Talk:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn

Date of death
"Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn passed away on 2 of Nisan 1920 in Rostov-on-Don, Russia"

2 Nisan 1920? Surely that would be thousands of years ago... Matthew Platts 02:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"where he lived until his passing on 2 Nissan 5680, and where he was buried." What does this mean is this correct I don't understand this, is this an actual unit of time if not could someone change it, even if it is I doubt the majority of viewers understand what this means. It looks like vandalism to meJamespoky (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the date of his death. The user above complained about a previous version that said 2 Nisan 1920, which would indeed have been thousands of years ago, so I fixed it.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dov Ber
These are two separate names - Dov Ber (Dov is Hebrew for Bear, which is transcribed as Ber in Yiddish). The name of the article should be changed accordingly.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's one name, spelled דובער.  That may not seem logical, but there's nowt so queer as folks. -- Zsero (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Treatment in Vienna
I've removed the longish passage about the long walks and the story telling; it seems to me to give undue weight to a short episode in his life. Perhaps someone will write a whole section on his complex relationship with his son, and this episode will find a place there.

I've also corrected the information about his treatment, in light of the recently released correspondence. Maya Katz's speculative paper was based primarily on the fact that "Freud, in all of his letters or case histories, makes no mention of a figure remotely resembling the rebbe", whereas Stekel did write of a "rabbi" who had been referred to him by Freud. Therefore she put two and two together, and got fifty-seven. But the Rebbe's letters to his cousin Rabbi Isaiah Berlin of Riga, who paid for the treatment and expected regular progress reports, show the real reason he doesn't show up in Freud's records: he consulted Freud not as a psychologist, but as a neurologist. As he wrote on 18 Shevat: "I visited Prof. Freud, who deals with nerves, and then I summoned Prof. Nothnagel, and they both agreed that the suffering in my hand is neurological. And they advised me to undergo electrotherapy in a different form from that which I've already had in Kharkov.  I visited the institution on Friday and began treatment." His subsequent letters detail the progress of his treatment, which consisted entirely of electrotherapy not talk therapy. The conversations with Freud which are reported in the Reshimos and elsewhere were not therapeutic but ordinary chitchat between two intelligent and accomplished people in their respective fields, to pass the time during treatments. (Sholom Ber Levin, who is probably the world's greatest expert on the RaShaB's life, recently published a letter setting all this out. But I haven't seen it in a citable place yet.)  -- Zsero (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are too many other things that match that it should only be a coincidence. Obviously the Rashab wanted people too think he's only going for physiological therapy.Ortho (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be a reawakening of this discussion with a minor edit war on the page itself, there should be a consensus reached before adding. My two cents would be this is a theory being presented about events that took place over 100 years ago. If it is to be included, it would seem to only make sense to be presented as theory attributed to said professor.


 * And most importantly, Stekel's reliability itself has been called into doubt many times, for example: "Often he would invent cases, known as ‘Stekel’s Wednesday patients,’ in order to contest the prevailing topics and arguments at their weekly meetings. 64 As Freud’s confident, Ernest Jones recalls, this ‘became a standing joke.’ and as cited by Joseph H. Berke when highlighting the discrepancies in the theory . &#124; MK17b &#124;   (talk)  06:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your attempts at cover-up are rather futile. Katz's peer-reviewed article was quoted and relied upon by Samuel Heilman and other historians, and the only "refutations" were penned by glaring apologetics of Chabad who published in Chabad-affiliated presses. If they would have had something concrete, they would have rushed to academia and shown it. AddMore-III (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly unsure what you are alleging. Neither W. W. Norton & Company nor Karnac Books are Chabad affiliated. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100204101537/http://shmais.com/pages.cfm?page=chabaddetail&ID=425 to http://www.shmais.com/pages.cfm?page=chabaddetail&ID=425

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. 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/20131203002010/http://fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?aid=1040102 to http://www.fjc.ru/news/newsArticle.asp?aid=1040102
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713104811/http://www.jhberke.com/articles/Freud_Lub_Rebbe.html to http://www.jhberke.com/articles/Freud_Lub_Rebbe.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) 04:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Freud, 2010 Paper
While Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn's visits with a psychologist were well known, a recent paper from 2010 claims to determine that the real reason was related to childhood trauma. This was not added to the page at the time though it has been recently added to the beginning of the page with edit warring back and forth with little discussion. In the talk page above there is a little back and forth but does not seem possible to reach a consensus hence this RfC. Thanks! &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  14:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Maya Balakirsky Katz's original paper has as of Aug. 5, 2019 been cited 11 times according to Google Scholar. 3 of those citations were from herself; 2 in another langauge (German, Russian). The only citations which actually discuss the theory that I found were from the "The hidden Freud: his hassidic roots" book by JH Burke. Here is the direct excert describing Katz's theory:

"The occasion for Beryl Levine's letter was an animated exchange among hassidim about an article that claimed that the Rashab had been treated by an early disciple of Freud, Wilhelm Stekel, for sexual difficulties. This appeared in the AJS Review (Association for Jewish Studies) in the spring of 2010 (pp. 1-31) by the American academic, Maya Katz.

Katz's article was itself based on a short chapter entitled "A Vocational Neurosis," in an early work by Stekel, Conditions of Nervous Anxiety and their Treatment (1908). In this account Stekel describes his analysis of a "tall, powerful, robust looking man," "a Rabbi by profession,” who had suffered a severe emotional shock six years before. Since then he had become overcome by anxiety, especially when praying, often stuttered and stammered when talking in public, and manifested a wide variety of physical complaints, including "burning feelings in his arms and legs, and numbness of his left hand and arm." However, other parts of the left side of his body were affected by a "hyper-aesthesia," an excessive sensitivity to stimuli (ibid., pp. 211-212).

The "shock" was a violent quarrel with his eldest brother, who, after blowing the inheritance he received on the death of their father, demanded that the Rashab share the family heirlooms, valuable books and manuscripts, with him. Moreover, the brother, "who was a man of the world," and was "addicted to women," was continually taunting his younger brother with erotic images and suggestions.

Stekel's analysis was primarily based on three dreams. From these he deduced that his patient had engaged in a variety of sexual activities with his brother, and an elderly family retainer, and a pretty young woman, the housekeeper with whom he had lodged in the summer. He added that the patient was awash with sexual desires, that he was a hidden "Don Juan, whose phantasies would put even those of a Marquis de Sade in the shade" (ibid., pp. 215-216).

As with Breuer's intervention with "Anna 0," Stekel averred that once "the rabbi" revealed that he had shaken the hand of his housekeeper, and had reproached himself for doing so, fearing the wrath of God, he experienced a deep emotional catharsis, and an "indescribable relief." Then, by the next day, "the anaesthesia of his hand and arm had entirely disappeared" (ibid., p. 218).

In her study, Maya Katz (op. cit., p. 1) identifies Stekel's patient with the Rashab because they were of a similar age and seem to have endured "an occupational neurosis" associated with career pressure. Moreover both experienced numbness of the left extremity, and had a conflict with an elder brother. Katz also quotes (pp. 7-8) from the paper which I co-authored about the Rashab describing his meetings with Freud, and concludes that Freud could have referred the Rashab to Stekel. The question arises, why would Freud have passed on an eminent patient, like the Rashab, to Stekel, who at the time was a junior colleague? Could it be that Freud was simply trying to get rid of a deeply spiritual and religious patient whom he found disturbing? But then why was this not recorded by the Rebbe Rayatz in his diaries, which mentioned several meetings with Freud?

There are many aspects of Stekel's account which indicate that "the rabbi" was not and could not have been the Rashab. The idea that the fifth leader of Lubavitch was so consumed by sexual desires that he could hardly carry out his rabbinic obligations and scholarship is unlikely. The Rashab had already accomplished more than many men do in several lifetimes, and was soon to embark on one of his most profound works, Ayin Beis (1977+), a multi-dimensional study of the relations between the container and the contained, the infinite and the finite."

In psychoanalytic terms the primary conflict in Stekel's patient was between his id and superego, between his libidinal desires and anti-libidinal or repressive forces. With the Rashab the primary conflict was between his ego and egoideal, that is, between how he saw himself and how he wanted to be. The basis for this struggle was his identifications with his predecessors, all the prior Rebbes, including the founder of Chabad, the "Alter Schneur Zalman.

In addition there are many other details which do not fit. Stekel's patient developed a pronounced and very obvious stammer and stutter. In her paper Maya Katz (op. cit., p. 15) emphasizes this point as further proof that Stekel's "rabbi" was the "Rashab." But the only reference that Katz cites to support her claim concerns R. Yosef Yitzhak, the Rashab's son, who recalls that his father prayed with great intensity, sometimes sobbing and crying out when he intoned Shema Yisrael (Hear O Israel) and Hashem Elokeinu (Lord our God). Far from a stammer, it would seem that what Katz calls a "symptom" is a state of God intoxication on the part of the Rashab, a state which few individuals would be able to attain. In fact, there is no record in Chabad of the Rashab having a stammer or stutter. Clearly, the Rashab did not have a speech defect.14

Stekel's rabbi had anesthesias and hyperesthesias over large parts of the left side of his body. The Rashab seems to have suffered a numbness solely on his left hand which persisted for many years and was only ameliorated by electrical stimulations. And, as to R. Zalman Aharon (the Raza), the Rashab's elder brother, far from their relations being acrimonious, in general, the Rashab had a good relationship with him, a man who was also a Hassidic scholar and great teacher in his own right. Finally, the Rashab was married at the age of fourteen, not eighteen, and was far from robust. He did not have a daughter, as Stekel stated.

How can we account for these discrepancies? We can do so if we assume that the "patient" Stekel described is a composite picture built up from several different sources. These include an actual person (who may or may not have been a rabbi), bits of information which Freud formally or informally passed on (he could be remarkably indiscreet), and the products of Stekel's erotic imagination (Gay, op. cit., p. 187)."

Clearly, Burke does NOT accept Katz's theory. Additionally, AD Richards also refers to Katz's theory as a 'theory' when reviewing Burke's book.

Editor AddMore-III continues to insist on leaving Katz's theory in the article as complete fact, when the only academic source which cites Katz's theory clearly disputes it. (Furthermore, AddMore-III engages in ad-hominem attacks on anyone who challenges him, calling them "Chabad shills" and fails to provide any academic sources which accept Katz's theory as fact)


 * Nice attempt, especially citing a book review quoting the book as another source. Samuel Heilman, Who Will Lead Us?: The Story of Five Hasidic Dynasties in America, University of California Press, 2017. p. 220: "In fact, Shalom DovBer had suffered sexual abuse from one of the Hasidim assigned to mentor him. It began when he was “five or six” and lasted until his marriage."
 * Illia Lurie (of HUJI), מלחמות ליובאוויץ': חסידות חב"ד ברוסיה הצארית, Zalman Shazar Center, 2018, p. 44: "רש"ב היה ידוע חולי במשך שנים רבות, ודרך הטיפול בבעיותיו הבריאותיות הייתה אופיינית למעמד הבורגני הגבוה בחברה האירופית. נוסף על נסיעות תדירות למעיינות ולמקומות מרפא פופולריים (ברוסיה ובמדינות אירופה) הוא פנה לרופאים ידועי שם במוסקבה, בפטרבורג, בפריז, בווינה ובמרכזים רפואיים מתקדמים אחרים במערב.[1] הוא נעזר ברופאים מומחים לא רק בענייני הגוף אלא גם בבעיות נפשיות, שמהן סבל במשך שנים רבות.[2] בשנת 1903 פנה בעניין זה לפסיכואנליטיקאי וינאי, תלמידו של זיגמונד פרויד, וילהלם שטקל (stekl)."
 * But, most importantly, Stanford University's recent magisterial Hasidism: A New History, 2018 (authored collectively by a top team of scholars including Heilman, Benjamin Brown (scholar), David Asaff, David Biale and Moshe Rosman), p. 303: "Shalom Dov Ber underwent psychoanalytical treatment in 1903 by Wilhelm Stekel, a treatment in which Sigmund Freud was also involved".


 * All these serious university historians, who are not popular psychiatrists like Berke, do not qualify the statement at the slightest. How convenient that a single-purpose account suddenly pops up to "correct" the "theory", after IP's have been trying to delete it for months? In Hebrew Wikipedia, the Chabad (a New Religious Movement with a massive propaganda apparatus) users also launched a massive deletion campaign by both regular and single-purpose accounts. They were thwarted after the users there checked their sources. I hope this RfC attracts attention, perhaps it's time to place some checks on Chabad activity at Wikipedia and look into the relevant articles. AddMore-III (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You portrait of a propaganda machine active on Wikipedia and your subsequent call to investigate "Chabad activity" on Wikipedia, something the existence of which is unknown to anybody, is probably meant to divert attention from the real issue here. Apart from raising doubts as to your motives, there is no chance anybody will take your conspiracy theory serious. And rightfully so.
 * The arguments mentioned by Berke are simple enough, and if other historians have not considered them, then that was definitely a grave and unscientific omission. The Rashab was small in height and build, had only a single child - a boy, and got married at age 14. Ergo, it was not he.
 * Especially we should be careful in making large statements, and doubly more so where the statements cast a negative light on a person. In this light, please notice that nobody disagrees that the Rashab consulted with many doctors and went often to various medical treatments, as was common in those days.
 * I would like to add that the precise nature of his complaints is something which logically speaking should be shrouded by doctor-client privilege, and I therefore find it unlikely that anybody can claim to know them. That is in addition to the fact that as I explained above this seems to be a mistake of identity. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Our own beliefs about the veracity of these claims aren't really relevant; it appears that many reliable sources believe them to be true, and that, in fact, it is generally accepted by reliable sources as factual. Are there any serious academic sources that dispute this? Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @addmore-III I was unaware of those sources since they dont cite any of MBK's original work (or at least google missed it). I concede that it does seem that many academic sources do accept the theory. Nonetheless, the fact that its disputed by other academic sources (Burke), and traditional Chabad adherants is also true. I propose that there is a dedicated subsection of early life to discuss this issue. The section should use the language along the lines of "While it is disputed by some academics and traditoinal Chabad adherants, it is accepted by many (most?) academic sources". I think this is honest about the facts, while giving the reader enough transparency into the issue that they can draw their own conclusions.... dankmasterdan (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * dankmasterdan, Berke is not an academic source, particularly as regards history, and "traditional Chabad adherents" are not a WP:RS when it comes to this claim. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Save your hagiographic energies for a better cause. AddMore-III (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just logged on to laugh at this asinine quote from AddMore-III "the Chabad (a New Religious Movement with a massive propaganda apparatus". The PR machine is actually paid for by Soros, spearheaded by his protege Eduardo Elsztain who directs Chabad in Argentina. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  05:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)