Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 100

Wednesday, December 30 1998

• Theology of ChaBaD (chat with YGB)
• Note on "Forks"
• Re: Theology of ChaBaD (chat with RZW)
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V2 #99
• Re: Avodah V2 #90
• re: two rabbinical stories
• Re: two rabbinical stories
• Yaakov Avinu
• Lubavitch debate
• Re: Note on "Forks"
• re: two rabbinical stories
• Moshe RO"H a Neshma Kllolis
• Re: Imminent arrival of the mashiach
• Re: Avodah V2 #96
• Re: Avodah V2 #97
• RMS's Remarks
• RMS's Remarks
• Jewish Observer, etc.

> ------------------------------
> 
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> 
> 
> I am not so sure about that. Last time  I was in Israel - this summer - it
> was remarkable how much graffiti with the slogan "Na-Nach-Nachma-Nachman
> Me'Oman you saw all over the country. Someone obviously holds this
> incantation has remarkable powers. Do not forget that visits to R'
> Nachman's kever are said to have wonderful spiritual ramifications, and
> that saying his "Tikkun Kelali" has wondrous cleansing effect as well. We
> really need more info from someone knowledgable on Breslov. Someone who
> has the DBS CD that has R' Nachman's seforim could start us off with a big
> favor by searching for words like "yechida" and "kelalis!"

===> I agree with your suggestion.  However, the instances you cite do not
seem to indicate anything, per se.  The whole idea (I think) of the Tikkun
Klali is that a person reciting it can "purify" himself in cerain ways.
One can simply say that r. Nachman "discovered" the Segula inherent in the
Tikun... Similarly, because he is reputed to have stated that he would
"keep an eye" on his followers even up in Shomayim, therefore, there is
supposed to be special value in visitng his kever.  This appears to me to
be VERY different from the issue under discussion.  Even if we find that
he was considered by his followers to have been the Yechida Klalis of his
time, there does not seem to have been the application that we find in the
case of [current] ChaBaD thought. 

> 
> To add to your complaint - the Rebbe has been coronated, by many
> Lubavitchers as a Novi. They then go on to claim - in circular
> reasoning - that since he prophesied that he is Moshiach, and he is a
> Novi, he must be right. But I think it is just the Meshichists who believe
> this nonsense. My uncles are perfectly willing to countenance that the
> Rabbe may have been wrong.

===> Again, if something is -- as you put it -- "nonsense", there seems to
be a responsibility to confront it and put it aside.


> 
> On a related note, R' Teitz has decreed that Lubavitchers must renounce
> the concept of yechida kellalis to be accepted in the mainstream.
> 
> 1. This is not 100% fair, as this concept is not unique to Chabad.

===> But their *application* of the concept appears to be unique.  Does
R. Teitz mean that they must renounce the concept in its entirety or as
THEY apply it?


> 2. It is essentially impossible. It is the equivalent of askinga Brisker
> to remounce the concept of "tzvei dinim!"

===> I do not think that this is the case.  The very fact that this is a
"new" ChaBaD "theology" means that it is NOT intrinsic... unless you are
talking about the entire concept of Yechida Klalis....



> 
> YGB

----Zvi

For the masochists among you:

The version of my essay "Forks" that is on the website and went out to our
group is an early one. A later one, with additional sections - including
one on Misnagdic vs. Chassidic Halacha and corrections is available, from
me, in WP format. If you rerally want it, let me know!

