Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 126

Thursday, January 14 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #123
• Re: R. Tzadok
• Re: Avodah V2 #123
• Re: SHOSHONNA - NOOOOO....TRUCE !!
• Re: Chassidishe history - just a few more quibbles for RMS
• Re: Inherited Titles
• Re: In case you haven't had enough about chasidus
• Re: Asei Lecho Rav
• Nusach "Chasidus"
• Re: Teaching Chasidus
• Re: Teaching Chasidus
• Re: Sanctioning Prsyzchka?
• Re: TSN
• contemporary chasidus
• Re: Avodah V2 #125

>> >> 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?
>===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
>learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere
>fact that it is from the "Rebbe's ancestors" does not appear to confer
>special favor.  Instead, what I see here is a convoluted "system" that
>prepetuates certain seforim as "worth learning" and "drops" others.

Again you have decided before handwhat the chassidishe derech is, and then
question what I have said based on that. You still don't realize that you are
wrong about what the derech is.
FOR EXAMPLE:

>===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
>learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere

This is YOUR definition, and not mine. Your mind is essential closed, and you
have no idea of what I am saying because the answers don't fit your
preconceived ideas. That is just not my problem.

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

>> >> >> >===> 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.
>
>===> Your statement here does nto address the issue at all.  Is this what
>you consider "intellectual"?  Or is this part of the "Chassidish
>approach"?
>
>===> You have demonstrated NOTHING.  Essentially, you take the fact that
>R. Tzadok went "on his own" to "prove" your point.  I see no such proof --
>only a "devalue" of R. Tzadok.  That you do not similarly "devalue" the
>Tzanzer Rov only shows that you rather arbitrarily decide who is "of
>significance" and who is not. I would remind you that the original
>discussion was in terms of the value of R. Tzadok's works in understanding
>chassidus.  Your comments above do not address that.
>
>===> I have no problem with the fact that Chassidus comprises different
>derachim (which was NEVER an issue) -- I have a "problem" with the
>apparently arbitrary manner in which you seem to dismiss some material.

Your above three answers are contradictory. If you recognize that there are
different daruchim, then it is obvious that a Rebbe will teach his own, and
not others. Likewise that a follower of one derech will not accept a view that
contradicts the one that he accepts. It is not arbitrary. It is just that it
doesn't fit into what you would like it to be. That is not my problem. If you
want to know what chassidus and that derech is about you have to be open to
hearing what it is and not make up your mind before even hearing what it is
about.


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

>> >===> 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.
>===> I will not try to figure out the "motive" here.  It is recorded
>elsewhere that this WAS considered a "variant" hashkafa -- even if he was
>NOT opposing the BeShT (which I *never* noted anywhere!) AND it was
>considered different enough that even within the Chassidim, there were
>some who opposed him.

There are NO NEW HASHKOFOS in Tanya. There is a NEW DERECH IN AVODAH. It is
NOT a counter hashkofah. I don't klnow of anything in the hashkofah side of
Tanya that I have not heard from my Rebbes. (Maybe you can mention those
things in Tanya that you think represent an hashkofah that I might not agree
with.)

>> >> >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?
>===> It is not at all clear that the [Litvishe] Rosh Yeshiva exerts the
>same influence in terms of what is studied as the Rebbe. (Although, this

It seems to me that you have a mistaken impression on the 'influence' of a
Rebbe on what a chasid learns (as opposed to what he accepts as part of his
derech.)

>may be changing as noted in other posts which indicate that some
>"Chassidishe" behaviors are "infiltrating" the Litvishe world.)  The

That would certainly be an improvemet. :)

>> >> 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.
>===> HKB"H provided us with an intellect to be utilized, as well.  Sounds

Certainly He did. We are also warned not be become baalei gava and think we
know everything. Remember what the Rambam called 'tachlus hayodiah...'

