Talk:Elazar Shach/Archive 3

Anti-Zionist
Regarding the recent edit war as to whether he was anti-Zionist. I see no reason to say that the fact he was involved in Israeli politics means he can not be anti-Zionist at the same time. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He was ambivalent. It's one thing to partake, but to actively promote a party, form a party, proclaim a halachic decision that you must vote, that's practically not anti. Anti would be like Brisk, who don't do those things. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I see no contradiction, practically or theoretically between the two. Debresser (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This letter might help shed some light on the matter - http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33425&pgnum=14 - I think its pretty clear from reading it (especially the second to last paragraph) that he was strongly opposed to a government which does not adhere to Torah law... So does that make him an "anti-Zionist?" 72.229.160.175 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Elazar Shach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305072110/http://hamercaz.com/hamercaz/pics/database/aoi/223_myFile.pdf to http://hamercaz.com/hamercaz/pics/database/aoi/223_myFile.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007200851/http://ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp to http://www.ranaz.co.il/articles/article3071_19890804.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Cabinet/2001/11/Spokesman4356.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elazar Shach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205073533/http://5tjt.com/local-news/11146-dreams to http://www.5tjt.com/local-news/11146-dreams
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050302143513/http://www.ourjerusalem.com/news/story/news20011106a.html to http://www.ourjerusalem.com/news/story/news20011106a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This page needs to be cleaned up
There is a lot of irrelevant information that is just copied from one or two hagiography's written about the subject. Apart from the obvious issue of this not being encyclopedic nor being necessarily reliably sourced, it's also a copyright violation which needs to be removed or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.132.190.66 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We can paraphrase the source. No need to remove it to avoid copyvio issues. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

W5: Modern Orthodoxy
, the "longstanding consensus" for over 10 years had this:

Opposition to other Orthodox rabbis and groups

In addition to his criticism of Schneerson, Shach attacked the following rabbis:

Joseph B. Soloveitchik

In a lengthy attack on Joseph B. Soloveitchik (d. 1993) of Yeshiva University, Shach accused him of writing "things that are forbidden to hear", as well as of "...endangering the survival of Torah-true Judaism by indoctrinating the masses with actual words of heresy".

The Gerer Rebbe Shach resigned from the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah ("Council of Torah Greats") following tensions between him and the Gerer Rebbe, Rabbi Simcha Bunim Alter (d. 1992). In the Eleventh Knesset elections of 1984, Shach had already told his supporters to vote for Shas instead of Agudat Yisrael. Some perceived the schism as the reemergence of the dissent between Hasidim and Mitnagdim, as Shach represented the Lithuanian Torah world, while the Gerer Rebbe was among the most important Hasidic Rebbes and represented the most significant Hasidic court in Agudat Yisrael. However, it would not be accurate to base the entire conflict on a renewal of the historic dispute between Hasidim and Mitnagdim which began in the latter half of the eighteenth century.

Adin Steinsaltz

Adin Steinsaltz (Even-Yisrael) (b. 1937) was likewise accused of heresy by Shach, who, in a letter written September 10, 1988, wrote that "... and similarly, all his other works contain heresy. It is forbidden to debate with Steinsaltz, because, as a heretic, all the debates will only cause him to degenerate more. He is not a genuine person (ein tocho ke-baro), and everyone is obliged to distance themselves from him. This is the duty of the hour (mitzvah be-sha’atah). It will generate merit for the forthcoming Day of Judgement."

In the summer of 1989, a group of rabbis, including Shach, placed a ban on three of Steinsaltz's books.

The Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva University

Shach wrote that Yeshiva University (YU) type institutions are an entirely negative phenomenon posing a threat to the very endurance of authentic Judaism. Shach said that these modern conceptions were "an absolute disaster, causing the destruction of our Holy Torah. Even the so-called 'Touro College' in the USA is a terrible disaster, a ' churban ha-das ' (destruction of the Jewish religion)..."

Shach further writes that the success of those people who were able to achieve greatness in Torah despite their involvement in secular studies are "ma'aseh satan" (the work of the satanic forces), for the existence of such role models will entice others to follow suit, only to be doomed.

In a conversation that he had with an American rabbi in the 1980s, Shach stated, "The Americans think that I am too controversial and divisive. But in a time when no one else is willing to speak up on behalf of our true tradition, I feel myself impelled to do so."

I tried to streamline and condense it in to this truncated text, (moving the Gerrer Rebbe to Hasidim): Modern Orthodoxy Shach wrote that Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University type institutions were a threat to authentic Judaism. Shach called them "an absolute disaster, causing the destruction of our Holy Torah. Even the so-called 'Touro College' in the USA is a terrible disaster, a ' churban ha-das ' (destruction of the Jewish religion)..." He felt that the success of people who achieved greatness in Torah despite involvement in secular studies was the work of the "satanic forces." Shach accused Joseph B. Soloveitchik of Yeshiva University of writing "things that are forbidden to hear", as well as of "...endangering the survival of Torah-true Judaism by indoctrinating the masses with actual words of heresy". In 1988, Shach accused Adin Steinsaltz of heresy and was later chief among a group of rabbis banning his works. He told an American rabbi in the 1980s that "the Americans think that I am too controversial and divisive. But in a time when no one else is willing to speak up on behalf of our true tradition, I feel myself impelled to do so."

Please explain why you insist on three paragraphs: Attacks on Other Orthodox Groups Shach wrote that Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University type institutions were a threat to authentic Judaism. Shach called them "an absolute disaster, causing the destruction of our Holy Torah. Even the so-called 'Touro College' in the USA is a terrible disaster, a ' churban ha-das ' (destruction of the Jewish religion)..." Shach further writes that the success of those people who were able to achieve greatness in Torah despite their involvement in secular studies are "ma'aseh satan" (the work of the satanic forces), for the existence of such role models will entice others to follow suit, only to be doomed.

In a lengthy attack against Joseph B. Soloveitchik of Yeshiva University, Shach accused him of writing "things that are forbidden to hear", as well as of "endangering the survival of Torah-true Judaism by indoctrinating the masses with actual words of heresy". He told an American rabbi in the 1980s that "the Americans think that I am too controversial and divisive. But in a time when no one else is willing to speak up on behalf of our true tradition, I feel myself impelled to do so."

In 1988, Shach accused Adin Steinsaltz of heresy and was later chief among a group of rabbis banning his works. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, however, approved of the Steinsaltz talmud following the controversy

...? Chesdovi (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * With regards to this particular section, considering that Shach's main notability was a direct result of his penchant for vicious attacks on other rabbis and groups, the original expanded version was better. While certain editors may have their own reasons for wanting to whitewash this divisive personality, such efforts are likely to start another war and not succeed in any caseLondoner77 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The longstanding version which Chesdovi seems intent on doing away with lent appropriate WP:BALANCE to the page and also included proper sourcing. The idea that 40+ years of a subjects controversial attacks on other major figures and groups should just be buried in a brief paragraph doesn't pass muster under WP:NPOV either. The source which was removed (and which I will restore shortly) makes clear that Shach called Steinsaltz a heretic and claimed that "all his other works contain heresy" a year before his ban with a few other rabbis a year later. Steinsaltz was also not 'modern orthodox' so burying the attacks on him in a paragraph on same seems deliberately misleading. The same goes for the Gerer Rebbe. Winchester2313 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

W4: Wife's death
, why do you oppose adding details of the demise of Shach's wife? You removed the following: "Shach's wife died in 1969 from complications connected to diabetes." ...? Chesdovi (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose this at all, and removed it inadvertently. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How can this be an "inadvertent" edit? Do you actually know what you are reverting? Have you actually compared my editing to the poorly composed "consensus" version, static and stale for 10 years? It appears you refuse to allow any changes on this page without your consent. My edits generally improved the flow and you reverted them outright. I'm flabbergasted. Chesdovi (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I trust you've gotten over your shock by now. It's not 'my' right to 'allow' any changes or otherwise. There are numerous and very specific rules and guidelines which make clear how this encyclopedia is supposed to be. The consensus I refer to and which you seem to take issue with, isn't just an aged version of the page. Rather, it emerged as a result of lengthy and vigorous debate among multiple editors over an extended period of time. For you to arbitrarily dismiss all that in favor of your own rewrites which also often run afoul of WP:BALASP, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is wrong. That a page about a subject who's been dead for twenty-odd years and hasn't generated a great deal of news since then, should remain relatively unchanged for ten years is not a problem. Rather the problem would be with agenda-driven editors seeking to engage in obvious historical revisionism. Winchester2313 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "a page about a subject who's been dead for twenty-odd years and hasn't generated a great deal of news since then, should remain relatively unchanged for ten years is not a problem" is absolutely ludicrous. Do you even understand what Wikipedia is? Chesdovi (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Preface
The current preface reads as follows and has been in place for the best part of seven years:

"Elazar Menachem Man Shach (אלעזר מנחם מן שך, Elazar Shach; January 1, 1899 O.S. – November 2, 2001) was a leading Lithuanian-Jewish Haredi rabbi in Bnei Brak, Israel. He also served as one of three co-deans of the Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, along with Rabbis Shmuel Rozovsky and Dovid Povarsky. Due to his differences with the Hasidic leadership of the Agudat Yisrael in 1984, he allied with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, with whom he founded the Shas party. Later, in 1988, Shach sharply criticized Ovadia Yosef, saying that, 'Sepharadim are not yet ready for leadership positions', and subsequently founded the Degel HaTorah political party representing Lithuanian (non-Hasidic) Ashkenazi Jews in the Israeli Knesset."

I am wondering why my more comprehensive summary, below, of Rabbi Schach's life has been reverted?

Elazar Menachem Man Shach (אלעזר מנחם מן שך) (January 1, 1899 – November 2, 2001) was a leading Israeli rabbi of the non-Hassidic Lithuanian stream of Haredi Judaism who served as Rosh yeshiva of Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak.

Born in Lithuania, he escaped the impending Holocaust after immigrating to Mandate Palestine where he continued his teaching career. In 1954 he took up position as one of three co-deans of the prestigious Ponevezh Yeshiva, along with rabbis Shmuel Rozovsky and Dovid Povarsky. Recognised for his Torah scholarship, he authored a four-volume Talmud commentary and eventually became a spiritual mentor to hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews. Held in high esteem among large portions of his constituency, he was able to dominate and impose his will over the non-Hassidic Ashkenazi community, an attribute lacking in today's divided and factional rabbinic leadership. His uncompromising stance and strong conservative opinions often led to controversy, prompting opponents to label him a "Jewish Khomeini". He was at forefront of a bitter struggle against Chabad messianism and often railed against the secularism of Israeli society, his "rabbits and pigs speech" being described as a "pivotal moment in Israeli history".

He was instrumental in founding two Israeli political parties (Shas in 1984 representing Sepharadim, and Degel Hatorah in 1988 representing Lithuanian Ashkenazim) which won disproportionate state funds for yeshivas and other orthodox institutions. In 1990, he emerged as a political kingmaker when he prevented religious parties joining a left-wing government on the grounds that Labour was "anti-Jewish".

Comments, please. Chesdovi (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There would be multiple issues with your proposed rewrite, so I would advise against it. Just some of the problems are the obvious peacock terms, the dearth of sources complying with WP:RS - or any sources at all (obituaries and hagiographies aren't reliable). You are correct in that the lead has been more or less unchanged for years, but that is after months of debate and discussion among many editors before reaching consensus. Considering that, I'd imagine that attempts to substantially rewrite this article would be no less controversial than Shach himself. I'd advise reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch as well as the part of the manual explaining what the 'lead' is supposed to be.Winchester2313 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please indicate the "obvious peacock terms."
 * Please indicate which text needs citation.
 * Please provide wikilink which disqualifies citing obituaries.
 * Please provide wikilink which states that previous debate and discussions among editors precludes any further editing.
 * Considering WP:LEAD states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," please indicate why you feel the current lead, which only mentions his role as dean and founder of two political parties, sufficiently covers all aspects of Shach's notability.
 * Chesdovi (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * After the years of constant warring on this page, a version emerged that was the result of consensus. Please Chesdovi stop the war and refrain from wholesale deletions and rewrites without real consensus. If you insist on making substantial changes, may I suggest doing one at a time after discussing with other editors first please. Londoner77 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No one wants to discuss? Chesdovi (talk)

