Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 125

Wednesday, January 13 1999

• Nusach Ashkenaz / Nusach Sfard
• Re: Chabad
• Re: Avraham & Moshe
• Re: praying for others
• Re: chassidus: change
• Re: definitions
• Re: chassidus
• Re: litvak bashing
• Sanctioning Prsyzchka?
• Re: praying for others
• Re: Avraham & Moshe
• Final and last posting
• How far to folllow a rebbe?
• Paradoxes
• Turning sin into merit?
• Revisionism
• The Rav and Chassidishe Hashkofo
• Chassidishe history - just a few more quibbles for RMS
• Re: Lubavitch - closing thoughts
• Re: Rebbe Peer Pressure
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Re: Irrationality

Eli Turkel wrote:
> 
> >
> > Another thing that bothers me about chasidus is their acceptance of the
> > Nusach of the Ari (Nusach Sfard) as their standard form of Tefilos.  Who
> > gave the Baal Shem Tov the right to change the Nusach HaTefila of our
> > forefathers?  Nusach Ashkenaz is a far older mesorah, dating back to
> > the Anshei Kenneses HaGedolah.  The Ari wrote what he considerd to be
> > the Nusach al pi HaNistar which he considered to be a higher form of
> > Tefila and he based it on his own mesorah, that of the Sfardim.  Yet he
> > never adopted this nusach HaTefila for himself, as he had his own
> > mesorah.  But the Baal Shem Tov decided that he was going to change the
> > Mesorah for his Ashkenazi Jews and adopetrd the nusach that the author
> > himself didn't adopt.  Can some one please justify this rift from our
> > mesorah?
> >
> > HM
> >

> where does this come from?

Please look in the Igrus Moshe, Aruch Chaim, Vol.2 Siman 24.  R. Moshe 
states pretty much the same sentiments. 

> 1. I only know that shemonei esrei goes back to Anshei Kenneses HaGedolah.
>    Even then Rabban Gamliel and later generations made changes.
>    I doubt that our individual wording goes back that far.
>    If it did there wouldn't be many different versions between the
>    siddurim of the geonim and rishonim.

I was not reffering to Psukei Dezimra as I am not sure (is anyone?) 
where or when they came from, except for Ashrei.  However, as you point 
out, Shmoneh Esre does come from the AKH. Some of the prokim were added 
later and R. Gamliel's addition of Elokai Nitzor for himself was 
incorporated into Shmoneh Esre, too. If I am not mistaken, the Birchas 
Kriyas Shema also, came from the AKH.  I may be wrong but certainly the 
Gemmorah talks about them, so the Mesorah goes back to at least then. 
The main thing is that my point is still valid even if I didn't get the 
dates right.

The wording is not that vastly different between NS and NA but 
sufficiently so as to make it very confusing when you are Shaliach 
Tzibur. NS siddurim have many parentheses in them. Do you leave them 
out? Do you say them? Weren't the Chasidic Masters, (when they changed 
from the mesorah of their fathers and established NS) sure about what 
the Nusach should be?  I know that Chabad is sure, they have no 
parentheses because Baal HaTanya decided that he knew exactly what the 
correct Nusach of the Ari was

 
> 2. How do you know that the Ari did not adapot his tefilla for himself?
>    The Ari was ashkenazi from his father's side (related to the Maharshal)
>    and sefardi from his mother's side.

I don't remember where I got this information about the Ari. I believe 
my memory is relatively accurate on the subject. I think I saw it in 
something written by the GRA or a commentary on something the GRA wrote. 
 I Know I saw it about a year ago in a Sefer that my son owns.  I'll try 
and find the Mareh Makom for you.

> 3. All the changes are relatively minor, I don't see any halachic problem.

I didn't say there was a halachic problem.  R. Moshe clearly states so 
in his teshuva.  It just bvothers me that this change was established 
because:
A) This was a clear break from the Mesorah of their fathers and the 
halachic question is on them.  And, B) The Porshim Min HaTzibur aspect.

