I guess shtreimels were indeed the hats of Polish nobility:
Of course, when your scenery looks like this —
— there is a reason to wear a warm woolly hat. And wearing it was a sign of nobility, because a hat like this cost a good amount of money. (Above pictures from some 17th century Polish footage.)
On the other hand, in this weather...
...perhaps such clothes would be more appropriate:
I refer you to my earlier post about traditions (see part 2).
(It is well known that the Lubavitcher Rebbeim did not wear a shtreimel outside of Lubavitch. I suppose the climate in Crimea or Carlsbad was much softer...)
Everyone knows this story about radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’s novel about alien invasion of the Earth:
Some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast, and in the atmosphere of tension and anxiety just prior to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Newspapers reported that panic ensued, people fleeing the area, others thinking they could smell poison gas or could see flashes of lightning in the distance.
Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". While Welles and company were heard by a comparatively small audience (in the same period, NBC's audience was an estimated 30 million), the uproar was anything but minute: within a month, there were 12,500 newspaper articles about the broadcast or its impact, while Adolf Hitler cited the panic, as Hand writes, as "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."
Moscow — Millions of Georgians wrongly thought their country was being invaded after a spoof prime time news broadcast showed Russian tanks heading towards the capital Tbilisi and said the president, Mikheil Saakashvili, had been killed.
The spoof was broadcast on Imedi, one of Georgia's biggest TV channels, and most viewers missed a brief announcement at the start of the 30 minute broadcast explaining that the news bulletin was a simulation of "the worst day in Georgian history."
An agitated newsreader told shell-shocked viewers that the country's opposition had called in the Russian military to quell political unrest and showed key opposition figures apparently agreeing to work with the invaders.
The bulletin caused panic across the strategically vital former Soviet state which is still struggling to come to terms with fighting and losing a short sharp war against Russia in 2008.
Gripped by panic, mobile phone networks crashed, people started fleeing the capital, crowds rushed to stock up on vital foodstuffs, and there were reports of volunteer fighters preparing to resist. Other TV channels interrupted their own broadcasts to show Imedi's footage and, for a short period, some Russian media began to broadcast the "news."
When Georgians finally realised that the news bulletin was a spoof they were furious. Crowds mobbed Imedi's headquarters and opposition politicians angrily denounced the TV channel which is run by a close ally of the president, Mr Saakashvili.
Literate people raised in certain cultures respond instinctively to particular scenes or events of life by having similar scenes from their favorite books come to the surface of their memory.
For instance, the vast majority of people raised in the former Soviet Union upon seeing this picture (from the previous post):
(click on the image to see in full glory)
... will hear the following words in their mind (at least the first sentence):
The darkness that came from the Mediterranean Sea covered the city hated by the procurator. The hanging bridges connecting the temple with the dread Antonia Tower disappeared, the abyss descended from the sky and flooded the winged gods over the hippodrome, the Hasmonaean Palace with its loopholes, the bazaars, caravanserais, lanes, pools... Yerushalaim — the great city — vanished as if it had never existed in the world. Everything was devoured by the darkness, which frightened every living thing in Yerushalaim and round about. The strange cloud was swept from seaward towards the end of the day, the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan.
It was already heaving its belly over Bald Skull, where the executioners hastily stabbed the condemned men, it heaved itself over the temple of Yershalaim, crept in smoky streams down the temple hill, and flooded the Lower City. It poured through windows and drove people from the crooked streets into the houses. It was in no hurry to yield up its moisture and gave off only light. Each time the black smoky brew was ripped by fire, the great bulk of the temple with its glittering scaly roof flew up out of the pitch darkness. But the fire would instantly go out, and the temple would sink into the dark abyss. Time and again it grew out of it and fell back, and each time its collapse was accompanied by the thunder of catastrophe.
Other tremulous glimmers called out of the abyss the palace of Herod the Great, standing opposite the temple on the western hill, and its dread, eyeless golden statues flew up into the black sky, stretching their arms out to it. But again the heavenly fire would hide, and heavy claps of thunder would drive the golden idols into the darkness.
The downpour burst unexpectedly, and then the storm turned into a hurricane. In the very place where the procurator and the high priest had had their talk around noon, by the marble bench in the garden, with the sound of a cannon shot, a cypress snapped like a reed. Along with the watery spray and hail, broken-off roses, magnolia leaves, small twigs and sand were swept on to the balcony under the columns. The hurricane racked the garden.
At that time there was only one man under the columns, and that man was the procurator.
The above phrase is a Russian saying usually given by school teachers to students inquiring why they must learn how to write well. Learning how to write well does train one to think clearly. (Usually.)
The problem with most cases of bad writing is not confusion but cognitive dissonance. It’s not that what is written is unclear to you, but that your mind “trips” over an ugly expression or bad grammar. It’s like eating soup which has a slightly weird taste. Yes, you get the nutrients in, but because of that one little thing that’s off, you get no enjoyment. (Of course, this is all happening on Shabbos, which is the only time a frum Jew enjoys his food.)
And by the way, if your mind does not trip, it just means you have bad taste.
Anyway, what brought this on, you ask? This story from a Ch.info article:
Legend has it that the late Albert Einstein, having just completed a paper and in need of a clasp, spent a considerable amount of time trying to straighten-out a clip that was twisted and unusable. While struggling with the dysfunctional object, his assistant discovered a new box of perfect clips. Einstein took one of the new paper clips reshaped it and used it as an instrument to repair the old bent one.
In response to his assistant’s bewilderment, the renowned physicist declared: “I had just established a new objective; once set upon a goal I’m not easily deflected.”
Who was struggling? Einstein or the assistant? Also, doesn’t “late” here mean that Einstein was dead while doing all this?
On the topic of darkness existing vs. not, see this class on parshash Shmois:
In the following class, Rabbi Paltiel brings a very interesting analysis of Moshe Rabbeinu’s inability to speak — including Rambam’s philosophical analysis of the question of whether absence of ability to speak is actual characteristic or a lack of characteristic (is darkness an independent entity or is it merely absence of light?). Rabbi Paltiel compares and contrasts Rambam’s (and generally philosophical) approach to that of Chassidus.
I would also post a video of a debate about existence of evil vs. benevolence of G-d, but I won’t do so out of humility. But if someone wants it for the purposes of enlightenment, I can send you the link.
Apparently, a lot of my readers misunderstood what’s happening in this scene. I even got an agry e-mail saying: “Interesting, I havent seen swordfight ending with one guy dying because his head was split in half... I think ever”.
My response:
That is not at all what happened!
The short guy didn’t want to kill the tall guy, because the latter would be useful in the war against the Swedish. So, he just tapped him in the head with the sabre (probably bruising the scalp and giving him a light concussion). Didn’t you hear what he said to the fallen guy’s chevra? Something like: “Now he is mine. And don’t worry: we don’t kill the wounded — a king’s custom.”
The clip actually shows how rational thinking and honor of man’s life prevailed over testosterone (of which both had enough). This is what it means to be a real man (not “human”, but davka male) — someone who can be a badass with his sabre, when needed, but then in the critical moment, can control himself to give his opponent a slight tap instead of killing him.
IIRC, samurai got to the level of proficiency with their katana swords to the point that they were able to split a fruit (and some say a rice grain, and some say a watermelon) lying on their assistant’s neck without killing the guy. (Now, how many assistants they went through before achieving this level is not clear from the history.)
The 2nd story involved a family who had a lady clean and cook for them for many years. They loved her as she was part of their family. As years passed and the lady wanted to retire, she bought a house in her native Poland. The family drove their beloved house keeper to the airport.
By the last checkpoint where the family couldn’t follow her any further she stopped and said: “Well now that I'm leaving you are surely going to miss my cooking!” “Oh yes, we definitely will,” the family said warmly.
Smiling she said to them: “You know, whenever I cooked for you, I always added a special ingredient with a special flavor: pork. That’s why you liked my cooking so much!” Their close ‘family friend’ turned around and walked to the plane leaving the family completely and utterly stunned.
But of course, the Chazal were just racist in all their laws and restrictions regarding intermingling of Jews and gentiles, laws about their wine and milk products, kashrus in general, not lending a gentile your dog, etc., etc. Nothing similar to what Chazal were worried about has ever happened since the times of Babylonian exile — for sure not in our times...
(Regarding the article itself: both a Jew and, lehavdil, a non-Jew can steal, r"l. Especially if paid “a few bucks an hour” — which doesn’t excuse anything, of course. But a Jew probably won’t put pork in your soup.)
In the part 1 I described that chassidish yetzer horah sometimes tells us that we will be able to elevate something which we clearly know is forbidden or not advisable for us (on whatever level) as a chassidish excuse to engage in it. E.g., a bochur tells himself that he will do kiddush Hashem or have a mivtzoim opportunity by going to a baseball game, while in truth he just wants to go to the game.
But the opposite perspective is also true. Baal Shem Tov teaches us that anything that the animal soul desires has a spark of G-dliness in it which the G-dly soul could elevate — and that is the ultimate reason why a Jew desires this thing. Sure, at the moment he desires it with his animal soul, but the animal soul would not even pay attention to it, if the G-dly soul did not sense an opportunity for itself there too.
This post contains long quotes, but also summaries of their content right after, so those with brains eaten away by ADD, do not despair, skip the quotes and enjoy the post. Or else...
[Or, for the heretics in the audience, something about evolution and billions of years and millions of miles of genetic material copied and re-copied to produce this.]
A short macro video by Marco Faienza about his father’s little garden. It starts off a bit slow, but after about 1:35 it picks up.
This all looks nice at a distance, but I actually am not a fan of the creatures with exoskeleton getting close and personal. My friends’ home was infested yesterday with black ants, lady bugs and weevils. It’s especially dangerous, since they have a small child who is not averse to picking anything up and putting it in his mouth.
Make sure you don’t keep garbage inside your home.
[Mitteler Rebbe’s] greatness was not just in the abundance of ma’amorim he said or their length, it was also because of the tremendous depth of his explanations.
Commenting on that depth, the Rebbe Rashab said, “My hair fell out from concentrating on the Mitteler Rebbe’s Imrei Binah*.”
As for publicizing Chassidus among the chassidim, the Mitteler Rebbe encouraged his chassidim to constantly discuss Chassidus among themselves. This desire of his became their reality.
Perhaps this is why the chassidim say that the Mitteler Rebbe’s chassidim felt as if they were living in the days of Moshiach. The Rambam writes that when Moshiach comes, the world will be filled with the knowledge of Hashem. For the Mitteler Rebbe’s chassidim, this was their reality. They were constantly immersed in the study of Chassidus.
___________
* Incidentally, I was given Imrei Binah as a present for my birthday, so if someone wants to be my chavrusa in learning it, please contact me.
* * *
In other news, this dude looks so Russian! Look at his energy and see the sparks which Chassidus Chabad absorbed.
Founders of the German communities, see what fruit has grown from the tree you have planted. You killed all positive feelings; you caught them like fish in a net. You squeezed out any juice. You exchanged the honor of Torah—of Jewish wisdom—for the games and idols of the non-Jews. The soul of G–d has been ripped from them. Who has wrought this shame? Was it not done in the name of the Torah, stirred together with alien thoughts? Who asked you to do this? What spurred you to do this? It was only the thirst for secular sciences, the wisdom of Jepheth, which has now completely consumed the Torah of Shem.
— Frierdiker Rebbe
It’s very interesting to me that if one reads Mendelsohn’s writings (sometimes quoted in Hirsch Chumash), one doesn’t see anything too problematic. Most of the times he sounds a bit MO; oftentimes, of all the sources quoted (in that particular instance, Ramchal and a few contemporary Jewish philosophers), his thoughts are the most chassidish ones (e.g., he says that fulfillment of a mitzva is more important than understanding of it — yep, the same Mendelsohn).
An exerpt from the letter by the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe about him and the long-reaching effects of his on German Judaism. As always, both the content and the form are amazing.
The point of the letter is relevant to today’s American Jewry as never before. Don’t tell me that the imagery that the above quote paints is not familiar to you. One doesn’t have to use labels to feel it.
Chassidus binds being religious and being human in a way that nothing else does. Not by compromising religion. And not by compromising humanity. But by saying that humanity is G-dly. And at the core of being a person is G-dliness itself.
Everyone knows that tiferes is a combination of chessed and gevurah. Chessed wants to give infinite amount of goodness; gevurah wants to give nothing. Chessed wants to reward; gevurah wants to punish. Chessed is kindness; gevurah is severity. Convincing a drunk Israeli who is behaving like a beheima that he should go home to his wife (and then walking him home) is chessed. Punching him out and calling his wife to come collect her husband is gevurah.
Now, tiferes is the combination of the two. It’s not red; it’s not white; it’s a garment with stripes of red and white. It is a midda that successfully combines both emotions. That is why on the kabbalistic representation of the spheros, it’s in the middle — it’s a combination of right (chessed) and left (gevurah).
Now, da’as is also in the middle, and in the Chabad’s version of the tree of 10 spheros, it’s preceded by two spheros: chochma and bina. I always wondered whether the same way that tiferes is a combination of chesed and gevurah, da’as is somehow a combination of chochma and bina. Based on their traditional explanation, it’s hard to see how this is the case. Chochma (“the father”) is the beginning of a thought, its pure knowledge without explanation of the details. Bina (“the mother”) is a development of the thought to the point of understanding its details. Da’as (“the child”) is the connection of the thought to emotions, to reality — it’s the “care” about the thought.
Reading Mitteler Rebbe’s biography today, however, I saw the following:
Author’s Note: I read in In di Getzalt fuhn Chabad, written by a son of one of the Tzemach Tzedek’s chassidim, that chassidim say that Alter Rebbe once said: “My brother the Maharil writes exactly as I say it. My son [Mitteler Rebbe] writes it as I mean it, and my grandson [Tzemach Tzedek] writes it as I say it and as I mean it. This, in essence, is Daas; a combination of Chochma and Binah together.”
We learn from today’s — both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s — Tanya (in the Chitas cycle) that love of Hashem is not enough to make a dwelling for Shechinah, Hashem’s Presence. Because when A loves B, there are two elements: A and B. When a Jew (even a tzaddik) loves Hashem, he is still a “someone” who loves Hashem.
And, as we know from earlier chapters (starting with chapter 6), Shechinah rests only on something which is completely nullified to Hashem. So, when a person is in a state of love or fear of G-d, even though it is a great state, he is not completely nullified to G-d.
On the other hand, when someone does a mitzva, he is fulfilling the Will of Hashem (which is one with His Essence), being an instrument for the expression of Hashem’s desire. At that moment, he is completely nullified, and as a result can be said to have Shechinah rest on him.
In Friday’s Tanya, Alter Rebbe explains that when a person does a mitzva in speech and thought, he is only using his G-dly soul. When he is doing a mitzva in action, he is also using his animal soul, utilizing its energy and making it a vessel for G-dliness. This is why doing mitzvos in action is the ultimate level of making a dwelling place for Hashem in the lower worlds.
(The same is true regarding a love of a husband to his wife. What use is his love if it’s only in his heart? He has to express it. But if he tells her how much he loves her and brings her roses, but doesn’t take out garbage, does he really love her? As they say, love starts not in the bedroom, but in the [vacuumed] living room.)
This can be translated to our relationship with the Rebbe and Chassidus in general. It is not enough to be a chossid “on paper” — i.e., to learn and understand Chassidus and to love the Rebbe. I cannot say that it is completely useless, G-d forbid, but if a person says that’s all he ever wants to be, it seems to me to be a mockery of what Chassidus is all about. One must also do what the Rebbe wants, in the realm of speech and thought, but especially in the realm of action.
This has to do with both the realm of Chassidus (e.g., mivtzoim) and the realm of nigleh — including fulfillment of Halacha, starting from living according to Shulchan Aruch and ending with following even specific minhogim of Chabad (whose significance one sometimes does not understand, thinking it’s just a “shtick” — which for many people it is, but this does not detract from their value and importance).
“How do I know whether I am fulfilling the Rebbe's will?”
Putting down the bundle of letters, the Rebbe calmly answered, “If you act in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch [Code of Jewish Law], then you know you are acting in accordance with my will. For if not, that means there are doubts about whether I fulfill the Shulchan Aruch.” [...]
“The thoughts that come from the yetzer [inclination] — you have to grab the yetzer by the sleeve and toss him out, and do what you have to do. Do not get into arguments with him; instead, turn your thoughts towards Torah matters, to whatever is necessary. [...]”
From an e-mail sent by Rabbi Kirschenbaum, the author of the above blog (I can't find a post with the same contents):
“Why are you so angry? What is the reason you are not someach (joyful)? I told you that I wanted you to be be'simcha. If you don't do my work with happiness, then you are not fulfilling my will, and you are not performing in the same way that I am.
“Because I can't be everywhere at once. I can't be in Holon, Kfar Chabad, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Eilat, Paris, Melbourne — and also in Brooklyn! Therefore I send out shluchim. I chose for you to go to Haifa and I want to make you a high commander, a general. I would hope that knowing what I want would be a source of joy that would stay with you — just knowing that the one who is being commanded is doing what his commander wants.” [...]
“It is not enough that you and your wife are Chassidim,” he added. “The children, too, must be my Chassidim and their material needs properly met. I want your whole family to be comfortable, so that they will be the finest Chassidim they can be.”
If Ruven throws Shimon’s laptop from a window (while Shimon is watching*) and Levi catches it — let’s say if Levi can keep it, because the laptop is hefker, does Ruven have to pay Shimon for the laptop? Ruven can tell Shimon: “Why do I have to pay? I didn’t break the laptop.”
Update: I was asked: “Which laptop?” Why, MacBook Air, naturally.
__________
* Shimon has to be watching, so that he can do yeush on his laptop while it’s flying out of the window and make it hefker.
Please answer the poll on the right. The question (for posterity) is:
If a laptop is thrown out of the window, and before it reaches the ground, I smash it with a baseball bat, I am not liable for it, since I “broke an already broken thing”. What if I catch the laptop? Do I get to keep it, or can I return it?
I don’t know the answer, but one possible reason why I would have to return it is that by catching it, I have retroactively shown that its status was not “broken”. (But didn’t the person do yeush by throwing it out of the window?)
This is similar to the case of “proving” that a kohen is not a kohen (e.g., when two people are engaged, then they realize that the guy is a kohen and that the girl is forbidden to him — the rabbis will sometimes use loopholes to look for “evidence” that the guy is not a kohen). Alternatively, it may be similar to the situation with a get, where the latter goes back in time and makes it as if the marriage has never happened. Or with teshuva that likewise goes back in time and erases a sin (or transforms it into a mitzva).
* * *
What does this have to do with babies? Rava, I think, rules that if the same scenario happens with a baby, chv"sh, the person with the bat is still a murderer. Because as long as the baby is still alive, even while it’s flying to its imminent death, one cannot say that its life is so worthless as to make it dead.
Which is a moshol given to the idea that we cannot say that the life of someone who is in coma is worthless, as long as he is alive halachically. Just being alive and lying there, the person already does something good. How? A soul of a person is compared to a candle. Just being in this world, it already introduces light into it, even if only on a spiritual level.
Which is why (besides other reasons) it’s good to have babies.
(Since some people have a problem with the concept of a metaphor, an allegory, an example, an imagined scenario, etc., let me state emphatically that I hope the said scenario never happened and never will, iy"H.)
Update: I just spoke to my rabbi, who told me that almost everything I wrote here is false. I shall investigate further and get back to you.
In the haftorah for parshas Zahor, we read the following exchange between Shmuel the prophet and king Shaul:
13. And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “May you be blessed of the Lord; I have fulfilled the word of the Lord.”
14. And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears? And the lowing of the oxen which I hear?”
15. And Saul said, “They brought them from the Amalekites, for the people had pity on the best of the sheep, and the oxen, in order to sacrifice to the Lord your G-d: and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”
16. And Samuel said to Saul, “Desist, and I shall tell you what the Lord spoke to me last night.” And he said to him, “Speak.”
17. And Samuel said, “Even if you are small in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? And the Lord anointed you as king over Israel.
18. And the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and you shall utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and you shall wage war against them until they destroy them.’
19. Now, why did you not hearken to the voice of the Lord, but you flew upon the spoil, and you did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
20. And Saul said to Samuel, “Yes, I did hearken to the voice of the Lord. I did go on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and I brought Agag, the king of Amalek alive, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
21. And the people took from the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the ban, to sacrifice to your G-d in Gilgal.”
22. And Samuel said, “Has the Lord [as much] desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken [is better] than the fat of rams.
23. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Since you rejected the word of the Lord, He has rejected you from being a king.”
There is a concept called “chassidish yetzer horah”, or “a yetzer horah that wears a kapoteh” — a yetzer horah that uses chassidish excuses. For example, when a chossid tells himself that something is wrong for him: some action, some pursuit, some environment, the yetzer horah then answers: “You are right. It’s not such a great thing; it’s not ideal. But we were sent into this world to elevate it — you will interact with this phenomenon which on the surface is wrong for you and will mekarev it to Hashem.”
This can range from going to a baseball game (which every chossid knows is pure evil, but perhaps he tells himself that he will somehow “elevate it”) to being in a relationship (of any kind) that is clearly wrong for one reason or another for a chossid, but he excuses it by telling himself that he will bring the other person in the relationship closer to Hashem, influence the person (even though deep in his heart he knows it’s hardly possible in this situation).
It can also include doing something that the Rebbe clearly said is wrong for a Jew or a chossid. The same excuse is applied: perhaps this situation can be “sacrificed to your G-d in Gilgal”.
Well, yes, it is true that we were sent into this world to elevate it. But we have to do it according to Hashem’s Will and according to the instructions of Moshe Rabbeinu of our generation. We must be very careful when trying to determine whether what we are doing is really appropriate, and whether we are really making a sacrifice that Hashem commanded or are just using this as an excuse to have a barbecue. “To obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken is better than the fat of rams.”
There is a story I heard from my rabbi once. After one man died, G-d showed him the roads of his life. He saw all the places he’s been to, all the paths he has walked. And on those paths, he saw two sets of steps — his own and someone else’s. He asked G-d: “Whose are the second steps?" And G-d answered: “Mine. All your life I was right next to you.”
But then the man saw that in the most difficult places, the most marshy valleys, the steepest hills, there was only one set of steps. And he asked G-d: “Why did you abandon me in these places in my life?” And G-d answered: “I did not abandon you. I was carrying you.”
There are times in our lives, when we experience double concealment. Not only is Hashem hidden, as usual for this world, but he is doubly hidden. We doubt He even exists; we cannot see how He can possibly exist if this or that happens — where is He in our lives at these moments?
The answer that Chassidus provides is: He’s never been closer. His Light may not be revealed (which is why we experience darkness), but that means that His Essence is here. A child may not understand his father’s lecture on mathematics, and he is bored, but hey — it’s his father. And he is closer to his father than any of the students who actually understand and see his father’s brilliance. And when the child spends time with him, it’s not for the sake of the brilliance, but, again, because he just wants to be together with his father.
May we experience Hashem’s Light on this Shabbos and then His Essence this Purim and may we each bring Moshiach now.
Please say Tehillim or dedicate some mitzva for refuah sheleima of Chaya bas Golda Rivka.
Rabbi Paltiel’s lessons on the ma’amor V’atah Tetzaveh (also available from Kehos), the ma’amor we learn for Purim.
Frierdiker Rebbe’s Bosi LeGani was the most important ma’amor that he left for the chassidim after his histalkus. It was the ma’amor of the Rebbe’s generation — and the Rebbe revealed it in his Bosi LeGani’s.
V’atah Tetzaveh is the most important ma’amor for us, right now, post–gimmel tammuz. It’s the Rebbe’s message for us.
The famous explanation is that in this parshah, Moshe’s name is not mentioned and intstead he is called “atoh” (“you”), because when he said, “Take me out of your book” (if G-d decides to destroy His people, G-d forbid), he expressed his essence — his union with the Jewish people. Moshe Rabbeinu was a Rebbe. Rosh Bnei Yisroel.
The Rebbe takes this idea further and deeper. In what way was Moshe Rabbeinu the head of Jewish people?
The ma’amor talks about the role of a Rebbe, the Moshe Rabbeinu of the generation — to bring the oil of our souls, squeezed out by golus, to Hashem. To make Hashem real for us. It was Moshe Rabbeinu’s job to ask: “Are you Jews because of G-d, or are you Jews because you live in the miraculous circumstance, where Torah is obvious? Take a couple steps outside — will you still be Jews?”
That’s the advantage of Purim — then the question needed not to be asked. Jews were ready to do mesirus nefesh — for a whole year! — following the leadership of Mordechai and Ester, their example of mesirus nefesh. But then the question was: who is doing mesirus nefesh? Is it your G-dly soul, or is it you? In other words, it’s all very good to become machines and, when faced with a question “Will you bow down to idols or die?”, have revelation of ahavah mesuteres (hidden love) and answer, numbly, with the supra-conscious levels of your soul overriding all intellect and emotion, “Die”. But did this revelation of the essence of your soul penetrate the lowest levels of your soul? Surely not. They were merely suppressed.
So, this is the job of our generation. To allow the essence of our souls to be revealed, but, at the same time, penetrating even the lowest levels of our soul, not suppressing and destroying them. (And this, in turn, will lead us to bring about the state of affairs when G-d’s Essence is revealed in the lowest worlds, but does not destroy them.)
* * *
On the one hand, we have it comfortably. We are free from persecution. We are free to sit at homes, in our yeshivas, learn Torah all day. As some people say, things have never been better. Not just materially — spiritually.
And this view is the evidence that we are in the darkest golus. What are you happy about? The fact that you can sit all day and learn Torah? Have an amazing spiritual experience? Work on your avoida, your closeness to Eibeshter? Is this why the world was created? Where is the Beis Hamikdosh, where is revelation of Hashem in this world, where is ein od milvado and dira b’tachtoinim? (OK, I am done with the longest string of questions in my writing experience.)
This is the job of the leader of our current generation. To show this. To bring Hashem to us, make Him real, show Him in the Torah, in the mitzvos, in the world. And make golus real. Show what we are currently lacking — what we need to strive for with all our strength. The Essence.
May we reveal to ourselves and to the world this idea during the Shabbos and Purim. As one rabbi says, “It’s a very serious business — to be joyous.”
Another great scene from that movie. (Let me know if it is too quiet.)
“There is nothing like a sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetic for that. [...]
Now, I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard.”
In my town it is raining. Up north, in Fitchburg, it is still snowing, but here already it is too warm for snow. Winter is departing. We’ve had a few good snowy days, fewer than in some years, more than in others, definitely fewer than I remember having in Ukraine, but I am content.
In my heart, a hot summer was replaced by a lukewarm autumn, and then there was a long, bitter, cold winter. But it is warmer already, and I can feel the spring. Talk of hashgacha protis...
All my life I liked cold. Snow. Ice. Freezing wind in my face. Living for seven years in the South was torture for me. Not just because of the inbred American rednecks. Mostly because of the humid, hot climate.
In Chassidus, coldness is associated with something negative. With lack of passion. With cynicism. Frierdiker Rebbe once said: “A cold person is a step away from a heretic. A person must serve Hashem with passion and a warm heart.” (If you know the exact quote, please leave a comment.) One of the nicknames for a misnaged is “a kalte Litvak”.
One winter, Frierdiker Rebbe (before he had become a Rebbe) was standing outside, smoking. He saw a chossid walk out without a coat. He told him: “Be careful. You are cold.” The chossid answered: “And you?” The Rebbe responded: “I am protected.” Soon that chossid went off the derech. Frierdiker Rebbe saw that the cynicism, the coldness was taking over the chossid.
There is a story about Vilna Gaon. When he had heard that Chassidim use warm mikveh on Shabbos, he said: “It’s a good thing. The gehennim won’t be too much of a surprise for them.” When I read in Tanya that the people who delve into secular sciences for the sake of intellectual pleasure will be punished by the Hell of Ice, I thought that it’s a good thing that I like cold.
(Interestingly, it is in the South that I have started my journey towards Chassidus. The orbit on which I am right now is a result of the momentum I was given there, in the community of New Orleans. In Boston, the weather is nice, but I have never struggled so much in my life to stay afloat b’ruchnius. I won’t say much about the community. There isn’t much to say...)
I have just read a very interesting article by Naftali Silberberg called “Embrace your inner ice”. A quote from it:
They tried to cool our passion — and we are enjoined to never forget their chilling stab, and to utterly eliminate them from the face of the earth.
And on a personal level, there is an Amalek lurking within every one of us. It is the icy voice that attempts to inculcate us with apathy and immunize us against passion and inspiration. This Amalek, too, must be destroyed.
But how?
Well, the most obvious antidote to ice is heat. With enough heat you could melt a glacier.
But there's another way...
Ice.
Cold. Benumbed. Arctic. Inflexible, rigid, and unyielding.
In terms of spiritual service, ice represents absolute and unshakable commitment to G‑d.
Not a commitment based on emotions (warmth), not one that rests on a foundation of love and awe for the Creator or an appreciation of the beauty and importance of serving Him. For ultimately, any such relationship is based on a feeling of self: I love, I fear, I feel, I like, I appreciate, I understand...
And when the service depends on my warmth and excitement, it will fluctuate from day to day, even minute to minute. Some days will be sunny and warm; others will be overcast and chilly.
But if the commitment isn't driven by warmth and passion, by what I want and feel, but by what is wanted of me — then it's steady and constant, and not subject to vacillations and swings. Because what I'm wanted and needed for doesn't change.
And that is the advantage of Chassidus Chabad, the Lithuanian Chassidus, the cold Chassidus. As Lubavitch chassidim, we have a nuclear reaction burning inside us. But it’s not a nuclear explosion; it’s a channeled, controlled reaction of a nuclear plant. OK, sometimes that nuclear plant becomes a Chernobyl, but that’s already the details...
At my parents’ suggestion, I started seeing a psychologist. He was a shul member, a friend of the family. He dabbled in hypnosis. Every time he heard the word “marmalade,” he would start singing the “The Whiffenpoofs Song” in Pig Latin. At our first session, I told him, “Modern Orthodoxy is hollow and hypocritical.” “Yes,” he replied, “but what don’t you like about it?” He suggested I go to an Ivy League college for a few years, then decide. I told him that we were created to learn Torah, not to study “The Architecture of the Igloo.”
Is one still a snob when his snobbism is justified? (A reference to TRS saying recently that I am a snob because I think that classical music is much better at expressing emotions than rap.)
Thanks to TRS for sending me this link. Interesting story there:
When the Alter Rebbe sent the manuscripts of the Tanya to be printed, he instructed the chassidim charged with that mission not to show the text to anyone. The chassidim, however, met a very great sage (his name was forgotten), and showed him the manuscripts. He perused them and was overcome with awe. Holding them in his hand, he exclaimed: “How illuminating! How illuminating!” Chassidim would say that with these words, he removed the light from the Tanya. Its inner G-dly power did not shine forth as forcefully and its intellectual dimension was emphasized.
While I don’t necessarily object the intellectual dimension being emphasized, this is a cautionary tale for those who reveal something (even if it’s true) that the Rebbe asked not to reveal. This should suffice for those of understanding.
For those without understanding who wear yellow flags: I am talking about you.
(Recently I was asked if I was “neutral”. I answered that I was “drive”.)
This clip is pretty funny for obvious reasons. But I think it can also serve as a cautionary tale. I think it’s rather obvious of what and for whom, so I won’t say more than that I find the mannerisms, the content, the form, and even mentioning the little son all too familiar.
Sure, everything was created in opposites. But I think there is more to it than that.
Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading it.
— Moses Hadas
Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them.
— Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Just because the little girl discovered that the magical land in the wardrobe is full of jerks doesn’t mean that she should give up on it completely. Every magical land is full of jerks; otherwise, there would be no story.
— Me (aka, one of the jerks)
The following post contains a detail that may be disturbing to some people; so, be warned.
Most people know the famous story with Mitteler Rebbe and the interrupted yechidus. Tonight, I found a detail about it which I had not known before. I can’t find the story online at the moment (if someone can, please leave a comment with a link), so I will summarize it as I remembered it.
The story went as follows. One day, a man entered a yechidus of the Mitteler Rebbe. Shortly after, Mitteler Rebbe interrupted the yechidus and canceled all other meetings for the day. He locked himself in his office, saying Tehillim. He secretary thought that something terrible must have happened, so he also started saying Tehillim. Other people present asked the secretary what was up, were told, and also started saying Tehillim. Soon, the whole place was saying Tehillim.
Eventually, when the Rebbe left his office, he explained what had happened. When a Jew would come into his presence for yechidus with a specific question, which usually had to do with some fault of character or avoida, in order to prescribe a method to fix this flaw, Mitteler Rebbe would “associate” himself with a Jew and find corresponding fault in his own character or avoida, albeit, on a higher level. (The Rebbe was able to do this being a neshama klalis, which is usually the point for which this story is told.)
With this particular Jew, however, Mitteler Rebbe was not able to find anything even remotely similar to what the Jew had done. This made him think that the flaw was so deep that it wass not even consciously perceived by the Rebbe himself. This upset the Rebbe, who started saying Tehillim hoping to gain knowledge of that fault. Eventually he was able to see it.
The story usually ends here, without going into detail about the specific aveira of the Jew and what that corresponded to in, lehavdil, the Mitteler Rebbe’s avoida.
Tonight someone told me what both were. The Jew who went to yechidus was working at a cemetery. He had seen someone beautiful being buried there and could not control himself, committing a forbidden act with the body.
Now, what was the corresponding problem that Mitteler Rebbe was able to find on his own level? Learning Chassidus but not letting it affect one’s character and avoida.
The only reason I posted this detail is that it is both a striking image and an important lesson for everyone learning Chassidus and being engaged one way or another in the world of Chassidishkeit.
Update (from a comment): “I heard that the Mittler Rebbe said that he sometimes says Chassidus that is too deep for anyone to understand, and even though he knows nobody will understand it he still gets enjoyment from teaching the Chassidus.
This was, on a very refined level, M'eyn the sin that this person did, since in that case as well all the pleasure is in the Mashpia, and the Mekabel gets nothing.”
— Ma’am, what are the circumstances of your husband’s death? Was he ill, was he sick?..
— Was he swallowed?
So, speaking of craziness. What is an average crazy thing that you expect a crazy French person to do? I’d say: wear pointy shoes and eat a sandwich of chopped pigeon liver. A Russian? Stay in a drunk state for so long he has no idea the state regimes have changed (true story from early 90s). A Crownheightster? To write an angry letter demanding that a local clothes store was closed because it sells elbow-less shirts (ok, maybe I am underestimating here a bit).
What about an American? How about feeding your cows live to an alligator that lives in a lake — excuse me, a bayou — nearby? I mean, I am looking at this scene and thinking: “Yes, it is totally believable that there is a lady living in Florida or Louisiana who does this.” (The scene itself is not halachically problematic, except the said alligator-feeding part, but it has some obscenity in it.)
— Officer, we have a problem with Hector.
— What problem?
— He went swimming.
I wish I had patience to write like this, translating all my English posts into the language of Pushkin, and all my Russian posts into the language of Douglas Adams.
I also wish I could write this well or be as smart in general.
OK, the program. I skipped about half of the lectures, preferring to hang out with friends, but I did take in some. Haven’t heard anything new, but did notice a certain (already oft-mentioned) tendency of the kiruv workers to pass their opinions as fact. For example, Esther Segal (a really good speaker, BTW) referred to the existence of a single primal Jewish soul as fact at least four times, whereas AFAIK it’s only a contested kabbalistic opinion, just like transmigration of souls is; and as Saadia Gaon said about that (free translation): “Gilgul? Bloody nonsense!”
Another speaker, one David Karpov, spoke about reconciling science and religion. He described three method of settling conflicts: 1) science must yield; 2) religion must yield; 3) let’s compartmentalize and not think about them. After dressing down these straw men, he offered a fourth alternative (to which I have long subscribed): science and religion speak about different things in different languages, and there can be no real conflict between them. However, while knocking the straw men down he mentioned Goedel’s incompleteness theorem and claimed that this was why science could never figure out the mechanism of emergence of life or put together a unified field theory. I collared him after the lecture and asked: first, Goedel’s theorem is formulated in the abstract, so why are you claiming as fact that it’s precisely those two problems that science can’t solve? Second, does it bother you as a Habadnik that the Rebbe had unequivocally chosen the first method, writing about how unreliable carbon dating is and how God must have created dinosaur bones in situ, etc.?
In response to the first question Mr. Karpov told me a story of a pauper who was making rounds of an apartment building, asking people to help a poor cello player, until one of the dwellers asked him to come in and play the cello he happened to have. “Just my luck to run into a cello!” muttered the poor man. “I, too, have run into a cello,” Mr. Karpov told me, “for I normally don’t count on my audience being familiar with Goedel’s theorem. You’re right, this is my personal opinion.” The answer to the second question was more equivocal: since the late Rebbe propounded the aforementioned opinion in the 70s and 80s, thereafter abandoning the topic, Mr. Karpov made a far-reaching conclusion that he must have changed his mind.
