Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 110

Tuesday, January 5 1999

• [none]
• Tinok Shenishba Today?
• Re: Avodah V2 #109
• Chabad
• Re: Tinok Shenishba Today?
• R' Shternbuch's Sources
• Re:Lying
• RE: Lying
• making the bracha when the mitzva is done early
• Re: Members of the Agudah Moetzes
• Info-Thanks
• Re: Avodah V2 #109
• Re: R' Shternbuch's Sources
• Re:
• Re: Avodah V2 #109
• Re: potatoes
• Re: Addendum to Forks2, Halacha Section
• Re: Avodah V2 #107

I think we have almost exhausted this round of the Chabad discussions.
However I would like to share one or two points.

First is seems some of you and not very moved by our efforts with the
Moshistim. Rabbi Teitz has a uncle who had a friend who asked him to sign a
document etc. etc. years. ago etc. etc. Any of you can find a person in one
of your communities with a Yechie Yamulke or bumper sticker that confirms
your worst ideas.

Let me share a story on this issue.

Some 10-12 years ago Rabbi Yehuda Yeruslavksy, Mazkir of the Beis Din
Rabbonie Chabad in Israel received a phone call from the Rebbe's secretary
Rabbi Hodakov. He was the 'secretary of state of Lubavitch" a call from him
was considered as a call requested by the Rebbe. He wanted to know how the
Beis Din (the Rebbe had set up that the Beis Din would be the overall
authority over Lubavitch Mosdos in Israel) allowed the publication of a
booklet claiming the Rebbe as Moshiach. Yuraslavsky had not seen the booklet
and told Rabbi Hodkov that. Hodakov was not sastified and demanded the Beis
Din look into it.
Yuraslavky tried to "farenfer" and then he heard the Rebbe on the phone (a
rare occasion) raising his voice. The Rebbe was very distressed and angry
and told Yuraslavksy "it is lying on my desk, how could this be printed,
collect all copies and destroy it etc. etc." Understandably all copies where
destroyed.
I heard the story from Rabbi Yuraslavsky directly.

The same fellows who printed that booklet years ago have continued their
meshugas despite the fact that the Rebbe answered two of them (there where
three fellows who put it out, one of them is not alive) separately to cease
and desist any efforts to link him to Moshiach and be involved in any
activity of Moshiach etc. etc. ( A few weeks ago there was one of these
answers posted around Crown Heights where the Rebbe at length berates Rabbi
Sholom Ber Volper of Kiryat Gat to stop )

Some in Lubavitch argued that  things changed after the famous Sicha to the
28 of Nissan when he spoke on Moshiach. Some months later, after the Rebbe
suffered from the stoke the issue was debated in Lubavitch. I was tired of
all the talking and debating and decided to ask the Rebbe directly. I
composed a letter with a series of yes no questions on the issue of
Moshiach.  I wanted to know from the Rebbe directly (by the way I did this
after a long discussion and debate with my friend  Y YKazen A"H, of Chabad
of Cyberspace) what he wanted. The prime question was the shitah of the
Moshistim about promoting him as Moshiach, he resounding answer was "NO".
The next day the Rebbe's Mazkir, Rabbi Laibel Groner called me and asked me
if he could publicize my answer. I told him yes and he made it known and it
cooled down the meshugayim for a few months.

Lubavitch is a community that has opened its doors to anyone and everyone.
So we inherited all kinds of people. You can find them saying all kinds of
things. The Rebbe made his Schluchim  his representatives and emissaries.
From them you find his true message.

I was also disgusted -I know this is harsh but warranted by the following
statement of Zvi Weiss

"Various Christianities and Islam are also successful in sending missions
all over the world.  Does that make them correct?  It's an argument from
an irrelevancy.  We know that Chabadniks are very strong in their faith.
So?"

How do you have the chuzpa to compare the work of Schluchim dedicated to
bringing Jews  back to Yiddishkiet with Mesiras Nefesh to such groups.  Is
our work to be compared to theirs as correct or not. Do you have no shame.
Or has your hostility to Chassidus and Chabad blinded you so. For this you
need to a special Al Chiet on Yom Kippur.

