(From Berl Levin's Kuntres Didan Notzach)
Over Shabbos much of the discussion outside of יחודא עילאה and יחודא תתאה was about the events of Hey Teves והמסתעף. One of the points discussed was why the Eynikel waited 35 to claim what was "rightfully his inheritance." I see from the Kuntres that there was an attempt to divide up the library in 5710, but the rebbe would not have it. The Library was kept in the basement of 770, under the auspices of Chaim Liberman. In 5740 CL asked Berl Levin to run the library for him since he was getting old and had no Koach for it. The Rebbe would not allow it, satying that it would turn into Politics. Many theories about the insurgence of 5745 were thrown around the room last Shabbos, including the theory that the Eynikel had a gambling problem, or he needed money to treat his bad back. The best one all, and the one closest to the truth is the following:
After the events of The summer of 5743, when the attempt on Reb Mendel Vechter's life failed but left him a broken man, Satmar was terribly embarrassed. Although they openly defended what they did, saying that he's at fault for "Chappen Kinder," and many agreed with them, still most people were of the opinion that they went too far. One of the ways to "get back" at Chabad and the Rebbe was to embarrass them too. The idea was hatched by certain elements in Satmar, namely Fogel/Cohen, and the conduit to this great plan would be the Eynikel. It may not have been the Eynikel himself but rather the Eynikel's wife, "Reb Mina." They came to him and her and told them that they'd been robbed of their rightful inheritance by their uncle, and it was time to get it back. Of course it didn't happen overnight, and it needed some nudging and prodding, but the plan worked. They convinced the Eynikel to take what was "rightfully his," and to go to court if he's stopped. The rest is history.
Is it that far fetched that haters, real haters, not some two-timing amateur snag, would sit and hatch plans to bring down who they preceive to be their biggest enemy? Is it a stretch to think that people who are Shayech to murder would pull a shtick like that? I don't think so. The idea actually came from one of Cohen's victims, a Yungerman with not an ounce of hate in his heart for any Jew, besides for Cohen that is. What do you think?
Just a couple questions:
ReplyDelete1. Is this anything other than a hypothesis?
2. So does that mean that BG isn't a bad guy any more (and he was just put up to it by other bad guys)?
3. Does this in any way weaken BG's claim?
4. What is Cohen/Foigel's position? Does he (and his buddies) represent anyone other then themselves?
1. It's an assumption on the part of one of his victims.
ReplyDelete2. We're not sure yet that he WAS put up to it, so the "bad guy" label still stands. :-)
3. His claim was weak in 1950 and he knew it.
4. Cohen/Fogel did other people's dirty work, but I'm not sure how much he represented them.
Hirshel,
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get the idea that his claim was so weak? My understanding that halachically, and even legally, he had a decent case. Not open & shut, but not at all weak.
H,
ReplyDeleteBy claiming that the case was weak, you are just minimizing the victory - furthermore, you are making it seem like the Rebbe was overacting to an easily winnable case. It was not as easy a victory as you think.
Zezir
ReplyDeleteI didn't say his case was weak, just his claim to the library. I think everybody agreed to that, just by the fact that no claim was made on Seforim till 35 years later when everybody was old and vulnerable. I fail to see how this minimizes the victory, after all, courts can very easily turn things upside down, no matter how strong your case may be.
HT,
ReplyDeleteNeither of us are experts, nor do we have all the facts. But the fact remains that if you ask people that KNOW, you will hear that the case was far from simple… it seems that, well-deserved or not, his case was at least equally strong as the Rebbe’s.
Lest it be said that I don't support the Rebbe's side, let me just state clearly that Barry was wrong.
ReplyDeleteAll I am saying is that he still has a strong case. Unfortunately, there are many occasions where the party in the wrong may still have a strong case (legally).
HT,
ReplyDeleteIs his name Cohen or Foigel SR"Y and what has he been doing for the last 20 years?
By the way, did anyone ever hear the tape where Mendel Pinson is speaking to someone (I was told that it is YSCF) about waht happaned with Mendel Vechter-it's worth hearing it!
