[Avodah] toras hachasiddus

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:58:57AM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: The notion of success as a measure of the validity of Chassidic
: hashkafa/halacha is something I've heard often in Chabad circles.

: And yes, its quite an interesting method of reasoning.

But has its limits. One would have to explain why it's a valid approach
to determining correctness between certain confines, and doesn't "prove"
the validity of whatever child religion of Judaism is the most popular
right now. (Christianity if we count all the variants together, but who
says that's the right way to count? After all, we started out with a
much finer distinction, between L and other halachic paths.)

: I would disagree that it is the same means by which Sephardim or Ashkenazim
: consider their particular pesika binding on their communities, because I see
: the lack of possible dissention arising from theological fidelity to
: Chassidus as opposed to fidelity to an academic style or tradition of psak,
: or fidelity to a geographical domain.

There are difference in how we view aggadita. Yes, L teaches of a
single line of rebbes from Moshe through the names listed in the Rambam's
haqdamah, through a line of geonim, rishonim, acharonim... the Besh"t, the
Alter Rebbe, etc... (Which makes the current lack of L rebbe a religious
crisis, not "merely" a pragmatic one.) The Moshe bedoro keShemuel bedoro
and the one about whom you could say HQBH medabeir mitokh gerono. The
"Yechidah Kalalis" (the 5th, most supernal, aspect of the national soul).
Which means they can't mean "eilu va'eilu" in any literal sense, if one
of the "eilu"s is the generation's YK.

But in a pragmatic sense, it doesn't impact how they do pesaq. They go
to the same rishonim and acharonim we all do. Chassidim in general,
and L in particular, may not emphasize the same list of sources as a
Yekke or a Sepharadi. But truth be told -- until R' Chaim, what Litvak
gave such emphasis to the Yad over other rishonim?

Is there a difference between the L relationship to SA haRav with the
typical yeshivish person's relationship to the Mishnah Berurah, or my
own dependency on the Arukh haShulchan?

And there was nothing in the presentation of the 1953 sichah,
points 3 and 4 (what RSZN pointed to at the start of the thread)
<http://chabad.org.il/Magazines/Article.asp?ArticleID=6993&CategoryID=1416>
that suggests anything more exclusivist than that.

Item gimel is saying that Chassidus proved itself to be a valid shitah
-- not the only shitah. That the objections and fears the misnagdim had
were disproven by the course of history.

Item dalet explicitly argues against the yeitzer hara (the note-taker
uses the term) that Toras haChassidus is an "inyan naaleh vegavoha yoter
midai". That anyone can pursue it -- not that everyone must.

I recommend rereading the notes of the sichah without preconceived
notions about what an L writing "must" be saying.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
micha at aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov