Talk:Chabad/Archive 7

message: I have created a new article that deals with the concept of a Tzadik, and merged the contents of the "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" section into it. Therefore if there is consensus I will be removing the section from here and replace it with a link to Tzadik. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is relevant to this article, not that one.  The information here is specifically about Chabad beliefs, not the general concept of Tzadik. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be removed from here, since the way (at least some of) Chabad chassidim interpret this concept differs radically from the way mainstream chassidim (and perhaps mainstream chabad) do. Therefore, even if you do create another page devoted to the concept of the Tzadik in Judaism, this paragraph must remain here. -- Nahum 03:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Mea culpa. I was thinking about the messianism subsection. -- Nahum 06:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, after rereading this, I came to a conclusion that there are differnces within the Chabad movement about how to interpret this issue. Some of them interpret it too literally to be compliant with Jewish belief in a non-corporeal G-d. -- Nahum 06:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: They are not just a few and neither do I base my knowledge on Berger. I've discussed these issues with some Chassidim while the Rebbe OBM was still alive and heard it "from the horse's mouth." -- Nahum 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is relevant to this sub-sectiona as well. Perhaps it needs a bit editing, but it cannot be removed, since this is a critical aspect of Chabad's beliefs. -- Nahum 07:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: But this article, as opposed to the one you suggest to be moved to, deals with Chabad. Which is where this issue belongs. You can elaborate as much as you want in the Tzadik article and add a reference here to there, but without removing the current subsection from its current location. -- Nahum 07:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's hear other people's views. -- Nahum 07:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that these two are completely seperate paragraphs, one adding the Rebbe commenting about a tzadik for general discussion, and one with the Rebbe (and his relationship with God) specifically. Leave them as they are. There is no need to point from this page to Tzadik. However, the "This has been taken literally..." seems a bit out of place on the tzadik page, as it is barely a notable opinion (albeit, a disturbing one) for that page and would fit more on the Chabad article (if anywhere). SF2K1 05:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers

message: I would like to make a point about some of the external links here. For example the link to "JewishWomenUnited" which is a relatively small site or "Messiah Watch International" which is more of a personal site as opposed to an orgainzation. Basically my point is that perhaps the list should be trimmed down to major organizations. I'm looking forward to hearing other peoples viewpoints on this.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Pinchas is not being truthful about his new version of the Chabad article, which he claims was developed through consensus.  In point of fact, over the last few months Pinchas deleted consensus texts, and created an incredible text in which Schneeron's new theology about a tzaddik is somehow accepted by all Jews as mainstream.  Many of us, including me, Jayjg and JFW, discussed this issue at length some months ago, and we found Pinchas's claims to be both incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  Furthermore:
* Pinchas somehow removed the important statements by Orthodox Jews who disagree with Chabad, and left only statements by a couple of Conservative Jews (whose views on theology have little weight in the Orthodox community!)
* Elizer keeps removing the condemnation of Chabad messianic by the Rabbinical council of America, and by heads of Orthodox yeshivas. Censorship of Orthodox Jewish points of view is unacceptable.
* His edit grossly misled readers about the statements of Dr. Moshe Idel. Pinchas's edit presents Dr. Idel as defending Chabad messianism, while in fact Idel describes Chabad messianic beliefs as "stupid".
* Pinchas keeps reverting to make Rabbi David Berger sound line a non-rabbi ("Mr."), and his edits make it appear as if most people disagree with Berger.  In point of fact, Rabbi Berger was the driving force behind the RCA's statement condemning Chabad theology, and R. Berger's statements are the same as the statements of many other Orthodox rabbis...which no one will ever know, as Pinchas keeps deleting them.
It seems to me that while we have been busy on a host of other issues, Pinchas has been slowly manipulating this article to push his own personal theology, while removing facts that he is uncomfortable with, thus violating NPOV. RK 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it amounts to apologitics. This would be okay with sources. E.g. if Berger says some worship the Rebbe as G'd incarnate, and the article states "this is in direct contradiction to Chabad philosophy and has been subject of doubt" then both assertions need sourcing. The Berger one is easy (page number in book), but the (?hypothetical) Chabad response would be {{WP:NOR|original research]] if not supported by a source. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please tell me who gave David Berger Simcha (Rabbincal degree)? I have personally found no sources that he got Simcha. It would seem what Pinchas is doing is in accordance of the NPOV policy. 220.233.48.200 13:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Rabbi Berger has smicha from RIETS as per his bio on the RCA website here. It took me about two seconds to find on Google, so you must not have looked too thoroughly. All of this is reflective of an overt attempt to delegitimize Rabbi Berger's work in the face of a serious challenge to a popular doctrine. DLand 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinchas's manipulation of the Chabad article 

