Jump to content

Talk:Chabad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.233.48.200 (talk) at 13:52, 26 December 2005 (→New introduction: w is for war.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

I have created a new article that deals with the concept of a Tzadik, and merged the contents of the "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" section into it. Therefore if there is consensus I will be removing the section from here and replace it with a link to Tzadik. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information is relevant to this article, not that one. The information here is specifically about Chabad beliefs, not the general concept of Tzadik. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many viewpoints spread thru out Judaism regarding this. There isn't just chabad against everybody else. Therefore the Tzadik page was created to list the various beliefs. I have already put in the chabad viewpoint in a NPOV way. I believe that this isn't only the chabad viewpoint rather it is also the viewpoint of many others as well. However if it is as you say that the way I wrote it in Tzadik is only the chabad viewpoint please add in the other viewpoints as well.

The reason why listing the whole thing in the chabad article instead of the Tzadik article is impractical, is because to understand the concepts involved there is alot of background information required, which is big enough for its own page and is too big to have in the chabad article. Additionally if it were just in the chabad article then duplicate articles relating to other beliefs will need to be written by those pages. Therefore by combining everything onto one page with the required background information seems to be the best idea in my humble opinion. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be removed from here, since the way (at least some of) Chabad chassidim interpret this concept differs radically from the way mainstream chassidim (and perhaps mainstream chabad) do. Therefore, even if you do create another page devoted to the concept of the Tzadik in Judaism, this paragraph must remain here. -- Nahum 03:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do some of the chabad chassidim understand it? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC) I have discussed this issue at length with many chabad rabbis, and they all say the same. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I was thinking about the messianism subsection. -- Nahum 06:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The section already starts off with saying that this is according to those that follow kabbalah. Additionaly the statements from the people about chabad would remain applicable even after the section is removed. Furthermore the intention isn't to comepletely remove it, rather the intention is to replace it with a sentence saying that there has been controversy regarding this subject which is elaborated at length in the Tzadik article, and as I explained on the talk page of chabad it is unfair to have just that paragraph without a full background which is able to be put in the Tzadik article but would be too long for the chabad article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after rereading this, I came to a conclusion that there are differnces within the Chabad movement about how to interpret this issue. Some of them interpret it too literally to be compliant with Jewish belief in a non-corporeal G-d. -- Nahum 06:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a few which are quoted by Berger, they are already mentioned in the next paragraph, however 99.99% of chabad doesn't believe it that way. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just a few and neither do I base my knowledge on Berger. I've discussed these issues with some Chassidim while the Rebbe OBM was still alive and heard it "from the horse's mouth." -- Nahum 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you want to say that there are more than a few which I dispute based upon first hand expierence, this is already covered in the next paragraph which I am not saying we should touch. All of this discussion is about the paragraph before this. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to this sub-sectiona as well. Perhaps it needs a bit editing, but it cannot be removed, since this is a critical aspect of Chabad's beliefs. -- Nahum 07:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a differnece between removing and moving. Moving in this case is beneficial because it enables the entire concept to be elaborated upon. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this article, as opposed to the one you suggest to be moved to, deals with Chabad. Which is where this issue belongs. You can elaborate as much as you want in the Tzadik article and add a reference here to there, but without removing the current subsection from its current location. -- Nahum 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, it would not be accurate to just leave a paragraph here that provides no background information or what other people believe, or why chabad chassidim believe what they do. Therefore I created the Tzadik article to explain all this. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear other people's views. -- Nahum 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that these two are completely seperate paragraphs, one adding the Rebbe commenting about a tzadik for general discussion, and one with the Rebbe (and his relationship with God) specifically. Leave them as they are. There is no need to point from this page to Tzadik. However, the "This has been taken literally..." seems a bit out of place on the tzadik page, as it is barely a notable opinion (albeit, a disturbing one) for that page and would fit more on the Chabad article (if anywhere). SF2K1 05:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the section here to leave the paragraph here, and linked it to the Tzadik article, so that one can know where to look for the required background material. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a point about some of the external links here. For example the link to "JewishWomenUnited" which is a relatively small site or "Messiah Watch International" which is more of a personal site as opposed to an orgainzation. Basically my point is that perhaps the list should be trimmed down to major organizations. I'm looking forward to hearing other peoples viewpoints on this.--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Eliezer's manipulation of the Chabad article

Eliezer is not being truthful about his new version of the Chabad article, which he claims was developed through consensus. In point of fact, over the last few months Eliezer deleted consensus texts, and created an incredible text in which Schneeron's new theology about a tzaddik is somehow accepted by all Jews as mainstream. Many of us, including me, Jayjg and JFW, discussed this issue at length some months ago, and we found Eliezer's claims to be both incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Furthermore:

  • Eliezer somehow removed the important statements by Orthodox Jews who disagree with Chabad, and left only statements by a couple of Conservative Jews (whose views on theology have little weight in the Orthodox community!)
  • Elizer keeps removing the condemnation of Chabad messianic by the Rabbinical council of America, and by heads of Orthodox yeshivas. Censorship of Orthodox Jewish points of view is unacceptable.
  • His edit grossly misled readers about the statements of Dr. Moshe Idel. Eliezer's edit presents Dr. Idel as defending Chabad messianism, while in fact Idel describes Chabad messianic beliefs as "stupid".
  • Eliezer keeps reverting to make Rabbi David Berger sound line a non-rabbi ("Mr."), and his edits make it appear as if most people disagree with Berger. In point of fact, Rabbi Berger was the driving force behind the RCA's statement condemning Chabad theology, and R. Berger's statements are the same as the statements of many other Orthodox rabbis...which no one will ever know, as Eliezer keeps deleting them.

It seems to me that while we have been busy on a host of other issues, Eliezer has been slowly manipulating this article to push his own personal theology, while removing facts that he is uncomfortable with, thus violating NPOV. RK 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it amounts to apologitics. This would be okay with sources. E.g. if Berger says some worship the Rebbe as G'd incarnate, and the article states "this is in direct contradiction to Chabad philosophy and has been subject of doubt" then both assertions need sourcing. The Berger one is easy (page number in book), but the (?hypothetical) Chabad response would be {{WP:NOR|original research]] if not supported by a source. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me who gave David Berger Simcha (Rabbincal degree)? I have personally found no sources that he got Simcha. It would seem what Eliezer is doing is in accordance of the NPOV policy. 220.233.48.200 13:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's manipulation of the Chabad article

Eliezer is not being truthful about his new version of the Chabad article, which he claims was developed through consensus. In point of fact, over the last few months Eliezer deleted consensus texts, and created an incredible text in which Schneeron's new theology about a tzaddik is somehow accepted by all Jews as mainstream. Many of us, including me, Jayjg and JFW, discussed this issue at length some months ago, and we found Eliezer's claims to be both incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Furthermore:
See the talk page here and by tzadik and you will see consensus. As a side note this version has been here for months, and to quote someone by the name of Robert Kaiser, "Whether you like it or not, the _fact_ is that your silence effectively implies consent."
Eliezer, it is forbidding to engage in outing or personal attacks. Also, the edit history of this article provs that you oveturned the consensus version that we developed several monthd ago, and that you replaced it with pro-messianic Chabad propaganda. I shall not allow you to continue your assault. 66.155.200.129

About this subject of "outing" people. He was already "outed by himself and many others. Many times he signs his name with his username and real name. See the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_mediation_requests http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006096.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006959.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April.txt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-December/026001.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-July/013966.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009209.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January.txt

* Eliezer somehow removed the important statements by Orthodox Jews who disagree with Chabad, and left only statements by a couple of Conservative Jews (whose views on theology have little weight in the Orthodox community!)
Folks, check the History logs yourself. Check the state of this article when we developed a consensus text with Jayjg, JFW, me and others. Eliezer simply keeps reverting this article to edits that do not contain the consensus text. His dishonest behaviour is absolutely outrageous. 66.155.200.129
I somehow removed this? When did I remove this. There is an open history that anybody can look through. (BTW I find it amusing that someone who is active in the conservative judaism movement is complaining that Conservative Rabbis are being quoted.)
* Elizer keeps removing the condemnation of Chabad messianic by the Rabbinical council of America, and by heads of Orthodox yeshivas. Censorship of Orthodox Jewish points of view is unacceptable.
When did I keep removing this?
A few months ago, when Jayjg, JFW and I stopped actively working on this article. 66.155.200.129
* His edit grossly misled readers about the statements of Dr. Moshe Idel. Eliezer's edit presents Dr. Idel as defending Chabad messianism, while in fact Idel describes Chabad messianic beliefs as "stupid".
Idel never describes chabad messianic beliefs as stupid. Can you bring a source for your claims please.
Whoops. I meant to say aviezer ravitzky. The two are named in consecutive paragraphs in the same article in The Forward, January, 18 2002, Attack on Chabad Is Called Unredeemable. The article is badly biased, as it is written by a pro-Chabad apologist, but the quotes are factual. 66.155.200.129
"In his own remarks, Mr. Ravitzky explained that those inside Lubavitch who wait for their rebbe to return from the dead and redeem the world may be foolish, but by no means is this expectation heretical or antithetical to Judaism. Mr. Ravitzky did not mince words about the potential danger in some of the ideas of these "non-heretic" messianists, which on occasion come alarmingly close to Christian dogma. However, he urged Mr. Berger to hearken the words of those like the late Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who once said of a Jewish faction he considered misguided: "Torah does not prohibit a person from being stupid."
I found it wrong of you to take Ravitzky as defending Chabad messianic Judaism, when in fact he clearly attacks it aa "stupid" 66.155.200.129
* Eliezer keeps reverting to make Rabbi David Berger sound line a non-rabbi ("Mr."), and his edits make it appear as if most people disagree with Berger. In point of fact, Rabbi Berger was the driving force behind the RCA's statement condemning Chabad theology, and R. Berger's statements are the same as the statements of many other Orthodox rabbis...which no one will ever know, as Eliezer keeps deleting them.
I never changed any titles of Berger or anybody else. Once again RK is making up history when it is openly available for the public to look at! I would like to point out that when I did write Mr. Berger it was a direct quotation from a referenced article published in the Forward!
Eliezer has been caught lying yet again. Folks, check the recent edit history! Eliezer's edits describe Rabbi Berger as "MR", which in the Orthodox community is considered a grave insult. It also is a factual error. 66.155.200.129 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that while we have been busy on a host of other issues, Eliezer has been slowly manipulating this article to push his own personal theology, while removing facts that he is uncomfortable with, thus violating NPOV. RK 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See above and the history! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this history shows your repeated reversion of the consensus version that we all developed severeal months ago, and that you replaced much of the text with you messianic Jewish apologetics. 66.155.200.129 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Dr. David Berger

I haven't had time to look at the content dispute, but it is completely unacceptable for any version of this article to fail to introduce Rabbi Dr. David Berger with his full titles, or to refer to him as "Mr. Berger". Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is commonly referred to as "Rabbi", even if he got his title from HUC, we should follow the trend. Wikipedia is not in the business of drawing lines about which ordination is adequate. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of Wikipedia policies, I agree with Jayjg and JFW as above. Actually, within the world of Hasidic Judaism and Haredi Judaism, the title of "Rabbi" for anyone is often-times scorned and derided, because in their view the once-lofty title of "Rabbi" has been debased in modern times. Hasidim and Haredim will therefore prefer using: "Rav", "HaRav", "Moreinu HaRav", "Moreinu", "Moreinu VeRabeinu HaRav", "Moreinu VeRabeinu", Rosh yeshiva, "Mashgiach" (for Mashgiach ruchani), "HaGaon", "Rebbe", "HaTzadik", "Hakadosh", "ADMOR" ("Adoneinu Moreinu VeRabeinu") or often just plain "Reb" -- as the situation applies. All in all, nothing to get steamed up about. IZAK 04:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term Rabbi is ONLY given to someone that has got Rabbinical degree. Are you going to go to some crazy guy on the street and start calling him Doctor? And let him do all type of things only qualified for a Doctor? All the other terms do not represent someone with a degree. (I am not saying Berger is a crazy guy on the street, I just like giving people really crazy examples...) 220.233.48.200 13:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's use of sockpuppet's

