Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 127

Thursday, January 14 1999

• Nusach
• NS parantheses
• Two emails about sickness and tephillah
• Re: Avodah V2 #125
• Re: Avodah V2 #126
• Re: Avodah V2 #126
• Nuschaos
• Rhyziner dynasty
• Re: Two emails about sickness and tephillah
• Nefesh Hachayim-1

>>
I didn't say there was a halachic problem.  R. Moshe clearly states so 
in his teshuva.  It just bvothers me that this change was established 
because:
A) This was a clear break from the Mesorah of their fathers and the 
halachic question is on them.  And, B) The Porshim Min HaTzibur aspect.

HM<<

And some non-Orthodox Jews used the change in the Nusach by Chassidim as a 
precedent justifying their own tampering with the nusach...

I say this from a HISTORICAL perspective not a halachic one.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 

>>NS siddurim have many parentheses in them. Do you leave them 
out? Do you say them? Weren't the Chasidic Masters, (when they changed 
from the mesorah of their fathers and established NS)<<

bepasthus these are laternate nushaos.

EG at the end there is a Musach Bishlomeicho (similar to NA) and there is a 
Nusach berov Oz v'shalom.  while it's an iether or, some say both. I don't know 
if they say both because they are ovehi sholom and this is a brocho re: sholom 
so they don't take sides <big smile> or because of plain old am haratzus!

IOW there were a number of variations of NS and Nuscah Ari, which is probably 
what prompted the Baal haTanyo to edit his Siddur to come up with ONE definitive
version.

And BTW there are variations within NA although far fewer.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

There is a list for these things, cholim@torah.org. However, these two requests
struck me. The first, because of the fame of the cholim, and the second,
because it confirms personal anecdotal evidence.

-mi

PS: "Vaad HaChinuch HaOlami of NY"? A tad oxymoronic, no?

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6034 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 14-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

: From: Yitzchak Dorfman <dorfy@netvision.net.il>
: Subject: Cholim

: Dear Chevre,

: Please include the following two names in your list of cholim, and have
: them in mind in Shmoneh Esre and for mi-Shebeirachs:

: 1.  The Bostoner Rebbe of Har Nof and Boston, is in the hospital in
: Florida.  His name is RAV LEVI YITZCHAK BEN SARA SOSHA.

: 2. The son of the Modzitzer Rebbe, is in New York preparing for his son's
: wedding there in a few weeks.  He was also hospitalized recently.  His name
: is RAV CHAIM SHA'UL BEN RACHEL.

: May we all enjoy good health soon, Thanks a million,
: Yitzchak 

 				  * * *

: From: Yehuda Poch <ypoch@torah.org>
: To:   Cholim List <cholim@torah.org>
: Subject:  *Yom Tefillah* - Day of Prayer - Called for this Sunday

: (C) Project Genesis...

: SUDDEN DEATH, CANCER, TRAGIC ACCIDENTS
: It is time for Klal Yisrael to respond!

: This Sunday, Erev Rosh Chodesh, the eve of the month of Shvat, has been
: declared a Yom Tefilla by leading Rabbonim and Roshei HaYeshiva due to the
: overwhelming rate of tragedies in our communities. In order to strengthen
: everyone in Teshuva and Tefilla, repentance and prayer, many communal
: gatherings have been arranged.

: Please see if your community can join this effort with a gathering dedicated
: to Teshuva and Tefilla. No special Psalms have been designated.

: Endorsed by: Rav Avraham Pam, Rav Elya Svei, Rav Shmuel Birenbaum, Rav
: Avigdor Miller, Rav Harrari Raful, Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Malkiel Kotler,
: Novominsker Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Weinberg, Rav Tuvia Goldstein, Rav Zelig
: Epstein, Rav Elya Ber Wachtfogel.

: Sponsored by:   Vaad HaChinuch HaOlami of NY
: L'ilui Nishmas: Elozar ben Aharon Shalom a"h Brodt

