Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 097

Tuesday, December 29 1998

• Re: Chabad
• Beit Hillel/Beit Shamai
• Re: Universal Language
• Re: Chabad
• R. Y. Emden on Jesus
• Re: R. Y. Emden on Jesus
• Re: Universal Language
• Graetz and Maryles
• Re: Chabad
• Re: Avodah V2 #95
• Lubavitch
• Re: Chabad
• Re: Chabad
• Tone of incredibly vitriolic posts and of articles in JO
• Re: Avodah V2 #96
• Imminent arrival of the mashiach
• Re: Imminent arrival of the mashiach
• Emunah P'shutah
• Re: Tone of incredibly vitriolic posts and of articles in JO
• Re: Avodah V2 #96
• Two rabbinical stories

<<
The institutional and rabbinic leadership has gone on the public record.
The umbrella organization of Lubavitch, Agudas Chassidie Chabad as well
as the central Rabbinical body, Vaad Rabboni Lubavitch. These efforts
where done in major media outlets, Jewish on non Jewish-including the
New York Times.  
>>

The ad submitted to the paper was ambiguous enough in its language that the
m'shichistim saw their point of view being defended and not attacked.

With RYGB's post earlier showing the evolution of the current distorted
thinking among some Chabadniks, I feel that the only sufficient repudiation
would be a total rejection of the concept of yechida k'lalis and its implied
infallibility of ANY mortal.  This concept, had it been written in English and
not used any familiar terms, would have been deemed as Christian in theology.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Noah Witty wrote:

<<<
M. Berger wrote:

"Beit Shamai however refused to accept the authority of the Sanhedrin
because they
maintained that, because of their greater wisdom, their opinion should
prevail."

How could that be the correct p'shat? If Bais Shammai were the minority and
a duly constituted Sanhedrin had issued a psak, why were Bais Shammai not
therefore zkainim mamrim?
>>>

As M. Berger noted in his response I was the author of the posting from
which you quoted.  I take your point, and following Micah's response in v.
92, I would amend my earlier remarks as follows.  The Sanhedrin at the time
was probably reluctant to finally establish the halachah l'ma'asseh in accord
with the opinion of Beit Hillel as long as it it appeared that Beit Shamai would
not accept the legitimacy of the p'sak.  After the Bat Kol, Beit Shamai was
willing to accept the legitimacy of Sanhedrin, which allowed the Sanhedrin to
fix the halachah in accord with the opinion of Beit Hillel.  I should further point
out, what is probably obvious anyway, that all this is simply speculation on my
part.  To really understand what was going on, one would need to do some
serious historical research (if it has not been done already) about Beit Hillel
and Beit Shamai and the development and resolution of their disputes.

As a further aside in line with Micah's observation about the changing
role/authority of Sanhedrin at that time, even R. Eliezer was not tried as a
zaken mamre.  He was "merely" put in nidui.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 12/29/98 9:35:55 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> We are saying something particular about calling ourselves a "lashon". It's
>  the begining of the progression that follows through "kidashtanu
>  bimitzvosecha vikeiravtanu Malkeinu la'avosecha".
>  
Shelo Shinu Lshonom!

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/29/98 10:11:58 AM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> With RYGB's post earlier showing the evolution of the current distorted
>  thinking among some Chabadniks, I feel that the only sufficient repudiation
>  would be a total rejection of the concept of yechida k'lalis and its
implied
>  infallibility of ANY mortal.  This concept, had it been written in English 
> and
>  not used any familiar terms, would have been deemed as Christian in
theology.
> 
>  
Reminds me of the Mishnoh in A"Z Vche Mipnei Hashotim....

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

As an alternative tangent off of the recent threads on the RYE's and
competing messianisms (and in recognition of our current calendaric
situation), I thought that I would throw out for discussion an essay or extract
from a larger work by R. Y. Emden that I saw published in English many years
ago.  I believe that it was included in a volume edited by R. Leo Jung, but I
am not sure.  At any rate, the essay was an extended encomium to Jesus for
his contribution to the moral elevation of mankind and to the spread of
monotheism among the gentiles.  A quick glance at the Encyclopedia
Judaica article on R. Emden shows that his wirtings generally indicate a
favorable attitude towards gentile and Christian scholarly and cultural
achievements, so there is no obvious basis to suspect that R. Emden was
insincere in his characterization of Jesus.