This is why Chabad started in Russia. I mean, what Americans speak this way? And don’t talk to me about Rav Soloveitchik. He was educated in Berlin, and it’s not clear how much of what he wrote his followers actually understand (perhaps they understand it and merely use it as an excuse to break Halacha).
Also, all of you know this story:
The knight Godfrey, before leaving to the Holy Land on a crusade, asked Rashi to prophesy about the success of the crusade. Rashi answered that Godfrey would fail on the crusade and return with only three horses. Godfrey answered that even if one detail of this story would be off, he would kill Rashi.
Godfrey’s crusade failed, and he had to return back to Europe. But — with four horses! He was making sure they all four survived with great care. As he was about to enter his city, with bloodthirsty thoughts, a stone from the gates fell down on one of the horse’s heads and killed it. Godfrey, full of remorse, went to see Rashi only to find out that the great sage had died a few days before.
Well, the problem is that Godfrey died in the Holy Land. And Rashi died five years after Godfrey.
One Friday night, in my yeshiva, a ba’al teshuva got up to give a dvar Torah and said something like: “a high school girl, who is only interested in Brad Pitt...”. At this point, one of the mashpiim, who was sitting across the table from me, looked up and asked in confusion: “Vos iz bread pit?”
I remember myself thinking at the time that bochrim need some “muggle studies” classes in yeshivos. (Now I know it would probably not save the situation.)
Perhaps Yossi and TRS could have Mendi Pelin do a news report about their encounter with the aggression of Crownheighters fighting against the sewer filth that innocent Jewish kinderlach reading Jewish blogs are exposed to.
Speaking of encounters, interesting news from Gizmodo.
Remember kids, if the green light goes on in your laptop, someone is watching you somewhere.
My opinion on Martin Grossman has been expressed already in the post’s title. My opinion on the efforts to save him from death penalty is expressed in the same way.
But I find these pictures strange for so many reasons that I would not know where to begin.
At the same time, I think everyone should also read this.
I was talking to my pianofortical friend tRP today, and he complained about having no skills in mekareving atheists. Actually, that’s what I told him his problem was. This was prompted by him complaining that he’d invited an atheist friend of his to a Friday night dinner, and the friend refused, asking never to be invited again, explaining that he doesn’t want to do “anything religious” (what a weird notion for an atheist, huh?).
tRP’s response was: “What’s so religious about spending time with friends at a Friday night dinner?”
But that’s what’s ironic about this situation. An atheist sees a table with a bunch of Jews, some of whose heads and sometimes elbows are covered, with a rabbi in a hat (and a face covered with moss), candles, and children with angelic faces and thinks: “Religion! G-d! Cult! Fundamentalism!”
While a religious person at the table (or, even a frum person) is thinking: “Hey, I am just relaxing with my buddies. It’s Shabbos. Time to chill.” Even when the rabbi gives over a sicho which he looked through 15 minutes before Mincha, most people don’t really think about G-d. For them, it’s usually time to turn off their brains. And for the most part, discussion is never about Yiddishkeit.
So, ironically, the atheist should have nothing to worry about. I mean, he should, but he doesn’t.
As to the question what to do to mekarev him, my answer was: “Don’t talk to him about religion. Talk to him about life.” Unless his name is Marvin. In that case, don’t talk to him about life.
Also, now that we are on the topic of pianoforticism, TRS has recently called me a snob for saying that classical music is better at relaying emotions than rap is (I know what you’re thinking: a pot calling a kettle black. I agree). But listen to the following playing. Not a single note is wasted. It’s like I am seeing Brahms right in front me, smoking his pipe, drinking his beer, eating his sausage and crying, crying...
Let your boat of life be light, packed with only what you need — a homely home and simple pleasures, one or two friends, worth the name, someone to love and someone to love you, a cat, a dog, and a pipe or two, enough to eat and enough to wear, and a little more than enough to drink; for thirst is a dangerous thing.
— Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat
In this post, I described a person’s involvement in things “permissible but not necessary” (i.e., things which are neither muttar nor ossur) as “addictions”. I.e., if a person has to wear nice clothes to feel like a mentch, it’s similar to the Rebbetzin Rivka having to eat in the morning in order to daven. So, this person has to wear the nice clothes to function as a person, and therefore, as a Jew. But, I asked, wouldn’t it be nice if the person did not have such addictions?
In his fourth shiur on Tanya (in the Leap Year series), Rabbi Paltiel describes this differently. He does not use the concept of addiction. Instead, he looks straight at the purpose for which something in the realm of klipas nogah is used for. If a person dresses up nicely to feel more together in order to daven (or learn Torah, perform other mitzvos, etc.) better, then he elevated those clothes into the realm of kedusha. Clothes, nice house, nice food, entertainment, lots of money — if these things directly augment one’s service of Hashem, they are made holy!
If, on the other hand, they are used for their own sake, for indulgence, they are made into a sin; their spiritual status is lowered to that of sholosh klipos tmeios.
I cut out the particular part where he describes this. I found the language and the examples used rather interesting.
And yet, we find Alter Rebbe objecting to his grandson (not Tzemach Tzedek) wearing clothes in the latest Parisian fashion.
In other news, the value for the speed of light was (more or less) confirmed using chocolate; French President’s einekel had a bris al pi Halacha, while a famous Italian cooking show host was fired for using cat meat in one of his dishes.
In the famous sicho about Purim, the Rebbe asks the famous question: why is the name of G-d not mentioned in the whole of Megillas Ester? He gives an answer (brought down in our tradition) immediately: because Mordechai did not want non-Jews who would translate Megillas Ester in their languages to replace the name of G-d with, lehavdil, names of their deities.
The Rebbe, however, is not satisfied with the answer. He says: this might have been a good reason back in the day, but nowadays it’s not. We, however, have the same Megillas Ester. And it is eternal — both in its message and in minute details. Therefore, there must be a reason applicable even to us today that G-d’s name is not mentioned.
If you want to know the reason, you can learn the sicho in Yiddish or Loshon Koidesh (from what I remember, the reason was that during Purim, G-d’s Essence — which cannot be described by any name — was the main actor) or listen to it here. But what’s interesting to me is that the Rebbe is not satisfied with an answer: “Well, there were circumstances back in the day, which led to this state of affairs, and today we inherited the results, even though the reason for their appearance may not be applicable anymore. We should keep the results out of respect for the tradition.”
