Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 129

Friday, January 15 1999

• Nusach HaGra
• Re: pshat vs. derash
• new Chasidus
• TSN vs. RLT
• Humor and not
• Re: Avodah V2 #128
• Haskfoos, Chasidishe vs. Misnagdishe
• Chasam Sofer
• Re: Moshe and Avraham
• PC Tanach
• Re: PC Tanach
• Re: large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading
• Re: Irrationality
• Re: Chukim

While we're at it, what is the hetter for the Vilna Gaon, R' Chaim Briker or,
more recently R' YB Soloveitchik to customize nusach hat'filah to conform to
their own s'varos?

It appears to be universally accepted than there is some flexibility beyond
exactly following minhag in the text of tephillah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6062 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 14-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n123, Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> writes:
: Non-sequitor - percentage of content is not necessarily indicative of primary
: focus.  You also create a false dichotomy between ethics (pshat) and law
: (derush); does the ethics of Braishis have any meaning if someone does not

Not so much ethics as ta'am hamitzvos. Which I guess is ethics in the case of
bein adam lachaveiro. The Chumash when describing mitzvos usually uses a text
that is not as straightforward as a legal text. The words themselves, the
p'shat of the pasuk, is more connected to the ta'am hamitzvah than its
halachos.

Halachos are left to d'rashah. As we all know well, d'rashah often determines
a halachah that is very at odds with the p'shat of the pasuk.

So, the ethics of B'reishis is ta'am hamitzvos, not divorced from them. My
use of the word "ethics" was misleading. (I think I said "ethics and religious
message" as a synonym for ta'amei hamitzvos.)

I note that this tendency is consistant with the rest of Tanach, where
aggadah is the only content.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6062 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 14-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>It would seem, therefore, that there's a need for new movements or 
>submovements (e.g. a new kind of Chassidus) every third generation.
Unfortunately, we're currently running a tad low on Besh"t's, Salanters
and Hirsches.
	See the Meshech Chochma on "Ve'af gam zos bihyosom..." in the tochocho
of Bechukosai.

Gershon

BTW Can someone enlighten us non-historical types about the wedding in
Istula or Peshischa and what happened there?
___________________________________________________________________
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]

OK.

After some perfunctory research, I conclude that the Poskim do continue to
use TSN ("Tinok She'Nishba") in the classic sense, as RMP averred.

They have created, in reality, a new Halachic class of "Rasha Lifnei
Tochacha" (RLT) to cover the sinners of the modern variety.

It is the RLT that the Chazon Ish says the din of Moridin v'lo Ma'alin
does not apply to.

It is the RLT that the Chofetz Chaim at the end of Ahavas Chesed notes
that it is a mitzva to love.

A TSN would be considered a "Shav Me'Yedi'aso" (SMY) vis-a-vis a Korbon -
a RLT would not.

The Binyan Tzion 2:23 on Stam Yeinam by a Mechalel Shabbos notes a
conundrum: He holds that a MS that is k'Mumar l'Kol ha'Torah Kulla is only
one that not only desecrates Shabbos - but also does not make it a Mikro
Kodesh. What to do, therefore, with those that daven, say kiddush, and
then desecrate the day b'melocho?

I would propose putting such people in the RLT category - and, therefore,
their wine would still be forbidden.

YGB

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

Joke (my readers tell me they want them occasionally on this list):
The year is 2001 CE, and two Israelis are on a street-corner holding a currency
bill and arguing.

Along walks this kollelnik, and asks them what they're arguing about.

"This man tried to pay me with a forged bill!"

"No it's not, it's one of those new bills from Europe."

"Here", he said, handing it to the kollelnik, "You're impartial, you tell me
what /you/ think."

He takes the bill and looks it over, turning it this way and that. "You're
right. Mechzei k'Euro Ra!"

(Credit to Eliot Shimoff <shimoff@umbc.edu> for finding the pun. Story mine.)


Now, on to the non humor...

I'm not happy with where the list has been lately. Much of it is my fault,
posting the anti- and pro- articles on the meshichist issue was a mistake.
(FWIW, I figured that since my attempt to close the topic failed, maybe I could
raise its information content.)

Then, when all looked well and the meschichtzin were no longer discuss, a few
personal matters arose which took my attention away from the list. Next time I
look, again it's one argument after another.

Since then, most of the email on this list has been argument, not discussion.
Much personal animus, rehashing old arguments (centuries old) and trying to
convince someone of something you're bound to fail at. Never mind the vast
quantity of motzi shem ra (hopefully /not/ lashon hara) against large segments
of the frum community from both sides.

I'd appreciate it if the discussion of Chassidus were put on hold for now. Let's
revisit it in a month, after tempers have cooled enough to allow some semblence
of sane discussion.

Insulting the other party doesn't work. It just convinces him you're not worth
listening to. You put the other person on the defensive, so every idea meets
with resistance. Dialogue collapses, and he replies in kind. And so, the animus
spirals upward. (Or is that downward?)

Also, someone has to get in the last word. It can't always be you. How many
times in the last three weeks has someone tried to close a conversation, saying
that all the points have been made and are now just being repeated? Has it
worked?

-mi

PS: We've lost 12 readers (lurkers) over the past 3 days. I am forced to
conclude there's a connection.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6062 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 15-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: chassidus
> 
> >OK you totally misunderstand. The derech of the Baal Shem Tov is called
> >chassidus. If you don't follow his derech you are not part of chassidus. You
> >can be something else. The derech of Yisroel Salanter is not chassidus. So?
> >>>
> >R. Yisrael Salanter (he deserves his title) never claimed to bedefining
> 
> Then I suppose you will start refering to the Baal Shem Tov as R. Yisroel Baal
> Shem Tov?

===> There is a major difference: The BeShT is referred to as such as a
mark of RESPECT.  Indeed, if someone were to refer to the BeShT by his
given name, it would certainly be proper to include his title of "Rov".  
To refer to R. Yisrael Salanter without his title is simply rudeness.

To attempt to "cover up" this disrepect instead of (a) apologizing or (b)
simly treating it as a "slip" compounds the disrespect.
--Zvi

> ------------------------------
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: litvak bashing
> 
> 
> ><<
> >A Rebbe is a Tzaddik who has chassidim. Since you are a Litvak,I am sure the
> >following will be interesting for you. The Shinover Rov used to say
> >that Rebbe
> >is Roshei Teivos "Rosh B'nei Yisroel" and if he is not worthy: "Rah b'ayei
> >HaShem".  His son the Cheshinover Rov said Rabanim is Roshei Teivos "Rashaim
> >b'chayaham Nikruim Meisim." One of the chassidim asked him, 'The Yid is
> >missing.' To which he answered 'That is right the Yidis missing.' :) (Rebbe
> >Yankaele Z'L of Peshevorsk said before relating this that just like in the
> >old seforim they say that the goyim mentioned in the sefer does not refer to
> >the present day goyim, so the Rabbanim here mentioned does not mean today's
> >Rabbanim.)
> >>>
> >Really now!  Lashon hara on all the rabbanim of the world at once.  The
> >tzidkus is just oozing from that statement.  (The apologetic at the end is
> >both insulting and inadequate).
> 
> Had I been you I could run off the list of things that you have violated. Let
> me just point out that you never inquired of the context and hence have
> attempted to judge a talmid chochom without knowing the facts. (BTW if he had
> meant ALL the rabanum it would have included himself, which would have been
> quite interesting.)

===> If this quote was dependent upon *context*, then it should NOT have
been quoted without the supporting context.  Please explain why it is not
considered Lashon Hara to cite something out of context but then to
respond about "judging a Talmid Chacham" instead (and blame the other
person) instead of simply stating that it was an error on YOUR part to
cite this without the necessary context.  

--Zvi
------------------------------------------------------
Re: Succession of Rebbeim...
> 
> I would call that 'not worthy', maybe you disagree as to whether it is worthy
> or not, but to most chassidim it would be.

===> Too bad that "being worldly" is now defined as "not worthy".  Once
again, it seems that "chassidus" (or to be a "chassid") means to look down
upon someone who has
used their intellectual capabilities as given to them by the Borei.

