Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 134

Wednesday, January 20 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #132
• Re: Avodah V2 #133
• Re: Avodah V2 #133
• Re: The Ramchal on the concept of a "Rebbe"
• Shem v'Ever
• Re: Shem v'Ever
• Lubavitch bashing
• THE-SILENT-THIRD-BRACHA-OF-THE-KIDDUSHA-DISTURA
• [none]
• The Ramchal...
• Re: T'imo b'almo
• Re: Nefesh haChayim-1
• Re: Nefesh haChayim-1
• Mispelling
• Nefesh Hachayim
• More on Chasam Sofer's nusach

Sorry for the duplication,

Now you have another piece of junk to contend with

KT
Yitzchok Zirkind

> 
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:59:09 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #132
> 
> 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.

==> Seems as if you misunderstood my point.  When dealing with a gemora --
particularly when the nosei keilim on the spot appear to adopt a certain
position, citations from Meforshei Hakroh are not very rigorous in
presentation.  The reason as has been cited is that when citing *p'shat*
in pasuk, the commentary MAY choose to cite something "shelo k'halacha"
simply because the p'shat in pasuk "flows" better.  We -- thus -- do not
usually rule halacha from that.  this is not simply "playing with words"
or being "davka" about sometihng -- it is about being reasonably rigorous
in one's approach. 
With all due respect to the Maharsha, I believe that the Nosei keilim "al
hadaf" are rishonim -- who (as far as halacha is concerned) are considered
"primary sources".  If you are only able to cite from the Aggadita
material of the Maharsha, the question can be raised as to what RASHI (for
exmple) must have understood in the gemara....  Had you cited
"contemporaries" of RASHI (e.g., RO"SH, Tosaphot, R"IF, RAMBAN, etc.) this
would have been more persuasive.


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

==> The point is not the "order".  the point is that there is sufficient
"variant" opinion to question whether it is AS PRESENTED FROM THE GEMARA
really "Torah Msinai".  (I will not question your assertion in terms of
the Kabbala or the Tanya -- only that this is NOT clearly supported from
the Gemara and that it is just as logical to note that the Kabala
disagrees and that the Ba'al Hatanya CHOSE to adopt the position of the
Kabala.)

--Zvi 



> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 

> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #132
> 
> In a message dated 1/19/99 3:02:37 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

THIS MAY BE A DUPLICATE


> 
> > ==> 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.

==> There seems to be a misunderstanding here.  I objected to the use of
"MEFORSHEI Hakroh" because it is not at all obvious that you can determine
definitive ruling from there.  As an example, there are instances where
RASHI cites something that is NOT like the halacha simply because the
"pshat Hapsuk" is easier to understand.  And, there are instances where
RASHI in the GEMARA will end up NOT in agreement with RASHI in Chumash.
To present this as a "Davka" as if I am being simply an Akshun is simply
not accurate and appears to display a lack of understanding of hwo we
typically work with Halacha.
To cite the Maharsha simply as a source of Aggadita is also a bit
problematic.  We are discussing how to relate to the actual ACTIONS of
Nochrim.  this is not simply a homiletic presentation.  In such a case, it
appears to make a lot more sense to look at Nos'ei Keilim of SHAS.  For
starters, those "al hadaf" (RASHI, Tosaphot) and then some others --
RO"SH, RI"F, RAMBAN, etc.  If the "first" place that you can find support
for your approach is the MaHarsha, that implies (to me) a weakenss of your
case -- not a strength.



> 
> It makes no difference in what order I went, the fact is that so it says in
> Torah Msinai.
===> Actually, it makes a lot of difference.  If you would simply state
that you follow the Ba'al HaTanya and Kabbala -- even though the gemara
does NOT seem to clearly support them, this owuld have ended a long time
ago.  However, by insisting that the GEMARA supports your position and
then -- apparently -- looking around "after the fact" to locate some
support, the impression that I am left with is that the Gemara does NOT
support this approach except by "dachuk" logic and that the "Torah Msinai"
is only in terms of Kabbala and the BH"T.  Asserting a "fact" with poor
support does not make it so. 

--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind

The Ramchal there does not resemble Chassidus at all.

The Ramchal requires no personal connection or affiliation between the
shalem and those upon whom he has a collateral beneficial impact.