I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer is a bald-faced liar, and his non-stop personal attacks leave me no choice but to request that he be banned for bad behaviour. I am certainly not using any sock-puppets, and his outrageous lies to contrary cannot be tolerated. It is Eliezer who is damaging Wikipedia by reverting consensus articles to push his messianic beliefs, and who lies about the status of Rabbi Beger, instead labelling him as "Mr." in an attempt to smear him. RK 19:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I learnt with Eliezer 3 years ago, he is not at all a liar. I have seen no sources for where Berger got his Rabbinical degree, from what I see he just gave himself or his followers the title. There is no possible way for you to give yourself valid Simcha (Rabbinical degree). 220.233.48.200 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look into the history of this page and look at the edit of 66.155.200.129 a few edits back. Look at his words. I take the "bald-faced liar" attack as a personal attack. Additionally RK has violated the 3 revert rule and I believe he has violated the terms of his restrictions. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Eliezer is lying. Since when is 2 reverts 3? RK

Reviewing the edit history of 66.155.200.129, I'm of the persuation that this is RK, and I would have blocked him on the basis of this alone. Nandesuka did, though, in response to Eliezer's warning on WP:AN/3RR. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty clear to me that 66.155.200.129 and RK are the same person.
That being said, calling someone who has the title "Rabbi" "Mr." instead is disrespectful, and unless we intend to rewrite the article to talk about "Mr. Schneerson" — which we don't — we should be consistent and NPOV in how we use titles. Nandesuka 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The term Mr. was used as a direct quotation as in copy/paste from the Forward article. That being said I have removed the Mr. from my revision. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eliezer, I still have yet to find the Rabbi that gave Berger Simcha, maybe you found him? If you did please share and include it in his wikipedia article. 220.233.48.200 13:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Eliezer is making outrageous personal attacks and reverting articles

I am being harassed by User Eliezer, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lis about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system. For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Eliezer shows no sign of stopping his religious tirade. His latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:

  • Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.
  • Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre and obviously false lie. In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.
  • "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages. This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.
  • Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject. (Eliezer keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger and Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and delibertae insult in the Jewish community.
  • Inserting attacks questioning academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own. When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Eliezer refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy. Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices, and replaces all of their POvs with the slur "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources." Please see the article to see the full context. Eliezer is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Eliezer's view) standard theology. Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Eliezer apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK

For example, Eliezer write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Well, that's just bizarre. Please see the page in question, Chabad, which I sign with my username all the time. In fact, my name is all over that page, explaining my edits. There is simply no way that Eliezer can claim that I am trying to hide my User ID identity. He's just out of control. RK 20:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7#User:RK --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I initially wrote this on my talk page in response to a somewhat alarmist post from RK, but I'm copying it here for the benefit of others working on this article.""

Aaah, a good old-fashioned edit war. I am going to pass no judgement on the personal attacks, but I note your use of "lying" numerous times in edit summaries. This is going to escalate unless both of you adopt a collaborative attitude. Knowing you both as editors, I expect you are both capable of this.

Start by agreeing that the article needs to be balanced. Then agree that there is controversy, which needs a certain degree of coverage. Both of these issues are covered by WP:NPOV and inescapable. The next issue is: what is the article going to cover, which is guided closely by WP:NOR - anything previous expressed in a public (and preferably accessible) medium can be quoted within the framework of balance (e.g. not 10 pro and only one anti source & vice versa). The talk page needs to reflect which point you are disagreeing on, and edits needs to be with consensus agreed over there.

The Chabad article is important. Chabad, one has to admit, has been a shaping force in post-WWII orthodoxy and well outside it. Without Chabad, we probably would not have the "Jewish music" so popular in Haredi schools. There would be a much-reduced emphasis on "outreach"/kiruv rechokim. Whole areas of the world would be without rabbinic guidance, as no self-respecting non-Chabad rabbis are happy to take up a stelle (position) in Peru or Tokyo unless they're past their sell-by date (i.e. all their children are married off).

Not everyone is thrilled with certain Chabad innovations, and the controversy well predated the Rebbe's petira. Only recently has the debate been taken to the printshop, but I remember full well a degree of resentment being voiced prior to 1994. Very unfortunate, but we can't hide from this.

Wikipedia needs a good Chabad article that covers this remarkable movement warts-and-all. Please collaborate. I suspect this page is served about 100x an hour, and your contributions will be vitally important. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being that about half the article is controversies I would like to propose that the controversy section be moved to its own page.--Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Points of contention

I discern the following points of contention, and I will try to mediate here:

  1. Re: "He has clothed Himself in a human body" - Eliezer showed us a PDF (when still editing as Truthaboutchabad) which aimed to demonstrate that this philosophy (unity between a Rebbe, his Chassidim and G'd) in fact permeated Hasidism and was not a Schneerson innovation. RK maintains that it is indeed a Chabad innovation. Things are not helped that all the relevant source material is in Hebrew. In RK's version, a statement is made that makes his version more NPOV: "This view is presented by Chabad Jews as being identical to that of mainstream Hasidic Judaism, but it has been rejected as heretical by many Orthodox Jews. Many see this as a new formulation of hasidic philosophy that contradicts the Jewish principles of faith." I will support this version, but only if RK can supply sources that support "many see..." Which critic has specifically targeted this tenet of Chabad chassidus? If such evidence cannot be procured, the whole paragraph is void as original research.
  2. "potentially being the presumptive Messiah" was Eliezer's version, which contains a pleonasm but in my view sums up the majority of Chabad's perceptions of the Rebbe's role. As he was a leading gadol ha-dor with excellent leadership skills many did consider him a candidate. If evidence can be procured that he was considered Moshiach in his lifetime, then this may need to be presented.
  3. "It is noteworthy that many roshei yeshiva, including the late Rabbi Moses Feinstein and Rabbi Abraham Pam held Schneerson in the highest regard." RK deleted this. I think that the Rebbe's standing amongst American and Israeli Sefardi rabbis is important to mention, either here or earlier in the article. His main critics were of the Israeli yeshiva movement and Conservative/Reform figureheads.
  4. "Berger asserts that a few Chabad followers hold Schneerson to be God incarnate, and that they worship him as such. This, however, is in direct contradiction with Chabad teachings, and therefore subject to much doubt." RK replaced this with the unsourced "Some Chabad followers worship Schneerson as God incarnate." I think a compromise is necessary here. The version should read "Berger asserts that a few Chabad followers hold Schneerson to be God incarnate, and that they worship him as such." If Eliezer can demonstrate that someone has debunked this statement, this can be inserted, but saying "This, however, is in direct contradiction with Chabad teachings" is original research without a source.
  5. The denouncements by Rabbis Aaron Feldman and Marc Angel need to remain. Both are representatives of the American yeshiva world and the RCA, respectively. The reception of Berger's work and Ravitzky's reaction need a nuanced presentation, backed up with sources (e.g. sales, book reviews, etc.)

So there's some jobs for both, I'm affraid. If the evidence can be presented where indicated, we will quickly achieve consensus. Alternatively, I will have to remove all the original research and turn some allegations into NPOV. RK is requested to email me if he finds the sources before his 3RR block expires, so we can move this forward. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to mediate here. I would like to note a few things.
1. Because of earliar claims by RK that not all Jews believe what chabad believes, I removed those claims and wrote that all this is according to followers of kabbalah, addionally I referenced it to the tzaddik article and wrote that chabad believes it in the same way as elaborated upon in the tzadik article. In the Tzaddik article I brought 2 books as reference that, this is the meaning of the chabad beliefs. If you want to put in a statement saying that some believe that this is heretical it is only fair to insert exactly what belief they feel is heretical, the belief as explained in the tzadik article or another belief that thay say chabad has.
2. The statement about neo-Christian beliefs is already there, so I removed the added on that RK inserted.
3. The comments from Orthodox rabbis that RK brought are against those that believe that the Rebbe is G-d. The rest I removed until sources are brought about the accuracy and context of those quotes.
4. I removed the part from Aviezer Ravitzky, both the pro-chabad part and the other part. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, I wish you'd stuck with my numbering to facilitate the discussion... I think it would be better, or at least polite, if you avoid editing the article any further until RK comes back to discuss here. In response to your copyedit the following questions:

  • Who takes issue with the "Chabad" philosophy of unity between G'd, Rebbe and Chassidim (forgot the Yiddish term). If this paragraph has no antecedent we might as well delete it. This is mainly a question for RK.
  • I think we should move the comment that Rav Pam and Reb Moshe respected him to the relevant paragraph in the Rebbe's own article. It does not have much direct bearing here, as these Rabbis did not specifically endorse the messianic spirit in Chabad.
  • Why have you deleted the Feldman and Angel criticisms?
  • Which Chabad writers have debunked the statement by Berger that some Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe to be G'd incarnate?

I'm not sure if you should have reverted without taking on board at least some of my points above. I will not make major edits to the article until RK has returned, but there are some things you may need to compromise on. JFW | T@lk 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your first issue, I will let RK answer that. In regards to the seconds point, if you feel that it should be moved I will have no objections. I have deleted the Feldman and othe criticisms for lack of source to verify the words used and context of exactly what they were critisizing, once anyone brings it, it should be easy to merge it in. The following books and articles were written in response to Berger , they are listed in the reference section: Dalfin, Chaim. Attack on Lubavitch: A Response, Jewish Enrichment Press, February 2002 (ISBN 1880880660) Prager, Dennis. Irresponsible Slander Moment Magazine 2002 Yanover, Yori. Attack on Chabad Is Called Unredeemable The Forward January 18, 2002 The Messiah Problem; Berger, The Angel and the Scandal of Reckless Indiscrimination Chaim Rapoport, published 2002. Regarding debunking the statement by Berger that some Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe to be G'd incarnate, I believe it is debunked by asking any random Lubavitcher what is believed. I am in Crown Heights now, and I am in 770 daily, and I know what people believe, Lubavitchers are found all around the world call or visit the one that lives next to you and ask him what Lubavitchers believe. Berger didn 't bring any verifiable sources to his claims. Also see the two books which explain chabad's view of a Tzadik, which clearly shows what chabad believes. Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew) Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a book review of Berger http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SingerHeresyHunter.php --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which source do you think more authentically debunks Berger? We shall have to ask RK to source the Feldman and Angel comments.

