Volume 14 Number 49
Produced: Mon Jul 25 18:31:28 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Lubavich / Moshiach
[Sam Juni]
Lubavitch - Rav Aaron's Condolence Message
[Shmuel Markovits]
Moshiach
[David Kaufmann ]
Rabbenu Gershom,
[Turkel Eli]
Tuition in Lakewood Cheder School
[Esther R Posen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 15:45:02 -0400
Subject: Lubavich / Moshiach
In response to my queries re the ideaology/theology of seeing the Rebbe
as Moshiach even after his death, several postings were helpful in
clarifying some issues. Some questions still remain for me. I present
them in context of the postings.
1. Y. Kazen refers to the idea that at Tchias Hameissim (awakening of
the decesased), those last to die will be first to arise. He
uses this idea to support the notion that the Rebbe, has the
better chance of being Moshiach than sages of generations ago. I
can follow the logic, but I am not knowledgeable about the idea of
priority/recency in Tchias Hameissim. Would the above-noted
poster please inform us of the source of that idea?
2. Y. Kazen cits the Passuk "Ki afar atah v'el afar tashuv" in
support of the (unfamiliar) tenet that Moshiach will die before
arising. I never thought that this passage refers to Moshiach at
all. What is the source of the attribution of the passage to
Moshiach?
3. One other posting (I lost the author's name) repeats the assertion
which has been prevalent lately that the Rebbe's statement that
"Moshiach is on the way" was more than a prediction -- it was a
N'vuah (prophecy). What is the basis for such a (daring)
statement?
4. David Kaufman (7/10/94) comments on my query as to why the idea
that Moshiach will die before arising was not circulated until the
Rebbe died, by explaining (as I read him) that this is not a
required part of the script, but only an option. Does this then
imply that the absolutism in Lubavich's stance before the Rebbe's
death (exeplified by the recordings of the phone call-in messages
by Rabbi Y. Kahan which held up the idea that the Rebbe might die
as being absurd and inconceivable) was incorrect? If so, then
one gets the impression that the ideology being offered at this
time by Lubavich is ipso-facto (reactive) only.
Dr. Sam Juni Fax (212) 995-3474
New York University Tel (212) 998-5548
400 East
New York, N.Y. 10003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Shmuel.Markovits@...> (Shmuel Markovits)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 16:00:13 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Lubavitch - Rav Aaron's Condolence Message
The following is the printed message of condolence from Rav Aahron
Soloveichik to the Community of Lubavitch. It was excerpted from the
Chabad Magazine (Tammuz 5754). In the magazine there other messages from
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu (former Rishon L'Zion), Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,
Rabbi Lau (present Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi), the present Rishon l'Zion
Rabbi Doron, Rabbi Sacks (Chief Rabbi of England) and Rabbi N. Lamm
amongst others. In the Kfar Chabad Magazine (Hebrew) are many of the
messages and speeches of some the Rabbis and Roshei Yeshivas who spoke
at the Shiva and Shloshim services.
"I want to send this message, words of condolences, to all my Lubavitch
friends.
The Rebbe was a real Leader
He was never afraid to speak up on all issues. He spoke up about the
wholeness of the Torah, the people of Israel, and the Land of Israel. I
am sure that if the Rebbe would have had his full health and vigor, the
treachorous Rabin government could never have been able to harm Israel,
as it is now doing with its "peace" plan.
The last time I spoke to the Rebbe was when I went to menachem avel him,
after the passing of his Rebbetzin of blessed memory. We had started
talking about the laws of mourning but one thing led to another, to the
laws of respecting parents, and we touched on different topics in the
Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch. The Rebbe had all of Shas at his
fingertips, becausre all of Torah is really one subject, to one who
really knows it.
The Rebbe's passing is a great loss, not only for Lubavitch, but for the
entire Jewish community.
He is irreplacable.
The Rebbe certainly had the potential to be Moshiach during his
lifetime, but unfortunately our generation was not deserving.
We should learn to emulate the Rebbe's excellent personal conduct and
his middos. The Rebbe certainly wants there to be peace, and blessing
throughout the community, despite all its aspects and different
factions. The merit of Ahavat Israel will certainly hasten the coming of
Moshiach very soon. "
<Shmuel.Markovits@...>(Shmuel Markovits)
International Network Management Systems Ph: +612 3393681
Telstra/OTC Australia - Paddington Intl. Telcom. Centre, Sydney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kaufmann <david@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 11:04:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Moshiach
>From: Yechezkel Schatz <lpschatz@...>
> Having read David Kaufmann's response to Sam Juni's posting, I'd like
>to ask a question that has always bothered me, concerning identifying
>the Rebbe as the Mashiach:
> What about the biblical sources? Does the Rebbe fit in to the
>biblical description of Moshiach? Where in the tanach does it say that
>the Rebbe will live all his life in chu"l? Where in the tanach does it
>say that he will die before accomplishing any of the tasks assigned to
>him? Where IN THE TANACH does it say he is to die and be ressurected?
> While the Rebbe was sick, Chabad activists used to qoute verses from
>Isaiah 53, a chapter they felt explained the suffering the Rebbe was
>going through. Personally, I was appalled at the similarity to
>Christian theology, having always understood that chapter as talking
>about `Am Yisrael, but at least their interpretation was a plausible
>one. But now, with all due respect to other Jewish sources (including
>the Zohar), WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?!
