Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 132

Tuesday, January 19 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 8:06 +0200
From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject:
Re: Chewing gum


See the Orach Chaim 204:8 re: making a bracha on a medicinal substance
that has a pleasant taste. See the Nishmat Avraham OH 204 #4 for a fuller
discussion. As of 2 weeks ago (New England Journal of Medicine) chewing gum
(gum mastic) is now a powerful therapeutic agent in eradicating the bacteria
H. pylorii (implicated in cardiovascular disease, ulcer, and Parkinsons) so
its halachic category may change (check the Nishmat Avraham there for a
discussion whether one makes a bracha if the medicinal substance is bitter
and the sugar is ancillary). One would have to ask a food chemist if gum
mastic is bitter or not.

Josh Backon
backon@vms.huji.ac.il


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:24:15 EST
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Torah and d'veykus


<<
However, the NhC
is a precise inversion of ThR!  For the NhC, the learning time itself
is the ikar, the activity which constitutes devekut, while the pauses
are tafel, only to renew one's concentration on study.  For the ThR,
the learning time is the tafel, to give one chizuk so that one may
spend time engaging in devekut qua contemplation of one's relationship
with the Creator.
>>

The Maharal has a piece (I'll have to dig to remember where) in which he
discusses the phenomenon that great talmidey chachamim generally do not have
long lineages of scholars in their families.  It last two, three generations,
sometimes longer, but after a while it ceases.  He claims this is based upon
the idea that to these talmidey chachamim, the learning of Torah has become
the central component of the religious fervor, and not a desire to be close to
HaShem, similar to the idea espoused by Rivash.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:49:19 -0800
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
Subject:
kashrut of cut onions


pardon my ignorance, but i'm trying to find out about the inyan of leaving
the ends of onion,garlic etc on to prevent sakana.  i know this is a gemara
in niddah. what i'm trying to find out is halacha lemaaseh, does anyone
besides the shulchan aruch harav bring this minhag down.  i.e.  is this just
minhag chabad or is the ganze olam noheg this way?
kol tuv


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:53:16 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
The Ends Justify the Means - Lubavitch


I didn't think I would be posting again so soon on the Shtuyos of 
Lubavitch, but, here we go again... 

I will probably be severely reprimanded for this post but I feel I must 
speak out once more.  My heart cries out!  WHAT IS GOING ON. This 
morning after learning Daf Yomi in the Main Lubavitcher Shul, I was 
shown a Lubavitch pamphlet published by Lubavitch Chabad of Illinois, 
the Mainsteram organization of Chabad in Chicago.  It was written to the 
"Zchus of the Admor Nasi Dorosenu".  On it the following words were 
written:

"L'Zchus ANA"SH (Anshei Shluchim?) that live in Greater Chicago.
May their continued efforts toward unity bring Nachas to the Rebbe 
preparing an environment which will hasten the Hisgalus of Moshiach 
Tzidkeinu with the imminent arrival of our complete Redemption"

The typesetting cover pages provided by the Shluchim office of the 
Lubavitch Mesivta of Chicago.

Well this ties together just about all segments of Lubavitch here in 
Chicago.  There is no hiding it anymore. One may quibble about how far 
off the edge of the earth some Lubavitchers have gone but at the very 
least, the common denominator is demonstrated by the above paragraph.  
What is that common denominator?  Well, that is the $64.00 question!  
One of the main problems with trying to "peg" Lubavitch down is their 
propensity to be vague (in this case, a form of lying) about what they 
actually believe about the Rebbe.  They phrase things in a way, that 
leaves open the possibility of multiple, even opposite interpretations. 
The above paragraph can mean nothing more than innocently saying about 
the Rebbe that he, as a Meiltitz Yosher, will have the Nachas Ruach of a 
Neshama in the Olam HaNeshomos, and will be a "Beiter" to the Rebono 
Shel Olam  to end this "bitter Galus".  However the more likely 
interpretation is that this is a direct prayer to the Rebbe, himself,  a 
somewhat Christological concept. Nowhere is the name of G-d mentioned.  
The implication from the above statement is that the  Rebbe is indeed 
alive.  Well, I guess the Nachas the Rebbe receives is actual and is 
received (I suppose) through some sort of transcendental means, where 
ever he is. Who knows!

And what about the reference to Admor, Nasi Doroseinu?  Is he still 
alive?  Can a dead man be the Admor Nasi Doroseinu? Come on! They think 
he is ALIVE!

The point is that all this talk in recent weeks here on the lists by 
apologists and defenders within Lubavitch seem to be nothing but LIES, 
designed to mislead their brethren (non Lubavitchers) into thinking that 
everything is OK,  that mainstream Chabad is indeed not really in the 
Moshichist camp and  doing everything they can to bring people into the 
fold. 

 Sure!  

