Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Lubavitch > Chassidus

Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Unread 01-17-2007, 06:54 PM   #1
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
Tanya Perek Aleph: Umos

Tanya perek aleph:
"The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever"

Lessons in Tanya:
Quote:
"It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow. (See Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Lekutei Biurim (By Rabbi Hillel Malisov of Paritch), 47b.)
I was learning this with some beginners a few weeks ago and of course the statement of the Tanya was difficult for them. So I tempered it with the words of R' Hillel Paritcher, which are brought down from the Alter Rebbe.

Then the question was asked: if the Alter Rebbe taught that the chasidei umos ha'olam are not from the GKT, why didn't he mention it in Tanya? Why do we have to find out from R' Hillel of Paritch?

Any answers?
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-17-2007, 08:07 PM   #2
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
1. Shaar Chag HaMatzos in the Siddur is not from R' Hillel.

2. Glanced into the Yiddish שיעורים בספר תניא where it says אז אויך צווישן די אומות העולם זיינען פאראן אויסנאמן כו... Similarly in the Hebrew it says גם בין אומות העולם ישנם יוצאים מן הכלל... I.e. they are "the exception" to the general rule...
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-18-2007, 06:19 AM   #3
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
It should also be clarified to beginners that the Alter Rebbe is only talking about the (different types of) nefesh habehamis of non-Jews. Their nefesh ha'sichlis, however, stems from klipas nogah, in accordance with the ma'amar Chazal, "choviv odom she'nivra betzelem," which according to some meforshim refers to non-Jews. See parshas Noach in Likutei Sichos v. 15, pp. 58-62.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-18-2007, 04:40 PM   #4
Bittul
Executive Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,336
Although your post makes sense, it would need a source, as the Nefesh Hasichlis is a prat of the Nefesh Habehamis, and thus they would seemingly have the same source - unless there is a mokor which says otherwise.
Bittul is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-18-2007, 06:31 PM   #5
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
The Nefesh Hasichlis is an entirely separate entity from the Nefesh Habehamis. What is your source for grouping them together?

Indeed, le'eis atoh I don't have a source that says clearly that the Nefesh Hasichlis of the umois stems from Klipas noiga, but as far as I'm concerned it's mufrach to say that something that is choviv because it's nivra betzelem Elokim stems from 3 klippos hate'mei'ois. Conversely, they clearly don't have the inyan of kedusha. That leaves only the Nefesh Hasichlis.

This is also consistent with the above sicha (v. 15), that explains that the Nefesh Hasichlis of the Yid elevates the Nefesh Hasichlis of the gentile through the Yid's hashpo'o in guiding him to follow the Noahide Code. If the gentile's Nefesh Hasichlis is able to be elevated by the Yid's avoido, it follows that the gentile's Nefesh Hasichlis stems from Klipas noigo.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-18-2007, 07:41 PM   #6
Bittul
Executive Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,336
The Alter Rebbe is very clear that we have 2 Nefashos, not 3. The Rebbe in Maamor Ashrei Tivchar Usekarev (Maamarim Melukat vol 5 page 234) explains that it is a prat of the Nefesh of Klipas Nogah, the Behamis is the lower level and Sichlis (also called Tivis etc.) the higher. They are however in the yid both of Kelipas Nogah, and the non-Jews is therefore typically lower - for both of them.
Bittul is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-18-2007, 07:51 PM   #7
The Eighth King
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,302
Do a search here on CT where I already provided sources explaining that the Nefesh HaSichilis is the Mochin of the NeHa"B. [IIRC, It was you, noahidelaws, to whom these sources were provided.] Sometimes NeHa"B refers in general to both the Nefesh HaSichlis and Nefesh HaTivis HaChiyunis, and sometimes only to the latter and not to the former.
The Eighth King is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-19-2007, 05:42 AM   #8
Bittul
Executive Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,336
It is here:
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=3675
and here:
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=6378

I guess I wasn't around for those discussions.
Bittul is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-11-2007, 09:02 PM   #9
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankel Nosson View Post
Tanya perek aleph:
"The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever"

Lessons in Tanya:

I was learning this with some beginners a few weeks ago and of course the statement of the Tanya was difficult for them. So I tempered it with the words of R' Hillel Paritcher, which are brought down from the Alter Rebbe.

Then the question was asked: if the Alter Rebbe taught that the chasidei umos ha'olam are not from the GKT, why didn't he mention it in Tanya? Why do we have to find out from R' Hillel of Paritch?

Any answers?
I just found this! I wouldn't have started a new thread if I had known. So there *are* sources that say that the nefesh of the chassidei umos haolam have a shaychus to tov because they come from k"n. Am I understanding right that this source is the Alter Rebbe himself?

We still have to try to answer your question, i.e. why didn't the AR say this in Tanya, at least in a footnote?

Also, if there are sources in Chabad for this, why didn't the Rebbe mention it in any of those letters in Igros Kodesh (under the subject "Klippos" in the index)? What he seems to say in IK is that observing the 7 Noachide laws does not require a shaychus to tov, meaning a gentile could be a chassid umos haolam and still his nefesh comes from GKT. There seems to be a contradiction here.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-11-2007, 09:07 PM   #10
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein
We still have to try to answer your question, i.e. why didn't the AR say this in Tanya, at least in a footnote?
I have an answer: also in the gemarra, Bava Basra 10b, no mention is made of any exceptions to the rule - the rule that 'chesed l'umim chatas'. Maybe it's a given that there are always exceptions to these kinds of rules. Since the gemara only states the rule and not the exception, therefore the AR does the same thing.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-11-2007, 11:48 PM   #11
noahidelaws
Executive Platinum Member
 
noahidelaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,479
There is a difference between one who observes the Noahide laws and a chassid umos haolam. The former keeps the laws technically, but doesn't necessarily believe that they are from Torah, and is also not necessarily a mentch. The latter believe that the laws are from Torah, and is necessarily a mentch:

Quote:
Furthermore, and this is of primary importance: Maimonides writes, “Anyone who undertakes the seven Noahide Mitzvot and is careful to perform them is considered among the pious gentiles, and has a portion in the World to Come.”[1] Obviously, a non-Jew careful to adhere only to the Noahide laws themselves, but who in all other areas flouts standards of decency, cannot possibly merit a portion in the World to Come. The World to Come is eternal, and it is impossible for that which is undesirable and violates standards of decent human behavior to exist eternally, G–d forbid, for this would contradict the prophecy, “I [G–d] will remove the spirit of impurity from the earth.”[2]

It turns out that there are two types of duties for non-Jews:

1) Commandments that non-Jews were commanded, which should be followed “because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them,” and not “out of intellectual conviction.”[3]

2) Obligations that arise “out of intellectual conviction,” where human intellect requires one to behave in a fashion conducive to civilizing society, although this behavior lacks the status of a commandment.

There is, in fact, another category: observances that non-Jews undertook [collectively] that were intended to become completely obligatory. For example, it is said, “The nations made a barrier for themselves from incest,” i.e., from marrying certain relatives that were not otherwise forbidden, “on account of the flood [in the age of Noah].”[4]

Another example is honoring one’s father. Besides the prohibition of disgracing one’s father, which is derived even from ravens, one’s father should be honored. This is evident from the way that the Torah refers to Abram: [The verse says that Terach passed away in Charan, and then says that Abram left Charan, although it is known that Terach only died years later. This was done] “So that the matter not be publicized to everyone, so they would say, ‘Abram did not fulfill the precept of honoring his father.’”[5]

Thus, it follows that non-Jews must also fulfill their oaths, for so does human intellect dictate, although it does not have the status of a commandment for them. Concerning this, the famous expression may be used, “Why do I need a verse [as proof], if it is logical?”[6]

[1] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 8:11.

[2] Zechariah, 13:2.

[3] Mishneh Torah, ibid.

[4] Genesis, 34:7, Rashi.

[5] For he abandoned him in his old age. This is why the verse refers to him as dead. ibid., 11:32, Rashi.

[6] Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma, 46b.

Farbrengen of Shovuos, 5747 vol. 3.
noahidelaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 09:48 AM   #12
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by noahidelaws View Post
There is a difference between one who observes the Noahide laws and a chassid umos haolam. The former keeps the laws technically, but doesn't necessarily believe that they are from Torah, and is also not necessarily a mentch. The latter believe that the laws are from Torah, and is necessarily a mentch:


Farbrengen of Shovuos, 5747 vol. 3.
Thanks for bringing this quote.

In IK vol 1, pg. 176, the Rebbe seems to be saying that there is no difference in terms of having a shaychus to tov, and that even if they merit olam habah 'chesed l'umim chatas' and GKT still apply to them. This is the way I understand this letter. How do you (or YN, or anyone else) understand this letter?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 10:36 AM   #13
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
I just found this! I wouldn't have started a new thread if I had known. So there *are* sources that say that the nefesh of the chassidei umos haolam have a shaychus to tov because they come from k"n. Am I understanding right that this source is the Alter Rebbe himself?

