Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 120

Monday, January 11 1999

• Re: Lubavitch
• Tzadikim Nitfasim Al Hador
• Re: miscellaneous
• Re: Xenophoby in Chassidus
• Re: Avodah V2 #119
• Re: Avodah V2 #119
• Chassidic History?
• Re: miscellaneous
• Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1
• Re: Chasidic Leardership yerusha II-reply
• Chasidic Leadership-Continued
• Yechida Code?
• Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1
• Re: Yechida Code?
• YGB and Lubavitch
• Re: Tinok Shenishbah
• Hungarian Yerushoh
• Fwd: Re: Avodah V2 #119

In a message dated 1/7/99 10:15:09 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

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

There were few who thought erronusly that it was disrepectfull to daven with
the backside to the Rebbe, it had nothing to do with Davening to the Rebbe CV.
(when shown otherwise they corrected it).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/6/99 3:27:56 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> R' Eliahu Teitz asks, "What happened to "ki ish b'chet'o yumasu"?  How can
my
>  sinning accrue to anyone else?"
>  
>  You can ask the same question about the four people listed in perek Cheilek
>  who only died because of Adam and Chava's cheit. (Or, as I often gripe at 
> the
>  end of the day, "I didn't eat the fruit, how come /I/ have to go to work?")
>  
>  Similarly, the comment about tzadikim who die because of the sins of the
>  generation, and in particular, that the death of Shmuel HaKatan is in 
> example,
>  is in the gemara.
>  
>  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?
>  

See Shabbos 33b, that Tzadikim are ensnared in the sin of the generation, see
also Ksubos 8b, see MaHaRShA in Kesubos who brings here Gemoroh of Shabbos
that one who has the power to be Moche on the entire generation carries the
sins of the entire generation, this is also found in Medrosh Tanchumoh
Mishpotim (7), see also Sanhedrin 27b that Lo Yumsu Ovos Al bonim doesn't
apply to Mach'oh.

WRT the issue of the original citation that Shmuel didn't receive (until the
point of death) that Shchina that he was worthy, is Lchatchiloh not a question
as the importance of that shchina would have been for the benefit of the Dor,
they didn't deserve it, Bdugmas Rashi Shmos 32:7 Lech reid, "Lo Nosati Licho
Gduloh Eloh Bshvilom", that answers the Girsoh in the Gemoroh (Sanhedrin 11a)
Shtishreh Schinah *Kmoshe* where Mforshim ask like Moshe is impossible (as
even Moshiach will only be *Korov* L'Moshe Rabbeinu (Rambam Tshuvoh 9:2)) the
Gemoroh refers here to the *reason* of Hashroas Hashchina like by Moshe RO"H.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/8/99 1:34:59 PM EST, driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:

> 1.  See H. Mamrim 3:3 (classical source for tinok shenishba, which seems
>  to be the source of the Shulhan Aruch HaRav - I don't own a copy so I
>  can't verify that)
>  
Yes that's the source.

In a message dated 1/6/99 6:19:11 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> I  
>  don't think leaders are born.  They are made.  Through the yichus atzmo 
>  of hard work, great intelligence and high character development

See MedroshRrabboh on Umoshe *Hoyoh* Ro'eh. (while it is no stiroh to actual
need of Avodas Atzmoi, Hakol Bydei Shomayim. Vtzadik Verosho Lo Komar).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 19:16:38 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #112
> 
> In a message dated 1/6/99 10:05:45 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > ==> 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.
> 
> And see Mforshei Hakosuv in Mishlei.


====> The point here is that the Gemara in B"B was cited as a primary
source and that does not seem to be an "ironclad" support.


> 
> >  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.
> 
> The Gemoro says that since they regret when their wish is not filled it is a
> sin, so while the receiver may benefit they did not give Tzedakah see also
> Avodah Zorah 2b.


===> The Gemora said that in regard to ONE interpretation of the Pasuk.



> 
> >  Finally, at the end of the  sugya, the gemara quotes that the giving of
> Tzedaka is > actually the source  of *forgiveness* for the Nochri.
> 
> As there are 2 Teitchen in the Possuk, see Even Ezroh.


