Talk:Elazar Shach

Chabad 2007

How nice of you all to join us. There seems to be a flurry of editing on the page yet again. Shall we attempt to use the discussion page to talk about this yet again? ShalomShlomo 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the Shach?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbatai_ha-Kohen --This is the link to the Shach, a rabbi during the middle ages ( 1600's ) who is fairly known when it comes to talmud commentary, and such works regaurding jewish law. I would assume he is named after him, but is it known if he is a descendant? --Guardian, Jan. 7, 2007

Name

He is often referred to as Elazar. Which one is correct? JFW | T@lk 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eliezer got significantly more hits on Google (particularly among the English israeli press), so I used that as the standard. ShalomShlomo 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Elazar is the (only) correct version. Way to prove it: you must know the newspaper he himself founded, Yated Ne'eman. The paper has an (unofficial) online version as well - it contains about half the articles from the regular (weekly English Israeli) paper. I repeat, *he* himself founded this newspaper. A few links:

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5762/chayesara/ - from around his death " Maran HaGaon Hagodol HaRav Elozor Menachem Mann Shach, ztvk"l," Aside from that, just look at: http://www.google.com/search?q=Elazar+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com&hl=en&lr= and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Elozor+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com . (It's spelled as Elazar or Elozor depending on the writer.) Okay... Now, next, I also looked for "Eliezer Shach" ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Eliezer+Shach+site%3Achareidi.shemayisrael.com ) and it gives quite a few results as well. Now *I* am confused as well. Still, I have recently read that (quote from memory): "His real name was Elazar. It is unknown from where the name Eliezer came, but his name was Elazar." I'm 100% sure it's Elazar, so you should change it. PS. The English-Israeli press (Haaretz etc.) are not exactly a good resource for these things, with all due respect to them (I read Haaretz myself). --Daniel575 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575- I used Eliezer because the majority of (English) resources I came across in print and the net used it. If you're convinced the other spelling is accurate, feel free to change it. I'm happy to use whatever spelling as long as we have some consistency between articles. ShalomShlomo 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo, if you're going to work on this article more, you will do better by quoting the Hareidi press with which Rav Schach affiliated, rather than Ha'aretz. My initial search on Google of "Menachem Man Shach hesped" turned up Dei'ah VeDibur (the English Yated Neeman here in Israel, which he also founded) and Aish.com, which are much more reliable interpreters of Rav Schach's activities than the secular, leftist Ha'aretz newspaper. As a subscriber to the English Yated, I can tell you that they are printing articles about Rav Schach nearly every week since his passing! Yoninah 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, thanks for the sources. I knew Schach had a newspaper but was unaware it had an English translation. The page as it presently stands is hardly meant to be definitive; I created it because no one else had, and remembered seeing various Schach articles in Haaretz following his death. While I take your point that the haredi press are likely to certainly have more information regarding Schach's personality and teachings vis-a-vis the Torah world, outside perspectives can also be helpful, particularly relating to, for instance, analysis of Schach's political activities and astuteness, or his perception/legacy among non-haredi Israelis. The optimal solution, I think, would be to incorporate elements from both "types" of sources. The fact that I have yet to do so here is much more a function of a lack of time than it is any bias against the haredi press. I will certainly keep your comments in mind when working on this page in future. Of course, if anyone would care to help fill the various sections out a bit, that would be extremely helpful and appreciated, too. ShalomShlomo 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Schach a Misnaged?

Isn't true that Rabenu Shach was mitnagued!!!!! He just don't acept -like other jewish, even hasidic ones- what Chabad was/is doing! Bresolver 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the resources I've come across on Schach either said he was misnaged, or at least mentioned that he was not hasidic. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Did he have a rebbe, for instance? Do his followers identify as Hasidism or Misnagdim? His rabbinical career seems to show strong affiliation with whatI understand are largely misnagdic yeshiva instutions, and I believe many of his influences were/are notable misnagdim. ShalomShlomo 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Being "not Hasidic" does not automatically make a person into a "misnaged"! In Eastern Europe, and in most non-Hasidic yeshivas today, the bulk of students often came from Hasidic homes. It's not as clear-cut as you imagine. For example, even in Rav Schach's case, you are obviously not aware that he studied and taught at Karlin (see article) when he was younger, and retained a fond connection with that group. And you should note that "misnagdim" basically do NOT self-identify as such. Usually it is used more in jest. Actually, the word "misnaged" has become something of a mild "slur" as it's used by certain (Hasidic) individuals who dislike people who object to those who oppose the extremes of Hasidism. IZAK 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: Actually, if you check the history of the article, you'll see I started it and was the one who included the Karlin bit. Thanks for the refresher, though. Interesting tidbits aside, is there actually information suggesting Schach wasn't Misnagdic? Because, as I said, a lot of the material I've read about him (online and off) claimed he was, and separated him from the Hasidic rebbes in Israel, for instance. I was also under the impression that Schach's non-affiliation with Hasidism was one of the reason he formed Degel HaTorah. If he wasn't, then someone should write a section addressing this, as I did in the page about Rav Kook. Perhaps you should also write a paragraph or so about this in the various articles pertaining to Misnagdim, such as Mitnagdim and Hasidim and Mitnagdim. It could be very helpful and informative for Wikipedia users. ShalomShlomo 06:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Rabbi Shach's issues with Hasidic leaders in Israel was based almost exclusively on matters pertaining to Israeli politics, and had absolutely nothing to do with meaningful religious differences and certainly was not motivated by anti-Hasidism. Do not confuse Rabbi Shach as a Haredi leader living at the end of the twentieth century with the positions of the Vilna Gaon who lived two hundred years earlier in the eighteenth century in an age still reeling from the after-effects of the false messiahship of Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676)! The only exception is Rabbi Shach's vehement opposition to the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) (because of fears that like Shabbati Zevi, Rabbi Schneerson would turn out to be a "false Messiah," a position some would say was prescient), and a position shared by other Hasidic leaders as well (Satmar's opposition to Lubavitch is well known, and most Hasidic groups have a disdain for Lubavitch -- and in turn Lubavitch scorns anyone who opposes them.) In fact when Rabbi Shach established the Degel HaTorah political party his ally was the present Belzer Rebbe, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach (b. 1948) and the two joined forces asking their followers to vote for the new party. Subsequently, Rabbi Shach was invited as the most honored guest to the Bar Mitzvah of the Belzer Rebbe's only son and heir in front of a huge public celebration. So this disproves that Rabbi Shach was anti-Hasidim (which is what mitnagdim means) even at a time when he was forming a new political party without most of his former Hasidic allies of Agudat Israel. From the form of your question: "... is there actually information suggesting Schach wasn't Misnagdic? Because, as I said, a lot of the material I've read about him (online and off) claimed he was... " it shows that you are coming at this subject the wrong way. Rabbi Shach did not self-identify as a "mitnaged". Nobody does! It's almost a silly anachronism by now (see what I have written below to explain this further.) As for Rabbi Shach's relationships with the Hasidic rebbes of Israel who were his contemporaries, in Rabbi Shach's old age (and he was active as a Haredi leader until he was over one hundred years old!), he decided that none of the Hasidic rebbes were his equals in Torah scholarship and he gave up on trying to convince them of his POLITICAL DECISIONS by simply MOVING ON. He first did this when he created the Shas party and later when he created the Degel HaTorah party. One must realize that Rabbi Shach was both a tremendous Torah scholar which he proved through his widely studied written works known as the Avi Ezri as well as being regarded as the pre-eminent rosh yeshiva in the Haredi world, and he simply "did not suffer fools gladly", as the expression goes. He was extremely conscious of his role as a Torah leader and spokesman and he was a highly astute and effective politician (creating two parties in the Israeli Knesset that still function is quite a feat!), but he was not opposed to the teachings or the workings of Hasidic Judaism as such (unlike the Vilna Gaon who was opposed to Hasidism -- "lock-stock-and-barrel"). None of Rabbi Shach's writings or declarations are anti-Hasidic (of course, the modern Lubavitch movemnent under Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the exception, because in Rabbi Shach's view it was a breeding ground for false-Messianism and had the potential to mislead masses of Jews and thus needed to be forcefully and openly opposed head-on -- but not because it was related to Hasidism as such.) Therefore, judging from his written works, Rabbi Shach was a supreme Talmudist but he did not write polemics against Hasidism. In his political actions, even when he formed the Degel HaTorah party he then encouraged it to join with the Hasidic dominated Agudat Israel as the combined United Torah Judaism list. Except for Lubavitch, he had cordial relations with Hasidic groups and Rebbes. Perhaps, the only ones who have a vested interest in labelling him a "mitnaged" are the Lubavitchers, but they have an obvious axe to grind against him, and as a group with a vested interest (that their Rebbe should be the "Moshiach"), it's clear why they would want to call Rabbi Shach a "mitnaged". In fact if you will look at the sites on the Internet that perpetuate the word "mitnagdim" you will see that it's basically ONLY Lubavitch that still keeps up the old propagandistic and long-discarded labels of "mitnaged" or "mitnagdim". So you should not be trapped or fooled by what is by now worn-out terminology that is not used and has been dumped by most normal people. IZAK 06:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the the word "mitnagdim"