My point in that posting about the actions of Schluchim and the inaction of
most of the frum world, is that was Jews we have a responsibility to all
Jews. I know that there has been a shift of attitudes in the Frum world, but
still much needs to be done. Nor do take away from the dedication of those
in Kollels who have dedicated their lives to Limud Hatorah. Still the point
is not flag waving. But each Jew carries a responsibility for Klal Yisroel
and should try to do something about it. While I have found the debate on
MInhagim of Baalie Teshuva interesting and a nice intellectual debate the
problems is not minhag avos. Most Jews today are three, four and even more
generations removed from the minhag avos, not even their grandparents know
what it was. They are assimilating faster than we can imagine.

Dovid Eliezrie

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Firstly, we call even "shanu u'pirshu's" tinokos she'nishbu.
> Secondly, we regard them as tinokos she'nishbu even if they have been
> exposed to our heritage and still reject it.
> Thirdly, we live in far greater proximity and closeness - both in terms of
> being family related and having dealings with - the "frei" than Kara'im
> and Rabbani'im ever did.

The above concern seems reflected in the Igros Moshe. O.H V 28.22  page 103
Concerning making an eruv with the intent of saving the irreligious from sin
since they were tinok shenisba He says "...and also today the majority of
those who profane Shabbos are kofrin in the entire Torah so that perhaps
everybody would agree that there is no obligation and even no mitzva to strive
to create an eruv for them. But perhaps for the sake of those that don't know
anything -  for those whose sinfulness and even their kefira comes from their
being raised by sinners and therefore there would be a benefit or even mitzva
to save them from sin by making the eruv since they are shogeg? They are,
however, not really shogeg. Even though they were educated by their parents to
sin and be heretics - NEVERTHELESS THEY SEE AND KNOW SHOMREI TORAH AND MITZVOS
and they know that there are gedolim and more intelligent and rational people
than their parents - THEREFORE IT IS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO
OBLIGATION TO SAVE THEM FROM SIN...


                                                           Daniel Eidensohn

                                                      Daniel Eidensohn

> 
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:38:02 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #106
> 
> In a message dated 1/4/99 12:59:18 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > ==> I am not sure that this is considered part of the Mitzva of Tzedaka.
> >  Note that it is described as *Gemillus Chesed*.
> >  The Netziv is pretty explicit in other places that Gemillus chesed is part
> >  of the "norm" for the entire world -- Not just for Jews.  He cites Olam
> >  Chesed Yibaneh.  He discusses the sin of S'dom.  And, he *contrasts* the
> >  Chesed that Yisrael does with the chesed done by Umos Ha'olam.
> 
> According to the RaN S'dom was punished for not doing Tzedakah, that is his
> proof that a BN is obligated in Tzedakah, however there are different opinions
> as I pointed out in an earlier post, in any case the Gemoroh says that the
> *Chesed* of a non Jew is Cheit, (since it is done for selfish reasons) so
> RCB's question Bmkomoy Omedes.

===> The gemara appeared to apply this specifically to the instance of a
Jew accepting Tzedaka from a Non-Jew -- that in *that context* there is an
apsect of "Cheit" since the jew should only be accepting from other Jews.
It is not clear that this applies to ANY act of Chesed that a Nochri may
do AND it seems that the Netziv would clearly reject your formulation. As
a side point: am I to understand that you feel that all the nochrim who
helped/save Jews during the Sho'ah were actually *sinning* by so doing???
You do not think that they were among the "Righteous of the World"???


> >  
> >  ====> Are you referring to the Mihag of the *parents* (or their immediate
> >  ancestors) or to the "Upshtam", in general?  My *impression* (at least for
> >  NCSY) is that they are most concerned that the person not "move too fast"
> >  and then decide to "chuck it all".
> >  
> 
> I am referring to those parents or grandparents that would create the
> obligation of following their Minhogim.
> 
> WRT chucking it all just like Shabbos can be explained so too other things
> Eloh Vos Den too many Shitos would scare someone (even if it is Minhag
> Avoisuv) that is the same for Lubavitch.

===> Please clarify.

> 
> Are you saying that once they are already frum (in who's ever hands thaey may
> be then) it would be obligatory to inform them of Minhag Avosom, (minhag Ovos
> isn't Bottul Broiv).

===> Yes.  Once the B"T has been able to actually accept Torah U'mitzvos
-- it would seem obligatory (at least in some instances) to "bring  them
back" to their family minhagim -- esp. if there are still frum relatives..

