mentalblog.com comments:
I think all Chassidim should learn Toldos Yaakov Yosef.
Lets go back to the "classics"!
What the classics are is debatable.
I would venture to say that just as in any large groups of a certain specialty, there will be more less creative who simply parrot the words of the profession (and among these, those who don't even have proper knowledge, but still function to some degree), and a minority who are capable of coming up with new thoughts.
I would highly recommend reading Greeley's new novel, "Priestly Sins", which gives a good look at how this works in the world of priests, and the clashes between the two groups. As we are talking of religious leadership, it's very relevant.
Tremendous imagination can be applied in A) How to interpret the Rebbe's sichos for day to day life, B) How to continue the Rebbe's sytemic thinking (for example, examining more Rashis to apply the Rashi sichos to new Rashis), and C) The simple presentation of the Rebbe's words but in a way that sheds a new light on them, let's say finding new examples for them. You will find this done mostly in yeshivos and their publications, or in larger Chabad communities where the Shliach speaks to an initiated audience. But in small town or assimilated community shlichus the most a "thinker" can really do is C above.
guravitzer, I second you thoughts - very good comments.
TA, do people like Steinzalts and Ginsburg represent the creativity that you are looking for?
Interesting post. Quite true, though I think what you write is mainly a reflection of the young Shluchim who have only been on Shlichus for five years or so. I have heard many older Shluchim share ideas that were not directly linked to any sepicific Sicha (Rabbi Alpern from Brazil comes to mind - a great speaker). You may also inquire as to why the one "giving over the Sicha" needs to repeat ad nauseum "the Rebbe says" or "the Rebbe says something unbelivable" or "the Rebbe says a powerful vort". Ridiculous statements such as these (and many more) make the speaker look foolish:
1) Why can't he speak his own mind; 2) Makes him look like a cult freak; 3) The Rebbe does not need his approval.
It also baffles me why many of those 'giving over the Sicha' cannot stay on one message but prefer to fly all over the place and share the full gamut of the Sicha with the poor audience.
Boruch, I don't know Ginsburg but Steinzalts does.
The Baal Shem Tov once told his Chevraya that in another hundred years (after his life) his Torah will be revealed with a Chiddush.
The Rebbe RaShaB related that the The Rizhiner held that he was the Gillui of The Besht
and I (the Rebbe RaShab) say I am the Besht.
I had 7 posts yesterday. Is this the only topic you have something to say about?
Look we may all have eclectic interests, but none obviously as eclectic as yours. ;)
The fundamental dilemma of any blogger. I am not writing for anybody but myself and this is not about to change. Yet the ultimate value of any blog is conversation, that is by far more important or valuable that what any single person has in his head. One thing is for sure no matter how others "tag" this blog this is not about Chabad for me.
The blog enhances the creativity of its readers by introducing them to concepts and ideas that are otherwise outside their narrowly-focused groups, e.g. "foreign" art and literature.
Second article here on the dangers of infallibility doctrine in any belief system:
http://rebeljew.blogspot.com/
200...ew_archive.html
It is an interesting paradox that you mention. On the one hand, Chabad was a rebellious revolution. On the other hand, it stifles dissent and adheres to infallibility doctrine. In other words, it is like any other revolution once it achieves power.
MIB,
The besht was nifter in 1760. What gilui was there in 1860?
The Kopuster Rebbe writes in the intro to Magen Avos that the spring of the besht's teaching will dry up after 150 years, which is the year of his father, the Maharil's, petirah.
It seems that a lot of what Lubavitch claims is the teaching of the besht is not shared by other chassidim, including other chabad chassidim.
That the spring of chassidus would last 150 years was shared by many Polish chassidim, and by the late Satamerer Rov, R' Yoelish, who held the teachings of the Besht were forgotten.
Yehuda, the Magen Avos was also am ardent Zionist, do you accept those thoughts as well, or do you pick and choose what you like to believe.? The Rashab said "Chassidus vet laichten biz Moshiachen". Last time I checked there was no "Kopust".