I am repositing here what I have just posted at User talk:ShalomShlomo#Use of the the word "mitnagdim". Thanks. IZAK 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi ShalomShlomo: Perhaps you are not aware that the word mitnagdim in a modern-day context is very out-dated and may even be regarded as a mild slur by the people you think are "mitnagdim". The original mitnagdim were so called because they followed the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) who opposed the early Hasidim (who viewed the early Hasidim as another dangerous manifestation of Sabbatai Zevi's influence), particularly Lubavitch and Breslov. The first so-called "mitnagdim" (i.e the Vilna Gaon's disciples) did not choose this name for themslves, rather, it was their Hasidic opponents, who themselves were "mitnagdim" (the word simply means "opponents" in Hebrew), who pinned the label "mitnagdim" on those who did not wish to adopt the new ways of Hasidism -- at the same time that the followers of the Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760) chose to self-righteously call call themselves "Hasidim" (which means "righteous ones" in Hebrew) -- an act of great chutzpah. Without dwelling on past history, by now the fact is clear that there is no such thing as the "mitnagdim" like those who lived in the times of the Vilna Gaon! Hasidism has been well-established because its commitment to Halakha is beyond question and it is not opposed by anyone in the Torah world. Those Haredim who do not follow the Hasidic ways are today known as "Litvaks" or the "Yeshiva world" -- or "Lithuanian yeshiva world" -- but not as "mitnagdim" because, while they seek to maintain their own traditions of the original Ashkenaz that existed for a very long time BEFORE the advent of the Hasidic movement -- they are not presently enaged in an sort of kulturkampf. As proof of the positive and constructive relations between all Haredi Jews (Hasidim and non-Hasidim together) one can look at Agudath Israel of America in the USA which serves as an umbrella organization for Hasidic Rebbes and non-Hasidic Litvish yeshiva deans and their commmunities. And in Israel, the ongoing alliances of Agudat Israel and Degel HaTorah under United Torah Judaism serve the common needs and agendas of all Haredi parties. Bottom line, it is very rare indeed to find groups who self-identify as "mitnagdim" so you should therefore not use that description in articles when you want to talk about or describe Ashkenazi Haredi groups that are not Hasidic. To say "non-Hasidic" is ok, or perhaps "Lithuanian yeshiva communities/rabbis" (sometimes also referred to as "Yeshivish" -- but not always in a serious sense.) Any discussion or mention of "mitnagdim" should therefore be restricted to articles or personalities dealing with the struggles during the times of the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov and one or two generations following them. Basically, the major disputes between followers of Hasidism and those who opposed them ended by the end of the nineteenth century. With the dawn of the twentieth century all the European Haredi groups and factions united, most notably as proven by the establishment of the World Agudath Israel in Europe in 1912. Many non-Hasidim have become serious Hasidim over time, and the majority of students and faculty in non-Hasidic yeshivas have strong Hasidic ancestry. The lines run in all directions in the Haredi world, so it is incorrect to use old labels such as "mitnagdim" in a frivolous manner that does not apply today. IZAK 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote

The quote aganist Rabbi Schneerson wasn't even said by him. Looking at the sources would back up my claim. ems 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rabbi Shach's fame and Chabad

Why have some editors here so convinced themselves that Rabbi Shach's fame hinged on his relationship with Chabad and the Rebbe? when nothing could be further from the truth. Rabbi Shach, with his own family connections to some of the most famous Haredi rabbis, through his written work/s the widely studied Avi Ezri in the yeshivah world, his leadership as Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh, and his political acumen and effectivenes in all areas of Israel's politics (in which Chabad is but a small part), all bespoke his fame nad greatness. There is no need to defame him in the manner that many Lubavitchers tend to do. That would be a POV defamation. IZAK 08:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK- I agree. I didn't have time yesterday to deal with the more contentious issues in the section; I was more interested in cleaning it up so as to make it more coherent and less redundant- my apologies if that was seen as endorsing the comments. I've tried to make the section more balanced this evening, and I think the version as it presently stands is much more NPOV, or at least approaching it.ShalomShlomo 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well; very little of Shach's life or fame had anything to do with Chabad. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry ShalomShlomo if my made it seem like you put it in, you didn't and I was just refering to that version.

The story about Shach being rejected from a teaching position in a chabad school is well known in Chabad. I dont realy see a problem with keeping it in the article specificaly since it clearly says it's what the critics say, it's their POV, not simply stated as fact. I didnt originaly put in any of this so I'm not sure which "analysts" the anom was refering to. IZAK, the rebbe in fact had a big role in Isrealy politics. Also not everything you dont like is "propoganda" (like you say in you edit summary and other places). Shlomke 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts: I for one would not have a problem with putting a little more of the earlier Chabad stuff in, particularly if the position is as widespread as you say it Shlomke says it is. If a story or argument about a person is well-known, it should probably have at least some mention. Furthermore, Shach's inflammatory comments about Schneerson and Chabad (also mysteriously deleted, I notice) are also well-publicized and should, IMO, have a line or two. If you'll all forgive the Hillel reference, if not in the "Shach and Chabad" section, then where? The Shach-Schneerson feud, as I understand it, was very well-publicized at the time. On what grounds should we be omitting it? I'm not suggesting we turn the page into another "Satmar Conflict", but I really don't see the harm with fleshing this out a little bit- along with the other sections, too, incidentally (I still can't believe there's so little here compared to some other pages of haredi personalities, btw. What does the Satmar rebbe have that Shach didn't?) ShalomShlomo 09:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: One fails to see how you can say that there is not enough about the feud that Rabbi Shach had with Chabad since this article has a lengthy section devoted exclusively to that already: Elazar Shach#Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and alternately, the article about Rabbi Schneerson has nothing compared to that in length -- so your comments about this make absolutely no sense. Furthermore it makes no sense that this article should devote a large amount of space to criticizing and tearing down Rabbi Shach from the POV of Lubavitch -- is there a similar section tearing down Rabbi Schneerson from the POV of Rabbi Shach? It would be pointless if there was, because it would not help you learn who they were and what their significance was as key spiritual leaders of the Jews. Also you are not seeing Rabbi Shach's criticisms of Rabbi Schneerson and Chabad in true perspective. Basically what transpired was that Rabbi Shach (based in Israel) made a few, brief comments and criticisms of Rabbi Schneerson (based in the USA) in public, conveying his views and by extension that of the the yeshiva world that trusted him as their spokesman and that was that. The secular media of course hyped this trans-Atlantic feud among Haredi rabbis up and kept the pot boiling because it made for good copy and a yet another juicy story about Haredim (with one based in Bnei Brak and one in Brooklyn) to keep on the front burner, but the fact is that beyond Rabbi Shach's very brief criticial comments and a letter or two he wrote that was made public that was it. Note too that Rabbi Shach's life did not rise and fall depending on what Lubavitch said about him, he was literally a much larger-than-life figure than that. IZAK 06:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: My comment was made in reference to why I thought the Shach-Schneerson feud deserved to be on the page, and why verifable elements of the feud deserved to stay in. I have no interest in tearing Shach down from the POV of Chabad, and I don't think the section does this (aside from the bit that Shlomke keeps putting in about him being an ignoramus, which I think given Shach's reputation as a scholar is almost certainly untrue, in addition to being unverifiable). Saying he criticized Chabad is far from defamation. Incidentally, this wouldn't be taking up such a large proportion of the article if some people (Wikipedia Project Judaism, maybe?) would actually write about Shach's career as a posek and a leader instead of bashing the few attempts to flesh the page out. In any event, I agree with the present version you have written, and have added my own contributions along with it. ShalomShlomo 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: FYI Rabbi Shach's followers did not regard him as a "posek" as such (there were others who were in that category of "Halakhic decisors") rather Rabbi Shach was regarded as a Manhig HaDor ("leader [of] the generation") with many considering him to be the RaShKeBeHag --> Rabban Shel Kol Bnei HaGolah ("[supreme] rabbi [of] all the people of the exile") meaning the de facto "supreme leader" of all Jews in the exile (meaning in the era following the destruction of the Jewish Temple) a position which only one great rabbi can hold at any given time. In contradistinction, the Lubavitchers gave the title of Nasi HaDor ("president/prince [of] the generation") to Rabbi Schneerson so you begin to see the scope of the rivalry between the two camps. Of course, the Lubavitchers took it further and promoted Rabbi Schneerson to Messiah and even to God himself (according to some of their belief systems) which only fueled the other side to raise the ante against Lubavitch. Basically, it was a no-win situation for everyone which only ended once both Rabbi Schneerson and Rabbi Shach passed away (and you know what Lubavitchers think that their Rebbe did not "really" die, so the problem continues, but with much less fervor because there is no leadership on either side that comes to the level of either Rabbi Schach's or Rabbi Schneerson's greatness in Haredi and Hasidic Judaism.) IZAK 09:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK- thanks, as always, for the interesting info. Who was Manhig HaDor before Shach? Is there any information on how he began his "climb" (aside from the obvious advantages of marrying into Rav Meltzer's family)? I think stuff like this would be very interesting to the average Wikipedian- I know I'm often very curious about how various gedolim got to where they did. ShalomShlomo 09:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Before the era of Rav Shach, the Litvak Haredim basically accepted Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz (d. 1953) (known as the Chazon Ish) as their manhig hador (he and Rabbi Shach were both from Bnei Brak). (NOTE: There is a Brisker wing to the Israeli Litvak Haredim who are anti the Agudah-style approach of working with and within the State of Israel and its official organs and their followers looked to the Brisker Rov Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (d. 1959) as the supreme leader of the Haredim before Rav Shach instead of the Chazon Ish). There was a bit of a vacuum until Rav Shach asserted himself but Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (d. 1985) (also from Bnai Brak and known as The Steipler Gaon who was also The Chazon Ish 's brother-in-law) was regarded as a great manhig but was more of a posek, and many Israeli Haredim looked to some American Haredi rabbis, like Rabbi Aharon Kotler (d. 1962) as a pre-eminent leader. The Israeli Hasidic world was dominated by the Rebbes of Ger, particularly Rabbi Yisrael Alter who was the most powerful Rebbe in Israel for thirty years (from 1948 until he died in 1977). But by the early 70s Rav Shach was already ruling the roost and calling most of the shots as you can see from his effectiveness as a political leader in breaking away from Agudah and creating single-handedly both Shas and then later Degel HaTorah his enduring "political legacies" and "gifts" to the State of Israel. Not bad for a "non-Zionist". Now I must truly sign off and get some sleep. Shabbat Shalom ! IZAK 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mezuri "minor" edit cancelled

1) Rabbi Shach opposition to Chabad, is an "hot issue". Chabad supporters want to insert here their point of view. But here the stuff shoudl be as neutral as possible. So unless there is accepted evidence to this degrading claims, it should remain here as an unproved claim.

