Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 122

Tuesday, January 12 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #121
• P'shat vs Halachah
• Re: Avodah V2 #121
• Yitzchok and Yaakov's deception
• Chassidishe story
• Going to a Litvishe rav for a berakhah
• The approach of mefarshei ha-Tanakh
• Re: Yitzchak & Yaakov
• Teaching Chasidus
• Re: Gezel on well water
• Bashing Avos? CV
• Moshe and Avraham
• Asei Lecho Rav
• Re: praying for others
• Re: Yerushas Ha'Nesi'us
• Re: Irrationality

> 
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:13:58 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #119
> 
> In a message dated 1/10/99 8:33:35 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Exactly!, the Gemoroh considers this a valid interpertation.

===> The point is that this was NOT an "anonymous" (e.g., "Amar Mar")
statement -- it was ONE opinion and it does NOT appear that this was the
one that "the Gemora" declared as definitive.  "The Gemora" only considers
it "valid" in the sense that a particular Tanna stated it.

> 
> > ===> 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...
> >  
> I am bringing Rayo from Mforshei Hakosuv that there is no problem with
> understanding the Gemroh as the Tanya does, the gemoroh certainly does concur.
> The Mforshim did not make up their own Torah CV, one can certainly use them
> for understanding the Gemoroh. 

===> We know (in the case of Rashi, as a good example) that when it comes
to the Pasuk, itself -- a Meforeish can cite something as p'shat even
though that is not the final "halchically accepted" formulation.  That is
why we formulate Halachos in terms of formulations of the Gemora and not
in terms of formulations of meforshei Hakasuv.  This is NOT a matter of
"making anything up" -- it is simply an approach to explaining p'sukim in
Novi.  The fact that you are UNABLE to cite such proofs form meforshei
HaShas says much more.


> And especially to your point that the Gemoroh ends that it is forgivness for
> them, I pointed out that this is actually 2 different opinions that can also
> be found in Mforshei Hakosuv, IOW the end of the Gemoroh does not invalidate
> the first opinio/s.

===> Again, the p'shat in the gemora there does NOT support that approach
readily.  In light of the citations that Nochrim DO have a mitzva of
Tzedaka, it is far more credible to adopt the approach that this IS a
"forgiveness" for them.

> Also when we see that Kabalah has something to say in the matter, it further
> validates such Pshat, as there is no reason to be Mafish Machlokes.

===> When Kabbola goes against the P'shat of the Gemora, it appears to
make more sense to simply note a disagreement rather than develop a
structure that is NOT apparent in the sugya, itself.  That the Kabbola
(and the TanYa) adopt a certain position is not in question.  That this is
apparent in the Gemora IS not so obvious.
--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 

Tanach is not a halachic work. Aside from the fact that halachah isn't derived
(although precedent might be proven) from Nach, the halachic content of
B'reishis is pretty sparse. The first Rashi, after all, suggested that if
the Torah were concerned only with halachah, it would start 1/3 of the way
into Sh'mos!

The primary focus of Tanach is, therefore, the ethical and religious message
underlying halachah. I'd like to suggest that this is true even in the
Chmash's discussion of mitzvos.

Halachah is determined by d'rashah, not p'shat. The p'shat of the pasuk speaks
more of the ta'am hamitzvah the mitzvah, than the details of its halachos.

So, for example, the text's discussion of an esrog doesn't name the fruit.
Instead, it says "p'ri eitz hadar". Which may say alot about /why/ an esrog,
but isn't as legally clear and specific as just naming the fruit.