YGB

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

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:

> ===> I agree with your suggestion.  However, the instances you cite do
> not seem to indicate anything, per se.  The whole idea (I think) of the
> Tikkun Klali is that a person reciting it can "purify" himself in cerain
> ways.  One can simply say that r. Nachman "discovered" the Segula
> inherent in the Tikun... Similarly, because he is reputed to have stated
> that he would "keep an eye" on his followers even up in Shomayim,
> therefore, there is supposed to be special value in visitng his kever. 
> This appears to me to be VERY different from the issue under discussion. 
> Even if we find that he was considered by his followers to have been the
> Yechida Klalis of his time, there does not seem to have been the
> application that we find in the case of [current] ChaBaD thought.
> 

What really irks me about the new Chabad associated with the Meshichist
camp is the idea of doing mitzvos and mivtzo'im to give a nachas ruach to
the Rebbe - as I saw just this morning on a banner in the Lubavitch Girls
High School, that rents space in the Shul where I give Daf Yomi and is run
by the wife of one of the leading Meshichisten (my old chevrusa) here in
town, one that comprises a "Chitas" (Chumash Tehillim Tanya) chart:

"Matana la'Rebbe me'Kitta Tes  [57]59"

Why are we giving him gifts, not Hashem? And, if we are giving gifts to
dead tzaddikim - why only the Rebbe.

So, we really need to know how Breslovers direct their avoda - do they
intend to generate a nachas ruach to R' nachman, to have him hear their
prayers?

> ===> Again, if something is -- as you put it -- "nonsense", there seems
> to be a responsibility to confront it and put it aside. 
> 

Well, the correspondence Micha posted today seems to go a long way towards
that end.

> ===> But their *application* of the concept appears to be unique.  Does
> R. Teitz mean that they must renounce the concept in its entirety or as
> THEY apply it? 
> 

We must ask him!

> ===> I do not think that this is the case.  The very fact that this is a
> "new" ChaBaD "theology" means that it is NOT intrinsic... unless you are
> talking about the entire concept of Yechida Klalis.... 
> 

I think R' Teitz did want them to renounce the entire concept.

YGB

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

Micha Bergers posting of the corrospondence between a Moshichist and Rabbi
Yitzchak Meyer Kagan of Detroit is exacltly the point I have been making
here. Rabbi Kagans letter was circulated all around the country and had an
heavy impact. About a year ago when a person making a Chupah in Detroit
planned on saying Yechie under the Cupah the local Lubavitch Schluchim
boycotted the Chupah in protest. These kind of efforts are far from the
public eye, but davka this person by person approach has been making an
impact.
Dovid Eliezrie

In light of the posting that shows how significant segments of ChaBaD
oppose the notion of "Rebbe as Mashiach" -- in particular after his
histalkus, I would appreciate it if that person would be able to repsond
to some of the concepts that RGB and I have been trying to understand over
the past few issues.

--Zvi

In a message dated 12/29/98 6:41:07 PM EST, mshulman@ix.netcom.com writes:

> Yes I do know that. This appeared in Beis Moshiach, which I was told
reflects
>  the view of a not insignificant number of people in CH.
>  
Please supply exact volume number and page, I can't beleive that anyone wrote
to daven to a picture of the Rebbe R"L.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Joel Margolies wrote:

<<<
2)We have just seen 2 posts referring to Mr. Clinton.  Although I have
strong feelings about the proceedings and would LOVE to vent them to a
captive audience - I don't think it is appropriate for this forum.  This
is only  my opinion, but if you agree, please try and be koveish your
own yetzer to vent and refrain from any more posts on the matter.  I'd
love to discuss it privately with all and any who'd like...  (beware -
you'll get an earful)
>>>

As instigator of the thread on Clinton, let me just say that my intention was not
to initiate a discussion of the pros and cons of impeachment.  What is
bothering me and what I would like to discuss is to what extent a person's
conduct can be evaluated properly in terms of some formal "legal"
categories.  Although Zvi Weiss seems to disagree, it seems to me that the
Rosh Yeshiva of our story was properly evaluating the character of the
student who was a naval bi-r'shut ha-Torah.  Let me propose another
example.  I believe that we are all familiar with the Midrash that goes out of its
way to absolve Jacob from having lied to his father when he said "ani Eisav
b'chorecha."  But how does the dohak parsing of Jacob's reply in any way
absolve Jacob from the moral blame he incurred by misleading his father? 
What significance can Jacob's mental reservation have when his intent was
to mislead?  And again, this is where Clinton comes in, when the point of the
mental reservation is precisely to facilitate the deception doesn't it magnify
the moral blameworthiness of the deception?  A lie is wrong not because it
satisfies some technical semantic reqiurement but because of the deception
(g'neivat da'at) perpetrated on the person at whom the lie is directed.  As
was observed some time ago, the subsequent narrative makes it quite clear
that, for the rest of his life, Jacob was the repeated victim of lies and
deceptions that were perpetrated against him.  If we believe that these
events were not merely coincidental, don't we have to assume that they
represented Divine retribution for the deception he perpetrated against his
father?  And isn't Rivka's death just before the return home of her beloved 
son evidence of Divine retribution for her role in the deception?  "alai
k'lalatcha b'ni."

