איך האב פארגעלייענט מיט פיל אינטערעס דעם דאזיקן בריוו אין דעם אריגענעלעם לשון קדש. מיך האב מאז ומתמיד אינטערעסירט אט די פרשה פון דער גניזה אבער דעם בריוו האב איך קיינמאל ניט געזען ביז איצטער. א דאנק אייך ר' מאטל מיט ר' הירשלען. צווי טשיקאווע פאקטן קאן איך צוגעבן
1. מיין זיידע זצ"ל איז אמאל אריין לפני ולפנים צום הייליקן בעלזער רב ר' ארעלען זצ"ל און אים געפרעגט זיין חוו"ד מכוח דער כערסאנער גניזה. דער בעלזער רב האט אים געזאגט אז ער זעט סימנים מובהקים פון קבלה ענינים אד"ג אין די בריוו וואס איז אוממעגלעך צו פאלסיוויצירן. 2.איך אליין בשעתו אריין צו ר' משהן זצ"ל און מענין לענין ( מיר האבן אייגנטלעך געשמועסט וועגן דעם ליובאוויטשער רבין ואין כאן המקום איבערגעבן די אויסערגעוויינלעכע אויסדרוקן מיט וועלכע ר' משה האט יעמאלט בארימט דעם חב"ד רבינס גאונות פשוט אין למדות און בקיאות. ער האט מיר געזאגט אז איידער דער רבי איז געווארן רבי ער - ר' משה - פלעגט אים כסדר אנקלינגען טעלעפאניש ווען ער האט געזוכט "א פארווארפענעם מקור" ) האב איך אים געפרעגט וואס זאגט ער וועגן דער כערסאנער גניזה. ר' משה האט זיך אויסגעדריקט אז קיין מבין אין קבלה זאכן איז ער ניט אבער זיין חוש זאגט אים אז עס איז ניט קיין זיוף. ער האט מיר דאן דערקלערט דעם אונטערשייד צווישן מסיכתות אין סדר קדשים אין ירושלמי ( פאר די וואס זיינען באקאנט מיט דער פרשה ) וואס זיינען געווען מזויף און די כערסאנע בריוון וואס "שמעקן אמתדיק"
נאך דעם וואס איך האב געשריבן די גאנצע אריכות, האב איך דערזען די אייניקע ווערטער פון או.נ.
באמת מוז איך מלמד זכות זיין ווארעם ער האט ניט מפרט געוועזן וואס ער האט געמיינט דערמיט, נאר געזאגט וההמשך יבוא. איך האף אבער אז די ווערטער "נאנסענס" האבן זיך ניט געוואנדן דעם ליובאוויטשער רבינס וועגן. דאס וואלט ניט געווען א רייד פון א פרומן יידן. באמת אפילו אן דער ציטאטע פון דעם בעלזער רב מיט ר' משהן וואלט ניט געווען מותר שרייבן אזאז מין אויסדרוק עאכו"כ נאך דער מיינונג פון די אלע דריי גדולי ישראל. איך גלייב ניט אז אפילו איין ערלעכער ייד וואלט גערעדט מיט זלזול אפילו ווען ער אליין אדער אנדערע זיך צווייפלן אין דעם אמתקייט פון דער דאזיקער גניזה און איך בעט אייך ר הירשל- דערלאז ניט דברי זלזול חכמים אין אייער זייטל - דאס איז פארבאטן על פי דין לכל הדעות בכבוד יוסף דוב
איך בין אױכעט אַ מלמד זכות אױף די גרױסע גדולים ר' אַהרן בעלזער זצ"ל און ר' מענדיל מיקאָלײַעװער זצ"ל און אַלע אַנדערע װער האָט זיך טועה געװען אין דעם. װעגען דעם זאג איך אַז אָדער האָבן זײ עס נישט געזאגט (זעהט נישט אױס אַזױ), אָדער לפום ריהטא זײ זינד פֿאַרטיפֿט און פֿאַרכישופ'ט געװאָרן מיט "קבלה" ענינים און נישט געקוקט אױף דעם פּשט הפּשוט. איך בין אױכעט זיכער אַז היצט װען זײ זענען נענטער צום אַמת הובן זײַ שטאַרקע חרטה און װעלן זײַן דאַנקבאַר צו יעדעם אײנעם װער װעט אױפֿקלערן עיניים העורות
There are three categories of letters in the collection -
1. Letters which we don't deserve to see because someone who bought them so decided, that may or may not contain meaningful information. 2. Harmless letter without much content about things like "received your letter - thank you for the warm blanket and six kopeykes - me, dust at your feet, shmerel feferkon from zhmerinka". 3. Letter's that do carry meaning and content pertaining to concrete people, dates and facts from which subsequent statements could be derived.
First two categories are of little interest. They may or may not be real - probably some even are real - but who cares ? Specially not the "Chochma-Bina" people who are all about meaning and pnimiyus.
