(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[imayid2]

the last 2 paragraphs are certainly revisionist history. but that's not what you're asking.
for the facts you're asking, I don't have documentation in front of me now

I will point our that much of the 'distinction' in Par 3 is subjective framing regardless

He builds it on this:


I don’t consider the gentleman particularly objective, but it looks to me he has a point.

[gozalim]

He builds it on this:

curious:
"ובתנאי שיעמוד בשורת ההסכמות שהתקבלו"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that, desptie the paragraph trying to imply otherwise, the subject was not present at the קבלת הסכמות and certainly not a party to them

I don’t consider the gentleman particularly objective, but it looks to me he has a point.

please identify the book/author

[imayid2]

D. Eliach
הגאון

[ExGingi]

Posting this here just because it was mentioned upthread:

https://twitter.com/CGravitzer/status/1615052166917459968

[ExGingi]

D. Eliach
הגאון

I don’t consider the gentleman particularly objective,

That puts things rather mildly.

[imayid2]

That puts things rather mildly.

Have you read it?

[dm123]

Posting this here just because it was mentioned upthread:

IIRC it was written by many authors, of widely varying reliability...

[Dan]

Posting this here just because it was mentioned upthread:

ROFL. What in the world is this trash?

https://twitter.com/CGravitzer/status/1615058460563083264

[imayid2]

curious:
"ובתנאי שיעמוד בשורת ההסכמות שהתקבלו"
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that, desptie the paragraph trying to imply otherwise, the subject was not present at the קבלת הסכמות and certainly not a party to themplease identify the book/author

Highly illogical Ime.

[dm123]

ROFL. What in the world is this trash?

Probably from the "modern era" part which I think was by Samuel Heilman, of the "Who Will Lead us" clownshow, among others which I'm sure some here are aware of.

That being said some of the other authors are leagues apart in terms of reliability. You really need to know who you're reading from and what you're looking at with this work.

[imayid2]

ROFL. What in the world is this trash?

https://twitter.com/CGravitzer/status/1615058460563083264

Lol
These guys are classic academics. Some are out to lunch. You have to focus on the facts they present and where they’re getting them from and for the most part disregard their interpretations speculations or other nonsense.

[gozalim]

Lol
These guys are classic academics. Some are out to lunch. You have to focus on the facts they present and where they’re getting them from and for the most part disregard their interpretations speculations or other nonsense.

why bother.
especially since you have to disregard half the 'facts' as well

[gozalim]

Highly illogical Ime.

you have the book, not me.
so RLY (was invited to Vilna, sat with the rabbonim, and) committed to certain agreements?
that's the less plausible version IMO

what does the book say? and document?

[ExGingi]

Have you read it?

Nope. I took my son's word for it.

IINM it was brought up in the past on DDF, I asked if someone would lend it to me, but no-one did. I then had a conversation with my son who was familiar with it (my son is somewhat of a walking encyclopedia).

[Dan]

Lol
These guys are classic academics. Some are out to lunch. You have to focus on the facts they present and where they’re getting them from and for the most part disregard their interpretations speculations or other nonsense.

Gell mann amnesia effect?

[gozalim]

Gell mann amnesia effect?

with secular academics and haredi history there isn't even that benefit. they're just plain ignorant

[imayid2]

you have the book, not me.
so RLY (was invited to Vilna, sat with the rabbonim, and) committed to certain agreements?
that's the less plausible version IMO

what does the book say? and document?

Wilansky's (who I don't think can be considered biased one way or the other)

[Yehuda57]

Lol
These guys are classic academics. Some are out to lunch. You have to focus on the facts they present and where they’re getting them from and for the most part disregard their interpretations speculations or other nonsense.

Is this the book you posted about upthread? I'm no historian by any means, and have no clue about which academics know anything at all, but when I saw Heilman as one of the authors, I immediately knew the book had no legitimacy. I've read such insanely idiotic quotes from him over the years (not just about Chabad, but about all frum Jews), I can't imagine taking any book with his involvement seriously. And if his co-authors trust him to co-write with him, and aren't immediately put off when he opens his mouth, they can't be trusted either. This stuff isn't "interpretation", they make up facts, minhagim, ideology, etc.

[ExGingi]

with secular academics and haredi history there isn't even that benefit. they're just plain ignorant

David Assaf is a highly intelligent (and entertaining) academic, but is highly skewed by his left wing views.

If anyone bothered to read the רשימת דברי ימי אדמו"ר הזקן for which I posted a link up thread, they would read there the part known as רשימת שמעון הכופר, which demonstrates the link between the משכילים and the instigators of fights against Chassidim (and the reason why the משכילים saw the Chassidim, and especially the A"R - with Chassidus Chabad, as their chief enemy).

ETA: Link to David Assaf's highly entertaining blog added.

[gozalim]

Thank you.
Implies that the decision was at least local, and he was probably at least notified of it