These letters were penned in 5728/1968 after the
Rebbe had announced
Mivtza Tefillin, namely putting on
tefillin with any Jewish male over 13 years old, anywhere (almost) and anytime (from the
z'man in the morning till
shkias haChamoh.)
Rav Yitzchok Hutner zt"l,
Rosh Yeshiva of
Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin in Brooklyn writes to the
Lubavitcher Rebbe, זצוקללה"ה regarding his concerns that he had over this new campaign, including the need to tell the people you were donning the
tefillin on that there were parchments inside that had the
parshios of
krias shema written on them. We see the respect RYH has for the
Rebbe, and how he wants to understand the
Rebbe's words and opinion in the matter. There's also the denying of ever speaking out against Lubavitch during the '67 Agudah convention, or being present at that or any other convention for that matter, to the point where he begs forgiveness and asks to be blessed by the
Rebbe.
Let's read:
No attacks and condemnations, only respectful dialogue
"ישנו יהודי וואס קאכט זיך אין מהר"ל..... יה"ר שזכותו של המהר"ל תעמוד לו להינצל ללא פגע"
הוד כבוד אדמו"ר מליובאוויטש שליט"א
ביקרא דאורייתא ...... יצחק הוטנר
How much more proof does one need?!
a greyse yasher keyach tsig for that!
ReplyDeleteTzig
ReplyDeleteThe chaim berlin guys that invested too much on the sinas yisroel culture will not repent Al Pischei Shel Gehinom
kool,very nice!
ReplyDeleteTzig,
ReplyDeleteThat is pretty amazing stuff. Thanks for posting it. What becomes clear from what you've posted, as well as the letters already printed in the Igros, is that RYH had a somewhat unique relationship with the Rebbe, and considered himself very close on a personal level.
I take issue with the notion that these letters suggest that RYH was very close to the Rebbe. See for example the following quote:
ReplyDeleteHillel Goldberg has written in his Between Berlin and Slabodka, pp. 187-188 (reference taken from here):
Rabbi Hutner's opposition to Lubavitch came to expression with colorful asperity. For example (interview with Saul [pseudonym], January, 1985, Jerusalem):
'I was a student at Mesivta Rabbi Chaim Berlin for only half a year, and had not spoken to Rabbi Hutner in about twenty years. I phoned him in New York, saying only 'hello,' to which he responded, "Hello, Saul, how are you?" He knew my voice! He had this habit of making appointments at strange times, so we met at 2:10 p.m., Sunday afternoon. I told him that I had come to New York to pick up my children from summer camp-a Lubavitch camp. Whereupon he suddenly turned his whole body around in his chair, his back facing me, and just sat there in blazing anger, glaring into space for what seemed like an eternity. He must have been silent for two minutes. I was dumbfounded. Then he said, "Saul, you come to see me once in twenty years, and all you can tell me is that you send your children to a Lubavitch camp? There aren't enough other camps?" He told me that my children would return home saying that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Messiah, that Lubavitch would ruin my children.' (emphasis added)
This attitude of R. Hutner has been confirmed to me by other students of his. He was very concerned over the "cult of personality" that R.Schneerson had built and, in particular, the messianic element of that community.
(end quote).
Rav Hutner's problems with chabad were voiced without equivocation, but most lilely after he wrote this letter. Something must have brought about the change. . .
I have no doubt that the Rebbe wrote a response to RYH. I can not wait till RYH's daughter and son-in-law publish the Rebbe's response. : )
ReplyDeleteWhy does it have to be all one or all the other. Efshar L'Kayeim Shneihem: It's clear that R'Hutner had great respect for the Rebbe and it's also known to many that as the Rebbe's personality/Moshiach cult expanded R' Hutner disapproved of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's very clear to even a בן חמש למקרא that the Rebbe's existence shterred Rav Hutner - at least if he felt that Chabad was moving in on his territory. In other words you saw the opposition to Chabad only when it interfered with his מלוכה. That's why he would voice his supposed opposition to Chabad when somebody would mention that he sent his kid to a Lubavitcher camp, (and not to his camp) or when a bachur would voice his interest in going to the Rebbe or learning chassidus chabad.
ReplyDeleteס'האט אים פשוט געשטערט די מלוכה
anonymous 9:53am
ReplyDeleteyou DO see that the Rebbe wrote many of his answers right on the original letter, right?
Rav Hutner zt"l was once asked (I think it was in 1962) why do you have any shaychus to the LR, he responded "is lo samod al dam rayacha only to stop yidden from being mechalel shabbos? Doesn't it apply too to "ayneh vus mir ruft a manhig"? If I can be mekarev the rebbe, I will have saved thousands of yidden..."
ReplyDeleteTake it how you want to, but that's exactly what you see here in these letters, so it comes as no shock to me, and probably many others.
Anonymous 11:35am
ReplyDeleteThat's a load of baloney if I ever saw one.
>>That's why he would voice his supposed opposition to Chabad when somebody would mention that he sent his kid to a Lubavitcher camp, (and not to his camp) or when a bachur would voice his interest in going to the Rebbe or learning chassidus chabad.
ReplyDeleteTzig,
Come on. Seriously.
seriously.
ReplyDeleteoib main kleyneh kup kentz ist nisht soivel zain, muz zain tsiz baloney
ReplyDeleteאזא זאך קען אפילו מיין קליינע קאפ סובל זיין
ReplyDeleteDov Ber,
ReplyDeleteyou really dropped a notch with your response. You've always come across as a very intelligent guy, and I could respect tha fact that you may have issues (real or imagined) that underpin your intense feeling against the Rebbe and his chassidim.
But you post is really childish....Hirshel posts solid, documentary evidence and all you can fire back with is an andecdote from an unidentified source. C'MON!
PS - RYH read a talmid (muvhak) the riot act because he heard he went a couple of times to the Rebbe's Fabrengen. basically told him its me or him. and that was back in the stone ave days, before mashiach, before tefillan etc.
(as told to me by said talmid)
I provided a SOURCE. There is so much evidence which point to RYH's disappointment with the Rebbe in the 70s and later, that it is undermines the entire purpose of these letters.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I have to reiterate, I do not have "intense feelings" against the rebbe. My disappointment is rooted in fact; it cannot be glibly dismisses as "imagined."
My comment to Tzig was that his "insight" into RYH's motivations is entirely contrived, and not supported by fact.
As if anybody reading his mindless drivel could ever expect Dovber to be logical ?!! C'mon, this idiot is the poster child for brainwashing 101.
