| Revision as of 09:56, 4 March 2013 editDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →Time out: Reply to Izak.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:28, 4 March 2013 edit undoBrewcrewer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits Undid revision 542023569 by Debresser (talk) removed personal attack + whining unrelated to article improvementNext edit → | ||
| Line 292: | Line 292: | ||
| :: As to the previous two posts of IZAK: why do you always have to add oil to the fire? You gave it a try a few years ago on ARBCOM, unsuccessfully. You should have restricted yourself to diminishing the issue, rather than blowing it up. ] (]) 08:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | :: As to the previous two posts of IZAK: why do you always have to add oil to the fire? You gave it a try a few years ago on ARBCOM, unsuccessfully. You should have restricted yourself to diminishing the issue, rather than blowing it up. ] (]) 08:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Hello Debresser: How long can one stand aside and watch such a ''bizayon'' ("disgrace") go on and on? How would you like it if the Lubavitcher Rebbe was subjected to the same treatment, you would scream bloody murder. Yonoson approached me on my talk page about the situation, and what should I do? I have blood in my veins too, and it is pathetic to see that this is obviously a subject Yonoson knows a lot about, and is passionate about, yet he gets smacked around by the likes of Winchester and the other anonymous IP addresses who spew unbelievable venom, with no ''derech eretz'' ("manners") all the time who have no other agenda but to make sure that Rav Shach and ''anything'' about him is reduced to ashes and you help him along in that process quite nicely in your own way, sadly enough. I wish it wasn't so. Why don't you leave this subject alone and edit other stuff and stop making Yonoson's life a constant misery, in this regard you act as if WP was part of ] or worse. ] (]) 08:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | :::Hello Debresser: How long can one stand aside and watch such a ''bizayon'' ("disgrace") go on and on? How would you like it if the Lubavitcher Rebbe was subjected to the same treatment, you would scream bloody murder. Yonoson approached me on my talk page about the situation, and what should I do? I have blood in my veins too, and it is pathetic to see that this is obviously a subject Yonoson knows a lot about, and is passionate about, yet he gets smacked around by the likes of Winchester and the other anonymous IP addresses who spew unbelievable venom, with no ''derech eretz'' ("manners") all the time who have no other agenda but to make sure that Rav Shach and ''anything'' about him is reduced to ashes and you help him along in that process quite nicely in your own way, sadly enough. I wish it wasn't so. Why don't you leave this subject alone and edit other stuff and stop making Yonoson's life a constant misery, in this regard you act as if WP was part of ] or worse. ] (]) 08:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::: There are things that I see as a ''bizayon'' to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and I discuss them on the talkpage, quietly and with short and to the point posts. As opposed to you, who write long fulminating and irrelevant posts, interspersed with untruths, in the best traditions of misnagdim, just like Shach. ] (]) 09:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:28, 4 March 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elazar Shach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elazar Shach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Adin Steinsaltz
Regarding the following sentence:
"In the summer of 1989, a group of rabbis including Shach placed a ban on all of Steinsaltz's works."
Winchester2313 took this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=495405170&oldid=495340600), explaining "Removed improperly sourced violation of WP:BLP".
These are the sources I have found so far:
http://printingthetalmud.org/essays/13.html Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum, 2005, pg. 137.
http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=115
Popularizing the Talmud: An analytical study of the Steinsaltz approach to the Talmud by Rabbi Joseph Elias - The Jewish Observer, January 1990, pgs. 18-27. Available here: http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=2</ref>
Are these sources valid?
Yonoson3 (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Instead of repeatedly coming on here and asking silly questions about whether hate-sites or blogs qualify as 'sources', why don't you bother actually reading the guidelines, so you can appreciate what doesn't qualify. Here are some links, to make it very easy: WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR You also (obviously) need to read WP:BLP before continuing your spamming.--Winchester2313 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's another source:
http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp
Yonoson3 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No explanation was given as to why these sources are invalid. I'm restoring it. Yonoson3 (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The Jewish Observer article, as well as the book "Printing the Talmud", seem to be valid sources. Why not? Yonoson3 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No objections given the past several weeks to valid sources, so I'm restoring it both here and on the Adin Steinsaltz page. Yonoson3 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify what sources are being used here:
- There are 4 printed sources:
- 1. Book - Printing the Talmud - http://printingthetalmud.org/essays/13.html
- 2. Magazine Article - The Jewish Observer - http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=2
- 3. Newspaper Article - Yated Ne'eman - http://www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=115
- 4. Newspaper Article - Davar - http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp
- Being that several of the above are from many years ago and thus difficult to get a hold of a hard copy, I also supplied links to websites where these articles can be read in full online.
- Hope that clarifies things. Yonoson3 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sources #1 and #3 check out. After clicking source #2 I receive an error message "Sorry, you don't have permission for that!". Source #4 mentions a ban only of 3 of Steinsaltz works. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding #2, try going here (http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?/topic/225-r-adin-steinsaltz/) and then clicking on the article download. Does that work? Yonoson3 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The policy says clearly that All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material. Since the information Yonoson3 posts here is NOT what the sources he brings say, and also that the Bomberg book says that Rav Moshe Feinstein DID support the Steinsaltz Talmud, so this presents another violation of the Unbalanced policy and many others. Therefore I have removed the information until it is put back with valid sources, as the policy says that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.
* WP:BURDEN * WP:PROVEIT
However, do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- What precisely is the part you think is not supported by the sources? Because I have found the sources to say what Yonoson3 claims they do, including concerning Rav Waldenberg. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no reliable source that says Rav Waldenberg banned all of Rav Steinsaltz's books instead what it says is how Rav Feinstein supported it. The websites and typed pages YONOSON3 brings are not at all reliable. HE has to bring strong sources for this, NOT me as the policy clearly says. So I have removed it again.
- It is in source 2. And I see nothing wrong with that source. And again, you first have to establish consensus. Yonoson3 established that there were no objections before he made his edit, and so far your allegations are factually wrong. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
No it is NOT in there. That (2) is a link to a site which is NOT a reliable source by policy and also to a page which somebody made on a home computer and NOT a published source. I read it now very clearly. And the policy says that if it is about a living person or group itz needs to be a strong source or removed. The BLP policy is what I mentioned before. Also the BURDEN policy. So you seem to make new policies which are NOT those of Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, please keep your posts to the point, and do not make them ad hominem. No need to tell me what I make up, just explain your understanding of the policies and guidelines in relation to the article.
- I have myself seen the name of Rav Waldenberg on source 3 (sorry about the mistake between 2 and 3), saying that he agrees with the words of the rabbis from the BaDaTz about a ban of Steinslatz' works. How do you understand those words? Source 2 is not a reliable source, agreed. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
And it was NOT discussed at all. Yonoson3 put the allegation in and WINCHESTER23 removed it as a violation. The policy of BLP and also VERIFY means that it should be removed until there is consensus that it has a proper source. So in keeping with the policy I will now remove it again.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was announced in this very section, and unchallenged for a long time. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That is not true and it was removed long ago because of the sources not being acceptable and now suddenly YONOSON3 appears to put it in again even after he never responded in an earlier discussion why the sources should be acceptable. I dont yet know enough to search the discussion history fully but I read it here and will find it soon. Also the BLP policy clearly forbids this type of information without a very strong source which needs to be from the editor wishing to insert material.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- And Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines forbid you to revert more than three times within a 24 hr period. And the very core of Misplaced Pages is consensus, which you don't seem to understand either. FIRST discuss, THEN edit. Don't you see that 2 editors (me and Yonoson3) agree here, and disagree with you? So 1 source isn't such a good one, but what about the other 3? I urge you to stop editing first and discuss later, instead discuss first. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
And I find that WINCHESTER23 removed this on June 1 2012 for the same reason and that the policy is VERY clear that the burden is on YONOSON3 to prove why it should be IN the article and that BLP says it should be out. So how do you call that a consensus I read more and more here that YONOSON3 ignores all consensus from all editors here and pushes his rubbish on Shach without keeping the BASIC and OBVIOUS policies. Why do you suddenly attack me when I edit here according to VERIFY and BLP and RELIABLE SOURCES and he does not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.146.213.16 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because you revert sourced information with claims you don't prove. You say that Rav Waldenberg isn't in the source, and I see he is. You claim that source 2 is not up to WP:RS standards, and I agree. But what with the other sources? Note that Winchester123 is an editor here, but he is rather aggressive in his methods, and not always keen on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. So I am forcing you to discuss and consider Yonoson3's edits objectively. For the record, Yonoson3 and I hold opposite views on a lot of subjects, including abut Rav Shach, but I will not let sourced information be removed without good reason.