>to me, after all is said and done that you simply "use" the matter of
>"Emunah Pshutah" as a cop-out.  I tried to address your "concerns" above

I am sorry that a fundmental part of Judaism is to you a 'cop-out.' There are
things (like the existance of G-d) that you are required to believe whether
you can prove it or not. Now if your argument is that it is better to be able
to prove it, then I would say that that is not totally true. The reason being
that if you say that you have the emunah peshutah, but are using your
intellect to try and understand, then I have no problem. But if you abandon
the emunah peshutah, then you are stuck with what your intellect can grasp.
And if one could come and give a pirchah to your arguments you have nothing,
and become an apikorus. (And we have seen that this derech had produced this.
Yosef Yavaatz wrote about this in his work when describing how the
philosphers in Spain shmaded out, while this simple people either left or
died al kiddush Hashem.)

>in a reasonably cogent structure.  Your response is -- essentially -- to
>trivialize the whole issue by going back to "Emuna peshuta".  Maybe *this*
>is the real reason that Gedolai Hamisnagdim had so much "difficulty" with
>chassidus.

No, the original opponents meant it l'shem shamoyim. I don't think any 'gadol'
would attack one who had emunah peshutah.

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

>Okay, I'll wait for Errol or Moshe to tell me what Avoda Zara is, but,

Avoda Zara means idol worship.

>Doesn't it mean that if you aren't eating meat on those days because it
>is against your philosophy (which it is by your own definition of how
>you feel about eating meat) that it is not allowed for you to refrain
>from eating meat on Yom Tov etc.  Am I getting this wrong?  It doesn't
>seem from what you are saying this rebbe told you that you are right.
>It seems that Moshe is right.  Sorry, Shoshanna, but that is what I am
>reading and understanding from what you write.

The only point of disagreement is that I think he should look at the MMogan
Avraham in Shulchan Aruch who does say that eating meat on Yom Tov is
required. Otherwise there is really no difference of opinion.

I will no longer post on this subject as it will just get boring.

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

Michael Frankel wrote:

>(clearly rhyziners (now boyaners)

As I recall, my father, who was originally a Chortkover Chasid,  
explained to me that the Ryzhiner dynasty is the all encompassing 
dynasty of this particular Chasidus. Boyan, as well as Sadigura, 
Chortkov and others (which I cannot recall at the moment), are all 
Rhyzhiner Chasidim, who shtam from Avramale Malach, son (grandson?)of 
the Mezritcher Magid. I sure RMS can set me straight here.

HM

Moshe Shulman wrote:

 Why
> should a worthy talmud have precedence over a worthy son?

If he is worthier than the son shouldn't he?  But he won't if the son is 
worthy enough.

All things being equal, I'm in favor of helping out a son. But, as has 
been explained by others on the list, there is no competition for the 
top spot. The bigger Talmud Chacham or, Baal Midos, or greater 
intellect, etc. won't ever get the Rebbeshaft if the son is even halfway 
decent. 

HM

>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?

Harry, before answering let me ask a few questions:

1. What is the difference between Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach 'Chassidim.' (I
include here Chabad and all the other chassidishe siddurim.)

2. What about these differences does not go back to AKH. (I am assuming that
you claim that Ashkenaz goes back to AKH, but that Nusach Sfard does not.)

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

>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?

Much like with Rebbe Akiva, his peers either react or distance themselves from
him.

>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?

One is not a slave. It is not hard to go join another group if you find things
that are not to your likeing.

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

Moshe Shulman wrote:

> Harry, before answering let me ask a few questions:
> 
> 1. What is the difference between Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach 'Chassidim.' (I
> include here Chabad and all the other chassidishe siddurim.)
> 
> 2. What about these differences does not go back to AKH. (I am assuming that
> you claim that Ashkenaz goes back to AKH, but that Nusach Sfard does not.)


1. The differences are in the texts of the various siddurim available 
for anyone to open and see. I need not go into detail for puposes of 
this debate.

2.The truth is that if you are implying that the exact wording cannot be 
traced back to the AKH, you are probably right and I mispoke.  But I was 
reffering more to the fact that NA has longer roots in the Mesoras 
Nusach HaTefila. NS goes back only to the beginnings of Chasiddus.  It 
was Chasidim, whose fathers davened NA, who changed from their mesorah 
and adopted the Nusach HaTefila as interpreted by the Ari.

HM

It must be moshiach's time since a non-Chabad chasid finds himself defending
he derech of Chabad (which he does not follow.)