By the way, my quick check of the Emden and Eybeschuezt entries in the EJ
revealed that one thing that the RYEs shared in common was friendship
with Moses Mendelsohn.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 12/29/98 10:34:05 AM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

> so there is no obvious basis to suspect that R. Emden was
>  insincere in his characterization of J

See Hagohas Yavetz to Shabbos 116b.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> Something to think about when saying "veromamtanu mikol halshonos"... The
> reason why Avraham Avinu knew Lashon haKodesh was because of his refusal to
> participate in building the migdal. (Ashur similarly refused, but retained
> "only" the k'sav, allowing their language to assimilate neighboring elements.)
> 
> We are saying something particular about calling ourselves a "lashon". It's
> the begining of the progression that follows through "kidashtanu
> bimitzvosecha vikeiravtanu Malkeinu la'avosecha".
> 
> -mi

Reb Tzadok interperts the meaning of lashon to be the creative aspect of
yiddishkeit - the ability to create a yom tov as opposed to the
inevitability of shabbos is why we mention the 'v'romamtanu mikol
ha'l'shonos" on yom tov and not shabbos - lashon HaKodesh being the only
language that "creative" thought and action can occur in...

Take care,

Joel 
> 
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6019 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 29-Dec-98)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-761-1404

Because I remembered H Maryles' comment as presented, I took the trouble to
go through my deleted files.  The following is the blocked-copied-pasted
sentence **as it appeared**in Avodah #84.

"The great controversy between R.Jonathan Eibeshutz and R.Jacob Emden is
dicussed in great length by infinately stupid Heinrich Graetz,
historian, and apostate Student of R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch."

Sincerely,
NW

RYGB, writing about evenhandedness in the discussion of the deviant thoughts
of some in Chabad, writes:

<<
Let us discuss matters dispassionately and analytically, evincing kavod
towards derachim that we have personally chosen not to follow. Only that
way can our group continue l'shem u'l'tiferes.
>>

I feel that both R. Keller's and Dr. Berger's articles were exactly
dispassionate and analytical.  I personally feel that these articles, and this
discussion, is in fact the essence of what this list is - Avodah, Service to
HaShem.  If there are those amongst us who would like to submit articles in
defense of the Chabad position, they may do so, and they will be held up to
the same criticism that the two already posted articles are held.  I do not
think anyone has the right to make demands of our moderator, who is entitled
to his opinion as we all are, to post articles with which he does not
necessarily agree.

Few among us have taken the position that ALL of Chabad is totally
unacceptable.  Many feel that ALL of Chabad is responsible to root out the
heresy in its midst, and to make claims that outsiders do not understand is
insufficient.  I might not understand the justifications, but I do understand
what is being written, and it falls well beyond the pale of acceptable
Orthodoxy.

The entire situation makes me very uncomfortable.  Though I find other faults
in Chabad (which I will not bring up, as they are not directly related to the
topic at hand ), they are well-intentioned.  Many of them have a simple faith
that they accept without challenge or analysis.  It hurts to see such people
following misguided beliefs.  But this may not, and must not, stop us from
holding those beliefs to the harsh light of analysis, and if those beliefs are
found to be wrong they must be criticized.  ( And to bring back a thought from
another thread, the silence of the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox world
does not signify that we should not carry through this public analysis ).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Would Ben Smith be kind enough to cite the source for his burning bird
story? (I heard Rabbi Kelemer, then of Brookline, MA, use it in a drasha to
a bar mitzvah.)
NW

A few years back Rabbi Kagan, the senior Lubavitch shaliach in Detroit,
wrote a letter (which I think appeared on SCJ) basically stating that the
main problem is with making the Rebbe being revealed as Moshiach the main
focus of yiddishkeit -- to the exclusion of all else).  This was a problem
both when the Rebbe was alive and after Gimmel Tammuz.  There are lots of
other facets which can serve to differentiate Lubavitch from other derechs
in a far more normative way than the notion of the Rebbe being Moshiach.
I think Rabbi Manis Friedman has also made a similar point.

