Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Addendum - Letter from the FR about the הקריאה והקדושה article

One might say that after this letter is כל מילה מיותרת... And if it's ever brought up again בין הסדרים or whenever in your Yeshiva/Kolel/Mikvah/Shtiebel you'll know what to say and you'll sound so knowledgeable too! It seems like the Rebbe wrote to Levitt as if he and Segal were not one and the one same - so as not to hurt his feelings.

תודה להמשלח




12 comments:

gershy said...

" It seems like the Rebbe wrote to Levitt as if he and Segal were not one and the one same - so as not to hurt his feelings."
And you know the above, how????Maybe he actually didn't know

"

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

He knew. I believe if you read the page from Toldos Chabad in the previous post you'll see why

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

He knew. I believe if you read the page from Toldos Chabad in the previous post you'll see why

Kremenchuger said...

Hirshel
your post was very informative,
Thanks











Superintendant chalmers said...

Tzig,

I'm confused by this - what does this letter mean? What does he mean that the tochen was good but not the mivtaim? What exactly was he approving of?
It appears from here that the FR approved of the content, just not the leshonos. So then there was no misunderstanding?

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

the FR is saying that the Rigshas Rabbim is correct. Bekitzer.

Superintendant chalmers said...

So what did he mean when he said the tochen is tov?

Hirshel Tzig - הירשל ציג said...

I'd say "he meant well"

Anonymous said...

The Rayatz means that nigleh deals with the practical physical world - & therefore when we learn shor shenogach etc. we are preoccupied in the mundane scenario of animals & tort; the "ruchniyus" perspective of it is not immediately apparent. Whereas when we understand it al pi chasidus too, we have the additional perspective of teachings that are not "just" about the physical, but also about ruchniyus hoinyonim - & how this shtikl gemoro can apply as a hora'ah ba'adoydas hashem.

IOW, it is not an either/or - but rather, like the idea of PaRDeS & shivim ponim l'Torah, one pshat does not cancel out the other.

In addition to this, Chabad likes to stress that the ultimate kavonoh of learning Torah etc. is davke to be preoccupied with poshute pshat of the shor shenogach in the physical world - & only this way to be "grab" the sechel eliki & bring it down to this world - as stated in Tanya parek 5 (also related to Tanya later on perakim 36 & on that the ratzon haelyon & the kavonoh haelyon is davka in the physical world). Dirah b'TACHTONIM.

The problem was that Segal worded it as if nigleh is inferior & lacks the sechel eloki. This is contrary to Tanya & other Chabad teachings.

The truth is that we can find the kernel to the misunderstandings here in the known difference between the Alter Rebbe & R' Chaim Valozhener on the concept of "Torah Lishmoh." Vd"l.


--ZIY

pitputim said...

I'll try again. What about Levitt's constant discussion about the concept of "Goshen" post Holocaust. That surely was derived from the FR and approved by him.

shaf veyosiv said...

"it seems like the Rebbe wrote to Levitt as if he and Segal were not one and the one same - so as not to hurt his feelings."
laan"d the reason is probably because the name of the editor was held a secret.

shaf veyosiv said...

sorry, i was under the impression the letter was printed in hakv"k (maybe it was meant to be?)