Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 128

Thursday, January 14 1999

• nusach
• Va'ani v'ami hareshoim...
• Going full circle another irony
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Re: Avodah V2 #127
• Re: praying for others
• Re: chassidus: change
• Re: chassidus
• Re: litvak bashing
• Re: Sanctioning Prsyzchka?
• Re: The Rav and Chassidishe Hashkofo
• Re: Chassidishe history - just a few more quibbles for RMS
• Re: Nusach "Chasidus"
• Re: Teaching Chasidus
• Re: Misnagdim and Kotzk
• Re: Two emails about sickness and tephillah
• Re: Seforim
• Re: Lubavitch - closing thoughts
• Re: Rebbe Peer Pressure
• Re: nusach
• large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading

Of course, Reb Moshe wasn't about to say that there is a a halachic
problem with nusachim other than Nusach Ashkenaz -- although he did
say it was best not to switch (which goes for a number of minhagim --
there is a greater neder involved in switching than in not switching).
He himself descended from a family of chassidim.

>>
The Tanya's theory that tzaddikim are predestined, is inimical to all
Misnagdim, and is not, to the best of my knowledge, explicit anywhere in
Chazal. But I know very little. Perhaps you can demonstrate this. I cannot
accept the Tanya's defintion of a tzaddik on other accounts as well. It
leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are all resho'im - not even
beinonim.

YGB<<

Based on this idea of we're all Reshoim, we can see Par'oh's statement  - Hashem
haTzadik va'ani v'ami horshoim, - in a new light, ie it might just as well apply
to klal Yisroel.  (yes I am kidding!)  R.(tongue-in-cheek) Wolpoe

>>Furthermore there is an enormous amount of Loshon Hara and Motzei Shem Ra
out there against Chabad- are all Halachos nullified when it comes to
Lubavitch?

The question not why are the other Chassidim not coming out against
Chabad- It is where are our brothers in the Derech Habaal ShemTov to
defend Chassidus Against our detractors. 

Remember- When the Baal Hatanya was arrested he took the effects of the
Murderous slander of the misnagdim upon himself and sat betfisah  for the
sake of all of the Chassidim. 

History is repeating itself, The attacks begin with Chabad and will end
with delegitmising all of Chassidus. Soon all of us (Boyan,Viznitz , Ger,
Whoever) will be declared beyond the pale by the self proclaimed owners
of "Daas Torah" (more correctly "Daas Turoh"(Aramaic))<<

Saying the following "misnagdim are saying loshon horo..." is ITSELF loshon 
Horo!  and a sweeping generalization to boot.

Many misnagdim (well I can speak for myself anyway) QUESTION what Chassidim are 
doing but intend no harm per se.

I realize that there are many Meshistim who are MUCH mroe scrupulous with 
regards to many halochos, but I do not agree with their hashkofos.  Disagreement
is not ispo facto loshon horo.  

Accsuing others of attacking can do as much damage to sholom as an attack 
itself!

The fact is, misnagdim do oppose certain hashkofos of chassidim.  that's a fact 
of life.  The reverse can also be said.  If we choose to take these hashkofo 
debates as personal attacks no side wins and no side is right.

IMHO we should stick to explaining our own hashkofos and perhaps resepctfully 
disagree with others lest we fall into the same trap as did the talmidim of R. 
Aviko.  I can honestly say that soem of my best friends are Lubavichers <smile> 
and I only get upset when (just 1 or 2) attempt to "convert" me.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In message , Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> writes
>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>
> Why
>> should a worthy talmud have precedence over a worthy son?
>
>If he is worthier than the son shouldn't he?  But he won't if the son is 
>worthy enough.
>
>All things being equal, I'm in favor of helping out a son. But, as has 
>been explained by others on the list, there is no competition for the 
>top spot. The bigger Talmud Chacham or, Baal Midos, or greater 
>intellect, etc. won't ever get the Rebbeshaft if the son is even halfway 
>decent. 
>

I am certainly no chassid(a), but there is a lot of halachic commentary
on the subject of Rabbinical sons inheriting their father's position
(not just the Chatam Sofer).  The center of the discussion is the
Rambam, hilchos Melachaim perek 1 halacha 7 - and see also the Rema in
Yoreh Deah siman 245 si'if 22. There appear to be responsa on both
sides, ie one view being that so long as a son is capable, even if less
worthy than some other, there is no compitition, and another view that
the Torah cannot be inherited, and that the best Rav possible needs to
be taken.  However, given the weight of authority, this cannot be taken
to be a chassidic versus misnagdic issue

