Volume 14 Number 52
Produced: Tue Jul 26 21:34:01 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Baruch Hashem l'Olam vs. V'shamru
[Arthur Roth]
Charedim/Responsa
[Aharon Fischman]
Halachic Sources/Tshuvot Pro & Con on Chabad/Moshiach
[Baruch Parnas]
Lubavich / Moshiach
[YY Kazen]
Old Music
[Steven Edell]
Rav Dessler and picking yeshivos
[Yitzchok Adlerstein]
Yeshiva Tuition
[Robert Braun]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 15:58:39 -0500
Subject: Baruch Hashem l'Olam vs. V'shamru
Alan Zaitchik asks why the Lubavitch siddur comes out strongly against
saying "Baruch Hashem l'Olam" (BHLO) in the weekday ma'ariv but is much
more equivocal in its instructions for "V'shamru" (VS) in the Shabbat
ma'ariv. The potential objection is that each of these represents a
possible hefsek (interruption) between ge'ulah and tefillah (redemption
and the Amidah), which is not permitted. I once heard Rav Herschel
Schachter (Rosh Kollel at YU) speak on prayer structure. He mentioned
that VS can be considered part of a "long ge'ulah" (I forget the reason
he gave), and hence according to most opinions is not a hefsek BETWEEN
ge'ulah and tefillah. After the talk, I asked what justification is
used for BHLO on weekdays. He shrugged his shoulders, repeated the
well-known origin of this minhag (as protection for workers returning
home from the fields late at night), and did not elaborate. The
implication that there is much stronger justification for VS than for
BHLO was inescapable. I realize that Rav Schachter is not exactly on
the same part of the Orthodox spectrum as Lubavitch, but Alan might
still find this helpful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <afischma@...> (Aharon Fischman)
Date: 26 Jul 94 13:55:46 GMT
Subject: Charedim/Responsa
Meir Lehrer writes:
>Will this further the efforts of returning this obviously misguided
>individual to the light and beauty of Torah?"... NODDA!!! Not one!!!
>
>Therefore, let's just pretend that I never sent in this article, okay?
>Thanks.
Meir, with all respect, it was good that you wrote the letter, not the
reverse. While we do not want to paint anyone or any group in a negative
sterotypical light, there are circumstances and individuals whose actions do
not reflect well on Yehadus (Judaism). Such actions may create Chas VeShalom
(G-d forbid) a Chillul HaShem (desecration of G-d's Name) either to those not
as religious as others, or to those who are not Jewish. We all can use some
degree of tikkun (self help) and hopefully we can learn from the incident you
related, instead of trying to make excuses for improper actions on the part of
the antagonists in your story.
Aharon Fischman
<afischman@...>
<fischman@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BLPARN@...> (Baruch Parnas)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 14:39:24 CST
Subject: Halachic Sources/Tshuvot Pro & Con on Chabad/Moshiach
I am interested in finding halachic discussions/tshuvot regarding the
Chabad "we want Moshiach now" activities and other Chabad activities
that the Lithuanian/Yeshiva world has considered. I am NOT looking to
discuss the issues here. I want to find public halachic discussions
from the Torah world including Brisk, Sfardi, yeshivish, etc., etc. I
have heard a lot of "stuff"; I would like to see what the respected
leadership has to say. Again, I am just looking for sources.
Thanks. Baruch Parnas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: YY Kazen <yyk@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 21:13:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Lubavich / Moshiach
> >From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
>
> In response to my queries re the ideaology/theology of seeing the Rebbe
> as Moshiach even after his death, several postings were helpful in
> clarifying some issues. Some questions still remain for me. I present
> them in context of the postings.
> 1. Y. Kazen refers to the idea that at Tchias Hameissim (awakening of
> the decesased), those last to die will be first to arise. He
> uses this idea to support the notion that the Rebbe, has the
> better chance of being Moshiach than sages of generations ago. I
> can follow the logic, but I am not knowledgeable about the idea of
> priority/recency in Tchias Hameissim. Would the above-noted
> poster please inform us of the source of that idea?