===> The Gemara does NOT appear to bring an alternative.  Again, if you
are going to be primarily dependent upon the Gemora (and its meforshim) as
your cource, it is a bit inconsistent to then turn to Meforshie HaNavi
simply becuse the Meforshei HaShas turn out to be less definitive here...



> 
> >  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.
> 
> The Torah does not make distinction between the two.

===> That was not my point -- Of course, the Torah allows for "municipal"
donations -- however, the original d'rasha on the pasuk implied that it
was a *good* think for the NOchor to bring such a Korban and I simply
pointed out that the Gemora only had a "problem" when it was in the
context of a municipal Korban -- I think that a better source to support
your point may have been from Tefillas Shlomo by the B"HMK where he asks
that Sasham listen to the prayer of the Non-Jew who comes to pray (see
there and contrast hwo Shlomo discusses the Tefilla of the Jew...)



> 
> > ===> 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.
> >  
> As mentioned before there are different shitos in this, however Tikunei Zohar
> (Tikun 6) and Arizal are the source for the Tanya's interpertation.


===> The fact that there are sources in Kabbala does not negate the fact
that teh P'shat Hagemora is NTO like that.


> 
> Why it is no Stiroh to need of Chesed and especially Lshitas HoRaN that they
> are obligated in Tzedakah, is dealt in a few letters of the L. Rebbe the
> Nekudoh is that anything that exists has in it a spark of G-dliness, even if
> it is never revealed.


===> Your explanation does not appear to resolve the setiroa...

--Zvi


> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 

 >>>I pray that all of you will reach your senses and stop it. If you have
something to   accomplish figure it out , have a meeting, set up a dialogue
with Lubavich etc. Otherwise,   leave it the real gedolim to work on. They are
silent. You know why? There is nothing to  say.  - Shaya Beilin<<<

After reading two weeks of incessant anti-Chabad rhetoric I couldn't agree
more - not that I take one side over the other, but I fail to see what venting
on this list accomlishes. 

-Chaim

What happended at the "wedding in Istila" that sanctioned Parshischa as
bona fide Chassidus. What was the issue, what would have happened were it
not sanctioned, and why was it sanctioned. 

It is interesting that weddings were and continue to be the summit
meetings and bilateral conferences of Chassidus!

I am convinced that one must be able to assess a school of thought from
the outside, understand it, and then either accept or reject it. The Borei
Olam would not have designed the world another way. The reason for this
should be fairly obvious...

YGB

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

>3.  WRT the definition of a chasid as someone with a personal relation
>with a rebbe who is appropriate for his neshama:
>a. Why are there rebbeim with so many chassidim that it would seem
>impossible for them all to have personal relations with him?

? Moshe had over 600,000 'chassidim'.

>b. Why do children adopt their father's rebbe - do they invariably have
>the same shoresh neshama?

This is not really so true. Some do leave for other Rebbes. Some stop being
'strong' chassidim as their fathers were. Some had fathers who weren't strong
chassidim and they became strong chassidim.

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

>I think you missed the point.
>The Besht started a derech that did not necessarily require a Rebbe,
>certainly not hereditarily - at least not that we "outsiders" understand.

Wrong on both points.

1. Baal Shem Tov required going to Tzaddikim:
"I heard in the name of the Baal Shem Tov: 'Why is it that one needs to travel
to the Tzaddik of his generation, and it is not sufficient for him to learn in
mussar seforim? It says clearly in the Torah, "HaShem said to Moshe, write
this for a rememberance in a sefer and place it in the ears of Yehoshua." Even
though HaShem said to Moshe to write it in a sefer, it would appear that this
should be enough. But even with this it says "Place it in the ears of
Yehoshua." You should speak to him face to face. The main thing is what one
hears from the Tzaddik. Moshe was the Tzaddik of his generation." (Sefer Baal
Shem Tov Beshalach #21 from the intro to the sefer Migdal Dovid.) There are
many sources that can be brought for this.

