Author Topic: Origins Of Chassidus (The Good the Bad and the Ugly) And Is there A bad Jew?  (Read 16840 times)

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Except when you weren't as pointed out above. (חרם based on predictions or only on several specific facts).
The difference is the "only" which I never said. That answers most of the previous post as well.

You are taking the position that the philosophy should be separated from the behavior found among its adherents. That sounds sort of like calling Islam a religion of peace. If it is the philosophy which would naturally lead there then the behavior and the philosophy are one and the same. There is no question that the cherem was based at least partially on the behavior of the chassidim of the time. This is there in writing. Once behavior is included then you questioning whether or not toras hachassidus has changed is fallacious. Even that you did not pin yourself to an answer. Do YOU feel that toras hachassidus hasn't changed and is the same now as it was 250 years ago? What about the behaviors? Have those changed over 250 years or remained the same?

The historians seem to pin a portion of the reasoning to fear of Sabbateanism which is certainly a fear of where it would lead.

Regarding the siddur, I will not be able to prove it, but I have actually seen it in Eretz Yisroel. I do not remember what the siddur was called and will not be looking for it. I understand that it would be an extreme fringe element. Either believe me or don't.

My status here has been only that of asking questions. I have not given any opinion (I guess other that saying it would be naive to believe that the cherem had no effect at all on chassidus). Much of the reasoning being used to convince me is that I need to prove that there were changes due to the cherem. I only mentioned that as a possibility which would mean that the condition of chassidus today with the existence of the cherem cannot be used to prove that the cherem was wrong. That is simple logical reasoning. There has been no logical reasoning to counter that. Even those telling me to show differences have not been willing to take the position that they don't exist, yourself included. I think you have seen many times tht I am not someone who has preconcieved notions that chassidus or Lubavitch are ______________. I am simply going through the logic here and it does not add up.

The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
The difference is the "only" which I never said. That answers most of the previous post as well.

You are taking the position that the philosophy should be separated from the behavior found among its adherents. That sounds sort of like calling Islam a religion of peace.

I am not familiar enough with Islam to make an opinion one way or another. I have seen various quotes, and my Arabic is less than basic, so I have to rely on translations, all of which are interpretations. But why are you going there. Are we lacking cases in Jewish history: פרנקיסטים - which IIRC the בעש"ט himself was involved in a ויכוח against them, ש"ץ ימ"ש, קראים, Christians, etc. etc. all of which claimed to be true Jews. And להבדיל on the other side you have: שיטת המוסר, מקובלים, or some educational methods such as זילבערמאן, etc. etc.

Please try to objectively apply my methodology (unless you can explain why it is wrong) to any of those and to Chassidus. Is my methodology flawed by any measure?

Quote
If it is the philosophy which would naturally lead there then the behavior and the philosophy are one and the same.
I am not denying that, but you are assuming that the philosophy naturally leads to a certain behavior. The Alter Rebbe obviously disagrees, and along with some other Chassidic leaders of his time attempted to stop what he saw as unacceptable.

Quote
Do YOU feel that toras hachassidus hasn't changed and is the same now as it was 250 years ago?
Did the Torah Haniglis change since ששה סדרי משנה were codified by רבי יהודה הנשיא?



Quote
What about the behaviors? Have those changed over 250 years or remained the same?
That is not a question that requires an answer. It is only a question of those that תואנה הם מבקשים. It is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the חרם had any merit based on my suggested methodology.

Quote
The historians seem to pin a portion of the reasoning to fear of Sabbateanism which is certainly a fear of where it would lead.
Which is why I kind of started off this discussion with my statement about the benefit of retrospect of over 200 years of history. Additionally, using objective analysis, proper חקירה ודרישה etc. would have produced other conclusions.

Quote
Regarding the siddur, I will not be able to prove it, but I have actually seen it in Eretz Yisroel. I do not remember what the siddur was called and will not be looking for it. I understand that it would be an extreme fringe element. Either believe me or don't.
Please state what you saw and where you saw it?

