From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: from presumption to reality (was Re: Has Chabad gone crazy?)
Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering, Tulane Univ.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:14:48 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-20419]: bourbon

In article <1jphmmINNbse@FRIDGE.AI.CS.YALE.EDU> engelson-sean@cs.yale.edu writes:
>
>You seem to either believe that the Gaon thought cherem was a trivial
>matter, or that he was sloppy in application of his public power.  It
>is well known that he was an intensely private person and preferred to
>be let alone to learn.  He rarely involved himself in public life at
>all.  It's therefore very hard to imagine that a scholar and tsadik of
>the Gaon's stature would put a cherem on such large numbers of people,
>and particularly in such strong terms as he did, based on hearsay and
>misinformation.
>
But the above is exactly the point! "It is well known that he was an
intensely private person and preferred t be let alone to learn. He
rarely involved himself in public life at all." What, then, was his
source for information about Chassidus and Chassidim? It is also well
known that he had a philosophical disagreement with the Baal Shem Tov
about some kabbalistic concepts, particularly Divine Providence, but
this would not be sufficient for a cherem. Rather, it was reports of
Chassidic excesses and "heresies." But this information came from
opponents of Chassidism determined to destroy it, the same type that
incited the Russian government to arrest Rabbi Schneur Zalman on false
charges of treason.

Why is it so difficult to believe that a private man whose life was
devoted to scholarship and piety and to whom deceit was foreign could
be deceived by those who had an ulterior motive and to whom deceit was
familiar?

I'm not downplaying the differences of opinion, or the seriousness of
the situation. I'm pointing out the cherem, in light of history at
least, was a mistake: many subsequent great "mitnagidim" had and have
no such problem with Chassidim and Chassidus, such as Rav Kook, Rabbi
Soloveitchik, Rav Moshe Feinstein, z"l, etc. 

I think it's a disservice to gedolim of any persuasion to invoke such
things; imho, the disagreements among _the scholars_ were of the order
of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai and Ramban and Rambam - alu valu...

It's time to recognize the validity of legitimate minhagim and for
those of us of smaller stature to learn from all.

>|> When
>|> the Gaon of Vilna fell ill shortly before his death, Chassidim prayed
>|> for his recovery. 
>
>Interesting; I'm curious as to the source for this.  
>
One place is in the biography of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi. It is
also well known that Chabad did all it could to dampen and refrain
from the controversy. To this day, in Chabad at least, the Vilna
Gaon's scholarship is respected and referenced.

Further, several halachic decisions of early Chassidic leaders have
become universally adopted (the knife used for shecting, heated
mikvehs on Shabbos, etc.). Clearly, where the disagreement was on the
issues, it has been resolved long ago.


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: raph@panache.demon.co.uk (Raphael Mankin)