(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[aygart]

You did not provide contemporary evidence for the שפיכת דמים story. You are free to believe this mesorah. I am not bound to believe it.

Seeing that case aside, מסירות are not in dispute

[ExGingi]

You did not provide contemporary evidence for the שפיכת דמים story. You are free to believe this mesorah. I am not bound to believe it.

Just like you chose not to believe the story of what happened with the printing of the Tzemach Tzedek.

Do you realize how ridiculous you come across? דער רבי מאנט מדת האמת from Chassidim, מגיד דבריו ליעקב חוקיו ומשפטיו לישראל!

Do you also feel you are not bound to believe stories brought in תורה, נביאים וכתובים without contemporary evidence?

[imayid2]

Seeing that case aside, מסירות are not in dispute

True. Not as sensational though.
It should be noted that it’s AFAIK undisputed that the Chassidim were first to turn to the government. Not that anyone really blames them, they were having it rough.

[Yehuda57]

You did not provide contemporary evidence for the שפיכת דמים story. You are free to believe this mesorah. I am not bound to believe it.

Sheesh, the Tzemach Tzedek's Rebbe and grandfather who practically raised him from when he was a child was arrested on capital charges because of mesirah by misnagdim.

[zh cohen]

True. Not as sensational though.

What would have happened (על פי טבע) if the Alter Rebbe had been convicted of the crimes he was accused of? What was the punishment for treason at the time?

[imayid2]

Sheesh, the Tzemach Tzedek's Rebbe and grandfather who practically raised him from when he was a child was arrested on capital charges because of mesirah by misnagdim.

What’s that got to do with murder?

[imayid2]

What would have happened (על פי טבע) of the Alter Rebbe had been convicted of the crimes he was accused of? What was the punishment for treason at the time?

Everyone agrees מסירות are a terrible thing.
The AR also uses very harsh language to censure Chassidim who were doing so.

[aygart]

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit. I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

You cannot KNOW this.


I most definitely do KNOW this. If you listened to the piece from Rabbi Paltiel's shiur you would realize that אמת is self evident.

Just like I didn't need to see any of the prints or manuscripts to know that what the Rebbe wrote to Rav Hutner is 100% true and accurate, so too I don't need any evidence to prove that the Tzemach Tzedek would not have said something positive about the חרמות which brought about רציחות of Chassidim. As a matter of fact it boggles my mind how ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND can say anything positive about the חרמות after realizing that they brought about שפיכות דמים!

Remember what the Rebbe Maharsh said (wrongfully cut out by @Yehuda57 as Yada Yada, whereas it is actually at the core of the differences):

R Avigdor Miller wrote a sefer about how the holocaust may have saved frum yiddishkeit.

[imayid2]

R Avigdor Miller wrote a sefer about how the holocaust may have saved frum yiddishkeit.

I believe there is a similar statement from the Rebbe.

[dm123]

I believe there is a similar statement from the Rebbe.

Source/clarification please? My understanding of the Rebbes take was more along these lines:

The Rebbe rejected all theological explanations for the Holocaust. What greater conceit — the Rebbe would say — and what greater heartlessness, can there be than to give a "reason" for the death and torture of millions of innocent men, women and children?

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/64888/jewish/The-Rebbe-on-the-Holocaust.htm

[jye]

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit. I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

You cannot KNOW this.


I most definitely do KNOW this. If you listened to the piece from Rabbi Paltiel's shiur you would realize that אמת is self evident.

Just like I didn't need to see any of the prints or manuscripts to know that what the Rebbe wrote to Rav Hutner is 100% true and accurate, so too I don't need any evidence to prove that the Tzemach Tzedek would not have said something positive about the חרמות which brought about רציחות of Chassidim. As a matter of fact it boggles my mind how ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND can say anything positive about the חרמות after realizing that they brought about שפיכות דמים!

Remember what the Rebbe Maharsh said (wrongfully cut out by @Yehuda57 as Yada Yada, whereas it is actually at the core of the differences):

Nobody said the צ״צ would have chosen the חרמות, only that they greatly benefited chassidus. That might be true even if there was שפיכת דמים. He did not give his blessing to the process, he was commenting on the net result. BTW there were campaigns among the chassidim that resulted in שפיכת דמים as well, for example the Savraners persecution of Breslov. Yet not only did the opponents of breslov consider the overall persecution to be positive, Rav Nachman had a positive spin on the heavenly goings on as a result of a fight between two tzaddikim, that led the Breslovers to consider aspects of it positive as well. It doesn’t mean anyone condones the שפיכת דמים aspect or considers it a good thing in isolation.