HM

<<
LET US FACE IT. THE BEHAVIOR OF ANY "GROUP" THAT CAN ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE
INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE NO AHAVAH. "VAHAVTAH LERACHA KOMOCHA" THEY ARE ALL
BUSY CPMLIMENTING EACH OTHER AND USING LUBAVICH AS SCAPEGOATS.
>>

While I will not respond to the specific discussion on the philosophy of
Chabad (having done so already), I do want to address this one comment.

Ahava m'kalkeles es ha-shura - sometimes blind ahava leads one astray.  It
does no good to profess love for a child and therefore never reprimand the
child or guide him away from errors.

Those in this group who have spoken out against those aspects of Chabad's
philosophy that *seem* deviant are not doing it to bash Chabad.  The intent is
the clarification of positions, to show where we disagree and whether those
positions place anyone outside the pale of Orthodoxy.  To insist that to show
errors lacks ahava, and that therefore one may not do so, ignores the concept
of tochacha.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
When Avraham is told to take his one and only son
and sacrifice him, Avraham's response is unquestioning and fervent
obedience.  When Moshe is told to go to Pharoh on behalf of the  Almighty to
take out the Children of Israel from Egypt, Moshe, despite his iniitial
trepidation at being in the presence of the Almighty, engages in a lengthy
argument in which he seeks to avoid the mission that the Ribbono Shel Olam
has selected him to carry out....Would anyone care to comment on the differing
responses of Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu?
>>

I see one clear factor that differentiates the two, and clarifies the
different reactions.  Akeydas Yitzchak happened after many years of Avraham
interacting with HaShem.  Avraham has gotten to know HaShem, and comprehend in
his own way the way HE works.  (I see the episode of S'dom as Avraham learning
about HaShem's aspect of justice, and not that HaShem was testing Avraham to
see if he would beseech HaShem on their behalf).  I would contend that had
Avraham been tested with the akeyda earlier in his life, he might not have
passed the test.

Moshe's reaction is at the very beginning of his interaction with HaShem.  As
the years progressed, such a reaction would have been inappropriate (in fact,
the punishment that ultimately befalls Moshe for his errors when dealing with
the people and the rock concerning water might have been less severe earlier
in his career).  But while there was still a honeymoon period, of getting used
to each other, Moshe was allowed a certain latitude in his comments.  (The
Medrash says that HaShem got angry at Moshe after 7 days of negotiating.
After that long, Moshe should have had a certain level of understanding and
HaShem got upset that Moshe was not acting accordingly).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
>Given the discussion of chassidut I have a general question on the
>efficacy of praying for others. What is the basis for this.
>Either the individual deserves the reward/punishment or not.

We see in parshas Toldos that both Yitzchok and Rivkah prayed. Why should they
need that? The is a gemara that HaShem desires the prayers of tzaddikim.
>>

They were asking for themselves; this does not show that it helps for anyone
else.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
The Rebbe Reb Bunim changed some of the fundemental customs that were common
from the Baal Shem Tov until his time. 
>>

But if the Baal Shem's system was perfect, and the sole definition of what is
correct in chassidus, how could these changes have been permitted?

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Maybe you are too young to remember the Satmar Rov Z'L who was the tzaddik
hador. 
>>

I guess I missed the election!  What is one groups tzadik ha-dor could be to
another group something at the opposite extreme.  Let us not impose our
personal views on the rest of the world.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
OK you totally misunderstand. The derech of the Baal Shem Tov is called
chassidus. If you don't follow his derech you are not part of chassidus. You
can be something else. The derech of Yisroel Salanter is not chassidus. So?
>>

R. Yisrael Salanter (he deserves his title) never claimed to bedefining
chassidus.  But there are plenty of people in this world who are living their
lives in a manner that they call chassidus, which do not follow the Baal
Shem's definition (just the fact that there are at least 3 major trends within
chassidus shows this).  So, either the Baal Shem's definition was not binding,
which is fine with me, systems of thought develop with time, or there are many
people out there who will be very disappointed in their leaders when they
learn that they are not chassidim.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center

<<
A Rebbe is a Tzaddik who has chassidim. Since you are a Litvak,I am sure the
following will be interesting for you. The Shinover Rov used to say that Rebbe
is Roshei Teivos "Rosh B'nei Yisroel" and if he is not worthy: "Rah b'ayei
HaShem".  His son the Cheshinover Rov said Rabanim is Roshei Teivos "Rashaim
b'chayaham Nikruim Meisim." One of the chassidim asked him, 'The Yid is
missing.' To which he answered 'That is right the Yidis missing.' :) (Rebbe
Yankaele Z'L of Peshevorsk said before relating this that just like in the
old seforim they say that the goyim mentioned in the sefer does not refer to
the present day goyim, so the Rabbanim here mentioned does not mean today's
Rabbanim.)
>>

Really now!  Lashon hara on all the rabbanim of the world at once.  The
tzidkus is just oozing from that statement.  (The apologetic at the end is
both insulting and inadequate).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

R. Shulman writes in response to a RYGB query: 
<(RYGB)What happended at the "wedding in Istila" that sanctioned Parshischa as
>bona fide Chassidus. What was the issue, what would have happened were it >not
sanctioned, and why was it sanctioned.
(RMS):The Rebbe Reb Bunim changed some of the fundemental customs that were
common from the Baal Shem Tov until his time. Things like the role of a Rebbe,
kabbalistic customs and dress, times of tephilah and other things. Among those
sent by the Rebbe Reb Bunim was R. Itchei Meir (later Gerer Rebbe, but at that
time a well known talmud chochom who was well respected by all.) I would have
to look into this more to see why it weas santioned. My Rebbes were on the
other side and saw Kotzk as the proof that they were right to oppose
Pershischa.>

There was no "sanctioning", at most there was the aversion of immediate public
warfare.  But since the query was now cited publicly by RMS, I'll take the
liberty, since there's nothing of a private nature in the message, of posting
here an off line response which I had previously made to RYGB re the same
question. 
-Now, if we're talking about the same incident, that would be the wedding of
the grandchildren of the "ahavas yisroel", the Opta rov,  R. AvrohomY. heschel,
and r. meier of opta, which took place in ustilug (it would be a real service
if someone would publish a guide to equivalent transliterations, often
transliterations from different languages,so people can tell when they're
referencing the same town. prsyzchka represents a personal best for me in terms
of a vowel-less consonant string).  r. simcha bunim sent a delegation to this
event headed by the chidushei haRim, probably the only guy in that whole chevra
of weirdos and downright unpleasant people with real diplomatic skills coupled
to an outstanding, and unsullied, reputation (ok, i exaggerate. i couldn't
possibly know each one and maybe there were a couple others.e.g. R. henoch or
R. yitzchoq).   R. Yitzchoq meier's skill  was successful in averting a full
scale coordinated frontal assault on prsyzchka which had apparently been
brewing amongst the community of important tzadiqim of Poland and Galicia. 
However, by no means was prsyzchka "legitimated' in any of their eyes. The
chidushei haRim merely prevented the immediate oputbreak of a jihad, while the
fundamental antagonism persisted.    The Yid had attempted, with only mixed
success, to stay on good terms with the Chozeh.  But with the advent of r.
simcha bunim, for whom the chozeh had no use at all, the hostility -on the part
of the other rebbes- was unremitting. And then when r. Mendel took over -oy.

A further note.   The implied message, that r. simcha bunim's changes involved
merely <some of the fundemental customs that were common from the Baal Shem Tov
until his time. Things like the role of a Rebbe, kabbalistic customs and dress,
times of tephilah and other things> hardly begins to capture the change the
prsyzchka crowd represented, and certainly cannot begin to explain the
extraordinary animus held by the rest of the chassidishe velt to the p-crowd. 
After all, innovations -as radical as the p-crowd's - binogayah to zimanei
tefiloh were hardly unknown in the "traditional" chasidic circles, nor were
individual sartorial statements unknown.  And the alter rebbe's view of the
role of a rebbe was a whole lot closer to prsyzchka than to lublin or
medzibozh.   It's my own belief that the intensity of opposition can only be
explained by behavioral factors which accompanied the p-crowd.  Perhaps more on
this another time.  

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

In a message dated 99-01-13 12:18:29 EST, you write:

<< <<
 >Given the discussion of chassidut I have a general question on the
 >efficacy of praying for others. What is the basis for this.
 >Either the individual deserves the reward/punishment or not.
 
 We see in parshas Toldos that both Yitzchok and Rivkah prayed. Why should
they
 need that? The is a gemara that HaShem desires the prayers of tzaddikim.
 >>
 
 They were asking for themselves; this does not show that it helps for anyone
 else.
 
 Eliyahu Teitz
 Jewish Educational Center
 Elizabeth, NJ >>

The simple pshat I once heard from R' N Alpert zt"l is that when hashem
decides on individual reward/punishment he takes into account how it impacts
not just the nidon but everyone around him. Thus perhaps our prayer helps us
realize how we would be impacted and this in turn is taken into account by
hashem.
Kol tuv
Joel Rich

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> Moshe's reaction is at the very beginning of his interaction with HaShem.  As
> the years progressed, such a reaction would have been inappropriate (in fact,
> the punishment that ultimately befalls Moshe for his errors when dealing with
> the people and the rock concerning water might have been less severe earlier
> in his career).  But while there was still a honeymoon period, of getting used
> to each other, Moshe was allowed a certain latitude in his comments.  (The
> Medrash says that HaShem got angry at Moshe after 7 days of negotiating.
> After that long, Moshe should have had a certain level of understanding and
> HaShem got upset that Moshe was not acting accordingly).
> 
> Eliyahu Teitz
> Jewish Educational Center
> Elizabeth, NJ
> 
When exactly does the honeymoon end, Rashi says that it was decreed that
moshe wouldn't enter Israel as soon as he complained at the end of Shmos,
furthermore, some tannaim hold that Moshe was punished for complainind
against Hashem (he lost the kehuna). I think David Glasner's questions
still needs to be answered. P.S. is the R. Chaim story written down
anywhere (the one where he says Moshe got the Torah because he asks
questions)
Elie Ginsparg

  My dear  YGB, (and to the group)

  If we are to make progress then when a point is made the other
  party has to conceede. It is not productive to call something a
  paradox and then say that the chasidic solution is just different. 
  It means it is no paradox. 

  If you want to disagree and claim that it still a paradox then say
  so and demonstrate. But, you don't know the Tanya. It is
  time from my viewpoint to stop the discussion. As I said from the
  beginning there is nothing to answer. This eye opener from R.W.
  or whatever is absurd. 

 SB

>>
>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>

I will not open this issue. :)<<

the only point is how far does one follow a rebbe? I am particularly concerned 
with Meshichistim who claim that they are following the will of their (late) 
rebbe.  For the sake of argument, let's assume the meshisism is WRONG.  Can we 
blame a chosid for following the (perceived) dicates of his rebbe?  (talk  about
tinok sheenishbo!?).  IOW, is a chosid mechuyov to break with his rebbe once he 
perceives that rebbe as having gone too far - or is he within his rights to hold
fast to his rebbe's shito even in the face of Macho'o.

My impressions is taht a litvisher talmid WOULD break with his rebbe if he felt 
he went off the proper derech.  I think that Zionism (Mizrachi) caused many 
talmidim to break off in one direction or the other. 

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

There is however, a different paradox. Not specific to Chassidus, but inherent
in movements in general.

The point of a movement is to revitalize yiddishkeit by breaking out of the
rut and reattaching one's daily life to the grand tachlis. This was certainly
the intent of the Besht, R' Yisroel Salanter, R' SR Hirsch, etc.. when they
founded their respective movements.

However, the success of a movement guarantees that it will become the new rote.
A first generation or even second generation chossid has a very different
relationship with Chassidus than the grandchild does. His relationship to
Chassidus (or mussar, or whatever) faces the same challenges the movement
itself was created to overcome.

(L'havdil, a similar problem faced the kibbutz movement. Not enough of the
grandchildren who raised to the lifestyle embrased the ideals enough to want
to sacrifice for them.)

