(for illustration purposes only)
I've been accused by many of being a "coward" and a "party hack" for not speaking out about abuse in the Jewish community. I'll say it again: I'm uncomfortable writing about the issue simply because of what the discussion usually turns into, namely an all-out slugfest where no Melamed or Principal is spared, and all kinds of scores are settled. It's got nothing to do with protecting people or parties. The recent slew of confessions and accusations on the internet shlepped in Melamdim and Principals who were a little trigger-happy with the Shtekken, and lumped them together with the molesters, that's wrong. Rebellious teens wrote all about all this Rebbe who beat him as a kid, and that Principal who embarrassed him in front of the school. I try and stay away from Zaftige Loshon Horah, I don't speak about this guy stealing millions or that guy being arrested for tax fraud, it's not what I do. However, since פטור בלא כלום אי אפשר, I'll say this much:
I see this now more than ever before, and I believe many of you will now agree. If anybody comes to you - given that you're a Bochur or Yungerman - and asks you where you're at in "Inyonei Kedushah" VeChuli, whether you had "difficulties" you'd like to discuss, if there are "thoughts" or "feelings" you have, run like the wind, and never be alone in the room with him. If you can't do that, for whatever reason, tell him you have a phone call. Why would I say something like that? It's quite simple. The Tzemach Tzedek takes the approach BeNogeah to Shmiras HaBris, that it's best not spoken of, and that Hesach HaDaas is the way to go, because otherwise one becomes obsessed with it and it keeps him from doing what he needs to do in life. Someone who does talk about it all the time seems to be obsessed with it, and hence the fear that he may just act on it. Of course I'm not negating other approaches (well I am actually) but I see this as an Halochoh Psukoh that should be made law elsewhere too, Ger and others not withstanding. I don't doubt the holiness of the Gerrer Rebbe, the Beis Yisroel, but I fail to see where non-stop thought of it brings to Kedushah VeTaharah.
More proof to my theory can be brought from a story told of the Rebbetzin Rivkah, wife of the Rebbe MaHaRaSH of Lubavitch, and scion of Bais HoRav herself. (The Rebbe Rashab, her son, called her a Chassidisher.) She once chanced upon a Machzor for Yom Kippur while browsing the wares of a Mocher Seforim who came to Lubavitch. Judging from her reaction it seems like she had never seen it before. She saw the Tefillas Zakeh and began to read it. Those of who know will know that it speaks of doing Tshuveh for the Cheyt HaYodua. After a moment she closed the book and said (Feh) "Doh shteit zachen vos m'tor afilu nit trachten!" How much more so that it should not be discussed in public. Sifrei Chabad are full of the gravity of the sin, and about ideas for Tshuveh, but never was it a topic of discussion in public, it was always something you did on your own.
"If anybody comes to you ... and asks you where you're at in "Inyonei Kedushah" VeChuli ... run like the wind"
ReplyDeleteI gotta say Hirshel, that just hits me as too knee-jerk a reaction. The implication here is that there is a cloud of suspicion over every mashpia's head - and while there are some bad stories out there, I don't think it is all that common.
I also don't think that the "don't speak of such things" approach may be something that was fine in the past, but not necessarily today...
That's where you're wrong, most Mashpi'im will not discuss it with a Bochur personally, and I think that's why.
ReplyDeleteSo what does the mashpia say that you think is a clear sign, and what is not?
ReplyDeleteThat's why I never like to discuss these issues on the blog. Do you want me to spell it our for you? Do I look like a manual for the deaf that I need to read it aloud?
ReplyDeleteTEFFILOH ZAKKOH. (not tefillas zakkeh)
ReplyDeleteIt is about what we read from the Torah about on mincha on Yom Kippur(not chait hayodua)
Your resorting to a vaiberisheh take to prove your point makes it quite weak, since as I said this is the parsha read on Yom Kippur!!
Nonetheless I agree that the Gerer path is not relevant for most people and has little toeles and even they have backtracked quite a bit.
