more - not that I take one side over the other, but I fail to see what 
> venting
>  on this list accomlishes. 
>  

Agreed!

I think it is time to pass on to better things, and for all sides to keep in
mind that facing the receivers computer is the face of another Yid and in this
group - most probably a Taalmid Chochom, who desreves respect and not be
personally attacked, any claim and/or defense can be presented with true
Ahavas Yisroel one that demands Vlo Sisoh Olov Cheit. 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

In a message dated 1/10/99 8:33:35 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> The Gemoro says that since they regret when their wish is not filled it is a
> sin, so while the receiver may benefit they did not give Tzedakah see also
> Avodah Zorah 2b.

===> The Gemora said that in regard to ONE interpretation of the Pasuk.

Exactly!, the Gemoroh considers this a valid interpertation.

> ===> The Gemara does NOT appear to bring an alternative.  Again, if you
>  are going to be primarily dependent upon the Gemora (and its meforshim) as
>  your cource, it is a bit inconsistent to then turn to Meforshie HaNavi
>  simply becuse the Meforshei HaShas turn out to be less definitive here...
>  
I am bringing Rayo from Mforshei Hakosuv that there is no problem with
understanding the Gemroh as the Tanya does, the gemoroh certainly does concur.
The Mforshim did not make up their own Torah CV, one can certainly use them
for understanding the Gemoroh. 
And especially to your point that the Gemoroh ends that it is forgivness for
them, I pointed out that this is actually 2 different opinions that can also
be found in Mforshei Hakosuv, IOW the end of the Gemoroh does not invalidate
the first opinio/s.
Also when we see that Kabalah has something to say in the matter, it further
validates such Pshat, as there is no reason to be Mafish Machlokes.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

<<
Maybe you can explain yourself. No one says that anything in this world is
perfect. It is whether something can be called 'chassidus' or not. 
>>

Allow me to explain.  By saying that whatever the Baal Shem Tov declared as
chassidus is the entirety of its definition is saying that his definition was
the perfection of that system.  There can be no room for improvement on it
because it is complete in its giving.  That is something that I feel is
reserved only for HaShem.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
See Shabbos 33b, that Tzadikim are ensnared in the sin of the generation, see
also Ksubos 8b, see MaHaRShA in Kesubos who brings here Gemoroh of Shabbos
that one who has the power to be Moche on the entire generation carries the
sins of the entire generation, this is also found in Medrosh Tanchumoh
Mishpotim (7), see also Sanhedrin 27b that Lo Yumsu Ovos Al bonim doesn't
apply to Mach'oh.
>>

Then their punishment is for not rebuking and trying to change the generation,
and NOT that they are being punished for the sins of others.  You thus prove
that my contention was correct.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
>The Besht started a derech that did not necessarily require a Rebbe,
>certainly not hereditarily - at least not that we "outsiders" understand.

Wrong on both points.

1. Baal Shem Tov required going to Tzaddikim:
>>

And are only rebbes tzadikim?  Are there no tzadikim who are not rebbes?  

The question has not been answered.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Now for the chassidishe story, famous even outside of jewish circles I think
because of the efforts of Elie Wiesel (another sigheter, they're everywhere). 
The story, probabaly more or less well known to most of you, goes that at a
time when the jews needed a special yeshua from the opressers, the baal Shem
would go to the woods with a wax candle, do the various yichudim, say the
tefilos with right kavonos, and the jews would be saved.   The next
generation,
the yichudim and kavonos had been forgotten but the great maggid could still
go
to the woods in times of danger and say the tefilos, and the jews would still
be saved.  By the next generation, even the tefilos had been forgotten, but R.
Moshe leib meSussov (which is the associative connection to the topic we
started with)  could at least retell the story, and yeshua would still come. 
>>

This seems to imply that successive generation were greater and greater,
needing less and less interaction with HaShem to get the desired results.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 1/11/99 3:24:34 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> 
>  Then their punishment is for not rebuking and trying to change the 
> generation,
>  and NOT that they are being punished for the sins of others.  You thus
prove
>  that my contention was correct.
>  
I have nothing to prove or disprove, you asked a good question which as Micha
pointed out should be directed at the Gemoroh, and I tried to supply an nswer.

