Welcome to Wikipedia, Winchester2313! I am Pharaoh of the Wizards and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added:

This concept is mentioned often in the classic Kaballistic and Chassidic texts, such as Pardes Rimonim 16:6 and 22:3 by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Zohar-2 38a, and Zohar-3 79b, and Sefer Tanya ch. 22 & 23.

See also Zohar-1 9a, Zohar-2 163b, Mechilta on Exodus 18, Bereishit Rabba 63 & 86, Tanchuma Tissa 27, and the well-known Chassidic principle ascribing fundamentally the same status to the soul of any Jew, as elaborated on by R. SZ of Liadi in Tanya ch.2.

Do these sources specify that there talking about "atzmus u'mahus" itself? Yonoson3 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling now, and don't have access to my seforim, however, in those sources I quoted that I did manage to check (via copies of their respective texts that I found online), various tzadikim are alternately referred to as "shechinta" "hashem" "pnei ha'odon hashem" and "e-l". The reference made by the LR re. "atzmus umehus" was simply a mention of this unique status accorded to a rebbe/tzaddik/nossi etc. (IIRC, in the Baal haTanya's 'likkutei torah' he uses the same term, but I couldn't pull up that text online.) Were said mention to have been made in context of a discussion of different levels of Gdliness, the specific choice of term may have been material - but in this case it clearly was not. Interestingly, this concept is rarely mentioned in chabad texts, compared to the frequent mention of same in seforim like the Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, etc. See also Rashi on the passuk "vayikra lo kel elokei yisroel..." Winchester2313 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference made by the LR re. "atzmus umehus" was simply a mention of this unique status accorded to a rebbe/tzaddik/nossi etc." - But does this chiddush of the Lubavitcher Rebbe have any earlier source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many gods do you have? How do you think atzmus umehus is different from the terms used in the sources provided? How much closer do you get than ויקרא לו קל אלקי ישראל? -- Zsero (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,on the Rabbi Elazar Shach page you expanded the "Opposition to the Lubavitcher Rebbe" section considerably. Do you feel that the information should also be added to the Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson page? I find it interesting that the Rebbe's page has no mention at all of any opposition to the Rebbe.

Why should there be? It's a fact about his opponents, not about him. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, imho, historically dishonest. What I added was accurate historical context, sourced in many media reports. R'Shachs public/media presence during the 80's & 90's was defined by his frequent attacks on Chabad. This was fodder for the Israeli media, and it got R'Schach some coverage. Contrast this with the media coverage of Chabad in the US during those years, and the opposition in Israel barely made the comments section. It was also largely ignored by the mainstream in the US at the time. Check out the Israeli media reports of Chabad/Schach during those years, and contrast that with the press coverage in the rest of the world - it was largely a non-issue outside Israel. Chabad & the LR were making the news roughly weekly for any number of reasons / campaigns / contro's / events. R'Schach made press only for attacks and criticisms. The record does not lie...

Winchester2313 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is historically dishonest to deny that there was opposition by many to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. These include Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner, Rabbi Shach, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Rabbi Aharon Kotler and many others. -- MrSnagIt (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inclusion of the Satmar Rov is a blatant falsehood. You cannot cite a single word he ever said against the Lubavitcher Rebbe (or vice versa). I don't know whether R Hutner ever said anything in public against him either. Kotler hated all chassidus and chassidim, and his major beef was not with the LR but with his father-in-law; I'm not aware of anything he actually ever said against the LR himself. So that leaves Shach; yes, he opposed the LR, and that opposition played a major role in his career, but what role did it play in the LR's? How was the LR affected by it? There's simply no reason to mention it in the LR's biography, because it's not a significant fact about him, any more than the brand of socks he wore, or the name of his cleaning lady. -- Zsero (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of credible sources for these wild allegations speaks for itself. What is indisputable is that Rav Hutner maintained a correspondence with the LR for at-least the 1953-1973 period, and addressed the LR in his letters with tremendous respect. This is a matter of record, no matter how much consternation it might cause in certain circles. What correspondence occurred during R'Hutners final years will become known in the next year or two, as the publication of the LR's letters from those years goes to press. There is some credible evidence of mutual respect between the LR & the SR,and absolutely none to the contrary. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap-box. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that you use "Kotler" and "Shach", but LR instead of Schneerson. Rabbi Kotler was indeed referring to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson when he denounced his Shor Shenagach speach with an "ehr main az ehr is moshiach". The Brisker Rov also denounced Rabbi Schneerson. Can you please provide a reference for the "Kotler hated all chassidus" statement? MrSnagIt (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs no support. Everyone knows it, including you. The piece he attacked was not shor shenogach but kol baalei shir, which was from the previous LR and had nothing to do with RMMS. Kotler renewed the war against chassidus, and he didn't have the excuse that the original misnagdim had. The GRA and his colleagues made a terrible mistake, but at least they meant it leshem shomayim, not knowing where chassidus would end up. Kotler could see that chassidim are still observant, and he still made war against them. R Chaim Brisker said that nowadays (i.e. in his day) there is no such thing as a misnaged leshem shomayim; kal vachomer that it was so in Kotler's day and in Shach's. Neither of them deserves any respect. -- Zsero (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the Rav Shach page and posted what follows to the discussion. In case you don't see it, here's what I wrote:
Winchester and Zsero's edits to the footnotes have no business in an encyclopedia article about Rav Shach: they are nothing more than an attempt to repudiate the charges against their rebbe. If they would like to create a new Wiki page on "refutations to anti-Chabad charges of idolatry" I'm game. But Zsero's title "this is a footnote, not an essay" is as relevant to his edits as mine.
I cut these two some slack by leaving their footnotes largely intact but adding some corrective information (to the effect that their sources neither corroborated their claim nor, in all but the Tanya instances, had anything to do with their rebbe's sicha).
Therefore, I've largely removed both footnotes - leaving only direct links to the offending sicha so readers can draw their own conclusions (I believe in empowering people to make educated decisions...others seem to disagree). If Winchester and Zsero insist on turning this page into a platform for tangential (and incorrect) ideological rhetoric, I may launch a neutrality complaint.Tikkunsofrim (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An outrageous and factually unsupported accusation has no place in an encyclopedia, unless placed in context, which is what the sources I quoted provide. Insistence on hair-splitting semantics do not do justice to the issue, other than (perhaps) serve as a convenient red herring. Fact is, 'atzmus umehus' is a term used to describe God, largely (almost exclusively) found in texts associated with the school of Chabad philosophy, begining with the Tanya. Claiming it to mean something else because you don't find it in earlier texts, is like claiming that 'google' and 'search' have different meanings, simply because you won't find the term 'google it' in any text more than 20 years old. Thus your contention borders on the absurd, and leads to an obviously invalid conclusion. If you'd like, I have no objection to removing the entire paragraph dealing with that particular accusation of R' Schach, should you wish it to remain, however, context is critical. Winchester2313 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to include references within the article, not just the edit summary. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is. What are you talking about? -- Zsero (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits to Elazar Shach made today. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific - give me an example Winchester2313 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits that needed sources and didn't give them -- Zsero (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester, do you even own a Michtavim Umaamarim? Get your sources straight first before putting up stuff. Are you the same guy as the one who calls himself shloime over here (http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/08/chabad-rav-schachdisputing-attack-on.html), or are you just cutting and pasting and making the whole thing into a mumble jumble?Yonoson3 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I usually just borrow it from the kollel next door - its a mix of 2 different sets, one much older than the other. I will re-check as you suggest, and resubmit the information with details of the edition I'm using. My name is certainly not 'Shloime' (or anything remotely similar), and that blog looks like a lot of drivel to me - somebody there needs some sedatives.... I object to deliberate mischaracterizations being presented as 'facts', and that is what I'm trying to correct here. An encyclopedia should be both honest and neutral. An (even) rudimentary search of the media reports of the '80s and '90s puts the lie to much of what is being said here, and I believe in letting people speak for themselves. R'Schach certainly did - which you seem intent on re-casting. Do you speak yiddish -listen carefully to what he says on those tapes, his yiddish is much better than his ivrit.... Oh, and by the way- you do realize that many of the 'sources' for the stuff in this article are unverified (or unverifiable) single-party accounts from partisan 'researchers' like Shlomo Lorencz, don't you? So Deiah-veDibbur doesn't help much. Winchester2313 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester, would you be able to email those transcripts to libraryplace@gmail.com I'm interested in seeing them. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester, you mentioned on the Elazar Shach talk page that you have the transcripts of those two speeches (Binyanei Ha'Uma and Yad Eliyahu). Being that the Yad Eliyahu one doesn't even have any subtitles on it, I am very interested in seeing the exact wording. Would you be able to email them to libraryplace@gmail.com  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonoson3 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully decline, having seen your performance on these pages. What you surely meant to say is "Having a blatantly revisionist agenda, which has been exposed on these pages and is now obvious to all....I'm worried about which other facts may now come to light". Providing more fodder to a shameless revisionist isn't very high on my 'to do' list at present. I will post more verifiable information here in coming days and weeks, for all to share. Winchester2313 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are edit warring on Elazar Shach. please stop this now, and use the talk page to reach consensus. Remember that this page was protected previously, and nobody wants that to happen again. Failure to resolve your issues on the talk page and continued edit warring will likely result in a personal block against you. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]