Talk:Bobov (Hasidic dynasty)

Use of Hebrew
I find the use of untranslated Hebrew in this article quite disturbing. While I have no trouble reading it, other people will have. And the whole purpose of Wikipedia is that everyone should be able to read articles. Untranslated Hebrew is totally out of place, since this is not a chassidishe website but a general encyplopedia. If nobody intervenes, I will b'n, when I have time, start adding English translations of these words. --Daniel575 21:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel; I first thought that you're referring to the main page; but rereading this I now realize that you're referring to this talk page. You're right that Hebrew words should be translated for the benefit of those Wikipedians who don't understand Hebrew; but here the less explained the better Vedai Lechakime berimize (It's enough for the wise with a wink); also here the editing are done by those who have some knowledge of the subject, and believe me; all of them understand Hebrew. But if anybody wants a word translated then enter the word following this paragraph & we'll translate it for you. Issac 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the article. (Sorry that it took so long until I replied here). Examples:

And a few dates. Such things can be very annoying for non-Hebrew readers. I personally can read it of course, no problem, but others can't, and the purpose of Wikipedia is that anyone should be able to read it. Things such as 'rabbeini Tam tefilin' should be written like this, transliterated. --Daniel575 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * " The captives this time included R’ Itchi Leser, who was a באבאווער חסיד, "
 * " while the Rebbe was removing his רבינו תם תפילין, "

Daniel, I transliterated as much as possible & added links (wherever available) for those that need to look up these Hebrew words. There is still more to do, but I'll leave that for others or for another time. Issac 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a small comment from a Gentile -- the term "ruv" isn't explained here, and searching for it in Wikipedia brings up an Icelandic radio service, something I don't think is intended... OtherDave (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the Machlokes
Why can't the machlokes be explained fairly and openly? I don't have any opinion on who is right or wrong, but I have no reason to believe that it is not a machlokes leshem shomayim. There is no chilul Hashem involved in fairly describing a machlokes leshem Shomayim. I see here in the discussion that both sides have valid reasons to think that they are correct. I would very much like to see an article that describes both sides and shows how each one is divrei elokim chaim. --Ezra Wax 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for divrei Elokim chaim then I'm sorry to tell you that you won't find it here; the machlokes which is one sided and on the bright side of it, very few people are involved in it, is surely not leshem Shomayim and IMO there is no way that it can be written without causing a CH. If the sichsuch (dispute) as I would like to call it, which inadvertently involves all Bobover Chasidim, because without any choice everybody was forced to take a stand; could be explained in a way which describes each side as having an honest opinion, and simply wants to do G-d's will; then maybe you would be right. But this dispute is on the most part an emotional one, not a scholarly one. Do you think that all Bobover Chasidim are scholars? I hate to tell you but even some scholars have followed their hearts not their minds. If the whole story should be told, then I don't want any part in it; what you have seen me write is just the tip of the iceberg. Even though by not having the sichsuch explained it might leave you and others with the impression that one side is more right then the other; I still prefer it not written. Hopefully this sichsuch will quickly pass and will join the dustbin of history among numerous other disputes that have sprung up among people; but don't need to be passed on to posterity. We don't have an article explaining why Slonim split; and even though I'm also curious; it’s better left that way. If it's just a matter of curiosity then it is better that you ask privately both sides to explain to you their stand. Issac 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ezra

I agree with Issac, what's the point in airing a dispute that will hopefully, sooner than later, be a Chassidish history footnote. If you're curious for personal reasons, I'll give the nutshell as I see it. Reb Naftulcha who was the last undisputed rav of Bobov left no indication of who should succeed him.

Therefore some belive that as halachic yoresh (inheritor) the child should inherit, as Reb Naftulcha unfortunately had no boys this means Rebbetzin Rubin and Rebbetzin Ungar. And so their respective husbands and their supporters, have in fact a kehila that any Rav would be proud of. Reb Naftulcha's did have a younger brother, Reb Benzion who currently administers the previously existing buildings and schools, and is accepted as Rav by his supporters.

Any story or rumor heard on the street is to be taken with a grain of salt as %90 percent is false and the rest blurred at best.

Hope this helps.

Chaim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.69.39 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Elections
There have been new developments in the story. According to a Haaretz article, elections have been underway since September. I am unaware of the details, but it seems that the Beis-Din worked out an arrangement to resolve the dispute. The main article should be covering this news. If someone knows what is going on, would you please update the article in an objective manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.122.59 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobov Org Chart
In the Bobov chart you forgot to put in the Bobov Rebbe ztl's sister who was married to Rabbi Twersky in Milwaukee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.132.38.100 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Post the Beth Din Decision
I just edited the "Fifth Rebbe of Bobov" section.

I believe that now that the Beth Din has rendered a decision regarding the title Rebbe of Bobov, the Bobov page needs not discuss the dispute. If someone wants to write about the dispute a separate page should be used. I expect though that it would very hard to find a consensus on the content of such a page. If someone is brave enough to start a draft, I can assure my fellow wikipedians that I will help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst13 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Link to the Beis Din ruling (Psak) https://www.dropbox.com/s/wxhoh1niecau2ca/bobovPsak.pdf (Analyst13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst13 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of your intent, but if you truly just want to take out the dispute part because of C"H (in that case it shouldn't have been put out in the first place)You can just write instead of the fifth Bobover Rebbe that many Bobover Chasidim accepted reb Benzion as well as many accepted Reb Mordchei Duvid which is the true situation about Bobov today no matter how Beis din or lihavdil the court have/will decide about monetary or name issues.

There is no question that the continuation of Bobov is in both courts mo matter there respective names are/will be. In Chasidic history in general many children or disciples weren't necessarily referred to with the same name as their father/rebbe even though they were accepted as their successors. The Bais din or court rulings were never intended or can they even rule on this. Its only monetary and names that they can resolve.

original Bobov

I am sure that you read the decision. The decision is clear as to who has the title Bobover Rebbe. Your entry as it stands now has no meaning in the context of a wikipedia entry. This page lists the Bobover Rebbes. It also has a family tree showing how other branches were created from this dynastic family. As long as the title of Bobover Rebbe was in dispute, the wiki page stated so. That has changed now. There is no reason to rehash the dispute on this page, for same reason most interesting tidbits of the more than 100 year Bobover History isn't mentioned here. If you want a writeup of the dispute, an interesting topic I must say, it would be appropriate in a separate page. When Rabbis Unger and Rubin will decide on their name, you should create a page for that name. In addition your entry as it stands now is also false. You refer to Rabbi Unger Bobover Rebbe when they are prohibited from naming themselves so. Accordingly I am reverting back to my previous edit. Take note. This is a vandalism warning. (analyst13)

Take note. This is a vandalism warning.!!! With your "eloquently analyst" writing you are trying to push an agenda that you know is NOT true!! This page is about the history and current Bobov dynasty. Writing about the fourth Bobov Rebbe zt"l and then writing "Fifth Bobov Rebbe as R' B.Z. Halberstam without adding any explanation is deliberately misleading your fellow wikipidens.

Bobov dynasty page is set up to give fellow non Bobovers an understanding of how the Bobov dynasty history started and how it continues to this day. The Rebbes mentioned on the page don't necessarily go by the Bobov name. To give you an example there in no question that Bobov dynasty started with Sanz and even earlier, even though they didn't carry the name "Bobov" furthermore the first Bobover ruv zt"l was called different names during is lifetime (according to the different city's he was ruv in (ie Bikuvsk,Vishnitza,Oushpitzin etc.) It was only in the last years of his life that he got to be known as Bobover Ruv! It is not that his philosophy changed in any way at that time it was just a move of physical being to the town of Bobov (were at first he wasn't even Ruv of the town). As time past Bobov came to be know as a "derech"= way of life philosophy etc. which continued as that after the Holocaust crossing onto the North American continent.

To set facts straight there is no doubt that after the passing of the late Bobover Ruv zt"l, Bobover Chasidim majorly split on whom to accept as their spiritual leader, who will continue to lead them on the path of the Bobov Chasdic philosophy. The leaders chosen were Rebbe Benzion Halberstam and Rebbe Mordchay Duvid Unger with his brother in law Rabbi Y. Rubin as Ruv.

Religious and secular court were summoned to intervene to rightfully split (or reward in totall) Bobov assets the party's involved and to rule if both Rebbes/courts can continue doing business  with the "exact" same names (As one of the sides complained that it confuses people etc.)