--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
> ------------------------------
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #108
> 
> In a message dated 1/4/99 3:11:49 PM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:
> 
> > ===> Who said that it is "permitted" to "not tell" someone about his
> >  parent's minhagim??  Even if that is the case, why would the B"T be
> >  "uneasy" in his/her "frum environment" by hearing about minhagim?  Seems
> >  to me that *if* one is making such an effort to be mekarev Jews *to
> >  Yiddishkeit*, the environment should NTO be one that would a B"T to be
> >  "uneasy" with his/her minhagim.
> >  
> > 
> I was referring to R' Sternbuchs position.

===> Since I did not see R. Sternbuch, I would appreciate it if you could
elaborate.  Did he actually mean that you should not inform the B"T at
all???


> 
> A BT needs a home in most cases the parents totally reject the BT, the house
> of his Mkareiv becomes his, likewise that community becomes his, making him
> standout as different places him in danger of falling out. when they are more
> secure they normally do search back to find pride in their past history, and
> then make a knowledgeable dicision.

===> I think that this really depends upon many factors and it is simply
not proper to generalize.


> 
> As to the actual opinions in Halacha, perhaps one will quote the different
> opinions mentioned by R' Sternbuch.

===> that would certainly be helpful.
--Zvi

> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind

I see we are not making any more headway here than one makes in real life:

The non-Lubavitchers are appalled by the Lubavitch Moshichisten and want
to talk substance, and (some of!) the Lubavitchers defend the movement
obliquely, basically: "Hey, we do so much kiruv, we must be good." While
R' Eliezrie responded indignantly, I think RZW's point was correct-
efficient and successful kiruv does not prove anything theologically.

This much I would like to end off with:

I would say to Lubavitchers, beware.


This morning the 6:45am minyon at the shul where I give Daf Yomi, Bnei
Ruven, the central Lubavitcher Shul here, had a bris by the leading
Moshichist in town. It had all the Yechi paraphenalia - posters, leaflets,
flags - and the requisite "Yechi's" at the end of davening. The wife of
this Moshichist is the principal of the Lubavitch Girls High School here,
and she answers her phone "yechi ha'melech." She essentially has torpedoed
all cooperative events with other girls' high schools in town by insisting
on a Dvar Moshiach before the common events.

After the minyon, a non-Lubavitcher who davened there, not a kana'i, asked
me if was muttar to daven there. He felt that he had been to another
world. We jokingly agreed that a Unitarian Church might be closer to
Judaism. It is a sad joke.

You can apologize all you please. The reality is that this trend is
accepted in the main Lubavitcher Shul, in the Mosdos HaChinuch, and, I
happened to see the main Lubavitcher Sholiach in Illinois at Shul this
morning - I am pretty sure for the bris, since he has his own minyon
elsewhere.

Inevitably, it is just a matter of time before, sadly, I will be forced by
encroaching Moshichistianism to leave Bnei Ruven, after 8 plus years and
counting.

It is not my place to tell you what you have to so. You may really
believe, naively, that working behind the scenes suffices. Oh well. The
reality is that eventually a rift will occur. I say this, without malice,
with sadness, without endorsing necessarily what others have said here,
but with "yei'ush."

YGB

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

Daniel Eidensohn quotes R' Mosheh (I"M O.H V 28.22  page 103):
>                                                                        They
> are, however, not really shogeg. Even though they were educated by their
> parents to sin and be heretics - NEVERTHELESS THEY SEE AND KNOW SHOMREI
> TORAH AND MITZVOS and they know that there are gedolim and more intelligent
> and rational people than their parents

I wonder when this t'shuvah was written. I might argue that the non-frum Jew
of the 80s and 90s no longer fits R' Moshe's description. Today, the frum Jew
is portrayed as a right wing fanatic, a fundamentalist, whose opinions can be
summarily dismissed.

Thanks to "Who is a Jew", many of their "Rabbis" preach hatred of Orthodoxy
from their pulpits.

Ever see the Israeli media's portrayal of R' Avodyah Yosef?

I don't think they "know that there are gedolim and more intelligent and
rational people than their parents". At least, not anymore.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6026 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 5-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>As to the actual opinions in Halacha, perhaps one will quote the
different
>opinions mentioned by R' Sternbuch.

For the benefit of the list, here are the marei m'komos cited in Rav
Shternbuch's Teshuva (Vol.1 #354)

Pischei Teshuva, Yoreh Deah Sof Siman 214
Teshuva Me'Ahava Vol. 2 Siman 59 (argues)

Gilion Maharsha in the name of the Chavos Yair siman 126.

Carry on.
Raffy Davidovich

___________________________________________________________________
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]

 	Regarding the issue of lying for a noble purpose: See Shoot Chasam
Sofer vo.6 no.59 where he discusses Yaadov's deceptive behavior and its
application to real life. Also see Mogein Avrohom O"C 156. Shoot Tora
Lishmo 364 cites every place in chazal (Bavli, yerushalmi and Midrash)
where Chazal permitted or personally engaged in deception. See also Shoot
Rav Po'olim vo.3 Ch"m 1 a treatment on where to draw the line. See also
Shoot Yabia Omer Vo.2 Ch"M 3.

	If my memory serves me correctly, someone metioned the issue of
Aveirah Lishmo on conjunction with the issue of lying lishmo. Bemchilas
kevod toroso, the issue of Aveirah lishmo (Nozir and Horoyos) deals with an
aveirah which is mutar, not because it is lishmo but because of pikuach
nefesh, such as the example depicted in the sugyiah there with regard to
Yael and Sisro (See Shoot Maharik 167 about this). It seems that the
exemption of Chazal to lie for various reasons (like sholom or self
protection or other spiritual cause) is unique to the issur of sheker.

	It always bothered me why the issur of sheker would be an
exception. Take for instance the issur of geneivo, no one would consider
the commitment of geneiva a neutral act if it where commited with noble
intentions. See for example Brochos 5b where rav chisda tried to steal from
his workers because they  stole from him and was then  rebuked by his
colleagues:"Bosor ganvo g'nov ve'taame to'im"( This was not just midas
chassidus.See Mordechai begining Hameiniach (B"K) where derives an
interesting din from this gemoro), even though in a similar case reganding
sheker it would be mutar (see B"M 27b for example).

	BTW,  sheker is according to the Semag a violation of a mitzvas
assei of "Midvar sheker tirchok" and the Chofetz CHaim in Shmiras Haloshon
(ch.13?) cites him le'halocho.

	 Eli.

> 	It always bothered me why the issur of sheker would be an
> exception. Take for instance the issur of geneivo, no one 
> would consider
> the commitment of geneiva a neutral act if it where commited 
> with noble
> intentions. See for example Brochos 5b where rav chisda tried 
> to steal from
> his workers because they  stole from him and was then  rebuked by his
> colleagues:"Bosor ganvo g'nov ve'taame to'im"( This was not just midas
> chassidus.See Mordechai begining Hameiniach (B"K) where derives an
> interesting din from this gemoro), even though in a similar 
> case reganding
> sheker it would be mutar (see B"M 27b for example).
> 	 Eli.
> 

I heard Rabbi Sholom Gold (Toronto/New York/Har Nof) explain that the
Torah's definition of sheker isn't lying (= saying something contrary to
known facts). Rather it's saying something that's contrary to G-d's will.
Emmes is saying something that is G-d's will. There are occassions when
saying something that's contrary to known facts (what the dictionary would
call a lie) is G-d's will. These include lying to not pay an unjust tax,
lying to induce chalitza, et al.

Avi Pechman

  a question for those who daven before zman tefila and zman talit/tefillin.
I assume that some mitzvot one is mekayem if he's already doing them when
the zman begins---namely talit ,tefilin, and lulav    [ there may be more
examples  e.g. early hadlakat neirot--- but there the bracha lehadlik
couldn't be made afterthe hadlaka }  .   my question is must one make the
bracha at the instant the zman arrives, or is later okay?  i.e. one was
already mekayem the mitzva at the second the zman arrived; is the bracha
then superfluous? would a machshava not to be yotze until one makes the
bracha help?

