Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 138

Tuesday, July 27 1999

• Re: Munkacs
• Re: hesder yeshivos
• Re: hesder yeshivos
• Re: hesder yeshivot
• Re: Munkacs
• Mitzvot Ma`asiyyot/What Moves Us
• Mitzvot Ma`asiyyot/What Moves Us
• Re: Munkacs
• Enjoying the performance of mitzvot
• Re: Munkacs
• Re: Avodah V3 #137
• Allegorization
• Allegorization
• Re: Enjoying the performance of mitzvot
• Re: Munkacs

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

>       But I cannot consent to sign my name to the proclamation ... Will
> the Zionists, Mizrahists, Agudists and the like return to G-d and his
> religion? 
>       Our sages said in Ker (6b) that a fast in which none of the
> sinners of Israel participates is no fast. We learn this from the
> galbanum which is one of the ingredients of the incense. This means that
> the sinners of Israel may comprise only one tenth of those who fast...
> But our case does not warrant a worldwide fast for those wicked [German]
> Jews are known to be nearly as numerous as we are.  ~
> 

I was aware of the Munkatcher's position hitherto this discussion, and, of
course, it is jarring.

For what it is worth, R' Teichthal, Em ha'Banim Semeicha new ed. p. 98
claims the Munkatcher would have been chozer bo had he been alive in 1944.

YGB

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

In a message dated 7/27/99 11:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< 
 I think that the more relevant question regarding yeshivot is: how
 many talmidei chakhamim have they produced?  After all, yeshivot
 teach learning.  Gedolim generally arise as a result of many factors,
 the yeshiva in which they learned being only one.
  >>

Just a footnote - The Maharatz Chayot in Maamar Lo Tasur discusses why the 
halacha goes like a stam mishna and describes R' Yehuda Hanassi - "haya 
hagadol shebechol bnai doro vlo nimtza ish bdoro yidameh elav bgodel yichuso 
btokef chachmato bnidivat kiso botzmat anvatonuto...."

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

So you then feel yourself to be on the same level of R. Zolti?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
To: avodah <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 9:46 PM
Subject: hesder yeshivos


> From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Hesder yeshivos
> 
> (>>>And 'Tahkeh',  are Hesder Yeshivos ''real'' yeshivos? How many
> Gedolei Yisroel
> have they produced in the decades of  their existence?)
> 
> >>>        Is that the only way to define the "trueness" of a yeshiva;
> by te
> number of gedolim it produces?   ...Do yeshivit exist simply for the
> sake of
> producing gedolim, or do we support them for the sakes of Torah and klal
> 
> Yisrael?
> 
> When the late chief rabbi of Jerusalem Rabbi Bezalel Zolti visited
> Melbourne about
> 15 years ago, he asked one of the leading Lubavitch rabbonim here a
> similar
> question: ie Lubavitch was the first Chassidic yeshiva to be established
> in the US -
> (pre-WW2 and well  before Satmar, Bobov etc) - how many Gedolei Yisroel
> have
> they produced?"
> 
> If the question was valid for him, it's valid for me.
> 
> 
> 

Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

<<<
When the late chief rabbi of Jerusalem Rabbi Bezalel Zolti visited
Melbourne about
15 years ago, he asked one of the leading Lubavitch rabbonim here a
similar
question: ie Lubavitch was the first Chassidic yeshiva to be established
in the US -
(pre-WW2 and well  before Satmar, Bobov etc) - how many Gedolei Yisroel
have
they produced?"

If the question was valid for him, it's valid for me.
>>>

The question is surely valid.  The point is what inference may one appropriately draw from a negative response.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

In a message dated 7/27/99 12:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 I was aware of the Munkatcher's position hitherto this discussion, and, of
 course, it is jarring.
 
 For what it is worth, R' Teichthal, Em ha'Banim Semeicha new ed. p. 98
 claims the Munkatcher would have been chozer bo had he been alive in 1944.
 
 YGB
  >>
Does Chozer bo mean that he would have agreed to a fast based on the 1944 
conditions or that he had made a mistake in the 30's? If it's the latter, 
what would have been the result for a Munkatcher Chasid who had fasted in the 
30''s against the Rebbe's wishes and one who didn't fast in accordance with 
the Rebbe's wishes? Are they both right - one for following daat tora and one 
for doing what would eventually be acknowledged as right?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

RYGB writes:

>R' Micha asked recently aobut mitzvos that particularly have impact on our
>respective selves. I answered that we are socialized to Torah as the
>ultimate "high". R' Micha countered that he was looking for some responses
>on a practical level. Yet - re'eh zeh peleh! - no one actually gave a
>practical response! The conversation actually then turned to what part of
>the liturgy is uplifting and inspirational to respective individuals. But,
>Rabbosai, davening is not a mitzva ma'asis!

>In fact, I think there are very few of us who are turned on by Arba Minim,
>Tefillin, Tzitzis, Shilu'ach Ha'Ken, Pidyon Petter Chamor (I'm naming at
>random). I am told that some women are really inspired by Hadlokas Neiros
>Shabbos v'Yom Tov, but when I had to do it in Yeshiva, it wasn't the high
>point of my week.

>In fact, I think we scions of the Misnagdic/Chassidic worlds find mitzvos
>ma'asiyos a bit of a hassle (who enjoys shopping for Arba Minim and then
>worrying about whether they will remain kosher?), and that is why we find
>most of our sippuk in Torah or Tefilla.

I do not think we should read too much into the conversation about "what
moves you."  First, hardly anyone responded to the initial inquiry.
Perhaps some people feel the matter is a private one, and so did not
wish to publicly share their inner feelings with several hundred,
largely anonymous listmembers.     Personally, I think we still have far
too many lurkers on the list, and I think this topic is an excellent
opportunity for some of our silent partners to speak up.  On the other
hand, they may be afraid of being subject to second-guessing from our
resident body of critics, as occurred in response to one person's
statement  that he found Kol Nidre moving.

I agree with RYGB that many of us, including myself, get a high from the
intellectual experience of Talmud Torah, but I do not think that this
need be seen as a product of yeshiva indoctrination or "socialization".
It is not in the least surprising that an intellectually oriented
individual derives pleasure from intellectual stimulation.

Regarding mitzvot ma'asiyyot, I think RYGB's point is well taken,
although I would ascribe the root cause of the problem to routinization.
 Hanahat tefillin may lose its luster over time, but how many (I am now
addressing the male listmembers, I think :)) recall the frisson of
excitement, the anxiety and anticipation that accompanied the first time
you laid tefillin?  (Indeed, this may explain R. Harry's passionate
reaction to kiruv -- he is watching someone else experience the
excitement of discovery that is no longer available to him.)

Moreover, the curse of routinization applies even to such once-a-year
rituals as netilat lulav.  Having had the privilege recently of
introducing a young person -- an honest-to-goodness tinoket shenishbah
--  to the celebration of Sukkot, I can testify to the moving aspects of
the mitzvah, when experienced for the first time.

Thus, when one performs a mitzvah that crops up more rarely -- such as
berit milah -- I think it tends to  have a much stronger emotional
impact.

No single remedy exists to the problem of routinization.  But sometimes
there is value in participating in a different "version" of the mitzvah.
 For an Ashkenazic mitnaged, attending a Yemenite seder or hasidic
hakafot can allow one to participate in a routine mitzvah in a
non-routine fashion.  No doubt the popularity of "Carlebach minyanim"
also derives in part from this.

Another aspect of many mitzvot ma'asiyot that weakens their emotional
impact is formalization.  Torah and tefillah stand out precisely because
they can be experienced in a more personalized fashion than, say, atifat
tallit or akhilat matzah.  Try as I might, I canot think of ways of
personalizing the mitzvah of mezuzah (short of writing one myself, which
is technically a hekhsher mitzvah, I believe).  The use of different
boxes is, of course, an issue of interior decorating, not kiyyum
ha-mitzvah.  Otherwise, the placement of the mezuzah, its angle, all are
prescribed.  In some cases, the formal requirements do not merely lessen
the emotional impact of a mitzvah, but overwhelm them.  RYGB describes
such a problem with teki'at shofar for the makri, a situation I
experienced for years as well.

