Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 123

Wednesday, January 13 1999

• R. Tzadok
• Seforim
• Re: Avodah V2 #118
• Re: Chassidic History?
• Re: Chasidic Leadership-Continued
• Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1
• Re: Fwd: Re: Avodah V2 #119
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Re: Ein don Yechidi elo echod
• Re: chassidus: perfection
• Re: going to rebbes
• Re: chassidishe story
• Re: Ramban on well water
• Tinok She'Nishba
• Re: Inherited Titles
• pshat vs. derash
• In case you haven't had enough about chasidus
• Re: Teaching Chasidus
• various responses
• Re: Avodah V2 #122

>> >> >===> 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.
>>
>> Again you seem to be arguing that any specific sefer can define what is
>> chassidus. Or that by learning sefer X one can then discuss intellegant
>> what Chassidus is about. Just not true.  The FACT is, that if we take R.
>> Tzudok as an example, his life PROVES the error.  He was NOT born in a
>> chassidic family.  What happened is that at some time in his life he needed to
>> travel to Rabbanum to get a heter meah Rabbonim.  He ended up in Izbitze, and
>> became a chasid.  From his life we see that one cannot be a chasid unless one
>> has a Rebbe, and learns from him. Unless you go to a Rebbe and are part of the
>> 'group' there are things you won't get from looking in seforim. (there are two
>> Torah's in m'or v'shamash on this inyan. One in Parshas Kadoshim and the other
>> in Reah.)

Fo someone arguing that chassidus is 'anti-intellectual' you seem to make many
arguments and statements totally lacking in logical structure.

>===> So, the next step is not only to "devalue" the person's works but to
>"devalue" the PERSON since if that person does not fall into your
>definition, then that person "obviously" is not "knowledgeable" in
>chassidus...  Your "conclusion" is only "correct" if you first accept what

You comments ae both absurd and inticative that you have either not read or
not understood what I have written. R. Tzaddok is a counter example to your
claim that one becomes a chasid or understands chassidus exclusive of a
particualar Rebbe. From this you imagine some slight to his character on
my part chas v'shalom. The Tzanzer Rov (my Rebbes great grandfather) was from
a misnagdish family and went to Lublin and then to Ropshitz. Does that mean
that I am 'devaluating' him chas v'shalom? Your comments on these issues
appears to be shtusim mit lokshin.

>it is that you have sought to prove -- indeed, now I can see why you have
>a problem with "intellectual" -- there is a certain amount of "rigor"
>required -- which you can dispense with when you are not concerned with
>such "minor" issues.  I do no see ANY proof that R. Tzadok was not an
>"expert" in chasiddus -- only that for you to admit as much would force
>you to invalidate much of what you have been asserting.

I think you should just give it up. It appears that you are not capable to
intellectually understand that in chassidus there are different daruchim, that
are in some areas mutually exclusive, where chassidim of different daruchim
can respect others, but not accept their derech. 

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

>> >> 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.
>> As with much of what you write it is neither wholly correct, nor totally off
>> the mark. There are various factors which will effect what is learned, and
>> also how much of it will be accepted BECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE. These are: 1.
>> Sometimes a Rebbe will tell someone to learn specific seforim. I was told by
>> my Rebbe seforim that I should learn, when I asked about it. (I was also told
>> what I should not learn.) Sometimes it is known that certain seforim are
>> recommended often enough that it is known that it is the Rebbe's choice. 2.
>===> I fail to see what "Seforim from a Rebbe's ancestors" are
>automatically considered "suitable"....

You don't try to learn seforim authored by your ancestors?

>> Seforim from a Rebbe's ancestors. 3. Seforim that are in Beis Medrash. (Many
>> of these are just donated, and may not all be accepted to the same degree, but
>> some seforim would not even appear in the Beis Medrash for various reasons.
>> For example in my shul you will not find seforim from Kotsk or Sadagura for a
>> number of historical reasons that I will not discuss at this time.)
>
>===> Well, obviously, I did not expect to see people learning from Seforim
>that were NOT available in the Beis Midrash... ;-)

? I have many seforim that are not found in the Beis Medrach I doven in. It is
not so obvious.