ReplyDeleteBpunbound
ReplyDeleteAren't you a former C'Berliner, I thought you mentioned that in a former thread with Chaim Berlin Tragedy.
You would have a better notion about what R'Hutner thought.Btw the quote that Dovber , you attack him about and then go on to agree that R'Hutner read "the riot" act for a talmid who went to Lubavitch.
So do you agree or disagree?
Pulcheh
ReplyDeleteooh, ooh, can I answer?
The point is that he had a problem with his bachurim going to Lubavitch because he knew THEY'D LEAVE HIM AND HIS DERECH!!!
Nothing More!
Why are you getting excited Tzig?
ReplyDeleteI did not even give an opinion.All I asked was BPunbound if he agrees or disagrees because he seemed to be doing both at the same time.
>>As if anybody reading his mindless drivel could ever expect Dovber to be logical ?!! C'mon, this idiot is the poster child for brainwashing 101.
ReplyDeleteIts sad the irony of this statement escapes yankel. Hate on.
>>THEY'D LEAVE HIM AND HIS DERECH!!!
ReplyDeleteIf you can expect yourself to be reasonable and honest about your own motivations, you ought to extend the same courtesy to genuises of the mind and spirit, leaders of thousands whose integrity has remained undisputed.
whereas my Rebbe?
ReplyDeleteI personally heard this from Rav Yosef Wineberg zol zein gezunt, one of the elterer and chosheve Chabad Chassidim who is respected by many influential and important yidden outside of Chabad.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rav Hutner was near death Rav Wineberg was mevaker chole him.At the end of their converstion, as Rav Wineberg was about to leave, Rav Hutner asked him to approach him and whispered in to his ear "Ich glaib yetzt az der Lubavitcher Rebbe is der godol hador".
I know that there are those that will definitely question the veracity and credibility of this story but as many on this blog site are aware, Rav Wineberg is not an individual given to guzmah or shakronus.
In any case I don't see why this incident should have less credibility then the camp story.
There are all kinds of ridiculous accusations hurled at the Rebbe concerning what he said or did by many individuals posting here that have no basis in fact except hearsay.Yet many accept them as truth carved in stone and when asked to back up these so called "facts" are unable to do so except for some inane "proof" that I'm not going to rehash for the umpteenth time.
What about the rebbe? Are you judging the Rebbe? Am I judging the Rebbe?
ReplyDeleteThis is problem that Rav Hutner had with the Rebbe. Those problems will not be washed away because of an outdated letter.
>>I provided a SOURCE. There is so much evidence which point to RYH's disappointment with the Rebbe in the 70s and later, that it is undermines the entire purpose of these letters.
ReplyDeleteYou provided a source to an unattributable anecdote, you're either too lazy or too preoccupied to respond properly to Hirshel's well-founded ascertion, so you prefer to hide behind sophistry.
>> Second, I have to reiterate, I do not have "intense feelings" against the rebbe. My disappointment is rooted in fact; it cannot be glibly dismisses as "imagined."
Er..last time I checked, disappoitment is a feeling! a reaction to 'facts' as YOU perceive them. I don't begrudge you your feelings (I did not dismiss them and i was not trying to be glib!).
>> My comment to Tzig was that his "insight" into RYH's motivations is entirely contrived, and not supported by fact
the 'facts' are the letters, if you want to 'read' other interpetations into them, that's your right, but I'm afraid that's closer to contrived the Hirshel's plain reading.
Pulcheh,
You memory is good...you should also recall that CBT gave a lengthy analysis at the time...i would only add that RYH was a very complicated man...he obviously (IMHO and other's) tried to offer a derech hamemutza, bring chassidus down in oisiosis palatable for the oilem heyehivas (maybe he fancied himself the AR incarnate (just a joke, relax)), took flak from der lita for that (and other things), demanded a HUGE amount of loyalty from people but did not always display the same loyalty to others.
oh, and BTW, I didn't attack DB, just couldn't understand why he lowered his 'standards' for posting.
As far as Hisrshel's comment, I would prefer to say he didn't want the environment that he was cultivating for his talmidim to be disturbed by what he percieved as 'outside influenecs'.
>>You provided a source to an unattributable anecdote, you're either too lazy or too preoccupied to respond properly to Hirshel's well-founded ascertion, so you prefer to hide behind sophistry.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if you are familiar with the language you are employing. I provided the book name, the page and the author. What do you mean by unattributable anecdote?
>>Er..last time I checked, disappoitment is a feeling! a reaction to 'facts' as YOU perceive them. I don't begrudge you your feelings (I did not dismiss them and i was not trying to be glib!).
But my disappointment is not as strong as you attempt to imply.
>>the 'facts' are the letters, if you want to 'read' other interpetations into them, that's your right, but I'm afraid that's closer to contrived the Hirshel's plain reading.
Those letters are forty years old. There is plenty of evidence--one piece which I have already provided--which demonstrates that Rav Hutner changed his mind later on. I never suggested that Hirschel's reading of the letters are contrived, only that his explanations as to Rav Hutner's later, well documented disinclination toward the Rebbe and Chabad is obviously contrived.
re Arthur's story, my father heard R. A. Shechter screaming at one of his Talmidim that he'd better cover up on that story.
ReplyDeleteI didn't hear though that R. Weinberg was there. My father's chavrusa had heard it from one of R. Chaim Shmulevitz's sons who was present.
You do realize that RYH passed away less than 12 years after these letters, right? And that he was not in full physical health for several years too, right?
ReplyDeleteso why be untruthful and use the 40 years number?
I apologize. The letter was written 40 years ago, was it not?
ReplyDeleteRav Hutner passed away in 1980 and his voiced opposition to the rebbe is well known.
The fact that he may have not been feeling well does not imply, as you are suggesting, that he was not well mentally.
Your suggestion that Rav Hutner had no opposition to the rebbe despite the well known evidence is the only untruthful thing here.
so now we watered it down to "was opposed. האלטען מיר שוין אף א וועג....
ReplyDeleteBut you would agree that the fact that he asked to be blessed by the rebbe, attaching his mother's name to the letter, shows great respect as a man who has the capability to bless him, right?
The fact that he wasn't well means that I doubt he was concerned with Lubavitch at that time, and had time to voice his opposition to the Rebbe and his activities. I did not mean to imply that his mind c"v was not functioning.