In contrast, interpersonal mitzvot, such as bikkur holim or mesame'ah
hatan ve-kallah, are not formalized and offer great scope for emotional
investment and personalization.  Of course, the more often you do it,
the more routine it becomes, as can be attested to by hospital chaplains
and Jewish musicians.  But even so, there is a diversity of experience
that is part of these mitzvot that is simply unavailable in the case of,
say, birkat ha-mazon.

R. Micha mentioned the issue of ta'amei ha-mitzvot, but this is, I
think, a double-edged sword.  Many of the mitzvot ma'asiyyot, such as
tefillin and arba minim seem fairly oblique in their symbolism.  While
devotees of Aryeh Kaplan or others who dabble in nistarot may find
depths of meaning in some of these mitzvot, others may consider them
largely inscrutable, especially in contrast to talmud Torah, tefillah or
some of the interpersonal mitzvot discussed above.  Now, inscrutability
can be a wonderful thing; indeed, I think the emotional impact of
havdallah may actually be diminished if one focuses overmuch on the
reason for the berakhot bore me'rei ha-esh and bore minei besamim.
Sometimes I think it can be more satisfying to lose oneself in the
mystery of the moment.  But it is often difficult to rediscover the
mystery in the largely routinized and formalized structure of kiyyum
mitzvot.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Ok I'll bare my soul - walking to the shul door to greet the sabbath queen at 
the end of Lcha Dodi - just about always puts me in touch with shabbat as 
well as the  previous generations (from the Rav(JB Soloveitchik) to the 
Kabbalists of zfat) 

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Does Chozer bo mean that he would have agreed to a fast based on the
> 1944 conditions or that he had made a mistake in the 30's? If it's the
> latter, what would have been the result for a Munkatcher Chasid who had
> fasted in the 30''s against the Rebbe's wishes and one who didn't fast
> in accordance with the Rebbe's wishes? Are they both right - one for
> following daat tora and one for doing what would eventually be
> acknowledged as right? 
>

It was not about the fast, but about his extremely negative attitude
towards those involved in yishuv ha'aretz.

YGB

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

RYGB wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

>> Is their more or less of a kiyum in a mitzvah we enjoy doing versus one we
don't?

>R' Dessler has a long discussion of this in vol. 5. Yes, there is more of
>"lishma" in the mitzva enjoyed than in the mitzva not enjoyed.

On this issue, see the classic statement of Rambam at end of Hilkhot
Lulav and the (unforgettable) comments of Maggid Mishneh, sham.

(For the pedantically inclined, of whom I am one, Hilkhot Lulav is
really called Hilkhot Shofar ve-Sukkah ve- Lulav.)

In a message dated 7/27/99 1:59:46 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> It was not about the fast, but about his extremely negative attitude
>  towards those involved in yishuv ha'aretz.
>  
To balance out (while his Tzidkus and Lomdus are world famous, and doesn't 
need my Haskama), I was told that one Motzoei Shabbos he was seen crying 
bitterly, when asked for the reason, he pointed to a news item he received 
that one of the underground soldiers was killed.

Umsaymim Btov, Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
>From: alustig@erenj.com (Arnold Lustiger)
>Subject: Kever Rachel - Is it real?
>
>1) The Jews being led to Bavel at the time of the first Churban passed Kever
>Rachel on the way, where Rachel Ime'nu interceded with Hashem on their
>behalf. This would mean that Kever Rachel would have to be on an east-west
>road.
>
>2) This location was called "Ramah" not "Beit Lehem"
>
>3) Yaakov's family was on the way to Hevron when Rachel died in childbirth
>"while there was yet a 'Kivrat Haaretz'  to get to Bet Lehem".  This would
>suggest that the Kever  indeed was on a north- south road, but a significant
>distance from Bet Lehem.
>
>Based on this information, one might conclude that Ramah was located at the
>intersection of an east-west road leading to Bavel with a north south road
>leading to Bet Lehem.
>
>Could someone fill in more details or present other evidence one way or the
>other?
>

a) When Israel turned over Bet Lehem to the Palestinian Authority in 1995,
a well known Rav (whose identity I have totally forgotten) paskened that
there was no obligation to tear kri'ah (required when 'Arei Yehuda are
taken over by non-Jews), since no one really knows for sure the true
location of Bet Lehem.

b) There is a second Bet Lehem in the Galil which is now known as Bet Lehem
Haglili (appropriately enough).  Some have speculated that that is the Bet
Lehem of Kever Rachel, because it fits a more likely route for Ya'acov
returning from his years with Lavan.

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

In response to RYGB, who has challenged us to answer RZW:

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Zvi Weiss wrote:

<<The discussion of allegorization has brought out two points that I have
NOT seen well-addressed by those who think that allegorization is a proper
approach.

1. The lack of support in Rishonim.  As has been pointed out, the Seforno
seems to be the "most liberal" and HE is pretty circumspect.  >>
<snip>

I will not repeat the various arguments on this point.  Suffice it to say 
that many of us on Avodah believe that the Rambam and others qualify as 
"support."  The Tradition article cites [Abravanel] with regard to the 
story of Eitz HaDa'at.

<<3. I still do not understand the fundamental motivation for this 
approach.
I am reasonably sure (not positive) that "Science" will state that it is
unequivocally impossible for a nation of 2,000,000+ to have survived 40
Years in the Desert.  "Science" will state that Water sufficient for such
a large nation will not come out of a Rock.  Does anyone allegorize this?>
Will people state that we should allegorize Yetziat Mitzraim because it is
"scientifically" impossible for the described events to occur?  Is the
plague of "Blood" really just a red dust that polluted the river??  >>

Certain historical aspects of Torah are fundamental to Yahadut.  Others are 
not.  Did Hashem create the world in 7 days?  Perhaps not, and it doesn't 
impact my yahadut one iota.  Same for the Mabul.  Yetziat Mitzraim is a 
different matter.  It is fundamental inasmuch as so many mitzvot are zecher 
litzi'at mitzraim.

<<If one is willing to accept OTHER "miraculous" sections of the Torah, I 
do nto
understand the difficulty here.  >>

I believe in miracles.  I prefer not to believe in conspiracy theories.  I 
find it difficult to believe that Hashem would make a Flood and then cover 
up all traces so that Science, in many different disciplines, determines 
that there could not have been a Flood.  Why should Hashem do that?

<<Especially when we see ChaZaL who state
that "the seasons" *did not* operate during the year of the Flood.  Were
they ALSO speaking in "allegory"?  Seems to me that THEY accepted the
flood as "real"...  >>

Chazal had no reason to doubt the historicity of the Flood.  We do, given 
modern Science.
Chazal seem to have accepted other parts of the Torah as absolute fact, 
while the Rambam allegorized them.  E.g., pi ha'aton, which chazal say was 
created bain hashmashot and the Rambam says was just a dream.

<<If they could, why do WE (or some of us )have a
problem simply saying that this happened and that Science can not [yet]
excplain it?>>

That's possible, but very improbable.  I refer you to other posters who 
talked about when to "trust" that Science has got it right and when to 
believe that the issue is still in a state of flux.  I'm no expert, but it 
seems that here, given the data from various fields, it seems that unlikely 
that the Flood can co-exist with future scientific findings.

The question is: why must we believe be'emunah shleima in improbable 
things?  Christian Fundamentalists do that with regard to ma'aseh breishit 
(and teach Creationism literally).  Orthodox Judaism is more liberal in 
this regard.

Kol tuv,
Moshe Feldman

In response to RYGB, who has challenged us to answer RZW:

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Zvi Weiss wrote:

<<The discussion of allegorization has brought out two points that I
have
NOT seen well-addressed by those who think that allegorization is a
proper
approach.

1. The lack of support in Rishonim.  As has been pointed out, the
Seforno
seems to be the "most liberal" and HE is pretty circumspect.  >>
<snip>

I will not repeat the various arguments on this point.  Suffice it to
say that many of us on Avodah believe that the Rambam and others
qualify as "support."  The Tradition article cites [Abravanel] with
regard to the story of Eitz HaDa'at.