I do think (and this might be controversial) but part of what gave impetus
to the more vocal meshichisten were people who called themselves Torah Jews
who publically questioned the stressing of the imminence of redemption --
well before the Rebbe-Moshiach stuff started -- hence public criticism probably
 makes things worse.  When I was last at 770, more people weren't singing
and dancing yechi or saying yechi three times after davenning as were.

<<
Where are all those people who were so quick to defend the excellent boys in
Yu who are learning yoman vlayla when Yu (as an institution who allows cable
in the dorm) came under attack. Why aren't they supporting the thousands of
yarei shamayim lubabvich Chassidim who are following the way they believe is
proper to serve Hashem. 
>>

As I think back on the posts relating to this topic, I can think of only one
post that categorically rejected ALL of Chabad.  Other than that one comment,
everyone else has restricted their comments to the danger of the messianists,
to the underlying philosophy which led to these beliefs, and to the need for
the leaders of Chabad to unequivocally and publicly reject those beliefs.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
I am considering posting the prime correspondence from us to them on this
list. 

The extensive conversations between Lubavitch that came in the wake of
the article brought about a new understanding of the issue and what we
are doing. I think that Aguda today sees things differently
>>

I think you should post these correspondences.  While some in Aguda might see
things differently, it would help if this information was publicly
disseminated, so that others may assess the situation for themselves.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

C. Maryles wrote:

"There can't be double standards on a list which religiously follows the
laws of
Darchei Noam , if these laws are to deserve our respect. How can we take
seriously the complaints of members who object to the tone used in some
peoples posts when making a legitimate point, when major groups of Jews
are being called kofrim and we're advised not to drink there wine, becuase
of individuals(maybe even full groups of people) who have distorted a
legitimate way of Avodas Hashem. "

If I say: "you are an idolator" that is not tone, that is **content**. I
disagree that in a discussion of this sort that it is necessary to mince
words. Nor would it be productive to avoid the issue. Your post seems to
intimate that knowledge is dangerous or bad because it refers to people
rather than abtract information.  As it turns out, in normative Judaism,
beliefs count and have real juridical consequences, so whether or not
someone believes something, anything, may make him/her outside the pale,
which in turn has real consequence for the Jewish  public-at-large.

In general we have no reason to make such inquiries about large segments of
the Sabbath-observant Jewish population.  However, it *appears* that in this
case, the inquiries and concerns are  . . . .well-founded.  Such information
should not be stifled by complaints of bad tone and "the Laws of Darchei
No'am."
To our non-Mashichist chabad chassidim, if there are any, there is a sugya
in perek Bameh Behaima (maseches Shabbos; the mishna describes a cow
allegedly "owned" by Rabi Eliezer) about failing to object even when the
macha-a would appear to be pointless.  It is not a happy conclusion for
those who sit on their hands claiming that "my two cents won't help."

(If you want to talk about tone, please address your comments to the editors
of the Jewish Observer.  BTW, am I the only one who has considered the
possibility that the article was not actually written by R'CDK but by
another and was shown to him and he read it and signed or read it and
allowed his name to be used?  Am I the only one the notes that there is
absolutely no change at all in the style of any two JO articles picked at
random? Also, if someone knows, please tell us, now that Rabbi Sherrer is no
longer among us, who tells the members of the Moetzes what to think and say
and when?)

Another danger is that, for fear of becoming or being identified as one of
"them," we may forget or ignore that we are obligated to believe in the
imminent arrival of moshiach.

Anecdotally, I have heard of a wedding where the ba'al simcha warned the
band not to play any songs the words to which include "mashiach." (Okay, not
every ba'al simcha is a ba'al saichel.)

NW

> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #94
> 
===> My thanks to R. YGB for his speedy response.

> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:
> 
> > ===>[thank you for the prompt comments.]
> >
> 
> You're welcome. I enjoy discussing substance!
>  
> > ===> No. but I think that it is legitimate to ask Lubavitchers how THEY
> > deal with the objections of R. Chaim.  The objections appear legitimate
> > AND their "application" of what they claim to be based upon the BeShT
> > leads to paradoxes that require [what appears to be] self-serving
> > approaches. 
> > 
> 
> Let us note that, ironically, RCV's complaint applies much less to the
> classic neo-Lithuanian Chabad Chassidus than to all other Chassidus. I.e.,
> the Ba'al HaTanya stressed dveykus via intellect, derided those who come
> to the Rebbe for material succor, and, in general, promoted Talmud Torah
> over all - nigla and nistar.


===> Indeed, that may have been why the Tzemach Tzedek was more
"sensitive" to the "legitimacy" of the cherem enacted against Chassidus.



> 
> It is the "new" Lubavitch - what my uncle would deride as Polish, although
> I think that is unfair to the Chassiduyos that shtam from the Rebbe R'
> Bunim (Kotzk, Izhbitz, Ger, Lublin, Radzhin) - that faces a greater
> quandry.


===> I think that it is more than that.  There appears to be an actual
abandonment of the earlier system of thought to a significant extent.



> 
> But, again, this is far more of a kashya on, say, Hungarian Chassidus than
> on Lubavitch.

===> I am not sure of that since the Hungarian Chassidim revere their
Rebbeim -- but do not apply the "title" of Yechida Klalis in the manner of
ChaBaD.  Also, because the focus is so totally *emotional* in terms of the
approach to d'veykus, I am not sure if Hungarian Chassidim come up with
the intellectual "splits" that happen with ChaBaD.


>  
> > ===> Sorry -- on what basis could a *Lubavitcher* make such an
> > inference?  Just because it sounds good..???  I understand that there is
> > little point in prolonging this.  BUT for those who *defend* the
> > Lubavitch thought (and try to claim that even a dead person could be
> > MAshiach as per the Gemara in Sanhedrin), I think that it is legitimate
> > to point out that this "hashkafa" seems -- at the least -- "convoluted",
> > "forced", and problematic. 
> > 
> 
> You should know that the concept of "tzinoros hashpa'a" via tzaddikim to
> others can even be found in RCV - see Ruach Chaim 1:3 about the "b'shvil"
> of RCBD.
> 
> The application to a specific individual in each generation, I believe, is
> based on a Zohar, "ispashtusa d'Moshe b'kol dor." That Moshe was the
> "kelali" - or yechida - for his generation, I am sure can be found
> in Chabad, but I know only where it is in R' Tzadok - see Tzidkas
> HaTzaddik 159-160. (This stands contrary to that written by another Avodah
> contributor, R' Moshe Shulman, that the concept of yechida kelalis was
> never applied to Moshe Rabbeinu - sorry!)
===> The problem is that none of these sources provide a clear
identification of who has "the golden ring" as it were.  Sure there is the
Ishpashtusa of Moshe -- who says that the Rebbe of ChaBad is the one who
"got it" -- Maybe it is a different Rebbe or some great Posek.  It is much
"safer" to function with the idea that there *exists* a Yechida Klalis
without formally asserting *who* it is.  If you are going to make such an
assertion, seems to me that you had better be preapred with a pretty solid
"proof".


> 
> I must note that this whole business of yechida kelalis is one of the
> Chassidic axioms I have grave difficulty with - but:
> 
> 1. It is essential to Chassidus.
> 2. It is universal in Chassidus.

===> Yes -- but how is it otherwise applied in Chassidus?

--Zvi

> 
> YGB

Noah Witty <nwitty@ix.netcom.com> writes:
:         we may forget or ignore that we are obligated to believe in the
: imminent arrival of moshiach.

I know we are obligated to believe his arrival could be imminent, but are we
really expected to believe that this is the more likely possibility?

For example, the Rambam and the author of the Ani Maamin each include a
paraphrase of the navi "vi'im tismahmeiha, chakei lo", acknowledging that we
must deal with the possibility that the mashiach may tarry.