2. Hereditary Rebbes.
While the Rebbe considered the Tzaddik HaDor was never hereditary (nor is till
this day.) That sons became Rebbes (like Rabbanum) was from the beginning. For
example it is well known that the Baal Shem Tov wanted HIS SON to take over.
Only when it became apparent that HE DID NOT WANT IT, did it go to the Rebbe
Reb Ber. Of the talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov MANY were founders of Rabbanic
dynasties that you would recognize. For example Viznitz (Rebbe Koppel Chasid
father of Rebbe Mendel Kossover), Skvere (Rebbe Nachum Chernobeler), Zvil,
Skolya (Rebbe Mechele Zlotchover) Boyan (Rebbe Reb Ber) Kretchenov/Nadvorna
(Rebbe Aryah Leib of Premeshlan). Need I mention more?

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

>dress.  The Kotzker was not too bothered by all this whereas the Chidushei
>haRim issued a yeihoreig vi'al ya'avor pisaq attacking it, and then engaged in
>vigorous shtadlonus to get it reversed.  The Kotzker meanwhile questioned where
>the Chidushei haRim came up with such a pisaq.  Now, the open break on a
>communal divar halochoh would simply be unimaginable if the Chidushei haRim
>were still in some sort of tzadiq-chosid relationship with Kotzk.  As for the

I don't think this is such a problem for Peshischa chassidus.

>Finally you write:  <Vishnitz was started by Reb Menachem Mendel Hager of
>Kossov, who was a
>student of Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk.  (The Rizhiner family name was
>Friedman)  By the way, even though the Ryzhiner was a great-grandson of the
>Maggid, his following was not inherited but acquired through his own
>abilities and his status as a talmid of Reb Moshe Leib of Sassov.>
>I would generally date vishnitz from r. Menachem mendel of vishnitz, who broke
>away to vishnitz as the second son while his brother became rov in Kossov
>following his father, R. Chaim of kossov's death.  But that just a quibble.
>However, to turn the r. elimelech tables a bit, I was under the impression that
>R. moshe of Sassov was R. Menachem's teacher, but not R. elimelech.  Finally, I

The talmid of R. Moshe Leib was Rebbe Mendel of Kossov. He was a talmid of a
number of other Rebbes also (Tsharni-Ostrow and Maggid of Nadvorna)

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

In response to  R.L. Reisman and R.M. Shulman 

One last appendix to my overly long response of yesterday to R. Levi Reisman re
chasidic leadership trivia, whose mention of R. Moshe leib meSussov finally
hit. I think its worth noting r. Moshe's connection to what is, I'd guess, the
most frequently recounted and widely disseminated chasidishe tale of all.  I've
personally heard it at least twice from people who aren't even jewish.    

But first the final correction to R. Levi.  He writes that < though the
Ryzhiner was a great-grandson of the
Maggid, his following was not inherited but acquired through his own abilities
and his status as a talmid of Reb Moshe Leib of Sassov.>

Now, after mulling it over and looking a bit more I can find no evidence at all
that the Rhzyner ever studied with R. moshe leib of Sussov.  In fact their only
intersections that I am aware of is that they shared the same doctor
(rappoport) after the Rhyziner escaped to Sadigora, and that R. Moshe leib's
son, R. yekusiel, was a chosid of the rhyziner's.  In fact, it is not clear
that R. Yisroel studied with anybody at all, other than learning the form of
aleph-bais with a hired melamed, which he assimilated, if at all, only with
great difficulty.  It seems to be a fact that the greatest and most influential
tzadiq of his age may not have been able to read and write, or at most do so
hesitantly.  The Rhyziner never taught his chassidim torah in the traditional
sense as he was not knowlegable enough and incapable of doing so (a source BTW
of great amusement and scorn by the contemporary maskilim).  I hasten to add
that by no means I am implying that his was an ignorant, or slow, mind.
Aderaba.  He was by all accounts extremely sharp, insightful, possessed of a
strategic grasp, and wonderfully charismatic. But apparently suffered from a
severe case of dyslexia which prevented him from acquiring any formal or
traditional education.  He had enough on the ball however to attract amongst
his many chassidim great talmidei chachomim who could and did take care of the
technical, halachic, heavy lifting for him as required.  As a summary judgement
on his intelligence and talent it is probably sufficient to simply note that a
gaon such as the divrei  Chaim of sanz, held him in high esteem, though he got
ticked off at the successor generations. (In some ways R. yisroel presaged the
response of Herman Kahn, a well known strategic military analyst in the 1950s,
who is said to have growled in response to a question, that if he needed a
Ph.D, he'd hire one).  