He is not satisfied just like all the “modernizers” of Judaism are not satisfied, but his approach is not to shed or “update” these customs, whose superficial reason may lie in the past, but to find and explain the deeper reason for their existence throughout the ages and, especially, today.
See a post I wrote a while ago: “Spiritual timelessness of Judaism” (it’s about Kislev, not Adar, but the message is applicable to the topic of this post). My main point there is that historical circumstances of Jewish customs’ or laws’ appearance are merely vessels which drew down the essence of the customs and the laws: the spiritual energy that is associated with them that allows us to connect (ourselves and the world) to Hashem through them.
Also, see part 2 of the “Tradition, tradition!” series.
...is when you wear a pink shirt and still feel like a man. I actually like the lyrics of the song — very romantic (not joking). Mixed singing, but honestly, I can’t even hear the women; I think men’s voices are higher.
This video just shows once again that Russians (or, in this case, Byelorussians) can beat Americans at anything — even at looking metrosexual.
Now that we are on the topic of classy songs, I can’t help but bring this one out:
For my rabbi who likes Celtic music. In this particular sequence, I like the first reel more than the others.
I apologize to le7 for this one:
There is a Jew attending a local school who, like me, likes Martin Hayes. And just like me dislikes assholes.
For a long time my roommate thought the following song was about McDonalds. This is one of the songs I use to illustrate to English speakers how American songs sound to me (not in quality, in which they are greatly inferior, but in the percentage of words I understand).
After years of listening to this song in my car, I understand almost all the words:
I was reading some time ago the biography of Aelius Galenus, aka Claudius Galenus, aka Galen of Pergamum, known to most of people today simply as Galen, the famous doctor and anatomist of Roman Empire. Now, the figure of Galen is near and dear to the hearts of all students of Chassidus Chabad, since anatomy and physiology that can be found in the works of Chassidus (e.g., Tanya — including the famous descriptions of compartments of the heart, one’s seed coming from one’s brain, etc.) is borrowed from Galen.
But that’s not the reason that I am mentioning him today. As one could tell from a series of a few recent posts, I have been pondering for a while about the role of tradition in the life of a human being, a Jew, a Chossid and an amateur philatelist. Some of my thoughts are more positive, some are more negative (positive and negative in what aspect, you ask? good question...), some are more traditional (no pun intended), some are more heretical. After this meta-paragraph, let me present to you the part of Galen’s biography that caught my attention, namely, his legacy (you can skip to the bottom line after the quotes if you so desire):
I don’t really like beer. I just drink it for the buzz.
— A colleague of mine
You know you’re not that cool when the Google Buzz fiasco has no effect on you, since apparently, you don’t have so many friends, enemies, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends and crazy stalkers that total disruption of your privacy affects you that much. (Although, I do care about my privacy a little. I certainly hope no ex-girlfriends of mine read this blog.)
Regardless, a couple cartoons regarding Buzz from Gizmodo (click on the images to enlarge):
Also, an angry review of the Buzz fiasco by one lady who is much cooler than me (what made me think she’s angry?.. well, the title was a bit of a tip-off).
By the way, it’s certainly fun when somebody messes up. It’s especially fun when the giants mess up. As all the non-Roman contemporaries of Teutoburg Forest massacre know. Of course, when the giant is falling, you start feeling a little sorry for it, as the contemporaries of the Battle of Adrianople can attest.
Also, the same song from Dmitriy Khvorostovsky, with some landscape images from Russia:
As one of the comments on Youtube says, "La musique russe il n'y a pas mieux, les chanteurs vivent leur musique. C'est l'âme d'un peuple, on ne s'en lasse jamais."
This is not another PC vs. Mac post. It's a reference to something my rabbi said when he heard a speaker express an opinion that owning Internet at home is dangerous because a child may use it to visit sites with terrible content. My rabbi commented on that: "Having windows in your house is also dangerous".
Two ways exist of uniting Jews with Torah. One is to bring Torah down to Jews. Another is to elevate the Jews up to Torah.
On Google Mail, one has labels to the left of the messages. The labels are used instead of placing the messages in folders. This way, each message can have multiple labels (e.g., "personal", "shidduch", "humor", "New York"), can be grouped with other messages in more than one way, and can be searched through multiple keywords.
One can assign a label to a message through the "Labels" drop-down menu. One can also drag: either drag a message onto a label, or drag a label onto a message.
The interesting thing is: if you drag a label onto the message, the latter stays in your Inbox but acquires the particular label (it becomes added to the left of the message's subject). Then you can repeat this with the other labels. But if you drag the message onto the label, it disappears from the Inbox and can be found by clicking on the label. Then, other labels can be assigned to it.
This reminded me of two ways a person can associate himself with Torah, with Yiddishkeit. One way is making "frum Jew" one of his labels. He is a frum Jew. He is also a medical student. He is also someone who plays poker. He is also someone who enjoys kayaking. He can be identified by any of these labels, but generally speaking, he is still in the same place he was before (in his "Inbox"), even though he acquired additional labels (and perhaps lost some) — one of which happens to be frum Yiddishkeit.
The second way is for the person to move fully from the place where he was and acquire for himself a completely new identity: that of a frum Jew. All that he is becomes seen (by himself and others) exclusively through the light of Yiddishkeit. And, inside that "location" (the mission given to one by Hashem), he may attach other labels, look at them, and identify himself with them, but only on the terms of the new main identity.
Which way is right? Which way does Chassidus (i.e., the Rebbeim from the Alter Rebbe to the Rebbe) say one should do it? Is there one way that's better for all, or is it different for each person? Can there be combinations?
It has become customary to say that a man needs only six feet of land. But a corpse needs six feet, not a person.
— Anton Chekhov
I had the following conversation with someone as a part of Yud Shvat farbrengen. Originally I didn’t want to post it until I thought it through completely, but was nevertheless persuaded to post anyway. The topic of the conversation was how much a person should be a human vs. a chossid.
Question: How come Russia has such bad roads?
Answer: It’s a form of national defense.
Some footage from German “Eastern front” (i.e., Russia) during WWII:
By the way, that song (which is very funny, if you speak this most cultured language) is from a very popular Russian movie Gardemariny (“Marine Guards” — think of it as Russian “Three Musketeers”), which had some of the cheesiest musical scenes in the history of the Soviet cinematography:
Of course, now that we are on the topic of cheesy Soviet music scenes — a little dance in Ivan the Terrible’s court:
