Talk:Shemaryahu Gurary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Notability? 2 Didan Notzach 3 Barry Gurary 3.1 Searching for article about Barry Gurary that was deleted

[edit] Notability?

The beginning of this article confuses two different people: the Rashag, Rabbi Shemaryhu Gurary (the Rebbe Rayatz's son-in-law); and Shneur Zalman (AKA "Jimmy") Gurary. Someone needs to fix this. -BMN

Given that family relations of a person do not make that person notable, is the fact that he was a candidate for leader of the Chasidic movement named in the article something that makes him notable? —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... candidate... I don't know. There are no candidacies in Hasidic movements. It's a royal family thing. He wasn't chosen. I don't know what more there is to say here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the passage that confuses me: "Upon the death of his father-in-law in 1950, he was considered to be a possible candidate to succeed him. Indeed, he vied to be Rebbe for a full 3 years, but he finally ceded his position to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in 1953 and even became the latter's follower."

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what is he notable for? If all he's notable for is being realted to various other Rebbes, he's not notable, and I'm nominating the articler deletion. —C.Fred (talk)

Right. To that end I left a note at the orthodox noticeboard WT:ORBCW to get people's feedback on whether he authored any books or did anything notable otherwise. Let's wait two days for them to respond - because I am leaning AfD here as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making an appeal either way. I'll try to paint a bit of a picture here about why he might be notable, and if that fails the test, then so be it. R' Gurari is normally called the RaShaG, and that is what I'll call him for the duration of this post. The RaShaG is more than just the son in law of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe. He was considered, by most of the Chassidic world, to be the likely candidate to be Rebbe of Lubavitch after his father in law. The reasons were simple: He was older than the other candidate (at that time known as the RaMaSh, and now known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe). He was married to the previous Rebbe's oldest daughter. Furthermore, he acted much more traditionally "Rebbe-ish." While the RaMaSh wore a fedora and a short coat, the RaShaG wore a longer coat and an "up-hat." Even the garb that Lubavitchers now wear on Shabbos and Yom Tob (the Kapote) is short by Chassidic standards, unlike the standard attire of the RaShaG. Furthermore, he was much more in the limelight. He directed the education institutions on the American Chabad movement, while the Rebbe was at that time in charge of Kehos, and a couple of other organizations that are now very important to Chabad, but at the time were less visable.

The interesting part comes after 10 Shvat 5710. When the previous Rebbe passed away, both figures were positioned to be the Rebbe. I put that in the passive voice, because there is a disagreement as to how much positioning they did by themselves. For example, the current Rebbe, according to Lubavitch lore, rejected the position of Rebbe, and was essentially forced into it by the Chassidim. While thay may be true, history implies that he was a willing accomplice at the very least. Indeed, at one point, the RaShaG article incorrectly stated that the RaShaG vied to be Rebbe until 10 Shvat 5751 (1951), when the Rebbe took the title. That is incorrect, though widely believed. To my knowledge, nobody actually disputes that the leadership was in question until 1953 (for a full 3 years). Its just that many don't know about it, due to the fact that they aren't interested. At any rate, the story goes that the older generation supported the RaShaG, and the younger generation was enamored of the more introverted RaMaSh. For the three years, both davened on Shabbos in separate minyanim where each of them got the 6th Aliyah (traditionally reserved for the Rebbe). The reason why this was possible (one of the previous posters mentioned that Nasius is inhereted... that's not entirely true) is that in Chabad, Nasius has always been a matter left to the Chassidim. You'll find that in the generations where there was conflict, the conflict came from the fact that no candidate was selected to be Rebbe. The Chassidim had to choose their Melech (a theme that is reflected in a lot of Chabad Chassidus... see the discourses of the 5th Rebbe from 5661). In many generations, the choice was obvious: The previous Rebbe was the only 'candidate.' But the second generation, for example, was the subject of a great and fascinating dispute between the son of the Alter Rebbe (Dov Ber) and the Alter Rebbe's top student (Aharon HaLevi). While there are apocryphal stories that claim that the Alter Rebbe promised his son the nasius in closed quarters in front of a small number of his closest Chassidim, it is clear that he never made his choice known to the masses. For that reason, the early years of the Mittler Rebbe's nasius were filled with examples of him reigning his Chassidim in (forbidding them from going to R' Aharon, etc.) Similarly, if you read the sichos from the first years of the current nasius, you'll get the impression that the Rebbe is actively establishing himself as the natural candidate.

After giving up the leadership contest, apparently both of the "candidates" immediately got along. That much is not clear. but they did not argue publicly, and the RaShaG publicly treated the Rebbe as Rebbe, and didn't indicate otherwise. That in and of itself is notable especially in light of the unfortunate feuds in Satmar and Bobov. The stories I have heard indicate that if he wanted to be a thorn in the Rebbe's foot, he could have done that and more. His grace in conceding is more notable than R' Zalman Leib and R' Aharon's zeal in succeeding (at such a great cost...)