2) Mezuri tried to hide his change. Calling it "fixed minor incorrect facts", whihc is a balatant lie. You want to say that Chabad's versions etc. is true? Say it openly. Once you hide this under "minor correcting" you show everyone that you are playing games. Nobody is going to trust you anymore! IdeasLover 23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"False statement"

Meshulam- Could you explain why you discounted the story reg. Rav Shach and Chabad as a "false statement"? Alan Nadler is a respected Jewish scholar who has written one book and many articles on the theology of Lithuanian haredim. I have in front of me a copy of Ha'aretz editor David Landau (himself Orthodox, though not haredi)'s book, Piety and Power. He, too, repeats the story: "[Rav Shach] has even gibed, according to his followers, that 'Habad is the nearest thing to Judaism...'" The Jerusalem Post also contains a version of the story: http://www.bgu.ac.il/politics/newman/eng/pirsumim/columns/Rabbi%20Shach's%20Political%20Legacy%20-%20web%20page.htm Shach is attributed with having responded to the question "What is the closest religion to Judaism?" by answering, "Habad."

A quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hs=390&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=shach+%22to+Judaism%22+closest&btnG=Search) confirms that, even if the story is apocryphal, its creation is not recent, and it has become common knowledge among many in the Jewish world. Like it or not, the story certainly exists, though its accuracy may be debateable.

None of this, of course, authoritatively proves that the incident occurred, but at least I have offered some documentation to back it. Do you have anything to support your counter-claim? Do you have any first-hand knowledge disproving it? Or does it just "not sound like" something Shach would say? ShalomShlomo 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Jpost version and the Nadler story are contradictory (Lubavitch vs. Chabad). Evidence that the story is made up. Every reference to it is always from someone who heard it from someone, etc. If you want to put this story in, I'll go find sources for the story suggesting that Shach was angry at Lubavitch because a Lubavitcher yeshiva threw him out when he was young, because he didn't know how to learn. (That story exists, and I have heard it confirmed by credible sources, apocryphal though it may be).--Meshulam 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I have first hand or even second hand proof of a non-event, when there is no stated time frame for the event in question? --Meshulam 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, among other things, you could have documentation (even oral or anecdotal) that the story is a hoax. That would at least be something. Am I to assume this is not the case? And if not, again, I have to ask what basis you have for declaring the story false and deleting it. Is it anything other than a personal hunch (or a desire to keep any information about Schneerson you feel is inappropriate off Wikipedia) ?

As you your other comment, how are the the various accounts contradictory when none purport to be direct quotes (but rather paraphrases), AND the two terms are commonly used synonyms? And I don't know what you think my motives are, but I could really care less what you "dig up" on Shach vis-a-vis hostile Chabad sources, as long as there's some sort of reliable source (note that I wasn't the one who took issue with it in the first time it was posted). The fact that you're treating this difference of opinion as some sort of tit-for-tat, "you do this, I'll get you back" scenario is a bit disappointing. I have no horse in this race and have no interest in defaming anyone. I'm curious why you are so proprietary and personally invested in this matter. This shouldn't be a question of, "anything critical of Chabad has to have something critical of Shach, too." If you want to argue that the story is irrelevant or off-topic, that would be a different conversation. Why is this sort of response/threat necessary? (And incidentally, your account of Shach's Chabad "eviction" differs from the other version someone else put up- using your logic that must automatically discount it as well.) ShalomShlomo 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really do not care for this bio. I think it says little about the man, and tends to pay far more attention to Lubavitch than the bio itself warrants. I strongly suggest a neutral rewrite.

The Luibavitch Section should be taken out

Either the section should be taken out, or a truthful version comporting more with the facts must be put in. This is not a forum to insert the Chabad rumors regarding Rav Shach's supposed reasons for placing pressure on the Rebbe for allowing his followes to believe him to be Mashiach. I have never seen a bio put such a slant on someone else's extremely prejudiced and incorrect views toward its subject.

Pinchos, if you have a reason to take out documented facts relating Rav Shach, please talk to me first. Its not good etiquette to act out of animus toward anyone.

I believe Pinchos owes me an apology. DavidCharlesII 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of apologzind for his continues cynical abuse of power, Pinchoc has once again manipulated Wikipedia guidelines to assure that an article would conform with his npov. Despite my quotations of well known books, Pinchos has continued to delte them, unaware, perhaps, of the extreme irony of his alleged justification (npov). If anyone can advise as to how one can ensure that the Wikipedia community not be hijacked by individuals with an agenda to inject articles with their npov, I would appreciate their help. Everyone is free to observe my changes and Pinchos's continued agenda in destroying not only meaningful additions--but helpful in ensuring factual accurcacy (as opposed to the disgrace this article has become). DavidCharlesII 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinchos: Rav Shach had no critics on the issue of Lubavitch Messianism save Lubavitch Messianists. Your continued editing out of this fact is NPOV and violates Wikipedia's rules.

Quoting Rav Hutner from Making of a Gadol is NOT original research.

Removing the known comments Rav Aharon Soleveichik has on Lubavitch Messianism is not only untruthful but also smacks of NPOV. Revise your editions accordingly, and try to stop hijacking the work of others with discussing it first--it violates Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. DavidCharlesII 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pincho C: Your continued use of highly negative npov edits on this page has been noted. Please note your comments only on this forum. Wikipedia is not a forum for your particularly unfounded positions on this subject. Your previous lack of appropriate etiquette pursuant to Wikipedia's standars has been noted as well. Take this as a warning. DavidCharlesII 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lubavitch

I have taken out the bio on the Rebbe in this article, on the grounds that it violates NPOV and has very little relevance in the subject's life. If it can be written from a lesser Lubavitch perspective and with far less detail, I would agree to keep it.

Thank you.

DavidCharlesII 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What "bio"? It is a section in the article about a controversial issue Shach involved himself in and which remained on his agenda for the better half of twenty-five years. Beyond Shach's life, it also gives context into the split of Agudah and the founding of Degel and helps explain present-day rivalries and animosity between Shach's followers and Chabad (and, as an addition, serves as another data point in documenting Litvish opposition to Schneerson). I agree that, strictly speaking, this is not the "job" of the Rabbi Shach page, but he was involved in this issue for a long time, it is one of the things he is remembered for, particularly outside of his own community, and explaining it- or deleting it- has ripple effects on other topics and articles.

Furthermore, as I was the one who wrote this section, primarily using secular Israeli social science and media sources, I would be very interested in you explaining the supposed pro-Lubavitch POV you see.

Again, I question your tendency towards deleting material you believe to be POV or irrelevant rather than working to fix or improve it. ShalomShlomo 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to disrespect your work, and I apologize sincerely if I offended you.

I'm neither offended nor disrespected; I'm confused. I am far from a Chabad fan and fail to see how the section in question has a Lubavitch POV.

I called it a bio on purpose. It seems way different from the section on the Rebbe (I hope you don't say shlit"a).

I don't call anyone shlita. Take a look at the Satmar talk page from way back when.

My issue was not only was it written from a Lubavitch perspective, as opposed to working through Rav Shach's--any by extension--Rav Hutner's, R' Ahron's, and literally all gedolim outside Lubavitch today--concerns about Lubavitch Messianism.

Again, I disagree. The section is written from the perspective of an outside observer- Shach had problems with Chabad; they manifested themselves in this way, example X Y and Z. Some Chabad people said these were personally motivated, Shach's people say they weren't. I agree, it's not a detailed working of the theological differences between them, it has a largely political focus. This is pro-Lubavitch how? The section descibes three or four incidents where Shach and Schneerson clashed. You are seeing pro-Chabad bias where none exists. If you are interested in putting more info in to give context to the theological dimensions to their disagreement, feel free- though of course this would increase the section's size.

I think this bio is not like, say, Rav Schorr's or Rav Shmuelevitz's. It focuses on controversies, not the person. If the Lubavitch issue needs to be put in here at all, it could take a sentence or two long. Look at the other bios and you will understand where I am coming from.

Most of Shach's notoriety outside of his immediate community came from his involvement in such controversies. As long as they are presented in a fair and respectable manner, I fail to see why they should be automatically excluded. Again, see the Satmar page.

I will be willing to work together with you in fashioning something reasonable, honest and fair. DavidCharlesII 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Also feel free to use my individual talk pages.ShalomShlomo 20:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea what's going on with the Chabad section? Hello? ShalomShlomo 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore, many Roshei Yeshiva, including Rav Ahron Feldman, have since echoed Rav Schach's concerns with respect to Lubavitch Messianism." Who is Rav Ahron Feldman, and why his opinion is interesting in particular?

he is one of many prominent Roshei Yeshiva who are appalled with some of the practices that appear to be mainstreaming in Lubavitch. Please do not defend Meshichists in this article. This article is about RAV SHACH. His values are important to the extent it can be verified he held them. Too much defense of meshichists should be in an article defending Lubavitch Messianism. Further attempts to insult the subject of the article will be treated in accordance with Wikipedia rules.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent editing of 67.81.155.106 does not conform to rules

1. In an encyclopedia article, after referring to someone as "Rabbi" or "Rav" (the first time mentioning his name), from then on you only use last name.

2. When something is quoted from a source, don't squeze in your own comments.

3. Need a source for the following:

"Schneerson was never regarded as an equal of Rav Shach's in the Torah world; and thus his interest in disputing Rav Shach, a man almost unanimously hailed as the greatest scholar of the generation by gedolim of earlier generations, was greeted with bewilderment, if not amusement by the Torahworld at large. To this day, Schneerson's antics merely amplify his reputation as an eccentric who had no respect for the traditions and leadership of the Torah world."

"Rav Shach was an unwilling member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah beginning the 1970s, the position being forced on him by Rav A.Y. Karelitz,..."

"In 1988, citing disagreements in leadership style with the various Hasidic rebbes in the Agudat Israel party, Shach officially broke away from Agudat Israel..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== False Statement #2? ==

I would like to understand how R. Shach could have recited tehillim for the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L when the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L fell ill in 1992; when during that period of time R. Shach himself was unwell, up to the point where he was not able to leave his home. If he could not have been well enough to control his own self, how would he then be able to recite tehillim for someone else? Can anyone verify the fact that he recited tehillim for the Lubavitcher Rebbe? I don't believe he would. The source brought down for that event is not reliable at all, being that he soesn't bring a date, or any other verifiable source, and is based on a personal article which is not neccessarily even true. Imnotadetroiter (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

Winchester and Zsero's edits (pointedly from the third of January, 2010) to the footnotes have no business in an encyclopedia article about Rav Shach: they are nothing more than an attempt to repudiate the charges against their rebbe. If they would like to create a new Wiki page on "refutations to anti-Chabad charges of idolatry" I'm game. But Zsero's title "this is a footnote, not an essay" is as relevant to his edits as mine.
I cut these two some slack by leaving their footnotes largely intact but adding some corrective information (to the effect that their sources neither corroborated their claim nor, in all but the Tanya instances, had anything to do with their rebbe's sicha). Therefore, I've largely removed both footnotes - leaving only direct links to the offending sicha so readers can draw their own conclusions (I believe in empowering people to make educated decisions...others seem to disagree).
If Winchester and Zsero insist on turning this page into a platform for tangential (and incorrect) ideological rhetoric, I may launch a neutrality complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkunsofrim (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes are an appropriate places to add sources and notes to inform the reader; but they are not places to conduct extensive debates. The article says that R Shach called the LR's statement idolatry; it's therefore relevant to note the many sources supporting that statement. Quibbling about which specific term the sources use for the Deity is not productive; all parties are strict monotheists, after all. Nor is implying that Tanya is not an authoritative source productive. You are right that a link to the sicha in question is useful; I have provided a link that can at least make a colourable argument to not being a copyvio. -- Zsero (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your footnote's sources, being irrelevant, hardly inform the reader - and, as I said, they belong on another page. You have ignored the observation that none of your sources have the slightest connection to the sicha (besides Tanya). And while the Tanya is certainly an authoritative source for chabad ideology, it isn't independent of the movement such that it can be used to corroborate. If you can add this fluff, I can add its corrections.
I could live with your new URL, though.Tikkunsofrim (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please minimize your ignorant rants. Tanya is not only a source for 'Chabad Ideology' - it is an authoritative classical text accepted by every Chassidic group. Lubavitch is actually one of the smaller groups (compared to Satmar, Ger, or Belz etc) where Tanya is accepted as an authority. Londoner77 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And as to "all sides" being "strict monotheists", I would draw your attention to a number of primary sources that strongly suggest otherwise, including in which the LR clearly considers his father-in-law or himself or both to be "in charge of everything", "all powerful" and "impossible to hide from"! Sounds like a god to me. Tikkunsofrim (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you (TS) have any credible sources for these accusations? If so, please cite them. Thanks, Londoner77 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Londoner77, check out here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25033&st=&pgnum=157 - Look at the last line on the page, in the parantheses (and continuing on to the next page). אם הוא בעה"ב על הכל, ויכול הכל, ובמילא אינו יכול להתחבא ממנו

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An outrageous and factually unsupported accusation has no place in an encyclopedia, unless placed in context, which is what the sources I quoted provide. Insistence on hair-splitting semantics do not do justice to the issue, other than (perhaps) serve as a convenient red herring. Fact is, 'atzmus umehus' is a term used to describe God, largely (almost exclusively) found in texts associated with the school of Chabad philosophy, begining with the Tanya. Claiming it to mean something else because you don't find it in earlier texts, is like claiming that 'google' and 'search' have different meanings, simply because you won't find the term 'google it' in any text more than 20 years old. Thus your contention borders on the absurd, and leads to an obviously invalid conclusion. If you'd like, I have no objection to removing the entire paragraph dealing with that particular accusation of R' Schach, should you wish it to remain, however, context is critical. Winchester2313 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the further textual reference I've added which is rather unambiguous...to say the least: The Divrei Shlomo (Venice 1596) writing on p.vaeira, explicitly states that"All the Names of God are actually 'atzmuso umehuso', and not merely descriptive like the other names people give to things..." Winchester2313 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid that you are making one serious theological error and avoiding the two key ideological points. I'll take you through it step by step.

