Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 133

Tuesday, January 19 1999

• The Ramchal on the concept of a "Rebbe"
• Akeidas Yitzchiok
• Hashkofo re: 7 Amim, etc.
• T'imo b'almo
• Re: T'imo b'almo
• Re: Shoftim
• Re: Shoftim
• Re: Nefesh haChayim-1
• Re: Shoftim
• Re: Avodah V2 #132
• Re: Nefesh haChayim-1
• Chasam Sofer's nusach Ari- Not
• Chasidic trivia yet again, reply to RMS
• Re: The Ramchal on the concept of a "Rebbe"
• Re: Avodah V2 #132
• Re: Avodah V2 #132

I was looking through the Ramchal's Derech Hashem today and noticed (2:3:8)
that he mentions the concept (generally attributed to chassidim) that
"shleimus" need not necessarily reached entirety through ones own efforts,
but can sometimes be accomplished through connecting to a Tzadik. Please
check it out whoever mentioned (I forgot who, and when this was said) that
he doesn't buy the whole idea.

D. Galssner writes:
>>the only way out of the paradox
latent in this approach would be to suggest that Avraham understood the
ways of the Ribbono Shel Olam so well, that he guessed the solution of the
mystery and played out his role as if he did not know that everything was
going to work out in the end. <<

IMHO when Avrohom says, elokim yireh lo haseh, that he intuitvely feels 
everything will work out ok; or that as a Maamin he believes everything will 
work out ok, but that he does not know for certain.

This allows for him being a novi and "in touch" with Hashem's motives, but does 
not remove the element of faith and therefore does not completely undermine the 
test.

Indeed, if Avrohom knew for certain that this was only a test, it would 
compromise the impact of the event...

Regards,
Rich W.

RYGB writes: >> 
>>I was immensely disturbed by this response. How does one learn, let alone
teach, Tanach, without recognizing and accepting that Hashem denigrates
the nations of Cana'an and expects either their conversion (to Ger
Toshav), expulsion or elimination? Are they not clearly typecast
negatively ("to'eivos") etc. Must we not then attempt to understand the
reasons for that denigration - and the reasons for the ongoing battles
with such nations - many on pure religious grounds?<<

IMHO there was a black and white world of good and evil (so to speak) BEFORE 
Sancherib, and that Chazal use the principle of Bo Sancheirib uvilbel to imply 
that now there is no such thing as an evil nation - at leats genetically 
speaking.  Of course Nazi Germany was evil, but the German gene is not 
necesarily so. 

When the Rav says there is an Amilek type, that is to say that some individuals 
or nations have adapated the Amolieki program, but we can no longer point to an 
Amoleki people...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe



  

>>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:41:51 -0500
From: Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com>
Subject: Re: Brocha On chewing gum

 The concept you are looking for is temiah. Is temiah assur. 
 Do we have to be choshesh that it will be swollowed?
 What about toothpaste. Is it really assur? I don't
 want to start up with the kosher agencies. Look
 at sedeh chemed. 

 I know I am talking without seforim, but this is where
 you want to look

 Shaya Beilin<<

When we learned Yoreh Deiso with R. Yosef Weiss he pointed out that one is 
allowed to "lick" a piece of meat to taste if it has been salted yet.  Such 
t'imo b'almo is not ossur (even though it might involve tasting Dam) and 
requires no brocho, etc.  Appparetnly this is because the t'imo is not for 
hano'o but as a use of one of our 5 senses to determine the metzius... So if one
were tasting gum to merely determine if it had sugar or an artifical sweetener 
(let's say on behalf of a diabetic) that would require no borcho, etc.  

OTOH I would think that lich'oro chewing gum for pleasure is different.

Regards,
Richard Wolpoe

I never said that it is muter. I only tried to bring up
what might be the issue.


Please look at sedeh chemed. Pleasure is not the issue.
Achila means hanoas hagoron or meove. The point is that
teimah is not achila. Please look in Sede Chemed. He brings
Teshuvat Horivah (288) and Zemach Zedek (horishon) 47 that
teimah is not achila and the cheshash is that you may swollow
pochos mikeshiur. The ZZ is mekeil if the item is pogum. Gum
is not an ochel. He only sucks out the kosher sugar. The sede
chemed discusses the licking of meat. The heter is not hanooh, but
that there is no cheshash swolling. Also, two derabanans would be muter.
Teimah is only midrabanan. Thus, a bad tasing mouthwash could be
kosher. 

