Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 180

Saturday, August 21 1999

• Making Chumras for a Person
• Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• RE: SHMIROTH--STRONG LANGUAGE OF RAMBAM-& GEDOLIM
• Re: Proofs of G-d
• Torah-Avodah-Chesed- ADD DREAMS!
• Chava-Tree of Knowledge DOES prove not to be Machmir
• Shmiros
• Apology/Correction to Shabbath SOlar Fan Posting
• Bakih in Maleh and Chaser--Response to Mechy/Rich
• Munkatcher and the Klausenberger

Russell Hendel writes:

> Carl is right--my Biblical examples do not prove my thesis.
> 
> Let me back up and relate a similar paradigm that I once heard.
> 
> This Rabbi's wife had had cancer for over 10 years. Based on a 
> Psak from Rav Moshe she was never told.she had cancer (till
> the very end).
> 
> I was extremely annoyed at this psak when I heard it. I suggested
> - ---it was GNAYVATH DAATH
> - ---it eg deprived her of the right to pray for a cure from cancer
> - ---it deprived her of the right to exercise precautionary measures 
> if she had known she had cancer.

She also lived for ten years with cancer; most people with cancer 
R"L do not live for that long. And as you say yourself later, when R. 
Moshe gave the psak, he knew her personally. IOW it was a psak 
that was made for a specific person in a specific situation, which is 
exactly what we were arguing about when we got off on this thread 
in the first place.

How people deal with illnesses varies from person to person. 
Everyone has to do what is appropriate for them, and although it is 
not necessarily a straight halachic issue, many people go to 
Rabbonim to ask their advice in how to deal with their illness. 

Most of you who know me from other lists know that I have a son 
who has been fighting a serious illness for three years now, and 
who B"H is doing well. He never heard the word cancer 
(technically, he does not have cancer - long story) until he became 
eligible to go to Zichron Menachem activities when he started 
chemotherapy a year and a half ago. At the time we told him that 
he may hear about people who have cancer, and he may meet 
other kids who have cancer, but that he should know that he knows 
people who have had cancer and have recovered from it (and we 
gave him examples). We have never let him into sick kids' chat 
rooms on the net. We have a policy of not telling him about kids he 
knows who have died R"L unless he asks. And when we were at 
our lowest point, a bit over a year ago, we took him to see a Rov 
here in Yerushalayim who told me to learn Mitzvas HaBitachon 
with him. It's been all uphill ever since bli ayin hara. Why should we 
clutter his head (he's a very mature almost 11-year old) with worst 
case scenarios? 

OTOH we know another family who as soon as their child was 
diagnosed started to pull her out of programs and make less 
ambitious plans for her Bat Mitzva and wanted to tell the daughter 
all the worst possibilities. She was practically ready to tell the 
daughter that R"L she was going to die (BTW she is B"H doing well 
today). Adina is in touch with this mother regularly, and one night 
she said to her, "why tell your daughter all these things? Let her 
live, let her be happy, let her have a normal life as long as she is 
able to. If she asks questions, answer on her level, but don't give 
her a lot of unnecessary details." And that's what she has done.

Why does it matter if the lady was davening that she should be 
cured from cancer or that she was davening for a cure from 
something else? What opportunity was R. Moshe saying to deny 
her? The opportunity to have a greater fear of an approaching Yom 
HaMisa R"L? One of the best pieces of advice I got in the last three 
years was from a dear friend of ours who told me, "you daven for a 
Refuah Shleima. Nothing more and nothing less. Not just 'my child 
should live,' not just, 'my child should have a Bar Mitzva', not just, 
'my child should get married.' But a total Refuah Shleima with 
everything that carries with it. What was wrong with R. Moshe 
telling that lady to daven for a Refuah Shleima? Why did it matter if 
she had cancer or leukemia or diabetes or any other disease? If R. 
Moshe knew her well enough to know that there was no purpose to 
be served in telling her what she had, then why tell her?

Ironically, I just learned a Gemara (I'm a few days behind the Daf 
since I gave Adina an extended vacation when the baby was born) 
where the Maggid Shiur (R. Fischel Schachter) told a story about 
someone who went to a Rebbe to be mispallel for someone and 
said, "I have been to many of your talmidim and none of their tfillos 
were successful." The Rebbe davened and the person had a 
Refuah. Afterwards the Rebbe told him that the Shaarei Refuah 
were closed in Heaven, so he davened that the person should have 
a parnassa. Since Hashem only gives parnassa to the living, the 
person was cured.... BTAT.

> Rather than get involved in a halachic discussion let me ask Carl
> how HE acted when eg he was an NSCY director. Did he 
> give Chumras when he saw teenagers misbehaving. OR did he
> tell them the truth and let them take responsibility.

When I was an NCSY director (how did you know that anyway?), it 
was twenty-two years ago, and I don't think I had a sufficient 
appreciation for the difference between ikar hadin and chumra. In 
any event, where I was an NCSY director, the kids were almost 
exclusively kids who didn't know anything, and our real stress was 
on mitzvos maaseyos. We wouldn't have said anything even if we 
did see them misbehaving. And when I went to other regions, the 
stress wasn't much different - what Micha wrote about the ikar 
being to get them to experience a Shabbos is very true. Much of 
kiruv work is done on a purely emotional level, without any real 
rational basis.

