(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[zh cohen]

Besides, I’m judging the content, so while the response to the main part of the article l found convincing, this part I did not.

You did not find the fact that the Tzemach Tzedek's ksav yad verifies the Chabad version convincing? Or do you think that the author of the Heichal HaBesht is lying about the ksav yad?

[Dan]

Suggestions on where to split this tangent and title for it?

[imayid2]

You did not find the fact that the Tzemach Tzedek's ksav yad verifies the Chabad version convincing? Or do you think that the author of the Heichal HaBesht is lying about the ksav yad?

I’d want to hear an unbiased analysis of it. Obviously if it’s true there’s nothing to discuss.

[zh cohen]

Suggestions on where to split this tangent?

Here -

I’d be wary though, they’ve been accused of tampering with the text of when it doesn’t fit with their narrative, for example when the צמח צדק spoke with “too much” respect about the גר”א.

Suggestions on title for it?

"(False) Accusations of forgery"

[zh cohen]

I’d want to hear an unbiased analysis of it.

Analysis of what?

[imayid2]

Analysis of what?

The manuscript

[gozalim]

They cannot have known this first hand. Obviously someone told this to them.

wait, so someone made up a story and told it to the Frierdiker Rebbe (before 5680?) to defend a 'forgery' that would first be perpetrated in 5709?

[EliJelly]

Apparently by honest rabbonim/dayanim it's very popular for hilchos ribis and choshen mishpat (and some of nidda)

Of course, but those were written in a different style than on Orach Chaim. More piskei halachos vs OC where he starts from the beginning and offers all on Pshat too.

It’s an absolute must for אמירה לעכום

He gives the beautiful lomdisha explanation. There is the other one though that אמירה לעכום is a שבות קל דהתירו בפס׳׳ר.

[gozalim]

Where are you getting “before 5680” from?It was told “to defend a forgery”? It was told to explain that the text wasn’t accurate and needed to be fixed.

This is not the incredulous phenomenon you’re making this out to be. This happened all the time across many groups as Rabbi Mondshine showed countless times.     

the incredulity is that the timeline here doesn't add up;
first printing, was in 5644, in the FR lifetime, printed by his father. at the time nobody minded the language. sometime in the intervening years, someone decided the language was too respectful, invented this story, told it to the FR, who believed it and passed it on.
(you must not be a fan or R"Y Halevi's theory about matan torah)

and this is the credible version of the story?

[imayid2]

Sorry some technical issues just reposting

wait, so someone made up a story and told it to the Frierdiker Rebbe (before 5680?) to defend a 'forgery' that would first be perpetrated in 5709?

Where are you getting “before 5680” from?
It was told “to defend a forgery”? It was told to explain that the text wasn’t accurate and needed to be fixed.

This is not the incredulous phenomenon you’re making this out to be. This happened all the time across many groups as Rabbi Mondshine showed countless times. Personally I’d very much prefer editions which I can be certain no tampering accrued whatsoever.

That being said, having purchased the עוז והדר edition, I deeply regret that choice, as קהת did an incomparable job, totally outweighing that specific personal concern.

[imayid2]

the incredulity is that the timeline here doesn't add up;
first printing, was in 5644, in the FR lifetime, printed by his father. at the time nobody minded the language. sometime in the intervening years, someone decided the language was too respectful, invented this story, told it to the FR, who believed it and passed it on.
(you must not be a fan or R"Y Halevi's theory about matan torah)

and this is the credible version of the story?

Sounds much more likely to me than the other version. Are you familiar with R. Mondshines exposés about this general subject? They are a must see.

[AsherO]

that specific personal concern.

So is it a personal concern or does it mean little to you?

[gozalim]

Personally I’d very much prefer editions which I can be certain no tampering accrued whatsoever.

unfortunately, by all accounts, there was tampering. either by the 5644 printers, or by the 5709 printers. only a question of which account.
(question is just which: the grandchild, or the one with a bone to pick)

[gozalim]

Sounds much more likely to me than the other version. Are you familiar with R. Mondshines exposés about this general subject? They are a must see.

the general subject of vilna forgeries?

[imayid2]

So is it a personal concern or does it mean little to you?

It’s a personal preference in regards to seforim in general. That specific example means very little to me in particular, other than making me “wary”.

[gozalim]

I'm familiar with some of R' Mondshine's wonderful work on the invention and development of fables.
less familiar with the ones that fooled people in real time who were present at the original

[imayid2]

the general subject of vilna forgeries?

The fixings of texts to better align with an ideal, and the veracity of such stories in general.

[imayid2]

less familiar with the ones that fooled people in real time who were present at the original

Who are you referring to?

[gozalim]

Who are you referring to?

the incredulity is that the timeline here doesn't add up;
first printing, was in 5644, in the FR lifetime, printed by his father. at the time nobody minded the language. sometime in the intervening years, someone decided the language was too respectful, invented this story, told it to the FR, who believed [ETA:that there was a misnagdic forgery in 5644 that he hadn't heard about at the time] and passed it on.
(you must not be a fan of R"Y Halevi's theory about matan torah)

and this is the credible version of the story?

[AsherO]

It’s a personal preference in regards to seforim in general. That specific example means very little to me in particular, other than making me “wary”.

What Hashgacha is that pretzel?