- If you want to add that Rav Feinstain endorsed Rav Steinsaltz' books, then please do so. But be sure the information is sourced. Do something constructive to make this article better, more balanced.
- I see no BLP violation in the text at this moment. Please point it out to me. The text mentions a sourced fact, in a neutral way. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Look at the sources YONOSON3 brings and you will see exactly why I call him a fraud. Sources number 2 and 3 are not acceptable by policy as reliable. Source 4 is very clear and what is written is that THREE OF STEINSALTZ'S BOOKS (NOT the Talmud) were banned by Shach (a fanatic who banned many things for no clear reason). It does NOT say that the other rabbis banned anything and it only says that Steinzaltz himself said that THOSE THREE BOOKS were edited by others who were NOT IN ACCORD WITH HIS VIEWS OR HIS INSTITUTE. Thatis what source 4 says NOT ANYTHING ABOUT A BAN BY MANY RABBIS ON ALL HIS BOOKS. So YONOSON3 again is exposed as a fraud who lie deliberately to edit and violate BLP and RS. Now we come to Source 1 (The Printing the Talmud website) which only quote from the Yated Ne'eman regarding this ban on all Steinsaltz books. Yated Ne'eman is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE for[REDACTED] about Shach. Again if a ban on all Steinsaltz books really happened it would be able to be VERIFY from sources that are not only relying on Shach himself. Instead of attacking ME you should attack YONOSON3 for all his fraud in lying about this and many other sources what they REALLY say when one reads them.--194.146.213.16 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just want to clarify something: Source #2 is from a Jewish Obsever article years ago. That is a print source. I have a copy of it in front of me right now, and it explicitly mentions the following names:
- Elazar Shach, Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Eliezer Waldenberg (the Tzitz Eliezer), Chaim Kanievsky, Shmuel Wosner, and Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg.
- If you don't believe me, you can call Agudah to get a copy of that old artcile. I put in the link here to jewswithquestions.com just so people can see for themselves, but apparently that link is not working now. But regardless of the reliability of that link, either way the JO is a print article which I beleive is reliable. No? Yonoson3 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- 194.146.213.16, 1. Don't tell me what I should do. 2. Yonoson3 himself also acknowledges that source #4 is only about 3 specific books, and that is not a reason to call him a liar. 3. In general, keep your comments ad rem and not ad hominem. Such is Misplaced Pages guideline, WP:NPA. 4. More to the point: Why wouldn't Yated Ne'eman be a reliable source about Shach? You make this claim without any explanation. And it seems very unlikely to be true, since Yated Ne'eman is a charedi newspaper. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Yated Neeman was started BY SHACH specifically to advance his OWN opinions and views. Therefore it violates the SELF policy. The Jewish Observer also needs a close look if they had an editorial review that is ok for[REDACTED] policy (I do not know the answer yet).--194.146.213.16 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- He might have started it (don't know), but it is a newspaper with a redaction. In addition, it doesn't really matter where he publishes his ban. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Break in discussion
copied from wp:3rr
Both the IP and Debresser are warned not to revert again until a consensus is found about the sources. The dispute is about whether *other rabbis* besides Elazar Schach placed a ban on Steinsaltz's works in 1989. The IP does not deny that Schach condemned the translation but thinks it is a BLP violation to name the other rabbis as sharing his view. I have the article from the "Printing the Talmud" work, page 137, that clearly makes this statement about a whole group of rabbis including Schach and says that the information comes from the English edition of Yated Ne'eman, August 18, 1989, which is a Haredi newspaper. As a temporary matter, the Steinsaltz-ban information could be restored about Schach and you could leave out the other rabbis until an opinion about the sourcing is found at some place like WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N. Perhaps someone can get hold of the 1989 article in Yated Ne'eman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I personally find this solution unsatisfying, as it is a compromise for which I do not see the reason. If the source is good enough, and "Printing the Talmud" definitely is, then why not have the information? Why look for the source of the source? There is no such policy/guideline. Nevertheless, out of respect for the closing editor and to avoid further conflict, with the purpose of allowing for broader input, I will implement the edit as suggested. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
While I do think the IP poster could use a lesson in civility, he/she does raised some serious issues regarding some of the information posted. The wp:aboutself and wp:selfpub guidelines lay down five conditions limiting usage of these type of sources and the paragraph being debated here violates all five. Yated Neeman was founded to directly promote Rav Shach's views which frequently (as in this case) involved attacking other people and groups. It was precisely because other orthodox publications refused to participate in these attacks that the Yated was created. This is common knowledge and therefore until multiple reliable sources can be found that verify the names supposedly involved in banning his talmud, the paragraph should be more neutrally re-written. Since Adin Steinsaltz is quite alive, keeping the paragraph as is also clearly violates wp:blp and wp:sps. The website being used as the main source for this information doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source as it is obviously simply repeating unproven allegations from the Yated. On what basis would this web piece be acceptable as a wp:rs for controversial claims?--Londoner77 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Londoner77, do not remove this information until you have established consensus that your concerns are valid. You have at least two editors who think this information is okay, and the opinion of the admin who had a look at my 3RR complaint also did not mention what you say.
- First of all, about the Yated Ne'eman. If it is founded by Shach, then for sure it is a reliable source for his proclamations. After all, the way to make a proclamation is to go to the press and make a statement. That he used a newspaper that is affiliated with him, rather strengthens the reliability, not weakens it. And again, even though he may have founded it, that does not mean that it doesn't have a redaction that checks what the newspaper is writing. It is still a reliable source. Secondly, about a possible BLP violation. The ban was given out by numerous rabbis and published in various places. After such publicity, there is no longer a concern that we are the ones who give Rabbi Steinsaltz a bad name. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Might I respectfully suggest you read wp:exceptional and wp:selfpub. They both make quite clear that Rav Shach's newspaper would be considered reliable exclusively for stating his own views, and not those 'involving claims about third parties'. My edits to this page were specifically to comply with EdJohnston's suggestion above which you seem determined to ignore. I might add that reading your calling me a 'hothead' brings to mind something about a certain pot and kettle.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I have removed the information since wp:blp explicitly mandates immediate removal. Please see wp:burden if you have any doubts.--Londoner77 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Immediate removal is necessary only when there is a BLP violation involved, which I do not think is the case here. As to hotheads, see my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been studying the guidelines very carefully earlier today, and they are very clear about erring on the side of caution, that is to say that something possibly derogatory (like ones books being banned by many leading rabbis) should be removed until it clearly passes muster by wp:v and wp:rs. At this point it does not. There should also be 'multiple...mainstream...published sources...' while at this point we seem to be confronted with a narrow group of circular sourcing all feeding off a single fringe source - the Yated Neeman.--Londoner77 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I thought you were reasonable, until you called Yated Ne'eman a "fringe source". Perhaps you want to specify this statement of yours? Debresser (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another source:
Northern California Jewish Bulletin, Volume 138, Page ii (San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Incorporated, 1989)
It says the following:
"Among the other Rabbis issuing comprehensive bans against Steinsaltz were Yosef Eliashiv, a retired member of the Supreme Religious Court, and Nissim Karelitz and Shmuel Wosner, both of Bnei Brak" Yonoson3 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And another:
David Landau. "Biblical Scholar’s Books Banned by Ultra-orthodox Rabbis." Jewish Telegraphic Agency 10 Aug 1989. - http://archive.jta.org/article/1989/08/10/2870898/biblical-scholars-books-banned-by-ultraorthodox-rabbis Yonoson3 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding Steinsaltz's apology, as well as claim that some of the mistakes were from the editor's, the Jewish Observer article (referenced above) says the following:
- "But did Rabbi Steinsaltz not disassociate himself from the questionable passages and withdraw the books in which they are contained? When his books were first brought to the attention of gedolim, Rabbi Aviezer Wolfson, of Yeshiva Dvar Jerusalem, wrote to him in private; in his reply, he rejected all criticism and maintained that "all that I have written has a solid basis in the teachings of the sages and the commentaries of the Rishonim and Acharonim." When the accusations became a public matter, Rabbi Steinsaltz did acknowledge that there were grave errors in books published "under my name." In the same vein, his Institute declared that serious mistakes had been found in various books, but that the responsibility lay with others who had edited them. This assertion was publicly and violently rejected by the editors of these books; and, indeed, and article in Maariv (Cheshvan 5) quotes Rabbi Steinsaltz as saying that he goes over the work of his assistants and "is responsible for every word that appears." Yonoson3 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the other statement in the JTA article:
- "The Beth Din (religious court) of Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox Eda Haredit community, however, took a less extreme position, singling out only the two Bible studies for criticism."