thanks for the help

Lawrence M. Reisman wrote:
> 
> Dear Michy:
> 
>     Per your request, the members of the American Moetzes are:
> 
>         Novominsker Rebbe  (Rabbi Yaakov Perlow)
>         Mattersdorfer Rov (Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld)
>         Rav Mordechai Gifter (Telshe-Cleveland - largely inactive due to age
> and illness)
>         Rav Elya Svei (Philadelphia)
>         Rav Aharon Shechter (Chaim Berlin)
>         Rav Avraham Pam (Torah Vodaas)


You forgot to include the most recent member elected to the Moetzes:
		
	  Rav Avraham Chaim Levin (Telshe-Chicago)

HM

In response to my recent request for info a number of you were kind enough to
respond privately. while i ordinarily like to respond individually, apparantly
one of these thank yous inadvertantly went out to the whole list - sorry about
that - though i thought i was just hitting the reply to a single individual.
usually all the addresses show up in some info box, which didn't happen here.
doubtless many of you think this is simple to fix, to which i reply: easy for
you to say, as (though i don't like to brag) my incompetence in these matters
is more than equal to the task of bollixing it up again. Anyway, lacking the
sophisticated software skills of my 11 year old (probably any 11 year old) i am
now spooked at the prospect of doing it again, so, to those of you - you know
who you are - who sent me notes, please consider this public message a thank
you in lieu of a specific return note.

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

In a message dated 1/5/99 9:20:32 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

>  ===> The gemara appeared to apply this specifically to the instance of a
>  Jew accepting Tzedaka from a Non-Jew -- that in *that context* there is an
>  apsect of "Cheit" since the jew should only be accepting from other Jews.
>  It is not clear that this applies to ANY act of Chesed that a Nochri may
>  do

In addition that in bringing a Korban (one of the cases in the Gemoroh) no Yid
benefits, and Mkablin Ndorim Undovos from non-Jews. The Gemoroh says that any
and all Chesed they do is a Cheit (Loshon Hagimoroh *Kol Tzdokoh V'chesed*),
and see end of first Perek of Tanya. 

> AND it seems that the Netziv would clearly reject your formulation. As
>  a side point: am I to understand that you feel that all the nochrim who
>  helped/save Jews during the Sho'ah were actually *sinning* by so doing???
>  You do not think that they were among the "Righteous of the World"???
>  
In  my post I wrote that perhaps when they are Shomrei 7 Mitzvohs (and esp. if
they are obligated in Tzedakah) hence they have a Chelek Lolom Haboh, would be
different, likewise in your scenerio. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

>  ===> Yes.  Once the B"T has been able to actually accept Torah U'mitzvos
>  -- it would seem obligatory (at least in some instances) to "bring  them
>  back" to their family minhagim -- esp. if there are still frum relatives..

To many Alyo's Vekotz Boh in this statement, in any case there is no purpose
using Sevoros Lkan U'Lkahn, let's see if we can find sources and be all the
wiser.

>  ===> Since I did not see R. Sternbuch, I would appreciate it if you could
>  elaborate.  Did he actually mean that you should not inform the B"T at
>  all???

As I said I did not see it, someone else posted it, and RDE from Yad Moshe
seems to have seen it, perhaps he would be kind enough to summarise the Shitos
and Mekoros, (he is very good at it)

>  ===> I think that this really depends upon many factors and it is simply
>  not proper to generalize.

It seems this whole issue is hard to generalise. 

> As to the actual opinions in Halacha, perhaps one will quote the different
> opinions mentioned by R' Sternbuch.

===> that would certainly be helpful.

We agree on something :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/5/99 11:55:31 AM EST, raffyd@juno.com writes:

> For the benefit of the list, here are the marei m'komos cited in Rav
>  Shternbuch's Teshuva (Vol.1 #354)

Much appreciated.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/5/99 2:45:13 AM EST, tzedek@sprynet.com writes:

> 
>  I was also disgusted -I know this is harsh but warranted by the following
>  statement of Zvi Weiss
>  
>  "Various Christianities and Islam are also successful in sending missions
>  all over the world.  Does that make them correct?  It's an argument from
>  an irrelevancy.  We know that Chabadniks are very strong in their faith.
>  So?"
>  