>HM
>
Shabbat Shalom

Chana

PS, given all the learning out their into the history of chassidism -
can anybody help me with what was going on in Vilkomir around 1850 or
so.  There seems to have been some sort of Chassidic/Misnagdic
controversy centering on the Rabbanut.  My particular interest was
fanned by some cryptic remarks of the Kovno archivist when I visited
there two years ago. I had asked her months before to do a search for my
family (family name Davidovitz) in the town - and she had turned up a
couple of things, but told me, when I went there, that she had not
completed her search, but that my great-great-great grandfather seems to
have been appointed Rabbi for a period around that time. My attempt to
read up on the history of the town turned up a brief reference to the
aforementioned controversy at around precisely that time, and a
discussion of a temporary candidate, while controversy over whom to
appoint between the respective parties raged. However the name given was
not that of my great great great grandfather.  I have not been able to
extract anything more from the Kovno archivist - and am only guessing
that there was more to the story than the snippet i unearthed, and that
if he was a temporary Rabbi, it was in relation to this, but I wondered
if anybody knew anything more. I would assume that, to the extent that
he took sides, he must have been on the misnagidishe side, but I have no
family lore on this at all (unlike on his wife, my great great great
grandmother, who was famous, inter alia, for "outing" maskilim, but
then, she lived a lot longer than he did, and hence into the living
memory of people who talked to people I talked to).


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

This well meant site has evolved into a portal for anti Misnagid or anti
Chasidic posts which are quite venomous in nature. The Baal haTanya, The Gra ,
and others created a world which we, their puny followers are destroying by
intelellectual one upsmanship. Enough is enough!!    
                                    Steven Brizel(Zeliglaw@aol.com)

>>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.

Moshe prayed for all the Jewish people, Eli for Channah etc. There are many
cases in Tenach.

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

>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?

You continually use terms are attack positions that I have not stated. I never
said that the Baal Shem's derech is 'perfect'. I did say that he defined what
it is, and that while there are interpretations that remain within it, there
are some that could be outside. The question about the Rebbe Reb Bunim was if
those differences he introduced placed him outside of this definition. I don't
see what is difficult about this idea.

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

>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

Then I suppose you will start refering to the Baal Shem Tov as R. Yisroel Baal
Shem Tov?

>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

That is your opinion. (Actually there are more then three trends.) As I have
stated many times, there are many ways of implimenting the derech of the Baal
Shem Tov.

>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.

Neither are true.

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

It is interesting to note that you call this 'Litvak bashing' when the people
involved here were refering to those in their region (galitzia.) Many (if not
most) of whom were actually Chassidim.

><<
>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).

Had I been you I could run off the list of things that you have violated. Let
me just point out that you never inquired of the context and hence have
attempted to judge a talmid chochom without knowing the facts. (BTW if he had
meant ALL the rabanum it would have included himself, which would have been
quite interesting.)

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

Some minor errors here:

>- -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

The sefer is Ohev Yisroel, and the city is usually called Apt, as that is the
transliteration of the Yiddish/Hebrew.

>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
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I referd to the talmidei HaGra in that manner, what would be the reaction
here?

>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

The 'lateness' of the dovening was not just not davening vesikin.

>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.

Please inform me as to what in the actions of Rebbe Yitzcok of Vorki, and some
of the others were 'factors.'

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

>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.

No one denies that when it comes to Torah that one needs one's sechel. How can
you learn a blatt gemorah without it? The point of differences is in areas of
hashkofah and Yesodus HaEmunah. Chassidishe hashkofos are based on kabbalah
(which are NOT anti-seichel, but a subject which is as openly known.) As to
Yesodus HaEmunah they are accepted with emunah peshutah. That does not mean
that those who are baalei madreigah will not explore them intellectually, but
that the intellectual conclusions will always give way to emunah peshutah. 

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

>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.

There is a sefer called 'Sanzer Tzaddik' by someone who had seem the Tzanzer
when he was young and whose father had been a chasid.

>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

I would call that 'not worthy', maybe you disagree as to whether it is worthy
or not, but to most chassidim it would be.

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

>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> Harry, before answering let me ask a few questions:
>> 1. What is the difference between Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach 'Chassidim.' (I
>> include here Chabad and all the other chassidishe siddurim.)
>1. The differences are in the texts of the various siddurim available
>for anyone to open and see. I need not go into detail for puposes of
>this debate.

Isn't this a bit of a cop-out? You don't know what the differences are, but
you say that there is something wrong in them. (No one is saying you have to
change, but you are saying that others are wrong.)

>> 2. What about these differences does not go back to AKH. (I am assuming that
>> you claim that Ashkenaz goes back to AKH, but that Nusach Sfard does not.)
>2.The truth is that if you are implying that the exact wording cannot be
>traced back to the AKH, you are probably right and I mispoke.  But I was
>reffering more to the fact that NA has longer roots in the Mesoras
>Nusach HaTefila. NS goes back only to the beginnings of Chasiddus.  It
>was Chasidim, whose fathers davened NA, who changed from their mesorah
>and adopted the Nusach HaTefila as interpreted by the Ari.