There are two issues raised here and I think it important to separate
them: 1) The Biblical references to Moshiach, including descriptions of
his qualifications, task, what he will accomplish, what he will
experience, etc. These, I think, are readily available, so that I don't
think what's needed here is a list of references. Still, a remark on
Isaiah 53 seems, unfortunately, necessary: there are enough _Jewish_
commentators that see this as a reference to Moshiach (and other
passages in Tanach describing suffering as well) that we need not worry
about false parallels.
2) This brings us to the second issue - the fallacy of false analogy. As
has been remarked in many a forum, the distinguishing characteristic of
Judaism is the limiting heuristic/hermeneutic of the Oral Law.
Philosophical concepts must conform to the defined parameters of
halacha. Hence, a formulation of principles of faith must be rooted not
just in textual references, but within the contextually limited
interpretations (a word I use advisedly). Thus, while Tanach is the
source for Jewish law and theology, by itself it does not define or
distinguish what is unique to Judaism. It seems to me quite dangerous to
limit _any_ question concerning Judaism to _just_ what "the Bible says."
In this regard, one may well ask how any number of commentaries,
halachas, etc. can be Jewish - including the very concepts which
constitute the principles of faith.
The danger of false analogy is two-fold: one, it relies on superficial
similarity to imply a deeper, more integral connection that in fact does
not exist. It is a tactic perfected by Christian missionaries and,
ironically, Documentary Hypothesists (who are their 'spiritual' heirs)
alike. The second is that it can create confusion in the very terms of
discourse (one of the problems Israel has had since 1967): a term or
concept can be used in heuristically (that is, indicative of meaning or
a method of investigation) and/or hermeneutically (interpretive)
different ways. We must be careful not to confuse denotative similitude
with connotative correspondence.
I would feel more comfortable addressing a question that wants to see
how a concept is derived and developed from Biblical sources - which
would be no different than seeing how, says, laws of eruv in force today
were derived and developed from Tanach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Turkel Eli <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 09:55:41 -0400
Subject: Rabbenu Gershom,
Joseph Steinberg writes
>> Rabbeinu Gershom made the ban after his own marriage to two wives led to
>> disaster -- and it was not because of his having deserted them
I would be interested in seeing the reference for this.
In general almost nothing is known about Rabbenu gershon's personal
life. There is a story that one of his children became a Christian
because of the progroms and that Rabbenu gershon sat shiva for him -
twice. Even this is hard to verify. The first one to call him "maor
haGola" (light of the exile) was Rashi several generations later. Most
of our knowledge comes from much later, e.g. Mordechai.
In fact we have little knowledge of his actual decrees (see for
example Finkelstein, Agus, Urbach). There is no "authorized" list of
takkanot and what later generations list is often contradictory. In any
case , various lists include many takkanot including not marrying more
than 2 wives, not divorcing ones wife against her will, not reading
someone elses mail, no giving a hard time to a Jew who become a
christian and wants to return, allowing people to complain in shul about
injustices, relationships with gentile lords - maarufiah and others.
Many of these takkanot were reenacted in later generations by Rabbenu
Tam and other conferences of the communities. Since we don't have the
text of these takkanot it is impossible to know if they were limited in
any way.
<turkel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <eposen@...> (Esther R Posen)
Date: 25 Jul 94 14:01:52 GMT
Subject: Tuition in Lakewood Cheder School
Arnie Lustiger mentions that tuition represents a large portion of the
incoming monies to most yeshivot with the probable exception of Lakewood
Cheder School.
Interestingly enough, my sources (including the experience of having one
son in the cheder) tell me that EVERYONE in Lakewood pays tuition for
ALL their children. (I believe the 7th child in the elementary system -
Pre 1 through 8 can attend for free but even in Lakewood they don't lose
much money on this.)
Tuition is low (compared to other schools) but everyone pays. I believe
there are two tuition rates. The Rebbe/Kollel rate is still under
$2500. I am not sure if there is another rate for "professionals" or
what it is.
With at least 25 children in a class, this is not such a bad financial
start. I should add that the school seems to have tremendous respect
for the money of its parent body. The school does not even offer school
pictures etc., although I am not positive of this, I believe I was told
that this was because it may be a strain on the finances of some of the
parents.
I wonder what the AVERAGE actual PAID TUITION is at some of our schools?
Does anyone have any ideas on what that figure is? Also, along the same
vain, I often wonder what the ACTUAL COST is of the yeshiva in educating
ONE child. What portion of a FULL tuition goes to supplementing the
tuition of other children, extra-curricular activities, endowment funds
etc.
IMHO schools should have 3 tuition "groups"
a) the group that can afford to pay the COST of their child's education
and then some.
b) the group that can afford to pay the COST of their child's education
but anything more is a strain. I do not feel that this group of parents
should be subjected to the sometimes demeaning process of applying for a
scholarship.
c) the group that cannot afford to pay the COST of their child's
education.
If a class has 20 children, each paying $5000 in tuition that would
generate $100,000 in funds for that class. Unless we are putting
computers on each child's desk, this makes me asume that some of the
base tuition covers scholarships for other children. (I am asuming that
teacher's salaries for a class are under $50,000 even if you are hiring
a Rebbe for a boy's class. Women earn substantially less than men in
this profession, which is a whole other story but probably follows the
laws of supply and demand). Also, most schools who have the demand will
allow 25 or more children in a class.
Are there some school board members out there who have a better idea of
what the actual figures are and where some of this money goes?
Esther
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 14 Issue 49