I doubt anything can be gained from moving the controversy to its subpage. I would encourage you to write more about the movement's history. Despite 100s of Chabad-affiliated editors coming by, nobody had bothered to write about Tomchei Temimim and Chabad's work in pre-War Russia, until I wrote about it. There's an interesting job for you. There must be some people from the Alter Heim in 770 who could tell you more. PS Send my regards to any Dutchmen in 770. They probably know me. JFW | T@lk 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next week I plan on expanding this article with the titles that I inserted. Please lt me know if you have any suggestions on the structure. The structure is based upon http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article.asp?AID=36226 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits by Eliezer

Speaking as someone with no particular interest in this subject, and no particular ideological axe to grind, the edits today are terrible, bad, no-good, horrible, and approach complete incomprehensibility. The article is now a mishmash of misordered facts, strong opinions, and discussions of people whom the reader has not been told about (the canonical example being the various dismissive comments of "Berger." Who the fuck is Berger? Where does he fit in to this discussion? The reader certainly doesn't know, because this lousy article doesn't tell him.)

I am, to be blunt, inclined to revert all of those changes back. Give me one good reason not to. Nandesuka 06:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits today are reverts to how it was before RK made his edits. If the article needs more explanations that it should be added but his version wwas just not in a NPOV as discussed above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Berger specifically His books are referenced in the reference section. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A book review of his book can be found here. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My other edits to the first half of the article were made upon the relisation that the controversies section was more than half of this article. Those edits are still a work in progress and I hope to complete those new sections over the next week. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured the "messianic controversy section" and described the premise of Berger's work. I was wondering if Eliezer could summarise the defences by Dalfin and Rapaport, as I have no access to these works. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the books, however I will try to get my hands on them sometime this week. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Revert article back to what it was BEFORE Eliezer and RK began their edit war

I agree with what Nandesuka has just stated, i.e. that since "The article is now a mishmash of misordered facts, strong opinions, and discussions of people whom the reader has not been told about" he is "... to be blunt, inclined to revert all of those changes back. Give me one good reason not to..." In fact the article should be reverted back to where it was before Eliezer and RK began to add-in their own POV comments that just turned this article into an incomprehensible mess, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better if matters are not brought under control by unbiased editors who know something about the subject. IZAK 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the date that you are proposing to revert it back to? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am researching it... IZAK 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind the compromises that were worked out in between the last discussion with RK and this one for example the Tzaddik section and it's relationship with The Rebbe G-d and his followers section. Also the use of identifying Berger as the source of some of the claims against Chabad as opposed to the generic some people. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: hey guys, I'm trying to mediate here

Please, Nandesuka and IZAK. I've tried to bring out the differences in opinion to stop the edit war. Will you please NOT revert until RK has had his say? If you can't read who Berger is then Google him up and describe him. Don't just blanket revert. This article is trying to describe a volatile and ongoing debate, and will develop organically if you give it a chance. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • JFW: It is only because the level of incivility here has "taken off", and in the process injected literal venom and literary confusion, that the "primary parties" here need to understand that they are "ruining it" for others who would like to see this article be a vehicle for conveying useful knowledge and that it should not add to an already confusing topic for those who do not know much about these theological disputes. JFW, you are doing a great job so far. IZAK 10:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made this abundantly clear. The theological dispute is the subject matter of this page (at least the controversy section), and I will be reverting back in case someone deletes the recent additions. JFW | T@lk 10:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Jfdwolff is on the case, I am willing to wait until he is either satisfied (in which case hopefully reverts will not be necessary) or gives up. My overall point was to make abundantly clear that: (1) I come to the subject as no one who knows nothing about Chabad Lubavitch and (2) unfortunately, after actually reading the article, I leave it as someone who knows nothing about Chabad Lubavitch, other than there's this one guy who some people think is God, but then there a bunch of people who get mad when anyone says anyone about him. On the one hand, this could simply be an indication of my poor reading skills. On the other hand, it could be an indication that the article is failing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a yeshiva or seminary. It is brutally unfair to expect our readers to come to an article on a subject already versed in the trivialities (or even central tenets) of any particular religion and/or religious disputes. So you need to understand that what is at stake for you two, Eliezer and RK, is that if you can't resolve your dispute over this article amicably, others are going to get sick of it and resolve it for you. Nandesuka 14:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the mediating here, RK on Friday has opened up a Request for Mediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User_Eliezer_is_making_outrageous_personal_attacks_and_reverting_articles
But I am not sure how that fits in with what's being done here. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed

Why does Eliezer keep deleting the key quotes that much of the controversy revolves around? He keeps deleting the new teachings of R. Schneerson about the rebbe being virtually the same as God. I think that Eliezer keeps deleting this quote because R. Schneerson himself admits that he has no source for such a belief. In fact, this seems to be proof that Eliezer is engaging in both cnesorship and original research, as Eliezer has written an article on the Tzadik that attempts to prove that Schneerson's beliefs are the same as mainstream Chasidic teachings. This combination of censoring actual quotes and substitution of original research is bad news for Wikipedia. Eliezer seems to be using Wikipedia articles as a forum for original religious writings to support messianic Jewish beliefs about R. Schneerson. He needs to understand that we are to describe and explain, and not to proselytize. RK 17:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, by repeatedly deleting R. Schneerson's quotes on this issue and substituting his own original research, Eliezer seems to be making R. Schneerson out as a liar. After all, Schneerson states that he has no source in Chasidus, while Eliezer claims that Schneerson does have a source in Chasidus.

The Rebbe only said regarding the acting as a go between betwen chassidim and G-d that he has no source, but regarding the other part, he brought 2 sources and one source in a footnote. It is available to anybody that wants to see it on otzar770.com The 2 books I listed in Tzadik back up my claim. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is grossly inappropriate for Eliezer to keep inserting personal attacks on Orthodox rabbis into this article. Each time we quote R. Schneerson's own words and mention that other Orthodox Jews disagree, Eliezer keeps deleting the quote, and inserting the slur that these Orthodox rabbis merely quote the rabbis "to shock those" who are not awar of their sources. Apparently he believes that the many Orthodox critics of Chabad are deliberately shocking and misleading their congregants on this issue. I can find no proof for Eliezer's claims, and he offers none. It seems a clear example of personal attacks. RK 17:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK, are you saying that these rabbis were condemming the belief the way it is elaborated in these two books? If yes, you will need to bring a source. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RK, may I firstly ask you to moderate your language. Using the word "censorship" is to be avoided.
Can you please tell me (as I've asked above) which non-Chabad authorities have criticised its philosophy of "Rebbe = G'd[ly]". Without a good source for this criticism I will remove the paragraph. It is confusing, kabbalistic and non-contributory without a source, and it would amount to original research on your side.
Which Orthodox Jews disagree[d] with the Rebbe? JFW | T@lk 21:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on reinserting the criticisms by Orthodox Rabbis, but consistently without a reference. Again, these are original research unless sourced. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:RK:

I hope you have noticed that I'm trying to mediate your debate with Eliezer. I have reworded some disputed material, asked him to provide sources for some of his bolder assertions, and he has started adding to the non-controversy part of the article.

I am very concerned about your inflammatory language. What you call "censorship" was in fact the removal of original research, and I am removing some of your insertions until you can provide adequate references for them.

Please collaborate on this article. I'm not choosing sides, but I want this edit war to end with only winners. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is the other way around. While Rabbi Schneerson explicitly admits to developing new beliefs without any source in Chasidus, it is Eliezer who keeps rewriting Schneerson's belief as being the same as traditional Jewish thought. Both claims can't be true. Either R. Schneerson is totally wrong, or Eliezer.
The burdern of proof is on Eliezer: Can he, you or anyone here find a statement by any Orthodox groups (Chasidic or not) that approve of the Rebbe's teachings on this subject? The only statements we have found by non-Chabad by Orthodox groups on messianic Chabad beliefs seem to be disapproval, or claims of outright heresy. The problem is that some of these Orthodox quotes keep getting removed, so no one reading the article gets a chance to find this out!
If you want any particular reference for a quote or position, I am happy to provide it, and if you think that any particular claim I made amounts to original research, please specific and I will be happy to remove it or rephrase it.
Please see the previous archive on this article: I and others repeatedly asked Eliezer to provide sources for his claim that other Orthodox Jews agreed that Chabad beliefs about Schneerson's messiahood, or the nature of the rebbe, were traditional and accepted. Eliezer's inability or refusal to bring forth any sources to back up his position marks his own edits as original research. In contrast, I brought forth numerous Orthodox sources which hold contrary views, gave sources for most of them, and I am very happy to get the necessary sources for any other particular claims which you (or anyone else asks.) RK 21:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms from the Orthodox side are meaningless without a CITE. CITE is the new black. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point! If I do not want others making claims without sources, neither should I. As such, here are the sources. I am staring with the letter by Rabbi Aharon Feldman, the rosh yeshiva (dean) of Ner Israel Rabbincial College - probably North America’s second largest yeshiva. RK (talk · contribs)

The whole source need not be copied here, but a reference is vital. As I said, WP:CITE is the new black - since the Seigenthaler case we have been having a clampdown on unsourced material. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer's non-controversy work

I've tightened the 10 key points. I was hoping you could provide a reference for this. Also, you haven't written much about pre-WWII Chabad in Russia. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the the sources for the 10 key points is http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=62228 Regarding pre-WWII Chabad, I will try to add this sometime this week. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King David

In the course of reverting or re-editing, please be aware that the concluding comment about King David being the top candidate for messiah in "Jewish literature" cannot stay as is. It is only Yanover's opinion; traditional Judaism has always held that the Messiah will be the son of David, meaning, a scion of the House of Judah. Yoninah 10:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The mention of David in liturgy is obviously metaphorical. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-The thing is that in Talmud it says that 'If he is from the living then he is like... and if he is from those who have passed on, then he is like Dovid HaMelech...' It uses the word 'Kegon' which means 'like'. Which can mean 'for example, it would be Dovid HaMelech A'H' or it could also mean 'it will be someone like Dovid HaMelech'. In other words, it is mentioned in a very literal sense...

We can't Paskin from a Gemara, at least use the Rambam as the source. 220.233.48.200 14:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrlich

Has anyone heard of the work of Avrum Ehrlich?[1] JFW | T@lk 13:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

current version

I have the following issues with the current version of RK.

1. "Many roshei yeshiva, including the late Rabbi Moses Feinstein and Rabbi Abraham Pam (essentially from the same camp as Schach) at one time were friends with Schneerson, but did not support Chabad's messianic teachings." implies that they stopped being friends with Schneerson, and did not support chabad's messianic teachings, which this is not true, because they did not stop being friends with Schneerson. The version "It is noteworthy that many roshei yeshiva, including the late Rabbi Moses Feinstein and Rabbi Abraham Pam (essentially from the same camp as Schach) held Schneerson in the highest regard and did not take a stance vis a vis the Messianic stirrings." is more accurate.

2. Regarding the "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" section. I don't understand how you can say that the current version is more NPOV when it is not accurate. I would like to ask you to take a look inside the sicha and it is quite obvious from the proofs that the Rebbe brings from the Zohar and in the footnote by quoting the Yerushalmi, that he stated his statement of not having a source regarding his explanation on how he can act as a go-between between chassidim and G-d, but he did not state it regarding the point which is being discussed here and in Tzadik. Furthermore the explanation that I wrote is backed up by 2 books. The statement "This view is seen by most Chabad Jews as being identical to that of mainstream Hasidic Judaism, and has been interpreted in a variety of ways. However, it has been rejected as potentially heretical by many Orthodox Jews. Critics of this teaching see this as a new formulation of Chasidic philosophy that contradicts the Jewish principles of faith." implies that there are a variety of ways that chabad interpets it, when there is only one way, and if there is another way a source should be brought that says how else chabad interpets it. Also the "it has been rejected as potentially heretical by many Orthodox Jews" is more npov than the previous version however it is not enough, because it should really state something like "When taken literally it has been rejected as heretical by many Orthodox Jews and chabad, However it does not mean it literlly." I look forward to reaching a NPOV version. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that if Rabbis Feinstein and Pam did not speak out against the Meshichistic tendencies, the "did not take a stance" is more accurate. That's why I wrote it that way.
2. Eliezer, if some people say the "atzmus" thing was an innovation then we need to mention this. All I want to know from RK is who said that it was an innovation and who has said that it is in contradiction to the Jewish principles of faith. Without these things, there is no issue to begin with. We will need to present this: "Critics A, B and C have commented that this is an innovation, and critic B feels it is in violation of the Jewish principles of faith. Several Chabad writers, such as D and E, have commented that it is not an innovation, and that it in no way violates the Jewish principles of faith." You have actually brought more sources than RK in this paragraph. To cite anonymous Orthodox Jews is original research, pure and simple.


