Thursday, April 24, 2008
What the Snag Writes
A very generous reader took the time to scan the article in Yeshurun and e-mail it to me. It's not so much the Narishe Taynes he has as much as it is the disrespect he has for all things Lubavitch in the last 88 years. The truth is that the so-called respect he shows for the Tzemach Tzedek is a farce, he does it only to make his point. The Rebbe is referred to only as המו"ל of the Tshuves Tzemach Tzedek, nothing more. This 2-bit nothing writes worse than even I do, yet he gets the platform of a very respected journal. What we do see is that based on the "proof" that he brings all the way in the end he's nothing but a snag.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
l got it, and since biegleisen told me that there is a big storm, of course l had to buy it.l didn't read yet the offending part but l have glanced a few. But there are other seemingly pro chasidishe articles there. But even in along facsinatng article about Rav Grossman there is a reference about correspondence between hin and the "Lubavitcher Rebbe "no title and not clear which one. however there is great praise for taking in the sepharadim by Chabad
My point is i would rather live in a chareidi environment where things get aired when all major puplications all look like Izvestia. Maybe after I read the Screed I will have a different view
Yosef718
What a waste of good Jewish bandwith!
I believe the third from last page is missing. Can you post it?
I haven't quite made it to that part of the Tzemach Tzedek. if I ever do, I'll let you know my feelings on this burning issue.
It is well known to all that the Alter Rebbe supported the GR"A in every way. While he did try politely to persuade the GR"A that the derech of the chasidim was kosher, once the GR"A refused to see him, the Alter Rebbe was forced to accept the cheirum and fulfilled it in every detail. He actually renounced his own teachings, commanded that the printed edition of Tanya be burnt and that adas chasidim repent from their ways and become followers of the GR"A. The chasidim had no intention of following these directions (obviously) and denounced their leader to the Tzarist authorities. The real Alter Rebbe was never released from his imprisonment and in his place they installed an impostor (who was very good, but one can still see a definite stylistic shift in his 'teires' from before and after the arrest). And the rest is, as they say, history...
What offends your intelligence the most from this infantile, is the way he claims that regarding the Teshuva in Tzemach Tzedek he can not rely even on old manuscript since they are also not reliable,eventough they are not from the era of the Remam and the Reyatz from the Forgery & Forgery Ltd. The only thing that is reliable is what the Vilner Maskilim
printed.
Whom son is this guy? The Phily Rosh ?
In the last few Yeshurins he is obsessed Letaher As Hasheretz as Satanov a famous Maskil friend and Pupil of Mendelssohn and in the latest Yeshurin he is cleaning the mess of another problematic figure in the Gra circle Reb Menashe Maeillya. But the the Holy Reb Yosef Yitzchok that threw his soul and body in to the Russian inferno in the time when his Grandpa was swimming in the pools of Toronto(Making of Godol the Kaminiczky family love swimming) and enjoying life at the fullest, can not pass even the title Horav
which part exactly is a lie?
do you deny that rayyatz stories are lies?.
Anon
Did you read his article? it doesn't seem so?
Dear Anon 3:40,
A)Get yourself a name to make it easier to know who you are
B)You don't know which Kaminetsky this is and you are already attacking his grandfather?
Please keep it real so we can have an intelligent discussion!
Btw, before you attack me I'm a Lubavitcher, but you have to keep a minimum standard of logic and civility to debate this with thinking people.
I finally did read the piece and I since I am not Chabad,I am not disturbed that the underlying arguement that the line in the Shu"t Tz Tz was altered seems to be proven.
However the style and language of DK is shamefull and disgusting when he refers to the Reyaatz and RMM.
Even after the fact of showing the sins of those who are מבזה the גר"אthat should not give this guy the right to be so callous in his writing style.
It also serves as a distraction from his main point that in many chasidic circles and in particular Chabad there was and is a מגמה to denegrade the גר"א, and its fair for him to decry what he sees as a wrong, thus his anti-derech-eretz'dige style defeats his main objective.
Yosef718
Hey Dont miss the bigger picture. In Kerem Chabad #4 YM shows that the whole machlokes was the work of the Vilna Roshei Kheilah (ע"ש) Now over 15 years later DK is trying to respond (In הערה14 where he talks about the story from the Kfar chabad Hey Tevet this year he quotes YM by name as here he want to use him to prove you cant trust letters from Chasidim, but he is on a very week so he just says you cant trust a copy of Ksav yad kodesh! (its clear that there are two editions of the Shu"t see that Kfar chabad). Then when he wishes he just refers to him as the Orech of Kerem Chabad. Lets just wait YM will not remain a bal chov for long. And remember that DK has a agenda see end of הערה 16.
Yosef78,
Contrary to your claim, there was NOT and there is NOT a מגמה to denegrade the גר"א in Chabad. Lubavitch is NOT among the groups that call the GR"A a devil-incarnate and refuse to use any seforim with anything from the GR"A printed in it!
Not only the Alter Rebbe referred to the GR"A with respect. A glowing description of the young GR"A is contained in the Previous Rebbe zichreines (yes, the very same ones the menuvol-author of the article attempts to denigrate). The GR"A is referenced throughout the Rebbe's works quite extensively and has always been regarded in Chabad as am important acharon.
But he wasn't regarded by any of the Chabad nesiim as important enough to be mekabel his view on chasidus (that was the point of my earlier satire).
Legufo shel yinyan: had the Tzemach Tzedek used the particular expression of praise about the GR"A as was printed, there is simply no way the FR or the Rebbe would endeavor to 'edit it'. That is completely מופרך and only a vile misnaged – with no clue of what kind of reverence is accorded in Lubavitch to אותיות הרב – could possibly suspect such a thing. If the FR said it was a misprint, it was a misprint. End of story.
At any rate, it's already Shabbos on the East Coast so you guys will see this comment after Yom Tov.
R'Yossel 718,
Zai azoi gut and please explain yourself a bit clearer:Do you or don't you accept either Kaminetzky's view or Moondshines?
What do you think the original manuscript said?
Legufoi shel inyon:It's is a well written piece but as R'Yossel says not very respectful of the last two rebbes.I think he could have made his points without the harsh language, but honestly, Lubavitcher publications use some pretty harsh language themselves about some of their 'enemies' and Moondshines piece years ago about the Gaon was no better.
Btw did anybody notice the next piece in Yeshurun documenting that R'Chaim Volzhiners grandson became a chosid??
Berl,
I don't know how you want to convince any non Lubavitcher that the Tzemach Tzedek was not altered using the logic that 'they would never do such a thing!" I, mean (if you read the article)that was gufo the tayna, that he does not accept that as proof.In other words your logic is circular.
Moondshine made excellent points when he proved the Chabad viewpoint so you don't need to rely on circular logic which will only convince the convinced!
Folks it is ''den·i·grate''!!!
It means to belittle
yisroel,
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything at all. It is the norm to rely in such matters on the mesorah of the family. Had an anikel of Reb Chaim said there was a kaboloh in the family that a certain passage in his seifer was a misprint, the world would accept it as such. My main point was, however, that the GR"A was and is accorded proper respect in Chabad (contrary to what is claimed in the article).
Berl
I think that you are right that in general the Gro was accorded great respect in Lubavitch, whatever the passage in shut Tzemach Tzedek, he is mefalpel bedvorov in quite a few places which in itself is a sign of respect.But to be honest,Moondshines article years back in Kerem Chabad about the Gro was not very different from Kaminetskys
Leho'ir that the Rebbe himself states in his pirush on the Hagodo that the words of the GRO (re: the ma nishtano) demand great learning and analysis
Hirshle
L'gabei the mi"snag"ed, there is a chassidishe vort that a misnaged is like chometz, Mevatlo Belibo Vedayo.
Mendel
Yossel/ Yisroel
I don't think that Mondshine was chutzpadik against the Gra in his Kerem Chabad article,
Lets decipher his words,
Is it the money that he received from the Kehila?
Is it that he took the side of the kehila in the fight against the Reb Shmuel the Avad Hoachren?
Is it the conclusion that he was mislead by some people that had exclusive access to him ? as Efrati by Rav Eliyashev?
I don't think that there is any sane person in the last decades that tought different, until the neo misnagdim that are trying to build a new belief system that there was a big problem with early chasidisim as the Reb Elimelech and Kalisker Etc. it is a indirect influence of the school of thought in academia against Reb yonasan Eibshitz that he was probably a Shabsi Tzvi follower.
Yisroel
nothing to me is definitive I just thought that DK made his points well. Which makes his chutzpah doubly bad.
Look it is problematic to argue that there is any reliability for facts in the works of the Rayatz so qouting him in a scholarly setting is a futile proposition. One could be "meylitz toiv" that the Zichronos where intended but as a tool to spread yidishkeit but one cannot turn around and argue "he said so therefore it is so!" There are other claims that the last Rebbe made that most other Chasidim reject as "modne" such as: Reb Leib Sores and Der Shpoler Zeide are the same person.