But the third category matters. To the naked and naive eye it looks like a relatively truthful collection of historical documents that more-less correspond to most accepted versions of events and descriptions of people. The "ta'ana" about inappropriatness of last name usage and other toarim I personally don't buy.
However, there are certain sentences and letters in the geniza that scream out to the reader of it "I am a fake". It is as if they were placed there with that purposes alone. And I think that it's quite possible that this is the reason for geniza's existence - to serve as a litmus test between those who can accept the truth for what it is, and those who are not so but will defend their position truth notwithstanding. Those who are interested in it will takeh find those passages easily; those who are not won't even look.
The "proof" of it's authenticity is ridiculously circumstancial. It's authentic because they don't know of anyone who could've written it; because they can't figure out why would one do such a thing (apparently, these people never heard of money or Shaun Greenhalgh); because they have a better way for such forger to advance his or her career; because kemayos and sheimos were heard to be there and must be authentic (note that even R' Yosef Yitzok didn't see those, not to mention those who came after); because the forger would have been foolish to waste his time on this as it was impossible to find a buyer (but he did find one, didn't he, and for quite a matbea); and the most interesting argument of the "typos" - that there could be a whole plethora of "grayzen" in the document as it was copied over manually but that doesn't mean that the original wasn't real.
To the latter argument, I can only say, that the obvious forgeries in the genizah are written in such a fashion that it is absolutely impossible to attribute this to any amount of typos and misunderstandings. Indeed, as said before, they scream bloody murder - I'm a fake.
Now if that hurts anyone's feelings and somehow the hiskashrus feels swallen - maybe it's time to re-examine the meaning of life and why you do what you do and you think what you think.
R'Yoisef Doiv I'm not sure if you are for real or not (zai moichel if you are,please)For some reason you are only 'moicheh' when you see a lack of respect towards the Lubavitch side, you don't make a 'peeps' when it's about respected talmidei chachomim (that's what leads me to think that you may not be very real). The accepted opinion of every serious historian is that the Cherson genizza is a fake.With all due respect to Lubavitcher Rebbe'n he was a 'nogea badovor'. I'm sure you also know that there have been very famous fakes that fooled many of the biggest talmidei chachomim.Example is the Yerushalmi on kodshim that even fooled the Chofetz Chaim!!!.
(Your story with R'Moshe saying he thought it was true is a very strange one.R'Moshe had zero interest or shaychus to these things.About him calling the Rebbe for a mareh mokom before the Rebbe became rebbe:Maybe, but does not sound very true.A)I don't think they knew each other.B)R'Moshe generally did not deal with 'farvorfeneh mekooiress' and the meat and potatoes he knew cold.So maybe it happened once or twice)
דעם געערטן ר' ברוכן צום ערשט בין איך טאקע ניט מסכים מיט דעם באשולדיקונג אז איך האב ניט באשיצט דעם כבוד פון אלע גדולי ישראל און אנדערע יידן. אז איר וועט א קוק טאן אויף די עטליכע פריערדיקע שרייבנישן, וועט איר זען אז איך בין מוחה געוועזן ווען מען האט גערעדט אן דעם געהעריקן כבוד מכוח ר מיכאל בערן, ר יצחק זילבער, רי יצחק הוטנער און געוויס קיין שלעכט ווארט איבער קיינעם וועט איר ביי מיר ניט געפינען. צוייטנס- וועגן דעם שייכות צווישן ר' משה מיטן ליובאוויטשער רבין- אויף דעם ס'זיינען פאראן גענוג עדים און אפילו בילדער ( פון זיי ביידן צוזאמען ). הרה"ג ר' מאיר גרינבערג שליט"א איז געווען א בן בית ביי ר' משהן און ער איז אן עדות אז ר' משה פלעגט טעלעפאנירן דעם רבין וואך איין וואך אויס און ווען ר' מאיר האט געפרעגט ביי ר' משהן פארוואס האט ער אויפגעהערט האט ער געענטפערט אז נאך דעם וואס ער איז געווארן רבי וויל ער ניט פארזעצן צו קלינגען.בכל אופן איך האב דאס אליין געהערט אי פון ר' מאירן אי פון ר' משהן אליין. אבער דאס איז דער גורל פון אינטערנעט - עס איז לייכטער מקבל זיין נעגאטיווע זאכן ווי פאזיטיווע אלעס בעסן אייער יוסף דוב
נאך איין נקודה - אלע ערנסטע וועלטלעכע היסטאריקער האלטן אין איין פרעדיקן אז דער זהר הקדוש איז געשריבן געווארן ניט דורך דעם רשב"י נאר דורך איינעם דע ליאן אין דעם 13טן יאר הונדערט. אבער גלייב איך ניט צי א פרומער ייד וואלט געזאגט "נאנסענס אויף איינער וואס גלייבט אז דער רשב"י איז דער אווטאר. . בנוגע קדשים - איך האב עס דערמאנט און געזאגט אן פרטים אז ס'איז אן אונטערשייד צווישן די צווי ביישפילן וואס ר' משה מיט זיין גיכן אויג גלייך געכאפט. י.ד.