Interesting to say the least, as Rav Chaim Voloziner advocated the same approach as the Tzemach Tedek!!. Its printed in Keser Rosh and other places.
ReplyDeleteHirshel
ReplyDeleteMareh Mokom for the Tzemach Tzedek please.
I guess "chet im nokhris meisah" is more to your gist ...
ReplyDeleteביי אונז אין דער היים זאגט מען תפלת זכה not Tefilloh Zakoh.
ReplyDeleteTake it or leave it. It's Sach Hakol the Chayei Odom who brings is Mesifrei HaKadmonim, so I guess a Vaibereshe Tayneh ken es opshloggen..... Now attack!!!!!
Batterer, please, a bissel eidelkeit, that's all we ask.
Tzig
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously lacking in the intelligence dept?
I'm not going to go where you want with the Chayei Odom,I KNEW that's what you wanted.
That's why I pointed out that the taynah is silly (and probably not said at all, chazoko al eshes chover...)SINCE ON the holiest day of Yom Kippur at we read parshas arayos.
Do you now understand?
I've heard similar about Tikkun HaKloli.
ReplyDeleteFirstly - Is it an additional story, or not?
Also, can someone verify authenticity (for either)?
*
While on the topic - can someone bring episodes of Chabad's yachas to Breslov, from the Alter Rebbe to today's day (I've heard many rumors already)?
BE
ReplyDeletethat's not what I wanted, believe it or not. And please, no comments about my intelligence, it hurts my feelings. I just think that the Chayei Odom not be the source for a Tefiloh like that, at least amongst Chasidim.
The Kotzker Rebbe said
ReplyDeleteaz m'shpilt zich in blotteh vert men shmutzig.
Do you ever think for yourself?
ReplyDeleteI asked you why you don't realize that the 'tayno' against Tefolloa Zakko is silly SINCE THE PARSHA READ ON MINCHA OF YOM KIPPUR IS PARSHAS ARAYOS!
Chazal saw fit to read punkt this parsha on Yom Kippur.Are you comfortable with that??
Answer that.
Of course we are comfortable with that, especially in light of how Chasidus views it.
ReplyDeleteParshas Arayos is a parsha in Torah Shebichsav, Chochmoso Yisborech. Tefilah Zakeh is not.
Ben Eliezer
ReplyDeleteIn Kovetz Oholie Torah 2 weeks ago there was an article refuting some Breslov stories that the AR met Reb Nachman as being printed in breslov sipurim.
Hmmm
ReplyDeleteDoes chassidus also allow that a vaiberishe toireh is a psak?
Hmmm, am ho'oretz shedibru boi chachomim.
Your chassidus=yechinks, borenuniks or stam meshugoimnoiks.
You should be proud.
Just curious how chassidus view parshas arayos.
I don't see the Chayei Odom as a Psak in this case, he only brings what he found in Kisvei HaKadmonim, and doesn't Pasken that we need to say it. Also, we often see that Minhag Noshim supercedes Halochoh, since we rely on the fact that they have it on good authority.
ReplyDeleteChassidus views Parshas HoArayos as sufficient, with no need for additional Arayos discussion and reminders, especially since we have Al Cheit for that.
The Teffilo Zakko is not a psak.It was seen by almost all yiddisheh krayzen as a a prayer and a vidui to be said before Yom Kippur.All Cheit is said aloud therefore the sins are said in a generalized way.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know all frum Jews see Tefillo Zakko as something to try and say and understand before kol nidrei.It is not only about 'certain' things it is also about monetary issues, including forgiving anyone who owes you money that cannot be collected via beis din vechulu.
In light of this being a universal custom, it's quite unusual that Lubavitch use a mayseh with a rebbitzen to find fault in it(!)This with all due respect in a first, for me at least!
Unfortunately Lubavitch have4 become a first for other strange things.Any body ever heard of a chassidus that calls its deceased rebbe Nosi Hador, for example.
