mentalblog.com comments:
I have been corresponding with the Transcriber past week. I have other emails from him that he has OK'd to post. Since he is not reading the Internet you might post your question addressed to Transcriber and I will email it to him.
Where are the attached stories?
The Lesson of the Malach:
The truth never dies.
Name: Avrhum Dov Levine aka The Malach was the Rabbi of the Rayayz�s walked out in middle of the job and cut all of his ties to Lubavitch he then came to the United States and influenced a couple of Talmudim of yeshivas Torah Vadath and after him petirah in 1939 they grouped themselves in a Shteible in Williamsburg and they were called the Muluchim. Some bloggers wanted to know more about the Malach, my comment could start the collection of more data.
There happen to be letters (which were published and censored by Kehot) that would explain some details about the rift between Bais Harav and the Malach. I am going to highlight three Source Documents where this is apparent � perhaps someone out there can track down originals and fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle.
Source Document #1
In Letter 679 of the Rashab to his son, the Rashab writes to his son about �When yedidaynu [our close friend] Reb Avrohom Ber came to Lubavitch�. In the printing of this letter by Kehot, this opening paragraph was reduced to one line with a few dots indicating there was more about Reb Avrohom Ber that the official censors at Kehot did not want the Lubavitch public to know, things that would be flattering to Reb Avrohom Ber. Further on in the letter the Rashab wants to know from his son exactly where the Malach was learning.
Ironically, in this letter, the Rashab warned his son not to be Mevatel time from learning, even for the sake of Shmuessing about the importance of Learning, as Learning, not Shmuessing was the Ikar. This happens to be a point that the Malachim always argued is one of the many faults with Lubavitch and that the Memories of the Rayayz�s in this area is against his own fathers teachings.
Source Document #2
In Letter 695, the Rashab makes reference to his son that he had sent a letter to his son�s tutor, namely Reb Avrohom Ber Levine, the Malach. (Its understood that the Rashab was corresponding with the Malach about the status of his son)
Source Document #3
Kuntros U�Mayan � in the introduction there is a piece about how Farbrengens were changed in format. There is also a references to the Rayatz�s Diary, in which there is a chapter about the Malach (his rebbe whom he refers to in a derogatory title). This chapter about the Malach was not published due to the policy of not publishing anything with a different opinion of the official teachings of the current administration.
In that chapter of the Diary must be a lot to learn about the split between the Malach and the Lubavich.
The introduction tells the incident of when the Rayatz changed what was an established way of having a Farbrengen to what he referred to as an �Emesdike Farbrengen�. What happened , according to the Rayatz, was that the Rashab was away in 1901 and there was a Melave Malke Farbrengen in that time. The Rayatz came in and made a whole fanfare of a letter he had received from his father, indicating that he would read it aloud, stirring a frenzy about his father�s value and the importance of his letter. Acording to the Rayatz there was only one person against this episode at this Melave Malka. That one person was the Malach. Obviously the Malach did not agree with the Rayatz that promoting the messenger of truth (rather than focusing on the message) is what an �Emesdike Farbrengen� is all about.
To shed some light on the matter, an analogy is in place. At the start of the Olympics, there is the age-old rite of carrying the torch. If you are familiar with the hoopla of Olympics, you know that it is not one runner who holds the torch. The goal is to get the torch far and fast, so one runner will hand off the torch to the next, who hands it off to the next, getting closer to the end. It is not about the runners, it is not about any one person, it is about the torch, staying lit and moving forward.
I think that is something like Jewish Mesorah. There is a torch, the light of Torah, which is handed down. When a runner decides to make the holding of the torch about himself, therein lies a problem. The goal is to pass it forward to the next generation, still lit. Most times, the truth is passed onward, not from the same line, not from the same quarter, just passed on to light the way for the next generation.
What am I getting at with this introduction? Let me explain something about the Malach, who did �shtam� from the Lubavitch movement, who grabbed the torch when it was most vulnerable and passed it along, and who, if some of you are smart enough, can follow that torch further, by seeing where the torch is at this point.
Up until 1903, the Rashab and the Malach had been extremely close, as evidenced by letters and by the fact that the Rashab had asked the Malach to be the Mashpia and tutor of his son the Rayatz from the time the Rayatz was 18-years-old. It was during these years leading up to 1903 that the Malach started having grave misgivings about the leanings of the Rayatz. In one instance, as told to me by Rabbi Yankel Schorr, the Malach went to the Rashab to complain that he had caught the Rayatz reading secular books (in those days, reading secular books was akin to a Lubavitch bochur reading Rav Shach�s seyfer today )
The disagreement between the Malach and the Rayatz reached a climax when the Rashab and Rayatz came back from visiting Sigmund Freud in Vienna http://www.jhberke.com/ Freud_Lub...d_Lub_Rebbe.htm . The Malach believed strongly that a Rebbe was about passing on the Emes and about inspiring others to buckle down to Avodas Hashem. The Rayatz being led by Freud, to promote the Rashab, to aggrandize a Chassidic leader as a way to help with the leader�s depressive state. (These ideas of what Freud told the Rashab and the Rayatz are outlined in the diary of the Mamosh � see entry of May 24, 1932 where this matter is discussed with all details of Freud�s instructions). Basically, the Rayatz was tutored to work on creating a �movement� where Chassidim would extol the Rebbe and the Rebbe would then teach more. The Malach saw this Derech would make Lubavitch a political, social and emotional movement and that the torch of truth would become secondary. So he picked himself up and left.