בצפי' עמוקה שתבין אותו ושיתקבלו דבריי
הירשל בן תיש
"Your suggestion that Rav Hutner had no opposition to the rebbe despite the well known evidence is the only untruthful thing here."
ReplyDeleteI would assume ,that which he said on his death bed were his last thoughts about the Rebbe.Perhaps these thoughts about the Rebbe being the Godol Hador preceded his death by many years,but for the reasons given by Tzig,he did not acknowledge them at the time.
anon or Dov Ber or whoever you are,
ReplyDeleteYour begining to disintergrate before our eyes. Maybe you should stop while you still retain a shred of credibility.
>> What do you mean by unattributable anecdote?
I mean 'Saul [pseudonym]'?? Who he??
>> But my disappointment is not as strong as you attempt to imply.
Should I read that to mean you would really prefer to like the Rebbe?
>> there is plenty of evidence
???? plenty? one story from an unamed anon??
>> well documented
????? please, provide us some sources.
PS - Hirshel, you're in particularly good form today!
PS - Hirshel, you're in particularly good form today!
ReplyDeleteThanks, man!
Tzig said:
ReplyDelete"you saw the opposition to Chabad only when it interfered with his מלוכה. That's why he would voice his supposed opposition to Chabad when somebody would mention that he sent his kid to a Lubavitcher camp, (and not to his camp)"
Are you joking?
Unfortunately, I highly doubt that you are!
Do you really believe that RYH could care less that a few kids were not in his camp?!
Do you really believe that RYH saw a Lubavitch Camp as competition to Camp Morris?!
Back then Camp Morris was nothing like it is today. Camp Morris only catered to bachurim who were at least of Mesivta age, while Camp Lubavitch catered mostly to children below Mesivta age. Camp Morris was a "learning camp", while Camp Lubavitch was a "fun camp".
Neither RYH, nor anybody else ever saw those two summer camps as competition.
They were catering to different age groups and had completely different focuses.
Many talmidim of RYH, specifically those who wanted a more relaxed summer atmosphere, attended summer camps other than Camp Morris. RYH did not seem to have a problem with that.
RYH most certainly did not care that these Children were in Camp Lubavitch because he saw them as competition.
Why is it that whenever a Gadol might have said something slightly negative about Lubavitch, the Lubavitchers always say that the Gadol had a personal vendetta against Lubavitch?
Whether those Gedolim were right or wrong is irrelevant and not for us to judge. But is it so farfetched to believe that perhaps those Gedolim really held that there was a problem with the hanhagos and hashkafos of Lubavitch?
tzig, can you do a favor please? i am having a hard time reading the copies of the r hutner letters, even when enlarged they are very very unclear. is there any way you can scan them and post them separately and then post them???
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU!!!!!!
what do you mean scan them and then post them separately?
ReplyDeleteyes. that is ehat i meant. thanks
ReplyDeletemee too said...
ReplyDeleteyes. that is ehat i meant. thanks
שוטה אינו מרגיש? That was a question!
What about the fact that RH came to see the Rebbe after the Maase with the hijacking (Lamed Zayin)?
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it:
ReplyDeleteR'Hutner would have liked the Rebbes "rebisteva" and influence.
The Rebbe would have liked the quality and caliber of R'Hutners talmidim the likes of which were not a common sight in the yeshiva on Dean st (bpunbound, I don't mean you,I think the Rebbe would not have minded if you had stayed on IN CB...)
(Since this is a Chabad site, not known for self introspection, I don't know if this will pass the goat at the gate)What I 'd like to say(in the spirit of an intellectual site such as hirhurim etc) is that both The Lubavitcher and R'Hutner had a lot in common, both of them were brilliant people who ,unlike other very choshuveh people, like let's say R'Moshe, wanted to leave a mark, wanted to create revolutions, wanted to have many followers.R'Hutner was waay to pushy about it, The Rebbe had a major advantage on him in this with an ability to talk to the average yukel/joe.On the other hand R'Hutner was into the elite and talked and cultivated them and succeded with some real heavyweights.
My 2 cents.
Now attack.
I posted, what I though was an intelligent thought.
ReplyDeleteI guess the goat at the gate censored it.
What a dumb fellow.You guys are so weak that you are threatened by the anonymous musings of a poster.
Feh
Hey Goomber
ReplyDeletenext time you accuse at least a few minutes. Now who looks like the fool?
Thank you for publishing these letters. They are indeed startling in their harshness. Anyone trained in reading rabbinic communications will find the barbs that Rav Hutner is throwing out there to be extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken, there is not a single letter in Rav Hutner’s Pachad Yitzchok – Iggros U’ksavim displaying this sort of sharp critique.
Notice the dismissive language used in argumentation. Like saying that someone who doesn’t know he is standing before Hashem is not davening, he is “talking to the wall.” He repeatedly presents ideas in language suggesting that any reasonable person would understand easily.
He consistently accuses the Rebbe of arguing in bad faith, of misrepresenting his points, of misunderstanding simple and straightforward ideas. Finally, the last cutting line in which he indicates he does not appreciate being accused of “maaseh chiddudim” is perhaps unprecedented in its acerbity. This expression, in Gemara language, refers to… er, perhaps we shouldn’t say in a family publication. Using an expression of this nature is as close as one talmid chacham would ever come to rage in an open letter.
(Point of information: Rav Hutner was not sick at all in later life. He had a full schedule until the end. He gave the Sukkos Maamarim in New York the last year, and I met with him for an hour on Motzoei Simchas Torah. In mid-Cheshvan in Eretz Yisroel he contracted an aneurysm of the brain which left him rambling and incoherent for a 35-day illness culminating in his passing. For people to quote things he said during that illness is entirely inappropriate.)
The reality in my mind is; there is not a problem with a leader being cautious of his students going to another sect. The Mittler Rebbe forbade anyone to go to Karlin. Even went so far as to cursed some students after they went and became the Karliner’s students. So this idea the RH would not do such a thing, it’s a bad motive and accusing Tzig of malice intent; does not know much history.
ReplyDeleteNow the fact that he wrote these letters 12 years before he dies, I think is a valid point in showing that he did have respect for the LR. We are not talking of adolescent girl, who capriciously makes decisions. Does that mean he like everyone in the hierarchy? Obviously it does not. One could admire a leader and disagree strongly with its sect members or with its leader’s ideas.
Tzig
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the Homnick above has no connection to C.B.It's someone playing on the Homnick from CB backround who joined Lubavitch and is a fiery meshichist.
I've really got to read the letters to see if this guy is right, but it's not very easy the way it's posted
I believe that Rav Hutner was a split personality, his problem was himself not the Rebbe,all his life he was moving from left to right.plus he was a control freak and he demanded his respect with both hands that backfired on him from time to time, Alot of talentd guys that were mesmerized by his great mind and charisma left him because of that,
ReplyDeleteYears ago I heard from a Mashpia( I will keep his name for my self)that in the early years RYH was visiting the Rebbe on a steady basis and they rebbe discused with him profund deep dicourses in chasidus ( as u can see in the letters printed in Hiechel Habesht)Reb Shmuel Levitin was a Kluger Yid (bilshon Hamaspia)begged the Rebbe that he should stop the visits with RYH since he is a Hafachcach.. and its a tool for his ego but the Rebbe responded that if a Yid wants to learn Chassidus I have to teach him. Your lunatic bloggers will not buy it, but who cares, these are the facts and I like to live with the facts.
Jay D. Homnick
ReplyDeleteFrom the letters here, and your comments, one can clearly see you have never learnt SA in your life. Anyone one has simple smicha; knows the tone of a heated arguments ala Shach and Taz. Never mind one who knows the Ra'AH and the Rashba. And even more so one who knows the tone between R’ Zechaya and the Ramban. The language here is mild and in fact very loving, almost bashful.
Okay,here is one paragraph translated almost word-for-word.
ReplyDeleteHod Kvodo Shlita writes "what I wrote concerning Kvod Toroso's opinion that the person putting on Tefillin assumes there is nothing inside". Excuse me, sir, this is not my OPINION. And I wrote this explicitly at the outset in my first letter. I know and I testify from personal experience speaking to many irreligious Jews, and I found out definitely that it did not occur to them at all that there is anything enclosed in the boxes.
Of course, if Hod Kvodo Shlita has other statistics, then all of our discussion back and forth is simply for personal stimulation. And I repeat my statement: no one should suspect me of engaging here in 'personal stimulation'."
If I wrote that to a rabbi, would he think I regarded him in quaking awe or that I was being sindely disdainful?
And yes, "maaseh chiddudim" means personal stimulation in Talmudic terms. Yes, that kind of personal stimulation. To use an expression like this in a rabbinic letter is like setting off a neutron bomb. Yikes!
Anon 4:18:00 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he came or not, but these are some facts that CB'ers don't discuss. During the hijacking the Rebbe said a sicha mentioning R' Hutner and his zchus that he has a "koch" in kisvei maharal. After he was B"H released unharmed, stories were circulating about his actions during the captivity. He was a psysically large person, and had quite a bit of food with him. He refused to share food with others including little children and this caused a stir among the other hostages. After the release, he never wrote a book or discussed it in a major way since these facts would have come out publicly. Since the Rebbe spoke so postively about him, it would make sense that he came to visit to thank the Rebbe. Again, I never heard that he came, if you have a source plz post it.
It's old news in CB that RH was out to be mekarev the Rebbe and CB"D and was trying to bring them back to torah, RH allegedly said RAK was right and he should never have wasted his time.
ReplyDeleteWell obviously I translate it differently.
ReplyDeleteHod Kvodo Shlita writes "what I wrote concerning Kvod Toroso's opinion that the person putting on Tefillin assumes there is nothing inside". I beg (Look up Jastrow “Matu”) of the master, that this is not my OPINION (but observation). And I wrote this explicitly at the outset in my first letter. I know and I testify from personal experience speaking to many irreligious Jews, and I found out definitely that it did not occur to them at all that there is anything is enclosed in the boxes.
And if Hod Kvodo Shlita has other statistics; then of course our discussion/back and forth, is simply for sharpening the mind (learning not for practical purposes). And I repeat my statement: that I should not be suspected of engaging here in the action of sharpening the mind (for I believe it to be of utmost pragmatic importance)
As you can see your connotation is unwarranted.
Lemoshol
ReplyDeleteIf I sell diamonds, and one of my costumers comes to tell me that he heard that in Belgium they are selling much cheaper same or beter quality(my same source supply) I would show this guy that I am not confortable with this, I will try to keep my costumers
But when I go to Belgium ,I ask for advice from my friend the diamond leader, who helped me a lot a guided me a lot to make my small fortune
A pleasure to read an open exchange of ideas between the Rebbe and someone who is not intimidated to debate him in learning. Reminds me of the exchanges with Shai Zevin.
ReplyDeleteThat is definitely Jay Homnick, whom I have met, who is a shtark CBer, talmid of R' Hutner, ashamed brother of the elokist Chabad Homnick, and (therefore?) shtark misnaged to Chabad. He has definitely learned SA, and many other things. However, his opinion is obviously affected by his closeness to R Hutner and his hisnagdus to Chabad. No surprise there. IMO, his translation of chidudim is a stretch. There is no need to read an insult in the letter of a man who phrased one letter like a PaN (Yitzchak ben Chana.
ReplyDeleteCarry on...
Some nekudos from earlier years:
ReplyDeleteRabbi Hutner asked the Frierdiker Rebbe to arrange for one of his Chasidim to learn Chassidus b'iyun with him. After learning with a few of the gedolei ha'Chasidim, they felt they weren't up to the task, and so the Frierdiker Rebbe asked the Rebbe to learn with R' Hutner.
R' Hutner began coming every Thursday night from his home in Brownsville to the Rebbe's house in Crown Heights, to learn Chassidus.
R' Hutner occasionally attended farbrengens in the Frierdiker Rebbe's home.
R' Hutner encouraged the Rebbe to accept the nesius and continued to visit the Rebbe after he did so. He came to be menachem avel the Rebbe when his mother passed away.
1) I read recently, that b'shaas chalyo haAchrona, Rav Hutner (besides the statements brought earlier in comments here), also sent his son-in-law with a set of his sefarim to the Rebbe.
ReplyDeleteIt was also said, b'shem R' CY Kaplan, R' Avremel Shmulevitz (R' Chaim's son), amongst others who were there at the time.
2) Not b'kesher to the
other stories of that period, but here's another point regarding then:
Rav Hutner had a talmid by the name of Freifeld who told R' Groner the following after R' Hutner died. Rav Hutner said to Freifeld on the day he died that he wants to tell him something but he shouldn't be upset. "There's one Tzadik in the world and he lives on Eastern Parkway". The misnagdim warned Freifeld that if he spreads that story they'll kill him.