One thing I got out of Lubavitch, many years ago, long before this whole 
Moshiach business started, is that they are firm believers in the dictum 
"The ends justify the means".  This was (and is) their approach to Kiruv 
and this is their approach to their brethren on the subject of Moshiach. 
 Tell us what they think we want to hear about them, even if it is a 
lie.  After all the end (the coming of Moshiach), will justify the 
means, (lying.)  They try and placate our fears about them and when the 
"truth" about the Rebbe's Moshiachhood becomes revealed, everything will 
fall into place.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:06:37 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V2 #121


In a message dated 1/12/99 8:58:10 AM EST, weissz@IDT.NET writes:

>  ===> The point is that this was NOT an "anonymous" (e.g., "Amar Mar")
>  statement -- it was ONE opinion and it does NOT appear that this was the
>  one that "the Gemora" declared as definitive.  "The Gemora" only considers
>  it "valid" in the sense that a particular Tanna stated it.

>  ===> We know (in the case of Rashi, as a good example) that when it comes
>  to the Pasuk, itself -- a Meforeish can cite something as p'shat even
>  though that is not the final "halchically accepted" formulation.  That is
>  why we formulate Halachos in terms of formulations of the Gemora and not
>  in terms of formulations of meforshei Hakasuv.  This is NOT a matter of
>  "making anything up" -- it is simply an approach to explaining p'sukim in
>  Novi.  The fact that you are UNABLE to cite such proofs form meforshei
>  HaShas says much more.

See the Maharsha on the opinion of Rabi Nechunia Ben Hakoneh on which Rabon
Yochanon Ben Zakai said that his interpertation is better then all above
including my own (that of RYB"Z), the only one who interperts that Possuk in
that Sugia that a Goy gets Kapporoh thru Tzedakah.

The MaHaRShA explains that in general there are 2 attributes Tzedakah which
refers to money and Chesed which refers to Guf, all previous Tanaim hold that
the term Tzedaka is used for a Yid to emphasize that even this lower level
causes that Tromeim it uplifts, on the other hand for a Goy the term used is
Chesed to emphasize that even this higher level of kindness is a Cheit, the
Ufto of RNB"H (which RYB"Z endorses) is that the possuk does not mention the
word chesed in relation to L'umim (rather it belongs to the previous part that
Tzedakah and Chesed are Mromeim a yid), and the MaHaRShA explains because by a
goy there is no *Chesed Klal* wheras this Midoh is the Midoh of a Yid as the
Gemoroh says in Perek Ho'oreil. And see als Iyun Yosef on the Ein Yaakov.

>  ===> Again, the p'shat in the gemora there does NOT support that approach
>  readily.  In light of the citations that Nochrim DO have a mitzva of
>  Tzedaka, it is far more credible to adopt the approach that this IS a
>  "forgiveness" for them.

As I mentioned before this is a Machlokes, they are both credible opinions in
Torah Msinai.

>  ===> When Kabbola goes against the P'shat of the Gemora, it appears to
>  make more sense to simply note a disagreement rather than develop a
>  structure that is NOT apparent in the sugya, itself.  That the Kabbola
>  (and the TanYa) adopt a certain position is not in question.  That this is
>  apparent in the Gemora IS not so obvious.

However when Pshat in Gemoroh reads IMHO like the Kabalah, in addition
Mforshei Hakroh, have no problem with it, there is no reason to make
Machlokes.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:19:04 EST
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: The Ends Justify the Means - Lubavitch


In a message dated 1/18/99 7:49:29 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

As I have no intention to debate any of these issues publicly, I will just
correct obvious misconceptions.
  
>  "L'Zchus ANA"SH (Anshei Shluchim?)

ANAS"H = Anshei Shlomeinu (not a misconception problem <g>).

>  The above paragraph can mean nothing more than innocently saying about 
>  the Rebbe that he, as a Meiltitz Yosher, will have the Nachas Ruach of a 
>  Neshama in the Olam HaNeshomos, and will be a "Beiter" to the Rebono 
>  Shel Olam  to end this "bitter Galus".  However the more likely 
>  interpretation is that this is a direct prayer to the Rebbe, himself,  a 
>  somewhat Christological concept.

Why should I accept that as the more likely interpertation?

> Nowhere is the name of G-d mentioned.  

It is a well known fact that the L. Rebbe was Makpid that on all Seforim and
Stationary a B"H should be printed, are you saying that no where in that
pamphelet prior to that Hakdasha there was no B"H?

>  And what about the reference to Admor, Nasi Doroseinu?  Is he still 
>  alive?  Can a dead man be the Admor Nasi Doroseinu? Come on! They think 
>  he is ALIVE!

The Rebbe used this term on the previous Rebbe after his Petirah, it has
nothing to do with life and death, our leader is our Rebbe ZTZ"L, with Petirah
we did not throw away his teachings.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind
  


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 06:14:05 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: The Ends Justify the Means - Lubavitch


Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

 
> ANAS"H = Anshei Shlomeinu (not a misconception problem <g>).

Sorry. 

> >the more likely
> >  interpretation is that this is a direct prayer to the Rebbe, himself,  a
> >  somewhat Christological concept.
> 
> Why should I accept that as the more likely interpertation?

No one SHOULD, but I believe the vast majority do... Prove otherwise.
 
> > Nowhere is the name of G-d mentioned.
> 
> It is a well known fact that the L. Rebbe was Makpid that on all Seforim and
> Stationary a B"H should be printed, are you saying that no where in that
> pamphelet prior to that Hakdasha there was no B"H?

There was no B"H on the cover pages.  On the reprinted pages of text 
qouting mamarim, etc., there was. But that doesn't rerally count, does 
it!

HM


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 >