Talk:Satmar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

I've been studying Satmar for a good bit, and I've been to Kiryas Joel. I've never heard it called "Sakmer". Are we sure about this? --Yodamace1 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've been around many Hasidim for a long, long time too, and I have never heard of Sakmer either, so it may just be baloney and that word should be removed. IZAK 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

there is a street in KJ called Sakmer

also: look at this http://tovrent.com/satmar/85.jpg[1]

The reason some call it Sakmer is because the name Satmer is based on Satu Mare which remotely referes Saint Mary [NOTE - not true, Satu Mare means simply "Large Village" in Romanian!]. Hassidic Jews have always refrained from sanctifying Christian saints and therefore have created alternative names for quite a few cities. Izak love, when you don't know something, that does not make it balony. Cockneyite 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) PS, I haven't been "studying" Satmer - I am one, and my maternal grandfather referes to his birthplace as Sakmer (AKA Satu Mare). PPS There is no KJ street called Sakmer. The photo you attached clearly dubbs the Satmar Rabbi "The Rav of Sakmer". For those who study Satmer but have no knowledge of the script which the Satmers use, the word is the one at the lower left corner looking something like this: סאקמער. The third letter from the right carries the K sound. Cheers.

I recently heard in regular chatting from an acquaintence that an ancestor (great-grandfather?) of his called Satmar Sakmer. Why do they not utilize that term anymore? And, I'm done with my hardcore pshat study of different Hasidic groups. --Yodamace1 20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's total nonsense, the 'saint mary' story. Satu Mare means 'large town'. My father has been there many times. Wikipedia (yes yes) also says that Satu Mare means 'large town', and that 'saint mary' is something else entirely in Hungarian/Romanian. --Daniel575 22:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I revised the opening paragraph by indicating the Satmars are one of the largest hasidic groups - it is widely thought there are about 200,000 Lubavitchers, but since none of the hasidic groups keeps a formal membership role, this is all conjecture - it would be incorrect for any group to claim they are the largest, there is no way of knowing.Incorrect 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

About Satmar and NETUREI KARTA. THe Cherem bit is incorrect, as is the bit of a denunciation. Also the part of asking Reb Yoilish to meet with Yasser Arrafat. It's all myth. Yasser Arafat and the PLO were not the public face of the Palestinian cause before Reb Yoilish had his stroke, so it doesn't make sense. I actually asked a chaver of the Satmar Beis Din about the Cherem, and he said it's nonsense. The Beis DIn has not publicly issued a cherem against a person or group of people since its formation in the United States. No denunciation was issued either. It's a made up propaganda piece by the Kakhnik radio station Arutz Sheva. It never happened. No such thing ever appeared in Der Yid, which is the official newspaper. Shia1 05:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good edit

Good recent edit, IZAK. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 5 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Etymology

with Satu coming from the same root as "city" (civitas)

Actually, it's not like this. In Romanian, "satu" is derived from Latin "fossatum" and it originally meant a village encircled by a moat (in Latin "fossa"). "Cetate" is the Romanian word derived from "civitas". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

People have mistaken this article to be a fork of HydePark.co.il. It is not. And due to its encylopaedic nature, please do not appeal to users to refrain from making a chilul Hashem, because, frankly, nobody gives a shite. The purpose of this site is informative, not Satmer's - or Judaism's - PR page, nor is it a private opinion venting station. If you are a member of this site, and its NPOV policy is not in accordance with your religious beliefs, you are kindly requested to hold your peace. State the true UNFILTERED truth, but only that, please. Cockneyite 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron-Zalman Conflict

Apparently someone has made this sub-section its own page again. Thoughts, anyone? Is it enough of an issue to have it be its own page, separate from Satmar the dynasty? 'you bet !!! this issue should even have its own website for the size and scope of it' ShalomShlomo 04:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have now made it a redirect to here again. I have brought over all the material from the Aaron-Zalman Conflict. The name "Aaron-Zalman Conflict" is just a silly neologism. IZAK 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone has deleted the entire section "background to the conflict". I have reverted it. If there is a problem with this section, let's discuss it here, don't just delete the work. ShalomShlomo 08:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

67.139.62.77- I have reworked your edits AGAIN to try to make them NPOV. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from ad hominems and use the talk page if you still have problems with what's in the article. ShalomShlomo 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY TO POST SLANDER ABOUT RABBI ZALMEN AND RABBI AHARON. NO ONE BENEFITS FROM IT. THANK YOU well the truth must be heard even when it hurts

To the above commentor- the conflict has been going on for almost seven years now, and it is undeniably a significant and noteworthy component of the modern Satmar community. Just because it's less than flattering to Satmar's image doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to know about it. If you have issues with specific details, let's talk about them. If there are untrue statements in the article section (most of which I wrote), please let me know, so I can fix them. Don't just delete it. It's disrespectful to the idea of Wikipedia as a neutral information source, as well as the contributors who have helped write it. ShalomShlomo 03:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IT'S MORE DISRESPECTFUL OF YOU TO SPEAK SUCH LOSHON HORA ABOUT GEDOLIM AND TO TURN THIS INTO R"L A CHILUL HASHEM. thats true, and also what we have been reading in the papers recently on a daily basis is such a CHLUL HASHEM coming from the supposedly most frum people is mind boggling

If you have a problem with what is being written, say so here and explain what can be done to improve it. Instead you are acting like a spoiled child, destroying anything you don't like, for the simple reason that you don't like it. I have alerted an admin and we will see what they do. I see no reason to continue this conversation with you behaving this way.ShalomShlomo 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT YOURSELF WHY I WOULD NOT LIKE THE USELESS INFORMATION YOU HAVE POSTED! IT IS PURE SLANDER AND YOU HAVE NOT WAY OF PROOVING WHETHER OR NO REB AHARON IS A CERTAIN KIND OF LEADER OR EXACTLY HOW HE ACTED OR WHAT REB ZALMEN IS UP TO. THIS IS NOT A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE OR AN EDITORIAL TO SPREAD SLANDER. I RESENT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE USING THIS WEBSITE (WHICH COULD BE USED FOR SUCH GREAT THINGS) AS A VEHICLE FOR PURE LOSHON HORA. I HOPE YOU CHANGE YOUR WAYS. ELIEZER-I'D LOVE TO FIX THE SITE BUT EVERY TIME I DO THAT, SHALOM CHANGES MY CORRECTIONS!

If you want to see a change, I would suggest that you register for an account, it's free and anonymous, and then in a polite way explain which parts are slander, however just removing stuff isn't going to help because someonel else will just put it back. The best way to get people to listen to you is if you write Bdarchei Noam and bdarchei sholom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon- you have not "fixed" anything; you have deleted content. I have cited sources from several Hasidic op-eds for my statements about Aaron's leadership style, AND included a rebuttal from an Aaroni. Exactly what in the article is "slander"? If you have a problem with specific things being said, say so here or submit your own changes to them. Mass deletions only makes you seem like a bigger baby. As I understand it, the solution, from a wikipedia perspective, is to try to make information less POV, not delete anything someone finds offensive. The Satmar feud exists, whether you like it or not. ShalomShlomo 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

THANKS FOR THE ADVICE ELIEZER. I COULD USE THAT. SHALOM-YOU QUOTED OP-EDS WHICH ONLY CONSTITUTE PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. THE SECTION I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH IS THE R' ZALMEN VS R' AHARON CONFLICT AND BASICALLY EVERYTHING IN THAT SECTION IS BASED ON OPINION ONLY. IT IS ONLY PEOPLE'S OPINIONS THAT SAY WHAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP R' AHARON IS. ALSO, IT IS LOSHON HORA TO SAY THAT A RAV WAS DISRESPECTFUL. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY TO PUBLISH THESE MERE OPINIONS TO THE WHOLE WORLD! WHY DON'T YOU POST MY OPINION IF YOU WANT TO POST EVERYONE ELSES'? HOW CAN I MAKE YOUR INFORMATION LESS POV? IT IS A STAIGHT OUT OPINION AND THE ONLY WAY I CAN DO THAT IS BY DELETING. I REALLY HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND AND I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PUBLISH OPINIONS ON A SITE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO STATE FACT.