Rabbi Yitzchok Groner was his best talmid before he went to 770 when the Frierdike Rebbe came to America. In the 50's, Rav Hutner used to make "farbrengens" in his Yeshiva each time the Rebbe would Farbreng because he saw that he was losing his talmidim who would run off to the farbrengens.
He began to fir zich "rebbish", grew a beard and would teach Maharal to the talmidim
A bit more (#1 is a follow-up to Anon 4:18PM) :
ReplyDelete1)Also, m'zogt that RH came to 770 in the Lamed's or Mem's and was in Yechidus for a very long time, and ran out immediately afterwards and would not talk a word about it. -- There are those that say this was indeed following his release from the hijacking.
2) There are shmuos (but unconfirmed) that Nechama Leibovitz a"h, reported seeing in Berlin the Rav (and some say Rav Hutner as well all 3 bechabura) learning with "The Lubavitcher Rebbe's son-in-law".
I've heard similar quite often. Any more leads?
For anyone who needs an exact defintion of "maaseh chiddudim", look in Sanhedrin 66b, and Rashi there.
ReplyDeleteThis all - Anon 5:42 PM especially - brings to mind - what a chaver once told me, that he found a yesod in Pachad Yitzchok about the inyan of Hodo'oh being the only - or one of the only words - in loshon Hakodesh which has two distinct meanings - "admitting" and "praise" - at the time he'd just also found a Sicha where the Rebbe speaks VERY similarly about the same inyan - I considered it very intriguing and attributed this "coincidence" to the many stories I had heard that R' Hutner learned by/with the Rebbe (either by Berlin or in the '50s).
ReplyDeleteFriendly..
ReplyDeleteYou idiot, the Rebbe was the only godol that established a forum as the Haoros that his chidushim should be debated and discussed. Many times he used to ask by fabrengens how come nobody was thinking aboud a certain problem in one of his sichas.
it's interesting to see the lubavs running around to all rebbes begging for a little attention like a kind of psycosis and a desperate need for recongnition knowing that they are locked out from most of the yidishe kehilos!!!
ReplyDeleteand still most of kehilos in boro poark, isreal,will. dont want to have a שייכות with the lubavs bcs thiere
eminu is very close to sabtai tzvi and theire crazy believe of the rebbe"s resurection and theire screaming day and night from top of there lungs "יחי אדוננו לעולם ועד"and it"s engrave on thiere yarmuklas is similiar to the belives of"auso hoish"
most of klall yisroel consider
the believes of the lubavs
"apikursis"
It's been fascinating to read these letters and there are probably thousands more like them from RYH to many, many gedolim, rosh yeshivas, Rebbes, rabbonim, and to many talmidei chachomim and probabalt to an array of intellectuals, thinkers and geniuses that RYH met in the course of his and kep up and avid correspondence with. RYH loved to read and write and he was one of the speediest writers that anyone saw according to the few people who actually witnessed him write his own words. Those observers report that RYH literally could write non-stop until his pen would run out of ink.
ReplyDeleteReaders here should be made aware that CB, in this case meaning RYH's ONLY authorized editors, being his son-in-law Rav Yonoson David (RYD) and his wife, the only daughter of RYH, the very choshuve Rebbetzin Bruria David (RBD) who since the petirah of RYH in 1980 have edited and put out all subsequent editions of his seforim, have put out RYH's official Pachad Yitzchok Igros Ukesavim that contain many of RYH's correspondence that they saw fit to publish in one volume.
Many of the hundreds, probably thousands of letters that RYH wrote that they own copies of, they left out for their own reasons, and there must obviously still be many such letters that have not seen the light of day or that have been deemed to be not fit or on the madregah to go into an OFFICIAL sefer of RYH's sefer Igros Ukesavim.
For those who are truly interested in getting a wider view of the range of RYH's correspondence, from talmidim to other gedolim, reading those kesavimin that sefer is a great place to start.
Reading the comments that some people here have posted, it's amazing how nobody really speaks tzum zach.
Tzig, the owner of this blog, is to be commended for finding and posting these documents because they do provided a rare window into the official relationship between RYH and the last Lubavitcher Rebbe Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (RMMS), but he too, never really experiencing RYH in all his great glory and richness and seeing him up close for many years, understandbly lacks insight and perspective into the over-all RYH picture which is much, much more complicated than anyone, not just on this blog, can imagine.
Tragically, it's a reminder me of something RYH used to say (probably in the name of Rav Yisroel Salanter), that often-times when people look at things, or even when learning a sugya "az mevarft die eigene kappote af dem" meaning that human nature is such that it is subjective and that people tend to look at things and at subjects they are viewing or even learning with their own tinted (tainted?) perspectives, as if throwing their own coats over a subject to cover and "package" anything that is before them so that it fits into their minds and worlds rather that realizing that a subject-matter may not be like they imagine or assume at all and that in order to truthfully and fully grasp some sense of the true and factual and accurate reality of it, would mean and require of them to try to see and perceive it in its own unvarnished and blunt raw terms and not in your limited, prejudiced, biased, preconceived, careless, cynical and twisted (at times), tendentious view of it!
In other words can everybody here please grow up and show that you are capable of having a discussion without getting into silly personal attacks of other posters and try staying focused and discuss a subject which is actually quite fascinating and rewarding and from wwhich we can all learn something and not resort to preconditioned knee-jerk reactions that show less about the subject matter and reveal how invested everyone is in just being their own narrow selves.
Now this is of course easier said than done, but any deep thinking and honest Torah Jew knows that Hakadosh Baruch Hu did not give the Torah to be understood in "Only one way" but on the contrary the Torah can and is seen in at least seventy ways, shivim ponim laTorah and Rav Yehudah HaLevi takes it even further that at Har Sinai each of the shishim ribbu saw and understood the Torah uniquely in their own way, meaning that there were 600,000 ways to view the one and only Torah that Hakadosh Barauch Hu gave at Mattan Torah. And then throw in that there is the open Torah that comes as Torah sheBichsav and Torah sheBeal Peh, and also a mystical Agadatte/Kaballah/Chasidus dimension to it. Guess what, it's all ONE Torah, and if anyone was a "campaign" his entire life to prove it at all costs, it was RYH himslef, who could never be pinned down as belonging to only "one" part of the Torah or to only "one" type of way of learning it. That is why RYH is affectionately and controversially referred to as THE FIRST LITVSIHE RREBBE/ROSH YESHIVA because he was a mushlam and master of gantz Torah becol chelkeha uvechol dikdukeha, mamash!
While RMMS was also somewhat like this, he was not as free-ranging as RYH since RMMS had a powerful base and a personal connection to the Shneerson/Schneersohn family, hence a deep root in Lubavitch only, he was an eidim to a Rebbe, and that is a different ballgame, mamash. He inherited a dynasty with a history of hundreds of years that was built on six previous Luubavitcher Rebbes, with a vast literature of Chasidus and with a prolific mind and great capabilities of world class leadership that he used to help Jewry everywhere and establish himself as a voice to be reckoned with and leave his everlasting mark on the modern world, as controversial as it may be, no about that.
Incidentally, the role and position of Rav Gustman is one connection RMMS had to the Litvishe velt up close on the level of one gadol to another. Over the years Rav Gustman was both a rosh yeshiva in Chabad, and RMMS was close to him and even learned the Litvishe Torah from and with him, and Rav Gustman was close to RYH as a lifelong friend and who eventually went away from Chabad and set up his own yeshiva in Eretz Yirsoel, as eventually RYH did as well. These are great and complicated rabbonim with multiple layers of Torah, Chochma and more uniting as well as separating them, and it's not a setira (contradiction).
Especially when dealing with gedolim of the caliber of RYH and RMMS, one must realize that as embodiments of the Torah, they were unique in that they had an appreciation and a capacity for seeing the proverbial shivim ponim of Torah before them.
RYH and RMMS did not think the way the posters on this blog have been talking about them or portraying them so that in the alef bais of grasping what the starting point of the long historical dialogue between RYH and RMMS was about starts with each being able to tolerate the other and his views and even take from each other while at the same time disagree and even seeming to "denigrate" each other, much like many of the discourses between Tannaim and Amoraim in the Gemora itself where one finds they poke fun at each other even as they take each other deadly seriously. There is humor and sarcasm in the Talmud and therefore it is natural that there will be humor and sarcasm in the relationships and writings between genuine Talmidei Chachomim, that could easily be miscontrued by relative intellectual midgets and people who are not true ba'alei nefesh. Fun a kashye shtarbt men nit, un fun a sharfe vort shtarbt men oichet nit!
We need to stop and think what Pirkei Avos says is a "MACHLOKES leshem shomayim", and please rabbossai note a thousand times it is MACHLOKES (and not making nice or playing footsy) but tief und sharf a virkliche bittere machlokes vos ken amol tzureisen dem hartz and tzureisen die himelen (un oichet tzureisen Klal Yisroel, nisht nor ein mol hot dos parsirt, lo aleinu) and that is what makes it Torah yet, a machlokes leshem shomayim, between Gedolei HaTorah veHachasidus, Charedim, talmidei Chachomim emunim vene'emanim, shomrei Torah umtizvos lemhadrim yet, historically EXACTLY like between Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai, or between Abayei and Rava, Ravina and Rav Ashi, Rav and Shmuel, the rabbonim of Ashkenaz who burned the seforim of the RAMBAM and the RAMBAM's defenders, Rav Yaakov Emden and rav Yonoson Eibeshutz, the GRA versus the Chasidim, and into the present times with all its myriad machlokesen.
You know with everyone commenting here, not one person has yet said that RYH regarded himself as a "talmid" of the GRA and spent his life mastering the GRA's derech HaHalacha and Kabbalah. In CB he instituted the minhagei HaGRA (like saying Hallel in yeshiva on the first two nights of Pesach, and official hakafos on Shemini Atzeres and other things) that are still practiced today, in additing to teaching many insights and chidushim based on the GRA's Kabbalah in the course of the ma'amarim RYH gave in CB on Yomim Tovim mainly.
Yet, in CB, RYH insisted that the Shulchan Oruch Harav be part of the official library and its place and power in the shalsheles Hatorah VeHahalchah are known.
Note that RYH was also from Warsaw and his mother came from a Kotsker/Gerrer Chasidishe mishpoche, so RYH had personal connections to the world of Chasidus through his parents and to the Litvishe world of Slabodke and Chevron he was sent to leran in and nurtured in.
After that RYH set out to carve out his own unique niche and place in the pantheon of modern day Torah giants and he took an at times complicated complex mysterious and puzzling route to get there, but he did get to the top of his personal "Olympus" and brought down a new Torah from Har Sinai that enriched the world of even the greatest Lomdei Torah and of some of the greatest Torah minds and teachers of the 20th century, much like RMMS sent out a focused and disciplined well-trained army of Chabad shluchim who have been improving the world wherever Jews are to be found. Is not what revealed in Mumbai recently, how a young couple could move mountains, to the benefit of all who come to them, as noted on this very blog in person by a pure CBer proof of that?
Such things were not done under Modern Times conditions but both RYH and RMMS undertook to know and study the modern world in Paris and Berlin in their own ways and they were unique in their innovations vis-a-vis the outside world in America. The other member of this unique trio (or troika) is Rav J. B. Soloveitchik (RJBS) of YU who was also a close chaver and yedid of both RYH and RMMS even while they set up different and often-times contradictory systems.
Therefore, naturally it is logical that RYH had an interest in all Chasidus, not just Lubavitcher Chasidus, and he mastered it all as he went through life like a proverbial vast human vacuum-cleaner absorbing every last speck of this precious ruchnius, and taking from its jewels and gold, and then some, to build his own "Hilchos Dei'os VeChovos HaLevavos" as RYH called his own thought system eventually published in the multi-volume "Sefer Pachad Yitzchok"
RYH would seek out Torah and Kabbalah and Chasidus from all its masters and when he was once questioned why he was going to learn with the Lubavitcher Rebbes he said "veile zei hobben gevisse kabboles fun dem Baal Shem Tov vos keiner hot nisht und me muz es fun zei avek nemmen."
But even this latter alleged statement should be read carefully. He was coming up with a "Robin Hood type of justification" to "steal" Chasidus from Lubavitch. Evidently, meanwhile back at the Chabad ranch, as these posts reveal, the Rebbes knew about it and of RYH's motives and weren't worried and regarded it as a legitimate way for them (aha!) to disseminate Torah (in the mode of "it takes a thief to catch a thief" manner of speaking) and hand it over to "feed" the hungry for such things to his talmidim that thirsted for this kind of knowledge and awareness, and that yet still does not convey the full range of reasons he had a relationship with both of the last Lubavichre Rebbes.