BTW - much of the fruhm velt has no clue as to the difference 
between ikar hadin and chumra. I've heard from one Rav that when 
you tell the average Beis Yaakov girl that something is a chumra, 
she thinks that it's a halacha that she's really supposed to keep 
but you don't think she's on the madrega yet. Twenty years ago, 
when I was a Yeshiva bochur, a high school age Israeli asked me 
what it meant to be fruhm in America. I told him that it meant 
keeping Shabbos, Kosher and Taharas HaMishpacha. He told me 
that here (in Eretz Yisrael), that's not enough, you have to have 
chumras. His brother, who had just started Yeshiva Gdola at the 
time, looked at him and said, halevai you should keep arba chelkei 
Shulchan Aruch first....

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Moshe Feldman writes:

> I saw the Mordechai inside.  He talks only of motzi shem ra.  The
> case of "tarbut anashim chataim" could be understood as motzi shem ra
> (B'nei Gad and b'nei Reuven were in fact not guilty of what Moshe
> accused them of).  Certainly it wasn't lashon hara--he was talking
> directly *to* them, not *about* them.

I think what the Mordecahi was referring to was that Moshe 
Rabbeinu was talking about the previous generation, that the tarbus 
anoshim chataim was the dor hamidbar which sinned in the chet 
hameraglim, and now the Bnei Reuven and Gad were taking their 
place and doing something that would keep Bnei Yisrael in the 
Midbar. Since this took place in the last year of the Midbar (recall 
that it was after Milchemes Midyan and Moshe was told he would 
die after Milchemes Midyan), obviously the people Moshe was 
talking about, the dor hamidbar, had all died already. Yet the 
Mordechai brings in the name of the Medrash Tanchuma that 
Moshe was punished for calling them chatoim.

> I also have a svarah to distinguish motzi shem ra from lashon hara
> regarding the dead.  It's not right to falsify information about a
> person whether he's dead or alive.  But the sin of lashon hara
> (speaking the truth) is really one of causing the person pain; dead
> people don't feel pain (see Brachot 19a).

Ah, but we don't pasken like that Gemara. We pasken like the 
Gemara at the bottom of Brachos 18a that says that we don't wear 
tztzis or tfillin in a Beis HaKvoros because of loeg larash. If the 
meisim don't understand anyway, why would we pasken that way? 
(See Yoreh Deah 361:3). Obviously the meisim do feel something. 
(And yes, that's what the Zera Chaim I cited yesterday brought as 
proof).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

As usual, RDE has expressed the point I would have liked to make more
eloquently than myself. It was precisely the point about the irreparable
harm to the SE's standing that I made to RJJS in my original remonstrance
against his publishing the letters. And, that is why the SE would clearly
not have wanted the *contents* of the letters published.

I believe the TUMJ did a great disservice to its readership (assuming it
has one besides us geeks). To a population brought up on Rav, Rav and more
Rav (as in RYBS), it would have been instructive to learn about the
richness of other horizons - the Mussar of Slabodka, the scholarship of
Berlin, the personal tragedy of the SE, the fusion of East and West.
Instead, the TUMJ places the SE in its Mittas Sdom, introducing him purely
on the basis of a small part of his world and character, and amplifying
its significance out of proportion to boot. Pulling down instead of
building up.

Al da vadai ka'bachina.

On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> This filtering of information relates to the problem of the letters
> published by the Tora UMaddah Journal. Aside from the halachic question
> of publishing these letters is the question of what information Rav
> Weinberg wanted publicized. There is no question that the harsh
> condemnations stated in the letters are stated nowhere else in his large
> numbers of published letters and tshuvos. Did he not publish them
> elsewhere because he simply felt that they would not be properly
> understood in written form or did he conceal them because he was
> legitimately afraid that he would be condemned for these views? Did he
> strongly exaggerate his views to Prof. Atlas as a way of empathizing
> with his correspondent's views or were these in fact his actual personal
> views that he expressed to anyone he felt he could trust?  The bottom
> line is that the publication of the letters severely damaged his
> reputation in the Orthodox world where he has been acknowledged as one
> of the major talmidei chachomim of the 20th century.  If the views are
> accurate then he and his halachic opinions will be discounted or ignored
> - if they are not accurate then his name has simply been besmirched. So
> what was gained? Did someone think that there would be a movement of
> talmidei chachomim to legitimize the harsh statements found in the
> letters? Did someone fantasize that Rav Weinbergs standing is so
> absolute that it would influence and bend the whole world in his
> direction?! 
> 

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 8/21/99 10:32:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< As usual, RDE has expressed the point I would have liked to make more
 eloquently than myself. It was precisely the point about the irreparable
 harm to the SE's standing that I made to RJJS in my original remonstrance
 against his publishing the letters. And, that is why the SE would clearly
 not have wanted the *contents* of the letters published.
  >>

.. He replied, "the rosy stories are presented for the
masses. The fact is that anyone who is going somewhere in the
Torah world has full access to the stories - but it is kept as
Torah Shebaal Peh. It is simply a question of to'eles. For
someone who is an outsider and is not immersed in learning -
the raw stories are harmful because they will be misunderstood.
For the insiders - those who come in contact with the big
people - the stories are understood in context."

As usual, I'm a bit confused.  I thought the beginning of RDE's post 
indicated that those in the know (or need to know basis) knew all the facts - 
so if these facts are negative (NB-I didn't view them as such) then his 
standing among those in the know was already harmed. BTW - Does the 
publication or lack thereof make the issues raised any less important?  Where 
do members of the masses who wrestle with similar issues get this information?