<<3. I still do not understand the fundamental motivation for this
approach.
I am reasonably sure (not positive) that "Science" will state that it
is
unequivocally impossible for a nation of 2,000,000+ to have survived
40
Years in the Desert.  "Science" will state that Water sufficient for
such
a large nation will not come out of a Rock.  Does anyone allegorize
this?>
Will people state that we should allegorize Yetziat Mitzraim because
it is
"scientifically" impossible for the described events to occur?  Is
the
plague of "Blood" really just a red dust that polluted the river?? 
>>

Certain historical aspects of Torah are fundamental to Yahadut. 
Others are not.  Did Hashem create the world in 7 days?  Perhaps not,
and it doesn't impact my yahadut one iota.  Same for the Mabul. 
Yetziat Mitzraim is a different matter.  It is fundamental inasmuch
as so many mitzvot are zecher litzi'at mitzraim.

<<If one is willing to accept OTHER "miraculous" sections of the
Torah, I do nto
understand the difficulty here.  >>

I believe in miracles.  I prefer not to believe in conspiracy
theories.  I find it difficult to believe that Hashem would make a
Flood and then cover up all traces so that Science, in many different
disciplines, determines that there could not have been a Flood.  Why
should Hashem do that?

<<Especially when we see ChaZaL who state
that "the seasons" *did not* operate during the year of the Flood. 
Were
they ALSO speaking in "allegory"?  Seems to me that THEY accepted the
flood as "real"...  >>

Chazal had no reason to doubt the historicity of the Flood.  We do,
given modern Science.
Chazal seem to have accepted other parts of the Torah as absolute
fact, while the Rambam allegorized them.  E.g., pi ha'aton, which
chazal say was created bain hashmashot and the Rambam says was just a
dream.

<<If they could, why do WE (or some of us )have a
problem simply saying that this happened and that Science can not
[yet]
excplain it?>>

That's possible, but very improbable.  I refer you to other posters
who talked about when to "trust" that Science has got it right and
when to believe that the issue is still in a state of flux.  I'm no
expert, but it seems that here, given the data from various fields,
it seems that unlikely that the Flood can co-exist with future
scientific findings.

The question is: why must we believe be'emunah shleima in improbable
things?  Christian Fundamentalists do that with regard to ma'aseh
breishit (and teach Creationism literally).  Orthodox Judaism is more
liberal in this regard.

Kol tuv,
Moshe 




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 7/27/99 3:09:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< 
 
 On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
 
 >> Is their more or less of a kiyum in a mitzvah we enjoy doing versus one we
 don't?
 
 >R' Dessler has a long discussion of this in vol. 5. Yes, there is more of
 >"lishma" in the mitzva enjoyed than in the mitzva not enjoyed.
 
 On this issue, see the classic statement of Rambam at end of Hilkhot
 Lulav and the (unforgettable) comments of Maggid Mishneh, sham.
 
 (For the pedantically inclined, of whom I am one, Hilkhot Lulav is
 really called Hilkhot Shofar ve-Sukkah ve- Lulav.)
  >>
 Thanks for the citation, the words of the Rambam and Maggid Mishna are 
beautiful and very consistent with the Rav's(R" JB Soloveitchik) definition 
of simcha being lfnai Hashem.  Clearly we should be bsimcha when we are doing 
the ratzon Hashem, whatever that is, purely because we are doing what we are 
created for (ie if Hashem were to command me to clean latrines all day I 
should be very happy doing that - and I hope I would be) My guess is that 
many of us are not yet at that level. My real question was is there more or 
less of a kiyum in a mitzvah we enjoy(defined as where we get personal 
satisfaction not due to doing the ratzon Hashem - e.g. we are intellectually 
gifted and thus enjoy our success at learning) versus one we don't(e.g. we 
are not intellectually gifted and miserably break our head against the wall 
to try to understand simple pshat).  Assume both of the above individuals 
spend the same amount of time at it.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Eli Turkel wrote:

> >>> The Agudah wanted to have a fast day in the 1930s because of the  worsening
> >> roclamation of the fast. The rav from Munkacz refused on the grounds
> >> that German Jewry deserved what was happening to them as the overwhelming
> >> majority of German Jews were not religious. He was sure that Nazism
> >> would not affect east European jewry since they were religious !!!
> >
> >> Could you state the source for this statement. It sounds like a terrible
> >> slur on one of the greatest Gaonim and Tzadikim of the last generation.
> >
>
>      The responsa is by Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira of Munkacs
> (1872-1937) and was written in Solvakia, 1933. It appears in his
> responsa Minchat Eliezer volume 5 #36.
>
>       Because of an economic boycott organized by the nazis against
> Jewish businesses it was suggested that a fast be held to pray for their
> safety.  Many rabbis including Rabbi Shapira were asked to sign the
> proclamation. The responsa is his negative reply to this request.
>
> portions of the responsa (from the translation by Krischner) -
>
>       ... But the legions of the devil, among them the hypocritical
> leaders including many rabbis and others who have led Israel astray. For
> their main goal is only to pray for the welfare of the gentile nations
> and other such foolishness. ... But they [i.e. the German Jews] denied
> and overturned the words of the living G-d; even if one says that he
> believes in the coming of the Messiah, if he does not await the
> Messiah's coming he denies [the G-d of Israel]... In any event I thought
> that when [the Nazis] imposed the boycott in Germany against Jewish
> businesses, this was certainly not a reason to ordain a fast. For nearly
> all [of the Jews] in Germany profane the Sabbath publicly by [keeping]
> their stores [open]. Now they are being paid back measure for measure
>  ... If the German Jews do not repent their sin of profaning the Sabbath
> then [to ordain a public fast] would be to reinforce their behavior of
> profaning the Sabbath.  ...
>       Now that the Nazis have cast off the veil of everlasting shame
> from their faces, there is a real danger to life in our country, Poland,
> Hungary,...
>       But I cannot consent to sign my name to the proclamation ... Will
> the Zionists, Mizrahists, Agudists and the like return to G-d and his
> religion?
>

The above excerpt leaves out the beginning of the tshuva which gave me a much
different understanding of his position.
"Concerning the request for my agreement with the establishment of a public fast
because of the murders and suffering  - because of our many sins - of our brethren
the Jews of Germany etc. ...The essence of the matter when I heard the news and my
heart dissolved  - the Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 527 M.A. 2) states that if the decrees
and suffering continues for a very long time - r. l. then one is not to decree a
fast at all....However they Beis Eiyen Daled [German Jews?] have maintained their
corrupt and false views from the beginning of the war until now and they refuse to
see the Truth that the war is in fact the birth pains of Moshiach and when they
return to G-d (at least with the basic mitzovs Shabbos and Niddah and raise their
children to correct Torah study etc.) then we would all be redeemed with the final
redemption as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Tshuva and many medrashim and places in
Shas etc. And from all the holy writings it seems that these events are in fact
the pains of Moshiach.
However the legions of the sitra acher and amongst them the many leaders and many
hypocritical Admorim etc etc are despoiling all of Israel. This is because they
are only praying that there be peace amongst the nations of the world and that is
the primary concern of their worthless activities and they have overturned the
bowl like the overturning of Sodom and Gomorra. This is against the Torah. They
flatter and ingratiate themselves only for financial concerns etc etc. While I
have cried out with great mesiras nefesh from the beginning of the war until now
in which every new day is worse than its predecessor r.l.  Because their
disgusting "peace" with the sitra acher will be much worse to clall Yisroel ( and
especially to the yirei HaShem) then the war in all regards. This is revealed to
the eye of all as I have received from my holy ancestors concerning this war and
what its purpose is - it is only to cause Jews to do tshuva and to bring close the
Redemption.....It is important to caution our brethren (because even when Jews sin
they are still Jews) that they should see and understand that the finger of G-d is
because of the profanation of Shabbos and that they should return back to G-d and
close their stores and businesses on Shabbos....then we will pray for them and
decree a public fast to pray for their rescue and success amongst the rest of
Israel...because it is no different than an epidemic...and surely this situation
is an epidemic r.l. because they will do this in all the countries (chalila) and
also amongst the shomer shabbos of our brethren because it is known that Esav
hates Yaakov...and the Zohar explains that hatred of all Jews will increase in
this time...."



----------------------------------------
There is a major difference between the original excerpts which indicates that he
simply  felt all the Jews who disagreed with his position should be destroyed and
the full tshuva in which he expresses his great anguish that all the terrible
suffering will be in vain because everyone is only concerned with ameliorating the
horrible pain and don't understand that this is the real thing - Moshiach will
come if everyone does tshuva. I don't think he would have changed his mind in
1944.

                          Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]