Note:

For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox") ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)

7.09.2009

FACTIONS-----GRA vs Baal Shem Tov

satinsword13 Posted - 16 June 2009 18:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question that bothered me for a while:

If the GRA was the gadol hador at the time of the baal shem tov, and he came out so absolutely strongly against chassidus, so much so that he wanted to put them in cherem, how come we can even consider going near it? I say this not out of spite, but out of a real sincere question?

Many have told me that R Chaim Volozhin never signed the cherem- I don’t now what that helps anything- it’s still clear the GRA was against. I mean, If he was the leader of Torah Jewry, at least Ashkenazik, and along comes the Baal Shem tov with his focus on different things, and the GRA says "Out!" then there shouldn’t be anything to talk about!

I’m actually scared to go against him? And who are we to go ahead and explain the GRA? "Well, really the GRA was only scared because of the historical context, Shabbtai Tzvi and everything.." That’s a scary thing to do - to explain away the GR"A, no?

I’ve seen a Chofetz chaim brought in kovetz maamarim, the second chelek that was printed, that says that the GRA thought chassidus was krum because Hashem had to make it look krum so the sitra achra would let it down, but time had shown that it was good for Klal Yisroel, but its mipi hashemua, and it makes me uneasy.

Am I asking a legitimate question here, do I have a legitimate concern, and are there e legitimate answers?


MODERATOR Posted - 05 July 2009 22:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Baal Shem Tov and the GRA really weren’t precisely at the same time, though they did overlap. The GRA was around 40 when the Baal Shem Tov was nifter.

You have nothing to be concerned about for many reasons, the simplest being that the GRA's cherrem is completely irrelevant nowadays, because in order for you to be concerned about Chasidim you need to define the term. Because someone wears a shtreimel and Bekishe certainly does not qualify him for anyone's cherem, and that certainly was not the GRA's intent. What did[/d] the GRA have against the Chasidim then, and who qualifies as possessing that characteristic today? The name "chosid" certainly isn’t the problem. But then..what is?

In other words, in whom do the characteristics of Chasidim that disturbed the GRA exist today, if at all?

Today, Chasidim aren’t what they were, and misnagdim aren’t what they were. The generations deteriorated so, that it’s all we can do to hopefully fulfill torah and mitzvos. As the moshol, attributed to various gedolim, goes, Chasidim used to eat milchigs and misnagdim fleishigs - so they had to have separate kitchens. Today neither can afford such luxuries and we're all eating bread and water.

There are no more Chasidim or misnagdim. Not in the derech-of-the-baal-shem-tov sense. You’re confusing what we call Chasidim today for what was called chasidus in those days. So the entire issue doesn’t apply.

And even if it would, because you have no idea what chasidus is or what it wanted, you would have no way of identifying who is in cherem anyway.

But besides that, for the record:

1) How did you assess that the GRA was bigger than the Baal Shem Tov? (Chasidim were also Ashkenazim)

2) The statement that you found in the name of the chofetz chaim is entirely reasonable and no need to be skeptical about it. You assume it is "explaining away" the GRA. It is not. It is simply "explaining" him. Many other similar explanations have been given by various Gedolim, in similar directions - such as the GRA saw the craziness that chasidus would lead to nowadays with his ruach hakodesh and wanted to stop the problem in its tracks before it leads to contemporary Lubavitch and Na-Nachers and Rebbes who give out shirayim yet have no idea how to learn a Tosfos.

And you have many similar instances where "historical context" as you call it motivated Gedolim to act in such ways - such as the opposition to Rav Yonason Eybushitz and the Ramchal. The Chofetz Chaim is saying that is the case here and more: Worse than in the case of Rav Yonason and the Ramchal, there was a real danger of Chasidus evolving into, well, what in some circles it in fact evolved into today.

And that's enough to try to slam the breaks on it back then.

Remember - Yaakov Avinu refused to bless his two of his own grandchildren because he saw that Yehu and Menashe were going to be descended from them.

It's not explaining away the GRA - it's actually a fine pshat.

But never mind all that. The thing that you’re missing most here is simply that whatever you know about the greatness of the GRA, the Divrei Chaim (for example) knew better; and whatever Yiras Shamayim you have to stay away from bad things, the Sfas Emes (for example) had more of.

And so, if these great Tzadikim and Geonim saw the same thing you see and decided there is not anything to be concerned about, it is clear that it makes no sense that you do.

At the very least, there's two shitos here.

Or were. Today there are zero.

As Rav Shach used to say, "someone who is more machmir than the chazon Ish, you have to be concerned about such a person."

So too someone who is more worried about bad hashkofos than the Satmar Rebbe, you should have to be concerned about such a person as well.

In short, leave the paskening to the poskim. And if so many great poskim paskened here differently than the GRA, you don’t need be concerned about those who follow them.


MODERATOR Posted - 05 July 2009 22:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS - The Baal Shem did not "focus on different things." Not at all.

12.07.2008

FACTIONS-----modern orthodox / the bottom line

(revised 12/7/08)


trying2shteig Posted - 28 August 2008 9:51

I was reading the thread LINK and it just got really long and too tough to follow.

So I didn't really see if there is a "definition" of modern orthodox. could the mod give a simple yet encompassing definition of Modern? I’m curious to see if it's the same as mine....



MODERATOR Posted - 28 August 2008 10:07

There is no definition. It means anything anyone wants it to.

As an observer of those who call themselves modern orthodox, the common denominator is that they incorporate into their system of values – good / bad right / wrong worthwhile / worthless - those things that the goyim value, as opposed to regular orthodox Jews who only value what the Torah says is valuable.

We use the torah's value system as opposed to non-Jewish value systems.



trying2shteig Posted - 09 September 2008 15:55

that's a very good definition actually...



Bas Melech 225 Posted - 16 November 2008 9:39

But only culturally.

Generally, they keep halacha (w/ certain kullos) as much as your typical litvish yid. (I'm not trying to defend them, but my fam is MO, so this is just what I see).

Like they'll go to museums, movies, concerts, but they're shomer shabbos, kashrus, daven, etc.



MODERATOR Posted - 18 November 2008 20:45

Not correct at all.

Their valuing of non-Jewish ideals has led them to violate the Torah in frightful ways.

They have incorporated into their normative behavior various strains of mingling of the genders - everything from plain friendships to mixed swimming or dancing - depending on how "modern" orthodox they are; heretical and idolatrous ideas such as Zionism is endemic in their communities; recently, several modern orthodox rabbis have come out stating that they believe in evolution, and/or at the very least, that one may believe in it; the belief that certain statements of chazal are false; and those movies, by the way, are prohibited as well per the law of moshav leitzim; and the whole secular-education-not-only-for-parnasah-but-as-a-means-unto-itself is against an open halacha as well. there is more.

In other words, they will, as a community, trample on the halochos that modern society doesn’t like: "fundamentalist" beliefs, separation of the genders, and discriminating (sic) against women (such as their teaching Gemora to girls, another open violation of halachah).

In places where the Torah does not conflict with the values of modern society, such as how much moror to eat on pesach or how many times to daven each day, they will, as a rule, not bother to rebel.

And its not just kulos. they have made-up chumras as well, where being machmir is demanded by their goyishe value system. for example - those rabbis who will tell you everyone is obligated to move to eretz yisroel - which is a result of nationalistic ideals, not torah ones - or when a "scientific" breakthrough supposedly enlightens us to new discoveries that our grandfathers were unaware of - there you will find the modern orthodox jumping at a chance to be machmir ... as in techeiles.

Their religious behavior is driven by goyish values mixed with religion, and results in a grotesque hybrid of illegitimate leniencies and baseless chumras - and which extreme positions they will take on both ends of the spectrum are as predictable as the sun: where goyishe values of ideals enter, that’s where you’ll find their halachic "opinions."

They'll cherry pick, out of context if need be, what they want from whom they want, once again, not based on torah principles but on goyishe values. so they’ll say they Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch believed one should have secular knowledge (they distort his position terribly), but when you tell them the same Rav Hirsch considered Zionism to be heresy they’ll point you to Rav Kook; yet when you tell them that Rav Kook believed women shouldn’t have public position - and they shouldn’t even be given the right to vote - they’ll say they don’t follow him on that.

There were no "modern orthodox" leaders that created their movement the way l'havdil the Baal Shem Tov started chasidus or Rav yisroel Salanter the musser movement. instead, modern orthodoxy is just a bunch of ppl who like what the goyim think and do, and to one extent or another, morph Judaism to fit in, and then they spend their time putting major effort into figuring out what modern orthodox means.


Mikewind Dale Posted - 02 December 2008 17:20

Moderator,

I could reply to a number of your points, but I'll confine myself to one. You speak of cherry-picking, but I'll ask you: since when do we have an obligation to follow one authority across the board?

For example, Rav Kook indeed paskened against women’s' suffrage, but Rabbi Benzion Uziel's pesak was accepted to a much greater degree than Rav Kook's, and by no means was Rabbi Uziel anything less than a gadol.

Now, true, Rav Hirsch paskened against Zionism, but we have no obligation to follow Rav Hirsch on everything he said. Check Rabbi Bernard Drachman's translation of 19 Letters: in his introduction, which is VERY warm and endearing towards Rav Hirsch, he notes that a very few of Rav Hirsch's hashkafot were a bit too much, even though everything else Rav Hirsch said was gold. Also, Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, whom Rabbi Shelomo Danziger refers to as the greatest expert in Rav Hirsch ever, was certainly NOT a Zionist, and yet he also personally held by Torah im Derech Eretz.

(It is worth noting that Rav Hirsch's followers, including Rav Weinberg, all interpret Torah im Derech Eretz as giving intrinsic positive value to any secular studies, provided these studies in any way contribute to an observant lifestyle. So if learning chemistry, for example, helps one create new medicines and "l'taken olam b'malchut shad-ai (it is worth noting that Rav Hirsch himself explicitly interprets tikkun olam as a practical temporal endeavor), then chemistry is kosher, even if there is no parnassah involved at all.)