You, Chesdovi, seem intent on forcing your poorly and largely WP:UNSOURCED revision of a highly controversial page. Discussion should take place and consensus be achieved before revising pages with long histories of debate and final consensus. I might also add that your stealth edits deleting well-sourced information about Shach and his many wars against other rabbis and groups won't make you look particularly honest either. Almost all of Shach's WP:NOTABILITY during his lifetime and beyond was due to his relentless attacks on other Jewish groups and sects. Your attempt to sanitize his history and make him sound like some type of piously inclined Santa Claus is unlikely to succeed - the historical record is simply too great. Instead of faking an attempt at discussion - why not read my and Londoner77's comments above and refrain from starting a needless WP:WAR? I'd also recommend familiarizing yourself with the page history and discussions over the years, so that you don't simply waste time rehashing old arguments. Winchester2313 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "I might also add that your stealth edits deleting well-sourced information about Shach and his many wars against other rabbis and groups won't make you look particularly honest either." Please provide evidence. Chesdovi (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring, particularly, to your removal of a highly significant sentence; 'Shach was undoubtedly the greatest antagonist of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the only major Lithuanian rabbi to come out in force against the Chabad movement and it's leader'.
 * Added by you on 4th June 2021 - without any "discussion"? (Oh, and what were you saying about obituaries not being RS...?) Chesdovi (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has provided any coherent reason why my lead is unfit to publish. Neither have they addressed my comments. If anyone wishes to discuss this, please do so here. Meanwhile I am re-adding it. Chesdovi (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please DO NOT revert the lead without responding here please. Many thanks Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I see two editors objecting to your forcing your views onto the page yet you seem to feel you have the right to edit-war your revisions onto the page. The existing consensus version is well sourced, WP:BALANCED and devoid of peacock words and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Might I suggest you take a look at the lead paragraphs on the pages of some famous rabbis whose WP:NOTABILITY far exceeds Shach's, so you get an idea of what a proper lead looks like? I recommend looking at Moshe Feinstein, Adin Steinsaltz, Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss and Baba Sali for some examples. If you continue to WP:WAR on this page, I intend to take it to ANI which may result in your being blocked. Winchester2313 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no edit war here. There is me trying to understand your opposition to my lead for two and a half months by way of discussion here and after 12 days of no reply from you (along with no coherent explanation of what exactly you take issue with!), I re-added my balanced and sourced lead. I would add that it is not "a lengthy history" by any stretch of the imagination! The one editor here objecting, yourself, have still not clarified which aspects of the lead contravene the guidelines. You see fit to provide links to other rabbinic figures as examples of good leads which in my opinion are good examples of precisely what lead should not be! So for the third time, please tell me what is 1. not sourced. 2. not balanced. 3. uses peacock terms. 4. are exceptional claims. If you continue to dodge these questions, I do not see why I am not able to add my lead. Many thanks. (PS. If you want an example of a good lead, see Bob Dylan, not Baba Sali!) Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

W3: Deprivation
, why do you deem it inadmissible to describe the suffering Shach experienced during the war years? Why have you removed the following: "During this period he described suffering considerable deprivation, living with inadequate sanitation and being compelled to wear tattered clothing and worn out shoes. He reportedly sequestered himself in an attic for two years not knowing where his parents were." ...? Chesdovi (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, do not object to those particular sourced lines you mention. My objection was/is to much of the 'Life in Europe' section in general, which needs to be cleaned up, made more encyclopedic (as opposed to simply copied from an unreliable hagiography by his grandson full of highly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims) and brought into compliance with WP:V. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing the section in general. The diff I provided above shows you removing this specific information. (Is the Jewish Observer article an "unreliable hagiography"? Is Kamenetzky a grandson? What "exceptional claims" are made in the article?) Chesdovi (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please clarify why you called my adding "During this period he described suffering considerable deprivation, living with inadequate sanitation and being compelled to wear tattered clothing and worn out shoes. He reportedly sequestered himself in an attic for two years not knowing where his parents were." "cluttering the page" and why you removed it? Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

W2: Holocoasut
, why did you revert my edits to the Holocaust, giving preference to the original:

"Shach taught that events like the Holocaust occurred because the sins of the Jewish people accumulated, and they needed to be punished in order to rectify them. He said that, 'God kept count of each and every sin, in a running count over hundreds of years, until the count amounted to six million Jews, and that is how the Holocaust occurred. So must a Jew believe, and if a Jew does not completely believe this, he is a heretic, and if we do not accept this as a punishment, then it is as if we don't believe in The Holy One, Blessed be He...'"

instead of my expanded version with superior citations:

"Shach taught that the Holocaust was a divine punishment for the sins of the Jewish people and for their abandoning of religious observance for the enlightenment. He said 'The Holy One Blessed Be He kept score for hundreds of years until it added up to six million Jews.' This caused outrage in the secular Israeli media and a robust response from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In his defence, Haredi MKs said his comments had been misconstrued and were not meant to justify Nazi atrocities. Wishing to prevent deviation from the established order of prayers, he opposed the composition of new prayers to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust. Shach believed that the secularism of Israel society could cause another Holocaust and he once said that if the Education Ministry were to be placed in the hands of Meretz MK Shulamit Aloni, it would result in 'over a million Israeli children being forced into apostasy, and that would be worse than what had happened to Jewish children during the Holocaust.'"