Sorry guys but the Chersoner geniza is an obvious fraud. Anyone reading the letters can immediately tell that's it's promoting the Lubavitcher version of the history of the Besht and his talmidim. Besides, R. Chaim Lieberman knew the person who forged them and that he did it because he needed money. It's been proven by scholars to be a fraud.
It's unfortunate that the great Rasha"b was fooled by the letters and chassidim have to follow the Rebbe.
The accepted opinion of every serious historian is that Torah is R"L a fake. So much for accepted opinions.
Bringing Roche"l into the picture basically destroys your point. You're bringing the opinion of a man with little respect for the FR and no respect for the Rebbe, who was hoodwinked by everyone he came into contact with and made a terrible witness on the stand. He probably did more to bring down his friend that anyone else.
I find it amazing that a everyone jumps on the claim that the letters are riddled with obvious mistakes, yet I have yet to see these self made experts bring anything besides hearsay and baseless statements. A gutten.
Are you drawing parallels between Torah haKedosha and this geniza ? That's outright kefira, and even R' MM' z"l is careful to keep that line of arguments to Baal Shem Tov's existance and that some historians claim that "lo hoyo velo nivro". By your line of thinking, every ridiculuos fake must be true now because historians also say that Torah was of human writing. What idiocy.
Mottel - first of all, not everyone jumps on this claim, and mistakes aren't that obvious. Forgeries are obvious to just about anyone willing to invest an hour or so into reading the genizah and should be kept that way. As mentioned, it's a great way to distinguish between those who never read the thing and keep arguing the obvious lie, and those willing to see the objective truth, which is G-d's Seal.
Calling something idiocy when you built a straw man only collapes your point, not builds on it. Please use logic and language appropriately. The connection was not between Torah and the geniza, the connection was between the opinion of historians on any subject. We know their conclusions and methods can lead to an error, as it does in many areas of Jewish history. Therefore, when a plausible explanation is given by someone I trust and know had Ruach Hakodesh on top of that, I will trust them.
Ultimately, the only true reason (not based on Greek lines of logic) for which we believe in the Torah is Kaboloh Hi MeAvoisenu. Obviously there is no Mitzvah in Torah to trust in the veracity of the contents of the Geniza, but I do trust their opinion anyway, and for both you and me there is a Mitzvah of Ahavas Reim an Issur of Rechilus.
The opinion is not just of "historians" - it's also shared by many respectable Rabonim, amongst them Raboiseinu-Nesieinu as well as prominent Ruzhiner grandsons (it's taken personal as his name is used to further peddle the fake), as well as pretty much any other non-partisan observer.
I will leave your provocative claim of Ruach haKodesh untouched.
One of the signs of a "manhig rouy" is the ability to accept, acknowledge and correct own error, umiklal hen ato shomea lav. If Yehuda didn't accept his mistake, kulonu ovadnu c'v. And no plausible explanation by any stretch of logic or any other discipline has been given.
As far as mitzvos go, there is a mitzva of "midvar sheker tirchak"; that's where it all begins and if that one is forgone, everything else will fall apart, especially so the Ahavas Reim.
Let me ask you and other gnizers here - can you yourself name one of the questionable letters in the genizah that some deem problematic and you deem authentic, or is all this just wholesale theory without actual exposure ?
You miss the entire point - the Rebbe considers the entire collection problematic, as did the FR and Rebbe Rashab when they received it, and only considered it authentic because it contained certain things that were only known Rebbe Mipi Rebbe and no forger could have known. This is why they determined it was a copy, neither a forgery nor an original. Your accusations (your in the loose sense) didn't surprise them, they had thought it through well before purchasing. A hallmark of our Rebbeim, they always thought their actions through well and they stood the test of time.
You insist on squeezing your "points" and other people's imaginary "misses" of them; you'd do yourself a better favor by actually reading the document that you're trying to authenticate.
From what you're saying, the only "authentic" parts of genizah even by the claim of R' Yosef Yitzhak and R' Menachem Mendel are the ones that nobody besides them and the "copier" had seen. Good for those who had seen them, yet it does or proves nothing to the general population. Besides, this exclusive chain of knowledge "Rebbe Mipi Rebbe" was at least extended to the Ruzhiner zts"l and whoever else would've handled the geniza during the given period.
They didn't purchase it, they R' received it as a gift from Shmiel Gurary; no actions were necessary and no actions were "though out", other then the action of not refusing the gift.
There are no "accusations" in any sense; there are simple observations made time after time, person after person, not just by myself but by people who had no less R"K, and were no less learned or revered then the your Rebbeim.
So could you kindly answer the most important question of it all - which letters are indeed problematic - and why - and yet are authentic ? "All of them" isn't really good enough; most of them contain no contradictions or obvious mismatching of facts and events. But some do. Can you name any ?
1) Who is the source that Lieberman said it? the 1st source was in Moshe Lipshutz Sefer Hazikoren by 1 of the participants, why should I believe that person, their ego guides them that anything coming from the FR is no good I know that crowd well. 2) If Lieberman knew that the guy is a fraudster why didnt he offer his 2 cents on that subject when the kesovim came up for sale, if you read the FR letters you see that lieberman was involved and consulted on all library matters 3) The Piacezner is using the kesovim as a reliable source and not too many rebbes in the polisher crowd knew toras habesht better then him 4) A local Rebbe of Flatbush that has a nice following there and he is deep into Toras Habesht told me lately that the Rebbes claim that some letters could not be concoted by a fraudster since some of them have deep Torah of the Besht circle, he showed me a long article that he wrote on that subject, that verifies that many letters are deep torah of the Toldos Yakov Yosef, Teshuas Chien and Degel machne Efraim.
anonymous, you seem to be a real maven for "poilisher crowd". Once you learn how to speall Piaseczne, could you kindly point to a source where he's legitimizing the "gniza" ? And did the local Flabusher Rebbe end up publishing his article - I'd love to read it.
Frankly, if anyone will make a plausible proof that would make sense that the gniza is real - that would entail explaining away the absolutely shining gaping holes - I'll have no problem accepting it.
natchalnik, where did I say that I was interested in reviewing the genizah myself? I trust the Rebbe, that's enough for me. You can join the Sorbonne denying crowd.
Guravitzer You should look up the definition of circular logic. You 'trust' the Rebbe, therefore the Rebbe is right?Without proof, based on ? And we have to accept the geniza as true since you 'trust the Rebbe'? Anonymous:Toirehs from Toldos Yaakov Yoisef brought down in the letters of the Genizah prove what exactly?That the forger could read? Why don't you guys do yourself a favour and read up about the guy who forged the Yerushalmi on Kodshim who was able to convince some of the biggest rabbonim at the time.
I think that the only proof that is positively established by this post is that the people insisting on gniza's authenticity possess intellect of a garden snail and absolute zero knowledge of the document itself, not to mention its history or background. I don't know if it's a good thing or a sad one that the minim nowadays, unlike the minim of 100 years ago, are also dumb.
zalman, you too believe in setting up straw men? The Rebbe's explanation is plausible, that's A. That is what we are discussing. Then there is my personal trust in the Rebbe, which is why I have no interest in analyzing the errors in the letters. We know they are there. They are admitted all around, and stand in the face. They were taken into consideration when published.
natchalnik, please relax. When all else fails an insult might do, but I am sure you don't consider that you have falied yet. Don't give up hope. Perhaps you will one day discover the true records of the Sorbonne that prove that the Rebbe never attended there, and all the naysayers can throw a Didan Notzach. I'll even have a drink to celebrate with you.
Guravitzer, frankly I haven't yet gotten to insults; they aren't necessary. Your "arguments" are retarded by any stretch of logic - note that even Tzig has nothing to say here; your own "hiskashrus" is in fact a figment of your imagination that you built on lies, twists and mistranslations that you yourself invented and that have nothing to do with what any Rebbe wrote (he never guaranteed the fake's authenticity, but that doesn't both you). You're probably just yet another ponevezher trying to make a point here. You haven't read the thing, probably because you simply can't - nor did you in all likelihood read Igros referencing it until reb mottel here kindly "translated" it into your mamelush. You will do your party a big favor if you'll post a big disclaimer. Pity on you and the air you breath.
Uber Umni, I figured I would put it in Russian for you . . . But then figured nothing would help. Having been away from a computer for the past few days, I finally got a chance to read the comments in yiddish, and was amused by your words. You claim to beמלמד זכות אױף די גרױסע גדולים', yet you call the Rebbe . . . Frankly, as I wrote before the translation, this wasn't meant for you - A kop ken men nisht arufshtelen. I do thank you all for the addition of Reb before my name.
There is nothing amusing in perpetuation of lies and forgeries. And there is even less amusement when that's done in the name of religion. Look up Or haChayim ha"k on meilah.
UN The Piacesner is using the kesovim in his Hachshores Hoavrachim, The Rebbe of Flatbush will eventually print his theory,and then you will move on to your next Chabad ranting.
What nonsense !
ReplyDeleteHemshech yovo iy"H.