message: ::Pinchas is not being truthful about his new version of the Chabad article, which he claims was developed through consensus.  In point of fact, over the last few months Pinchas deleted consensus texts, and created an incredible text in which Schneeron's new theology about a tzaddik is somehow accepted by all Jews as mainstream.  Many of us, including me, Jayjg and JFW, discussed this issue at length some months ago, and we found Pinchas's claims to be both incorrect and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  Furthermore:
:See the talk page here and by tzadik and you will see consensus. As a side note this version has been here for months, and to quote someone by the name of Robert Kaiser, "Whether you like it or not, the _fact_ is that your silence effectively implies consent."
:::Pinchas, it is forbidding to engage in outing or personal attacks. Also, the edit history of this article provs that you oveturned the consensus version that we developed several monthd ago, and that you replaced it with pro-messianic Chabad propaganda. I shall not allow you to continue your assault. 66.155.200.129
About this subject of "outing" people. He was already "outed by himself and many others. Many times he signs his name with his username and real name. See the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Old_mediation_requests
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/006096.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006959.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-December/026001.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-July/013966.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009209.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January.txt
::* Pinchas somehow removed the important statements by Orthodox Jews who disagree with Chabad, and left only statements by a couple of Conservative Jews (whose views on theology have little weight in the Orthodox community!) 
::Folks, check the History logs yourself. Check the state of this article when we developed a consensus text with Jayjg, JFW, me and others. Pinchas simply keeps reverting this article to edits that do not contain the consensus text. His dishonest behaviour is absolutely outrageous. 66.155.200.129
:I somehow removed this? When did I remove this. There is an open history that anybody can look through. (BTW I find it amusing that someone who is active in the conservative judaism movement is complaining that Conservative Rabbis are being quoted.)
::* Elizer keeps removing the condemnation of Chabad messianic by the Rabbinical council of America, and by heads of Orthodox yeshivas. Censorship of Orthodox Jewish points of view is unacceptable.
:When did I keep removing this?
::A few months ago, when Jayjg, JFW and I stopped actively working on this article. 66.155.200.129
::* His edit grossly misled readers about the statements of Dr. Moshe Idel. Pinchas's edit presents Dr. Idel as defending Chabad messianism, while in fact Idel describes Chabad messianic beliefs as "stupid".
:Idel never describes chabad messianic beliefs as stupid. Can you bring a source for your claims please.
::Whoops. I meant to say aviezer ravitzky. The two are named in consecutive paragraphs in the same article in The Forward, January, 18 2002, Attack on Chabad Is Called Unredeemable. The article is badly biased, as it is written by a pro-Chabad apologist, but the quotes are factual. 66.155.200.129
::"In his own remarks, Mr. Ravitzky explained that those inside Lubavitch who wait for their rebbe to return from the dead and redeem the world may be foolish, but by no means is this expectation heretical or antithetical to Judaism. Mr. Ravitzky did not mince words about the potential danger in some of the ideas of these "non-heretic" messianists, which on occasion come alarmingly close to Christian dogma. However, he urged Mr. Berger to hearken the words of those like the late Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who once said of a Jewish faction he considered misguided: "Torah does not prohibit a person from being stupid."
::I found it wrong of you to take Ravitzky as defending Chabad messianic Judaism, when in fact he clearly attacks it aa "stupid" 66.155.200.129
::* Pinchas keeps reverting to make Rabbi David Berger sound line a non-rabbi ("Mr."), and his edits make it appear as if most people disagree with Berger.  In point of fact, Rabbi Berger was the driving force behind the RCA's statement condemning Chabad theology, and R. Berger's statements are the same as the statements of many other Orthodox rabbis...which no one will ever know, as Pinchas keeps deleting them.
:I never changed any titles of Berger or anybody else. Once again RK is making up history when it is openly available for the public to look at! I would like to point out that when I did write Mr. Berger it was a direct quotation from a referenced article published in the Forward!
::Pinchas has been caught lying yet again. Folks, check the recent edit history! Pinchas's edits describe Rabbi Berger as "MR", which in the Orthodox community is considered a grave insult. It also is a factual error. 66.155.200.129 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that while we have been busy on a host of other issues, Pinchas has been slowly manipulating this article to push his own personal theology, while removing facts that he is uncomfortable with, thus violating NPOV. RK 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See above and the history! --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this history shows your repeated reversion of the consensus version that we all developed severeal months ago, and that you replaced much of the text with you messianic Jewish apologetics. 66.155.200.129 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RK's manipulation of the Chabad article 

message: I haven't had time to look at the content dispute, but it is completely unacceptable for any version of this article to fail to introduce Rabbi Dr. David Berger with his full titles, or to refer to him as "Mr. Berger". Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is commonly referred to as "Rabbi", even if he got his title from HUC, we should follow the trend. Wikipedia is not in the business of drawing lines about which ordination is adequate. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The term Rabbi is ONLY given to someone that has got Rabbinical degree. Are you going to go to some crazy guy on the street and start calling him Doctor? And let him do all type of things only qualified for a Doctor? All the other terms do not represent someone with a degree. (I am not saying Berger is a crazy guy on the street, I just like giving people really crazy examples...) 220.233.48.200 13:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as I mentioned above in greater detail, Rabbi Berger has semicha from RIETS. DLand 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I started an article on Torquemada and included all the sites I think are relevant. Maybe I'll get back to summarizing the information in the future, but his sycophants can have at it now. PhatJew 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbi Dr. David Berger 

message: I am being harassed by User Pinchas, who keeps making personal attacks on me, is accusing other Wikipeida contributors of attempting to "shock" and deceive readers of our articles, is making outrageous lis about my editing, and is unilaterally reverting a consensus version of an article to one which pushes his own religious belief system.  For almost a year I have tried to work with him, along with JayJg and JFW, but Pinchas shows no sign of stopping his religious tirade.  His latest violations of Wikipedia policy are thus:
* Doing multiple reverts of an article that had a stable consensus state, and then flat out denies that he had done so, even though the edit history clearly shows this.
* Making false accusations that I am editing Wikipedia under some kind of "sockpuppet", a bizarre and obviously false lie.  In fact, despite using multiple computers, I take pains to sign in and use my username, RK.
* "Outing" Wikipedia members who edit under anonymous usernames by broadcasting their real names in the article Discussion pages.  This is a gross breach of Wikipedia protocol.  
* Lying about the status of an important researcher in the field of the disputed subject.  (Pinchas keeps retitling Rabbi Professor David Beger and Mr. Berger, which is not only misleading, but also considered a gross and delibertae insult in the Jewish community.''
* Inserting attacks questioning academic and Orthodox Jewish authorities whose view of Chabad theology differs from his own.  When discussing the new forms of theology developing within Chabad, Pinchas refuses to allow various POVs to be shown in accord with our NPOV policy.  Rather, his edit censors multiple academic and Orthodox voices, and replaces all of their POvs with the slur "While the term received little attention at the time, it was later used to shock those who have no exposure to these sources."  Please see the article to see the full context.  Pinchas is stating that academic and Orthodox Jews who disagree with messianic Chabad beliefs are deceiving their readers by shocking them, and not letting them know that such beliefs are (in Pinchas's view) standard theology.  Of course, how could anyone know, since his edits cut out many quotes and sources....all with an array of POVs that Pinchas apparently does not want our readers to be exposed to. RK 
For example, Pinchas write "I would like to make a note here about the use of sockpuppets by RK to circumvent his restrictions in editing Judaism related articles. He is 66.155.200.129. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive7#User:RK --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Pinchas is making outrageous personal attacks and reverting articles 