Toothpaste in general has glyceraine. I am not sure if that is an 
ochel. It may fall in the ZZ's catagory. But, I don't know what the issues
are by toothpaste.

But, again teimah is not achila lekuleh almoh. It is a gezerah derabanan.
Please look up my reference.


_______________________________________________

At 09:54 AM 1/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:41:51 -0500
>From: Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com>
>Subject: Re: Brocha On chewing gum
>
> The concept you are looking for is temiah. Is temiah assur. 
> Do we have to be choshesh that it will be swollowed?
> What about toothpaste. Is it really assur? I don't
> want to start up with the kosher agencies. Look
> at sedeh chemed. 
>
> I know I am talking without seforim, but this is where
> you want to look
>
> Shaya Beilin<<
>
>When we learned Yoreh Deiso with R. Yosef Weiss he pointed out that one is 
>allowed to "lick" a piece of meat to taste if it has been salted yet.  Such 
>t'imo b'almo is not ossur (even though it might involve tasting Dam) and 
>requires no brocho, etc.  Appparetnly this is because the t'imo is not for 
>hano'o but as a use of one of our 5 senses to determine the metzius... So
if one
>were tasting gum to merely determine if it had sugar or an artifical
sweetener 
>(let's say on behalf of a diabetic) that would require no borcho, etc.  
>
>OTOH I would think that lich'oro chewing gum for pleasure is different.
>
>Regards,
>Richard Wolpoe
> 

Ideas:

(a) Perhaps stress the Gemarah in Brochos that since Sancheriv we do not
know who is from what nation.
(b) Perhaps explain what these nations did wrong historically, and the
concept of an am being a perpetual body.
(c) A helpful point - ask the class what they would consider a person who
led a group of men as an army which was not recognized by any country in
the world as a legitimate nation who on its enemies, who also happened to
one of the most democratic countries in the world, holiest day of the year
attacked them by surprise and killed them.  A terrorist - right?  Well then
I guess George Washington was a terrorist.  Not that we need rayos from the
goyim - but war is war.

A side question that I think RYGB's issue leads into is - is it
necessary/appropriate to teach potential balei teshuvah everything or
can/should one shy away from some sensitive issues?

Moshe Luchins

About stressing Sancheirev...

Something that has had some success on soc.culture.jewish (a hostile environment
if there ever was one) is to combine that argument with the unity of the G-d of
history with the G-d of Torah.

IOW, the same HKBH who ordered the death of all Amaleikites is the same One who
made it no longer possible to do so. It's not merely that we lack the technical
ability to do the mitzvah. Hashem used Sancheirev to (at least temporarily)
nullify the mitzvah.

Of course, the ethical problem remains, this argument can only at best relegate
it to history and the messianic age.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6066 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 19-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Jonathan J. Baker writes.

>Both describe a method of study where a) the goal is devekut, and
>b)  the method is to study texts (aloud) interspersed with periods
>of contemplation of one's connection to the Divine.  However, the NhC
>is a precise inversion of ThR!  For the NhC, the learning time itself
>is the ikar, the activity which constitutes devekut, while the pauses
>are tafel, only to renew one's concentration on study.  For the ThR,
>the learning time is the tafel, to give one chizuk so that one may
>spend time engaging in devekut qua contemplation of one's relationship
>with the Creator.
> 
What follows is only an opinion. I am not disagreeing with the
above conclusions. I feel that there is another way of looking at it.
This is his concluding paragraph after citing texts from Thavas Harivash 
and Nefesh Hachayim. I do not believe that there is a real difference.
When one learns one is connecting himself with the "words" which
is the Chochmo of Kudsha Brich Hu. There is another devekus which
one achieves through tefilah (which I am sure the Rivash is alluding to)
This is higher form of devekus. The Alter Rebbie in Hilchot TT (and I
apologize for not having the sefer in front of me) brings that even a 
person who since torosoh umnoso is exempt from tefilah never the
less he is chayov in the higher form. The Nefesh Hachayim also
requires concentration and kavonoh by tefilah. I do not have the sefer
(with me) but he discusses that one should be mispalel ad yetias 
neshomo (hispashtus haguf) This is how he learn "uvchol  nafhecho"
regarding tefilah which is avodah belev. Of course, he does not want
kavonos hoari. But, this is because he believes that the Ari did not
capture the real kavonot of the Anshe keneset hagdolah which were
composed of neviim. Also, the kavonot of one day cannot work on another.
This is the reason "a meuvos sheno yochol lesaken". The Chaye
Adam tells over the story of a man who suffered in Olom Habo because
he was not mechaven properly when davening when he pronounced the
name of The Almighty. Everyone chosid or misnaged recognizes tefilah
and learning. Tefilah is higher in one sense because it is poel a higher
hiskashrus. Learning is at the level of dibbur only. I believe all agree. It 
is a matter of emphasis. The Chosid invited the amee hooretz who could
learn how to appear to be davening. The kovod hatorah went down in the
eyes of the misnagdim (so, they imagined) The nefesh hachayim is
emphasizing learning even "lo lishmo" as long as it is not lekanter. But, he
cannot leave out prayer and its power. The Nefesh Hachayim believed that his
work restored kovod hatorah. (Which was never lost)