(btw, the story with the rebbitzen is not something which should be told outside Lubavitch circles.I can tell you that it's viewed as very strange in other krayzen)
Lubavitch is into parroting tehilim and parroting davening.They say a lot of things without understanding what in heaven they are saying or doing.
ReplyDeleteHow do I know:Quite simple.Nusach Ari is a different nusach, there are Lubavitcher siddurim with any commentaries.Do most Lubavitcher understand every word or even most words?Even the english translation they have is a very basic one.It's not bad, but without any commentary, it's light years away from Artscroll.
So the average regular yeshiva boy, at the very least wants to know what he is saying on yom kippur, he gets a machzor hemevuor by Weingarten for example.Or an Artscroll or a metsuda.Lubavitcher don't have anything!Am I to believe that your average Lubavitcher man or woman understands the basic pirush hamilos even??
I am sure that if I asked even our resident 'talmidei chachomim' such as the Tzig or Hmmm they wouldn't know.Neither do I, that's why I use a machzor with a basic pirush so I don't beebeh like a parrot.
Sorry for screwing up my point so badly.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out that Lubavitch which has it's own Nusach hatefilo has no siddurim or machzorim with any commentary.Since they have their own nusach, it's not very helpful using an Arscroll machzor, while you are trying to follow your own nusach.The only perush I know of is a very basic english translation which was redone lately.It's not bad, but very basic.What about Hebrew speakers?
It's clear that understanding what you are saying to Hashem is of very little importance in Lubavitch.
How can you step up to avoidas hatefila if you don't even have a basic concept of what you are saying?
So much chitzoiniyus so little penimiyus, sad.
Let me see if pea-brained commenters who answer SheLo KeInyan can halt kup here, and entfer tzu der zach. By that I mean that they stick to the topic being discussed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3:02pm:
"as far as I know" doesn't cut it, you mean the little circle of people that you know, most of whom do what they feel is good. I'll grant you that. I would advise you to venture a bit out of your little circle and do some research. I would tell you that most Chassidim, especially Russian and Lithuanian Chassidim, did not say, especially it was the Hamtzo'oh of the CO, a Misnaged to Chassidus. The fact that it's printed in Machzorim, and that most people today do what they feel like, makes the fact that it's supposedly "universal" not relevant to our discussion.
The point of bringing the vort from the Rebbetzin, in case you didn't realize, is just to reinforce a point made for a 100 years prior to her saying it. In other words Lubavitch didn't stop saying it after hearing her make that statement. I thought that was pretty clear.
As far as your neighbor talking about Artscroll siddurim and that HE uses a Machzor HaMefurash to daven with; If he were 8 years old and I was his father I would say: I'm very proud of you son, but es hut nisht tzu der shmuess.
Do most people say(or want to, sometimes there is no time) Tefillo Zako?Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteMost chassidim do not say is not a truthful statement, that I'm quite sue you know yourself.
'Especially Russian and Lithuanian chassidim'-What chasidesin are you referring to, since not to many exist today:Lubavitch, Karlin-Stolin and Slonim.That is a small percentage of the chasidic world and to be honest I don't know that what you are saying is true.
It's a poshuteh zach by all krayzen that tefilloh zakko is an important thing to say Erev Yom Kudosh, that much I know.
People who are objective don't decide based on whether someone was a misnaged to chassidus two hundred years ago.
The Tzemach Tzedek discusses the Gr'o.Are you going to tell him that he is wrong.
Most gedolei yisroel who did not join chasiduss were wary of chasidim at the beginning, this includes the Ktzois Hachoishen and many others.Do you not rely on the Nodo Beyehuda he wrote 'vechasidim yikoshlu bom'?
What neigbor using Artscroll are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteDo you know pirush hamilos?
I meant your neighbor in the comments box here.
ReplyDeleteWhere did this become a discussion about Peirush HaMilos?
what's wrong with these people? what's wrong with me that I'm enagaging this kind in conversation?
why am I wasting my time here?
A new secular attendant comes to your Chabad synagogue for Yom Kippur, looking into his English translation he realizes that they are reading parshas arayos on the holiest of days in the Jewish calender!
ReplyDeleteShocked, he demands to know 'Is this what you dirty people are thinking of and how much more so ALOUD in front of a mixed audience. One may not even think of such despicable acts, let alone read them from the Torah at the highpoint of Yom Kippur'
His tayneh is no different than yours.
Why is it a waste of time?
ReplyDeleteDo you know pirush hamilos?
I don't.
That's why I use a machzor hamevo'or
The point of this comment with the peirush hamilos was to show that Lubavitch is not very interested in any depth.They do everything by rote (is this the right word?)Mizvas anoshim melimudo.As proof youre discarding of a tefillo that is the basis of the whole yom kippur, that is no good because the author was wary of chassidim.
ReplyDeleteThe proof that Lubavitch with it's unique nusach has no machzoirim with commentary, meaning that 95% of the people HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DAVENING ABOUT.Abi mehn vaist as tefilo zako is treif
I am going to have to stop reading this blog, as I agree with HT on this issue, and that is not a good sign for a snag like me. I even agree with (from his perspective at least) why not to say Tfilas Zakay, and I can figure out how the pirush hamelim shmuze got in here. :-)
ReplyDeleteTwisty
ReplyDeleteoh, I see what you mean. Since we're a bunch of Mitzvas Anoshim MeLumodoh Ameratzim who don't understand the Peirush HaMilos and don't care to, then it wouldn't hurt to say the Tefilloh.
It's not so terrible to agree with me once in a while, after all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.....
Sorry, I meant I can't figure out how the Pirussh Hamilim issue worked its way in here. And I agreed was that Tiffilas Zakay is not all that old, so it is unsurprising that Lubavitch did NOT adopt it (wonderful as I find it), as it was written by a major league Snag. My main point was (as did apparently Rav Chaim Volozner) that it is counter productive to dwell or obsess on these issues. There is a story along those lines about a frum guy who decided not to wear glasses in the street. His rebbe told him to wear glasses because with ‘when you see a girl you will see a girl, and when you see a tree you will see a tree, with out glasses, when you see a girl you see a girl, and when you see a tree you see a girl’. !!
ReplyDeleteExcuse me for my lack of a source, but there is a letter of the Rebbe in which he acknowledges the tradtional 'no-mention' position of Lubavitch regarding inyonim of Ch"an. However, he says that perhaps today since such thoughts are anyhow inevitable it is important for mashpi'im to verbalize and discuss these issues with the youth.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, certain discussions here become ludicrous and mere entertainment. At that point all I can say is, thank you for your performance. Encore!
ReplyDeleteNusach Ari is a different nusach, there are Lubavitcher siddurim with any commentaries.
ReplyDeleteI think you meant to write "there are no Lubavitcher siddurim with any commentaries." But that's not the case. Firstly, even the Tehillas Hashem siddur has a basic commentary: the sources from which prayers are taken. And the siddur itself is based on the one compiled by the Alter Rebbe, which has more commentary than you could poke a lulav at. In any event, the time to study the meaning of tefilloh is before davenning or in a fixed Seder, not during davening. Kol hakovod to Artscroll for the excellent work they have done, but their siddur was revolutionary precisely because (almost all) traditional siddurim weren't like that.
'Which has more commentary than you can poke a lulav at'
ReplyDeleteInteresting wording.Were can this siddur be seen?I've heard of this siddur which has different halachik rulings than brought down in Shulchan Oruch Harav, but believe it's not in print.
I'm quite sure that there is no commentary on the actual meaning of the words, since at the time,with the high caliber of the user a commentary would not be needed.
Calling the Tehillas Hashems notations to the source of the pesukim brought down in tefilla as commentary is mistaking what I meant totally and not addressing the fact that today most people do not know what they are saying.
Joe:Do you know what you are saying? I don't that's why I use Artscroll.
.Were can this siddur be seen?I've heard of this siddur which has different halachik rulings than brought down in Shulchan Oruch Harav, but believe it's not in print.
ReplyDeleteYou want to look at:
http://store.kehotonline.com/index.php?stocknumber=HP-STMH
and
http://store.kehotonline.com/index.php?stocknumber=HP-SRH
I'm quite sure that there is no commentary on the actual meaning of the words ...
Are you just looking for an English translation? That's been around for decades. They come in any number of versions:
http://store.kehotonline.com/index.php?parentid=90&deptid=3272
Joe thanks for the link.
ReplyDeleteI'd like you to respond to my points, though.Why does Lubavitch have no decent commentary on their nusach.
I daven nusach ashkenaz and use artscroll
There is a commentary in the process of being compiled, Ohr HaTefila, 5 volumes available so far. In general, the Rebbe did not want a Siddur for day to day use to have commentaries, the goal being to daven and not to study it then. The commentaries to be studied separately.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 1:34, et al -
ReplyDeleteFor those who don't know, the reason it doesn't go according to SA HoRav - is because the Rav later wrote in his "Piskei HaSiddur" at times contrarily, as for the Chabad "last-say", relatively.
I say relatively, because there are instances when later Rebbeim (e.g., the Tzemach Tzedek or the Rashab) have added, elaborated etc. on the Chabad minhag.
Thus according with the halachic priniple of "basar basra" or "Mishna Achrona": The last say from the Rebbeim is what we follow as practice.
One example: The Rebbe Rashab instituted the practice of netilas yodayim (both for tumah, and bread)
to be done 3 times on each hand, as for all the Chassidim - not only for yechidei segulah or the like.
(This is all put simply; there are situations and exceptions made, as the 2nd link that Joe has brought, enumerates many..)
You want a commentary on the L siddur? How about Shaar Hakolel, which is well over 100 years old? That good enough for you?
ReplyDeleteMost people, of whatever nusach, do not daven out of siddurim with commentaries - davening is one thing and learning is another.
And I don't know why anyone would think that Ls are less likely than others to know pirush hamilos (or even perush hammilim). I mean, did that idea just fall out of the sky? The tefilos are in Hebrew, and if you know Hebrew then you pretty much understand them; if you don't understand a word or phrase here or there, you look it up, not necessarily during davening.
Millhouse,
ReplyDeleteFrom your response I can guarantee that unfortunately you do not know 'pirush hamilos', if you think that 'understanding hebrew' is enough to know what you are saying.Not speaking kaballistic kavonos, simple pirush hamillos.
I've spoken to even learned guys who were quite clueless.
Btw, understanding what you are saying in tefilla is not 'learning', it's a basic requirment,so I find it difficult to believe that the Rebbe was against siddurim with commentaries.
I'd like you to respond to my points, though.Why does Lubavitch have no decent commentary on their nusach.
ReplyDeleteThe first two links I provided are to Siddurim with extensive commentaries, far more extensive than the Artscroll siddurim. This is not a criticism of Artscroll: their siddurim are not intended to be a scholarly resource.
Anonymous of 3am, I'll put up my understanding of the siddur against yours or anyone else's. And I don't need a commentary for it. Commentaries are for something beyond pirush hamilos; for why things are phrased precisely the way they are, sources and origins, etc. For most of this, it doesn't matter what nusach you daven, 90% of all nuschaos are the same, so any commentary on the siddur will work. For specifically Nusach-Chabad-oriented commentary we have the venerable Shaar Hakolel (published 1890), RACN's Kuntres Hasiddur, Dayan Raskin's latest compilation, and several others.
ReplyDeleteBack to Tefilath Zako
ReplyDeleteIn some of the old Evan Shesio/biography of the early Visnitzer rebbes, I saw the reason not to say it because of the CO being a misnaged. In later editions they removed that piece.
In Chabad its simple, the AR deleted almost everything that"s not consistent with Arizal