I am also looking forward to achieving NPOV, and I'm glad we seem to be making at least some progress.
Please note that on 7 and 8 December I will be offline. Sasquatch (talk · contribs) was meant to mediate this, and if there are still issues I will ask him to take over from me. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed #1, and regarding #2, I will wait until RK responds. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A response to Berger by Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet can be found at /media/wikipedia/en/1/15/Schochet-review.pdf --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support Eliezer's removal of the section "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"[2]. It can be reintroduced if there is an indication that this problem was raised by an important critic. Failing that, it is original research. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism is in the Berger book. There is a whole chapter and an appendix on it as I best recall. jucifer 00:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody was willing to provide the exact references, so it was gracefully removed. To tell the truth, that aspect of Berger's criticism hasn't caught on as much as his general critique of the Meshichist stance.

If it bothers you greatly the paragraph can be put back but with the prerequisite reference support. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But JFW, I have given references! In fact, I have given three specific citations! But Eliezer keeps erasing them. Why do you support his continuous reverts and removal of all Orthodox Jewish sources on this issue? RK 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the entire section on viewing the Rebbe as akin to God

JFW, no one was citing "anonymous" Orthodox Jews. In contrast, I cited explicitly named Orthodox Jews, and the now famous declaration by the Rabbinical Council of America. Please re-read David Berger's book. This is exactly the reference that you are looking for. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why citing these well known books and resolutions are considered "original research." In fact, the RCA is the world's largest body of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, and they have explicitly defined their views as a violation of the Jewish principles of faith. Also, please read the new sources I entered a couple of weeks ago (link above). Please review these simple facts:

  • The Lubavitcher Rebbe admittted that he absolutely no source for his new teachings about the relationship between a rebbe and his followers. Yet Eliezer keeps deleting that quote. Why do you think that he does this?
  • Eliezer still has not given us a single source which proves that all, most or even any measurable fraction of Orthodox Judaism views Rabbi Schneerson's innovative new teachings on this issue as compatible with Jewish principles of faith.
  • Eliezer only brings forth quotes from people who had written on this issue decades or centuries before Schneeron was even born! After months of talking to him, he still doesn't "get it". Just he because Eliezer believes that Rabbi Schneerson's new teachings are compatible with Jewish theology doesn't prove that many or all other Orthodox Jews feel this way.
  • My edit of this article merely quotes the Rebbe's own words, and points out that people disagree on his teachings. That is the very essence of NPOV. In contrast, his edit of this article hides the entire issue, which is totally unjustifiable. Please re-read David Berger's book on this issue. RK 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, you write "the paragraph is based upon unsourced criticism and stays out until adequate sources are available." But the Orthodox criticisms are fully sourced! I can rephrase to include that we are talking about the very specific arguments made in Berger's work, and the subsequent RCA affirmation, but I thought that this was already clear. I am not opposed to rephrasing this, but this is a hugely important topic, and I don't like deleting the entire controversy. Also, please re-read the abve: Where are Eliezer's sources to back up his claim that Orthodox Jews agree that these teachings are in line with Jewish principles of faith? So far he has brought no sources at all! I really am getting cofused as to why his edits on this specific issue are ok, although they have no sources whatsoever, and my edits are not Ok, despite the RCA resolution and Berger's book as citations. RK 22:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source! Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller

I have a very long and detailed article, with quotes and footnotes, from Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe Chicago. He offers multiple examples of Chabad Jews worshipping their late Rebbe as God incarnate, and criticises them for doing so. Here is one brief quote from the article: RK

Normative Yiddishkeit is a G-d-centered religion. We believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator to Whom we pray and Whose mitzvos we fulfill because He has commanded us to do so. What we are being asked by the Messianists to accept as normative Yiddishkeit is a deified Rebbe/Messiah-centered religion. We are told to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Rebbe, who is the physical incarnation of G-d, to whom we should direct our prayers, and that the mitzvos should be performed in order to bring about his second coming. What we have seen developing slowly over a number of years is finally being publicly proclaimed. In simple words: Worship of the Rebbe has been substituted for worship of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
"God-Centered or Rebbe/Messiah - Centered: What is Normative Judaism?", Adar 5758 (March 1998) The Jewish Observer, Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe Chicago.

The entire article is available at this website.

http://www.identifyingchabad.org/rabbikeller.html

Image

Hi-

I dont know how this system works, but I tried to add something and it got deleted. If someone can place it in, that would be good.

This is what I put in, in the area of its reference to Berger:

File:Http://chabadart.com/JewishPress.jpg
Leading Torah scholar R' Aharon Soloveichik A"H, in a letter that was published in the Jewish Press.

I did not upload a photo so maybe thats why it didnt show, if someone is registered and able to upload then if you can please do that to the photo at that address.

I think its an important thing to add to the article.

Thanks and all the best, Happy Chanukah! And may we merit the complete and true Redemption, with Moshiach, immediately! Meir

Images only work if they have been uploaded to Wikipedia. If this letter was published in the Jewish Press there would be a copyright issue, so I would strongly recommend against uploading it. I also doubt that reproducing the letter has any merits over simply stating that Reb Aaron issued a defence of Chabad. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Rabbi Wolff. I recommend registering with Wikipedia, It's easy and free. Daykart 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi? That's the first time I've been called Rabbi. I'm only a doctor of the body, not of the soul :-). Anyway, uploading images can only be done by registering with Wikipedia, but I would discourage trying to upload that particular image. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who teaches others Torah is a rabbi. Daykart 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

I put it in a paragraph with a link instead of a picture- if this is not the way it should be done, then you could change it to a proper way. I am not familiar with this setup here.

Thank you, and Hatzlacha Raba to everyone. All the best and Happy Chanukah. May we merit the complete and final Geulah with Moshiach, immediately!

Meir


PS- I want to add that it should be noted that I dont believe that the fourth 'kind' of Lubavitch exists. Ask any Lubavitcher, this is an invention. Chassidim always hold the Rebbe as the beginning and end of everything, but this is in order that their actions and behavior should be according to the real Torah, and not just their own perceptions. They cling to the Rebbe in an absolute way, in order that they may truly get to know G-d and what He wants. But no one Chas VShalom worships a human being (although the bond between a Chossid and his Rebbe can possibly be defined, in a way, as far deeper than 'worship', however, it can absolutely no way be considered as replacing the Creator of the Universe. In fact, a Jew is defined by the very fact that he denies any form of worship other than G-d alone- 'Yehudi', from the word Hoda'a, that he is 'Modeh' to only G-d alone.)

Maybe it should also be noted that the first 'kind' does not really exist either. The closest to it might be those who believe that 'we dont know- right now we simply have to do what the Rebbe has instructed us. Further talk on this is not conducive.', or 'it is not the time to be saying such things to people' etc. But no one, if they have studied the words of the Rebbe, and consider those words in the most literal and way, can honestly belong to the 'first' category.

I could add another thing even further: in the past, Chabad or any other group was never defined by what some in the group believe, but rather by what its leader says. Just as in any system- (LHavdil) America stands for, at the moment, what the President says, as any country stands for what their leader says... Therefore, it might be best to look at the actual words of the Rebbe, when trying to discern the stance of 'Chabad' on a specific issue. In fact, I would assume that anyone from Chabad who would be asked 'who is the Rebbe and what is Chabad' would answer that the Rebbe is Chabad and Chabad is the Rebbe.

Meir, if someone thinks the fourth kind of Chabadnik exists, and has made a lot of noise about it, then we cannot hide that fact. See NPOV for an explanation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I'm not sure how the etymology of yehudi is relevant to this discussion. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its up to you of course, but I'm just making a note.

I'm bringing 'Yehudi' since that is the name which is used for the Jewish people today. The reason why Yehuda is chosen as their name instead of something else is partially reflected in the very nature of Jews and Judaism- that he represents the stand which rejects any form of idol worship at all. I'm saying this since it should be self understood that someone who is trying to adhere to Torah would obviously see the first commandment, and knows Shma Yisroel, and knows that the most fundamental principle of Judaism is that there is one Creator...


Meir

Meir, it's actually up to you me and everyone else here, nobody has more say than anybody else. I would suggest that you register it's free and anonymous, and help out with editing the article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could someone maybe put the article which is linked, onto this website, since I dont know if its planning to stay at that website...

All the best,

Meir

You can Google just as well as I can. It is to be preferred over the URL that links readers to the chabadart site. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RK's additions and current version

I have cleaned up some of RK's additions, all my edits are explained by my edit summaries. However I would like to point out, that the sources that RK brought for the paragraph about the relationship between G-d the rebbe and his followers had nothing to do with the way chabad views the subject and were actually critizing those that believe that the Rebbe is G-d, which not just those source condemm these beliefs but every Orthodox Rabbi including chabad condemms this. Also with his quotes from Feldman and others, the same thing, that not just those sources condemm those beliefs but chabad along with every Orthodox Rabbi does so as well. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK: you have no right to blankly revert all changes made with clear and constructive edit summaries. If you disagree you will have to explain why.
The paragraph of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" was deleted because you could not pinpoint a reference that made this into a major issue. Simply say "Berger says on page [...]" or something and the problem is solved.
I'm getting quite sick of your attempts to get every Orthodox critic into the "criticism" section. We have representatives from the Haredi and Modern Orthodox camp. I think we should mention the first critics and the most prominent ones, but I agree with Eliezer that we should not view Marc Angel's disendorsement of a Chabad-run eatery as a full denouncement of the movement's approach. JFW | T@lk 00:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RK reverted again. This is getting tedious. JFW | T@lk 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I am not doing any reverts. I am adding text with citations. This was followed by a mass of reversions by you and Eliezer. Keep track of who is doing what! RK

Again, what are you talking about? It is you who keeps demanding that I provide Orthodox citations for the claims made on this website, and then you get mad when I provide these citations. I am doing everything that you demand, while all Eliezer does it delete. RK 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is that you are not providing citations for the orphaned section, but instead are piling on more Orthodox critics. It's enough now. JFW | T@lk 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested protection[3], as with the return of RK the page has turned into an edit warring battlefield again. Lovely. JFW | T@lk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JFW, what in the world has gotten in to you? Why are making false claims about me? You repeatedly asked me, in private e-mail and public notes, to provide a citation for the statements in the article. In response, I did so, and indeed brought forth multiple citations with quotes for every aspect of the controversy. For instance, in regards to the new theology about how a Chasid should view a rebbe as being like God, I brought forth four sources, one from the late Rebbe himself, one from David Berger, one from Chaim Kellner, and one from Boruch Clinton. Yet you respond with mass reverts and "protection" of the article, an d deny that I ever gave these citations? (Citations which you yourself demanded?) Please reconsider your behaviour. RK 00:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you started with the mass revert after Eliezer had removed things with good arguments. This issue with the sources is seperate. Only after the mass revert did I notice that you'd actually traced the criticism properly. Good.
The rabbis Pam and Feinstein supported nor denounced the meschichistim. In my vocubulary that is "did not take a stance", and not the suggestively phrased "did not support". The Marc Angel thing has to do with one kosher restaurant and should stay out. Feldman's criticism may be covered, as he's become somewhat of a figurehead since taking over at Ner Yisrael. Finally, the Soloveitchik defence was removed while that is frequently cited by Chabad in its own support.
So here we are with another page protection and an opportunity to sort out the mess. I have identified every single difference between your version and the one by Eliezer I've been supporting[4]. JFW | T@lk 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

