Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 116

Friday, January 8 1999

• Re: Confessions of a Misnagid
• Oops re my post on Chasidic leadership
• Sheker: Navos
• Re: Avodah V2 #113
• FORGIVENESS
• Re: Chabad, EDTeitz@aol.com in Avodah V2 #112
• Re: Chabad, EDTeitz@aol.com in Avodah V2 #112
• Re: Avodah V2 #115
• Ein Don Yechidi Elo Echod..
• Re: CHASSIDUS
• Chasidic dynasties
• Tinok She'Nishba vs. Mummar
• Re: Avodah V2 #113
• LUBAVICH-Response to E.D. Teitz

>Moshe Shulman wrote:
>SO you have now written out the Vilna Goan from the 'Litvishe'
>> world?
>Of course not. The Gra was the preeminent genius of the last 300 years
>or more and of course he wanted to study Kal HaTorah Kula of which the
>nistar is part of.  I never said Kabbalah is not a part of the Torah.
>All I said is that it incomprehensible to me.  (Klipos? Spheros?)  I
>suspect that those who do study it today don't really understand it
>either.

Is it not possible that others can understand what you do not?

>> 1. Are you saying that the Vina Goan, Beis Yosef, Rema, Ramban and others were
>> irrational? 2. Again what YOU don't understand does not mean that NO ONE
>> understands it.
>Again these were preeminent geniuses of their time.  Notice how little
>they wrote about their experiences with Kabbalah. If I am mistaken and

What do you mean their experiences? The Beis Yosef wrote some very interesting
stuff. Ever read the story in the Shlah HaKudosh about Shevuos by night?

>they wrote about their experiences with Kabbalah. If I am mistaken and
>much was written that I am not aware of, we ceratinly don't study it.
>Why IS that?

I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say here.

> 3. What does knowing Kabbalah have to do with being a Chasid?
>> I never heard that such a test was given.
>I was talking about the Philosophy of Chasidus.  With the Notable
>exceptions of Ger, and Kotsk, we know that Chasidus does not make great
>demands on their Chasidim to study, the concept of Emunah Peshutah being
>the primary form of Emunah in HaShem.  This way the Rebbe is vested with

You seem to know very little of chassidus. The Tzanzer Rov said the yesodus of
chassidus is gemara rashi and tosephus. There are a number of chassidus' today
that are from Tzanz. Belz was always known for lomdim. I could name Rebbes
from the first generations till now that were great lomdom. I don't think you
understand what the view of chassidus is towards learning. You confuse
critisism of the gava of talmidei chochomim and opposition to learning.

>level.  Is not the Tanya the recognized as the Primer of Chasidic
>Philosophic thought?

No. IF I was stranded on a dessert island I would choose m'or v'shamash. :)

>Philosophic thought? Is it not based in Kabalah? Are there other such

Yes there is much in it that is from Kabbalah seforim. It is not the only one.
So? If you think that by learning Tanya you become a makibal then you are
sorely mistaken.


>Philosophic thought? Is it not based in Kabalah? Are there other such
>works?  If there are, do they not encompass as their primary source,
>Kabbalah?  I think most Chasidim are happy to concede learning and

So? I fail to see the point. Have you ever learned Mesilos Yeshurim? Does it
bother you that he was a Kabbalist and based his work on Sharei Kiddishah of
R. Chaim Vital? Does it make much of a difference? Does that diminish the
value of that work?

>Kabbalah?  I think most Chasidim are happy to concede learning and
>knowledge to the Rebbe and absolve themselves of major learning.  They

:) I see you have little knowledge of such matters.

>are happy to go to the Rebbe for Kvittlach and Brochos  (another bone of
>contention I have with Chasidus).

And a birchos hedyot is a small thing to you?

>> >such things exist in a supernatural world is quite meaningless to me
>> >because there is no way to "test reality", if you will.  It is no wonder
>> I assume you feel the same about olam habah and techiyas hameisim?
>As  one of the Rambam's thirteen principles of faith I am compelled to
>believe in it. I do believe in spiritual world, If not then I could not
>believe in G-d.  My problems are not in belief of the spiritual world.

Is that not a bit 'irrational' to believe in such a thing? Sounds like you are
becoming a chassid. :)

>My problem is with attempts to study it.  In MOST cases,  I believe (at
>the very least) that one's time can be more vastly productive by
>studying the revealed word of G-d.

Do you learn mussar?