Lets not kid ourselves most Chasidim don't accept many claims of Chabad.
אלא מאי
chasidim like me have such a deep love of chabad and תורת חב"ד and the great history of the chabad rebbes that we just smile and shrug off the many stories as הפרזה or exagerated exuberance. וזה הוא
So was the בעש"ט born chai elul? of course not but who cares. I don't!
One אות in the holy תניא outweighs all.
yosef718
Berl and Yisroel,
Do you both believe that it's a mitzva to lie to defend Lubavitch? The gr"a is definitely denigrated in Lubavitch. The Rasha"b in the censored portion of Toras Shalom quotes the Besh't as saying that the there is a yingel in Lita whom the s"m is stuffing with Torah.
an ailmesher,
There is no question that here and there you will find critical expressions about the GR"A, after all, he was a bar plugta who put chasidim in cheirum (I know, not a big deal)!!!
But it is a lie to say the GR"A is denigrated or that his Teiroh is not accorded proper respect in Chabad when the facts I presented speak of the opposite.
If you guys are looking for unequivocal adulation, then – no, that he doesn't get in Chabad. If you are talking about respect as an important acharon whose works are studied and referenced, then – yes, that he does get in Chabad! Not good enough for you? Too bad.
Yosef 718
If reb Nachman wrote his famous stories that were definitly fiction can we say that all of Reb Nachman has to say that has historical value is not legit,
Lots of Rebbes had their thing of telling stories for some rebishe inyan as the holy Ruzhiner and the Holy Reb Mendel Viznitzer was telling every day Mincha Mariv time Sipurim that were far from reality(Divrie Tora Monsey Rebbe)
The continuous "attacks" against the "Zichronos" which anatagonists always come back to to discredit the Rayat"z are so uunbelievably absurd! They don't even know what that book is about.
a) The stories are simply an "archieve" of the Rayat"z's recordings, started when he was yet a teenager, of what he heard/received patly from his father but mostly from numerous chassidim. Thus they are essentially an oral "history" passed down from generation to generation. One may compare it to other such collections of Sipurei Chassiim, starting with the Shivchei Habesht. (Re the latter, as known, "academics" are sharply divided as to the degree of the tales' historical authenticity, some dismissing the work as pure hagiography while others claiming various degrees of historicity.)
b) The "Zichronos" that have been printed are NOT the original writings of the Rayatz. They are a reprint of a series of articles that appeared in the Yiddish press, taken from the Rayatz's writings but edited and amended with "poetic license" to make them readable for the original audience by the editor of the newspaper (D. Meckler) as clearly stated in the foreword of the printed volumes. In fact, according to a an "oral tradition" I heard from a number of sources, the Rayatz is said to have had some misgivings (in retrospect) about the way they were edited.
You call R'Dovid Kaminetzky a 'two bit nothing' 'who writes worse that EVEN I would'
Listen ausvarf, Kaminetzky is a gifted writer and a scholar, son of a respected rosh yeshiva, eynikel of widely respected rov and baal eytza.
Who the hell are you?
Nothingץ It's time you knew your place.
To top it all you are an ignoramus!
Do you think you can farmest yourself with Kaminetzky, whatever his chesroines? Do you think any periodical would ever take any article from you?
'Worse that EVEN I do'. Lol. Sad that Lubavitch has to rely on arrogant pricks, who joined the 'club' a few years ago to 'defend' them.
I fully agree about him being a gifted writer and all, but our holy Rabbis once said השנאה מקלקלת את השורה, DK loses tons of respect by writing the way he does, complete with juvenile jabs at people who he has a 3rd grader's understanding of. That's what makes him a "2-bit nothing." By "worse than I do" I meant with vendettas and agendas, not his level of writing.
Clear enough, moron?
So lets understand a second,k?
How do you know his 'vendettas and agendas'?Do you know the guy at all? Abi geredt.Who doesen't he have a third grade understanding of?
Attack him based on the substance.
There is no reason that he should have any personal agenda,(I don't know him so it's possible he does have)But based on his family backround at least,his zeideh R'Yaakov was not a vocal critic of the Rebbe and actually had some kind of relationship(maybe in private he was critical,I don't know)His father R'Shmuel is not vocal either,on top of that he is kin with Avremel Shemtov,Futerfass etc.So he actually shtams from Lubavitch .
the substance is simple
even a old Ksav Yad isn't good enough, that a new one in acedemia
Post a Comment