- This may have been the intitial reaction, but it seems that later they also took a strong stance. Check out the quotes from Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (president of the Edah at the time) and Rabbi Moshe Aryeh Freund (Chief Rabbi of the Edah) here: http://www.ranaz.co.il/notPublished/article35_19890831.asp Yonoson3 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's another article which makes pretty clear that Rav Eliashiv was on board with Rav Shach regarding Steinsaltz: http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article73_19891228.asp Yonoson3 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing here about Rabbi Waldenberg who was the point of this whole little argument it sems? Makes sense that he never got involved as he was known for doing real work, as a moderate, and had no time for this type of nonsense. Tha Davar article does mention the Edah anyway, so not sure why more proof of that is needed but it seems that Rabbi Waldenberg needs to stay out. Seems that as usual Rav Shach becomes a magnet for strife and arguments just by being mentioned but the page as it reads now gets the point accross without compromising neutrality, so can we all just get along now, LOL?--C Steffen 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- CSteffen, I had also paid attention to that fact. Some curse...? As to Rabbi Waldenberg, he was in the other sources, which still need to be additionally verified, but I have no problem with restoring the information and leave him out in the mean time. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I just think the page as it reads right now does the job of a neutral presentation well and shouldn't be changed unless there are very rock solid reasons for doing so. Reading through all this, it's obvious that most of the original sources were no good for anything even slightly controversial and that the Davar source was. Let's stick to what's in that source and leave the rest alone. The fact that some of those sources made such a very strange claim (about R. Waldenberg) is only more reason to doubt their credentials. He was not into any of these bans and wars that R.Shach was famous for and that is a very well known fact. I'm not sure what Yonoson3 s point is with starting all these content wars. If he's trying to prove that R.Shach was joined by many other rabbis in his wars against other groups, that is just obviously false. RS generally started his wars on his own and was usually ignored by other groups. Shouldn't we just close the chapter here?--C Steffen 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
- If other rabbis joined him, then that is obviously relevant. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Right. And that's why I suggested the page stay exactly how it reads right now. It mentions that point from a reliable source without getting into the nitty gritty of questionable other details that the other sources tried here present.--C Steffen 15:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
Relationship with R' Chaim Ozer Grodzinski
I had added the following paragraphs recently:
Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski would sometimes consult with Shach before making halachic rulings. Among the halachic queries addressed to Grodzinski and relayed to Shach for consultation were some that came from scholarly rabbis throughout the Diaspora. The Chazon Ish once told Shach that a number of times after he had addressed halachic queries to Grodzinski, the latter had told him that he had relayed them to Shach, and how Shach had responded to them.
When Grodzinski published the third volume of Achiezer, he gave a copy to Shach's wife, who happened to be visiting at the time, and said "Give this sefer to Reb Leizer, for whom did I write if for, after all, if not for him?"
^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 351. E.g. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=197 Yeshurun:11:page 196
^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 352
^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 355
^ Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) – pg. 350
These were subsequently removed by I.P. 12.150.29.247 , saying that they violate wp:rs and wp:v.
As mentioned by Jayjg in a previous discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2 "Regarding R' Asher Bergman's book "Path to Greatness""), "Feldheim is a reasonably respected publisher of Judaica. If you believe the book to be unreliable, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N."
Anybody agree with me that the sources from this book are valid?
Yonoson3 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Feldheim is certainly a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. And the info is relevant, if even it reeks a little of overly praise. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The information you want to put into the article here is so incredible that you need more than just one source, especially when that 'source' is a book written by the subjects grandson and is full of stuff that all falls under wp:exceptional. Here are just a few of the obvious problems:
- Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski was the undisputed posek of his time, maybe the first time someone's halachic authority was as widely recognized and accepted accross the spectrum of orthodox communities. To believe that he sent halachic queries to a wandering young teacher who never even became a posek - ever - is a real stretch.