>>>  My mind craves rationality and since I live in the
>> So the Vilna Goan was irrational.
>Studying Kabbalh does not make one irrational.  It is the claim by
>lesser minds theat they understand kabalah that makes me want to
>question either their rationality, or their objectivity. In many cases
>people that say they understand Kabalah are just deluding themselves.

Have you the ability to test them? Are you sure you are m'kayim "dan kol
haadam b'kaf zcus"?

>> So you don't believe the gemara in Gitten where R. Yishmiel Kohen Gadol went
>> and asked from heaven whether the gezeirah is from HaShem. And let's just
>> throw out Har Sinai and Moshe's assention, and all the Nevuiim. (Need I expand
>> on this?)
> The above examples prove nothing.  In each case nobody transcends the
>plane of the natural world.  It is G-d who transcends the Supernatural

Your statment does not seem to fit what the gemara says. You can't change the
gemara because it doesn't fit with your ideas.

>world to communicate with man who IS in the natural world.  This
>includes Nevuah.  Nevuah is G-d Talking to Man.  Tfila is Man talking to
>G-d.  It is as simple as that.  In any case Nevuah ceased with the close
>of the era of the Neveim, so, that is certainly not an issue for today.

So you are saying that Moshe did not speak to G-d?

>customs.  It was in essence, in familial microcosm, the very battle that
>Misnagdim, led by the Goan, were fighting against the very institution
>of Chasidus.  Even if you know nothing else about chasidus, The fact
>that the Gra was so against it, shows that it was a lot more than just
>variant minhagim that he was upset about.  He feared the onset of a new
>Sabbatianism.

Infallability is not part of Judaism, even for the greatest. Remember Moshe
was forbidden to enter Eretz Yisroel.

>Sabbatianism.  Well, fast forward to today and look to Lubavitch
>Chasidus.   Maybe he was right after all.

You don't know what he would say about the Litvishe yeashivos, and bocharim
who shave.

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

Oops.  An alert  listmember was kind enough to  apprise me that i had confused 
R.David Riceman with R.Levi Reisman in my previous post, attributing to the
former what was actually posted by the latter.  My truly incere apologies to
both worthies - and I guess this isn't the forum or moment to recount the
iceberg-goldberg joke.

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

Chazal tell us that Hashem asked who would go to be a ruach sheker in the
mouths of the false prophets to seduce Achav to go to the war where he
would ultimately fall and that the spiirit of Navos, murdered by Achav,
volunteered, and as a result was removed from the mechitza of Hashem
because "Dover shekarim lo yikon k'negdi." We see the negative
ramiifications even of a permissible lie - one encouraged by Hashem! (and
also the interesting theologically possiblity of incurring liability for
free will even after death). The negativity of "dover shekarim" may have
been the impetus for Yaakov to attempt to mitigate his lie. This is
similar to "ikem ha'kasuv tes-vav osi'os shelo l'hotzi davar meguneh."

The question is, however, why then are talmidei chachomim permitted to lie
about puria, ushpiza and mesechta?

YGB

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

Rabbi YGB cited the Chazon Ish that there is no din of moridin v'lo maalin today and seemed to equate
this with giving contemporary shanu u'pirshuniks the status of tinokos shenishbu. This does not
appear to be the intent of the Chazon Ish, however; he does not deny that such individuals are mumarim
or kofrim (as I believe is evident from the entire discussion in that siman) but solely that there is no
mitzva to obliterate them nowadays but rather to strive to return them to Torah with love.  Until
they return, they retain their sinful status.

Melech Press

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

Forgiveness, both seliha and mehila, are God-like attributes
and we are commanded -- within reason -- to practice these
qualities.

The idea of forgiveness for everyone, no matter what, seems
Notzri to me.  But one finds it appearing in tefilla, for
example in the introduction to the keriyat shema before
going to sleep.  My impression is that this is relatively
recent in origin; am I wrong?

More typical is the prayer before kol nidre on layl yom
ha-kippurim, zache, where we are enjoined to forgive
all whom we would not defeat in a din torah [mehila
includes cancellation of debts].

We are enjoined to ask for forgiveness on yom kippur
from those we think we have harmed; if they refuse
we ask up to three refusals, after which our debt is
cancelled [not money].  We are asked to forgive those
who ask us, which seems original to me.

Has anyone worked up this subject, its development.
If so, could they please share the results.

Thanks.

__Bob Werman
Jerusalem
rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il

R' Eliahu D. Teitz accepted in Avodah V2 #112 that "Lubavitchers are frum
Jews, all of them
>that I know do their best to keep the halachas of Shulchon Aruch."
>>>
>
But he offered the following comment:

>Agreed, but Shulchan Aruch *HaRav*, and THAT is exactly the point everyone has
>been trying to make.