Quote
My status here has been only that of asking questions. I have not given any opinion (I guess other that saying it would be naive to believe that the cherem had no effect at all on chassidus). Much of the reasoning being used to convince me is that I need to prove that there were changes due to the cherem. I only mentioned that as a possibility which would mean that the condition of chassidus today with the existence of the cherem cannot be used to prove that the cherem was wrong. That is simple logical reasoning. There has been no logical reasoning to counter that.

Bringing up a certain line of thought, which doesn't stand up to objective analysis - as per my methodology which you haven't refuted, is akin to giving an opinion.

Where do you see a lack of logical reasoning in my methodology?
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Please try to objectively apply my methodology (unless you can explain why it is wrong) to any of those and to Chassidus. Is my methodology flawed by any measure?

Bringing up a certain line of thought, which doesn't stand up to objective analysis - as per my methodology which you haven't refuted, is akin to giving an opinion.

Where do you see a lack of logical reasoning in my methodology?

Please explain the exact methodology again.

Regarding the siddur, it was about 20 years ago in a random non-lubavitch shul in yerushalayim. I don't recall the exact changes but the basic idea was including the Rebbe in tefilos for moshiach.
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
Please explain the exact methodology again.

If something is fundamentally flawed, then fighting it or saving its adherents from taking it in a certain direction, not only has merit, but might actually be a noble cause.

However, if something is essentially and fundamentally true and accurate, yet SOME followers misinterpret it or behave in ways that might be היפך ישוב העולם, היפך אהבת ישראל, or some other problematic way, then one should WORK WITH THE LEADERS of the philosophy to help save it from its so-called followers misrepresenting it, or causing other harm in its name.
So the right way to decide is by evaluating the philosophy first.

Quote
Regarding the siddur, it was about 20 years ago in a random non-lubavitch shul in yerushalayim. I don't recall the exact changes but the basic idea was including the Rebbe in tefilos for moshiach.
'nuff said? Were the changes printed, or written in?
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
So the right way to decide is by evaluating the philosophy first.
'nuff said? Were the changes printed, or written in?
there were clearly some parts of the philosophy which they specifically included in their reasoning. There is also the possibility they they did see the sources for the behavior in the underlying philosophy. That is alluded to in some of the items you linked to. You are assuming that they did not. I am not sure what that is based upon.

The siddur was printed. I never meant to give an impression that it was representative.
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
there were clearly some parts of the philosophy which they specifically included in their reasoning.
Quote please.
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
I did see the following quoted from R Chaim Berlin in Nishmas Chaim 7. I did not yet verify it myself


ולהתפלל בבית הכנסת של החסידים אין שום חשש בזה, וגזירת רבינו הגר"א ז"ל לא הי' אלא בזמנו שהקילו אז בכבוד תלמידי חכמים לומדי תורה, ולא כן בימינו שהחסידים חולקים כבוד לכל לומדי תורה והם יראי ה' ושומרים תורה ומצוה

Here is a copy of the original version
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770

I did see the following quoted from R Chaim Berlin in Nishmas Chaim 7. I did not yet verify it myself


ולהתפלל בבית הכנסת של החסידים אין שום חשש בזה, וגזירת רבינו הגר"א ז"ל לא הי' אלא בזמנו שהקילו אז בכבוד תלמידי חכמים לומדי תורה, ולא כן בימינו שהחסידים חולקים כבוד לכל לומדי תורה והם יראי ה' ושומרים תורה ומצוה

Here is a copy of the original version

Even that is talking about behavior, not philosophy.

Did you ever learn Tanya? How about the Alter Rebbe's הלכות תלמוד תורה (which according to Lubavitch sources was originally printed anonymously and was highly praised by the Gr"a)?
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Quote please.
I can't find it now but you can't believe that you don't know what I am referring to. This wasn't even my real point so I will not spend time on it. I do not know enough about the background of how the cherem came about to give an opinion on that aspect anyhow. I do recall thenm discussing about tamid bismcha and the view of the evils of atzvus cause ...... as well as similar statements regarding other issues. I cannot give an educaed opinion as to whether the GRA should or should not have relied upon those who he relied upon, but in general would say that his decision to rely upon them and whatever he knew from other sources or on his own at the time is typically also in and of itself a decision of his to rely upon it and carries that weight.
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Even that is talking about behavior, not philosophy.