--Zvi
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:13:01 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Seforim
> 
> >> >===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
> >> >learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere
> >> >fact that it is from the "Rebbe's ancestors" does not appear to confer
> >> >special favor.  Instead, what I see here is a convoluted "system" that
> >> >prepetuates certain seforim as "worth learning" and "drops" others.
> >> Again you have decided before handwhat the chassidishe derech is, and then
> >> question what I have said based on that. You still don't realize
> >> that you are
> >> wrong about what the derech is.
> >===> As I repeatedly point out: I have not decided ANYTHING.  However, it
> >appears that to rigorously question "Chassius" as RMS is explaining it is
> >considered a "decision".
> 
> You have made a decision as to what a Rebbe does with respect to the learning
> of his chasidim, and then continue to argue that point even when I point out
> that you are in error.

===> Not at all.  I am trying to understand what YOU post as to "what a
Rebbe does wrt the learning..."  If you are unclear or imprecise such that
I repeatedly question, that seems more of an indication as the clarity of
your response.


> 
> 
> >> >===> Again, the point is missed.  If one is defining what is "to be
> >> >learned" based upon the guidance and direction of a Rebbe, then the mere
> >> This is YOUR definition, and not mine. Your mind is essential
> >> closed, and you
> >> have no idea of what I am saying because the answers don't fit your
> >> preconceived ideas. That is just not my problem.
> >===> Please note that RMS was the one who had pointed out that the Rebbe
> >tells one what to learn.  I did not mention it until he brought it up.
> >Apparently, following up on a pooint that RMS, himsele, had mentioned
> >earlier is a sign of a "closed mind".  Similarly, it appears that
> >intellectual rigor isnow defined as being "closed minded".  It is
> >precisely this sort of "fluffy" approach that is problematic.
> 
> Again, Tzvi, there are MANY factors as to which seforim are learned. One is
> that one asks his Rebbe directly (which I have done.) But that is not the only
> one, nor does that limit one in what one can learn. You repeat errors and
> insist that they are established fact. 

===> I do not repeat "errors" -- I cite what RMS has written and point out
that there appear to be logical inconsistencies.  In paritcular, if one
DOES ask his Rebbe as to what to learn, then please explain how that does
not limit what one can learn.

--Zvi 

> ------------------------------
> 
> From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading
> 
> 1.  I'm puzzled at those who are puzzled at the contention that only
> certain sefarim are popular among mainstream chassidim.  The same is
> true among us misnagdim.  After all, who among us (other than Rabbi B)
> regularly studies chiddushei R. Shimon Shkop?

===> But would anyone say that R. Shimon Shkop is not "really"
representative of Torah just because he is not widely studied?
The original thread began because of the issue as to whether one could
understand "chassidus" from the writings of R. Tzadok.


--Zvi

M. Shulman writes:>> 
No one denies that when it comes to Torah that one needs one's sechel. How can 
you learn a blatt gemorah without it? The point of differences is in areas of 
hashkofah and Yesodus HaEmunah. Chassidishe hashkofos are based on kabbalah 
(which are NOT anti-seichel, but a subject which is as openly known.) As to 
Yesodus HaEmunah they are accepted with emunah peshutah. That does not mean 
that those who are baalei madreigah will not explore them intellectually, but 
that the intellectual conclusions will always give ...<<

Anti Seichel might be an exaggeration, yet it is clear in talking to Chassism 
that therr entire Hashkofo vis-a-vis applying Seichel to halocho is very 
different than a Misnaged's hashkofo.

Kabbolo and mysticism DO have their own rationale, I do not consider the 
average Chosid to be a mekubal in the Pre-Chassidic traditional sense.  The Gro 
and the Maharal were big mekuollim, and both engaged in extensive study of 
secular subjects such as math and even music.  (EG the Maharal was acquainted 
with Tycho Brahy and the Gro had euclid Translated into Hebrew).  My 
understanding is that Chassidims is opposed to studying secular subjects 
especially with regard to enhancing Torah understanding.