The way I would read "Ani ma'amin" is "and even though he tarries, even so I
daily await that he should come." I can await things today even though I don't
expect them today. For example, I start anticipating birthday presents almost
a week in advance, even though I don't expect to receive them early. (What can
I tell you, I'm a kid. <grin>)

Even the Chafeitz Chaim, who was known to keep a suitcase packed and ready for
mashiach's arrival, prepared for the eventuality that he wouldn't arrive soon.
Otherwise, why travel around collect money for maintaining a Yeshiva in the
golah?

As I see it we are clearly obligated to anticipate his arrival daily. We might
even be obligated to expect that "today might be the day", as the CC did.
Although my very little research into the matter doesn't show anyone codifying
this latter idea. However, I don't see anyone saying that we must believe his
arrival will certainly be imminent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6019 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 29-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 12/29/98 12:14:51 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I know we are obligated to believe his arrival could be imminent, but are we
>  really expected to believe that this is the more likely possibility?
>  
Aside of all else the Mabit in his Beis E-lokim writes that with each passing
day the possibility gets greater.

WRT a Lubavitcher it is a matter of belief in the Rebbe's words that it *is*
imminent.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Isn't the connection between a particular derech and the maintenance of emunah
p'shutah easily verifiable by survey?

As won't be too surprising to long time readers, I side with temimus, not
d'veikus, as the aspect of the goal to focus on.

As I see it, some part of the soul is always nidvak. "Elokai, neshamah
shenasata bi t'horah hi". See also our chaver Arnie Lustiger's sefer "Before
Hashem you Shall be Purified: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the Days of Awe",
pg 26, where he speaks of the aspect of the self that can be objectified by
sin, and that element which stays pure in G-d-like subjectivity and creativity.
(I can not do justice to the full idea in a summary. It's well worth seeing his
description of the role of shofar, calling across the gap between the two
created by aveirah.)

Therefore, the goal of d'veikus can be seen as being able to perceive that
d'veikus that already exists. To do this we must be able to bring the activity
of the neshamah t'horah to the awareness of the conscious intellect. I.e.
temimus.

Of course, YMMV, and almost certainly will.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6019 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 29-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Noah Witty wrote:
 
> (If you want to talk about tone, please address your comments to the
> editors of the Jewish Observer.  BTW, am I the only one who has
> considered the possibility that the article was not actually written by
> R'CDK but by another and was shown to him and he read it and signed or
> read it and allowed his name to be used?  Am I the only one the notes
> that there is absolutely no change at all in the style of any two JO
> articles picked at random? Also, if someone knows, please tell us, now
> that Rabbi Sherrer is no longer among us, who tells the members of the
> Moetzes what to think and say and when?) 
>  

As one who writes frequently for the JO, I take exception to this comment.

Indeed, I have found that the JO edits with a far lighter hand AND CENSORS
LESS than the more "left" publications.

I do hope, therefore, that my essays are not construed as those of another
under my name.

Knowing the history of RCDK and Lubavitch here and in the local Orthodox
Press, I guarantee you that the essay was his and his alone.

YGB

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

On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:
 
> ===> I am not sure of that since the Hungarian Chassidim revere their
> Rebbeim -- but do not apply the "title" of Yechida Klalis in the manner
> of ChaBaD.  Also, because the focus is so totally *emotional* in terms
> of the approach to d'veykus, I am not sure if Hungarian Chassidim come
> up with the intellectual "splits" that happen with ChaBaD. 
> 

I don't know. I don't know enough about Hungarian Chassidus. But you are
probably right. I think, however, that we may likely find parallels in
Breslov if we look.

> ===> The problem is that none of these sources provide a clear
> identification of who has "the golden ring" as it were.  Sure there is
> the Ishpashtusa of Moshe -- who says that the Rebbe of ChaBad is the one
> who "got it" -- Maybe it is a different Rebbe or some great Posek.  It
> is much "safer" to function with the idea that there *exists* a Yechida
> Klalis without formally asserting *who* it is.  If you are going to make
> such an assertion, seems to me that you had better be preapred with a
> pretty solid "proof". 
> 

I don't know how they "prove" it vis a vis the preceding Rebbes, but
regarding the last Rebbe I think they prove the matterr by evidence of his
erudition and accomplishments.