Tzemach, believe that most if not all of your posts are enjoyed by me. I just have what to say on Chabad. Consider as if I left a comment on every topic :-).
If you really want, I can just comment that I read it.
I particularly enjoy the paintings or pictures. Keep it up!
Yehuda,
I was just quoting what i thought was an interesting statement made by nthe Rashab...
"The Ruzhiner held he was the Besht, and I hold I am."
Firstly Chas vecholiloh to say that the Magen Avos Rav S. Shlomo Zalman Schneersohn was a Zionist please a bit of proof ? Maybe a shtikel chovev Zion ?
His brother the Bobroisker was the last rebbe of this line and is described by Rabbi Zevin as a fiery anti-Zionist.He assured any hespedim for Dr. Herzl.
Next the Magen avoth writes about 150 years only as a homiletic way of describing the "meyridike " loss of his father rav Leib the 1st Kopuster . These words were written as a hesped for his father immediatekly after his death. so they are divre Aggada and one is permitted to be megazem in divre dhespeida. not nevuah. So to speak, after the loss of his father the ozros hachasidus dried up (Reb leib was a "kenner" of dach, but obviously not completely as he the Mogen Avos said dach beshefa for more than 30 years afterwards .
Next I speak to many intellegent Satmarer talmidim and they agree with me that the 150 year statement is something that one has to take dak min hadak to understnad, no broad generalizations here.I even spoke to rabbi G.S. the chief satmarer point man on this subject and he basically agreed with me.
The Skverer rebbe Reb yankev Yosef became Es lohavo at the satmarer rebbe concerning the 150 year statement.
But I must admitt that to many (including myself) chassiduth as a spiritual movement ended with the death of the last Lubavitcher rebbe in 1994.
schneur,
I'm sure that you know that in the letters of Ussiskin, he claims that the Kopuster Rebbe gave his support to the Choveve Zion movement.
The 150 year statement is known among other Galiciener Chassidim. Just to fill me in, who is GS?
It's very nice to say that the Mogen Avos was talking in a homiletic way. If the Lubavitcher Rebbe's talks about moshiach were interperted in the same way, Lubavitch would much better today.
is yehuda the same person as grose?
I do believe certain things that the Rebbe said were homiletic. Many do as well, intelligent people.
Why can't we say that when the kopuster referred to 150 years, he meant that the chasidus of Kopust came to an end? Political correctedness does not have to exist within exist, it's entire being is not PC in many ways. Let everyone call whatever they want chasidus, and I have the sufficient bit of brains to understand that when the Lubavitcher Rebbe referred to chasidus he meant Lubavitcher Chasidus and how it interprets the Besht, and the kopuster will refer to his chasidus.
No?
The Kopuster made this statement to draw a sharp contrast to Chassidus in the days of the Zemach Zedek the Mittler rebbe and the Baal hatanyaa nd his father and in his own days .
as I said its like saying in Yiddish " die velt hot gekummen zu an ende" can we take this literally ?
Chassiduth continues or crawls onwards.
Major distinction between Chobev Zion and political Zionist. Amongst famous chovevei Zion : Rabbi Isaac Elchonon Spektor, The Neziv , Rav Zirelsohn,Rabbi Eliyahu Gutmacher etc.
To Yehuda, I can not tell you who SG is only to say its a olam hafuch.
Tzemach,
I am not grose, I only use one name. However, it seems that I would be interested in what he says.
Guravitcher,
Kopuster and Lubavitcher chassidus are both Chabad and are essentially the same.
Schneur,
Your cryptic words have aroused my curiosity.
Anyway, I'm very interested in the (accurate/scholarly) history of Habad. Please post more on that topic.
What you are writing about is not only true among Lubavitchers, it rings true in all sectors of Charedi world and even in some areas of the MO world.
There is little originality left in the Charedi world.
If you are an original person , you will be labeled a meshugener and will have issues in shidduchim etc.
I recall Reb Michel Abehserra describing the Orthodox world like a dozen tomatoes genetically produced to look the same color, size and shape.
I suspect that few Chabad young people have the psychological, or philosophical background to internalize any of the chassiduth they are taight beyond Hiskashruth , frumkeit and kabbolos Ol.After all they are finished studying in a formal manner before they turn 21.
Lehavdil if our psychologists and philosophers ceased their studies at age 21 with no grad school and post doc work. Masters of the mind and spirit need to be trained and have shimush with other great spirits.
That is the case with most shluchim.They can translate chassiduth into English , but a select few are able to understand the sugyo internally and actaully think.And many of the so called shluchim who do the Chabad house circuit are speaking not about Chassidic ideas. Rather they advertise Chassidic ideas, but what they talk about is either straight out of the self help genre in Pop Psychology or Religious (New Age) psychology of which there are hundreds of similar books in Christian book stores or trying to copy the success of the kabbalah Centres and teach Kabbalah to control your life etc. But few teach chassiduth.
One such guru can speak for hours without mentioning the word rabbi, Judaism , Mitzvoth , he has studied the New Age literature well and can use it with the help of some chassidic catch words to have people who do not know anything , believe they are studying Chabad. He has also been able to adopt the Rebbe's sichoth to conform to the New Age ideas.
The first principle of being a mentch : Nit zu naren zich alein , Not to fool yourself !
Atlas, request:
Can Schenur's last comment be converted into a post for further discussion? Time permitting, I will b"n participate.
yehuda, you're entitled of course to your opinion. Were kopust and lubavitch more similar to each other than to other chasidus? Yes. But there were many social differences, and certainly scholarly ones.
what is kopust chassidus?
Kopust chassiduth is another branch of the Schneersohn dynasty. When the 3rd Lubavitcher rebbe died he left a number of sons who could not agree on succession. As it turned out the youngest R. Samuel stayed in Lubavitch , the 2nd oldest Rav Leib moved to Kopust, others setled in Nizhin and in the Alter rebbe's town of Liady. Another was in Avretch but was not a Chabad rebbe rather chagas.
As far as I could tell there were no major doctrinal differences between Kopust and Lubavitch in theor study of Chassiduth.
Of course serious personality clashes and rivalry over shadowed their similarities.
I can only see the Rashabs analytical style of Maamaorim and his hemshechim as being different in style than those of the Magen Aboth and the Shemen laMaor. But I weklcome the commenst of the baale Nister on this.
Kopust died out with the death of the last Kopuster nasi Rav Shmaryahu Neyach Schneersohn of Bobruisk. in 1924.Although he mentioned possible successors, there was no succession as such.
As of now , no one has written any academic style monograph on Kopust although I have encouraged friends to do so.
Schneur,
Are your friends experts on Kopuster chassidus? Is it studied by anyone today?
I seems that in Kopuster's time, from 1883-1902, most of the Chabad Chasidim followed him. This would be logical, since he was 4 years older then his uncle the Maharash and a generation older than the Rashab. Not to mention that the Rashab didn't accept the Rabbanus until 1893.
While we're on that topic, there is evidence from sources outside Lubavitch, that the Rashab's brother, the Raza, became Rebbe for a year, but then resigned. The implication is that he was too 'enlightened', for the chassidim and he didn't want to conform. Schneur, what do you know about this?
Not that he became Rebbe. The brothers took turns saying Chasidus.
That's the Lubavitcher line but there are 3 sources from outside lubavitch that the Raz"a was actually Rebbe. They are:
Yiddishe Neshamos p. 1916
Sefer Vitebsk
I don't remember the third at this moment and don't the have the page numbers of the other books handy with me right now.
I meant to say
Yidishe Nehsamos Published 1916
Commenting by HaloScan