I could bring a list of things that Litvishe have changed from their ancestors
that would be more serious then a question of proper wording in tephilah.
Considering that the Shulchan Aruch (Beis Yosef and Rema) and other poskim
relyed on the Ari in some areas, would indicate that he is a bar somchin. Also
the chassidim were not the first or only to use a nusach based on the Ari.
There are a number of Ari siddurim that came out in Europe at that time. I
don't think the sidder of Rav Usher (which the Baal Shem Tov used) was made
for the chassidim. And the same with the Zalikover and the others.

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

>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> No one learns FOR dveykus. It comes from learning l'shma. (As the Baal Shem
>> Tov puts it l'shem HaShem.)
>This is not true, as I indicated in the "Forks" essay, the Besht held that
>lishma = l'shem dveykus. This also appears in the "Chumros" essay.

I will provide the sources and explanations from the Baal Shem Tov when I
comment on 'Forks'.

>This is the part with which I have a problem. It:
>a. Changes the nomenclature we have for these concepts in Chazal.

? These words are taken from Chazal and the Zohar.

>b. Implies that tzidkus = perfection.

Where does he say that tzidkus = perfection?

>> Yosef, this is not just an idea in chasidus, when you sin until you do
>> tshuva you are a rasha. As far as avodah is concerned, as long as the YH
>> has control over you in any manner, then your avodah is on the level of
>> a rasha. That is all he is saying. He is not saying that everyone is a
>> rasha who goes to gehennum etc.
>1. There are specific aveiros for which you are called a rasha - otherwise
>you are called a choteh. Again, a nomenclature problem.


Certainly it is the case in the Zohar, I must consider if it is in the
Talmud/Midrash also. (BTW I have a source in Nach.)

>2. I fully understood that he does not mean resha'im destined to gehinnom.
>But the yetzer ha'ra has control over everybody ("kol ha'gadol etc."). I
>cannot accept that the avoda of one who is still susceptible to a yetzer
>ha'ra is qualitatively that of a rasha.

What is your understanding of the sources he mentions?

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

>I ask this more to RMF than to RMS: Why did the "others" see Kotzk - the
>one Chassidus most Misnagdim can relate to! - as a "proof" that Prsyzchka

How can you relate to Kotzk since he was so anti-misnagid?

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

>I believ it is considered improper to say "Rav" in a tefilla for a Choleh
>- - even harmful. someone should notify the owners of those lists.

This is correct. I have never seen or heard of anyone praying for someone with
a title.

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

>> >===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
>> >learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere
>> >fact that it is from the "Rebbe's ancestors" does not appear to confer
>> >special favor.  Instead, what I see here is a convoluted "system" that
>> >prepetuates certain seforim as "worth learning" and "drops" others.
>> Again you have decided before handwhat the chassidishe derech is, and then
>> question what I have said based on that. You still don't realize that you are
>> wrong about what the derech is.
>===> As I repeatedly point out: I have not decided ANYTHING.  However, it
>appears that to rigorously question "Chassius" as RMS is explaining it is
>considered a "decision".

You have made a decision as to what a Rebbe does with respect to the learning
of his chasidim, and then continue to argue that point even when I point out
that you are in error.


>> >===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
>> >learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere
>> This is YOUR definition, and not mine. Your mind is essential closed, and you
>> have no idea of what I am saying because the answers don't fit your
>> preconceived ideas. That is just not my problem.
>===> Please note that RMS was the one who had pointed out that the Rebbe
>tells one what to learn.  I did not mention it until he brought it up.
>Apparently, following up on a pooint that RMS, himsele, had mentioned
>earlier is a sign of a "closed mind".  Similarly, it appears that
>intellectual rigor isnow defined as being "closed minded".  It is
>precisely this sort of "fluffy" approach that is problematic.

Again, Tzvi, there are MANY factors as to which seforim are learned. One is
that one asks his Rebbe directly (which I have done.) But that is not the only
one, nor does that limit one in what one can learn. You repeat errors and
insist that they are established fact. 

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

>>>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.
>================>}}}}}}}} I do not see that Lubavitch is suffering from
>"psychological crises"

I beg to differ. Anyone visiting CH would think that psychologocal counceling
is in order.

>Lubavitch is stronger than ever .The Lubsvitcher Rebbe's words remain as
>effective as they were Bechayim Chayuso Bealma Dain. The Yeshivos
>Worldwide are growing in Kamos and Aichos

And the lack of respect for Lubavitch in the chassidic world has never been
lower.

>Look at the Heichal Menachem library in Boro Park packed with frume
>yidden from all circles thirsting to learn the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Torah
>teachings. In communities throughout the world the interest by Frum and
>Chassidish people in Toras Chabad is Burgeoning as they seek the Nishmoso
>De'oraysa in a way accesible to them (Ki KarovEilacha....) .