My question is like this:
Lichatchila Barry started himslef and only after Chana joined in. I dont understand how Barry could have had any claim to anything while his parents were alive? How could he be zoche to the Yerusha if his mother was still bachayim? Isnt this how it works al pi chok hamedina? So what was his complaint (besides for claming that the Rebbetzin told him he could take what he wanted). What was his argument in court (until Chana joined?
I once heard that Barry agreed that the Rebbe shouldnt have to give Eidus b/c they made a deal (possibyl that Rashag shouldnt have to) did anyone ever hear of this?
It sounds from Berl Levin's report that those who knew what was going on behind the scenes knew that stuff was going to hit the fan one day. Otherwise, why would the Rebbe object to both libraries being placed under one manager (Berl)?
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, the library always symbolized the fact that the Rebbe was not fully empowered l'chol hadeios as the Previous Rebbe's successor. (BTW, who paid RCL's salary all those years?)
HT,
ReplyDeleteI can now count 3 "victims" of cohen 1) the Rebbe 2) R,Wechter 3) R,Kurf, now you tell us from another victim # 4 "another yungerman" who claims that Barry was victim # 5 tell us more about victim # 4 why was he picked as a victim ? it seems from what i read here that this cohen was Picky with his victims and what happend to him he should consider himself a victim ?
what exactly happened to him?
ReplyDeletevictim number 4 was a victim because he was reb mendel's talmid.
Amazing that this completely plausible (sic) 'hypothesis' has somehow evaded all historians for twenty years.
ReplyDeleteWell done, your bubbe maases make Scott Rosenberg look sane.
And as you well know, it was not Satmar that fuelled the wars of the 70's/80's, but the M'lochim. And it is not at all ironic that BG's lawyers argued that the Rayatz's letter was a lie, nor that hey were arguing over, amongst other things, secular yiddish books. The Malach would not have been shocked at either of these claims.
Interesting how angels fuel wars, ain't it? and here we thought they were all holy rollers. The "Malach" (sic) was an alcoholic, that's why he came to America, because nobody could stand him. The only reason he was "discovered" was because another loonybin like Old Man Weberman realized they were 2 peas in a pod. So I could care less what he would've thought. Oh, and by the way; his son Zalmen Freid out.
ReplyDeleteYou really have no concept of truth, have you? You just spout whatever drivel comes into your brain.
ReplyDeleteI said it was a theory that somebody had, right? good.
ReplyDeleteDo you care to address a point I made?
i met a talmid of the malach's son he lives in upstate , has a shtreimel ,claims that he had daily shiur with him for over 20 years, has tapes of most of them ,i heard a few of them it seems from the tapes that he was a firediger yid
ReplyDeleteanonymous of 9:44,
ReplyDeleteIf the "malach's" son was such a "firediger yid", why dudn't he take over and lefteverything to Shorr and Weberman? Maybe he was a "freiediger yid"?
Tzig
ReplyDeleteI love the way your curse out people you were taught are 'bad'.I say taught because what do you, a magyar baachi know about the people you cursed out?.I'm referring to a well known known rosh yeshiva about who you said terrible things and now about The Malach, this without knowing them at all.Whatever.Lubavitch is sooo about brainwashing and hate.
Add another irony to the bundle, a chabadsker calling someone else an alcoholic!
ReplyDeleteanonymous 4:31am!
ReplyDeleteI'll remind you that the "Malochim" (what a humble name) were American Boys who learned in Torah VoDaas and went to Yankee games. They drank soda pop in the local drug stores and played stickball with the Italian neighbors.
Then they met Avrohom Ber Levin.
Amongst the things he taught him was that there's a man in Poland who goes by the name Schneersohn who must be hated forver and ever because his father threw me out of Lubavitch, but I'm the real Lubavitch! Hate him and all his followers for generations! Is that worse than a Magyar Baachi "hating" Snags? I don't think so.
Oh! read his letters to his son Zalmen, they hardly resemble what you'd write to a Feierdige Yid... He worked for the IRS in Albany.
yoshe kolb: maybe the malach's followers were sane enough to know that yerusha of torah leadership should not be done - i.e. moshe rabbeinu gave over leadership to Yehoshua and not his sons. in fact, if you open pirkei avos, semicha, the mesorah of torah, was not father to son, father to son, but rather rebbe to talmid, which is what happened with the malachim (and could have gotten lubavitch out of this messianic mess if the rebbe would have been great enough to hand over leadership as Moshe did.