Anon- The "facts" in this incident are contradictory because they are coming through via opinioned filters. Until you can get me opinion-free information, I choose to go the route of representing both sides over having nothing there at all. This seems to be the pattern for many other Wikipedia articles, as well. When there are multiple sides to a topic, wikipedia tries to give them, in order to obtain NPOV. If you want to try to add more information pertaining to one side's version of events, or talk about the problems of getting unbiased information relating to the brothers' conflict, that would be very welcome. Please note that I mentioned that the accusation of Aaron's disprespect was made by Zalman's people and denied by Aaron's people. I don't see any other way to write about this sort of thing. I disagree that it is better to have people know nothing about the current feud in Satmar. I understand your objections, but I feel the solution is to give MORE information and context (and yes, even critiques), not less. ShalomShlomo 01:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION BUT THE REASON WHY I FEEL YOU SHOULD WRITE NOTHING IS BECAUSE IT IS LOSHON HORA. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH YOU DO OR DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT BUT PERSONALLY, I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT IT IS A VERY GRAVE THING TO SPEAK LOSHON HORA, ESPECIALLY ABOUT GEDOLIM AND TORAH LEADERS. THAT IS WHY I AM VERY MUCH AGAINST YOUR POSTS ABOUT REB AHARON AND REB ZALMEN. FURTHER, I AM AGAINST YOUR POSTING OPINIONS BECAUSE FOR ALL YOU KNOW THESE OPINIONS COULD BE BASELESS. AS I SAID EARLIER, HOW ABOUT IF YOU POST MY OPINION? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL SEE EYE TO EYE WITH ME ON THIS, I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY AGAINST WRITING SLANDEROUS AND FALSE ACUSATIONS (YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT THEY ARE CORRECT) PARTICULARLY ABOUT GREAT JEWISH LEADERS. IT ALSO MAKES A BAD NAME FOR US AND I DONT KNOW IF THATS WHAT YOU WANT OR NOT, BUT I AM JUST TRYING TO CONVEY TO YOU WHY I FEEL THE WAY I DO. THANKS. HAPPY 21 KISLEV.

whoever made the Satmar page had quite a few inaccurasies in the backround section. i took the liberty of editing it. please check your sources before publishing things that you are uncertain of as fact. thank you

Without being more specific we have no way of knowing what statements are "incorrect". Information about Satmar is not exactly easy to find on the internet, and I spent quite a while finding useful background information when I wrote the history section. Nobody else was doing it, anyway. If there is a conflict that is consistently making headlines then Wikipedia should not refrain from making at least nominal mention of this. Indeed, this needs to be neutral, describing the conflict rather than taking positions, and it must require adequate sources to be sustainable.

Please don't type in ALL CAPS. It's annoying. Please consider getting a username. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with JFW, please have some consideration for the normal readers. No-one can read reams of CAPITAL (UPPER CASE) letters. Get a life. IZAK 06:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

you know, you don't have to only research Satmar on the internet. and just b/c you dont have adequate research doesn't mean you have to post inaccurasies. for example, you wrote that Reb Yoel ztl succeeded his father as Rabbi of Sighet...where did you hear that from? you can't just make things up Rebbeshe Kneesocks

No one's suggesting that things should be made up- but some sort of source is encouraged. The internet is sometimes more convenient, because then everyone can verify it and determine if it's an accurate source. That said, if you have information showing certain parts of the article inaccurate, or contest some of the information in the article, do so- here. Also, the article doesn't say that Yoel was rebbe of Sighet:

Rabbi Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, author of Kedushas Yom Tov, was Rebbe in the town of Sighet. He had two sons: Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Teitelbaum and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum. Rabbi Chaim Tzvi, the oldest, succeeded his father as Rebbe of Sighet. Rabbi Joel (Yoel) Teitelbaum was Rabbi in a city called Krooli and later moved to Satmar where he became Rabbi and formed the community of Satmar.

In short, what are you talking about? ShalomShlomo 05:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah it doesn't say it any more bc i changed it! before that, it said inaccurate information. and you don't always need to use the easy way out to do research. is it possible that when you refer to Rebbes you can please give them a title? thanks Rebbeshe Kneesocks

Give who a title and under what circumstances?ShalomShlomo 06:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

for example, you refered to the holy Satmar Rebbe ztl above by calling him only by his first name as you were his colleage. please call him Rabbi Teitelbaum or Reb Yoel or the Satmar Rebbe etc...just with a title out of kovod. and with all the Rebbes and Rabbis...its appropriate that when refering to them you give them a title. thank you. - Rebbeshe Kneesocks

To the guy using caps--While one shouldn't write lashon hara, one shouldn't publically embarass another Jew either. You're publically attacking ShalomShlomo anonymously (which is why I get to rebuke you here--because you don't have a username). I was fine with what you were saying until you decided to post that you don't like what he's posting because it's lashon hara. If you want to help him make sure his posts abide by the Wiki rules of conduct, etc., fine. But tell him your views about his lack of religious observance in textual editing on his user page, not here. What is it Rav Hirsch said in his first letter to the Bamberger Rav? "Let the anonymous gaze at the fields. I certainly do not wish to disturb them"? Or something like that.

To ShalomShlomo and Rebbeshe Kneesocks: I think there were two rebbes in Sighet at one time. The Szigheter Rebbe and a Satmar Rebbe. That's what my aunt told me and she lived there. --Yodamace1 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Bollocks. Satmer and Sighet were unaffiliated until R' Yoelish became Rav there. R' Yoelish did not reside in Sighet during his tenure as Satmar Rabbi - after which he migrated to the States. Cockneyite 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• The section about the Zalmen-Aharon conflict don't seem like loshon hora. It just seems to be a detailed and UNBIASED overview of the facts. Akerensky99 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Ditto Cockneyite 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was "let the anonymous gnats buzz happily in their sunny meadows" (at least in the English translation). JFW | T@lk 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To the guy using caps--P.S.: I don't feel the attitude reflected in your posts and your use of caps is befitting of a proper ben Melech. --Yodamace1 14:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yodamace1- The earlier anonymous poster is the person who became Rebbeshe Kneesocks. They deleted their IP info after JFW pointed it out. Cute.