OTOH when one delves deeper into this, one could understand especially from
the Loshon in Shabbos 54 that the leader is ensnared on the individual sin (as
Yodua the Chakira whether Hocheiach Tochiach is a general Mitzvah or one that
attaches itself to each individual Mitzvah), IOW the fact that he is ensnared
shows his connection to the thing he is ensnared as the Chazal say Vaseemeim
Brosheichem that Ashmas Ho'om is on it's leaders, this is the underlying point
also in Chassidus, that the leader has connection with the actions of his
follower, to the point that he personally is held responsible.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>
I was never much of a fan of painting Yitzchak to be a fool.  One point that 
to me illustrates just how much Yitzchak really knew about Esav is the 
seemingly unnecessary parsha inserted immediately before the story of the 
brachos.  The Torah tells us that Esav married at 40 (possibly trying to 
emulate his father) and that his choice of wives was a bitterness to BOTH 
Yitzchak and Rivka.  In light of these last words, the Torah nonsequiters into 
the story of the brachos, giving the strong impression that Yitzchak was fully 
aware of what Esav was really about.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ<<

I think it's a guzmo to say Yitzchok was a "fool".  It would be more accurate to
say he had a blind-spotpt re: his son, remember he's a nogeio be'dovor...


And note the sensitivity of the text re: Moras Rauch.  While BOTH Yitzchok and 
Rivko had Moras Ruach, it is only AFTER the deception is revealed that Rivko 
says: Katzti bechaya!"  IMHO, Rivko had a BIG communicaiton barrier with 
Yitzchok re: Eisov.  See the Possuk Vayehaov Yitzchok.. v'Risko oheves...
(Plus it appears that Rivko nenver communicated to Yitzchok the nevuo of Sheni 
Goyim. pretty odd, no?) 
The poetic beauty is that once Yaakov pulls of the charade, and vaycherad 
Yistchok, his blind-sopt disappears
1) re: Yaakov he says Gam Borcuh Yihye (as if to say he deserved the brocho all 
along
2) re: Eisov coming afterwards, he at first refuses to bless 
him.  Why?  Perhaps NOW he rezlizes that Eisov never really 
seserved the Brocho in the 1st place.
3) Rivko can now open up re: bnos cheis and states katzti 
bechaya (sort of a sublte I told you so)
4) Yitzchok gives Yaakov Bircas Avrohom


Remember Avrohom too felt bad re: Ysihmoel.  I consider neither of them foolish,
although perhpas a bit naive.  (I think there's a difference).

Soro and Avrohom argued, While Rivko used a much more clever tehcnique (and the 
possuk points out several times Achos Lovon...)

Bottom line, Yaakov was participating in a DEMONSTRATION and not decieving 
Yitzchok accept within that paradigm.  think of Nosson and Bas Sheva's plot to 
appoint Shlom as successor; they didn't tell Dovid that they were consipiring, 
but by following each other up they were.  It is likely that Dovid realized that
there was no co-incidence.  simliarly, Rivko was consipiring to convince 
Yitschok, Yaakov's role was perhaps an uniwtting one.

If this scenario is not the case, then there might be solid ground to criticize 
Yaakov as a usurper.  Frankly, I would rather see Yitzchok as a bit naive 
vis-a-vis Eisov than accuse Yaakov as being a deceiver.

Best Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> I think it's a guzmo to say Yitzchok was a "fool".  It would be more accurate to
> say he had a blind-spotpt re: his son, remember he's a nogeio be'dovor...