- Whether R' Shach later became an official posek later on in his life is immaterial. R' Chaim Ozer valued R' Shach's opinion as a talmid chacham, so he asked him to look into certain shaylos... Not really such an "unbelievable" claim.. Shach may not have been internationally renown at the time, but to those "in the know" (e.g. Brisker Rav, R' Chaim Ozer, Chazon Ish), his Torah opinion was highly valued... Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not immaterial at all. In the 1920's Rav Shach was (at best) just another unknown yeshiva lecturer, and considering that he never even served as a rabbi anywhere, the idea that he was consulted on matters of practical halacha is ludicrous. The claims made by 'Path to Greatness' are very exceptional and don't belong in an encyclopedia unless there are multiple sources. Read wp:exceptional before trying this again.C Steffen 06:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
- Likewise to imagine that another (later) major posek - the Chazon Ish, would have his queries 'forwarded' by the greatest halachic authority of the time to a junior lecturer in a yeshiva is just crazy.
- The claim that Chaim Ozer Grodzinski said he told Rav Shach's wife that he wrote his book for her husband is obviously fake, as Rav Grodzinski writes very clearly in his introduction to both volumes WHY he was publishing the books, and Rav Shach is not even mentioned once!!
- The quote was probably just R' Chaim Ozer's way of showing Mrs. Shach how much he valued her husband. I wouldn't call it "fake", but after thinking about it, I agree that it is unnecessary to be included in the article. But I still think the other quotes should remain.Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- All of these claims coming from a grandson who is way too young to possibly know any of these supposedly true fairytales firsthand makes it all even stranger.
Yonoson3 needs to get some unrelated sources that qualify under wp:v and wp:nor to support this information before sticking it back onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- All the stories are well-documented and sourced. As mentioned earlier, an example of R' Chaim Ozer asking Shach to look into a shayla is documented here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=197 Yonoson3 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice try Yonoson3 obviously can't read Hebrew, or just thinks he can make stuff up and misquote sources with incredible chutzpa!! The one letter you're trying to make a standard out of, shows NOTHING of the sort. Shame on you.76.66.210.60 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- "הגרח״ע ביקשני לעיין בזה" Sounds pretty clear, no? Yonoson3 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Not really. It's just what was supposedly 'discovered' by his weak son in-law after Shach croaked. It takes a real sucker to believe that but if you do, have I got a bridge to sell you!! Not to mention that those words just mean "asked me to look into it", no big deal. Stop trying to make Shach look like more than he was, namely, a bitter old man who couldn't stop spewing hate at any and everybody who wasn't exactly like him. Sore loser is all he was. Just listen to ANY speech of his and all you hear is weird rambling with a lot of hate and attacks mixed in.76.66.210.60 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of things to criticize about Rav Shach, but I don't think this kind of language is apropriate when speaking about a Rabbi, especially after he's already dead. --C Steffen 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
That is simply not true. I read 'Path to Greatness' for a few hours today, and almost everything in there is undocumented hearsay. Claiming to have been told something by some unidentifiable rabbi or other doesn't mean 'sourced'. Why not read wp:rs before editing any more, so you can get an idea of the type of materisl that[REDACTED] considers reliable? C Steffen 06:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
- A few of your points go well with what I meant by "overly praise". After all, this Shach guy was not such a big gaon. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- "After all, this Shach guy was not such a big gaon." Debresser, that was uncalled for. You're personal opinion of how big a gaon R' Shach was is not relevant. (Are you a baki in Avi Ezri that you can evaluate his geonus?) (FYI, read the Brisker Rav's haskama on the Avi Ezri. And read this kuntrus:"Halacha K'Rabbi Elazar" and this sefer "Pineenai Rabbeinu H"avi Ezri" if you want to know more details...) Yonoson3 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is relevant, because based on that fact I find it hard to believe that revered older geonim would consult with him. Debresser (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- "After all, this Shach guy was not such a big gaon." Debresser, that was uncalled for. You're personal opinion of how big a gaon R' Shach was is not relevant. (Are you a baki in Avi Ezri that you can evaluate his geonus?) (FYI, read the Brisker Rav's haskama on the Avi Ezri. And read this kuntrus:"Halacha K'Rabbi Elazar" and this sefer "Pineenai Rabbeinu H"avi Ezri" if you want to know more details...) Yonoson3 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Avi Ezri is a pretty 2nd rate attempt at pilpul, and its sad if thats what Shach is supposed to be judged by. What a loser. The Avi Ezri is irrelevant in most yeshivot, for good reason!76.66.210.60 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please check out the beginning of Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner's letter here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=237&hilite= and Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik's approbation here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47354&pgnum=59 and the quotes from the Steipler here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50717&pgnum=48. You're personal opinion about the merits of the sefer "Avi Ezri" are irrelevant. Yonoson3 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean Shach scored some boilerplate haskomos on crap he stuffed into a book he published....wow!! The man was never a halakhic authority or anything unique, except for his crazy hate and attacks on so many people/groups, THAT was unique.76.66.210.60 (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's much more than that. The timeline of the lives of Rav Chaim Ozer, the Chazon Ish, and Rav Shach make the stories spun by Asher Bergman almost impossible to believe. The printing timeline and introductions to the 'Achiezer' basically confirm that a lot of the stuff in 'Path to Greatness' is just pure fantasy. C Steffen 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