Part of the Modern Orthodox belief is that one is not beholden to any one particular rabbi. So if Rav Hirsch spoke against Zionism, that doesn't mean I have to follow him. I am Zionist, but I don't have to believe Christianity is avodah zara just because Rav Tzvi Yehuda says it is (I'll rather go with Rav Hirsch, Rav Kook, Rav Herzog, Rav Henkin, Rav Weinberg, Rav Hayim David Halevy - a veritable poster board of gedolei hador - and follow Meiri as halacha l'maaseh).

I just saw a book of hespedim for Rav Soloveitchik - one hesped noted that only a few follow Rav Soloveitchik's hashkafot, but he said that many others follow Rav Soloveitchik's method - thinking for oneself and deciding his own hashkafot from the traditional sources. The maspid noted that in doing so, i.e. in thinking for oneself and deciding one's own hashkafot from the traditional sources, one is following Rav Soloveitchik more than if one simply believed what the Rav believed.

MODERATOR Posted - 02 December 2008 17:44

So we're in agreement then? Because you just admitted MO does pick and choose. It's normal to have more than one posek who you listen to. But choosing which answers you like and then moving onto someone else when you don't, where's the basis or logic in that?



MODERATOR Posted - 02 December 2008 20:51

Milk,

First, there is no such thing as "modern orthodox belief". For MO has no manifesto, no formula to figure out what to do, no rebbe to rely on, nothing - it is just a bunch of arbitrary people with arbitrary beliefs, not at all uniform or even compatible, but with the common denominator that they wish to follow goyishe society, accept goyishe values as their own, and believe goyishe beliefs. Be it out of embarrassment to be different, lack of Emunah, ignorance, or just the influence of the society we live in, or some other reason, it matters not. Modern Orthodoxy is not a shitah. It is simply a perikas ole.

Second, the point was not whether you follow one rabbi o five. The point was why you choose those particular rabbis specifically in those particular cases, as well as those particular interpretations. The reason is because first you choose to follow, accept and believe whatever the goyim do, and then see if someone somewhere in Judaism happens to match that belief. So the question is WHY do you follow Rav kook when it comes to Zionism and not women’s rights, especially when without a doubt, his position on women in leadership roles is so much well founded than his garbled teachings on nationalism that even the modern orthodox admit were at the very least highly influenced, and very likely just taken, from non-Jewish nationalist philosophers? The answer is because what the Torah says is not what’s driving your beliefs - its goyishe society - the second step is to try to find a similar belief somewhere from some shitah by some rav, whether or not it is well founded and whether or not it makes sense from a torah perspective to follow that opinion.

MODERATOR Posted - 02 December 2008 21:12

As far as Rav Hirsch, you do not understand his shitah nor the interpretation of his Talmidim you quote. Parnasa or chesed - nobody has a problem with that - curing sick people is as good as parnasah. And that does NOT give nay intrinsic value to secular studies - it gives value to curing people of cancer. Which nobody argues with.

The thing about Rav Hirsch is, as is explained at length elsewhere on the site, is that it is no coincidence that his Torah Im Derech Eretz shitah appeared in the exact time and place that was the hotbed of haskalah. Either he was addressing it or was (also somewhat) influenced by it - depends who you ask - although that having been said everyone in the world agrees he was a total Tzadik and meant whatever he said leshem shamayim and to be mekarev the people of Germany in his time and he did an amazing job saving German Jewry from Haskalah.

And were he here today, he'd be trying to save American Jewry form Modern Orthodoxy, because whatever TIDE means, he clearly conditioned it on the principle of austritt, meaning separating yourself intellectually from all anti-torah elements of society, which is the mother's milk of Modern Orthodoxy. Thus, the more maskilish elements of German orthodoxy used to call Rav Hirsch - this is a quote - "separatist" - which is the exact same description - and exact same criticism people like rabbi jb soloveitchik used when referring to the yeshiva world.

And Zionism? There was NO bigger opponent of Zionism than Rav Hirsch - and for the same reasons as the other Gedolim like Satmar Rebbe and Brisker Rav - the Oaths, the anti-Semitism it creates and the moral obligation Jews have to be loyal citizens of their countries - not to some foreign power. Yet the Modern Orthodox, who believe in Rav Hirsch so much that they will take his TIDE philosophy much further than even he did, completely ignore the fact that he would consider them all the worst of sinners and rodfim of Klall Yisroel.

That’s not following the torah - that’s creating your own religious beliefs and then trying to find excuses for them somewhere.