To review, it is a matter of the nekudah you want to stress. But, both are
important. The statements of the Nefesh Hachayim are supported by Kabalah, 
so I am not choshed the Rivash of the disagreeing. He is concerned about
the real devekus. But, as he says learning is necessary. Without it, you
can't get to the real (higher) thing.

Shaya Beilin

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com wrote:
> 
> A side question that I think RYGB's issue leads into is - is it
> necessary/appropriate to teach potential balei teshuvah everything or
> can/should one shy away from some sensitive issues?
> 
> Moshe Luchins

In the book "eye of the needle"  which is Aish Hatorah's kiruv primer it
lists answers to give to potential balei teshuvah concerning sensitive
issues. The question is are these answers to be provided l'chatchila or
only after the balei teshuvah asks the questions. Iy"h, I'll look at my
book to see if I can find the answer.
E.G.

> ------------------------------
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #121
> 
> In a message dated 1/12/99 8:58:10 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> >  ===> The point is that this was NOT an "anonymous" (e.g., "Amar Mar")
> >  statement -- it was ONE opinion and it does NOT appear that this was the
> >  one that "the Gemora" declared as definitive.  "The Gemora" only considers
> >  it "valid" in the sense that a particular Tanna stated it.
> 
> >  ===> We know (in the case of Rashi, as a good example) that when it comes
> >  to the Pasuk, itself -- a Meforeish can cite something as p'shat even
> >  though that is not the final "halchically accepted" formulation.  That is
> >  why we formulate Halachos in terms of formulations of the Gemora and not
> >  in terms of formulations of meforshei Hakasuv.  This is NOT a matter of
> >  "making anything up" -- it is simply an approach to explaining p'sukim in
> >  Novi.  The fact that you are UNABLE to cite such proofs form meforshei
> >  HaShas says much more.
> 
> See the Maharsha on the opinion of Rabi Nechunia Ben Hakoneh on which Rabon
> Yochanon Ben Zakai said that his interpertation is better then all above
> including my own (that of RYB"Z), the only one who interperts that Possuk in
> that Sugia that a Goy gets Kapporoh thru Tzedakah.

===> See below.  In short: why did you not cite this, initially?


===> sounds to me as if you FIRST decided as to your attitude toward
Nochrim and then search for a basis.  I would point out that when I FIRST
noted the gemara according to the Nosei keilim al hadaf, the response was
to cite commentary form Nach -- which presents certain conceptual issues.
A further response is to now cite the Maharsha -- shich could have been
initially cited.


> 
> The MaHaRShA explains that in general there are 2 attributes Tzedakah which
> refers to money and Chesed which refers to Guf, all previous Tanaim hold that
> the term Tzedaka is used for a Yid to emphasize that even this lower level
> causes that Tromeim it uplifts, on the other hand for a Goy the term used is
> Chesed to emphasize that even this higher level of kindness is a Cheit, the
> Ufto of RNB"H (which RYB"Z endorses) is that the possuk does not mention the
> word chesed in relation to L'umim (rather it belongs to the previous part that
> Tzedakah and Chesed are Mromeim a yid), and the MaHaRShA explains because by a
> goy there is no *Chesed Klal* wheras this Midoh is the Midoh of a Yid as the
> Gemoroh says in Perek Ho'oreil. And see als Iyun Yosef on the Ein Yaakov.