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 12/30/98 11:45:45 AM EST, DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

>  Rosh Yeshiva of our story was properly evaluating the character of the
>  student who was a naval bi-r'shut ha-Torah

If he wasn't Myacheid her as a Pilegesh he still violated the prohibition of
relations with a Zoneh (Hil. Ishus 1:4).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Here we go again, denigrating the Avos. This time, Yaakov Avinu = Bill
Clinton. Shomu Shomayim!

The Torah does not categorically forbid falsehood. Even if it did, Aveira
Lishma figured prominently at the time of the Avos.

Note: I am willing to countenance that there must be punishment for Aveira
Lishma - there is an explicit Bigdei Shesh to that effect :-). But the
Aveira Lishma still remains the proper course of action to have taken.

To say otherwise about Yaakov Avinu... r"l.

> b'chorecha."  But how does the dohak parsing of Jacob's reply in any way
> absolve Jacob from the moral blame he incurred by misleading his father? 
> What significance can Jacob's mental reservation have when his intent
> was to mislead?  And again, this is where Clinton comes in, when the
> point of the mental reservation is precisely to facilitate the deception
> doesn't it magnify the moral blameworthiness of the deception?  A lie is
> wrong not because it satisfies some technical semantic reqiurement but
> because of the deception (g'neivat da'at) perpetrated on the person at
> whom the lie is directed.  As was observed some time ago, the subsequent
> narrative makes it quite clear that, for the rest of his life, Jacob was
> the repeated victim of lies and deceptions that were perpetrated against
> him.  If we believe that these events were not merely coincidental,
> don't we have to assume that they represented Divine retribution for the
> deception he perpetrated against his father?  And isn't Rivka's death
> just before the return home of her beloved son evidence of Divine
> retribution for her role in the deception?  "alai k'lalatcha b'ni." 

YGB

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

I don't have a lot of familiarity with the primary sources of 
Chassidut and Hisnagdut, so I can't really add a lot of content
to the ongoing debate.  But I would like to make some comments
regarding style.

1) R' Bechhoffer's articles on the varieties of Lubavitch theology
fascinate me.  I've read a few books on the vikuchim between Chassidut
and Hitnagdut, without good overviews of the chassidic theologies. The
books seem to focus on the trees (specific points of difference) and
lose the forest (overall hashkafah).  (Allan Nadler, E. J. Schochet)

2) To amplify R' Teitz' point: the analytical articles from Dr.
Berger and R' Keller described phenomena and prescribed some 	
reactions to them. (well, the Haaretz Berger article was more
polemical). R' Dr. Schochet's response, OTOH, was personal and angry.
He spent half the article discrediting R' Keller as a person, before
addressing the real arguments.  Protests from the Lubavitch side about
bias in the non-Lubavitch articles (with 1-2 exceptions) ring hollow.

