(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[aygart]

I've said those concerns were real, and indeed it was *as if* those fears were confirmed, only that now, 200 years later we ALL know that it wasn't the case.

How do we know?

[neveryou]

  (There was also some violence which actually were with good intentions, like famous story of Reb Ahron Hagudol of Karlin was once bitten by a misnagid and he later said that he felt during the bite that it was a bite לשם שמים )

Mostly peaceful protest?

There was also murders. Was that with good intentions also?

[imayid2]

https://yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/misnagdim

[zh cohen]

The claim being made in this thread is that the leaders of Chassidus only stopped the improper actions of some chassidim because they were scared of outside criticism.

How is that less of a bizui of Talmidei Chachamim than the claim that the GR"A was misled regarding the nature of Chassidus?

[imayid2]

The claim being made in this thread is that the leaders of Chassidus only stopped the improper actions of some chassidim because they were scared of outside criticism.

“Playing a role in the efforts of stamping it out”, isn’t the same as “only because they were scared of outside criticism”.

How is that less of a bizui of Talmidei Chachamim than the claim that the GR"A was misled regarding the nature of Chassidus?

The first question is if there is any basis in reality for this claim. There is not. It is nothing short of hilarious.

[aygart]

Mostly peaceful protest?

There was also murders. Was that with good intentions also?

Aveira lishma?

[imayid2]

“Playing a role in the efforts of stamping it out”, isn’t the same as “only because they were scared of outside criticism”

Also, let’s not pretend that this was limited to a small group of crazies in one location. It was happening all over the place.

[zh cohen]

“Playing a role in the efforts of stamping it out”, isn’t the same as “only because they were scared of outside criticism”.

The claim that the opposition "saved Chassidus" is making the second claim.

[aygart]

The claim that the opposition "saved Chassidus" is making the second claim.

Are you saying that the ability to accept criticism is a bad thing?

[zh cohen]

Are you saying that the ability to accept criticism is a bad thing?

No.

I am saying that those who justify the extreme actions of those who opposed Chassidus by saying that otherwise Chassidus would have gone off the rails are in effect saying that the tzadikim who led Chassidus would have not have acted if not for those extreme actions.

[aygart]

No.

I am saying that those who justify the extreme actions of those who opposed Chassidus by saying that otherwise Chassidus would have gone off the rails are in effect saying that the tzadikim who led Chassidus would have not have acted if not for those extreme actions.

This is very not necessarily the case.

[imayid2]

The claim that the opposition "saved Chassidus" is making the second claim.

I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. There is no way to prove that, it’s complete whatiffery.

I am saying that those who justify the extreme actions of those who opposed Chassidus by saying that otherwise Chassidus would have gone off the rails

Not sure who said this. Those who opposed it held strongly that Chassidus was treif, this was based on what they saw heard and investigated. Not purely on misinformation, as some were trying to claim, but since seem to have accepted the facts presented - ?

are in effect saying that the tzadikim who led Chassidus would have not have acted if not for those extreme actions.

Maybe they would of acted but not have had whatever success they had? Again, there is no way to know what would’ve could’ve happened, but its extremely illogical to deny the likelihood that the fierce opposition helped mitigate valid concerns.

[aygart]

I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. There is no way to prove that, it’s complete whatiffery.

Or disprove

[gozalim]

I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. There is no way to prove that, it’s complete whatiffery.Not sure who said this. Those who opposed it held strongly that Chassidus was treif, this was based on what they saw heard and investigated. Not purely on misinformation, as some were trying to claim, but since seem to have accepted the facts presented - ?Maybe they would of acted but not have had whatever success they had? Again, there is no way to know what would’ve could’ve happened, but its extremely illogical to deny the likelihood that the fierce opposition helped mitigate valid concerns.

There are letters firn the Rebbe's at the time detailing some of this injustices that were perpetrated in lack of hearing בפני בעל דין before taking very drastic steps.
these were some of the reasons they wanted to make a counter-cherem (which the Alter Rebbe prevented)

[gozalim]

better questioin:
do we want to relitigate the entire battle again here? or can we just leave it on the original topic- that the assumptions of forgery on the part of Kehot rely heavily on liberal doses of assumption/overconfidence/inuuendo/ignorance and are grossly overstated

[Yehuda57]

the assumptions of forgery on the part of Kehot rely heavily on liberal doses of assumption/overconfidence/inuuendo/ignorance and are grossly overstated

Huh? That's being extremely generous. The only way to assert that claim today after all the evidence that has been dug up is with extreme and wilful prejudice. To claim ignorance and the desire to find the truth, when it is easier to Google the truth than the false claim is dubious at best.

[ExGingi]

It kind of seems like we've gone full circle and reached nowhere.

I'm adding a Wiki so that we can see clearly what has been alleged, what responses and what evidence have been offered, in a more concise way. Please feel free to add and edit.

[imayid2]

It kind of seems like we've gone full circle and reached nowhere.

Some would classify this a bit differently, more akin to a sudden backtracking to an earlier, safer, part of the conversation.

I'm adding a Wiki so that we can see clearly what has been alleged, what responses and what evidence have been offered, in a more concise way. Please feel free to add and edit.

Here is Glicks response to R. Mondsheines attack on him.
http://schocken-jts.org.il/uploads/files/chabad.pdf

I don’t necessarily agree with him, but if someone can articulate, in a civil fashion,  why a NAL shouldn’t share at all any of the concerns he has, it would be appreciated.

[gozalim]

I don’t necessarily agree with him, but if someone can articulate, in a civil fashion,  why a NAL shouldn’t share at all any of the concerns he has, it would be appreciated.

oh come on with that garbage!
PUOSU already.
The beginning of the bhol thread you linked described this MO. you must be glick yourself

אגב - אני ממליץ לגולשי הפורום להיכנס לקישור של השרשור הקודם ולעקוב אחר הטקטיקה של בר-נגר: להתעלם מהרוב המוחלט של הטענות נגדו, ולהמשיך הלאה כאילו לא קרה דבר, ומעבר לסיבוב אפשר להמשיך להחזיק באותן טענות.

[ExGingi]

How is that less of a bizui of Talmidei Chachamim than the claim that the GR"A was misled regarding the nature of Chassidus?

The first question is if there is any basis in reality for this claim. There is not. It is nothing short of hilarious.

OK. Let's analyze this one step at a time.

Have you seen any claim, documentation, or evidence that the GR"A himself actually witnessed anything that was alleged about Chassidim, which served as a basis for him signing on to the Cherem?