Do you that some Chadnicks insist that the Rambam was a big mekubal (that's 
Maimonides not Nachmandies)?

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 1956 04:29:05 +0000
From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading

...
Even the Chasam Sofer davened nusach Ari (though the tzibbur davened
regular nusach Ashkenaz).<<

I believ the Chasam Sofer was a Talmid of R. Nosson Adler who insisted on 
davening Nusach Ari in Frnkfort (ableit he had a samll private minyon)

BTW, I believe the maase Harav observes that the Gro PERSONALLY omited Boruch 
Hashem le'olom at Maariv while his own beis Medrash recited it.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

Eliyahu Teitz wrote:

<<<
<<
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....Would anyone care to comment on the
differing
responses of Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu?
>>

I see one clear factor that differentiates the two, and clarifies the
different reactions.  Akeydas Yitzchak happened after many years of
Avraham
interacting with HaShem.  Avraham has gotten to know HaShem, and
comprehend in
his own way the way HE works.  (I see the episode of S'dom as Avraham
learning
about HaShem's aspect of justice, and not that HaShem was testing
Avraham to
see if he would beseech HaShem on their behalf).  I would contend that had
Avraham been tested with the akeyda earlier in his life, he might not have
passed the test.

Moshe's reaction is at the very beginning of his interaction with HaShem.  As
the years progressed, such a reaction would have been inappropriate (in
fact,
the punishment that ultimately befalls Moshe for his errors when dealing with
the people and the rock concerning water might have been less severe
earlier
in his career).  But while there was still a honeymoon period, of getting used
to each other, Moshe was allowed a certain latitude in his comments.  (The
Medrash says that HaShem got angry at Moshe after 7 days of negotiating.
After that long, Moshe should have had a certain level of understanding
andHaShem got upset that Moshe was not acting accordingly).
>>>

I had also thought of something along the lines that you suggest.  However,
as I think more about it, I see the following problem.  In the Akeida, the
Ribbono Shel Olam is masking His true intention.  So under this approach,
Avraham, having come to know and understand His ways through years
direct interaction with Him, should have been perplexed and disturbed to be
commanded to perform an action, which was diametrically opposed not only
to Avraham's understanding of the ways of the Ribbono Shel Olam, but also
to the essence of the Ribbono Shel Olam.  The only way out of the paradox
latent in this approach would be to suggest that Avraham understood the
ways of the Ribbono Shel Olam so well, that he guessed the solution of the
mystery and played out his role as if he did not know that everything was
going to work out in the end.  But that resolution, besides being unsupported
(I think) by Midrashic sources or textual evidence, would drain the entire story
of its awesome, terrifying grandeur, which seems a poor bargain.

I think that Moshe's problem is not that he questioned his mission, but that,
as you point out, he did so to an excessive degree.  The Midrash that has
been cited in which the Ribbono Shel Olam says "chaval d'avdin" in
response to Moshe's questioning strikes me as an expression of frustration
that Moshe refused to accept the valid answers that he was receiving to his
valid questions.  One doesn't necessarily have to interpret the Midrash as
suggesting that the Ribbono Shel Olam was pining away for the
unquestioning obedience of the Avos.  There may be a middle ground that
would have been most preferred.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

I gave a class at one of the local universities this week on Shoftim - the
first in what I hoped would be a series. After the class I received highly
negative feedback, for example, the following snippet from one of the
organizers, an Orthodox Rabbi:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:18:53 -0600
Subject: RE: Wednesday Shiur

Some of the students were very uncomfortable with the manner in which you
spoke about various nations and their character types.  To be honest, I
share this discomfort.
_______________________________________

I was immensely disturbed by this response. How does one learn, let alone
teach, Tanach, without recognizing and accepting that Hashem denigrates
the nations of Cana'an and expects either their conversion (to Ger
Toshav), expulsion or elimination? Are they not clearly typecast
negatively ("to'eivos") etc. Must we not then attempt to understand the
reasons for that denigration - and the reasons for the ongoing battles
with such nations - many on pure religious grounds?

Am I missing some alternate way of understanding?