It would seem, therefore, that there's a need for new movements or submovements
(e.g. a new kind of Chassidus) every third generation. Unfortunately, we're
currently running a tad low on Besh"t's, Salanters and Hirsches.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6033 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 13-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Eli Turkel wrote:

> Indeed as mentioned Chazal commented that hashem said "chaval de-avdin"
> that Moshe questioned when the avot did not.
>
> I heard this week from Rav Tendler a "vort" in the name of Rav Soloveitchik
> in the name of Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim asks what was Moshe's response to
> G-d's lament. Indeed Rav Chaim says that Moshe responded that G-d could have had
> the avot receive the Torah. The very reason Moshe was chosen was because he
> questioned everything and did not simply accept what he was told. In order to
> learn Torah one must ask questions!

This drasha is astounding. The gemora (Sanhedrin 111a) states that Moshe Rabbeinu
sinned because of this questioning. As Rashi explains that G-d said "There is a
tremendous loss because of the absence of the Gedolim (ie., the Avos). And I am not
able to find other pious people like them (i.e. the Avos)  because you (i.e., Moshe
Rabbeinu)  are not like Avrahom, Yitzchok and Yaakov who did not question My
character." To turn this around and say this sin was the source of his merit to
receive the Torah requires a lot of explanation. How about providing the
intervening variables? A quick computer search failed to find any medrash, rishonim
or achronim that even hints at the chiddush that Rav Tendler told over.

                                          Daniel Eidensohn

>>Interesting is our modern tendency (even more modern than R. Elhanan!) to
equate avoda zara with apikoros in this respect. An investigation into
this issue would illuminate both our understanding of how Halakha views
old-time avoda zara and how we view our own generation.<<

let me add a few more revisionistic points:

A lot of contempory FRUM articles seems to equate Reform to Tsedukkim and/or 
Karoim etc.   This is a big disservice in a way.  Both Tsedukkim and Karoim were
(so far as I can see from various sources) meticulous in their observence of 
mitzvos or halocho as THEY saw it.  They were not motivated by any laziness or 
shortcut, just perhaps krum hashkofo.

Reform not only rejects masora as we know it, but rejects being observant of any
normative halachic construct.

Bottom line, I would not insult either a tsedukki or a karai as being in the 
same boat as Reform.  At least those old-time deviators followed the din as they
saw it.  Reform IMHO is a much bigger rejection; and really does NOT parallel 
those earlier deviant sects.

My 2 cents on revisionism
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe         

I never hear the story of the Rav re: the apple.  What I did hear besheim the 
Rav was that Seichel was the 5th cheilek of the SA.

Forgetting about logical vs. illogical, it seems that the misnagdisher hashkofo 
is to put a LOT of faith into Seichel and to trust it to better understand 
Halocho and Hashkofo.  

OTOH the Chassidisher Hashkofo seems (to this outsider) to be generally 
distrustful of Seichel.  

The argument between Zvi Weiss and M. Shulman seems to follow this basic 
machlokes, ie how much does one apply Seichel to understanding Torah?  Chassidus
seems to follow a more mystical bent precisely because it employs suspension of 
critical thinking.

Re: the Rav and the Brocho, I would strongly suspect that if he had been 
requested to give divrei chizzuk, he would have obliged.  It was probably the 
very mystical nature of conferring a brocho that rubbed him the wrong way.

Parenthetically, it is well known that the Rav learned Tanya as a boy from a 
Lubvicher melamed.  And it apparently influenced his hashkofo, but not to the 
point of giving up a rational approach to Yiddishkeit.      

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In response to a remark of mine R. Shulman writes:
>gaon such as the divrei  Chaim of sanz, held him in high esteem, though he got
>ticked off at the successor generations. (In some ways R. yisroel presaged the
This occured while the Rizyner was still alive.>

I don't think so - but would be interested if you had any sources to the
contrary.

