Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 113

Thursday, January 7 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #110
• Re: Lying - response to Elie Ginsparg and Meir Shinnar
• Effect of seeing the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach
• Re: Avodah V2 #112
• Misas Tzadikkim
• Chabad Again
• Mitzva of Zedakah for a Gentile
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Xenophobia in Chassidus
• Lubavich
• Re: tinok sheh-nishba
• Re: Chabad
• Re: Lubavich
• Shanu u'Pirshu
• Lubavitch

>> >that the two are not strictly linked.  I.e., a person may not be a Chasid
>> >but STILL be an expert on chassidus.  Further, this does not really answer
>> >why a Rebbe will choose some particular aspect to learn and [apparently]
>> >"neglect" something else.
>> Not exactly, to be an expert on chassidus, you have to either be, have been,
>> or live among chassidim enough to see what is going on.
>===> OK -- but that is slightly different from your original formulation.
>I note, however, that it still negates the possibility of intellectual
>investigation of Chassidus since you apparently consider it
>*intrinisically* experiential.

It is not different, you made two comments. One has to do with being a Chasid,
which requires a Rebbe. The second is to have an understanding and that could
come about ONLY if you live (or have) among chassidim.

>====> It is not that I do or don't "like" your answer -- it is that the
>answer appears -- to a certain extent -- to be self-serving.  Rebbes
>choose what they want to learn (and, hence what their disciples will
>learn) based upon a "derech" -- which is sort of left unexplained.  EXCEPT

The problem here is that you look upon Chassidus as ONLY being some type of
intellectual exercise. It is not. It is a method of serving HaShem.

>for material in the "preferred class" which is automatically "in".  It
>seems to me that the approach -- as stated -- leads to major insularity
>and downright *ignorance* of Chassidic concepts that simply had the bad
>luck not to be "popular".  Note: I certainly understand that there is a

:) Do you know what you are trying to say? You are throwing out the ikkar of
Chassidus and taking the tufil. ALL the concepts of chassidus go back to the
Baal Shem Tov. If not then they are not chassidus. You can't point to a true
'new concept' of chassidus since then, as there were none. The 'new' things
you can point to are all chitzoniyus issues. One Rebbe placing a greater or
lesser emphasis on X. You seem to see Chassidus as (Litvisher derech +
Chassidic theology.) And that is just wrong. (To my Chabad friends here: After
discussing this topic for a while with our Litvisher friends, I understand why
the Alter Rebbe modified the Baal Shem Tov's approach to try to appeal to
them.)

>reluctance to learn material that is directly related to ONE "type" of
>Chassidus if that is not one's own "type" [Hence, I understand the
>reluctance to learn works of ChaBaD if one is not a ChaBaD Chassid].  My

Zvi, I learn from ALL Chassidic groups. (You haven't noticed that I have
recommended a work about Polish Chassidus, I have R. Tzudok's seforim, I
have RKK, and I know a bit of Chabad.) BUT I see no advantage in it. For me it
is ony for interest. Those things that are not in accord with my derech, I
ignore.

>query was in relation to works that do NOT seem to be specific to a
>"type".  In particular, the works of R. Tzadok do not seem to be so
>focused and the works of R. KK"S (HY"D) similarly do not seem so focused.

RKK's works are very similar to other Chassidus'. Eish Kodesh and Derech
HaMelech follows typical Chassidic methods and ideas. (In fact I would
recommend Eish Kodesh highly.)

>> >contained in the sefer.  OTOH, if you look at what is IN the sefer, then
>> >it is legitimate to "complain" that there is a narrowness of vision in not
>> >looking at OTHER material.
>> See above, it answers this question.
>===> The answer is appears to be simply "that is the way it is -- it is in
>the "preferred class".

Is this the first time that you have seen something in Judaism that 'just is'?

>> >> 'The main points of Chassidus are not found in a sefer but in the chasidim
>> >> themselves.' (Third line down from page 43.)
>> >===> And, Muvi HaShiurim is "authoritative" because......
>> Two answers. 1. Since what he says cooresponds to what is taught by many other
>> Rebbes, it as been quoted because Yosef has claimed it as authoratative for
>> him. 2. Yes it is since I have had discussions with my Rebbe about that work,
>> and others by the same author.

