Talk:David Berger (historian)

Criticism and fairness

Although I am strongly critical of Berger myself, I have tried to be fair. PhatJew 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy over the retraction of the RCA statement, and the fact that it was in response Rav Soloveitchik's criticism, is misplaced. Berger discusses it himself in his book, on page 70, as Rabbi Shochet describes. 71.106.166.70 04:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

First, Berger makes the distinction between messianists and non-messianists constantly and continuously throughout his book. He argues that messianists must be purged from Chabad, and non-messiants (while they should be condemned for allowing the messianism to go on) are completely legitimate. I don't have a citation available, but an acceptable secondary source is here.

As for the R' Ahron business, see Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch. Consensus has agreed that R' Ahron never legitimized the idea that the Rebbe could still be Moshiach. Indeed, if you look at the article from the Forward here, it is quite the opposite:

"Your distinguished correspondent quotes me correctly: “Rabbi Soloveichik, however, was contemptuous, denouncing Rabbi Butman as ‘a little fanatical,’ someone who ‘means well but, out of desperation, conjures non-rational ideas.’ The late Rebbe, said Rabbi Soloveichik, ‘can't be the Messiah -- he is not living -- a Messiah has to be living -- a living Messiah, not a dead Messiah.” All the words of this quotation are perfectly accurate..."

Finally, regarding the RCA's "withdrawal," I have yet to see any source (let alone a legitimate, reliable source) for this. This fact is reflected at Chabad-Lubavitch, which mentions no such withdrawal. --DLand ^TALK 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, youa re completely evading the quote from Rav Soloveitchik. If you want to explain it, do so. But, do not remove information from the article. Second, did you look in Berger's book extensively on page 70 for the withdrawal? Third, when you have a single citation to Berger qualifying his statements as to not allowing any Lubavicher to hold any position anywhere unless he is willing to swear on a sefer Torah (which no G-d fearing Jew would do about anything for money), then don't qualify it for him. PhatJew 04:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not evading the quote. I referred you to Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch where it has been agreed that the statement in the Jewish Press does not hold up to journalistic scrutiny. To be fair, I left in the part about the Jewish Press letter, but followed it up with the Forward quote which is in direct contradiction to his earlier "position." As for your belief that Berger advocates the purge of Chabad from Orthodoxy, that couldn't be further from the truth. Just because Berger advocates caution and serious investigation of possible Messianists doesn't mean that he advocates a purge of Chabad Hasidism. To say something like that would require a more compelling quote, which you obviously don't have, since it's not true. The part about the RCA withdrawal can stand until I look into it further. --DLand ^TALK 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with your present edit of the article is that you qualify Berger's view as only applying to part of Chabad. We can argue this ad infinitum, but the fact remains that Berger never qualifies his statements. He has publicly said that the strongest anti-meshichist voices in Lubavich are "minimal." I refer you to Rabbi Shochat's article, which you have undoubtedly not read, where he writes "Dr. Berger quotes a pronouncement condemning messianist aberrations, issued by the Central Committee of Chabad Lubavitch Rabbis in the USA and Canada, whose members include most of the rabbinic authorities of Lubavitch. He is very happy with that published statement, but feels compelled to downplay it by branding that rabbinic body 'far less important and influential than its ambitious title would indicate' and having 'quite minimal influence on the large majority of Lubavitch hasidim!' (pp.101-102)" If there is anyone in Lubavich that Berger isn't rodef, they are "minimal" and not part of "the large majority of Lubavitch hasidim." PhatJew 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]