(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[Unusual]

Hear me out. Maybe, just maybe, the misnadgim and gedolim of those generations were misinformed/misled/wrong about chasidus/chasidim and people should take the L rather than preach hateful boich svaros that sounds like the modern day BBC?

Then again, there's a respected Rabbi in Cleveland who tells his congregants to go learn the Koran before the Tanya, and Cleveland Kosher bans Lubavitcher shechita meat, so some things just might never change?

Entirely possible. But then we would have to deal with the fact that Hisnagdus caused the Kuntres Talmud Torah.

How do you 'take the L'? I don't understand the idiom.

Which hateful boich sevara did anyone bring? Where did the BBC come in here?

What do 'respected nameless Rabbis' have to do with anything? The discussion is 'did the Hisnagdus of Gedolei Yisroel contribute anything for Chassidim?' A 'respected Rabbi' who teaches his Talmidim not to learn Toras Chabad has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Unusual]

It clearly hasn’t taught you anything if you’re using it to call the kettle black.

Who called a kettle black? What precisely are you accusing me of?

[imayid2]

Hear me out. Maybe, just maybe, the misnadgim and gedolim of those generations were misinformed/misled/wrong about chasidus/chasidim

This has been extensively discussed upthread and it’s been shown that many of the tainos were in fact undeniably taking place. So misinformed/misled isn’t really viable. I’d stick with the “wrong” as in wrongly characterized as a sectarian group argument.

[imayid2]

I don't see how that was misunderstood in the first place unless you had an agenda. It is very clear as what he meant, and he was 100% right.

Who misunderstood? And the people burning his sefer would beg to differ on your psak.

[imayid2]

You missed the last line. It was the malach M"TT, not the S"M.

Different version here

[EliJelly]

Different version here

There are likely another 10 versions on that detail, but I'd go with the satmar rov's version since he was that big דייקן. Unless there is concrete source hearing from Reb Itzikel who might have heard it from the Shinover Rov directly.

[imayid2]

There are likely another 10 versions on that detail

Happens when a story is reported a century after it occured...

But fyi the earliest I found it was in אהל ברוך 1933, a bit more dramatic there but on that נקודה he had the Satmar Ravs version.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=58267&st=%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%90&_rnd=0.9179581074964134

[EliJelly]

Happens when a story is reported a century after it occured...

But fyi the earliest I found it was in אהל ברוך 1933, a bit more dramatic there but on that נקודה he had the Satmar Ravs version.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=58267&st=%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%90&_rnd=0.9179581074964134

Ok.. So I just listened to the tape of Reb Yankele of Pshevorsk Zatzl and he tells this story that he heard it from two sources who heard it from the Shinover rov himself, one is from his shver Reb Itzikel of Pshevorsk. He tells the story PRECISELY like the Satmar Rov told it, with that very diuk how it was the Malach M"TT and not the S"M!
Unfortunately we see this bogus all over like the misquoted version you posted from Reb Itzikel and it's really a pet peeve of mine, I literally can't stand this explosion of stories all over.

Happens when a story is reported a century after it occured...

Luckily when one sticks to the very few who were extremely מדקדק it always matches up. Otherwise even stories that occurred two weeks earlier grow to 10 versions. 

[AsherO]

Who called a kettle black? What precisely are you accusing me of?

You're suggesting somebody is lacking in Ahavas Yisrael and needs to learn Hechaltzu, and I'm telling you to first tell yourself that in the mirror before projecting it onto someone else.

It's neither "percise", nor an "accusation". I'm just pointing out that you weaponized ideas to make a point you claim not to be trying to make.

[EliJelly]

Different version here

If I may ask what's the name of this bakery's recipe book? (That last addition from Reb Itzikel was super super creative)

[yelped]

Who misunderstood? And the people burning his sefer would beg to differ on your psak.

They are certainly begging up there in Shamayim right now.

[imayid2]

They are certainly begging up there in Shamayim right now.

{citation needed}

[imayid2]

If I may ask what's the name of this bakery's recipe book? (That last addition from Reb Itzikel was super super creative)

הימנותא דשלמה

[Unusual]

You're suggesting somebody is lacking in Ahavas Yisrael and needs to learn Hechaltzu, and I'm telling you to first tell yourself that in the mirror before projecting it onto someone else.

It's neither "percise", nor an "accusation". I'm just pointing out that you weaponized ideas to make a point you claim not to be trying to make.

So you just suggest I look in the mirror, without accusing me of anything.

I don't have any weapons. Do you think an 'us vs. them' mentality contributes to Ahavas Yisroel? Do you think that when someone brings up the shita behind the hisnagdus, immediately reverting to Messiros is an expression of Ahavas Yisroel? Where do we differ?

[AsherO]

I don't have any weapons. Do you think an 'us vs. them' mentality contributes to Ahavas Yisroel? Do you think that when someone brings up the shita behind the hisnagdus, immediately reverting to Messiros is an expression of Ahavas Yisroel? Where do we differ?

This isn't about my take on those things, it's about yours, since you brought them up. I had no problem with your post until I got to the parts I highlighted in red. And that's what I'm pointing out:

Interesting:
1. I brought the Satmar Rav that quoted the Apta Rav that believed that the Boruch Ta'am was supposed to stay a Misnaged to Chassidim. Someone who believes that only Chassidus is correct and there is no need for Misnagdim should be disproved by this.
2. I explained how Klal Yisroel needs to be integrated, and everyone needs everyone else. This is a point no Chassid or Misnaged in this thread mentioned or discussed.
3. I showed this point from the Kuntres Talmud Torah of the Ba'al Hatanya.
4. I explained why the Talmidei Chachamim among the Chassidim were not necessarily 'in spite of the Hisnagdus' but could have been a product of the Hisnagdus. Something nobody mentioned.

But if the world is all about 'I am right, they are wrong', then there is no place for actual arguments, facts, ideas, and discussions. It is 'me vs. them', and I have to win. Sad, and even sadder is that this is considered 'Ahavas Yisroel' of the Chassidim. May be time for a little החלצו.

If you're claiming all the stuff highlighted in green, why the cynicism in red?

[Unusual]

I don't know if we are speaking the same language.

I brought proof that the Hisnagdus benefited Chassidim. That was the topic of discussion. We can discuss what that benefit is, if it was truly beneficial, and what it means to us today.

But the answer to an idea was 'Misnagdim massered on us'. As though the discussion was 'who is a bad guy'. That was an expression of the opposite of Ahavas Yisroel.

[imayid2]

They are certainly begging up there in Shamayim right now.

{citation needed}

Getting conflicting reports, do you have direct access?
אבני שש, רב שמואל אהרן מיללער אבד״ק לאבאווא

[AsherO]

But the answer to an idea was 'Misnagdim massered on us'. As though the discussion was 'who is a bad guy'. That was an expression of the opposite of Ahavas Yisroel.

Is it? Assuming Hisnagdus did significantly harm Chassidim, it’s callous to suggest (even if you quote sources) that it was helpful/a good thing.

Defining what misnagdim did and whether/how bad it was (I’m using your terms here) is an integral part of the conversation when they’re literally called “opposers”. First define the nature of the opposition before evaluating whether it contributed good things or not.

[aygart]

Is it? Assuming Hisnagdus did significantly harm Chassidim, it’s callous to suggest (even if you quote sources) that it was helpful/a good thing.

Defining what misnagdim did and whether/how bad it was (I’m using your terms here) is an integral part of the conversation when they’re literally called “opposers”. First define the nature of the opposition before evaluating whether it contributed good things or not.

Just as there was likely a large range among chassidim there was a large range among misnagdim.

[zh cohen]

I did read somewhere that the Magid of Mezritch told the Baal Hatanya to write the Kuntres Talmud Torah in answer to the claims of the Misnagdim that Chassidim don't learn.

This is false (and obviously so).