ReplyDeleteUsually I find this website more informative.
ReplyDeleteBut concerning the Malachim and their connection to parshas hasforim it is definitely lacking.
Please be more comprehensive and explain these points.
This is the Mazkir logging in at the request of Cohen/Fogel who I informed about this blog log of huge conspiracy theories.
ReplyDeleteAs per him: Victim #4 was how old? Ah, he was under age, which means "Victim" #4 was under the custodial care of his parents and that custodial care was being harmed by Vechter. That would make Vechter the predator, and Victim #4 no Victim at all - - after all, his custodial parents had asked Cohen/Fogel to do what he did, which was in their rights.
Second point: It is interesting that through lies, truth might surface: the crux of the Vechter business was to embarass Satmar, as per these lines? That would make perfect sense, just as it makes sense that the whole crux of your blog is to embarass other people and groups in order to glorify your cause.
Here's what I think happened:
ReplyDeleteWhen Satmar was confronted about Fogel/Cohen they said he's Nisht fun Unzere, he davnens in Nesivos Olam, the Malochim" shul. Although they don't recognize him as on of their own either.
Mr. Mazkir:
who died and made you a lawyer? was it Benzion Weberman?!
You don't know whom I speak of so you can't possibly know that he was underage. Besides, where did Reb Mendel Vechter sign off on what he will and won't teach his students?
wow - censorship! free speech in Lubavitch is not allowed, but should be tolerated in Williamsburg. You, my friend, are a huge hypocrite and have just proven that by deleting the last post.
ReplyDeleteGrose
ReplyDeletenothing was deleted. It may not have gotten here, so try sending it again.
Interesting why R'Sholom Dov Ber of Lubavitch would entrust his son to a tutor who was an 'alcoholic'
ReplyDeleteI admit to not getting the irony earlier of a Chabadsker calling someone a 'shikker'.Lol, Chabadskers, you are sooo brainwashed!
"Besides, where did Reb Mendel Vechter sign off on what he will and won't teach his students? "
ReplyDeleteWhat I had said and did not make it to the site is this: Hypothetical questions -- if I were to teach in Crown Heights and would suddenly begin teaching the kids that the Rebbe was a reincarnation of Shabtai Tzvi, would you be so liberal to say that I "never signed off" on what I would or wouldn't teach? If someone taught your kids in Yeshiva that the world evolved without G-d, would you also be so free as to say, "well he never signed off he wouldn't teach that?" I think not. A teacher is a Shaliach of the parents and must do his job b'neemanus. Sir Vechter knew precisely what the parents expected or did not expect him to teach. He had his own agenda and did not do his teaching b'ne'emanus. He did not have to be "signed off" - he knew the expectations and betrayed the parents.
PJ
ReplyDeleteReb Sholom DovBer of Lubavitch fired him for spreading lies about his son. That's when he left Lubavitch and started roaming form town to town and took up drinking. Otherwise why does the "Malach" go to the treifene America?
Grose
nice comparison, really makes you sound smart.....
Zezmir: Before the case the evidence was not known, and most people assumed that the library had been the FR's property, and therefore that Chana had a legitimate claim on it. Only those on the inside really knew that the FR had given it to Aguch, and that there was evidence proving this. Now that we know about this, though, particularly the letter from 1949 which was the key piece of evidence that convinced the judge, in hindsight there can be no question at all that the library belongs to Aguch. In Barry's defense, it may be that he didn't know about this letter, and honestly thought he was right.
ReplyDeleteYehupitz: It sounds from Berl Levin's report that those who knew what was going on behind the scenes knew that stuff was going to hit the fan one day. Otherwise, why would the Rebbe object to both libraries being placed under one manager (Berl)?
I don't think you understood. The reason the libraries were not combined was because there was an unresolved dispute about it. Chana wanted it divided as part of the FR's estate, while the Rebbe insisted (correctly, as we now know) that it was not part of the estate and should not be divided. But while the dispute was unresolved it was impossible to combine the two libraries. And as far as the Rebbe was concerned, it could remain on the back burner forever, and he would do nothing to exacerbate it or stir the fires, so he left it alone and built up the Merkos library instead. I'm sure it hurt him, but it was better than machlokes.
