berkshires perhaps you say that you agree with the quoted statement but you don't seem to get it yes it is true that the beth din will not didn't decide who is or should be a rebbe to whom they never took that power to themselves nor can i imagine that such power can even be granted but of course they were granted the power to decide who is the bobover rebbe who can use the name bobov berkshires this is an obvious distinction one that i previously thought you were faking ignorance of i now realise that you may have very well been serious i will therefore try to explain it in more detail think for a moment if rabbi halberstam should decide tommorow that he no longer wants the title bobover rebbe he no longer wants he kehilla to be named bobov but rather some name of some other polish town does that render him no longer rebbe to his chasidim the connection between a rebbe and a chossid has absolutley nothing to do with his title there was a dispute in bobov over assets over the title and over usage of the name bobov and other names used by bobov a very simple dry din torah the beth din gave to rabbi halberstam side all of bobov assets the rights to the title the name bobov and all other names used by bobov that does not mean that rabbi unger isn't a rebbe it doesn't even mean that he isn't a mamshich of his father in law or grandfather in law the same way the first bobover ruv did not have the title sanzer ruv but he was still a mamshich of sanzer ruv try to remove your emotions and be impartial and you may even understand the beth din's logic i am not saying you need to agree but perhpas if you stand back for a moment you can understand their decision putting aside all claims and counter claims as to who should have been selcted as the rebbe of bobov i know you must believe that the son in law should have been selected however there is almost unanimous consent between all poskim that the will of the majority is respected the beth din made a clear finding within the psak that side had a majority if you follow that logic the psak is self explanatory you have a kehilla they made a decision as to their rav and rebbe a minority is unhappy they leave can they get a part of the assets can they use the name and title the beth din answered that question with its ruling i went long here only because i feel a sort of denialist anger simmering within your writting and i don't think it is warranted i thought perhaps you can follow the logic in any event the beth din did make a decsion who has and can use the title bobover rebbe rabbi unger can no longer refer to himself as bobover rebbe it would be appropriate for you to give this a rest