(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[dm123]

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

I'm sorry, maybe I'm slow, but I'm not understanding this. What's a minor part of the article? Footnote 14? But that's your whole claim to cast doubt on the publishing thus far from what I understand. And if you truly believed before this conversation that the footnote in Heichal Baal Shem "wiped the floor" with footnote 14, how can you calmly waltz in and warn people to be wary?

[Dan]

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?

Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

[imayid2]

if you truly believed before this conversation that the footnote in Heichal Baal Shem "wiped the floor" with footnote 14, how can you calmly waltz in and warn people to be wary?

I did not say that at all. I said that regarding the main contention of the article. I’d be interested to see the evidence regarding footnote 14, and hear what impartial experts thought about it.

[gozalim]

I did not say that at all. I said that regarding the main contention of the article. I’d be interested to see the evidence regarding footnote 14, and hear what impartial experts thought about it.

so which accusation was the floor wiped with, and which accusation are you still wary of?

[imayid2]

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).

Twas euphemism for “you are clearly absolutely incapable of discussing this rationally”, which is not always the case.

[koplonko]

There was be a different source because in that footnote the claim is refuted

[dm123]

I did not say that at all. I said that regarding the main contention of the article. I’d be interested to see the evidence regarding footnote 14, and hear what impartial experts thought about it.

What did you mean by this:

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.

[imayid2]

so which accusation was the floor wiped with

He conjecture that the unrelated letter from the בעל התניא was “obviously” a forgery.

[dm123]

Twas euphemism for “you are clearly absolutely incapable of discussing this rationally”, which is not always the case.

Ah. Thank you for explaining.

[koplonko]

Since there is no Ask a Litvak Anything thread yet I'll just ask it here. How prevalent is learning SA H'Rav amongst Litvaks? Does the average learner going through in depth the Rav after learning the siman thoroughly?

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

[imayid2]

What did you mean by this:

That I’d be wary. They’ve been accused of this.

Was I not clear?

[imayid2]

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

It’s an absolute must for אמירה לעכום

[gozalim]

so you find the accusation that the 5709 editors "made it up" plausible, and the story told by the rebbes you assume is made up as well? and that is reason to suspect "be wary of" everything else they say?

[dm123]

That I’d be wary. They’ve been accused of this.

Was I not clear?

But what they've been accused of (here altering a text of T"T) has been "wiped the floor with" (based on your statement after seeing HBST). So I'm not understanding how you can still toss it out as a general caveat? Let's say a generally knowledgeable in the field individual makes an accusation about a restaurant, which is afterwards debunked, would you still walk around saying to be wary of that restaurant because of the original debunked claim? Or would you say this was debunked but there once was a claim based on X?

(Is it time to move to the is it ethical thread or torah/hashkafa pc free for all thread?)

[dm123]

He conjecture that the unrelated letter from the בעל התניא was “obviously” a forgery.

Wait wait wait, you didn't mean the claim in footnote 14 that the T"T line was changed to tshuva was debunked?

[imayid2]

But what they've been accused of (here altering a text of T"T) has been "wiped the floor with" (based on your statement after seeing HBST).

No, I said that about the unrelated main point of the article

[imayid2]

Wait wait wait, you didn't mean the claim in footnote 14 that the T"T line was changed to tshuva was debunked?

I did not.

[dm123]

I did not.

No, I said that about the unrelated main point of the article

OK then I think I see where we went off the rails here. Oh boy does this mean we start over again? 

[zh cohen]

That I’d be wary. They’ve been accused of this.

Why would you be wary based on the accusations of someone who clearly makes false (and/or ignorant) accusations regarding the same people and topic?

[imayid2]

Why would you be wary based on the accusations of someone who clearly makes false (and/or ignorant) accusations regarding the same people and topic?

As I already said, these accusations did not originate with him. 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.