The error is in saying that the difference between "Atzmus" and "Shechina" is purely semantic. Legitimate Torah sources NEVER swap such words as though they're synonymous. While there are meforshim to Tanach (Metzudas Dovid, for one notable example) who allow for minor synonyms, key phrases like this are in a different category. ::In fact, getting back to our issue, the Arizal rules that "Atzmus" is so exalted that one may not even THINK about it. He says no such thing by Shechina. And, by the way, don't think that Chabad invented the term.

Now even if this "Rashi" you "borrowed" from Rabbi Slifkin is real, it proves exactly the opposite of what you want: because Slifkin uses it - most incorrectly I believe - to "prove" that Rashi believed that God had a body! If that is what you want us to think about Chabad, then I think we're in agreement!

The two ideological points from the sicha that you are studiously avoiding are,

one: that the LR identified himself with Atzmus HaShem, explicitly considering himself the physical incarnation of the essence of God, and

two: that the LR used this identification to justify having his followers daven to (betten) him.

For sources proving both of these, see, of course Identifying Chabad, and especially this page.

Neither of these are even discussed - much less corroborated - in these irrelevant sources that you bring. They have no business on a respectable Wikipedia page...why do you insist in keeping them there? Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slifkin?! What the $#^&% has he got to do with this? Where did he come from? The point is that all these sources support identifying tzadikim with God. The Rashi in Vayishlach is very much to the point: Yaacov, a human being, is explicitly called Keil, which is one of the seven Names of God Himself; and it is God Himself who calls him this. These sources provide the reader with a context in which to evaluate R Shach's attack on the LR for saying something similar. Your essay has no place there, and turns a footnote into a sub-article. -- Zsero (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slifkin is the one who popularized this "Rashi" some months ago as part of his infamous corporeality essay. I am sure that, had he not written it, the average Google user would never have been aware of it. Again (and again and again, if necessary): none of these non-Chabad sources support the two key points of the sicha (that the LR is the physical embodyment of God and that you can daven to him). It was these two points that bothered Rav Shach, therefore, these sources do not belong on the Rav Shach page.
Oh, and watch your language. :) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Tikkunsofrim (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Are there any verifiable sources that this is what bothered Rav Shach? Any letters, tapes, or is it in any of his books? Londoner77 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Londoner77 - in Michtavim U'Maamorim (I forgot where) - ועתה החליפו את האני מאמין המקודש לנו מדורי דורות בתבנית אדם בן תמותה

Yonoson3 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And that has got what to do with anything? Who is this "average Google user", how did he get into the discussion, and how do you know what he would or wouldn't be aware of? How many "average Google users" are aware of Slifkin? You think more people read Slifkin than Rashi??! In any case, the Rashi is still a Rashi, and it still says what it always did. And Rashi didn't make it up, he's just quoting Chazal. And what Chazal said is that God Himself called Yaacov "Keil". That is a clear source for what the LR said, and every child who learns chumash and Rashi knows it, but evidently R Shach forgot it when he made his attack on the LR. That is context which the reader needs in order to understand the article, so it belongs in a footnote. Your quibbling does not. -- Zsero (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Slifkin and Google thing isn't all that important: I assume that anyone quoting that "Rashi" almost certainly got it through a Google search ending up at Slifkin's site. I could be wrong. But what you still haven't addressed is the fact that, even if Rashi really did say it, it nevertheless casts absolutely no light on the two key claims against the LR. I don't know if Rav Shach can be expected to be familiar with Rashis that might not exist, but even if he was familiar with it, it wouldn't take away any of the power of his charge.

Either way, if we can agree to leave the page the way it currently is, then I think we can call it a night. Regards, Tikkunsofrim (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre assumption you make. What kind of person is not familiar with a simple Rashi on chumash?! Evidently you are not, and you should be ashamed of that! Why would anyone need Slifkin to tell him about it? And what would your hypothetical Google user be searching for?! And what is this about "Rashis that might not exist"? If you don't remember it from just a few weeks ago, or from your cheder years, take down a chumash and look it up! And yes, it is directly on point, as are the other sources that Winchester added. The entire point here is the LR's statement that a rebbe is not a memutza hamafsik but rather a memutza hamechaber, because he (like all tzadikim, and like all Jewish neshomos) is God. All those sources back him up on that last point. And he said nothing about davening to a rebbe! The Kedushas Levi does say that one may bow down to a tzadik, but the LR didn't say anything like that. Evidently R Shach wasn't familiar with the Kedushas Levi either.

And no, I do not agree to leave it as it is. I think it's a travesty to remove the sources that Winchester so helpfully gathered. You should put them back and then make your case for removal here on the talk page. As for me, I'll wait a while to see whether we can achieve consensus, and whether you'll do the right thing in the meantime. -- Zsero (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite bewildered at this point, what with 'Slifkin', simple Rashis that 'may not exist', and your superimposition of whatever fantasy into the LR's talk (wherein, btw, he clearly referred to his father-in-law, not himself). I'll summarize briefly, and wait for you to restore the contextual references I provided, or to remove the entire section dealing with the bizarre accusation against the LR. You seem to forget that this is a neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for cynical attempts at recasting historical events.

First, the LR made a statement that a rebbe, any rebbe (and likewise tzadikim- as per my previously cited sources), and in this case referring to his FIL, is the "essence and being of God as He placed Himself into a body..." - a bold statement, to be sure. Yet there are many sources in the zohar and other kaballistic & chassidic texts where tzadikim are refered to as God - yes, many. I only quoted a few, including references to certain tzadikim as 'Kel' or 'Y-Y'. So we established precedent - this was not the LR's invention.

Certain posters then questioned whether 'Kel', 'Y-Y' etc are the same as 'atzmus umehus', to which I and Zsero responded "yes" - God is God, whichever name you choose to call Him. I then quoted an ancient text, the Divrei Shlomo - 1596) who clearly states that any of Gods Names "are actually atzmus and .... the mehus, and not just an 'external' name like other names people give to things". Your response was to cavalierly deem the evidence irrelevant, and continue with a series of crude and false accusations (that the LR advocated praying to him, etc).