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

>> What I stated is that the sefer in question is not taken as athoratative in
>> that just because it appears there does not mean that it is accepted outside
>> of whatever chassidim there may be (which I understand that there are no
>> chassidim of that Rebbe in the world.) Let me give a clearer example. If in a
>> Chabad sefer it says that method X is to be used in Avodus HaShem, that does
>> not mean that it would be accepted by non-Chabad chassidim.
>===> I think that it is not quite analogous.  It was pretty well known
>that ChaBaD had developed a "counter-hashkafa" to what was known as
>"ChaGaS" Chassidus.  However, it is not clear that R. Tzadok was
>developing a variant hashkafa to the overall [non-ChaBaD] Chassidus.

What appears to be 'well-known' to you is actually an error, and not ture. The
Baal HaTanya created/modified his derech so as to appeal to the Litvisher
Olam who were within his area of activity. To have created a
'counter-hashkafa' would mean that he was opposing the Baal Shem Tov, who was
basically what you would call a 'ChaGaS' Rebbe who had a tisch.

>> >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"....
>> OK Here is your error. While each person has in essense his own avodus hashem,
>> but it's source is from the Rebbe's instruction. He is the guide.
>===> No. I stated earlier that it was clear that the Rebbe would shape the
>Avodas HAshem of the Talmid (the only caveat that I expressed was the hope
>that the *Rebbe* was at least familiar with the other works of Chassidus
>before advising a Talmid one way or the other).

Why does he need to know 'other works'? Does your Rosh Yeshiva know ALL thwe
different works dealing with avodos hashem and then instruct you in them, or
does he know what he has been taught by his Rebbes etc, and relate it to you?

>> I would contend that an insistance on alway shaving to 'know' brings two
>> serious problems: 1. Gava -  the belief that one knows more then is possible.
>> 2. apikorsus -  one assumes that the reason one has is in fact the correct
>> one, and rejects it. With regards to this the Baal Shem Tov was quite clear
>> and stated: noch alla madregos ich varf es avek en ich bin a nar en ich gleib.
>===> I do not assert "having" to know -- I assert a rigorous framework
>which will discourage the intellectual sloth (and dishonesty) that appears
>to follow when there is no intellectual rigor asserted.  It is certainly
>possible *within the framework of intellectual rigor* to retain humility
>- -- whcih would address both issues raised above.

That is of course your opinion. Emunah peshitah is not subject to intellectual
rigor.

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

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

The Rebbe Reb Bunim changed some of the fundemental customs that were common
from the Baal Shem Tov until his time. Things like the role of a Rebbe,
kabbalistic customs and dress, times of tephilah and other things. Among those
sent by the Rebbe Reb Bunim was R. Itchei Meir (later Gerer Rebbe, but at that
time a well known talmud chochom who was well respected by all.) I would have
to look into this more to see why it weas santioned. My Rebbes were on the
other side and saw Kotzk as the proof that they were right to oppose
Pershischa. (But then my Rebbe just became a machiton with Alexander, so
things do change.)

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

In the past it was common since many Rebbes were either related or talmidim of
Rebbes who were related and joing their Rebbes by the chassana. This doesn't
happen now since if Rebbes need to commuicate there is a telephone. :)

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

>gaon such as the divrei  Chaim of sanz, held him in high esteem, though he got
>ticked off at the successor generations. (In some ways R. yisroel presaged the

This occured while the Rizyner was still alive.

>For M. Shulman who wrote, referring to a mention that the Rhyziner's children
>in turn became tzadiqim:  <All except one (whose name will remain unmentioned
>by me.)>
>Since R. Shulman doesn't want to identify this fellow, I guess I won't either,
>other than to say that, contrary to the above assertion, he did indeed set up
>shop as an independent tzadiq-admor like his brothers following his father's
>pitiroh.   Afterwards nisgalgeil mah shenisgalgeil.

He was and then he wasn't. He never really became again. It is interesting how
he is refered to in seforim.

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

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

Rebbes were ALWAYS refered to as the Tzaddikim, and if you were familiar with
chassdishe seforim you would know that. As to Brachos, they were always there.
As to shirayim, I know the Baal Shem Tov had tisch (that is where it comes
from.) As to shirayim I have tosee where it came from. (This is however some
quick changing of the subject on your part.)

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

Yes.

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

It does happen now, but not as often. Puppa was not a chassidus until
recently. I could probably find a few more if I wanted.

