Talk:Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam

Added 'disputed' heading

To both the RMDU and RBZH pages. --Daniel575 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

with all due respect, I beleive, this whole 'disputed' thing is just silly, I see no point in it. There is no dispute that there is 2 bobover rebbes, and nothing is going to change that. End of story --72.231.7.216 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You mind elaborating on what you said: "There is no dispute" Are you trying to say the RBZH agrees that RMDU is also Bobover Rebbe? Or perhaps that RMDU agrees that RBZH is also Bobover Rebbe?--Shmaltz (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I agree you agree he agrees, the fact of the matter is both have a substantial enough followership of bobever chasidim who consider there chosen rebbe as the true successor. which by definition makes them both as successors, the 2 rebbes may not like it or may disagree, but still the fact is they are "grand rebbes" and they are "bobover" rebbes. and nothing is going to change that. so what's the point of labeling them forever as "disputed" rebbes? it's just silly. --72.231.7.216 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. However as long as the Din Torah is not over I believe it should be considered disputed. A name is/should be unique. If 2 entities claim to be that name then they ARE in dispute, specifically when each one is saying I'm the only one and there is no 2 Bobovs.--Shmaltz (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course both rebbes challanges their respective rivals legitimacy as successor of bobov, no one argues about that, and it should clearly state that within the article that the status of "bobover rebbe" title is in dispute. My only objection is that I don't think it's appropriate to LABEL the word "disputed" every where it says "grand rebbe of bobov".

The presidency of Iranian President Ahmed Achmedinazhad is also in dispute, I don't see there labled the word "Disputed" when ever his title is mentioned. It should be mentioned once and that's it.

To hold out for a Bes Din ruling is silly, because the chances that, at this point, they will prohibit one side to call themselves bobov is basically zero to none. --216.75.77.221 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By now it is clear that RBZH was awarded the title of "Bobov Rabbi" and not RMDU. That means it is universally agreed that the title is no longer disputed. 200.12.168.11 (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing this article

User:IZAK attracted my attention to the very heavy partisan editing on this page, including blanking. I must implore you all to behave like you would on the bus: everyone can see you, everyone will notice the infighting and the resultant chillul Hashem. Does the kovod of your rabbonim mean anything to you? If you do not start contributing more constructively, I will see to it that this page gets protected from editing, and not necessarily with the version you desire. JFW | T@lk 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?

I am wondering; at the person; who for political expediency keeps putting back the link to the "Hasidic News" article.

My question to you is: Is everything permissible to you, to achieve your goal? That you are willing to pull down the Rebbe, Reb Shloime to any level?

Do you agree with the writer that: 1) He was a bit modern? (Chas Vesholem). 2) That Bobover Chassidim are known to be very neat and "bapitzt"? (Neat yes; but "bapitzt"? Do you consider Bobover Chassidim, Yankee Doodle "Dandies"? 3) That the Rebbe Reb Shloime acted as an advisor on a personal level, not so much as a spiritual leader? (What then was he if not a spiritual leader?) 4) That Reb Ben Zion is more charismatic and social then the Rebbe Reb Naftule? (Lefavdil bein chaim l'chaim). and last 5) That it was eventually unanimously agreed that the Rebbe Reb Naftule would become Rav and Reb Ben Zion would be named "Rav Hatzair"? (Wasn't the Rebbe Reb Naftule made Rebbe at his fathers levaye? unlike Reb Ben Zion who was not made Rebbe at his brothers levaye. So what does "eventually" mean? After how many hours? And last but not least; "unanimously agreed" by whom?

Therefore I think you will agree with me that you should do Teshuvah, and you should remove that link. (YEIRE HAKOOHOL VEYISHPOIT)

We can debate, each aspect of this article; but only, if you want to have an intellectual discussion, and put all your feelings aside.