I've protected the page because of the dispute. Please try to reach a consensus on talk and give me a shout when you're ready to start editing again. If I'm not around, you can request unprotection on WP:RFPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have outlined the major differences in the section above. I agree that RK brought adequate support for a previously unsourced paragraph, but there are several remaining issues we need to clear up before we can unprotect. JFW | T@lk 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leifern jumping in

This is a very noisy subject, and by that I don't just mean that it's emotionally noisy, but also that it's hard to work out noise vs. signal. It has become so specific that it's hard to follow, so I'd like to make a couple of observations/questions:

  • The crux of the issue appears to be the extent to which some (could be a few, could be many) individuals give Rebbe Schneerson an elevated state, and if so, what the nature of that elevation is.
  • Secondary to that is whether and to what extent other religious leaders express concern over this elevation.
  • What complicates this is whether it is possible to discern the prevalence of one view or another. It is not as if these are groups that are prone to issue official positions on issues such as this - after all, there has been no successor to Schneerson, and I can only imagine what type of issues this causes.
  • I know we want to avoid weasel words such as "some" or "many" or "most," etc., but perhaps it would be better to avoid making a definitive case on what is the predominant view of things. What seems pretty clear to me is that Schneerson's memory is held in unusually high esteem, and that the extent to which this esteem is expressed sometimes reaches heights that makes people uncomfortable. Perhaps it might be illuminating to explain why this discomfort is created in light of Jewish theology and halacha.
  • I just don't think it's possible to paint anyone into a corner and make them say something definitive about the level of Schneerson's elevation. It's so messy within Chabad, never mind around and outside the group.

I hope I'm not adding fuel to the fire here. --Leifern 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, but random observations don't really help either. There are different opinions, and we need to work on WP:NPOV. We will need to rely on weasel words in the absence of hard statistics, and as long as there is consensus which weasel word to use that is fine. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

I think that there is no concensus precisely because the point is that there should not be an answer. In other words, no answer is satisfactory until the Final Geulah with Moshiach is a full reality, and all Jews are gathered etc. In other words, niether 'side' (although I dont think that such things ('sides') exist) has an answer, because the only answer is the complete Geulah. May it be now.

Meir

Myths about Chabad Lubavitch

[ed. note: Origional, Unbashed entry in bold {From HERE}]

There is One G-d, one Chabad, one Lubavitch and one Lubavitcher Rebbe.

[Note, not by the author: and One Jewish people, One Land of Israel, One Torah of Israel, and One Moshiach of Israel.] Response by RR[Wooa- im under attack here. What did i do? ok here goes.. Yes obviously mr. RK! im talking about a specific subject- Keep your cynical stuff to yourself Mr encyclopedia man]

Chabad Ideology/Chassiduth does not G-d Forbid have any place in it for idolatary. Neither does it in any way mention this completely ludicrous idea that the Rebbe is G-d. Whoever got this idea??

You fail to realize that you personal impresions of Chabad do not count as facts. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to proselytize. Let it suffice to say that many Chabad Jews now have beliefs that many other Jews view as idolatry, and your say so doesn't change anything. RK

Response by RR[You are right. My personal impression does not count as fact. but thats completely irrellevant to what I said. I said,Mr Encyclopedia man, that Chabad Chasidus is not Avoda Zora. Now PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE tell me you're saying that Chassidus Chabad of the Holy Rebbeim is Avoda Zora!! Are you?? ][And mr encyclopedia man- this is the DISCUSSION PART ofthe encyclopedia. Can you call your comments fact??!?]

It does say that there is one soul for the Leader of every Generation and we are obliged to connect to it by fulfiling the leader's requests etc. This is called Hiskashrus- Connecting- the the Rebbe by fulfilling his requests, for example: To fulfil the quota of daily Rambam study and to publicise Public Observance of the 7 Noachide Laws. [Ok more on the subject as per request from our 'fans':). Hiskashrus means connecting to the 'Head' soul of the generation- The Nosi Hador. The Moshe Rabeinu of the Generation."Nasi" in hebrew meaning leader, is an acronym for "Nishmoso Shel Ya'akov Avinu"-"The soul of Ya'akov our father. He was the leader of his generation.The Rebbe is the Nosi of our Generation which means he is spiritually connected to every Jew... look it up on Chabad.Org >>>- Mr RK, You obviously will call this Avoda Zora if you dont know about it at all!!]

Well, that's your personal opinion. The vast majority of Jews believe otherwise. RK

Response by RR[MY OPINION? go learn some Chassidus dear sir! this is Not my opinion. I culled this straight from Chassidus! I didn't make it up! And the vast majority of Jews don't have an opinion on the matter. Your Opinion compared to the Rebbes writing's is laughable.]

To help Clarify:

  • This is a very fundamental concept in Chassiduth.(Search Chabad.Org)
  • There is lots of reading material on the subject here >>>[5]
  • No religous leaders have spoken out against this Chassidic concept- i.e that of Hiskashruth to a Rebbe.
  • There is rumored to be a group of people(How many exactly? its never been documented exactly.But to be safe, definately not more than one hundred) living in Tsfat that confuse the Rebbe with Hashem.
Again, our encyclopedia does not trust you (or me!, or any contributor) as a source. We need sources, preferably from those who have done studies. For instance, Professor David Berger wrote a throughly researched book with a huge number of specific examples. That is why we can cite his research. Do you have any specific citations to offer to back up your opinions? RK 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response by RR[ see that little hyperlink?? did you go there- go there and read. you want proofs from Chassidus for Hiskashrus?? ok for starters see Tanya. You are so completely ignorant on the subject i see! Are you Challenging the Validity of Toras HaChassidus?? About Rabbi Berger- While i withhold my opinion about him- his book challenges what the Rebbe- an unbelievable Gaon(its a pity to restrict his description to that)- said and that is so completely arrogant. He made alot of noise with his book. There were a few responses as well- YES BASED ON TORAH. SEE Rabbi Chaim Dalfin's Book- Attack on Lubavich- A RESPONSE and Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet's book Published by Algemeiner Journal. G-d Centered or Machloket-Centered: Which is Normative Judaism?. Rabbi Berger is onne of a few people who are quite incensed about Lubavitch but are not quite sure why- before the Gimmel Tammuz there was something else- it was putting on teffilin on other Jews- said they were unclean- "You dont know what they've been eating. Have they washed their hands in the morning?" they said]

There is also no divide in Chabad- no 'sub' sects- its a myth. It was recently the Kinus Hashluchim 5766- an annual international gathering of all Chabad Emmissaries which is held in New York- and they didnt have a breakaway one for "the other sect".All Chabad Chassidim believe what the Rebbe said and what is said in Torah and Toras HaChassiduth.

Your claim are mere wishful thinking. The in-fighting and attacks within Chabad are very well documented. Unless you claim that all the published accounts of infighting are frauds. Are you? Please bring evidence and citations, not preachy proselytizing. RK

Response by RR[Ok u got me there- I do make it sound more peachy than it is! BUT... the published accounts of "infighting" are arguments that are not only well documented, but overly documented. Chabad dont even know how to fight. Go to Satmar or Ponovezeh and you will see fighting. Chabad argue! Different people have opinions- Especially jews. BUT DEAR SIR, You STILL HAVE NOT DISPROVED ANYTHING I SAID- There ARE no 'sects' in Chabad. There is argueing tho- I mean what do you expect after Gimmel Tammuz?? Lubavitch is slowly getting back on track and has MORE THAN DOUBLED since 1994,Moshiach is definately coming soon! can't wait:)]

[Origional in Bold {Untill HERE}]

I know people will tell me that there are sects- The mainstream sect, the messianist sect and the lunatic sect. Therefore I owe an explanation of what I mean: The core of the debate within Chabad about the Rebbe and Mosiach is not whether or not the Rebbe is Moshiach but rather whether or not to publicise it. Chabad Chassidim believe their Rebbe is Moshiach. This is undisputed within Chabad- As the prominent (mainstream) Chabad Chassid Reb Yoel Kahn once said along these lines at a Farbrengen to his fellow Chssidim, " If you say the Rebbe is Moshiach twelve times a day and you run around with a yellow Mashiach flag- you're crazy. But if you dont believe the Rebbe is Moshiach- you're even more crazy!". Why? Chabad Chassidim believe that the Rebbe is the promised Moshiach simply because the Rebbe directly implied so himself a number of times (The Rebbe As Moshiach - Based On Torah Sources[6]). Those that choose not to publiscise it - Whom you would call Mainstream Chabad Chassidim- do so in order to avoid turning away other Jews from Chassiduth. Those whom you would call Messianists or Meshichists- tend to publiscise the belief brazenly in the open world. Now. Just because one person has a difering opinion to another about an issue does that mean that they are of different sects? The belief system is not compromised. Chabad Chassidim have varying opinions on the matter and but these opinions are not 'sect-defining' rules. A difference of opinion and a difference in reaction- thats all. Some are more brazen and some more conservative and 'pollitically correct'. Generally, Chabadniks do not wish to offend others so the mainsteam are usually more conservative. Within Chabad, these terms i.e. Mishichistim, mainstream, tsfatim etc. are colloquial terms used to describe a Chassid's opinion NOT his 'sect'. To Clarify:

  • Chabad Chassidim are not split up although their differing opinions create cetrain social boundaries

I welcome other comments if I am mistaken. and even if I'm not- tho i humbly appologise if I am. 

Suggestions to the man who edits the article-
  • How about add in 'Matisyahu', the new hip hop star to that list of Chabad public performers?
  • Also the term "kiruv Rechokim" is frowned upon as is "outreach" in Chabad.

The Rebbe wrote a strong reply to someone who used the term saying- who is he to say one person is "in" and another "out".

  • And finally might i request that in light of the above you remove the headlines dividing the Links section please.

Thank you

Moshiach now! (to end this confusion once and for all:) --Reb Roovie 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Lubavitch does not use the term "Kiruv Rechokim". However, they use words like: missions, Mitzvah Tanks, Army of Hashem, NeSHeK, HaRaMaTKaL Hagadol Mikulam, and other terms relating to warfare. How can you say "Oiseh Sholom"? Daykart 04:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbes Army [RR changed title]

The truth is Chabad is very militaristic. but in the good ways. they are not militant! but they are like an army in many ways. The Rebbe spoke about the good aspects of this e.g. soldier discipline in his Sicha that started Tzivos Hashem- the Army of Hashem. The Shluchim would March past the Rebbe before going on ta'alucha like going out to war and war is used commonly as a metaphor in Chassiduth as reference to fighting the Yetzer Hora. This is not bad. its good. shows discipline.. That we're serious about our stuff. Chabad are the most friendly welcoming people though and are known for these two things--Reb Roovie 04:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's try this again. Me Tarzan, You Jane. Me Crazy Anarchist Atheist, You Right-wing Lubavitcher. The entire concept of warfare and militarism is inherently evil. Daykart 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! its like everything else. Can be used for good, Can be used for bad. Tell me the Allies heading off on DDay to stop (s)Hitler were evil, please.--Reb Roovie 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully willing to do the whole Apikores vs. Chosid debate with you, but not here. Maybe on our talk pages? Daykart 05:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cool cool, but i gotto go to shul. its 7:20AM here in Johannesburg. how about another time?- oo and you'd have to tell where are the talk pages- im new here. tell me when. -- found talk pages.