When RChL proposed that Berl Levin take charge of both, the Rebbe was afraid that Chana would accuse him of engineering a back-door takeover. That's why he said he didn't want to be dragged into politics. BL, of course, had no idea until that moment that there were any politics to be dragged into. It had all been kept hush-hush, as it continued to be until Berke forced the issue into the open.
Hirshel: As far as I know, Zalman Levin was a perfectly erlicher yid, who founded the shtibel in Albany, but he wasn't interested in being a rebbe. That's not a chisoron. Chabad isn't one of those movements where every rebbe's son must be a rebbe. It's OK for a rebbe's son to be an accountant or a bus driver, if that's what he feels most suited for.
to Hirshel
ReplyDeleteWhere is this info on the Malach's alcholic problem come from? Is this public knowledge?
I heard alot on him from 1 of the people that davened in his nussach hari shul in the bronx. they didnt share their view on the person with the williamsburgh guys, He was a laughing stock by them.
To Grose,
My father enroled me and my brothers in a hugarian cheder, he and the Rov of the Mossad were against the satmar hate ideology,and the 3 4 satmar chasidim didn't stop preaching their hatemongering view on every jew that's alive but satmar,I am talking Satmar in the Lameds 70's when they felt they are on top of the world.
Milhouse:
ReplyDeleteThat may be true later on in life, and I believe he even came to see the Rebbe and met in Yechidus, but I don't think that was the case early on in life. I may be wrong. Read the letters from his father to him, They sound like he's imploring him to keep the basics.
The 'alcoholic' allegation is a figment of HT's fertile imagination.
ReplyDeleteHow does a Echter Snag come to defend someone who called you "Apikorsim?"
ReplyDeleteI heard the allegation from a member of the malochim family, who LeFi Tumo said that he Flegt trinken asach Mashkeh, Zeks un Ninetziger, gantze glezer. I also heard it from Lubavitchers, true.
on the Malach's son, I heard that he told someone that since his father was a archenemy of the Reshab his father didn't want that he should learn in Tomchei Temimim so he send him to Reb Boruch Ber in Kamenitz so he was first hit from the cultural shock, no Negel Vaser no Yarmulke or Talith Koton at bed time, shaving etc... and when he came back home with the misnagdishe baggage is father ostracised him, eventough he was at fault.
ReplyDeleteAlso he decided that Chasidus shouldnt be studied only till the Tzemach Tzedek.But I heard from Reb Yankev Shorr's son in law,that he learned Samech Vov and Ein Bies of the Rebbe Reshab, he hid it in his bedroom.
What is meant by "no negel vasser"?
ReplyDeleteI would imagine it to mean no negel vasser by the bed.
ReplyDeleteMilhouse:
ReplyDeleteNow that we know about this, though, particularly the letter from 1949 which was the key piece of evidence that convinced the judge, in hindsight there can be no question at all that the library belongs to Aguch.
Well, it certainly belongs to Aguch "in hindsight" because the court ruled that it does.
However, there's also Barry's lawyer's argument that the 1946 letter was made up to convince the Russian government to release the books, even if in reality they belonged to the FR personally. It wouldn't be the first time someone made something up to fool the government into doing what one wants.
Of course, not leaving written wills confuses the matter.
Just a brief comment re the argument that Barry had some legitimate claim: he had none whatsoever! According to halachot of yerushah:
ReplyDeleteThe Rebbetzen N. D. (widow) was not entitled to yerushah by Torah-law, only to support.
Yerushah would go to children, i.e., the 2 daughters. But as they are married, while the "principal" remains their possession, all benefits or fructure belongs to their husbands. Chana's share would thus be under control of Reshag who sided with the Rebbe. Chaya Mushka's share would be under control of the Rebbe. Grandchildren are not entitled to anything (unless by testamentary bequest). As both daughters died in lifetime of their husbands, their husbands inherit them. And again, as Reshag sided with Rebbe -his part reverts to Rebbe. In short, Barry was never entitled to anything.