MODERATOR Posted - 03 December 2008 2:37

The Moderators are both correct, Milkwind. It's Modern Orthodoxy's "right" to choose positions by different poskim in different cases that is against the Torah, but (a) their methodology of doing so and (b) whether they do so altogether when bereft of any shitoh to choose from. They do not "pasken" like this shitah or that using any Halachic or Hashkafic due process. Rather, they first decide what they would like to believe or do - primarily based on what is convenient, societal, more acceptable to our non-Jewish neighbors' behavior and ways of thinking - and then attempting to find some opinion somewhere that agrees. That is not "following more than one rabbi" - that is following the values of the Goyim and then, as was said above, finding an excuse for doing so.

And yes, that goes for the "chumros" too. It's less of a problem for them to tell people that they must live in Eretz Yisroel nowadays than they should keep Shabbos until 72; it is less of a problem to tell people to wear techeiles than it is that boys and girls shouldn't mix - there is no Halachic logic in that, and the answer is, whatever is more "modern" - in the first case, nationalism; in the second, the idea that we nowadays "discover" things that our grandparents were ignorant of (and it doesn’t hurt that its colors happen to math those of the Israeli flag); in the third, well, segregation of the genders is sooooooo middle-ages (not to mention what is modern life if you can't go to the movies with your female friend?).

And the excuses are usually more invented than discovered. The forced interpretations, the integration of non-Jewish thinking and philosophy into Jewish theology, and the backwards thinking that comes out as "halachah" and "hashkafa" - that is the hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy.

And the results of playing footloose with the Torah? You have things like Rabbi Hershel Schechter's psak that it is Halachicly valid to have Jewish children killed in wars for the sake of Israel - note: not to save Jewish lives, but for land, because - get this! - the loss of the nation-state (sic) is a vital blow to the survival of a nation and so we can cut off some branches to save the tree. In other words, to be a nation, we need a nation-state (totally lifted from nationalist thinking, no basis in Judaism at all - on the contrary, the Jewish nation is a nation based on torah not having a country, which is why we were still am yisroel in golus), therefore we can allow our children to die in order to save the State, the same way individuals are sacrificed to save the whole.

And really, that's not modern at all - civilization stopped sacrificing their children's lives for their idolatrous beliefs eons ago.


And the mixing of the genders? They still haven’t found a shitah to twist into permitting that, (though a certain one of their rabbis in Eretz yisroel, is trying his best to do so.)

The difference between Torah Orthodoxy and Modern Orthodoxy is this: Modern Orthodoxy allows the values (sic) of the current goyishe society to drive their religious beliefs and behaviors. Torah Jews limit their religious beliefs and behaviors to what their own religion says to do.

11.19.2008

HALACHA-----beards payos and shaving

jj Posted - 12 January 2001 15:17
________________________________________
Hi, I would like to ask two things.

1) could you please tell me the different shitos regarding shaving and trimming why some people don’t do it at all etc. and

2)if the whole point of having payos is that al pi kabala you should never cut it, then why do yeshiva bochrim have payos behind their ears? they should only have like the halacha is till the bone or the end of the ear (whichever their minhag is) but once they’re cutting it, why do they them have longer than the halacha says? what’s the inyin behind it?


MODERATOR Posted - 21 January 2001 21:14
________________________________________
Having a beard is considered an honor (Shabbos 152a). There are many Shitos that hold having a beard in Halachicly obligatory. For a collection of advantages of having a beard from a Torah perspective, see Orchos Yoshor, by R. Chaim Kanievsky shlita, Ch. 5. There is also a Sefer called Hadras Panim Zokon that has a lot of information on this.

Trimming the beard is a Machlokes in the poskim. The Tzemach Tzadek and others prohibit even trimming it, but many others permit. There are Kabbalistic reasons for not trimming the beard at all.

Re Payos, there's a machlokes if you can cut them, see Tiferes Yisroel (Makos 3:5) and R. Hillel Kalama (quoted in Shaul Sha'al 98) - who prohibit, and Chasam Sofer (OH 154) and others - who permit.

The Chasam Sofer (Haghos YD 181 quoted by his son Ksav Sofer) says that it is customary to let the payos grow long, down to the jaw. This is unnecessary, says the Chasam Sofer, but those who do it are considered holy.

The Arizal (quoted in Bais Lechem Yehuda YD 1818) says that the payos need not be longer than the bottom of the beard, and he would cut them when they reached there.

Maharasham, however says that he was told by R. Meir Promishlaner that he should never cut his payos, and it will be a segulah for Arichus Yomim.
Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamos 12:18) says it is worthwhile not to cut the payos at all, since the exact measure for the payos is uncertain.

Mishna Brura (251:2, Biur Halachah) says that at least the hair from the temple until the bottom of the ear should not be cut, because it is a possible issur d'oraysa.

In any case, it is true that the "shiur" of the payos being able to fit neatly behind the ears and then being cut as they protrude from below the earlobe has no Halachic validity. It is just a style by certain segments of Klall Yisroel. They are using the Halachic shiur of the Mishna Brura (until the bottom of the ears), and the rest of it is for no real Halachic reason.

