Talk:David Berger (historian)

Untitled

This entry, as of August 8, 2006, is skewed as it does not mention the bulk of Professor Berger's scholarly work. Furthermore, it does not discuss his role in Interfaith Dialogue and as a spokesman for Modern Orthodoxy on Christian-Jewish relations.

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. --DLand^TALK 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. --DLand^TALK 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. --DLand^TALK 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. --DLand^TALK 16:51, 18 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)

Oh, wow. I just read the final revert note. Where does Berger say he wants to purge an ideology?!? WHAT ideology? Now we are elevating meshichism to an ideology!?!? I give up. All you modern Orthodox can have wikipedia. Gezunte heit. Taking out your obvious lies and distortions only gives the impression that you aren't all delusional. PhatJew 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what your problem is. I didn't make that last edit, but why isn't meshichism an ideology? Whatever, that doesn't bother me so much either way. What does bother me is that in your insistence that Rabbi Berger is some kind of fanatical inquisitor you have forced me to take important time out of my schedule to go to the library and pick up a copy of his book, to show how ridiculous your claim is. First, a quote showing that R. Berger views anti-messianists in a positive light (p. 50):

"...I do have a better sense now of the position of the anti-messianist group. In many respects they have shown significant courage, sometimes even physical courage, in preventing messianist takeovers of events and institutions. International Habad organizations have, I think, remained largely resistant to messianist forces, and they deserve great credit for this."

Finally, the notion that R. Berger does not qualify his purge is utterly inane. If you would take a look at Chapter 14: What Must Be Done, you would see that he qualifies his attacks to messianists in practically every sentence:

• "The most important principle is that no messianist should be treated as an Orthodox rabbi or functionary in good standing."
• "No messianist should serve as a communal or synagogue rabbi."
• "No messianist should be appointed as Jewish Studies principal or teacher in an Orthodox yeshiva."
• "Messianist institutions... must be excluded from the Orthodox community.

Is this a "lie" or a "distortion"? The only distortion is the attempt to deliberately attack and deface the name of Rabbi David Berger in a public forum.

There is much, much more, but I have no desire to waste any more time on this moot issue. Please do not revert anymore or I will appeal to higher Wikipedia authorities. Thank you, good Shabbos, DLand^TALK 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless...

It should be clear that R. Soloveitchik did not retract it. In fact, if they are relying on the fact that he came out with a clarification "two years erlier" and (possibly/probably) still held that way at the time the Jewish press letter came out, It should definitly be stated clearly that he did not come out with a retraction this time. I think the way it is now is a bit missleading toward one POV. --Shlomke 05:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any implication in the current wording that there may have been a retraction. There is no reason for anyone to suspect that there was a retraction, based on this - it is very clear that he clarified his position "two years earlier" and any specters of doubt regarding the JP letter are not because of Reb Ahron's retraction, but because of his sudden incongrous reversal of position. Any further paragraphs supporting one position or another would upset the fine NPOV balance we currently have. If the word "clarification" is bothering you, perhaps because it may imply an ex post facto situation (which I think it does not) then I wouldn't have a problem changing the word "clarification" to "statement" or something like that. --DLand^TALK 06:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he did not come out with a retraction or clarification to a letter that had his signature, is a valid piont that should be brought in to the article. That itself means somthing. I dont think we should limit facts in the article for fear of giving some merit to the other POV. The current article is mostly in favor of Berger, with one paragraph on R. Soloveitchik, one small paragraph on Singers critique, and that to has balance to Bergers Side. It's not like the whole article is balanced in POV. If the problem is adding another paragraph, then who about blending it in to one of the present ones?

The part with "many blieve it to be a forgery" should have a source, which I already requested a couple of times on Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch. --Shlomke 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to state that there was no retraction. Wikipedia is about events, not about non-events - we are here to describe what happened, not what didn't happen. Writing about what never happened is tantamount to making things up. Unless there is a valid hava amina that there indeed was a retraction by R. Ahron, there is no reason to dispel a completely nonexistent idea. To do so would be a clear POV violation. This is not "limiting the facts" - to say that David Berger never joined a circus is also a fact (I assume) but I don't think you would complain about a "limitation of the facts" like that if it were not included in this article.

As for the POV "imbalance" in the article, there is a much more appropriate way of correcting this. That is to complement the lengthy "Support" paragraph by expanding the Singer paragraph into a general "Criticism" paragraph of similar length. I have nothing against this, as long as it's done in an honest, objective way, and it doesn't get out of control and swing in the opposite direction. Kol tuv, DLand^TALK 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about the forgery - many Rabbanim have made public statements to the effect that they can't believe that R. Ahron could possibly have written something like that, in light of his well known staunch opposition to the idea of the messiahship of the deceased Rebbe, zt"l. This is extremely well known in the frum community. The only source that I have available offhand is from R. Berger himself, in his book, where he writes to this effect, but that is sufficient. --DLand^TALK 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Regrading the alleged forgery, I know it is well known and I'm not saying it should go out, however it would be good to be able to check them up and see what people said. It keeps being brought up but no one has so far brought a source. I for one would like to see them and I'm sure others do to.

Regarding the R. Ahron letter, of course there is a good reason to put in that he never retracted it, because that in itself is the reason many still believe it is true. It may indeed sound suspicious because of his sudden reversal of position, perhaps very suspicious. The reason that anyone would still believe it to be true is because R. Ahron himself did not come out with a clarification. In halacha we usualy follow the Mahadura Basra, no? since R. Ahron came out with this letter (with signature) people feel he changed his opinion. This is not about writing "what didn't happen". --Shlomke 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I'll add a line. --DLand^TALK 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Acceptable too. --Shlomke 00:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just incase anyone tries to reinsert the lies

...claiming that Berger called for a purge of all chabad activists from public office to make him sound insane and extreme I am placing the folloeing reference on the record:

Commentray magazine, December 2001, page 12, col.2

There. That is the end of that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)