Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 124

Wednesday, January 13 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #122
• Re: Avodah V2 #123
• Lubavitch - closing thoughts
• Re: Avodah V2 #123
• Re: Avodah V2 #122
• Yaakov's decpetion
• Rebbe Peer Pressure
• Re: Teaching Chasidus
• Re: Ramban on well water
• Re: Gezel on well water
• unread R. Elhanan & unquoted Ramban

Subject: Moshe and Avraham
 
David Glasner writes

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

I heard this week from Rav Tendler a "vort" in the name of Rav Soloveitchik
in the name of Rav Chaim. Rav Chaim asks what was Moshe's response to
G-d's lament.
Indeed Rav Chaim says that Moshe responded that G-d could have had the avot
receive the Torah. The very reason Moshe was chosen was because he questioned
everything and did not simply accept what he was told. In order to learn Torah
one must ask questions!

Eli Turkel

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

1. I only know that shemonei esrei goes back to Anshei Kenneses HaGedolah.
   Even then Rabban Gamliel and later generations made changes.
   I doubt that our individual wording goes back that far.
   If it did there wouldn't be many different versions between the
   siddurim of the geonim and rishonim.

2. How do you know that the Ari did not adapot his tefilla for himself?
   The Ari was ashkenazi from his father's side (related to the Maharshal) 
   and sefardi from his mother's side.

3. All the changes are relatively minor, I don't see any halachic problem.
   As many have claimed there are 13 gates to Heaven and different
   versions enter through different gates.

Eli Turkel

Our thread seems to be winding down, which is probably for the best. 

One final comment. It is all well and good (and proper, on this list) for
people to analyze intellectually the mashiachist situation within
Lubavitch and to try to determine what should be done from the outside
and/or inside. At the same time, one should remember that for Lubavitchers
this is an extremely sensitive and emotional issue, in two ways:

a) it deals with the essence of the Rebbe zt"l. He is/was a father figure
in a very personal way for many people. When you see your father being
analyzed intellectually, criticized, debated, etc., you react viscerally,
regardless of the emet of the situation.

b) the mashichist/anti-mashichist split is not clear cut (remember the
posting that showed us about 20 different Lubavitch positions on the
issues?). Further, it has split families - brothers and sisters, husbands
and wives. Every Lubavitch wedding thus becomes a point of potential
confrontation. This hurts emotionally and I think it is taking a very hard
toll on Lubavitch. The arguments within Lubavitch involve real people,
real emotions, real issues of parnasa. 

I think personally that it is very appropriate to keep the pressure on the
Lubavitch leaders to straighten this out, and we can exert some pressure
at the local level sometimes.  (For instance, I will not daven in a
y'chi minyan, and if asked by the Rabbi of the minyan would tell him why.)  

 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).

 I thnk that the
most effective argument to make with your local shaliach is that pushing
the mashichist agenda is counterproductive (not to speak of being bad for
fund-raising). This is relatively easy to establish and is the conclusion
that a lot of the local shlichim have come to, regardless of their
personal y'chi status. There is really no point is trying to quote sources
(ancient or modern) to a mashichist- it is not the sort of argument that
will win with him/her by logic.

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.


---------------------------------------------------------
Claude (Chaim) and Rivka Schochet
Math Dept		04-834-6049 home (also works as fax)
The Technion		04-829-3895 office
Haifa, Israel 32000

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:31:41 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: R. Tzadok
> 
> >> >> >===> 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"?


> 
> >===> So, the next step is not only to "devalue" the person's works but to
> >"devalue" the PERSON since if that person does not fall into your
> >definition, then that person "obviously" is not "knowledgeable" in
> >chassidus...  Your "conclusion" is only "correct" if you first accept what
> 
> You comments ae both absurd and inticative that you have either not read or
> not understood what I have written. R. Tzaddok is a counter example to your
> claim that one becomes a chasid or understands chassidus exclusive of a
> particualar Rebbe. From this you imagine some slight to his character on
> my part chas v'shalom. The Tzanzer Rov (my Rebbes great grandfather) was from
> a misnagdish family and went to Lublin and then to Ropshitz. Does that mean
> that I am 'devaluating' him chas v'shalom? Your comments on these issues
> appears to be shtusim mit lokshin.