===> Since the gemara states that there is a Kapora involved here, it is
not clear how the Mahasha's explanaiton fits.  and, of course, this simply
complicates immensely (and totally unnecessarily) the concept of the
Nochri being OBLIGATED in Tzedaka.  In effect, what is now done is a
no-win situation: the Nochri is (according to various sources) obligated
in tzedaka and/or chesed -- but his performance of same is a "Cheit" and
the reference to "Kapora" is totally re-interpreted.  While this may apply
to SOME Nochrim (Nazis, Y"SH as an example), I think that it is a major
logical issue to assert that HKB"H sets up such a situation for the
Nochri...  Does not sound like EITHER "justice" nor "loving-kindness" and
appears to be TOTALLY inconsistent with "Rachamav al kol ma'asav".



> 
> >  ===> Again, the p'shat in the gemora there does NOT support that approach
> >  readily.  In light of the citations that Nochrim DO have a mitzva of
> >  Tzedaka, it is far more credible to adopt the approach that this IS a
> >  "forgiveness" for them.
> 
> As I mentioned before this is a Machlokes, they are both credible opinions in
> Torah Msinai.

===> Absolutely.  but when the p'shat of the sugya indicates one way and
you choose an alternate approach -- that says a lot about your haskafa.
This is not meant as a pejorative.  Rather, it simply indicates that
there appears to be a perspective "already in place".
Simply put: if there are indeed two ways to explain the sugya, why choose
the approach that is as negative as possible toward nochrim?  Given that
there ARE those who interpret the sugya in a more "lenient" fashion -- why
should one NOW choose to be "harsh" toward the nochri... (and, of course,
that assumes that the gemara's use of nochri includes the non-Jew b'zman
hazeh -- which is an entirely different discussion that includes: the
observance of a non-Jew of Noachide Law, the status of xtianity -- which
appears to be dependent upon a Dispute in Rishonim, the statement in the
Gemara that the non-Jew is now not "really" oveid Avoda zara [because it
is a 'familial custom'], etc.).  It simply seems to me that if one has a
choice, there has to be a REASON to be as "harsh" as possible toward the
Nochri.


> 
> >  ===> When Kabbola goes against the P'shat of the Gemora, it appears to
> >  make more sense to simply note a disagreement rather than develop a
> >  structure that is NOT apparent in the sugya, itself.  That the Kabbola
> >  (and the TanYa) adopt a certain position is not in question.  That this is
> >  apparent in the Gemora IS not so obvious.
> 
> However when Pshat in Gemoroh reads IMHO like the Kabalah, in addition
> Mforshei Hakroh, have no problem with it, there is no reason to make
> Machlokes.

===> So far, I have not seen ANY indication that the P'SHAT of the gemara
reads like the Kabola.  All you have shown is that the Maharsha (whom I
have not been able to check) supports that POV.  That is not exactly the
same thing as the **p'shat** being just "like the Kabalah".  And, since
you have ALREADY admitted that there is at least a machlokes here ---
seems to me that those who do NOT explain the sugya as you do are ALREADY
in "disagreement" with the Kabalah...

--Zvi



> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind 
> 

>
>Both describe a method of study where a) the goal is devekut, and
>b)  the method is to study texts (aloud) interspersed with periods
>of contemplation of one's connection to the Divine.  However, the NhC
>is a precise inversion of ThR!  For the NhC, the learning time itself
>is the ikar, the activity which constitutes devekut, while the pauses
>are tafel, only to renew one's concentration on study.  For the ThR,
>the learning time is the tafel, to give one chizuk so that one may
>spend time engaging in devekut qua contemplation of one's relationship
>with the Creator.
> 

Let me clarify that the NH admits that one must pause while learning
to reestablish the devekus. He also concedes that one cannot do it
only by learning. Tefilah is higher as he points out "we pray to the
point of expiration" We are uniting with the Almighty through prayer. 
I see no difference between the two. The NH was only trying to
reestablish learning as vital even if it is lo lishmo. I am not sure if anyone
really disagrees. It is misnomer to think that the Ball Shem Tov did not
emphasis learning. He not only drew in the masses, he got gedole
yisrael to join. His learning was like the Ari recorded by Talmidim. Where
the Mizrechir get it from? From the Besht.