AFAIK, Yoel T. was rav of Satmar and Moshe T. (present rebbe) was rav of Sighet- which is how Elie Wiesel refers to him in "Night". ShalomShlomo 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

207.127.40.3- Let's please have a conversation about you continually deleting the Aaron-Zalman section. ShalomShlomo 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

207.127.40.3- thanks so much! you did the right thing and don't let anyone convince you otherwise! all we have to do now is delete the page describing the "conflict"

ShalomShlomo-can you PLEASE give Gedolim titles? i find it quite offensive that you don't. you are talking about the Satmar REBBE ZTL and i feel it inappropriate to refer to him only by his first name to the guy who rebuked the person writing in caps-it is important to reveal to the rest of the world that ShalomShlomo is not posting truth and everyone must not believe the loshon hora that is being posted a freilichen Chanukah Rebbeshe Kneesocks

Rebbeshe Kneesocks- Simply because you have a problem with the Satmar dispute being spoken about does not give you the perrogative to delete it, or to enlist others to fight your battles. Feel free to explain what your issues are with it and how it can be improved. Simply deleting it is unacceptable and offensive to me- not that you care, of course. I will continue to revert the page, either at A-Z conflict or here. After some thought, I have decided that it whould be better as its own page, but that's for an admin to decide. My issue is with you wanting to delete any mention of it. Who made you Grand Rebbe? Explain your issues with the article, and I'll be happy to try and accomodate your viewpoint. Up until now, your only contribution has been to say, "it's not true, delete it". Sorry, no dice. This isn't Der Yid. As far as your other comment, I see no reason to respect any request of yours when you continue to demonstrate such childish behavior with no regard for anyone else's positions. I'll start calling people rebs and ravs when you stop trying to censor anything you find personally objectionable. In other words: Yoel, Yoel, Yoel, Moshe, Moshe, Aaron, Zalman, Yoel. Have a Happy Hanukkah and good Shabbos. ShalomShlomo 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you calling gedolim by their first names has anything to do with my deleting unfactual information and clearly i am not the only one who feels this way. this issue (of you calling GEDOLIM by only their first names) existed before i came to the site and now you are saying the only way you'll stop being disrespectful is if i go against the "wiki spirit" by not being "bold" and conceding to what you want! please explain: why do you insist on calling them by only their first names? why do you insist on publishing information that you dont know is factual? there are so many opinions on this issue! a Rav once told me that there is no fight at all! this really is not the forum to publish OPINIONS

You have yet to demonstrate how it is at all unfactual. All you have done is to claim it is. None of us have any way of knowing where your sources of information are coming from. You have issues with my sources? Fine. Say so and help us find better ones. But blank denial? Based on what? What's your source? Quoting some anonymous Rav doesn't cut it. I'm trying to find out as much information as possible and sharing it semi-coherently. If there are areas which are in error, help fix them, don't delete them. It's obviously happening, unless you're going to argue that the news reports about Satmar fistfights are being made up, too.

For the record- I happen to call these guys by their first names on the TALK page because I feel like it. What do you care? Respect is a two-way street. You aren't giving anyone here any motivation to do you 'extra' favors. ShalomShlomo 00:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

? on the page about yankees or mets is there mention that a few people, met fans or yankees fans, sometimes have fistfights? it's only a very small minority in satmar who fight and the rest of satmar is ashamed of it. even if we take sides, the violence is not allowed. Reb Aharon wrote in a signed afidavit that in any large group the immature members occasionally resort to violence and he continuously exhorted his followers never resort to violence and it's out of his hands if people do not listen to him.

Anon- By all means, such information should be on those pages. It's a fact, and people are talking about it. Even if you want to argue that it's being blown out of proportion, it should be mentioned- and then you can also say, "some people say this is all exaggerated, Aaron said X, etc..." My impression is that most violence is rarely "allowed"; that's immaterial to its inclusion here. It makes no difference if people are disobeying Aaron or if he's leading the charge. These guys are beating each other up in public, it's being reported in the media and it's having an impact on the community and on people's outside impressions of it. All of these things should be mentioned when talking about a group, as they are RELEVANT to it. Even if you want to argue for why the "misconceptions" are incorrect, they should still be mentioned- because they've happened. ShalomShlomo 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry i thought it was obvious that when you wrote Reb "Zalman's supporters said." i mean, it sounds like an opinion. and besides, you interviewed every last "Reb Zalman supporter" to make sure he felt that way? i still do not understand why this has to be posted on the Satmar page which is ment to serve as an encyclopedic reference and not a newspaper article. im sorry this has turned into a big fight; i just happen to get defensive on such matters. a freilichen Chanukah Rebbeshe Kneesocks 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebbeshe Kneesocks, if you think the tone of the section isn't encyclopedic enough, I'd welcome help on changing it. I would also be interested in trying to figure out a way of both giving the conflict enough coverage, as I think it is significant to Satmar today (particularly as it's been going on for almost seven years, it's not exactly some short-lived episode), but share concerns about it overshadowing the general article. I'm thinking about maybe trying to cut it down a little, and then posting more detailed sections on both brothers' pages. Do you think that would be an acceptable compromise? I absolutely don't want to put anything here that isn't true, or having it be the major focus of the Satmar page, but I think that this feud is worth having information about on SOME page relating to Satmar. If the dispute can't have its own page, then having some info here and some at Aaron Teitelbaum and Zalman Teitelbaum might be the best solution.

I'd also be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this proposal, too. ShalomShlomo 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What does comparison to other conflicts belong here?

i agree with 207.127.40.3. i appreciate that you want to make a compromise, but i dont think that i can be part of it. you see, i dont feel anyone has the right to post anything about the Satmar conflict bc no one is too sure of whats going on and i feel it is loshon hora to talk about "fist fights" which i dont even believe to be true. i know you keep telling me that i am refusing to believe things bc i dont want to, but the truth is i refuse to believe this loshon hora; i am not allowed to. i am really sorry and i hope you can understand. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebbeshe Kneesocks- I appreciate your honesty and your position, though I disagree with it. I agree that lashon hara should be avoided if at all possible, but have a problem with ignoring the newspapers just because what they say is unflattering or because of a pre-existing belief that "nothing is really happening". There have been fistfights reported four years in a row, in print and TV media, in the Jewish, haredi, and secular press. I don't know how else to convince you that SOMETHING is going on and that it is at least nominally worthy of a mention.

So I suppose my question to you is this: if you don't support a compromise, will you at least be willing to use the talk page to try and iron out conflicts and make the page better (if only to lessen the "lashon hara" as you see it), instead of continuing to lobby for the all-out deletion of the section? Because I think that's key to the dispute going on here; I'm happy to argue over details if we're proceeding from the starting point that, yes, the feud should get SOME air-time, whatever amount of space and detail that may wind up being.

In short, I appreciate your position; I just want to know what it means in practical terms.ShalomShlomo 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to what I have been taught, even if something is in the headlines, if it is negative or derogatory information about another Yid, this is classified as Loshon Hora and it is forbidden to believe it. Yes, even if they say it all over the news.

• • • Wrong. If it is common knowledge it is not considered Loshon Horah - in which case it is permitted to believe it. Common knowledge means if three people know and do not keep it secret. (Check your Chofez Chaim.) Cockneyite 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Again, I must refer you to my user page.

Also, you never know who has the story wrong and what details that only the involved parties know about are not revealed etc. In practical terms, I would just say to leave it out. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And if others disagree? Do you see any way out of this perpetually ongoing edit-war? ShalomShlomo 03:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron/Zalman: Part Two

Why I feel it necessary to delete certain parts: I feel that the "background to the conflict" section is biased. The proof of this is the sources used to write this. The sources consist of blogs (which express OPINIONS), op-eds (whish express OPINIONS) and the website of this guy who used to be Satmar and rebelled (how can such a website not be a mockery of Satmar?!). More importantly, I keep deleting this section because it is loshon hora. I don't know if you get what that means, but loshon hora, derogatory speech, is a horrible thing and is much worse when it's about Gedolim (great Jewish leaders). I have specified my motivations now please specify yours for wanting to keep on reposting your biased-unencyclopedic information. And please don't use the banner of "I want people to know the truth" because if you really felt that way, you wouldn't be so insistant to publish information that is based on OPINION! It even says "according to R' Zalman's SHLIT"A followers" and "according to R' Aharon's SHLIT"A followers" 1) you interviewed every last follower? 2) the fact that there is differing opinions shows that we don't know the facts of the situation. Now please explain why you feel so strongly in publishing derogatory information based on biased sources that is loshon hora. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 20:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Your issue with sources seems to be a straw-man, since you have repeatedly indicated your opposition to there being any mention of the ongoing feud at all. However, since you mentioned it, I'll bite: you say the information is biased? Biased against whom? It seems pretty equally-balanced between the two brothers, insofar as both sides are represented. You say the sources aren't good? Find us some better ones. What are some valid sources you WOULD accept? Why not HELP make this section less opinionated instead of continuing to propose mass-deletions?

