Talk:Bobov (Hasidic dynasty)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Need balanced view

JFW: You're right about the need for a balanced view. IMO, you shall move the last paragraph on the protected page to a new title Rabbi BZ Halberstam. End the Bobov article with a mention of the issue, but remove the single side propaganda. Seems that the greatness of these rebbes, in the eyes of their online chasidim, depends on the PR (Page Rank...) on the web.

need unballanced

Someone with some knowledge of current events in Bobov should write something about the split about who should become Rebbe, and "Bobov 48th Street" mentioned in the Borough Park article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 09:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel as an outsider I can give a fair view, although I might be predjudiced to one side over the other, I feel that very simply wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts and not a editorial section of opinions. the fact of the matter is that there are presently two Bobover Rebbes, just as there are two Klausenberger Rebbes, and four Viznitzer Rebbes, and two Skverrer Rebbes, and three Chernobyler Rebbes, and countless Spinka, Nadvorna, Biala, etc. Rebbes, etc. Even though there is dispute among the two sides, the fact of the matter is that there are two men, both Hassidic Rabbis, who are condidered by varied congregations to be a, if not the, Bobover Rebbe. This is a fact, despite the fact that the two sides are not happy about that. Most of the rest of us either don't care, or see nothing wrong with there being two Rebbes, just like so many other hasidic courts that split. Nothing will make a chassid of Rabbi Ben Zion become a chassid of Rabbi Mordecai David, nor vice versa, as is true with Viznitz and Satmar and any other chassidus where such a split has or, as it seems eventually might, occur. In big kehillos such as Satmar and Bobov what is wrong with this? They are so big it is worthwhile to have two Rebbes in order that each individual chassid will have an oppurtunity to be close to his Rebbe, since there are less people in line ahead of him, etc. However, wikipedia is not the place to have this discussion. The only thing that has to be mentioned is that "after the passing of Rabbi Naftali, the Bobover sect has split into two groups. Rabbi Ben Zion, half-brother of Rabbi Naftali, is the Rebbe in the Bobover Synagogue on 48th street. Rabbi Mordecai David Unger, the son-in-law of Rabbi Naftali is the Rebbe of the Bobover congregation of 45th street." No more has to be said because those are the facts. All the rest is opinion or conjecture. It doesn't even need to mention the fact that there is a machlokes, much how in the article about Karlin (Hasidic dynasty) there is no mention about the bitter machlokes between Pinsk-Karlin and Karlin-Stolin. The article merely mentions that there are these Rebbes who are presently scions of the Karliner dynasty (I'm not a karliner chassid either), etc. These are the facts, even if Karlin-Stolin doesn't recognize the right of Pinsk-Karlin to exist, etc. It is interesting that over the summer there was a meeting in Mayor Mike Bloomberg's office concerning the issue of metzitza bepeh. Many Rabbonim, mostly prominents Chassidishe Rebbes, were there, including both Bobover Rebbes. Reb Ben Tzion was introduced as "the Bobover Rebbe". Reb Mordeche Dovid was introduced as "the successor of the previous Bobover Rebbe". This is a fairly accurate description of the two, as Reb Ben Zion is the successor of Reb Shlomo and Reb Mordechai Dovid is the successor of Reb Naftoli. some might want to add that the followers of Rabbi Ben Zion suggest that Reb Mordechai David should be called the Kurtshiner Rebbe, since he is a Kurtshiner einekel, but this is surperfluous, since Reb MD and his followers call him Bobover Rebbe. Although there is more to be said on places like hydepark, etc, (i.e. the rights of each side, such as the concept of yerushah which would go to Reb MD, or the fact that Reb BZ was made Rav HaTzair, which indicates that he was expected to be the successor, etc.) however, here on wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia of facts, it is sufficient to say that Reb BZ, the son of Reb Shlomo, is the Bobover Rebbe on 48th st and Reb MD, the son-in-law of Reb Naftali, is the Bobover Rebbe on 45th st. Maybe the Bobover chassidim aren't happy about this fact, but one has to be mode al ha'emes that there ARE two rebbes, whether one likes it or not, and that's all that has to be mentioned here, and no more. This is the way this has been handled with all other multiple rebevistes discussed here on wikipedia, why should bobov be different? however i feel to be fair that there should be both a picture of Reb BZ and a picture of Reb MD, as well as links to both of their hydepark forums, and not cutting out one or the other, since in actuality today they are both bobov. there needs to be no discussion in the article about who has more or that Reb MD wants the old shul, etc. the article just has to say who each one IS, not what people want to make of them. any comments?[User itzik18]

How can you as an outsider say "the fact is" when I see that you don't even know the facts?!!

Well I'm an insider and i know the facts the way the are. Just because you say that the fact is that there are two bobover rebbes doesn't make it so, and because rabbi Unger and his followers call themselves bobov doesn't either make it so. That fact is this, the previous Rebbe R' Shlomo made it clear more then once to his closest people that he wants both of his sons to be rebbe after him, but what he didn't want was bobov to split as other chasidus do, therefore after the older son R' Naftuli passes on, then comes R' Benzion. When R' Shlomo passed away, R' Naftula himself agreed that his brother should become Rav Hatzuir which everybody knew it meant that he is next, and if you would ask any chasid of R' Mordechai Duvid including R' Mordechai Duvid himself a year ago, who is the next in line to be bobover rebbe they would all tell you the same thing that is was R' Benzion, but what happened since R' Naftula was sick the last year of his life, Rabbi Unger took advantage and tryed to get himself a following of people, and when that day came he had enough people to try to make a case that he should also be bobover rebbe, and they took R' Benzion to beis din. And Beis Din will decide if he is boboer rebbe or not. But meanwhile its only Rabbi Unger and his people and some other people calling him so, and the fact is also that most yiden wordwide don't recognize him as bobover rebbe,. Therefore it is not a fact that he is bobover rebbe, it is maybe a fact that he calles himsef bobover rebbe but that doesn't make it so. [user]

He is as much of a Bobover Rebbe as the Pinsk-Karliner is a Karliner Rebbe. I personally agree with the side of Reb Ben Zion, just because it makes more sense to me (I wrote the article above - i'm the outsider). The fact that he was made Rav HaTzair is proof to me that Rav Ben Zion was expected to be the successor. However, it is chassidim who make a Rebbe, and the fact that one quarter of the old Bobover chassidim have made R' MD into something is a fact, whether people like it or not. But to me it's pashut that he has no right to the old mosdos, those of course should belong to Reb Ben Zion. But Wikipedia is not the place for this type of politik. I myself, even though an outsider, call Reb Ben Zion "The Real Bobover Rebbe" when I am talking to my friends, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that three blocks away there are almost a thousand people who think otherwise. It's just like in Satmar, even though Reb Zalmen Leib will probably get all the mosdos etc., because of Moshe Gabbai (and it's probably not coming to him though) but Reb Aharon's chassidim will always be his chassidim. But i personally agree that Reb Mordche David should call himself something else, like Kurtshin, or even Kurtshin-Bobov. But once again wikipedia is not the place for these types of opinions. [user: itzik18]

Thank You itzik for agreeing with me. First let me just correct you with one thing, first you wrote "one quarter of the old Bobover chassidim" and then you wrote "almost a thousand people", well Bobov didn't have 4000 chasidim before this whole thing happened, the correct amount was about 1600 people & then a quarter which is the true amount would be 400 people, just a correction. And the comparrison you make to Pinsk-Karlin is wrong, because they had a Din Torah already & that was the Psak of the Beis Din, but here were still in middle, & Beis Din might say that he can't call himself Bobov or he has to add a name to Bobov, But everybody agrees that R' Benzion is deffinately Bobov. Now that we agree that R' Benzion is & should be the Bobover Rebbe, then why can't it be written in wikipedia that R' Benzion is the Bobover Rebbe & that R' Mordechai David & his chassidim call themselves bobov, wouldn't that be the correct way to write it??

interesting

isn't it interesting how the Satmar articles on Wiki don't have this problem? they simply say each one will eventually co-rule the dynasty. Bobover1 (talk · contribs)

Well, the edit warring was certainly a lot more low-key than here. Those pages would have been protected otherwise. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo overload

The page is starting to look like the middle page of the Hamodia. Can we decide which ones truly need to be included? JFW | T@lk 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

what's wrong with having one picture of each rebbe? it's only a problem if you have multiple pictures of the same person.

I have moved here (from the Rebbe article) a picture of Reb Shloimo zy"o. I am cleaning up the Rebbe article and the picture does not fit in there. Redaktor 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for sources and clarification

I've done some copyediting. The article looks quite nice, but woefully lacks sources. There must be an English-language historical account of Bobov, which could be used to support its history in Poland.

As for the succession debate, I'm aware that there are NPOV issues here. The page presently describes Rabbi Unger and the 45th Street as breakaways. The way I've understood the debate is that Rabbi Unger sees himself as a rightful heir to the Fourth Rebbe's leadership. As such, the article will have to describe him as such.

However, WP:NPOV states quite clearly that a view needs to have a significant support base to warrant inclusion. As Hamodia is silent on the whole issue I can only ask here:

What numbers are involved in the Reb Bentzion/Rav Unger debate?
Are there any newspaper articles/journal articles that could guide our coverage of this unfortunately dispute?
Are there plans to have the dispute adjudicated, e.g. by other Rebbes or lehavdel in a secular court?

These questions will need to be answered to make this article neutral. Remember that Hillel and Shammai are credited with citing the other party's views first, and I think it would be commendable if you could ensure all sides get a fair coverage here, JFW | T@lk 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Information should not be suppressed

Information on Bobov (both sides) should not be suppressed. Everyone has a right to find out for themselves what Bobov (both sides) looks like; & what the people have to say. I would like to mention that Rabbi Mordche Duvid Unger; one of the two contestants for "Bobover Rebbe", will not allow an official web site; therefore his followers use different forms of media; which should not be suppressed here. Let Reb Ben Zion's followers put here all the links that they think will inform the public; & let Rabbi Mordche Duvid's followers put here all the links, they think will inform the public. (The "private" are already mostly informed). Issac 19:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This echoes my message above. Again, any official media will do, from newspaper reports to press releases to radio speeches & what have you. A website is not a prerequisite. JFW | T@lk 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for changes

Originally I had planned to explain every dotted i that I touched; but I came to the conclusion that explaining every detail of my changes will not bring kovod for Bobov; therefore I will give a general explanation which should incorporate all my changes; & if anyone is still not satisfied; then let him specify where I might have erred & we'll discuss that issue here.

I removed or modified all wording that was put there to push a viewpoint of any side.

The article needs to mention where the dispute is; because that’s the only way that both views of the dispute can be included. Both main arguments are put forth here.

The choice & amount of photos has to be neutral; therefore there should be a photo of every Rebbe. Each side should put the best picture they have of their Rebbe. If anyone can produce a better picture of the Rebbe Reb Naftule; it would be greatly appreciated. Issac 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

217.136.56.47, I am also a Chusid of Reb Mordche Duvid Unger Shlit"a, but the kuved of Bobov & more importantly the Kvoid Shomayim stands higher to me then both Rebbes. I beg you; please don't dump any garbage here; at least not on the main article page. Wikipedia is not your soap box; it is supposed to be a neutral place where all points of view are reflected in a professional way (regardless of your feelings). To you & everyone else; I will mercilessly delete or change the articles to reflect a neutral point of view. Believe me; our yashrus has gotten us where we are; not sticks & stones.

207.127.40.204, Your attempt to remove the words disputed & the words presently on in order to make Reb Ben Zion, the de facto Bobover Rebbe, when there is a Din Torah going on right now; exactly on those points; wasn't lost on anybody. No, Reb Ben Zion is presently in 48 Street; only because Reb Mordche Duvid correctly held back his Chassidim from fighting in the Beis Hamedresh; and opted instead to fight the Jewish way; not by physically fighting. Also Rabbi Rubin is a Grand Rabbi not a Chief Rabbi. A Chief Rabbi is the highest ranking Rabbi of a city or town; not of a Chassidus or Kehila. In Hebrew a Grand Rabbi who is not a Rebbe is called an Avda"k (אבד"ק), not a Gave"d (גאב"ד). Issac 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is wrong. The term Grand Rabbi is a reference to an אדמו"ר and the term Chief Rabbi (in English in reference to a chassidishe kehillah) is a reference to an אב"ד - look at all the litigation in the Satmar case. The Satmar Rebbe, shlit"a, is called "Grand Rabbi of Satmar" and Rabbi Zalman is called "Chief Rabbi of Satmar - Williamsburg" and Rabbi Aaron is called "Chief Rabbi of Satmar - Kiryas Joel". As far as גאב"ד vs. אב"ד you are right. However, in the 45th street kehillah Rabbi Unger is the אדמו"ר or Grand Rabbi and Rabbi Rubin is the אב"ד or Chief Rabbi. This is the standard English usage in reference to Chassidishe kehillos. Itzik18 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Itzik18, You have some valid points. Let me take it apart. The terms Grand & Chief are loose translations of the Hebrew; that means, not exact; but they are used loosely whenever needed to fit the situation. Usually a Chief Rabbi means the Rabbi of all Rabbis of a country, commonwealth, or city; in that sense it translates "Harav Horoshi" quite exact. But in all other cases it is used as a last resort; as in your example Reb Aharon & Reb Zalmen Leib can't be called "Grand Rabbi" because their father has that title; so the next biggest word is "Chief Rabbi". Here in the Bobover case because Reb Mordche Duvid has the title "Rebbe" & Reb Yehoshua Rubin has the title "Ruv" and you can't call them both "Grand Rabbi"; so one way to deal with this is the way you differentiated between the two; as "Grand" & "Chief" Rabbis. But as I had stated before that's as a last resort; to me using the title "Chief" rubs me the wrong way, because it evokes connotations of "Harav Horoshi" or an "Indian Chief" or "Chief of Police", "chief suspect", "Chief intelligence officer", "Chief interrogator" etcetera etcetera. Therefore differentiating the two with "Grand Rebbe" & "Grand Rabbi" makes very much sense; because in most other Chassidus, where the Rebbe is the Ruv & the Ruv is the Rebbe; these two titles are quite interchangeable; because some prefer the title Ruv & some prefer the title Rebbe. In Galicia "Ruv" was considered a higher title then "Rebbe" (because to be a Ruv, you need to be able to learn; but to be a Rebbe, it is enough to be a Rebbes son); therefore Belz & Bobov preferred calling the Rebbes "Belzer Ruv" & "Bobover Ruv" respectively; everywhere else that I know; "Rebbe" was considered a higher title because "Rabonim" they had enough; but to be considered a "Rebbe" was to be considered as "Ah Giter Yid" or a holy man a "Baal Mofes". That's why the Hungarian Satmerer Chassidim called him the "Satmerer Rebbe" but The Galicianer Satmerer Chassidim called him the "Satmerer Ruv". The only thing that has to be; to make the article fair & neutral (they might not be the same thing) is to call Both Rebbes "Bobover Rebbe" or both Rebbes "Grand Rabbi". Issac 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I never heard the term "Grand Rabbi" being a reference to a "Ruv" who is not called "Admor". It would either be "Chief Rabbi", "Head Rabbi", or just plain "Rabbi". Itzik18 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Itzik18, The reason you haven't heard the of term "Grand Rabbi" being a reference to a "Ruv" who is not called "Admor"; is because we simply don't have any precedence of a new phenomena where the Rebbe is not any more the Ruv & the Ruv is not any more the Rebbe. You might say; look at Biyan they have a Rebbe & they have a Ruv (Rabbi Eliezer Eichler)? The answer is Rabbi Eichler is not Ruv of the entire Biyoner Chassidus; he is only Ruv of the Boro Parker Biyaner Beis Medresh (some might say over all Biyaner Chassidim in America); but on the other hand Rabbi Yehoshua Rubin is Ruv over all Bobover Chassidim of the entire world who accepted Reb Mordche Duvid Unger as their Rebbe; & he cannot get fired; the Rabbunes goes "beyerusha". Besides he is looked at, as equal in power to the Rebbe; but their functions are now divided. In your article months ago when you started editing the Bobover articles; you brought out a good observation, that Bobov is so big that it might be a good idea that it split; because one Rebbe cannot give personal attention to so many Chassidim. I'll take it even further; that what to me in the beginning looked like a big "bedieved" that the position of Rebbe/Ruv split into two; now looks to me like a "lekatchilla" that all other Chassidus should imitate; because the "Rebbe" is busy all day with the Rochniyos & gashmiyos problems that his Chassidim want his advice on; & the Ruv is busy all day officiating at simchos & lehavdil aveilos; besides that he is on top of all the mosdos with all the issues that come up with such a big Chassidus with so many mosdos. So because the term "Grand Rebbe" (as in the Grand Rebbi of Lubavitch, where the title Rebbe is seen as far superior then the title "Ruv" & I might add that the Lubavitcher Rebbe probably wasn't considered a "Ruv" but a "Rebbe" with the "hey hayedia") & the term "Grand Rabbi" are both given to a Rebbe/Ruv interchangeably to fit a certain situation; therefore here in Bobov where Rabbi Rubin is seen as much more then a Rabbi of Rabbis; we need to be creative & utilize the terms that have already translated the Hebrew loosely until now; & not be shy to apply the term "Grand Rebbe" to Rabbi Unger & the term "Grand Rabbi" to Rabbi Rubin. Besides that I have already explained above that nobody in Bobov is going to translate Rabbi Rubin's title to "Chief Rabbi" because it just doesn't sound right. The translations until now are not etched in stone with strict rules; not to be adjusted forever. Look, I'm the world's foremost authority on my own opinion; but I'm very curious to know what other people have to say about it; and if they prove me wrong then I'll admit to it. As you can see, I wasn't quick to change the wording; I'm keeping an open mind.