Conversation moved to another medium. Stay tuned... Daykart 05:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrey- I Like this. Quote of the day. R Jonathan Sacks once said," The Rebbe is Hashems answer to [ed. note: s]Hitler. he created the Nazi machine which hunted Jews down in hate, the Rebbe created the Lubavitch Machine which continues to hunt Jews Down in Love" - or something along those lines:)--Reb Roovie 08:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about war? Have you ever been to one? What does your rebbe know about war? Has he ever been in the military? Did he get a draft exemption to study at the Sorbonne? I've been to two wars. Daykart - 1, Roovie - 0. Daykart 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, see Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Daykart 12:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. lets analyse this. There is nothing wrong here so no-one should be confused. To Clarify: The Chabad organisation is exactly that- organised. The Rebbes Chassidim are very commited. Chassididm in general are like Kamikaze for their Rebbe. 

You'll be very confused with Chassidim if you think that the Rebbe-Chosid Relationship is 
the same as the Rabbi-Talmid(Student) Relationship. 
Do some reading >>>Chabad.Org has what to say on the subject

Now, as an inspiration for us Chabad Chassidim who's goal is To change the world one mitzvah at a time to bring Moshiach! we see ourselves as soldiers, we march out into the open in a proud jewish way- so contrary to how it was for many many generations of Frum Jewery who kept to themselves in an introverted way. This I might note, saved the Jewsih world undenyably. The Rebbe turned Judiasm outward, saved Jewery from Assimilation [Do some reading people, please- here u go >>>Overview and History of Chabad This is how we view our job and responsibility, like a soldier! We are soldiers doing the work of our Rebbe.There is a way a soldier acts, there is a way a soldier dresses and a soldier follows orders no matter what! If only we were all so dedicated Moshiach would already be here:)!! This doctrine is also interlaced with the Chassidic idea of Bitul- Nullyfying you own will to that of Hashem.I Could go on for much longer. but i'd rather you find out for yourself from writers Much more talented than I. 

....Go on read some- its good stuff :) >>>Chabad.Org

For those who so badly want to bash Chabad- You want to bash Chabad about being war-mongering or violent??!? get real! do some reading friends.. go on... Gut Yom Tov for Yud Tes Kislev --Reb Roovie 02:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

Here is a link which I think is better to be placed relating to R' Soloveichik. http://www.beismoshiach.org/Moshiach/moshiach354.htm

All the best and may we merit the complete Hisgalus of Moshiach immediately, with the Final Geulah, now! Happy Chanukah,

Meir

PS- This Tuesday is an auspiscious (sp.?) time in the Chassidic calendar, and in fact can (and should) be utilized by all Jews. It is the time when the verdict from heaven declared that it is permissable to spread the teachings of Chassidus, and the message of the Baal Shem Tov in his approach to Judaism and G-d's Torah. Whereas these teachings were traditionally only known to those who were very learned and at a high spiritual state, it was now meant to be made accessible and available for every single Jew, regardless of standing, position, or Torah knowledge. And in effect, this is a signal which gives room for the ultimate Redemption, since it is through this spirit of Chassidus that the world will ultimately merit the revelation of the era of Moshiach. (It is customary to add in good deeds on this day, as well as have gatherings with singing and celebration. It is also customary to take upon ones self an extra resolution relating to the study and/or practice of Chassidus and its teachings.)

PPS- Regarding the conversation on Military etc... I dont think that anyone could say for sure why the Rebbe uses these terms, unless the Rebbe specifically gave a reason (which I dont know, it could be that he did,) but for certain I believe one point makes sense to say: when you are fighting indifference and doubt and all the other forces which are present, it is very helpful to term it a 'mission' and to use the term 'victory' etc. simply in order to keep focused. For example, suppose a soldier who was fighting Nazi Germany were to have been captured, and he were to have not liked the word 'soldier' but rather 'supporter'. Suppose the Nazi captors were to have spoken with him about the evils of the Allied Forces etc... With time, he may change his philosophy, since he is not exposed to the Allied reality on a daily basis. However, if he views himself as a soldier, then regardless of what the Nazi'a explain to him, he knows that first and foremost he is a soldier with a mission to eradicate the threat of the Nazi regime to the world. All theory and philosophy are secondary and have no implication on his primary mission.

Likewise with the Rebbe's 'missions', it is not open for discussion in philosophy and theology etc...- those can be discussed, and surely should be discussed at some stage, but the primary objective is to bring Jews closer to their roots. It is a mission, and in a mission one must remain focused.

Incidentally, in Judaism there is a concept of 'despising evil'. It does not, G-d Forbid, mean despising a person, but despising something which is not good. In Judaism, this is allowed and encouraged- to develop in ones own self a natural reaction of distance to that which is not good. But as its explained in Chassidus, one must never ever use this towards another Jew, no matter what. In fact, the contrary is true. If one believes that such a thing exists in another Jew, then one must care for the other person even *more*! The reason is because one has pity on the person's soul which is experiencing such things...

condemning the belief that the Rebbe is G-d from chabad

On the eve of Shabbat Parshat Shirah 1999, two letters were sent out to all the home in Safed, Israel. It was after a campaign of one disturbed individual, Meir Baranes, as a one man show, to pa for ads in local papers, portraying the Rebbe as god (Heaven forbid). The Sefad community can be considered the most extreme in its Messianic views. They are known as the Tzefatim and 98% Lubavitchers keep away from them and their views. One is from Rabbi Bistritzky, the chief Rabbi of Sefad, closing the room where Baranes prayed and voiced his opinions about the Rebbe being god. And the second was a letter from the entire Chabad community of Sefad decrying his remarks, of course at the end of the letter is a big Yechi. A month later the three most messianic Lubavitch Rabbis of that time Rabbi Ashkenazi, Rabbi Akselrod and Rabbi Yurkovitch decried his acts and a few others. They wrote their response of Amen is not counted as part of the quorum. They cannot pray for as the cantor. The Tefillin, etc. that they write (as scribes) are not Kosher. And it goes on and on. I do not think that one could include any such information in this section, it is not factual and would bring down the integrity of this entire entry.User_talk:henochz 06:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then they deny the Torah, and I don't need explain this. As what you claim is not true. I know a lot of Tzefatim and 100% of them learn L"A (Tanya), do Chitas and Rambam everyday, and follow Shulchan Aruch. (Disclaimer: All the Tzefatim I met, have been to the Arizal's mikvah.) 220.233.48.200 14:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, I was just today speaking to someone who mentioned that he heard about such letters, do you know where I can get copies of any of these letters? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two of the above letters. More to come soon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chabad_Sefad_Community.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_Bistritzky%27s_leter.jpg Henochz 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Mordechai Ben David is a Gerer Chassid; He's not Lubavitch. User:DRosenbach

Does this Baranes character say "Yechi Bor'einu"? Daykart 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am browsing his ads in the papers from that time and he does not say Yechi Boreinu. When he writes the Rebbe OBM's name he adds Melch Malchei Hamelachim.Henochz 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn wackjobs. Does anyone have some sort of reference to people who insert "Bor'einu" into the Yechi? Daykart 00:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following the excommunication of Meir Baranes from the Chabad community in Sefad, Baranes drove into Rabbi Bistritzky and tried to kill him (later on he dies from his wounds). In this article they discuss the excommunication and how it brought to the attempted murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Excommunicating_baranes.jpg

It should be noted that he was found by the courts to mentally insane and was placed in a mental home. Henochz 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger

It seems based on the documents that HenochZ provided, that it isn't just Feldman, Keller and Berger that condemms anybody that would believe that the Rebbe is G-d, rather even the messianics from chabad also condemm them and excomunicate them. Therefore I would propose to put all the condemations in the end of the 4th category by saying "However this vies runs contrary to Judaism and has been condemed both within chabad (See Bistritzky and Ashkenazi) and outside chabad (See Feldman and Keller)." And not have the whole condemations because there are so many condeming and nobody supporting those views. Addionially those view are held at most by a few and therefore the condemations should not last more than a sentence, as I phrased it above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is progress. It seems to me that you used to deny that this group of people evne existed at all. Well, I agree with your recent statement that many within Chabad condemn those who view the Rebbe as God. I agree with you that that not all Chabad Chasidim hold this view. However, the problem is that their aren't two strictly defined camps ("Yes, he is God!", and "No, he is not!") but rather a continuum of views, with many people occupying a grey area in between. Critics of Chabad are not claiming that all, most, or even a quarter of Chabdniks hold the Elokist beliefs about R. Schneeroson. rather, they claim that (a) the majority of Chabad is trying to hide the existence of this minority group, (b) Chabad teachings are respoonsible for the creation of this group, even if unintentionally, and (c) unless the entire Orthodox community steps in to condemn this, this Elokist group will spread, as it did with Shabbtai Tzvi and Jesus. RK 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used to deny that this is a view and I still deny that this is a view. To clarify, this that there was one mentally ill person that says something does not make it a view in chabad. However since Berger asserts that there is more than him therefore it's included in the document. However what I'm speaking about is the response, that to this one person chabad has shown how it responds to this view. However there is no group of people that hold this view. Therefore the sentence that I used in the precious paragrpah would be the most NPOV and accurate. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RK's version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"

