HaLeiVi

One more thing to point out.

The common notion of Tznius is a misrepresentation of Daas Chachamim. Anywhere that the Gemara discusses what we call today Tznius, the Gemara refers to it as Kavod.

It is almost a lost sensitivity. However, people invoke כל כבודה as if it is a sentence being imposed — but for your own good. But the whole point of that verse is exactly about honor.

Picture an actual princess of old. If she is only seen from time to time there is a special respect everyone would have in her presence. But once you begin seeing her in the market every day, there is only so long that you can maintain that special attitude.

This has clearly happened in the last 100 years, or so. Men used to act more refined when in the company of women, especially non-relatives. There is still a remnant of this, that seem almost arbitrary by now. But mostly, it is gone.

You can’t turn back the clock, but you can try to capture what was veing conveyed by these descriptions of refinement. And perhaps we can still grasp on to some of it, maintain what is possible, adapt what can be adapted, and learn from the rest.

Women have indeed been mistreated in many places, in many ages. This lead to a counter reaction and an unhealthy jealousy, and a desire to act fully like men, rather than to gain their own respect. But to the outside observer, the honor and respect that had been there is gone.

What is really gained by drilling in the street? How does faking macho stuff make you proud? What’s the big idea? It’s as silly as men showing off that they can cry and hug a bear.

My bottom line is that these Maamarim are indeed advice for respect, and not sentences. If society has lost the desire for the respect, and people are interested, I don’t see the point in bringing it up. But it is a mess.

What are the practical ramifications of deciding that a certain person is destined to become Moshiach?

Does it boil down to whether or not to say Yechi?

Wow! Quite the דברי בזיון on one of the most venerated Gedolei Yisroel. Actually, there is no excuse for such talk at this point in time, when you see how the greatest Tzadikim accepted the Bal Shem Tov. It takes quite the audacity to speak out like this. This can only happen to someone who isn’t careful about being לומד תורה מהאמגוש.

The entirety of the portrayal of the proto-chasidism is based on secular writings, with a sprinkling of just outsider perspectives — given by those who were predisposed to disdain Chasidus.

“Chassidus as originally intended by the Besht was problematic. Yes, he did introduce new ideas into Judaism. He claimed that learning Torah was not of utmost importance, and instead shifted the focus to tefillah, along with happiness. ”

All of these ideas are not new and are not just “originally intended”. Not only that, but they have become more widespread, and are being even more widespread nowadays. (Yes, I know that you lament that.) The Bal Shem Tov obviously never negated the countless Maamarei Chazal about the supremacy of learning Torah. In fact, that’s exactly what he spent his time doing with his close disciples, who were all well-learned and most of them held rabbinic positions. Emphasising, or putting weight into other Mitzvos (which hardly take away time from learning) is not a new concept. Davenning extra-long Shmone Esrei might be a new idea without a Mesora or reason, though.

Happiness itself is a trait that was extolled by many earlier pious groups. But, most importantly, if a Gadol has an insight into what he sees as helpful to Kirvas Elokim, that is not a new Torah. Plenty of great Rabbonium — before and after the Bal Shem Tov — have innovated, re-introduced, or narrowly focused on what others haven’t.

“His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions. ”

This is bogus. There is a mention of one particular group, which obviously plays an oversized role in the mind of detractors, who have acted out over-the-top while Davenning as a means of ecstasy. This was not the Bal Shem Tov, nor the Maggid, but exactly one Talmid. And his friends were not happy about it, and it stopped. Speaking in tongues is simply baloney, but I can’t promise that Gershon Scholem didn’t mention it, since I wouldn’t read his ideas.

“There are other teachings which were concerning, and I won’t get into all of them. They can be summed up by his asserting the primacy of Kabbalah over traditional thought, even when it came to Halachah. Kabbalah is not supposed to be learned while young, and definitely not before one has a solid foundation in the traditional sources of Tanach, Mishnayos, and Gemara.”

The Hashkafos that the Bal Shem Tov taught, which are by now mainstream, that Hashem is not confined to being “up there” but that He is everywhere and more importantly, nothing is outside of His realm, reach and even plan; these ideas were not really negated by the main detractors. They were merely afraid of where it would lead people.

The Gra’s letter complains that. ‘האומר לעץ אבי אתה ולאבן אתה ילדתני’. This is a complaint against saying that Hashem is everywhere, since this would lead people to think that they can bow down to their own chairs and tables, if it is after all part of Hashem. While this precaution is understandable, we see that it didn’t turn out that way. The message was taught in a careful and well-designed manner, the way we all relate to it today.

The Gra actually continues by referencing the Zohar Hakadosh that is quoted by Chasidim, and he says that it is a secret and not meant to be taken in its simple form. And so, we see that although to the underlying idea there was no disagreement (since the Bal Shem Tov also did not teach it in the simple way), there was suspicion as to the irresponsibility of making asuch deep ideas available to the public. And, as it turns out, it went over well. Absolutely nobody relates to physical items as Hashem ר”ל. Even though most people won’t be able to easily explain how it all ties together, the ideas went over well, as we see every day.

Contrary to historians’ description, the Bal Shem Tov actually did not teach Kabalah to people. He discussed it with those who were already learned in it, and he did publicize some ideas from it, just as any Rav before and after him has done. And this can be seen in any Chasidish Sefer outside of Chabbad. They utilize certain Kabalistic ideas, usually famous ones, but never engage in explaining Kabalah per se. I would say that while it is true that one shouldn’t learn Kabalah before a solid grounding in Gemara and Halachah, the age is not a big deal. All successful Mekubalim began at a pretty young age.

Post Shabssai Tzvi there was a general caution of what the unguided study of Kabbalah can do. But seriously, that happened exactly once in history, and I’d blame mental illness before blaming Kabalah.

“Chassidus ended up becoming accepted because a few generations later, the leaders walked back on some of the ideas, and accepted the traditional views, merging some chassidic thoughts into them. Most of the things that were problematic were abandoned (although not all).
So Chassidus as the Besht envisioned it is long gone. Yet as I said, some problematic parts do remain. ”

This is simply not true. We have his teachings, and they are relevant. And as I wrote earlier, the all-too-famous cartwheels were not from him. The ideas of Torah Lishmah are widely known and quoted, although few are holding there. IT is mentioned by the Bach, and it is the Nefesh Hachaim who suggests taking a quick break in middle of learning to strengthen Yiras Shamayim. (Like the Mishna in Rosh Hashana 29a.)

His main ideas, which was about putting life into Yiddishkeit applied to those who learn as well as those who can’t learn enough.
ר’ נחמיה אומר מניין שכל הכושה מצוה אחת באמונה לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם כדאי הוא שתשרה רוח הקדש עליו (מכילתא דרשב”י י”ד)

“But let’s be clear about this: The Besht did NOT have a mesorah for his teachings. He didn’t learn about the supremacy of tefillah over learning Torah from his father (he was orphaned at the age of 5) or his Rebbe.
There are no seforim on learning from the Besht. Only quotes from his students, and mostly on matters of Chassidus. So there is absolutely zero proof that he was knowledgeable in Shas. In fact, the people who supported him had hoped he’d become a Rabbi, but he frequently skipped cheder to walk in the woods, and they gave up on him. When he finished cheder (at the age of 12), they gave him a job walking escorting the small children to cheder in the morning, and davening with them. ”

The Mesorah aspect was already addressed, as well as the fact that Tefillah was never made to be more important than Torah Study.

The rest is just a failed attempt at לישנא בישא. The quotes that are from him are all about parts of Torah. You can find them in a compilation called ספר בעל שם טוב. And again, just like the acceptance of any Gadol or Tzaddik is based on the testimony of other Gedolim, we can see the works of the Bal Hatanya and we know his regard for his Rebbe, the Maggid and the Bal Shem Tov. All of his disciples were Rabbanim, as mentioned above. As for having Seforim, the fact is that most Gedolim didn’t make Seforim. Did you ever see the Abrabanel’s sefer on Bava Metzia? Was he then not learned in Torah SheBal Peh? (Just in case you’d actually think so, you can see the great regard that the Beis Yosef has for him when mentioning a Pshat in the Rambam Hilchos Brachos.) Did the Rokeach write on Shas? How about Reb Yakov Pollack?