3) I have problems with Dovid Eliezrie's claim that Agudah privately
distanced itself from R' Keller's positions.

  a) Agudah doesn't tend to disclaim nasty statements from its
  members, e.g. "R' Lamm is a 'sonei Yisrael'".

  b) I suspect cases where party A makes a strong statement about
  issue X, and adherents of X subsequently claim that A recanted and
  actually supports X.  Some examples:

    i) The Rambam and Kabbalah, where some forged letters were produced
    after his death saying that he accepted Kabbalah.

    ii) The Vilna Gaon and Chassidut, where some Chasidim, notably
    R' Dr. Mindel, claim that the Gaon was fed false information and 
    thus would have agreed with Chassidut had he known the truth.
    (Nadler's analysis argues convincingly against this).

    iii) R' Soloveitchik zt"l and yibadel lechaim R' Rackman's idea on
    rabbinic annullments. R' Rackman claims that the Rav recanted 
    privately to Rackman.  (Yes, the Rav did a lot by private
    conversations, but when he felt strongly about something, he
    told many people, e.g., his opinions on women's tefillah groups
    as recorded in the recent TRADITION article by the Frimers.)

I think it would be instructive to see the correspondence that R' 
Eliezrie offered to produce, including Agudah's responses.  I realize
that it might be hard to get their permission to reveal their private
mail.  OTOH, if Agudah really has changed its mind about R' Keller vs.
Lubavitch, surely we would have heard of it from other than Lubavitch
itself?

4) I don't understand the claim, put forth by several Lubavitchers,
here and elsewhere, that having criticized Lubavitch before 3 Tammuz
5754 discredits one for criticizing Lubavitch after 3 Tammuz 5754.

On the contrary, I would think such uniformity would indicate a 
consistency of position.  In fact, noting the behavior of certain
Lubavitchers after that date *validates* some of the earlier
criticisms.

By analogy, would anyone believe a claim that since Republicans
criticized Democrat positions before 20 January 1993 (Clinton's 
inauguration), they have no standing to criticize Democrat positions
after 20 January 1993?  It's absurd on its face.

5) I don't see how, though, the non-Lubavitch public critics expect
to have much effect on Lubavitch.  As R' Bechhoffer pointed out, they
are by theological principle detached from the outside frum world.

Even if the RCA and MGH were to ban them, the situation would be 
different from the RYE/RYE case: the "closet Sabbateans" were trying
to be accepted by the mainstream community.  Here, the "deviants" don't
care about being accepted by the mainstream community.  Thus, social
and communal pressure will be harder to apply.

6) To summarize: I have some problems with the rhetoric of the Lubavitch
apologists, but I don't see how increased external criticism is going to
affect them.

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> For the masochists among you:
>
> The version of my essay "Forks" that is on the website and went out to our
> group is an early one. A later one, with additional sections - including
> one on Misnagdic vs. Chassidic Halacha and corrections is available, from
> me, in WP format. If you rerally want it, let me know!
>

Your essay was an interesting beginning. Hopefully you can turn it someday
into a book. It is too incomplete in the limited format of an essay. I'd be
interested in reading the rest but I only have wp5.1 for dos or word for
windows 95

                                     Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David Glasner wrote:
  Let me propose another
> example.  I believe that we are all familiar with the Midrash that goes out of its
> way to absolve Jacob from having lied to his father when he said "ani Eisav
> b'chorecha."  But how does the dohak parsing of Jacob's reply in any way
> absolve Jacob from the moral blame he incurred by misleading his father? 

Why do we have to continue reading about unfounded claims against
midrashim and inturn which are against the avos. Can you  please explain
why the midrash "is going out of it's way and why is it dochek" but before
you answer please see the or hachaim who fits this into p'sat and the gur
aryeh who explains why the pasuk itself proves that this is the correct
interpretation, besides for the sifsei chachmim who says this is psat
because it can't be the yaakov lied outright--why should I trust your
questions and not our gedolim's answers

> What significance can Jacob's mental reservation have when his intent was
> to mislead?  And again, this is where Clinton comes in, when the point of the
> mental reservation is precisely to facilitate the deception doesn't it magnify
> the moral blameworthiness of the deception?

   As RYGB already noted Bill
Clinton doesn't enter a comparison with Yaakov avenu.