- Please specify what you mean. How does "the printing timeline and introductions to the 'Achiezer'" show that the information is "just pure fantasy"? Yonoson3 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I just don't have the time to spell out every obvious tall tale in dumb (and obviously false)hagiographies more than I already did above, but if you keep trying to insert stuff that fails wp:v and wp:exceptional I'm pretty sure you will get reverted. Why not actually read the guidelines for a change instead of robospamming the page?--C Steffen 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)
Kuntres Chiddushim Ubiurim al HaRambam Hilchos Na'arah Besula
I recently added this link to the "Bibliography" section:
Kuntres Chiddushim Ubiurim al HaRambam Hilchos Na'arah Besula
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21194&st=&pgnum=130
It was subsequently removed by 74.8.80.215 (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=528663834&oldid=528663594).
I think it belongs here because it is a significant pamphlet written by Shach himself, and most of it is not published in the Avi Ezri.
What do the other editors think? Yonoson3 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- If that bibliography is supposed to be complete, then I don't understand why it was removed. If it is supposed to bring only the most important of his works, then this one can be removed. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added as it is just an article in a magazine by the looks of it. If it gets properly published as a separate book then it should go in but not like it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.29.247 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, this is such a highly specific subject, that it is not a very notable work. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Works
I've removed a lot of the nonsense that Yonoson3 has plastered the page with, true to form. Seek consensus as to whether unverified nonsense some student or other claims to have divined from Shach belongs here BEFORE inserting as per the relevant guidelines.--Winchester2313 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- These are not "unverified nonsense" that are "divined from Shach". They are accurate transcripts from many of Shach's speeches. For those that don't believe me, here you can read (at least part) of some of them for yourself:
- Machsheves Mussar
- Machsheves Zikainim
- Yonoson3 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The 'unverified nonsense' referred to your other multiple (and unsourced) edits on the page which violate WP:V and WP:RS. You've already been warned regarding your linkspam and cluttering the page here- Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_1#Bookspam, and WP:EL and I would advise you to read and begin complying with the rules. I intend to file an ANI requesting your being banned from editing this page the next time you violate the rules here. It's been long enough.--Winchester2313 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding these edits 1 2 3, they are sourced in the following two books:
- Harav Schach: Shehamafteach B'yado by Moshe Horovitz. Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem. 1989.
- Path to Greatness – The Life of Maran Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach, Vol I: Vaboilnik to Bnei Brak (1899–1953) by Asher Bergman, translated by Yocheved Lavon. Feldheim Publishers
- An that's precisely why I added these two books to the "Further Reading section" Yonoson3 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- And regarding this edit, all those seforim, are, as I already mentioned, direct accurate transcripts from many of Shach's speeches. Yonoson3 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Your patently false claim of consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Continued_-_Regarding_quote_from_Mishpacha_magazine_about_Chinuch_Atzmai is typical of your dishonesty when editing here. It seems that no matter how many times Yonoson3 is asked to comply with basic policy here and on his talk page, he is determined to ignore the guidelines and force hagiographic propaganda onto the page. The book "Path to Greatness" by Shach's grandson (Asher Bergman) is a silly hagiography full of hearsay and stupid exaggerations like the claim that "Shach served as honorary president of hundreds of yeshivas....", among other nonsense, and NOT a reliable source. WP:V and WP:EL make clear that the burden is on the contributing editor to make the case for inclusion, something which seems sadly lost on Yonoson3, false claims of consensus notwithstanding. I have removed some of the more egregious violations of WP:COPYVIO and WP:V in an attempt to maintain compliance on the page.--Winchester2313 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier by Jayjg (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Regarding_R%27_Asher_Bergman%27s_book_%22Path_to_Greatness%22), "Feldheim is a reasonably respected publisher of Judaica. If you believe the book to be unreliable, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N." Yonoson3 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- And BTW, the quote "Shach served as honorary president of hundreds of yeshivas" is from a different book: "In Their Shadow: Wisdom and Guidance of the Gedolim Volume One: Chazon Ish, Brisker Rav, Rav Shach" Yonoson3 (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Time out