>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

No one learns FOR dveykus. It comes from learning l'shma. (As the Baal Shem
Tov puts it l'shem HaShem.)

>Ahavas Hashem develops. We believe in the Rambam's view on Ahavas Hashem.

What is the Rambam's view and how do you think it differs.

>> 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

I think you should look again at Tanya. This is a mistatement of what he says.
He divides the idea of being a 'Tzaddik' into two catagories. 1. B'derech klal
with regards reward and punishment, where he states a view that is almost word
for word from hilchos tshuva of the Rambam. 2. With regards to avodah based on
the person's control and possession of a yetzer harah. (I am using the
language in Eitz Chaim, and not Tanya.) One who in his service of HaShem
either has no YH or has it so subjegated as to make it almost non-existant is
a Tzaddik. Some have this by birth while others can acheive this as a gift
from HaShem through hard work.

>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.

Yosef, this is not just an idea in chasidus, when you sin until you do tshuva
you are a rasha. As far as avodah is concerned, as long as the YH has control
over you in any manner, then your avodah is on the level of a rasha. That is
all he is saying. He is not saying that everyone is a rasha who goes to
gehennum etc. 

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

This converstation seems to be winding down, so let me make a few points.

I would like to thank everyone who participated for enlightening me and
expressing pov's that I both agreed and disagreed with. I would like to
highlight R' Zvi Weiss as expressing a pov that I find most consistent
with my own, with arguments that I find most cogent.

I took away from this discussion a heightened awareness of what
"mainstream" Chassidus represents, and why it is - in its totality -
something that will remain foreign to me - while I will continue to bask
in the many points of particular light it provides. I would like to
reiterate that certain peculiarities I once thought unique to Chabad are
now clearly manifest to me as universal Chassidic dogma.

Some he'aros:

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> No one learns FOR dveykus. It comes from learning l'shma. (As the Baal Shem
> Tov puts it l'shem HaShem.)
>

This is not true, as I indicated in the "Forks" essay, the Besht held that
lishma = l'shem dveykus. This also appears in the "Chumros" essay.

 
> What is the Rambam's view and how do you think it differs.
>

The more hisbonnenus in natural sciences and Torah wisdom, the more Ahavas
Hashem - see the second perek of Yesodei HaTorah and the last perek of
Teshuva.
 
> I think you should look again at Tanya. This is a mistatement of what he
> says.  He divides the idea of being a 'Tzaddik' into two catagories. 1.
> B'derech klal with regards reward and punishment, where he states a view
> that is almost word for word from hilchos tshuva of the Rambam. 2. With

That's not the part with which I have a problem.

> regards to avodah based on the person's control and possession of a
> yetzer harah. (I am using the language in Eitz Chaim, and not Tanya.)
> One who in his service of HaShem either has no YH or has it so
> subjegated as to make it almost non-existant is a Tzaddik. Some have
> this by birth while others can acheive this as a gift from HaShem
> through hard work. 
> 

This is the part with which I have a problem. It:

a. Changes the nomenclature we have for these concepts in Chazal.

b. Implies that tzidkus = perfection.

> Yosef, this is not just an idea in chasidus, when you sin until you do
> tshuva you are a rasha. As far as avodah is concerned, as long as the YH
> has control over you in any manner, then your avodah is on the level of
> a rasha. That is all he is saying. He is not saying that everyone is a
> rasha who goes to gehennum etc.
> 

1. There are specific aveiros for which you are called a rasha - otherwise
you are called a choteh. Again, a nomenclature problem.

2. I fully understood that he does not mean resha'im destined to gehinnom.
But the yetzer ha'ra has control over everybody ("kol ha'gadol etc."). I
cannot accept that the avoda of one who is still susceptible to a yetzer
ha'ra is qualitatively that of a rasha.

YGB

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

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Michael Frankel wrote:

> (RMS):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.
> 

I ask this more to RMF than to RMS: Why did the "others" see Kotzk - the
one Chassidus most Misnagdim can relate to! - as a "proof" that Prsyzchka
was dangerous?