Please, don't feel obligated to comment. We know what you have to say, after all you're Russian. The fact that the others were too notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteאיך האב פארגעלייענט מיט פיל אינטערעס דעם דאזיקן בריוו אין דעם אריגענעלעם לשון קדש. מיך האב מאז ומתמיד אינטערעסירט אט די פרשה פון דער גניזה אבער דעם בריוו האב איך קיינמאל ניט געזען ביז איצטער. א דאנק אייך ר' מאטל מיט ר' הירשלען. צווי טשיקאווע פאקטן קאן איך צוגעבן
ReplyDelete1. מיין זיידע זצ"ל איז אמאל אריין לפני ולפנים צום הייליקן בעלזער רב ר' ארעלען זצ"ל און אים געפרעגט זיין חוו"ד מכוח דער כערסאנער גניזה. דער בעלזער רב האט אים געזאגט אז ער זעט סימנים מובהקים פון קבלה ענינים אד"ג אין די בריוו וואס איז אוממעגלעך צו פאלסיוויצירן.
2.איך אליין בשעתו אריין צו ר' משהן זצ"ל און מענין לענין ( מיר האבן אייגנטלעך געשמועסט וועגן דעם ליובאוויטשער רבין ואין כאן המקום איבערגעבן די אויסערגעוויינלעכע אויסדרוקן מיט וועלכע ר' משה האט יעמאלט בארימט דעם חב"ד רבינס גאונות פשוט אין למדות און בקיאות. ער האט מיר געזאגט אז איידער דער רבי איז געווארן רבי ער - ר' משה - פלעגט אים כסדר אנקלינגען טעלעפאניש ווען ער האט געזוכט "א פארווארפענעם מקור" ) האב איך אים געפרעגט וואס זאגט ער וועגן דער כערסאנער גניזה. ר' משה האט זיך אויסגעדריקט אז קיין מבין אין קבלה זאכן איז ער ניט אבער זיין חוש זאגט אים אז עס איז ניט קיין זיוף. ער האט מיר דאן דערקלערט דעם אונטערשייד צווישן מסיכתות אין סדר קדשים אין ירושלמי ( פאר די וואס זיינען באקאנט מיט דער פרשה ) וואס זיינען געווען מזויף און די כערסאנע בריוון וואס "שמעקן אמתדיק"
נאך דעם וואס איך האב געשריבן די גאנצע אריכות, האב איך דערזען די אייניקע ווערטער פון או.נ.
ReplyDeleteבאמת מוז איך מלמד זכות זיין ווארעם ער האט ניט מפרט געוועזן וואס ער האט געמיינט דערמיט, נאר געזאגט וההמשך יבוא. איך האף אבער אז די ווערטער "נאנסענס" האבן זיך ניט געוואנדן דעם ליובאוויטשער רבינס וועגן. דאס וואלט ניט געווען א רייד פון א פרומן יידן. באמת אפילו אן דער ציטאטע פון דעם בעלזער רב מיט ר' משהן וואלט ניט געווען מותר שרייבן אזאז מין אויסדרוק עאכו"כ נאך דער מיינונג פון די אלע דריי גדולי ישראל.
איך גלייב ניט אז אפילו איין ערלעכער ייד וואלט גערעדט מיט זלזול אפילו ווען ער אליין אדער אנדערע זיך צווייפלן אין דעם אמתקייט פון דער דאזיקער גניזה און איך בעט אייך ר הירשל- דערלאז ניט דברי זלזול חכמים אין אייער זייטל - דאס איז פארבאטן על פי דין לכל הדעות
בכבוד יוסף דוב
איך בין אױכעט אַ מלמד זכות אױף די גרױסע גדולים ר' אַהרן בעלזער זצ"ל און ר' מענדיל מיקאָלײַעװער זצ"ל און אַלע אַנדערע װער האָט זיך טועה געװען אין דעם. װעגען דעם זאג איך אַז אָדער האָבן זײ עס נישט געזאגט (זעהט נישט אױס אַזױ), אָדער לפום ריהטא זײ זינד פֿאַרטיפֿט און פֿאַרכישופ'ט געװאָרן מיט "קבלה" ענינים און נישט געקוקט אױף דעם פּשט הפּשוט. איך בין אױכעט זיכער אַז היצט װען זײ זענען נענטער צום אַמת הובן זײַ שטאַרקע חרטה און װעלן זײַן דאַנקבאַר צו יעדעם אײנעם װער װעט אױפֿקלערן עיניים העורות
ReplyDeleteThere are three categories of letters in the collection -
1. Letters which we don't deserve to see because someone who bought them so decided, that may or may not contain meaningful information.
2. Harmless letter without much content about things like "received your letter - thank you for the warm blanket and six kopeykes - me, dust at your feet, shmerel feferkon from zhmerinka".
3. Letter's that do carry meaning and content pertaining to concrete people, dates and facts from which subsequent statements could be derived.
First two categories are of little interest. They may or may not be real - probably some even are real - but who cares ? Specially not the "Chochma-Bina" people who are all about meaning and
pnimiyus.
But the third category matters. To the naked and naive eye it looks like a relatively truthful collection of historical documents that more-less correspond to most accepted versions of events and descriptions of people. The "ta'ana" about inappropriatness of last name usage and other toarim I personally don't buy.