We still have to try to answer your question, i.e. why didn't the AR say this in Tanya, at least in a footnote?

Also, if there are sources in Chabad for this, why didn't the Rebbe mention it in any of those letters in Igros Kodesh (under the subject "Klippos" in the index)? What he seems to say in IK is that observing the 7 Noachide laws does not require a shaychus to tov, meaning a gentile could be a chassid umos haolam and still his nefesh comes from GKT. There seems to be a contradiction here.
In the "missing" igeres that I mentioned in the other thread the Rebbe fills in the missing piece. Ovdei gilulim draw their life force from GKT which has no shaychus to tov. If they simply do the 7 mitzvos, they are simply restraining the evil of the GKT, the power to do so coming from the basic emunah in a Creator that derives from the darkened nitzutz which provides life to the GKT.

However, if they truly become chasidei umos ha'olam (in accordance with all the conditions listed in this thread), then they no longer derive their life force from GKT but rather KN, and therefore your question is answered, is it not?
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 11:27 AM   #14
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankel Nosson View Post
In the "missing" igeres that I mentioned in the other thread the Rebbe fills in the missing piece.
I would really appreciate it if anyone could find this igeres.

Quote:
However, if they truly become chasidei umos ha'olam (in accordance with all the conditions listed in this thread), then they no longer derive their life force from GKT but rather KN, and therefore your question is answered, is it not?
Makes sense to me....so it is almost answered...except for IK vol 1, pg. 176, where I understand the Rebbe as saying that chassidei umos haolam are also mushpaim and mushrashim from gkt. Am I understanding correctly?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 12:18 PM   #15
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankel Nosson View Post
Tanya perek aleph:
"The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever"

Lessons in Tanya:

I was learning this with some beginners a few weeks ago and of course the statement of the Tanya was difficult for them. So I tempered it with the words of R' Hillel Paritcher, which are brought down from the Alter Rebbe.

Then the question was asked: if the Alter Rebbe taught that the chasidei umos ha'olam are not from the GKT, why didn't he mention it in Tanya? Why do we have to find out from R' Hillel of Paritch?

Any answers?
Is there anywhere I could see Shaar Chag Hamatzos and Likutei Biurim online?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 12:29 PM   #16
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
Tenacious we are Mr. F.
Want to come over for Shabbas lunch?

What is your goal here? I get this revelation that you are not just writing a book/diatribe/thesis but are looking for a practical psak halacha?!
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 12:37 PM   #17
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gevurah View Post
Tenacious we are Mr. F.
Want to come over for Shabbas lunch?
Ok. Can I bring my chow chow? I can't leave him alone at his age.

Quote:
What is your goal here?
Trying to stay orthodox.


Quote:
I get this revelation that you are not just writing a book/diatribe/thesis but are looking for a practical psak halacha?!
I would like to see a source in kisvei ari that says what it says in Shaar Chag Hamatzos and Lekutei Biurim. That's one thing I'm interested in. A psak would be good to see. But not necessary.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 01:08 PM   #18
Yankel Nosson
Senior Platinum Member
 
Yankel Nosson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
I would really appreciate it if anyone could find this igeres.
It's right there, 3:152
Quote:
מה שהביא קושית מהרי"ק איך יהי' לע"ל או"ה ובע"ח שהם טמאים עתה והלא רוח הטומאה יעבור מן הארץ (ואיני מבין איך יתורץ במה שמחלק בין גוף וקיום הגוף, ואם שאז ישתנה מקור כח המרכיב, אף שההרכבה לא תשתנה, הרי גם בל"ז יכול לומר שאז ישתנה מקור כח המהווה את הגוף, אף שהגוף לא ישתנה), ואיני מבין מפ"מ אינו מקשה מגר בזמה"ז, או מדבר איסור שאכלו לפקו"נ שנעשו היתר גמור או מזדונות נעשו כזכיות, וכיו"ב.

והדבר פשוט: אין גקה"ט עצמן מקיימין או מחיין, וח"ו לומר כן, אלא שזהו הניצוצי קדושה שבהן; ובכ"ז זהו נקרא ע"ש גקה"ט, כי הניצוצים נחשכו כ"כ עד שנעשו ע"ד חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבלה

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFinkelstein View Post
Makes sense to me....so it is almost answered...except for IK vol 1, pg. 176, where I understand the Rebbe as saying that chassidei umos haolam are also mushpaim and mushrashim from gkt. Am I understanding correctly?
The Rebbe makes clear that GKT cannot give life. Therefore, being "mushpaim and mushrashim from gkt" means that chayus is coming from a darkened nitztutz via GKT.

