questions about the yeshivish world

Having learned most of Shas is very valuable to me.

Even learning one daf is more valuable than anything on this thread.

Somebody who learned when he was young should have no problem learning a daf gemara in roughly an hour if he does it consistantly.

A lot of the laypeople learn shas well. The issue is that they don’t retain it.

Dear Neville,

Why do you support collective disavowment on this site? Anybody who takes one poster’s statements and applies it to the group that poster speaks for will end up being wrong. That is this thread in a nutshell.

Dear Sechel,

Look up your source’s sources. You are not reading it right. It is not a halacha sefer.

Ther Litvaks shaved in Europe before Rav Moshe came around. For those that actually learn the sugyos, it is simple. Though some are not comfortable because the result is the same as the razor.

For certain reasons that we won’t get into, almost none of the poskim from Europe published on the topic.

“Regarding the Nusach haGra, most people don’t follow it.”

I know, but that’s not the point. My point was that you were being critical of the changes made by the Baal Hatanya, but would be unwilling to criticize those made by the Gra.

“It clearly shows what his Mesorah was for the changes.”

It shows reasoning, not mesora. He removed the “baruch hashem l’olam amein v’amein” by maariv for halachic reasoning of not being mafsik between geula and tefilla (same reason as the Baal Hatanya). Neither of them did it because they had a long-standing mesora to do so.

It seems like poskim in Lita were just more willing to “correct” the mesora. It doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with Chassidus.

“this is how most roshei yeshiva speak when talking to non-baalei batim.”

So they’re either pretending while talking to balhabatim or while talking to students. Don’t you think it might be more likely that someone would be doing a little more acting when interacting with students than they would be when interacting with mature, working adults?

Neville, it’s important to understand that without daf yomi, many people wouldn’t learn at all. Roshei yeshiva aren’t going to blast something which is flawed but gets people to learn, because it’s not as if they’re going to drop it and leatn sugyos biyun slowly, covering maybe an amud a week due to their work schedules.

Also, a large amount of baalei batim simply lack the ability to learn sugyos biyun. Many can and do, as kolel yungeleit transition to the working world.

Before daf yomi, going to a daily gemara shiur was part of almost every frum man’s schedule.

To learn a sugya properly, requires a clear head. And some training.

It’s not like every yungerman in kollel is coming out with clear sugyos, either.

In any event, learning shas is special.

But why would chassidus be outside of it?

Neville, trimmers are much less controversial, because the blades aren’t sharp, and they’re designed to leave a drop of hair, because the top guide row is a little bit above the bottom, moving cutters.

As it happens to be, i once bought a very cheap trimmer with the top and bottom being on equal level, and rav belsky told me it was assur to use when i showed it to him

Ujm, a small percentage of the talmidim are chasidish; rav shraga feivel wanted the yeshiva to remain with a “tropeleh chasidus,” in the sense that the nusach is sfard…a few minhagim here and there, but more importantly, some of the roshei yeshiva were chasidish, most notably rav gedaliah schorr, rav nesanel quinn, and rav rivkin, who was not as known outside yeshiva – but almost all of the other roshei Yeshiva were completely litvishe. I don’t know of anyone who classifies the Yeshiva as chasidishe to the extent where that would have any influence on the bochurim not shaving; the few who were drawn to, say, rav moshe wolfson, did not shave for that reason, but most of the others(myself included) refrained from doing so for reasons unrelated to chadidus or kabalah.

n0 > There was no intentional assualt on the k’hal in this battle.

Are you suggesting that attack on kahal was b’shgaga? If you separate the davening, meat, taxes, etc – what do you expect will happen? I would agree that political considerations were not usually primary, they were “for the higher goal” on both sides … for example, power struggle in Vilno with appeals to Russian government, where probably Russians succeeded in using the machlokes to weaken Jewish self-government more than each side benefited from trying to align with the government.

What do you think pilpul shel hevel means? It refers to stam connecting things.

No yeshiva guys do that; our pilpul is about figuring out pshat and svara in rhe and rishonim. Most chabad yeshivos do this too; im referring to what you find in rav Akiva eiger, ketzos, shmaatsa, reb chaim, rav baruch ber, rav elchanan, etc…those are not pilpul shel hevel cv”s

Ujm, rav moshe held that a secular will is fully valid in halacha; even the RCA beis din does not follow this psak.

Sechel83, please tell me: what does Gemora in the second perek of Chagigah say about learning pnimius Ha’Torah? Who is supposed to be doing it? Every last dimwitted individual?

Dear Always,

You are putting different times and places into the same narrative.

Dear Avira,

Ketzos is learned in Chabad yeshivos. And some of them are pretty good at it.

Fron the Chasam Sofer

שו”ת חתם סופר חלק א (אורח חיים) סימן קנט
אבל אשר שם פניו נגד מגולחי הזקן, לא ידעתי מה הרעש הגדול הזה, לכו נא ונוכחה אי משום חוקת הגויים אשאלהו ויודיעני מי התיר לנו נעלים שחורים המבואר בש”ס לאסור מסאני אוכמי ולהפליא ענין אמרו במס’ תענית כ”ב9 ע”א דהוה מסיים מסאני אוכמי, ויעיין ב”ק נ”ט10 ע”ב ובתוס’ שם ד”ה דהוה מסיים, ובשיטמ”ק שם מחלק בין שחור לאוכם וזה מסכים קצת לפי’ ה”ג דמייתי תוס’ פרק אלו טרפות מ”ו ע”ב ד”ה אוכמי, הנאמר שהוא מקור משחת, כאשר כתב על עם ה’ אלו, לא ניחא למרייהו למימר הכי, והוא דבר דלא נמצא בש”ס ופוסקים וגם לא בשום ספר מספרי חצונים שיהי’ הפרש בין ישראל לאינו ישראל בגילוח הזקן כי אז גם כל האומות היו מגדלים זקניהם, ויעיין בש”ס שבת קנ”ב ע”א תלת אמרת לי תלת שמעת וכו’, וברבה בראשית פ’ י”א סי’ ז’ פילוסוף שאל את ר’ יהושע וכו’ מפני מה אותו האיש מגלח פאת ראשו ומגדל זקנו וכו’ יע”ש, אבל לא נמצא בשום מקום שיהיה בזה משונה מנהג גוים. ומה שרמז לספרי מקובלים שכתבו שלא להושיט ידים בדקני כלל אין לי עסק בנסתרות, אבל מהם ומהמונם הותרה הרצועה לגמרי בכל ארץ אטלי’ שכל חכמיה מגולחי זקן ונתלים באילן גדול ר’ מנחם עזרי’ בעל עשרה מאמרות אבי המקובלים שהוא היה מגולח מבלי השאיר שערה א’, וכן העיד עליו היש”ר מקאנדיא באילים שלו, והיה אומר שעפ”י חכמי המקובלים אין חוץ לארץ ראויה לכך, ומה אאריך במה שאין לי יד ושם בו, אבל אבותינו הנהיגו עצמם כן על צד ההכרח הגדול ולא מקור משחת ח”ו אלא בקדושה יתירה, והוא בימי גזירת תתנ”ו, והרועים וכדומה התירו גדוליהם להמכתתים רגליהם לשנות מלבוש ולגלח זקנם שלא יכירום האויבים כי אז כבר גלחו הגוים זקניהם עפ”י מעשה ממלך פולין א’ שהי’ סריס כמבואר בספרי הימים והתירו חז”ל שהיו בימים ההם לעשות כן, ולהיות גלוח הזקן דבר שאי אפשר להשתנות והיו נכלמים מאוד האנשים ההמה בשובם לביתם, על כן נשתרבב המנהג שלא לגדלו כלל רק סימנא בעלמא שזה יגולח ויגדל בקוצר זמן שבן לילה היה ורק אך מופלגי תורה היושבים בביתם הם מגדלים אותו, ואותן שלפני גזירה ההיא שברחו לארץ פולין לא באו לכלל זה. והנה זה ברור ונכון כי אילו היה תחלת מנהגו באיסור היה משום חוקי הגוים, אבל אחר שכבר נהגו ישראל לגלח, תו אין בו שום נדנוד ופקפוק כלל אפילו ריח איסור אין בו, אבל הך דמסאני אוכמי לא ידעתי איך נתפשט11 ע”כ צריכין אנו ללמוד זכות ולומר שנתפשט ג”כ בתחילה בהיתר וכיון שהותר הותר. והנה יעיין ביורה דעה סימן קנ”ז ס”ב ויעיין ש”ך סי’ קע”ח סק”ד הקשה אמהרי”ק, ובחידושי למסכת חולין12 ישבתי ת”ל יתברך באופן הנאות, ואי משום מספריים כעין תער זהו חשש רחוק ושרשו פתוח מתרומת הדשן13 כשהזוג חדוד מאוד יש לזהר אולי יחתוך בתחתון לחוד וידענא שהוא מידי דלא שכיח, גם מההשחתה תחת הגרון המעיין בש”ס [מכות כ’ ע”א] וראשונים יראה כי ממש לית מאן דחש לדברי ר”ח14 בזה, והמחמיר קדוש יאמר לו והמקיל לא יאמר עליו מקור משחת ח”ו. כללו של דבר, כל מה שאמר מכ”ת באגדת ריב”ח15 הנמשל הוא טוב וקדש קדשים, והמשל שהיסב פני’ על חטא קל וקטן לא יקרא ח”ו בשם חטא ועון חלילה וחס, והאומר כן עתיד ליתן הדין בלי ספק, והייתי יכול להמשיל משל אחר אבל ועמך כולם צדיקים כתיב, ויהי’ ממחוז פלוני או פלוני:

Dear Mdd,

Maybe Chabad’s concept of a rebbe is on par with your version of a god. It is not on par with their understanding of Hashem ch”v. You can’t fault Chabad and Chassidus that you don’t have a concept of Atzilus.

Dear Avram,

“.. on par with Avodah Zarah or not.”

A”Z is not the same as minus.

There is no A”Z here because there is no worship other than going to the ohel. Which is no different than going to any other kever.

Saying yechi, even including divine identifactions for the rebbe, is never A”Z. It would only be minus with an overall context of a new order. (Order as in teaching, belief, dogma.)

The easiest way to test the boundaries of klal yisroel is to become a mumar. This can’t be applied to Chabad as they are as observant as the rest of us.

I have pointed this out dozens and dozens of times. Every poster here seems more interested in piling on Chabad for the sillies things, than responding to how they understand these basic concepts. I have come to accept that pettiness is their highest dogma.

Maybe you can forgive me for having the opinion that yidden don’t care at all about what it really means to accept the Kingdom of Hashem. They prattle about it a bit for Rosh Hashana and can’t make sense of it. So they move on to the rest of their year. The individuals who seem to understand it, don’t really discuss it. Maybe this was what Rav Soloveitchik meant when he said that it is something to experience and cannot be taught.

Dear Mdd,

Whatever you mean. So show where Chabad has minus than Brisk doesn’t. If you can’t back yourself up, you shouldn’t be calling out others.

Sechel,

Sounds like your ranting

Avira,

I was never there. What do they have to say?

Dear Avram,

Excellent post!

Admittedly, the nonstop Chabad talk is getting to me. Possibly, I chose to vent to you because I know that you will only respond methodically and clearly.

To your point first:

“My points (mostly ignored) have been more focused on where Chabad is forming dividing lines with the rest of frum Jewry.”

This is worth considering. The truth is that all groups do this to some level. It has been taken to extreme recently by all parts of Orthodox Judaism. Some are only knowable from the inside. Some are only visible online. Since Chabad by design is trying to attract the whole world, their claim to exclusivity is much harder to hide. I made this point before. Also, you can find Chabad speakers all over the internet. Other groups are not as public. Maybe you mean something more specific.

I am serious about the min/apikores/kofer/mumar/etc prism. I don’t think it’s so easy to separate from Klal Yisroel while still being fully observant and treating others properly. Especially as a whole group. I don’t see anything abnormal about Chabad. Every group has their thing that makes them different. It is intrinsic to being sub divided into groups.

From your first post:

“…but whether Chabad’s veneration of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is on par with avoda zara or not.”

I don’t even know why anybody would think it is a problem if they have gone through the sugya. If the point is something to do with secular anthropology, I don’t know why that is an issue. There are venerated icon’s in every society.

Back to today’s post:

” Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but Chabad seems to claim that their teachings bring mysticism from the realm of the esoteric to the reach of every Jew.”

and

“But when faced with any questions or challenges on these supposedly mystical topics (or whether people are misunderstanding them to great risk), they seem to argue that the concepts are just too esoteric and holy for our stunted little Litvish souls to grasp.”

Now, this is a discussion! You don’t seem to have a problem with either point other than the debate here is playing both sides. Am I right about that, or do you have an objection to one or both of these points?

I agree with you that Chabad plays the you can’t know card. Having seen it a bit from the inside, my theory is that it works like this:

Chabad was always mystically inclined. How well it worked in the old world, is not the subject here. When they came to America, they wanted to keep that way. The problem is that they were stepping into the modern world and rationalism was dominating everything else. The solution was to double down and not give an inch. A very Chabad way of reacting to a problem. So Kabbalah which had been in the open in Europe, was now systemized to be taught everywhere. The Rebbe spent four decades advocating kabbalistic ideas and the spread of it’s teachings. Naturally, no area of Jewish thought was out of bounds. Many subjects which are not mundane at all, received much more attention in Chabad than the rest of us were giving it.

Every educator knows that just because you make a deep subject teachable, it doesn’t mean that the students will grasp the deeper concepts. And even those that can repeat the subject matter do not necessarily know the origin of it’s ideas. That is what we are experiencing with Chabad. Those that follow along with the curriculum, can talk endlessly about these concepts and how they work with each other. But they seem to know little in why it has to be this way and not some other way. Their only defense is finding a source in some sichah. Since their knowledge is based on integration as opposed to foundations, they assume we are just lacking in all the confirming information. They do not understand that we are questioning the fundamental concepts.

I have had fun night long bull sessions with many a Chabadsker. Only once did I meet one who seemed more like a conceptual thinker. He really had no interest in the whole united leader, leading us to our destiny concept. Also, Chabad has a massive network. I imagine that those that really know all the mystical stuff are not the ones we are interacting with. Maybe they are as hard to find as a yeshivshe mekubal.

This is my response to Chabad having it both ways. They are trying to spread a simple kabbalah to the whole world. They aren’t questioning what they are taught. (Which group does?) So they claim that everyone can accept it like they do. But without accepting the simple form of it, it can’t be understood without really studying it.

In a line. It is simple to accept, but esoteric in it’s real meaning.

I have been accused of cynicism my whole life. Whatever my virtues, I really fail at tribalism.

PS If I missed the thrust of your post, than instead of a response to me just post your issue with Chabad and I’ll take it from there.

PPS The Chabad topic bores me because it is just a bunch of misunderstandings. Other topics have much more potential for substance from both sides.

n0mesorah,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Regarding exclusivity:

“I made this point before. Also, you can find Chabad speakers all over the internet. Other groups are not as public. Maybe you mean something more specific.”

I agree that Chabad’s outreach puts their exclusivity on a bigger display. That’s a big part of it. I do feel however that there’s a difference in degree that goes beyond visibility. The only thing more specific I can say is that the villainizing of other groups makes me particularly uncomfortable due to their broad outreach. It doesn’t seem like a good idea for animosity to be spread along with the Chabad-style chassidus. I’m in a community where Chabad is particularly well integrated with the rest of the frum structure, and I’m in some Chabad focused groups for community info, etc. There’s a lot of MO and BT types who have gravitated towards the local Chabad, sometimes not even because they originally wanted Chabad teachings, but they liked that nobody gives death glares if their kid accidentally breathes in shul, they liked the people, the rabbi, etc. And yet they like to share memes that put down the Litvish or “misnagdim”. I get the desire to identify with your chosen group, and I know there’s some reciprocity, but Chabad’s outreach hits a huge audience, with an exploding number of non-Jews in the mix, and this animosity seems to have a quick uptake. Are we ok with Noahides hating on the “snags”?

“You don’t seem to have a problem with either point other than the debate here is playing both sides. Am I right about that, or do you have an objection to one or both of these points?”

I don’t have a problem with people holding either the idea that kabbalistic mysticism is abstruse or that it can be straightforward. You’re right that it’s the playing both sides that I object to, particularly because the tactic denigrates those with different viewpoints and can shut down discussion.

“Since their knowledge is based on integration as opposed to foundations, they assume we are just lacking in all the confirming information. They do not understand that we are questioning the fundamental concepts.”

“But without accepting the simple form of it, it can’t be understood without really studying it.”

These points are really insightful. I think I agree with you.