On top of all of that, he continued to be an active figure in 770 and in the leadership of Chabad for the rest of his lifetime. If there is an article about Yudel Krinsky (who is a politician at best), then there should be an article for the RaShaG, a man who possessed great leadership skills, and who was unquestionably righteous in the way he put them to use. --Meshulam 18:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rashag though is basically famous for being a relative of the Rebbe. Every chassidus is going to have more than one person eligible for being the next Rebbe. I have seen very little mention of the Rashag in various books with sipurei chassidim or yemei chabad compilations. If someone can come up with more information (stories, larger biography, etc. ) then there would be more of a reason for the article. Meshulam mentioned that the Rashag was an active figure in 770. Can we elaborate more on that in the article? There's no denying that he was a tzaddik and a true chossid, but is that an article?Sagtkd 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, Meshulam. For your information, Yudel Krinsky really is the subject of multiple non-trivial works - take at least Berger's infamous The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference, which discusses Krinsky at length if memory serves. Can we say the same about R' Shemaryahu? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. Avrum Ehrlich wrote quite a lot about R' Gurari in both of his books (The Messiah of Brooklyn, and I don't recall the name of the other one). Others as well (for a more complete list, give me some time). The Berger book discusses his involvement in the political issues. Nobody questioned that he has had an effect on Chabad. I just said he was little more than a politician. Berger's book confirms that if anything (though it paints his anti-Messianism in a positive light, if I remember correctly).--Meshulam 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I enjoyed http://yudelkrinsky.com very much just now. If there are several books discussing R' Gurary in detail, it's settled - he's notable. Just add them to the article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article looks like it's really going to come together. Already it looks much better. Great job to whoever contributed. Sagtkd 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didan Notzach

Great work on beefing up this article! Just a quick question: I think the translation of Didan Notzach should be "Victory is Ours." --Meshulam 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it can also be translated as "we will be victorious", but the former is a better fit. Sagtkd 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Gurary

There was a fairly good article about Barry Gurary. Does anyone know how, when and why it got deleted and who was behind that move because Barry Gurary is very notable to the history of Chabad, proven by all the hostility they have to him and due to the fact that when the sixth rebbe was alive he had two sons-in-law, and only Shemaryahu Gurary had a son Shalom Dov Baer better known as Barry, who when he was a boy was definitely viewed as the possible next rebbe by his grandfather Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn. Cutting Barry out the picture here, or "cutting him down to size" seems like an attempt by some POV editors to either "sanitize" or trivialize things by bouncing Barry off Wikipedia. This would be like cutting out the article about Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia, the young kid who never got to be Czar (and what did the Tsarevich ever do in his short life that made him "notable"?) Indeed there is an entire category called Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded and Barry Gurary could fit into such a category perfectly if there were a Hasidic equivalent! His article must be revived and written again. IZAK 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion. More on usertalk. I am certainly not attempting to sanitize WP as to his removal - I hadn't even heard of him before I saw the article. I simply judged him non-notable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Barry Gurary needs to have his own page. There is no conspiracy behind his article being deleted. He was a descendant of a Rebbe so of course he was going to be viewed as a possibility for succession. That doesn't make him famous alone. In the end he completely left Chabad so he wouldn't have been eligible anyway. The reason he's "famous" is for stealing a library, and I don't think that alone qualifies someone for their own page. Mentioning his name by Didan Notzach is good enough. Sagtkd 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for article about Barry Gurary that was deleted

This is what I have come up with so far, and I am crossposting it here from User talk:Kungfuadam#Searching for article about Barry Gurary you deleted. IZAK 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi User:Kungfuadam: I have been searching for an article about Barry Gurary, the only grandson and surviving male heir of the sixth Chabad-Lubavitch rebbe, that you deleted on August 11, 2006. Several editors, including myself, who are very familair with Hasidic Judaism contributed to that article and it is still felt that it was notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the only record of your actions that I can locate [1] which records: "17:42, 11 August 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) deleted "Barry Gurary" (closing prod uncontested since 6 Aug)." Now I have a few problems with this entire episode. Firstly, do you know enough about the subject to have made that decision? Secondly, try as I may, why can I not find any listing of the nomination for the deletion and your imprimatur to delete the Barry Gurary article on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 6 log? Thirdly, why is there no history of your deletion of this article on your own "user contributions" page when I tried to find a link to your act of deleting this article on your history page that covers August 11, 2006 at [2] when I searched for it? Unless you simply treated this as a "quick delete." Finally, whoever nominated the article for deletion in the first place may well have had a POV agenda that you may have missed. Please bear in mind that over the summer months many regular editors were away, or not as active, and it was a time that anyone who wanted to have that article eradicated got their way simply by "fooling the system". I would urge you to exercise greater caution in such situations in the future. I would appreciate some feedback soon. Thanks a lot. IZAK 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy on proposed deletion- WP:PROD. It was NOT deleted out of process.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)