“My personal belief is that the stories of the Besht were inflated by those who came after, such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Yaakov Yosef of Polonye, and others. ”

“Since chassidus today was tempered by the traditional Jewish population, and they abandoned most of the teachings, chassidus became more accepted. But if the many of the practices were problematic, why do we think that those which remained are ok? If the source had problems, wouldn’t it be better to cut off all those teachings? ”

Since the premise is wrong, and no one went back on the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov, the postulate falls along with it. Even if you think that the Rebbes of the great Talmidei Chachamim couldn’t learn (somehow), being that, according to your portrayal, the learned ones hacked out a useable approach, it is after all designed by Gedolim who finally arrived at the scene.

Besides for all of the above, you should be pragmatic. Why would you pick a losing fight? You know that when you denigrate someone who is held in the highest esteem, you will not be listened to.

UJM, the Chofetz Chaim was against using a razor. That’s all. The whole Kuntres was about the actual Issur.

I am aware that his Kuntres is widely mentioned, but not quoted, as proof of his disparaging shaving, but that’s not what it is. In fact, right at the beginning he wonders — in a footnote — why it is that we don’t trim beards anymore and he gives two reasons.

What we have is all Americans paying for the malpractice of some doctors, instead of those doctors being punished. Since no one can be sure that they’ll win a court case, even if they’re right, so they buy malpractice insurance — a bazzare concept — and make their customers pay for their new cost of business. Who wins? Who loses?

Is this really impossible to fix? This was a conversation many years ago and then for some reason it got buried.

You can’t call it frivolous and also be proud of winning the case. If the judge took the time, and it wasn’t based on heretofore unknown information then how can the judge call it frivolous only after being convinced by the lawyer’s logic?

Avira says: Who was the Rayatz supposedly debating? A random am haaretz who happened to be a litvak who maybe said some nonsense?

Good point, but this is a fallacy flund all around. There are several stories that the Briskers repeat often aling the same lines, of how one of their Rabbeim responded to a random, perhaps unlearned, Chossid (who spoke in a way that no Chossid worth his money would speak).

Avira, who are his close Talmidim that you would expect it from?

There actually is a mention of it very few years after his Petira, in the complaints of the Meshumad Samuel. It’s in the Otzar Vikuchim. He doesn’t mention the Maharal by name, so for all you know it is about the one from Reb Eliyahu Bal Shem.

He was just hoping that it can finally be discussed without the erroneous and unhelpful association with other religions.

I don’t get it. The quited passage from the Chasid Yaavetz does not give a reason for the expulsion. He merely points out how philosophy-based Yiddishkeit doesn’t hold out in trying times while those who worked on Emuna kept their faith.

“Also, if no adults ever use it, then where do the kids learn it? They re-invent the word every generation?”

This one doesn’t work. Have you never heard the Chazak Chazak, cake, snake song from kids? Do you think adults taught it to them? There are tons of things that nursery kids get from previous nursery kids, without passing first grade.

Coffee your follow-up was not mentioned in your original post but you did ask this previously. And I believe I responded then as well.

The time of the calamity is the time for us to pay attention enough to care about and internalize the loss. Are you truly suggesting that instead of Chazal making a day of mourning they should have made another purim to give mishloach manos?

Besides, it is a mistaken notion to think that the whole Galus is all about sinas chinam. It does say that that is why the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed, just like the first one was because of the three sins. However, that is not too say that it’s all that is necessary.

It’s obviously an important lesson of how serious Sinas Chinam is, and it’s a pretty good time to avoid it, but it’s not a day of friendship. You got all year for that.

It’s a little bit of both, and would often depend on the prevalent Minhag.

I believe you can do it online, unless you need to have the new one already.

“As for Zionists being a mythical creature, you’re just being absurd. Would you also say that to someone who self-identifies as a religious zionist?

