Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 102

Thursday, December 31 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:38:51 -0500
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Imminence of mashiach's arrival

Please be advised that postings quoted by Moshe Shulman and attributed to me
were, with the exceptio nof the first sentence, all written by Micah Berger.
Thus, MS's comments should be deemed addressed to MBerger.

I *was* going to complain about the ridiculous and very distracting
quotes-within-quotes-within-quotes and the repeated >>>> and the =======>.

But having quotations attributed to me when I did not say them is just not
fair and is not emes.

Noach Witty

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:41:42 -0500
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Ya'akov Avinu and Rivka Imainu

David Glasner suggests that Ya'akov and Rivka were "deceitful" and were
therefore punished for their "deceit." This topic appeared in discussions on
the Yeshivat Har Etzion discusion groups.  Then as now, I believe that
remarks such as those posed by R' DG are without a basis in chazal and, I
think, without basis in traditional a commentary.

If the previous sentence is true, then we must conclude that any effort to
ascribe "moral fault" to the actors in Parshas Toldos is an anachronistic
and, in any event, improper attempt to impose upon the Chumash narrative our
own notions of morality (and possibly psychobable, always a danger in Sfer

I see now that another participant has made his own detailed and far
superior macha-a. I concur.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:00:14 -0500
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
mashiach songs

From: gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
Subject: Jewish Observer,  etc.

I was quoted--in part--as saying:

>random? Also, if someone knows, please tell us, now that Rabbi Sherrer
>is no longer among us, who tells the members of the Moetzes what to
think and say and when?)

Gershon Dubin wrote:

"Is this the person who is concerned about Darche Noam and proper
treatment of Lubavitch and the Rebbe,  but with one wave of the hand
makes naught of a person whose life was dedicated to  **serving**  and
**listening to**  the gedolim,  not telling them what and when to think
and say,   and at the same time portrays all the gedolim with whom Rabbi
Sherer worked,  from Rav Aharon Kotler down past Rav Moshe Feinstein and
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky to present day gedolim,  as mindless puppets of
whatever Rabbi Sherer put into their heads?"

To answer the question: No.
To deflect your inference which I neither stated and nor intended: the
gedolim you mention were hardly mindless.  By their reputations, both in
their lifetimes and afterwards, I am certain they did not think they were

I am quoted as writing:

>Anecdotally, I have heard of a wedding where the ba'al simcha warned
>the band not to play any songs the words to which include "mashiach."

Gershon Dubin wrote:

"What you might have heard was a request not to play the song "Mashiach"
which I also do not like to hear played at simchas,  not because the word
or concept of Mashiach is ch"v unacceptable,  but because I am not
inclined to rock music in any language.

Chachamim hizaharu bedivreichem."

Tikrena ainecha ma-she-yadecha kotvot.

I posted the story as I heard it.  I can not tell from your post whether or
not you were the ba'al simcha I heard about; there has already been posted
on this list another variation on this story. Also, "Mashiach" is not the
only rock music song in the "Jewish music" genre. I trust there is web site
where I can get a list of what songs are naughty and what songs are nice.
Although it's a tefillas shav (as defined in mas. Brachos), I hope your
simcha was everything you wanted it to be.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:51:38 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
One People?

Moshe Shulman wrote:

>  R. Tzadok is NOT considered as an 'authority' in any Chasidic group in
> the world today. In fact the only person I know to have learned his seforim
> was a Lubavitcher. If you know of Chasidic history in Poland, you have chosen
> an obscure branch and claimed that this is an example of what Chassidus in
> general believes.

Why is the above so? Furthermore could you comment on the status of the Maharal,
Toldos and the Mai Shiloch in Chassidus today?  Bottom line - I am trying to find
out the degree to which the Orthodox world shares common hashkofic views today.
Most of this discussion of Chassidus brings up concepts which are alien -  to put
it mildly.