>===> Point 2 appears to mean that there is NO such thing as "Chassidus",
>in general -- there are only different theories of Chassidus -- each one
>based upon one's Rebbe.

Close. There are different interpretations. It's similar to niggunim. Two
people can sing the same niggun, but each does it a little different. But the
underlying niggun is obvious to anyone who understands music. For someone not
so knowledgable in music, it just 'sounds different.' To one more knowledgable
he can discuss what makes it different, etc. If you look at the seforim, it is
just like looking at the instruments of an orchestra. There is more to music
then just instruments.

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

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Actually, even a superficial reading of the sugya proves quite the opposite:
> Beit Hillel's proof is because in the marketplace (i.e. the 'common sense'
> definition of morality) it is common courtesy to praise the new object
> purchased by a friend - regardless of what your true opinion might be (e.g.
> when your wife asks you if you like the new dress she bought there is only one
> answer to the question : - ).  Truth by any standard (even the dictionary!)
> does not mean slavery to literalism.   
> 
> Agav, see Tos. d"h yishabchenu that learns the machlokes is not about the
> definition of lying.
Now that we have read the sugya superficially, lets Actually look at it to
see what the point of the sugya is. The sugya is explaining the issur of
mdvar sheker (in my opinion therefore defining lying or at least the
aspect of lying which is bad) Beis Hillel says to say a kalla is naeh
vchasuda. Beis Shammai says if she is blind... this would violate the
issur of mdvar sheker tirchak. Thus Beis Hillel's response must address
this issue. Beis Hillel responds that this wouldn't violate the issur of
mdvar sheker (ie. even though it is "sheker" it's not a lie as defined by
the issur in the torah) he proves this by relating a din which Beis hillel
obviously thought that beis Shammai would agree with ie. That when someone
makes a bad purchase you should tell him that it is good Ie. say a sheker,
but it's not a lie as defined by mdvar sheker. Since beis Shammai doesn't
respond Tosfos is bothered b/c it seems that beis shammai is modeh to beis
hillel so why did he argue in the baraissa. So tos explains that even
though beis Shamai agrees that you can say a sheker regarding a purchase
(seemingly because it's not a strict violation of mdvar sheker) still the
Rabbis shouldn't be metaken a situation where you're compelled to say a
sheker b/c conceptually sheker is bad b/c there is an issur of mdvar
sheker in other situations. WHeras beis hillel holds that since this type
of sheker is permitted we have no reaswon to restrict it's use even if it
resembles an issur in the torah. (if you take Tos literally to mean that
beis shammai holds kalla naeh is a violation of mdvar sheker--then why is
he maikal by a purchase, and how do you explain beis hillel--chazal are
metaken you to do issurim?????). THe Ritva (quoted in the shita
mekubetzes) says explicitly that beis hillel's reason is that any
statement which is made for peace doesn't violate mdvar sheker which fits
in with my understanding that the gemara is debating the application of
the issur and therefore the definition of a lie. See also Tos Rid who says
that we learn from beis hillel that one should say a "dvar Hamikabel" even
if it's sheker--must be becuase in halacha such isn't a violation of Mdvar
sheker and thus not a assur lie. See also the maharsha who explains why
this case isn't a lie, becuase people who buy things (women:) or cars) are
truly happy even if's ugly to us b/c it's nice to them----ie the
discussion is about what the definition of sheker is ie. is it absolute or
relative. Please explain where you got the idea that the market place
represents "common sense morality" , I would say it's an example to
explain the parameters of mdvar sheker as defined by halacha
since this is the point of arguement between beis shammai and beis hillel.
I close with an admission that I find it difficult to explain full sugyas
over e-mail, so if this doesn't completely make sense I apologize, but let
it sufice to say that I don't think your reading of the gemara accords
with the simple reading as well as the rishonim's reading of the text.
Elie Ginsparg 

I was once eating lunch at the home of a local Lubavitch family (I think
it was Rosh Hashannah 5758) and the discussion turned to talk of the
activities of "Messianic Jews" in the community -- and one of the guests
thought the term "Messianic Jews" meant Chabad.  The problem is somewhere
along the line the issue advanced from a privately held belief that the
Lubavitcher Rebbe could be Moshiach to a defining feature of Lubavitch
(in some circles) that he was in fact Moshiach -- to the point that some
(an even smaller circle) now argue that all Jews (not just Lubavitchers)
ought to believe this based on a very curious reading of Rambam.

Anyway, as part of my attempt to change the discourse, I propose that
folks go back to referring to the Lubavitcher Rebbe as the Rebbe RaMash --
as he was referred to in the years of the Frierdicker Rebbe -- and as
all previous Rebbeim of Chabad have been referred.

> 
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:12:36 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
> 
> In a message dated 1/6/99 9:48:37 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > 
> >  ===> Without getting into TanYa (I am aware that there is a statement that
> >  only the souls of Yisrael are from K'lipas Nogah...), the Gemara is QUITE
> >  specific about the application of the Pasuk.  It is specifically in the
> >  fact that a Jew received Tzedaka from a Nochri.  The fact is that the
> >  Gemara states specifically that we aRE allowed to accept Nedarim/Nedavos
> >  from the Non-Jew and I do NOT see that the gemara applies any sort of
> >  "sin" associated with such an action.
> 
> Please reread the Gemoroh, the Gemroh's first Rayo is from monies given for
> bringing Korbonos. The Gemoroh is quite clear that *Kol Tzedokoh Vochesed* it
> doesn't say Lyisroel, (Bnosof that so it says in Zohar, and when not Muchrach
> we don't create Machlokes).


===> I reviewed the Gemora in Baba Basra and it does not appear to support
your approach.  First of all, there are different opinions as to the exact
p'shat of the verse.  Secondly, it appears that the Gemora is explaining
that the *empirical behavior* of the Nochri giving Tzedaka is what is
objectionable -- not the act of Tzedaka, per se.  Finally, at the end of
the
sugya, the gemara quotes that the giving of Tzedaka is actually the source
of *forgiveness* for the Nochri.  In addition, the matter of Korbonos was
cited in connection with "municipal" Korbonos -- i.e, that were
contributed to be offered on behalf of the government -- it does not
appear to preclude the Nochri who wishes to be Nodaiv a Korban --
sometihng that the Torah apparently explicitly permits.

---Zvi
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:38:57 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
> 
> In a message dated 1/6/99 3:12:55 PM EST, Yzkd@aol.com writes:
> 
> > Please reread the Gemoroh, the Gemroh's first Rayo is from monies given for
> >  bringing Korbonos. The Gemoroh is quite clear that *Kol Tzedokoh Vochesed* 
> > it
> >  doesn't say Lyisroel, (Bnosof that so it says in Zohar, and when not 
> > Muchrach
> >  we don't create Machlokes).
> >  
> To make correction it's not the Zohar it's the Eitz Chayim, and the Tanya
> brings this Gemoroh in support. however it is perhaps possible to say that the
> latter reflects on the first, rather them being Muchrach Bimkomoi, however I
> still maintain that the Loshon Hagimoroh seems clear to not make distinction.
> 

===> And loshon Hagemora seems to support the final conclusion that
Tzedaka is actually a Kappora for the Non-Jew and when the Gemora
discusses the propriety of accepting a "gift" right after from a Nochris,
it does not cite this pasuk at all.  And, as I originally posted, it
strongly appears that the Netziv would not support your approach since he
is quite clear that ALL are expected to perform acts of chesed.

--Zvi



> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 20:54:19 +0200
> From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
> Subject: Political Correctness
> 
> Zvi Weiss wrote:
> 
> > > From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
> > > Subject: Tinok Shenishba Today?
> > >
> > > The above concern seems reflected in the Igros Moshe. O.H V 28.22  page 103
> > > Concerning making an eruv with the intent of saving the irreligious from sin
> > > since they were tinok shenisba He says "..But perhaps for the sake of those that
> > don't know
> > > anything -  for those whose sinfulness and even their kefira comes from their
> > > being raised by sinners and therefore there would be a benefit or even mitzva
> > > to save them from sin by making the eruv since they are shogeg? They are,
> > > however, not really shogeg. Even though they were educated by their parents to
> > > sin and be heretics - NEVERTHELESS THEY SEE AND KNOW SHOMREI TORAH AND > MITZVOS
> > and they know that there are gedolim and more intelligent and rational people
> > > than their parents - THEREFORE IT IS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO
> > > OBLIGATION TO SAVE THEM FROM SIN...
> > >
> > ===> I would like to know if RDE honestly feels that this applies to Jews
> > in such communities that are OUT of the NYS area wehre people do NOT "see
> > and know Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos".  Seems to me that there is a rather
> > selfish attitude in citing a teshuva written in the greater NYC area and
> > applying it all over -- esp. when we see how the "ORthodox" are ROUTINELY
> > portrayed as "extremist" or "ultra".
> 
> I am rather puzzled by your comments. Rabbi  Bechhoffer had made an
> assertion that the
> use of the term tinok shenishba had broadened in modern times. I was
> merely showing
> that Rav Moshe had used the term according to the original connotation
> in a modern
> tshuva about 18 years ago. The tshuva was specifically written

