Talk:Munkacs (Hasidic dynasty)

This page should be made to resemble other pages referenced by the List of Hasidic dynasties page. In particular, there needs to be a more general introduction, including an outline of the lineage of the dynasty, which has been so well done on many other Hasidic Dynasty pages. Spir 06:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Munkatch (spelling)

There should be some consistency in spelling. The title is Munkacz, but the body of the article spellis it Munkacs. What are the arguments for/against the various spellings? – Redaktor 12:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hungarian spelling is Munkacs. "Munkatch," I suppose, is an English phonetic spelling. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Munkacz photo

I have a couple photos of the all-but-abandoned Munkacz kollel in Nahlaot, Jerusalem, which I offer for use on this article if the editor finds it fitting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jewschool/486548988/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jewschool/486580543/

Mobius1ski 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can hear about some Munkatch customs or seforim? 82.81.53.232 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions several seforim, incl. the Minchas Elazar. As to customs, visit your local Hung. chasidic community for a general idea or, better yet, one of the Minkacser or Dinever communities themselves.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

anti Zionism?

the fact is today Munkatch is not at all busy with this anti Zionism thinks, he does not participate in any of the satmar opposition and the Knesset is on his property, he receives rent form Israeli state buildings. their current Rabbi is nothing about opposition to Zionism--יודל 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The well known anti-zionist statements of the Minchas Elazar, including the statement at the end of every formal sicha, do not necessitate your defense. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, Yidel's opposition, always funny. Munkatch is not anti-Zionist, righhhhht. Yes, of course, and actually they are Reconstructionist, right? By the way, the Knesset is on the grounds of some church, I think the Greek Orthodox church, or was it the Russians or the Armenians, I don't remember - but not the ground of the Munkatcher Rebbe. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

u cannot use statements made bvy some rabbi 80 years ago about a secular movement to categorize the movement of today in any extreme situation fact is the chabad rabbis have also made statements and all hariedy Judaism has made statements. what matters is today is the party or subject knowen as an anti group?

the answer is munkatch is no more anti than all the small sects as spinke krasne pupe and so fourth. therefore the cat anti Zionism is in my eyes over-categorized especially that we r talking of a small group of people like 40 families world wide would be an exaguration.

even the minchas eluzer fought more against the aguda than Zionism so maybe we make it Anti-aguda? no because the struggle from the hungarian rabbis warnet only against Zionism it was against the secular non-Torah Judaism, nothing like the category seems to apply.

I will leave the eidah and natura karte and satmar opposition in this cat since he was in our modern time so it makes more sense to see it as an anti Zionist ideology since they believe in taking to the streets and telling the whole world gentiles especially that he is opposed to Zionism unlike all other hareidy opposition which was more of an internal isolation to preserve their traditional form of pure Judaism as the way of their fathers--YY (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)