This creates a problem for _me_, in that I participate in a shi'ur given by
a poseq who is a hassid of a non-Habad hassidut, but this poseq brings
Shulhan Arukh HaRav in nearly every shi'ur.

Should I suspect my rav of avoda zara (hv"h)?  Shall I urge all his
talmidim to abandon the shi'ur?  Can I quote R' Teitz as an authority who
warns against such shi'urim?

Or perhaps R' Teitz errs when he states "THAT is exactly the point
_everyone_ has been trying to make."?

What ever became of darchei no'am?

Ira L. Jacobson 

R' Eliahu D. Teitz accepted in Avodah V2 #112 that "Lubavitchers are frum
Jews, all of them
>that I know do their best to keep the halachas of Shulchon Aruch."
>>>
>
But he offered the following comment:

>Agreed, but Shulchan Aruch *HaRav*, and THAT is exactly the point everyone has
>been trying to make.

This creates a problem for _me_, in that I participate in a shi'ur given by
a poseq who is a hassid of a non-Habad hassidut, but this poseq brings
Shulhan Arukh HaRav in nearly every shi'ur.

Should I suspect him of avoda zara (hv"h)?  Shall I urge all his talmidim
to abandon the shi'ur?  Can I quote R' Teitz as an authority who warns
against such shi'urim?

Or perhaps R' Teitz errs when he states "THAT is exactly the point
_everyone_ has been trying to make."?

Ira L. Jacobson 

----------
Fact for today

The name Jeep came from the abbreviation used in the 
army for the General Purpose" vehicle, G.P.

--------
Quotes for today:

"I may have faults, but being wrong isn't one 
of them," boasted the late union leader Jimmy Hoffa. 

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie,' until you 
can find a rock," said cowboy pundit Will Rogers. 
-----------------
IRA L. JACOBSON

> 
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:19:58 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #113
> 
> >> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:09:48 -0600 (CST)
> >> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> >> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #110
> >> >====> 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.
> >===> It has always been my impression that one serves Hashem with their
> >intellect and understanding.  Are you now claiming that Avodas Hashem is
> >irrational (C"V)??  I see no error in asserting that one's approach to
> >Avodas Hashem should not appear self-serving.
> 
> ? One serves HaShem will everything, both with ones intellect and with ones
> physical nature. (If someone says he has only Torah learning, even Torah
> learning he doesn't have.) (BTW can you give me a rational explaination for
> chukim?)
===> Please note that you did not in any manner, shape, or form answer the
objection above.  that one serves the Boreh with all capabilities does NOT
seem to support the fact that there is (or should be) an anti-intellectual
element or that the Avoda is irrational.  citing chukim has noting to do
with the issue.  though the chukim are "irrational" from our perspective,
their *observance* is within a very rational framework.



> 
> >> :) 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.)
> >===> That misses the point.  If you are willing to accept any literature
> >simply because it is in a "preferred class", there is an inconsistency.
> 
> The problem is that you thing 'liturature' = 'chassidus'. That just is not
> true.

===> Works by a great Talmid Chacham who appears to have had a pretty
strong knowledge of Chassidus (or are you going to now assert that those
who were not "accepted" are shown "l'mafrei'a" to have been ignorant of
Chassidus, as well) -- seem to be more than just "literature".  Again, you
appear to develop a self-serving formulation that allows you to
arbitrarily "classify" items without a strong basis.


> 
> >Of course, I can understand that Chasidus "derives" from the BeShT.
> >Similarly, I can see that different Rebbeim placed different emphasis upon
> >different aspects in THEIR Avodas Hashem.  However, in trying to
> >understand the overall "framework" -- it seems "defective" to ignore any
> >amplification that does not "come" from one's Rebbe.  And, if the emphasis
> >is GOING to be on the "Rebbe's Derech", then there is no logical "basis"
> >for a "preferred class" at all.  Just follow ONLY what the Rebbe learns
> >and nothing more.
> 
> I do follow the derech of my Rebbe and no other. I wil however learn seforim
> that I enjoy learning (in addition to those my Rebbe has told ME to learn.)
> Another point. A Rebbe will not instruct two people to do the exact same
> thing. For example, both my closest friend and I went to my Rebbe about a
> particular inyan in avodah. He was told to do one thing, and I was told a
> different thing. I am sure anyone who has been a mashpiah understands this
> idea.

===> Of course you follow a derech based upon your Rebbe's instruction.
But, now you raise an entirely different point.  Is it that the Rebbe
*instructs* his Talmidim what they should learn?  If so, that provides a
vastly different perspective.  In that case, the point is NOT whether a
particular author had a "big following" or not.  Instead, the reason that
a given sefer is "popular" is because the rebbe has made a "value
judgement" as to what is best for a given Talmid (or group of Talmidim) to
learn.  Given that the Rebbe is (a) a Talmid Chacham, himself, and (b)
attuned to the needs of his Talmidim, and (c) familiar [himself] with the
various different Sefarim (I hope) -- it makes a lot of sense that the
Rebbe would provide guidance in that manner.  And, at a LATER date, the
Talmid could do as you have done....  but, you do realize that this is a
bit different from how this got started.


> 
> >Of course, once you say that being intellectual is not "chassidish" and
> >represents a Litvish aberration, then I can begin to understand what you
> >state -- but then you also end up with the idea that your concept of
> >Avodas Hashem is NOT necessarily a rational one -- and may appear to be
> >self-serving to some degree.
> 
> To see chassidus as only an intellectual exercise of learning seforim, then
> you are wrong. It is a method of serving HaShem, with learning, and
> performing mitzvos. The Rebbe Reb Boruchel, the grandson of the Baal Shem Tov
> relates that his grandfather was asked that since he was against fasting what
> is the main purpose of his derech. He answered; 'Ahavos HaShem, Ahavos
> HaTorah, Ahavos Yisroel.' Is that so irrational?

===> I have never thought that chassidus is "only" an intellectual
exercise.  However, I have thought that a *part* of chassidus is the
learning of such sefarim.  As I recall, this began with a discussion about
hwo to understand "shirayim" and citations from various Chassidic sources.
To state that ONE source is not really "chassidus" is not really relevant
ot the remark cited above.


> 
> >> >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.
> >=-==> You see NOTHING in those other works that helps you in your
> >derech???
> 
> I never said nothing. There are some common things in all works.

===> In essence, though, it appears that there is nothing specific in
other works (at best, there are common elemements).  I thought that -- at
some level -- within chassidus, each person has to develop their own
"avodas hashem" (unless you subscribe to the concept that a person rises
solely by "clinging" to the Rebbe -- a concept that was the source of some
dispute, I believe).  Seems to me that if the goal is an individulalized
Avodas Hashem, one just might find some "element" in those other works and
not just "common stuff"....


> 
> >> >> >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'?
> >===> In the case of Haskafa: yes.  And, to so assert that it "just is"
> >seems to represent intellectual laziness...
> 
> You do not believe that there is anything in Judaism that is true and we must
> believe that you cannot intellectually understand?

===> that is not what I said.  In matters of overall HASHKAFA, I think
that it is not such a good idea to assert that matters are "just so" since
that can end up being nothing more than intellectual sloth.  Of course,
there are areas of Yahadus that are "incomprehensible".


> 
> >> 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.
> >===> Certainly -- but we also find that there are those who are skilled
> >with MULTIPLE instruments when making music....
> 
> But there are very few, and even less who can play two intruments at once.

===> Not at once -- but be aware and understanding of both....

--Zvi

Mostly to R. M. Shulman:

How does any chassidishe rebbe avoid getting "carried away"?  Does the Beis din 
serve as a check?

Think of all the leaders of klal Yisroel, think of Shaul, didn't shmuel give him
mussar?  and Dovid, didn't Nosson give him mussar?  Chezkiyahu, didn't Yeshaya 
give him Mussar?  Who gives the rebbes Mussar?  Are they infallible when Dovid 
and Chezkiyah weren't?  Please clarify.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

<<
 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. 
>>

This is placing the Baal Shem on par with God.  No human can create an
absolutely perfect system.

<<
(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.)
>>

So I guess by your earlier definition, the Baal HaTanya's modifications are
really just external errors, because after all, the original system was
perfect.

Dear Mechy:

    Please allow me to quibble with your history.

    You write that "Satmar is really Sighet which harks directly back to the
first chassidic Teitlebaum, the Yismach Moshe (a contemporary of the Chozeh
and talmid of R. Elimelech MiLuzinsk - though the Teitlebaums didn't hit
Sighet till the middle years of the century."  I conceed that you are
correct, except that I thought that the Yismach Moshe was a talmid of the
Chozeh.  But it was my impression that the Yismach Moshe's sons left
Hungary, and when his grandson, the Yetev Lev, came to Sighet, he basically
started the dynasty.