I agree with Rabbi teitz that it is clear that yizchak suspected Esav
wasn't so good (see the rashi's on yizchkas command to esav not to steal
etc..) but why do we have to say he was a fool or had a blind spot. Why
don't we say he thought esav was good enough for his role as a supporter
of yaakov's torah, he thought esav meant well even if he wasn't such a
tzaddik. In a discussion where everyone focuses on YAakov's deception,
lets remember that esav purposely decieved his father for years. why can't
we say yitzchak was tricked into thinking that esav was somewhat decent
(even if not a tzaddik) and rivka needed to prove to him that esav was a
total rasha and would never support Yaakov.
> And note the sensitivity of the text re: Moras Rauch.  While BOTH Yitzchok and 
> Rivko had Moras Ruach, it is only AFTER the deception is revealed that Rivko 
> says: Katzti bechaya!"  IMHO, Rivko had a BIG communicaiton barrier with 
> Yitzchok re: Eisov.  See the Possuk Vayehaov Yitzchok.. v'Risko oheves...
> (Plus it appears that Rivko nenver communicated to Yitzchok the nevuo of Sheni 
> Goyim. pretty odd, no?) 
Why must we say that Rivka had a communication problem with her husband, I
would say she understood her husband so well that she knew if she told him
outright
about esav it wouldn't have the same impact as Yitzchak discovering this
for himself. As far as the nevuah is concerned why should we assume she
should tell Yizchak. First of all she could reason that since Yitzchak was
a greater tzaddik (rashi beg of toldos) he should know if he is supposed
to know. Furthermore (as seen in daf yomi recently) it's not so simple
that you can relay messages from anyone let alone Hashem without
permission, maybe she didn't have permission to tell. The lack of
communication is too much avos bashing for me.


> The poetic beauty is that once Yaakov pulls of the charade, and vaycherad 
> Yistchok, his blind-sopt disappears
> 1) re: Yaakov he says Gam Borcuh Yihye (as if to say he deserved the brocho all 
> along
> 2) re: Eisov coming afterwards, he at first refuses to bless 
> him.  Why?  Perhaps NOW he rezlizes that Eisov never really 
> seserved the Brocho in the 1st place.
> 3) Rivko can now open up re: bnos cheis and states katzti 
> bechaya (sort of a sublte I told you so)
> 4) Yitzchok gives Yaakov Bircas Avrohom
> 
> 
> Remember Avrohom too felt bad re: Ysihmoel.  I consider neither of them foolish,
> although perhpas a bit naive.  (I think there's a difference).

What do you mean when you say they were naive?
> 
> Soro and Avrohom argued, While Rivko used a much more clever tehcnique (and the 
> possuk points out several times Achos Lovon...)
> 
> Bottom line, Yaakov was participating in a DEMONSTRATION and not decieving 
> Yitzchok accept within that paradigm.  think of Nosson and Bas Sheva's plot to 
> appoint Shlom as successor; they didn't tell Dovid that they were consipiring, 
> but by following each other up they were.  It is likely that Dovid realized that
> there was no co-incidence.  simliarly, Rivko was consipiring to convince 
> Yitschok, Yaakov's role was perhaps an uniwtting one.
> 

Do you think Yaakov was a puppet, he didn't know what was going on. He
did, but he acted anyways because that was the ratzon Hashem. He did what
ever he could to minimize the sheker involved, but I'd rather say Yaakov
was kovesh his middah of emes to serve his mother (in turn serving Hashem)
then to say Yaakov was a puppet in his mothers hands. 
> If this scenario is not the case, then there might be solid ground to criticize 
> Yaakov as a usurper.  Frankly, I would rather see Yitzchok as a bit naive 
> vis-a-vis Eisov than accuse Yaakov as being a deceiver.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
I like my scenario where Yitzchak is the victim of esav's deception.
Yizchak not being a fool realizes Esav isn't as good as he pretnds to be,
but is tricked into believing that esav can be a supporter to the tzadik
Yaakov. Rivka thinks up a brilliant plan which (since she knows her
husband SO WELL) is the best way to show yizchak that esav is totally
evil. Yaakov goes along with the plan in attempt to fullfil the
ratzonHashem even though it goes against his own nature. 
P.S. my scenario is heavily influenced by my memory of RSHirch's approach
to the topic.
Elie Ginsparg

Cheryl Maryles wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> > I think it's a guzmo to say Yitzchok was a "fool".  It would be more accurate to
> > say he had a blind-spotpt re: his son, remember he's a nogeio be'dovor...

It's amazing to me that some on the list are so cavalier in bashing the 
Avos. The text in the Torah is never intended for us to "spin". It is 
intended for us to learn the midos of our patriarchs and matriarchs. We, 
some 3500 after the fact, can't really know the actual minds of the Avos 
from the little the Torah tells us about their entire lives.  What we do 
know is only what the Torah wants us to know.  It is up to the ones 
closer historicly and with greater yiras shomyim and knowledge of Torah 
to interprate and tell us pshat, drush and mussar of the psukim, not us, 
of the twentienth century and this list.

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 ]