I have written this section in acord with your remarks about fully citing sources. I thought it extremely to quote the paragraph in question from R. Schneerson, as well as showing voices within Chabad showing the divesity of views that currently exist in the movement. Also, it is important to dispel the myth (as shown above by a new contributor) that no major disagreements exist within Chabad. (That's just as incorrect and fanciful as claiming that there are no major disagreements within Reform Judaism.) I also changed the opening paragraph, has it had become grammatically hard to follow. RK 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to kabbalah, every Jewish soul is connected to God. A tzadik has almost completely nullified his own soul, and sublimated his own needs and desires to what God wants of him., and thus the part of a tzadik's soul that is connected to God is revealed within more so than other people, as most people have not completely nullified themselves to God. However, Judaism does not believe in the Tzadik being like God himself. Rabbi Schneerson developed these beliefs into a new direction, and writes that he has no source in Chassidus, traditional Chasidic beliefs. He writes:
It is not possible to ask a question about a [Rebbe being a] go-between, since this is the essence of God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body" (Likutei Sichos II:510-511).
Just as 'God and the Torah and the Jews are One' means not just that the Jews are connected to the Torah and to God, but literally they are all one, so too is the connection of Chassidim and their Rebbe, they are not like two things that become united but rather they become literally one. Therefore, to a Chosid, him and the Rebbe and God are one entity.
I have not found such a thing in Chassidus. Rather, it is my feeling. Therefore, whoever wants to feel it should feel it, and someone who does not want to, I will not fight with him. Let him have what he has.
This teaching is seen by Chabad Jews as compatible with Jewish principles of faith. It has been defended by many Chabad rabbis, such as Daniel Moscowitz, regional director of Lubavitch Chabad of Illinois. Moscowitz writes, "It is possible that Rabbi Keller's ire is aroused by the words 'Essence' and 'Being' [used in reference to the Rebbe], but the basic issue is identical, whether we speak of the Shechina, spirit of G-d, the Essence of G-d, Being of G-d, or any other term for HaShem as being enclothed in a body."
Some anti-messianic factions with Chabad agree that this statement has been used to portray Schneeron as God, and argue that such beliefs are incorrect and a violation of Jewish principles of faith. Chabad Rabbi Zalman I. Posner writes:
It started with a statement made by the Rebbe. At the yahrtzeit of his father-in-law in 1951, the Rebbe, referring to the Rayatz (Rabbi Yoseph Yitzchak) stated, “Atzmut was placed in a body.” Atzmut means “essence,” the irreducible, unvarying core; God Himself, the Rebbe was saying, was “placed” in a human body. Some Mashichists, however, drew an inference, and then proceeded to draw inferences from that, culminating with deification.
...Not surprisingly, no one is big enough to correct the deifiers, to convince them that they err, even though their view is not part of Chabad teachings. Though they are vocal, the deifiers are small in number and enjoy little respect. They act without the support or approval of any individuals of stature within the Lubavitch community.
Just Between Us: The Splintering of Chabad, Jewish Action, Fall 5763/200.
Just Between Us: The Splintering of Chabad
Posner holds that Schneerson's teachings on this subject, when properly understood, are not a violation of Jewish theology, and are in line with traditional Chasidic Jewish teachings on this subject. The deification of Schneerson has been criticised more strongly by Orthodox Jews outside of Chabad, as they criticise not only the belief, but view Schneerson's own teachings as a violation of Jewish theology and the cause of the deification.
Rabbi Chaim Dov Kellner writes "not only is there an equation between G-d and the Rebbe, the Rebbe possessing of HaShem's attributes, but the Rebbe dictates to HaShem, and he, the Rebbe, is running the show, not HaShem. So the Rebbe is Elokeinu. The avoda zara of these statements is so obvious, that there is nothing more to discuss." Kellner then writes "I find this confusion and equation of 'Being and essence' - atzmus u'mahus - with Shechina, nothing short of amazing. There is a basic elementary difference between Shechina - the manifestation of kavod HaShem, which may be limited in time and place - and the Being and Essence of Ein Sof, which has no limitation. The Being and Essence of HaShem is such that it is above time and place - v'les machshava tefisa bay klal - no human thought can at all have any grasp of it." (G-d - Centered or Rebbe/Messiah - Centered)
Similarly, in The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, David Berger writes that this view is a violation of Jewish principles of faith that effectively is a neo-Christian form of theology. Rabbi Boruch Clinton, a teacher at Torah.Org, has also written an article explicitly criticism this theology as beyond the limits of Jewish principles of faith.

Eliezer's Version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"

RK has not shown which new direction the Rebbe has carried the beliefs. RK does not show how what Keller is complaining about is the view of chabad. It seems like Keller is complaing about those that take the words of the Rebbe literally as opposed to the way chabad views them as shown in the book of Al Hatzadikim. The part about the usage of terms that Keller is disagreeing with Moscowitz isn't relevant here. Similiary with the quotes from Berger and Clinton, RK has not shown that they are critizing the beliefs the way chabad believes them as opposed to the way the say it can be interpeted. Furthermore RK has moved around thae parts of the Sicha to prove his point, however if you look at the sicha the way it was said and written you will see that this that the Rebbe said he has no source in Chassidus was for the part that explaine how the Rebbe is a Memutza that connects as opposed to just a Memuta. But he did not say this regarding the part that says Atzmus, rather in the next few word the Rebbe brings two sources and one addional one in the footnote. Therefore I propose that the paragraph should not be included. However if it would be included it should be written like the following. Notice how I changed the last sentence of the last paragraph. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the teachings of Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Baal Shem Tov and the Ohr ha-Chaim, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi taught in the name of the Zohar that "He who breathed life into man, breathed from Himself." Therefore a person's soul comes from the essence of God.
According to kabbalah, a tzadik, because he has completely nullified himself and his desires to what God wants, his soul which like every Jewish soul is part of God is revealed within him more than other people whom have not completely nullified themselves to God. However, Judaism does not believe in the Tzadik being like God.
In 1951 the seventh Rebbe of Chabad, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson said a similiar statement to those statements discussed in Tzadik, (Lekutei Sichos Vol 2 pg 510-511) saying regarding the practice by Hasidim to have a Rebbe act as an intermediary with God on their behalf, by explaining that "the Rebbe is completely connected with his Hasidim, not like two separate things that connect, rather they become completely one. And the Rebbe is not an intermediary which separates rather he is one that connects. Therefore by a Hassid, he with the Rebbe with God are all one...Therefore one can not ask a question about an intermediary since this is the essence of God Himself, as He has clothed Himself in a human body" In recent years this has been critised by many Mitnagdim because it as in most Kabbalistic concepts may mistakenly be taken literally.

Eliezer is still making this personal

JFW, JayJG and Leifern, do you see the problem? Eliezer is still making subtle personal attacks againt me, accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy by presenting original research. He is desperate to say anything to prevent any Orthodox rabbi or scholar from being quoted on this issue. He only wants Chabad Jews to be quoted, and demands that the article state as a fact that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant of Kabbalah. That's not only a violation of NPOV policy, but a gross attack on the scholarship of the rabbis being cited. RK

Please do not be fooled by Eliezer's claims. This is not about me. No one is citing me. Eliezer simply reverts all citations and quotes over and over, claiming that every Orthodox rabbi or scholar who disagrees with Schneerson's atzmus theology must be wrong. That's not only incorrect, but arrogant. He has no authority to say that every non-Chabad rabbi "has not shown which new direction the Rebbe has carried the beliefs. [they] do not show how what Keller is complaining about is the view of chabad". RK

Think about it! Should we now delete major criticisms of Reform Judaism, and justify this censorship by saying "these Orthodox Jews have not shown which new direction the Reform movement has carried the beliefs. They do not show how what they are complaining about is the view of Reform." Should we now delete major criticisms of a political party, and justify this by saying "those critics don't understand what our political party really believes, thus I will censor and delete these silly criticisms." That kind of reverting to hide criticism always been recognized as a form of special pleading, and a violation of NPOV policy. Repeated instances of such reverts based on such grounds have in the past led to bans. RK

We can't go around deleting criticisms of major controversies by attacking contributors as ignorant (as Eliezer subtly does of non-Chabad Orthodox Jews) and we can't argue that "I feel that these criticisms are wrong, therefore I will delete them." This is such a gross and obvious violation of our policy that I can't imagine any Wikipedian agreeing with Eliezer. Please help fight against this violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

RK, asking for sources is not a personal attack, nor is it a violation of wikipedia policies. My explanations of the subject are backed up by at least 2 books Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 and Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, Eliezer is deceiving you in a gross and bold fashion. I did give Eliezer multiple sources...and Eliezer responded by deleting them, and then pretending that I never gave him the sources. This kind of deliberately deceptive behaviour is totally unacceptable. Fortunately, above you will see that JFW admitted that I did give these sources, and Eliezer's personal attacls are again proven false. RK 02:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that RK gave were not relevant to what he was trying to prove. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folks! Folks! relax there--Reb Roovie 03:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, JFW, I have to say I've found Eliezer's excuses for removing sourced and relevant quotes from the article to be increasingly thin. I agree that RK's behavior has been irritating. But if we focus on the content of the article and not personality, I find it upsetting for valid, correctly cited, relevant sources to be scrubbed from the article based on the personal interpretation of chabad and judaism (read: original research) of one contributor. I understand that you are mediating, but neither Eliezer nor RK owns this article. It has failed to improve in the past month. This can't continue as is. Nandesuka 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka, It is not personal interpretation, rather it is all sourced as I have shown by at least 2 books Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 and Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew). Additionally the sources that RK is bringing is not relevant to what he is trying to prove as I explained above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the sources that RK cites disagree with the citations that you bring forth. Both of your citations seem, to me, to be verifiable and reliable sources. I don't think you have made the case that the citations he has made (except, perhaps for the one about eating at the restaurant) are not relevant. Your claim that they are not relevant presumes that their claims are incorrect; that is original research. The proper course of action is to include both of your citations in the article, rather than to suppress one side of the debate or the other. Nandesuka 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka, See my argument above in the section that says "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger" based on the section above with name of "condemning the belief that the Rebbe is G-d from chabad". Also regarding the paragraph "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" See my coment in the section above with the name ""Eliezer's Version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"". --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them. They provide no reasonable justification for not including relevant, verifiable, validly sourced, information in the article. Your statements analogizing the statements of these commentators to imply that they must be talking about "one crazy person" are original research, and are not an acceptable pretext. Nandesuka 13:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which section are you referring to? If you are referring to the paragraph of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers", how do you answer my objections to RK's version? And if you are referring to the "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger", True, they are relevant, verifiable, validly sourced statements, HOWEVER this is in the controversy section of the chabad article, implying that there is this belief that chabad has and these people are against it. The truth is however that you have other Jews outside chabad that also hold heretical views, and these rabbis condemm those people as well, as does chabad. My point being, by leaving out the condemenations from chabad, you are implying that chabad endorses this view which they clearly do not. So we are left with 2 options to either quote every single well sourced, verifiable, and relevant condomenation of those that hold these views, which even according to Berger is just a few people, (I'm sure the percentage of Jews outside of chabad that hold heretical views is just as high if not higher), and quoting all those sources including the chabad sources and Shulchan Aruch which must be quoted because it is a greater source than the later Rabbis, would amount to most of the article condemming the beliefs of a few people that hold the belief. The second option is not to detail the sentences and details of each condemation, but rather to have a sentence that states that "However this view runs contrary to Judaism and has been condemed both within chabad (See Bistritzky and Ashkenazi) and outside chabad (See Feldman and Keller)." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No such implication is made by including valid, sourced criticism. If you make an inference that Chabad, as an organization, holds heretical views, I would suggest that you are not reading correctly. The third option is to include valid, sourced, credible criticism, and to include valid, sourced, credible rebuttals of that criticism. That is what I will work towards. Nandesuka 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My other points still remain. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We Can't Paskin Halacha... Rav Ahron Soloveichik can..

These are the two letters that HaRav Aharon Soloveitchik zt"l wrote about the subject


The Sage and Miss Lagnado

I am addressing you in connection with an article written by your distinguished correspondent Lucette Lagnado (“Rabbis Blast Lubavitcher Messianism,” Forward, Dec. 2). Everything that this distinguished correspondent wrote in my name is fairly accurate. However, the context in which she wrote it tends to give the impression to people who are not knowledgeable in Torah and Jewish matters that I too consider the Lubavitch movement as a cultist movement whose followers are convinced that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe will be resurrected shortly and that he will redeem the Jewish people from exile. Such a notion is so unrealistic that it is the antithesis of the truth.

Your distinguished correspondent quotes me correctly: “Rabbi Soloveichik, however, was contemptuous, denouncing Rabbi Butman as ‘a little fanatical,’ someone who ‘means well but, out of desperation, conjures non-rational ideas.’ The late Rebbe, said Rabbi Soloveichik, ‘can't be the Messiah -- he is not living -- a Messiah has to be living -- a living Messiah, not a dead Messiah.” All the words of this quotation are perfectly accurate. I have no complaints against your distinguished correspondent; my complaint consists in the fact that the tone of the article implies that in her opinion the Lubavitch movement is a cultist movement. This is despicable; especially despicable is the fact that your distinguished correspondent put into the Forward the picture of Shabbetai Zvi. My intention was to relate my understanding that the overwhelming majority of the Lubavitcher Chasidim do not ascribe to the notion that the Rebbe will be resurrected as the Messiah.

Please allow me to clarify my position on the Lubavitch movement. As I said in my eulogy over the Rebbe zt”l, that unlike any other Chasidic Rebbe or any Rosh Yeshiva, who is the rebbe of a single group in Jewry, large or small, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Rebbe of Klal Yisrael. The reason for this is the fact that in his generation, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was an unparalleled spiritual leader, and due to his vision, his foresight and especially because of his ahavas Yisrael and ahavas habrios (love of Israel and love of humanity), he was able to reach out unto the most assimilated sections of Jewry. Because of his unusual inspiration he was able to make thousands of baalei teshuvah in the Diaspora and in Eretz Yisrael, even in remote places like Australia, New Zealand and India. The thousands of baalei teshuvah in Soviet Russia are exclusively due to the self-negating sacrifices of the Lubavitch sheluchim. There is a traditional friendship and attachment between the Beis Horav and Beis Lubavitch. Reb Chaim of Volozhin, the most outstanding disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, was the one who lifted the ban that the Gaon of Vilna imposed upon the Chasidic movement. Reb Itzele of Volozin had a close relationship with the Tzemach Tzedek. Reb Chaim Brisker had a close relationship with the Rashab; and my brother Reb Yosef Ber with the late Rebbe.

I hope that this will dispel all the spiritual pollution that exists in the secular Jewish community, and even in some groups of the Orthodox Jewish community, in respect to the evaluation of the Lubavitch movement.

Ahron Soloveichik Chicago, Ill.

HaRav Aharon Soloveitchik zt"l @ The Forward, Dec 23, 1994, pg. 6

People for some weird reason keep on calling Australia remote. As an Aussie, I wouldn't call it remote. I would call Maroco (correct spelling??) remote, along with Iran (very hard to gain entry or gain exit), Greenland, etc remote. 220.233.48.200 15:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

June 24, 1996 Tammuz 7, 5756


In response to many inquiries about my postion on the Lubavitch movement vis-a-vis its Messianic beliefs.

Before the passing of the Rebbe I considered myself among those who believed that the Rebbe was worthy of being the Moshiach. I strongly believe that had we --particularly the Orthodox coomunity -- been united we would have merited to see complete Redemption. Insofar as the belief held by many in Lubavitch, based in part on similar statements made by the Rebbe himself concerning his predecessor the Previous Rebbe - including prominant Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva, that the Rebbe can still be moshiach, in light of the Gemara in Sanhedrin, the Zohar, Abarbanel, Kisvei HaArizal, Sdei Chemed, and other sources, it cannot be dismissed as a belief that is outside the pale of orthodoxy. Any cynical attempt at utilizing a legitimate a legitamate disagreement of interpretation concerning this matter , to besmirch and to damage the Lubavitch movement - was and continues to be, in the forefront of those that are battling the Missionaries, assimilation, and indifference - can only contribute to the regrettable discord that already plagues the Jewish and particurlary, Torah community.

The Torah community should galvanize all of its energies to unite in the true spirit of Ahavas Yisroel, to battle the true enemies of Israel. I repudiate and call and call for an end to all efforts to discredit Lubavitch or any other legitimate movements within Torah Judaism.

Ahron Soloveichik

--Reb Roovie 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not bound to halakha. And as you may know poskim are allowed to disagree with each other. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief History on Lubavitch Messianism

This article helps clarify things >>>

This Website is Dedicated to This very subject >>>

This is the Psak Din by Chabad Rabbis on the subject >>>

Please people read up a bit. It doesnt hurt. --Reb Roovie 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Psakdinners have been blasting this at us for the last few monthts. We are not impressed. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever you meant by "we" above died in 1901 according to the article. 220.233.48.200 15:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good idea for us to dissect the Psak Din and the all the articles there. Once that is done, we will be able to point out, that all those signed are simple teachers or the like. They are not a part of the Chabad Rabbinate. There was actually a pamphlet distributed recently and a series of 15 articles in the Kfar Chabad magazine about the Rebbe not being Moshiach. As well Pardes Chabad has been printing theological articles for over eight years now about the Rebbe not being Moshiach and going in depth into all the Rebbe's talks and explaining them. As well there was a landmark article from Rabbi Gopin a few years ago in the Kfar Chabad on this discussion. If needed I will start scanning in the articles.Henochz 21:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this guy?!? About the Rebbe

Check out this very informative website >>> www.therebbe.org

You win first prize in the "Blatantly shameless self-promotion" category. Check out this even more informative Wikipedia article. Daykart 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus?

In fact, although the town of Lubavitch is in what historically was known as White Russia, today it is to be found in Russia proper, not Belarus.--Nathans 08:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried finding it on Google Earth, I think its called Lubavicz or something of the sort today--Reb Roovie 11:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets end the wars

Instead of fighting over and over. Could we just remove the topics that people fight over (Moshiach), and focus on parts everyone agrees on (focus, education, etc). The parts that everyone agrees on, are the parts that should be in. Come on 5 lines on the history!!! Yet 40-50 lines on Moshiach. The part that should be in the article is a stub, the part that should be a stub is the longest part of the whole article! Moral, don't let the small things stop the big things. 220.233.48.200 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that more can definately be put on but I still think the Moshiach issue needs to be solved --Reb Roovie 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put the mashiach issue on a separate page as it does not represent the reality of chabad and distracts from many important issues.

Sure they need to be solved. But no one is going to agree, and there are more important things that should be in the article that are not because you 'children' will not focus on it instead of arguing. 220.233.48.200 15:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha! Very funny. Does his reply count as vandalism? As wikipedia happens to be vandalism-happy. (See all my replies on talk pages that have been deleted in the terrorism section). 220.233.48.200 13:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with intraduction

Like all Hasidim they follow the teachings and customs of halakha (Jewish law and custom) as taught by their own Rebbes (rabbis, leaders) starting from the founder of Hasidism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. In this case, the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov are traced through their founder's master works known as The Tanya and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.

The Tanya is chasidus, the Shulchan Aruch is halacha - and just a draff of what the Magid asked the Alter Rebbe to write - the paragraph is problematic. 220.233.48.200 14:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im not making any point here..Although we dont have the full Alter Rebbes Shulchan Aruch as alot of it was lost in Village fires in Lubavitch, it is still the final version. The Rebbe says that the Shulchan Aruch As well as The Alter Rebbes SIddur is Chassidus. --Reb Roovie 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Source? The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch was written in accordance of Niglah (correct spelling??). That is why a lot of what it says Chasidim and the Rebbim themselves do different - in accordance of Kabbalah. 220.233.48.200 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well do you have a source or not? 220.233.48.200 13:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay to unprotect the article now? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issues have not been fully worked out yet. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eliezer. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eliezar, just drop that whole part of the article. There are more important things that should be in the article that no one is working on because everyone wants to fight over this one part. 220.233.48.200 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebbe himself believed the Friediker Rebbe was moshiach and was not inhibbited to state so publically even at the Kinus Hashluchim in 1992 - Thats more than 50 years after the Sixth Rebbe was Nistalek. In yiddish he says." the Friedieker Rebbe is the Nosi of the Generation and the only Moshiach in the Generation".Then there is the letter of R. Soloveichik saying that Lubavitch Messianic beliefs are not outside the realm of Orthodoxy. The Confusionn about the Rebbe and G-d comes straight from a misunderstanding of the Rebbe - Chassid Relationship. There is no problem here. --Reb Roovie 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reb Roovie, I protest the use of Chabad jargon. It obscures the issues from those who may not be aware that "nistalek" is a euphemism for "died". JFW | T@lk 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Give me 3 and a half seconds and I will find you an agrument, for and aganist that and those agruments are worth nothing, the only way to get a clear answer is to get the Rebbe to clear it up a bit more. This is an encyclopedia not Kuntres Yechi HaMelech. I am totally shocked to see more about Moshiach on Chabad than Chasidus/Tanya. (Just to make clear for you Americans, it was - at time of orignal version of this reply - 2 hours after Yitel night, in Australia.) 220.233.48.200 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
220, if you could write a brief section about the influence of the Tanya on Chabad beliefs then this would of course be vital. There is also a marked paucity of information on Chabad prior to the sixth Rebbe's immigration to the USA. Until I inserted it, nobody had mentioned that in Czarist Russia Chabad had a sizable network of yeshivos called Tomchei Temimim. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The influnce of the Tanya on Chabad beliefs" it is the foundation of Chabad. The whole article needs to be rewritten from the ground up, I will see if I could get the help of Tomchei Temimim of Sydney. BTW it should be stated that Tomchei Temimim is the oldest Yeshiva still running off the same Seder - the one Rebbe Rashab instatuded. 220.233.48.200 13:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a sepeartion of article

Ok I am proposing this to stop the fights, so we can at least have an article ABOUT chabad. This article becomes about chabad, a new article is made for chabadniks, The Rebbe and Moshiach. One that I will never have to look at as I am sick of this fighting. 220.233.48.200 17:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. We are all missing the entire picture of what Chabad is, with all this Messianic talk. If we put together all the talks on Moshiach we come to a sliver of the Chabad and the Rebbe's teachings. I think it is about time to separate the two. Henochz 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is focusing on something the article isn't about. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting an article is not advisable at this stage. It will turn out to be a fork, apart from effectively hiding this important discussion from readers of the main Chabad article. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important??? And what Chabad accully is, isn't important? If anyone thinks it is important they can read the other article, but it is not important at all for this article because it meant to be about Chabad. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be split as the whole debate distracts from the reality of chabad in daily life i.e. thousands of centers worldwide with dedicated rabbis, the vast teachings of the Lubavitcher rebbe and his devotion to the Jewish people. There are many important factors not or very vaguely mentioned such as the vast teachings of chassidus started by the baal shem tov and continued and expanded by the first lubavitcher rebbe.

Everyone forgets about the Magid. The Magid had 120 student, of which the Alter Rebbe was the youngest of them. Each one got their own area, in which they and their Chosidim lived. The Magid told the Alter Rebbe to write the Tanya and a Shulchan Aruch that contains the source of the halacha, which was needed at the time as most people didn't know the whole Talmud off by heart, but the Shulchan Aruch got burned in the major fire of Lubavitch and only a part of it was left along with the draff version. The Magid also gave the Alter Rebbe the power, that what he says can over power what all the other students say, even if it is him vs 119 (-1, one got excumcated in the latter years). The Alter Rebbe only used this power once, and it was to defend to Vilna Goan. My sources are mainly Admur HaMaRash, Lubavitcher Rabbi`s Memoirs, and a few other books. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

I've unprotected this page as the dispute seems to have subsided. Do not edit-war, but please negotiate on the talk page. Thanks. Izehar 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? We still have to agree on spiltting up the article. If not I might go ahead and do it my self and it could cause Y.A.E.W. 220.233.48.200 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kabalahic?

Should I use that word? Or does anyone know the correct english word? Refer to my last edit before this reply. 220.233.48.200 13:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New introduction

Can we all agree on it? I think it is edit-war/flame-war free. Might need so extending and embrassing. But we agree not to add anything that will be the cause of Y.A.E.W.? 220.233.48.200 13:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad&oldid=32765675"