 A vignette from the Rhziner's early childhood ought be more than sufficient to
demonstrate that it was precisely his position as the maggid's direct
descendent that brought him initial status.  R. yisroel was engaged at the age
of seven to a girl in berditchev.  When the child was brought to berditchev for
the airusin, all the chassidishe cheders were let out, the townspeople lined
the streets for a  half kilometer to cheer on his entrance, and no less than
the last living great early chassidic master, R. Levi Yitzchoq of berditchev
came out to be someich his hands on the child - taken, correctly , by all  as a
real simichoh and conferral of spiritual authority on the child.  How's that
for family pull and starting at the top.  Of course his own talent subsequently
made more of it than anyone could have possibly anticipated.

Now for the chassidishe story, famous even outside of jewish circles I think
because of the efforts of Elie Wiesel (another sigheter, they're everywhere). 
The story, probabaly more or less well known to most of you, goes that at a
time when the jews needed a special yeshua from the opressers, the baal Shem
would go to the woods with a wax candle, do the various yichudim, say the
tefilos with right kavonos, and the jews would be saved.   The next generation,
the yichudim and kavonos had been forgotten but the great maggid could still go
to the woods in times of danger and say the tefilos, and the jews would still
be saved.  By the next generation, even the tefilos had been forgotten, but R.
Moshe leib meSussov (which is the associative connection to the topic we
started with)  could at least retell the story, and yeshua would still come. 
Now there are many variations of  this story in print, and not all of them have
R. Moshe leib as the last protagonist, (the version recounted by Scholom and
Agnon have the Rhyziner himself as the final actor, following R. Moshe) and its
generational/psychological message  has been analyzed out the kazoo and the
story has also been attributed to various authors.  A number of sources however
have the  Rhyziner himself as the originator of this tale, which should give us
some sense of his grasp of the psychological zeitgeist.  It would be hard not
to be impressed and  moved by a man who could come up with that. 

For M. Shulman who wrote, referring to a mention that the Rhyziner's children
in turn became tzadiqim:  <All except one (whose name will remain unmentioned
by me.)>

Since R. Shulman doesn't want to identify this fellow, I guess I won't either,
other than to say that, contrary to the above assertion, he did indeed set up
shop as an independent tzadiq-admor like his brothers following his father's
pitiroh.   Afterwards nisgalgeil mah shenisgalgeil.                            
                                                                               
                                                                           


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

Since RYGBs and other listmembers learned explications of Chabad and non-Chabad
theology what with Yichida Killalises and diveyquses and emunah calibrations 
leaves a poor non-pardes initiate's head spinning,  i was happy to finally
seize on a sentence i thought I could understand: 

Thus RYGB writes: <Torah generated by the Yechida Kellalis/Nasi Ha'Dor has a
unique quality:
Whether it is in nigla or nistar, it has an inherent quality of yechidus to it
- it possesses the segula to enhance the intellect of the person who studies it
without degrading his Emuna Peshuta - in..>
I was just about to click the down arrow in my usual despair here, when it
struck me.  Perhaps this has something to do with electrons.  Which classically
radiate in a force field, i.e. degrade energy/emunah?, but actually don't if
they're in special orbits (yechidus orbits you might say), giving rise to the
stability of all matter, which i'm sure is a very spiritual thing. (and did i
mention that these very same electrons are said to inhabit shells, or, so to
say, spheros -surely no coincidence).  and modern physics is actually getting a
bit mystical.  So, are you guys talking in code? (and absolutely no disrespect
intended.).

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

On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> Wrong on both points. 
>

Wrong on neither point, sorry.
 