I believe the logical conclusion here is that Rav Schach made a mistake, and not having all the information available, judged spontaneously. I will not speculate as to whether he did so because that was simply his style, or for whatever other possible reason. What led me to this conclusion was simply the fact that in all of his writings and talks available for study, we see no kaballistic, chassidic, or similar expositions. It is abundantly obvious from all available evidence, that his forte was the in-depth study of talmud, and closely related texts such as rambam. However I did not attempt any judgement in my edits, rather providing an honestly sourced contextual background - which you seem to find unacceptable. This will obviously require third-party intervention, which is sad. Winchester2313 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Zsero? "a simple Rashi on chumash"? You really haven't been following this carefully enough. There is no Rashi in any chumash that either you or I have ever seen (nor in any Chumash that's been printed over the past many centuries) that mentions Atzmus. There was, reportedly, one edition from the Sixteenth Century that had such a formulation but it's far from clear that it's really Rashi. I assure you, you didn't learn it in cheder!

That memutza hamechaber business is simply wrong (nor is it mentioned in any of the sources your friend winchester brought). See the Rambam's fifth yesod from his perush l'mishnayos, Perek Chelek, where he rules that using a meilitz to bring yourself CLOSER to God is specifically what is forbidden!

And, one more time, none of those sources permits davening to a rebbe (and that IS what betten means...don't try to wiggle out of it). Finally, writing, as you do, "because he (like all tzadikim, and like all Jewish neshomos) is God" proves my point perfectly: this is a version of pantheism...how can you blame Rav Shach for criticizing it?

It is indeed a simple Rashi that is printed in every chumash, and that every cheder boy learns. I added it to the footnote, and you can see it in the edit history. I'm astounded that you're not instantly familiar with it. Of course it doesn't use the word "atzmus"; why are you so hung up on that word? It wasn't in use in Rashi's day; but is "Keil" not good enough for you? Is "atzmus" somehow different from "Keil"? Are they different gods or something?!

The distinction between memutza hamafsik and memutza hamechaber is indeed the LR's own idea; nothing in any previous source contradicts it, but nor does anything support it, which is why he clearly labelled it his own idea and left it to his audience to accept or reject it. Betn means to ask; when you ask someone for a favour, are you praying to him?! As I said above, the LR didn't go nearly as far as the Kedushas Levi, who wrote that it is permitted to bow down to tzadikim. (ומותר להשתחוות להם. Parshas Shoftim, sv velashemesh)

And yes, all of those sources in the footnote that you and Yonoson3 deleted show that tzadikim can be called "God", and the Tanya explicitly says that every Jewish neshomo is a "literally a portion of God". None of this is new, and none of it can be considered heresy, at least if you want to stay in your vaunted "mainstream" of Orthodoxy. Not even R Shach dared to openly call the Baal Hatanya a heretic, at least once he was prominent enough that his words would be reported! (Though he did dare to open his mouth against him, as well as against the holy Baal Shem Tov and the Kedushas Levi; unfortunately I have not yet found these incidents in a source reliable enough for WP, or you can be sure it would be in the article.) -- Zsero (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Winchester, you wrote: "You seem to forget that this is a neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for cynical attempts at recasting historical events."
Actually, this is an encyclopedia page on Rav Shach. Specifically, a section called "Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe". That would suggest that the page should stick to the topic at hand and avoid revisionist Chabad polemics.
Regarding language, by claiming that there's no difference between, say, Shechina or Keil, and Atzmus, you are essentially saying that words - especially the very words used to describe God - have no meaning. You've just wiped out a huge chunk of Torah literature - not to mention most of authentic Kabbalah.
Now to the "false accusation" that the LR advocated that his followers pray to him. If I ask you to please pass the salt, that's not a prayer. If I am told to ask a dead rabbi for all my worldly needs while bearing in mind that he is the physical embodiment of the essence of God and that he is "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" (as the LR wrote elsewhere), then that's prayer. You could at least do your own rebbe the favor of reading his words in context.
Finally, I define mainstream Judaism largely by what the Rambam rules. Let's take a look, for instance, at some of his Thirteen Principles of Faith and see how the LR's theology stands up:
The second yesod: God is infinitely simple and internally indivisible (the essence of His Unity). That's obviously impossible if He is somehow to be found within human and other bodies or if He's somehow "everywhere" in a physical sense.
The third yesod: God has no body nor any physical characteristics of any sort. how could an incorporeal G-d be areingeshtelt in a guf?
The fourth yesod: God is infinite in time - He had no beginning. But if he is"synonymous" with a mortal human being He must have had a beginning.
The fifth yesod: one may pray to or serve nothing besides God. Need I say more?
The seventh yesod: that there has never been, nor could there ever be a prophet equal to Moshe. How many dozens of sichos refer to chabad rebbes as being neviim equal to or even greater than Moshe?
Thus, Rav Shach's criticisms were hardly borne of ignorance. Tikkunsofrim (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Winchester's point was simply that there are various sources for the kind of statement that Rebbe Schneerson made. Your ranting and argumentative polemics are not for Wiki, rather for a theological debate. Fact is, (and I'm certainly no Lubo) that Rav Shach stood alone in calling the Chabad idol-worshippers. For this kind of statement to be left in, Wiki rules mandate leaving the sources Winchester added. I looked up some of them on hebrewbooks.org, and he happens to be correct, especially the Divrei Shlomo. You can accuse the Tanya and Chabad of whatever you want, but an encycopedia demands balance and impartiality - his references provide it, and must therefore be restored. Londoner77 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing the entire 'External Links' sub-section. It serves no purpose other than to further clutter the page, contains many dead or redundant links, and is of no practical use. We know that RS said shiurim on the 'yeshivishe mesechtos', that he wore a black hat, and that he spoke yiddish. Where does it end - perhaps some links to his preferred brands of cereal or soda??Winchester2313 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason why it should be any different than the links on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe.

If a link is dead, erase it yourself. Yonoson3 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is an encyclopedia - there's nothing wrong with having this info. You're going to have to do better than that, Winchester. Yonoson3 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let's keep this civil, shall we? Just use WP:EL to check the appropriateness of links, and remove dead links (or even better, replace them by working ones, see e.g. http://www.archive.org/). Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed this below, and might again draw your attention to the difference between an encyclopedia and a hagiography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitcher_Rebbe are orderly and not redundant. ONE link to access hundreds of talks, not a separate link for each one. And please mind the NPOV before quoting from an article subjects OWN newspaper. Winchester2313 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

recent edit warring, civility issues

Hi. I've protected this article against editing for one month due to the edit warring that has been taking place. Please discuss edits here, not by edit warring on the page. Secondly, please follow Wikipedia's civility policy. It's one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia for a reason- it's very important to focus on the content, not the contributor.

I won't be watching this page, but once a clear consensus is reached concerning the content, please drop by my talk page to get it unprotected. You can also go to WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"There is no need to worry about machlokes...one is obligated to be a baal-machlokes. It is no feat to be in agreement with everybody!"

The above quote, comes from an article by Avishai Ben Chayim (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART/936/156.html). I believe Ben Chayim is getting this quote from R' Shach's speech at the Degel Hatorah convention at Binyanei HaUma (http://www.tsofar.com/zofar/mashtap/show.asp?id=493). I watched that video, and it seems to me that Ben Chayim is not giving the full context. I had made a change earlier that it should read as follows:

"In another speech, he quoted a Dvar Torah from Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin, that because Moses had to preside and deal with the Jewish people's disputes, he was not loved by all, and this is an inevitable consequence of the fact that he was a leader and decider of the Jewish people."

Winchester2313 switched it back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=335766369&oldid=335765014).

It seems to me that in regard to this quote from R' Shach, the video itself carries more weight than Ben Chayim's article. Anybody agree with me? I would like some feedback so we can get a consensus on this, and then when Tedder opens up the page to being edited, the relevant passage can be fixed.

Yonoson3 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That may be the way R Diskin said it, but it's not the way R Shach did. I'm sure R Diskin didn't say that Moshe Rabbenu was a baal machlokes, and one must be a baal machlokes, and that there's no reason to worry about machlokes. Those were R Shach's words. As for using a primary source rather than a secondary one, one would think this would be better, but WP rules seem to favour secondary sources; don't ask me to explain it or defend it, but that's how it is. The recording is a primary source, the NRG article is secondary, and reports what the primary source said. By the way, you can't rely on the subtitles on the recording at the site you linked to; they're very much not a literal rendering of his words, but rather the subtitler's opinion on what he meant to say, especially when he switches to Yiddish. -- Zsero (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Rav Shach was well known for controversial comments and attacking other groups pretty much every time he spoke publically.Your attempts to revise history this way are quite transparent, as well as disturbing. Let the man speak for himself. Londoner77 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"but WP rules seem to favour secondary sources" - where does it say that?209.155.94.48 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS -- Zsero (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a transcript of both of those speeches (printed back in the day - immediately following the rally), and the lines ABC quotes (and which I added for context), were relatively mild, compared to a lot else said in those talks. To imply that they were in any way taken 'out of context' is wishful thinking, with all due respect. I listened to the tapes very carefully. Honesty dictates leaving RS's statements up, especially since they lend perspective to a lot of what he then went on to say. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Winchester, would you be able to email those transcripts to libraryplace@gmail.com I'm interested in seeing them. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from Lithuanian Haredi leaders

Zsero insits that the section say Lithuanian Haredi leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=335736565&oldid=335736402). Does anybody else concur? How do you define "Lithuanian"? If it means born in Lithuania, then many of the people quoted in this section were not born in Lithuania?

209.155.94.48 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its fairly obvious that the terms 'lithuanian' and 'yeshivish' are largely interchangeable in the present-day vernacular, and as such, the sub-header should remain as it is. Were there to be any prominent chasidic or MO rabbis quoted, then I'd agree to a change, say, to 'orthodox leaders', but not with the names that follow. In this context, Lithuanian clearly refers to 'of the litvishe school' -- Winchester2313 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding chasidic, one of the quotes is from the Belzer Rebbe. And regarding MO, we can add the obituary of the OU (http://www.ou.org/oupr/2001/schach01.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.94.48 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One swallow doesn't make a spring. The Belzer threw his lot in with Degel, and sat on the stage at the infamous Binyanei Haumah speech, and was thereafter shunned by all other chassidim. His reasons for being there had nothing to do with regard for Shach. -- Zsero (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The support that this paragraph refers to are (written) statements defending his honor following strong attacks against RS by certain groups in the very early '80s. Not a single chassidic rebbe (including the Belzer at that time) signed those letters. So I don't believe its (even) a case of 'one swallow'....only Litvishe rabbonim signed those letters. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Lithuanian" means "from Lithuania". Even though Lithuanian is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia, I think that this is the most obvious meaning of the word. Zsero must have meant "Litvishe". "Yeshivish" is a term used for the informal vernacular of yeshiva students. I for one do not equate it with "Litvish". In short, I propose using "Litvishe". Debresser (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to 'Litvishe'. Londoner77 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will the real Yonoson please rise

I have very strong reason to believe that the editor on this page using the name 'Yonoson3' is in fact, Yonoson Rosenblum (or Jonathan Rosenblum), the notorious revisionist of Artscroll/Mesorah 'fame'. He has been asked (as of mid-2006)to participate in a stealth-campaign of creating 'facts' on a variety of internet sites, that would jive with the Artscroll 'weltenschaung'. As is quite evident, in his many edits on this page, the sources are all partisan, clearly proprietary, and obvious pr mouthpieces. He will not quote from any objective or outside sources, as that type of research would be at odds with his revisionist agenda. 'Chareidi', 'Shema Yisrael', and similar sites he cuts-and-pastes here actually use Wikipedia to make their versions (usually single-party based hearsay only) of events available, as they try to establish legitimacy. That is NOT what Wiki is about. Yankev26 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not Rosenblum. Yonoson3 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do see what you mean regarding all the proprietary sources. Seems to me somebody is trying to distort the record of Rav Shachs actual contributions. Is it Jonathan Rosenblum (author of the fawning histori-fictions), I don't know. Though you wouldn't expect him to come on and admit it here, would you? Londoner77 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We now have, in the 'External Links' and following subsections, over 75 links to various websites, articles, obituaries, eulogies and hagiographies. The majority of these are neither verifiable nor do they make any pretense at being objective. I'm inclined to suspect that 'Yankev26' may be onto something here. Furthermore, the majority of the sources cited by 'Yonoson3' on this page are, incredibly, sourced from the newspaper founded by the subject (Rav Shach)himself, staff of same, or closely related publications - in clear violation of multiple Wiki policies such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view I propose removing removing most of these links, particularly as some of the more recent additions actually malign other groups of people in their attempt to rewrite history. If someone replaces this mess with an orderly link, say to a site carrying ALL of RS's talks (rather than cluttering the page with the present mess), I'd view that as constructive. Winchester2313 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Winchester2313 does have a point here, about the dubious objectivity of a subject's own newspaper. Also, this article includes too much glorification instead of neutral fact: not everthing anybody said about him has to be included here. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As it seems many (if not most) of the External Links submitted here are merely unverified shills that serve no constructive purpose, I again propose deleting these as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL. Should anybody object, please provide a good reason for this content to remain, and why you believe it to be acceptable under Wiki guidelines. I'm okay with a few articles or obituaries from mainstream media, but not this clutter.Winchester2313 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yated Neeman & Dei'ah VeDibur

Dei'ah VeDibur is a site owned by Yated Ne'eman, a newspaper founded by R' Shach to promote his ideology and opinions. I have removed various statements about R' Shach whose source(s) were either Deiah VeDibur, Yated Ne'eman, or articles directly citing them as a sole reference. It is a violation of multiple Wiki rules and guidelines to dump this sort of hagiographic material here, and package it as if it was objectively sourced. For obvious reasons, media owned or founded by an individual can not possibly be considered a reliable source of information regarding said individuals stature and / or accomplishments. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)