message: I initially wrote this on my talk page in response to a somewhat alarmist post from RK, but I'm copying it here for the benefit of others working on this article.""
Aaah, a good old-fashioned edit war. I am going to pass no judgement on the personal attacks, but I note your use of "lying" numerous times in edit summaries. This is going to escalate unless both of you adopt a collaborative attitude. Knowing you both as editors, I expect you are both capable of this.
Start by agreeing that the article needs to be balanced. Then agree that there is controversy, which needs a certain degree of coverage. Both of these issues are covered by WP:NPOV and inescapable. The next issue is: what is the article going to cover, which is guided closely by WP:NOR - anything previous expressed in a public (and preferably accessible) medium can be quoted within the framework of balance (e.g. not 10 pro and only one anti source & vice versa). The talk page needs to reflect which point you are disagreeing on, and edits needs to be with consensus agreed over there.
The Chabad article is important. Chabad, one has to admit, has been a shaping force in post-WWII orthodoxy and well outside it. Without Chabad, we probably would not have the "Jewish music" so popular in Haredi schools. There would be a much-reduced emphasis on "outreach"/kiruv rechokim. Whole areas of the world would be without rabbinic guidance, as no self-respecting non-Chabad rabbis are happy to take up a stelle (position) in Peru or Tokyo unless they're past their sell-by date (i.e. all their children are married off).
Not everyone is thrilled with certain Chabad innovations, and the controversy well predated the Rebbe's petira. Only recently has the debate been taken to the printshop, but I remember full well a degree of resentment being voiced prior to 1994. Very unfortunate, but we can't hide from this.
Wikipedia needs a good Chabad article that covers this remarkable movement warts-and-all. Please collaborate. I suspect this page is served about 100x an hour, and your contributions will be vitally important. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Being that about half the article is controversies I would like to propose that the controversy section be moved to its own page.--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: I agree with what Nandesuka has just stated, i.e. that since "The article is now a mishmash of misordered facts, strong opinions, and discussions of people whom the reader has not been told about" he is "... to be blunt, inclined to revert all of those changes back. Give me one good reason not to..." In fact the article should be reverted back to where it was before Pinchas and RK began to add-in their own POV comments that just turned this article into an incomprehensible mess, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better if matters are not brought under control by unbiased editors who know something about the subject. IZAK 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the date that you are proposing to revert it back to? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am researching it... IZAK 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind the compromises that were worked out in between the last discussion with RK and this one for example the Tzaddik section and it's relationship with The Rebbe G-d and his followers section. Also the use of identifying Berger as the source of some of the claims against Chabad as opposed to the generic some people. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Revert article back to what it was BEFORE Pinchas and RK began their edit war

message: I've tightened the 10 key points. I was hoping you could provide a reference for this. Also, you haven't written much about pre-WWII Chabad in Russia. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the the sources for the 10 key points is http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=62228 Regarding pre-WWII Chabad, I will try to add this sometime this week. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinchas's non-controversy work

message: In the course of reverting or re-editing, please be aware that the concluding comment about King David being the top candidate for messiah in "Jewish literature" cannot stay as is. It is only Yanover's opinion; traditional Judaism has always held that the Messiah will be the son of David, meaning, a scion of the House of Judah. Yoninah 10:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The mention of David in liturgy is obviously metaphorical. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We can't Paskin from a Gemara, at least use the Rambam as the source. 220.233.48.200 14:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King David

message: Has anyone heard of the work of Avrum Ehrlich? JFW | T@lk 13:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehrlich 

message: Hi-
I dont know how this system works, but I tried to add something and it got deleted. If someone can place it in, that would be good.
This is what I put in, in the area of its reference to Berger:
I did not upload a photo so maybe thats why it didnt show, if someone is registered and able to upload then if you can please do that to the photo at that address.
I think its an important thing to add to the article.
Thanks and all the best,
Happy Chanukah! And may we merit the complete and true Redemption, with Moshiach, immediately!
Meir
:Images only work if they have been uploaded to Wikipedia. If this letter was published in the Jewish Press there would be a copyright issue, so I would strongly recommend against uploading it. I also doubt that reproducing the letter has any merits over simply stating that Reb Aaron issued a defence of Chabad. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Rabbi Wolff. I recommend registering with Wikipedia, It's easy and free. Daykart 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rabbi? That's the first time I've been called Rabbi. I'm only a doctor of the body, not of the soul :-). Anyway, uploading images can only be done by registering with Wikipedia, but I would discourage trying to upload that particular image. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who teaches others Torah is a rabbi. Daykart 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Meir, if someone thinks the fourth kind of Chabadnik exists, and has made a lot of noise about it, then we cannot hide that fact. See NPOV for an explanation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I'm not sure how the etymology of yehudi is relevant to this discussion. JFW | T@lk 17:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Meir, it's actually up to you me and everyone else here, nobody has more say than anybody else. I would suggest that you register it's free and anonymous, and help out with editing the article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You can Google just as well as I can. It is to be preferred over the URL that links readers to the chabadart site. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I've protected the page because of the dispute. Please try to reach a consensus on talk and give me a shout when you're ready to start editing again. If I'm not around, you can request unprotection on WP:RFPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have outlined the major differences in the section above. I agree that RK brought adequate support for a previously unsourced paragraph, but there are several remaining issues we need to clear up before we can unprotect. JFW | T@lk 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: This is a very noisy subject, and by that I don't just mean that it's emotionally noisy, but also that it's hard to work out noise vs. signal. It has become so specific that it's hard to follow, so I'd like to make a couple of observations/questions:
* The crux of the issue appears to be the extent to which some (could be a few, could be many) individuals give Rebbe Schneerson an elevated state, and if so, what the nature of that elevation is. 
* Secondary to that is whether and to what extent other religious leaders express concern over this elevation. 
* What complicates this is whether it is possible to discern the prevalence of one view or another. It is not as if these are groups that are prone to issue official positions on issues such as this - after all, there has been no successor to Schneerson, and I can only imagine what type of issues this causes.
* I know we want to avoid weasel words such as "some" or "many" or "most," etc., but perhaps it would be better to avoid making a definitive case on what is the predominant view of things. What seems pretty clear to me is that Schneerson's memory is held in unusually high esteem, and that the extent to which this esteem is expressed sometimes reaches heights that makes people uncomfortable. Perhaps it might be illuminating to explain why this discomfort is created in light of Jewish theology and halacha.
* I just don't think it's possible to paint anyone into a corner and make them say something definitive about the level of Schneerson's elevation. It's so messy within Chabad, never mind around and outside the group. 
I hope I'm not adding fuel to the fire here. --Leifern 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but random observations don't really help either. There are different opinions, and we need to work on WP:NPOV. We will need to rely on weasel words in the absence of hard statistics, and as long as there is consensus which weasel word to use that is fine. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leifern jumping in 