Shavua tov
Joel Rich

PS I hope that we are all trying to go somewhere in the world of tora

I thank Rav Weinreb for an excellent posting. He states
the following 4 things

>>>" I understands why he(Russell) said it smacks of avodah zara"

>>>"I also am concerned some people might fall into the 
trap of thinking that the amulet rather HKBH is helping them Chas 
VeShalom"

>>>"However I would never ever chas Veshalon accuse the Gedolim
who supported these things as being guilty Chas veshalom of 
that aveitah RCHL"

>>>I request that such language be toned down in the future

I will therefore say two things:

Number 1) The strong language is not mine. It is the Rambam's. I again
CITE VERBATIM the Rambam's language. I added absolutely nothing.
The 3 Rambams that motivated my posting are attached below

Numbder 2) If Rav Weinreb or David Nadoff or anyone else can
explain 3 things it would be appreciated

----WHAT the controversy between Rambam and other Gedolim is
----What is definitely assur, what is definitely mutor and on what
issues is there controversy
-----Rav Weinreb mentiond PRECAUTIONS he takes when giving
heters---WHAT ARE THEY and in his opinion what are the 
psychological drives that motivate a Jew to seek Shmiroth (instead
of just plain mitzvoth) (Why does anyone care about these 
things). Can Rav Weinreb give examples of what people in
practice like to use.


Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi

The three main rambams are now cited verbatim. I insist that this is
the Rambam's language and not mine (However in fairness to
David and Saul maybe I should have given credit to the Rambam
to begin with (to avoid getting myself into trouble!!!)

>>Idolatry 11:12
>>A person who says on a wound "All sicknesses that I brought
>>on Egypt I will not bring on you", and similarly a person who
>>reads a verse for an infant so that he should not be FRIGHTENED??
>>and or a person who leaves a Torah/Tefillin on an infant? so he
>>should sleep---it is NOT ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE AMONG
>>THE VIOLATORS OF WITCHCRAFT LAWS (actually NCHS/
>>CHVR) BUT THEY ARE AMONG THE DENIERS OF THE TORAH
>>FOR THEY MAKE THE TORAH A PHYSICAL REMEDY WHEN
>>IN FACT IT IS A SPIRITUAL REMEMDY

>>Idolatry 11:16
>>And these things are all false...and it is not proper that
>>Jews WHO ARE INSIGHTFUL SCHOLARS SHOULD
>>BE INVOLVED IN THESE VANITIES

(This was the source for my questions in my infamous
intemperate posting)

>>Mezuzah 5:4
>>But those who write Angels names inside the Mezuzahs...or Holy beings
>>names or verses or CHOTHAMOTH---
>>THEY ARE AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE NO SHARE IN THE NEXT 
>>WORLD. FOR THESE FOOLS IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THEY HAVE
>>ANNULED THE MITZVAH BUT THEY HAVE TAKEN A GREAT 
>>MITZVAH .....AND MADE IT INTO A KAMAAH


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In a message dated 8/20/99 1:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

>  Sh'nas "vihu yashmi'einu birachamav SHEINIS" tovah umsukah!

Omein V'omein 

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

Richard Walpole commenting on my suggestion that "proving God's 
existence thru dreams (a la Job 33)" is a commentary on his "emotional
proof:" of God, responds as follows

>I think the single most fruitful point to discuss and upon which to
Focus is:  
>"How best to relate to G-d" as opposed to "is there a G-d" nor "what is
G-d 
>like".  IOw how we approach, communciate, behave towards G-d is the
critical 
>issue...

>While contepmlating on this, I thought of R. Shimon Hatzadik;let me
paraphrase 
>his famous statement:
>here are 3 essential ways to Experince G-d or G-dliness in our lives:
>1) Via Torah
>2) Via Avoda; including service/work AND tefillo which is Avoda
shebaleiv 
>(As wells as via this list <smile>)
>And
>3) Via Gemillus Chassodim

BUT...That ****is**** the point of JOB 33. It is not a proof of God's
existence
(though that is a by product) but rather dreams are a VEHICLE FOR BETTER
RELATING TO GOD. So (unless I misunderstand him) Richard and I are 
still(?) in agreement. 

INDEED. IT EXPLICITLY SAYS IN JOB 34:32 that dreams are used to
find out

>>If I have not seen this then (you God) teach me (in a dream)--if I
>>have created a bad situation I will not continue<<

In other words just as the Torah and SA are  a vehicle for Torah, Avodah
and Chesed, so too dreams can be a vehicle for improving in that area (eg
Dreams may direct you WHAT TO STUDY, WITH WHOM TO STUDY,
WHERE TO APPLY CHESED etc).

Again I think a thread on references to dreams in Talmud/Rishonim etc
in this respect may be very illuminating  and (to answer Rabbi YGB)
'productive'

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Carl was discussing the advisability of a Posayk being Machmir in
halachah to achieve certain goals in adherents.  

I cited two stories to refute him but Carl (correctly) rejected one
of these proofs

It turns out my other proof is correct. 

Adam/Eve were prohibited from EATING from the tree of knowledge.
under penalty of death

But Adam prohibited Chava from TOUCHING the tree of knowledge

So the snake pushed Eve into the tree and asked why she didn't die.

Eve then sinned.

Doesn't this show that being MACHMIR can lead to rejection of Torah!!

In fact returning to Carl's infamous "7 nekiyiim chumra" isn't that the
point of Rabbi Akiva who allowed women to wear Jewelry/makeup during
the 7 nekiyim "because otherwise the marriage might break up"

Isn't that the point...that we have two things to worry about---keeping
the
marriage and preventing sin!!!

But how can any Posayk be sure he is BLENDING things in the right way!!!!