In a discussion of nuscho'os a poster recently mentioned that the Chasam Sofer
davened nusach ari in private.  there is no basis for such an assertion (imho
of course).  While it is true that both of the Chasam Sofer's rabbonim muvhoqim
davened nusach ari - the baal  haflo'oh, r. pinchos horowitz (frequently and
quite unjustifiably cited in chasidic traditions as a talmid or follower of the
great maggid, though his brother r. shmelke of nikolsberg was) and r. nosson
adler (the latter even when davening for the omud, never mind that the rest of
the qohol was davening the usual ashqenozis. This behavior and a number of
other highly peculiar minhogim eventually got r. adler kicked out of frankfurt)
the chasam sofer apparently did not.   See the tishuvos chasam sofer, orach
chaim. 15 towards the end where this point is explicitly made.  At most the
chasam sofer seems to have inherited from his rebbes the minhog of saying sim
sholom at minchoh.  There is no evidence that he inherited any other of R.
adler's somewhat more unusual minhogim.  The chasam sofer's attitude towards
chasidim in general is complex - apparently a generalized distaste for the new
chasidus coupled with respectful relations with individual chasidim, (such as
with the yismach moshe,ziqeini).

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

(written last night) - Having no electric power again  - we just re-lost it
after literally weathering almost three days without after the infamous east
coast ice storm - this posting has the dubious distinction of being typed by
candle-light - no joke.  

R. shulman writes in response to one of my postings:
<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.>

Afraid not, as far as transliterations go, and set aside for the moment the
inappropriate use of the definite article here, as though there is such a thing
as a canonical transliteration.  While I have little doubt that the sources you
seem familiar with do use Apt (e.g. the Encylopedia Judaica) that is in fact a
rather poor rendition of the polish, and there are plenty of sources which you
do not seem as familiar with which employ more accurate transliterations. Thus,
e.g. see Cieglebaum's recently published history of polish jews till 1648 (or
something like that, I don't have it in front of me) , see also Mahler's
"Hasidism and the jewish Enlightenment" who opts (sorry about that) for Opatow.
 My own rendition. Opta, is a far more faithful representation of the standard
hebrew/yiddish spelling -aleph/pey/tes/ hey or aleph.  For a general scholarly
take on this very important issue see the brittanica atlas.  They do in fact
have Apt - but this is a town in france soutwest of auvignon.  R. heschel's
town is indeed listed as Opatow.   Sorry for the other slip of the key, the
Opta Rebbe's nom de plume is indeed the oheiv -not ahavas - yisroel

R. Shulman writes in response to my assertion that the Divrei Chaim only got
ticked off at the Rhyziner succesor generations::
>>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.>

Thank you for the reference. However, it is almost certainly incorrect.   At a
minimum it contradicts other Tzanzer references which identify the Divrei
Chaim's unhappiness with chutzpedic behavior of the rebbe of Husiaten as
catalyzing the family feud.  This too is probably incorrect.  There is some
critical literature on this topic and it seems likely that it was the scandal
surrounding the R's third son which really set R. chaim off.  In any event
there is no reason to assign the start of the feud to any unhappiness while the
R yisroel still lived.  There is also internal evidence (at least strong
asmachtos) to  indicate the contrary. The Rhyziner died in 1850.  The Divrei
Chaim is known to have visited the Rhyziner in 1846 and returned with glowing
accounts.  There are various chasidic agados re conversations R. Chaim is
purported to have engaged in following this visit.  Which doesn't leave much of
a window for a feud to develop.  For another matter, the divrei Chaim actually
brings down something he heard from r. yisroel (presumably during the 1846
visit since that seems to be the only time they met) in his work (see  Divrei 
Chaim on moadim, section on Chanukah, 2, 26) again indicating that his
favorable impression lingered on.  
BTW, it is unfortunately typical of the scandalously inaccurate and misleading
hagiographies that  pass for accounts of the lives of our gidolim  (I'm
thinking of the essentially adult comic book series out of  the lakewood cheder
school and the art scroll mesorah series here, and others as well)  that an
involvement of  the signficance of the divrei chaim's war on the rhyziner
dynastic  inheritors should, for all practical purposes, essentially  disappear
from accounts of his life, or, at most, be allocated an impenetrably vague
sentence or two.

R. Shulman also writes:
<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?>
You would not, I hope, refer to the talmidei haGra in such a manner, if only
because their behavior did not warrant it .  There is no symmetry here.

R. Shulman continues:
.. >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.>

I'm not sure I'm properly deciphering this comment, since I made no reference
at all to davening kevsasikin.  If, as I assume, R. Shulman means to imply that
the P-crowd's innovations in tefiloh extended to more serious changes than not
davening real early- that their transgression of the accepted zimanim of
tefiloh (shacharis often after chatzos, minchoh after tzais hacochovim) he is
correct and that is of course what I was alluding to.  If he means to imply
that somehow this was unique to these p-chasidim, he is quite wrong,  since
transgressions in tefiloh zimanim had long been associated with various
chasidic groups and formed part of the standard criticism and cherem
justifications of the early misnagdim vs chasidim.  By no means all chasidim
engaged in such innovative, non-halachic, practices, but it was pretty
widespread, though sometimes complicated. e.g. the Rhyziner demanded that all
the chasidim be maqpid on zimanei tefiloh, but allowed an exception for the
tzadiq who didn't have to - and he didn't.
 