> was observed some time ago, the subsequent narrative makes it quite clear
> that, for the rest of his life, Jacob was the repeated victim of lies and
> deceptions that were perpetrated against him.  If we believe that these
> events were not merely coincidental, don't we have to assume that they
> represented Divine retribution for the deception he perpetrated against his
> father?  And isn't Rivka's death just before the return home of her beloved 
> son evidence of Divine retribution for her role in the deception?  "alai
> k'lalatcha b'ni."
> 
> David Glasner
> dglasner@ftc.gov

Instaed of assuming, why don't we turn to Chazal to find out. Lets go
through the times Yaakov was decieved: when he was tricked into marrying
Leah--The midrash asks ( why this happened and said it was in Leah's merit
that she davened to marry Yaakov instead of Esav. The midarsh (berashis
rabbah 70:17) notes that yaakov asked Leah how did you lie to me, she
responded I learned from you--Ie I didn't lie only acted with wisdom in
order to act lsem shamayim in order to do what is correct . I don't see
Yaakov being punished as much as Leah being rewarded. The fact that
yaakov was decieved in the same way he decieved so that Leah could be
rewarded doesn't indicate yaakov was punished (see also eitz yosef
sham that refers to Yaakovs words as a sheker but in the context of it
being mutar becasue of shalom or at worst an aveiro
lishma--Se RYGB post).  Next time yaakov was
tricked was with his dealings with Lavan but since he ended up taking much
of what Lavan owned, I don't see the punishment. Concerning Rivka's
death-I found no reference that it was related to Yaakovs lie, It's very
difficult to say she was punished for the episode since Hashem is the one
who gave her the nevuah to act this way;. Furthermore, if anything it is a
punishment to Rivka not yaakov, so where's your proof and finnally it's
more likely if this indeed was a punishment to yaakov it was because he
delayed in fullfilling his vow, something chazal does blame Yaakov for (so
why make up new complaints when chazal's are already in place.) The last
time yaakov was decieved was with Yosef and in fact I actually found a
midrash to kind of support you, but alas it's a Zohar so it's probably
forged anyways, but for us who believe in the authenticity of the Zohar I
will bring it. The Zohar Vayeshev daf 185b says that Yaakov was decieved
with the goat's blood because he decieved Yitzchak with goats. But the
zohar doesn't refer to his statement because it wasn't a lie and even in
regards to this the zohar writes (translation from soncino's zohar) We
learn from this passage how particular G-d is with the righteous,EVEN WHEN
THEY ACT CORRECTLY.For although Yaakov acted fittingly in bringing a
he-goat to his father...yet because he decieved his father he was punished
through the other he goat.... We see that this was only considered
deception worthy of punishment because of the level that Yaakov was
on--the thought of comparing this to Clinton is absurd.    
I don't want to start another thread about can we critisize the
avos(although it would be better then telling me moshiacits are bad and we
better watch our back because around each corner is a moshiacist because I
already know that) but to continue the thread of yaakov's actions and how
other actions relate to them as detailed by our gedolim would be an
interesting thread.
Elie Ginsparg

The Mokor that MRO"H was a Neshama Kllolis in the Ariza"l is in Shaar Hapsukim
Parsha Shmos, where he explains that MRO"H included all the people of the
entire Dor Hamidbar and the Eirev Rav, that he explains us the meaning of the
Possuk (Bamidbar 11:21) Sheish Meios Elef...Onochee Bikirboy, (like a Neshama
to a Guf).

Another source is in Lkutei Torah of the Ariza"l Parsha Sisoh on the Possuk
(Shmos 33:5) based on the Mamar Chazal (In SHS"R) that Moshe is Shkul Kneged
600,000, and he says just like Odom Hrishon included all Neshomos so Moshe
RO"H included all Nishomos of Yidden, see also Shaloh Hakodosh in Parshas
Sisah in which he shows how numericly Moshe equals 600,000.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

>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?

I am not sure of this question. Just because I am not going to die today
(I'YH) does that mean that my believe in the ressurection needs to be
suspended until a later time?

>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.

There would be no need for such a comment where it not that one was required
to believe this at all times.

>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?

