Talk:Bobov (Hasidic dynasty)

message: I find the use of untranslated Hebrew in this article quite disturbing. While I have no trouble reading it, other people will have. And the whole purpose of Wikipedia is that everyone should be able to read articles. Untranslated Hebrew is totally out of place, since this is not a chassidishe website but a general encyplopedia. If nobody intervenes, I will b'n, when I have time, start adding English translations of these words. --Daniel575 21:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel; I first thought that you're referring to the main page; but rereading this I now realize that you're referring to this talk page. You're right that Hebrew words should be translated for the benefit of those Wikipedians who don't understand Hebrew; but here the less explained the better Vedai Lechakime berimize (It's enough for the wise with a wink); also here the editing are done by those who have some knowledge of the subject, and believe me; all of them understand Hebrew. But if anybody wants a word translated then enter the word following this paragraph & we'll translate it for you. Issac 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the article. (Sorry that it took so long until I replied here). Examples:
*" The captives this time included R’ Itchi Leser, who was a באבאווער חסיד, "
*" while the Rebbe was removing his רבינו תם תפילין, "
And a few dates. Such things can be very annoying for non-Hebrew readers. I personally can read it of course, no problem, but others can't, and the purpose of Wikipedia is that anyone should be able to read it. Things such as 'rabbeini Tam tefilin' should be written like this, transliterated. --Daniel575 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Hebrew

message: Why can't the machlokes be explained fairly and openly? I don't have any opinion on who is right or wrong, but I have no reason to believe that it is not a machlokes leshem shomayim. There is no chilul Hashem involved in fairly describing a machlokes leshem Shomayim. I see here in the discussion that both sides have valid reasons to think that they are correct. I would very much like to see an article that describes both sides and shows how each one is divrei elokim chaim. --Ezra Wax 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking for divrei Elokim chaim then I'm sorry to tell you that you won't find it here; the machlokes which is one sided and on the bright side of it, very few people are involved in it, is surely not leshem Shomayim and IMO there is no way that it can be written without causing a CH. If the sichsuch (dispute) as I would like to call it, which inadvertently involves all Bobover Chasidim, because without any choice everybody was forced to take a stand; could be explained in a way which describes each side as having an honest opinion, and simply wants to do G-d's will; then maybe you would be right. But this dispute is on the most part an emotional one, not a scholarly one. Do you think that all Bobover Chasidim are scholars? I hate to tell you but even some scholars have followed their hearts not their minds. If the whole story should be told, then I don't want any part in it; what you have seen me write is just the tip of the iceberg. Even though by not having the sichsuch explained it might leave you and others with the impression that one side is more right then the other; I still prefer it not written. Hopefully this sichsuch will quickly pass and will join the dustbin of history among numerous other disputes that have sprung up among people; but don't need to be passed on to posterity. We don't have an article explaining why Slonim split; and even though I'm also curious; it’s better left that way. If it's just a matter of curiosity then it is better that you ask privately both sides to explain to you their stand. Issac 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the Machlokes 

message: There have been new developments in the story. According to a Haaretz article, elections have been underway since September.  I am unaware of the details, but it seems that the Beis-Din worked out an arrangement to resolve the dispute.  The main article should be covering this news.  If someone knows what is going on, would you please update the article in an objective manner?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.122.59 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: In the Bobov chart you forgot to put in the Bobov Rebbe ztl's sister who was married to Rabbi Twersky in Milwaukee
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.132.38.100 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobov Org Chart 

message: I just edited the "Fifth Rebbe of Bobov" section.
I believe that now that the Beth Din has rendered a decision regarding the title Rebbe of Bobov, the Bobov page needs not discuss the dispute. If someone wants to write about the dispute a separate page should be used. I expect though that it would very hard to find a consensus on the content of such a page. If someone is brave enough to start a draft, I can assure my fellow wikipedians that I will help out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst13 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post the Beth Din Decision 

message: Now that a Psak Din was rendered; Wikipedia needs to be edited accordingly (has 90 days to do so according to the Psak); but seeing that confusion still remains, so as a public service for the English speaking public who cannot read the Hebrew decision, I will bring its highlights and its details as needed.
In the ruling the two parties are called "Side 1" and "Side 2". (For clarity here, side-1 is Bobov-45 and side-2 is Bobov; or side-1 is Rabbi Unger and side-2 is Rabbi Halberstam).
Bobov-45 came to Beth-Din to claim buildings (possessions) and Bobov came to claim the name "Bobov" and for Beth-Din to deny it to Bobov-45.
Beth Din granted neither what they wanted. The Psak in a nutshell was, that Bobov-45 gets only 6.2 million dollars; and that both parties are Bobov; but Bobov-45 needs to add to its name "Bobov" a suffix or a prefix which distinguishes it from Bobov; by either calling itself (like it was known until now) with the suffix "45" or by adding a prefix to it. 
The Psak is dry (deliberately dry and vague on the main points) without explaining on what its decision was based; so we can only go by what it does or does not say; and personal opinions on Wikipedia don't matter. Both sides need to adhere to the Psak and to Wikipedia policy.
For example the Psak does not "clearly" say who is a successor of whom, only who gets what. Not a word regarding a predecessor or a successor, who follows whom. It does not mention Rabbi Halberstam as "Rav Hatzuyir" on which the entire claim of Bobov was; nor does it mention the word "inheritance" on which the entire claim of Bobov-45 was. Therefore one has no right to impose their view in any Wikipedia article but to stick to what it does or does not say in the ruling.
Here are the highlights (the important ones; will add others on request).
1) All the assets of "Bobov" in Brooklyn, New Jersey, Catskills and the Poconos... that were in existence at the death of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali, are in the possession and control of side-2 (Bobov).
2) Side-2 (Bobov) needs to give Side-1 (Bobov-45) 6.2 million dollars.
3) The right to call himself "Rebbe of Bobov" (without any prefixes or suffixes) is exclusive to Rabbi Halberstam, and he can use this name as he likes with or without any additional names.
5) Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin (the two son's-in-law of the last Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halberstam) have a right to the name "Bobov"; but they need to add an identifier to it (a suffix of "45" or some prefix). It needs to be done in the following manner... [Quite complicated and questionable if as an "arbitration" it can stand in a court of law, since it violates "functus officio" (it's open-ended) and Freedom of speech. (You cannot force someone to say, or how to say, something they don't want to; and surely not to any unassociated party)].
6) The purpose of the following paragraphs is to arrive to a situation that to the observer there is a recognition between the two, between Bobov and Bobov-45.
7) Rabbi Unger can call himself "Rebbe of Bobov-45" and Rabbi Rubin can call himself "Rabbi of Bobov-45".
8) If Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin want to write on their letterhead that they are the son's in law of the previous Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halberstam, they have a right to do so. [For Wikipedians this is a very important clause, because it says that Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin cannot be cut out of the Bobov articles but have to be noted as the son's in law of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali and/or the successors to their father-in law. (Of course they need to be called Rebbe/Rabbi of "Bobov-45" accordingly and not "Bobov" alone).
13) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has a right to call themselves (which includes and not limited to their synagogues and all their institutions) with the name "Bobov-45".
19) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has to call side-2 (Bobov) by the name "Bobov" without any other names.
22) Side-2 (Bobov) has to call side-1 (Bobov-45) by the name "Bobov-45" without any other names.
24) Side-2 (Bobov) has to do everything they can, not to cause that side-1 (Bobov-45) is called by any other names then "Bobov-45".
27) Side-2 (Bobov) has exclusive rights to the publishing of the Torah and tapes of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Shlome Halbertstam.
28) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has exclusive rights to the publishing of the Torah and tapes of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halbertstam.
This is it in a nutshell. Afarsimon (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Psak Din 

message: Analyst 13, let me quote the following,
The "Beth Din" wasn't convened to render a decision on who is the Rebbe; “they can't decide that, that is up to personal opinions of every individual. What they will decide is”, practical issues that could be litigated. a. If Grand Rabbi Mordechai David Unger's community has rights to the assets belonging to the Bobover institution and b. And if they have the right to also go by the name Bobov.
The above words is something YOU have written Nov 27 2006. see link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobov_(Hasidic_dynasty)&oldid=90393246 
I fully agree with the above statement. The authority of the beth din and psk of the beth din is limited to A. if rabbi unger gets assets. B. if he can use the name Bobov. It can’t possibly decide who is the Rebe and who is leading the Bobov Hasidim, in matter of fact NOTHING has changed in that regard after the psak since it cannot be forced upon by a beth din. The fact of the matter is that there is hundreds of Bobov Hasidim locally and abroad that refer to Rabbin ungar as the Bobove rebbe, and that wouldn’t change if the letterhead is Bobov or Bobov 45th or zanz bobov. The psak is therefore limited to what it says that Brooklyn rabbi unger Chasidim should not call rabbi unger Bobov rebbe, (who and how will it be enforced??) and rabbi unger and his mosdos locally cant call themselves Bobov.
Unfortunately you changed your mind, and somehow the psak is detirminating who the bobov rebbe is, and all of us (unreasonables) that have not changed mind with you are vendelising. 
Rest assured, i will keep editing the site to what says in the psak as well as the practical situation of Bobov chasidim and their Rebbe.
I ask you to not try to push your personal agenda here and just go back to the sensible position you had a few years ago, and what is shared by every reasonable person.Berkshires (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The impact of the Psak on who Bobov rebbe is

message: As some would like to read into the ruling what it doesn't say; it needs to be clear what it says and what it doesn't. It does NOT say that Rabbi Halberstam is the Bobover Rebbe and Rabbi Unger is not. It does not say that Rabbi Benzion Halberstam is Rabbi Naftali Halberstam's successor and that Rabbi Mordche Dovid Unger is not.
What does it say? 
In the first paragraph it says who gets what (or rather who "stays" with what) and does NOT mention a word who is successor and hence who is "Bobover Rebbe". This was "the" question asked of the Beth-Din and the Beth-Din did NOT answer it (and for good reason).
Both cannot be called Bobov without confusion; so in paragraph 3, Rabbi Halberstam is given the right to call himself "Bobov Rebbe" without an identifier; and in paragraph 4, Rabbi Unger is given the right to call himself "Bobov-45 Rebbe" with an identifier. It is clear as can be, that no one is named as the "only" successor; and no one is Bobov more then the other.
So can one say "I am going to Bobov" when he refers to Bobov-45 Rebbe Rabbi Unger's Beth Midrash? The answer is of course "yes"; and people will and do say so. When in question which one it is, THEN they add "45"; but when it is not in question, everyone in Bobov and outside Bobov says that they are going to Bobov.
Same is when a Shadchen (a matchmaker) is asked where the boy learns; the answer is "Bobov"; only when not clear which one, then and only then, "45" is added. 
Also when asked about a Bobov-45 Chasid, which Chasid he is; the answer will always be "a Bobover". 
On legal papers, on a building, letterhead or the like; "Bobov-45" needs to be present. But regarding all other questions; Bobov-45 is no less Bobov then Bobov 48.
Analyst13; your mistake stems from you interpreting that Rabbi Halberstam gets to stay with the name "Bobov" without an identifier, to mean that he is the successor. No such words are to be found in this ruling; it is only your interpretation based on your belief that Rabbi Halberstam "should" be the successor and therefore he is. The Beth-Din didn't rule on that and rightfully so. Do you for one second think that Rabbi Halberstam is his brother's successor? Maybe his father's, but not his brother's. His brother's successors are his brother's sons-in law. Now, if they (Bobov-45) would be an offshoot of Bobov, as you believe; then Rabbi Naftali Halberstam was also a Bobov-45 Rebbe (was he?) and how does his brother a Bobov Rebbe succeed a Bobov-45 Rebbe?
So you see that it is very very murky to say the least, and makes anything written contradictory; you cannot grab the rope by both ends.
The Beth-Din (in my opinion) to avoid falling into this contradictory trap; decided not to rule succession at all; but to give both parties the right to continue the dynasty of Bobov as is.
Why I brought up that you belong to one side; is to show why you would consider Bobov-45 an offshoot; which is wholly your own opinion and not Beth-Din's. As a matter of fact, Beth-Din found it important to say in paragraph 22 that Side-2 (Bobov 48) when they refer to Bobov 45, they must call them "Bobov-45" and NOT call them with any other names. It cannot be clearer.
Therefore the article(s) cannot refer to one (any one) as the successor and to omit the other one.
The article(s) cannot say "offshoot" referring to Bobov-45. 
The article cannot say that after the passing of Rabbi Naftali Halberstam, Bobov-45 split off from Bobov; but that Bobov split in two, where one side chose his brother and the other side chose his son-in law.
Neither should Bobov 48 impose here their view on Bobov 45; nor should Bobov 45 impose here their view on Bobov 48; these pages must be impartial and completely neutral, and anyone editing should leave their personal beliefs out of it; and if they can't, shouldn't edit. Afarsimon (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2014
-------
Afarsimon: You deliberately and conviently omit any mention of Pragraph 6 in the Beth Din decision. You are stuck with interpertations of the decision based on assumptions of what the issues before thBeth Din was. You then fabricate how I interpert the decision.
My point to you, stated here numerous times, is that I do not make interpertations of the Psak. 
The beth din does not make a decision about "Yerisha" of the Bobover "Admoris", then there is no decsion on it. You can say it is still in dispute. You realise of course though that the Beth Din can still decide who is Bobover Rebbe and not decide the legal question of Yerisha. Furthermore they may decide the legal question of Yerisha and therefore decide who is Bobover Rebbe, but they don't need to come public on that question. My opinion is, yes Rabbi Halberstam is his brother's Yoiresh for the Admoris, as Son-In-Laws aren't sons in torah law, and daughters can't inherent "Serurah". I also believe that the Beth Din came to that decsion as well. But that of course is only my opinion. I have not advocated that this be stated on wikipedia main article. I would appreciate that you keep your opinions to yourself as well.
My point is that all your talk about "succesion", "also Bobov", "split", that's all your opinion of the decision. I have my own opinions, very different than yours. I beilive those to be right. But they have no place here on wikipedia. Just the same as yours have no place.
I have advocated consistently to stick to the Beth Din ruling.
Paragraph 6 the second half states as follows:
"...likewise, to reach a point where if someone hears the name "Bobov" without an accompanying name, he will immediately understand that it refers to Party B; we therefore ruled as provided in the clauses below".
It couldn't be clearer. When one says Bobov on should not need to ask which Bobov. Your examples of the Shadchan and all the rest examples is therefore wrong. Plain. Simply Wrong. And by now I know that you know so as well.
Analyst13 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ruling is that there are now two Bobov's one to be called "Bobov" and the other to be called "Bobov-45" 

message: I just want to comment briefly on the long, convoluted discussion above... and the edit warring over the article.
The discussion centers on a judgment (psak) by a rabbinical court (beis din). However, this judgment is really a primary source from within the religious Jewish world. It is not a reliable source, in the Wikipedia sense, so it does substantiate much if any text within a Wikipedia article. Therefore, much of the preceding Talk discussion is irrelevant, sorry!
In order to report on this Bobov dispute, the Wikipedia article should be based on reliable sources, such as the New York Times or (though lower quality, perhaps) Jewish newspapers and websites. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation of the psak to Reliable Sources

message: An author who was born decades before Reb Naftalchig left our world said "there is one chasidus, Bobov, and it has two Rebbes." 
The Bais Din's 6.25 of 100 monetary award seems to go with the idea that only about 6.25% of those who daven in Boro Park or elsewhere in an officially Bobov shul are 45, and the rest (93.75%) "48."  It is the non-Bobov Chasidim, and even more so the non-Chasidim, that will perpetuate the "48" name until Mashiach comes.
Rather than compare to Aguda or Young Israel, which have rules in their organization, ask: Which is the "real" Washington - District of Columbia or the West Coast State. Context and public usage provide(s) the answer.  
"I'm stopping by Bobov tonight" depends on context. Likewise, "he sent his kids to Bobov."
Moreover, just as some might expect to hear Bobov-45,  others may expect to hear Bobov-48: "Tonight I'm shopping in Boro Park and going to my neighbor's Vort in Bobov-45; next week my 2nd cousin is making a Vort by Bobov-48." 
Finally, to the non-Chasidic world, "The other side is known as Bobov 48." (a quote from the 2012 Nathan Lewin Jewish Press article:  http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/bet-din-on-the-clock-nathan-lewin-wants-jewish-courts-to-run-more-efficiently/2012/03/21  Pi314m (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: There is one Bobov, and 2 Rebbes

message: Is Bobov anti-Zionist, or simply non-Zionist? Do they have close connections to Satmar?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.244.215 (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Zionism 

message: The following statment was clearly added to invalidate bobov 45 and is biased. Bobov and all Bobov institutions are currently led by the Grand Rabbi Benzion Halberstam. no one who isn`t a member of this community would have made such a comment. This topic is discussed at length in the article and there is no reason to ignor the topic in the introduction. גוי אחד בארץ (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Most of the information in this paragraph is already mentionedin the paragraph-Fifth and current Rebbe of Bobov.
I woulld suggest making a paragraph before discussing the Rebbes of Bobov and Bobov 45 describing the argument and it`s resolution. 
It is an important part of Bobov`s history for both courts. גוי אחד בארץ (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Bobov-45