message: [ed. note: Origional, Unbashed entry in bold {From HERE}]
There is One G-d, one Chabad, one Lubavitch and one Lubavitcher Rebbe.
[Note, not by the author: and One Jewish people, One Land of Israel, One Torah of Israel, and One Moshiach of Israel.] 
Response by RR[Wooa- im under attack here. What did i do? ok here goes.. Yes obviously mr. RK! im talking about a specific subject- Keep your cynical stuff to yourself Mr encyclopedia man]
Chabad Ideology/Chassiduth does not G-d Forbid have any place in it for idolatary. Neither  does it in any way mention this completely ludicrous idea that the Rebbe is G-d. Whoever got this idea??
:You fail to realize that you personal impresions of Chabad do not count as facts.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to proselytize.  Let it suffice to say that many Chabad Jews now have beliefs that many other Jews view as idolatry, and your say so doesn't change anything. RK
Response by RR[You are right. My personal impression does not count as fact. but thats completely irrellevant to what I said. I said,Mr Encyclopedia man, that Chabad Chasidus is not Avoda Zora. Now PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE tell me you're saying that Chassidus Chabad of the Holy Rebbeim is Avoda Zora!! Are you?? ][And mr encyclopedia man- this is the DISCUSSION PART ofthe encyclopedia. Can you call your comments fact??!?]
It does say that there is one soul for the Leader of every Generation and we are obliged to connect to it by fulfiling the leader's requests etc. This is called Hiskashrus- Connecting- the the Rebbe by fulfilling his requests, for example: To fulfil the quota of daily Rambam study and to publicise Public Observance of the 7 Noachide Laws.
[Ok more on the subject as per request from our 'fans':). Hiskashrus means connecting to the 'Head' soul of the generation- The Nosi Hador. The Moshe Rabeinu of the Generation."Nasi" in hebrew meaning leader, is an acronym for "Nishmoso Shel Ya'akov Avinu"-"The soul of Ya'akov our father. He was the leader of his generation.The Rebbe is the Nosi of our Generation which means he is spiritually connected to every Jew... look it up on Chabad.Org >>>- Mr RK, You obviously will call this Avoda Zora if you dont know about it at all!!]
:Well, that's your personal opinion.  The vast majority of Jews believe otherwise.  RK
Response by RR[MY OPINION? go learn some Chassidus dear sir! this is Not my opinion. I culled this straight from Chassidus! I didn't make it up! And the vast majority of Jews don't have an opinion on the matter. Your Opinion compared to the Rebbes writing's is laughable.]
To help Clarify:
*This is a very fundamental concept in Chassiduth.(Search Chabad.Org)
*There is lots of reading material on the subject here >>>
*No religous leaders have spoken out against this Chassidic concept- i.e that of Hiskashruth to a Rebbe.
*There is rumored to be a group of people(How many exactly? its never been documented exactly.But to be safe, definately not more than one hundred) living in Tsfat that confuse the Rebbe with Hashem.
::Again, our encyclopedia does not trust you (or me!, or any contributor) as a source.  We need sources, preferably from those who have done studies.  For instance, Professor David Berger wrote a throughly researched book with a huge number of specific examples.  That is why we can cite his research.  Do you have any specific citations to offer to back up your opinions? RK 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim are mere wishful thinking.  The in-fighting and attacks within Chabad are very well documented.  Unless you claim that all the published accounts of infighting are frauds.  Are you?  Please bring evidence and citations, not preachy proselytizing. RK
Response by RR[Ok u got me there- I do make it sound more peachy than it is! BUT... the published accounts of "infighting" are arguments that are not only well documented, but overly documented. Chabad dont even know how to fight. Go to Satmar or Ponovezeh and you will see fighting. Chabad argue! Different people have opinions- Especially jews. BUT DEAR SIR, You STILL HAVE NOT DISPROVED ANYTHING I SAID- There ARE no 'sects' in Chabad. There is argueing tho- I mean what do you expect after Gimmel Tammuz?? Lubavitch is slowly getting back on track and has MORE THAN DOUBLED since 1994,Moshiach is definately coming soon! can't wait:)]
[Origional in Bold {Untill HERE}]
I know people will tell me that there are sects- The mainstream sect, the messianist sect and the lunatic sect. Therefore I owe an explanation of what I mean: The core of the debate within Chabad about the Rebbe and Mosiach is not whether or not the Rebbe is Moshiach but rather whether or not to publicise it. Chabad Chassidim believe their Rebbe is Moshiach. This is undisputed within Chabad- As the prominent (mainstream) Chabad Chassid Reb Yoel Kahn once said along these lines at a Farbrengen to his fellow Chssidim, " If you say the Rebbe is Moshiach twelve times a day and you run around with a yellow Mashiach flag- you're crazy. But if you dont believe the Rebbe is Moshiach- you're even more crazy!".
Why? Chabad Chassidim believe that the Rebbe is the promised Moshiach simply because the Rebbe directly implied so himself a number of times (The Rebbe As Moshiach
- Based On Torah Sources).
Those that choose not to publiscise it - Whom you would call Mainstream Chabad Chassidim- do so in order to avoid turning away other Jews from Chassiduth.
Those whom you would call Messianists or Meshichists- tend to publiscise the belief brazenly in the open world. 
Now. Just because one person has a difering opinion to another about an issue does that mean that they are of different sects? 
The belief system is not compromised. Chabad Chassidim have varying opinions on the matter and but these opinions are not 'sect-defining' rules. A difference of opinion and a difference in reaction- thats all. Some are more brazen and some more conservative and 'pollitically correct'. Generally, Chabadniks do not wish to offend others so the mainsteam are usually more conservative.  Within Chabad, these terms i.e. Mishichistim, mainstream, tsfatim etc. are colloquial terms used to describe a Chassid's opinion NOT his 'sect'.
To Clarify: 
*Chabad Chassidim are not split up although their differing opinions create cetrain social boundaries
I welcome other comments if I am mistaken. and even if I'm not- tho i humbly appologise if I am.
 Suggestions to the man who edits the article- 
 