> ===> Yes -- but how is it otherwise applied in Chassidus?
>

Again, my expertise is limited, but manifestations include phenomena such
as shirayim and other forms of dveykus via the Rebbe.

YGB

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

For the last few days I have been pondering two stories about prominent
rabbinic figures.

The first one, I heard many years ago -- when I was in high school, I think.  It
concerns a Rosh Yeshiva who has just learned that one of his students has
been carrying on an inappropriate relationship with a woman of illl repute.
Shocked by this revelation, the Rosh Yeshiva calls in the student and asks
him if the report is true.  When confronted with the charge, the student readily
admits its truth.  Shaken by the student's unabashed admission, the Rosh
Yeshiva questions him further.  Don't you realize, my son, how serious it is to
have such a relationship with a gentile woman?  Ha-boel aramit, kanaim
pogin bo.  Chazal curse one who engages in relations with a gentile woman. 
The student responds calmly.  Oh no, rebi, I made sure that the woman was
not a gentile.  She is definitely Jewish.  The Rosh Yeshiva could not believe
his ears.  Gevalt!  My dear boy, this is even worse.  Don't you know that it is
an issur karet to have relations with any Jewish woman who has not gone to
the mikvah?  The student replied.  Oh no, Rebi, don't worry.  I also made
sure that the woman went to the mikvah each time that I saw her, so you see
nothing that I did violated any issur.  Upon heariang this, the Rosh Yeshiva
replied coldly.  Yes you are right.  You did not violate any issur.  Just the
same, I want you out of my yeshiva immediately and don't come back.  Later
when asked why he threw the student out of the yeshiva only after he found
out that the student had gone to such lengths to avoid violating any actual
issur, the Rosh Yeshiva replied that he could understand and forgive
someone who succumbed to temptation.  Such a person is capable of
teshuva.  However, only a person with a truly corrupt character would resort
to an elaborate scheme to be able to engage in immoral conduct while
staying within the letter of the law.  Someone so corrupt is a danger to the
moral well-being of the rest of the yeshiva.  

Does anyone else recall hearing such a story?  If so, is it based on fact? 
Who was the Rosh Yeshiva?  Finally, what does the story tell us about
whether the President should be removed from office?

I heard the second story on Shabbat at Shalosh Seudot.  The speaker was
commenting on the importance of not causing needless embarrassment to
another person as shown by Joseph who sent out all the Egyptians from his
court before revealing his identity to his brothers, lest they be embarrassed. 
The speaker further illustrated the principle by telling the following story
concerning the rebbe, Reb Heschel.  Before his marriage Reb Heschel went
to the town of his prospective father-in-law.  A cake was baked for the
kiddush in shul and it was laid on the ground outside the house for the
frosting to dry or some such reason.  (I actually wasn't clear on why a cake
would be laid on the ground.)  At any rate, a chicken happened to pass by
the cake and chose the cake as an appropriate spot to relieve itself.  Seeing
what had happened, the kalah flew into a rage, ran out of the house 
grabbed the chicken and smashed its head againt the wall.  Seeing what
had happened, Reb Heschel thought better of his impending union. 
However, Reb Heschel had a dilemma, how could he cause embarrassment
to a Bas Yisroel by breaking the shiduch.  So, the next day in Shul, Reb
Heschel grabbed the pushke and ran out of the shul as the entire
congregation ran after him yelling, stop thief.  And so, the father-in-law broke
the shiduch, sparing the kalah the embarrassment of having her choson
break the shiduch.  This story teaches us, the speaker concluded, how
carefut we must be to avoid giving embarrassment to another person.

Here are my questions.  First, has anyone heard this story?  Second, is the
Reb Heschel of this story the ancestor of Prof. A. J. Heschel or is it  about
some other rebbe?  Third, does the story have any basis in fact?  Fourth, if
the story is based on fact, are we to assume that the Bas Yisroel in question
did (does) not experience any embarrassment as a result of  this story having
been repeated again and again for perhaps a century or more after the
unfortunate incident in question took place?  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]