The lashon hara issue is something else entirely (particularly since something can be lashon hara even if it's true). Wikipedia's job is not to protect rabbis from unflattering information available in the public domain. Your LH criticisms have nothing to do with sources, and really come down to matters of opinion. You say it's defamatory; I say it's just the facts. Incidentally, the fact that very few people have helped you with these monster-deletions suggests that very few people who have read or contributed to this page share your assessment of the info being LH. Are you going to delete the Jack Abramoff page, too? Following your above definition of lashon hara, you should:

even if something is in the headlines, if it is negative or derogatory information about another Yid, this is classified as Loshon Hora and it is forbidden to believe it.

For my part, I have repeatedly stated why I think the information should be there- it is reported fact, plus attempts at decent analysis and commentary courtesy of myself, a few other contributors, and whatever additional information we could cobble together off the net. You have never specified which parts of the section you believe to be untrue. Do you deny the reports of Satmar fistfights? Do you deny the ongoing legal battles? Is your issue with that, or with the larger analysis? Would you prefer less context (some of it admittedly somewhat speculative) and simply "there have been cases of rival groups beating each other"? Exactly what do you want changed?

I don't buy some of your criticisms of what makes a source invalid. That some sources used may also contain opinion WITH their facts does not invalidate the facts that are being referenced or commented on. The opinions themselves are useful in providing information about how some people feel about one brother or the other, or are reacting to the ongoing situation. You seem to be arguing that someone having an opinion about a current event disqualifies that event from being encyclopedic, or from that source being included as an information source. In some cases, the opinions are used in the article as their own facts, as examples of some people within Satmar who feel a certain way about X. How else would you suggest we proceed?

If we had better sources on Satmar, I'd be happy to use them. At present, this is the best we seem to be able to do, and I think having something (and having it be as complete, and fair, as possible- something you could help us with), is preferable to having nothing. I don't follow your arguments about "differing opinions"; there are always differing opinions among any group. Following your criteria would make it impossible to say anything about anyone. If you have information contradicting the sources or the information given, put it up and work it into the article. You have yet to suggest any way of improving the article, much less actually step up and help out. All you have done is delete, delete, delete. The information is biased? Prove it. The information is derogatory (as opposed to unflattering)? Prove it. The information is incorrect? Prove it. Back up your statements and find us some better information. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, I would respectfully ask that you step aside. ShalomShlomo 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This has really gotten out of hand. The section on the controversy is way too big. The article doesn't even touch on Zionism and the conflict with Chabad, but has 3 sections on a succession debate?!? This isn't an encyclopedia article on Satmar, even if it might be an encyclopedia article on Hasidic succession. PhatJew 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

PhatJew, do you have any particular solution in mind? We tried to have a stand-alone A-Z conflict page originally, but some people thought it wasn't warranted. What about someone copying the controversy section and moving it (or elements of it) to the brothers' individual pages, and then cutting out non-essential paragraphs and details from the general Satmar article? ShalomShlomo 20:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as exclusion may be POV, so can inclusion. Frankly, I don't see the conflict as being any different than what has happened over and over again since the death of the Besht. Even the article mentions that. I was thinking about this, and the best solution I can see is to have one article about the manner of Hasidic succession and make brief mention of this particular instance. Satmar is notable (in order, according to my opinion) for its opposition to Zionism, public disagreements with Chabad (over tefillin, menorah lightings, kiruv) and creation of insular communities in the U.S. which led to an important Supreme Court decision. (All of the above are amazingly missing from the article.) It has made significant contributions to the Jewish community in terms of scholarship, population and significant organizations/institutions. If the conflict over succession takes up more space than any of these things, the article is imbalanced. Which is the problem with Wikipedia...POV makes for lots of edits/edit wars/lots of content and NPOV makes for stale/missing content. Oh, and just for clarification, I only made an edit regarding Tomchei Shabbos, not Sighet. PhatJew 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

209.155.49.3- This exact same edit was tried before, and reverted. Do you have evidence to suggest that the A-Z controversy is not between the two brothers? Obviously the dispute also carries over into their followers, that's why they're their followers. Couldn't the same unecessary edit be made to the article about the Besht and the Vilna Gaon? Could you explain the reasons you think your edit is appropriate? ShalomShlomo 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These Rabbis are on a high level and do not get involved with such petty fighting. I have asked them both personally and they both wish to see the fighting stopped. This is not the same as the dispute between the Baal Shem Tov and the Vilna Gaon, because their fight was on lofty Theological concepts and the Satmar fight is merely a petty argument. There it was they themselves, as opposed to here it is only the followers. -Joel

Joel- I tried a new edit, one that includes mentions of both the followers and the brothers. I think it's a mistake to try to edit their involvement out entirely, particularly since there obviously IS some sort of personal conflict going on between the two (if not, one of them could simply say he didn't want to be rebbe and the other one could have it, right?) However, I have tried to emphasize that a lot of the "high-profile" disputes are actually happening between the brothers' followers, and not them themselves. I hope this helps alleviate some of your concerns.ShalomShlomo 20:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This article accurately says the dispute is between the followers. [2]

And? How does that change what we've been discussing? Both factions are still identified as belonging to each of the brothers, and are presumably acting at least partially on their behalf.ShalomShlomo 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

thank god for machlokes if not i would convert and become a litvak--REBELYIS 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fun With Translations

מר שלום שלמה קערט נישט פון לשון הרע און כבוד הגדולים ווייל ער איז א פרייער שייגעץ - קוק אף זיינער פרופייל - ער זוגט אז ער איז א אגנאסטיק און א ליבעראל - זיין כוונה איז צו באשמירען ערליכער אידען און תורה בכלל רחמנא לצלן!!!

Translation, please? ShalomShlomo 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy to oblige you ShalomShlomo. Free translation (parenthesised bits added): Mr Shalom Shlomo does not care about slander (as far as halakha is concerned) nor about the honour of the (Jewish) sages, because he is a secular "Scheigez" (something that translates somewhere between "lowlife" and "recusant", literally "Shekez" - Abomination) - look at his profile - he says he is an agnostic and a liberal - his intentions are to smear the name of devout Jews and the Torah generally, Lord help us. Cockneyite 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Considering his use of Yiddish to express himself, one must assume that is his native toungue. And considering the fact that he is quite inerudite in it, one must assume he is quite obtuse in general.

Again, a point I brought up above in the NPOV section, the anonymous Yiddish writer wishes to obstruct the right of information to be delivered freely to all by stating moral and Halakhaic reasons. Whilst noble in the coffee room gossipmongereè, such a policy does not conform with the encyclopaedic gist. Cockneyite 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, Cockneyite. No wonder this guy prefers tossing out anonymous insults- it seems there is but a short jump from having a profile to it being used for ad hominems.