R. Shulman further comments some of my lines as follows:
< 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.'>

Never said he did anything like that.  Indeed I explicitly excepted him. 
Evidently you didn't read my explicit reference to  R. yitzchoq in the previous
paragraph of my original posting.  Please refer to that.  However, as far as
some of the others, that's a different matter, and I'm considering the best way
to answer your question.  It's been suggested off line that I might expand a
bit on some of this. I've been hesitant to do so out of my feeling that list
members may have overdosed on this whole topical area, and may be thankful that
it seems to be petering out.  But perhaps I will take a pass at it, which
should/would address,  inter alia, the question of "behavioral factors".  maybe
in another day or two. 

 re the Boyaner succession R. Shulman comments:
< 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, I would call that 'not
worthy', maybe you disagree as to whether it is worthy or not, but to most
chassidim it would be>
My mistake. Evidently  R. Shulman did mean to call the other members of the
family "not worthy".   I'll just question R. shulman's spokesmanship for "most
chasidim" here (we've already noted that talner chasidim would not agree to r.
shulman's representation)  and leave it at that.  Perhaps he is correct.  While
there's no way of knowing, I hope not.

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

Isser Zalman Weisberg writes:
: I was looking through the Ramchal's Derech Hashem today and noticed (2:3:8)
: that he mentions the concept (generally attributed to chassidim) that
: "shleimus" need not necessarily reached entirety through ones own efforts,
: but can sometimes be accomplished through connecting to a Tzadik.

A major difference is that the Ramchal speaks of sh'leimus, not d'veikus. I
think the distinction is important. Having a middle-man for d'veikus means
putting someone between you and HKBH, which can get dangerously close to
violating the Rambam's 5th ikkar.

The Gra, who's strict definition of the ikkar didn't even allow room for
"borchuni l'shalom mal'achei hashalom" probably considered using a Tzadik as a
conduit for d'veikus a similar violation. I'm not sure he'd have a problem with
using a Tzadik for sh'leimus.

For that matter, doesn't "connecting to a Tzaddik for sh'leimus" merely mean
that one goes to a Ba'al Mussar to be told what to work on, and how? Sh'leimus,
unlike d'veikus, is reflexive, and therefore the role of a "conduit" doesn't
really apply.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6066 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 19-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 1/19/99 3:02:37 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> ==> sounds to me as if you FIRST decided as to your attitude toward
>  Nochrim and then search for a basis.  I would point out that when I FIRST
>  noted the gemara according to the Nosei keilim al hadaf, the response was
>  to cite commentary form Nach -- which presents certain conceptual issues.
>  A further response is to now cite the Maharsha -- shich could have been
>  initially cited.
>  
As this turned out to be a game of words, rather then to see what Torah really
says I'll let you have the last word, this will be BL"N my last post on this
topic.

The point is I based what I wrote on how the Tanya brings the gemoroh, since
that is not sufficient for you I went to MFORSHEI Hakroh, when you Davkoh
wanted a Mforeish Hashas, since this is a Aggadita I went to the premier
Mforeish of Aggada.

It makes no difference in what order I went, the fact is that so it says in
Torah Msinai.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/19/99 3:02:37 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

> ==> sounds to me as if you FIRST decided as to your attitude toward
>  Nochrim and then search for a basis.  I would point out that when I FIRST
>  noted the gemara according to the Nosei keilim al hadaf, the response was
>  to cite commentary form Nach -- which presents certain conceptual issues.
>  A further response is to now cite the Maharsha -- shich could have been
>  initially cited.
>  
As this turned out to be a game of words, rather then to see what Torah really
says I'll let you have the last word, this will be BL"N my last post on this
topic.

The point is I based what I wrote on how the Tanya brings the gemoroh, since
that is not sufficient for you I went to MFORSHEI Hakroh, when you Davkoh
wanted a Mforeish Hashas, since this is a Aggadita I went to the premier
Mforeish of Aggada.

It makes no difference in what order I went, the fact is that so it says in
Torah Msinai.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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 ]