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

>On 01/10/99 18:16:48 Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>This is an interesting question. Could you explain to me what the Gemara says
>>(San. 110) Kol HaMaharhar achar Rabbo k'ili maharhar acher hashachinah.
>If Rabbi Shulman is stating that a Rav is in fact infallible then he is stating
>unquestionable
>apikorsus.  Only the Ribono Shel Olam is infallible according to the belief
>system of
>Torah -true Jews, period!! To ascribe absolute perfection in any dimension to
>flesh and
>blood is unacceptable, whether to Chasid or non-Chasid.  I therefore assume he
>was mafriz
>al hamidah. As to the Gemara he quotes from Sanhedrin, it deals with the
>Halachos of
>kvod rabo and requires that a dispute with one's teacher be conducted in
>absolute kavod, as
>elaborated there both in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.  It has nothing to do

1. I made no claim of infalability for my Rebbe. 2. To make such a claim is
not apikorsus (Note the gemara says 4[5] entered gan eden without sin.) 3. One
part of kavod is not assuming one's Rebbe is wrong because you don't
understand what he says/does.

>and Moshe (in the example given by the Gemara). Look in Be'er Mayim Chayim, who
>gives a
>psychological explanation - if you start out having disrespect for your Rebbe,
>you will ultimately
>lose respect for Hashem.  In any case, nothing to do with infallibility but

Where in BMC?

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

>> If you are saying it is rarely the case that a worthy person is chosen, athat
>> is false. If you are saying that it is rare that a son-in-law is chosen, that
>> is true, since there are usually sons.
>This is exactly my point.  Obviously a son will not be chosen if he
>doesn't have some basic leadership ability for which he is trained from
>the day he is born.  But if a son in law is more worthy, he will NOT get
>the nod over a son.A MAJOR FLAW!

? I think that you have not read carefully. An unworthy person is not chosen.
Usually there is at least one son who is worthy. (Not always the eldest.) I do
know of cases where sons-in-law have been chosen. Historically the most well
known is Rebbe Usher of Ropshitz who took over for his father-in-law Rebbe
Naftuli Tzvi.

>> >example, the Boyaner Chasidim have as their Rebbe, the grandson of the
>> >previous Rebbe, a title he received by inheritance at a very young age.
>> And for which he is worthy.
>He may be worthy but the primary reason he got it is Inheritance.

He was the only descendant who was worthy. Had there not been, the
chassidim would have gone elsewhere. For example, in Belz today many of the
older chassidim left when the present Belzer took over. That happens all the
time.

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

>This is an interesting question. Could you explain to me what the Gemara says
>(San. 110) Kol HaMaharhar achar Rabbo k'ili maharhar acher hashachinah.
>In a more serious vein, Rebbes who have gone outside the acceptable have
>spurned serious conflict. For example, Tzanz - Sadagura that occured over 100
>years ago.
>Ein hochi nami re: a Talmid.  My point is if a litvhisher Rish Yeshiva wnet off
>and did something, he would feel Peer pressure.  right or wrong it was obvious
>that many Roshi Yeshiva did not concur with the the Hashkofo of RYD Soloveichik
>of YU.  It is arguable that he was THE gaold hador (whatever that means) yet it
>was also clear that the yeshivishe world was not intimidated by his gadlus...

There is enough conflict in the chassidishe velt that this is a non-question.
Maybe you are too young to remember the Satmar Rov Z'L who was the tzaddik
hador. He both gave and received.

>Now take a Chasidishe rebbe.  Whether he is totally convntional or totally
>unconventiaonal he is not held in chekc by
>1) his Chassidim

Rare, except for those whop might be particularly close to him.

>2) his peers (ie otehr rebbes)

Yes.

>And recall my question re: Yochonon Koehn Gadol, what happened to HIS talmidim
>when he became a tseduki?  Now if a Koehn Gadol isn't a Godol who is <smile>

I will not open this issue. :)

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

>Maybe you can explain yourself. No one says that anything in this world is
>perfect. It is whether something can be called 'chassidus' or not.
>Allow me to explain.  By saying that whatever the Baal Shem Tov declared as
>chassidus is the entirety of its definition is saying that his definition was
>the perfection of that system.  There can be no room for improvement on it
>because it is complete in its giving.  That is something that I feel is
>reserved only for HaShem.

OK you totally misunderstand. The derech of the Baal Shem Tov is called
chassidus. If you don't follow his derech you are not part of chassidus. You
can be something else. The derech of Yisroel Salanter is not chassidus. So?

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

>>The Besht started a derech that did not necessarily require a Rebbe,
>>certainly not hereditarily - at least not that we "outsiders" understand.
>Wrong on both points.
>1. Baal Shem Tov required going to Tzaddikim:
>>>
>And are only rebbes tzadikim?  Are there no tzadikim who are not rebbes?
>The question has not been answered.

A Rebbe is a Tzaddik who has chassidim. Since you are a Litvak,I am sure the
following will be interesting for you. The Shinover Rov used to say that Rebbe
is Roshei Teivos "Rosh B'nei Yisroel" and if he is not worthy: "Rah b'ayei
HaShem".  His son the Cheshinover Rov said Rabanim is Roshei Teivos "Rashaim
b'chayaham Nikruim Meisim." One of the chassidim asked him, 'The Yid is
missing.' To which he answered 'That is right the Yidis missing.' :) (Rebbe
Yankaele Z'L of Peshevorsk said before relating this that just like in the
old seforim they say that the goyim mentioned in the sefer does not refer to
the present day goyim, so the Rabbanim here mentioned does not mean today's
Rabbanim.)

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

>Now for the chassidishe story, famous even outside of jewish circles I think
>because of the efforts of Elie Wiesel (another sigheter, they're everywhere).
>The story, probabaly more or less well known to most of you, goes that at a
>time when the jews needed a special yeshua from the opressers, the baal Shem
>would go to the woods with a wax candle, do the various yichudim, say the
>tefilos with right kavonos, and the jews would be saved.   The next
>generation,
>the yichudim and kavonos had been forgotten but the great maggid could still
>go
>to the woods in times of danger and say the tefilos, and the jews would still
>be saved.  By the next generation, even the tefilos had been forgotten, but R.
>Moshe leib meSussov (which is the associative connection to the topic we
>started with)  could at least retell the story, and yeshua would still come.
>>>
>This seems to imply that successive generation were greater and greater,
>needing less and less interaction with HaShem to get the desired results.

The exact opposite. Just like we can only say over the korbonas in Musuf and
we pray HaShem will accept them as if they were real sacrifices, so they could
only repeat the story and hope that HaShem would accept that as if they had
done the actions of the previous generations with all ofo their kavannos.

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

>>>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<<<

Ramban writes that Moshe objected "because the water was not theirs [the
shepards]" - implying that Yisro's daughters had a kinyan.  We obviously
disagree on pshat in Ramban here.

-Chaim

On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Rabbi YGB seems to be trying to create a new category of TSN, for which
> he must bring proof.  The question here is whether a Conservative Jew is
> or is not a TSN - if he is, then he has all the classical qualities of
> one.  If he is not, then let us not call him by that name.  The poskim
> who discuss whether such a Jew is a TSN seem to be using the term in its
> classical sense, not inventing old terms for new ideas. 
> 

It is not YGB who created it, it is the modern day Poskim - begining with
the Binyan Zion and contimuing throught the Chazon Ish - who created this
new category. And it is categorically not the sdame as the Tinok
She'Nishba in the Gemara. Some here have made the case that the Rambam was
mechadesh this category vis a vis the Kara'im.

YGB

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

Moshe Shulman wrote:
> 
> >> If you are saying it is rarely the case that a worthy person is chosen, athat
> >> is false. If you are saying that it is rare that a son-in-law is chosen, that
> >> is true, since there are usually sons.
> >This is exactly my point.  Obviously a son will not be chosen if he
> >doesn't have some basic leadership ability for which he is trained from
> >the day he is born.  But if a son in law is more worthy, he will NOT get
> >the nod over a son.A MAJOR FLAW!
> 
> ? I think that you have not read carefully. An unworthy person is not chosen.
> Usually there is at least one son who is worthy. (Not always the eldest.)

I never said that an unworthy son would be chosen, I know that eldest 
sons are sometimes passed over.  What I am trying to get you to admit is 
that a Chasidic dynasty is treated more like a monarchy instead of a 
meritocracy, which would be a more ideal form of passing leadership. The 
Boyaner Rebbe may be a VERY worthy individual and by all accounts, I am 
told he is.(My father was a Boyaner chasid, sort of, late in his life 
and I got to know many of the chasidim in Bnei Brak)  BUT, to reiterate 
what I said earlier, his primary qualification was "blood".  He could 
not have gotten into the game, otherwise.
 
HM

>>>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 primary focus of Tanach is, therefore, the
ethical and religious message <<<

Non-sequitor - percentage of content is not necessarily indicative of primary
focus.  You also create a false dichotomy between ethics (pshat) and law
(derush); does the ethics of Braishis have any meaning if someone does not
adhere to Taryag mitzvos?   

-Chaim

Another thing that bothers me about chasidus is their acceptance of the 
Nusach of the Ari (Nusach Sfard) as their standard form of Tefilos.  Who 
gave the Baal Shem Tov the right to change the Nusach HaTefila of our 
forefathers?  Nusach Ashkenaz is a far older mesorah, dating back to 
the Anshei Kenneses HaGedolah.  The Ari wrote what he considerd to be 
the Nusach al pi HaNistar which he considered to be a higher form of 
Tefila and he based it on his own mesorah, that of the Sfardim.  Yet he 
never adopted this nusach HaTefila for himself, as he had his own 
mesorah.  But the Baal Shem Tov decided that he was going to change the 
Mesorah for his Ashkenazi Jews and adopetrd the nusach that the author 
himself didn't adopt.  Can some one please justify this rift from our 
mesorah?

HM

On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Isaiah Beilin wrote:

> (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. 
> 

We believe in the Nefesh HaChaim. You know that. That means we are not
learning for dveykus. Nor do we feel Emuna Peshuta is the basis from which
Ahavas Hashem develops. We believe in the Rambam's view on Ahavas Hashem.
You know that too. So we do not have a problem with the paradox. Chassidim
do. The Chassidic model, I should say, is not irrational or unreasonable.
It is just different.

> 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.
> 

The Tanya's theory that tzaddikim are predestined, is inimical to all
Misnagdim, and is not, to the best of my knowledge, explicit anywhere in
Chazal. But I know very little. Perhaps you can demonstrate this. I cannot
accept the Tanya's defintion of a tzaddik on other accounts as well. It
leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are all resho'im - not even
beinonim.

YGB

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

Gezel on well water:

Even if the pail which is lowered into the well is not yours,since it is
given to you to make a kinyan, that kinyan will be effective.  Therefore
the daughters of Yisro were koneh via mishicha through by your guess
public utensils.  See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deya 146:3 that a non-Jew is
koneh via mishicha and Choshen Mishpat 200:6 that kinyan mishicha works
even using the utensil of a the owner of the object.  This is similar to
a case where I go to a farm to pick apples.  The owner of the farm lends
me a bag into which to collect the apples.  Since I do not own the bag
it does not give the right to my fellow picker to take from my bag the
apples which I have picked.  Come to think of it this example will
probably turn out to be nezek rather than gezel.

Yitzchok and Esav

I heard an interesting pshat from Rav Ysroel Belsky.  He explained
Yitzchok ahav Esav ki tzyid bifiv as such: Yitzchok knew that Esav was
going Ltarbus raah;  Yitzchok being a concerned father wanted to change
this; Yitzchok tried to draw Esav in by talking to Esav about his
interests; Esav's main interest was hunting;  therefore pshat in the
posuk is Yitzchok drew Esav close to him by talking about hunting.

<<
He asked "do you have any maaser money to give to my Yeshiva?" After
giving an affirmative response he/she got the "bracha".  Brachos for
Money?
>>

Not that I approve of the above story;  However; 2 points:

1) Yitzchok asked Esav to prepare a meal for him before blessing him
"bavur tvarechicha nafshi"  this would seem to imply that the gift was
catalyst for the beracha.

2) When we make a misha berach we ask for something because of of the
Tzedaka we give.  This is based on the posuk of Bechanuni na bezos
(Malachi 3:10).  The one thing we are asked by Hashem to test him with
is maser.


Lastly I must include with one of my favorite non-brocha stories.

It is told that someone once asked a great Rav, whose custom it was not
give brochos, for a bracha.  When the Rav refused, one of the onlookers
protested "but it says 'al tihey birachas hedyot kal b'einecho'". To
which the Rav replied, "so you give him a bracha!".


Kol Tov 
Ezriel

Subject: Gezel on well water
> 
> 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). 

Can one really have a minhag ha'mokom that says that public waters belong only
to the male sheperds to the exclusion of others?
(note that (b) is really part of (a)).

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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 ]