R. Shulman also writes:
<There is enough conflict in the chassidishe velt that this is a non-question.
Maybe you are too young to remember the Satmar Rov Z'L who was the tzaddik
hador. He both gave and received.>
I expect that there are a couple of lubavitchers out there who might disagree
with you, and, I'm taking a wild guess here, possibly other chassidic groups
with alternate candidates.  And while chasidim have invested the term tzadiq
with their own peculiar resonance, there are no doubt more than a few
non-chasidim with a completely different set of mu'amodim for such an itztiloh.
 And while I could hardly be accused of satmar bashing (among other things the
rebbe was my sandek) I think that judgements of just who was the tzadiq hador
ought be delivered with other than a matter of fact assertiveness of some self
evident truth, at the very least with the weasel word "imho".

R. Shulamn writes: 
>> >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.

He was the only descendant who was worthy.>

I think this, and a few other postings, simplify the Boyaner yerusha saga too
much.  Thus I don't think it quite appropriate for anyone to deem other members
of the family as not "worthy", though I imagine that R. Shulman did not
actually mean to convey such a message.  The Boyaner's father, professor (of
psychology at YU) M. Breyer was recommended to the chasidim by his brother in
law israel friedman (who had previously turned the job down).  He didn't get
the job because he was too worldly for the chasidim, his academic
accomplishments being a major chisorone - (clearly rhyziners (now boyaners)
still have differences with chernoblers (now talners)) -  but  it would be
quite a chutzpoh to suggest that he was not "worthy".   The younger son was the
last remaining candidate period, after his brother bowed out, and was under
enormous pressure to accept - as was Prof Breyer who felt responsible for
making the choice between letting an ancient chasidic line - ben achar ben from
the maggid right through his father in law r. mordechai - expire completely, or
encourage and prepare one of his sons to accept the job.  The Boyaner's older
brother turned down the job because, in his modesty,  he did not feel worthy to
fill his grandfather's shoes, but this does not mean he wasn't.   The chasidim
were pretty desperate by this time and  the younger son, no doubt as modest as
his brother, was now placed in a uniquely pressured position - accept or be
personally responsible for the death of Boyan.  I am reminded of that great
early scene in the first star wars movie, where the hologram of princess leia
pops out of R2 and plays the secretly recorded message addressed to obi-wan
kenobi,  repeating over and over - even future tape players apparently get
stuck in a groove - "obi-wan, you are our only hope", much to luke skywalker's
puzzlement.  Well, r. nachum Breyer was the Boyaner chasidim's obi-wan.  He has
apparently worked out wonderfully (he made a good impression when he visited a
shabbos in our shul in silver spring some years ago, his wife's sister lives in
our community) but lets not kid ourselves that he was the one "worthy"
descendent.  Worthy he no doubt is, but he was also the one least able to say
no. 

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

> At the same time, I think that
>it is necessary to show some rachmanut, especially for the Lubavitcher on
>the street (or sitting next to you) that may be under great strain because
>of all this (or may be in denial re the Rebbe's p'tira).

This seems very strange to me. The Lubavitcher is not the first (or only)
Rebbe who has died in my lifetime. I have not heard in Ger or Satmar (groups
of similar size) such widespread psychological problems. If there is something
wrong it needs to be addressed/

>I don't think that there is much more that can be done from the outside.
>Ultimately it will be Lubavitchers that determine the future of Lubavitch,
>for the good of the Jewish world or the opposite.

I agree, and that is why the majority of Rebbes have just not stated anything
openly.

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

>>2) his peers (ie other rebbes)
>Yes.<<
>I'm just curious (please be mochel me for opening up another can of worms..)
>Were any non-Chabad rebbes moche the Lubavich Meshichist strain?  Of course it's
>possible it was done beseiser, but it any one (R. M. shulma perhaps) aware of
>any macho'o re: the Meshichists?

1. Lubavitch has been isolated from all other Rebbes for a long time. There
has been no real interaction. There may be occasional visits (based on
protocol), but that is it. 2. I have heard many private things.

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

>> >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!
>> ? I think that you have not read carefully. An unworthy person is not chosen.
>> Usually there is at least one son who is worthy. (Not always the eldest.)
>I never said that an unworthy son would be chosen, I know that eldest
>sons are sometimes passed over.  What I am trying to get you to admit is
>that a Chasidic dynasty is treated more like a monarchy instead of a

The ideal is that a worthy son takes over for his father, and if any other
sons/sons-in-law are worthy (and so desire) they can set up for themselves.
Talmidim who are worthy and desire have always set up for themselves. I just
do not see a case where your objection is valid. If there is no worthy son or
son-in-law then a talmid will take over (or they will find another Rebbe.) Why
should a worthy talmud have precedence over a worthy son? 

