Talk:Shaliah

Special laws?
In what sense are there special laws? Applying to what sense of a shaliach? A shaliach means many things, and these special halachic laws don't apply to a Chabad shaliach, do they? To a Jewish Agency shaliach? jnothman talk 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As in there are halachas, like if the person dies, etc.. See Shulchan Aruch. Ems2 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Shulchan Aruch is a big work. I can see it, but that doesn't mean I will find answers. The question is: what shaliach does this apply to? I assume a shaliach mitzvah? What sort of mitzvah? How about a shaliach bet din, who has to get a message somewhere? How about a shaliach of Chabad? I assume it doesn't apply there, but there is no clarification of this in the article. jnothman talk 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are laws on anyone who is sent as a shaliach, if he dies and didn't complete what he was sent for, what happens, etc. The shluchim in Chabad are valid, as long as they were sent by someone, and were given a mission, however, they shouldn't pose as a shaliach of Schneerson if he never personally sent them. Before 1994 all of them were valid, possibly because Rabbi M. M. Schneerson actually knew the laws of sending shluchim, after that I have no idea who is sending these people, and since 2 years ago it has really gone out of control - is anyone sending some of these people?!? I know before 1994, Rabbi M. M. Schneerson would only choose a selected few as shluchim, the ones that had the tools needed, not everyone that just turns up and says he wants to be a shaliach, or just calls himself a shaliach. These so-called shluchim are giving Rabbi M. M. Schneerson a bad name, they pose as if he sent them, when the truth is he didn't, if anything Krinsky sent some of them, and if he did, that who's shluchim they should be posing as, not as someone elses. Ems2 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to have these debates. If Chabad calls them shluchim, they are shluchim. We don't pass judgment on facts, we report them. We certainly are not some sort of Beis Din. PhatJew 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
An IP in this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaliach&curid=3895702&diff=39544527&oldid=38239831 changed the spelling from shlichim to shluchim. You get about the same amount of the result for both, on Google. Which spelling is the go? ems 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you user:Jnothman for clearing it up. ems 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor issue with the spelling; changed the sin to a shin. This was the only page with that spelling. [Jack-July 7, 2006]

Post-Schneerson shlichut controversy
I can see you're quite passionate about it, ems, and I can also see others disagree with you on the topic, but rather than covering it in talk pages and edit conflicts, can we rather provide content on this debate (in an NPOV manner) in the article? jnothman talk 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did, and PinchasC reverted it. The edit is here . I would agree to the fact the wording was very picky. ems 08:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct, I removed it as Original research --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
In general you will find that when speaking about this subject, in chabad, the spelling is "Shliach" and "Shluchim" a simple google search will show you this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I might have misinterpreted this pluralisation, but if you see the note further down in the article, and the notes above, it is certain that the word שליחים is the plural of שליח, while שלוחים is a related word of very similar meaning, which Chabad seems to use. Maybe you're correct and shluchim is just a strange pronunciation of שליחים. jnothman talk 03:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The pluralization of Shluchim is the one used in the Talmud and Talmudic literature. Shlichim is the modern Hebrew terminology. The term Shluchim was common in Chabad circles at least as far back as the Communist Revolution in the former Soviet Union, and obviously was based on the Halachic/Talmudic context.

Poland Shaliach
This comment was place on my talk page by an IP. I do think its better if it is a here. Hi, I'm new to this wikipedia thing, so I'll post my response to your comments here as well. If that's not necessary, please let me know.

Re: How people running a Chabad house today become shluchim, e.g. Poland

The couple there would have been "sent" (appointed/charged) by the secretary of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, the same organization that the Rebbe charged to send Shluchim during his lifetime. Until 1993 or so that title was held by Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Isaac Chodakov; after that his assistant Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky was promoted to that position.

The official term the Rebbe often used for the Shluchim was "shluchei hamela"ch (ha'merkos l'inyonei chinuch)". Basically, as the primary representative of Merkos/Chabad in each area the first shliach there has the authority to appoint ("send") shluchim to other cities and towns within his country/state/area, while all those ever-dwindling "untouched" areas are dealt with directly by Merkos.

Even in the later 1980's shluchim to new states were being chosen and appointed by Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky, with a final blessing/approval from the Rebbe. User:68.121.241.114

Welcome. The point is, Schneerson had to approve them - just like the shichot - until then they weren't Schneerson's. From what I heard Schneerson made it very clear that he is not approving anyone to be his shaliach in Poland. Schneerson was/is/will be the only one that can appoint people to be a shaliach from him. From what I understand, the concept of a "Head Shaliach" isn't that he can appoint new shilichim - it is that he is responsable for shilichim sent to his area. This is all from what I understand - I may be incorrect. ems 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above - you are incorrect. The Rebbe established the system whereby he sent shluchim through the offiical educational arm of Chabad Lubavitch -- an organization known as Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch. Though representatives of the Rebbe's organization -- and therefore, by extension, representatives and emmissaries of the Rebbe himself -- the Halachic classification of shliach would apply through Merkos. In Talmudic discussion this is known as shliach oseh shliach. This authority was also given through Merkos to the "head shliach" in each place -- again a system that was set up by the clear directives and with personal involvement by the Rebbe himself. Re: the Rebbe's authorization still being required. That was clearly not intended in any way to undermine the authority of the Merkos directorship to choose and authorize shluchim. The Rebbe's blessing was something that any follower would seek before any major step in life -- marriage, a move, a career change, etc. -- and therefore it would obviously be out of the question for a young couple to move away somewhere for life without seeking his guidance and blessing.

Regarding the Poland issue, I sent you earlier a link to an article from www.lubavitch.com with quotes from Rabbis Krinsky and Kotlarsky explaining the Poland issue. Basically, it seems that the Rebbe was opposed to sending Rabbis to Poland with the intent of trying to encourage Jews to move back there and rebuild Jewish life. He was not opposed, however, to ensuring that Jews who live there be provided for materially and spiritually. Thus, as the situation changed over the past two decades or so, there became a need which is now being met.


 * Not exactly so. They still are only shilichim of whoever sent them - but are continuing the shlichut of orignal person. As of the link, I don't seem to find where you gave it to me. ems 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here: http://www.lubavitch.com/Article.asp?Article=726&Section=0 68.121.241.114 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I only seem to see one quote. I don't see one time in the article it stating that these people are doing Schneerson's shilchut. The article only cites a date for when Schneerson said such a thing - with mentioning were its recorded. The last time I saw only a date being used, was when they claimed Schneerson gave Kaduri a promise that he will live to see the coming of Moshiach, going to the source for that one prove it entirely incorrect about Schneerson ever making such a promise. ems 16:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename
I would like to rename this article to Shliach or Shluchim, since almost all the links to this article are from pages referring to Chabad Shluchim, and this is the way it is pronounced in and out of Chabad by those referring to Chabad Shluchim. I also feel that the subject of chabad Shluchim merits an article for itself. Perhaps the page should be split into more articles. Please comment. Shlomke 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Shlomke 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shliach is the proper spelling only in construct state, as in "shliach chabad". The correct singular form is Shaliach, and so this article should be moved back. Have a good week, Lior 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, but we need an admin for that. Yehoishophot Oliver 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we? I just attempted a move and it worked. Did I miss something? Lior 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this a Jewish or Chabad article?
I am confused. Is this a Jewish article? Or Chabad? If Jewish, remove the chabad ownership. If Chabad remove the general Jewish stuff. 203.214.156.22 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The Chabad article has a section on shluchim. I think this article should be removed of its chabad ownership and become a Jewish article (which can have mention of Chabad in a NPOV). 203.214.156.22 15:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) It is a Jewish article.--Woonho (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Biblical sources
The first shaliaḥ mentioned in the Torah is no Eliezer. And it was not hime that was sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac, either. Isn't it the angel that was first mentioned as the first shaliaḥ in the Torah?--Woonho (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics?
Shouldnt this word be italicized both in the title and throughout? --2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)