The courts never set out to rule who "the real" Bobov Rebbe is or who "realy" follows "Bobov philosophy, neither were they asked to do that! (unless you think so shallowly about the Bobov derech that you believe that Bobov is all about "money and a nice name"...)

This dispute has nothing in common with the intention of the Bobov Wiki page. The rulings on this dispute will almost not change anything for the people seeking to gain Bobov dynasty knowledge. I will now address what you keep on bringing up about the "Beis Din ruling". One thing I don't think you are is naive! So if you keep bringing up again and again the same thing to try to throw sand in peoples eyes who know less about this "ruling" is being willfully untruthful and misleading! 1) I am sure that you are aware that not all parties were present or signed on "the ruling/decision"

2)I am sure that you know that requests for some of the judges (that did sign the "ruling/decision") to be dismissed from this case (because of religious and civil laws that make them conflicts of interests and impartial in this case). Beis Din agreed to look into this and scheduled a date shortly on this issue.

3)The civil court hadn't yet accepted any rulings

4)Even according to the controversial "decision" Rebbe R' Mordechai Duvid Unger and R' Y. Rubin need to be called Bobover Rebbe and Ruv with an addition of their own liking.  In other words they are still called Bobov. Another reason why writing "fifth Bobover Rebbe without mentioning them is misleading.

5)Even according to this controversial ruling the Bobver Rebbe R, Mordchai Duvid shlita and Bobver Ruv R' Y. Rubin have 90 days to choose a name and comply. Bobover Rebbe R' Benzion has 60 days to comply with monetary payment schedule. So as of now nothing has to be changed. Why the haste in changing wiki statuses ???.. (I guess I do know why but we'll leave it at this.

In truth to summarize, all this is not a Wiki issue as I wrote earlier.It should almost not change anything on the wiki page. I just wrote this according to anlyst13's comments.

To further irritate my point. Bobov is part of Sanz dynasty. Satmer is Siget/Ihel. Ger is from Kotzk dynasty. Antinna, Seret Viznitz, Viznitz Monsey, R'Yisrul, R'Mendele and more are from R Ykkov Kupil/Viznitz dynassty. Munkatch is from the Dinev dynasty. The list is endless. In other words even if we talk about a name change "it never changes its dynasty, or who is continuing or the sucsser of the earlier dynasty (albeit with a different name.

(Sometimes if there is a split for a few generations there becomes two branches of a dynasty and can also be referred as two new dynasties which both would still be part of the old dynasty IE Bobov, Klousnberg, and others, being part of Sanz dynasty)

Anyway more then enough for now. Now you can go continue your agenda vandalizing acts. Remember this is a vandalizing warning.

O. Bobov aka Ben Shlome at Bobov

I am sorry to all. I don't know why this keeps on happening making my posts hard to read (long lines and in and out of boxes.) [fixed by ProfGray (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)] If someone can enlighten me what I am doing wrong I would be thankful

The Psak Din
Now that a Psak Din was rendered; Wikipedia needs to be edited accordingly (has 90 days to do so according to the Psak); but seeing that confusion still remains, so as a public service for the English speaking public who cannot read the Hebrew decision, I will bring its highlights and its details as needed.

In the ruling the two parties are called "Side 1" and "Side 2". (For clarity here, side-1 is Bobov-45 and side-2 is Bobov; or side-1 is Rabbi Unger and side-2 is Rabbi Halberstam).

Bobov-45 came to Beth-Din to claim buildings (possessions) and Bobov came to claim the name "Bobov" and for Beth-Din to deny it to Bobov-45.

Beth Din granted neither what they wanted. The Psak in a nutshell was, that Bobov-45 gets only 6.2 million dollars; and that both parties are Bobov; but Bobov-45 needs to add to its name "Bobov" a suffix or a prefix which distinguishes it from Bobov; by either calling itself (like it was known until now) with the suffix "45" or by adding a prefix to it.

The Psak is dry (deliberately dry and vague on the main points) without explaining on what its decision was based; so we can only go by what it does or does not say; and personal opinions on Wikipedia don't matter. Both sides need to adhere to the Psak and to Wikipedia policy.

For example the Psak does not "clearly" say who is a successor of whom, only who gets what. Not a word regarding a predecessor or a successor, who follows whom. It does not mention Rabbi Halberstam as "Rav Hatzuyir" on which the entire claim of Bobov was; nor does it mention the word "inheritance" on which the entire claim of Bobov-45 was. Therefore one has no right to impose their view in any Wikipedia article but to stick to what it does or does not say in the ruling.

Here are the highlights (the important ones; will add others on request).

1) All the assets of "Bobov" in Brooklyn, New Jersey, Catskills and the Poconos... that were in existence at the death of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali, are in the possession and control of side-2 (Bobov).

2) Side-2 (Bobov) needs to give Side-1 (Bobov-45) 6.2 million dollars.

3) The right to call himself "Rebbe of Bobov" (without any prefixes or suffixes) is exclusive to Rabbi Halberstam, and he can use this name as he likes with or without any additional names.

5) Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin (the two son's-in-law of the last Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halberstam) have a right to the name "Bobov"; but they need to add an identifier to it (a suffix of "45" or some prefix). It needs to be done in the following manner... [Quite complicated and questionable if as an "arbitration" it can stand in a court of law, since it violates "functus officio" (it's open-ended) and Freedom of speech. (You cannot force someone to say, or how to say, something they don't want to; and surely not to any unassociated party)].

6) The purpose of the following paragraphs is to arrive to a situation that to the observer there is a recognition between the two, between Bobov and Bobov-45.

7) Rabbi Unger can call himself "Rebbe of Bobov-45" and Rabbi Rubin can call himself "Rabbi of Bobov-45".

8) If Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin want to write on their letterhead that they are the son's in law of the previous Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halberstam, they have a right to do so. [For Wikipedians this is a very important clause, because it says that Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin cannot be cut out of the Bobov articles but have to be noted as the son's in law of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali and/or the successors to their father-in law. (Of course they need to be called Rebbe/Rabbi of "Bobov-45" accordingly and not "Bobov" alone).

13) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has a right to call themselves (which includes and not limited to their synagogues and all their institutions) with the name "Bobov-45".

19) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has to call side-2 (Bobov) by the name "Bobov" without any other names.

22) Side-2 (Bobov) has to call side-1 (Bobov-45) by the name "Bobov-45" without any other names.

24) Side-2 (Bobov) has to do everything they can, not to cause that side-1 (Bobov-45) is called by any other names then "Bobov-45".

27) Side-2 (Bobov) has exclusive rights to the publishing of the Torah and tapes of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Shlome Halbertstam.

28) Side-1 (Bobov-45) has exclusive rights to the publishing of the Torah and tapes of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halbertstam.

This is it in a nutshell. Afarsimon (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Afarsimon, I think you did a pretty good job summarizing the decision. I just take issue with a few points. I would appreciate if you would edit your text.

Paragraph 5, you translate the word "Shem Levei" as identifier. I think your translation is opinion rather than plain fact. I think the more appropriate word should be "compound name". As in Side 1 can use Bobov only as a compound name. Also in that same paragraph you state an opinion if such restrictions on speech can hold up under the Freedom of Speech. Again that is opinion. Note that in all trademark case such restrictions are the norm.

Paragraph 6 misreads the sixth paragraph of the decision. It also omits the latter half of the paragraph. The paragraph does not state that the purpose is for the observer to "recognize that there is a difference between the two". It states that the purpose is 1. That the general public shall refer to Side-1 as Bobov within a compound name, and 2 that whenever one hears the name Bobov, one shall immediately understand that Side-2 is being referenced. In other words the purpose of the restrictions that follow is to make sure that Bobov has only one definition - Namely side-2. The purpose is further to create a new compound word that refers to Side 1.

Paragraph 8 - The decision makes no mention about Rabbi Unger's rights in claiming succession of the previous Bobover Rebbe. All it says is that Rabbi Unger can write on his letterhead that he is the son in law of the previous Bobover Rebbe. A classical "fair-use".

Overall in the spirit of the psak which strives to reposition Rabbi Halberstam as Bobov, I would refrain from calling his side Bobov. I would go with Side-1 and Side-2 or R"H Side v R"U Side. Analyst13 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points, but here is the problem. True; that the clearest demarcation of the two sides is by calling the two sides "Side-1" and "Side-2" respectively. In a page on the dispute (which I don't think will serve any purpose, only the furtherance of the dispute, like it did in Satmar) calling them 2 sides would be the best way to go. But here we want to create a neutral free zone where both Bobov's are represented fair and square, so we need proper ways of identifying them. I would call them for now Bobov and Bobov-45; but if you think that we should call them Bobov and Bobov-45 that is also fine with me but I'm afraid that it will be very confusing.

