mentalblog.com comments:
Interesting article, thanks for the link.One of our own even 'stars' in it.
This quote caught my eye:'the Lubavitchers—who are Zionists and former egg-throwing antagonists of the Satmars—suffered their own schism. When Rebbe Menachem Schneerson died twelve years ago, many Lubavitchers declared him the Messiah and still await his resurrection.
This strikes the Satmars as nutty. They revere but don’t quite worship leaders.'
We all know that Lubavitch is for all practical purposes very zionistic, but if you want to get one of the Lubavitchers to lose their cool just say they are 'zionistic' and wait for them to start lecturing and splitting hairs about how anti-zionistic they really are despite being the foremost supporters of the settlers and the radical right wing.
The reason they have the difficulty in 'fessing up is that the previous Lubavitch leaders were fanatically anti zionist and Lubavitchers pride themselves on not 'changing' though the truth is that todays Lubavitch has no resemblance to the Chabad of yesteryear.
And what is the resemblance of Satmar / Szighet with the Ahavas Yisroel and messianic fervour of their founder, the Yismach Moische ?
my understanding is that satmar of today is descendant from the yismach moishe in name only (teitelbaum). somewhere along the line it morphed into extreme kano'us.
if schneur or someone can shed more light on this subject, it would be greatly appreciated.
From answers.com
Satmar history
Background to the dynasty
Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum of SatmarThe dynasty traces its roots to Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841), Rebbe of Sátoraljaújhely (Ujhel), Hungary. Himself an adherent of the Polish Hasidic leader Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin (the Chozeh of Lublin), Rabbi Teitelbaum was instrumental in bringing Hasidic Judaism to Hungary. He authored the works Heishiv Moshe ("Moses Responded") and Yismach Moshe ("Moses Shall Rejoice"), and is commonly called by the title of the latter work. His descendants became leaders of the communities of Sighetu Marmaţiei (Sighet) and Satu Mare. He was succeeded by his son, Rabbi Eleazar Nissan Teitelbaum of Drobitsch, who was succeeded by his son, Rabbi Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum of Sighet, author of Yetev Lev.
Brooklyknight,
You don't have to probe the previous generations for Lubavitch anti-zionism. There's a quote from R' Yoel (pre-'67, of course) that he envies the Lubavitcher Rebbe's "ברייטער פלייצעס" approach to Zionism.
The Rebbe just happened to be pro-Jews, wherever they might live. If you're looking for ideological comparisons, the Federation fits the bill better, no?
Anyways, the article is an extremely clever piece of writing.
Are the Satmar really Chassidim?
Or just Jews with the Levush that are influenced by the K'sav/Ch'sam Sofers?
"are the satmar really chassidim..or just..Levush..."
Fair question. They would probably say that actually it was time to "change" the elements of toras hachasidus for the needs of time (as they saw it).
But really this question goes for Lubavitchers as well: are the Lubavitchers really "lubavitcher chassidim"? One sees the tremendous change after 3 tammuz from the way it was once: obviously they don't resemble anything like chassidey Alter Rebbe, Mittler Rebbe, TT, Maharash, Rashab, (for instance, the tfilos in many centers, like the main 770 center, one sees tfiloh btzibur shachris done in about 18 minutes), not the Rayatz chassidim, and also not the the Rebbe's chassidim where there was once a genuine sense of ahavas yisroel for the "other jew" was not "another jew"; now it is the terrible divisions of meshichistin vs anti; two batey dinim (the split in the community is payback milmaloh for split the caused in lubavitch -"schar averoh averoh"-); and even amongst many of the emissaries and automatically how the new generation (boys and girls) views it: it is a new "chassidus" of "Corporation Lubavitch", where for a large part, the real simple genuine ahavas yisroel is replaced for what is good for propaganda and the more the word "chabad" appears in Reuters and JTA adds to their sense that they are "conquering" the world ("kibush"), and therefore many a time, it may not matter whether or not things that are done conform with the norms of chasidus and even halocho, as long as it adds to the name of "corporation lubavitch" etc. -does not matter whether it creates division and disunity to other jews and it certainly does not matter if it smacks with yeshus and gayboh dleumas zeh- "vehamefurssomim eyn tzrichin rayo"
Are these lubavitchers "Really" chassidim or "lubavitcher chassidim"?
tzorichiyun, why don't you ask Malochim how much Lubavitch was Lubavitch before 3 tamuzz.