    You write that "The most famous Sanzer rebbe (R. Chaim Halberstam) was
already niftar sometime close to mid-19th century."  To be exact, it was
1876, but it did not really become a hereditary dynasty until then, since
that is when his son, the Shinover, took his place.   In any case, the
hereditary kesher was pretty weak; when he died in 1898, most of the
Shinover's chasidim did not follow his son,  but to the extent they stayed
in Sanz they followed his nephews in Bobov and Gorlitz.

    You write that "Ger is started as an independent chasidus by R. Yitzchoq
meier (the Chidushei haRim), a talmid-choveir of the Kotzke- who broke with
the Chozeh (to follow the Yid and then R.S. Bunim) and should thus be
assigned to the first half of the
century."  Sorry, old boy.  First of all, the Chiddushei HaRim basically
took over the Kotzer's chasidim when the Kotzker died in 1858; when the
Chiddushei HaRim died in 1867 or 1867, it was not at all settled that the
Gerer chasidim would follow his grandson and oldest surviving male
descendant, the Sfas Emes.  In time, they did, but for a while, Reb Henoch
of Alexander was a rival for the loyalties of the Gerer Chasidim.

    You wonder why I picked 1812 as the start of the Lubavitch dynasty; that
is when the Alter Rebbe died and was followed by his son. Until a son
actually takes over, the dynasty does become hereditary.

    With regard to the splitting of Satmar and Sighet, Israel Rubin, in his
book "Satmar, an Island in the City" writes that when the Atzei Chaim died
in 1926, Reb Yoel, who was then in Kruleh, was the leader of a small band of
chasidim, miniscule in comparison to the large following of his older
brother.  Within ten years, the vast majority of Sigheter chasidim did, in
fact, "vote with their feet" by defecting to Reb Yoel.

    With regard to Vishnitz, you write "Vishnitz itself started in precisely
the same way, as a second son taking part of the chassidim. i think five of
the
Ryzhiner's (arguably the most powerful/important tzadiq of all during the
first
half of the century, and, I think, a great granson of the maggid -but i
might
be off by one generation either way) sons became tzadiqim."  The Ryzhiner's
sons became rebbes after him, but the first Vishnizer was not one of them.
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.

    One last quibble:  My last name is Reisman, not Riceman.

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman

I believe a tinok she'nishba is also a mumar or kofer, no?

Except according tho the Binyan Tziyon that RDE reminded me of and the
Meshiv Davar, I believe as well, most poskim and Halacha l'Ma'aseh, I
believe, requires yayin mevushal for maga tinok she'nishba - if so, there
is no nafka mina in halacha - and, I believe not in "hashkafa" - between a
tinok she'nishba and a mummar she'ein moridin.

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Rabbi YGB cited the Chazon Ish that there is no din of moridin v'lo
> maalin today and seemed to equate this with giving contemporary shanu
> u'pirshuniks the status of tinokos shenishbu. This does not appear to be
> the intent of the Chazon Ish, however; he does not deny that such
> individuals are mumarim or kofrim (as I believe is evident from the
> entire discussion in that siman) but solely that there is no mitzva to
> obliterate them nowadays but rather to strive to return them to Torah
> with love.  Until they return, they retain their sinful status. 
> 
> Melech Press
> 
> M. Press, Ph.D.
> Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
> 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
> 718-252-7800, ext. 275
> 

YGB

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

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

On the one hand you say this, but on the other you blame the rebbe for fanning
the flames of the messianists.  You can't have it both ways.

<<
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.
>>

OK, but the rebbe is dead now, so the only one's left carrying the torch are
his chassidim.  And if they don't put it down, they will be the ones who will
be attacked for the erroneous ways they are following.  See Rashi ( Sh'mos
34:7, pokeyd avon avos al banim ):  when they uphold the ways of their
forebearers.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ 

><<
>Most important we must develop
>  (a) Derech Eretz for the Rebbie
>  (b) Derech Eretz for 1000's of good jews.
>>>
>
>On the one hand you say this, but on the other you blame the rebbe for
fanning
>the flames of the messianists.  You can't have it both ways.

I AM NOT BLAMING HIM. I AM SAYING THAT IF HE DID IT THEN IT MUST BE 
KOSHER. THERE ARE NO FLAMES. "KVAR HORO ZOKEN" TO QUOTE 
RAV HIRSCPRUNG. I AM TRYING TO SELL THAT THE REBBIE WAS A TZADIK
AND THAT HE DID IT TOO. NOT ON HIMSELF BUT HIS FATHER-IN-LAW

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


[ 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 ]