Tell me, Anon, at what point have I slandered the Torah? You do know you're supposed to cite your sources here, right? But I guess it's only slander if "shlita" comes after the subject's name. I wonder, was the above approved by the Satmar rebbe? Which one? ShalomShlomo 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nasty Nasty, tsk tsk. Cockneyite 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to wish a hearty SHKOYACH to whoever unlocked the Satmar page and edited it! thank you! and please, everyone, please try to be more conscious of NOT slandering gedolim shlit"a. thanks. and also, even if u think it doesn't make sense to exclude information, if it constitutes Loshon Hora, then it is forbidden to publish it. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 07:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

oh wait there's still treifus on the page. sigh. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Do you really want to start this edit-war again?ShalomShlomo 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo asked me to mediate here. I'm not going to lock the article but I've asked Rebbeshe Kneesocks to stop deleting parts of the article[3]. If the deleting continues, I have the options of locking the article or banning the offender. Please collaborate here. If Rebbeshe Kneesocks thinks some sources are unreliable he will have to back this up. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A Neologism

Again guys: Please do not create an "Aaron-Zalman Conflict" article as such a title is a neologism meaning you are making up new words that is not in common usage (go ahead, look up neologism). IZAK 11:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

so remove it - it doesn't belong on the main article -

What do you think about the idea of moving it (or parts of it) to the brothers' individual pages? ShalomShlomo 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: Whatever is about the brothers may also be included in their pages, sure.IZAK 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And to the anonymous one who says "so remove it - it doesn't belong on the main article" I say: get a life. This is part of what is happing in Satmar right now, even as we tap-tap away at our keyboards, as all the plentiful "External links" and citations on this page prove. It is also important information for anyone who may want to learn why the subject comes up in the media so often and what does it say about the condition of the Satmar movement, and by extension all of Haredi Judaism in the 21st century. IZAK 09:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i cannot believe that someone who has a username on wikipedia is telling an anonymous person to "get a life." i mean, just b/c anonymous said something you dont like doesnt mean he has no life!

Dear Vaase Zokken. Although you have shown yourself to be quite un"Yoeli"ish by adding that bit about R' Alyashiv lower down, you are just the same pain in the hindside like the rest of them. "Someone who has a username"??? You sound like the fella who divided the world between people who sing Shoshanas Yaakov in Cheshvon and those who eat Gefilte Fish. What is this exclamatory statement protesting Izak's prejudice against anonymity? Did you absolutely have to predicate your stance in the matter? Whereby one who does have a username has less of a life than the rest of us just because he spent a few minutes establishing himself so that his statements and additions can be traced back to a particular mindset and thence judged? I am not saying being anonymous indicates that one has no life, but please, don't be so zealous in defending anonymity. Cockneyite 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons/Historical Context sub-section

IZAK- Just wanted to highlight and agree with your last point. This is precisely why when I originally wrote the conflict section I included comparisons to other Hasidic conflicts, which I thought was particularly valuable. While the Teitelbaum conflict is on the one hand a very specific dispute between two brothers, it also seems to be part of an ongoing pattern, a-la Vizhnitz, Toldos Aharon, and now Bobov (and, arguably, Chabad). The Hasidic (and haredi) world seem to be undergoing an increase in factionalism, and people interested in such things would certainly do well to include Satmar as an extreme (and publicized) example of a particularly volatile schism-in-progress. Not only is the Satmar conflict important vis-a-vis its own community, but also for its relevance in the larger context of changes taking place in the "modern" Hasidic world. ShalomShlomo 10:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ShalomShlomo: I agree with you about the pattern of divisiveness in the Hasidic world and the Haredi world at large. However, here are two observations: Unfortunately, the very effective and great recently deceased (relatively speaking) leaders of these movements and dynasties did not make strong enough and good enough preparation for a succession to their (near absolute) rule once they would leave the scene. This seems to be a problem as old as the Tanakh, when David had to be warned and told by Nathan (acting as an envoy from God Himself) to remove a bad son and ensure that his good son Solomon would inherit the throne. And secondly, many people mistake the competition between camps as a reflection of some sort of "weakness" in Hasidic or Haredi Judaism, which it is definitely NOT. The problems of rival leaders arises because nowadays there are enough followers (and hence cash) to go after all the competing leaders. So it's a manifestation of growth in numbers and over-all strength of the movements and not a reflection of their weakness. These are part of their "growth pains" as they reach to become and grow ever more numerous and powerful. Stay tuned, as they say... IZAK 11:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

IZAK: Quite right. If anything, I'd say this simply highlights the fact that many Haredi communities are, as they have always been, centered around charismatic personalities. This in itself isn't a weakness; the issue is what happens when that personality is gone and there is no one who can necessarily take their place (or at least, not for a long while). If anything, the "weakness" is not in the Haredi world or lifestyle itself, but rather in that these various communities have yet to determine efficient and orderly succession procedures, esp. in cases where no one "candidate" is necessarily more "rebbe-like" than another. This is also true to an extent among Misnagdim. AFAIK, there has really been no one in that community who has effectively replaced or even come close to filling the hole left by Schach's death. What will happen when Elyiashiv finally passes on? Again, these aren't "weaknesses" so much as objective consequences of having communities with this type of hierarchical structure. And, of course, there's also the growing influence of an increasingly pervasive "modern" (secular) world, which, among other things, makes minority and dissident voices stronger, or at least more vocal. 200 years ago, a younger son who wanted to go against the birth order would have either bided his time or moved to the next town. Nowadays, they don't have to; they can challenge their brother's legitimacy, and gain at least a small following. I supect that, to a certain degree, this is the result of the rebellious secular world "rubbing off" on the haredim. ShalomShlomo 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shalom please do not write such things. i find it highly offensive. Rebbeshe Kneesocks 07:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• And for no good reason. I am a Satmerer - I dress it, I study Veyoel Moishe whenever there is a shi'ur in the Satmar-67 shul in London, I do the thang and dance the jig. However, I do understand that not everybody feels the same, and if a person refers to things I hold dear and exalted in a more cold and remote manner, I believe it is perfectly natural and acceptable. Whilst in Satmar Shul it might appear disrespectful, it does not so in an encyclopaedia. We, Satmer, are the topic here - not the audience. Like the man said: I might be talkin about ya, but I sure ain't talkin 'to' you. Same here. On this site, NPOV is one of the ten commandments - thou shalt no kill, is not. Prospective, my friend: think out of the box - or don't, but keep your peace about it. Cockneyite 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And I still don't care about your personal opinions. Deleting someone else's comments on a discussion page? What is wrong with you? ShalomShlomo 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

R' Yosef Sholom Elyashiv SHLIT"A should live a long happy healthy life ad meah v'esrim shonah.

I refer you to my userpage Cockneyite 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

how can a Satmar Chosid say he speaks Ivris?!?!?!? !!! Rebbeshe Kneesocks 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Same way a Satmar Chosid can be an insufferable cad. Cockneyite 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protected per request

I have protected this article per request [4], until the battling editors can come to consensus regarding what to do about the disputed text. Please use the discussion page to resolve editing differences, rather than engaging in edit warring. Tomer^talk 08:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My only Q is, i understand why you wanted to lock it, but why did you lock it with Shalom's additions? wouldn't it be fair to not have ANYTHING till the conflict is IYH resolved? Rebbeshe Kneesocks 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See the tag associated with the lock- it isn't endorsing it either way, and the admin hasn't been involved with the discussion. My additions just happened to be on the page when it was locked. Next time move faster :)

In (minor) defense of this version being locked, btw, I'd say that it is somewhat helpful in that now anyone who comes to the talk page to add their 2 cents on whether that section should be here or not can see exactly what's being discussed, instead of having to jump back 5 edits. ShalomShlomo 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ShalomShlomo here. IZAK 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Great encyclopedic article, can I make a suggestion for when the article is unlocked. Can you make the wedding image 250px in width by adding "250px" into the internal url. What do you think of switching the two images? Since the image of Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum appears in his biography, would it look better to have the wedding image lead the article and his image below, closer to where he is discussed in the article? Should we remove the dropshadow from his image by cropping it? the Wikipedia stylebook calls for no borders or dropshadows to give a consistent look to the whole encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Now we see why the aaron-zalmen conflict deserves its own page - why should the entire Satmar article be locked because of the machlokes?