> 1. Baal Shem Tov required going to Tzaddikim:  "I heard in the name of
> the Baal Shem Tov: 'Why is it that one needs to travel to the Tzaddik of
> his generation, and it is not sufficient for him to learn in mussar
> seforim? It says clearly in the Torah, "HaShem said to Moshe, write this
> for a rememberance in a sefer and place it in the ears of Yehoshua."
> Even though HaShem said to Moshe to write it in a sefer, it would appear
> that this should be enough. But even with this it says "Place it in the
> ears of Yehoshua." You should speak to him face to face. The main thing
> is what one hears from the Tzaddik. Moshe was the Tzaddik of his
> generation." (Sefer Baal Shem Tov Beshalach #21 from the intro to the
> sefer Migdal Dovid.) There are many sources that can be brought for
> this. 
> 

Of course one should go to tzaddikim to be inspired. What does that have
to do with Rebbes? Berachos, shirayim. etc.?

> 2. Hereditary Rebbes.  While the Rebbe considered the Tzaddik HaDor was
> never hereditary (nor is till this day.) That sons became Rebbes (like
> Rabbanum) was from the beginning. For example it is well known that the
> Baal Shem Tov wanted HIS SON to take over.  Only when it became apparent
> that HE DID NOT WANT IT, did it go to the Rebbe Reb Ber. Of the talmidim
> of the Baal Shem Tov MANY were founders of Rabbanic dynasties that you
> would recognize. For example Viznitz (Rebbe Koppel Chasid father of
> Rebbe Mendel Kossover), Skvere (Rebbe Nachum Chernobeler), Zvil, Skolya
> (Rebbe Mechele Zlotchover) Boyan (Rebbe Reb Ber) Kretchenov/Nadvorna
> (Rebbe Aryah Leib of Premeshlan). Need I mention more? 
> 

I don't get it. Do we have a tzaddik ha'dor now?

In any event - you seem to agree with me, so I do not see how I could be
wrong! In the first generations, anyone who was a talmid could become a
Rebbe. Now?...

YGB

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

Guess it's as good an explanation as any!

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Michael Frankel wrote:

> Thus RYGB writes: <Torah generated by the Yechida Kellalis/Nasi Ha'Dor
> has a unique quality:  Whether it is in nigla or nistar, it has an
> inherent quality of yechidus to it - it possesses the segula to enhance
> the intellect of the person who studies it without degrading his Emuna
> Peshuta - in..> I was just about to click the down arrow in my usual
> despair here, when it struck me.  Perhaps this has something to do with
> electrons.  Which classically radiate in a force field, i.e. degrade
> energy/emunah?, but actually don't if they're in special orbits
> (yechidus orbits you might say), giving rise to the stability of all
> matter, which i'm sure is a very spiritual thing. (and did i mention
> that these very same electrons are said to inhabit shells, or, so to
> say, spheros -surely no coincidence).  and modern physics is actually
> getting a bit mystical.  So, are you guys talking in code? (and
> absolutely no disrespect intended.). 
> 

YGB

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

I am surprised at you Rav Yosef Gavriel. You list your prestigious
Lubavitch yichus, your uncles who are in leadership positions in Lubavitch,
yet you go on to quote a letter from a certain Wilhelm who is unknown to me
and you refer to his boich sevoros as the "old "new" Lubavitch theology".
Then you go on to mention the "even newer "new" Lubavitchers theology -
more pernicious and dangerous - that of R' Butman, R' Volpe and many
Meshichistin...

Did you ask any of our uncles if they agree with Wilhelm's list of beliefs.
You know that they surly don't agree with R' Butman, R' Volpe etc., neither
do the majority of Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim in Lubavitch. Do you really
think R' Chodakov would agree? As you are probably well aware of this, what
would motivate you do describe the views of a few individuals  as new old
or old new or new new "Lubavitch theology". This is "Wilhelm or Volpe
theology". It has nothing to do with Lubavich old or new and nothing to do
with the Rebbe. Rabbi Keller did the same avlah when he viciously attacked
Lubavitch because of one insane article written by a nobody am h'aretz and
presented it as a mainstreem faction in Lubavitch.
IZW
(BTW, I do not for one second wish to defend all the narishkeit of the
Meshichistin, but your assertion that they only do mitzvos to give nachas
etc. is outrageous).

On 01/10/99 00:29:30 RYGB wrote:

>
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> There are nafka minas both in Halacha and hashkafa.  A mumar is a
>> deliberate sinner while a tinok shenishba is not.  A tinok shenishba
>> will attain forgiveness when the mikdash is rebuilt by bringing a chatos
>> for relevant aveiros; a mumar will not.  A tinok shenishba does not have
>
>I'm sorry, but I would have to differ. Neither can be considered a "shav
>me'yedi'aso" (would have refrained had he known it was forbidden - te
>prereqquisite for being allowed to bring a korbon). Both "know" something
>is forbidden, but have been persuaded by their education/environment to
>ignore that prohibition.

Rabbi YGB has overlooked the gemora in Shabbos 68 and the explicit psakim of the
Rambam (Shegagos 2/6, 7/2) that a Tinok Shenishbah brings a chatos for sins
done in ignorance.  I reiterate my point that there is a substantial difference both
in Halacha and Hashkafa between him and a Mumar.

>> the status of a mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia, a mumar does, etc. If you
>
>I grant you this distinction. I have to. It's a b'feirishe "The
>Contemporary Eruv", note 221! Nevertheless, it's not that pashut, ayain
>sham.

That it is not that pashut (i.e., that some are machmir with regard to the Tinok
despite the difference) does not contradict my point.  If you grant me any distinction,
then the two are not the same.  In fact, they are quite different, as noted above.


Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

RYGB writes:
<The issue of yerushas ha'rebbeschaft in Chassidus got me thinking: Perhaps
it is more a Hungarian than Chassidic phenomenon (it can't be Polish,
becasue, for example, we know the Rabbonus in Warsaw was not hereditary). 
Indeed, I think it is the CS that has a teshuva on the rabbinate being,
l'chatchila, hereditary. Was Hungary more into yerushas ha'shteller than
other diasporas? What happened in Pressburg/Bratislava after the Ksav
Sofer? 

YGB>

I don't really think that Hungary was that unique.  In fact the issue is quite
a current one.  Bididon have uvdoh. I was involved in a search committee for a
new rov at a shul one time, at a location I shall not identify, where the
previous rov had been niftar after a long tenure.  He had a son who was
learning in yeshiva who was about 20-21 years old at the time. The family
articulated a yerushoh claim which the shul didn't want to accept since the son
- a fine fellow who has since gone into rabbonus and is by all accounts an
excellent young rov - was felt to be far too young to counsel people re their
marital and other personal  matters, and he didn't have semichoh yet.  It was
the yeshivoh's idea that he would continue to learn there for a few more years
while they trained him up in maroas, gave him semichoh, etc and he would
meanwhile serve the shul as a rov (good enough for an american crowd?).  In any
event, no other yeshivoh - even the YU rabbinical placement - would touch us
until the rosh yeshivoh finally agreed to lift his "senatorial hold" only after
the young yoreish had been persuaded that it would be sensible to give up the
claim - but it left bitter feelings amongst the family.  It was clear the rosh
yeshivoh - a fairly well known fellow in charedi circles BTW - held by the
halachic right to yerushoh.  It was also clear that the shul members (at least
the search committee, the membership luckily didn't get wind of most of what
was happening or some real chilul hashem might have ensued) resented the
suggestion that they were somebody's property who might be passed on as an
inheritance and flat out weren't going to have any of it.   

However you ask for chasam sofer miqoros.   These may be found in his responsa
at 1) cheleq 2, yoreh de'oh, 227,  2) cheleq 1, orach chaim, 12   3) cheleq 1,
orach chaim 13.

They are a bit troubling in a way, since the chasam sofer actually seems to
reverse himself.  In yoreh de'oh, he describes the proper procedure for a
communal rov picking - basically go ask some well known rov to recommend
somebody good, and have the candidate vetted by exposing him to knowledgable 
talmidei chachomim in a major city. Little notice is taken of the possibility
of yerushoh.  In O"H 12, he makes the strong point that torah is not a matter
of yerushoh but hefqeir for all who come pick her up, especially if the locals
don't want a son to inherit, there is no power to compel them and you shouldn't
try.  In O"H 13 on the other hand, after aknowledging that he had previously
ruled against yerushoh for the son, he essentially reverses himself and
supports it, (with the minor exception that if we're talking about the rav
roashi of the country, it would still not be a matter of inheritance).   What
is troubling is the chasam sofer's well documented, and quite successful, 
maneuvering to ensure the succession of his son the kisav sofer.  And while no
one should, and I don't, suggest that the reversal (if I'm properly
interpreting these tishuvos) was based on anything but honest re-confrontation
with the sources, certainly there is the surface appearance of a conflict of
interest - though I believe this tishuvoh was written at least ten years befor
the CS was niftar.