As far as putting the payos behind the ears, that began as a way to avoid anti-Semitism in Europe from goyim who would harass Jews with long payos. Nowadays at least in Eretz Yisroel there's totally no reason for it, and in fact Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita (Orchos Yoshor p.20) writes that it's wrong, since it looks like you’re embarrassed of the Mitzvah. But that's how these


Me Posted - 29 January 2001 23:35
________________________________________
If it's so important to have a beard is it wrong when Rabbeim don't? I know quite a few without beards.


MODERATOR Posted
- 06 February 2001 13:58
________________________________________
You cannot say they are violating the Halachah since there are poskim who permit shaving. However, they are definitely paying a price in terms of all of the above spiritual advantages of having a beard.

However, you should not judge any individual before speaking to him first, since it is possible that a rabbi may decide that it is best to pay this price in return for being able to deal with his misguided congregation better, who perhaps would not respect a rabbi with a beard or certainly not a long one. Or some other reason.

Honestly, nowadays such reasons are, thank G-d, much fewer than they used to be, and more often than not this will not be the case, but there can be exceptions.


cvmn Posted - 07 February 2001 23:10
________________________________________
I heard from a big Rosh Yeshiva that his father (also a great man) did not have a beard because his wife didn’t like it. I guess shalom bayis also could play a role


MODERATOR Posted
- 07 February 2001 23:13
________________________________________
It's a pity the woman didn't realize or didn't care how she's hurting her husband by making such demands.


Its all Good!! Posted - 08 May 2001 20:28
________________________________________
could you please explain I was once told that the sherayim that a rebba gives out is taken from the church, when the galach blesses the wafer?


MODERATOR Posted
- 08 May 2001 20:38
________________________________________
Nonsense. The custom of Shirayim from Rebbe's originates from the concept that the table of a Tzadik is considered like a Mizbeach, and his eating, like a sacrifice. The Shirayim is like eating from a Korbon
.
The idea of the table of a Tzadik being like a Mizbeach and the food a Korban is not even limited to Chassidic sources. Rav Chaim Volozhen ZT"L in Ruach Chaim (Avos III) expounds on it as well, saying that if Divrei Torah are said at a table the Torah burns the food like a Korban and the "evil" part of the physical meat that was instilled when Adam did his sin, are incinerated.


Meahachuz Posted - 09 May 2001 14:33
________________________________________
Is there a specific age when a man should have a beard? Usually bachurim don’t have beards so I was just wondering...


MODERATOR Posted - 09 May 2001 16:16
________________________________________
There is no specific age.


e Posted - 22 October 2001 17:19
________________________________________
how can hair on someone's face make someone more spiritual?


>>> Posted - 22 October 2001 17:19
________________________________________
I heard that many people hold that yeshiva-bochrim shouldn't have beards. apparently this is the case in the mir yeshiva. why?


MODERATOR Posted
- 24 October 2001 19:53
________________________________________
If you mean the type of spiritual that you can feel high with, it indeed cannot. But the Torah's definition of spiritual is not something we can feel, nor understand, especially when it comes to these kinds of kabbalistic things.

The doctors will tell you that certain chemicals are good for your body and certain are harmful. It's all due to the way your body was made. So too your soul was made in such a way that certain things strengthen it and certain weaken it.

I can tell you what the Seforim say about how the face of a person has a special quality in that is reflects what is in his soul, and as such is subject to special Kabbalistic details - but unless we're on the level to understand this stuff we shouldn’t bother trying.

Lets leave it like when a doctor says Resisi Mushrooms are healthy. We're like oooookay, but I guess you know these things.



MODERATOR Posted - 24 October 2001 20:02
________________________________________
Yeshiva bochurim can have beards. In certain Litvishe Yeshivas most (not all) Bochurim did not have beards, but so did many married men as well, and even now and then a Rosh Yeshiva.

A beard in these communities is considered an item of "chashivus", like a kapote for instance, and appropriate for people who have reached a certain level.


ponder2 Posted - 26 October 2001 16:08
________________________________________
Is it true they also don't have beards before they get married so they can look more attractive?



MODERATOR Posted
- 29 October 2001 19:09
________________________________________
That’s not the reason.

8.06.2008

CHIZUK-----worth living for 1 mitzva

Elchonon Posted - 05 September 2004 15:30


I'm sorry if I sound blatant but-Why get up in the morning? I feel no desire to. I probably do 80% aveiros and maybe 20% mitzvos. So why get up just to make Hashem disappointed and anger Him?

The only reason I get up is because I have a chiyuv. I must daven. But if I didn't have a chiyuv I might not have gotten up some days this summer. Why do one mitzvah of davening and 2000 aveiros of bad thoughts and lack of kavana. Why wake up to a life full of failures,aveiros, and bitter remorse over mistakes you never wanted to make?

And through all this guilt and feelings of failure you know Hashem is disappointed in you for disobeying and \ or failing to pass his tests. Then you spend the rest of your day feeling bad and doing teshuva, and hoping Hashem will forgive you even if you did the aveira 80 times since last Tuesday. Besides for letting Hashem down and harming yourself-you feel horrible. To know the level you have sunk to?