===> 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.



> 
> >it is that you have sought to prove -- indeed, now I can see why you have
> >a problem with "intellectual" -- there is a certain amount of "rigor"
> >required -- which you can dispense with when you are not concerned with
> >such "minor" issues.  I do no see ANY proof that R. Tzadok was not an
> >"expert" in chasiddus -- only that for you to admit as much would force
> >you to invalidate much of what you have been asserting.
> 
> I think you should just give it up. It appears that you are not capable to
> intellectually understand that in chassidus there are different daruchim, that
> are in some areas mutually exclusive, where chassidim of different daruchim
> can respect others, but not accept their derech. 

===> 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.

--Zvi

> 
> - -- 
> Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:32:31 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Seforim
> 
> >> >> I do follow the derech of my Rebbe and no other. I wil however learn
> >> >> seforim
> >> >> that I enjoy learning (in addition to those my Rebbe has told ME
> >> >> to learn.)
> >> >> Another point. A Rebbe will not instruct two people to do the
> >> >> exact same
> >> >> thing. For example, both my closest friend and I went to my Rebbe
> >> >> about a
> >> >> particular inyan in avodah. He was told to do one thing, and I
> >> >> was told a
> >> >> different thing. I am sure anyone who has been a mashpiah
> >> >> understands this
> >> >> idea.
> >> >===> Of course you follow a derech based upon your Rebbe's instruction.
> >> >But, now you raise an entirely different point.  Is it that the Rebbe
> >> >*instructs* his Talmidim what they should learn?  If so, that provides a
> >> >vastly different perspective.  In that case, the point is NOT whether a
> >> >particular author had a "big following" or not.  Instead, the reason that
> >> >a given sefer is "popular" is because the rebbe has made a "value
> >> >judgement" as to what is best for a given Talmid (or group of Talmidim) to
> >> >learn.  Given that the Rebbe is (a) a Talmid Chacham, himself, and (b)
> >> >attuned to the needs of his Talmidim, and (c) familiar [himself] with the
> >> >various different Sefarim (I hope) -- it makes a lot of sense that the
> >> >Rebbe would provide guidance in that manner.  And, at a LATER date, the
> >> >Talmid could do as you have done....  but, you do realize that this is a
> >> >bit different from how this got started.
> >> As with much of what you write it is neither wholly correct, nor
> >> totally off
> >> the mark. There are various factors which will effect what is learned, and
> >> also how much of it will be accepted BECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE. These
> >> are: 1.
> >> Sometimes a Rebbe will tell someone to learn specific seforim. I was
> >> told by
> >> my Rebbe seforim that I should learn, when I asked about it. (I was
> >> also told
> >> what I should not learn.) Sometimes it is known that certain seforim are
> >> recommended often enough that it is known that it is the Rebbe's choice. 2.
> >===> I fail to see what "Seforim from a Rebbe's ancestors" are
> >automatically considered "suitable"....
> 
> You don't try to learn seforim authored by your ancestors?

===> 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.


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

===> I was referring to people learning in the Beis Midrash...
--Zvi
> 
> - -- 
> Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:32:58 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #118
> 
> >> What I stated is that the sefer in question is not taken as athoratative in
> >> that just because it appears there does not mean that it is accepted
> >> outside
> >> of whatever chassidim there may be (which I understand that there are no
> >> chassidim of that Rebbe in the world.) Let me give a clearer
> >> example. If in a
> >> Chabad sefer it says that method X is to be used in Avodus HaShem,
> >> that does
> >> not mean that it would be accepted by non-Chabad chassidim.
> >===> I think that it is not quite analogous.  It was pretty well known
> >that ChaBaD had developed a "counter-hashkafa" to what was known as
> >"ChaGaS" Chassidus.  However, it is not clear that R. Tzadok was
> >developing a variant hashkafa to the overall [non-ChaBaD] Chassidus.
> 
> What appears to be 'well-known' to you is actually an error, and not ture. The
> Baal HaTanya created/modified his derech so as to appeal to the Litvisher
> Olam who were within his area of activity. To have created a
> 'counter-hashkafa' would mean that he was opposing the Baal Shem Tov, who was
> basically what you would call a 'ChaGaS' Rebbe who had a tisch.

===> 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.


> 
> >> >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
may be changing as noted in other posts which indicate that some
"Chassidishe" behaviors are "infiltrating" the Litvishe world.)  The
influence of the Rebbe seems definitive enough that for the Rebbe to be
unfamiliar with a valid work could end up consigning that work to
unjustified obscurity.


> 
> >> 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
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
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.

--Zvi


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

> 
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:31:16 -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,


> 
> >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).


> 
> >> 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.

--Zvi

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

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

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ<<

I believe Hirsch points out that this was not a demo to show Eisov's evil, it 
was a demo to point out Yitachok's (pardon any Avos bashing) gullibilty!  
Yitzchok was demonstratively shown that he could be taken in and THEN poof, it 
all made sense - Vayecherad - he sensed the Gehinom (rashi)  that came along 
with Eisov.  In other words he now saw thru things that before he had either had
a block to or not allowed himself to notice.

The point of the story is finally Yitachok rezlizes his error re: Vayehav 
Yitachok es Eisov...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

>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?

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe   

  It seems that you and I are the only ones interested in this. I will be
  glad to write my response to the group. But, I believe that we are now 
  reaching the end. Again, I will sprinkle my remarks by using caps. 


>We believe in the Nefesh HaChaim. You know that. That means we are not
>learning for dveykus. Nor do we feel Emuna Peshuta is the basis from which
>Ahavas Hashem develops. We believe in the Rambam's view on Ahavas Hashem.
>You know that too. So we do not have a problem with the paradox. Chassidim
>do. The Chassidic model, I should say, is not irrational or unreasonable.
>It is just different.
>
PLEASE SOP CALLING IT A PARADOX. I TOLD YOU THAT YOU HAVE A FALSE
ASSUMPTION. THIS AHAVAH IS TO BE USED TO GO HIGHER. PLEASE TRY
TO LEARN NEW IDEAS. EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE, ACCEPT
THAT YOU AND/OR R. WILHEM HAVE WRONG PESHAT.
WHO IS THE WE. I ALSO BELIEVE IN REB CHAYIM WOLOZINER'S WRITINGS. 
 IT IS MOSTLY BASED ON KABALAH. IT IS WELL KNOWN
THAT HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO WRITE THE BOOK TO TAKE CARE OF
THE CHASIDIM. HE DID THAT BY FIRST SPOUTING SOME CHASIDUS WHICH
HE OBVIOUSLY TOOK FROM THE TANYA'S "SHAAR YICHUD VEMUNAH"
AND THEN RESORTED TO A POLEMIC WHERE HE MAKES SOME 
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS. HE EVEN STATES THAT WE CANNOT FIND
A WHOLE SHAAS IN A CHASIDIC SHUL. (SHOWING THAT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN
LEARNING)
HE REALLY LIKE CHASIDIM. THIS THE MISNAGDIM INHERITED.
WELL, WHO HAD A SHAAS.. WE KNOW THAT
THE SHAAS WAS VERY EXPENSIVE. THE SHAGAS ARYEH ASKED FOR ONE
AS A CONDITION TO BECOMING ROV. THERE IS A STORY ABOUT REB YITZCHOK 
ELCHONON GOING FOR SMICHA TO RAV YAAKOV KARLINER. WHEN THERE HE 
SAW THE MESECHET ZEVOCHIM FOR THE FIRST TIME. HE WAS INTRIGUED 
AND LEARNED A FEW BLOT. THE NEXT DAY THERE WAS A SHEELOH OF A GET.
HE PIPED IN AND IMPRESSED EVER ONE WITH A RAAYEH FROM ZEVOCHIM. 
REB YAAKOV KARLINER WAS IMPRESSED AND GAVE HIM SMICHA IMMEDIATELY.
SO, THIS ALLEGATION IS A BUM STEER. HE TALKS ABOUT DAVENING AND KAVAANAH. 
IT SOUNDS
A LITTLE LIKE THE NODAH BIYHUDAH WHO WAS UPSET WITH THE YEHI ROTZON.
BUT, THEY SAY THAT THE CHAZON ISH DAVENED WITH LOTS OF KAVANAAH AND 
WAS HEARD
CRYING. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT R. CHAYIM  MEANT IT. IT IS CALLED A POLEMIC.
BY THE
WAY HOW MANY MISNAGDIM READ AND UNDERSTAND THE NEFESH HACHAYIM.
LESS THEN .01% I VENTURE. TAKE A POLL.  THE RESULT IS YOU CAN'T
BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. SO YOUR CLAIM IS WRONG. THE MISNAGDIM
HAVE NO REAL THEOLOGY. GIVE A TEST ABD YOU WILL FIND OUT. GET SOME
ROSHE YESHIVA AND ROSH KOLELS TO PARTICIPATE.
PLEASE ELABORATE ON AHAVAH'S HASHEM ACCORDING TO RAMBAM.
>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. 
THIS IS COVERED IN THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS. THE GEMOROH IN BABA
BASRA (16A) STATES "BOROSOH ZTADIKIM BOROSOH RESHOIM". THE TANYA
THEN GOES TO EXPLAIN IT. IT IS ALL SOURCED FROM THE TALMUD. STUDY THE
TANYA AND LOOK UP HIS REFERENCES. THERE IS NOTHING NEW.
But I know very little.Perhaps you can demonstrate this. 
I WON'T ARGUE. YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THIS.(I AM REFERRING TO YOUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF CHASIDUS) SO WHY DO YOU PONTIFICATE? YOU
NEED TO SIT DOWN AND STUDY WITH YOUR UNCLE. IF YOU WANT I CAN
ARRANGE IT.
I cannot
>accept the Tanya's defintion of a tzaddik on other accounts as well. It
>leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are all resho'im - not even
>beinonim.
THE TANYA DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE DIN. WE ARE ZOCHEH BY WEIGHING
MITZVOT AS THE GEMOROH IN ROSH HASONOH SAYS. MOST OF US B"H
(UNLESS LOSHON HOROH IS A BIG AVEROH) ARE ZTADIKIM. THE TANYA IS 
TALKING ABOUT KOCHOS HANEFESH. THE ABILITY TO NEVER SIN. DO YOU
KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS THAT ABILITY?

Chaim responded:
> Ramban writes that Moshe objected "because the water was not theirs [the
shepards]" - implying that Yisro's daughters had a kinyan.  We obviously
disagree on pshat in Ramban here. <
As he knows, we've had a bit more conversation via private e-mail.  The
last line of his Avodah reply essentially was the last line of his last
e-mail reply.  Here's the essence of my e-mail reply (which I must preface
by noting that the actual quote is "since they [i.e., the ladies] were the
ones who filled the troughs [which wasn't the normal course of events], the
water *was* theirs [i.e., the ladies']"):
Our disagreement is OK by me (not that I consider myself to be up to your
level in interpreting Rishonim).  I, too, would have read "shelohen"
literally, except that I understand RaMBaN's previous words ("ki hoyu
ho'ro'im...bo'im u'm'mal'im ho'r'hotim u'mashkim...v'acharai kain hoyu
ha'noshim mashkos" -- the ladies never drew their own water, else he would
have prefaced "mashkos" with "bo'in u'm'mal'in") as revealing that the
shepherds drew the water for *everyone* and that, even though one would
thus consider the water "shelohem," they didn't consider it 'chomos' for
others to use the water they drew, so long as they had the first chance to
use it.  Therefore, "shelohen" doesn't mean that Moshe felt they stole the
ladies' water but rather that he felt they stole the ladies' right to use
it first.  You're welcome to disagree with my logic -- if you agree,
however, I don't see how one could be koneh the water if drawing it merely
gave one the right of first (and not even total) use.