However, there are certain sentences and letters in the geniza that scream out to the reader of it "I am a fake". It is as if they were placed there with that purposes alone. And I think that it's quite possible that this is the reason for geniza's existence - to serve as a litmus test between those who can accept the truth for what it is, and those who are not so but will defend their position truth notwithstanding. Those who are interested in it will takeh find those passages easily; those who are not won't even look.
The "proof" of it's authenticity is ridiculously circumstancial. It's authentic because they don't know of anyone who could've written it; because they can't figure out why would one do such a thing (apparently, these people never heard of money or Shaun Greenhalgh); because they have a better way for such forger to advance his or her career; because kemayos and sheimos were heard to be there and must be authentic (note that even R' Yosef Yitzok didn't see those, not to mention those who came after); because the forger would have been foolish to waste his time on this as it was impossible to find a buyer (but he did find one, didn't he, and for quite a matbea); and the most interesting argument of the "typos" - that there could be a whole plethora of "grayzen" in the document as it was copied over manually but that doesn't mean that the original wasn't real.
To the latter argument, I can only say, that the obvious forgeries in the genizah are written in such a fashion that it is absolutely impossible to attribute this to any amount of typos and misunderstandings. Indeed, as said before, they scream bloody murder - I'm a fake.
Now if that hurts anyone's feelings and somehow the hiskashrus feels swallen - maybe it's time to re-examine the meaning of life and why you do what you do and you think what you think.
R'Yoisef Doiv
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you are for real or not (zai moichel if you are,please)For some reason you are only 'moicheh' when you see a lack of respect towards the Lubavitch side, you don't make a 'peeps' when it's about respected talmidei chachomim (that's what leads me to think that you may not be very real).
The accepted opinion of every serious historian is that the Cherson genizza is a fake.With all due respect to Lubavitcher Rebbe'n he was a 'nogea badovor'.
I'm sure you also know that there have been very famous fakes that fooled many of the biggest talmidei chachomim.Example is the Yerushalmi on kodshim that even fooled the Chofetz Chaim!!!.
(Your story with R'Moshe saying he thought it was true is a very strange one.R'Moshe had zero interest or shaychus to these things.About him calling the Rebbe for a mareh mokom before the Rebbe became rebbe:Maybe, but does not sound very true.A)I don't think they knew each other.B)R'Moshe generally did not deal with 'farvorfeneh mekooiress' and the meat and potatoes he knew cold.So maybe it happened once or twice)
Could someone please bring a couple of letters from the genizza?
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone can find it online in the Tomim?
דעם געערטן ר' ברוכן
ReplyDeleteצום ערשט בין איך טאקע ניט מסכים מיט דעם באשולדיקונג אז איך האב ניט באשיצט דעם כבוד פון אלע גדולי ישראל און אנדערע יידן.
אז איר וועט א קוק טאן אויף די עטליכע פריערדיקע שרייבנישן, וועט איר זען אז איך בין מוחה געוועזן ווען מען האט גערעדט אן דעם געהעריקן כבוד מכוח ר מיכאל בערן, ר יצחק זילבער, רי יצחק הוטנער און געוויס קיין שלעכט ווארט איבער קיינעם וועט איר ביי מיר ניט געפינען.
צוייטנס- וועגן דעם שייכות צווישן ר' משה מיטן ליובאוויטשער רבין- אויף דעם ס'זיינען פאראן גענוג עדים און אפילו בילדער ( פון זיי ביידן צוזאמען ). הרה"ג ר' מאיר גרינבערג שליט"א איז געווען א בן בית ביי ר' משהן און ער איז אן עדות אז ר' משה פלעגט טעלעפאנירן דעם רבין וואך איין וואך אויס און ווען ר' מאיר האט געפרעגט ביי ר' משהן פארוואס האט ער אויפגעהערט האט ער געענטפערט אז נאך דעם וואס ער איז געווארן רבי וויל ער ניט פארזעצן צו קלינגען.בכל אופן איך האב דאס אליין געהערט אי פון ר' מאירן אי פון ר' משהן אליין.
אבער דאס איז דער גורל פון אינטערנעט - עס איז לייכטער מקבל זיין נעגאטיווע זאכן ווי פאזיטיווע
אלעס בעסן
אייער יוסף דוב
נאך איין נקודה - אלע ערנסטע וועלטלעכע היסטאריקער האלטן אין איין פרעדיקן אז דער זהר הקדוש איז געשריבן געווארן ניט דורך דעם רשב"י נאר דורך איינעם דע ליאן אין דעם 13טן יאר הונדערט. אבער גלייב איך ניט צי א פרומער ייד וואלט געזאגט "נאנסענס אויף איינער וואס גלייבט אז דער רשב"י איז דער אווטאר.
ReplyDelete.
בנוגע קדשים - איך האב עס דערמאנט און געזאגט אן פרטים אז ס'איז אן
אונטערשייד צווישן די צווי ביישפילן וואס ר' משה מיט זיין גיכן אויג גלייך געכאפט. י.ד.