Now, as for providing readers information about the Malach�s group of followers, know this: the Malach was not about himself. He never sought out disciples. They sought him out. Rabbi Shraga Faivel Mendlowitz sent Talmidim to him because Rabbi Mendlowitz felt the students could absorb a lot of Emes and an approach to Avdus Hashem from someone so truthful and fiery in his relationship to truth. What happened afterwards between Reb Shraga Faivel and the Malach is a story for itself, which perhaps this blogsite would like to investigate more fully.
Suffice it to say, that some great minds and leaders were ignited and inspired because of their exposure to the �fire� of the torch the Malach carried. Even today in Brooklyn and Monsey, you can see his ideals still being carried forward, for instance in the school called Bais Shifra Miriam, run by Rabbi Chaim Flohr, wherein quietly, his ideals, the truth untarnished by money and glory, is being taught to a whole new generation of children.
The torch moves onward. Gone are the runners who glorified themselves. Those Chassidim who lagged behind the pace of truth, those who unfortunately who spent years rallying behind torch bearers long after the torch moved on, those people should perhaps play �catch-up� running to find where the truth is up to at this stage in time.
Readers beware that the person who uses the name Malach on this blog was in fact never a member of the Malachim!
Yacov Shimen | 04.14.05 - 1:38 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
YS, the part about Sigmund Freud, is that a masora of malochim or you just made it up? If it is a masora, is there another source for it?
Tzemach Atlas | Homepage | 04.14.05 - 2:40 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
I never heard about Freud from the Elders in M�lochim. That information is actually from the diaries from Mamash (please see the site I had put into the last post that discusses this (http://www.jhberke.com/Freud_Lub_Rebbe.htm).
What the Elders in M�lochim did say was, that the Malach had tried various means to stop the Rayatz from reading secular books which (used to be) are forbidden to a Chassidish Yid. The Malach even went so far as to talk to the Rashab about it. According to what I heard from R� Zavel Gertner that heard it from the Malach, that the Rashab did not speak to his son for a couple of months when he found out about what he was reading. The Malach said that the end result of these Chitzonyiusdike ideas would be devastating to klal yisroel. I think we can see what he meant.
Ironically in my youth when I was speaking to Lubavitchers, the frum ones overwhelmingly denied that the Rayatz read Goyishe books. When I later met with Barry Gourary, he told me that his grandfather was actually a bookworm (Usually not a Rebisha Teivah) and he used books, in his quote, �his window to the world.� I still remember what I remarked to him that �it seems to be it was not Meitzitz Min Hacharakim (peeking through a crack)� it was more Mashgiach Min HaChalonos (looking through a window), and it seems to be a lot of people fell out of that window that was opened.� To which Barry answered, �it was just fresh air that came in.�
Can you please make this, and the previous letter into a separate blog so that we can review comments and hopefully someone will post the original ksav yad of the Rashab without the Kehot�s censorship.
Yacov Shimen | 04.15.05 - 10:47 am | #
In case anyone hasn't seen this, here's another interesting article about the Melachim (from the perspective of Ben Zion Weberman). I"m not sure if this fits Yacov Shimon's sources...
http://www.hawaii.edu/geog_mr/on...nline/
biog.html
Right eyebrow raised, "Fascinating..."
A Totally Incoherent post. to be expected from a hateful,bitter man like YS.
Re: The M"lochim .
Lets look at some history. When the Malach arrived here he was an old man. He lived in the Bronx. The head of Torah Vadaas brought some talmidim to study with the Malach , better put to meet him and gleam what an erlicher Yid loked like.
Torah Vadaas was in Brooklyn. The Malach in the Bronx. The head of TVD eventually regreted his actions and expelled the M"lochim from the Yeshiva and brought in Reb israel jacobson and others to teach man line chabad to thsoe who so desired. Rav baumol of Williamsburg granted the head the heter he needed to expel these people.
Of course some of his American disciples picked up bits and pieces of Chabad Chassiduth. But the Malach died before the outbreak of WW2 (is it 1937). So there was a period of 7-8 years where some students were exposed to the malach. When he died he was not replaced by another old and tried Chabad chasid from White Russia as their mentor. ratehr Reb yankev Schorr one of the American disciples picked up the leadership. He was a bros of Reb Gedaliah Schorr.
He had no long standing Messorah in Chabad. Of course he was with the malach for some time period , but is this comparable to spending 7 years in Tomche Tmimim with reb Grunem or other mashpiim .
Lets stop kidding ourselves . Is this compared with growing up in atmosphere completely engulfed in Chabad, like the home of the Yekatrinislaver rav ?
Reb Zalman Levine on the series of tapes recorded in his later years -when the Hungarian chasidim discovered America - admits that he was removed in many ways from his father's derech. He learned in Kaminetz and in RIETS -YU . Does this sound like someone who is an authentic chain in the Chabad mesorah.
Of course Zalman Levine knew much from growing up where he did, but listen to the tapes and read the Malach's letters in Eytzer Igros Keydesh and any fair minded person will see that the son although a fine Yid and a lamdan was not part of the chain.
All we know is that the RASHAB was depressed at times. He went to Vienna to consult Dr. Freud as a doctor to help him. He did not consult Freud on political or organizational matters. Freud was only interested in Medicine and in psychoanalysis , not in public relations Etc.
There is nor record of what Freud told him. I asked friends of mine in the analytical movement to check various Freud archives . zip
No record of the Rayaatz meeting freud.No record of anything Freud said to the rashab .
Finally how did the Malach find out about a confidential meeting of Freud and the rebbe.
Excuse me for saying so but before I can believe anything here lets see some documentation..
By the way Chaim Bloch records that he met an important Polish rebbe in Vienna who came to consult Dr. Wilhelm Stekel a disciple of Freud's at the same time.
So the question arises was this the Rashab , but he was not pOlish. Friends, people suffer from various mental maladies and there is nothing wrong with seeking medical assistance from experts.Rebbes are permited to seek medical help for their conditions.
In the reshimoth there is very little about the meeting. Certainly nothing of the kind posted here. Aderabba if there is further documentation, please post such.
The Melochim have a role to play in Jewish life. But they are as american as Torah Vedaas and chaim Berlin and Riets and Ner israel.nd if a young lamdan wants to learn the derech of Brisk and Litvishe learning he goes to Yerusholayim to study with the children and grandchildren of the Brisker rav. Which does not mean the others don't have truth , but there is a difference of kle rishon.
In conclusion i have a great deal of respect for the Mlochim but as afr as I can tell from some sorces they lack the Oral law of chabad. read the new book by lemel Schwartz about the Malach and you will see what i mean.
Schneur, Freud thing is Yacov Shimos literally invention it has nothing to do with what happened in Vienna and nothing to do with Malach. I am disappointed he even brought it up. I would say though that despite what Lubavitch wants you to believe, i.e that Rashab was in Vienna to heal a neurological disorder on his hand and despite the fact that his encounter with Freud might have been brief and insignificant. It is clear that the trip itself and the months Rashab spent in Vienna with his son was a momentous occasion.
I found out about this past November:
http://www.mentalblog.com/2004/1...cher-
rebbe.html
It is clear from the stories told in Chabad about Rashab going into trances in Vienna that this was perhaps a life changing experience. I have more to say about this but not now.
The Rayaatz and the Rashab always went into trances . Thats the way they received instructions from their predecessors.
The article you posted is pure speculation by a pair of people who know nothing about Judaism. I gave the article to friends of mine in the field (mental health ) when the piece was first published. Everyone agreed nothing substantive there. Other articles in the J. of Judasim and civilization by Rabbi Dr. S. Cowen in Australia again are built on speculation based on the few passages in the Reshimoth.
Further research and investigations in Washington, London and Vienna in Freud archives resulted in nothing. No evidence , no appointments , nothing.No outside evidence of a meeting between freud and the rebbes of Chabad.
All we know is the Rashab was depressed, and KFAR Chabdad magazine has written on this subject in connection with the Rashabs relationship with his cousin Rav SZ Slonim from Israel. No secret.
He went to see Freud and everything else is basically speculation.
I do not believe anyone is hiding anything.
We do not know what Freud told the rebbe, what the rebbe told Freud, how many times they met did they meet for medical reasons of for psychoanalytic purposes.
Why are we speculating when there is not a shred of evidence besides the reshimoth materiasls.
Let's just add another note.
The Malach never saw himself as either starting a new movement or a dynasty.
Rather he was teaching chabad to a group of American bachurim.And he was teaching them frumkayt too.
When he first arrived in the States his name was listed on the letterhead of officers of Agudath chaside chabad in America headerd by the Kramer family under the guidance of the rayatz !!
In fact once the Rayaatz and other rebbes arrived in America the group lost much of the reason for its existance.
Only in recent years (the past 15-20 years)with the tremendous quest for spirituality amongst young Satmarer people did this group have some sort of rejuvenation.. As many Satmarer were joing Lubavitch, some felt it could use the M"lochim as a useful instrument to block leakage to lubavitch.
This quest for spiritual values amongst Satmarer teens is itself worthy of a esay. Many have become Lubavitcher, Bratzlever, Slonimer, followers of Reb Mechele of Nikolsberg vechuli.
In the acknowledgments the paper lists Gedaliah Fleer. He was in Boston when I read this paper and asked him what else he knew about this. And as you said Schneur little is known. But I also asked an old Lubavitcher about the trip and the official line is denial of depression and claim that the trip to Vienna was to heal his hands, as one might expect. As far as the trances go I heard a lot of stories in Chabad but the story about the trans in a Vienna hotel was the only story I was aware of.