To summarize (according to my own impoverished understanding): the GKT themselves posses no good whatsoever and this applies to the umos ha'olam who are "mushpaim and mushrashim" from them. However the term GKT can also apply to the nitzutz of kedusha itself which gives life via the GKT, and thus the existence of this nitzutz obligates them to believe in Hashem and perform the 7 mitzvos despite the fact that "ein bahem tov klal". And the true chasidei umos ha'olam, it would seem (l'anius daati), have somehow transformed their shoresh to klipas noga, in the same mysterious way that a ger becomes a Jew without changing his guf (k'pshuto, anyway).

Perhaps someone wiser than myself will chime in with some chochma.
__________________
Chassidim must study Chassidus--HaYom Yom 21Kislev
Yankel Nosson is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 02:35 PM   #19
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankel Nosson View Post
It's right there, 3:152



The Rebbe makes clear that GKT cannot give life. Therefore, being "mushpaim and mushrashim from gkt" means that chayus is coming from a darkened nitztutz via GKT.

To summarize (according to my own impoverished understanding): the GKT themselves posses no good whatsoever and this applies to the umos ha'olam who are "mushpaim and mushrashim" from them. However the term GKT can also apply to the nitzutz of kedusha itself which gives life via the GKT, and thus the existence of this nitzutz obligates them to believe in Hashem and perform the 7 mitzvos despite the fact that "ein bahem tov klal". And the true chasidei umos ha'olam, it would seem (l'anius daati), have somehow transformed their shoresh to klipas noga, in the same mysterious way that a ger becomes a Jew without changing his guf (k'pshuto, anyway).

Perhaps someone wiser than myself will chime in with some chochma.
This letter is over my head. But thanks a lot for finding it! If you find Shaar Chag Hamatzos or Likutei Biurim online - the pertinent sections - please let us know. They might also be over my head, but I would like to at least give it a try.

(I don't have a dog.)
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-12-2007, 03:43 PM   #20
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gevurah View Post
Want to come over for Shabbas lunch?
Is this a real invitation?
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-13-2007, 08:19 AM   #21
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
[quote][/QI would like to see a source in kisvei ari that says what it says in Shaar Chag Hamatzos and Lekutei Biurim.UOTE]

Chassidus and kabbalaH do not have the same goal.

Quote:
Is this a real invitation?
yes but I do not discuss chassidus there. Usually...
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-13-2007, 08:20 AM   #22
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Trying to stay orthodox.
But why does this bother you? worried about what?
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-13-2007, 08:30 AM   #23
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
[quote=Gevurah;133719]
Quote:
[/QI would like to see a source in kisvei ari that says what it says in Shaar Chag Hamatzos and Lekutei Biurim.UOTE]

Chassidus and kabbalaH do not have the same goal.
Ok, but if the AR said something on this subject maybe he got it from somewhere? But maybe not.



Quote:
yes but I do not discuss chassidus there. Usually...
Thank you very much. Bli ayin hara, I have several little children which makes it hard to travel and difficult for people to have us over.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-13-2007, 08:39 AM   #24
MrFinkelstein
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gevurah View Post
But why does this bother you? worried about what?
I think the main thing is that I want it to be consistent with how I see reality. I understand B"B 10b and I accept it 100%. Perhaps over the centuries since this Chazal, the Jewish people has succeeded, at least in the US, to elevate the uho, and so today the % of those from kn is much higher than it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago or 2000 years ago.
MrFinkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 07-13-2007, 10:24 AM   #25
Gevurah
Executive Diamond Member
 
Gevurah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,052
Oy Vey

first the more children the merrier and the more chassidus will be discussed.

But you are not going to see a monolithic reality and pulling out the ol klipah meter is not going to give a consistent reading and the % depends on how you average which means results can get fudged.

Besides it only takes one ******, one Stalin blot them names out...yet % could be better... median, mode, etc..

I was afraid you were getting towards making the ol unified field theory...

Mayim Mayim said Akiva...
Gevurah is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Umos Ha'olam and the Mazolos vis a vis Tefilla and Bitachon noahidelaws Chassidus 12 08-19-2007 04:05 PM
Bechira of Umos Ha'olam noahidelaws Chassidus 21 09-28-2004 09:21 PM
Tanya, Perek 2 roza Lubavitch Derech 1 10-20-2003 09:24 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com