Or, "lo sivasheil g'di". The Torah doesn't say anything about nosein ta'am,
or waiting from one meal to the next. Presumably the concepts of "bishul",
"g'di", and "imo" better capture the ta'am hamitzvah than a straitforward
telling of the laws. (See Hirsch ad loc for one such interpretation.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6032 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 12-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

regarding the question of tinoq shenishba and the like, particularly as it
applies to a group and not to an individual, see the remarkable comments
of Ramban at Bemidbar 15:22 "vekhi tishgu velo ta'asu et kol hamitzvot
ha'elleh", in particular the section beginning "ulshon hakatuv shelo
notzi'enu mipeshuto umashma'o," where Ramban discusses "mumar lekhol
hatorah beshogeg"[!] as it applies to a group "kegon sheyahshevu shekevar
avar zeman hatorah velo hayeta ledorot olam...o sheyishkehu et hatorah.
ukhevar eira lanu ken ba'avonoteinu...."

without getting into the question of who brings what qorban, the ramban's
remarks, i believe, are significant in terms of hashkafa. i've always
thought that they stand in contrast to the oft-quoted "nebech, an
apikoyres beshoygeg bleibt an apikoyres." but that's another matter.

moshe bernstein

What do you mean when you say they were naive?
> 
>> 

Do you think Yaakov was a puppet, he didn't know what was going on. He
did, but he acted anyways because that was the ratzon Hashem. He did what
ever he could to minimize the sheker involved, but I'd rather say Yaakov
was kovesh his middah of emes to serve his mother (in turn serving Hashem)
then to say Yaakov was a puppet in his mothers hands. 
> If this scenario is not the case, then there might be solid ground to 
criticize 
> Yaakov as a usurper.  Frankly, I would rather see Yitzchok as a bit naive 
> vis-a-vis Eisov than accuse Yaakov as being a deceiver.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
I like my scenario where Yitzchak is the victim of esav's deception.
Yizchak not being a fool realizes Esav isn't as good as he pretnds to be,
but is tricked into believing that esav can be a supporter to the tzadik
Yaakov. Rivka thinks up a brilliant plan which (since she knows her
husband SO WELL) is the best way to show yizchak that esav is totally
evil. Yaakov goes along with the plan in attempt to fullfil the
ratzonHashem even though it goes against his own nature. 
P.S. my scenario is heavily influenced by my memory of RSHirch's approach
to the topic.
Elie Ginsparg<<

I don't think there's a big gap between what you're saying and what I'm saying. 
re: naivete all I'm saying is that Rivko Achos Lovon saw through Eixov's 
deceptoin and Yitachok might have only suspected that all wasn't kosher, but did
not realize the full impact UNTIL vayecherad.  IMHO Vayecherad served as (pardon
the expression) an epiphany, suddenly Yitachok's entire view was shaken.  It's 
not unusual for someone who suddenly wakes up to litterally be shaking. 

re: communication gap, I think we're arguing semantics.  Rivko wisely refrained 
from confronting Yitachok until the proper time.

re: Yaakov being a puppet. I think that is an exaggeration.  Yaakov might not 
have been in on Rivko's plot at the beginning and so he objectd v'hoyis 
kimsatei'o.  IMHO Rivko was simply saying, "look just do it, right now you don't
get it."

Remember, Hashem tested Avrohom in a sense by misleading him to believe that he 
was really going to Schecht Yitzchok instead of merely setting him up for an 
oleh.  And was Yosef lying to his brothers when he tested them?  I think the 
Torah might have simply been using "mini-plays" to get certain points across.  
We tend to take the narrative as simply narrative.  Hirsch and others might 
realize that the Torah is stepping out and presenting a small "skit" to teach us
something. 

Why is this important?  it goes to the geneivas daas issue.  If I were to set up
an act to make a point to seombody, the various statements said within that 
paradigm were never meant to be taken literally; they were for illustrative 
purposes only. 

Sometimes I think the peshat is better served by understanding that the Torah 
employs a literary device, and not attempt to use it as a Shulchan Aruch. 
Darshening into Yaakov's beahvior IMHO is misleading because the entire scenario
was being used to teach Yitzchok a lesson, and was not an attempt to usurp the 
brocho.

This is in line with the Torah using metaphors and idioms which are 
unfortuantely taken literally.  The Torah often uses words as graphic 
illustrations (remember ayin tachas ayin and Ayin b'ayin?)  There is a lot of 
Moshol and Melitzo embedded even in the Peshat.

Of course on a DRUSH level, we can darshen psukim out of context.  I have no 
problem with that.  

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Responding to the well known cahssidishe story of successive generational
beseechment of yeshua by the besht, maggid, and r. moshe leib, abii teitz
writes: 
<This seems to imply that successive generation were greater and greater,
needing less and less interaction with HaShem to get the desired results>

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ>

 Of course one may find room to debate what the meaning of "is" is and find
alternate connotations.   But the plain pishat is clearly a metaphor for either
yeridas hadoros, or at least harchoqas hadoros.  (Schoelem brings down the
story on th e last page of Major Trends clearly in the sense of the former
metaphor, and no, his reading is no ra'ayoh it merely makes sense).  Thus the
other focus of the story is the chasdei hashem which loa samnu, rather than a
compensating  aliyas hadoros.  But sha'arei haperushim loa nin'alu (a point
which in a somewhat more serious context a number of ist members seem to have
forgotten in connection with perush hamiqroh) and you may interpret away,
though I assume you've had your tongue firmly planted to your cheek while
writing that..   Are you sure you're not a lawyer? 

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

Harry Maryles wrote:
>Let me relate to you the following 2 stories.
>I can assure you the story is true because of the
>very close perosnal relationship I enjoy with one of the parties
>directly involved.

On this topic I once heard a story regarding R. Yosef B. Soloveitchik.
I cannot assure you that it is true because I do not have a close
personal relatioinship with anyone involved.

Many years ago, an admirer of R. Soloveitchik approached him.  "Rebbe,
would you give me a berakhah," he asked.
The Rav looked at him.  "What are you, an apple?"

Eli Clark

R. Yitzchok Zirkind writes:

In a message dated 1/10/99 8:33:35 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

>>  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...

>I am bringing Rayo from Mforshei Hakosuv that there is no problem with
>understanding the Gemroh as the Tanya does, the gemoroh certainly does
concur.
>The Mforshim did not make up their own Torah CV, one can certainly use them
>for understanding the Gemoroh.

I do not wish to comment on the underlying issue, which has been
exhaustively discussed, but on the issue of methodology.  I concur with
Zvi.  Of course, there is nothing wrong, halilah, with quoting one of
the mefarshei ha-Tanakh in an argument, but I do not believe that it
represents any kind of proof to an interpretation of the Gemara.

Let me explain.  If two people were arguing about how to interpret a
Malbim, would it help one's argument to show that the Abarbanel also
read the pasuk the way one thinks the Malbim did?  I think not.  If this
is true about mefarshei ha-Mikra, it is even more true with respect to
the Gemara.  The Gemara interprets many pesukim, but often by way of
asmakhta or midrash and rarely in pursuit of peshuto shel mikra.  This
is very different from the derekh of most mefarshei ha-Tanakh.  Ibn
Ezra, in particular, demonstrates a marked independence from Hazal in
his perush.  So I think that quoting ibn Ezra does not really provide
any kind of proof to one's interpretation of a Gemara.

In addition, I do not understand RYZ's statement that mefarshim "did not
make up their Torah."  In a certain sense, they did exactly that, though
not arbitrarily.  What I mean is that, following a particular derekh,
each mefaresh brings the full extent of his knowledge and reason to each
interpretation.  He is not presenting something that he received
mi-Sinai, though he may have received it from his Rebbe.  Thus, we see
in R. Bahya the strong influence of his rebbe, the Ramban.  But many
mefarshim present ideas that are startlingly original  -- Ramban
especially -- that have no clear source.  I do not know why you appended
"CV" to the notion that mefarshim displayed originality.  From R. Saadya
to Netziv to contemporary writers, we have been richly endowed with the
original insights of our mefarshim and that is, I think, a cause for
celebration.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

<<
I like my scenario where Yitzchak is the victim of esav's deception.
Yizchak not being a fool realizes Esav isn't as good as he pretnds to be,
but is tricked into believing that esav can be a supporter to the tzadik
Yaakov. Rivka thinks up a brilliant plan which (since she knows her
husband SO WELL) is the best way to show yizchak that esav is totally
evil. 
>>

I have one question on this hypothesis:  How does Yaakov's deception show
Esav's evil?  All it shows is Yaakov's evil!  And if the idea is to show how
easily Yitzchak can be deceived, still how does this show Yitzchak that Esav
has been tricking him all these years?