Sorry guys but the Chersoner geniza is an obvious fraud. Anyone reading the letters can immediately tell that's it's promoting the Lubavitcher version of the history of the Besht and his talmidim. Besides, R. Chaim Lieberman knew the person who forged them and that he did it because he needed money. It's been proven by scholars to be a fraud.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that the great Rasha"b was fooled by the letters and chassidim have to follow the Rebbe.
The accepted opinion of every serious historian is that Torah is R"L a fake. So much for accepted opinions.
ReplyDeleteBringing Roche"l into the picture basically destroys your point. You're bringing the opinion of a man with little respect for the FR and no respect for the Rebbe, who was hoodwinked by everyone he came into contact with and made a terrible witness on the stand. He probably did more to bring down his friend that anyone else.
Ailemisher,
ReplyDelete"Lubavitcher version?" Um, well, although you sound like you consider yourself an expert, let's keep in mind The Geneiza is of Riziner origin.
I find it amazing that a everyone jumps on the claim that the letters are riddled with obvious mistakes, yet I have yet to see these self made experts bring anything besides hearsay and baseless statements.
ReplyDeleteA gutten.
Guravitzer,
ReplyDeleteAre you drawing parallels between Torah haKedosha and this geniza ? That's outright kefira, and even R' MM' z"l is careful to keep that line of arguments to Baal Shem Tov's existance and that some historians claim that "lo hoyo velo nivro". By your line of thinking, every ridiculuos fake must be true now because historians also say that Torah was of human writing. What idiocy.
Mottel - first of all, not everyone jumps on this claim, and mistakes aren't that obvious. Forgeries are obvious to just about anyone willing to invest an hour or so into reading the genizah and should be kept that way. As mentioned, it's a great way to distinguish between those who never read the thing and keep arguing the obvious lie, and those willing to see the objective truth, which is G-d's Seal.
Calling something idiocy when you built a straw man only collapes your point, not builds on it. Please use logic and language appropriately. The connection was not between Torah and the geniza, the connection was between the opinion of historians on any subject. We know their conclusions and methods can lead to an error, as it does in many areas of Jewish history. Therefore, when a plausible explanation is given by someone I trust and know had Ruach Hakodesh on top of that, I will trust them.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the only true reason (not based on Greek lines of logic) for which we believe in the Torah is Kaboloh Hi MeAvoisenu. Obviously there is no Mitzvah in Torah to trust in the veracity of the contents of the Geniza, but I do trust their opinion anyway, and for both you and me there is a Mitzvah of Ahavas Reim an Issur of Rechilus.
Guravitzer,
ReplyDeleteThe opinion is not just of "historians" - it's also shared by many respectable Rabonim, amongst them Raboiseinu-Nesieinu as well as prominent Ruzhiner grandsons (it's taken personal as his name is used to further peddle the fake), as well as pretty much any other non-partisan observer.
I will leave your provocative claim of Ruach haKodesh untouched.
One of the signs of a "manhig rouy" is the ability to accept, acknowledge and correct own error, umiklal hen ato shomea lav. If Yehuda didn't accept his mistake, kulonu ovadnu c'v. And no plausible explanation by any stretch of logic or any other discipline has been given.
As far as mitzvos go, there is a mitzva of "midvar sheker tirchak"; that's where it all begins and if that one is forgone, everything else will fall apart, especially so the Ahavas Reim.
Let me ask you and other gnizers here - can you yourself name one of the questionable letters in the genizah that some deem problematic and you deem authentic, or is all this just wholesale theory without actual exposure ?
You miss the entire point - the Rebbe considers the entire collection problematic, as did the FR and Rebbe Rashab when they received it, and only considered it authentic because it contained certain things that were only known Rebbe Mipi Rebbe and no forger could have known. This is why they determined it was a copy, neither a forgery nor an original. Your accusations (your in the loose sense) didn't surprise them, they had thought it through well before purchasing. A hallmark of our Rebbeim, they always thought their actions through well and they stood the test of time.
ReplyDeleteGuravitzer,
ReplyDeleteYou insist on squeezing your "points" and other people's imaginary "misses" of them; you'd do yourself a better favor by actually reading the document that you're trying to authenticate.
From what you're saying, the only "authentic" parts of genizah even by the claim of R' Yosef Yitzhak and R' Menachem Mendel are the ones that nobody besides them and the "copier" had seen. Good for those who had seen them, yet it does or proves nothing to the general population. Besides, this exclusive chain of knowledge "Rebbe Mipi Rebbe" was at least extended to the Ruzhiner zts"l and whoever else would've handled the geniza during the given period.
They didn't purchase it, they R' received it as a gift from Shmiel Gurary; no actions were necessary and no actions were "though out", other then the action of not refusing the gift.
There are no "accusations" in any sense; there are simple observations made time after time, person after person, not just by myself but by people who had no less R"K, and were no less learned or revered then the your Rebbeim.