* How about add in 'Matisyahu', the new hip hop star to that list of Chabad public performers?
* Also the term "kiruv Rechokim" is frowned upon as is "outreach" in Chabad.
The Rebbe wrote a strong reply to someone who used the term saying- who is he to say one person is "in" and another "out".
* And finally might i request that in light of the above you remove the headlines dividing the Links section please.
Thank you
Moshiach now! (to end this confusion once and for all:)
--Reb Roovie 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct. Lubavitch does not use the term "Kiruv Rechokim". However, they use words like: missions, Mitzvah Tanks, Army of Hashem, NeSHeK, HaRaMaTKaL Hagadol Mikulam, and other terms relating to warfare. How can you say "Oiseh Sholom"? Daykart 04:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths about Chabad Lubavitch 

message: ::Please note: This is the last that I will write here on this topic, Wikipedia is not the place for this discussion. For any further debate on this topic, feel free to email me.
:War is bad. I've spent four years in the Army and have fought in two wars, so I am better informed on the concepts of military discipline and militarism in general than a Yeshiva Bochur who gets all his knowledge of the topic from watching war films and memorizing the Tzivos Hashem rank order. For those of you who haven't figured this out yet, I am an anarchist. I don't believe in your so-called "order"; it is a tool used by the authorities to repress freedom and murder innocent people.
:Roovie - Don't you go telling me about the way a soldier acts and dresses, I was a soldier. Not your make-believe "Army of Chabad" soldier, but a real soldier with a real M249 SAW and real mortar rounds raining down on my location. These "writers more talented than I" know about as much on the topic of real war as you do. NADA!
:Please, do me a favor: Prior to making any references to Hitler and/or Nazism, kindly read this page and this one; otherwise, you run the risk of being cussed at and ridiculed by yours truly.
So, to reiterate:
#Respond by e-mail, not on this page.
#Don't you try to tell me what war and/or militarism is about.
#Keep in mind Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum.
#Oh yeah, and while you're at it, see where I'm coming from.
I'll get off my soapbox now. Daykart 15:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only Jewish war is with the yetzer hara, which is not fought with M249 SAWs. JFW | T@lk 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Yetzer Hara" is a figment of your imagination. Your god is a myth, your rebbe is dead, your bible is fiction, your world-to-come is a fantasy, and your messiah is a byproduct of your repressed sexual desires. Does that settle this issue? Daykart 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wasn't trying to be offensive. Your response is though. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would apologize, but I do recall distinctly requesting that all further comments on this topic be e-mailed to me. If you'd rather not share your e-mail address with me, there's always my talk page. I also recall mentioning that I've been to a REAL war, two of them, in fact. This, along with certain experiences while in Chabad, has given me a condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder or shell-shock. One of the symptoms of this condition is a tendency to react violently towards mention of WAR. Now, since I'm not a violent person by nature, I react using harsh and hurtful language. So, while you were not being offensive, you most certainly were being provocative; possibly even intentionally. Daykart 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final words on militarism

message: On the eve of Shabbat Parshat Shirah 1999, two letters were sent out to all the home in Safed, Israel. It was after a campaign of one disturbed individual, Meir Baranes, as a one man show, to pa for ads in local papers, portraying the Rebbe as god (Heaven forbid). The Sefad community can be considered the most extreme in its Messianic views. They are known as the Tzefatim and 98% Lubavitchers keep away from them and their views. One is from Rabbi Bistritzky, the chief Rabbi of Sefad, closing the room where Baranes prayed and voiced his opinions about the Rebbe being god. And the second was a letter from the entire Chabad community of Sefad decrying his remarks, of course at the end of the letter is a big Yechi. A month later the three most messianic Lubavitch Rabbis of that time Rabbi Ashkenazi, Rabbi Akselrod and Rabbi Yurkovitch decried his acts and a few others. They wrote their response of Amen is not counted as part of the quorum. They cannot pray for as the cantor. The Tefillin, etc. that they write (as scribes) are not Kosher. And it goes on and on. I do not think that one could include any such information in this section, it is not factual and would bring down the integrity of this entire entry.User_talk:henochz 06:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they deny the Torah, and I don't need explain this. As what you claim is not true. I know a lot of Tzefatim and 100% of them learn L"A (Tanya), do Chitas and Rambam everyday, and follow Shulchan Aruch. (Disclaimer: All the Tzefatim I met, have been to the Arizal's mikvah.) 220.233.48.200 14:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Here are two of the above letters. More to come soon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chabad_Sefad_Community.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rabbi_Bistritzky%27s_leter.jpg Henochz 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this Baranes character say "Yechi Bor'einu"? Daykart 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am browsing his ads in the papers from that time and he does not say Yechi Boreinu. When he writes the Rebbe OBM's name he adds Melch Malchei Hamelachim.Henochz 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn wackjobs. Does anyone have some sort of reference to people who insert "Bor'einu" into the Yechi? Daykart 00:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: condemning the belief that the Rebbe is G-d from chabad