The writer is obviously not well informed about Bobov; as can also be seen by his description, that he "was in his young 20's when in reality he was in his late 30's. It's ridiculous to use this article as proof of anything. User:Issac | T@lk 00:21, 9 December 2005; 20:11, 12 December 2005

I have asked Chasid (talk · contribs) to offer his comments here. Please be concise and avoid emotional language. For the sake of other Wikipedia editors I would avoid terminology that is not easily understood. Not all Wikipedia administrators understand that "YEIRE HAKOOHOL VEYISHPOIT" means "let the community see and decide". JFW | T@lk 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed all outright lies & all partisan POV's. Hopefully we can agree on how to write all aspects of the dispute; if it's at all neccessary. I would rather prefer to wait until after the Din Torah. User:Issac | T@lk 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sign all your comments with the four tildes

Hello everyone, whoever you are: If you are a registered user, please sign all your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so we can know who is saying what to whom. If you are not a registered Wikipedia user (editor) yet, please do so as soon as possible, it's FREE and it gives you more credibility than being an anonymous user, rather than making comments from the sidelines that no-one knows what to make of. Thanks a lot. IZAK 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello everyone. I realize that I might be trying to plant a patch of daisies in no-man's-land between two trenches filled with people who don't like each other at all, but I'll press on regardless. Here are a few questions I have that I think might make this article better, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the relevant naming conventions to know if they would help.

• Is he Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) or Ben Zion Halberstam II? Or perhaps Ben Zion Halberstam the Second?
• Would a succession box help for the succession of the Grand Rabbi of the Main Bobover Synagogue? I think I'll go ahead with this one based on info in the articles, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

MJSkia1 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi MJSkia1. To name him the "second" in any way, shape or form, is premature; as the matter is before a Bais Din; The same goes for a succession box. At least you were an equal opportunity editor in this so called no-man's-land. I hope to (time permitting) correct all the Bobov articles to a NPOV. Issac 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I decided to do my succession boxes off of the information already contained in the article—I swear I had never heard of this controversy before I came here on a random page. MJSkia1 02:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He is the second inasmuch as he is not the first to have that name who is a big Rabbi in Bobov, even according to those who do not think he is Rebbe 209.155.49.3

209.155.49.3, I don't think you are right; to the best of my knowledge (and it can be checked out) when there are two kings of the same country with the same name then the convention of the second is used; but first it has to be established that the second is king; but here this is in dispute. Also Reb Ben Zion has more names Reb Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish so in that case even if he should win the Din Torah, he still shouldn't be called the second; because he is not the second Reb Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish in Bobov; unless you want to pretend that the second is an innocent edit.

Lemaseh; I won't bother with this childish edit; you want him to be called Reb Ben Zion the second so be it; it won't change reality anyway; so you could have it your way. Issac 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets Neutralize this article to a NPOV

In order to start the process of neutralizing this article & all articles of Bobov, let me explain why I removed the following phrases.

"Presently, he is the Grand Rabbi of the Main Bobover Synagogue" was written in order to give the impression, that he is "the" Grand Rebbe of Bobov; which is untrue, because two people consider themselves "Grand Rebbe" & ultimately "Bais Din" will decide who is "Grand Rebbe".

"himself a scion of the Dombrover and Kartshiner dynasties" was written in a major campaign to "stick the name "Kartshin" onto Rabbi Unger so as make people think that Rabbi Unger abdicated from being "Grand Rebbe of Bobov" & now calls himself with a different name. Why not write all his ancestors that founded dynasties? Also Rabbi Unger's ancestors belong in an article about him.

"(an odd claim, since the Rebbes of Bobov always tried to avoid dispute)" is an "opinion" which belongs here on the talk pages; not in the main article.

"In the mean time, Rabbi Ben Zion functions as the Grand Rebbe of Bobov in the Main Bobover Synagogue. Rabbi Mordecai David is the Grand Rebbe of his followers, who have already begun to set up new institutions for their new community, including two schools." is again an attempt to plant in people's minds that Rabbi Unger has a "new" community & accepted a different name; and at the same time trying to stress that Rabbi Halberstam "functions" as the "Grand Rebbe of Bobov"; while Rabbi Ungers Chassidim consider him, as "functioning" as "Grand Rebbe in Bobov".

That the succession box was removed; is self explanatory; until after the "Psak Beis Din"; & then it can be brought back & updated accordingly. Same goes for the category of the "Rebbes of Bobov" & to him being called the "second". Issac 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)