Dancing in Didan Notzach Hey Teves 5747
A family dispute arose about the library of the sixth Rebbe which also brought an internal family rivalry between Barry Gurary (supported by his mother) and his uncle the seventh Rebbe (supported by the "Rashag", Barry's father) into the public spotlight. Barry Gurary's grandfather, the sixth Rebbe, collected a vast library of Judaica, which included several rare volumes.As the sixth Rebbe's grandson, Barry believed he was entitled to a portion of the library and was supported in this belief by his mother and Rabbi Chaim Lieberman (the sixth Rebbe's librarian) as well as the will of his grandmother (the sixth Rebbe's wife). READ MORE IN FULL ARTICLE
In 1984, some 34 years after his grandfather's passing, Barry Gurary entered the library and clandestinely removed numerous Jewish books, including a first edition Passover haggadah worth over $50,000, founder of Hasidism, and began selling the books. One illuminated Passover Haggadah dating back to 1757 was sold for $69,000 to a Swiss book dealer who soon found a private buyer to pay nearly $150,000 for it. He claimed to have both his mother's permission, as well as the permission of his aunt, the seventh Rebbe's wife, to take the books. However, his uncle, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh Chabad Rebbe,
was infuriated by these actions. He demanded that the volumes be returned. When Barry refused, also refusing his uncle's summons to Beth Din, Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Krinsky consulted rabbinic authorities on Jewish law who advised him that appeals can be made to a secular governmental court if justice cannot be effectuated in a Jewish court. On legal advice the Lubavitchers decided to obtain a temporary restraining order in the hope that this would resolve the matter. Rabbi Schneerson argued that the volumes were not the "personal possession" of Gurary's grandfather, but the "communal property" of the Lubavitch Hasidim.
In making this argument, basing himself on a letter from his father-in-law indicating that the books were the heritage of the entire Jewish community he implied that possession of the books legitimized a succession claim; therefore Barry's alleged theft constituted a challenge to his long-undisputed leadership of the Chabad movement. The organizational body that represents Lubavitch Chassidim - Agudas Chasidei Chabad (ACC), filed suit to retrieve the books. During the court hearing, Gurary's father supported his uncle's side, while his mother supported her son, Barry Gurary. In 1986, the court ruled in favor of ACC, and that ruling was upheld on appeal in 1987. The volumes were returned to the library. This day was accepted as a special time of rejoicing for Lubavitch, which they called Didan Notzach (which basically means "our case won," implying that it was God who helped them win).
was infuriated by these actions. He demanded that the volumes be returned. When Barry refused, also refusing his uncle's summons to Beth Din, Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Krinsky consulted rabbinic authorities on Jewish law who advised him that appeals can be made to a secular governmental court if justice cannot be effectuated in a Jewish court. On legal advice the Lubavitchers decided to obtain a temporary restraining order in the hope that this would resolve the matter. Rabbi Schneerson argued that the volumes were not the "personal possession" of Gurary's grandfather, but the "communal property" of the Lubavitch Hasidim.
In making this argument, basing himself on a letter from his father-in-law indicating that the books were the heritage of the entire Jewish community he implied that possession of the books legitimized a succession claim; therefore Barry's alleged theft constituted a challenge to his long-undisputed leadership of the Chabad movement. The organizational body that represents Lubavitch Chassidim - Agudas Chasidei Chabad (ACC), filed suit to retrieve the books. During the court hearing, Gurary's father supported his uncle's side, while his mother supported her son, Barry Gurary. In 1986, the court ruled in favor of ACC, and that ruling was upheld on appeal in 1987. The volumes were returned to the library. This day was accepted as a special time of rejoicing for Lubavitch, which they called Didan Notzach (which basically means "our case won," implying that it was God who helped them win).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
I enjoy your website very much.
ReplyDeleteI don't usually comment on websites, but I was compelled to do so in this case.
I know you mean well,but you are unfortunately misinformed about Hey Teves. This was not simply "an internal family rivalry" a matter of the right to the seforim, rather it was challenging the Rebbe's legitimacy as Rebbe.It also called into question the whole relationship btwn a Rebbe and his chassidim.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe himself addressed this matter.
I encourage you to get educated about the matter.
Have a Good Shabbos,
A Fan in Pennsylvania
This was copied straight from wikipedia!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you are aware that wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information.
ReplyDeleteIt is not accepted as a reference in most legitimate educational institutions.
You owe it to yourself to get informed.
A Fan in Pennsylvania
I know the story very well... But if you would like to find somewhere on the web that has it written out better link me and ill change the text!
ReplyDeleteThis book "Hei Teves -Didan Notzach" by Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky is an informative resource.
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com/books?id=H9kVAQAAIAAJ&q=didan+notzach&dq=didan+notzach&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RQf-ToPXE4XL0QGo24jGAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
Maybe you can contact him and he will give you a short write up.
I hope that this helps.
A Fan in Pennsylvania
The case that lead to Hey Teves was, as the Rebbe said, a Milchomoh kegen dem Alten Rebben, plain and simple.
ReplyDelete