Let's start with "Bobov" and Bobov-45" and see how it goes. I'm creating a page for Bobov-45 by copying the original content of the Bobov page; and then modifying it to fit the current situation of two Bobov's.

I don't think it is a good idea to mention in the article(s) anything about a dispute only that today there are two Bobov's; one called "Bobov" and the other "Bobov-45".

Regarding succession; not a word is in the Psak; because Beth Din didn't Pasken it; they only Paskened who gets what. If anything can be read into the Psak it is that both sides are Bobov as far as that is concerned, and that each side gets at least something.

Ok; let's play it by ear; by trial and error maybe we'll get it right; and at least end the dispute on these pages. Afarsimon (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Psak left a lot unsaid. I assume deliberately so.

I also agree that the dispute is really a footnote to Bobov's and Bobov-45's respective history, and needs not to be posted on their wiki page. There are much more relevant and interesting historical tidbits that aren't there, why give this the undeserved prominence. As I previously said, if someone wants to create a page specific to the dispute I agree to help, though I would advise against it.

I take issue with two comments you made 1. "If anything can be read into the Psak it is that both sides are Bobov..." 2. "...only that today there are two Bobov's; one called "Bobov" and the other "Bobov-45"." I read the psak a bit differently. I read paragraph 6 to clearly state that the purpose of the numreous clauses following that paragraph is to reach a point where Bobov only means Side-2. In other words, it would go against the spirit of the decision to define them as Bobov. Of course they are an outgrowth of Bobov as Bobov is an outgrowth of Sanz, but would we say that Bobov is for example a successor to Sanz? I think not. I think it would probably be more apropriate to refer to them as an offshoot of Bobov. I would say "branch", but that gives the apearance of affiliation. What do you think? Can you find a more elegant term? Analyst13 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the Pinsk-Karlin page. The term "offshoot of Karlin-Stolin" is used to describe them.Analyst13 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Look; the Psak Din gave Bobov-45 6.2 million dollars. If that's not an indication that Bobov-45 is also Bobov; then what is? The Psak deliberately doesn't say that Rabbi Halberstam is Bobover Rebbe; only that he has the right to be called "Admor MeBobov" (The reasons we can contemplate but it doesn't say). It also makes sure to say that Rabbi Unger can call himself "Admor MeBobov-45" ; but in no way it says that Rabbi Halberstam is anymore Yoiresh then Rabbi Unger; and that one has a claim to the Bobover lineage over the other. I agree with you that in the Bobov-45 article it can say in short (for the reader who knows nothing) how it came to pass that there are now two Bobov's and how Bobov-45 fits into the picture. But to say that Bobov-45 is an "offshoot" of "Bobov" that is not true. Writing so will only guarantee an edit war.

In the final analysis it wouldn't be right to say that Rabbi Halberstam is the successor of Rabbi Naftal Halberstam and Rabbi Unger is not. It has to say somehow that both are successors; but that one is now called Admor MeBobov and the other Admor MeBobov-45.

Anything short of this will guarantee here an edit war forever. Because; it would be based on an opinion and not factual.

Again we can only go by what it says and Beth Din was very careful not to put the word "Yoiresh"/successor in the entire Psak. So either we write matter of factly that both are, or that none are (which is not an option).

The Pinsk-Karlin case was not the same as this. Afarsimon (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Afarsimon, you are using opinion rather than fact to define the Psak. For exaple you use the decision by Beth Din to pay $6.2M as evidence that Side-1 is also Bobov. Obviously one can form a very different opinion. One can argue that every single Bobov asset, worth X amount (I have no idea the true value, but Bobov in the U.S. has atleast 300,000 square feet of building, at $300 per square foot that brings you close to $90M) was left with Side-2, while Side-1 only received payments of 1.2m for 5 years.

Again this is all opinion. I therefore refer to the Psak. One of the only times the Psak moves away from dry instruction, to give a little context is paragraph 6. It explicitly states that the purpose herein is that when one hears the word Bobov one immiedetly understand that it refers to Side-2. Said differently: The purpose of Bobov-45 is not to be bale to answer the question "which Bobov?", rather the purpose is that such question never be asked in the first place.

To me this crystal clear in the language of the Psak.

I therefore further disagree partialy with your edits today. In the spirit of the Psak you can't put under the heading of Bobov Today, Bobov-45 Rebbe. That implies that Bobov-45 falls under the definition of Bobov. Since the Psak it doesn't.

I'm taking a crack at editing it Analyst13 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC) As everyone knows being a Hasid of rabbi is something that comes from inner conviction and is not something that can be forced on by a bies din. The fact of the matter is that after Rabbi naftuli passed away bobov was split and a smaller group chose Rabbi ungar as the rebbe, no bies din or psak can change that, and it doesn’t matter if the new khila is called bobov or bobov 45th. Besides that, the bies din indicates pretty clear that there psak is only obligating the local khila and not the Hasidim worldwide. Since on wikipidia the discussion is on Bobov worldwide, one cannot ignore ravie Unger and use the bies din ruling as a shield. I think no one should be afraid of the simple facts, so that’s what I wrote..the facts. berkshires (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

berkshires,

I refer you to paragraph 4 of the Beth Din decision. It clearly states that Rabbis Ungar and Rubin cannot refer to themselves as Bobover Rebbe or Ruv world wide.

I further refer you to paragraph 9 and 15. Therein it clearly states that if Rabbis Ungar and Rubin, or their side wish to refer to themselves as Bobov within a compound name then they need to insure that all their affiliates world wide also use that very same name. Otherwise Rabbis Ungar and Rubin nor their side can use the word Bobov within their name.

Accordingly it is very clear that Rabbi Ungar cannot be referred to as Boobv world wide. It is further clear that no entity affiliated with rabbi Ungar can call itself Bobov.

I'll post the Psak again so that you can see for yourself.

I therefore will edit your entry.

in addition, your changes to Bobov Today are not in place. Bobov Today should list the current Rebbe of Bobov, as a continuation of that whole chain. The dispute really has no place there. Bobov has much top itself today than the succession dispute.

Furthermore I would refrain from posting particulars about the dispute as that would only prompt both sides to come out and start an editing war. I am sure you appreciate that almost all of your descriptions of the dispute is based on opinion. The other side can easily cry foul. It isn't NPOV.

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that the truth of the dispute be hidden. I don't take a position on this point. On one hand Wikipedia should record everything on the other hand not all needs to be discussed in public, especially when it will be almost impossible to reach a consensus on a NPOV about the particulars of the dispute. But rest assured if someone does take his time to make a draft I will be there to edit. I have quite some knowledge about it. However I strongly believe, as many before me on these pages, that the dispute if mentioned needs a page of its own.Analyst13 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC) -- Analyst13; Your opinion (even if it is crystal clear to you) is only your opinion; and stays an opinion until clear words from Beth Din says otherwise. To me and thousands others who take no sides, it is also crystal clear that the Psak does not address who is the successor of Bobov. I understand you have an opinion and have a right to it; but this is Wikipedia which cannot trump one opinion over the other. The Psak clearly states what it wants to, and clearly doesn’t state what it doesn’t want to. On the question of who is Bobov; the answer given by the Psak is that both are, but Bobov should be called Bobov and Bobov 45 should continue to be called Bobov-45 so it will be recognized which is which. Anything else written in this article is blatant POV and not neutral; and should not stand. Neither any pushing from Bobov nor from 45.

Taking out that Bobov-45 is also a continuation of Bobov is a blatant violation of the Psak Din. Both current Rebbe's must be there as successors. Afarsimon (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Analyst 13, As i mentioned before everyone knows being a Hasid of rabbi is something that comes from inner conviction and is not something that can be forced on by a bies din, so the fact of the matter is that bobov chasidis was split in 2. Bies din also went into great detail that they have no jurisdiction on hasidim outside the boro park khila, since they have not signed arbitration papers. I will edit the article acordingly later with citations of the psak din. based on your editing it does not seem that you have much concern about edit war..so i will continue to repost my version of events the way every natural outsider knows it Berkshires (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.235.137 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) -- Afarsimon;

You write:

"On the question of who is Bobov; the answer given by the Psak is that both are, but Bobov should be called Bobov and Bobov 45 should continue to be called Bobov-45 so it will be recognized which is which."

