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)
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)
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. --DLandTALK 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --DLandTALK 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Regardless of whether messianists constitute a vast majority of Chabad (as R. Berger claims) or not, they and only they are the ones with whom Berger has a problem. And whether the anti-meshichist voices are "minimal" (as R. Berger claims) or not, he does not take issue with them, and does not advocate a purge of that group from Orthodoxy! You yourself admit that he was happy with the anti-meshichist statement, even though he downplayed its larger significance. R. Berger makes this distinction very very clear. To say that Berger advocates a purge of Chabad from Orthodoxy would be to cloud over an extremely fundamental and obvious distinction. He doesn't advocate a purge of Chabad - he advocates a purge of meshichists. The fact that he believes that meshichists dominate Chabad is irrelevant here. --DLandTALK 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- You ever heard the phrase "rubo k'kulo"? Berger does not make a distinction. If he did, he could easily advocate a purge of messianists FROM Chabad, as opposed to Chabad from Orthodoxy. Try a little intellectual honesty here. How exactly would the mindreading work? Berger's Inquisition is quite clearly facing everyone at Chabad, which is why he personally attacks Rabbi Shochat, who is famous (within Chabad) for calling a public fast when someone said Yechi in his shul. PhatJew 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "rubo k'kulo" - this has to do with objective truth. You are making specious arguments and expecting people to agree with your assessments based on your personal version of "intellectual honesty." My intellectual honesty tells me that while Berger may take issue with Chabad in general, he is quite far from advocating their purge, as a movement, from Orthodoxy. Your argument amounts essentially to "Oh, come on." That kind of logic does not hold water here in Wikipedia, irrespective of the fact that it's simply not true. --DLandTALK 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- You ever heard the phrase "rubo k'kulo"? Berger does not make a distinction. If he did, he could easily advocate a purge of messianists FROM Chabad, as opposed to Chabad from Orthodoxy. Try a little intellectual honesty here. How exactly would the mindreading work? Berger's Inquisition is quite clearly facing everyone at Chabad, which is why he personally attacks Rabbi Shochat, who is famous (within Chabad) for calling a public fast when someone said Yechi in his shul. PhatJew 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether messianists constitute a vast majority of Chabad (as R. Berger claims) or not, they and only they are the ones with whom Berger has a problem. And whether the anti-meshichist voices are "minimal" (as R. Berger claims) or not, he does not take issue with them, and does not advocate a purge of that group from Orthodoxy! You yourself admit that he was happy with the anti-meshichist statement, even though he downplayed its larger significance. R. Berger makes this distinction very very clear. To say that Berger advocates a purge of Chabad from Orthodoxy would be to cloud over an extremely fundamental and obvious distinction. He doesn't advocate a purge of Chabad - he advocates a purge of meshichists. The fact that he believes that meshichists dominate Chabad is irrelevant here. --DLandTALK 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- How am I being specious? You just said that Berger "may" take issue with Chabad in general. Once again, you have not provided a single quote where Berger qualifies his purge. The burden of proof is on you to show that what you are saying is true, which it isn't. PhatJew 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)