Some of the aveiros I did... I can't bear to make more mistakes, but I know I will. Why rise to am life like that? Any suggestions. I feel miserable...


MODERATOR Posted - 05 September 2004 15:52


The Shem Mishmuel points out that it is worth being alive for doing even one Mitzvah, even if you do many many aveiros as well. The reward for that one Mitzvah is worth going through the Hell of punishment for all the avieros.


Elchonon Posted - 06 August 2008 8:04


Hello! This is Elchonon-the one who started this board! It is now four years later, and I cannot believe how I changed. Baruch Hashem, I am still working and growing, b'ezras Hashem, as I have been doing in the past. I have too thank the Mod for that shem mishmuel (Which I later saw inside).It has inspired me and been mechazek me to keep going many times over the years.

I have to tell you guys- never give up. NEVER. As long as you don't give up, you can still beat the yetzer hara- but if you give up chas v'shalom then you've been defeated.

But most of all- remember that Hashem Yisborach is WITH you, NOT against you!
And be Happy! life is a test- but a wonderful one!-Elchonon


MODERATOR Posted - 06 August 2008 8:25


Thank you, Elchonon for the kind words. It's amazing how one simple line of Toras Emes can change someone's life. May Hashem grant you continued success, and please drop by frumteens and tell us how things are going.

8.04.2008

ZIONISM / ANTI-----agudah

Matisyohu28 Posted - 31 July 2008 8:24


Mod - the Agudah voted to be for the creation of the medina??? This is all news to me...and what kind of regular Rabbonim would have the chutzpah to vote against Reb Elchonon and Reb Ahron??? What do they think this is, America?



MODERATOR Posted - 31 July 2008 10:11


No, they didn’t vote for the creation of a Medinah, c"v. they voted for recognition of it ex post facto. No Gedolim wanted a Medinah. plus they added the facts that (a) torah Jewry was never consulted regarding making the Medinah in the first place (which was designed to emphasize that the vote was ex post facto only) and (b) such a Medinah not run al pi din cannot be called a Jewish State altogether. Those were compromises with Rav Ahron and Rav Elchonon's position.

There were many misrepresentations of that meeting and actions that inaccurately used that meeting as a justification for them - see the documentation of all this in R. Zvi Weinman's excellent book "Mikatovitz ad 5 Iyar"as far as your question about the vote, there are Gedolim who have expressed that complaint regarding the whole process of "voting" for a collective organizational position, both for the reason you site - not everyone should get an equal vote - as well as others. Reb Elchonon, or example, insisted that the Agudah should also count on their moetzes gedolei hatorah Gedolim who refuse to be part of the Agudah - whether because they don’t appreciate the good points of the Agudah or because they understand the bad points - because they are Gedolim nonetheless. That directive was never implemented.

The reason for the Agudah's joining the government of Israel when it was created was because they made a deal with Ben Gurion sr"y that there would be no civil marriages in Israel and that the frum community can control their own education. This was paramount to the Agudah. So much so that they were willing to join the government in return. In fact, Ben Gurion's motive for making this deal was to shut up the religious Jews who he was worried were going to publicly condemn the so-called Jewish State, which would have been a PR disaster. So in order to keep the orthodox Jews quiet, Ben Gurion offered them that deal, which they took.

Thus, you will find on the Declaration of Independence of Israel - which by the way is packed with Kefirah and revisionist history l'chol hadeos - the signature of R. Yitzchok Meir Levine, of the Agudah.

What exactly the Agudah Rabbonim had to do with this if anything, is questionable - see R. Zvi Weinman's book for details - but the justification, whoever were the ones that justified it, was on the grounds that that was the only way to ensure the survival of the frum community in Eretz yisroel.

The fear - quite justified - that the frum community had from the Zionists was considerable. As Rav Chaim Brisker said, the Zionists don’t want to shmad Jews in order to make a state - they want to have a state in order to shmad Jews. The Gedolim were concerned that once Zionists create a state, forced shmad will occur in many ways, and so they cut this deal with Ben Gurion in order to prevent his destroying Torah in Eretz yisroel.

7.28.2008

FACTIONS-----chasidim and their hanhagos

Aharon Shmuel Posted - 05 December 2001 15:56


I have a few questions mabye this has been discussed in several sections. As a BT who has learned much about yiddishkeit from all different types of Chassidishe groups (I have had very little exposure to the litvish communities) I noticed that I do some things quite differently that it seems only Chassidishe people do and I don't really understand why non-chassidshe jews don't partake in similar customs such as:

  • Sleeping in Tzitzits.
  • Going to the Mikvah every morning.
  • Davening Late or Davening Mincha after Shkia.
  • Putting on Tefillin in the middle of the day (sometimes)
  • Dancing
  • Davening by the graves of Tzaddikim
  • Tish or Farbrengen
  • Saying Tehillim in Davening
  • Rabbenu Tam Tefillin.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and some non-chassidishe jews do this stuff and I just don't know about it and need more exposure. Maybe people would be able to respond to let me know if this stuff is only chassidishe or other jews do it as well and why or why not.