> However, by no means was prsyzchka "legitimated' in any of their eyes.
> The chidushei haRim merely prevented the immediate oputbreak of a jihad,
> while the fundamental antagonism persisted.  The Yid had attempted, with
> only mixed success, to stay on good terms with the Chozeh.  But with the
> advent of r.  simcha bunim, for whom the chozeh had no use at all, the
> hostility -on the part of the other rebbes- was unremitting. And then
> when r. Mendel took over -oy. 
> 

What was the problem?

> sartorial statements unknown.  And the alter rebbe's view of the role of
> a rebbe was a whole lot closer to prsyzchka than to lublin or medzibozh. 
> It's my own belief that the intensity of opposition can only be
> explained by behavioral factors which accompanied the p-crowd.  Perhaps
> more on this another time. 
> 

Please!

YGB

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

On 01/13/99 Rabbi YGB wrote:
>
>
>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.
>

This will be my last comment regarding this issue, since Rabbi YGB and I read the
sources so differently.  I do not see that the Rambam or the Chazon Ish created a
new category; they stated that the category of TSN applied to the Karaim, secularists,
etc.  Rabbi YGB insists that they are not shogegim and are therefore different from the
TSN referred to in the Gmora, will not be eligible to bring a chatos, etc. I believe the
texts do not support such an interpretation.

Rambam, Perush Hamishnayos, Chulin 1/2 (Mosad Horav Kook edition)
	But those who were born into these beliefs and were educated according
	to them are like anusim and they have the legal status of a TSN all of
	whose sins are shegogo

Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2/28

	And there is another condition that he should not be an anus, as Rambam
	wrote that their children and students are considered like anusim and TSN, 
	and a TSN brings a sacrifice as it says at the beginning of Klal Gadol

I do not disagree that there is much to be said on the side of those who do not grant
contemporary deviationists the status of a TSN but I believe it to be clear that those
who do use that terminology mean to use it with Halachic precision and in exactly
the sense in which it is used in the Gemara.

Melech	



M. Press, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair
Touro College, 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
Phone: 718-252-7800, x275  Fax: 718-645-1816

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Just a general comment - with all the recent discussion of rebbes > I
find that many roshei yeshiva are becoming more like rebbes.

True, except that they are not 'becoming' and long _are_ just like
rebes. This includes the absence of criticism of the more powerful
roshei yeshives, and the punishments customarily meted out by chasidim
to their opponents being adopted by litvaks.

As I see it the changes have much to do with the geographical changes
brought about by the war. Before the war the chasidim were safely tucked
away in Galicia and Poland where they could practice their respective
brands of yidishkayt and believe it all to be halokhe lemoyshe misinay.
Similarly the litvaks in Lithuania could be as a lax as they liked in
various areas of observance with few or no objections.

All this changed, however, when the two sides were brought together
after the war, and especially so in Israel where the proximity is much
closer.

The chasidim were and are challenged on things like davening minche
after the shkie and davening shachris after zman tfile. Moreover, when
the litvaks had such greats as the chazon ish and the like the chasidim
couldn't quite write off all those who questioned them as semi goyim.

Similarly, the chasidim challenged the litvaks over their ways like the
uncovering of hair of married women, bochurim being oyver on yichud when
going out with girls and other areas where the chasidim specialise in.

Taking this a step further, the litvishe gedoylim must have viewed with
envy the subservience of the chasidim to their rebes while litvaks in
general may have been equally envious of the hotline to God that is the
preserve of every Chosid.

Slowly but surely the intellectual differences -where they at all
existed- all but disappeared and what we have in place is more of a
tribal and feudal system that has little or nothing to do with
yiddishkayt and all to do with the preponderance of power.

While some on this list have tried to explain the minutiae that is
supposed to divide one chasidic court from another few seem to realise
that these issues matter to very few chasidim and even fewer rebes. When
rebes seem to divide their time on acquiring flash motor vehicles,
foreign holidays, second homes and jet setting between continents on
this and that aynikl's chasene one can rest assured that esoteric
machloykesn between the nefesh hachayim and the derech habal shem is not
in the forefront of their minds.

And then there are the moysdes. Corruption and financial mismanagement
aside as this would perhaps be somewhat mitigated if a decent education
was delivered. I was heartened by the newspaper report about the
enormous achievements at the school headed by Shoshana Bechhoffer. But
spare a thought for the tens of thousands of talmidim of chadorim and
yeshives who spend most of their formative years studying little else
than religious texts yet emerge from them unable to express themselves
in any language. Where are all the talmidei chachomim that these
yeshives and kolelim should be producing? This may not be a problem
exclusive to chasides but since other denominations give a grounding in
other subjects the child has at least something out of his education.

I readily concede that there are many positive things about chasidim
such as chesed, warmth and friendliness but when trying to understand
chasides one cannot gloss over these fundamental problems.

David Herskovic

> 
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:34:51 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Irrationality
> 
> >> >> >===> 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.
> >===> My "implication" has been based upon the repsonses that I have
> >received,
> 
> Zvi, you have decided what chassidus is and is not, and no matter what I will
> tell you it makes no difference. The only sense that your questions make is if
> one suspends ones own knowledge of what chassidus is and imagine what you are
> misunderstanding it to be. Since this is a subject you don't know about maybe
> it would be better for you to ASK QUESTIONS about it rather then assume that
> you understand it.

===> I have not "decided" anytihng.  I have repeatedly QUESTIONED the
logical basis for *deciding* which Gedolim were "qualified" (l'havdil) to
be considered "authoritative" in discussing Chassidus (e.g., the notion of
shirayim).  Once again, I will remind all that I got involved because of
what appeared to be the rather cavalier dismissal of the Machshovo of R.
Tzadok...  What I hear is that ultimately, chassidus is whatever a Chassid
*says* that it is whether this is logical, fair, or "proper".  I simply
question this as an approach....  To ultimately say that I cannot
understand it is to state that this is a derech that is FUNDAMENTALLY
illogical or irrational.


> 
> >> >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.
> >===> No discussion -- just a flat statement with no elaboration -- that is
> >intellectual?? Please read the above that I wrote and then re-read what
> >YOU wrote and then explain why Rishonim sought to "explain" Chukim if the
> >idea is as you have written.  *I* have no problem because we ARE expected
> >to TRY to understand everything but OBEY the chok even when we do NOT
> >understand it (that is why I referred to "context" vs. the chok, itself).
> 
> They continually try to give reasons, not THE reason. There are many 'reasons'
> in chassidishe seforim also. But there is a recognition that the 'real'
> reasons are unknown, as Chazal say with regards to the parah adumah.

==> The "real" reason may be unknown -- but the OBSERVANCE is still within
an overall rational and logical framework -- i.e., that we are given
mitzvot which are (ultimately) not comprehended by us [fully] in this
world and we do them as part of Avodas HaBorei.  Again, the OVERALL
approach to the chukim is rational and intellectual.  Of course, you can
describe chassidus in any manner that you wish -- but your attempt to
equate it to chukim (outside of chassidus) seems to fall far short. 


> 
> >> >> 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.
> >==> I did not claim that TSBP was irrational -- however, the methodology
> >that you "presented" re issues raised here DID seem to have such elements
> >in it.  Comparing it to TSBP allows you to avoid answering the direct
> >query.
> 
> No you are saying that because it is a subject that does not appear explained
> in seforim, that it is irrational. (That is where the word irrational was
> first used by you.) Chassidus is a derech, some things are mentioned in
> seforim, but the ikkar is not (as was discussed in a previous post.) BTW
> Chazal recognized that such things exist when they forbade learning Kabbulah
> to large numbers of people. Some things need special situations in which to
> accuratly relate the meaning.

===> I certianly used the temr "irrational" but NOT because it is not
explained in Seforim but because the explanations that I have received are
not well-grounded in intellectual rigor.  This has nothing to do with
Kabbala and (to me) it appears that your citation of such is simply an
attempt to avoid the base issue:
The choice of Seforim that describe Chassidus as being "worthy" and
"useful" for such understanding.  given (from other posts) that there are
different derachim in Chassidus, there still appear to be concepts that
are more "common" among derachim and a sefer that discusses such should
not be dismissed simply because the author did not have a "big following"
to carry on.

--Zvi


> 
> - -- 
> 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 ]