===> The point is that R. Moshe was using the term according to "the
original connotation" based upon certain specific reasoning -- which may
not apply anywhere else.  To cite this as a "simple example" without
considering that fact is what seems "selfish".



> concerning the rational
> for making an eruv in  Brooklyn. He did not assert that  there was or
> was not  a
> difference  between Brooklyn and a smaller area - nor did I make any
> such assertions.
> In fact I  made no pronouncements about what should be done with the
> tshuva. I simply
> noted how Rav Moshe Feinstein had used the term. Your statement about
> "a rather selfish
> attitude in citing a tshuva" doesn't sound very friendly. Do you feel
> that the tshuva
> should be concealed? c.v. If you have any complaints about what tshuvos
> were included

===> There is no reason to conceal the Teshuva -- only to recognize that
it is addressing a specific situation which very likely cannot be
geeralized.  In that context, your citation of same seems a bit "selfish"
in not delaing with the fact that Brooklyn is a LOT different from many
other places as far as Jews and exposure to Torah is concerned.



> in the 8th volume of Igros Moshe - the address is either Rabbi
> Mordechai Tendler or
> Rabbi Shabtsai Rappaport.
> BTW I was told that the earliest  broadened usage of the term tinok
> shenishba is found
> in the Binyon Tziyon concerning wine.
> 
---Zvi


>                                                         Daniel Eidensohn
> 

On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> I too am too much the Litvak to really be comfortable with the idea, and
> appeal to the chevrah for explanations. How does this fit a framework of
> chessed v'emes? 
>

I think that the issue of Misas Tzadikkim Mechaperes is exclusively an
Olam Hazeh'dike one - i.e., if a tzaddik dies, especially al Kiddush
Hashem (note the extraordinarily stirring story of R' Elchonon's death in
the Introduction to Kovetz Shiurim), that loss to the world mitigates the
need for additional pur'anus in this world. Every individual sinner,
however, while saved from potential yissurim in this world, will get his
comuppenace in Gehenom - in fact, his Gehenom may be even hotter than it
would have been had the misas tzadikkim not prevented him getting yisurim
mechaprin! This is discussed by the Ramchal at length somewhere in Da'as
Tevunos, but I must be prodded to actually go look for it.

YGB

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

In my summary, I forgot to include the two things that I find most
repelling about current Chabad theology:

1. The identificvation of a Rebbe as "Ohr Ein Sof Melubash b'Guf" (I think
this comes from the Rashab).

2. The focus on what should be Avodas Hashem l'shem Avodas Hashem only, a
valuable, in fact, primarily, to give a Nachas Ruach to the Rebbe and have
him favor you as a result.

YGB

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

In Avodah V2 no. 107, Yitzchok Zirkind cited some sources for
the question of whether Zedakah is a mitzva for a Ben Noach. I would
like to add the following sources, cited by R. Reuven Margoliot in his
book "Margaliot Hayam" on Sanhedrin (notes for 56b, section 8) viz:

 [1] Yadot Nedarim (R.Y. Natanson), Yad Shaul Y.D. section 224 (the
section number is rubbed out in my book and the middle digit is
uncertain)
 [2] Teshuva Meyirah (R. Aderet), pp. 51-53
 [3] Cli Chemdah, beginning of Parshat Vayera.

By the way, the Ran's proof (Ran to Sandhedrin op.cit.) mentioned by
R.Y.Z. seems quite compelling.