...? Chesdovi (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer. Chesdovi (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

W1: "Following the controversy"?
"'In 1988, Shach accused Adin Steinsaltz of heresy and was later chief among a group of rabbis banning his works.[56] Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, however, approved of the Steinsaltz talmud following the controversy.'"

, please explain how you extrapolate from your JTA source that RMF "approved of the Steinsaltz talmud following the controversy." As far as I am aware, RMF issued an endorsement for the original Hebrew version, the controversy began after the death of RMF when the English version appeared. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The facts are otherwise - the controversy and attacks were specifically regarding the (first and for many years only) Hebrew edition. Apparently Steinsaltz's cardinal sin with his talmud was his abandoning the traditional layout of the pages. It was then that Shach launched his attack and RMF supported it. As you correctly note, the English version was first printed many years later, and they also then changed the layout to resemble the original more closely. In the interim Shach was convinced to allow (albeit passively) the printing of the Artscroll talmud, but none of this is directly relevant so I refrained from expanding the page to include it. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source to support your contention that the controversy began in the 1960s. The JTA states: "Shach insisted that all of Steinsaltz’s work was heretical, however, another eminent 20th-century authority, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, approved of the Steinsaltz Talmud." RMF's "approval" no doubt refers to his endorsement appearing in the original Hebrew edition. Nothing in the JTA mentions that RMF took a position and supported the Steinsaltz Talmud after the controversy, which according to sources I have seen, only erupted in 1989. Please provide RS which supports that Shach attacked the layout of the Hebrew edition. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer. Chesdovi (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Response to Winchester2313's replies of 2nd Sept
Below are three responses from Winchester2313: "I trust you've gotten over your shock by now. It's not 'my' right to 'allow' any changes or otherwise. There are numerous and very specific rules and guidelines which make clear how this encyclopedia is supposed to be. The consensus I refer to and which you seem to take issue with, isn't just an aged version of the page. Rather, it emerged as a result of lengthy and vigorous debate among multiple editors over an extended period of time. For you to arbitrarily dismiss all that in favor of your own rewrites which also often run afoul of WP:BALASP, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is wrong. That a page about a subject who's been dead for twenty-odd years and hasn't generated a great deal of news since then, should remain relatively unchanged for ten years is not a problem. Rather the problem would be with agenda-driven editors seeking to engage in obvious historical revisionism. Winchester2313 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)" "The longstanding version which Chesdovi seems intent on doing away with lent appropriate WP:BALANCE to the page and also included proper sourcing. The idea that 40+ years of a subjects controversial attacks on other major figures and groups should just be buried in a brief paragraph doesn't pass muster under WP:NPOV either. The source which was removed (and which I will restore shortly) makes clear that Shach called Steinsaltz a heretic and claimed that 'all his other works contain heresy' a year before his ban with a few other rabbis a year later. Steinsaltz was also not 'modern orthodox' so burying the attacks on him in a paragraph on same seems deliberately misleading. The same goes for the Gerer Rebbe. Winchester2313 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)" With regards to this particular section, considering that Shach's main notability was a direct result of his penchant for vicious attacks on other rabbis and groups, the original expanded version was better. While certain editors may have their own reasons for wanting to whitewash this divisive personality, such efforts are likely to start another war and not succeed in any caseLondoner77 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is unfathomable that Winchester2313 continues to demand that no changes are made to this page on the premise of what editors decided 10 years ago is now set in stone for eternity! That goes 100% against the spirit of Wikipedia which is all about editors being able to contribute to an article ensuring that the page continually evolves to a good standard status. What happened 10 years ago is of significance, but does not preclude any further editing on this page in 2021. This seem to be so obvious I can't believe this is actually being contested.
 * For Winchester2313 to claim that I "engage in obvious historical revisionism" and "arbitrarily dismiss all that in favor of your own rewrites" is an outright fabrication of the highest degree. I am yet to actually see Winchester2313 address which of my edits he actually takes issue with. Rather than just repeatedly quoting vague guidelines in an attempt to shut me down. Winchester2313 is stifling any further edits to this page in a manner that only can be classed as WP:OWN.
 * That Winchester2313 feels the page as he prefers it comprises a sufficiently high standard beggars belief. I find this article seriously lacking and in great need of considerable attention.
 * Londoner77 insists on keeping the exceedingly poorly written preface which is supposed to summarise the subjects' notability, which according to him, is solely due to Schach's "penchant for vicious attacks on other rabbis and groups." How bizarre then, that despite my having added to the preface "His uncompromising stance and strong conservative opinions often led to controversy, prompting opponents to label him a "Jewish Khomeini". He was at forefront of a bitter struggle against Chabad messianism and often railed against the secularism of Israeli society" (read: "penchant vicious attacks on other groups"), Londoner77 saw fit to revert. What exactly is going on here?
 * The fact is I totally reject the peculiar POV held by Londoner77 and Winchester2313's that Rav Shach's notability stems from his "attacks". It was precisely because Shach was already a prominent personality already that his strident pronouncements initiated controversy, not the reverse.
 * Winchester2313 believes it is justified to provide 766 words about those Shach opposed, while providing "appropriate WP:BALANCE" with 80 words in a section headed "Support from Haredi leaders" (in the old version). Interesting how Winchester2313 has completely left that section out of his recent edits. Is that balance?
 * Winchester2313 has still not properly responded to my other posts above:
 * 1) He has not explained why he is opposed to my expanded preface.
 * 2) He has not provided RS showing when the controversy between Shach and Steinsaltz began.
 * 3) He has not explained why he is permitted to rely on obituaries but forbids me from doing so.
 * 4) He has not responded to my query why he is permitted to add new material (Shach was undoubtedly the greatest antagonist...) while I'm summarily accused of altering the longstanding, decades old consensus.
 * 5) He ignores my desire to understand why he arbitrarily removed my sourced additions to the Holocaust.
 * 6) He does not explain why he removed my text which detailed Shach's considerable deprivation in his youth. He simply replies: "I do not object to those particular sourced lines you mention" - why remove them then?  Why? Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have just engaged in a slew of reverts without any attempt to discuss here. Please explain your behaviour. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Who he met
Winchester2313 has removed: "It was in Slutsk that he met Rabbis Isser Zalman Meltzer, Yosef Yozel Horwitz (of the Novardok yeshiva) and Moshe Feinstein" on the basis that "Everyone he met and where doesn't belong in an an encyclopedia, plus it's unsourced". Considering that the following appears in Winchester2313's "long-standing consensus version for 10 years": "It was in Slutsk that he met Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer, and this was the beginning of a close life-long relationship between the two. Shach also met Rabbi Yosef Yozel Horwitz (head of the Novardok yeshiva), who had come to visit the yeshiva in order to introduce its students to the study of mussar (see Musar movement). Around this time, he also met for the first time Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, as Feinstein would often visit Meltzer at his house in Slutsk," can Winchester2313 please explain why he has removed it against his own arguments about no changes being allowed on this page? Chesdovi (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed. All that unsourced drivel never belonged on the page to begin with, but undoing large amounts of WP:BOOKSPAM takes time. You are correct in that it should have been removed long ago. As has already been pointed out, only encyclopedic information belongs on the page, and you would be well served by taking a look at the pages of many more notable rabbis than Shach for comparison. Alternatively, might I suggest reviewing WP:NOT and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC Winchester2313 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it does take time, a lot of time, time I spent, only for you to re-add this "unsourced drivel" umpteen times back to the page after I had shorted it down to once sentence....? So what exactly is your editing style here? Revert everything Chesdovi does and only I will decide what stays and what goes once he reproduces each and every of his edits on talk? I have never come across an editor like you on here. So let's see, who's a more notable rabbi? Erm, oh yes, how about M M Schneerson? Let's compare:

Encyclopedic information which belongs on the page, per Winchester2313: "While in Berlin, Schneerson met Joseph B. Soloveitchik and the two formed a friendship that remained between them years later when they both emigrated to America. [..] In 1933 he also met with Chaim Elazar Shapiro, as well as with Talmudist Shimon Shkop."

Non-encyclopedic information which does not belong on the page, per Winchester2313: "It was in Slutsk that he met Rabbis Isser Zalman Meltzer, Yosef Yozel Horwitz (of the Novardok yeshiva) and Moshe Feinstein."

So in conclusion, sources will be found, and this information will be put back into the article... Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Death - "appropriate place"?
I would suggest that the "Death" section (removed by Londoner77 on 16 May 2021 because it had not been in the "original version") be placed in the Biographical section, not under "Political life" as placed by Winchester2313. Chesdovi (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It was moved to be the final section because 'Death' is the final chapter in most people's chronological histories. It also needs to be trimmed to comply with WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC but I was hoping you might be able to help with that.. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS, we follow the consensus, and I have never come across death being place at the bottom of a page in a biography. Again, take a look at Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The death section will be replaced in the correct section relating to his life. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Adin Steinsaltz
The old version had: "Adin Steinsaltz (Even-Yisrael) (b. 1937) was likewise accused of heresy by Shach, who, in a letter written September 10, 1988, wrote that '... and similarly, all his other works contain heresy. It is forbidden to debate with Steinsaltz, because, as a heretic, all the debates will only cause him to degenerate more. He is not a genuine person (ein tocho ke-baro), and everyone is obliged to distance themselves from him. This is the duty of the hour (mitzvah be-sha’atah). It will generate merit for the forthcoming Day of Judgement.'[44] In the summer of 1989, a group of rabbis, including Shach, placed a ban on three of Steinsaltz's books.[45]"

My version had: "In 1988, Shach accused Adin Steinsaltz of heresy and was later chief among a group of rabbis banning his works.[71]"

Winchester2313 claims Adin Steinsaltz warrants a full stand alone paragraph on the basis that "controversial attacks on other major figures and groups should just be buried in a brief paragraph doesn't pass muster under WP:NPOV". In my view, devoting six sentences to Adin Steinsaltz here is totally WP:UNDUE. Many other rabbis came out with similar proclamations about Steinsaltz but that doesn't even feature on any of their respective pages. Winchester2313 intends to restore a quote from Shach which is cited to a WP:PRIMARY which he apparently has translated into English himself from the original Hebrew. In my opinion we do not need a sub-section for each and every rabbi or group chosen by Shach for censure. That is non-encyclopedic in appearance and looks more like a a blog post. We simply do not need to add superfluous pedantics from the original quote like "this is the duty of the hour (mitzvah be-sha’atah). It will generate merit for the forthcoming Day of Judgement" or his birthdate, etc. We need one sizable section summing up all his "attacks" against various groups in one or two paragraphs. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As already noted a number of times, most of the issues you continue to raise have already been resolved by longstanding consensus and do not warrant wholesale deletion or 'reorganizing' no matter how strongly any individual editor may feel about it. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus is arrived at by multiple editors discussing and/or debating the merits (or otherwise] of various points and is not the indiscriminate 'right' of any individual to dictate - no matter how hyperbolic their arguments. I'm simply restoring the longstanding consensus and recommend you not attempt to force your personal views onto the page. Shach's WP:NOTABILITY stems largely from his attacks on other rabbis and groups. This is quite obvious from the dearth of almost any mention of Shach in mainstream media sources during his lifetime, save for reporting on his latest attack or political war. Winchester2313 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your position that 10 years ago some editors decided how this page should look, therefore it cannot be changed now. But please link where this consensus was reached. Show me where it was agreed that under the sub-heading "Opposition to other Orthodox rabbis and groups", there should be four further sections: Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Gerer Rebbe, Adin Steinsaltz, The Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva University. Chesdovi (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please reply. Chesdovi (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to engage in endless lawyering to explain why the appropriately WP:BALANCED version should remain. It is neither overly lengthy or exhaustive and it actually complies with relevant policies and guidelines as explained above. Please refer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Winchester2313 (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically there was no "consensus" reached about the layout. Okay, just checking. So can you please stop repeating this claim about a "longstanding consensus" preventing any editing to the page. So, as it stands, having several subheadings is WP:UNDUE and not in keeping with WP:MOS. WP:BALANCED means presenting "viewpoints in proportion to their prominence," so does not apply to this section which is currently a list and needs merging into one section. Again, please refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson for guidance. Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)