MODERATOR Posted - 18 December 2001 14:46


Sleeping in Tzitzits -- This comes from the Arizal, and there is a source in the Gemara Menachos 43a, where it implies that Dovid Hamelech wore his Tzitzis all night. This does not mean to say there is any obligation to do so, nor is it a Halachic Mitzvah, but rather a Kabbalistic behavior that benefits the wearer. It is as much a Sefardishe thing as a Chasidishe thing, since the Chida says to do it and the Ben Ish Chai Kaf HaChaim say that this is the prevailing Minhag.


Going to the Mikvah every morning - This is all over Kabbalah. Going to the Mikvah purifies the soul in important ways. Especialyl before learning Torah or praying it is brought that Mikvah is important.

Davening Late or Davening Mincha after Shkia. - Davening Minchah after Shkiya is the opinion of Rebbeinu Tam, the Shulchan Aruch, and the majority of Rishonim. They hold that the Shkiyah is really like 40 to 58 1/2 minutes later than what you are referring to as shkiyah. Until then it is day.

This is a halachic opinion, and has nothing to do with chasidim. R. Akiva Eger held like that, and so did tons of other poskim. The Vilna Gaon held differently, and he had a tremendous influence in Lithuania, and so it became a Litvishe thing that you have to daven minchah before "shkiyah", but in reality the majority of Rishonim disagree.

This machlokes applies to every halachah that depends on night, Shabbos included - it was the custom in many places in Hungary and Poland to do melachah after shkiyah (See Kitzur shulchan Aruch)! However, since shabbos is d'oraysah, most of those who daven minchah after shkiyah will mostly keep shabbos once shkiyah occurs, but only as a chumrah.

Davening shachris late is another thing. That is a chasidishe thing, and it is because the Rebbes (and chasidim in the olden days) used to prepare for their davening early and their preparations, they held, was considered the beginning of their davening. These preparations were always started during the zman tefilah. Once you start davening - or preparing for davening - during the proper zman, you may, according to many shitos (see Aruch Hashulchan hilchos tefilas haderech) continue your davening even if it extends way past the zman. So if they began their preparations during the zman, they may pray the actual shmona esrai afterwards, they held.

According to this, it would be prohibited for chasidim to begin davening after the zman, if they are not involved in such preparations beforehand. I do not know of a heter to do that.

Putting on Tefillin in the middle of the day (sometimes) - if you mean davening shachris in the middle of the day, see above. If you mean for Minchah, it is because really we should wear tefilin a whole day, but since we cannot properly maintain ourselves all day in a manner befitting for tefillin, we limit our wearing them to davening. So why woudl minchah be different than shachris? This is not only a chasidishe thing.

Dancing - its part of what you do when you are celebrating a mitzvah. Simchah shel mitzvah is a wonderful thing according to everyone. If you mean dancing on Shabbos despite the halachah of shema yesaken, the Minchas Elozor permits halachicly. Please refer to his Teshuva.

Davening by the graves of Tzaddikim - This too is way before chasidim, in the Arizal and the Zohar even. Not all Chasidim are so keen on this, by the way. But the idea is that we pray to Hashem in the merit of the Tzadik.

Tish or Farbrengen - In the Arizal youll find that the table of a Tzadik is like a mizbeach and his food is like a Korbon. You will find this concept even in the Ruach Chaim of Rav Chaim Volozhen on Pirkei Avos (K'ilu achlu m'zivchei meisim). The shirayim of the Tzadik therefore is like eating from a korbon.

Saying Tehillim in Davening - I dont understand what you mean


Rabbenu Tam Tefillin - kabalistically, Rabbeinu Tam Tefilin is not only a different Halachic opinion, but a special unique type of Tefillin. It is brought that Rashi himself wore Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin and vice versa.


Truth Seeker Posted - 20 March 2003 3:42


Sleeping in Tzitzits -- This comes from the Arizal, and there is a source in the Gemara Menachos 43a, where it implies that Dovid Hamelech wore his Tzitzis all night. This does not mean to say there is any obligation to do so, nor is it a Halachic Mitzvah, but rather a Kabbalistic behavior that benefits the wearer.

What about the shitos that the _mitzvah_ of tzitzis applies even at night when wearing a garment worn primarily during the day?

Once you start davening - or preparing for davening - during the proper zman, you may, according to many shitos (see Aruch Hashulchan hilchos tefilas haderech) continue your davening even if it extends way past the zman. So if they began their preparations during the zman, they may pray the actual shmona esrai afterwards, they held.

Isn't the shito of the Aruch HaShulchan that if shmoneh esrai itself is begun before the sof z'man, it may be continued after it.

If you mean for Minchah, it is because really we should wear tefilin a whole day, but since we cannot properly maintain ourselves all day in a manner befitting for tefillin, we limit our wearing them to davening. So why woudl minchah be different than shachris? This is not only a chasidishe thing.