This subject goes much deeper because once upon a time a Rebbe lived in a town & he was called by the name of his town "so in so Rebbe"; but the town also had a Ruv; which sometimes caused a lot of friction because the Rebbes word was final not the Ruvs. When the Ruv passed away; sometimes the Rebbe got the title Ruv too. Now we went even further; all Chassidus are not any more situated on the ground from where they originated. Not only Chassidus but also Rabbuness is today only a name or to some a "Landsmanshaft" & in reality nobody has a real right to any name; because if someone would pick himself up today & move to Europe & become Ruv over a town; he probably has more right to that name of the town then all the "einiklich" combined. There is much more on the subject; but I'll leave it for another time. Any comments? Issac 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the present way is the most NPV that it says "present Rebbe of --th St" instead of "Disputed fifth Rebbe" Bobover1

Bobover1, Writing present Bobover Rebbe of 48th Street Synagogue is wrong; because it gives the impression that Reb Ben Zion was crowned there Bobover Rebbe which is not true. He was crowned in his brother in law's house. But on the other hand Reb Mordche Duvid & Reb Yehosua Rubin were actually crowned in their father-in-laws; the last Bobover Rebbe's house. So he cannot be considered Bobover Rebbe & surely not Bobover Rebbe of 48th Street unless he wins the Din Torah. The only thing you could say, is that he is presently in control of the 48th Street Synagogue; but grabbing it by force shouldn't give him any higher standing then Reb Mordche Duvid who rightfully & courageously didn't let his Chassidim fight for it. So for now he is presently in control of the 48th Street Synagogue; but as far as who is the halachacally Bobover Rebbe of the 48th Street Synagogue - that is in dispute.

Let not your feelings get in the way; because that causes a one sided POV Issac 21:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Presently Reb Ben Zion is the Rebbe in 48th and presently Reb Mordechai Dovid is the Rebbe in 45th. that's how it is presently 209.155.49.3

No, that is incorrect. 45th Steet is just a geographical location where Reb Mordche Duvid has presently rented a building; tomorrow he might rent a place in 46 Street or for that matter on 48th Steet; so saying that Reb Mordche Duvid is presently Rebbe in 45 Street has no meaning, because 45 Street is not an entity; he is presently Rebbe; but not necessarily in 45th Street. But on the other hand Forty Eight Street is not just a geographical place where you can say that Reb Ben Zion is presently; Forty Eight Street is much more then a place; it is a concept; so when you say "presently so in so is Rebbe in 48 Street; you are saying that he is the de facto Bobover Rebbe & the other is contesting it. What you could say is that Reb Ben Zion is presently in 48 Street but you cannot say that Reb Ben Zion is presently Rebbe in 48 St; Rebbe in 48 Street is in dispute and in Beis Din.

Reb Mordche Duvid has been indented & Reb Ben Zion was not indented to conform to uniform style of the other hasidic articles - If you're giving a genealogical breakdown then you're right as in the Viznitz & Belz articles where it is under the caption Lineage of the Viznitzer Dynasty & Lineage of Belzer Dynasty respectively. But here under the caption Outline of the dynasty you're giving a successorship chart similar to the Ger Article where Reb Simcha Bunim & Reb Pinchus Menachem are indented to show who succeeded whom. Therefore here it needs to conform to the Ger article to take away any confusion and innuendo.

Now regarding the title Head Rabbi. I never heard of such a description; so I did a google search & found that it is occasionally used to translate ChachamBashi or Rav Horoshi. What I also found is that most of these translations come from Israelis who simply translate Roshi to literally Head; but you will not find this translation in any professional translation. So here where the position of Grand Rebbe and Grand Rabbi has been divided; what's wrong with translating, one Grand Rebbe & one Grand Rabbi (especially when Head & Chief doesn't sound right? Issac 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ortho, another good edit. By adding the Ruv before Grand/Chief/Head Rabbi it makes its following English title more sensible. Maybe it would be a good idea to have an article on "Ruv" to explain what that title is all about? Issac 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The coronation of Reb Naftule as Grand Rebbe & the announcement that Reb Ben Zion is "Rav Hatzair" (Junior Rabbi)

Here is a free translation of the "Hachtorah" (coronation/crowning) of Reb Naftule as Grand Rebbe, at the levaye of the Rebbe Reb Shlomo. The tape is in the possession of hundreds of people & was made public at the time.

Everything in parentheses (), is my own observations. Where I don't have the precise translation at my fingertips, I left the Hebrew word.

The speech is by the Rosh Hakahal (Lay President) of Bobov Rabbi Moshe Meir Einhorn. The entire speech is in bold.

Bepkidas (By the request) of this holy congregation, I was selected; that we should crown (The congregation starts crying), in place of our Rebbe Adoneini Moreini VeRabeini Zichroinoi Livrooche (a lot of crying); today to crown (more crying), the Rebbe's holy son (more crying) Adoineni Moreini VeRabeini, Harav Hatzadik Reb Naftule Shlita (crying). He should be madrich us (crying), until the coming of Moshiach (crying) speedily in our days Omein, Mazel Tov (and the congregation answers Mazel Tov) (more crying).

Bepekidas (By the request) of this holy congregation (crying), I was selected (all crying stops & all ears are perked up to hear what he has to say), that I should notify; (then he repeats) announce and notify; that Harav Hatzoir (Junior Rabbi), Harav Hatzadik Reb Ben Zion, the son of Moreh Moreini Adoineini Moreini Zichroinoi Livrooche.

The children of the Holy Ruv Zichroinoi Livrooche should lead us (crying resumes) towards Moshiach Tzidkeini; speedily in our days Omein (and the congregation answers Omein).

(Here are my observations:

For Reb Naftule; he uses the word Machtir zein (to crown) twice; and for Reb Ben Zion he uses the word Modia zein (to notify) twice; but the second time he adds Machriz imodia zein (announce and notify).
He doesn't announce that we are even making Reb Ben Zion Rav Hatzoir; but instead he speaks in the present tense that Harav Hatzoir, Harav Hatzadik Reb Ben Zion, the son of Moreh Moreini Adoineini Moreini Zichroinoi Livrooche (as if it was forced upon him) and doesn't end the sentence.
In the coronation of Reb Naftule as Rebbe, he uses the words mir zolen machtir zein (we should crown); but in the notification of Reb Ben Zion as Rav Hatzoir, he uses the words az ich zol modia zein (that I should notify) then seeing that he hasn't said enough; he repeats himself this time with machriz imodia zein (announce and notify). Nowhere does he say that we should make Reb Ben Zion Rav Hatzoir; it seems like he is announcing what somebody else has decided.
Also note that there is no Mazel Tov.
Where the congregation becomes emotional and starts crying speaks for itself.) Issac 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question; Does the RMD side consider RBZ to still be Rav Hatzoir?Tinokshenishbeh 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

technically yes, but like all younger brothers of rabbis who went on to open their own kehilla, he isn't regarded as holding a position in bobov. Daveisland (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobov Today

Somebody changed the Bobov succession section, making it pro-BenZion, unfactual, and insulting (e.g. "stupid"...) to the 45th-st. side.

The present version by 209.155.49.3 seems to be a very good balance of providing substantial information as well as keeping it NPOV. Very good edit, IMO.ShalomShlomo 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are the new pictures more appropriate? 70.23.175.238

70.23.175.238, I will assume that your question is an innocent one (correct me if otherwise), since your record is too new to indicate anything else.

The picture of Reb Mordche Duvid and also the picture from Reb Yehoshia Rubin were brought in from Hydepark by someone who I suspect didn't have the best of intentions. Those both pictures were posted on the forum Chadoshos Anash by Reb Ben Zion's a Chasid who deliberately chose the worst possible pictures he could find (and maybe even doctored it up) to portray them in the worst possible light. Right before that, he rightfully posted the best possible picture he could find of Reb Ben Zion. For him and all those who helped him be mevei'yish a Yid; I would say; you know what the Gemora says about someone who is mevei'yish es chaveiro berabim; and I would advise you to ask from them mechiloh. I am sure (knowing them to be good hearted people) that they would forgive you.

My only regret is for not doing this earlier. I hope I made it clear enough. Issac 16:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't both be pictures of them in Rebbishe bekishes with colors and strokess? 70.23.175.238

70.23.175.238, Rebbishe bekishes with colors and strokess are worn by Rebbes usually when they fir tish or when they dance. In my opinion the main picture of a person should be what they look like in normal life; on an ordinary day. It is also nice to have additional pictures of them in costume and on special occasions. An appropriate picture of them would be in a hat not a steimel. The picture I posted is there temporary until someone loads decent pictures of them individually what they would look like on a weekday. Issac 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bobover Rebbes wear strokkess all the time and colors most of the time, even during the week. the picture of Rebbe Ben Zion is one from before he was Rebbe, and therefore slightly disrespectful. The picture of Rebbe Mordechai Dovid has him with rezhvolkes, which cover the bekitshe with strokes. Itzik18 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Itzik18, you are missing the point. The picture of Reb Mordche Duvid is not inappropriate because it shows him with a bekishe & strokess; it is simply a bad pose which doesn't portray him in a good light. This picture as I have already stated was brought in from Hydepark, possibly with good intentions; but it was posted on Hydepark by a Roshe who posted this picture & also a picture of Reb Yehoshua Rubin looking droopy, with sinister intentions.

I agree with you that the picture of Reb Ben Zion should be updated with a better picture. As my Rebbes son; it would be a kovod for him to have his son portrayed in the best possible light. BTW I mostly blame his misfortune on his power hungry advisors who still keep him in the dark on the whole situation & he is a very big rachmones for being in the clutches of such people. If anyone really cared for him, they would tell him the honest truth; unfortunately he is currently surrounded by a few layers of body(mind) guards. I'm waiting for the day that I'll be able to give him the respect he deserves as a son of my holy Rebbe Reb Shlome and that Bobov (all of them) will again be the symbol of peace & gentility (tzi Gott in tzi leit) that it was for over a hundred years.

Now regarding the choice of pictures; any pictures that portray all of them in a good light is fine with me; I won't impose my preferences on anybody. Issac 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is everybody’s not just yours

This is for 24.184.185.31 & username Bobov.

Wikipedia is meant for everybody not only for you; therefore when something is in dispute; all points of view POV are represented; which produces an article with a neutral point of view NPOV.

When how to write an article or what to include in an article is in disagreement then everybody spells out their reasoning in the edit summary and on the talk pages until a formula can be agreed on which takes into consideration all POV's.

If a compromise still cannot be agreed upon; then there are other ways on how to proceed; including involving administrators.

But simply changing an article without bothering to explain is considered in very poor taste. Changing an article multiple times in this manor is considered vandalism.

Step number one: Give yourself a name; that makes you more legitimate; not a hit and runner.

Step number two: Explain yourself and join civilized society.

In particular; username "Bobov" deleted entire sections of other peoples (not mines) hard work. Painstaking detail that were added; were deleted with one stroke of the vandalizers brush; even the replacement of masoret for hydepark done for understandable reasons wasn't spared; which tells me that no copyedit was done here; but rather an old opinionated article with all its faults & propaganda were dumped here on all of us; all to satisfy the selfish ego of one. Issac 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Issac

Hello Issac I gave myself a name "Boruch" (originally 38.117.192.215). Sorry, as I am new to this I did not realize how this works. I will join civilized society and explain myself.

1) "and many others his half-brother, Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam"

I think for a balanced approach it should say and many supporting his half brother, Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam"

2) "His followers are presently in charge of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street"

I think for a balanced approach the word "presently" should be dropped.

3) "which many assumed meant that he could be a successor. The meaning of this title is currently before a Bais Din (Jewish court), to decipher what its intent was, to Bobover Hasidim and to the people involved."

For a balanced approach this should read "which was understood by his followers that he would be the successor. The meaning of this title is currently before a Bais Din (Jewish court), to decipher what its intent was, to Bobover Hasidim and to the people involved."

4) "where his Synagogue is temporary located; because the main Synagogue is presently controlled by Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam's followers"

For a balanced approach - "where his Synagogue is located; because the main Synagogue is controlled by Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam's followers"

5) "the reigning Bobover Rebbe because according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited"

For a balanced approach "the reigning Bobover Rebbe as his followers feel that according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited".

6) Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam's claim of Rav Hatzair is currently before a Bais Din ("Jewish court"), who will decide if it has any merit.

This line should be dropped.

FYI - From your article there is no question where you are located (45). I do consider myself impartial to either location. I learned in Bobov over 25 years ago. Last week I davened in 45 and the week before in 48. I do not think that the article should be slanted to either side. My kneejerk original reaction when I made changes was to slant it towards 48 - however all I want is an unslanted article. Boruch

Hi Boruch; I'll be happy to have a discussion with you; time permitting. You write that you consider yourself impartial and all you want is an unslanted article; but in the same sentence you write that your knee-jerk original reaction was to slant it towards 48; hardly an impartial person.

You are correct that I am in 45. I do not consider myself impartial for I have clearly taken a side. That having said, if you look into my record of all my contributions to date; you will clearly see that my being here in Wikipedia is not to push my point of view but to stop a massive chillul Hashem. If I wanted to push my point of view then I would be writing in Hydepark; but if you read Hydepark regularly you won't see me there; and I hope never ever to write there; for it doesn't take much to ignite there a fire in which someone will eventually be burnt; and I will have no part in hurting anybody, be it 45th or 48th or for that matter anyone else.

Before I came here; everyday there was action & reaction by each side trying to out do the other. I contemplated numerous days what to do; on the one hand I was afraid that I might trigger a bigger chillul Hashem over here; but on the other hand I thought that I do have a chance of stopping this because Wikipedia is not Hydepark; here their are lots of fair minded people who can see another persons POV and they have the power to stop abusers whose only interest here is not for the purpose of Wikipedia, but to use Wikipedia as another form of weapon to further their interests. Also I thought that Hashem has blessed me with a decent pen; so bemokem sha'ain ish - hishtadel liyois ish (where nobody steps up - step up to the plate) and I must admit that the first few edits I did trembling, not being sure that I have done the right thing by entering the fray. From the get go I started neutralizing the article to be seen from the glasses of someone who doesn't have an opinion on the subject and wants to know what is Bobov & what the dispute is all about. For this purpose both arguments need to be presented but more important, nothing that is in dispute can be written in the definitive. Therefore for example your writing that RBZ was declared Bobover Rebbe by most Bobover Chasidim is considered by many to be false; because do you call a roomful of people in the Dayens house to be called most Bobover Chasidim? Did anyone ask most Bobover Chasidim what they thought? Or was it a few who decided to take things into their own hands and shove it down the throat of all of us; and then say that anyone who didn't as yet join 45th is de facto considered a 48th Streeter. Why couldn't it wait, as responsible people begged to wait out the Shiva so that cooler heads will prevail and try come to a peaceful compromise; the way most of us envisioned it for the last few years?

It's getting late for Shabbos & I don't know how much time I'll have the coming week to answer all your arguments which some might or might not be correct; so I'll leave it at this for now and next week I'll try to iron out & explain why the insertion or deletion of certain words are warranted. But keep one thing in mind; I don't think anybody of us wants to see RBZ thrown out on the Street; but rather to come to a fair realization of reality and everything that transpired in the last 5 years and come to a peaceful resolution so that all of Bobov can continue in the way it always was, as a symbol of peace & gentility. Issac 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Issac

My kneejerk reaction was to correct what I perceived as impartial, and in getting upset over the slant towards 45 I went and slanted it towards 48. I contend that I am impartial, and should you meet me you would agree that I am impartial.

I must compliment you on a beautiful page and would like to further discuss the points I have raised.

Ah Freilichen Purim. Boruch

Hi Boruch,

If that's the case then I take back any harshness of tone on my part; you seem to be a nice person. My words were directed; not necessarily only to you; but to anyone who comes along and disturbs the equilibrium. Now let's discuss.

The compliment which I would like to accept really goes to all the people who have given of their time to enhance this article; but thanks anyway. This article is way not finished; the Bobover history is an illustrious one which one day, not in the so distant future will shine again. But in the meantime we have to make the Bobover articles look as best as we can make it to look. To do this; if you pardon me, I'll take you as an example. You're obviously a newcomer and probably any idealistic newcomer goes through the same process. First you see an article which looks to you to be slanted to one side, so the knee-jerk reaction is to slant it the other way; then comes along another newcomer who now sees it slanted the other way and has the same knee-jerk reaction to slant it again to the other side; and this process goes on and on and on. This is the best case scenario where impartial people do the editing; now can you imagine when very opinionated people arrive; all hell breaks loose.

Therefore the solution to this problem is to have the article represented in a neutral way by representing all points of view, and spelling out the reasons for each point of view POV. Each POV needs to have enough to satisfy the possessors of that view, so not to invite them to vandalize in desperation. Also as I have already written; nothing that is in dispute can be written in the definitive because it again invites vandalism. BTW this is in addition to the real reason behind having an article with a neutral point of view.

Now I'll come to the changes you put forth.

1) #1 To change from "and many others his half-brother, Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam" to "and many supporting his half brother, Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam" is fine with me; I don't see anything significant in this change except maybe in adding the magical word supporting. Such and similar changes, if the syntax and grammar are correct won't get a reaction from me.

2) #2 To drop the word presently and also #4 to remove the word temporary would only invite anger by Bobover Chasidim who consider RBZH presently in 48th Street and RMDU temporary in 45th Street until after the Din Torah when everything will hopefully be settled; and by removing these words the article looses its NPOV.

3) #3 To change from "which many assumed meant that he could be a successor." to "which was understood by his followers that he would be the successor." wouldn't be correct because the dynamics have changed; you have people who understood that RBZH would be the successor who are now followers of RMDU and vice versa; you have people who are followers of RBZH who didn't assume at all that RBZH must be the successor and knew exactly how he got the title Rav Hatzoir; who out of convenience or for other reasons are presently/temporary in 48th Street.

4) #5 To change from "the reigning Bobover Rebbe because according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited" to "the reigning Bobover Rebbe as his followers feel that according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited" I think wouldn't be correct because RBZH's followers do not necessarily have a different opinion of what the Halacha is but rather they think that the situation is different (due to the title Rav Hatzoir) and also they argue that they know what the Mahrash's Rotzen was; but as to what the Halacha is, that leadership is inherited, there isn't much dispute.

5) #6 The words "Rabbi Ben Zion Halberstam's claim of Rav Hatzair is currently before a Bais Din ("Jewish court"), who will decide if it has any merit." cannot be dropped because it is the minimum rebuttal on the part of RMDU's followers to one of the major arguments on the part of RBZH's followers; without going into the unnecessary details which will only inflame people.

I know, there will always be those that will still be angry; because for them; only their way of thinking should be represented. For that we have administrators to make sure that they won't prevail. Issac 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

209.155.49.253; Regarding the indentation of names; the subject was already discussed in Explanation of changes, that if you're giving a genealogical breakdown then you're right as in the Viznitz & Belz articles where it is under the caption Lineage of the Viznitzer Dynasty & Lineage of Belzer Dynasty respectively. But here under the caption Outline of the dynasty you're giving a successorship chart similar to the Ger Article where Reb Simcha Bunim & Reb Pinchus Menachem are indented to show who succeeded whom. Therefore here it needs to conform to the Ger article to take away any confusion and innuendo.

Since then, the Gerer article has been changed to neither a genealogical nor a successorship chart, but rather to a listing of all Gerer Rebbes without any indentation. Therefore either it is changed back to how it was or made to look similar to Ger (for what reason I don't know). Issac 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Issac

Thanks for your explanations. What you are saying is sensible, however I still think there should be a change in "which many assumed meant that he could be a successor." to "which many assumed meant that he would be the successor." Thanks to everyone who has taken part in making this a beautiful article. I also look forward to the day that Bobov stands for Sholom again. Until I saw the links on the front page of Wikipedia I never went to Hyde Park. I strongly feel those links to Hyde Park are a shandeh and should be removed immediately, even more important than any changes we are discussing. Boruch

Boruch You got it. I made this change and also the change you requested; to add the word supporting.

Now regarding the Hydepark links. I totally agree with you that the Hydepark links are a shandeh; but these links were already here when I arrived on the scene; the only thing I did regarding the links was to neutralize the situation because the links to see the opinions of RMDU's followers were vandalized to dead ends, so I fixed them. Also when one of 48th Streets site & one 45th Street site moved to Hydepark masoret; I adjusted those links immediately because eeh ikeh darke achrine .... IMO The links serve a certain purpose here to inform or others would say to misinform those Wikipedians who don't have another way of knowing or acknowledging the situation. Also anyone who has access to Wikipedia, already had access to Hydepark; therefore let's first hear from others what they have to say. Issac 16:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This line is completely false!

3) #3 To change from "which many assumed meant that he could be a successor." to "which was understood by his followers that he would be the successor." wouldn't be correct because the dynamics have changed; you have people who understood that RBZH would be the successor who are now followers of RMDU and vice versa; you have people who are followers of RBZH who didn't assume at all that RBZH must be the successor and knew exactly how he got the title Rav Hatzoir; who out of convenience or for other reasons are presently/temporary in 48th Street.

Every bobover chasid knew & understood that RBZH will be the next bobover rebbe, there was no doubt about it, but since RMDU broke away & made his own chasidus & there were people who hated RBZH because of propoganda & lies that were said on RBZH the last few years, so they decided to go after RMDU, but it still doesn't change the fact that everybody in bobov & as well in the whole chasidishe community knew that he will succeed his brother. Shlome

My dear Shlome;

You are fully entitled to your opinion that, "That line is completely false"; but I, am also entitled to my opinion that, that line is completely true.

Yours truly was at the levaye of the Maharash and the first thing I said after the levaye was that "Reb Ben Zion has a chance to become the next Rebbe - if he'll behave". Most people breathed a sigh of relief, that a machlokas had been avoided for now. A month later I was saying that Reb Shmerel is giving him good advice. But the honeymoon didn't last for to long. Before we knew it, people were ba'reding (speaking ill on) our holy Rebbe, Reb Naftule in his own Beis Hamedresh (something unheard of anywhere else) and the eidele Bobover Yingalat were tolerating it with all kinds of Terutzim.

The whole purpose for Reb Ben Zion's people (call them followers) who wanted badly the title Rav Hatzoir for Reb Ben Zion (which has no precedence in Bobov) was exactly to make sure that "everybody in bobov & as well in the whole chasidishe community should think that he will succeed his brother"; but a lot of Bobover Chasidim knew and thought otherwise. They knew exactly what transpired for him to get this title, and they also knew that this title meant absolutely nothing; nothing was assured. Although most of Reb Mordche Duvid's over thousand Chasidim (me included) didn't know whose Chasidim we will be; what we surely knew was that we won't be RBZ's Chasidim. Some had even made other plans. Even some that thought at the time, that they will eventually be RBZ’s Chasidim changed their mind because as I (in my opinion) correctly wrote that the dynamics had changed. The insubordination to the Rebbe, Reb Naftule, Shabbos Bereishis and the happenings of the day after, totally changed everything forever. The people behind this need to come to grips with what they have done; only then, will we all live happily ever after.

If you'll try to be a little open minded; please tell me why you choose to accept the line that "there were people who hated RBZH because of propaganda & lies that were said on RBZH the last few years, so they decided to go after RMDU" and you totally want to ignore other reasons (the ones I already spelled out above) that motivated such a mass exodus? I am sure that most of us, do not, at all hate RBZ; it's pure nonsense.

Also let's assume for a moment (which I totally disagree with you) that "Every bobover Chasid knew & understood that RBZH will be the next bobover rebbe". So let me ask you, did you really think then, that Reb Ben Zion should absolutely get it regardless of anything that he would do during his wait? Was he given a blank check? Besides if the Eidimer (son-in-laws) would have stepped aside, it would have been more out of courtesy then out of requirement (by halacha they aren't required to step aside; and by halacha, a brother doesn't inherit if there are son-in-laws). In my opinion RBZ's people forfeited everything by what transpired in the last five years; and any good will to step aside went up into the air a long time ago. If you want to blame, then blame them; one day RBZ will blame them.

Reb Mordche Duvids Chasidim don't agree with you that "RMDU broke away & made his own chasidus"; because he and Reb Yehoshua Rubin were duly crowned Bobover Rebbe & Bobover Ruv respectively, starting in the previous Rebbe's house in the presence of the Rosh Hakohol of Bobov and other Bobover dignitaries. The only reason why we're in 45th Street is because RBZ's followers pushed us out the day after with the help of the police; and the Rebbe courageously didn't let us fight for it, opting instead to go to Din Torah and avoiding a bigger chilul Hashem. Then as a result, a mass exodus followed, which was a kiddish Hashem. But as far as chasidus goes, we consider ourselves Bobover Chasidim and we consider Reb Mordche Duvid Unger, the Bobover Rebbe and Reb Ben Zion as our Rebbe's uncle and a Rebbe to his followers (people aren't necessarily considered followers).

Whatever your answers are, at least half of Bobov doesn't think like you; and their opinion is at least as valid as yours in the eyes of Wikipedia. Therefore the article needs to remain neutral Issac 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Isaac,

So you're saying that because at least half of bobov doesn't think like me therefore the article should be neutral!? So what if I would prove to you that at least 75% of bobov thinks like me then would you change the the article to the correct version?????????? 69.112.63.43

69.112.63.43, To the correct version, I would always change it regardless if I like it or not.

Wikipedia NPOV stipulates that "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one"; also "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented".

This is what I wrote on another talk page "Wikipedia couldn’t care less who has the bigger crowd. As far as it is concerned every article needs to be presented with a NPOV and this article is no different".

To Wikipedia it doesn't make a difference if we're 25 percent (your angels version) or according to my analysis that for every Bobover Chasid who will clearly say that RBZH is his Rebbe, there are at least two that will clearly say that RMDU is their Rebbe; which in reality gives RMDU the majority of Bobover Chasidim worldwide. The Kedushas Zion's (the third Bobover Rebbes) grandchildren; were almost all by RMDU at the Yohrzeit of the Ruv Zichroina Livrocho and you will agree with me, that almost none support RBZH; and quite a few support RMDU including the Frishvassers, Stempels, Twersky's and quite a few Halberstams.

We proposed by Beth Din a long time ago to go for a vote and let's see who has the majority of Bobov, and we would abide by its outcome; but your side declined. If you're so sure with your numbers, then why are you afraid of a vote?

Therefore we can argue all day and night on the numbers; and it would not make any difference to Wikipedia what the exact numbers are. For outsiders it is impossible to verify the numbers unless we go for a vote; and for insiders an honest analysis would be based on multiple sources of data, which I am more then equipped with the facts and figures if needed; but I think for both of us to agree on the same analysis of the numbers, would be an act in futility.

I'm done with this subject; I rest my case. Issac 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi pardon me for intruding but I was reading this discussion and I must say Issac you are wrong regarding the voting. There was a voting several times and RMD lost. Once was the vote for camp mesivta there was a tally who had more boys and RBZ won as noted in the psak B"D. Second time was for Camp Gila's new board members and the count was 47 to 17 in favor of RBZ when 45th went to secular court, to stop it, even though they had signed in B"D that they wouldn't. Even 'HOT' chasiddim on 45th have agreed that it is a 70/30 split in favor of RBZ. I would put these number at less but who am I, right? Take for instance the fact that an average 1/3 of the yeshiva went to RMD, some classes more some less. But the truth is you gotta ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Where are the alter yidden, specifically R' Naftulcha's friends, the males over 60? Don't say the word furniture, that's very insulting.

2. What would R' Shlomo want? Yes his opinion counts, if you are a real Bobover chassid, the answer should be self evident. When asked regarding who should be the next rebbe he said " Naftulcha, mit benzion tzim rechten hant"

3. What did R' Naftucha want? Well, he was was overheard often asking that his children be 'taken care of'. Obviously he didn't expect his children to be be rebbe. He was also heard several times requesting "ich darf es nisht, macht mien brider rebbe" (I don't need this, just make my brother rebbe) note brother NOT my son in law. R' Naftulche who knew his father's will wanted to skip himself and go straight to his brother. As a side note the chassidim would never let him off the hook, and we miss him very much but you have do face the facts, if you had asked anyone 4 years ago who would be the next rebbe of Bobov the answer would've been RBZ.

4. Why does the B"D paskin everything in favor of RBZ, surely the B"D would make a p'shura as B"D's are wont to do. Again I humbly request that you try not to insult anybody with words like corruption or strong arm. Remember the B"D was selected by both sides and mutually agreed upon as totally impartial. Please note that both strayings from B"D to the secular court were done by 45th. I'd like to point out that the court sent the first petiotion back to B"D the first time, due to R' Shloima's earlier intervention, this later influenced the 2nd court action.

There's more but honestly I doubt anybody will 'convert' due to this discussion. "To thine own self be true". 24.184.164.108

Hi 24.184.164.108; you're not at all intruding; everyone is welcome here. Most of the questions you raise have been discussed in the numerous Bobov talk pages. I would gladly answer and address them again; but that would only turn this into another HydePark which is a major Chilul Hashem. Suffice it to say, that what the wishes, of the free'erdiga Ruv Reb Shloime and the Ruv Zichroinoi Livroocha Reb Naftule are; is hotly debated; that's where Halacha comes in. After all they didn't leave a will (that we know of); and can you imagine the Chakime Deyedueh (the wisest of the Jews) who surely knew that there will be a problem, to say the least; didn't leave a will & testament; but according to 48 Street entrusted all this VERBALLY on the fly, to two insignificant people; instead of calling in the leadership of Bobov and entrusting them? This question begs an answer.

(The answer is; either he "did" leave a tzavo'ah (will); but someone got rid of it; so then the next question is; who would have an interest of disposing with it? Another more plausible explanation might be; that he knew that he had a problem; but he also knew that he had NO solution; so he instead relied totally on Hashem; for which 45 Street would quickly add; that Hashem clearly answered his prayers. Another possible explanation might be that they thought that; the question "who should be Rebbe?" is a personal thing; and they don't "own" anybody to tell them what to do; so they opted to rely on Hashem that everything will turn out good. All this is mere speculation; but the question is better then the answer).

Regarding votes, the Beth Din; and accusations against 45 Street; I would rather leave those unanswered & not get dragged into a heated discussion of accusations & counter accusations; because what counts here; is that each side in Bobov has a considerable amount of Bobover Chasidim; and it makes absolutely no difference to Wikipedia if we have thirty percent; or sixty percent in my estimation. Wikipedia has to stay neutral.

After the psak din (verdict) or peshora (compromise); Wikipedia will need to be changed accordingly. I just want to correct you on one thing; which is that every side chose a Borer (arbiter); and by definition they cannot be considered impartial. It is to hope that at least the other three will be impartial and by so doing will make a Kiddush Hashem; but by all likelihood there will be a peshora & I personally would accept a "fair" peshora and let us get it over with.

And last; I am Chas Vesholem not calling the people in 48 Street "furniture"; I know them very well; with a lot of them being really very Choshiva people; but it doesn't change the fact that 48 Street has a lot of bodies, not souls, there (they are not there with body & soul). They are there out of convenience or other reasons. While everyone in 45th Street is a true Chosid; the same cannot be said about 48 Street; and that’s where the major difference lies. In a vote you have no idea how many in 48 Street would have voted for Reb Mordche Duvid.

I have no interest in anyone "converting" (if that’s the right word); but for everyone to be true to themselves; to be a Chosid of whomever they want; and let there be Sholem al Yisroel.

I must compliment you for writing like a Bobover; even though we agree here on very little. It’s the first good signs coming through here. Issac 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rav Issac, Thank you for taking the time to answer me. I fully understand where you're coming from. If I may ask one more thing, you said ' In a vote you have no idea how many would have voted for Reb Mordche Duvid.' true. But in reality there were votes, twice as I noted. Once regarding camp mesivta in which, even though the bies din was counting bucharim, RBZ won the tally. and the second was for the camp gila board. The last count was 47 to 17 in favor of RBZ when a secular court action was initiated to halt the voting. 47 to 17 hummm... taking into acount that there are numerous, bodies only, that only makes 48th case that much greater. If I may also respectfully say that you are wrong with 'While everyone in 45th Street is a true Chosid' my shver goes to daven at RMD on occasion but, as he told me, would only go with a k'vitel to RBZ. So, from personal experience, I know that not 'everyone in 45th Street is a true Chosid'.

Have you ever thought that the reason R Shloime didnt leave a tzavoha regarding the rabistiva was due to the fact that he NEVER had a doubt that R Naftulche and then RBZ would be rov? I'm not saying such is the case, but on the other hand you cannot prove otherwise so, sorry the 'that he knew that he had a problem; but he also knew that he had NO solution' doesn't fly with everyone. Of course we are only expressing opinions and as the saying goes, 2 jews 3 opinions.

Begging your indulgence for 1 more reiteration, you didn't respond to the placement of R Naftulcha's friend ie the yidden over 60 whom of which, as i'm sure you agree, still daven on 48th. Don't you think that their opinion matters? B'ezras Hashem, Judiasm has survived the millenia by listening to those who are older and wiser, surely the virtue of this alone should make one sit up and listen. Look at the median age group at both locations.(FKA24.184.164.108) For simplicity sake you can call me Chaim

My dear Reb Chaim;

I'll say it for the umpteenth time. I have no intention in washing our dirty linen in public; I have already said too much. If you'll read all my comments to date; you will see that I stated emphatically that my purpose here is not to have an endless debate, who is right & who is wrong & who did what to whom; for that there is a Hyde Park.

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and naturally everyone wants it to state that they are right; not only on Bobov but on every subject. But Wikipedia doesn't decide who is right; it only states all opinions and takes a neutral point of view. My purpose here is therefore to make sure that nobody turns this into a one-sided article, regardless which side; but every now & then somebody comes along & argues that I'm Bobov & you're not; and slants the article; so I have no choice but to respond.

What you are asking for is totally unnecessary; it doesn't serve the purpose for which this talk page was created. What you are asking; is for a boxing match; but I'd rather shower you with the praise you deserve; instead of giving you a bloody nose (figuratively speaking). As you know; on Hydepark; every conceivable argument was endlessly debated and after failing miserably they have come here. I didn't want to go there, so they came here. Hydepark as you know is dead; and a lot of people are now licking their wounds. This is Wikipedia not Hydepark; I hope you know the difference.

It's very easy to lose sight what I'm here for; I'm surely not here to hurt you. Let’s not forget what this talk page was created for. The talk page was primarily designed to debate content of the main page; but it also serves other purposes; as it is the fuel which fuels Wikipedia. Without it; everyone would in frustration storm out of here; then no Wikipedia. Some have abused it; but nevertheless it serves a good purpose.

By making allegations & misrepresenting the facts; you are forcing me do what I do not want to do; which is bringing more unpleasant facts to the table. I had already rested my case over six months ago; so the only reason that I answered you; was to dispel the notion that your assertions are correct by leaving it unanswered; but not to wallow in mud again & again. I'll try for the last time to respond to those arguments that have a direct affect on why Wikipedia has to present both sides equally & I'll try to stick to generalities rather the specifics.

To me all this Court/Beis Din accusations; is silly stuff; everybody who is on the raw end of the stick; all of a sudden "sanctimoniously" accuses the other with wrongfully going to court. As you know the same Torah halacha that states that a Yid is mechuev (obligated) to go to Beth Din; the same Torah doesn't allow people to hide behind it & take advantage by keeping their adversary hostage to it. Both sides went to court on different issues; both sides say that they went with reshus and they had a heter (permission) to do so. There are a lot of guidelines & exceptions; for which I & maybe you aren't qualified to second guess the Rabbonim involved in it. If anyone wrongfully did it; then let them do teshuvah (repentance). Enough said on that subject.

I want to correct you on the 60 & over argument. The Rebbe Reb Naftule ZT'L would've now been 75 years old. As you know there are almost no Bobover Chasidim between the ages 61 & the late 70's because Hitler YM"S killed almost all of them. Now regarding the older ones & elderly in Bobov; not counting those that have positions, we have a fair share of them; including the descendents of the Kedushas Zion, where we have the lions share. But in reality that doesn't change anything here as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Now to votes. I'm talking here on the offer that we proposed to have a real vote of all Bobover Chasidim; as to who should be the "Bobover Rebbe"; and we are ready to abide by its results; I wasn't referring to board elections where board members were manipulated. So if 48 Street claims that they have the majority in Bobov then why did they reject it?

In reality no one has fifty percent of Bobov; for a substantial amount of Bobover Chasidim haven't accepted as their Rebbe any of the two; but for all those Bobover Chasidim who actually are Chasidim of their Rebbe; and by that I mean, that they don't just give a kvitel but actually will heed to their Rebbe's advice; in short; real Chasidim - of those, Reb Mordche Duvid Unger has at least sixty percent & I wouldn't be surprised if he has much more then that. If you’re talking about any other votes; then surely take into account the over half of Bobov that voted with their feet.

Now regarding the wishes of the previous Rebbes; all of these quotes & numerous others; is merely hearsay with everybody believing what they want to believe; the bottom line is that there is no tzavo'eh; so in that case the Halacha kicks in. What I do want to say is that Reb Naftule's piety & ani'ves (humility); is not a license to disinherit him or his children; and yes; he did know who he's up against; which might explain some of his outbursts. After all; he wasn't given his part of his inheritance; and he in his piety didn't push it; he wasn't even allowed to take kvitlech in his fathers kvitel shtieb (office). Now that he is gone; not even lip service is given him in 48 Street; they are not even pretending that he was Rebbe; with some like you, who miss him; but some who would have wished that he never be born.

Last; to the main point which concerns Wikipedia. By your statement and admittance that in the board elections we got thirty percent; and that was in unfair board elections. So there is no point in proving that we have the majority of Bobov. Wikipedia NPOV stipulates that All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. Even if you don't consider us the more popular one; we are still a significant part of Bobov. Many people never thought that RMDU would have such an oilem (crowd) with a Chasidus in exile; & were scared to risk their parnoseh (livelihood); and by the time they realized their error; it was too late; all positions by us had already been filled. Had we stayed in 48 Street; conceivably we might have had also a good portion of those that are now in 48 Street; but even without them we are a very significant part of Bobov and growing.

So I hope I'm done with this; and for the umpteenth time. I rest my case. Issac 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC):

Dear Reb Issac, There is an expression 'uber yuh uber nien'. It seem to me that you very elequently state your opinions, but other opinions are labled 'misrepresentation of facts'. Just like RBZ's followers cannot prove, that what they feel is right, is true, I find that your statments are too, based on your own thoughts and feelings. The only real facts are in fact either court papers and bies din decrees. I am not ch"v looking for an argument, just, as you wrote, Wikipedia readers are entitled to an unbiased few. Just a thought, would you consider noting that, to date, the court has dismissed both actions against RBZ? And note too, that according to jewish law going to secular court is wrong, after all these are facts that are undeniable, not your or my personal opinions? Please also note, that every single Beis Din Psak, to date of course, has been in favor of RBZ, after all the readers need all the facts. Oh, I almost forgot, you feel that daas torah is uh, let me quote, 'all this Court/Beis Din business; is silly stuff' hum... is that a fact or just your opinion? And if anybody else is reading this, please don't believe that R Naftulcha's memory is stepped on. I'd like to point out that R Naftulcha, in his will indicated that he did NOT want a fuss, like valet parking in a rented hall for his yortziet. I'm sure he approved of the ner tamid put up near his fathers. I'm sure he's happy that His brother spoke about him in glowing terms (I was there) at his yortziet, when the kehilla had a sefer torah written for his neshuma. Anybody, who was close to R Naftulcha, knows he would do whatever his father wanted. Reb Issac, I have pity for you, following blindly. Will you change your stripes, if the Beis Din decrees against RMD? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. Ha-yesh lachem av? Do you follow in the footsteps of your parents? Would they really approve? Please do me a favor look up the definition, here on wikipedia or other places, the word cult. Not listening to one's parents, mortgaging your home for a spritual leader, having teens do 'business tasks' all night, until the wee hours of the morning. Rings a bell? I wish it didn't. I have family there. With deep sorrow, Chaim

Thank you Reb Chaim for your gracious compliment. I really shouldn't respond; for it doesn't bring any good. Instead, I clarified what I already wrote & I hope that's enough.

Calling us a cult is treading on dangerous ground because as you probably know that Chasidim as a whole is/was considered by mithnagdim as a cult (Cott); with the difference being only in the flavor of the cool aid; and to atheists all religions are considered a cult. By calling us a cult you are actually portraying our ancestors in a poor light; which I'm sure that; that's not what you want to do.

The Rebbe Reb Naftule; was stepped on while he was alive (I am a live witness to it). When the bitter news arrived in the Beis Medrash & the porochess (curtain) from the Oren Kodesh came down; thumbs went up, with visible satisfaction on some faces that didon netzach and now finally "we're" in charge. Now that he's gone in 48 Street (in 45th Street his presence will always be felt); 48 Street is involved in "damage control" which is a good thing; but the truth cannot be denied that there was a split in Bobov a long time ago; which only became public on that day. The facts or opinions of what transpired since then, are irrelevant to the issue. The only fact that counts; is that there are now "two" Bobover Kehilos with each claiming to be the legitimate one and each having a significant amount of Bobover Chasidim.

The Wikipedia articles need to be neutral; but that does not apply to the talk pages where everyone comes with their own opinions as to what the facts are. The only desired requirement is that everybody discuss in good faith for the betterment of the article. I; am not the issue; the issue here is that the article needs to portray both sides of Bobov neutrally; and that has B"H been accomplished. Now we'll wait for the outcome of the Din Torah and then we'll (you & me & everyone else) change the articles to reflect the new reality, and Sholom al Yisroel. Issac 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Petlura's role in pogroms

That day was the anniversary of the day Petlyura was shot during World War I. He was a Ukrainian leader, an organizer of pogroms and a notorious anti-Semite. The Germans had authorized the Ukrainians to celebrate this anniversary with a murderous rampage against the Jews. The Ukrainian mobs decided that they would concentrate on Jews who were prestigious, wealthy and distinguished. Eliyahu Avigdor’s name was on this list because of his wealth and status.

With respect to this passage, particularly your claim that Petlura was an organizer of the pogroms, could you support it by any evidences? What exactly from what he said or did do you consider to be the organizing of the pogroms? With references on the credible sources please.

The youth carried a red whip with the insignia of the Symon Petlyura gang.

Pelura had no gang, he was a leader of the state. If this insignia belonged to his army (you can clarify for yourself the difference between the features of gang and army if you don't see one), write about it. If you mean that it was an insignia of some anti-Semitic gang existing in Ukraine in time of Petlura's governing, write about it all clearly again. If you don't know the history of the country you write about in details, don't write about the contraversive topics at all. I don't have time to edit it now, however I will do it later, since it's prejudiced. 70.30.124.67

If you have a problem with anything that was written here; then ask it on the Petlura page, or on the Lvov page, where the Petlura scholars would be; and there they quote credible sources. Why are you asking it here?

Here let me show you how. Hit the link to Petlura; or to make it easier; hit Petliura's role in pogroms link that will get you exactly to the paragraph name, you so perfectly copied verbatim. Maybe next, you're going to tell me that Chmielnicki wasn't an anti-semite; or that Hitler really didn't hate Jews; he just loved Germans.

I found (searching google) what I think is the source from where most of this article was brought in. There are still people alive today who were there and all say the same thing, but each of them experienced it differently. To some it was a gang, to some a band and to some simply a mob. So Petlura had no gang; you're right; he had military units an army; and what does he use his army for? to butcher his own Jewish citizens. No, there weren't anti-semitic gangs; there was an anti-semitic government; and its citizens did its biding, and freely murdered Jews under a plethora of disguises. So you can clarify for yourself that there was no difference between a gang and the army. The insignia they talk about probably they mean Petlura's army insignia; and oh yeah the red whips were probably remnants of their glorious days of nationalism where they used these whips for the honor of their country.

We do know quite a bit of the history of your country; and to be fair; your country also had good people. If you would look under Lviv pogroms and the Holocaust, you would find this; "Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal was one of the most famous Jewish inhabitants of Lviv to survive the war, though he was transported to a concentration camp, rather than remaining in the city. Many in the city's population tried to assist and hide the Jews hunted by the Nazi machine. A large effort in saving the members of the Jewish community was organized by the Greek Catholic Metropolitan Andriy Sheptytsky.

Mr Wiesenthal's memoir, The Murderers Amongst Us, reports on how he was himself saved by a Ukrainian policeman by the name of Bodnar. Ukrainians and others also hid thousands of Jews (despite the death penalty imposed for such acts), most notable amongst these unrecognized Righteous Gentiles being the Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan, A Sheptytsky."

I don't blame you. As a proud Ukrainian, you simply don't like what you see. If I were you; you seem to be interested in philosophy, so you must be a thinking person; you could do something good for your country by doing the right thing. Like other nations at least attempted to do; to confront your countries past and shake yourself loose from its atrocities; but not by trying to defend the indefensible, namely hatred and slaughter and glorifying its perpetrators, Petlura and Chmielnicki. Issac 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

re: r' bz and r' md

I moved r" bz up as he is a generation earler, since the NPOV box was removed.

if you feel that the NPOV mandates that r' md should precede r' bz somewhere else on the page, feel free to do so. but from a generational standpoint, he is one generation higher then r' md, and therefore the change. gevaldik! 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is Not a Blog or Debate Forum...

The Wikipedia 'discussion' pages are _specifically_ for discussing the content of the accompanying articles and not a general discussion forum or platform for the larger topic itself or any related topics or issues. What I removed from this page was not only completely inappropriate but also caused a terrible Chilul Hashem, R'L.

My Fellow Yidden, I plead with you! It is bad enough just to discuss these things among yourselves as it inevetably involves numerous severe issurim. It is far worse, however, to do so here or anywhere online- before the entire world!

The excerpts remaining (in the sections on this page which I deleted most of) reflect and support all I have just written above. I urge everyone to please read (or re-read) through them before making any changes or comments relating to the succession/control dispute.

I would also remind everyone that there are a number of _specific_ and _complex_ halachic requirements and conditions which must be met before one is permitted to talk in cases like this. (Even if the info. may be completely accurate)

It is now probably easier than ever before to learn, review and look-up the halochos of shmiras haloshon; there are seforim and shiurim in at least several languages. There are also free, brief shiruim one can hear by telephone. In Yiddish on 'Kol Dodi' and 'Ko Somar' and in English on 'Chazak' which is run by the Chofetz Chayim Heritage Foundation.

"Open discussion" (of controversial issues)= devorim assurim. I therefore removed the links with that description.

("B'rov devorim, lo yechdal pesha" means in general; how much more so with such contentious issues!) --Eitz Chayim 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Eitz Chayim; I couldn't agree with you more; you are absolutely right. Even these words I held myself back from writing; lest it trigger a response. I was hoping that by coming from a neutral person, and from the heart; your words will be heeded. But as you can see that when the content was being debated here on the talk page for almost a year there was very little vandalism, especially in the last few months; but as soon as the debate had been removed; not a week has gone by, and the vandalism is back. It could be that we have to be boicher hora bemi'eetoi (choose the lesser of two evils); let's wait and see. Issac 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Eitz Chayim; Bemchilas kvoidoch (with the greatest respect) after seeing 4.172.75.212 & 4.173.8.147's edits & 4.172.195.36 reversion to those edits; with the justification given by Analyst13, explaining his POV as NPOV; it is now crystal clear that the discussion here served as a deterrent to making a much bigger chillul HaShem on the main page. Maybe it's better here where only a few Wikipedians and people with some level of sophistication look; then on the main page where every Tom, Dick & Harry sees. I am sure that if we don't turn this page back and bring back the discussion; then what already started is just the beginning. If I walk away from here; I think that both sides will not allow these pages to stay neutral; therefore I plead with you and all decent editors not to allow this article to vacillate between one outrageous outburst after another as it was a year ago. Issac 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Explaining Changes

All changes made to this page are corrections based on facts and eliminations of partisan opinions.

1. Rabbi Chayem Jacob Tauber has been the "Dayan" of the Bobover Kehilla for well over thirty years. No one has ever contested his position.

2. Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Rabinowitz's position as "Ruv" Of Bobov Monsey has been contested even before the succession dispute. It is true though that those voices have only now after the dispute taken root.

3. Rabbi Meir Yosef Eichenstien is only one of two people who call themselves Bobover "Rosh Hakolel", the other being Rabbi Yonasan Binyamin Goldberger, "Bikovsker Ruv" who has had that position for decades. Eichenstein's status as Rosh Hakolel is contested.

4. When writing about Grand Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam the third Bobover Rebbe, his great work of recreating Bobov into the vast network of institutions it is today can't be omitted. Furthermore these institutions, in a true sense are what Bobov is. The reality is, that Bobov isn't a people or a sect, it is a community, "Kehilla", which is defined by institutions, for without them there is no community and no Bobov. So therefore it is important to point out who established Bobov again after it had been uprooted and destroyed in World War II.

5. I added some important facts about the crowing of Grand Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam. a. All the elders of the community were there. b. All the individuals running the various Bobover institutions were there. c. The fact that all Bobover institutions world wide acknowledged Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam as Bobover Rebbe, which sort of made him de facto Bobover Rebbe regarding the Bobover community.

6. I also added the fact the "Beth Din" has ruled on four temporary issues in favor of Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam. This of course has no bearing on the ultimate final ruling. However it was important to point out what the issue before the "Beth Din" is. Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant? In no way will any Bobover tell you that the issue is what the intent of "Rav Hatzuer" was. (As if the decision will turn on this). It might be part of the argument but it is not the complaint. 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.

Now to Isaac. Please explain which part of the above is untrue or inappropriate.

Analyst13 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Analyst13: I have already answered the first 12 analysts that have come before you and I do not intend to start all over again. Besides that, it isn’t right; it also isn’t necessary. For the last year we finally achieved some mode of neutrality on the Bobov page. From your making a mistake that I go by the name Itzik instead of Issac and from other things that you don't know; it seems that you’re a newcomer to Wikipedia & especially to this page; so you probably haven’t read the debate on this page that took place for the last year. Therefore I put back the debate for you and for others with the same mentality to familiarize you with it; it seems to have worked for almost a year to keep the Chilul HaShem at least out of the main page. I would ask, that you or anyone else refrain from making one sided additions; and only add neutral wording to this article; and even that should be kept to the minimum; because if someone stacks the deck; even with true facts; to show its side favorably; it automatically causes the other side to state the facts that portray them favorably; and if you are a Bobover; then its elementary requirement is, that you be for Sholom and surely not for a Chilul HaShem.

You write that All changes made to this page are corrections based on facts and eliminations of partisan opinions.

The response is: that all the changes you made are not corrections; but insertions not based on facts but on partisan opinion. Here are the explanations for anyone who cares for the truth.

1. You write that "Rabbi Chayem Jacob Tauber has been the "Dayan" of the Bobover Kehilla for well over thirty years. No one has ever contested his position".

The response is. No one is contesting that RCYT is the Dayan of the Kehilla of Bobover Chasidim that are presently in 48 St. What is contested is that as a result of the split in Bobov; and his taking a side; he is now ipso facto only the Dayen for the Bobover Chasidim that are followers of RBZ; and his position as "Bobover" Dayen is now dependant on the outcome of the Din Torah.

What we can do; is remove the words contested (which BTW I didn’t put there; beshev v’al taseh) and instead write that he is the Dayen for the Bobover Chasidim that are presently in 48 St.; which is probably the most neutral way of presenting him.

2. You write that "Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Rabinowitz's position as "Ruv" Of Bobov Monsey has been contested even before the succession dispute". You also write that "It is true though that those voices have only now after the dispute taken root".

The response is: that this is the same situation as the one above; but in reverse; because most Bobover Chasidim of Monsey are by RMDU; as a result; the 45 St. Bobover Chasidim are in possession of the Monsey Beth midresh; because RBZ’s followers didn’t have enough power to take it away. Therefore what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and it should state that he is the present Ruv of the Bobover Beth Medrash in Monsey.

3. You write that "Rabbi Meir Yosef Eichenstien is only one of two people who call themselves Bobover "Rosh Hakolel", the other being Rabbi Yonasan Binyamin Goldberger, "Bikovsker Ruv" who has had that position for decades. Eichenstein's status as Rosh Hakolel is contested".

The response is: that this is similar to the above two misrepresentations; because again as a result of the split and RBZ’s followers taking away the Beth Midresh and Kollel; we now have two Kollelim of Bobover Chasidim; with the title "Bobover Rosh Hakolel" being dependant on the outcome of the Din Torah. So again the best way to portray it neutrally would be to say that RMYE is Rosh Hakolel for the 45th St. Bobover Chasidim and RYBG is Rosh Hakolel of the presently 48 St. Kolel.

BTW; RYBG is Rosh Hakolel by name only; because he is about to be kicked out by RBZ’s followers for the terrible sin of being "besholom" with all Bobover Chasidim; he was warned not to come to his own Kolel’s Melaveh Malkeh!!! And you still claim him as, your Rosh Hakolel; how's that for hypocrisy?

4. You write that "when writing about Grand Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam the third Bobover Rebbe, his great work of recreating Bobov into the vast network of institutions it is today can't be omitted. Furthermore these institutions, in a true sense are what Bobov is. The reality is, that Bobov isn't a people or a sect, it is a community, "Kehilla", which is defined by institutions, for without them there is no community and no Bobov. So therefore it is important to point out who established Bobov again after it had been uprooted and destroyed in World War II".

The response is. Aderabe (agreed) that the third Bobover Rebbes great work and achievements shouldn’t be omitted but should be expanded to stress who established Bobov after the terrible Shoah; and I invite you to do that. Now; what Bobov is; is not for you or me to decide; for that we have Boruch HaShem a Beth Din of five.

5. You write that you "added some important facts about the crowing of Grand Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam. a. All the elders of the community were there. b. All the individuals running the various Bobover institutions were there. c. The fact that all Bobover institutions world wide acknowledged Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam as Bobover Rebbe, which sort of made him de facto Bobover Rebbe regarding the Bobover community".

The response is: that what you wrote is patently false. It had been addressed before and it makes no sense to do that again; instead I brought back the discussion here which Eitz Chayim deleted with the noblest intentions; and any new controversial wording will have to be debated; if you care for a Chilul HaShem.

6. You write that you "also added the fact the "Beth Din" has ruled on four temporary issues in favor of Rabbi Benzion Aryeh Liebish Halberstam. This of course has no bearing on the ultimate final ruling. However it was important to point out what the issue before the "Beth Din" is. Who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant? In no way will any Bobover tell you that the issue is what the intent of "Rav Hatzuer" was. (As if the decision will turn on this). It might be part of the argument but it is not the complaint. 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 response is. We have different understandings on what Beth Din is there to rule on. To me Beth Din is there to rule on the whole nine yards; on who is the Bobover Rebbe and to whom its institutions belong; plain and simple.

Who is the technical plaintiff and who is the defendant is irrelevant to this article; it belongs on the table of Beth Din. Temporary issues are exactly that; temporary issues; and what we are concerned is for the final outcome. "Rav Hatzoir" could have been an issue but it seems that it has been blown away after the testimony of the people involved; but anyway, that’s for the Beth Din to decide.

Achrei Kichlois Hakoil ( to summarize) There probably will be a peshora (compromise) on everything; because if we go according to Din; IMO and those that are expert in Choishen Mishpot tell me that RMDU should get everything; so after the pshora where there will officially be two Bobover Rebbes; both with full institutions old & new. At that time we will need to update this article to reflect the new reality; and I’m sure that after swallowing a bitter pill; all Bobover Chasidim (most are already) will live in peace & Bobov will once again be the symbol of peace and gentility which it always was; and Sholom al Yisroel. Issac 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Isaac explain yourself

For someone who "trembled" the first time he joined the "fray", you have come a long way. To totally erase my edits without explanation was definitely not the civility I would expect from Isaac as portrayed by his "gifted" pen. But then, I myself didn't at first explain my edits. So I remedied that, by explaining in detail all my edits under the title Explaining Changes. For you to then go, and not only replace my edits, but my explanations too, show exactly what your true intent is. You are trying to create facts by using an outsider's voice in your contributions, acting as if this was the NPOV. You can't honestly believe that writing Rabbi Chayem Jacob Tauber as "presently" the Dayan is a neutral point of view. Why "presently" has anyone voiced opposition, after all these years, to that post? are you expecting any imminent changes to this post? Is he any different than Rabbi Baruch Avrohom Horowits? Who you some how concede is the "Rosh Yeshiva". Rabbi Mayer Yosef Eichenstien who hasn't called himself Rosh Hakollel until the succession dispute, has no limitation attached to his name, (even though Rabbi Yonasan Binyamin Goldberger has had that post for decades) but Tauber is limited by "presently". The list of your inaccuracies and deliberate lies (because as you admit, you are an insider and know the truth) are to many for me to detail. So here are just a few of the things you know not to be true, but despite the fact you spread it, because you want it out there.

Einhorn wasn't by Rabbi Benzion Areyh Leibish Halberstam's crowning. You know that he was by Halberstam too.

The B"D will at "some point in time" render it's decision, but nobody really cares what it will say. Hah every Bobover is waiting with bated breath. the decision will obviously among other things decide if there can be two people going by the title Bobover Rebbe.

The important people were only at Rabbi Unger's declaration. Conveniently omitted the fact that every Bobover above the age of sixty with who's hard earned money Bobov was built is behind Rabbi Halberstam. And that any person involved or in charge of any Bobover institution was at Rabbi Halberstam's crowning

Bobov is made up only of people, don't mention the vast network of institutions who are incidentally all behind Rabbi Halberstam. Of course not, why mention that? That would make it look as if Rabbi Unger is Bobover Rebbe in exile. Which of course is the obvious truth.

"Rav Hatzuier" is Rabbi Halberstam"s only claim to fame, and that is precisely the reason the B"D convened to define this suspect word. This line of thinking is so blatantly biased that it is shameful. You go on to write as if the right for a son-in-law to inherent the position is uncontested. The fact is, as I have written in the article, there are countless reasons why Rabbi Halberstam's followers picked him as their Rebbe. Obviously, they contest the Halachik right of a son-in-law to inherit the position of Rebbe, or Ruv, or any other position for that matter.

Isaac, if you would like to opine you can use the talk back forum. The articles are for the true NPOV not for the "gifted glib pens". In addition, in your zeal to promote your Rebbe and Kehilla, always remember your own words about civility and don't delete opinions written (in the discussion forum) contrary to your cause.Analyst13 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Analyst13: There is a misunderstanding here. I didn't delete anything; and I wouldn't think of deleting anything, unless there is a reason and an explained reason for it (e.g. Eitz Chayim). What I did here, is move your discussion and my response to the end of this page, because as you probably don't know, that one of the rules of Wikipedia is that for a civilized debate; new paragraphs start on the bottom of the page. Therefore I apologize for not mentioning it in the edit summary; for I thought that you have enough sophistication to check the edits by comparing the versions.

Now to your overall premise; I; am not the issue here and even you, aren't the issue. What is, the issue is the content of the article page, its civility and its neutrality. This is what Wikipedia requires from us. Hashem requires from us one more thing; and that is never to make a chilul HaShem. I think this is elementary.

Therefore I ask you; what are you trying to do? Do you think that by arrogantly rewriting the article to your point of view; the other side will sit still? What you are inviting is an inevitable chilul Hashem. As a newcomer probably straight off the plane from Hydepark; you probably don't know what transpired here a year ago where every day there was a CH. So you want to mock me; that's fine; my conscience is clear. The reason your counterparts; the hotheads of 45th St. sat still the last year is simply because they have respect for what I have done; even though they would want like you, that the article say that 45 St. is right. They also knew that I wouldn't stand for it; but stand on principle. Therefore before you continue on this path; ask your Ruv or Rebbe a Shailoh if you're allowed to do what you’re doing. As for me; I did ask a Da’as Torah who gave me a qualified heter for what I'm doing, and only for as long as it is needed. The minute this isn't needed anymore; this page should definitely be deleted.

So Issac already explained himself; now what is left; is for you to read it; and let's not debate the dispute anymore here; it simply doesn't belong here. By now you surely know, that even if you believe what you wrote; we strongly disagree with you, on almost everything; so no good can come by taking every detail of this dispute apart. Any way you want to slice it; this article must remain neutral. Issac 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Issac; I find some of your arguments totally baffling. On one hand I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that all you are trying to do is to present a NPOV, and your stifling of the "arrogant " dissenters is truly to limit the exposure of inner fighting among fellow Jews. On the other hand the article as it is now is so blatantly slanted that I can't believe you really think you presented a NPOV. Of course for the outsider not privy to the facts as you and me, who relies on Wikipedia for the NPOV, it might seem fair and balanced. But you do know the facts; and presenting half-truths is biased. I will however reserve judgment, and I will rather work with you. I won't list all issues I have with the article written as it is now. I will give you now two issues, which, if you are serious about leaving your bias out of Wikipedia, then you have to agree isn't balanced. Change it and then we can move on to the other issues on a one by one basis. Ignore it or sidestep it, and we know you really joined the "fray", and as you so eloquently said "Do you think that by arrogantly rewriting the article to your point of view; the other side will sit still?"

1. The text in the article as it reads now: “Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger and Rabbi Yehoshua Rubin were both announced as the successors of their father-in-law in the presence of the Rosh Hakahal (Lay President) of Bobov Rabbi Moshe Meir Einhorn, and other important Bobover Hasidim”: Rabbi Moshe Meir Einhorn was present at Rabbi Halberstam’s coronation. If his presence matters why is it omitted when describing Rabbi Halberstam’s coronation. If it doesn’t matter why is it stated at all. Also, important people where present at Rabbi Halberstam’s coronation. If it is important to mention this at Rabbi Unger’s declaration, why isn’t mentioned at Rabbi halberstam’s coronation? BTW who gave Rabbi Moshe Meir Einhorn the title Rosh Hakahal, his title is Gabai (I know, it’s hard to find an English translation that makes it sound important enough).

The text in the article as it reads now: “However, there have been suggestions that many in the Jewish world, both inside and outside Bobov, have already accepted the split as a reality, and it seems likely that the present situation of Bobov having two rebbes will continue regardless of which party the Beth Din winds up ruling for”. The problem with this sentence needs no explaining. The writer either assumes he knows what the final ruling will be, or has decided upon “suggestions” of others that the ruling of Beth Din won’t be heeded by the parties. (How is that for NPOV? if the ruling will have no bearing on who is, or who can use, the name Bobov, why mention the Beth Din at all?) The intent is obvious; to impress upon the unassuming reader, that there are and always will be two Bobov’s something that is really before the Beth Din. And you and I know, that if someone loses the name it won’t Be Rabbi Halberstam.

There you have it. Two of the numerous problems I have with the article as it is written now. Fix it or stop preaching.Analyst13 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My dear Bobover; Boruch HaShem that my unintended preaching has finally bore fruit. We are finally on the right path. Now that we both clearly understand what is at stake; let us put our personal feelings aside and instead try to work for the sake of HaShem and fix the article to satisfy the minimum for both sides. I don't claim to be perfect and unbiased; and the present presentation as is; might not be the best way to portray Bobov; but it is important to know that the article is a result of numerous editors; outsiders and insiders contributing; with most of it written by others. Most of my contributions don't involve the dispute; and on those paragraphs describing the dispute; I only stepped in when I felt it was justified; therefore in general; edits that to me looked ok; as far as NPOV is concerned; I refrained from reacting; because after all everyone has a right to edit to what in their mind looks factual and neutral; I just went into action when outright lies were put here or when I thought that the misbalance of the article will invite vandalism; as it actually did.

When an article is vandalized and someone reverts it; especially numerous times; it might look as if he is the author of the reverted version; but in actuality, reverting means; back to the status quo and is not necessarily an endorsement of that version. So with that in mind let's proceed.

I would also like to make you aware, that there have been previous editors who I worked with; and for the sake of Sholom I gave in; even though I had some reservations; so hopefully this can work out too.

You ask; why is RMME mentioned by RMDU/RYR and not by RBZH; which is a valid question. The answer is; it was mentioned by RMDU/RYR to add legitimacy to 45 Street's claim; because after all he was the one that actually announced (not crowned) RBZH with the title Rav Hatzoir; so it is very telling, that he participated when it was announced in the last Bobover Rebbes house before the levaye that the two son-in-laws RMDU and RYR are the successors to their father-in-law. On the other hand; by RBZH, you have his brother-in-law; the dayen saying that he thinks that this is the will of his father-in-law; and that was put there to add legitimacy to 48 Street; so it seemed unnecessary to also add that RMME was there; but if you think that it is, necessary; feel free to add it; as a fact stays a fact.

You also ask why was it omitted that important people where present at Rabbi Halberstam’s coronation. The answer is; because the most powerful argument presented to the world and here on Wikipedia for RBZH was the Rav Hatzoir argument; and that important people were present wasn't considered as adding anything; but now that the Rav Hatzoir argument was blown to smithereens; yes this argument does now have a place of adding legitimacy; and you're right that we should add it. BTW if any editor would have added it; I would have left it, because a fact stays a fact; but instead of contributing constructively they were busy vandalizing.

You also write that BTW who gave Rabbi Moshe Meir Einhorn the title Rosh Hakahal, his title is Gabai.

You're right that his title is Gabai; as to who gave him the title? The free'erdiger ( before the last) Bobover Rebbe actually made him the "head" of Bobov; call it whatever name you want; if he was good enough to announce titles then his presence should say something; regardless of his title. It's interesting that you wrote above (no. 4) that Bobov isn't a sect (a chassidus) but is a Kehilla. A Kehilla has a Rosh Hakohol; so make up your mind; what is he; a Gabbei or a Rosh Hakohol.

BTW your antipathy to RMME comes through; because RMME's days in 48 Street is numbered as almost all his children and grandchildren are in 45 Street; he is friendly to the Rebbe, Ruv and all the 45th Streeters; he visits 45th Street occasionally; and as I was told; RMME is officially still in 48 Street because he felt that a captain doesn't abandon a sinking ship before all its passengers are taken care of; and he is waiting for the outcome of the Din Torah unless he gets kicked out before then.

What you write that the text in the article as it reads now: "However, there have been suggestions that many in the Jewish world, both inside and outside Bobov, have already accepted the split as a reality, and it seems likely that the present situation of Bobov having two rebbes will continue regardless of which party the Beth Din winds up ruling for". is problematic to you; because "the writer either assumes he knows what the final ruling will be, or has decided upon "suggestions" of others that the ruling of Beth Din won’t be heeded by the parties". and you don't consider it a NPOV.

Let me enlighten you; there is not one; and I repeat; not even one Bobover Chosid of 45th Street that will become a chosid of RBZH on the unlikely worse case scenario; should 45th Street lose the Din Torah; even if it means losing the 48 Street Beth Medrash; as they have already demonstrated their mesiras nefesh; and is crystal clear to anyone who has eyes; it's time to knock this out of your head. But on the other hand if 48th Street should lose the Din Torah and 45 Street would get the 48 Street Beth Medrash; there is no doubt in my mind; that at least half of the current 48 Streeters will join RMDU; its that simple. The only ones that will stay by RBZH are his diehard people (many not even his chasidim), and those, that their ego cannot admit to making a mistake; which number in the very few hundreds.

The writer doesn’t have to know which side is going to win the Din Torah to state that "many in the Jewish world, both inside and outside Bobov, have already accepted the split as a reality, and it seems likely that the present situation of Bobov having two rebbes will continue regardless of which party the Beth Din winds up ruling for"; for the writer who is an outsider not a Bobover sees that what he wrote; that even the looser of the Din Torah will stay a Rebbe with Bobover chasidim; and heeding the Din Torah means, the monetary part (the buildings); or if there is a psak regarding the name Bobov; heeding to that too. Even though I didn't write it, I agree with it; but if you don't; then feel free to remove it.

Talking about heeding to Beth Din; I categorically declare that I will heed to Beth Din regardless if I like it or not; be it a psak or a peshora; the will of HaShem is paramount to me. No; I will not change Rebbes; as it's not a shirt which needs to be changed. I am asking you; are you brave enough to state that you will do likewise?

Lastly you and I know; that in the end there will be a peshora; so let's act now as if the peshora is here already. Also remember that if we should state all the facts of this dispute on the article page it wouldn't make us look good; so let's minimize it here and on the main page. Issac 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it a few months ago and I think it's quite accurate, for the reasons Isaac pointed out. It seems fairly obvious, even to an outside observor, that this succession is about more, and involves more issues, than merely a Beit Din descision. The Bobov dispute will end with the losing side attacking or ignoring the Beit Din and the winning side championing it (just like Satmar); while one rebbe's court may decline over time, the determining factor will be made by his Hasidim, not the Beit Din. I fail to see the purpose in deleting this fairly innocuous statement for the sake of appeasing a single malcontent, verbose as he may be. ShalomShlomo 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My dear Bobover analyst; I made all the changes you requested; all for the sake of Sholem. Your edits that don't concern the dispute; I had already incorporated them prior to our discussion. I hope I practice what I preach. Issac 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Isaac; first let me acknowledge that I am pleased with the changes you made. Secondly, my initial reaction after reading your post was to challenge most of the things you claim, explain, take for granted etc. But then I realized that I would not change the way you look at things anyway, and even if I could, this is not the place for that. I only ask that you also refrain from going off on a tangent every time you think you can gain a point or two in why your side is right or my side is wrong. Discussion on the talk back pages- as I understood from you- are just to explain why the edits in the article conform with the NPOV.

BTW I strongly believe that the fact that a Kehilla is ripped in two or three may be very sad and painful but it isn’t necessarily a “Chillul Hashem”. However bad "Midos" like hate and anger, even though they are true human emotions, but when they are displayed in public without shame, that is a “Chillul Hashem”. In other words if I say for example “that family so and so broke up” even though we all understand that extreme things happened in that family, it isn’t shameful, because that is how the world works, there is a remedy called divorce. But if I write about the same subject and hate seeps through every word of mine, I should at least understand not to do it in public. Displaying ugly character without shame is a “Chillul Hashem”

Now, to my other issues:

The article reads: “Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger's followers consider him the reigning Bobover Rebbe because according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited, and a son-in-law inherits before a brother”. This statement is false. You can’t possibly say that this is the Halakah and say that this is the NPOV. I have studied this issue thoroughly, and I will give you a brief synopsis of what I believe. If this is enough for you to change the page, good, if you still believe that what is stated is the “pashtus” then I will have to write a very lengthy piece with proof. (Please don’t make me jump through that hurdle as I don’t have unlimited time.)

That leadership is inherited; I would agree that it is the "halacha". (Even though some Authorities disagree, however the Rem”a agrees.)

Generally the concept that a son-in-law is an heir to an estate is unheard of. According to "Halacha", first in line are the sons, then the daughters, then the deceased father, then his brothers etc. A son-in-law may be family, but he is not an heir for he is not of the same blood.

According to Jewish Law a women can’t assume a leadership position. Therefore Daughters don’t inherent leadership.

This is how you would look at it simply.

However despite what I just wrote, many authorities believe that a son-in-law should assume his father-in-law’s position. While many disagree. Those who are in support overcome what I just wrote basically by saying that despite the fact that the laws of inheritance don’t apply to a son-in-law, it is still proper to maintain the position in the family, and a son-in-law has the affection of his father-in-law like family, or as some say like a son. (As some explain it, it is an honor for the deceased). (Meaning; it doesn’t fall under the Biblical laws of inheritance, rather it belongs in the same category as the laws of who has a right to lead the prayers, as discussed in “Shilchun Urich”. In no way does this supercede the Biblical laws of inheritances and therefore a son-in-law against a brother, who is an heir according to law, the brother wins). There are a very small amount of authorities that actually take the position that a son-in-law would biblically inherent leadership. The leader among them is the “avnei neizer”. (However he believes that the will of the majority supercedes the law of inheritance. So according to him, the issue really makes no difference, the key is majority.)

So the most you get is a dispute.

There is a lot more to say on this issue, but I rest my case here.Analyst13 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Analyst13; You're right that there is a lot more to say; but this case is far from closed. The Rabbonim will have lots of restless days trying to get to the bottom of this. You feel quite confident that a brother should inherit before a son-in-law; because after all that corresponds to your position as to who you want as the successor. You have a right to your position, as much as a 45th Streeter has a right to their position.

Let me tell you that I am not qualified to get into a debate with you on the Halacha; and I think you aren't either, not withstanding you studying this issue "thoroughly". I was told by big talmidei chachomim that a son-in-law's inherited their father-in-law before his brother, in almost all cases for the last 200 years, especially in Chassidic succession. The Divrei Chaim, the father of the Bobover dynasty; clearly ruled so. On Hydepark; a big 45th Street Talmid Chochem, who knows Choishen Mishpot through and through, debated this issue to death, and made mincemeat out of his counterparts arguements. (If anyone has the link to that specific discussion; please post it here).

This entire debate is irrelevant & doesn't have a place here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't state that 45th Street is right with what they perceive as the Halacha, & 48 Street is wrong. Wikipedia cannot decide that, regardless how much proof you will bring from Rishonim & Achronim. Wikipedia only states both sides’ position. If you look closely you will see that 45th Street's position is stated as "Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger's followers consider him the reigning Bobover Rebbe because according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited, and a son-in-law inherits before a brother". 45th Street has a right to believe so; & 48 Street has a right to believe otherwise. Wikipedia just states what 45th Street's position is, just as it states 48 Street's position.

As for the CH issue; let me state what I have already said a long time ago; that I, & everyone I know, have absolutely no hate and anger towards the 48 Streeters & their Rebbe. It's sad that we couldn't resolve this among ourselves before it reached the Street. What really hurts is that a few hotheads were able to drag an entire Kehilla into an open conflict; instead of settling this peacefully. After it burst open, it was inevitable that everyone had to take a stand. I only blame those 48 Streeters that are guilty; for the rest, I only have pity. I agree with you that it isn't a CH that the Kehilla split; but how it split.

Lastly you write that the Avnei Neizer believes that the will of the majority supersedes the law of inheritance. Why didn't we take a vote to see what is the will of the majority? This matter isn't at all simple; are we talking here of an estate, a Kehilla or a Chassidus, or all of the above? We can still take a vote; but due to those few, it will never happen. 45th Street claimed by Bet Din to be the majority. They put on the table of Beth Din a list of all local Bobover Chasidim, with their telephone numbers. The list was divided into different groups. At least fifty one percent consider themselves 45th Streeters, and they can be asked to confirm it; the rest consists of, those not taking a side; those waiting for the Psak Beth Din; those that will stay in the 48 Street Beth Medrash regardless who its Rebbe is; & from what is left they don't think that RBZH has even twenty five percent; and out of that, a good many aren't even Chassidim who will seek his advice; hence the need to redefine it as a Kehilla.

Sorry for being so blunt; but questions beg for answers.

So the bottom line is that if you feel that your sides position isn't presented correctly so then change it. Issac 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Isaac; I wish I knew who you are. Not to satisfy my curiosity, just so that I am able to discern if could possibly be writing this stuff sincerely. I don’t know, I wish I could believe you actually believe what you write yourself, but some of the things you say just make me wonder. You really believe that Rabbi Halberstam has 25 percent?

You really think that the following sentence expresses the opinion of RMD’s followers, rather than purporting to represent a halachic fact: “Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger's followers consider him the reigning Bobover Rebbe because according to Halakha ("Jewish law"); leadership is inherited, and a son-in-law inherits before a brother". It is very obvious that the final clause states a fact what the Halacha is, not someone’s opinion.

However the truth is that I don’t really care. My goal is that the main page should portray the real facts on the ground, and to reach that end is what compels me to enter in dialogue with you, as you have made yourself the guardian of the NPOV. I will however clarify one point for you regarding the issue of votes. We consented to votes if your side agreed that the party with 51% wins all, the 49% go home with nothing. Which of course your side can’t agree to. To go through the turmoil an election creates in a kehila, just to see if RMD has twenty percent as we believe or forty percent as your side claims, is not worth it, as it doesn’t really make much of a difference in the outcome of the ruling. For that, submitted lists from both sides, after arguments of both sides why their list is more accurate, will suffice. This of course was the Beth Din’s point of view, or else, why didn’t they order an election?

Now to my Edits: The page now reads, that both parties believe that according to Halacha their candidate is the true heir. I also added that Rabbi Halberstam’s side believe him to be the true rebbe for many reasons. Two are already listed and I will add 1 or 2 at a later date, after discussing it in talk back. For now, one thing at a time.

Now to my other issues:

First, I want you to understand that I first discuss it here, before I edit, so that we can come to an agreement.

The article as it reads now: Rabbi Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam's followers consider him the reigning Bobover Rebbe because at the funeral of his father, the late Grand Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam; after his brother Rabbi Naftali Zvi Halberstam was crowned Rebbe; he was announced as the Rav Hatzair (Junior Rabbi), which many assumed meant that he would be the successor. That makes no sense. They don’t consider him the reigning Bobover Rebbe because many “assumed” that Rav Hatzair meant that he “would” be successor. Why is he the legit Rebbe, because people “assumed he “would” be? No. “They” believe that Rav Hatzair is the equivalent position of crown prince, and therefore is the only one with claims to the title, since it was already given to him. This is the pashtus. (On a deeper level, the title Rav Hatzair, because of its definition (according to them), is a limitation on his brother’s coronation, Lo Vlo Lzaroi “to him and not to his children”, which is a limitation which many Rabbonim had over the years.) I should add, that they also believe, that everybody present, or at least the vast majority present, understood it this way at the time, and that’s why many “assumed” he “would” be Rebbe. Analyst13 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Analyst13: You question my integrity; so let me tell you that my sincerity & yours aren't the issue at all; the content of the article is the only issue. But if you're still curious, I think my record speaks for itself. One thing I could tell you, that since "12 Adar"; I pray everyday for Sholom in Bobov. But it will only happen when 48 Street will finally acknowledge what went wrong. That it's not 45th Street which is the problem; the present 48 Street is; who after a year & a half still doesn't get it, as displayed by the arrogance of its writers; here and on Hydepark. I'm afraid that by the time they do get it, we'll be debating if 48 Street has 5 percent or 10 percent; that's how much optimism I have. I'm not saying it to mock them; I'm saying it, so that all the entrenched 48 Streeters should open up their eyes, and come to terms with reality and be ready to settle. Look around you, and ask yourself, why so many of your friends left (the place, not the friendship; for all I know, we might be best friends). There must be a good reason for it. If you still can't figure it out, then ask them; they’ll gladly explain it to you. You ask if I really believe that RBZH has 25 percent. I already explained it; but I'll explain it again and I'll try to be as clear as possible.

45th Street laid down on the table of Beth Din a list of all local Bobover Chasidim, with their telephone numbers. They broke it up into different lists. The first list consists of over 40 percent of Bobov who are bumper sticker, card carrying Chasidim of RMDU. The second list consists of 11 percent who are Chasidim of RMDU but not all can come out completely into the open for various reasons; but if Beth Din would ask them, they would confirm that they are indeed RMDU's Chasidim. Together this is over 51 percent that 45 Street considers theirs, and are confident that they will confirm it if called. If this is shocking to you then let me tell you that we actually think that we have 57 percent, which consists of 42% and 15% respectively; but we wanted to give Beth Din a more solid list; therefore we only claimed to be 51 percent. Now out of the 49 percent or 43 percent remaining (take your choice); it breaks down as follows: Those not taking a side, those waiting for the Psak Beth Din, those that will stay in the 48 Street Beth Medrash regardless who its Rebbe is, and from what is left; they don't think that RBZH has even twenty five percent; and out of that, a good many aren't even Chassidim who will seek his advice; which in essence defines what is a Chosid. In other words 45th Street claims that if they win the Din Torah they will have over 75 percent; because there aren't even 25 percent who will leave with RBZH.

I personally believe that even if, in a Peshora 45th Street will let the 48 Streeters have the big Beth Hamedresh; 45th Street will reach 75 percent in a very short while as they have already reached 57 percent in exile, in less then a year and a half!!!

You may shake your head in disbelief, but let me tell you, that I have seen the lists; and the criteria for every group was well defined. This list went though numerous hands to check for its accuracy. Although you might find here & there an error or rather a perceived error; the list was produced as best as is humanly possible, short of a real vote.

The 40 percent list was left on the table of Beth Din with the additional 11 percent list shown and read; but not left with Beth Din; lest it fall into the wrong hands and used against the people on the list. So here you have it; 45th Street doesn’t just claim to be the majority of Bobov; they provided the names to prove it. To those who still don't want to believe it; put your head in the sand, and close your eyes tightly and scream on top of your lungs that "THEY HAVE ONLY TWENTY PERCENTTTTTT". I guarantee that after such an experience, it'll become much easier to convince likeminded people, to believe the same.

You write that 48 Street consented to votes if the one who gets 51 percent takes everything. Congratulations for consenting to votes here on Wikipedia; but why doesn’t 48 Street consent to elections by ‘’Beth Din’’? On FIVE different occasions 45th Street was the one who asked for elections, only to be turned down by 48 Street.

BTW the issue of elections isn’t so simple; because if according to ‘’Halacha’’ a son-in-law inherits the leadership; then it wouldn’t matter what the numbers are. Numbers can play a role if it’s considered a ‘’Kehilla’’, because then numbers do count; as to the will of the majority and to the division of the properties.

It's amusing to see how different terms are used to suit the need. Sometimes the word "Halacha" is used; sometimes "Biblical Law" is used and sometimes "Torah Law" is used. I guess when Halacha is not on one's side there is a need to use different terms and play with semantics. To a religious Jew it is the Halacha which takes all this into consideration which counts. You write that "Rabbi Halberstam's followers picked him as their Rebbe. Obviously, they contest the Halachik right of a son-in-law to inherit the position of Rebbe". This quote is a Freudian slip, as a "Halachik right" cannot be contested; we follow Halacha, we don't contest it. You also write that "The B"D will at "some point in time" render it's decision, but nobody really cares what it will say. Hah every Bobover is waiting with bated breath." Are you really trying to say that nobody cares what the Beth Din will say? Again I ask you; will you accept and heed the verdict of Beth Din?

As far as ‘’Rav Hatzoir’’ is concerned; I have already already written over enough on that subject; see here. Nobody treated him like a “crown prince”. He wasn’t treated any differently then the son-in-laws. As a matter of fact; when the ‘’Rov Zichroine Livrocho’’ couldn’t officiate; some chose him and some chose the son-in-laws and some didn’t choose any of them. Bobover Chasidim when they heard him announced as the ‘’Rav Hatzoir’’, didn’t think of ‘’pashtus’’ or ‘’lomdus’’; they simply hoped for the best, me included.

Now to your edits. Go ahead and edit it to the best of your ability; so that it portrays the real facts on the ground the way you see it; then I will edit accordingly; then if we still disagree, which we probably will; we'll discuss it again as needed and hopefully as friends. Issac 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Isaac; I was under the impression that the purpose of the talk back pages is to discuss why certain edits or contributions have been made, not to discuss who is wrong or who is right in any given conflict, who is at fault and who is the victim. That doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia or its notes. Well I guess everybody has a right to his own interpretation of what the pages are for. I, however, do not intend to use these pages for this purpose. The main point for me is the main page; I want that fair and balanced. As for talk back, I don’t know what exposure these pages really have and how many people read them. I would be wasting my time talking to no one. In terms of challenging you; I have realized a while back that you are a bit more disconnected from what is happening in Rabbi Halberstam’s Kehilla than the average person who left our kehilla. I am guessing that you don’t have anyone who is part of Rabbi Halberstam’s kehilla with whom you associate in a way that you can really find out what’s going on. Therefore it is useless for me to fight old points that have been disproved over the last year and a half, points, that the regular 45th’er won’t say now, because they are moot. If I can’t have a relevant debate about this with you, why debate you; I am not out to convince you. Part of me thinks you’re just writing this just to publicize your position, and you’re not truly engaging in a debate.

I will however clarify what I have written before as I see I was misunderstood.

About the votes; our position in Beth Din, and the position the Beth Din adopted is that a vote isn’t there to tally numbers of how much support any side has. A vote is for decision, and if there is a vote the majority wins all. The minority has no claim. This is a proposition your side will not accept, and therefore the votes are off the table. To make a vote just to prove exactly how big or small the minority is, and then still claim certain rights is unfair for the Bobover community. A vote entails campaigning and turmoil, as anyone would understand. Since, for a final psak, the exact size of the minority doesn’t really make all that much of a difference, the Beth Din feels that lists would suffice.

Rest assured your list will not stand under scrutiny. I just wonder, did you personally go over the lists and do you know the people on it, or you are just passing on what you hear.

BTW, You misunderstood my point about the final Psak; perhaps I didn’t express myself well enough. I was merely interpreting the language in the article for what it really meant – I exposed the thought-process behind the ridiculous suggestion that the Beth Din’s ruling won’t really make a difference. That line you quote, was part of my representation of what the unedited statement suggested -- the notion that the Beth Din’s ruling won’t change anything. You took my complaining and railing against such a notion as an endorsement of that notion.

Now to my Edits: The article now explains why Rabbi Halberstam's followers believe that his previous position as Rav Hatzair is a reason why he is Rabbi today. I took out the line about Beth Din "deciphering" what it means and what its intent was. (Besides the fact that it doesn't accuratley portray what the Beth Din is about, and it makes it sound as if the one and only question in front of the Beth Din is the definition of the "foreign" and "unused" word Rav Hatzair.) I think it is enough to mention that when explaining RMD's claims. Why point that out twice. At this point we are stating the view of Rabbi Halberstam's followers as stated explicitly. Later in the article we state the view of RMD's followers.

Now, to some of my other issues.

The article as it reads now: “His followers are presently in charge of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn”. I know it is hard for you to accept the fact, but Rabbi Halberstam is presently the Rabbi of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street, just like Rabbi Rabbinowitz is the Ruv in the Bobover Synogouge on 23 Blauvelt Road, Monsey, as you write in the timeline. True there are people who contest it, and believe someone else should be the Rabbi of that Synagogue, that doesn’t change the fact of who is currently the Rabbi of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street, regardless of other parties’ claims. Even if in the end their, claim proves to be right, and Beth Din puts RMD in as Rabbi of 48, that wouldn’t take away the fact that until then Rabbi Halberstam was Rabbi of main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street.

The language should be “He is the present Rabbi of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn”.Analyst13 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Analyst13; These pages are indeed here to discuss why certain edits have been made; but these pages are also here to ”explain” why edits were made and why certain words were deleted; in my case I also had to explain and justify my many reversions and hundreds of edits, and these justifications needed elaborate explaining.

In the past year, I have, on many occasions explained my motivation for being here and addressed your concerns; but as you are new here, you haven't seen all my edits on Wikipedia; So I'll explain it to you in short.

In Wikipedia whatever someone does needs to be justified, especially on controversial issues. Therefore I had to justify my reversions & edits to other Wikipedians, some who had no clue whom to believe, and to some who honestly couldn't understand what 45th Street wants; to them it was as simple as can be that RBZH is Bobover Rebbe and 45th Street is barking up the wrong tree. This was the case because the world was fed that RBZH is going to be the successor, and even here on Wikipedia that’s what was deliberately stated. To the outside world, 45th Street was a major surprise, because the Bobover controversy was a well kept secret for years from the public, by me, you & basically all Bobover Chasidim. You probably remember how others, jealous of Bobov used to taunt us, that wait & see, Bobov will fight, they aren't better then anyone else. You also might remember what we used to answer that NO, Bobov will never fight; that a few hotheads will not be able to pull an entire Kehilla of Eidele Yingelat, who were raised on Sholom into a fight. We really wanted to believe that somehow everything will turn out fine; that somehow a solution to the problem that has been brewing for a very long time will be resolved peacefully. Then the unexpected happened, the controversy burst into the open, and people were forced to sit down with their family and have a candid discussion and make painful decisions. An impressive amount of people made those decisions right from the start, especially those that already had made up their mind a long time ago, that they won't reward those who wanted to throw the Rebbe Zichroino Livracha into the dustbin of history; first by trying to usurp his right & when that didn’t work, they created the magic word Rav Hatzoir for the sole purpose to be able to claim that he is "crown prince"; but Bobover are not known as fools, and didn’t buy it; as can be seen by the fact that they didn’t call him to officiate in place of his brother any more then the two son-in-laws. If he wanted to be the next Bobover Rebbe and ask the true heirs of his brother to step aside, he would have to earn it. A lot of people were still hoping for the best & staying put, but before long they looked around, seeing friends gone, asked themselves; what am I doing here? Will my family have a tachlis (future) here? Then those especially with supporting wives; made the leap & slowly but surely joined 45th Street, which gave courage for more to do the same; until where we are now the majority of Bobov and still growing. To me this is the most powerful statement as to who the Bobover Chasidim are. Even the ones remaining in 48 Street admit it; but they still want to cling to 48 Street for various reasons, which BTW a lot of 45th Streeters still step into 48 Street, out of convenience or because of family or to show that they don't have any animosity towards the 48 Streeters; and there are even those that go out of their way to wish RBZH a Git Shabbos or Ah Git Yoor, with a few even giving him a kvittel to show that they are good with him too. All this gives the impression that 48 Street has a bigger crowd then it really has.

48 Street fought feverishly for world opinion trying to buy the newspapers & publications to portray only them as Bobov. 48 Streets initial posture was that 45th Street doesn't exist; & if it does exist; they have only 50 people; & if they have more then that, it’s not Bobov but Kartchin, Dombrov, anything but Bobov. Therefore we had a major uphill battle to show people the truth and do a lot of explaining. One of the battlegrounds was here on Wikipedia, where the 48 Streeters had the upper hand and they removed any reference to 45th Street & its Rebbe; and then had the audacity to write in Hydepark that look, we're Bobov, that even the Encyclopedia says so, and they posted the links to Wikipedia for everybody to see that they are Bobov; because after all Wikipedia says so, and who can argue with an encyclopedia.

There I entered the picture. I had no clue what Wikipedia was; I was just reading Hydepark to see what's going on; and like everyone else pressed that link & saw that yes, Wikipedia had indeed crowned Reb BenZion as the Bobover Rebbe. Naturally, I don't have to tell you, that the 45th Streeters didn't sit still; and went ahead & did the reverse; and the vicious cycle went on & on causing a great Chillul Hashem; then seeing this; I made up my mind that I will tackle this head on, and I entered the fray. I don’t claim to have done the best job; but at least I tried.

Before I arrived on the scene, these pages had to be protected against vandalizers, and as soon as it was unprotected, the vandalism started all over again. You must understand that these were not Wikipedians, but people with limited or no knowledge of Wikipedia trying to get their way. As most of my work here was reverting to a Neutral point of view; by that I mean, that there are two sides to the story; each side has arguments; each side refutes the others arguments and each side claims its Rebbe as the legitimate one; I had to tell our side of the story to justify my edits. Most of the time I had no one to talk to, as the vandalizers were anonymous or wouldn't bother to debate, so instead I was speaking to my fellow Wikipedians, who had a watchful eye for these pages. The best proof that what I did is correct is in the fact that for over a year this article wasn't even considered to be protected. I had the silent support of my fellow Wikipedians for whom I am grateful.

I need to correct you on what you know about Beth Din. I VERIFIED it (and please don’t challenge me on that) that 48 Street never consented to votes, even if the one who gets 51 percent takes it all. They had never and I repeat NEVER made that offer in Beth Din; and that was when 48 Street still thought that they had the 51 percent. The reason why they didn't consent, was probably because it will show the world how large 45th Street really is, and also because, in the event that they’ll have to give 45th Street, its share in the assets, equal to its numbers, if B"D considers Bobov a Kehilla for that purpose; so without votes they can claim whatever they want regarding our numbers. 45th Street on the other hand asked for a vote regardless of its outcome, because firstly a Yoresh (inheritor) inherits regardless if it has the majority or not, and secondly; if a vote is taken and it is indeed the majority; so then it has the Tainoh (argument) of Rov (majority) in addition to the tainoh of Yoiresh and it then becomes a slam dunk case.

Now everything has been reversed, 45th Street is the one claiming to be the majority and is not afraid of its lists being scrutinized, it printed them for that purpose. Now it will be 48 Street who will try to get at least the amount of assets equal to its numbers. I predict that it won't take long before a peshora will be reached to the satisfaction of at least 90 percent of Bobov, who are willing & waiting to compromise for the sake of peace; these voices are heard everywhere. If the hotheads of 48 Street win out again, then it would be a sad day once again for Bobov.

I did actually misunderstand your point about the final Psak din, so I take back what I wrote. But I’ll ask you again; will you abide by the ruling of Beth Din, or are we going to have another Chillul Hashem after the Psak din?

Now that we both want the article to be fair, we are hopefully on the road there. It’s getting late for Shabbos so I cannot discuss the edits right now; but feel free to edit as you see fit and when I’ll have time, I’ll do my edits with explanations until we again reach equilibrium. Issac 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Issac; about the votes. You write 45th Street on the other hand asked for a vote regardless of its outcome, because firstly a Yoresh (inheritor) inherits regardless if it has the majority or not, and secondly; if a vote is taken and it is indeed the majority; so then it has the Tainoh (argument) of Rov (majority) in addition to the tainoh of Yoiresh and it then becomes a slam dunk case. This exactly was my point. Votes and all it entails are for decisions. That is what elections are for. If the minority still claims it’s rights after an election then it isn’t an election. Just to find out how many people each side claims it has, aren’t what elections are for. For that a list from both sides should be enough. If the Beth Din will believe after arguments over the lists are heard, that it is a close call regarding a majority, (something no one in that room has even a remote though of it happening), and they would believe that Rov is the deciding factor, they might very well call an election. This is our position in Beth Din. And this is the Beth Din’s position.

BTW you ask that I don’t challenge you, because you verified it. First I believe my sources are as good as yours. Second, it would help for your credibility to at least get your side’s version straight. This is exactly why I have a hard time taking you serious. You see, your side never really claimed 51%. What is more, this precise number was never even discussed. What they did do was, they brought a list that they claimed was 39% of Bobov and claimed those people as theirs. Then they brought two lists with about 7% each, totaling together 13.5%. They claimed one list to be people who have shown “signals” that really they would like to be on your side. The other list were people who haven’t shown any “signals” but your side “believes” that if Beth Din should grant the title to RM”D they would go along, BTW this list wasn’t accepted by the Beth Din, because they didn’t want to show it to the other side. They then calculated the lists together and got to the number 52.5%. That was number they used. One important point, to the question what criteria did you use on the 39% list the answer was ver s’hot “amol” g’davent bei inz, you hear that, whoever stepped foot there once. For all intent and purposes they never really claimed more than 39% percent. Of course we believe even this list to be pure bunk, as we’ll show in Beth Din. So that is why I take every thing you write with a truckload of salt. I know a lot of people who are part of RMD’s kehilla, I know what they think, how they think about our side, none of them are that disconnected. None of them, as much as they would love to do so, would ever try to claim that they have more than one-third. They know that they would never again be taken seriously, after a wishful-thinking, no-basis-in-reality comment like that. (This “one-third” is also a totally unrealistic number, as we will prove in beth din.)

As I said previously either you’re hiding behind your anonymity and are saying things you know aren’t true, or else you are hopelessly uninformed and don’t have the capacity to get your independent assessment of what is going on.

You keep asking me if I will listen to the psak din. The psak din will not affect me personally in any way. I will not be asked to personally pay money, and beth din will not tell anyone which rebbe to follow. On the other hand, you may be told to drop the name Bobov, and to stop referring to your kehilla as Bobov (on wikipedia also). Your side, naturally, never demanded in beth din that WE shouldn’t use the name bobov. On the contrary, they keep arguing that “there can be two,” which in itself shows a lot. (In the court of King Solomon, the party that shouted “cut it in half,” was not the legitimate mother.)

Of course I will follow the psak din. A much more relevant question is : Will you follow the psak of beth din.

Even though generally I would like your comments and responses to my proposed edits before they are edited, but as you have requested, I edited them before your input was weighed.

I changed the line “His supporters are presently in charge..” To He is presently Rabbi of the …. As explained in my previous post.Analyst13 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reread the first part of “Bobov Today”, and I find that it is missing clarity. To an outside observer the real dispute is totally unclear. It’s unclear what the ongoing dispute is about. True there is the fact that the former Bobover Kehilla and Chasiddus are now split in two separate Kehillas and Chassidus. Also that each believes that they are the true and real Bobov. That however doesn’t explain what the dispute is about now, why a Beth Din is sitting. For example; we can both agree that the Beth Din won’t make it back into one Kehilla again, therefore that isn’t the current dispute before the Beth Din, even though many on my side feel it was wrong that the Kehilla split, still those are reasons for hard feelings but that doesn’t translate into the dispute.

So what is the dispute? According to what I know the three primary things the Beth Din has a right to adjudicate are: a. Who is “the” Bobover Rebbe. b. To whom the Bobover assets belong. c. Who has the right to use the name Bobov.

I believe that in reality b. and c. are the real dispute while a. is really much less of an issue. b, is RMD’s claim against Rabbi Halberstam (RMD is claiming the rights to the Bobover assets, that are currently under the leadership of Rabbi Halberstam) c, is Rabbi Halberstam’s claim against your side. (We are claiming that there can only be one Bobov.) Those are the real issues that the sides are arguing over. Then there is a. Which won’t make any real difference, but will be more of an interesting side note. For instance if Beth Din lets your side keep the name Bobov, what real difference would it make if Beth Din will then say but really the “real” Bobover Rebbe is Rabbi Halberstam. One year down the road there will be two legitimate Bobover Rebbe’s. (Don’t get me wrong; I believe that on the question who is the official Bobover Rebbe we will surely win, I am just admitting that in reality on the ground it won’t change much.)

So when the article reads, “The matter is presently before a Beth Din (Jewish court)”, most of the information that would explain the function of the Beth Din and thereby explain what the dispute is about now, is woefully lacking. True the underlying argument is, who is the reigning Bobover Rebbe, but on the ground the dispute translates to the two very simple issues mentioned above.

If the article mentions the Beth Din then the it should really explain the issues before the Beth Din, which are as follows: RMD’s is demanding the assets of all the Bobover institutions which are currently under Rabbi Halberstm’s leadership. Rabbi Halberstam is demanding That RMD cease calling his Kehilla Bobov. This is the dispute all the rest are just the emotions around it. (Important point, RMD’s side never demanded that Rabbi Halberstam’s Kehilla cease calling themselves Bobov, Rabbi Halberstam is not “asking” for any assets as he has them already.)

If you feel it would make your side look less legitimate by admitting that all Bobover institutions are currently under Rabbi Halberstam‘s side, you can bolster your side by putting down the impressive accomplishments of your fledgling Kehilla in the short span of two years, something that lends you much more legitimacy than arguments, and silencing of facts.

Tell me what you think about editing this part.Analyst13 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Analyst13: If I should answer everything you wrote trying to discredit me then we'll end up turning this into another Hydepark, which is maybe what you want. It seems to me that you sharpened your pencil there, where anybody can claim anything, make up facts on the go, claim that someone else's facts are wrong, and get away with it. But this is Wikipedia where such a discussion is meaningless, credibility doesn't either count; only verifiable facts or opinions count; but in our case where the newspapers to their credit don’t talk about this, and the history books haven’t yet been written either; so how shall Wikipedia verify its content? The way it worked for the last year was that there was some input and debate from both sides, with Wikipedians not emotionally involved in this issue making some adjustments here and there.

Really, I should refrain from refuting you here; but I do know what you’re driving at; and that will have a direct effect on the content of the article, now and in the future; so I'll limit my refutations and don’t plan to debate you further on these issues; instead I'll try to stick solely to the content of the article.

Let me tell you that I get my facts all the way from the top, although they are not aware of my writing. When I clarified our 57 percent, I was corrected on the additional 11 percent; that we did bring it to B"D, but didn’t show it. The reason we didn’t show it, is not because B”D didn’t want to accept it, as you’re trying desperately to say; but because 48 Street demanded to see it; and we decided not to show it for now, so as not to put peoples parnosses in jeopardy; a big difference.

You do challenge me on the numbers; so let me tell you that I have personally gone through the list, and we believe that we are already 57 percent, and not one of them is based on because he had amol g’davent bei inz, but on reasonable criteria which was well defined to those doing these assessments with the highest professionalism; but what would I expect you to say; you cannot admit to it, even if you wanted to. We only prepared a list of 51%, (40% & 11% respectively) because we knew that we will be challenged; therefore we’d rather give a solid list of 51% which for B"D would suffice; and yes we did claim by Beth Din that we have 51 percent and therefore the majority of Bobov; but if you want to deny it again, be my guest. You conveniently ignore what I’ve stated that our 57 percent is ours even if we never return to the 48 Street Beth Medrash. But if we do get the Beth Hamedrash, we believe that we would have over 75% and RBZH cannot even count on 25% to leave with him. Now to make things easier for you; try to reduce our 57% to the lowest number you possibly can; then try to increase RBZH’s less then 25% to the highest number you possible can; then look good at these numbers; are they even close? This week 48 Street rejected even the idea of putting out a list of its own, as it knows it cannot come up with the numbers required; but will rather concentrate on trying to destroy the validity of the 45th Streets list, or at least say that they did. I guess destroying is easier then creating.

Regarding a vote, which you correctly state that it might still take place; I disagree with you on the purpose of a vote. A vote might decide who gets everything or who gets assets equal to its numbers; as B”D might rule that it is a Kehiila or a Chasidus or more likely that it’s both. Let me also correct you; that B”D doesn’t take positions; B"D listens to both sides & only then will it take positions. Don’t paint B"D as having taken a position which is really your own. That also goes as to what you decided B"D is there to rule on. To my understanding B"D is there primarily to rule on who is the legitimate heir, and as a result to whom the assets belong; or if the assets should be divided if they deem it a Kehilla. As to whom the name belongs; I’m not sure if B"D can rule on that, because nobody owns the town of Bobov; you can setup shop there and become its chief Rabbi, and nobody can stop you. What’s interesting that you want to compare this to the story of King Solomon; a better comparison would be the Mishnah in Avos; "ho’omer sheli sheli veshloch sheli". Over there, there was no room for compromise, you can’t slice a child in half, so the real mother said let the other one have it, even if she gets nothing (that's a real mother); but in our case; there was, and still is plenty of room for compromise, nobody needs to have it all; but what is missing is the will to compromise. 48 Street wanted everything and would have thrown the two son-in-laws to the dogs; after all 48 Street already demonstrated it on the late Bobover Rebbe; so if there was no respect for the Rebbe zichroino Livrocho why would they have any for his son-in-laws. 45th Street on the other hand tolerated everything for the sake of Sholom and would have been ready to divide Bobov peacefully for the sake of Sholom even if according to Halacha RMDU should get everything and RBZH should get nothing; but 48 Street wouldn’t hear of it; they thought that by removing the son-in-laws by force, everybody will swallow hard but stay; and presto they’ll end up with everything. Seeing that it backfired miserably the entrenched 48 Streeters are walking around with sour faces and have hard feelings for the 45th Streeters for having put them to shame. 45th Street on the other hand, thanks HaShem for having saved Bobov and its future as it was meant to be. So those willing to share Bobov are not out of weakness but of noble character. RMDU stretched out an olive branch on many occasions and would still meet RBZH any time on demand to end this conflict; it’s your side who cannot bring itself to make Sholom. As far as 45th Street is concerned Sholom already exists for a long time; every decent Bobover Chasid has made good with his old friends & share in their Simchos and are ready for compromise not out of weakness but for the sake of Sholom. IMO over 90 percent of Bobov would say cut Bobov in half and let’s get it over with.

As to if I will heed the psak Beth Din; I have already categorically stated that yes, I will accept it regardless if I like it or not; do you have a short memory? I’m glad that we got you on board; be it because it won’t affect you personally. I know you’ll try to discredit me once again because you cannot let my words stand; but on my part I hope to stick only directly to the edits.

Regarding editing this article; it probably would have been a good idea; as some Wikipedians had suggested from day one; to use a minimalistic approach; write that Bobov split and now there are two, without explaining why, when and where. As this won’t satisfy anyone, we have no choice but to state what both sides believe. For that I don’t think that it needs to go into detail and list numerous arguments; but if it does then it will have to list its numerous refutations which I think is a bad idea. Personally I think it might be a good idea to move all individual information to each Rebbes personal biography and leave this page with the outline of the dynasty and its history. I’m curious as to what other Wikipedians think about that.

Now to the particular edits. Regarding changing from "His followers are presently in charge of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th Street" to "He is presently Rabbi of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th Street". We debated that already almost a year ago, see here, and I explained that it gives the wrong impression that RBZH is officially the duly crowned Bobover Rebbe in the Bobover Beth Hamedrash, and a RMDU is contesting it; which is not true because RMDU was equally duly crowned, but was thrown out by force, and took it to B"D instead of to the Streets, so to the eyes of Bobover Chasidim and the world both are equal contenders for that title until B"D hands down its verdict, and it cannot state anything that suggests that one is more legitimate then the other. So if you do insist on writing that he is in 48 Street you could only write that RBZH is presently in 48 Street but you cannot write that RBZH is presently Rebbe/Rabbi in 48 St. because Rebbe in 48 Street is in dispute and in Beth Din. But if we must write that he is presently there, then we’ll need to qualify it on how he got there, or the minimum that he’s there because his followers are now in charge of the place, which is the softest way of writing it. Therefore I blended both edits; yours and the original to now read "His followers are presently in charge of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn and installed him there as Rabbi", which I hope now satisfies everyone.

As to what you write that it’s equivalent to Rabbi Rabinowits being Rabbi of the Bobover Synagogue in Monsey. I don’t see it that way; I think Rabbi Rabinowits is more similar to Rabbi Blum in London or Rabbi Meisles in Bat Yam; but if you see it differently than change it by Rabbi Rabinowitz.

I removed the part about officiating and vice president, because then it needs 45th Streets refutation that he didn’t officiate any more then the son-in-laws and you don’t really want the article to state that his title Rav Hazoir was only for appeasement purposes; it actually had no powers of a vice president nor did he act in that capacity.

I removed the line that "By Torah law, leadership is inherited" because both sides believe so; they only differ on who inherits.

I changed what was written that "RBZH’s supporters believe that according to Halakha only a blood-relative inherits a leadership position" to "RBZH’s supporters believe that according to Halakha a brother inherits a leadership position before a son-in-law"; which is more factual; you don’t really mean to say that if there is no brother, only a son-in-law, you believe that leadership won’t be inherited, but will go to a sixth cousin who is a blood-relative.

I also removed the reference to a "Bobover Halberstam dynasty" and replaced it with a "Bobover dynasty"; because this is pure nonsense; there is no such a thing as a Halberstam dynasty. If the previous Rebbe wouldn’t have any sons but only daughters, does the dynasty come to an end? What are you trying to say, that only someone by the name Halberstam can become Bobover Rebbe? So then state so, that 3) Bobov 48 Street believes that RBZH is Bobover Rebbe because he carries the name Halberstam.

The therefore was removed because it’s redundant.

Be careful with what arguments are written on the main page. What is written here cannot necessarily go there where the whole world sees. Sensitive issues need to be sugarcoated on the main page. I still prefer writing nothing there regarding the dispute then to spell it out, and if you agree with me, we can do it.

Regarding Bobov Today; I would like to remind you that this article is titled Bobov (Hasidic dynasty) and is about the Chassidic dynasty of Bobov, not the dispute. The dispute is not the focus of this article; but if you want to tell the world all the details of this particular dispute and clarify it for them; than you can create an article titled The dispute in Bobov, (like there are similar articles on Wikipedia;) and there you can list a,b,c and the entire alphabet of what Beth Din is there to sit on and why they are sitting on this, but not on this, and all the positions Beth Din has taken and will take; I’m not actually recommending it, but you get the point. To me writing that Beth Din will adjudicate this conflict is over enough. IMO it shouldn’t even state that there is a conflict; but that Bobov split in two, as I have written above. Issac 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Isaac;

I would suggest, since you’re privy to information from the top, to take a look at the shturei brurin. Even though it has never been circulated, it is common knowledge that the first three points the Beth Din will adjudicate are, 1. Who is Bobover Rebbe 2. To whom do the Bobover assets belong, and 3. Who has the right to use the name Bobov.

Furthermore you are probably aware that the Beth Din was discussing putting all three of the above-mentioned questions to a vote.

Let me reiterate Rabbi Halberstam’s side has continuously requested that RMD stop using the name Bobov. Rabbi Unger’s side has never demanded that we cease calling ourselves Bobov. In fact as defense for their using the name they use similar arguments to what you used to explain why no entity could be stopped from calling itself Bobov.

If the fact that you have now taken the “strategic position” of saying in Beth Din that you have the majority , is qualified as newsworthy, why isn’t the simple facts of the case. Namely; 1. Who is Bobover Rebbe 2. To whom do the Bobover assets belong to and 3. Who has the right to use the name Bobov, and what each side claims.

I have said it already and I will repeat it. Silencing facts because they don’t portray you the way you want isn’t the NPOV and is also very see through. You are obviously afraid of the facts. Don’t try “this page is really about the dynasty not the dispute” line, I am sorry but when I see lines like these ….and have asked for elections to determine its numbers in the event that a majority plays a role in the deliberations of Beth Din and these A Bais Din ("Jewish court") will decide if it has any merit and what its intentions were I just have to wonder why these very interesting tidbits of what is going on in the Beth Din are more worth than others. Isaac!! Stop playing dumb, play fair.

Again, the three major issues and what each side demands are the facts. I intend on putting them there.

You explanation I removed the part about officiating and vice president, because then it needs 45th Streets refutation that he didn’t officiate any more then the son-in-laws and you don’t really want the article to state that his title Rav Hazoir was only for appeasement purposes; it actually had no powers of a vice president nor did he act in that capacity. But then you are totally comfortable with this As to Rabbi Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam's claim of Rav Hatzair, they argue that, that title which has no precedence in Bobov was only an honorary title; and wasn’t meant to designate him as the successor.

Isaac I feel stupid explaining the obvious to you. You see you know exactly what I am about to say, but I will say it anyhow.

If one side can state what, in their opinion, Rav Hatzair means why can’t the other side, and it doesn’t need a double refutation. To your threat about appeasement; you do know there is a tape of Rabbi Shlomo, and I have read the transcript, objectively I don’t know who actually gave up more with the title Rav Hatzuier. Also which has no precedence in Bobov What’s this opinion or fact? Both Rabbi Shlomo and his father Rabbi Benzion where Rav Hatzuir of Bobov. (BTW you act as if bobov is a universre on to itself; there have been hundreds of rav hatzueir’s in history all ascending to the post of Rav when the time came.)

Accordingly I am putting back the line “According to his followers, one of the roles of the Rav Hatzair is to officiate as Grand Rabbi in the case of a vacancy; similar to vice president”. You will have to supply a more solid argument before I can let you delete that.

You write. you don’t really mean to say that if there is no brother, only a son-in-law, you believe that leadership won’t be inherited, but will go to a sixth cousin who is a blood-relative. It would help if you ask before you edit. Yes, there are many Poskim who went to a total stranger in place of a son-in-law giving the son-in-law no priorty at all. And most of those who did take the side of a son-in-law, never did so in the name of inhertence, as a “yoresh”, and obviously in the place of a yoresh the Son-In-Law didn’t come into the picture at all.

I wrote what I meant, we believe and to my knowledge we stated so in Beth Din, a son-in-law, isn’t a son in Jewish law, and isn’t a heir to leadership at all. He isn’t a Yoresh, period. Yes it is totally a Halberstam dynasty. Of course should the Halberstam dynasty end, Bobov as a kehilla will appoint a new Rebbe.

Accordingly I put back the line “Rabbi Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam's supporters believe that according to Halakha only a blood-relative inherits a leadership position, therefore, Rabbi Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam is the Halakhic successor to the Bobover Halberstam dynasty”. Why wont you let my side explain the issue the way we see it. Believe me, it is totally more legitimate than the way you portray your side. I myself have heard from the mouths of two people who were friendly with RMD who were explicitly told by him, prior to the dispute, that the title Rav Hatzueir given to Rabbi Halberstam means he will replace when the time will come.

Now to the issue who is now Rabbi of 48th street. You continuously state as fact that Rabbi Halberstam is Rabbi in 48th street by force, and by throwing out the son-in-law’s. I was present on the day after the levayeh in the Main shul of Bobov. I saw both son-in-laws finishing their prayers and leaving on their own. Rabbi Rubin was even called up to the torah for an “aliyah” and he made the Brochos. So stop the nonsense. RMD withdrew because he knew he was the minority. (BTW there was nothing on the tape brought to Beth Din to show otherwise). The police were in the shul for exactly two minutes at the initial commotion.

If facts on the ground don’t appeal to you as reason to state the obvious. I will give you a legal reason. The Beth Din in the temporary psak handed down on 9’ elul 5765 barred all parties from disturbing the administration of the other parties in their respective locations. Which means Rabbi Halberstam’s people can’t enter 45th street and try to act as if they own the place, and vice versa. So there you have it the legal reason why Rabbi Halberstam is currently the Rabbi of 48th street.

I don’t think you will disagree with the above, so I am putting back the line “He is presently Rabbi of the main Bobover Synagogue on 48th street in the Boro Park section of Brooklyn”. I took out Grand Rabbi (on advice from others) so it doesn’t read as if he is “the” Grand Rabbi.

Isaac I will comment briefly about the other sneaky edits you made to the page. We wikipedians would appreciate, you discussing your edits before changing the page. If "house of his brother-in-law" is in then "son of Rabbi Shlomo" is in, they are both relevant. If "Bobov split" will be decided in Beth Din, right now it is a succession dispute. (I can’t help being reminded of the story with King Solomon.)

I will admit some of the edits actually made the page more crisp.

Isaac, I still have lots to opine but not much time. So I put in the points about the edits first and the rest will have to come some other time.Analyst13 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A new approach

Hi Analyst13. I wrote a scathing response to your above comments, but as usual, before submitting it, I try to sleep it over lest I regret what I wrote. So the next day after rereading what I wrote, I came to the conclusion that this is endless; therefore I scrapped it and decided to take a break to rethink what I am doing here.

After a six weeks break; I notice that you were joined by three vandalizers; 69.112.63.43 a.k.a. Shlome, 24.184.164.108 a.k.a. Chaim and last but not least, a new vandalizer 69.123.69.39. I most tell you; you are in very good company.

I took you on the suggestion and inquired as to what is in the shturei brurin and to my amazement I found that there aren't only three issues that B"D has to deal with; but many more, including on who can call themselves Bobov, which is number "Six" on the list; not number "three". So maybe we should take apart every detail of the dispute; why stop at three?

Therefore I decided to try a new approach and have let you have the last word, insults and all. As arguing here makes no sense; it simply isn't right; especially that almost two years have passed and most people have long calmed down; so what's the point in battling it out here; just for the sake of netzochen?

Therefore I moved all individual information to their respective articles and shortened this article to outline the entire Bobov history; and if someone wants more information; the place to look for it, is in that particular Rebbe's biography; which I'm planning to enhance and change too. As to the dispute; I rewrote it and tried to be as fair as possible and minimized it as much as I can; not to silence facts; as you by now know that the facts are at my fingertips; but to silence the machlokas and Chillul Hashem. It's about time to stop.

If you still insist on exposing all the details of this dispute, and the kovod of Bobov means nothing to you; then I'll have to respond accordingly. The ball is in your court. Issac 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)