Schneur, your comments are unfair. Firstly derech of Melochim provides a spiritual sustenance to a Jew, who are we to tell him if it is or is not connected to the source. Secondly, one of the major themes of this blog is how today’s reality of the Lubavitcher tradition is disconnected from it’s White Russian roots. There is also a room to argue that the environment in the house of Yekaterinoslaver Rov was unique (dovor pephnei azmo) and not a representation of the mainstream Chabad in those years. Additionally there is also room to argue that America is indeed "anderesh"! And finally it is the theme of our Jewish existence, remoteness from the source and futile search for authentic expression AKA Golus.
I beleive America is a free country. It is also a capitalist society.
I do not seek to persecute or silence the M'lochim. rather in the give and take of our open society. I am showing how in my opinion their "product" is not the authentic item and how with all their faults , 770 is selling a more authentic product.
Let the M'lochim sell their product , have I advocated closing them down ?
In earlier blog I even stated there is a place for them.
But logic dictates that mashpiim, yechidim and families that have been part of Lubavitch for generations have acsess to a oral tradition and way of doing things that a small group of American torah Vedaas people do not have.
The Malach died in 1939, exactly how much of Chabad lore and literature did he pass on to young Americans who in many cases hardly had the proper spiritual background to absorb the teachings , concepts and structual framework that the Malach was all about.
Once the malach died as far as I am aware they were on their own the small community had not 1 person who ha a direct authentic connection to chabad. rather it was the rookies themselves who now were the Baale mesorah and Maatike hashemuah. Highly unusual to say the least.
Question why is the Liozner any less authentic than the Malochim after all he spent 25 years in Lubavitcher yeshivoth ?
But we all know that neither of them or Zalman Schachter, or Shlomo carlebach or others are the authentic transmittors of the Chabad messorah.
Finally let me raise another issue, the Malochim are the most anti-Zionist Chassidic sect in Williamsburg today. Much to the right of Satmar in all its forms. They burn the flag of Israel on israel independence day.
In this activist stance the Malach was influenced by his pen pal rabbi Asher Zelig Margolioth of Jerusalem.The rashab was anti-Zionist , but at the creation of the state veyesh omrim after 1940 the Rayaatz dropped this policy.. And the 7th rebbe also dumped this shita.
Friends does the true shittah of Chabad involve being part of the Neture Karta as the Mlochim of today are ?
Schneur is right,
This discussion is not about the malochim, who are entitled to their own derech in avodas hashem. the discussion started because as an alternative to starting a new lubavitch group that will be true to its roots, someone sugested the malochim. YS is trying to prove that the malochim are true to Chabad roots and the reason for the split is because the rayatz started changing the derech due to the influence of Freud. (which is ironic in and of itself because the original post was that the rebbe changed chabad and we should go back to the derech of Rayatz, now we are being told that Rayatz actually changed the derech).
Regardless of the reason for the split, I think it is obvious that the malochim of today are not Chabad.
I will also say that while I am not very knowledagble in the Malochim parshoh and what did or didnt happen between the Rashab, Rayatz and the maloch, YS version doesent sound very plausible.
if schneur has any more info about the split, I would love to hear it.
i wrote my last post before seeing the last comments from schneur
Schneur, since when are you the guradian of "the true shittah of Chabad". I though we alread addressed this with Breslaver post. There are all kinds and some even say that waiving a yellow flag is also "the true shittah of Chabad". Let me even say that today in HLubavitch there is perhaps a majority who did not have a "personal connection" to the old hasidim and some even say that the Rebbe broke that connection on purpose.
From the Transcriber:
I can't speak of Freud, because we never discussed it. Without commenting on the theological or psychological motivations behind the Malach's leaving the Reshab, I can say that the Rov's son told me that, as your correspondent noted, the Malach was a shining light of Lubavitch and part of the "inner circle" who was asked to tutor the Frerdicker Rebbe. [I have a very interesting myse about the Rov's first visit to Lubavitch and how he came to the Rebbe's attention, but, sadly, haven't yet gotten to the tape it's on.] He became aware that his young charge was reading secular material (i.e. the newspaper, etc.) and tried to have him concentrate solely on his learning. When he proved unsuccessful, he went to the Rashab and told him that he could no longer tutor his son and that, in addition, his son's secular interests indicated that he was unfit to succeed him when the time came. The Rashab said it was farfallen, already decided, that his son would become the Rebbe and so the Malach withdrew. Not to start a separate movement, but simply to continue his life without compromising his beliefs. Now I will say that the Malach was a very blunt and forceful man who didn't mince words, so I don't quite know how heated the conversation might have been. But that was the substance of the event. The movement that became know as the Melochim emerged here in the USA in response to the needs of those who chose to follow his lead. In a way, it was their movement, not his. He refused all position and kovod.
I've heard many contradictory reasons why the Malach left Lubavitch, but the above is what his son finally told me after many years of my chepping him about it.
-Transcriber.
In all of the Rashab's Igros Kodesh, (at least the ones printed)Avrohom Ber Illyer is mentioned TWICE, and "Yedideinu HoRa"D" is the title given. It doesn't sound like he ever was "Mekabel Morus" of the Rashab, otherwise he would accept his words, not leave like he did, so that basically makes him a Kopuster Chosid. What I've heard is that it was books that were marked "Schneersohn" but were meant for the cousin Schneersohn who was an son of Reb Sholom Ber of Retzitze, an einekel of the Kopuster who lived in Lubavitch. (take it or leave it). The Rebbe didn't speak to his son for a while but later found out that it was nothing more than Motzie Shem Raha and admonished Avrohom Ber (or banished him). I find it hard to believe that the Rashab would "throw his hands up" and say "farfallen, he's the Yoresh". If he didn't deem him worthy he'd say so. Either way ADa"L left. (If he only arrived in America in the '20's where was he for 20 years?). His son Zalman worked for the IRS or New York State and from what I hear came to the Rebbe and met with him for an extended period of time. The Webermans that I've come in contact with have zero to near zero knowledge of Chabad, except for Chabad of today being evil, and are all Satmarer of Vizhnitzer Chassidim. The hate for Lubavitch is palpable and thick. To their credit Reb Chaim Flohr and Reb Pinchos Weberman, have not in herited the hate towards Lubavitch, Weberman even more so is a friend of Chabad in Florida. Meir Weberman is a rabid Chabad-hater, which is interesting.
Before you Chabad-hater out there get all excited by the Malochim, just remember that he also was very much "Chabad-only" in his approach to Chassidus. In his letters he writes only to learn Chabad Chassidus and not Chassidus Polin, he refers to Misnagdim as "Minim", and his followers did not use the Vilne Shas because the printers in Vilne were "Minim". In "Toldos Chabad BeArtzos HaBris" SB Levin brings a clip from the "Tog-Morgen Journal" after the FR's arrest that "Avrom Ber Der Malach zogt az er gleibt nisht az men hut arrestiert dem Rebben, veil es shteit in Tzeitung, un altz vos es shtait in Tzaitung iz nit emes"!
There's lots more to write, but at a later date.
I think we can derive from Yakov Shimon's posts that he really had no love for Berke Gurary, but used him to get to his uncle and Zeide. I think that Berke was smart enough to see through his very transparent facade.
Hachosem LiChvod Beis Rabbeinu,
Avremel
Re Rabbi Joseph I. Schneersohn's secular interests. Let us say he read secular books.
How did this manifest himself in his later behavior ? Was he a zionist . No .
Was he an advocate of Torah Im derech Eretz .
Clearly NO as no Lubavitcher yeshiva under his control had any serious secualr dept.
Did he use modern technology and methods to fight for Judaism . YES
Was he willing to settle for a watered down form of Judaism in the period of 1920-1927 and compromise with the maskilim in Leningard . NO
So friends. how did all these secular books affect him. Apparently not very much.
Among the rebbes of the last generation there were any number who were also exposed to secular influences either in Poland and Russia.
Certainly none to my knowledge went to university, but many read secular books and newspapers. many were pro-Zionist.
Was this a fatal flaw in their personality.
No. They went on to lead sizeable numbers of chassidim.
Cheap accusations against the rayaatz brought up over 100 years a fter they happened (???) should have no place in any discussion of this kind. Did the rayaatz read yiddish literature, did he read marx, or was he reading mapu. Perhaps he was learning the Tifferes Israel or even worse raeding More Nevuchim ?
Friends. The malach called Mr. Mendlowitz (whom rav Aron Kotler called th eperson who built Torah in America ) a shona vepeiresh - that is someone who learnt and left the frum world. Wow, the Malach had high standards . perhaps he applied these standards to young R. Yosef yitzchok too.?? We just do't know.
Schneour:Regarding whether the Rayat'z became 'influenced' by the secular.
While you correctly state that there were no massive changes, some would claim that todays 'modern orthodox' version of Chabad as in 'chabad lite' lies in his takeover.
Some interesting 'quirks':The Rama'sh going to college in Berlin!This was unheard of in that day an age for the son in law of a rebbe to study in college and in Berlin and Paris, bastions of assimilation.The Rama'sh was unquestionably more 'modern than the Tomchei Temimim boys.
The other son in law shaved apparently.Atlas had his pic here once.And no, he was not a shpitz litvishe bochur who had studied at the Mirrer yeshiva and like the custom of the day even the frummest litvishe boys shaved.He was actually a scion of the Lubavitcher line, an ayneekel and first cousin of Rayatz, nephew of RaSHA'B.
Anyone who knows the matzav in Rusia from 1881 on wards knows that what happened to the Schneersohn family in terms of haskola , also happened to many other Russian Rabbinic families.
By the way even from Kopust there is little left in terms of Chasidic frume Yidden.