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

>> >> >===> Please note that you did not in any manner, shape, or form answer the
>> >> >objection above.  that one serves the Boreh with all capabilities does NOT
>> >> >seem to support the fact that there is (or should be) an anti-intellectual
>> >> >element or that the Avoda is irrational.  citing chukim has noting to do
>> >> >with the issue.  though the chukim are "irrational" from our perspective,
>> >> >their *observance* is within a very rational framework.
>> >> Zvi, sometimes your questions just don't seem to make sense. I
>> >> addressed two
>> >> points that seemed to come out form your questions: 1. HaShem is
>> >> served ONLY
>> >> through the intellect. To which I amswered that this is not true. He
>> >> is served
>> >> in many ways. 2. That there is nothing irrational in Torah or avodus
>> >> HaShem,
>> >> to which I answered look at chukim.
>> >===> First of all, I never stated that Hashem is served *only* through
>> >intellect.  What I *did* state is that I do not see a support for an
>> >*anti-intellectual* approach.  Secondly, as I stated previously -- the
>> There is no support in chassidus for the type of anti-intellectual approach
>> that you seem to be implying. I have tried to understand your complaint, but
>> quite frankly it is impossible to understand.
>===> My "implication" has been based upon the repsonses that I have
>received,

Zvi, you have decided what chassidus is and is not, and no matter what I will
tell you it makes no difference. The only sense that your questions make is if
one suspends ones own knowledge of what chassidus is and imagine what you are
misunderstanding it to be. Since this is a subject you don't know about maybe
it would be better for you to ASK QUESTIONS about it rather then assume that
you understand it.

>> >OVERALL context of Chukim is not irrational -- it is the specific Chok
>> >that we do not understand -- which is NOT the same as championing
>> >irrationality.
>> Just incorrect. The idea of chukim are that there are things that G-d requires
>> that we just cannot understand.
>===> No discussion -- just a flat statement with no elaboration -- that is
>intellectual?? Please read the above that I wrote and then re-read what
>YOU wrote and then explain why Rishonim sought to "explain" Chukim if the
>idea is as you have written.  *I* have no problem because we ARE expected
>to TRY to understand everything but OBEY the chok even when we do NOT
>understand it (that is why I referred to "context" vs. the chok, itself).

They continually try to give reasons, not THE reason. There are many 'reasons'
in chassidishe seforim also. But there is a recognition that the 'real'
reasons are unknown, as Chazal say with regards to the parah adumah.

>> >> That chassidus cannot be learned from a sefer, does not make it
>> >> 'irrational'.
>> >> Was Torah sh'baal peh 'irrational' because there was no sefer one
>> >> could learn
>> >> that would teach him what it was? In fact, every sefer that tries to
>> >> give some
>> >> idea, will always point out that one has to become part of a group around a
>> >> Rebbe.
>> >===> Torah She'b'al Peh was "learned" intellectually even though it was
>> >oral.  You have, however, appeared to present a POV that specifically
>> >"demotes" the value of intellect.
>> Again, just because something is learned 'orally' does not make it irrational
>> anymore then the TSBP is irrational because it was passed on orally.
>==> I did not claim that TSBP was irrational -- however, the methodology
>that you "presented" re issues raised here DID seem to have such elements
>in it.  Comparing it to TSBP allows you to avoid answering the direct
>query.

No you are saying that because it is a subject that does not appear explained
in seforim, that it is irrational. (That is where the word irrational was
first used by you.) Chassidus is a derech, some things are mentioned in
seforim, but the ikkar is not (as was discussed in a previous post.) BTW
Chazal recognized that such things exist when they forbade learning Kabbulah
to large numbers of people. Some things need special situations in which to
accuratly relate the meaning.

-- 
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 ]