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

   I wrote Rav Yosef Gavriel some comments on his review of R. Willhelm's
   letter and he suggested that I address the "group". It is with trepedation
   that I begin this task. I will give over the first part and will wait
for feedback.
   If I generate chiruf and giduf then I will stop. All mistakes will be
mine, but 
   my kavanah is leshem shomayim and the Almighty will help me not err
   or convey false information. Let me go over some of his paragraphs below.
   I will use upper case to comment. what I am saying can be found in the
Tanya.
   


The greatest connection to Hashem one can experience is that generated by
one's Emuna Peshuta: The raw, emotional, elemental dveykus in Hashem that
emantaes from "dos pintele Yid" - the "chelek Eloka me'ma'al mamash" -
that is truly the heart of every Jew.
WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IS CALLED AHAVAH TIVIS OR MUSTERES.
IT IS NOT THE GREATEST. IT IS THE ELEMENTAL. IT IS THE NATURAL
UNDEVELOPED AHAVAH. THERE ARE THREE OTHERS THAT CAN BE 
DEVELOPED. 
  (1) AHAVAH KAMAYIM
  (2) AHAVA KRISHPE ESH
  (3) AD KALOS NEFESH

THE LAST ARE FOR TZADIKIM. WHETHER (1) OR (2) IS HIGHER IS A STIRAH IN THE
TANYA. THUS, BY DOING TALMUD TORAH ONE DEVELOPS THE LOWER
INTO A HIGHER ONE.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a mitzva of Talmud Torah - to utilize
one's intellect and hone one's mind in rational study of Chochmas Hashem.
YES, AND AS YOU SAY TO UNITE WITH CHOCHMAT HASHEM.

But - the more one studies, the more complex, rational and intellectual,
one's yedi'as Hashem will become. This intellectual relationship with
Hashem impedes and sullies one's emotional intimacy with Hashem grounded
in Emuna Peshuta. Ahava and yir'ah are elemental forces - and the
intellect is not a medium for such forces - if anything, it diminishes
them.
NOT SULLIES OR DIMINISHES THE ELEMENTAL. BUT, IF ONE LEARNS
LO LISHMOH AS I SAID THEN NOT ONLY DOES HE NOT RISE BUT
HE MAY COVER UP AND NOT BE ABLE TO USE THIS ELEMENTAL
GIFT. AFTER ALL, IF ONE LEARNS LEKANTER IT MIGHT EVEN BE AN AVERAH.

But - Hashem gave 613 mitzvos that all must be performed, because the 248
eivarim and 365 giddim each have a mitzva that gives them, respectively,
essential spirritual life force. The mitzva that gives that chiyus to the
Mo'ach is TT. So, learn we must - but learning ruins the Emuna Peshuta.
How does one reconcile the paradox?

THERE IS NOT MUCH OF A PARADOX. LEARNING HAS TO BE DONE PROPERLY.
YOU HEARD "A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING"
SOMETIMES GAAVAH CREEPS IN. THIS CAN HARM. IT COVERS THE AHAVAH.
THE ALMIGHTY GAVE YOU A TOY, AND YOU PLAY WITH IT. WHEN YOU LEARN
DO YOU SEE  G-D? THIS IS WHAT CHASIDUS WANTS.