I've heard of special _individuals_ who do this but are there any _kehilos_ that do?

Tish or Farbrengen - In the Arizal youll find that the table of a Tzadik is like a mizbeach and his food is like a Korbon. You will find this concept even in the Ruach Chaim of Rav Chaim Volozhen on Pirkei Avos (K'ilu achlu m'zivchei meisim). The shirayim of the Tzadik therefore is like eating from a korbon.

So why is it only among the Chassidim (and some Sefardim) that they have a 'tisch' where a tsadik (or one claimed to be) gives out shirayim?


MODERATOR Posted - 20 March 2003 3:53


Isn't the shito of the Aruch HaShulchan that if _shmoneh esrai_ itself is begun before the sof z'man, it may be continued after it.

Yes, thats what I said. And Chasidim extended this idea (which they came up with on their own - I am only using the Aruch HaShulchan as a non-chasidic similar example) to include not only if you started the shemoneh esray during the zman but also if you started the preparations for the shemona esray (i.e. the davening) during the zman.

I've heard of special _individuals_ who do this but are there any _kehilos_ that do?

No. Not that I know of.

So why is it only among the Chassidim (and some Sefardim) that they have a 'tisch' where a tsadik (or one claimed to be) gives out shirayim?

Because just because a table of a Tzadik is like a Mizbeach doesnt mean there is a reason to eat the shirayim. Will you say that you have to do zerikas dam or sraifah on the tzadiks food as well? This Mizbeach concept is meant, they hold, only insofar as the quality and inyanim of the avodah of the tzadik is concerned. Even after you assume that the table is like a Mizbeach therfore doesnt mean that there is a reason to eat shirayim.

What about the shitos that the mitzvah of tzitzis applies even at night when wearing a garment worn primarily during the day?

If you sleep in your daytime clothing then they would hold - and the Shulchan Aruch rules l'chatchilah you should wear tzitzis at night on day clothing - that you should keep tzitzis on them.


stamayid Posted - 12 May 2003 19:48


chassidim have a reba who might be someone who is close to Hashem but might not be the biggest talmud chacham,and there is people in every chassidishe kehila who know more torah then the reba like a dayan or the rosh yeshivia
and the chassidim go to the reba ,why is that, why don't they go to daas torah?


MODERATOR Posted - 13 May 2003 9:32


Well, in certain Chasidic sects - such a Ger and Satmar, one of the qualifications of a rebbe a Torah scholar besides a Tzadik. And in the Tanya it states that if you want someone to pray for oyu go to a Talmid Chacham - korov hashem lchol ... asher yikrauhu b'emes - and "emes" says the Tanya, means only Torah.


But there is another idea in Chsidishe seforim. That is, a Tzadik is supposed to be such a lover of Jews and so connected to each Jew that the pain of each individual Jew hurts the Tzadik as if it were his own pain. Therefore, if lets say there was a gezeirah on someone that he should c"v be childless, and thus go through that pain, there was, however, no such gezeirah on the Tzadik. But since the Tzadik is suffering as if he himself had that tzorah, and there was no gezeirah that the Tzadik should go through that, but rather he is suffering due to his bechirah and love for every Jew whose pain he feels as if it were his own, therefore, in order to alleviate the Tzdik's suffering, Hashem has to fix the childless couple. Not for their sake, but for the sake of the Tzadik.

They also believe that righteousness is part of "daas torah" -- the more a persons midos are perfected the less "negiyos" he has -- the Mesilas Yshorim says the biggest shochad is the Yetzer Horah' taavos -- and so they see their Rebbe as a clear thinker.

But there is no question -- an am haaretz sees nothing. And your question applies equally well in the Yeshiva world where you may have Kolle guys learning in Lakewood that are as big Talmidei Chachamim as any Rosh Yeshiva (you do, actually) but nobody considers them Daas Torah because they do not have any position.

The mistake of judging a person's qualities by his position regardless of whether he is chasidish or not - is a common hashkofo problem and not unique to any segment of Orthodoxy.


lilrebbetzin Posted - 27 July 2008 9:56


i wanna learn about chasidus one day, and in the rite time. but i don't live in a chasidush community so its hard for me to learn about it or even learn to live it. i think its a beautiful derech and i was wondering if u can help me


MODERATOR Posted - 27 July 2008 22:35


My suggestion is to take the approach of the holy Saraf of Muglenitz ZTL, one of the great Polish Rebbes, quoted by Rav Klonimus Kalman Shapira, the Piesetzna Rebbe ZTL (Derech Hamelech Parshas Ekev):

A group of avreichim asked my ancestor, the the holy Muglenitzer Rebbe ZTL to teach them Chasidus. He answered them in his holiness: "daven and learn and don't waste time - that is chasidus!"

Many great Rebbes have pointed out that if you want to be chasidish the first step - and this is a big one - is first to be a frum, ehlicher yid. After we have perfected that, we can take it from there. But we have to walk before we can run.