                                                  Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 05:59:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Re: neshama klalis - R' Tzaddok

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> R' Tzaddok writes:  T"T 159 - "Except for David and the Avos there was
> NO ONE whose soul encompassed the entire world, as Moshe was 'kollel'
> only talmidei chachamim, just that the dor hamidbas was the dor deah of
> all talmidei chachamim." 

He means all generations across time, not specifric generations - the
ispashtusa d'Moshe is in all generations, for the generation only, Dovid
and Moshiach impact all generations. 


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

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:00:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Could you please find out specifically what the Divrei Chaim says?

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> likewise made a shehakol was the Imrei Eish (a gadol from Hungary), The
> Ropshitzer Rov (the Rebbe of the Tzanzer Rov), The Kamarna Rov (who
> argued that since potatoes do not need the ground to grow they should
> have a shehakol like like komos and patrious.) The Yismach Moshe (the
> anscestor of the Satmar Rov) likewise made a shahokol, but he based his
> view on the sefer HaOruch who said that komos and patrious are called
> tartafel which is kartofel (potatoes) in Yiddish. (All this from the
> sefer Otzar HaChaim.) 
> -- 
> Moshe Shulman mshulman@ix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
> http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus         Chassidus Website


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

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 06:04:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Re: Yechida/Neshama Kelalis

I responded to the substance of your/RCB's remarks in my response to RCB.

The argument that R' Tzadok does not represent Chassidus is so stunning I
honestly am taken aback.

But, if true, that means, of course, that we have no choice but to rely on
you exclusively for the Chassidic viewpoint, right?

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> He seems to be arguing such a point. However let us assume that R. Tzadok and
> Chabad argue that way (contrary to the Ari.) So?  I still fail to see the
> point. R. Tzadok is NOT considered as an 'authority' in any Chasidic group in
> the world today. In fact the only person I know to have learned his seforim
> was a Lubavitcher. If you know of Chasidic history in Poland, you have chosen
> an obscure branch and claimed that this is an example of what Chassidus in
> general believes. 


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

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:23:07 -0900
From: bens22@juno.com (Ben Smith)
Re: Avodah V2 #101

Date: Thurs, 31 Dec 1998 
From: Bens22@juno.com
Subject: Re: Chasidim & Misnagdim

Seeing all the talk on Chasidim & Misnagdim I figured to write in a cute
story.  When Reb Meir Shapiro set out to establish the now famous
Chachmie Lublin Yeshiva (the architectural blueprint for modern Yeshivos
as we know them today) he wanted to incorporate the strong points of both
the Chasidish and Misnagdish Yeshivos (a plan which reportedly had the
Chofetz Chaims enthusiastic approval, or more accurately, when the
Chofetz Chaim heard from R'Meir Shapiro that he planned to incorporate
"Yeshivish Lomdus" into the curriculum, he then gave his enthusiastic
support).  In it effort to research this plan he traveled to many
different type of Yeshivos to see first hand their "Mehalach".  When he
came back he was asked to describe the difference between the two styles.
 He said that he will answer with a Mashal of two chavrusos who we
learning together, one Chasidish and one Litvish.  They were learning the
Gemara which describes the levels of Hillels talmidim.  There the Gemara
says of Yonasan Ben U'ziel that any bird which flew over him was
incinerated (because of the holiness).  The two chavrusos pause for
reflection.  The Litvak asks the Chasid "so what have you been thinking
about"?  His friend answers "I am trying to appreciate the level of
Kedusha that is being describes.  Imagine, a bird could burn from it" 
The chasid then asks, and what were you thinking?  The Litvak answers "I
was trying to decide what the halacha would be with regard to the bird,
would he have been Chayiv as a Ma'azik?  Was he only a Gerama? Etc...." 
That R' Meir Shapiro said this describes the difference between the two

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]

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:39:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
Multiple responses to "Two Rabbinical Stories"

> ------------------------------
> From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
> Subject: Re: Two Rabbinical Stories
> As instigator of the thread on Clinton, let me just say that my intention was not
> to initiate a discussion of the pros and cons of impeachment.  What is
> bothering me and what I would like to discuss is to what extent a person's
> conduct can be evaluated properly in terms of some formal "legal"
> categories.  Although Zvi Weiss seems to disagree, it seems to me that the
> Rosh Yeshiva of our story was properly evaluating the character of the
> student who was a naval bi-r'shut ha-Torah.  Let me propose another

===> I was not questioning the character analysis of the R"Y here -- I
was, however, very critical of the response.  It seemed more like an act
of frustration (at being shown up by the talmid who was so careful at the
"halachic level") rather than a constructive response.  I *can* imagine
cases where such a response *would* be appropriate [e.g., the fellow
intended to *continue* the relationship -- claiming that it was
halachically "OK"] but that was not obvious from the incident.

> example.  I believe that we are all familiar with the Midrash that goes
> out of its
> way to absolve Jacob from having lied to his father when he said "ani Eisav
> b'chorecha."  But how does the dohak parsing of Jacob's reply in any way

===> "goes out of its way"?????  Was the poster present when the Midrash
was "presented"?

> absolve Jacob from the moral blame he incurred by misleading his father? 
> What significance can Jacob's mental reservation have when his intent was
> to mislead?  And again, this is where Clinton comes in, when the point of the

===> Outside of the Aveiroh l'shma issues (which are very well-dealt in
the NetZiV -- among others), Yaakov was acting under the direction of a
N'vi'oh!  Was Clinton similarly behaving that the poster can even
*imagine* equating the two of them??

> mental reservation is precisely to facilitate the deception doesn't it magnify
> the moral blameworthiness of the deception?  A lie is wrong not because it
> satisfies some technical semantic reqiurement but because of the deception
> (g'neivat da'at) perpetrated on the person at whom the lie is directed.  As

===> I would like to know where the poster recieved his information on the
above formulation.  And, why do ChaZaL state that it is *permitted* to be
deceptive "mipnei darkei shalom"?  Did ChaZaL decide that the issurim of
Geneivat Da'at were also to be suspended here?

> was observed some time ago, the subsequent narrative makes it quite clear
> that, for the rest of his life, Jacob was the repeated victim of lies and
> deceptions that were perpetrated against him.  If we believe that these
> events were not merely coincidental, don't we have to assume that they
> represented Divine retribution for the deception he perpetrated against his
> father?  And isn't Rivka's death just before the return home of her beloved 

===> Is there any indication of such or is the poster merely theorizing?
As to the p'tira of Rivka, is there a source that she passed away when she
did because of the deception?

> son evidence of Divine retribution for her role in the deception?  "alai
> k'lalatcha b'ni."

===> But do we find that Yitzchak cursed anyone???  So, what k'lala was

> David Glasner
> dglasner@ftc.gov
> ------------------------------
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Two Rabbinical Stories
> If he wasn't Myacheid her as a Pilegesh he still violated the prohibition of
> relations with a Zoneh (Hil. Ishus 1:4).

===> Oh well, if he was so careful about everything else, maybe he did
that, also.  Wasn't there a circular some time ago form some people who
wanted to revive that ancient and "honorable" tradition of "Pilegesh"..
(Does anyone still have that around?  I thought that it was hysterical..)


> Kol Tuv
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> ------------------------------
> From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> Subject: re:  two rabbinical stories
> Instaed of assuming, why don't we turn to Chazal to find out. Lets go
> through the times Yaakov was decieved: when he was tricked into marrying
> Leah--The midrash asks ( why this happened and said it was in Leah's merit
> that she davened to marry Yaakov instead of Esav. The midarsh (berashis
> rabbah 70:17) notes that yaakov asked Leah how did you lie to me, she
> responded I learned from you--Ie I didn't lie only acted with wisdom in
> order to act lsem shamayim in order to do what is correct . I don't see
> Yaakov being punished as much as Leah being rewarded. The fact that

===> Actually, this is not so clear.  The midrash states that when Leah
(who sounds like the "soul of tact" in that midrash) gave Yaakov that
answer, he was so angered at her that he was considering divorce and that
was [partly] why G-d caused Leah to conceive so quickly -- this was almost
literally a case of "Staying together for the children"....  An even more
interesting question is why did Rachel participate by giving Leah the
"simanim".  If she was worried about the "boosha" of her sister, she could
have simply warned LEah not to try to trick Yaakov because she (Leah)
would be found out.  This is even more amazing when one of the Midrashim
states that Rachel was under Leah's bed and *spoke* instead of Leah so
that Yaakov would not recognize the voice!  (As an aside, Leah's reaction
by the duda'im "Hme'at kachtach es ishi..." is quite difficult to
comprehend.  It was DUE TO RACHEL that Leah was even ABLE to successfully
marry Yaakov -- how could she make such an accusation to Rachel??  This
requires much "talmud" because on the surface, Leah appears to us as a
lady who is totally "kefuyat tova".....)

> yaakov was decieved in the same way he decieved so that Leah could be
> rewarded doesn't indicate yaakov was punished (see also eitz yosef
> sham that refers to Yaakovs words as a sheker but in the context of it
> being mutar becasue of shalom or at worst an aveiro
> lishma--Se RYGB post).  Next time yaakov was
> tricked was with his dealings with Lavan but since he ended up taking much
> of what Lavan owned, I don't see the punishment. Concerning Rivka's
> death-I found no reference that it was related to Yaakovs lie, It's very
> difficult to say she was punished for the episode since Hashem is the one
> who gave her the nevuah to act this way;. Furthermore, if anything it is a
> punishment to Rivka not yaakov, so where's your proof and finnally it's
> more likely if this indeed was a punishment to yaakov it was because he
> delayed in fullfilling his vow, something chazal does blame Yaakov for (so
> why make up new complaints when chazal's are already in place.) The last

===> Again, there is no indication that Yitzchak cursed anyone over this
incident and Rivka is simply not mentioned again....  Seems to me to
simply be an unwarranted extrapolation...

> time yaakov was decieved was with Yosef and in fact I actually found a
> midrash to kind of support you, but alas it's a Zohar so it's probably
> forged anyways, but for us who believe in the authenticity of the Zohar I
> will bring it. The Zohar Vayeshev daf 185b says that Yaakov was decieved
> with the goat's blood because he decieved Yitzchak with goats. But the
> zohar doesn't refer to his statement because it wasn't a lie and even in
> regards to this the zohar writes (translation from soncino's zohar) We
> learn from this passage how particular G-d is with the righteous,EVEN WHEN
> THEY ACT CORRECTLY.For although Yaakov acted fittingly in bringing a
> he-goat to his father...yet because he decieved his father he was punished
> through the other he goat.... We see that this was only considered
> deception worthy of punishment because of the level that Yaakov was
> on--the thought of comparing this to Clinton is absurd.    

===> See also the Netziv's comment on the Midrash related to the "Tza'aka
Gedola Umara" that Eisav yelled and the correspondence to the "Tza'aka" of
Mordechai for more on what Yaakov *may* have done improperly....

> I don't want to start another thread about can we critisize the
> avos(although it would be better then telling me moshiacits are bad and we
> better watch our back because around each corner is a moshiacist because I
> already know that) but to continue the thread of yaakov's actions and how
> other actions relate to them as detailed by our gedolim would be an
> interesting thread.

===> Indeed.  I think that the primary objection has been the attempt to
"chap a midrash" and apply it to current events in a manner that is
denigrating to the Avos.  A far more (to me) interesting comparison is
between Dovid ("caught with Bat-sheva") and Clinton as follows: When Dovid
was "caught" -- even though *Technically* he could claim that he was
innocent, he IMMEDIATELY stated: "I have sinned" (See G'ra on that verse
in Shmuel II, as well).  No wiggling around -- no attempt to "whitewash"
anything.. contrast that to Clinton who grudgingly apologized to the
"American Public" for having misled them and that ONLY after all the
evidence came out.....  Here is yet another example of the greatness of
Dovid's character as contrasted with... oh you know...


> Elie Ginsparg

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:00:38 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
assorted topics, kedushas ha'aretz kodem M"T

1. The implication that Ya'akov was guilty of deception is borne out in Da'as
Zekeinim on Braishis 29:25 - "mimch lamaditi zeh haramaut...".  The reading of
Anochi Eisav bechorecha k'pshuto as a lie ' may be justified as bending' the
truth for tzorchei sha'ah - see Ibn Ezra to Braishis 20:12 for what I think is
the first instance.

2. Aveira Lishma - As far as I know the gemera Nazir applies the term only to
the ma'aseh with Yael - never to the Avos.   I cannot find the term used in
Nefesh HaChaim.  R' Chaim's lomdus is that kodem matan Torah there was no
concept of aveirah in the ordinary sense of an immutable statute - aveirah
lishma means you have violated the aveira, just b'kavanah l'shem shmayaim.
Crucial distinction, no?

3. Kedushat haAretz kodem M"T - Chasam Sofer explains RAshi that Rachel was
not buried in E. Yisrael because there was no kedushas ha'aretz till Yehoshua.
Meoras HaMAchpeila, however, which was purchased, did have kedushas ha'aretz.
Seems to be against B"B 100 where the gemear learns kinyan halicha from
Avraham - i.e. Avraham had a kinyan in E. Yisrael.  See PArashas Derachim
derush 9 - just wanted to make the he'ara becasue its parshas hashavua.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:11:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET>
Re: Avodah V2 #101

> ------------------------------
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Why Other Chassidim Do Not Engage in Kiruv
> "...Hashem commanded not to connect to the Erev Rav in any way, and
> [only] thus will they be worthy to build a Mishkon, for Jews themeselves
> are holy, but the Erev Rav, however all good deeds they do are only for
> their own advantage, as is apparent,as the Rabbanim, Chassidim and Ba'alei
> Battim in our generation are mostly from the Erev Rav, and flock to bear
> authority over the community, and all of their deeds are only for
> themselves to garner honor and money. Therefore, only interact with those
> who serve [Hashem] in truth and devote themselves to Hashem without any
> benefit to themselves. 

===> I have a serious problem with such a formulation:
1. what ever happened to Mitzvas Tochacha?  It only applied to thos Jews
who hold from YOUR Rebbe and nobody else?
2. On what basis can such an identification be made at all?  Is this
because of their deeds?  what happened to "Tinok Sh'nishba"?  What is the
response to the RaMBaM who stated that we should gently try to bring in
the "Children of the Karaites" who simply do not know any better?  Are
they also fom the Erev Rov?
3. Seems that there is now a new definition of Ahavas Yisrael -- only for
those who hold from your Rebbe (and vice-versa).
4. What about the concept of arevus?  Does this mean that these Erev Rov
Jews cannot be motz'ee anyone (and vice-versa)??

Seems to me that he *may* have only been referring to Jews who show an
excessive amount of chutzpa -- perhaps because the identification of Am
Yisrael is in terms of "..Bayshanim.."

> ------------------------------
> From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> Subject: Non Moshiach Lubavitch Issues
> Dovid Eliezrie wrote:
> > 
> >  We have a valid shittah in Torah. If someone walks into my Chabad House (in
> > California) and learns how to put on Tefilin I have no reason not to teach
> > my Minhag. 

===> Actually, there is a VERY GOOD reason.  Maybe this fellow who "walks
into" the Chabad House has a perfectly VALID Minhag that he just does not
know about!  By what right does "Rabbi Chabad House" deprive the potential
Ba'al Teshuva of performing mitzvos as the B"T's family originally
performed such mitzvos.  This is not a trivial issue.  I know of one case
where a sefardi fellow -- whose family had ORIGINALLY been instrumental in
founding a shul and then became "frei" -- who ended up abandoning his
Sefardi Minhagim and adopting ChaBaD minhagim and then abandoning his
[still nominally] frum shul.  thus, instead of providing a potential to
build up the Sefardi kehilla, the "ChaBaD approach" espoused by the poster
actually contributed to the degradation of the Kehilla.  AND, in this
case, where the fellow was KNOWN to be a sefardi, there seems to have been
no excuse since there WERE weel-defined sefardi minhagim.  So, unless
ChaBaD decides that "Minhag Avos" has no significance, it appears VERY
wrong to simply teach ChaBaD minhagim.
Further, I have seen where this is done deceptively.  For example, in the
case of ChaLav Yisrael -- NOT ONLY do ChaBaD teach THEIR "Shita" that
ShaLaV STaM is not kosher -- they distort R. Moshe's Responsa which
explicitly permit it in this country and state that the adoption of
drinking ChaLaV Yisrael is a HANHAGA but not a requirement since our
"ChaLaV STaM" in this country is kosher.  This seems totally

> Of course you can teach him your minhag.  The problem is that there is 
> no attempt to differentiate between your minhagim and the minhagim of 
> other segments of Jews.    You teach your minhagim as though they are 
> the essence of Judaism.  By the time they realize that putting on 
> teffilin according to the Chabad minhag is only one of many differing 
> minhagim amongst Klal Israel, they are well indoctrinated into Chabad.  

===> And, there appears to be no thought as to the potential agmas nefesh
that a grandfather of a B"T may experience seeing that the family Minhagim
are NOT being maintained.

> This leaves them no freedom of choice to explore other streams such as 
> the Litvishe, Yeshiva,  or modern orthodox or even other Hasidic 
> movements. Chabad Kiruv seems to imprint on the Baal Teshuva that Chabad 
> is the only true way to be an Oved HaShem.  Compare that to the approach 
> of NCSY.  "Graduates" of NCSY are found all over Judaism, from YU to 
> Telshe.

==> Of course, because NCSY is interested in kiruv to YAHADUS -- not to

> It is as good as  the Minhag of Brisk or Aishenaz. The same goes
> > for benthing licht for girls, nusach etc. etc. We are not a different world,
> > just a different shittah. In fact in almost every Jewish community of size
> > there are three competing voices in the frum world, The Livasher Yeshiva
> > dereck, Lubavitch and YU. (there are smaller groups in certain communities
> > of other yeshivas, and Chassidim). The variety of Mosdos Chinuch usually
> > represents this variety of ideologies.

===> Sure it is -- and THEIR customs are JUST AS GOOD as ChaBaD's! and
that is why it is wrong to take NON-ChaBaD people and present ONLY chaBaD
customs as if THOSE are the only "Torah MiSinai"!  Please note a Livisher
Yeshiva and how IT relates to (for example) a Sefardi in its midst.  Note
how YU now has SEFARDI minyanim for its sefardim!  Does ChaBaD do the same
when it approaches non-frum Sefardim?

> > The variety in Orthodoxy is the true pluralism in Judaism. For those of you
> > on this list that respect the various shittahs there can be common ground.
> > Those who have a disdain for Lubavitch no matter what we do about the
> > Moshistim or what we don't do then there is little to talk about.

===> Indeed and it would be really refreshing if ChaBaD "practiced what it
preached" here by letting Ba'alei Teshuva discover THEIR Minhag Avos
BEFORE "teaching" Minhagei ChaBad.

> > 
> > Dovid Eliezrie

> ------------------------------
> From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> Subject: Lubavitcher Correspondences
> Thanks to Micha for the very enlightening corespondence which I believe 
> at the very least highlights the animus between factions within Chabad 
> about the unresolved standing of the moshiachists.  It seems to be a 
> struggle for survival of the fittest. I happen to be very close with a 
> Prominent Lubavitch family in Detroit and I believe they are the 
> exception rather than the rule.  I am told that Detroit is very much in 
> the anti Moshichist camp. And these Lubavitchers are extremely upset by 
> what's  going on now in Lubavitch.  To paraphrase what they told me: 
> These idiots (the moshichists) are destroying everything the Rebbe 
> worked for.  Yet when I attended the wedding of their daughter late last 
> summer.  I heard the father of the groom declare under the chupah to all 
> who were there, words to the effect that, "May the Rebbe rise at techyas 
> hamesim and lead us out of this bitter galus." Nobody protested and the 
> wedding went on just fine without skipping a beat.This seemed to me to 
> contradict the protestations that this family demonstrated when 
> discussing the issue with me. 

===> There is no reason to have protested that statement.  There are
midrashim that when Mashiach comes and there is Techiyas HaMeisim, then
each Rov will "lead" his own kehilla out of golus.  Thus, the wish as
expressed is perfectly proper (although I am sure that SOME could
misinterpret it).

> HM

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 98 10:25:54 EST

I was to blame for the euphemism -- what was intended by this was to
more or less subvert the claim that Gimmel Tammuz makes no difference
as to the Rebbe being a candidate for Moshiach.  What I implied by this
was the identification of the Rebbe as Moshiach was dangerous prior to
Gimmel Tammuz (even if there was more solid grounding then) and was by
no means the unanimous and majority opinion.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:43:00 -0500
From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Re: J.E.C.

> I have noticed that Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz's "signature" is always followed
"Jewish Educational Center." <
Did you ever consider that "Jewish Educational Center" is *part* of
RETeitz's signature?

> It suddenly occurred to me to ask the following: <
WADR, please avoid "sudden" questions in the future, especially those which
are irrelevant to the Avodah-list mandate.

> Are Rabbi Teitz's opinions one and the same with those of J.E.C. and its
board members (if any) or is the board and Rabbi Teitz one and the same?

Should I conclude that all Jewish Elizabethans affiliated with J.E.C.
hach?) agree with Rabbi Teitz's opinions or have authorized him to speak on
their behalf?

Same question applies to parents of students and to teachers at J.E.C. <
I'll let Eliyahu answer these questions if & when, and by which method, he
wants to.  Permit me to merely point out the "Cong. BT" line in
RYGBechofer's signature and ask you if you wish answers to the same
questions from him.

My apologies to all for interrupting the wonderful flow of this list.  We
now return to our regular programming schedule... :-)  Have a great

Michael Poppers  =*=  Elizabeth, NJ

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:52:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Erev Rav

Once more, I am put in the uncomfortable position of defending a theology
that is not my own, but the Gr"a also speaks about Erev Rav - such as in
Aderes Eliyahu p. 324 on Devarim 1:1: "Bein Paran u'bein Tofel" and says
Ba'alei Machlokes and Lashon Hara; Thos who pursue Ta'avos, Tricksters and
Charlatans, Those who pursue Honor, and Those who pursue Money are all
Erev Rav, but the Ba'alei Machlokes are worse - they are from Amalek,
Moshiach does not come until they are eradicated and concerning them it
says "Timcheh es Zecher Amalek."

Now, R' Tzadok (Pri Tzaddik Zachor 5) takes this to be a spiritual war
that goes on in everyone's own soul, but it seemsR' Chaim Tzanzer took it

More sources (including the grounding in Zohar) and discussion - and where
I received my information - may be found in R' Moche Yechiel (Weiss)
Tzuriel's Beis Yechezkel Hilchos Dei'os pp. 83-84. 

You may now, in any event, readily understand Eida Chareidis signs that
say "timche es Amalek haTziyoni..."

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Zvi Weiss wrote:
> ===> I have a serious problem with such a formulation:  1. what ever
> happened to Mitzvas Tochacha?  It only applied to thos Jews who hold
> from YOUR Rebbe and nobody else?  2. On what basis can such an
> identification be made at all?  Is this because of their deeds?  what
> happened to "Tinok Sh'nishba"?  What is the response to the RaMBaM who
> stated that we should gently try to bring in the "Children of the
> Karaites" who simply do not know any better?  Are they also fom the Erev
> Rov?  3. Seems that there is now a new definition of Ahavas Yisrael --
> only for those who hold from your Rebbe (and vice-versa).  4. What about
> the concept of arevus?  Does this mean that these Erev Rov Jews cannot
> be motz'ee anyone (and vice-versa)?? 


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

Go to top.


[ 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 ]

< Previous Next >