So could you kindly answer the most important question of it all - which letters are indeed problematic - and why - and yet are authentic ? "All of them" isn't really good enough; most of them contain no contradictions or obvious mismatching of facts and events. But some do. Can you name any ?
1) Who is the source that Lieberman said it? the 1st source was in Moshe Lipshutz Sefer Hazikoren by 1 of the participants, why should I believe that person, their ego guides them that anything coming from the FR
ReplyDeleteis no good I know that crowd well.
2) If Lieberman knew that the guy is a fraudster why didnt he offer his 2 cents on that subject when the kesovim came up for sale, if you read the FR letters you see that lieberman was involved and consulted on all library matters
3) The Piacezner is using the kesovim as a reliable source and not too many rebbes in the polisher crowd knew toras habesht better then him
4) A local Rebbe of Flatbush that has a nice following there and he is deep into Toras Habesht told me lately that the Rebbes claim that some letters could not be concoted by a fraudster since some of them have deep Torah of the Besht circle, he showed me a long article that he wrote on that subject, that verifies that many letters are deep torah of the Toldos Yakov Yosef, Teshuas Chien and Degel machne Efraim.
anonymous, you seem to be a real maven for "poilisher crowd". Once you learn how to speall Piaseczne, could you kindly point to a source where he's legitimizing the "gniza" ? And did the local Flabusher Rebbe end up publishing his article - I'd love to read it.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, if anyone will make a plausible proof that would make sense that the gniza is real - that would entail explaining away the absolutely shining gaping holes - I'll have no problem accepting it.
natchalnik, where did I say that I was interested in reviewing the genizah myself? I trust the Rebbe, that's enough for me. You can join the Sorbonne denying crowd.
ReplyDeleteGuravitzer
ReplyDeleteYou should look up the definition of circular logic.
You 'trust' the Rebbe, therefore the Rebbe is right?Without proof, based on ?
And we have to accept the geniza as true since you 'trust the Rebbe'?
Anonymous:Toirehs from Toldos Yaakov Yoisef brought down in the letters of the Genizah prove what exactly?That the forger could read?
Why don't you guys do yourself a favour and read up about the guy who forged the Yerushalmi on Kodshim who was able to convince some of the biggest rabbonim at the time.
Tzig,
ReplyDeleteI think that the only proof that is positively established by this post is that the people insisting on gniza's authenticity possess intellect of a garden snail and absolute zero knowledge of the document itself, not to mention its history or background. I don't know if it's a good thing or a sad one that the minim nowadays, unlike the minim of 100 years ago, are also dumb.
zalman, you too believe in setting up straw men? The Rebbe's explanation is plausible, that's A. That is what we are discussing. Then there is my personal trust in the Rebbe, which is why I have no interest in analyzing the errors in the letters. We know they are there. They are admitted all around, and stand in the face. They were taken into consideration when published.
ReplyDeletenatchalnik, please relax. When all else fails an insult might do, but I am sure you don't consider that you have falied yet. Don't give up hope. Perhaps you will one day discover the true records of the Sorbonne that prove that the Rebbe never attended there, and all the naysayers can throw a Didan Notzach. I'll even have a drink to celebrate with you.
נעתרות נשיקות שונא
ReplyDeleteGuravitzer, frankly I haven't yet gotten to insults; they aren't necessary. Your "arguments" are retarded by any stretch of logic - note that even Tzig has nothing to say here; your own "hiskashrus" is in fact a figment of your imagination that you built on lies, twists and mistranslations that you yourself invented and that have nothing to do with what any Rebbe wrote (he never guaranteed the fake's authenticity, but that doesn't both you). You're probably just yet another ponevezher trying to make a point here. You haven't read the thing, probably because you simply can't - nor did you in all likelihood read Igros referencing it until reb mottel here kindly "translated" it into your mamelush. You will do your party a big favor if you'll post a big disclaimer. Pity on you and the air you breath.
Uber Umni, I figured I would put it in Russian for you . . . But then figured nothing would help.
ReplyDeleteHaving been away from a computer for the past few days, I finally got a chance to read the comments in yiddish, and was amused by your words.
You claim to beמלמד זכות אױף די גרױסע גדולים', yet you call the Rebbe . . .
Frankly, as I wrote before the translation, this wasn't meant for you - A kop ken men nisht arufshtelen.
I do thank you all for the addition of Reb before my name.
There is nothing amusing in perpetuation of lies and forgeries. And there is even less amusement when that's done in the name of religion. Look up Or haChayim ha"k on meilah.
ReplyDeleteLook up Maamar Dibbur Hamaschil Heichaltzu Ranat.
ReplyDeleteUN
ReplyDeleteThe Piacesner is using the kesovim in his Hachshores Hoavrachim,
The Rebbe of Flatbush will eventually print his theory,and then you will move on to your next Chabad ranting.