The tzaddik also does not impart to them shleymus, but rather indirectly
generates for them merit via "kol Yisroel areivim zeh la'zeh."

This is very similar to R' Elchonon's remarks before being killed - that
their korbon should be a zechus for their brothers and sisters in the USA.

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Isser Zalman Weisberg wrote:

> 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. 
> 

YGB

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

Here's a new thread, sparked by a recent visit to Tsfat (and 
also by a fervent wish to get us away from the 
chassidic/mitnagdic loop we seem to be in.) It is really a 
test question for me personally, dealing with the issue of 
how (as adults) to understand Midrash.

Did the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever really exist?

 If so, then I have some questions about it.

a. When did it open and for how many years did it last?

b. Were there students there other than the people mentioned 
in the midrash specifically? Who were they (in general 
terms)? About how many were there at any given time? 

c. Who were the teachers?

d. Were texts actually used? If so- which ones, and in which 
form? For instance, if students studied the g'mara was it 
more or less the g'mara b'yadeinu? Do we know anything 
about teaching methods? 

e. What is the basis for the tradition that a particular (very) 
small cave in Tsfat was the location of the Yeshiva?

f. How was the Yeshiva supported financially? 
(No, I don't expect an annual dinner. - : )  )  But if real 
people were there then they had to eat...)



---------------------------------------------------------
Claude (Chaim) and Rivka Schochet
Math Dept		04-834-6049 home (also works as fax)
The Technion		04-829-3895 office
Haifa, Israel 32000

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Claude Schochet wrote:

> Here's a new thread, sparked by a recent visit to Tsfat (and 
> also by a fervent wish to get us away from the 
> chassidic/mitnagdic loop we seem to be in.) It is really a 
> test question for me personally, dealing with the issue of 
> how (as adults) to understand Midrash.
> 
> Did the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever really exist?
> 
>  If so, then I have some questions about it.
> 
It won't answer all the questions but it will help if you read Aryeh
Kaplan's Eye Of the Universe, because he cites and explains many of the
medrashim which deal with the Yeshiva Shem Vever
E.G.

I for one am far from a friend of Lubavitch. But fair is fair.  The spin
put on the quoted material from a mainstream Lubavitch publication  *c o
u l d*  be interpreted as wildly meshichist and borderline avodah zarah. 
It could also have been interpreted as perfectly innocuous.  It seems to
me that the Halacha requires the latter interpretation,  with the burden
of proof on he who wants to assert the former interpretation.  It is not
to be assumed to be minus and avodah zara until proven otherwise.  There
is plenty about Lubavitch to bash,  and most of it has already been
discussed over the last few weeks.  Unless someone has someone
substantial to add,  rather than innuendo,  I suggest we change the
subject.  Cut up onions sounds nice as a topic.

Gershon
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

We are enjoined by the Sha'are Tshuva not to say the third
bracha of the kiddusha in U-Va le-Zion out loud and so I
was raised.  He refers us to the Abduraham for the reason.

This kiddusha was instituted when the Romans forbad the
saying of the kiddusha and sent observers to make sure
that the kiddusha was not recited.  As the observers
almost always left before the end of the tefilla, the
kiddusha was repeated [with an Aramaic translation to
make sure it was understood by all] at the END of the
tefilla.

Abduraham gives as the reason for the silent reading
of the third verse [haShem yimloch ...] the absence of
an Aramaic equivalent.  Now we do have an Aramaic
equivalent = haShem makchutai ... in our version of
the U-Va leZion.

Did the Abduraham have a differrent version before him
or am I missing something?  Thanks in advance.

__Bob Werman
Jerusalem

HM  writes:
"....However the more likely interpretation is that this is a direct prayer
to the Rebbe, himself,  a somewhat Christological concept. Nowhere is the
name of G-d mentioned.... The point is that all this talk in recent weeks
here on the lists by apologists and defenders within Lubavitch seem to be
nothing but LIES, designed to mislead their brethren (non Lubavitchers)
into thinking that everything is OK..."