207.127.40.204- The article was locked because some folks were unwilling to come to any sort of compromise and kept engaging in "machlokes" of their own, in the form of an endless edit-war. Regardless of my own thoughts on whether it should be its own page, IZAK's point about AZC being a newly invented term (if even that) is correct. Besides, how do we know that those opposed to mentioning AZC at all wouldn't then delete that page, per Kneesock's "instructions" above? They've shown no willingness to compromise here; there's been no headway on the issue since the page was locked. Why unlock the page now, when they'll just start the edit war up again? ShalomShlomo 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Unprotected. Nothing happening on the talk page. Hopefully things have simmered down. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebbeshe Kneesocks, this is not your own personal playground. You had your opportunity to argue your case when the page was locked, and you stayed away from the discussion almost entirely. Now the page is unlocked and you're making unilateral mass-deletions again. At what point are you going to stop this infantile behavior? Do you want to get the page locked again? ShalomShlomo 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Outline of Satmar's Hasidic rabbinical lineage

I am experimenting with a better way to show the info

• 1. Rebbe Yisrael Baal Shem Tov, founder of Hasidism.
• 2. Rebbe R' Ber, the Magid (Preacher) of Mezritch; disciple of the Baal Shem Tov.
• 3. Rebbe R' Elimelech Lipman of Lizensk, author of Noam Elimelech; disciple of the Magid of Mezritch.
• 4. Rebbe Yaakov Yitzchak, the Chozeh (Seer) of Lublin; Author of Zichron Zos; disciple of Rebbe Elimelech of Lizensk
• 5. Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Ujhel, author of Yismach Moshe, disciple of the Chozeh of Lublin
• 6. Rebbe Eleazer Nissan Teitelbaum of Drobitsch, son of the Yismach Moshe
• 7. Rebbe Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum of Siget, author of Yetev Lev - son of Rebbe Eleazer Nissan
• 8. Rebbe Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum of Sighet, author of Kedushas Yom Tov - son of the Yetev Lev
• 9. Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar, author of Divrei Yoel and VaYoel Moshe - youngest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov
• 9. Rebbe Chaim Tzvi Teitelbaum of Sighet, author of Atzei Chaim , eldest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov
• 10. Rebbe Yekutiel Yehuda Teitelbaum (1911-1944) of Sighet, son of the Atzei Chaim.
• 11. Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Satmar - present Satmar Grand Rebbe - author of Berach Moshe - youngest son of the Atzei Chaim
• 12. Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Kiryas Joel; eldest son of the present Grand Rebbe.
  • 13. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Teitelbaum, Rabbi of Satmar Congregation of Antwerp, eldest son of Rabbi Aaron
• 12. Rabbi Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, second son of the present Grand Rebbe. (sides with Rabbi Zalman)
• 12. Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum, Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Williamsburg; third son of the present Grand Rebbe.
  • 13. Rabbi Teitelbaum, Rabbi of Satmar Congregation of Jerusalem; son of Rabbi Zalman Leib
  • 13. Rabbi Teitelbaum, Rabbi of Sighet Synagogue of Boro Park; son of Rabbi Zalman Leib
• 12. Rabbi Shalom Eliezer Teitelbaum, youngest son of the present Grand Rebbe. (sides with Rabbi Aaron)
• 12. Rabbi David Dov Berish Meisels, Chief Rabbi of Satmar in Boro Park; son-in-law of the present Grand Rebbe. (sides with Rabbi Aaron)
  • 13. Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Meisels, Rabbi of Satmar Congregation in Bnei Brak; on of Rabbi David Dov Berish Meisels of Boro Park
• 12. Rabbi Chaim Joshua Halberstam, Chief Rabbi of Satmar in Monsey; son-in-law of the present Grand Rebbe (sides with Rabbi Zalmen)
• 12. Rabbi David Meisels, Chief Rabbi of Satmar in Montreal; son-in-law of the present Grand Rebbe

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ),

This might certainly be preferable to the present method of the words gradually smashing against the right-corner of the page. It might be advisable, however, to have some way of visually differentiating the actual rebbes of Satmar from other members of the dynasty. I'm not sure what is possible using wikipedia code. Is there, for instance, a color-tag that could be put around Yoel and Moshe? Also, if the numbers refer to generations, all the ones after Yoel are off-by-one. Yoel was the same generation as Chaim Tzvi, so they should both be generation 9. ShalomShlomo 17:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! thats why some were originally bolded and not others. Yes, I agree, we should go back to that or a similar style, but remember to put in an explanation of what the bolding means. Perhaps we can use a carat (^) to denote the dynasty. Have you thought of doing this with a succession box like what is used in presidencies? That way if you want to follow the line back, you click on the previous person who held the post and get to their biography. That way we would only have to show the portion with the split into Williamsburg and . Assuming the box is a good idea, what would the tile of the position be? Chief Rabbi of Satmar or Rebbe of Satmar? Is there any title that would be all inclusive? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be Grand Rabbi or Rebbe. The title Chief Rabbi is for those under the Grand Rabbi or Rebbe, like Rabbi Aaron who is Chief Rabbi of KJ and Rabbi Zalman who is Chief Rabbi of Williamsburg Itzik18 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to make a succession box when you have divisions. Itzik18 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Chabad simply ignores their many divisions, such as Malachim and Liozna, so they "make believe" that they don't have that problem. Others do not have that problem, like Belz, so they can have succession boxes. It would be very difficult to make succesion boxes for Nadvorna, Spinka, or Biala

I would say that a succession box would be a good idea for the individual biographies for those members of the Teitelbaum line who were actually rebbes. Unfortunately, that doesn't really help us here, since this page (and this section, specifically) are ostensibly about the dynasty itself. I would say that having some sort of key for rebbes would be good, and we might also want to institute some sort of cut-off point for how far forward and back the dynastic line should extend.

The biggest reason why the section seems so out of control right now is because: A- the succession section currently includes a lot of minor relatives who have little to do with the actual dynastic line, and B- it includes a bunch of Satmar's "ancestors" who came long before Satmar itself actually came into being. If you compare this with most of the other Hasidic pages, such as Ger or Belz or Chabad, all of them start with the actual originators of the dynasty, not their ancestors. Satmar's, by contrast, starts with the Baal Shem Tov! I suggest that, per the style laid out in the Chabad "early origins" section, that Satmar's dynastic succession start with Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum of Sighet (or Yoel himself) and work its way down, giving earlier background on the movement's "early ancestors" in an above paragraph, but not as part of the actual generational layout. Either that, or use the model in Spinka, with the genealogy divided into two sections- "Early Origins" and "Sighet-Satmar", which would go from Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum of Sighet downward. ShalomShlomo 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say to start at least from the Yismach Moshe instead of the Yetev Lev, as you suggest. However, many other groups begin from the Baal Shem Tov here on Wikipedia, i.e. Biala, Boyan, Karlin, Nadvorna, Pupa, Rachmastrivka, Skulen, Skver, Slonim, Tosh, Viznitz, etc. so I feel that Ger and Bobov should conform with them and go back to the Baal Shem Tov, as opposed to making Satmar with them. As far as Chabad, they have a paragraph that mentions that the Tanya was a talmid of the Magid, who was a Talmid of the Baal Shem Tov, so they also have their article's lineage go back to the beginning of Chassidus Itzik18 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Itzkik18- But there's the question of if that is, in fact, appropriate in the first place. Why should these dynasties be going back to the Baal Shem Tov, long before some of these sects even existed? There WAS no Satmar Rebbe in the days of the Baal Shem Tov. I'm not so sure it's appropriate, or relevant, to have an extra ten generations in the lineage that don't actually have that much to do with the dynasty of the leaders of Satmar itself. The difference as I see it is whether we think we should include the entire genealogy of the Teitelbaums (including "ideological genealogy", as the Besht was not a Teitelbaum), or just the genealogy as it directly pertains to Satmar.

This is why I think the best approach might be to divide the genealogy into two parts, one documenting (either graphically or in a paragraph of text) how we get from the Besht to Satmar, and then another one grahically showing the actual Satmar succession, which, IMO, should start with Yoel, not Kedushas Yom Tov or Yetev Lev, as neither of them were actually rebbes of Satmar.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.ShalomShlomo 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the present rabbinical lineage section is getting a little out of control? Are all of these sons-in-law really relevant to the article? ShalomShlomo 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the current factional struggle does not seem to be resolved yet, fixed what looked like a POV in the succession table (sorry if I'm stepping on anyones toes): "Rabbi Aaron" vs "Rebbe Zalman" [POV] ==> "Rabbi Aaron" vs "Rabbi Zalman" [NPOV]. Justification is that these two are the only candidates, so bolding both is appropriate, but neither seems to be the official Rebbe yet (yes, I am aware of the will!), so both should be left as Rabbi for the moment. Please update appropriately if wrong, or as current events unfold. Xpi6 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

succession box

What do people think of the succession box in the Rebbe biographies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovber_of_Mezeritch If you think it looks good, help add them through the whole line. I am not sure what the correct title would be. I have "Hasidic Rebbes". The box also requires a "term in office" date, but I dont see them in the biography. Can someone help? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The proper term would be "Rebbe of Sighet", "Rebbe of Satmar", etc. The problem is that there have only been two generations of Teitelbaums who have actually been Rebbe of Satmar, so I'm not entirely sure how useful such a box would be. Sighet is a little longer, but I don't know how we would be able to connect that succession box with Satmar, and with all respect to Sighet, I don't know if that dynasty really merits making the boxes for its rebbes, since those people seem to mainly be important for their connection to Satmar. Ditto for the many generations that came before Yoel. Should we put "progenitor of Satmar?" "Satmar ancestor number 5"? It seems a little clunky.

To me, succession boxes are a nice idea, but because of the specifics of the Satmar dynasty, seem a little too unwieldy. I would recommend making the actual dynastic succession within the larger Teitelbaum line clearer on this page, per some of my suggestions above. If you think some of them are good, I'd be willing to help with some of it.ShalomShlomo 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It should start with the Yismach Moshe, because that is the beginning of the Teitelbaum line Itzik18 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But is the entire Teitelbaum line specifically relevant to Satmar?ShalomShlomo 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same dynasty, just with different names, I don't know of other dynasties than Satmar and Siget coming from the Yismach Moshe, ben-acher-ben. Even if there is another the main one today is Satmar, even though it has recently taken the name Satmar, to the point where the Siget dynasty has changed its name to Satmar now.

You misunderstand. I realize it's the same dynasty, but should all of that be on the Satmar page when Satmar itself, as an entity, is relatively new? Unless you want to change it to the Teitelbaum of Ujhel/Drobitsch/Sighet/Satmar dynasty. And even then, that dynasty has no physical link to any of the people before Yismach Moshe. Why not have an introductory paragraph, per Chabad, which talks about the Besht and disciples going to the early Teitelbaums, and then proceed from there? The present succession is ahistorical, as there was no Satmar sect during the days of the Baal Shem Tov (or Yismach Moshe, incidentally). ShalomShlomo 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To 209.155.49.3: why would you like to add rabbi Wosner to the dynasty it makes absolutely no sense #1 he is not part of the dynasty he is just employed as the rabbi of satmar in London. #2 you will never end, you will have to add rabbi katz of Bnei Brak Etc. and all the Satmar dayunim all over the world. maybe Cockneyite could comment on this. (Neigerig 13:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Please do add all of them - it would be nice to have as much of a complete list as possible

I absolutely disagree. It's already ridiculous that it's as long as it is: not only because of how many people on that list are minor sons-in-law that have little significance within the dynasty, but also (and I know I've been overruled on this) because it includes earlier "influences", masters, teachers, etc., that have no actual connection to Satmar. Satmar didn't exist, as a dynasty, in the days of the Besht.

That said, having lost the earlier argument about master-teacher-relationships being part of the dynasty section, I'd really like it if we could at least cap it at the other end- I think the section's becoming unwieldy and something of an eyesore. Wikipedia isn't a source for esoterica, and very few of these rabbis seem noteworthy enough for inclusion in the list. The less minor rabbis added, the better. ShalomShlomo 01:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the box should list only the main personas related to the family historically and anyone prominent in the line of succession. Unfortunately the latter only includes descendants of the current rabbi. As far as the ancestry of Satmer from him and above is concerned, I believe the list is pretty exhaustive in its current form. In the past century, Chassidus has completed the metamorphosis from a democracy to a quasi-dictatorship with linear succession. It is therefore reasonable to say that whilst from the Yismach Moshe and above the line of succession is non-familial, thenceforth it is; therefore all the assorted Dayannim and Rabbanim associated with Satmer are irrelevant to it and should be left out. Moreover, there are only so many male descendants of prominence a living person can have, but if we include dayanim and other assorted main figures, it will take the form of a "Who's Who" spanning several volumes. One exception can be made for son-in-laws, who, whilst not technically in the line of succession, nevertheless are "royalty". Cockneyite 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that Chassidus was ever a "democracy." That's at least somewhat of a revisionist statement. --Meshulam 18:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I get the idea from history. The first 3 - 4 generations of Chassidus were centred around rabbis whose only claim to "rabisteve" was that Chassidim came to them. There were no hereditary titles, and no "Chassidus" was based territorially. Then Chassidus became more or less centred around the "base" of the rabbi and at the same time it became customary that the son of the rabbi, who had a legal claim to the estate of the rabbi, automatically took over his father's place; yet Chassidim were free to choose another rabbi - typically a disciple of the late rabbi - as their leader. The current system, whereby Chassidim in general seclude themselves from other forks of chassidus and thus "breed" a typical chassid who will not fit in elsewhere, is a fairly recent evolution, one that was enabled by establishing the rabbi as a hereditary office. Cockneyite 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an error concerning the sons in law. The deceased rebbe only had two daughters, not three. One son-in-law is in Boro Park, and the other in Monsey. So there must be an error concerning "Rabbi David Meisels, Chief Rabbi of Satmar in Montreal; son-in-law of the previous Grand Rebbe, (No Side)".

he had three, one [Chaya the wife of rabbi duv berish meizels of boro park] passed away in his life.(Neigerig 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

Delete and move the "Rabbi Moshe succeeds Rabbi Yoel..." section?