Have a Good Shabbos,
YGB

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

Many years ago, R. Lookstein O"H (the father) challenged us to
state a topic for which he would give an inpromptu sermon. I
quoted "lo sechaye kol neshom" and "moch timche". He responded,
"young man, there are certain topics that are offlimits, "en dorshin
elo litznuin" It means that the topic is tricky.

But, the Rov once explained that amalek is not a nation but a type.
The on going war is with those the shoe still fits. I don't see why it
 is hard to compare certain nations to "sedom and amorah". There 
are local rotten pockets. The Almighty promissed not to bring a total
mabu, but definitely on a local level.

But, I believe that they can feel that Germany was an evil society. Ragen
said that about Russia. So, whay can they not empathise. Maybe, you
need better mesholim. Shlomo was the biggest chochom because he
gave the best mesholim. Listeners require mesholim. This is the best 
technique for teaching. That and story telling.  Compare them to Russia 
and to Germany.

Gut Shabos

 

Rav Yosef G. wrote:

At 12:02 PM 1/15/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I gave a class at one of the local universities this week on Shoftim - the
>first in what I hoped would be a series. After the class I received highly
>negative feedback, for example, the following snippet from one of the
>organizers, an Orthodox Rabbi:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:18:53 -0600
>Subject: RE: Wednesday Shiur
>
>Some of the students were very uncomfortable with the manner in which you
>spoke about various nations and their character types.  To be honest, I
>share this discomfort.
>_______________________________________
>
>I was immensely disturbed by this response. How does one learn, let alone
>teach, Tanach, without recognizing and accepting that Hashem denigrates
>the nations of Cana'an and expects either their conversion (to Ger
>Toshav), expulsion or elimination? Are they not clearly typecast
>negatively ("to'eivos") etc. Must we not then attempt to understand the
>reasons for that denigration - and the reasons for the ongoing battles
>with such nations - many on pure religious grounds?
>
>Am I missing some alternate way of understanding?
>
>Have a Good Shabbos,
>YGB
>
>Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
>Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
>ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 

I may not have understood your point in your previous question, so let me
clarify it a little.

>4.  I'm exceedingly puzzled by Rabbi Shulman's response to my question
>about how one is to have a personal relationship with a rebbe with an
>exceedingly large number of followers.  At the back of my mind, of
>course, was how they could avoid ptimarily studying writings, which
>Rabbi Shulman views as not a chassidic derech.

The relationship is two way and is based on the chasid himself. There are
basically two classes of chassidim. 1. Baalei batim 2. 'chasidim.' (I know
that is very poor style to use the word I am defining as a classification of
what I am defining, but that is the easiest way. In Europe there was the
'Chevraya, or in Belz the Yoshvim, but these don't really exist today in the
same way due to modern means of transportation.) The overwhelming majority are
in the first class. I think the following story sort of explains it. The
chassidim of the Tzvi L'Tzadik of Bluzov asked him why it was that he spent so
much time talking to R. Arele. (Founder of the Toldos Aharon group in Israel.)
He answered: 'If you asked me what he did, then I would talk with you like
that.'


>  His response was to cite the precedent of Moshe.  Moshe, however, was
>not a rebbe (is this another chassidic/misnagdic split?).  He was a
>rav.  The Rambam, for example, emphasises that he was the only navi
>whose personality did not penetrate his relaying of divine instruction
>(he was like a scribe, unlike all other neviim).  Furthermore, he did
>not have a personal relationship with all of Israel - he worked through
>a hierarchy of teachers (see the Rambam's introduction to peirush
>hamishnayoth).  He had to appeal to all types of personalities, not just
>to those of one particular shoresh neshama.

He was BOTH a Rav and a Rebbe. He gave halachic decesions and constantly
prayed for the Jewish people. :) (BTW there are many Rebbes who are/were the
Rabbi of their town in Europe.)

>  Anyway, back to my question - how is the discipleship of a Gerer
>chasid different from the discipleship of a contemporary chasid of R.
>Tzadok (if such a person exists)?

This is an excellent question and I will deal with it at length after Shabbos.
(BTW since there are not chassidim of R. Tzadok - unless they are like
Breslovers.)