I do not wish to raise this but I am forced to in order to defend the ebbe.the Malach had other children its mashma from the tapes of R. Zalman Levine and they apparently were aso not so frum as they even preceeded him to America. Well did the malach read sifre Minus. hey laughed at zalman levine going to yeshiva ! Probably not did he have hatzlocha with his children NO. It was a "makas Medinah"
The rayaatz clearly was a victim of his times in terms of his family.
By the way the 2nd son in law did not turn out too bad ? a big talmid chochom , baal meifes etc.
The 3rd son in law was a product of the Hornstein family of Boyaner chasidim . The founder of this dynasty of gvirim was reb Gurary Horenstein , he had 7-8 sons and many brothers. Today there is not 1 Orthodox Hornstein in Israel or the US Is that too the fault of the rayaatz?
Schneour:Answering that 'haskalah' was a 'makas medinah' does not mean it did not effect 'bais harav, v'oolay horav be'atsmo'.
'Eidimer' are chosen, aren't they?
How could he be critical of others (shaving, haskolah, holocaust caused by sins etc)when this 'makkah' was quite close to home.Horensteins father was an 'eidim' of the Mahara'sh.
Shneour, one thing you got right was that communism and different forms of haskalah were a 'makas medinah' which affected everyone.It's one of the sad 'jokes' that Lubavitchers sell that they were not affected.In truth most of the descendants of Lubavitcher and other chassidim wound up exactly like all other jews, lucky if it ended up on the boardwalk in Coney Island, in the form of an elderly Russian yid who understands a few words in yiddish.The yeshiva world in Russia chose to flee to Poland, Eretz Yisroel or America, that's why there were few shoimer shabbes of the Litvishe left in Russia (those that did not leave, joined Chabad)
Just as an aside,the one rabbinic figure who seems to have the greatest percentage of descendants shmorei torah umitzvos is the Chasam Sofer.Mabybe because Hungarian ultra orthodoxy inspired by the Chasam Sofer mixed in elements of the chasidim and misnagdim, while remaining fiercly independent of the general Jewish community.
Shneur:
I found this fascinating insight on the Malach from the yucommentator, signed by Zalman Alpert the Librarian at the Gottesman Library. Obviously this Zalman knows a lot of history and says (and I quote):
"As far as the first American school reflecting the European values of "Torah only" I believe the honors go to the followers of Rabbi Chaim Abraham Dov Ber Levine of the Bronx, in the mid 1930's. Known as the "Malach", this old line Chabad Chassid instilled a deep feeling for the "real thing" in his young followers (known as the M'lochim) from Torah Vedaas and after being expelled from that yeshiva started a yeshiva completely free of secular studies led by Rabbi Yankel Schorr, the brother of Rabbi Gedaliah Schorr."
There are some who would acknowledge that the Malach was an old line Chabad Chassid who promoted the "real thing".
No contradiction. No where did I ever say that the M'lochim did not do a service in bringing the "real thing" refering to Judaism and Yiddishkayt to America. Absolutely they brought the old time religion here with no secular studies etc. Please note Mr. Alpert refers to the real thing in regards to the shita of Torah only to the exclusion of Limude Chol.
But is the M'lochim brand of Chabad the real thing here I would say and argue that with the various negative manifestations eminating from 770, the real thing interms of Chabad is the Chabad taught by Lubavitch.
I am certain there were Chassidic jews in America from Hungary and galicia before World war 2 and that they paid allegiance to varous erliche rebbes in the Bronx and Lower east Side and they could honestly say that their rebbe lets call him the Chakover was the real thing, yet when the satmarer rebbe came in 1948 they now switched to satmar which in no way insultd the other rebbes , just that the satmarer rebbe was more authentic follower of the sandz-Siget schol than previous rebbes in America.
The Malach was clearly a special person.
He spent a great deal of time in my father's home town Kurenitz and we are even very distantly related.
He showed what authentic frumkayt for native Americans was.
But then came the Rayaatz and brought the authentic Chabad here.
No insult to the M'lochim , but who needs a substitute , when the original came here ?
My critic on the M'lochim hs nothing to do with the Mlochim in absolute terms they are erliche Yidn etc, . All I am stating is that they lck the oral law of chabad.
As far as s the chasam Sofer's eyniklech goes.
Have we ever done a scientific study to document this. Are there only a few Soloveitchiks in the world who are frum? How about Twerskys and female descendnts from that family. And Halberstams .
In Lithuania and Poland yichus did not play the role it apparently played in Hungary where everyone claimd to be an eynikel of some Polish rav, a fact naturally difficult to document and "disprove".
Dear Malach,
I am afraid to say that you are dead wrong about your comments on chabad people in Russia.
have you ever visited Kfar Chabad , When I was there in 1971 the place was full of erliche chassiidc jews of the type one does not meet in Boro Park. A friend a polish chasid told me that when he travelled through Moscow in 1940 to japan he met chabad people in Moscow, he had never met such type of frume yidden in Poland
Asbetifarteho in its hey day !!
O
course many fell by the way side but there were clearly hundreds who made it out and thosands of anash who died in Communist Russia with beards and peyoth.
these people wore a beard not for kavod , they learnt not for money, they wore Chasidic levush not to get good shidduchim , but all lishma and with mesirs nefesh bepoel mamash and i will add mamash !
The heilige chofetz Chaim is quoted in the biography by rav yasher as saying that his greatest regret in life was not staying in Soviet Russia and fighting the Communists tooth and nail !
Maybe if all the yeshivas and other rabbonim hd stayed and fought for yiddishkayt the battle could have been won. Who knows ??
Shneur:
From your response to me, it sounds like you are admitting there is a real difference between "authentic frumkayt" and "authentic Chabad" - or was that just a Freudian slip? ;)
In all seriousness if Lubavitch were not into modern things and took a more conservative view of Israel, would the mlochim reject the legitimacy of such chasidim as Reb Mendel Futterfass, Peretz Motskin, Michoel Teitelbaum, Zalman Shimon Dworkin, avrohom Mayorer, Zeitlin, the Marasow family, Reb chaim Lieberman , Reb chitrik shlit'a , The Tashkenter, etc. Could you really tell me that the elder malochim knew as much about Chabad as these people?
There is nothing to talk about here.
I again say i have nothing against the Mlochim . I met the old Gertner etc, feine Yiddn, but are they carriers of the Chabad messorah ?
As I said in my earliest posting the young American chasidim of the rayaatz were also not carriers of the chabd messorah , they too knew even less than the Mlochim about Chabad.
Is the chabad messorah what the rabeyim themselves wrote in their sforim, or is it "shimumsh" that one can only receive by valgering arum 770?
Wasn't the origin of this conversation an invitation to join the Malochim. Since we already established that the majority of Chabad is sliding past the authenticity border, what is left?
Schneur, I am glad to see that you jump in defence of your Rebbe Rayatz. But you also must admit that natural animosity between the Malach and Rayatz is kind of a family affair. So you can't hold the American Malochim responsible for the legacy of a true le shem shomayim fight?
I have nothing against the American M'Lochim . I think they are an interesting historical manifestation. And in America with a multiplicity of competing " products" I welcome the M'lochim . I have heard only posative things about Rabbis Weberman shlit"a that he sits and learns 24-7.
All I am saying is that this group does not have the Mesorah that Chabad developed from the time of the alter rebbe .
They may have the kesovim, but not the shuimush talmide chachomim and the Oral traditions.
I think the M'lochim are fine people.
Tzemach:
What is the proposed idea? Joining the Malochim is not a realistic option for anyone who is frustrated with Lubavitch of today.
As to the Malochim themselves - it was never really a movement in the first place. The Maloch was an extreme person, a chaddisishe yid; for the last couple years of his life, he had a very small group of people that he taught chassidus. That's the whole story. By the way, you wouldn't have like him... closed minded to the extreme (as can be seen from some the posts above).
I understand the desire to superimpose on the malochim some old-fashioned Lubavitcher ideals, but the shoe won't fit.
C.E. superimpose on whom ?
"Ironically, in this letter, the Rashab warned his son not to be Mevatel time from learning, even for the sake of Shmuessing about the importance of Learning, as Learning, not Shmuessing was the Ikar."
Berl (or other real Lubavitchers), what do you have to say about this?
Seems to me that we taka do spend huge amounts of time talking (aka farbrenging) about learning, davening, hiskashrus etc. Now these are all good things but why must we spend hours upon hours taking about them? Does this talking actually have any effect> Do we actually daven or learn MORE than other's who only have a short "shmooze" once a week?
Ahavas reyim is the main purpose of a farbrengen
Yossi:
in the letters to his son RA"D Illyer speaks about keeping Shulchan Aruch, otherwise known as "Basic Judaism", can we assume from this that this son was not Frum earlier in his adult life?
How much time is actually spent in farbrengens about 'meat and potatoes' learning aka gemorro with rishoinim?
It's all about chasidisheh 'bobeeh mayses' hiskashrus to dead 'nosi hadors' and other 'narishkait' at best.By others it's even worse:promoting hubris about Lubavitch' being better than every one else ,in the words of Rayatz ''Oonzereh ziburis iz zeyereh eedees'.
YOSSI: 1) We can have some clues what transpired in lubavitch at the time the Malech was there and left , in the front of kunteres U"mayan there is a letter from the Rayatz discribing the changes that happened by a farbrangen , Ahavas Reiyim was somthing from the oldtimers the seder of the farbrang and the content of what was spoken started to change while the Rhashab was away , In old lubavitch chssidim were instructed to learn reishis chochma shlooh maharal talmidei rabini yona ETC,seforim that taught the baal hatanya how to be jew first and then maybe grow into a tzadik from that time on, aam haratzim talk on how bad the OTHERS are an how to stay away from lomdei torah ,then when the whole world started to look on lubavitch as a chevra am haratzim they had to reinvent thenselves as mashpiem for bigger am haratzim ,that brought them togetgher with Avaryunim and Apikorsem ,
The malach was a Kudoshs V'Yohor he never read any seforim chitzionim and a big masmid AND Atalmid from the Tzemech Tzedek he beged his talmid the rayatz not to be influenced by the books that he was reading because if you start to change only a little, there is no end in site ,look at this hyperlink and see who is learning now adays Kunters U,mayan ,and the avrage lubavitcher never saw the sefer mesiles yeshorim or chovos halvovos
what i see from all the censored letters of the rashab and the reyats and mamush is , that they have somthing to hide.
see you all after yom tov
http://www.mentalblog.com/2004/1...-in-
boston.html
I find it interesting to note that the malach's son Reb Zalman receiveda secular education. Was he father against this ?
The craziness of many Lubavitcher chasidim in regards to modernity and their quest to be seen as "hip" in no way negates the teachings of the Lubavitcher rebes.
In the time of the Maharash and the rashab thousands of Chabad young people became maskilim and Zionists and worse. Did that negte Toras chabad. In the time of the Rashab and the Rayaatz thousnads of Chabad people became Communists truely a tragedy but does it negate Toras Chabad?
I have met at least 1 former malach someone we could call a saraf who is completely non religious todat living in the Horei Cheysech, Does he negate the malach's torah ?
I say Yagdil Torah veyadiir !
There are numerous Chagas Chasidic groups. And almost each major chassiduth has competitors and the like. So In Chabad today we have 770 and the Nesivoth Olam group and Liozna.
Aderabba, let the malochim communicate their shitoth and Torah to the wider orthodox public and the Chaside haGeza on this blog.
As I have repeatedly stated i respect the M'lochim for what they are a period piece of Americans who adopted chabad practices.
Let me just add that Ilu Zachinu and the Malach was followed by another Chabad elder as leader and he lived another 15-20 years , things would have looked differently in this connection.
I find it interesting that the more certain people write, the more you can see how everything they've been saying is through a very particular prism of the gimmel devorim shemotzi'im es ha'adam min ha'olam.
I especially find it interesting that someone who talks so much about kedusha vetahara and not being affected by chochmos chitzoniyos brings an example from avoda zoroh gemurah -- something that is ossur al pi halacha (and, interestingly, a zehirus that was pointed out more than once by the Lubavitcher Rebbe).
The issue of how much secular books the Rayats read and how he was influenced by them is worthy a separate discussion. Suffice it to say that there many sources outside Lubavitch and Malachim that attest to the Rayat's involvement in secular books.
There is a birography of a former talmid of tomchei temimim in Lubavitch, 'Kur Oni", where he states that he was caught with secular books in his possesion. During his interrogation by the menahal at that time, Rayatz, the Rayatz displayed familiarity with the secular litarature.
His reading of secular books is mentioned other sources, I believe Yiddishe neshamos, Pub 1916, although I have to double check.
One of the historians of chassidis today, (either Rivka shats or Rapaport-albert) has an article about the how unreliable the Rayatz's 'kabala' about the beginnings of hassidus are and that they were influenced by Dubnow and his school.
Lastly, I heard from a relative of the Twersky's from Miluakee, that R' Michel's father (Mordecai?) who was related to Rayatz, called him a 'guter maskil'.
In sum there is much evidencs that Rayatz read and was influenced by secular books. That itself isn't not that bad in my opinion, except that the official Chabad line was against all secular literature, at least in that time.
sorry for the duplicate. If someone could delete the dup, I would be grateful.
Yacov Shimen:
I'm interested in your meeting with Barry Gourary. How did you arrange it? What's your interested in Chabad?
I'm also looking for more sources on the Malach.
If you don't to discuss it in public, please email me at yudel55@yahoo.com.
Thanks
I was wondering if the thought police in this forum (YS, Malach, and now the honorable Yehuda) went through history to determine which books the Gedolim read. if the Malbim is ok to them, the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam, were they also maskilim?
Twersky who sent his kids to CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES (marquette) is calling the Rebbe a Maskil?!
excuse me while I throw up my breakfast.
I am not criticizing anyone for reading any kind of
books. I'm only interested in historical accuracy. I
want to know what the Rayat"z and Rama"sh were really
like and what they really did.
I knew the last Lubavitcher Rebbe and was very
impressed with his greatness. I see no reason to
manufacture any part of his biography or to fabricate
stories about him. The Lubavitcher Chassidim
apparently are disatisfied with his true life story
and are trying to construct his life as they feel it
should have been led.
In truth, this is a problem with all Chareidi groups,
not only Lubavitch, witness the banning of the book
"The Making of a Godol", which I criticize also.
HI,
My last name is Hilde Eynikel. I was quite surprised finding my very unusual last name in your blog. What does Eynikel mean? I would really like to know.
Hilde
Hilde, Eynikel means grandchild in Yiddish. Jews are obsessed with linage so they call themselves "grandson of so and so". Is it also in German?
Commenting by HaloScan