If my memory serves me right it was not RZW who wrote this, (as I consider it
shamefull to use such terms -Bdugmas the Kohein who said H'gianai Kzanav
Halto'oh, there are ways to express an idea that are Tzugepassed,- I will not
mention who wrote it), on the contrary while many spoke of the "animosty" to
Lubavitch, my surprise here was on the positive side, we come from different
schools of thought and approach, and I allways maintained that a public forum
(for a host of reasons) has more in the power to aggrivate Machlokes then to
find solutions. 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Please  include in the Moetzes Rav Avraham Chaim Levin Shlita  (Rosh
HaYeshiva of Telshe Yeshiva-Chicago)	

Kol Tuv 

moshe gaffen msgaff@iname.com
> 
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 13:53:26 -0500
> From: "Lawrence M. Reisman" <LMReisman@email.msn.com>
> Subject: Members of the Agudah Moetzes
> 
> Dear Michy:
> 
>     Per your request, the members of the American Moetzes are:
> 
>         Novominsker Rebbe  (Rabbi Yaakov Perlow)
>         Mattersdorfer Rov (Rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld)
>         Rav Mordechai Gifter (Telshe-Cleveland - largely inactive due to
age
> and illness)
>         Rav Elya Svei (Philadelphia)
>         Rav Aharon Shechter (Chaim Berlin)
>         Rav Avraham Pam (Torah Vodaas)
> 

>The sefer Hadras Kodesh (Nasoider Rov quoting the Chasam Sofer) brings that
>the talmidim of Rabbenu Yonah held that oraz requires a mazonos as it is a
>food that fills one up, and that this applies to all such foods. This is also
>the opinion of the Rosh. A similar logic applies to potatoes, and even though
>not all hold from this sevorah it is enough to bring a sufik of either mazonos
>or adamah.
>>>
>While one might argue that all grains should be m'zonos, I do not understand
>how this is stretched to potatoes.  If I eat enough meat, I would also be
>full.  Does that make the b'racha on steak now m'zonos?  I fail to see the
>logic here.

I did not look up the Rabbanu Yonah, but my understanding of that shittah is
that a food when eaten in moderate quantities (like mozonos, oraz etc) that
are filling (d'zayin), which would apply to potatoes, requires a mazones. 

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

>R' Yehoshua of Neshchiz, in his old age, was no longer able to eat plain
>matzo, so he ate gebrokts. Nevertheless, he distributed shirayim from the
>gebrokts to all those assembled - despite the fact that they, of course,
>were makpid on gebrokts (Ta'amei HaMinhagim p. 221).

I don't remember which Tzaddik it was (possibly Belz) who because his mother
was eating with him and she ate gabrukts, he would serve it. Then there is the
famous story from the holy Apter Rov. One Pesach a young man with his wife
came to him as the husband wanted a get. The Apter asked why, and the man
responded that she didn't want to eat shmurah matzah, but motzah peshuta. The
Apter then called in his Rebbetzen and asked her what Matzahs she gave him for
the seder. (It was his custom to have special matzohs baked erev pesach with
all kinds of chimras.) She then told the following story. 'Erev Pesach a poor
women came to the door and said she did not have matzoh, so I asked the
servant girl to give her some of the matzos, and she took the Rebbe's Pesach
matzoh. When I went to set up I saw they were missing, so I took three of the
other matzaos and put them in the place.' The Apter Rov then said, if I
could do without my special matzos and I don't divorce my wife, I don't see
any reason for you to do so.

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

>> >> >the Maharal, Toldos and the Mai Shiloch in Chassidus today?  Bottom
>> >> 1. The maharal was big in Pershischa Chassidus. I assume that in Ger it is
>> >> still learned.
>> >===> Could you explain why this is the case?  Was it that the Rebbe
>> >happened to be a fan of the MaHaRal?  I am not trying to sound humorous.
>> >But, it seems that "real chassidim" only learn certain material based upon
>> >what their Rebbe chooses (?) or whatever seems "fashionable" (?) or if the
>> >author happened to have had (originally?) a "big following".  What seems
>> >*absent* is the intellectual quality of the work.
>> A person is not a Chasid because he has read some sefer and likes it. Today
>> many Litvishe gadolim will learn chassidic seforim. A Chasid is a chasid
>> because he has a Rebbe and follows the derech that his Rebbe has set out.
>===> OK.  You define that a *must* have a Rebbe to be a Chassid
>*and* to be considered an expert on Chassidus.  You realize, of course,
>that the two are not strictly linked.  I.e., a person may not be a Chasid
>but STILL be an expert on chassidus.  Further, this does not really answer
>why a Rebbe will choose some particular aspect to learn and [apparently]
>"neglect" something else.