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

>> Zvi, you have decided what chassidus is and is not, and no matter what I will
>> tell you it makes no difference. The only sense that your questions make is if
>> one suspends ones own knowledge of what chassidus is and imagine what you are
>> misunderstanding it to be. Since this is a subject you don't know about maybe
>> it would be better for you to ASK QUESTIONS about it rather then assume that
>> you understand it.
>===> I have not "decided" anytihng.  I have repeatedly QUESTIONED the
>logical basis for *deciding* which Gedolim were "qualified" (l'havdil) to
>be considered "authoritative" in discussing Chassidus (e.g., the notion of

Zvi, your questions are based on a preconceived idea of what you think
Chassidus is about, and then when I attempt to answer according to the facts
you don't adjust your paradigm. Again, if your accept that there are different
daruchim, then there will be seforim that, even if having a certain percent of
common chassidic ideas, will emphasis those that have a relaionship to that
derech. (Tanya is an excellent example.) People learn those things that
represent their 'approach' or derech of chassidus. It is that simple.

>shirayim).  Once again, I will remind all that I got involved because of
>what appeared to be the rather cavalier dismissal of the Machshovo of R.
>Tzadok...  What I hear is that ultimately, chassidus is whatever a Chassid
>*says* that it is whether this is logical, fair, or "proper".  I simply
>question this as an approach....  To ultimately say that I cannot
>understand it is to state that this is a derech that is FUNDAMENTALLY
>illogical or irrational.

Again you have your own conclusions and have nothing from what I say to
support it. There is not nor can ever be a chasid without a Rebbe. You are a
chasid of a Rebbe, which implies that you follow a specific derech. I have
continually stated this, but you have continually ignored that. Your comment
here is just another example of this.

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

>> >===> 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).
>> They continually try to give reasons, not THE reason. There are many 'reasons'
>> in chassidishe seforim also. But there is a recognition that the 'real'
>> reasons are unknown, as Chazal say with regards to the parah adumah.
>==> The "real" reason may be unknown -- but the OBSERVANCE is still within
>an overall rational and logical framework -- i.e., that we are given
>mitzvot which are (ultimately) not comprehended by us [fully] in this
>world and we do them as part of Avodas HaBorei.  Again, the OVERALL
>approach to the chukim is rational and intellectual.  Of course, you can

You seem to change the word 'rational' for whatever you want. It is almost
meaningless. You also contradict yourself. Either we can understand the reason
for a mitzvah or not. If we don't understand it 100% (which I think both of us
agree is not possible) then we are performing a mitzvah to a certain extent
without a rational reason. We just don't understand a part of it (which I
would contend always ends up being over 99%) In this sense chukim are NOT
rational, and whatever you are trying to argue always ends up with that. (BTW
I would suggest looking at rashi in Chukos as to what he says with regards to
the parah adumah. He seems to have no problem recognizing that the nature of a
chok is that we cannot ask as to it's meaning since the 'real' one is
unknowable.)

>> No you are saying that because it is a subject that does not appear explained
>> in seforim, that it is irrational. (That is where the word irrational was
>> first used by you.) Chassidus is a derech, some things are mentioned in
>> seforim, but the ikkar is not (as was discussed in a previous post.) BTW
>> Chazal recognized that such things exist when they forbade learning Kabbulah
>> to large numbers of people. Some things need special situations in which to
>> accuratly relate the meaning.
>===> I certianly used the temr "irrational" but NOT because it is not
>explained in Seforim but because the explanations that I have received are
>not well-grounded in intellectual rigor.  This has nothing to do with
>Kabbala and (to me) it appears that your citation of such is simply an
>attempt to avoid the base issue:

>are more "common" among derachim and a sefer that discusses such should
>not be dismissed simply because the author did not have a "big following"
>to carry on.

Again you repeat your own opinions which I have many times said were wrong. If
you don't wish to know, don't ask. Otherwise if you do ask, listen to the
answers. I have never said a following was required, and I have mentioned
a number of works that shows this. (Toldos for one.)

-- 
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 ]