Saul Stokar

Harry Maryles wrote:

> This is another problem I have with Chasidus.  The idea that, 
> automaticly, the heir to the chasidic throne or dynasty is usually the 
> first born male.  Unless that person is a complete dolt he becomes the 
> Rebbe and is therefore  an inborn leader of what would be all of Klal 
> Israel (if the chasidim could have it their way).


A litvishe godel once quipped on a rebbe's son who did not accede to the
throne, 'er hot shier nisht gehat riekh hakoydesh'.

David Herskovic

Re: my most recent message


In fairness to Chasidim if after a protracted power struggle a Povarsky
takes over in Ponevitch rather than a Kahanaman or some other name
involved one could equally say on the loser, 'er hot shier nisht gehat
das toyre'.

David Herskovic

I reedited my first posting. Use this one. Is this where I send 
postings?

Morai Verabosai,


  I am new comer and have not read all the literature on Lubavich that
  has been distributed. But, I would like to make a few remarks about the
  Meshichist's movement. I am not interested in the strange behavior which
  has evoked criticism nor do I care to defend them by saying "look at all
  the good". The issue is not only whether it is assur but also what part
  the Rebbie z"l played in this.

  Without twisting the words of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik as many did we have
  theological support. Sadly, the main attacker at that point was a boki in 
  books that are forbidden to learn (with their meforshm). Reb Moshe says
  that this assur and we do not give a heter to fight Christianity to anyone.
  (Not that this person asked for a heter) Even the Ramban who needed to
  know all this did not lecture to his talmidim on this subject. So, I would
  not take such a person's theology about the Moshiach very seriously.
  Titles and degrees do not mean that they know what they are talking about.
  Those books confused him.

  What interests me more is Rav Hirschprung's (z"l) support. The Rebbie
called his
  father-in-law the Moshiach the same way the present chasidim are doing to
  him.  "ukvar horoh zoken". Thus, I believe that the attack on
  their theology is really an attack on the Rebbie. Let us be honest. It is he
  who made all this happen. But, you all don't have the guts to say it, lest
  the Lubavicher will be completely upset.

  The Rebbie said so in many sichot as follows:

  (1) The Moshiach will come out of 770.
  (2) The previous Rebbie is the Moshiach and techiyat hamesim will come
first.
       In that first wave the Moschiach will come.
  (3) The Moshiach has arrived. Just look around.
  (4) There is a sicha in response to nominating him as Moshiach. Rav
Hendel of
       Canada brought in the petition. He alludes to it in a sicha. This
information
       is known in house. The Rebbie supposedly responded "will all this
help?"

    True, that there were moments that he did not want that he be proclaimed 
    the Moshiach. But, what is important is that he set the trend in
Lubavich. If he
    can do it so can his followers.

       (Of course, he never claimed that he had the calling)

  So, obviously he provoked it. So, pick on the Rebbie not his Chasidim.


The following paragraph was sent to me by Micha Berger.

Abused halachic sources, according to all but themselves. See the sites I
pointed to. There is no makor for asking for shefah FROM a Rebbe as opposed to
asking a Rebbe to be a conduit for shefah from The Makor.

I believe that he is alluding to a sicha where the Rebbie in mourning for
the previous
Rebbie stated something like "Farvos bet men fun a Rebbie" implying that
the Rebbie
gives something. Firstly, I know no chosid that interprets this the way the
Misnagdim
have. It is like an expression "We are going to pray to our zadikim at
their graves"
We mean for them to intervene. But, if you think that the Rebbie said it
then attack him.
But, you realize that the Rebbie who was a zadik clearly did not commit an
averah.
So, you are trying to make it sound like it came from the chasidim and then
pick on them.

To conclude "Stop Attacking what you do not understand. The Chasidim's
theology
was developed by the Rebbie. Try to create a dialogue with their gurus like
Rav Yoel Kahn
  (a non meshichist) and others who are "You all have a lot to learn." Self
taught misnagdim learning
  kabalah and chasidus witthout a Rebbie is impossible. It is like learning
gemoroh
  from seforim. You need a moreh derech. It is search a person who in YD is
considered Rabo
  Muvhok. Rav Hutner learned with the Lubavicher chasidus and Kablah from
the Rodziner. He needed
  a Rebbie-so do we.

  Most important we must develop
  (a) Derech Eretz for the Rebbie
  (b) Derech Eretz for 1000's of good jews.

Don't be sonim. See Rashi on "vyonusu mesanacho miponecha" Those are the
people 
who fight the Jews. By fighting the Jews the attackers are fighting the
Almighty. By analogy
those who attack the Chasidim are attacking the Rebbie. He made it all happen.

Shaya Beilin

<<
(Seeing as how the Beis Yosef in OC 385:2 uses the term wrt a tzadoki)
How does today's non-Orthodox differ from the tzadukim (or Karaites, for
that matter)?  It seems to me that these groups all have/had some
knowledge of or access to rabbinic teachings.  
>>

A tinok sheh-nishba by definition is one that had no opportunity to know,
that's why it is a TINOK, a small child (or infant).  The other groups
mentioned rejected parts of our tradition, the captive infant has no idea of
our traditions to reject them.

<<
Firstly, we call even "shanu u'pirshu's" tinokos she'nishbu.
>>

I do not agree with this statement posted here.  A person who was observant
and then rejected it can hardly be called nishba.  I would like to know what
basis there is for calling them such.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Rabbi Teitz has a uncle who had a friend who asked him to sign a
document etc. etc. years. ago etc. etc
>>

Just to keep the record straight, I have the friend and it was my friend's
uncle, and this goes back over 20 years, long before all the public craziness
over messianists.  Already back then, and as I said, even to the first years
of this past rebbe's control, people were appalled by his veiled claims of
being Mashiach.  This is not so easy to sweep under the rug as you've got a
friend, and he sees a yechi kippa.  This cuts to the very core of Chabad
chassidus, which is why I feel the ONLY way they can join back into the ranks
of the rest of Orthodoxy is to repudiate their belief that their rebbe must be
the yechida, a concept which to me still looks an awful lot like Christianity.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Isaiah Beilin wrote:

>   their theology is really an attack on the Rebbie. Let us be honest. It is he
>   who made all this happen. But, you all don't have the guts to say it, lest
>   the Lubavicher will be completely upset.
> 

Oh no, you are quite mistaken. I think we are all ready to "attack"
(strong word. Let us say dispute, disagree and reject) the Rebbe if
necesserary. Some have and will. I believe:


1. Either the Rebbe did not say these things, they are distorted.

2. If the Rebbe said them, he was not lucid when he did.


>   The Rebbie said so in many sichot as follows:
> 
>   (1) The Moshiach will come out of 770.
>   (2) The previous Rebbie is the Moshiach and techiyat hamesim will come
> first.
>        In that first wave the Moschiach will come.
>   (3) The Moshiach has arrived. Just look around.

> But, you realize that the Rebbie who was a zadik clearly did not commit
> an averah.  So, you are trying to make it sound like it came from the
> chasidim and then pick on them. 
> 

As above. I think most of us do not believe in infallibility. People can
certainly be wrong - even great people. (BTW, there is a chiluk between
committing sin and being wrong - that I am noting for you on your
premise.)

YGB

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

The Chazon Ish says that when there is no hashgocho geluya there is
no din of moridim ve'lo ma'alim - no matter what the nature of the
individual's background. I do not recall if he uses the term tinok
she'nishba there explicitly, but that is the po'al yotzei of his position.

YGB

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

From private e-mail I received:

This is similar to the defense offered by a local Chassidishe rebbe in
whose shtibl I sometimes daven who is close to Lubavitch but also
rational.  When we would talk he would consistently defend the Rebbe by
saying that anyone who was surrounded by people telling him he was always
right was bound to become crazy.  This is a defense? 

Me again:

This is indeed exactly the defense I meant to use for the Rebbe this
morning earlier - if he indeed made the statements attributed to him - but
expressed better.

From the same private e-mail:

With regard to AZ [Avoda Zara] - what do you make of their praying toward
the Rebbe (westward) after his stroke rather than toward the Aron Hakodesh
in 770? Is this meaningless? Stupid? Would you at least concede that for
some it may have had some more forbidden meaning? Would you concede that
since a minority did turn toward mizrach to daven that facing the Rebbe
had more than accidental significance for the majority of those present? 

Me again:

I must concede the point - that certainly smacks of AZ.


YGB

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


[ 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 ]