Did you ever learn Tanya? How about the Alter Rebbe's הלכות תלמוד תורה (which according to Lubavitch sources was originally printed anonymously and was highly praised by the Gr"a)?
This says very little as far as reasoning at all
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
I can't find it now but you can't believe that you don't know what I am referring to. This wasn't even my real point so I will not spend time on it. I do not know enough about the background of how the cherem came about to give an opinion on that aspect anyhow. I do recall thenm discussing about tamid bismcha and the view of the evils of atzvus cause ...... as well as similar statements regarding other issues. I cannot give an educaed opinion as to whether the GRA should or should not have relied upon those who he relied upon, but in general would say that his decision to rely upon them and whatever he knew from other sources or on his own at the time is typically also in and of itself a decision of his to rely upon it and carries that weight.
I don't know what you are referring to, I haven't researched this from non-Lubavitch sources prior to the current conversation. (I am trying to get my hands on a copy - preferably PDF - of חסידים ומתנגדים by Wilansky).

Are you familiar with what the Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya about עצבות, מרירות and their appropriate place in עבודת השם?
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
I don't know what you are referring to, I haven't researched this from non-Lubavitch sources prior to the current conversation.

Are you familiar with what the Alter Rebbe writes in Tanya about עצבות, מרירות and their appropriate place in עבודת השם?
No I am not at this time.
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 10035
  • Total likes: 3778
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
The thing with the hamster is that running on the wheel is actually what it is trying to do.

Offline ExGingi

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 8059
  • Total likes: 1889
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
  • Location: 770
Re: Re: Comments That Leave Me Speechless...
« Reply #224 on: June 18, 2017, 06:29:35 PM »
I've been looking up various sources since this thread was recently active, and came across this, or in it's original here, or complete pdf of chapter 4 here. Was this the book @ben89 was referring to here?

After reading through chapters 3 and 4, I go back to all those who refused to admit that with over 200 years of retrospect, it is obvious that the Cherem was wrong.

To quote the final paragraph of the conclusion of chapter 3 (which ostensibly brings the point of view against chassidus):



Etkes in disagreement with the claim of Mondshine, that it was the askanim of Vilna who were at the forefront, and they just harnessed the Gr"a for their purposes.

Whether one accepts Mondshine's theory or Etkes' theory, the benefit of retrospect is irrefutable. As seeing the fight as "a struggle concerning the essence of the way of Hasidism in worshiping G-d" and having "The greatest scholar of the generation..deremined that the new Hasidism was a heresy.." could only lead to the conclusion that the Cherem was wrong, with over 200 years of retrospect and the spread of תורת החסידות, making it obvious that "the new Hasidism" (to use Etkes' definition) is definitely not heresy, and that it no-less valid "way of worshiping G-d".

As a side note, while not rejecting it vehemently as Mondshine, Etkes does tend to doubt the extent of the alleged content of the exchange between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Aruch Hashulchan.

As I have stated earlier. There's little doubt that the meeting between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Aruch Hashulchan happened. It is also possible that the Tzemach Tzedek said something about a benefit that came about from the Cherem (or the wars against chassidim/chassidus), however to claim that the type of benefit is as brought down in the מקור ברוך, ignores the reality of what תורת החסידות is, and of how events unfolded. A more likely explanation of the benefit would be something along the lines described here in a letter from the Alter Rebbe (quoted in יחיד בדורו, pg. 119):


(I hope @aygart is satisfied with the fact that I have exclusively quoted non-Lubavitch sources in this post).
I've been waiting over 5 years with bated breath for someone to say that!
-- Dan