The same type of question can be asked with regards to working. We know that
it comes from HaShem, yet we are required to do something. Even though
Moshiach will come, we are still required to do things. (There is a
Chassidishe masorah that Moshiach will come when people are involved in their
daily work.)

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

>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.

I have relatives who are Breslov and they are much more like regular chasidim
then like Chabad.

>> ===> 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.

Shirayim has nothing to do with deveykus in a Rebbe.

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

>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:
>> ===> There is an important distinction: They did not *deify* the Rebbe
>> in any manner.  They simply felt that nobody could fill the Rebbe's
>> place and thet the Rebbe would "look out for them" up in Heaven.  Seems
>> to me to be a very significant difference.
>I am not so sure about that. Last time  I was in Israel - this summer - it
>was remarkable how much graffiti with the slogan "Na-Nach-Nachma-Nachman
>Me'Oman you saw all over the country. Someone obviously holds this

This is done by a small group of people who to put it kindly fit one of the
catagories of choresh shotah katan.

>incantation has remarkable powers. Do not forget that visits to R'
>Nachman's kever are said to have wonderful spiritual ramifications, and
>that saying his "Tikkun Kelali" has wondrous cleansing effect as well. We
>really need more info from someone knowledgable on Breslov. Someone who

As are visits to Rebbe Reb Meilech and the graves of other Tzaddikim.

>Novi, he must be right. But I think it is just the Meshichists who believe
>this nonsense. My uncles are perfectly willing to countenance that the
>Rabbe may have been wrong.

Your uncles are among the very FEW Ihave ever heard who will admit that.

>On a related note, R' Teitz has decreed that Lubavitchers must renounce
>the concept of yechida kellalis to be accepted in the mainstream.
>1. This is not 100% fair, as this concept is not unique to Chabad.
>2. It is essentially impossible. It is the equivalent of askinga Brisker
>to remounce the concept of "tzvei dinim!"

I personnaly think that there is nothing that can be done to effect the
situation of Lubavitch vis a vis the rest of the Chassidishe and Yeshiveshe
world. It would require them taking a new Rebbe, which I think is about as
likely as Clinton resigning.

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

I think I missed your response to my reponse on Moshe Rabbeinu and Nefersh
Kolleles b'kol dor. If there is something I need to respond to, please let
me know.

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> I have relatives who are Breslov and they are much more like regular
> chasidim then like Chabad. 
> 

When I was in Sha'alvim, one of the most talented Israeli bachurim became
a Breslover (new style - there is old style and new style Breslov as
well). What he became certainly did not look like any regular Chossid.

(I am talking about conduct, not dress).

> Shirayim has nothing to do with deveykus in a Rebbe.
>

Of course not - it is dveykus in Hashem via a Rebbe. 

YGB

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

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> This is done by a small group of people who to put it kindly fit one of
> the catagories of choresh shotah katan. 
> 

I dunno, I saw some of them, they seemed lucid.

> As are visits to Rebbe Reb Meilech and the graves of other Tzaddikim. 
> 

You know, it would be interesting to try and understand that as well.

> Your uncles are among the very FEW Ihave ever heard who will admit that.
>

Taken a poll? But, I do not think it is relevant - again, it seems to me
that no Chosid will admit that their Rebbe can bve flat out wrong. 
 
YGB

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

>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?)
	Is this the person who is concerned about Darche Noam and proper
treatment of Lubavitch and the Rebbe,  but with one wave of the hand
makes naught of a person whose life was dedicated to  **serving**  and
**listening to**  the gedolim,  not telling them what and when to think
and say,   and at the same time portrays all the gedolim with whom Rabbi
Sherer worked,  from Rav Aharon Kotler down past Rav Moshe Feinstein and
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky to present day gedolim,  as mindless puppets of
whatever Rabbi Sherer put into their heads?  

>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." 
	What you might have heard was a request not to play the song "Mashiach"
which I also do not like to hear played at simchas,  not because the word
or concept of Mashiach is ch"v unacceptable,  but because I am not
inclined to rock music in any language.

	Chachamim hizaharu bedivreichem.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

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


[ 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 ]