Is there any real reason to have this be its own section? If there was more information about Moshe as Sigheter rav, or about how Satmar has changed under his leadership, I could see it, but at present this division seems unecessary. Are there any objections to moving this sentence back up to the "background to the dynasty" section, at least until someone adds some more about Moshe to the page? ShalomShlomo 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the big deal in giving these Rabbanim the title they deserve?! It's RABBI Moshe to you! Rebbeshe Kneesocks 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your helpful (and topical!) responses. How's Eliashiv, btw?ShalomShlomo 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Language

Perhaps I've missed it on the article page, but what is the predominant first language of the Satmarers? Is it Hungarian, Yiddish, or English? And which is the language of study (other than Hebrew)? Babajobu 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would assume the primary colloquial language is Yiddish, but perhaps Cockneyite can confirm. ShalomShlomo 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary language is Yiddish and most of them talk English as a second language. Hungarian is usually only spoken by the older age not necessary by those born in Hungary. (Neigerig 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

It is Yiddish - both as first language and for study (distinct of prayers). Hungarian is used by the old timers when they don't want the youngsters to understand, but most of them know as much Hungarian as Satmer's youth today knows English - which is nothing to write home to Momma about. It is therefore safe to assume that they wouldn't fall back on Hungarian when the young ears aren't about. Cockneyite 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Torah Veyirah

I'd like to provide a translation of the Hebrew Torah Veyirah (the name of many of the Satmar Yeshivas) on the page. I don't speak Hebrew, but Google suggests Veyirah means "fear". I'm guessing this is either meant to be translated/parsed as "Torah [of the God-]fearing", or, "[Yeshiva of the] Torah fearing". Can anyone confirm or corroborate? Is one of these the correct sense of the term? ShalomShlomo 06:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Torah V'Yirah תורה ויראה means "Torah and Fear." I presume that it means that they teach both the intellectual discipline of learning Torah and the emotional pursuit of "Fear of G-d" which is the root of the word "hareidi." That generally accords with Hasidic beliefs of education. If it were Torah b'Yirah "Torah in Fear" with a ב it would more closely correspond to your translations, but they would be more correct for "Toras Yir'im" תורת יראים and "Toras Yirah" תורת יראה respectively. PhatJew 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sighet or Senta?

A recent edit mentions that the present Rebbe, Moshe Teitelbaum, was the Chief Rabbi of Senta. Is this the same place as Sighet? If not, should we not also mention his position in Sighet, and if so, shouldn't we also put Sighet as one of the alternative names of the town, since M.T. was known as the Sigheter Rebbe? ShalomShlomo 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

he was the rabbi of senta in serbia yugoslavia from around 1941 til 1944, it's not the same as sighet. he was known as the sigheter rebbe only after world war II where his older brother zalmen leib the sigheter ruv past away. (Neigerig 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

Did he go to Sighet in 1944, then? I'm pretty sure that Elie Weisel, who lived in Sighet, mentions Rabbi Moshe being the rav of Sighet during his deportation in in 1944. I can check, though. ShalomShlomo 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely sure with what i wrote. check also his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekutiel_Yehuda_Teitelbaum (Neigerig 16:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Neigerig is right. He became known as Sigheter Rav after the war because he was next in line of succession, but he was never the actual rabbi of Sighet

I heard that for a brief period after the war he was actually Rav in Sighet. One of my friends told me that R' Aaron told him this personally. Is this true?

In one of the obits linked here it says that R' Moshe did return briefly to Sighet after the war and was Rav there briefly.

PS. I removed the links from the names of the Sefarim produced by the Rabbis because they would not have made encyclopaedic articles were anyone to start an article on them. Please do not restore them. Cockneyite 01:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

urshevve

A note on "the city urshevve" - this is the small mountain town of Irshava, in the Carpathians of the Ukrainian Zakarpats'ka Oblast, the formerly Czechoslovak Podkarpatská Rus. Unlike the equally small highland town of Svalyava (Hungarian Szölyva), quite close, which still has a community of perhaps about 15 elderly Jews, Irshava as far as I know is now without any Jewish community.

I entered it in to the page. I checked it out the real name is "Irsava".(Neigerig 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

In fact "Irsava" should be "Iršava" ("š" is the "shin" sound), and there is a short Wikipedia article on this town, Hungarian Ilosva. 132.185.240.120 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates and timeline anyone???

Hi there, In the list of satmer rabbeim starting from the baal shem tov, it would be helpful and informative if someone with information can add dates so I can put the names in historical context. Can someone with the info put birth and death dates next to names?

Much appreciated, Amanda216.106.49.131 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is granted. Itzse 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

and state of israel

Hi again, I came to the satmar page looking for information on their position on zionism+state of israel. I am interested in reading the position along with sources for the position (which gemarot, etc). There is no section about this. I do not have the time or knowledge of satmar to add much...I came here looking for the info. Also, I am new and still warming up to how to edit..If someone who knows about satmar and zionism (also, how they differ from other jewish groups on zionism) can add a section, it would be helpful. Thank you again, Amanda 216.106.49.131 21:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The way of the Besht has been forgotten.

I have never quite understood what that position meant. I have been assured that it does not mean that there is no use in learning Likutei Moharan, Tanya, Divrei Chayim, Sfas Emes, etc. But then what does it mean? Perhaps that should be discussed at least somewhat in the article? (If not, please respond here in the discussion.) Meshulam 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

--Some tzadikim says that the really way of the Besht has been forgotten; Reb Chaim of Sanz says: "the really way of the Besht has been forgotten, but if you still searching chassidus go to breslev" and other tzadikim say things about the really way of chassidus, so...depend you.

Rabbi Chaim of Sanz said that the way of the Baal Shem Tov no longer applies. the Satmar Rebbe said that the way of the Baal Shem Tov has been forgotten, yet it still applies. He meant that people call themselves Hassidim but do not truly follow the ways of Hassidism.

Teachings

Instead of focusing mainly on a dynasty itself and the lines of succession, we ought to say more about the teachings of the dynasty. (That ought to go for other Hasidic sects and dynasties, too.) (This article seems to be a good example...) Moreover, those entries shouldn't just be photo albums for Hasidic rabbis. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, check out User:Rickyrab/Hasidic nonsense :)... — Rickyrab | Talk 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

there is discussion about teachings here - i don't know what you're talking about

Name

Well, i suggest that you study history better. I'm from Satmar and lived there all my life up until recently. The late Grand Rabbi Joel used to always call it Sakmer just as all the "old-school" Satmar people.

thats correct. i was and is a lifelong satmarar, and my grand father and for that matter alot of the older generation used to call it "sakmer" too!!!

Rabbi Lipa

is it true that Rabbi Lipa Teitelbaum has been coronated as Zenta Rebbe?

yep!! he has been crowned wednesday afternoon in a ceremony over their at barech moshe shul, attended by the leadership of the satmer kahilla and mosdos,

then why was it erased as vandalism? it should be restored

source here

info is true its just that he needs towear three things in the weekdays "strokes" (velvet thing on bekishe) white socks and tefillin (hehe)--REBELYIS 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I need some Satmar help

Hi. I'm a Jewish atheist and I'm debating what I think are white power guys pretending to be Satmar on Talk:Brit milah. Can someone pop over please and let me know if I'm off base or not. Thanks in advance. jbolden1517^Talk 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the {{NPOV}} tag. It doesn't mean "someone disagrees with this article". It means "there is an active discussion whether this article is neutral". Given that there is no substantial change in the perspective, I suspect there is no pressing need for such a tag if there is no discussion. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayin or aleph or neither?

I have seen both ayins (this page) and alephs (on a Satmar yeshiva in New York), and also neither (cf. the Hebrew Wikipedia page) in the spelling. The ayin sounds correct to me if we're going by Yiddish spelling and it's "Satmer", but the aleph seems correct if it's "Satmar". Which is it to be? Makaristos 02:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In New York it is always being spelled with an aleph.--Neigerig 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

some POV things have been put into the lineage - they should be fixed - i will fix some Itzik18 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is spelt with an Aleph on Satmar's letterheads. Cockneyite 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)