It seems to me that all we can ask of Rabbis is that they be factual and
leave
complex things like marriages to people to manage

Russell 
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

R' YZKD writes "As a Lubavitcher I add, that it is known that the Rebbe
Ztz"l would tell 
people with needs to check Tephilin and/or Mezuzahs, also in response to the 
criticizim that was directed at his Mivtza Mezuza, from the Rambam, the Rebbe 
spoke at legth, it is printed in Shaarei Halacha Uminhag Vol 3."
It was actually in a Lubavitcher pamphlet that I saw what I was criticizing
in my post when I said, "I've even seen pamphlets promoting asiyas
hamitzvos (some put out by major
kiruv organizations) because they are "segulos" for this that or the other
thing."
I didn't want to specify Lubavitch because I wasn't in the mood of being
accused of being anti-Lubavitch etc...but since you brought it up...
R YGB pointed out to me that the particular article was written by a
non-Lubavitcher in a Lubavitcher publication, in any case, my post had
nothing to do with Lubavitch soI'll drop it.
A few more things
1. The Aruch HaShulchan is the one who warns against not putting up a
mezuzah with the Kavanah for shmira, not the nosey kailim on the SA as I
had written in my original post, sorry for the mistake.  see Arukh
Hashulchan YD siman 285 se'if 3.
2.The taamei haminhagim brings the pigeon remedy for hepatitis fromthe
sefer Segulos Yisrael, and I am still looking for it to give the exact
citation.
3.  The article I refered to from Dr Fred Rosner is in the NY State Journal
of Medicine May 1992 "Pigeons as a Remedy (Segulah) for Jaundice"
4.  Thanks to R' YZKD for giving the quote from the MIshnah in Rosh HaShanah.
Shaul Weinreb

I recently argued that a SOLAR OPERATED CALCULATOR would 
be permissable on Shabbath.

My apologies. What I meant was a SOLAR OPERATED FAN would be
permissable (See footnote below for why I prefer a fan to a calculator)

I still have not heard an answer. Here is the logic:

You "turn on" the calculator by REMOVING A PREVENTOR of sunlight
which then triggers electric current (which turns a motor which turns the
fan).

The REMOVING OF A PREVENTOR is not something prohibited (based on
the SA of the Alter Rebbe)

The electric current for the fan does not produce heat, or light, and
involves
no completion of a circuit. All that is done is create allow difference
in 
potential. I further argue that is a fire you want the destructive power
of
fire to eg generate warmth etc. While in a current, destruction (of
wires) would
be a UNWANTED CUT HEAD (since you don't want any destruction).

Russell

(NOTE: In a calculator if you had a led display the current would produe
LIGHT
which is a CHILD of Fire and hence Biblically prohibited. However some 
calculators seem to use a DARK display to write numbers over a light
display.
Rather than get into all sorts of technical problems I abandoned this and
concentrated on a solar fan (which could be made)
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Just to reiterate a point I have often made (based on a Rav Yonah in
Avoth)

---As mechy himself points out, except for a few dozen discrepancies in
100000
words there is complete agreement about malay and chaser

---As I have pointed out many times the current accuracy of the Mesorah
is on
the highest level according to modern data standards (That is modern data

standards of transmitting data would accept an accuracy rate equal to
that
of the Mesorah and consider it perfectly--the rate is measured in errors
per
transmitted bytes/characters).

--Rav Yonah on Avoth says on "We are not Bakih in the punishment/reward
of wicked/righteous" that "Of course we know the reasons --if a righteous
person sins he gets punished while if a wicked person does a mitzvah he
gets rewarded; but we don't feel that comfortable applying them"

So too: I interpret the statement "We are not expert in full/deficient
spelling" to
mean "We know what the text says but are not that comfortable and concise
grammatical rules for their application."

As to what WE DO KNOW (ala Rashi, Rav Hirsch etc) is that eg a collective
noun that is deficiently spelled does not require all components while a
full
spelling does (Hence the infamous "HORNS" when spelled fully requires an
altar with 4 horns while when spelled deficiently does not)

(AND YES I would be happy to defend may FULL/DEFICIENT spellings
along these lines (if I am asked)

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Rabbosai, I know that this thread has sort of been beaten to the ground,
but I ask for your patience with this post.  I received an e-mail from a
well known Modzitzer Chassid criticizing my post and I responded to him
off list.  In this post, I clarify much of what I had meant to say in my
original post on Avodah, so I wanted to post our "off-list" Vikuach
"on-list for the benefit of all interested parties.  Obviously, if you
are not interested, feel free to ignore this post which is admittedly too
long.  I asked a shaaleh by my rav, and was told that it is muttar for me
to anonomysly post this in a public forum, so I wil not name the person
who sent me this mail until he gives me explicit reshus.


HIS RESPONSE TO MY POST ON AVODAH:

I don't know if you remember me, but as someone who learnt a great deal

from your grandfather - Yitzchok Taub, he should live & be well, I must

make a few corrections to your statements. I'll quote your message & 
put

in my comments along the way.


>1) "Amongst them was the obvious observation (which probably rebuts

>those who speculate if the Munkatcher Rebbe would have been >''chozer

bo''): Where are the "tanna demesaye's" to Rabbi Teichtal zt'l? >Of the

hundreds of rabbonim and rebbe's  who suffered but survived >the 
horrors

of the Holocaust - losing their nearest and dearest - - how >many were

"chozer bo"? How many of these rabbonim published >works  ''klapping al

chet'' for their anti-zionist views?"

You are forgetting that many of those Rabbonim & Rebbes were shafted by

the Zionists, who preferred young secularists over old people -

especially if they were religious. Have you ever read Perfidy, or how

about Min Hameitzar? The Zionists were definitely not Konei Olam Habah

with their behaviour during this period.


>I am quite surprised that you fail to observe the post holocaust

> behavior of practically every chassidishe rebbe with the exeption of

> Satmar.  Almost every single chassidic group put their emphasis post 
>

war on settling and building in Eretz Yisrael B'Davka.  Ger, Belz,

>Klausenberg, Boyan/Rizhin, and many many more.

Wait a minute. Ger had a yeshiva in Yerusholayim by 1925, Belz had a

major presence in Tel Aviv prior to the War, Klausenberg is a branch of

Tzanz which had a major presence in Tzefas in the 1870's, the Rizhiner

Chassidim had a major presence in Yerusholaim in the 1870's. These are

facts that are inconvenient with the political/religious Zionist 
stance,

but they are facts - not the statement you've made.


>Now, they did not exactly become "Zionists," but the primary issue

>that Rav Teichtal is so upset about is the fact that the chassidic

leaders >in prewar Europe did not emphasize the importance of building

the >yishuv and making aliyah.  That is what he claims his rebbe would

>have been choizer bo about.  Please look at the Eim HaBanim >Semeichah

daf 98.  He  specifically refers to his rebbes shita that the >geulah 
is

supposed to be bederech nes and NOT by us actively >building EY

beyadeinu.

Your namesake says the same thing! Look in the beginning of Parshas

Kedoshim, in DIvrei Yisroel on the Pasuk Bayom Hashlishi Yeochel. In a

Hanochoh on the Divrei Yisroel, Rav Shaul states that the even if the

whole Binyan Haaretz movement is As'chalta D'Geulah, it is NOT the

Geulah! Look it up yourself.


>It is THIS shita that he claims his rebbe would have changed.  In this

>respect I can hardly think of a Chassidic Rebbe that didn't support

>binyan haaretz.

Plenty of Chassidic Rebbes were afraid that the political Zionists 
would

ruin the younger generation who wanted to go to EY.


>Let me add here that My great grandfather, the Modzitzer Rebbe was

>very active pre-war in building and supporting the yishuv in Eretz

>Yisrael, he in fact sent his son with a group of his Chassidim to move

>to EY in the 1920's and he strongly urged his Chassidim to move 
>there.


I'm confused by the facts. The Imrei Esh moved to EY in 1935, who moved

in the 20's? In fact, when the Yabloner Rebbe moved to EY to start Kfar

Chassidim, he told all of his Chassidim who remained to go to his 
cousin

the Modzitzer Rebbe!


>Post war several days before my great grandfather was to set off to

>settle in EY (he died shortly thereafter), he met with the young

>Klaussenberger Rebbe (who prior to the war was an "antagonist" of

>Modzitz because of what he thought of as treifa "Zionist" views.)

On what do you base this? When & where did the Klausenberger Rebbe have

a chance to meet the Imrei Shaul prior to the war? Do you have

documentation that he was an antagonist?


>During their meeting,  My great grandfather urged the Klausenberger

>Rebbe to change his derech in light of the recent churban and what 
>had

occurred in Europe.  The Klausenberger Rebbe (who was at the >time very

much the Junior of my great grandfather) promised him that >he would

devote himself to building the chassidishe yishuv in EY.  >This version

of events has been passed down in my family.

I don't know who you heard that version from. Your great-uncle Chaim

Sochachewsky told me that he was in the room during the meeting. He sys

that the conversation closed with Rav Shaul saying, "I'm going by boat

to EY to settle there, you'll go by plane to build there!"


>2)"Rabbi Teichtal does not have a single Haskomo on the EHS. This >in

itself is highly unusual as it is rare to find a sefer published by a

>Hungarian Rav not to include a Haskomo." From whom exactly was he

>supposed to get a haskamah in Hungary in 1943? The Munkatcher >Rebbe?

The other Hungarian Rebbes who were anti-Zionist? The

>Polish Rebbes in 1943!?!?  The Zionist leaders in Palestine in

>1943?!?!

>I'm sorry, but this objection is nothing less than absurd.

What do you mean absurd? There was a Cherem issued in Zolkiew in 1715,

on a Sefer being printed without a Haskomoh. To the best of my

knowledge, it hasn't been rescinded yet.

>3)"Sadly, Rabbi Teichtal, at the time of writing EHS was in a state of

>anxiety and depression having gone through several years of terrible

>deprivation and suffering"

>Sadly, this objection could be made to Yetzias Mitzrayim, Veyitzaku

>LaHashem Batzar Lahem.  Ah yes, and when we all do teshuvah when >

under distress we must be not in our true, sensible state of mind.

If you are going to quote a possuk quote it correctly, and in the right

context. The possuk you've misquoted talks about the people who must

bring a Korbon Todah - in Theillim 107. Look in Parshas Shemos & in

Tehillim 78 & 106 for the Psukim you've misquoted.

Furthermore, that he was in a state of anxiety & depression is what he

himself writes in his preface. He felt that the lack of interest in

Binyan Haaretz, may have caused the problem. On the other hand, Rishon

Lezion was started with money raised by the most Kanoi of the Kanoim -

Rav Hillel Kolomeier. It is a safe assumption that the Hungarians got

turned off, as the political Zionists started taking over the

infrastructure.


>4)"that his promotion of Binyan and Yishuv Haaretz should not be

>misconstrued as support for secular Zionism." You are absolutely

>correct.  He doesn't support secular Zionism in his sefer period.  But

he >does sound awefully close to the views of Religious Zionism.

There is a major problem with religious Zionism. They make everything

absolvable - as long as it has to do with Yishuv Haaretz. This started

with the Heter Mechirah of Shemittah, Heter Avodah on Shabbos,

continuing with the Yaldei Teheran, the Yotzei Teiman & Giyus Banos.


>Certainely a lot closer than to the views of Satmar.

It is safe to assume that you aren't familiar with the Satmarer

Chassidus, if you make such a blanket statement. They pump millions of

dollars into EY every year. They are anti-government, but they don't

take from the government either - to the best of my knowledge. BZ

Shenker told me that the Imrei Shaul always wanted to meet the Satmarer

Rov, but their paths never crossed. Rav Shaul wanted to talk to him

about this topic specifically. Who knows????


MY RESPONSE TO HIS CRITISIM:


Thank you for your comments, and I definitely do remember you, even
though its been several years.  I will defer to your superior knowledge
where appropriate but I will respond to your comments one at a time.

"You are forgetting that many of those Rabbonim & Rebbes were shafted 
by

the Zionists, who preferred young secularists over old people -

especially if they were religious. Have you ever read Perfidy, or how

about Min Hameitzar? The Zionists were definitely not Konei Olam Habah

with their behaviour during this period."

You failed to notice that I never wrote even one word in support on the
secular Zionists.  Even though I probably could be melamed zchus on some
of what they accomplished in Binyan Haaretz (note: I said <italic>some),
</italic>I never attempted to do so.  I am fully aware of the terrible
things written about in Perfidy, Min Hameitzar , and yes I have read
them.

"Wait a minute. Ger had a yeshiva in Yerusholayim by 1925, Belz had a

major presence in Tel Aviv prior to the War, Klausenberg is a branch of

Tzanz which had a major presence in Tzefas in the 1870's, the Rizhiner

Chassidim had a major presence in Yerusholaim in the 1870's. These are

facts that are inconvenient with the political/religious Zionist 
stance,

but they are facts - not the statement you've made"

All of the groups that I mentioned were the one's with whom the
Munkatcher and Rav Teichtal (prewar) disagreed.  It is the Binyan Haaretz
that THEY were engaged in to which Rav Teichtal was Modeh in his sefer
Eim HaBanim Semeichah.  Don't forget that the Munkatcher was anti-Agudah
as well as anti Mizrachi.  Rav Teichtal specifically reffered to to his
rebbe's shita that there is no mitzvah Bzman hazeh of yishuv haaretz, see
eim habanim semeichah daf 156.  The Munkatcher was actually arguing on
the Avnei Neizer, who would clearly be counted in the same school as Ger
and Modzitz as regards the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz.  

The point that I was trying to make, was NOT that they were "Chozer" in
response to the holocaust, but rather that they agreed ALL ALONG with the
shita espoused by the Eim HaBanim Semeichah.  That is that Yishuv Haaretz
is an important mitzvah even bzman hazeh, indeed I can hardly think of a
Chassidishe Gadol who disagreed with this from the Baal Shem Tov on down
(as is repeated so many times by the Eim HaBanim Semeichah himself).

I was and still am quite amazed that people criticize the Eim HaBanim
Semeichah without even reading it.  We do not need to look for Tanah
DeMisayeya's among the rebbe's if he was espousing views with which Rov
Klal Yisrael agreed.

"Please look at the Eim HaBanim >Semeichah

daf 98.  He  specifically refers to his rebbes shita that the >geulah 
is

supposed to be bederech nes and NOT by us actively >building EY

beyadeinu.

-Your namesake says the same thing! Look in the beginning of Parshas

Kedoshim, in DIvrei Yisroel on the Pasuk Bayom Hashlishi Yeochel. In a

Hanochoh on the Divrei Yisroel, Rav Shaul states that the even if the

whole Binyan Haaretz movement is As'chalta D'Geulah, it is NOT the

Geulah! Look it up yourself."

My namesake never said that Yishuv Haaretz is not a mitzvah bzman hazeh. 
If you believe this to be the case please support yourself!  I'm not sure
where to find this hanachah on the Divrei Yisrael, but if he writes that
it is Aschalta D'geulah, that is a far cry from the shita from which Rav
Teichtal was Chozer Bo (that there is no mitzvas yishuv EY).  I don't
recall writing that my great grandfather held that it WAS the geulah.  In
fact even Rav Teichtal never claimed that it was any more than Aschalta
Degulah.  In fact Rav Teichtal himself wrote (see Eim habanim semeichah
daf 171-173) that the geulah comes in shelavim, we start by building EY,
and through our tefillos and Avodah we are Zocheh to mashiach ben David
from HKBH.

">It is THIS shita that he claims his rebbe would have changed.  In 
this

>respect I can hardly think of a Chassidic Rebbe that didn't support

>binyan haaretz.

-Plenty of Chassidic Rebbes were afraid that the political Zionists
would

ruin the younger generation who wanted to go to EY.


That may be the case, and I will retract my statement that "I can hardly
think..."  however,  you know as well as I do that my great grandfather
was not one of those Rebbes, as he encouraged his chassidim to move to
EY.


"Let me add here that My great grandfather, the Modzitzer Rebbe was

>very active pre-war in building and supporting the yishuv in Eretz

>Yisrael, he in fact sent his son with a group of his Chassidim to move

>to EY in the 1920's and he strongly urged his Chassidim to move 
>there.


-I'm confused by the facts. The Imrei Esh moved to EY in 1935, who 
moved

in the 20's? In fact, when the Yabloner Rebbe moved to EY to start Kfar

Chassidim, he told all of his Chassidim who remained to go to his 
cousin

the Modzitzer Rebbe!"


My mistake, I thought that he had emigrated to EY in the late twenties. 
Thank you for your correction.  I'm not sure however what the relevance
of the Yabloner Rebbe's statemnent is.  We both agree that my great
grandfather stayed in Poland when the Yabloner founded Kfar Chassidim.

:Post war several days before my great grandfather was to set off to

>settle in EY (he died shortly thereafter), he met with the young

>Klaussenberger Rebbe (who prior to the war was an "antagonist" of

>Modzitz because of what he thought of as treifa "Zionist" views.)

On what do you base this? When & where did the Klausenberger Rebbe have

a chance to meet the Imrei Shaul prior to the war? Do you have

documentation that he was an antagonist?


I base it on what I thought was common knowledge i.e. that the
Klausenberger was a member of the anti-Agudist camp prior to WWII. This
would make him an "antagonist" of my great grandfather.  Please correct
me if I am mistaken about this assumption, and the Klausenberger was
really an Agudist. I did not mean that there were ever any personal hard
feelings or any public disagreements between them specifically.  If I
made the wrong impression, then I am willing to apologize publicly, but I
hope you understand what I meant.


">During their meeting,  My great grandfather urged the Klausenberger

>Rebbe to change his derech in light of the recent churban and what 
>had

occurred in Europe.  The Klausenberger Rebbe (who was at the >time very

much the Junior of my great grandfather) promised him that >he would

devote himself to building the chassidishe yishuv in EY.  >This version

of events has been passed down in my family.

- I don't know who you heard that version from. Your great-uncle Chaim

Sochachewsky told me that he was in the room during the meeting. He sys

that the conversation closed with Rav Shaul saying, "I'm going by boat

to EY to settle there, you'll go by plane to build there!"

That version was told to me by my father.  I clearly remember him
schmoozing in the Modzitzer Shtiebel (in yiddish, which I at the time did
not understand that well) and then explaining to me as we left what had
been said.  My father was, and still is, someone who really learned a lot
from the Klausenberger ZTL.  He was indeed honored by Klausenberg at a
dinner several years ago, and he owns an extensive collection of the
Rebbe ZTL's sefarim and tapes.  He also remains very close with
Klausenberg to this day.  I distinctly remember him translating this
conversation to me, because it was so important to my father what those
two great giants, two of his most important mentors, had communicated to
each other.


">2)"Rabbi Teichtal does not have a single Haskomo on the EHS. This >in

itself is highly unusual as it is rare to find a sefer published by a

>Hungarian Rav not to include a Haskomo." From whom exactly was he

>supposed to get a haskamah in Hungary in 1943? The Munkatcher >Rebbe?

The other Hungarian Rebbes who were anti-Zionist? The

>Polish Rebbes in 1943!?!?  The Zionist leaders in Palestine in

>1943?!?!

>I'm sorry, but this objection is nothing less than absurd.

-What do you mean absurd? There was a Cherem issued in Zolkiew in 1715,

on a Sefer being printed without a Haskomoh. To the best of my

knowledge, it hasn't been rescinded yet.

I stand by my statement.  It is very absurd to expect Rav Teichtal to get
a Haskamah on his sefer under the conditions that he was in.

By the way, I've just perused the first few sefarim on one of my shelves.
 My copy of the Sidurro shel shabbos has no haskamah, neither does my
copy of the Shem Mishmuel.  My Sfas Emes is missing one, and so is my Pri
Tzaddik.  My Beis Aharon also doesn't have one, and my copy of Chiddushei
HaRim is also missing one.  In fact, so is my Derekh Pikudekhah.  I don't
think you want an index of half my library.

">Sadly, this objection could be made to Yetzias Mitzrayim, Veyitzaku

>LaHashem Batzar Lahem.  Ah yes, and when we all do teshuvah when >

under distress we must be not in our true, sensible state of mind.

If you are going to quote a possuk quote it correctly, and in the right

context. The possuk you've misquoted talks about the people who must

bring a Korbon Todah - in Theillim 107. Look in Parshas Shemos & in

Tehillim 78 & 106 for the Psukim you've misquoted.


My good friend, I'm sorry, the pasuk (Perek 107 pasuk 28) says "El
Hashem" and not "LaHashem"  I grant you that.  My mistake.  As far as the
subject of the pasuk goes I'm sure you are familiar with the comment of
the Divrei Yisrael on the previous perek (perek 106 pasuk 44 "Vaya'ar
Batzar Lahem Beshamo es rinassam" admittedly, it is a comment on the
previous perek and not the pasuk which I quoted, but I think it is clear
from the Tehillim that the batzar lahem in perek 106 from which HKBH
redeems us, is the reason for Hodu Lahashem in perek 107.  Indeed the
Malbim learns befeirush that the two are intimately connected) ,  which
is printed in several places including the Peer Mikdoshim published in
5756, that the Batzar Lahem reffered to here is analagous to the Batzar
lehem of shibud Mitrayim.  I had this comment in mind when I mentioned
yetzias mitrayim together with that pasuk.  

In any case, I think we agree that one of the reasons why a Jew suffers
(althoug Hanistarim LaHashem Elokeinu - and the true "reason" for
suffering is not something we will ever know)is to be meorrer teshuvah. 
It is clear from Rav Teichtal's sefer that this was the reason for his
hisorrerus.   If you disagree with him that is your right, but to
criticize his way of doing teshuvah is to criticize anyone who does
teshuva as a result of suffering.


"On the other hand, Rishon

Lezion was started with money raised by the most Kanoi of the Kanoim -

Rav Hillel Kolomeier. It is a safe assumption that the Hungarians got

turned off, as the political Zionists started taking over the

infrastructure."

That is a good theory, but that was not the shita of the Minchas Elazar. 
He himself held, as I've previously stated, that there is no mitzvah of
yishuv haaretz Bzman hazeh.  At least, that is the shita attributed to
him by Rav Teichtal, from which he claims he would have been chozer bo.


"Certainely a lot closer than to the views of Satmar.

It is safe to assume that you aren't familiar with the Satmarer

Chassidus, if you make such a blanket statement. They pump millions of

dollars into EY every year. They are anti-government, but they don't

take from the government either - to the best of my knowledge. BZ

Shenker told me that the Imrei Shaul always wanted to meet the Satmarer

Rov, but their paths never crossed. Rav Shaul wanted to talk to him

about this topic specifically. Who knows????


You're correct, I am not very well learned in Satmar Chassidus, but I am
aware of the Satmar support of many of their communities in EY.  I am not
quite sure what their shita is regarding Yishuv EY Bzman Hazeh, if they
believe in it, then I guess that they also agree with Rav Teichtal on
this prat.  Please enlighten me as to the Shita of the Satmar Rav
regarding yishuv EY.

As far as not taking from the government, or being anti-government, that
is once again not what Rav Teichtal was reffering to when he said that
the Munkatcher would have been chozer bo.  I don't want to keep repeating
the same point, but you repeatedly make statements about things which I
never wrote about.  Once again, Rav Teichtal only says that the
Munkatcher would have been chozer re: his shita legabei yishuv Haaretz. 
If you somehow know what Rav Teichtal would have held about the
government of the modern State had he been alive when they "absorbed" the
Yaldei Teyman please let me know.

I also takeh wonder what would have happened had my great grandfather met
the Satmar Rav.  I wish we knew!

"There is a major problem with religious Zionism. They make everything

absolvable - as long as it has to do with Yishuv Haaretz. This started

with the Heter Mechirah of Shemittah, Heter Avodah on Shabbos,

continuing with the Yaldei Teheran, the Yotzei Teiman & Giyus Banos."

Once again, these issues are irrelevant to the discussion that we were
having about the shita of the Munkatcher regarding yishuv haaretz.  The
heter mechira is an old story, based on a disagreement in halachah among
gedolim, I haven't yet heard that the <italic>religious </italic>zionists
were responsible for the horrible occurences with the Yaldei Teheran and
Yotzei Teiman, and frankly, I agree with the religious

zionist approach to sheirut leumi for religious girls, assuming that it
is run bederekh taharah, which I admit may not always be the case in
reality.  However, my personal opinion aside, I don't recall Rav Teichtal
writing anything about agreeing with Giyus Banos.

Just one more thing, I wrote my words in a public forum,and I appreciate
your responding to them.  I give you reshus to forward my response to
anyone who may be interested.  I hope I clarified my intent if anything
was unclear, and if I made any more errors in the facts, I welcome any
comments.  If you give me reshus, I would like to post our discussions on
the avodah e-mail list.  Let us  keep this correspondence going, because
I have a lot to learn from you about the history of my family, as well as
recognizing as you surely realize, that at times there may be
discrepencies in the oral history of my mishpachah among what is now,
Baruch Hashem, a very large family scattered across the Frum globe.

Kesiva Vachasima Tova;

Shaul Weinreb


AN ADDENDUM TO MY FIRST RESPONSE:


"-Your namesake says the same thing! Look in the beginning of Parshas

Kedoshim, in DIvrei Yisroel on the Pasuk Bayom Hashlishi Yeochel. In a

Hanochoh on the Divrei Yisroel, Rav Shaul states that the even if the

whole Binyan Haaretz movement is As'chalta D'Geulah, it is NOT the

Geulah! Look it up yourself."

I was just looking over the Hagahos of the Imrei Shaul to the Divrei
Yisrael in Kedoshim and indeed there is no pasuk in Kedoshim that reads
"Bayom Hashlishi Yeochel" (I understand, we all make mistakes when
quoting pesukim baal peh:-) in fact the pasuk reads "Vehanosar ad yom
Hashlishi baeish yesaref."  

In my great grandfather's words on that pasuk, there is no reference to
the "Binyan Haaretz movement" as far as I can see.  In fact he refers to
a pshara between the bechinah of na'al and the bechinah of regel which is
that the geulah shleimah is preceded by a period of geulah (mashiach ben
yosef) which is characterized by a "hefsek vachatzitzah bein shamayim
laaretz" and only afterwards will be the true geulah and a bechinah of
regel with no chatzitzah.

This can be interpreted in many ways, but I can certainly see an implicit
support of binyan haaretz even during the period of hefsek, something
which he obviously believed in.  Also see the yesa beracha parshas eikev,
where the almost identical drasha appears, but an even more clear
rendering of the opinion that the geulah comes in these two stages can be
inferred from his language there.  We have no argument however, that we
are all hoping for the true geulah shleimah bemeheirah veyameinu.

Shaul weinreb


If any non-Modzitzer Chassid actually read this whole thing, the Divrei
Yisrael is a sefer written bybthe first Modzitzer REbbe on the Torah, any
self respecting Modzitzer would be very familiar with his perushim on the
Torah.

Shaul Weinreb

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


[ 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         ]