Hopefully some things become little clearer by trying to open up the subject that this is a complex subject of giants interacting with each other. Lemoshol, think of two world chess grandmasters having a series of duels over a few decades. It's not only about the "pawns" (read: simple Talmidim and poshutte Chasidim); it's not only about the "Knights" (read: those disciples who become great achievers and fight well in the real world for their lords and masters); it's not only about the "Bishops" (read: the great in-house scholars, theologians and the in-house theological debates); it's not only about the "King and Queeen" (read: the ultimate powers that be and everything that is worth fighting for and without whom it's all over), and of course this is also about fighting for who has the best "vision" of and "plan? to implementof the PARDES HaTorah because it's about ALL the above players and roles and events and then some, which is far more complicated and complex than an average blogger can ever hope to grasp.
So let's try to at least be a drop humble and take many steps back from the brink (not everything has to be the prelude or prologue or build-up to World War III) and realize that as far as RYH and RMMS, as well as RJBS, are concerned, these are titans both fighting each other, loving each other, even kibbitzing and shtoching each other out big time over issues that are imnportant to Klal Yisroel over-all and it's not always about who is "right" or "wrong" or if Lubavitch is "better" than CB or anyone else (it isn't, because if it was everyone by now would be Lubavitch and they are far from it) and it's not about CB's or Lakewood's opinionated opinions about Lubavitch and whatnot (because CB and Lakewood are not perfect by any means, nor are they the final word in the Torah either) it's more about, what RYH would like to call things that are "le'eila ule'eila" that small minds cannot grasp, tragically.
A Freilichen Chanukah!
P.S.
(Parenthesis is mine, to help explain and clarify)
By the way, I met Rav Wineberg myself once and during a long car ride, that he was gracious enough to help me out with, he told me personally the story as follows: That he (Rav Wineberg) that he was recently in the same hospital as Rav Shlomo Freifeld (somewhere in NYC. It was soon after RYH had passed away in Yerushalayim and for wahtever reason that Rabbi Wineberg did not tell me,) that Rav Shlomo Freifeld had told him that when Rav Hutner was ill (in his state of coma, it was only in the last month of RYH's life that RYH was like this) that RYH had said (in his state of coming in and out of consciousness) that "the Rebbe is the Tzadik HaDor" (I clearly rememeber Rabbi Wineberg using that pharse, and not using the word "gadol" or anything else.)
I subsequently went to reopr to RAS what I had heard and he listened to me and simply said "next" refusing to discuss the subject at all. I then asked Rav Chaim Yitzchok Kaplan who had been in Yerushalyim at RYH's hospital to verify if this was true, and he looked at me ands stated: "Me ken zogen as ez iz nisht an emes" (one can say that it is not a truth).
Take it or leave it, but it had no impact or influence on anyone in Cb and one is inclined to agree with poster "Jay D. Homnick" when he opines that:
"(Point of information: Rav Hutner was not sick at all in later life. He had a full schedule until the end. He gave the Sukkos Maamarim in New York the last year, and I met with him for an hour on Motzoei Simchas Torah. In mid-Cheshvan in Eretz Yisroel he contracted an aneurysm of the brain which left him rambling and incoherent for a 35-day illness culminating in his passing. For people to quote things he said during that illness is entirely inappropriate.)"
Jay D. Homnick stated that RYH was "rambling and incoherent for a 35-day illness" that culminated in his passing.
ReplyDeleteWow! To use such a vulgar expression in reference to an important Torah scholar! One's own Rebbe, no less? Double "wow"!
Would Mr. Homnick still say that RYH was "rambling and incoherent" if with his last breath RYH had said that, say, the Steipler was "the tzaddik hadeir"? Any guesses?
אין לך "רבם דקרו" גדול מזה!
CBT
ReplyDeleteEven better than usual!
Don't fully agree vis-a-vis their relationship.I think another poster put it well when he described it thusly "Rabbi Hutner was "jealous" of the Rebbes influence and leadership, while the Rebbe was "jealous" of the caliber of Rav Hutners top talmidim.
Berl.
ReplyDeleteYou are so divorced from the non Lubavitcher world.
Yes, people would use the sane terms for even their closest people.Why is the sick person to blame and how else would someone who is incoherent be described?
Kigemoro veod l'CBT koamino:
ReplyDelete"R' Chiya bar aba said: that even a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, who are learning Torah together in one gate, become enemies of one another, but they do not move from there until they have become friends of one another, as the posuk says vohev besufo, don't read besufo but rather besofa" (Kidushin, 30b)
Why does chabad refuse to reprint shaar hayichud from the mittle rebbe?
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
ReplyDeletehttp://store.kehotonline.com/index.php?stocknumber=HMR-NERM&deptid=3242&parentid=34&page=2&itemsperpage=10
Filth blog lakewoodscoop was exposed as being yeshivaworld and promptly shut down. Why is Eckstein mixing in to someoneelses fight? Are things too quiet in the Mirrer that the menuval need to look elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteYehupitz's designation of Jay's brother is inane and reflects his contempt for the Rebbe himself. Anything Jay's brother says is sourced in the Rebbe's teachings. Don't like it? Say so straightforwardly without name-calling.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Hutner asked the Friediker Rebbe to arrange for one of his Chasidim to learn Chassidus b'iyun with him. After learning with a few of the gedolei ha'Chasidim, they felt they weren't up to the task, and so the Fr. Rebbe asked his son-in-law (later the Rebbe) to learn with R' Hutner.
R' Hutner began coming every Thursday night from his home in Brownsville to the Rebbe's house in Crown Heights, to learn Chassidus.
R' Hutner occasionally attended farbrengens in the Fr. Rebbe's home.
R' Hutner encouraged the Rebbe to accept the nesius and continued to visit the Rebbe after he did so. He came to be menachem avel the Rebbe when his mother passed away.
When R' Hutner was on the plane that was hijacked to Jordan, the Rebbe mentioned this at the farbrengen by saying that one of those hijacked is someone who is tremendously involved in the sifrei Maharal.
Despite their earlier connection and many letters, for some reason, R' Hutner cut off ties with the Rebbe at a later point, and spoke strongly against Chabad to his talmidim.
What is little known is that on his deathbed, in the presence of several people, Rabbi Hutner said: Now, it is clear to me that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the tzadik ha'dor. Chaim Yitzchok Kaplan and R' Avremal Shmulevitz (R' Chaim's son) were there, and probably R' Yonosan David too.
The current rosh yeshiva, R' Schechter, tried to suppress this because he considered this delirious talk which contradicted what R' Hutner had said previously.
Also on his deathbed, R' Hutner sent his son-in-law with a set of his sefarim to the Rebbe.
Berl said it well:
Would Jay Homnick still say that RYH was "rambling and incoherent" if with his last breath RYH had said that, say, the Steipler was "the tzaddik hador"?
Of course not.
>>Would Jay Homnick still say that RYH was "rambling and incoherent" if with his last breath RYH had said that, say, the Steipler was "the tzaddik hador"?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly would be more believable if he did. After all, the Steipler did not encourage as many out of mainstream thinking as the Rebbe did! That's what makes this story so unbelievable. I heard that Rav Hutner said Shlomo Carleback was the tzasik hador on his death bed. That is believable only because Shlomo was outside the mainstream.
I found this whole string both puzzling and amusing. For example:
ReplyDelete1) Why does RYH's request for a blessing signify that he respected the general direction of the movement? Can't someone believe that a particular manhig has the power of prayer, and still believe that his followers are following him off of a cliff?
2) Why does a RYH visit after his return from captivity in Amman show profound respect? Isn't that simple gratitude, an attitude RYH impressed repeatedly upon his students? ("Hakaras Hatov is the basis of all avodah." "You're not allowed to do a favor for a kafui tov.", etc.)
3) Why does RYH's walking out backwards from RMMS's presence at a shivah call indicate a "yiras haKavod", a trepidatious respect any more than when he did that when leaving Rav Aharon Kotler, the Satmar Rav or Rav Moshe? Again, this was the level of Kavod haTorah he demanded his students have for every Talmid Chochom. (More about the misunderstanding of this episode later.)
4) Why are the respectful titles and deferential language in RYH's letter proof of deep deference? Would RYH have expected to have an impact on the Tefillin campaign, and the potential berochos levatolos, by referring to RMMS as "Bozo" or "Devar Hashem Bozo"?
5) Why is it either/or? Either he didn't want his students sending to Chabad camp, or he thought RMMS was the Tzadik Hador? Could he possibly be a tzaddik in whose camps they might teach impressionable children that he is Moshiach? A Talmid Chochom whose Torah (or whose followers) might lead others to mistakes in emuna - or at least approach?
Jay D. Homnick is clearly correct that there is annoyance, only thinly veiled, in that last letter - perhaps the reason it doesn't have a reply. However, the early letters are just as clearly respectful, but the frustration seems to be building as RMMS consistently misses the point.
What annoyed RYH? Was it the fact that the Rebbe seems somewhat dismissive? That RMMS says, "What bothered me originally (and it's a wonderment that of all those who are debating me on this issue - no man was alert to this issue), that it seems the commandment of Tefillin differs in that the intent is an integral portion of the actual fulfillment of the mitzva...", when obviously this was a basic building block of RYH's opposition? That the Rebbe wouldn't ask his Chasidim to add the simple sentence snippet "...that contain Torah paragraphs" to their introductory speech, to avoid a halachic issue?
Whatever it was, RYH stopped writing in halachic shorthand, and spelled everything out.
As to the shiva story, we should be in mourning as to the obstruseness of its recorder. Here's a rough translation: "However, more than all of [the above] we can learn of the height of honor R"Y developed towards the Rebbe we can study from the following situation. In the year 5725 R"Y arrived for a condolence call (at the passing on of the Rebbe's mother), and all that time he was put into [a state of] respectful reverence. In the diary it is written, "When he arrived, the Rebbe asked him something regarding this that they say in Kaddish, 'And say Amen!' From his great level of respectful reverence, R"Y responded, 'Ain omer ve'Ain devarim (there is no speaker, and there are no words)'! When he exited - he exited facing the Rebbe."
The writer seems to think that RYH's "There is no speaker, and there are no words!" is a show of bitul, of total nullification of himself as a speaker towards the nonpareil Rebbe. He obviously "didn't get it".
The Rebbe asked, "Why do we say in Kaddish, 'And say Amen'? We never specifically REQUEST that the crowd respond Amen, we always assume that they know to answer Amen at the conclusion of a blessing." RYH answered from the verse in Psalm 19, which states, "The heavens declare G-d's honor, and His handiwork is retold by the firmament. Each day utters statements to the next day, and one night reveals understanding to the following night. THERE IS NO SPEAKER, THERE ARE NO WORDS, their voice can't be heard." RYH was saying, "Even though the dead and inanimate also display G-d's glory, it isn't true speech. Only those in the minyan truly speak, so we specifically ask them to SAY Amen, as that is only in the domain of those still in this world." If RYH had any extra respect at that point, it would be from the flicker of recognition and understanding in the Rebbe's eyes at something that RYH assumed the rest of the crowd would understand as "There's nothing I can say in this sad situation!"
In general: I personally know of a few private conversations he had (with close relatives) that displayed profound discomfort with certain aspects of the Rebbe's approach. I'm not sure that enunciating them here would bring Moshiach any closer, or bring Kiddush Hashem. I suspect that if RYH was given godly powers, he would leave Chabad almost as is, but with a Surgeon General's Warning on every forehead.
Anon 3:55
ReplyDeleteYou, in fact are very amussing but no puzzle at all.
1) Exactly the point...that RYH held the LR in the highest esteem, if he believed his prayers could reach beyond the average man's
2)again, what was he gratefulf about, if not that he believed that the Rebbe mentioning him at a public gathering would have positive effect 'above'
3)so you agree that RYH put LR in the same category as RAK, SR, and RMF?
4) make up your mind, did he respect LR, as you imply from your first 3 questions, or was he patroninzing him in order to 'save his soul'?
5)granted, he could be a tzaddik that was leading others astray....so you can appreaciate L. chassidim that follow there Rebbe's belief that a certain RH in BB was aiding, abeting and encouraging Micharchrei Riv?!
Having said that, you seem to confirm the possible patronizing tone of the letters with the snide innuendo in your closing paragraphs.
I think the Rebbe got the drift also and didn't continue the conversation...maybe he figured things hadn't changed much in 40 years!
just stopping by to say hi
ReplyDeleteליטווישער יונגערמאן
ReplyDeleteTzig. Do you know who it was that spoke at the Agudah convention 1967 against chabad? All I can find from searching on אוצר החכמה is a "מתנגד"