You ask about yeshivas pressburg.   They have had a truly remarkable run of ben
achar ben serving as rosh yeshivoh (and rav of the city, the jobs went hand in
hand) right through their aliyah to eretz yisroel . The CS was succeeded by the
kisav sofer (avrohom) who was succeeded by the sheivet sofer (simchah bunim
sofer) who was succeeded by the da'as sofer (akivah sofer) who made aliyah in 
1940.  In 1944 he was joined by his son the cheishev sofer (avrohom shimuel)
who had kept a kind of underground yeshivoh oing in pressburg, but now helped
his father re-establish the pressburg yeshivoh in yerusholayim.  He passed away
in 1962 and was succeeded by his son, R. simcha bunim sofer.  Not sure who the
current incumbent is.

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

------Begin forward message-------------------------

From: mpress
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Date: 01/11/99 02:05:18
Message-Id: <19991112518226500@>
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #119
X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.25, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.

On 01/10/99 18:16:48 Moshe Shulman wrote:

>This is an interesting question. Could you explain to me what the Gemara says
>(San. 110) Kol HaMaharhar achar Rabbo k'ili maharhar acher hashachinah.

If Rabbi Shulman is stating that a Rav is in fact infallible then he is stating unquestionable
apikorsus.  Only the Ribono Shel Olam is infallible according to the belief system of
Torah -true Jews, period!! To ascribe absolute perfection in any dimension to flesh and
blood is unacceptable, whether to Chasid or non-Chasid.  I therefore assume he was mafriz
al hamidah. As to the Gemara he quotes from Sanhedrin, it deals with the Halachos of
kvod rabo and requires that a dispute with one's teacher be conducted in absolute kavod, as
elaborated there both in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.  It has nothing to do with believing
that one's teacher is always right but in not attacking him as the people attacked both Hashem
and Moshe (in the example given by the Gemara). Look in Be'er Mayim Chayim, who gives a
psychological explanation - if you start out having disrespect for your Rebbe, you will ultimately
lose respect for Hashem.  In any case, nothing to do with infallibility but with care and thought
before you open your mouth, certainly to one who has taught you Torah.

Eli Turkel wrote:

>Listing to the Sanhedrin has nothing to do with infallibility.
>Chatam Sofer explicitly says that he assumes, based on probability,
>that over the years they made mistakes.
>We are still required to listen to them.

Eli is correct, of course, as is noted in many places in Chazal and Rishonim.  The best
example of basing the obligation to listen to Chazal (or Beis Din Hagadol) on authority
rather than infallibility is the sugya of tanur shel achnai in B.M. 59 where this point is made
explicitly.


Shaya Beilin wrote:
>
>  In my last posting I mentioned that the real gedolim are silent. I
>  realize that I was wrong. I had already stated that Rav Aharon Soloveitchik
>  and R. Hirschprung did mix in and were supportive of Lubavich.
>
>  So, let me fix up my statement. How come "no OTHER real godol" is
>  involved? I am sure the answer is that the others have been pestered 
>  and are quiet.
>

As previously noted, Rav Schach when well had expressed clearly his opinions in the
negative, as had Rav Aharon Kotler years ago and the Brisker Rov.  I would not
want to discuss who is a "real gadol".  I consider Rav Yoshe Ber my rebbe but I
do not believe he was incapable of error, even if it was rare. It is not true that his
Ahavas Yisroel  prevented him from standing up against those whom he believed
threatened the integrity of Torah Judaism. This line of argument is an empty one.

Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275------End forward message---------------------------


M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275

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


[ 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 ]