(Misnagdim do not place the same value, neither on Emuna Peshuta nor on
Dveykus. They therefore have little trouble with the paradox. But, for a
Chossid, this is a big problem.)
THESE ARE AD HAMONIM REMARKS THAT I WILL NOT BOTHER WITH.
WHO KNOWS WHAT MISNAGDIM BELIEVE. MAYBE, THEY HAVE
BAD HASHKOFOT. PERHAPS, RAV YOSEF GAVRIEL CAN EXPAND ON 
THEIR STATE OF HIS BELIEF. I WILL RESPOND.

In Lubavitch, the resolution is as follows: Just as each neshama has five
parts: nefesh, ru'ach, neshomo, chaya, yechida; Am Yisroel has five types
of souls. The yechida is the part of the neshama that, in unison with the
rest of the nation, unites in oneness the neshama with Hashem (yachad).
But that, itself, is through the yechida kelallis of the generation (a
concept we discussed abortively in one of the early forerunners of our
little group) - the Nasi of Chabad in the dor.

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 - indeed, it enhances the
Emuna Peshuta and dveykus of the individual who studies it.
I WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP THE ROLE OF THE ZTADIK. YOUR UNCLE
HAS WRITEEN A LOT ON THIS. SO I WILL NOT EXPLAIN THE SOLUTION.
THE REBBIE HELPS GUIDE YOU TO GET THOSE MADREGOS AND DEVELOP
THE APPROPRIATE AHAVAH. 

There are several ramifications of this resolution to the paradox,
including the following:

1. Lubavitchers will avoid the works of other branches of Chassidus or
Kabbalistic Schools. Even if they describe similar ideas to those of
Chabad - they are not from a Yechida, and are subject to the problem of
the paradox.
I DON'T KNOW THIS. THE LUBAVICHER STUDY THEIR REBBIE'S WORKS.
THE REBBIE'S KNOW THE OTHER SCHOOLS. ARE YOU INSINUATING
THAT THE REBBIES COULD HAVE GIVEN BETTER ANSWERS. PLEASE 
SUGGEST. YOU ALL SEEM TO BE A BOKI IN COMPARITIVE CHASIDUS.

2. A non-Orthodox Jew has a ma'alah over a Talmid Chochom in that whatever
Emunah - conscious or subconscious - the non-Orthodox Jew has, it is Emuna
Peshuta. That of a Talmid Chochom is already complex and intellectual. The
Talmid chochom must, in essence, be deprogrammed before becoming a true
Chossid.

THIS IS PROBABLY NONSENSE. I AM SURE YOU CONCUR.

I WILL PAUSE HERE SINCE I HAVE COVERED THE BASICS. STUDY CHASIDUS
AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.

LET US FACE IT. THE BEHAVIOR OF ANY "GROUP" THAT CAN ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE
INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE NO AHAVAH. "VAHAVTAH LERACHA KOMOCHA"
THEY ARE ALL BUSY CPMLIMENTING EACH OTHER AND USING LUBAVICH AS
SCAPEGOATS.

FOLLOWING A REBBIE IS NOT NEW. "ES HASHEM ELOKECHO TIROH"-LERABOS
TALMIDE CHACHOMIM.

Chaim wrote:
> Ramban (2:16) writes that the shepards of Midyan tried to commit robbery
by
taking the water Yisro's daughters had drawn from the well. <
Does he?  Perhaps I'm reading his words incorrectly, but my understanding
was that Yithro's daughters violated the de facto minhag ha'mokom/"world
order" by (a) drawing the water, which was usually done by the [male]
shepherds, and then (b) using that water before said shepherds' expected
arrival time (presumably, hoping to be done & "outtathere" before said
shepherds did arrive).  Moshe, newcomer that he was and either unfamiliar
with said "order" or defending their action based on its "b'di'avad"
status, saw 'chamas,' insofar as the ladies, being human beings, had indeed
drawn that water and by all rights should be able to water their animals
from it; OTOH, I would infer from RaMBaN's words that, in the minds of the
shepherds, the ladies were in the wrong and should not be permitted to
benefit from their actions.