Have no other chassidim to this day tried to kill each other in the name of their Rebbe? Does this impugn the whole of chassidus, and the Besht himself because the movement led to שפיכת דמים? Obviously the movement on the whole was good for Klal yisroel.

[imayid2]

Source/clarification please? My understanding of the Rebbes take was more along these lines:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/64888/jewish/The-Rebbe-on-the-Holocaust.htm

Cannot check it right now. There was some sort of controversy with the media not liking what he said. IIRC something along the lines of a cancer that needed to be cut out.

[dm123]

Cannot check it right now. There was some sort of controversy with the media not liking what he said. IIRC something along the lines of a cancer that needed to be cut out.

Thanks. Interested to see when you get a minute to dig it up.

[AsherO]

Thanks. Interested to see when you get a minute to dig it up.

He’s likely referring to the Rebbe saying (I’m paraphrasing heavily and might be saying it wrong)that we cannot understand Hashem’s ways and that sometimes Hashem’s goodness is enclothed in things that on their surface our cruel.

The Rebbe gave an example of a surgeon ch”v amputating a limb to save their body from a disease. An onlooker might on the surface see the surgeon as vicious, cutting off someone’s limb, if they don’t understand that it’s a kindness to save the person’s life.

The Rebbe wasn’t comparing the holocaust to a cancer at all, he was just suggesting that we cannot understand Hashem’s kindness and used an analogy that can be misinterpreted to mean that.

[Pony]

R Avigdor Miller wrote a sefer about how the holocaust may have saved frum yiddishkeit.

And Reb Avigdor chose not to publish it. Although the publisher gives a long hesber in the beginning explaining why they decided it was now time to publish it, יש לדון if Reb Avigdor would have been maskim.

[aygart]

And Reb Avigdor chose not to publish it. Although the publisher gives a long hesber in the beginning explaining why they decided it was now time to publish it, יש לדון if Reb Avigdor would have been maskim.

Much of the content was included many times in his  lectures.

[imayid2]

He’s likely referring to the Rebbe saying (I’m paraphrasing heavily and might be saying it wrong)that we cannot understand Hashem’s ways and that sometimes Hashem’s goodness is enclothed in things that on their surface our cruel.

The Rebbe gave an example of a surgeon ch”v amputating a limb to save their body from a disease. An onlooker might on the surface see the surgeon as vicious, cutting off someone’s limb, if they don’t understand that it’s a kindness to save the person’s life.

The Rebbe wasn’t comparing the holocaust to a cancer at all, he was just suggesting that we cannot understand Hashem’s kindness and used an analogy that can be misinterpreted to mean that.

Sounds right!

[Pony]

And Reb Avigdor chose not to publish it. Although the publisher gives a long hesber in the beginning explaining why they decided it was now time to publish it, יש לדון if Reb Avigdor would have been maskim.

Actually, I just took a look at the Sefer and see that his son Hagoan Reb Shmuel zt”l says that although they don’t know why his father never published it, he certainly did have in mind to publish it one day. So obviously he would know better than anyone else what his father would have done.

[ExGingi]

So what did we have here?

I point out something regarding the statement

You did not provide contemporary evidence for the שפיכת דמים story. You are free to believe this mesorah. I am not bound to believe it.

Asking

Just like you chose not to believe the story of what happened with the printing of the Tzemach Tzedek.

Do you realize how ridiculous you come across? דער רבי מאנט מדת האמת from Chassidim, מגיד דבריו ליעקב חוקיו ומשפטיו לישראל!

Do you also feel you are not bound to believe stories brought in תורה, נביאים וכתובים without contemporary evidence?

And rather than address or acknowledge we get a distraction about the Holocaust.

[ExGingi]

Sounds right!

Not to get carried away with this side topic, I hope you do realize that this is in no way, shape, or form similar or comparable to

R Avigdor Miller wrote a sefer about how the holocaust may have saved frum yiddishkeit.