Michael Poppers =*= Elizabeth, NJ

>> My understanding was that Yithro's daughters violated the de facto
minhag
ha'mokom/"world  order" by (a) drawing the water, which was usually done by
the [male]
shepherds, and then (b) using that water before said shepherds' expected
arrival time (presumably, hoping to be done & "outtathere" before said
shepherds did arrive). <<
Eli Turkel replied:
> Can one really have a minhag ha'mokom that says that public waters belong
only
to the male sheperds to the exclusion of others? ...<
(I could let Chaim respond, as he agreed with the portion of my explanation
that you quoted, but he's not me. :-)  Again, the point was that the
shepherds had the right of first usage, not that the water belonged to
them.  (If we all agree that the drawer did indeed own the water via
m'shichah, the point would be that they had the right to draw first, not
exclusively, although I still interpret RaMBaN as saying that they usually
drew for *everyone*, including the ladies.)  In response to Chaim's post,
which questioned what illegal act the shepherds committed to warrant the
'chomos' appellation, I used the term "minhag ha'mokom" as part of
suggesting that, in the shepherds' view, they did nothing wrong (as well as
mentioning that 'chomos' was a word RaMBaN was putting in *Moshe*'s mouth
and not one he himself would necessarily use in delineating their
"vi'gorashum" action).
>                                                                   ...
(note that (b) is really part of (a)). <
No, it isn't.  They committed two separate actions which were not done in
the past.  Theoretically, they could have drawn the water first (violation
of (a)) and then waited for the shepherds to arrive rather than making use
of the drawn water before the shepherds showed up (violation of (b)).

                                         Michael

On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Avodah wrote:
> From: "Moshe J. Bernstein" <mjbrnstn@ymail.yu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #121
> 
> regarding the question of tinoq shenishba and the like, particularly as it
> applies to a group and not to an individual, see the remarkable comments
> of Ramban at Bemidbar 15:22 "vekhi tishgu velo ta'asu et kol hamitzvot
> ha'elleh", in particular the section beginning "ulshon hakatuv shelo
> notzi'enu mipeshuto umashma'o," where Ramban discusses "mumar lekhol
> hatorah beshogeg"[!] as it applies to a group "kegon sheyahshevu shekevar
> avar zeman hatorah velo hayeta ledorot olam...o sheyishkehu et hatorah.
> ukhevar eira lanu ken ba'avonoteinu...."
> 
> without getting into the question of who brings what qorban, the ramban's
> remarks, i believe, are significant in terms of hashkafa. i've always
> thought that they stand in contrast to the oft-quoted "nebech, an
> apikoyres beshoygeg bleibt an apikoyres." but that's another matter.

1. The Ramban is not directly relevant to R. Elhanan Wasserman's question
to R. Hayyim about the apikoros b'shogeg. That is because the Ramban is
talking about mitzvot in general, including avoda zara, whereas R. Elhanan
asked about an apikoros. R. Elhanan didn't equate the situation of the
apikoros with that of the idolator for a simple reason: because the Gemara
already speaks about the possibility of an oved avoda zara who is a tinok
she-nishba. In fact, this was the starting point for R. Elhanan's question
to R. Hayyim.

Interesting is our modern tendency (even more modern than R. Elhanan!) to
equate avoda zara with apikoros in this respect. An investigation into
this issue would illuminate both our understanding of how Halakha views
old-time avoda zara and how we view our own generation.

2. Also interesting is the fact that this Ramban does not appear in
standard ArtScroll type discussions of the hurban and return from
Babylonian exile. Perhaps some of us are so anxious to think of earlier
generations as perfect or close to perfect that the Ramban's unpretty
conclusions about Jewish history need to be marginalized. One more small
step for revisionism.

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


[ 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 ]