(False) Accusations Of Kehot Forgery

[ExGingi]

So, a parve one?

I knew you would bite on that one. Still waiting for you to respond to the tweet I posted.

[imayid2]

Some quotes from Wilansky's

I don’t think anyone would disagree with anything there besides the last point which is his personal speculation and indeed disputed.

[imayid2]

the claim that some were on the way to apikirsus and were doing objectively evil things, and the pushback saved them from themselves is what I'm rejecting.

I don’t know who made this claim. That would be taking sides. Rather we are explaining the perspective of the misnagdim, and exploring if what they describe actually took place or was fabricated.

That the pushback mitigated these actions, which suspiciously and incidentally no longer exist on that level, isn’t provable or disprovable.

[imayid2]

I'm baffled by the need to reiterate the whole Misnagdim/Chassidim machlokas here time and again. There isn't really anything new we'll discover here.

What I find ironic though is the fact that so many *Litvaks* today, and possibly some of the posters here too are descendants of people וואס זענען געפארן צו רעביס, or were Hungarian oiberlandisha great admirers of Talmidei Baal Shem.

Many people enjoy historical controversies. I apologize if you don’t.

Yes, my ancestors are exclusively chassidesh as far back as I can tell. My children are einiklach of the baal Shem, no connections to the gra.

[imayid2]

and what I find ironic is the current "litvishe" culture seems to have adopted many of chassidishe ideas and attitudes that would leave the original misnagdim speechless.

+1

[ExGingi]

Yes, my ancestors are exclusively chassidesh as far back as I can tell. My children are einiklach of the baal Shem, no connections to the gra.

Am I the only one here that can trace back 8 generation Litvish?

[Yehuda57]

Am I the only one here that can trace back 8 generation Litvish?

The Alter Rebbe was called a litvak, so no.

[ExGingi]

The Alter Rebbe was called a litvak, so no.

That is a comeback almost at the level of blowing shofar before Davening on Rosh Hashono.

[ExGingi]

The argument would be that the opposition mitigated the amount of groups that were doing this. No way to know for certain, but extremely logical to think so.

Would you have made such a claim if not for the מקור ברוך?

His description is definitely not a true account of facts as would be evident to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

It's amazing how much is built and hung upon this supposed "plausibility".

Let's put some facts into context, and then tell me if it is "plausible":

There were 4 Chassidim who were murdered in Swenzian as a result of the רדיפות and חרמות. Do you really think it is "plausible" that the Tzemach Tzedek would have said ANYTHING positive about the רדיפות and חרמות?

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit. I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

And to answer @EliJelly's question, the only reason why these issues keep on coming up is because there seems to be an insistence to regurgitate claims that have been previously "adjudicated".

[imayid2]

Would you have made such a claim if not for the מקור ברוך?

Of course. Never heard that story until I saw it in these forums.

His description is definitely not a true account of facts as would be evident to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit.

It is well corroborated by someone who heard of the meeting first hand, and records the version of those words being said. Multiple times.

I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

You cannot KNOW this.

[Yehuda57]

You cannot KNOW this.

Putting aside this particular discussion, of course you can. If there is a wealth of writing from the person in question, you can compare the claim to all his writing and see if he says anything even remotely similar elsewhere, or even writes in that style. If something runs counter to what he says repeatedly elsewhere, or doesn't shtim with his style anywhere else, you absolutely can know it is implausible for him to have said it.

[imayid2]

Putting aside this particular discussion, of course you can. If there is a wealth of writing from the person in question, you can compare the claim to all his writing and see if he says anything even remotely similar elsewhere, or even writes in that style. If something runs counter to what he says repeatedly elsewhere, or doesn't shtim with his style anywhere else, you absolutely can know it is implausible for him to have said it.

I hear that.
If there is anything the T’T wrote or is verified to have said on the subject that would run contrary to this I’m all ears.

[gozalim]

I hear that.
If there is anything the T’T wrote or is verified to have said on the subject that would run contrary to this I’m all ears.

you know literally not one line of his teachings, in chassidus or in nigla, outside this topic.

Start

[imayid2]

you know literally not one line of his teachings, in chassidus or in nigla, outside this topic.

Start

In mishnayos shabbos the T’T defends making tea on shabbos. Remarkably similar to Rav Moshe. Loved it.

[gozalim]

In mishnayos shabbos the T’T defends making tea on shabbos. Remarkably similar to Rav Moshe. Loved it.

did you note which other opinions he disagreed with along the way, and with which confidence?

[imayid2]

did you note which other opinions he disagreed with along the way, and with which confidence?

I do not remember, although from what I recall from some tshevos he does speak confidentially. What relevance would that play here?

[gozalim]

I do not remember, although from what I recall from some tshevos he does speak confidentially. What relevance would that play here?

for starters, as already established, that's what the letter to Rav Hutner was referring to.
That בעניי לא זכיתי להבין Would be out of character

[imayid2]

for starters, as already established, that's what the letter to Rav Hutner was referring to.
That בעניי לא זכיתי להבין Would be out of character

Ok let’s say.
What does that have to do with this?

[ExGingi]

His description is definitely not a true account of facts as would be evident to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

It's amazing how much is built and hung upon this supposed "plausibility".

Let's put some facts into context, and then tell me if it is "plausible":

There were 4 Chassidim who were murdered in Swenzian as a result of the רדיפות and חרמות. Do you really think it is "plausible" that the Tzemach Tzedek would have said ANYTHING positive about the רדיפות and חרמות?

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit. I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

You cannot KNOW this.

I most definitely do KNOW this. If you listened to the piece from Rabbi Paltiel's shiur you would realize that אמת is self evident.

Just like I didn't need to see any of the prints or manuscripts to know that what the Rebbe wrote to Rav Hutner is 100% true and accurate, so too I don't need any evidence to prove that the Tzemach Tzedek would not have said something positive about the חרמות which brought about רציחות of Chassidim. As a matter of fact it boggles my mind how ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND can say anything positive about the חרמות after realizing that they brought about שפיכות דמים!

Remember what the Rebbe Maharsh said (wrongfully cut out by @Yehuda57 as Yada Yada, whereas it is actually at the core of the differences):

ווען דער רבי וואלט ניט געשטעלט די דריי ווערטער "במדת אמת ליעקב" - באגרת הקודש קטנתי - וואלט ער געהאט נאך פופציג טויזענט חסידים, אבער דער רבי מאנט מדת אמת.

[imayid2]

I am not disputing the fact that ערוך השולחן visited the Tzemach Tzedek. I don't know how plausible (not very, to say the least) is the account of daily meetings and discussions over an extended visit. I do KNOW that the words (or content) attributed to the Tzemach Tzedek are totally implausible.

You cannot KNOW this.


I most definitely do KNOW this. If you listened to the piece from Rabbi Paltiel's shiur you would realize that אמת is self evident.

Just like I didn't need to see any of the prints or manuscripts to know that what the Rebbe wrote to Rav Hutner is 100% true and accurate, so too I don't need any evidence to prove that the Tzemach Tzedek would not have said something positive about the חרמות which brought about רציחות of Chassidim. As a matter of fact it boggles my mind how ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND can say anything positive about the חרמות after realizing that they brought about שפיכות דמים!:

You did not provide contemporary evidence for the שפיכת דמים story. You are free to believe this mesorah. I am not bound to believe it.