message: :It seems based on the documents that HenochZ provided, that it isn't just Feldman, Keller and Berger that condemms anybody that would believe that the Rebbe is G-d, rather even the messianics from chabad also condemm them and excomunicate them. Therefore I would propose to put all the condemations in the end of the 4th category by saying "However this vies runs contrary to Judaism and has been condemed both within chabad (See Bistritzky and Ashkenazi) and outside chabad (See Feldman and Keller)." And not have the whole condemations because there are so many condeming and nobody supporting those views. Addionially those view are held at most by a few and therefore the condemations should not last more than a sentence, as I phrased it above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is progress.  It seems to me that you used to deny that this group of people evne existed at all.  Well, I agree with your recent statement that many within Chabad condemn those who view the Rebbe as God. I agree with you that that not all Chabad Chasidim hold this view.  However, the problem is that their aren't two strictly defined camps ("Yes, he is God!", and "No, he is not!") but rather a continuum of views, with many people occupying a grey area in between.  Critics of Chabad are not claiming that all, most, or even a quarter of Chabdniks hold the Elokist beliefs about R. Schneeroson.  rather, they claim that (a) the majority of Chabad is trying to hide the existence of this minority group, (b) Chabad teachings are respoonsible for the creation of this group, even if unintentionally, and (c) unless the entire Orthodox community steps in to condemn this, this Elokist group will spread, as it did with Shabbtai Tzvi and Jesus. RK 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger 

message: JFW, JayJG and Leifern, do you see the problem?  Pinchas is still making subtle personal attacks againt me, accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy by presenting original research.  He is desperate to say anything to prevent any Orthodox rabbi or scholar from being quoted on this issue.  He only wants Chabad Jews to be quoted, and demands that the article state as a fact that anyone who disagrees must be ignorant of Kabbalah.  That's not only a violation of NPOV policy, but a gross attack on the scholarship of the rabbis being cited. RK
Please do not be fooled by Pinchas's claims.  This is not about me.  No one is citing me.  Pinchas simply reverts all citations and quotes over and over, claiming that every Orthodox rabbi or scholar who disagrees with Schneerson's atzmus theology must be wrong.  That's not only incorrect, but arrogant.  He has no authority to say that every non-Chabad rabbi "has not shown which new direction the Rebbe has carried the beliefs. [they] do not show how what Keller is complaining about is the view of chabad".  RK
Think about it!  Should we now delete major criticisms of Reform Judaism, and justify this censorship by saying "these Orthodox Jews have not shown which new direction the Reform movement has carried the beliefs. They do not show how what they are complaining about is the view of Reform."  Should we now delete major criticisms of a political party, and justify this by saying "those critics don't understand what our political party really believes, thus I will censor and delete these silly criticisms."  That kind of reverting to hide criticism always been recognized as a form of special pleading, and a violation of NPOV policy.  Repeated instances of such reverts based on such grounds have in the past led to bans. RK
We can't go around deleting criticisms of major controversies by attacking contributors as ignorant (as Pinchas subtly does of non-Chabad Orthodox Jews) and we can't argue that "I feel that these criticisms are wrong, therefore I will delete them."  This is such a gross and obvious violation of our policy that I can't imagine any Wikipedian agreeing with Pinchas.  Please help fight against this violation of Wikipedia policy. RK
:RK, asking for sources is not a personal attack, nor is it a violation of wikipedia policies. My explanations of the subject are backed up by at least 2 books Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 and Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew). --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, Pinchas is deceiving you in a gross and bold fashion.  I did give Pinchas multiple sources...and Pinchas responded by deleting them, and then pretending that I never gave him the sources.  This kind of deliberately deceptive behaviour is totally unacceptable.  Fortunately, above you will see that JFW admitted that I did give these sources, and Pinchas's personal attacls are again proven false. RK 02:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The sources that RK gave were not relevant to what he was trying to prove. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nandesuka, It is not personal interpretation, rather it is all sourced as I have shown by at least 2 books Pavzener, Avraham. Al HaTzadikim (Hebrew). Kfar Chabad. 1991 and Frumer, Assaf. Kol Hanikra Bishmi (Hebrew). Additionally the sources that RK is bringing is not relevant to what he is trying to prove as I explained above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is clear that the sources that RK cites disagree with the citations that you bring forth.  Both of your citations seem, to me, to be verifiable and reliable sources.  I don't think you have made the case that the citations he has made (except, perhaps for the one about eating at the restaurant) are not relevant.  Your claim that they are not relevant presumes that their claims are incorrect; that is original research.  The proper course of action is to include both of your citations in the article, rather than to suppress one side of the debate or the other. Nandesuka 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nandesuka, See my argument above in the section that says "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger" based on the section above with name of "condemning the belief that the Rebbe is G-d from chabad". Also regarding the paragraph "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers" See my coment in the section above with the name ""Pinchas's Version of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers"". --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read them. They provide no reasonable justification for not including relevant, verifiable, validly sourced, information in the article.  Your statements analogizing the statements of these commentators to imply that they must be talking about "one crazy person" are original research, and are not an acceptable pretext. Nandesuka 13:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Which section are you referring to? If you are referring to the paragraph of "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers", how do you answer my objections to RK's version? And if you are referring to the "Rabbis Feldman, Keller and Berger", True, they are relevant, verifiable, validly sourced statements, HOWEVER this is in the controversy section of the chabad article, implying that there is this belief that chabad has and these people are against it. The truth is however that you have other Jews outside chabad that also hold heretical views, and these rabbis condemm those people as well, as does chabad. My point being, by leaving out the condemenations from chabad, you are implying that chabad endorses this view which they clearly do not. So we are left with 2 options to either quote every single well sourced, verifiable, and relevant condomenation of those that hold these views, which even according to Berger is just a few people, (I'm sure the percentage of Jews outside of chabad that hold heretical views is just as high if not higher), and quoting all those sources including the chabad sources and Shulchan Aruch which must be quoted because it is a greater source than the later Rabbis, would amount to most of the article condemming the beliefs of a few people that hold the belief. The second option is not to detail the sentences and details of each condemation, but rather to have a sentence that states that "However this view runs contrary to Judaism and has been condemed both within chabad (See Bistritzky and Ashkenazi) and outside chabad (See Feldman and Keller)."  --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No such implication is made by including valid, sourced criticism.  If you make an inference that Chabad, as an organization, holds heretical views, I would suggest that you are not reading correctly.  The third option is to include valid, sourced, credible criticism, and to include valid, sourced, credible rebuttals of that criticism.  That is what I will work towards. Nandesuka 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My other points still remain. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinchas is still making this personal 

message: These are the two letters that HaRav Aharon Soloveitchik zt"l wrote about the subject
The Sage and Miss Lagnado
I am addressing you in connection with an article written by your distinguished correspondent Lucette Lagnado (“Rabbis Blast Lubavitcher Messianism,” Forward, Dec. 2). Everything that this distinguished correspondent wrote in my name is fairly accurate. However, the context in which she wrote it tends to give the impression to people who are not knowledgeable in Torah and Jewish matters that I too consider the Lubavitch movement as a cultist movement whose followers are convinced that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe will be resurrected shortly and that he will redeem the Jewish people from exile. Such a notion is so unrealistic that it is the antithesis of the truth.
Your distinguished correspondent quotes me correctly: “Rabbi Soloveichik, however, was contemptuous, denouncing Rabbi Butman as ‘a little fanatical,’ someone who ‘means well but, out of desperation, conjures non-rational ideas.’ The late Rebbe, said Rabbi Soloveichik, ‘can't be the Messiah -- he is not living -- a Messiah has to be living -- a living Messiah, not a dead Messiah.” All the words of this quotation are perfectly accurate. I have no complaints against your distinguished correspondent; my complaint consists in the fact that the tone of the article implies that in her opinion the Lubavitch movement is a cultist movement. This is despicable; especially despicable is the fact that your distinguished correspondent put into the Forward the picture of Shabbetai Zvi. My intention was to relate my understanding that the overwhelming majority of the Lubavitcher Chasidim do not ascribe to the notion that the Rebbe will be resurrected as the Messiah.
Please allow me to clarify my position on the Lubavitch movement. As I said in my eulogy over the Rebbe zt”l, that unlike any other Chasidic Rebbe or any Rosh Yeshiva, who is the rebbe of a single group in Jewry, large or small, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was the Rebbe of Klal Yisrael. The reason for this is the fact that in his generation, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was an unparalleled spiritual leader, and due to his vision, his foresight and especially because of his ahavas Yisrael and ahavas habrios (love of Israel and love of humanity), he was able to reach out unto the most assimilated sections of Jewry. Because of his unusual inspiration he was able to make thousands of baalei teshuvah in the Diaspora and in Eretz Yisrael, even in remote places like Australia, New Zealand and India. The thousands of baalei teshuvah in Soviet Russia are exclusively due to the self-negating sacrifices of the Lubavitch sheluchim.
There is a traditional friendship and attachment between the Beis Horav and Beis Lubavitch. Reb Chaim of Volozhin, the most outstanding disciple of the Gaon of Vilna, was the one who lifted the ban that the Gaon of Vilna imposed upon the Chasidic movement. Reb Itzele of Volozin had a close relationship with the Tzemach Tzedek. Reb Chaim Brisker had a close relationship with the Rashab; and my brother Reb Yosef Ber with the late Rebbe.'''
I hope that this will dispel all the spiritual pollution that exists in the secular Jewish community, and even in some groups of the Orthodox Jewish community, in respect to the evaluation of the Lubavitch movement.
Ahron Soloveichik
Chicago, Ill. 
HaRav Aharon Soloveitchik zt"l @ The Forward, Dec 23, 1994, pg. 6
:People for some weird reason keep on calling Australia remote. As an Aussie, I wouldn't call it remote. I would call Maroco (correct spelling??) remote, along with Iran (very hard to gain entry or gain exit), Greenland, etc remote. 220.233.48.200 15:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not bound to halakha. And as you may know poskim are allowed to disagree with each other. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Can't Paskin Halacha... Rav Ahron Soloveichik can.. 

message: This article helps clarify things >>>
This Website is Dedicated to This very subject >>>
This is the Psak Din by Chabad Rabbis on the subject >>>
Please people read up a bit. It doesnt hurt. --Reb Roovie 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Psakdinners have been blasting this at us for the last few monthts. We are not impressed. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you meant by "we" above died in 1901 according to the article. 220.233.48.200 15:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is a good idea for us to dissect the Psak Din and the all the articles there. Once that is done, we will be able to point out, that all those signed are simple teachers or the like. They are not a part of the Chabad Rabbinate. There was actually a pamphlet distributed recently and a series of 15 articles in the Kfar Chabad magazine about the Rebbe not being Moshiach. As well Pardes Chabad has been printing theological articles for over eight years now about the Rebbe not being Moshiach and going in depth into all the Rebbe's talks and explaining them. As well there was a landmark article from Rabbi Gopin a few years ago in the Kfar Chabad on this discussion. If needed I will start scanning in the articles.Henochz 21:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Brief History on Lubavitch Messianism 

message: Check out this very informative website >>> www.therebbe.org
:You win first prize in the "Blatantly shameless self-promotion" category. Check out this even more informative Wikipedia article. Daykart 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is this guy?!? About the Rebbe 

message: In fact, although the town of Lubavitch is in what historically was known as White Russia, today it is to be found in Russia proper, not Belarus.--Nathans 08:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried finding it on Google Earth, I think its called Lubavicz or something of the sort today--Reb Roovie 11:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarus? 

message: Instead of fighting over and over. Could we just remove the topics that people fight over (Moshiach), and focus on parts everyone agrees on (focus, education, etc). The parts that everyone agrees on, are the parts that should be in. Come on 5 lines on the history!!! Yet 40-50 lines on Moshiach. The part that should be in the article is a stub, the part that should be a stub is the longest part of the whole article! Moral, don't let the small things stop the big things. 220.233.48.200 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that more can definately be put on but I still think the Moshiach issue needs to be solved --Reb Roovie 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure they need to be solved. But no one is going to agree, and there are more important things that should be in the article that are not because you 'children' will not focus on it instead of arguing. 220.233.48.200 15:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ha, ha! Very funny. Does his reply count as vandalism? As wikipedia happens to be vandalism-happy. (See all my replies on talk pages that have been deleted in the terrorism section). 220.233.48.200 13:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets end the wars 

message: Like all Hasidim they follow the teachings and customs of halakha (Jewish law and custom) as taught by their own Rebbes (rabbis, leaders) starting from the founder of Hasidism, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. In this case, the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov are traced through their founder's master works known as The Tanya and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.
The Tanya is chasidus, the Shulchan Aruch is halacha - and just a draff of what the Magid asked the Alter Rebbe to write - the paragraph is problematic. 220.233.48.200 14:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not making any point here..Although we dont have the full Alter Rebbes Shulchan Aruch as alot of it was lost in Village fires in Lubavitch, it is still the final version. The Rebbe says that the Shulchan Aruch As well as The Alter Rebbes SIddur is Chassidus. --Reb Roovie 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch was written in accordance of Niglah (correct spelling??). That is why a lot of what it says Chasidim and the Rebbim themselves do different - in accordance of Kabbalah. 220.233.48.200 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well do you have a source or not? 220.233.48.200 13:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Would it be okay to unprotect the article now? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Pinchas. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Eliezar, just drop that whole part of the article. There are more important things that should be in the article that no one is working on because everyone wants to fight over this one part. 220.233.48.200 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Reb Roovie, I protest the use of Chabad jargon. It obscures the issues from those who may not be aware that "nistalek" is a euphemism for "died". JFW | T@lk 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Give me 3 and a half seconds and I will find you an agrument, for and aganist that and those agruments are worth nothing, the only way to get a clear answer is to get the Rebbe to clear it up a bit more. This is an encyclopedia not Kuntres Yechi HaMelech. I am totally shocked to see more about Moshiach on Chabad than Chasidus/Tanya. (Just to make clear for you Americans, it was - at time of orignal version of this reply - 2 hours after Yitel night, in Australia.) 220.233.48.200 15:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 220, if you could write a brief section about the influence of the Tanya on Chabad beliefs then this would of course be vital. There is also a marked paucity of information on Chabad prior to the sixth Rebbe's immigration to the USA. Until I inserted it, nobody had mentioned that in Czarist Russia Chabad had a sizable network of yeshivos called Tomchei Temimim. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The influnce of the Tanya on Chabad beliefs" it is the foundation of Chabad. The whole article needs to be rewritten from the ground up, I will see if I could get the help of Tomchei Temimim of Sydney. BTW it should be stated that Tomchei Temimim is the oldest Yeshiva still running off the same Seder - the one Rebbe Rashab instatuded. 220.233.48.200 13:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with intraduction 

message: Ok I am proposing this to stop the fights, so we can at least have an article ABOUT chabad. This article becomes about chabad, a new article is made for chabadniks, The Rebbe and Moshiach. One that I will never have to look at as I am sick of this fighting. 220.233.48.200 17:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. We are all missing the entire picture of what Chabad is, with all this Messianic talk. If we put together all the talks on Moshiach we come to a sliver of the Chabad and the Rebbe's teachings. I think it is about time to separate the two. Henochz 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. This is focusing on something the article isn't about. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Important??? And what Chabad accully is, isn't important? If anyone thinks it is important they can read the other article, but it is not important at all for this article because it meant to be about Chabad. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Everyone forgets about the Magid. The Magid had 120 student, of which the Alter Rebbe was the youngest of them. Each one got their own area, in which they and their Chosidim lived. The Magid told the Alter Rebbe to write the Tanya and a Shulchan Aruch that contains the source of the halacha, which was needed at the time as most people didn't know the whole Talmud off by heart, but the Shulchan Aruch got burned in the major fire of Lubavitch and only a part of it was left along with the draff version. The Magid also gave the Alter Rebbe the power, that what he says can over power what all the other students say, even if it is him vs 119 (-1, one got excumcated in the latter years). The Alter Rebbe only used this power once, and it was to defend to Vilna Goan. My sources are mainly Admur HaMaRash, Lubavitcher Rabbi`s Memoirs, and a few other books. 220.233.48.200 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing a sepeartion of article

message: I've unprotected this page as the dispute seems to have subsided. Do not edit-war, but please negotiate on the talk page. Thanks. Izehar 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you do that? We still have to agree on spiltting up the article. If not I might go ahead and do it my self and it could cause Y.A.E.W. 220.233.48.200 13:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *g* it looks like the edit-wars are just about to start. Pinchas has notice the page isn't protected, now all we need to RK to notice. 220.233.48.200 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But the article is talking more about sidetopic which got very argumentive - which are uncertain chabad beleifs, that not everyone wants to read and it is very hard to NPOVify possibly impossible. Look at the history, 70+% of edits is happening in the sidetopic areas. That is just plain wrong, and the best way to fix this is spilting the article, that way edits on the chabad article are focused on chabad and not sidetopic - just like how the Rebbe article is not part of the chabad one. And oh please this is like the first article I have seen the external links are spilted on a very small detail with what they beleive in. Even on the Moses article the Jewish and christian links are mixed! In that article they should be spilted more than why they are being spilted here! 220.233.48.200 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Should I use that word? Or does anyone know the correct english word? Refer to my last edit before this reply. 220.233.48.200 13:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kabbalistic seems like the correct english word according to the BI"C article. 220.233.48.200 14:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kabalahic? 

message: Can we all agree on it? I think it is edit-war/flame-war free. Might need so extending and embrassing. But we agree not to add anything that will be the cause of Y.A.E.W.? 220.233.48.200 13:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New introduction 

message: Pinchas readded the paragraph "Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers". There is one sentence that keeps on disturbing me: "In recent years this has been critised by many Mitnagdim because it as in most Kabbalistic concepts may mistakenly be taken literally."
My discussion with RK centered on which critics to quote. Just listing "mitnagdim" without any qualification is not adequate. JFW | T@lk 18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence now reads "In recent years this has been critised by many Mitnagdim, including Berger, Keller and others, because it as in most Kabbalistic concepts may mistakenly be taken literally which whould then be contrary to what Judaism believes in." Please let me know what you think. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between God, the Rebbe and his followers