We can all picture the archetypal zionist…”

That’s a group, not really a movement. There’s no goal, no capturing the imagination, definitely not contagious, and they’re religious anyhow. I do not agree with how they put the state as a central Jewish piece, which puts them out there as one amongst many groups that I/we feel are somewhat misguided to varying degrees.

There really is no threat today, and Zionism per se is gone ever since the actual Zionist movement accomplished their goal. Fighting them, warning about them, is as important as being wary of corporeal theology.

Wow. Someone was just Motzi Shem Ra on an undisputed Gadol BiYisroel right here? I would expect this on Twitter. But are we really going to stoop to Gedolim bashing here?

Besides for the obvious false connection being drawn, to accuse a Gadol of hypocrisy and then to mess with the Torah as a cover-up, is the most hideous post in this site.

Who’s next? The Ramban Paskenned things to make his mother-in-law happy? Do we stop at Amoraim, Tannaim, Neviim?

Avira, I can’t go and look it up now. It was a while back. But it was a response to a fanatical anti-Zionist.

Midwesterner, the Genata in Brachos says that a Tzaddik can’t become a Rasha. Then, the Gemara asks your question from Yochanan Cohen Gadol and ends up saying that it is a Machlokes whether it is the same person.

In Yoma 38 the Gemara says that once most of a person’s life went by without an Aveira he won’t go bad. There, the Gemara doesn’t ask anything. I found the Yismach Moshe, referenced in Yoma on Sefaria. The Yismach Moshe is in Re’eh.

רבי אליעזר בנו של ר’ יוסי הגלילי אומר מי לחשוך כו’. נ”ל דהנה במקום אחר אמרו חז”ל (ברכות כ”ט.) אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך, שהרי יוחנן כהן גדול שימש בכהונה גדולה שמונים שנה ולבסוף נעשה צדוקי, אלמא דהשי”ת אין מוחה ואין מונע להבחירה בשום פעם. ובמקום אחר דרשו על פסוק (שמואל א’ ב ט) רגלי חסידיו ישמור, כיון שעברו רוב שנותיו של אדם ולא חטא, שוב לא יחטא (יומא דף ל”ח:). והדברים נראין כסותרין את עצמן. וי”ל דממכשול שוגג, השי”ת שומרו דחטא היינו שוגג, אבל אם רוצה להרשיע במזיד, השי”ת אינו מבטל הבחירה.

He also answers that Hashem would protect him from a regular Aveira, but if he deviates in Hashkafa then he can still go sour. Similar to a תוהה על הראשונות who loses his earlier merit.

One minute. Is that “they” or “we”?

Those good times… We had Srulik, Sam4, oh, and myself.

I am grateful for each additional year that I learnt in Kollel. Each year makes a tremendous difference that will have a lasting impact, long after you must leave.

Eventually I did have to leave, when rent and other things piled up, small side jobs were sparse and and opportunity came up. But it was really כפורש מן החיים. However those ten years gave me the ability to remain at the Gemara first and my job second.

Nothing compares to Kollel learning utilized well: not being a שואל ומשיב, מגיד שיעור, רב, or even a ראש ישיבה.

It’s from a publicized AI response, and Joseph decided to share it with us.

N0mesora, although we are sure we can steer clear of the Makom Hamikdosh, I do think Akuperman is right that you can’t go into Har Habayis for a walk. They would be like קפנדריא.

Also, being that no one looks out טומאות יוצאות מן הגוף, you would need ז’ נקיים.

Avira, many Chasidishe Sefarim are indeed a form of Mussar or Avoda. Chabbad Sefarim are not. They are Toras Hanistar as explained by their Rebbes. That settles two issues. It gives clear explanations to the point being discussed and it is Limud.

Even other Chasidishe Sefarim are obviously Divrei Torah, as is Pirkei Avos. The only kind of Sefer I would question is something that focuses on Eitzos of how to work on a Midda. This is usually the author’s life-advice, and could just as well have come from Benjamin Franklin. (Include all disclaimers)

Always_Ask_Questions, are you trying to trick people now? Is that what we’re down to? Do you want to conflate every other reference to Rebbi Shimon as well?