I am not an apologist and certainly not a Liar. However you are making a
serious mistake about your assessment. There are many mishugasim in
Lubavitch and I have no intention of covering them up. We also have our
share of outright mishugaim an am hoaretzim gemurim. However, there are
also major differences in Hashkofa that require serious study to
appreciate. The accusation that they ignore G-d and focus instead on the
Rebbe, is outrageous. There may be what you would or me consider excessive
focus on the Rebbe, but not chas v'shalom to the exclusion of Hashem. I am
intimately aware of what is going on in most frum communities, and the
reality is, that nowhere is Hashem spoken about more then in Lubavitch. In
Lubavitcher yeshivos they spend 3 hours a day! Learning about G-d, compared
to the 15 minutes to a half hour spent on musser in most yeshivos (and even
that short time was not taken very serious in the yeshivos I learned). The
texts that are learned do not talk at all about a Rebbe but about G-d, and
our relationship to Him. I am well aware of where you are coming from. I
was there. I was introduced to Lubavitch after spending many years in
"Litvishe" yeshivos. If you enjoy bashing Lubavitch, by all means,
continue. If you want to understand, I can help you. Let me know.
IZ

About the Ramchal I mentioned Micha wrote:

"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."

Please look up the Ramchal inside, he is clearly not talking only about
learning from a Tzadik.
IZ

 I looked up the sedeh chemed again and he adds the discussion 
 about licking (cleaned off) meat. Most poskim are mekil because
 it is 2 derabans.
  (a) Teimah is not achilah. We are not dealing with issure hanah.
       An injection is muter. Only haoas goron or meayim is achila.
       And, the gezerah is that he may accidentally swallow.
  (b) This form of dam is derabanan.

  He references a pri megodim 95-16 who is machmir, but brings all
  the shitos lehokel. He brings the Rivash (288) and ZZ(47) etc.

  So, if there is a heter for bubble gum, I would say that the 
  heter is based on the fact that there is very little cheshash of 
  swallowing. It is like chewing on a shoe.

  But please look up my reference. It is all there.

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
> 

Isaiah Beilin tries to paper over the difference between Chasidish
and Mitnagdish approaches to learning as expressed in the quotes I
brought:

>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...I see no difference between [the devekut of learning
>and tefillah].  The NH was only trying to reestablish the value of
>learning 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....

Is this a chasidish/mitnagdish thing in general, that the chasidim
try to gloss over the differences, perhaps so that they can make us
think that they are part of the same mainstream as we, while mitnagdim
try to clarify the differences and distinctions?  Certainly many of
the Lubavitch apologists I've encountered, both here and elsewhere,
make claims like "Doesn't Rambam say we have to believe in Moshiach?"
or "Praying at the graves of tzadikim is a time-honored tradition,"
to pretend that the differences in outlook don't exist.  See, e.g., 
the recent "Ends justify the means" exchange. 

I still say that the differences in outlook are quite obvious from my
two quotes.

1) The NH says that "reshut netunah" to pause while learning to 
contemplate one's connection to Hashem.  It does not say that one
"must" pause, only that one *may* pause if one is losing one's 
devekut in learning, i.e, one's concentration.

2) "The NH was only trying to reestablish learning..."  There too
lies a distinction between Chassidim and Mitnagdim: Chasidim, by 
emphasizing the value of learning lishmah, based on the Talmudic
passage where "the arguments of Abaye and Rava are a small matter,
the maaseh merkavah is a big matter", did deemphasis learning 
shelo lishmah, while the Mitnagdim saw the value in learning as a
mitzvah regardless of one's "higher" intentions.  Furthermore, in
the quote from the ThR, the BEShT *does* deemphasize learning:
learning is a tool to create devekut, rather than the learning 
*being* devekut.  I heard a story recently about a hasid who sat
down to learn the first mishna in Brachot, but never got anywhere
because he was engaging in devekut, and he was happy about that. 
From the mitnagdic perspective, that sage had not accomplished
anything, neither the mitzvah of Torah study nor the devekut of
learning.

3) It seems to me that this distinction illustrates Allan Nadler's
thesis that the fundamental theological difference between chasidim
and mitnagdim lies in the question of "can one perceive the Divine
immanence?", based on the GR"A's letter of 11 Tishrei 5557.  

The Chasidim say yes, and the BEShT says (in Likutei Amarim-Vitebsk
ch. 28) that this is the root of their idea of devekut: that one 
can, and indeed must, perceive this Divine immanence. 

The Mitnagdim say no, even though they agree that the Divine is
immanent in physical reality, one cannot perceive it.  Thus any
attempt to contact the Divine immanence in physical objects is
tantamount to worship of those objects as gods.

How does this reflect on our difference in Torah study methodology?

For Chasidim, since the actual mental devekut is the ikar, their
Torah study only helps them understand the relationship between
God and physical reality, as a description.  They can then take
that description and use it to mentally connect with the Divine
immanence in physical reality. 

For Mitnagdim, since one cannot mentally connect with an imperceptible
immanence, one recognizes that the Torah is the direct expression of
the will of God.  How then can one cleave to the will of God?  Through
*saying* the expression of His will *along with him*!  Through *saying*
the words as one learns God's Torah, so that one's will is united with
God's will through the physical expression of that will, the Torah.

Thus, for Chasidim, the devekut is in the pauses, while for Mitnagdim,
the devekut is in the saying of the words of the Torah.

  
   I believe at this point that R. Yosef Gavriel Bochofser and I
   do really agree in principle about how to solve the problem
   (or paradox as he calls it) of ahava generated by emunah
   peshta and learning. It may seem that we are far apart, but I 
   believe we are saying the same thing. R. J.J. Baker
   helped crystallize this for me. Let me point out that the picture 
   R. JJ Baker paints is incomplete. He is stressing the sections in 
   the NH regarding learning. I am including the sections on tefilah. 
   Please see section 2 chs. 14 and 15. He culminates his point by
   saying "And so much should his love for the Almighty grow
   and flame that he should desire etc. in truth that when he utters
   that holy letter from the nusach hatfilah that his soul should
   leave the body completely and attach itself to the Almighty.
   This has to be the highest form of service to the Almighty. This is
   why I see little difference between Chasidus and (mainstream? why
   such a harsh word) misnagdim. People fight and we are looking for 
   differences. There are small ones to cover up the usual hostility between
   people. The am horatzim fuel the fire for the leaders and they mistakenly
   accommodate. But, in theology we are one. (I mean the lomdim). Thus, 
   prayer is an avodah belev (nafshechem) while learning is not an
   avodah. But, learning brings to that avodah. The am hooretz remains
   with the emunah peshtah while the talmid chochom grows to ahavah 
   kerishpe esh and kamayim and higher ad kalos nefesh. No am
   hooretz can achieve this. But, I agree that the emphasize of the
chasidim on
   on the dangers of learning lo lishmo concerned the NH. If I recall he
   also does not like it. He wants that at least one moment of lishmo to 
   help undo this flaw. But, he says learn and don't give up as long as it is
   lo lekanter. Please look up the end of Shaar 3 where he has only 
   perokim. There in  ch. 3 he has even if one learns lo lishmo (as long as
   it was not lekanter) we must respect him. Because, surly some lishmo
   crept in. read this section. Even for the NH lo lishmo is bad. But, this
must
   not be the basis or excuse not to learn or be mevazeh them. It is not as
   open and shut as appears from the onset of his writing.

   By way of introduction all of the nefesh hachayim is based on
   halacha and kabalah. R. Chayim Mivolozyn was a master of the 
   above. Thus, since the Baal hatanya and he drew from the same
   well it is impossible for them to differ in basics. Also, let me examine
   this ahavah peshuta which is the lowest form. Love is expressed 
   through action. All married people know that words are cheap 
   and action speaks louder than words. Thus, this ahavah has to be
   expressed. It is expressed through tefilah. The Baal shem Tov saw 
   beauty and a burning love even at this level. The gedolim were shaken
   that he was respectful of those thelim zogers. Remember the Baal
   Shem Tov was repected by all. He participated with other gedolim in
   fighting the Frankists. The Mezricher magid gave an example. It says
   in Shemos that the Almighty chose a "seneh" "vhine hasneh boer
   boesh vehasneh enenu ukal".  Why did he not chose a bigger tree? 
   The answer is that the Almighty saw a little tree a tehilim zoger with a
   flame of love that does not seem to extinguish. Kal vochomer for the 
   Lamdon who through his lomdus can achieve the higher form of Ahavah.
   But, this is the harder climb which we all must undertake.

   Look at the SA Horav Hilchot TT (ch 4:5) where says that even a person
   who is potur mitfilah because toroso umnoso describes the chasidim 
   rishonim who davened 9 hrs a day and were not choshesh  for bitul
   torah. The eason is that "even though Talmud torah keneged kulam 
   because of the hiskashrus to the Almighty with yirah veahavah was
   with such strength and true devekus that they reached hispashtus 
   hagashmis and this is more important than TT" The NH says a lot
   of this. Do you think that anything can be higher than walking with G-d 
   and he with you? Do you think the NH can disagree? What do you think?
   The Yureshalmi asks so when did they learn and work. The answer
   given is that there was a berocho in their learning and work. The meforshim
   say that they learned correctly immediately. They did not go down any 
   wrong path which many of us sometimes do. This is siyato dishmayo.
   Of course an am hooretz cannot achieve it. The role of the Rebbie is 
   what R. Yosef Gavriel questioned. Well, this is a point in Chasidus 
   that we don't have to go into. But, it is an issue for everyone. The 
   NH wanted that a person pause. R. JJ Baker suggests that this 
   was not mandatory. No, it was not. but, hakol lefi hoinyon. A person
   had to determine when he needs to do it. Maybe, an advisor (a mashgiach)
   was needed to determine this. Maybe, the NH left it to the honor system.

   My style is not to look for machalokes. I feel we three are saying
appox. the
   same thing. let us not look for differences that we can justify different
   parties. It is fun but destructive. Forgive me for rambling on, but I 
   wanted to review where I believe we stand.

   Shaya Beilin

 
  I apologize for Misspelling Rav Yosef Gavriel's last name.
  I making this statment privately and publicly. I have the greatest
  respect for him and cholilah I did not mean to use this 
  forum to embarrass him.

  Let me emphasize that I see where Rabbi Baker is coming from. But,
  if he reads carefully he will see that the NH that not have a real good
  answer for the "lo lishmo" objection. If anything, the NH skimmed over it 
  by saying there has to be some "lishmo". So, I think he had trouble with the
  question. 

  He never really solved it. That is why I suggested that his meditation
suggestion
  was given to be used as required. It is a medicine on "need". "When you
have a
  problem take a pill" idea.
  
  For me, the Baal Hatanya is easier to understand. There is a problem.
But, with
  "tefilah" it will be solved. Study the likute amorim to comprehend this.
The NH
  did not use tefilah for this purpose. To quote the Tanya "he should be in
the 
  madregah of one who  he is mispalel kol hayom kuloh" (of course, he means
  the benefits) But, this is the avodah of Chasidus.

My father owns a copy of something called Siddur Chasam Sofer.  It's
probably still available at the bookstores even though I've not seen one in a
very long time.

I don't know if the Chasam Sofer actually worte a commentary on the siddur
or whether this was compiled by some enterprising individual (I can't
remember who) who collected material from the CS's writings relevant to the
siddur.  As I recall whoever it was who wrote the introduction explained that
Siddur of the Chasam Sofer followed nusach s'fard rather than nusach
ashkenaz because although the CS, owing to minhag avoseinu b'yodeinu
considerations, recited the davening in accord with nusach ashkenaz, he
preferred to daven from a nusach s'fard siddur, lamenting the fact that the Ari
had emended only the S'fardic siddur, but not the Ashkenazic siddur.

Nusach Ashkenaz was certainly the official nusach of Pressburg, and I have
no reason to believe that it is not the nusach of the Sofer/Schreiber family. 
Now there is one branch of the Sofer family that did exhibit a decided
inclination toward Chassidus, the Sofers of Erlau.  R. Yochanan Sofer of
Erlau was, I believe, a great-grandsom of the CS who was well into his
nineties when he perished in the Holocaust.  His son and successor as the
Erlauer Ruv resides in Israel and, I gather, has more or less fully adopted
Chassidic garb -- gartel, shtreimel, etc. I don't know what nusach he uses,
but I suspect that it's s'fard.  

I would be curious to hear from our arbiter of all things Chassidish, R.
Shulman, how the Erluaer Ruv is regarded in the Chassidishe velt, i.e.,
whether he is accepted as being truly Chassidish and whether he is
considered to have graduated from being a mere Ruv to an authentic
Rebbe.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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 ]