I was contacted on my talk page and informed about this discussion. I am not arguing content but just reading the way things are unfolding here yet again is disturbing. This running battle is tiresome. The core problem seems to be that User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) is merciless in his anti-Shach POV and resorts to constant WP:EDITWARRING and WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) who retains a calm demeanor and never insults anyone the way Winchester does. Just reading the hostile, rude and ruthless language of Winchester is sickening and it is amazing that Yonoson even has the patience and stamina to put up with the torrent of constant verbal abuse and sheer hatred that Winchester has for the subject of this article. But that should be no surprise because it reveals the POV of a typical pro-Chabad editor for whom hatred of Rabbi Shach is a given because of things Rabbi Shach "dared" to say about the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe. While Yonoson tries to improve this article, and debates about sources are always welcome and should be amicable, yet this page always has warring on it, and it is a great shame. Every single accusation that Winchester hurls at Yonoson could just as well be about the way the pro-Chabad editors go about painting their own heroes in "glorious colors" but no one has the patience to enter into the kind of edit wars at Menachem Mendel Schneerson, or Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn or Shneur Zalman of Liadi about whom pro-Chabad editors use the greatest of hagiography to paint as saints while Winchester sits "guard" over here with a metaphorical "winchester" using the worst sort of WP:LAWYERING literally shooting down anything Yonoson may add that he hates. Please take your disputes to WP:TALKJUDAISM where more informed editors can give their views (I will notify editors over there to check in here , yet again), but this infighting must stop, or else there will be a need to re-open the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement case with Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) as a prime example of what's wrong with a pro-Chabad editor who forgets that WP is NOT the place to wage battles and settle scores by harassing and threatening other editors who are trying to improve this article in good faith. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note that Winchester does not function here alone, he is aided all the time by various pro-Chabad/anti-Shach editors editing from anonymous IP addresses, they should be banned from editing in such a contentious environment, while User Debresser (talk · contribs) is trying somewhat to act in a more balanced way, but he does not really help as he adds layers upon layers of bureaucracy and cover for Winchester and the other anonymous IP editors who always have their guns blazing and don't give an inch, making it very frustrating for a serious editor to work on this article. They should find another hobby and stop harassing good faith editors at this article, that's easier said than done, because it is literally one of the Chabad movement's obsessions, so they feel they must be here out of some sort of "blind allegiance" to their dead leader (MM Shneerson) whom they feel was insulted by Shach who called him a "false messiah" which is the beginning and the end of why they even bother with this article when there are thousands of others they could hang around. It's all quite crazy if you think of it, and a gross waste of time. IZAK (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with IZAK that Winchester is a little too aggressive in his talkpage posts.
- I also agree with Winchester that there are too many external links to works of minor importance in this article.
- The reason I didn't react till now to the post on my talkpage asking me to state an opinion, is that I feel that both sides are a little at fault here: one editor overly praising and the other overly belittling.
- As to the previous two posts of IZAK: why do you always have to add oil to the fire? You gave it a try a few years ago on ARBCOM, unsuccessfully. You should have restricted yourself to diminishing the issue, rather than blowing it up. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Debresser: How long can one stand aside and watch such a bizayon ("disgrace") go on and on? How would you like it if the Lubavitcher Rebbe was subjected to the same treatment, you would scream bloody murder. Yonoson approached me on my talk page about the situation, and what should I do? I have blood in my veins too, and it is pathetic to see that this is obviously a subject Yonoson knows a lot about, and is passionate about, yet he gets smacked around by the likes of Winchester and the other anonymous IP addresses who spew unbelievable venom, with no derech eretz ("manners") all the time who have no other agenda but to make sure that Rav Shach and anything about him is reduced to ashes and you help him along in that process quite nicely in your own way, sadly enough. I wish it wasn't so. Why don't you leave this subject alone and edit other stuff and stop making Yonoson's life a constant misery, in this regard you act as if WP was part of Chabad.org or worse. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Lithuania articles
- Low-importance Lithuania articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Politics and government work group articles needing infoboxes
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of politicians and government-people
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
- Biography articles without infoboxes
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles