Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 117

Saturday, January 9 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:01:35 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: quoting in context


<<
The following--comment and response--were posted by Rabbii Teitz:

    <<
     I don't want to burst your bubble by Lubavitchers are frum Jews, all of
them
     that I know do their best to keep the halachas of Shulchon Aruch.
     >>

Agreed, but Shulchan Aruch *HaRav*, and THAT is exactly the point everyone
has been trying to make.
>>

While the response is mine, the comment I was addressing is NOT mine,
otherwise I would not have addressed it!

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1956 17:04:56 +0000
From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:
miscellaneous


1.  See H. Mamrim 3:3 (classical source for tinok shenishba, which seems
to be the source of the Shulhan Aruch HaRav - I don't own a copy so I
can't verify that)

2.  The dispute about whose minhag a chozer betshuva should adopt
(that's a terrible term, by the way: see #1 immediately above) - it
would seem to depend on what you think the force of minhag is.  If
minhag avos is only a poor man's substitute for minhag hamakom then a CB
could justifiably argue that his "frum family" is more a makom than his
several-generations-back ancestors a beis av.

3.  WRT the definition of a chasid as someone with a personal relation
with a rebbe who is appropriate for his neshama:

a. Why are there rebbeim with so many chassidim that it would seem
impossible for them all to have personal relations with him?

b. Why do children adopt their father's rebbe - do they invariably have
the same shoresh neshama?

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:46:03 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Yaakov's Deception - Methaphors


I think RSR Hirsch's point is well taken.  Yaakov was not so much deveicing his 
father, rahter he was an actor in a charade whose point was to demnstrate to 
Yitzchok his niavete and gulibility vis-a-vis Eisov.  Certainly an actor on a 
stage who says I am so-and-so is not to be considered as lying.

To be fair, Yaakov might have been the uniwtting actor in this drama; howver sof
maase, it DID dwan upon Yitachok at the point where he said bo achihco b'emirmo 
and stil said gam Barcuh yihye.

Lmai nafko mino?  Halochically it is not ok to deceive, but it is probably ok to
weave a fancifiul tale that never happened in order to illustrate a point.

EG let's say a life insurance salesman tells a tall tale about how the death 
beneift saved family X from financial ruin and family X lo hoyo v'lo nivro; it's
ok as long as afterwards he says this was not a FACTUAL tale but an illustration
of what COULD happen.  What IS factual is the point being made, that life 
insurance MIGHT prevent a financial catastophe.

The truth of Rivko's point is, "Listen here Yitzchok, do you see how Yaakov 
succesfully impersonated Eisov, well Eisov has been succesfully impersonating a 
tzaddik for decades.  Get it?"

So nu why didn't Rivko go straight to Yitzchok with the scoop?  think back to 
Soro when she Told Avrohom about Yishmoel.  The use of tales, parables, and 
metaphors can often communicate at far deeper and more sophisticated levels.  
Chahssidishe rebbes and maggidim know this and use it all the time.  And the 
wise listener can discern the lesson from the literary device....

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:17:30 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Subject:
Re: Yerushas Ha'Nesi'us in Jewish History


>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>> Do you have a problem with the family of Hillel HaZaken? His position
>> also was passed via heredity.
>This was only because his descendants were worthy. Hillel himself received
>the nesi'us when Bnei Beseira stepped down because they felt Hillel was
>worthier. At the time of the zugos the Nesi'us was certainly not
>hereditary. When Chazal were no longer satisfied with RG they deposed him
>and appointed REBA.

It is no different in Chassidic groups. If a son (son-in-law) is worthy to
take over then he gets the nod. If not, then not. There are a number of sons
who were skipped over for grandsons. (Stolin and Boyan are two good examples.
BTW the later is VERY highly regarded.)

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:18:38 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Subject:
Re: Inherited Titles


>Micha Berger wrote:
>> Before we point fingers at Chassidus for inherited titles, let's look at the
>> Roshei Yeshiva of Lakewood. <grin> Or, for that matter, those of Sura and
>> Pumpedisa.
>The advantage that the Yeshiva system has is that very often, the
>succesion line follows the son in law, who is usually hand picked for
>his daughter by her father, and is ususally a great Talmud Chacham in
>his own right, earnining that zchus thru his own merit. Hence, the next
>in line to be the Rosh HaYeshiva very likely is worthy of that title on
>his own anyway.  This is rarely the case with Chasidic dynasties as was
			 ^^^^^^^^

If you are saying it is rarely the case that a worthy person is chosen, athat
is false. If you are saying that it is rare that a son-in-law is chosen, that
is true, since there are usually sons.

>example, the Boyaner Chasidim have as their Rebbe, the grandson of the
>previous Rebbe, a title he received by inheritance at a very young age.

And for which he is worthy.

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:18:54 -0600 (CST)
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Subject:
Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1


>R. M shulman writes: <<ALL the concepts of chassidus go back to the
>Baal Shem Tov.>>
>I am NOT well-versed in Chassidus, but I am in history.  Ponder this:
>1) Besht sets out to form a NEW derech - a revolution that dveikus no longer
>requires being an "insider" (ie alegiance to the current rabbinic authorities)
>2) He forms Chasidism
>3) Now the ultimate of chaissidism has become (acoording to M. Shulman
>v'sayoosso) how much one PRECISELY conforms to the Besht's teachings (remmber
>there is NO chidush to chasissism, it is THE undisturbed Mesora from teh besht
>that counts not ruach hakodesh or whatever).
>Question: how long did the Besht's revolution against the prevaling rabbinic
>Orthodox authorities take to substitue its own "orthodoxy" of Besthism?
>Answer: apparently not long.

Within 100 years Poland/Galitziah were majority chassidim. Russian (excluding
Lithuania) most likely was also. Hungary was either chassidic or Rabbis who
were not opposed to chassidim.

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


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:36:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Chassidshe Ironic Twist #1


I think you missed the point.

The Besht started a derech that did not necessarily require a Rebbe,
certainly not hereditarily - at least not that we "outsiders" understand.

On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> Within 100 years Poland/Galitziah were majority chassidim. Russian
> (excluding Lithuania) most likely was also. Hungary was either chassidic
> or Rabbis who were not opposed to chassidim. 
> 

YGB

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:40:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Yerushas Ha'Nesi'us in Jewish History


On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Moshe Shulman wrote:

> It is no different in Chassidic groups. If a son (son-in-law) is worthy
> to take over then he gets the nod. If not, then not. There are a number
> of sons who were skipped over for grandsons. (Stolin and Boyan are two
> good examples.  BTW the later is VERY highly regarded.) 
> 

Again, I think you missed the point. Hitherto, it was not required to be a
"bnan shel kedoshim me'geza tarshishim shalasheles ha'yuchsin" to be a
Rebbe. This is an invention of later generations of Chassidus.

I very much like Chassidus without the contemporary Rebbe idea!

Alternately, I like what the singer Shlomo Carlebach said: "We all must be
little Rebbes."

YGB

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: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:40:24 -0500
From: gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
Subject:
[none]


Please,  a little rachmonus on the quoting!
Thank you.
Gershon
___________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:47:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Yerushos in Hungary


The issue of yerushas ha'rebbeschaft in Chassidus got me thinking: Perhaps
it is more a Hungarian than Chassidic phenomenon (it can't be Polish,
becasue, for example, we know the Rabbonus in Warsaw was not hereditary). 
Indeed, I think it is the CS that has a teshuva on the rabbinate being,
l'chatchila, hereditary. Was Hungary more into yerushas ha'shteller than
other diasporas? What happened in Pressburg/Bratislava after the Ksav
Sofer? 

YGB

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: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 18:10 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Re; TINOK SHE'NISHBA


Compare the approach of the Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 3:3) re: the Karaites
whom he considered as A'NUS *even though he sees how Jews act* ["v'af al
pi she'shama achar kach she'hu yehudi v'ra'ah yehudim v'datam, harei hu
k'a'nus.."] to that of the Radbaz there (he calls them not A'NUSIM but as
KOFRIM BA'TORAH).

CHAZON ISH: what the Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah Siman 2:16) was discussing was
about the inyan of *moridin v'eyn ma'alin*. Already 60 years ago he stated
that we no longer "danin din mumarin v'apikorsim" because of "eyn ha'hashgacha
geluya".

Josh


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 19:36:48 -0600 (CST)
From: mpress@ix.netcom.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #116


On 01/08/99 11:19:39 Rabbi YGB wrote:

>I believe a tinok she'nishba is also a mumar or kofer, no?
>
>Except according tho the Binyan Tziyon that RDE reminded me of and the
>Meshiv Davar, I believe as well, most poskim and Halacha l'Ma'aseh, I
>believe, requires yayin mevushal for maga tinok she'nishba - if so, there
>is no nafka mina in halacha - and, I believe not in "hashkafa" - between a
>tinok she'nishba and a mummar she'ein moridin.
>
There are nafka minas both in Halacha and hashkafa.  A mumar is a deliberate
sinner while a tinok shenishba is not.  A tinok shenishba will attain forgiveness
when the mikdash is rebuilt by bringing a chatos for relevant aveiros; a mumar will
not.  A tinok shenishba does not have the status of a mechalel Shabbos b'farhesia,
a mumar does, etc. If you hold firmly to your position, we will have to get into
more discussion to clarify all the details.

Melech

M. Press, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair, Touro College
1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
718-252-7800, ext. 275


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 >