Not exactly, to be an expert on chassidus, you have to either be, have been,
or live among chassidim enough to see what is going on.


>> (Breslov is not really an exception. The reason is that since Reb Nachman died
>> they have always had a person or persons who were Rosh HaChabirah who was
>> mashpiah the 'Breslov' derech.) This is VERY important to understand. A Rebbe
>> gets his derech from his Rebbe, or father, all the way back to the Baal SHem
>> Tov. My Rebbe is a direct descendant of the Tzanzer Rov, who was a talmid of
>> the Ropshitzer Rov, who was a talmid of the Chozeh of Lublin, Rebbe Mendele
>> Riminover, and before that of the Rebbe Reb Meileich of Lizensk, who were
>> talmidim of the Rebbe Reb Ber who was a talmid of the Baal Shem Tov. That is
>> where my derech comes from. As to why different Rebbes had different daruchim
>> the reason is as follows: The Tepheres Shlomoh was once asked why it was thast
>> each of the talmidim of the Chozeh was different and had different customs. He
>> answered that each one received from his Rebbe according to the level of his
>> nashama.
>===> I did not ask why Rebbeim have different derachim.  I wanted to know
>what determined what was learned and what was not.

It seems the problem is you don't like my answer. Rebbes favor certain seforim
BECAUSE of the derech that they follow. My Rebbe would never recommend
learning Chabad seforim (except Tanya, which was commonly learnt in the heim.)
Likewise, my Rebbe does recommend certain seforim, (Kedushas Levi, Baar Mayim
Chaim, M'Or v'Shamash) because they represent concepts and a derech that is in
line with his. (This, ignores that any sefer from one in the line of
tradition/mesorah to the Baal Shem Tov, is also automatically within the
'prefered class.) My great grandfather (grandmother's father) was a Gerer
chasid, so I will learn sefas emes and other seforim from the Pershischa
cheder. I mention to my son the work 'Derech HaChassidus', which comes from
that cheder, and he wouldn't look at it, becuase it is not 'our derech.' I
heard once the following story from my Rebbe Shlita. Rebbe Yakov Yisroel of
Cherkassa was the son-in-law of the Mittler Rebbe of Lubavitch. After the
chassanah he lived with his father-in-law, but would never go to listen to the
Alter Rebbe talk. When asked about that he said that he was m'kabal chassidus
from his father (Rebbe Mottale Chernobler) and wouldn't take from another
source without his permission.  Eventually he asked his father and as given
permission.

>> >> 2. The Toldos is Kodesh Kadushim. No one can call himself a chasid who haas
>> >> not learned it. It is a direct source for the Toras HaBaal Shem Tov.
>> >===> Why? Who are the current followers of the Toldos?
>> The Toldos is the only sefer that contains what the Baal Shem Tov himself
>> taught directly. He continually brings what he has heard.
>===> but, you cannot have it both ways.  If what defines "what is learned"
>is solely that the Rebbe learns it, it should not matter *what* is
>contained in the sefer.  OTOH, if you look at what is IN the sefer, then
>it is legitimate to "complain" that there is a narrowness of vision in not
>looking at OTHER material.

See above, it answers this question.

>> Since you HAVE read Muvi HaShiurim chapter 8 let me quote what he says:
>>
>> 'If one desires to become a chasid by learning seforim and to understand with
>> his mind alone what is chassidus, and not make himself, his body and senses,
>> his nefesh, riach, and nashamah to be a chasid, then he has not touched the
>> corner of chassidus. Also if he doesn't go to a Rebbe ... he is no chasid.'
>> (Bottom paragraph p. 39)
>>
>> 'The main points of Chassidus are not found in a sefer but in the chasidim
>> themselves.' (Third line down from page 43.)
>
>===> And, Muvi HaShiurim is "authoritative" because......

Two answers. 1. Since what he says cooresponds to what is taught by many other
Rebbes, it as been quoted because Yosef has claimed it as authoratative for
him. 2. Yes it is since I have had discussions with my Rebbe about that work,
and others by the same author. 

-- 
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 ]