Timmy,
Do you believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is alive. Do you write ZT"L after his name/ Is it permissible to do so. By the way I've noticed that while there are some Lubavitchers that refer to in the dead tense the mainstream sidesteps the issue by writing ZY"A? Why is this? Why is the Rebbe referred to in the present tense throughout Lubavitch, and why havent the kooks been evicted from 770 yet?
"Are the Satmar really Chassidim"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? How do you define a Chasid, and how do you apply your definition to present day Lubavitch?
That is something that I haven't experienced and is left for debate (and after all some other chassidishe yidden may have echoed your point that before 3 tammuz lubavitch was not lubavitch).
I can mostly write about what I have experienced: the difference of lubavitch after 3 tammuz not being lubavitch of pre 3 tammuz.
"By the way I've noticed that while there are some Lubavitchers that refer to in the dead tense the mainstream sidesteps the issue by writing ZY"A? Why is this?"
Your a tipish
ZY"A is a tytle given to holy tazdikim after they have passed away.
Tzemach,
I'd love to ask them. Know any?
I think there are some left in the Kapuster neighberhood. ;)
tzorichiyun,
You misunderstand my question. Do they follow the Chassidic philosophy formulated by a Rebbe? (not Rav.)
Or at least, granted the influence of the Poilisher, did their FATHERS follow a philosphy?
SDR,
"המתאבק עם מנוול מתנוול"
'nuff said.
Satmar has stopped being a chassidus per se a long time ago.They have transformed into a tribe that has its roots somewhere in the chassidishe past and retains some of its outward symbols as part of its folklore.
BTW the same is true for any other chassidus. Today it's all about the three pillars of the world:gelt,gelt und nochamohl gelt...
So they're just as legit as the Poilisher.
Thanks
SDR
i think the question is if they fall into the regular category of chagas.
because they dont have much in common say, ger, chernobyl and rizhin.
i dont think the yismach meishe preached the derech that is todays satmar. todays satmar is a response to the modernization of hungarian jewry at the turn of last century.
my question was and still is, when and how did it morph into that?
oops
didnt sere yk's post
thanks
LA Jew,
If you think I'm a tipish that's fine, but the fact is the Rebbe Nosi Doireinu MH"M SHLIT"A always has ZY"A, which if you think for a second could be used during ones lifetime. The other 6 rebbes names are customarilt followed by N"A (nun ayin). It's only with the advent of the famous p'sak din forbidding ZT"L etc... with the current Rebbe's name that ZY"A was commonly adopted. If it's good enough for the Alter Rebbe and the BESH"T why not "THE REBBE" as he is also very commonly referred to.
As for you Timmy, what part of chassidus teaches you to be such a farbissene mentch. "המתאבק עם מנוול מתנוול" What's your point. No talmid of any rebbe or rav I've ever been associated with has ever believed in a falishe moshiach. I wish you a refuah shleima. Ivdu es Hashem b'Simcha. BTW what's "Timmy" all about/ You have a jewish name TIMMY?
SDR...
The holy words ZY"A has always been used for Tzadikim that have been nistalek. We say ZY"A on Dovid Hamelech (nusach of the Yehi Rotzon after saying Tehilim) So when one says ZY"A he is OF COURSE refering to after the histalkus. The tytle ZY"A is also given to many of the Rebai'im together with NB"M (Nishmaso Bginzei Meromim). The only Rebbe who had the tytle N"E (Nishmaso Eiden) is the rebbe Rash"ab he is known as the Rebbe N"E.
There is NO famous Psak din forbidding ZT"L.That is obsured. However, there is a famous Kol Koreh and Pesak From Rav Yoel and others that one may NOT say Shelita.
Please before you write a cooment look into the FACTS.
"BTW the same is true for any other chassidus. Today it's all about the three pillars of the world:gelt,gelt und nochamohl gelt..."
yoshe kalb
not entirely accurate. satmar is still working on their pre-war model i.e. they have a shita. this would not be the case with (other) chagas
LAJEW,
Don't bother with SDR, he's not worth the time.