This statement is ludicrous. Can I use this logic in other situations? For example can I say that Al Gore is "also" President but George Bush can be "called" President of the U.S.A.

I searched the language of the Psak, I see no mention of "two Bobov's", nor do I see anything referring to "also Bobov".

I have previously referred you to the language of the Psak. Paragraph 6 is very clear. Here is a translation of the latter half:

"...likewise, to reach a point where if someone hears the name "Bobov" without an accompanying name, he will immediately understand that it refers to Party B; we therefore ruled as provided in the clauses below".

That is as clear as it can get.

Bobov should henceforth not refer to Bobov-45. The clauses following that paragraph are there to ensure that wherever or whenever the word Bobov is used it refers to Rabbi Halberstam's side.

It therefore flies in the face of the Psak to say Bobov is Bobov and Bobov-45.

For me to accept that you are sincerely looking for the NPOV, you will need to answer to this question.

Can the word Bobov refer to Bobov-45 according to the Psak? My answer is no. I have shown you where I take it from. What's your answer.

As to who is the true successor, who is the true Yoiresh, that remains an opinion. It may even have more than one answer. Regardless however the Beth Din decided how the sides should act. It very clearly says to Bobov-45, do not refer to yourself as Bobov.

I will edit accordingly.Analyst13 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC) -- To your question if Al Gore is "also" President the answer is no; but here is your mistake. Bobov came to Beth-Din to ask exactly that; to say what you say that Rabbi Halberstam is president and Rabbi Unger is not; but Beth-Din didn't grant them it; but ruled that both are presidents (Rebbe's in this case) but to differentiate between the two (which Bobov requested that there be a differentiation between the two) Beth Din ruled (in the paragraphs you brought) that Rabbi Halberstam will be called Bobov Rebbe and Rabbi Unger will be called Bobov-45 Rebbe; but in no way does that mean that Rabbi Halberstam is any more a successor of the Bobover Rebbes then Rabbi Unger. And by throwing Rabbi Unger to the sidelines you are doing exactly that; pushing out Rabbi Unger from Bobov. A blatant violation of the Psak Din and NPOV.

Bobov is both Bobov's, Bobov and Bobov-45, and will always remain so; one with a tag along and the other without one. For example those that left Bobov and are neither in Bobov nor in Bobov-45; are they no longer Bobover Chassidim? Of course they are; and remain so; even if they didn't join a successor. So today's Bobover-45 who did join one of the two successors to "Bobov"; they of course remain Bobover Chassidim (Bobov without attachments); but to differentiate them from the other, they have the tag 45.

So, can the word Bobov refer to Bobov-45 according to the Psak? The answer is yes, and on their synagogues they have a right to write "Bobov-45 Dechasidei Bobov" because Bobover Chassidim they are and will so remain; no less then someone who doesn't belong to Bobov nor to Bobov-45, who remains a Bobover Chosid.

Who's the Yoirsh (inheritor) that's the crux of the problem with two sides each claiming that it is they; and Beth Din did not rule on that (did not want to rule on that); and we here, for sure cannot rule on that, but must give them equal footing.

Therefore on the Bobov page I let you give prominence to Rabbi Halberstam but also added Rabbi Unger to the picture as NPOV requires. And the same on the Bobov-45 page which I created, there Rabbi Unger needs to get prominence (didn't do it yet - will do so when I have time, or others can do it), and there Rabbi Halberstam was added to the picture as NPOV requires.

I tried to be as fair as possible if you followed my edits. For example placing Rabbi Halberstam first, on the Bobov page, on his father's page, and of course on his own page; and placed Rabbi Unger first, on the Bobov-45 page; on his father-in law's page, and on his own page. Couldn't be fairer. Afarsimon (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) - The psak din on page 3 (paragraph 12) says that they have no jurisdiction on enforcing a name change for Rabbi Unger's shuls worldwide Berkshires (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC) You need to see the footnotes Analyst13 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked on all the futnotes, bies din says very clear they have no jurisdiction Bobov worldwide, they say if Bobov worldwide side 1 would call them self Bobov, then Bobov BP would have to choose other name then Bobov 45th. If you read my edit carefully you will see that i have written that Bobov BP side 1 needs to change their name (what name depends what Bobov worldwide side 1 would do)Berkshires (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Berkshires, if you insist in putting in the unlikely scenario that Rabbi Unger go by a name that does not use the word Bobov at all, but still have institutions world wide that do use that name, then so be it.

I edited to strict NPOVAnalyst13 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reedited the page to include the details of the psak and that it does not obligate Bobov worldwide. Your version of whats likely or unlikely to happen is called original research, and is prohibited by Wikipedia see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research - Afarsimon,

While I disagree with you about what Bobov or Bobov-45 asked for in the Beth Din, and while I disagree with you what the basis of the Psak is, I don't think it is relevant to our discussion.

You keep on harking back to the idea of Yoiresh or succession. The whole question is immaterial and purely academic. For example if the split happened when Rabbi Shlomo was Bobover Rebbe, and a group of Chassidim for example decided they would like to cut off from Rabbi Shlomo and form their own community. take note these people are all Bobover chasidim for generations. You might have had the same decision if a Beth Din was convened. The Beth din may have ruled that the new group cannot use the name Bobov except if they add a name. The Beth Din may have further ruled that they are entitled to a small portion of the real estate being that the are a Kehilla Shenechliku.

My point is that Psak is silent on the question of yerisha, but it may be so because "what difference does it make". Even if Rabbi Halberstam is the clear yoiresh, nothing changes. So in essence the question is academic.

The Psak instructs how the sides shall conduct itself. It is very precise in saying that Rabbi Unger side should not be referred to as Bobov. So to your example/question, can they make a shul and write on it Bobov-45 D'chadisdei Bobov,? I say that would be a violation.

I want to clarify my point a bit. The problem we have here is that you view Bobov as a descriptive term not a name. The Beth din sees it as a name. It is the name of a Kehilla. the name of which kehilla? Rabbi Halberstam's Kehila.

The Beth Din even goes as far as saying that when they mention the previous Rabbis of Bobov in their publication, they can only do so if the prominently display Bobov-45 on that same page.

I agree that under your view you were fair. I noticed that, but you haven't satisfied the fact test. You are still ignoring paragraph 6.

I was also fair. I added a link to Bobov-45 on the Bobov page. I agree with you that Bobov-45 is a continuation of Bobov. I agree that they can refer to Bobov in their history. They cannot be defined under Bobov though.

Today I also added a section for Bobov-45 after Bobov Today. I think that should satisfy both of us. If you want you can add that Bobov-45 is an (you pick the word (offshoot, evolution, transformation, continuation?)of Bobov.

Let's try to get to place where we both can agree.Analyst13 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC) -- Analyst13,

Bobov-45 called Bobov to Beth Din; what did they call them for? Did they call them to not call themselves Bobov? The anser is no; Bobov-45 called Bobov for the buildings. Now what did Bobov counter claim in Beth Din? They claimed that Bobov-45 is not Bobov. Beth Din ruled that Bobov needs to give Bobov-45 6.2 million dollars (which I've heard being said that, this is the value of half of the Beth Medresh); and to the other claim, Beth Din ruled that both are Bobov; only that one (Bobov) can call themselves Bobov without any identifier and Bobov-45 needs to have that identifier so all can differentiate between the two.

The idea of Yoiresh and succession is the heart of this all; because based on that both sides layed out their positions; and Beth Din in Paragraph six you mentioned, writes that "the purpose of the following paragraphs is to arrive to a situation where everyone of this Chasidus (Bobov) should call side-1 (Bobov-45), its Kehillah, its institutions, it's Rebbe, It's Rov, should be "Bobov" with an identifier, and vice versa that where everyone of this Chasidus (Bobov) should call side-2 (Bobov), it's Kehillah, its institutions, it's Rebbe/Rov; should be "Bobov" without an identifier".

In Hebrew: מטרת סעיפים דלהלן להגיע למצב שהקריאה בפי כל של החסידות, הקהלה, המוסדות האדמו"ר והאב"ד של צד א' תהא "באבוב" עם שם לווי והקריאה בפי כל של החסידות, הקהלה, המוסדות האדמו"ר/אב"ד של צד ב' תהא "באבוב" בלי שם לווי

And that people when hearing Bobov without an identifier, recognize that the talk is of side-2 (Bobov).

So here you have it; the ruling is clear that both are "Bobov"; but that Bobov-45 needs the identifier for recognition.