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:35:05 -0600 owner-avodah@aishdas.org (Avodah)
writes:
>
>Avodah           Wednesday, January 13 1999           Volume 02 : 
>Number 125
>
>
>
>
>
>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:38:45 -0500 (EST)
>From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
>Subject: Paradoxes
>
>There is however, a different paradox. Not specific to Chassidus, but 
>inherent
>in movements in general.
>
>The point of a movement is to revitalize yiddishkeit by breaking out 
>of the
>rut and reattaching one's daily life to the grand tachlis. This was 
>certainly
>the intent of the Besht, R' Yisroel Salanter, R' SR Hirsch, etc.. when 
>they
>founded their respective movements.
>
>However, the success of a movement guarantees that it will become the 
>new rote.
>A first generation or even second generation chossid has a very 
>different
>relationship with Chassidus than the grandchild does. His relationship 
>to
>Chassidus (or mussar, or whatever) faces the same challenges the 
>movement
>itself was created to overcome.
>
>(L'havdil, a similar problem faced the kibbutz movement. Not enough of 
>the
>grandchildren who raised to the lifestyle embrased the ideals enough 
>to want
>to sacrifice for them.)
>
>It would seem, therefore, that there's a need for new movements or 
>sub movements
>(e.g. a new kind of Chassidus) every third generation. Unfortunately, 
>we're
>currently running a tad low on Besh"t's, Salanters and Hirsches.
>
==============> }}}}I don't think that the Baal Shem Tov or R'Yisroel
Salnter would express their movements in such a manner rather, a new
movement in Emesseh yiddishkeit takes an under utilized aspect of the
Derech Yirael Sabba and permanently fixes it into the day to day Avodah
of the Jewish people. It should become habit with trips back to the MAKOR
for recharges of the Fire that every movement does indeed have in a great
measure  at its inception.This is done- by plain old fashioned Kavvanah
-i.e.focus on the meaning as to why we do what we do everyday.

Shlomo Yaffe }}}}}   <==================================================


>
>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:29:12 -0600 (CST)
>From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
>Subject: Re: Lubavitch - closing thoughts
>
>> At the same time, I think that
>>it is necessary to show some rachmanut, especially for the 
>Lubavitcher on
>>the street (or sitting next to you) that may be under great strain 
>because
>>of all this (or may be in denial re the Rebbe's p'tira).
>
>This seems very strange to me. The Lubavitcher is not the first (or 
>only)
>Rebbe who has died in my lifetime. I have not heard in Ger or Satmar 
>(groups
>of similar size) such widespread psychological problems. If there is 
>something
>wrong it needs to be addressed/
>
>>I don't think that there is much more that can be done from the 
>outside.
>>Ultimately it will be Lubavitchers that determine the future of 
>Lubavitch,
>>for the good of the Jewish world or the opposite.
>
>I agree, and that is why the majority of Rebbes have just not stated 
>anything
>openly.

================>}}}}}}}} I do not see that Lubavitch is suffering from
"psychological crises"

Lubavitch is stronger than ever .The Lubsvitcher Rebbe's words remain as
effective as they were Bechayim Chayuso Bealma Dain. The Yeshivos
Worldwide are growing in Kamos and Aichos

Look at the Heichal Menachem library in Boro Park packed with frume
yidden from all circles thirsting to learn the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Torah
teachings. In communities throughout the world the interest by Frum and
Chassidish people in Toras Chabad is Burgeoning as they seek the Nishmoso
De'oraysa in a way accesible to them (Ki KarovEilacha....) .

In addition, in the the realm of the of kiruv 350 new Chabad Houses have
been founded worldwide since the Histalkus! Thousands of Baalei Teshuvah
have returned through Chabad's efforts  Le'Avihem She'bashamoyim just in
the last 5 years.

Furthermore there is an enormous amount of Loshon Hara and Motzei Shem Ra
out there against Chabad- are all Halachos nullified when it comes to
Lubavitch?

The question not why are the other Chassidim not coming out against
Chabad- It is where are our brothers in the Derech Habaal ShemTov to
defend Chassidus Against our detractors. 

Remember- When the Baal Hatanya was arrested he took the effects of the
Murderous slander of the misnagdim upon himself and sat betfisah  for the
sake of all of the Chassidim. 

History is repeating itself, The attacks begin with Chabad and will end
with delegitmising all of Chassidus. Soon all of us (Boyan,Viznitz , Ger,
Whoever) will be declared beyond the pale by the self proclaimed owners
of "Daas Torah" (more correctly "Daas Turoh"(Aramaic))

                    ES ACHAI ANOCHI MEVAKESH!!!!!!

      Shlomo Yaffe }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
<========================
 


>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:31:11 -0600 (CST)
>From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
>Subject: Re: Rebbe Peer Pressure
>
>>>2) his peers (ie other rebbes)
>>Yes.<<
>>I'm just curious (please be mochel me for opening up another can of 
>worms..)
>>Were any non-Chabad rebbes moche the Lubavich Meshichist strain?  Of 
>course it's
>>possible it was done beseiser, but it any one (R. M. shulma perhaps) 
>aware of
>>any macho'o re: the Meshichists?
>
>1. Lubavitch has been isolated from all other Rebbes for a long time. 
>There
>has been no real interaction. There may be occasional visits (based on
>protocol)

===============> }}}}}}}}}}how can we judge the Kavannah of the visit of
one Tzadik to Another (ma zeh Protocol?)? It is a fact that the
Lubavitcher Rebbe had very close ties with numerous Chatzeiros of
Chassidim (Kloisenberg, Ger, Bobov are just a few that come to mind.)
Just because they were at times somewhat Betzinah  is no rayah- "Kevod
Elokim Hester Dovor"
Shlomo Yaffe         
}}}}<==================================================

 but that is it. 2. I have heard many private things.

============> }}}}Please, some examples- Shlomo Yaffe
}}}}<==================
>- -- 
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>

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

> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #123
> 
> >> >===> 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.

===> As I repeatedly point out: I have not decided ANYTHING.  However, it
appears that to rigorously question "Chassius" as RMS is explaining it is
considered a "decision".



> 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.

===> Please note that RMS was the one who had pointed out that the Rebbe
tells one what to learn.  I did not mention it until he brought it up.
Apparently, following up on a pooint that RMS, himsele, had mentioned
earlier is a sign of a "closed mind".  Similarly, it appears that
intellectual rigor isnow defined as being "closed minded".  It is
precisely this sort of "fluffy" approach that is problematic.

--Zvi

> --------------------
> Subject: Re: R. Tzadok
> 
> >
> >===> 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.
===> Please elaborate upon what is contradictory in my formulations.
OTOH, there is a question about "chassidus" in general.  It is in THAT
context that I raised the issue of "authoritative seforim".  If you state
that there is NO SINGLE derech of Chassidus -- that regardless of the
"original derech" (whatever that is) of the BeShT -- there are now a
whole bunch of deraching that MAY have some point of commonality -- only
by the merest coincidence -- then I can certainly understand that for one
hwo holds form a particular derech, only the source material for that
derech is valid.  Similarly, if a Gadol was not zocheh to establish his
own "dynasty", then it is quite possible that his seforim and machshovo
will not be a part of anyone else's derech (and be lost).
HOWEVER, this is vastly different from trying to talk about "Chassidus" as
a generic system of thought.  It is when you try to talk about "Chassidus"
in an overall sense that your formulations become problematic to me.

--Zvi


> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 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.)

===> Please clarify how you differntiate between "Hashkofa" vs. "Derech".
The particular point that I had in mind was that the Alter Rebbe taught
that it was nto adequate for a Talmid simply to be "misdabek" with the
Rebbe and "ascend" through the Rebbe's Avoda but that the Talmid, himself
had to "work" as well.  this was in contrast to other "Schools of thought"
that it was adequate simply to "cling" to the Rebbe.  This was cited by R/
Zevin ZT"L (who apparently was a reasonable "expert" in ChaBaD thought).

> 
> 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.)

===> Please clarify.  Since the rebbe appears to be "shaping" or
"defining" the Talmid's derech, it seems that the "influence" would be
very very strong on the Talmid.


> 
> >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 doubt it.  There really is a "Litvish system" and adopting
something because of "popularity" is not necessarily a good idea.

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

===> As I noted earlier, that appears to be a function of hunility rather
than non-use of the intellect.


> 
> >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 compare the non-intellectual (or "irrational") aspects of your
system to Emuna in HKB"H is not gaava????


> 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.)

===> Again, there is a misunderstanding.  I do not question the value of
"emuna peshuta" -- however, that does not mean that one's entire hashkafa
should have a non-intellectual component.  Furthermore, as repeatedly
pointed out (and ignored), one can have an intellectual approach and at
the same time understand the LIMITS of the intellect.  You do not appear
to address this issue -- preferring instead to simply discuss "abandoning"
Emuna Peshuta...



> 
> >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.

===> The Gedolim did not attack Emuna Peshuta -- but that did not mean
that the entire system of thought should be based upon "non-intellect".  

--Zvi

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:19:29 +0000
From: David Herskovic <david@arctic1.demon.co.uk>
Subject: contemporary chasidus

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


==============> }}}} There are many broad and sweeping accusations here
and I do not recognise them in the Chassidim of all stripes whom I know.
However on the whole it is not the chassidim who spend their whole lives
in Kollel being supported by others and those Chassidim whose life is not
as Klei kodesh tend to engage - often very succesfully in Parnoso "Veyafe
ToraH IM Derech Eretz".

If we are to have useful dialogue on this group we can be open and frank
bu we also need to bring proofs for our opnions that are factually based.
I remeber when Baley Batim in Lubavitch tried to buy the Lubavitcher
Rebbe A new car to replace his rather old one the Rebbe was very forceful
and made them get rid of it very quickly (because these Mosros have no
meaning). This is the approach of Chassidus.

By the way The Talmidei chachomim are all over the place .Open up the
Kovtsei Chidushei Torah from the Bochrim or Yungelait of Ger, Lubavitch,
Skver etc.and you will see them very quickly.

Shlomo Yaffe {{{{
<=========================================================== 

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

>>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<<

That would be a BIG oversimplification.  NS can be demonstrated to be rooted 
into some very old traditions.  BTW one of my history professors (I believe Dr. 
J. Reiner) claimed that the Sephardic Nusach is older than is the Ashkenaz.  
(for the record I do not agree, but I don't have the proof handy.)

For what it's worth, I heard that the Rav favored the Ato Konanto Nusach (NS) 
over Amitz Koach (NA) because its Kor'im more closely matched that of the TB. 
(Professor Irving Agus maintained that Bnei Ashkenaz had mesoros as old as TB 
that did not match TB... he posited they more cloesly matched TY...)   

Where I agree with 100% is what gave the early Chassidim the right to abandon 
their Minhog Avosom?  And I suspect that this en masse abondonment of Minhog 
Avos caused a major disruption in Mesoro...

OTOH it is clear that R. Nosson Adler davened (some form of) Nusach ari while in
Frankfurt, also  that some mekubollim even in Ashkenaz switched from NA to 
Nusach Ari or NS.  OTOH the Chassidim in Wien and Oberland stuck to NA...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Michael Frankel wrote:
 >(clearly rhyziners (now boyaners)

H. Maryles wrote:
<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>

Well, your father is correct.  Rhyzin is indeed the ancestral dynasty for a
bunch of related guys.  Basically the Rhyziner's sons became the admorim in
Sadigora (where the Rhyziner himself lived after sneaking out of Russia, where
he was under a kind of town arrest in Rhyzin because of continued suspicion by
police of his involvement in a murder), Tchortikov, Husiatin, Stephanesht (kind
of petered out), and Leova (rather short lived).  R. Yitzchoq of Boyan is
actually a grandson of R. Yisroel (son of R. avrohom of sadigora). I certainly
didn't mean to imply that Boyan was the only continuation of Rhyzin, rather
that ancestral machloqisim - the Rhyziner and Chernobyler (though michutonim)
used to have at it, have resurfaced in a kind of way. I was contrasting the
reluctance of the Boyaners to accept R. Prof Breyer as a potential rebbe
because of his academic achievements with that of the Chernobyler descendents,
whose most recent talner admor was a distinguished professor holding a chair at
harvard.  And R. Avrohom "Malach"was the son -not grandson - of the maggid, the
father of R. sholom shachne, and the grandfather of Y. Yisroel Rizhiner. There
is no taxonomical reason at all to account the dynasty as stemming from the
malach. better choices are either the maggid himself, or his great grandson R.
Yisroel, since of him you might say that meshom yiporeid vihoyoh liarba ruchos.
 

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

I believ it is considered improper to say "Rav" in a tefilla for a Choleh
- even harmful. someone should notify the owners of those lists.

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> There is a list for these things, cholim@torah.org. However, these two
> requests struck me. The first, because of the fame of the cholim, and
> the second, because it confirms personal anecdotal evidence. 
> 

YGB

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

 I decided in honor of YGB who is a follower of Rav C. Mivolozyn to teach some
  chasidus al pi the Nefesh Hachayim. Today, we will discuss what kavonos he
  suggests for limud hatorah. I am sure that the Olom knows all this and I
  am preaching to the choir.

 In Shaar 4  ch 4 he deveops the gemoroh in Shabos 31a "amar resh
lokish-vhoyoh
 emunas itecha ... vafilu hochi yiras hashem hi otzro" Isaiah (33:6) amunas
= zeroim
 itecha = moed etc. but yirah is the otzor. In the following discussion he
develops
 the idea that yirah is like a barn. One cannot take wheat unless he has a
place to
 put it. If you buy clothes and do not have a closet it won't fit. First,
you get the
 barn and closet and then you get the products. You buy a house and then the
 furniture. You get yirah and then the torah has a place to reside.

 Therefore, in ch. 6 he suggests that a person before begining to learn
should 
  (a) Do teshuva. A baal averah cannot unite with kudsha brich hu.
  (b) mechaven lhisdabek blimudo bo -bo bkudha brich hu and by being misdabek
       in the words of the torah he is attaching himself to the Almighty.
  (c) he should feel that every word he utters lematoh it is as if the
Almighty is
       saying it above.

  In ch 7 he suggests pausing from time to time and renew this connection.
     It is not enough once a day.

  I will stop now. The devekus is required-even by learning. He is more
machmir than 
  chasisim.

 Shaya Beilin 

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


[ 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 ]