100 %, I don't deny that they have a shita, but what's it all about? Bonding by creating an enemy.In der alter heim it was the Neologen and later the Zionists or anyone else that does not fit into their Weltanschauung,but it is a far cry from chassidus.Frankly,I believe that the only real chassidim left nowadays are the serious Breslovers (no na nach nonsense) and despite everything some real Lubavitchers (not too many around,I have to admit).
LAJEW,
You were correct. I don't know where I got the idea regarding the psak. It is curious though how the traditional ZTVK"L ZT"L N"E etc... are rarely if ever used.
Little TIMMY,
"Don't bother with SDR, he's not worth the time." Since when is a tzelem Elokim let alone a frummer yid not "worth the time?" Just answer the questions. Do you believe the Rebbe is alive or not? Why do you refer to me
as מנוול when you don't even know me. Who am I המתאבק to that makes me one? I defuy me to name one rav or rebbe with no chabad affiliation that you are machsheiv. Last why do you go by a child's name TIMMY?!?!?!?!?!?
Timmy, you should leave, you are polluting my blog. Do not post again.
SDR, I'm terribly sorry.
I seem to have made a terrible mistake. I mistook you for Reality Check, who i argued with in posts on the "separated at birth" topic. He completely ignored all my points and sidestepped all the issues that were raised.
I thought you were him, my bad.
If Tzemach will allow, i'll answer the points you raised.
""Are the Satmar really Chassidim"? What... is that supposed to mean? How do you define a Chasid, and how do you apply your definition to present day Lubavitch?"
I define a Chassid as one follows the Chassidic philosophy formulated by a Rebbe.
I was told (by a Satmar, no less) that Satmar aren't technically Poilisher Chassidim, as they are from Hungary. And have no particular school of thought. I sought to clarify that and was successful.
"Do you believe that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is alive."
No.
"Do you write ZT"L after his name/"
No, Zy"a.
"Is it permissible to do so."
It's the Halacha to do so.
"...the mainstream sidesteps the issue by writing ZY"A? Why is this? Why is the Rebbe referred to in the present tense throughout Lubavitch, and why havent the kooks been evicted from 770 yet?"
It isn't a sidestep, the nusoch is used for any great leader with whom one wishes to maintain a connection, e.g. Reb Meir Ba'al Hanes Zy"a.
I have no idea why the escapees & and their rebel rousers have'nt been evicted yet. I don't answer for Merkoz.
I have heard rumors of something about "squatter's rights".
I did'nt mean to call you a Menuval.
The quote is from Tanya, it's the reason one should'nt enter into dialogue with his Yaitzer.
"Ivdu es Hashem b'Simcha."
I try my best.
"BTW what's "Timmy" all about/ You have a jewish name TIMMY?"
Timmy's a pseudonym, not alot of thought went into it.
"I defuy me to name one rav or rebbe with no chabad affiliation that you are machsheiv."
There are a few, though i would'nt say they have no affiliation. I'm not sure there's a Rabbi on the planet without an opinion on Chabad.
All the Best
tzorichiyun,
You misunderstand my question. Do they follow the Chassidic philosophy formulated by a Rebbe? (not Rav.)
Or at least, granted the influence of the Poilisher, did their FATHERS follow a philosphy?
I understood your point. But i fail to see the need to analyze whether other groups follow a philosophy formulated by a Rebbe and go at pains to tell ourselves that "We are the only chassidim left" for we are the only one's who still follow chassidus when in fact we too have corrupted the message of chassidus and we misuse it and abuse it.
in fact it may be that we, who "use" and abuse the name of chassidus to support our actions and paths, are in a way more dishonest untruthful with ourselves and others, for we claim that we "follow" chassidus when we actually use chassidus as a tool for our own misdeeds. Ayen Perek 24 tanya.
" There is NO famous Psak din forbidding ZT"L.That is obsured..."
How disingenous can one get?
But there is the famous "psak din" (at the end of 5755 after shvuos) by some famous chabad rabbis to write Shlita!
and obviouslly there is the defacto issur to write Zt"l as this is the what the fight over the stone is all about.
What are tou talking about?
There is no Psak Din not to write TZ"L
or ZY"A
But there is a psak din NOT to write Shelita.
I stand corrected. I don't know where I got that idea, but when I actually looked at the document I thought I was quoting it was the psak proclaiming the rebbe as Moshiach (1991). I understand the general implementation of ZY"A, but at least admit that it is exceedingly difficult find any mention of the rebbe w/ any other suffix attached to his name (other than MH"M SHLIT"A. I guess my real problem is that I can't fathom how even after the civil court (r"l) ruling essentially evecting the tzefatim, that these hooligans and their ideology still remain. Tear down the banners. Burn the yellow flags. Take the yechi song out of the beginning and end of davening. Stop unrolling the carpet and uncovering the shtender, and get back to reality. Chaba"d has more impact on the non-frum community than any other segment of orthodoxy. Why compromise so much for so little. I am not a Lubavitcher, but my Rosh Hayeshiva who was a tremendous gaon corresponded with the rebbe and was always b'shalom w/ Lubavitch. The fact I happen to live in a city where none of the nonsense is tolerated. There's enough chillul Hashem with all of the other idiots. I thought Chaba"d was above that and I cheered when the judge ruled as he did. The problem is that you go to 770live.com and the same narishkeit is still going on WHY?!?!?!? If I were aq chasid I would feel compellled to write ZTVK"L & ZY"A. It is clearly not used and I feel that this an effort to placate the plaque desecrating thugs in 770 and their ilk.
Satmar is a catch all name. There are people called Satmarer who belong to KYT"L for various reasons such as the decent but cheap chedorim they run , the good carbohydrate meals they serve in the schools, the Karke and Chevra kaddisha, the communal meat markets they run, the Summer camps, the general Hungarian Landsmanschaft atmosphere etc. These people rarely went to any tischen by either rabbi Joel Or R. Moses. They remained baalebatim.Their dress was the dress oh Ashkenazic Transylvanian Jews on weekdays.
On the other hand there are a small group of real chassidim in Satmar, especially amongst the younger people. These seek ruchnius, Limud hachasiduth and a charasmatic leader. Thus Satmar has suffered attrition at the hands of Chabad, Breslov, Slonim, Reb mechele oF Nikolsburg, Toldos Aron (of both groups) and other Hungarain groups like Tash and kashoi.These groups provide a derech hachaim besides anti-Israel propoganda and in some manner charasmatic leadership even if the rebbe is no longer active in our world.
Rabbi Aaron is trying to become a real rebbe with charisma and doing all sorts of chassidic "tekosim" like the Nadvorna or Lelever do.For example this year he had a hadlaka in Kiryath Yoel on Lag Baomer .
R. Zalmen Leib and his handlers prefer the old way of Hungarian rabbanuth the way Rabbi Moses and Rav Joel acted as leader. Thus the establishment is in most part behind him.Of course things are not so black and white and other factors are also at work in this conflict such as the strange personality of Rav aaron who is strong willed , a scholar , but unable to seek a consensus.The future of non_Chabad chassidic life in the uS is being played out in this conflict.
Schnuer,
Your analysis is interesting, however I am not convinced that as goes Satmar so goes "The future of non_Chabad chassidic life in the uS"
"What are tou talking about?
There is no Psak Din not to write TZ"L
or ZY"A
But there is a psak din NOT to write Shelita".
This is the double talk: for "klapey chutz" they will hail there is no psak not to write zy"a and thre is psak not to write "shlita" but "klapey pnim" (those who inside) know very well, that 5755 after shvuos rabbi from Kfar Chabad and Eilat and someone from CH ruled that Shlita is acceptable and from then on the largest M Groups (not only tzfatim) write in their publications "shlita" .
While they know in "pnim" that to write ZT"l is highly innapropriate (therefore you do not see it even in non-meshichist (aka "closet meshichist") publication when it is distributed "bipnim", so when heoros are printed "zt"l" is anathema. While "zy"a may be possinly acceptable for "klapey chutz" in a publication like Kfar Chabad or Sichat Hashovua, this is *not* the accepted style of writing which is to ommit any labels when writing "klapey pnim" and certainly "zt"l" is treyf possul.
And as said before: the whole cornerstone controversy was because there was the terrible sinof having Ztk"l and Zia and not "Shlita".
It is no longer worthy to bury the head in sand and make bleieve as if no one knows what goes on, especially "inside"; for it is more important to educate those "inside" that to write "ztk"l and zia is only acceptable but this is the appropriate form of writing as dictated in ShulchanOruch .
Commenting by HaloScan