For that; it is enough that on the bulding it says "Bobov-45"; but it can say "D'chasidei Bobov"; because Bobover Chassidim they are. Also Beth Din ruled that Bobov-45 can write on their stationary and letter heads "...which was founded by the previous Bobover Rebbe's". That is because Beth Din recognizes that both Bobov's are the continuation of Bobov.

If a group of Chassidim would have left Rabbi Shlomo while he was Bobover Rebbe, they probably would not be considered any more Bobover Chassidim. But here the split was AFTER the death of the Bobover Rebbe Rabbi Naftali Halberstam; so the situation is different. If anything; the closest supporters of Rabbi Bentzion Halberstam could be said to have not accepted or had left Rabbi Naftali Halberstam while still alive; and nevertheless no one would call them anything else then Bobover Chassidim. Bobov-45 has at least as much standing.

The Psak is silent on the question of yerisha, and clearly for a reason; because then things become murky I think. The way it is, it is clear to everyone that there are now two Bobov's and that's it.

Thanks for acknowledging that I was fair in my edits.

Don't have much time these days; but will try to make time to edit to the satisfaction of everyone and adhere to strict NPOV. Afarsimon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Afarsimon,

Please try to be neutral for a moment. It isn't difficult. You don't know why Beth Din excluded certain points that you think is important to the decision. You also don't know why Beth Din ruled the way they did. I am user you have been told many things, they are all irrelevant.

There is only one document you can go by. That is the Psak.

For starters your definition of "Shem L'veh" is wrong. The literal definition is "Bobov and an accompanying name".

I don't know where you picked up the “identifier for recognition” idea. Paragraph 6 does not tell why the decision was reached. It doesn’t say the reason for -45 is to have an identifier. (Perhaps the reason is because Beth Din deemed Bobov-45 different enough from Bobov, and therefore isn’t within Bobov’s right, to enforce its intellectual property. I could think of 5 other reasons.) Paragraph 6 only tells you what the numerous conditions are meant to achieve. It clearly states, though you try to obfuscate it, that the purpose is that whenever someone hears the name Bobov one understands immediately to whom it refers. That is a very simple concept. I say Bobov, you say Rabbi Halberstam.

Beth Din did not rule that Bobov-45 can write on their letterhead which was established by the previous Bobover Rebbe. I did not find any such language. It does say that if the write about the previous Bobover Rebbe in a publication they need to make sure that Bobov-45 is displayed more prominent.

The Beth Din also further clearly states that Side-1 cannot make use of the Name Bobov. That would include any use as a name except as permitted in conjunction with -45. So I therefore am at a loss as to why you think they can use the word D'Chasidei Bobov.

Afarsimon, if you have an agenda, fine. But you really need to adhere to NPOV. I have done my edits in a way that Bobov-45 has prominence on the Bobov page. It is clearly an outgrowth of Bobov. There is no way though how you can rationalize that it belongs under the header of Bobover Rebbe.Analyst13 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added citations to the my edits to the paragraphs in the psak. Reverting well cited information is unethical and is not allowed by Wikipedia rules.Berkshires (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Berkshires, according to the Psak Din you cite, Rabbi Unger cannot refer to himself as Bobover Rebbe. He also needs to make sure that all do not refer to him as Bobover Rebbe. There is therefore no fidderence between those institutions that sign on to the arbitration and those that didn't.

There were two contenders to the title Bobover Rebbe, one lost that title. The one that lost the title signed the arbitration agreement. The Beth Din further instructed him to ensure that no one in the world over refer to him in that way.

We can fight endlessly on these pages. I am assuming that you want to adhere to wiki rules. You realise of course that these pages serve the world at alrge and not your personal agenda. I was forced by your unreasonables to include unlikely and absurd situations in the from page of an encyclepedia, something which is totally inappropreate. All the details of the Psak do not belong there as well, especially when they are cherry picked and wrong. I played along.

But now your absurdness has gone out of line. I don't think it is fair for wikipedians to have to be subjected to your twisted logic.

The Psak is clear enough for a two year old. Please stick to it.

Refrain from vandalising the page. Analyst13 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The impact of the Psak on who Bobov rebbe is
Analyst 13, let me quote the following,

The "Beth Din" wasn't convened to render a decision on who is the Rebbe; “they can't decide that, that is up to personal opinions of every individual. What they will decide is”, practical issues that could be litigated. a. If Grand Rabbi Mordechai David Unger's community has rights to the assets belonging to the Bobover institution and b. And if they have the right to also go by the name Bobov.

The above words is something YOU have written Nov 27 2006. see link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobov_(Hasidic_dynasty)&oldid=90393246

I fully agree with the above statement. The authority of the beth din and psk of the beth din is limited to A. if rabbi unger gets assets. B. if he can use the name Bobov. It can’t possibly decide who is the Rebe and who is leading the Bobov Hasidim, in matter of fact NOTHING has changed in that regard after the psak since it cannot be forced upon by a beth din. The fact of the matter is that there is hundreds of Bobov Hasidim locally and abroad that refer to Rabbin ungar as the Bobove rebbe, and that wouldn’t change if the letterhead is Bobov or Bobov 45th or zanz bobov. The psak is therefore limited to what it says that Brooklyn rabbi unger Chasidim should not call rabbi unger Bobov rebbe, (who and how will it be enforced??) and rabbi unger and his mosdos locally cant call themselves Bobov.

Unfortunately you changed your mind, and somehow the psak is detirminating who the bobov rebbe is, and all of us (unreasonables) that have not changed mind with you are vendelising.

Rest assured, i will keep editing the site to what says in the psak as well as the practical situation of Bobov chasidim and their Rebbe.

I ask you to not try to push your personal agenda here and just go back to the sensible position you had a few years ago, and what is shared by every reasonable person.Berkshires (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Berkshires,

Perhaps you say that you agree with the quoted statement, but you don't seem to get it.

Yes it is true that the Beth Din will not/didn't decide who is or should be a Rebbe to whom. They never took that power to themselves nor can I imagine that such power can even be granted. But of course they were granted the power to decide who is the "Bobover Rebbe", who can use the name Bobov.

Berkshires this is an obvious distinction, one that I previously thought you were faking ignorance of. I now realise that you may have very well been serious. I will therefore try to explain it in more detail.

Think for a moment, if Rabbi Halberstam should decide tommorow that he no longer wants the title Bobover Rebbe, he no longer wants he Kehilla to be named Bobov, but rather some name of some other polish town. Does that render him no longer Rebbe to his Chasidim? The connection between a Rebbe and a Chossid has absolutley nothing to do with his title.

There was a dispute in Bobov over assets, over the title, and over usage of the name Bobov and other names used by Bobov. A very simple dry Din Torah. The Beth din gave to Rabbi Halberstam side all of Bobov assets, the rights to the title, the name Bobov, and all other names used by Bobov. That does not mean that Rabbi Unger isn't a Rebbe? It doesn't even mean that he isn't a "mamshich" of his father-in-law or grandfather-in-law. The same way the first Bobover Ruv did not have the title Sanzer ruv but he was still a "mamshich" of Sanzer Ruv.

Try to remove your emotions and be impartial and you may even understand the Beth Din's logic. I am not saying you need to agree, but perhpas if you stand back for a moment you can understand their decision.

Putting aside all claims and counter claims as to who should have been selcted as the Rebbe of Bobov, I know you must believe that the son-in-law should have been selected, however there is almost unanimous consent between all Poskim that the will of the majority is respected. The Beth Din made a clear finding within the Psak that Side 2 had a majority.

If you follow that logic the Psak is self explanatory. You have a Kehilla. They made a decision as to their Rav and Rebbe. A minority is unhappy. They leave. Can they get a part of the assets? Can they use the name and title? The Beth Din answered that question with its ruling.

I went long here only because I feel a sort of denialist anger simmering within your writting, and I don't think it is warranted. I thought perhaps you can follow the logic.

In any event the Beth din did make a decsion who has and can use the title Bobover Rebbe. Rabbi Unger can no longer refer to himself as Bobover Rebbe.

It would be appropriate for you to give this a rest.Analyst13 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) --- Analyst13; I regret having given reasons as to why Beth Din did this or that; should have known that it will be challenged and that other reasons, real and imagined will be read into it; and the arguments will be endless.

It is quite clear from your edits that you are a Bobover and a Bobover-48. That is fine and you have a right to edit; but you don't give Bobov-45 their rights in the Psak. Nowhere in the Psak does it say that Bobov-45 is an offshoot of Bobov; this is what you want to believe and have a right to believe, but you cannot read it out of the Psak. Surely you cannot impose it in the article.

The ruling is clear; there are two Bobov; and Bobov-45 has equal standing as a Bobover Kehillah continuing Bobov, and not an offshoot of it.

Paragraph 6 (and the other paragraphs) are clear that when someone asks on the 48 street synagogue (for example) which synagogue it is; the answer will be "Bobov". And when someone asks on the 45th street synagogue which synagogue it is; the answer will be "Bobov-45".

Same is when someone asks on Rabbi Halberstam who he is; the answer will be "Bobov Rebbe". And when someone asks on Rabbi Unger who he is; the answer will be "Bobov-45 Rebbe".

Therefore when someone sees in the newspaper a caption "Bobov Rebbe" he will know it is Rabbi Halberstam; and when he sees "Bobov-45 Rebbe" he will know it is Rabbi Unger. Very simple and that's all it says.

Paragraph 14 does state that Bobov-45 can refer to all the previous Bobover Rebbes as its founders; only that the word "Bobov" should be the same size as "Bobov-45" so that people know that this is Bobov-45 and not Bobov-48. So here you have it, that Beth Din clearly writes that Bobov-45 has a right to use the word "Bobov"; yes Bobov spelled "B","o","b","o","v" and with no "45" attached to it.

Lets not go in circles; you understand, I understand. We have a document, a Psak Din and that's what we have to go by. It makes no difference why it gave no reasons for this and for that; if intentionally or not intentionally; that will be up to historians to debate in the coming decades. We here are bound to NPOV and to the neutral reading of this document. That's all.

There are lots of ideas how to make these pages completely neutral. It won't satisfy both sides (which by definition it cannot); but will satisfy NPOV and fairness. That's my goal and my only goal. Afarsimon (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) --- Afarsimon,

Following is a translation of paragraph 14.

"14.	When Party A [including but not limited to the Chasiddic community, the congregation, the synagogues, all educational institutions, all branches, the holders of other positions, journals and the like, and/or the legal entities and the like] refers to the late Rebbes of Bobov, they may do so only and exclusively in a manner that the reader knows and understands that the name of the congregation, the Chasiddic community and/or the educational institution is "Bobov-45"; therefore, they shall do this only and exclusively if all of the following conditions are met: [1] that the word "Bobov" appears in the same size and the same font as the other words in that sentence. [2] that the name "Bobov-45" appears there in a more bold manner."

Afarsimon, this paragraph attempts to do the exact opposite than what you claim.

I am afraid you may not be that fluent in Hebrew or Loshen Kodesh.

What the Beth Din is saying is that if for example Part-1 is writing in a publication about the Kedushas Zion, and they refer to him as The Rebbe of Bobov, a total legitimate use of the word, as it isn't being used as Party-1's name, nevertheless they still need to take action to prevent the reader of thinking that the publication is produced by Bobov. The Beth din is simply adding a rule to otherwise fair use of someone elses name.

It says nothing about referring to the Bobover Rebbes as its founders.

The truths is, I don't really think that this whole discussion is relevant. I am not arguing with you if Bobov-45 can claim that they are a direct chain from the first Bobover Ruv. My point is very simple, the use of the name Bobov is reserved only to Party B. You may try to confuse by not directly quoting the psak, but the language in paragraph 6 is as follows: "likewise, to reach a point where if someone hears the name "Bobov" without an accompanying name, he will immediately understand that it refers to Party B; we therefore ruled as provided in the clauses below"."

The example you should have given, should have been as follows: When someone says I am going to Bobov, one should immediately understand that he is going to the shul on 48th street. A very big difference from the example you gave. Or when someone says "I am a Bobover", it should be understood that he means that he belongs to Rabbi Halberstam's chassiduk community. The question "which Bobov"? should never follow ones use of the name Bobov.

That's all there is to see in this clause. I am not adding any interpretations to it. It doesn't mean that Rabbi Unger can't legitimately be a Rebbe to Chassdim of his father-in-law or grandfather, it just means that they can't refer to themselves as Bobov. A very simple restriction on the usage of a name.

Therefore it is simply incorrect to list the Bobov-45 Rebbe under the header of Rebbes of Bobov. They can't refer to him as Bobover Rebbe, Neither can he, and therefore wikipedia shouldn't either. How is this biased?

I did put him on the Bobov page with prominence as he is part of the Bobov story. He is a Rebbe to chasidim of his father-in-law and grandfather.

If not for the absurd edits of Berkshires the page would have been much cleaner and wouldn't have mentioned the split at all. He insisted that the page include details of the psak relating to those who didn't sign on to the arbitration agreement. I therefore edited that to NPOV to the best of my ability. Since however he has been vandalizing the page since then, I assume he isn't serious and I will revert to my previous edit.

It will list under Bobover Rebbes all those that had/have that title. Directly underneath that I will prominently display Bobov-45 and list their Rabbi and Ruv. I will also place a link to Bobov-45. All I am doing is strictly following the directions in the Psak regarding the usage of the names Bobov and Bobov-45. I make no interpretations.Analyst13 (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC) - If you belong to one side of the split; then it is impossible that you make no interpretations. It's like saying I support one party over the other but I don't take a stand in it.

I was asked by a friend a Wikipedian who knows nothing of the details of this quarrel; to straighten out these pages by making it neutral (by creating the page Bobov-45; and editing the other articles into neutrality). I am acquainted with the details and take no side. My only interest is neutrality of these pages.

I brought paragraph 14 to show that the word "Bobov" without any identifiers can be used by Bobov-45. Of course it says that it has to be the same size etc. etc. but the point is that they have a right to use it because they are no less any Bobov then Bobov-48. No offshoot, and no other dynasty.

Anything else assumed, insinuated, from those words are subjective to one's opinion on this matter and to which side they personally consider as the "real" continuation of Bobov. We here cannot and are forbidden from taking any side between the two.

The wording is stronger then you translated it. It states: "...that the word "Bobov" be written in the same size and the same font as the other words in that sentence". Clearly that they (Bobov-45) can "write" and identify themselves as Bobov (the dynastic Bobov, the Chasiddus Bobov), if "Bobov-45" is also present to differentiate them from the other; but the word "Bobov" without any attachments they can use and write as they are no less Bobov then the other.

Otherwise; your edits (based on your view) are pretty reasonable; except to add the word "offshoot" which is POV. I agree with you that the split should not be mentioned; who needs it? But I do think that instead of "Bobov Today" which suggests that one is the continuation of Bobov and one not; should be changed to more neutral words. We can think of many ideas of how to do it.

In a nutshell; based on this Psak, there are now two Bobovs. One called "Bobov", the other "Bobov-45". One is Bobov Rebbe and the other Bobov-45 Rebbe. Both Bobovs are the continuation of Bobov and its founders (meaning the first three Bobover Rebbe's - for from there it gets murky, and the Psak chose to stay out of it). Both Bobovs are Bobover Chasidim (meaning practicing Bobover Chassidus). Afarsimon (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --- Edited strictly neutral. Removed any negativity about the split; and tried to incorporate everyone in context.

It can still be made better; by adding all the pertinent information someone comes to read here. So there is still much positive editing to be done. Afarsimon (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ---

Afarsimon,

Let's start with where you are right. The correct words should have been "be written". The word "appear" just flowed better in English.

However I don't see that this makes the slightest difference to our discussion at all. I have yet to hear in a coherent manner what you see from paragraph 14. (At this point I should add, that I do not appreciate your attempt to unilaterally disqualifying me from being capable of adhering to literal language in the Psak without injecting my personal feelings. You do not know what my personal feelings and motives are, nor do I know yours. All you do know is that I "belong" to Rabbi Halberstam's side, something I made very clear when I first started editing these pages. At that time I had help from people on the other side to ensure that N POV was maintained. In fact the NPOV language that was on the wiki pages for close to a decade describing Bobov came through our working together. Imagine that, we were both able to move past our opinions and analyze the wiki entry from an NPOV standpoint. As for you, you may very well be totally without any opinion or feelings regarding the Bobov Machloikeh, something that I currently highly doubt, but that doesn't qualify you more to analyze the plain text and adhere to the strict language of the Psak, as evident in your actual analysis, except of course if you actualy do have some feelings to one side over the other. )

That being said let me go back to my point. I still do not see what you read in paragraph 14. I will try this again from a different angle. Had paragraph 14 not been included in the Psak, is your opinion that Rabbi Unger's side would be prohibited from referring to Bobov in their publications? Is Rabbi Halberstam's side prohibited from referring to Bobov-45 in their publications? Of course not. The Psak does not prohibit referring to Bobov. They can write stories about the Bobover Rebbe, past, previous and current. The Psak prohibits using the name Bobov. (PepsiCo can write about Coca Cola but they can't use that name). All paragraph 14 adds to the Psak is another condition, another prohibition, to an otherwise permitted action. Now you can only refer to the previous Rebbe's of Bobov, if the word Bobov is inconspicuously part of the sentence.

Where I am afraid you get lost is that you think there is a glaring omission in this Psak. You are looking for clues in the Psak to see how the Beth Din came down on it. You think the Beth Din needed to decide succession. Or as we may term it Serurah. If you saw my posts years ago, you would see that I predicted that the Beth Din will not render a decision on serurah. The reasoning was simple. It affects nothing. It really means nothing. To the extent it means something the beth din decided it. Let me explain. Suppose Bobov is a kehilla. As a kehilla it has a Rabbi/Rebbe (Bobov always used the title Ruv). The previous Rebbe dies, and Bobov now has two contenders to the post. They go ask a Beth Din. 1. Who do we appoint as Rabbi, 2. We know that either way a part of the people will depart and take the other contender as Rabbi, who gets the assets, the minority, the majority, per person, or a different calculation. 3. Can both use the name?.

Let's assume that the Beth Din agrees that Party A shall be picked as Ruv of the Kehilla. But the people departing have the right to the assets and the name just the same. So then did the decision on serurah have an effect? No, both come out even. The same way if the Beth Din decides that Serurah cannot be decided, there is no rule as to who should be Rebbe, but the majority gets all, the assets and the exclusive use of the name. Did then the non decision on serurah have an effect?

Don't get me wrong, The decision as to who is gets the serurah of course has a major bearing on why the Beth Din ultimately decided how they did. But it isn't a Psak. It is a reason for the Psak. In itself it means nothing. There is absolutely no practical application from a decision on serurah.

This of course is opinion. But being that I predicted it, it should count for something.

Now back to our issue. You keep on talking about two Bobov's, but only one has the name Bobov. This is plainly incomprehensible.

Can one say: "I am going to Bobov" when he refers to Rabbi Unger's Beth Midrash? Can one say: "I send my kids to Bobov" when he refers to Rabbi Unger’s institutions? Can one say: “I belong to Bobov” or “I am a Bobover” when he refers to Rabbi Unger’s Kehilla?

The answer of course to all of the above is negative.

So what do you mean when you say there are two Bobov’s? Does that mean in your heart you think they are still Bobov even if that isn’t their name? Is Bobov a thing with many names only one name of which is Bobov? Perhaps you think so. But that is an opinion. An absurd one at that. I for instance think that Bobov is the name of a Kehilla/Chasidic Community. There is a Kehilla/Organization named Young Israel, There is an institution named Agudah, and there is a Chasidus named Gur. If Agudah split, and half its members now go by a different name, are they still Agudah? Furthermore if they didn’t split, but they just changed their name, are they still Agudah? The first Bobover Rebbe was Rabbi in a town named Vizshnitze (not be confused with Vizsnitz), his Chasidim were know as Vizshnitze chasidim, when he moved he changed his name. Now his Chasidus was named Bobov. Again this may only be an opinion, but still as good an opinion as your opinion that Bobov is a thing that goes by two names.

Furthermore, your position also makes no sense. I have shown you multiple times, the goal of the Psak is that when one hears Bobov, one “immediately” understand that Rabbi Halberstam’s kehilla is being referred. This is the plain language of the Psak. How does that jive with you contention that there are two Bobov. How can you possibly content that Party A is Bobov, when Party B is the only Party to whom the word Bobov can refer to. Are they Bobov in secret? It is this illogical position that makes me think you aren’t neutral at all.

The bottom line is the Beth Din gave the exclusive right to Rabbi Halberstam to the title Bobover Rebbe. There were four Bobover Rebbe’s he is the fifth. I don’t see how it is NPOV to hide this fact. If you want to point out that not all people/members/chasidim of bobov stayed with him, that’s fine. There is no reason to infringe on his rightful title. I will edit the pages accordingly Analyst13 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The ruling is that there are now two Bobov's one to be called "Bobov" and the other to be called "Bobov-45"
As some would like to read into the ruling what it doesn't say; it needs to be clear what it says and what it doesn't. It does NOT say that Rabbi Halberstam is the Bobover Rebbe and Rabbi Unger is not. It does not say that Rabbi Benzion Halberstam is Rabbi Naftali Halberstam's successor and that Rabbi Mordche Dovid Unger is not.

What does it say?

In the first paragraph it says who gets what (or rather who "stays" with what) and does NOT mention a word who is successor and hence who is "Bobover Rebbe". This was "the" question asked of the Beth-Din and the Beth-Din did NOT answer it (and for good reason).

Both cannot be called Bobov without confusion; so in paragraph 3, Rabbi Halberstam is given the right to call himself "Bobov Rebbe" without an identifier; and in paragraph 4, Rabbi Unger is given the right to call himself "Bobov-45 Rebbe" with an identifier. It is clear as can be, that no one is named as the "only" successor; and no one is Bobov more then the other.

So can one say "I am going to Bobov" when he refers to Bobov-45 Rebbe Rabbi Unger's Beth Midrash? The answer is of course "yes"; and people will and do say so. When in question which one it is, THEN they add "45"; but when it is not in question, everyone in Bobov and outside Bobov says that they are going to Bobov.

Same is when a Shadchen (a matchmaker) is asked where the boy learns; the answer is "Bobov"; only when not clear which one, then and only then, "45" is added.

Also when asked about a Bobov-45 Chasid, which Chasid he is; the answer will always be "a Bobover".

On legal papers, on a building, letterhead or the like; "Bobov-45" needs to be present. But regarding all other questions; Bobov-45 is no less Bobov then Bobov 48.

Analyst13; your mistake stems from you interpreting that Rabbi Halberstam gets to stay with the name "Bobov" without an identifier, to mean that he is the successor. No such words are to be found in this ruling; it is only your interpretation based on your belief that Rabbi Halberstam "should" be the successor and therefore he is. The Beth-Din didn't rule on that and rightfully so. Do you for one second think that Rabbi Halberstam is his brother's successor? Maybe his father's, but not his brother's. His brother's successors are his brother's sons-in law. Now, if they (Bobov-45) would be an offshoot of Bobov, as you believe; then Rabbi Naftali Halberstam was also a Bobov-45 Rebbe (was he?) and how does his brother a Bobov Rebbe succeed a Bobov-45 Rebbe?

So you see that it is very very murky to say the least, and makes anything written contradictory; you cannot grab the rope by both ends.

The Beth-Din (in my opinion) to avoid falling into this contradictory trap; decided not to rule succession at all; but to give both parties the right to continue the dynasty of Bobov as is.

Why I brought up that you belong to one side; is to show why you would consider Bobov-45 an offshoot; which is wholly your own opinion and not Beth-Din's. As a matter of fact, Beth-Din found it important to say in paragraph 22 that Side-2 (Bobov 48) when they refer to Bobov 45, they must call them "Bobov-45" and NOT call them with any other names. It cannot be clearer.

Therefore the article(s) cannot refer to one (any one) as the successor and to omit the other one.

The article(s) cannot say "offshoot" referring to Bobov-45.

The article cannot say that after the passing of Rabbi Naftali Halberstam, Bobov-45 split off from Bobov; but that Bobov split in two, where one side chose his brother and the other side chose his son-in law.

Neither should Bobov 48 impose here their view on Bobov 45; nor should Bobov 45 impose here their view on Bobov 48; these pages must be impartial and completely neutral, and anyone editing should leave their personal beliefs out of it; and if they can't, shouldn't edit. Afarsimon (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2014

---

Afarsimon: You deliberately and conviently omit any mention of Pragraph 6 in the Beth Din decision. You are stuck with interpertations of the decision based on assumptions of what the issues before thBeth Din was. You then fabricate how I interpert the decision.

My point to you, stated here numerous times, is that I do not make interpertations of the Psak.

The beth din does not make a decision about "Yerisha" of the Bobover "Admoris", then there is no decsion on it. You can say it is still in dispute. You realise of course though that the Beth Din can still decide who is Bobover Rebbe and not decide the legal question of Yerisha. Furthermore they may decide the legal question of Yerisha and therefore decide who is Bobover Rebbe, but they don't need to come public on that question. My opinion is, yes Rabbi Halberstam is his brother's Yoiresh for the Admoris, as Son-In-Laws aren't sons in torah law, and daughters can't inherent "Serurah". I also believe that the Beth Din came to that decsion as well. But that of course is only my opinion. I have not advocated that this be stated on wikipedia main article. I would appreciate that you keep your opinions to yourself as well.

My point is that all your talk about "succesion", "also Bobov", "split", that's all your opinion of the decision. I have my own opinions, very different than yours. I beilive those to be right. But they have no place here on wikipedia. Just the same as yours have no place.

I have advocated consistently to stick to the Beth Din ruling.

Paragraph 6 the second half states as follows:

"...likewise, to reach a point where if someone hears the name "Bobov" without an accompanying name, he will immediately understand that it refers to Party B; we therefore ruled as provided in the clauses below".

It couldn't be clearer. When one says Bobov on should not need to ask which Bobov. Your examples of the Shadchan and all the rest examples is therefore wrong. Plain. Simply Wrong. And by now I know that you know so as well.

Analyst13 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC) ---

You are correct that the beth din did not make a decision about "Yerisha" of the Bobover "Admoris"; but that with no decision on it, it de-facto remains in dispute.

You are wrong; Beth Din could can not decide who is Bobover Rebbe without deciding the legal question of Yerisha; therefore they made no decision on who is the "real" Bobover Rebbe, only who is to be "called" what.

They would have had to come public on everything (and issue a reasoning for the ruling as the courts do); but unfortunately they "forced" the signers to forfeit it against their will; and anything not in that one official document released remains non-decided legally and Halachically.

Interesting that "your" opinion on "Serurah" is a minute minority view in Rabbinical Responsa of the last 300 years; but as you state that it is only your opinion; so I won't comment on it. People have a right to a nonsensical opinion to accept 3 (at most) against (at least) 300 in the history of Rabbinical Responsa.

As we have both advocated consistently to stick to the Beth Din ruling, so let's see what it says in paragraph 6.

Lets forget about interpretations (mine and yours) and let's look at the facts.

Paragraph 6 which is talking about the name of the Chassidus, name of the Kehillah and Moisdess, title of the Rebbe and Rov "BUT NOT ABOUT THE BOBOVER CHASSIDIM neither in Bobov 45 or 48", states in the second half as follows:

"...likewise, to reach a point where if someone hears the name "Bobov" without an accompanying identifier, he will immediately understand that it refers to Party B (Bobov 48); we therefore ruled as provided in the clauses below".

Therefore my examples of the Shadchan etc. is correct and a Bobover Chosid is a Bobover Chosid without any identifiers (just as it's ludicrous to call retroactively Rabbi Naftula "Bobov-45"; but he and his Chasidim [and now his son-in-law's] Chassidim, remain Bobover Chassidim without any identifiers.

I hope all is now clear and the facts are borne out, and we can proceed properly from here.

So lets make it clear:

Beth Din did NOT Pasken that Bobover Chassidim in Bobov-45 are not Bobover Chassidim (and its obvious that they can't make a Bobover Chosid Ois Bobover Chosid).

Beth Din also didn't issue a ruling about succession as to who Reb Bentzion succeeds (and that is because he is not his brothers successor [he himself doesn't think so] nor his father's successor).

Beth Din also didn't issue a ruling that Reb Mordche Duvid is NOT his father-in-law's successor (because it was only 1 opinion in 5, and the other 4 disagreed with him).

The reasoning can be dropped and be called opinions; it doesn't matter at all; what does count as far as Wikipedia is concerned is what it does (or does not) say in the ruling, and we can proceed accordingly. Afarsimon (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) ---

Afarsimon,

Your comments on my opinion on Serurah I will not address, I will just wonder out loud how the Beth Din missed all those responsa going back 300 years. (Please stop this sillines).

As to Pargraph 6. My friend you make a huge leap. A very dishonest one.

The language clearly applies to anyone hearing the word Bobov in any situation. There are aboslutley no modifiers. The express purpose is that it shouldn't be limited. If it is limited in anyway, the whole purpose cannot be achieved. And Yes, when one refers to Reb Naftuli as Bobover Rebbe he is reffering to Bobov. The same Bobov, just in a different time. You refuse to see the very clear language, becaue you refuse to believe that the Beth Din actualy sees Bobov today as the same Bobov of yesteryear. And yes, a person who calls himself a Bobover because he is a chusid of Reb Naftuli, is reffering to the same Bobov of Reb Benzion. There are many people who call themselves Bobover Chassidim, but they left Bobov years ago, even before the split. What they mean is the same Bobov as Bobov today.

It is however very helpful that you came out with what it is that you truly believe; that you believe Reb Mordchai Duvid should have been according to Halacha the true Bobover Rebbe. It helps me understand why you suspend logic when interperting a simple sentence.

In any event, I don't think however that our discussion here has any relevance to the main page. I think we have no disagreements on its content. Analyst13 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) --- I will not go there; you know full well why Beth Din "ignored" all the responsa going back hundreds of years; and I will leave it at that.

As to paragraph 6, I totally disagree with you, and have explained it many times but you will not accept - you cannot accept.

You cannot honestly say that Beth Din sees this way or that way; surely not the way you describe. All they did after 10 years of vigorous arguing is to issue a vague ruling and a very limited one.

We can lament it; but that's how it is. Therefore we can only follow it by what we have.

What I truly believe is irrelevant; especially if has no relevance to the main page as you say.

My goal is to make sure that both sides have an understanding that there are two sides to this equation, and both sides will always remain Bobover Chassidim, and to realize it sooner rather then later that both sides are here to stay; and that these pages will have to be edited accordingly.

With this I think I'm done explaining. Think I've done my job as you have done yours; and we'll respectfully agree to disagree. Afarsimon (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Relation of the psak to Reliable Sources
I just want to comment briefly on the long, convoluted discussion above... and the edit warring over the article.

The discussion centers on a judgment (psak) by a rabbinical court (beis din). However, this judgment is really a primary source from within the religious Jewish world. It is not a reliable source, in the Wikipedia sense, so it does substantiate much if any text within a Wikipedia article. Therefore, much of the preceding Talk discussion is irrelevant, sorry!

In order to report on this Bobov dispute, the Wikipedia article should be based on reliable sources, such as the New York Times or (though lower quality, perhaps) Jewish newspapers and websites. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Beth Din's decision is an original document. There's no reason why it cannot be used. Potter&#39;s best (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is one Bobov, and 2 Rebbes
An author who was born decades before Reb Naftalchig left our world said "there is one chasidus, Bobov, and it has two Rebbes."

The Bais Din's 6.25 of 100 monetary award seems to go with the idea that only about 6.25% of those who daven in Boro Park or elsewhere in an officially Bobov shul are 45, and the rest (93.75%) "48." It is the non-Bobov Chasidim, and even more so the non-Chasidim, that will perpetuate the "48" name until Mashiach comes.

Rather than compare to Aguda or Young Israel, which have rules in their organization, ask: Which is the "real" Washington - District of Columbia or the West Coast State. Context and public usage provide(s) the answer.

"I'm stopping by Bobov tonight" depends on context. Likewise, "he sent his kids to Bobov."

Moreover, just as some might expect to hear Bobov-45, others may expect to hear Bobov-48: "Tonight I'm shopping in Boro Park and going to my neighbor's Vort in Bobov-45; next week my 2nd cousin is making a Vort by Bobov-48."

Finally, to the non-Chasidic world, "The other side is known as Bobov 48." (a quote from the 2012 Nathan Lewin Jewish Press article: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/bet-din-on-the-clock-nathan-lewin-wants-jewish-courts-to-run-more-efficiently/2012/03/21  Pi314m (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Views on Zionism
Is Bobov anti-Zionist, or simply non-Zionist? Do they have close connections to Satmar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.244.215 (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased
The following statment was clearly added to invalidate bobov 45 and is biased. Bobov and all Bobov institutions are currently led by the Grand Rabbi Benzion Halberstam. no one who isn`t a member of this community would have made such a comment. This topic is discussed at length in the article and there is no reason to ignor the topic in the introduction. גוי אחד בארץ (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

History of Bobov-45
Most of the information in this paragraph is already mentionedin the paragraph-Fifth and current Rebbe of Bobov. I woulld suggest making a paragraph before discussing the Rebbes of Bobov and Bobov 45 describing the argument and it`s resolution. It is an important part of Bobov`s history for both courts. גוי אחד בארץ (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)