Inasmuch as in every generation there must be a person fit for the job,
the Sdei Chemed points to this same question in his Sefer = Pe'as
Hasadeh - page: 1493 _ Maarechet Alef Klal Ayin - where he explains the
possibility that the person fit to be Moshiach may die and the be
resurrected and be Moshiach.
> 2. Y. Kazen cits the Passuk "Ki afar atah v'el afar tashuv" in
> support of the (unfamiliar) tenet that Moshiach will die before
> arising. I never thought that this passage refers to Moshiach at
> all. What is the source of the attribution of the passage to
> Moshiach?
This Pasuk refers to everyone not only to Moshiach alone. Yet, as the
Rebbe says in his talks that there is the possibility of avoiding the
literal sense of dying and resurrection by acting in the same manner.
Had we merited, maybe it would have been that way. Now that we are faced
with the current situation, we realize that it was G-d's will not be
that way.
> 3. One other posting (I lost the author's name) repeats the assertion
> which has been prevalent lately that the Rebbe's statement that
> "Moshiach is on the way" was more than a prediction -- it was a
> N'vuah (prophecy). What is the basis for such a (daring)
> statement?
Why do you find it more daring than any other Nevuah that Moshiach is
about to come? There are no "dates" predicted in the Rebbe's Nevuah! His
statement is no different than the Talmud's statement that Kolu Kol
HaKitzin, or the Rambam's Statement that a person should always realize
that his next thought speech or action may be the VERY ONE that will tip
the scales in favor of the Geula - may this happen NOW!
> 4. David Kaufman (7/10/94) comments on my query as to why the idea
> that Moshiach will die before arising was not circulated until the
> Rebbe died, by explaining (as I read him) that this is not a
> required part of the script, but only an option. Does this then
> imply that the absolutism in Lubavich's stance before the Rebbe's
> death (exeplified by the recordings of the phone call-in messages
> by Rabbi Y. Kahan which held up the idea that the Rebbe might die
> as being absurd and inconceivable) was incorrect? If so, then
> one gets the impression that the ideology being offered at this
> time by Lubavich is ipso-facto (reactive) only.
I am unable to speak for David or anyone else. What I can tell you is
that anyone who has heeded the Rebbe's words to learn Inyonei Mashiach
UGeula has come across the discussion of death and resurecction.
However, there was no need to address it then for many reasons.
A) The Geula could have come without death in between
B) Why discuss death when life is what we are all in desire of?
C) Mitzvot are only able to be done by living people, and inasmuch as
observance of Mitzvot hastens the Geula, of what practical purpose is
discussing death while the person is alive and we can await G-d's miracle?
Yosef Yitzchok Kazen | E-Mail to:
Director of Activities | <yyk@...>
Gopher: gopher lubavitch.chabad.org
Mosaic or WWW:http://kesser.gte.com:7700/chabad/chabad.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Edell <edell@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 01:05:20 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Old Music
Tuvia, hi-
I have cassettes of Rabbi's Sons & "Oldies but Goodies" of R.Shlomo. You
_might_ get some info about Diaspora Y. Band at the Diaspora Yeshiva
(D.Y., Mt. Zion, Jerusalem will get there) but they may ask for a "fee".
What did you want to know about them, anyway...?
Steven Edell, Computer Manager Internet:<edell@...>
United Israel Appeal, Inc <uio@...>
(United Israel Office) **ALL PERSONAL** Voice: 972-2-255513
Jerusalem, Israel **OPINIONS HERE!** Fax : 972-2-247261
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yitzchok Adlerstein <ny000594@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:10:06 -0800
Subject: Rav Dessler and picking yeshivos
I will pause long enough from the ongoing forum concerning Haredi
institutions to actually agree with a point of Arnie Lustiger, and offer
some sympathetic thoughts.
Arnie quickly recognized the problem for parents inherent in Rav
Dessler's piece on the educational styles of pre-war Germany and Lita.
A number of readers correctly pointed out that the Lithuanian model
tacitly sacrificed the many in order to produce Torah giants. When Rav
Dessler wrote his piece, siding with the Litvish approach, no crisis was
created for anyone who had other ideas. There were other options to
choose from. Arnie sounds the cry of an anguished parent in today's
world of fewer educational choices, at least for those who insist on a
Torah curriculum that has not been compromised or watered down. What
does a parent do when he recognizes that his child likely will not
become one of the handful of giants, or NEEDS enhanced secular training
for personal or parnasa [livelihood] reasons? Children learn, as they
should, to respect the advice of their rabbeim. What can they do when
that advice becomes increasingly hostile to any kind of secular
involvement?
I don't think Arnie need despair yet. There are some options still
open. What follows are suggestions for Arnie and hundreds like him.
1) Don't give up the ship!
Remember your priorities. As with myriad decisions in life, we learn -
even regarding our children whom we love more than all else - that we
have to make choices. Don't compromise on your hard- earned realization
that what will mean the most to your children in the long run is the
quality of their yiras shomayim, and their competence and zeal in
learning Torah. If you are fortunate enough to understand this, don't
get sidetracked by other considerations, even if they are important.
Keep Torah the ikkar, and find ways to compensate for deficiencies in
other areas. Ask yourself whether the Ribbono Shel Olam would rather
have you do this - or the reverse.
2):-) You can send your boys to Ner Israel,
where Torah study is elevated to its proper position of all- important
priority, but parnasa is not trashed. Failing that, there are several
yeshiva high schools that are staffed by enthusiastic talmidei chachamim
who are sympathetic to the dilemma of parents, the needs of the
majority. They also realize that the level of appreciation of Torah can
be upgraded in many homes if - and often only if - they do not create a
conflict that parents will not tolerate.
3) Insure that your children will take your Torah viewpoint seriously.
The yeshiva is just your agent in the Torah education of your children,
not your surrogate. Your position on the importance of parnasa is not
outside the pale of Torah values. Don't forget this. No matter how
impassioned the pleas of your kids' rabbeim who may disagree, your
viewpoint is a valid one as well. (And your children will be enriched
in the long run by exposure and careful consideration of both views.)
Your (and I don't mean Arnie - I don't know him - but the unseen public
out there) only real fear is that your own arguments will become
irrelevant to your children, because you are insecure about them
yourself. This is tragic. You are a parent. Your kids want to believe
in you. Become the most proficient Torah student that you can, and your
kids will respect the way you have raised them, even if their teachers
at the moment are greater Torah scholars. Make sure that they see that
you don't shoot from the hip, but that you can back up what you have to
offer - either from your own knowledge, or from reputable talmidei
chachamim and gedolim that you have established relationships with.
In the long run, your kids will be better off - in ruchniyus, and in
gashmiyus [spiritually and physically].
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein
Yeshiva of LA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <REB@...> (Robert Braun)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 15:04:58 -0800
Subject: Yeshiva Tuition
OK, I've held back as long as I can. I am a tax lawyer, and the concept
of paying for tuition through a charitable contribution is clearly
illegal and would subject the taxpayer to, at a minimum, interest for an
illegal deduction as well as potential penalties (it is in all
likelihood not subject to criminal prosecution, however, if that is of
any solace).
You should also consider that, absent enabling legislation, using
charitable deductions to finance religious education could be attacked
as a violation of the separation between church and state, although, to
my knowledge, no case has actually stood on those grounds.
Finally, inasmuch as I am also paying more for elementary school tuition
than my parents paid for my college and graduate education, I also
believe that it's time we considered some reasonable alternatives to the
current educational system. My thought for today is that one of the
significant costs of a religious school education is obligating the
parents to join yet another synagogue. If we were to rely more on
community schools,l we could channel those funds to our children's
education, rather than redundant synagogue life.
Robert Braun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 14 Issue 52