Michael Poppers =*= Elizabeth, NJ

Subject: Re: Yitzchok and Yaakov's deception

Cheryl Maryles wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> > I think it's a guzmo to say Yitzchok was a "fool".  It would be more 
accurate to
> > say he had a blind-spotpt re: his son, remember he's a nogeio be'dovor...

It's amazing to me that some on the list are so cavalier in bashing the 
Avos. The text in the Torah is never intended for us to "spin"<<


eineni Mavin!
Who is bashing Avos?

(And who says we cannot put a spin on the Torah?  Hafoch boh etc.  We might as 
well shut down chidushim the way they wanted to shut down the US patent office 
circa 1890. <smile>)

BTW, I have done my humble best to act as apologist and defender of the Avos.  
Appaerentley the spin is being taken in the wrong direction?  However, defending
the Avos in no way IMHO presupposes perfection.  It seems obvious to me that the
Torah is teaching us the lessons that the AVOS themselves learned along the way.

And the Medrash and Rishonim are replete with criticisms of the Avos... (and I 
question many of those criticims myself...)

I guess that when one defends the Avos, he might be "gorem"  criticism.  The 
Chofetz Cahyaim makes this point WRT to sayhing something nice about someone.

Personally I don't see saying that a father has a blind-spot vis-a-vis his son 
as a criticism.  It's just human: "kreachem ov al bonim".  IMHO it doesn't imply
utter foolishnes or any mido ro'o, except perhaps being dan lekaf zechus a bit 
too much.  Frankly, I think of it as a sort of Chein that the Avos stood up for 
their wayward sons...

One Chasidishe story I heard.  A rebbe had a wayward son who was not bevahing 
acording to proper conduct.  Came Rosh hasShono the rebbe sat this unkempt son 
next to him in shul.  The Chassidim were upset, the son's appearance degraded 
the diginity of RH, etc.  They sent a delegation to the rebbe to ask him not to 
seat his son near him come YK.  Them, they overheard the rebbe pleading with 
Hashem: "Look I know how my son misbehaves, nevertheless I still keep him near 
me and don't reject him!  So YOU too should stand by YOUR children, Beis 
Yisroel!" Needles to say, the delegation aborted their mission and sheepishly 
returned....

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe  

I am trying to choose my words carefully to avoid any shemetz of Avos
Bashing.  However, I think that it might be instructive to consider the
somewhat differing responses of Moshe and Avraham to the commands of
the Ribbono Shel Olam.  When Avraham is told to take his one and only son
and sacrifice him, Avraham's response is unquestioning and fervent
obedience.  When Moshe is told to go to Pharoh on behalf of the  Almighty to
take out the Children of Israel from Egypt, Moshe, despite his iniitial
trepidation at being in the presence of the Almighty, engages in a lengthy
argument in which he seeks to avoid the mission that the Ribbono Shel Olam
has selected him to carry out.  Although Chazal tell us that Moshe was
punished for certain things that he said during the course of his argument, I
don't believe that they say that he was punished for even daring to speak up
at all.  Would anyone care to comment on the differing responses of Avraham
Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Unless I missed it, I am unclear of how one deals with a rav/rebbe that "goes to
an extreme" so to speak.  By way of illustration, let us say polni is a talmid 
of Yochonon Kohen Gadol. Now YKG  in his old age decides to become a tseduki. 
How should his Talmid Ploni deal with this?

A more general question might be, how much does one surrender ones 
critical/analytical side to one's rebbe?  How much is accepted upon faith alone?
When does one question or object to one's rebbe?

We had a related discussion re: Yaaakov listening/obeying  Rivko and deceiving 
his father Yitzchok.  Wasn't Rivko BOTH Yaakov's Mom and a Nevio?  Does Yaakov  
object enough (ulei yemusheini)?  Did he object too much?

Now, if ploni is a Talmid of R. Akivo, must he accept that Bar Kochbo is 
Moshiach?  Can he agree with R. Akivo's peers who disagree and reject his 
rebbe's shito on this matter and STILL be a fiathful Talmid of his rebbe?


Regards,
Rich Wolpoe  

>Given the discussion of chassidut I have a general question on the
>efficacy of praying for others. What is the basis for this.
>Either the individual deserves the reward/punishment or not.

We see in parshas Toldos that both Yitzchok and Rivkah prayed. Why should they
need that? The is a gemara that HaShem desires the prayers of tzaddikim.

>1. Does saying kaddish for a parent help the parent.
>   This is a question mainly when the the parent was not religious and
>   so we can't say that the son's actions are due to the influence of
>   the parent.

It certainly does say in seforim that the actions of the son sayong kaddish
does effect the parent's nashamah.

>   Can one say Kaddish for a stranger (i.e. does it help?).

According to the more kabbalistic sources (and prevalent custom follows that)
the saying of kaddish by another (when there is no one to say kaddish) would
help.

>2. Saying Tehiilim for someone's health. There are groups of people
>   who have lists of sick people.
>   Does this make any sense?
>   I assume that for a relative or rebbe it makes sense but how about
>   a stranger?

Anyone saying a prayer for another will help.

>3. What good does the blessing of rebbe have for his chasid?
>   Rav Moshe Feinstein seemed to be uncomfortable with the idea that
>   people came to him for blessings.

The gemara says we should not make light of a berchas hedyiot, it is a kol
v'chomer to those of tzaddikim andtalmidei chochomim.

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

>>> There are a number of sons
>who were skipped over for grandsons. (Stolin and Boyan are two good examples.
>BTW the later is VERY highly regarded.)
>In the case of Boyan this is not true. The rebbes sons and son-in-law
>were not interested in becoming rebbes because they were in business
>(or education) for many years. That is the reason the grandson became
>a rebbe at a relatively young age.

? What is the difference between what I said and what you said?

>BTW I am curious if the Boyan rebbe's success has any connection to
>the fcat that he was brought up in a relatively modern American home
>(though of course chassidic).

No, his modesty. He refused to be Rebbe until he was older. (He was chosen to
succeed when very young, but did not actually start being Rebbe until much
later.) I have seen him when he was here and he was quite impressive. (And
that is saying a lot for a chasid from the Tzanzer cheder to compliment a
Sadagura.)

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

>> >===> 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.
>> Zvi, sometimes your questions just don't seem to make sense. I addressed two
>> points that seemed to come out form your questions: 1. HaShem is served ONLY
>> through the intellect. To which I amswered that this is not true. He is served
>> in many ways. 2. That there is nothing irrational in Torah or avodus HaShem,
>> to which I answered look at chukim.
>===> First of all, I never stated that Hashem is served *only* through
>intellect.  What I *did* state is that I do not see a support for an
>*anti-intellectual* approach.  Secondly, as I stated previously -- the

There is no support in chassidus for the type of anti-intellectual approach
that you seem to be implying. I have tried to understand your complaint, but
quite frankly it is impossible to understand.

>OVERALL context of Chukim is not irrational -- it is the specific Chok
>that we do not understand -- which is NOT the same as championing
>irrationality.

Just incorrect. The idea of chukim are that there are things that G-d requires
that we just cannot understand.

>> That chassidus cannot be learned from a sefer, does not make it 'irrational'.
>> Was Torah sh'baal peh 'irrational' because there was no sefer one could learn
>> that would teach him what it was? In fact, every sefer that tries to give some
>> idea, will always point out that one has to become part of a group around a
>> Rebbe.
>===> Torah She'b'al Peh was "learned" intellectually even though it was
>oral.  You have, however, appeared to present a POV that specifically
>"demotes" the value of intellect.

Again, just because something is learned 'orally' does not make it irrational
anymore then the TSBP is irrational because it was passed on orally.


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

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


[ 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 ]