(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[zh cohen]

Question is if the whole source is because it can’t be the צמח צדק referred to the Gaon as holy.

That never was the claim. Indeed the Yeshurun article quotes the Rebbe's letter which says "אף שבודאי היו דבריו קדושים בעיני הצ״צ"

[gozalim]

This is your projection.

I'd love to read your comment another way, other than "the 5709 editors tampered and cannot be trusted".
Please help me do that

[gozalim]

In היכל הבעש״ט there was a very comprehensive response to this article (I’ve quoted parts upthread). In all I found the response most convincing for the main contention of the article (I’d say he wiped the floor with him). He addresses this part of the article in the last footnote
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=65721&st=&pgnum=212
I’d love to know more about that, the other explanations don’t really do it for me. I have no skin in this, others apparently do.

in guessing you found this היכל הבעשט article now, in the last hour

[dm123]

In היכל הבעש״ט there was a very comprehensive response to this article (I’ve quoted parts upthread). In all I found the response most convincing for the main contention of the article (I’d say he wiped the floor with him). He addresses this part of the article in the last footnote
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=65721&st=&pgnum=212

ברוך שכיוונתי
At least to a small part of it.

I have no skin in this, others apparently do.

I'm not sure why you're being seemingly disingenuous about this?

[imayid2]

in guessing you found this היכל הבעשט article now, in the last hour

Read my post?

In היכל הבעש״ט there was a very comprehensive response to this article (I’ve quoted parts upthread). In all I found the response most convincing for the main contention of the article (I’d say he wiped the floor with him).

[imayid2]

I'm not sure why you're being seemingly disingenuous about this?

Lol I assure you it means very little to me. I’d just be wary, as I said.

[gozalim]

Read my post?

so let me get this straight:
you read an article in ישורון alleging improprieties at קהת in 5709. you then read an article in היכל הבעשט that "wipes the floor" with those allegations.

yet it still made sense to you, after reading that rebuttal, to come here and argue that the OV version should be trusted, because "you can't trust the chassidim, they edited the 5709 version"

?!

[gozalim]

Lol I assure you it means very little to me. I’d just be wary, as I said.

I'd be wary too if I were making the allegations you are

[imayid2]

so let me get this straight:
you read an article in ישורון alleging improprieties at קהת in 5709. you then read an article in היכל הבעשט that "wipes the floor" with those allegations.

yet it still made sense to you, after reading that rebuttal, to come here and argue that the OV version should be trusted, because "you can't trust the chassidim, they edited the 5709 version"

?!

That’s a very minor part of the article. I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty with this point. Maybe all you need is a good night sleep.

[dm123]

(I’d say he wiped the floor with him).

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.

Not sure if this is technically LH but even if not I'm not sure how you can throw out the claim in the way you did when you seemed to have predetermined the claim as having been "wiped the floor with"?

[imayid2]

Not sure if this is technically LH but even if not I'm not sure how you can throw out the claim in the way you did when you seemed to have predetermined the claim as having been "wiped the floor with"?

That’s a very minor part of the article. I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty with this point.

[dm123]

Lol I assure you it means very little to me. I’d just be wary, as I said.

I meant the second half, about "others apparently do". I didn't think you care either way.

[gozalim]

That’s a very minor part of the article. I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty with this point. Maybe all you need is a good night sleep.

dunno about the article, it's the only allegation you brought here as reason to be wary of the chabad version of chabad seforim

[imayid2]

I meant the second half, about "others apparently do". I didn't think you care either way.

I was responding to a claim that I’m not impartial, which I found ironic.

[gozalim]

agav, if @imayid2 is interested in original manuscript versions, Kehos has infinitely better access there than OV...

[gozalim]

I was responding to a claim that I’m not impartial, which I found ironic.

"not impartial" is euphemism for "misnaged troll looking only to bash and no interest in understanding"
(relevance: chassidim are happy to explain, very little energy available for debates)

[dm123]

Can you please elaborate? Small part of the article? The whole claim is according to you debunked in that small part of the article.

[dm123]

I was responding to a claim that I’m not impartial, which I found ironic.

So what did you mean by "apparently" others do? If I walk into Yeshiva X and start poking and prodding about their Rosh Yeshiva of course they have skin in the game (I hope).

[zh cohen]

Did the "wiping the floor" in any way shake your trust in the reliability of the author of the Yeshurun article (at least regarding the topic of Chabad)? Does each of his claims need to be refuted individually or is it enough to show that he is totally off base, and therefore we should not give a lot of weight to his other claims?

[imayid2]

Did the "wiping the floor" in any way shake your trust in the reliability of the author of the Yeshurun article (at least regarding the topic of Chabad)? Does each of his claims need to be refuted individually or is it enough to show that he is totally off base, and therefore we should not give a lot of weight to his other claims?

The other claim hardly originated with him.

I met the author once and had a most enjoyable shmuz. Nice fellow. Very respected in his field.