ROTFL Are you trying to say that sionce they run sales of seforim from time to
time that this indicates that Lubavitch is highly respected? Are you saying
that no chassidim learn chassidisher seforim except those few people who go to
HM?

>In addition, in the the realm of the of kiruv 350 new Chabad Houses have
>been founded worldwide since the Histalkus! Thousands of Baalei Teshuvah
>have returned through Chabad's efforts  Le'Avihem She'bashamoyim just in
>the last 5 years.

Please tell me when you get to 1,000,000 Lubavitchers.

>The question not why are the other Chassidim not coming out against
>Chabad- It is where are our brothers in the Derech Habaal ShemTov to
>defend Chassidus Against our detractors.

So only Lubavitch is derech HaBaal Shem Tov? Has Lubavitch ever stood with
other chassidim in their struggles, whether Aguda or Satmar?

>Remember- When the Baal Hatanya was arrested he took the effects of the
>Murderous slander of the misnagdim upon himself and sat betfisah  for the
>sake of all of the Chassidim.

There were many Rebbes that were slandered and jailed.

>History is repeating itself, The attacks begin with Chabad and will end
>with delegitmising all of Chassidus. Soon all of us (Boyan,Viznitz , Ger,
>Whoever) will be declared beyond the pale by the self proclaimed owners
>of "Daas Torah" (more correctly "Daas Turoh"(Aramaic))

I am not a Litvak, if that is your mistaken POV.

-- 
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)
>
>===============> }}}}}}}}}}how can we judge the Kavannah of the visit of
>one Tzadik to Another (ma zeh Protocol?)? It is a fact that the

Protocol: When a Rebbe visits Israel (or a Rebbe from Israel comes to the US)
they visit all the other tzaddikim in that city. ALL the great Rebbes (except
one) followed those rules.

>Lubavitcher Rebbe had very close ties with numerous Chatzeiros of
>Chassidim (Kloisenberg, Ger, Bobov are just a few that come to mind.)
>Just because they were at times somewhat Betzinah  is no rayah- "Kevod
>Elokim Hester Dovor"

Shlomo don't make me laugh. I belong to one of those three. I cannot say
anything which would not be a p'gam in the kovod of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Z'L,
so I will refrain.

> but that is it. 2. I have heard many private things.
>============> }}}}Please, some examples- Shlomo Yaffe

I heard that if my Rebbe's son hadn't stopped him he would have openly come
out against Lubavitch and the Moshiach mishigas.

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

Alan Davidson wrote:
> 
> Reb Moshe 
> He himself descended from a family of chassidim.

This, I did not know. Can you tell me more about R. Moshe's chasidic 
ancestry?  I'd like toknow more.

HM

1.  I'm puzzled at those who are puzzled at the contention that only
certain sefarim are popular among mainstream chassidim.  The same is
true among us misnagdim.  After all, who among us (other than Rabbi B)
regularly studies chiddushei R. Shimon Shkop?

2.  I'm also puzzled by R. Maryles' version of the history of nusach
Ari.  The Ari davened nusach hamakom (as is halachically proper).  His
ashkenazic followers adopted his nusach because they did not know how to
apply the proper kavvanos to the ashkenazi variants of nusach sefarad. 
Even the Chasam Sofer davened nusach Ari (though the tzibbur davened
regular nusach Ashkenaz).

3.  I'm still waiting to hear a non-messianistic explanation for why
Lubavitch has/will not selected a new rebbe.

4.  I'm exceedingly puzzled by Rabbi Shulman's response to my question
about how one is to have a personal relationship with a rebbe with an
exceedingly large number of followers.  At the back of my mind, of
course, was how they could avoid ptimarily studying writings, which
Rabbi Shulman views as not a chassidic derech.
  His response was to cite the precedent of Moshe.  Moshe, however, was
not a rebbe (is this another chassidic/misnagdic split?).  He was a
rav.  The Rambam, for example, emphasises that he was the only navi
whose personality did not penetrate his relaying of divine instruction
(he was like a scribe, unlike all other neviim).  Furthermore, he did
not have a personal relationship with all of Israel - he worked through
a hierarchy of teachers (see the Rambam's introduction to peirush
hamishnayoth).  He had to appeal to all types of personalities, not just
to those of one particular shoresh neshama.
  It is interesting that, in his hesped for the Talner Rebbe, Rabbi
Soloveitchik cited Aharon as the paradigm of the chassidic rebbe, and
Moshe as the paradigm of the rav.
  Anyway, back to my question - how is the discipleship of a Gerer
chasid different from the discipleship of a contemporary chasid of R.
Tzadok (if such a person exists)?

David Riceman

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


[ 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 ]