Did the Rebbe change his mind?

 

Did the Rebbe change his mind? In 1921, a cache of letters that were claimed to be from the בעל שם טוב was bought by Shmuel Gurary who presented them to ​his Rebbe the Marshab.    It soon became apparent, that the authenticity of the manuscripts were questionable. Close inspection of the contents, form, and paper cast serious doubt on their genuineness Scholars/experts examined the letters from the Kherson  Geniza attributed to the Baal Shem Tov and matched up the dates to the day of the week in which they were written.  It was discovered that some of the dates coincided with  Shabbosos & Yomim Tovim. Also, the type of paper that was used on the manuscripts was not yet available then.  The כ"ו תמוז letter was written in the year 1759. In It they mention Bishop Skolsky siding with the Yidden. According to Google, in 1759 the Bishop of Lviv was Alexander Lubienski  (There never was a Bishop Skolsky). ambzy Today, outside of Chabad there are virtually no authorities who consider these letters anything other than forgeries. The last Lubavitcher Rebbe. R.M.M. Schneerson Zt"l who was an expert on old Seforim and manuscripts insisted that they are indeed authentic. He wouldn't give in to the academics who tried to convince him otherwise. (see below) As far as I know. no one, not even Chabad celebrates כ"ו תמוז as a Yom Tov I WONDER, WHY? Is it possible that the Rebbe changed his mind and finally realized that he and the two previous Rebbes were (במחילת כבוד תורתם) duped with the forged Genizah? This will explain why no one  celebrates (not even Chabad) the כ"ו תמוז Yom Tov. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  In 1957, The Rebbe Zt"l  defended the authenticity    of the Kherson Geniza . . . As for me, when I saw the near three hundred letters [of the Kherson Geniza] in possession of my father-in-law, the Rebbe, (of which a part were not permitted to be publicized), I had no doubt that their content was authentic (besides for those who believe that I had no doubt that their content was authentic (besides for those who believe that the simplest explanation of an occurrence is a miracle completely beyond the bounds of nature, in which case they could equally believe that miraculously there was a man in Odessa that was able to forge and produce these 300 letters, and then disappear afterwards without a trace). G-d willing, when I have the free time, I wish to print all the letters that were published in 'Hatomim' [The official periodical of Yeshivas Tomchei Temmim while in Poland], along with the letters that my father in law, the Rebbe, approved of their printing but were never released due to the cessation of Hatomim's printing, and as an introduction I wish to explain the reasons that prove my decision [that the letters of the Kherson Geniza are indeed authentic].   I have included here two points:   1. It is well known all of those who lived in southern Russia, near Odessa and Kherson, who possessed a knowledge of the chronicles of Chassidus and its teachings, and amongst these individuals none was fit or able to write letters as these by himself.   2. To acquire at that time [of the Russian Revelation], one of international turmoil and frayed diplomacy, the parchment upon which they were written was nearly impossible.   The majority of the questions of those who doubt the veracity of the letters are founded on the contradictory dates in the letters etc. That means mistakes that stem on the majority from an individual letter and word, or the emission thereof. It's well known to anyone that ever worked in copying manuscripts, and especially when done in haste (Sadly, I know of this through my editing of a significant portion of the ma'amorim and books printed by our publishing house), that even a good copy will have mistakes in at least five percent of the lines after the first time it is copied and rechecked twice - and as mentioned before this is with the best person copying. On the other hand a forger who wishes to falsify documents in order to sell them later to one of the Chassidic courts - that is to say, those with a knowledge of the history of the chassidic movement and its teachings - would most obviously be exacting to to edit it many times in order to avoid mistakes that will reveal his forgery and publicly discredit his work. Therefore the existance of these mistakes (after the mistakes of the editor of Hatomim are removed) are just the opposite, proof that the letters were not written by a forger that wished to sell them later to those who knowledgeable of this subject and thus must be scrupulous to avoid mistakes, but rather transcribed by a copier who had no in depth knowledge of their content. This then is an additional proof to the conclusion of the Previous Rebbe, which he seemingly heard from his father [The Rebbe Rashab], that 1) There is no doubt that their content is authentic. 2) They were copied from someone's writings who possessed a deep understanding of both Chassidus and Kabballah.   Another point, which I am sure also proves the conclusion of the Previous Rebbe - that anyone who would see the hundreds of these letters at once, which this was how they were brought to be sold in Lubavitch, would not have room at all to know that this was the original handwriting, since all of them possessed the same handwriting and parchment in all of their details. A forger who wished to falsify in this manner would have only hoped to successfully find a purchaser who lacks an analytical sense and basic logic [and thus not gone to the Chassidic courts who would be able to sense a forgery with greater ease]. Besides the above, in a portion of the letters that were not published there were kameyos [charms] and letters with crowns and vowels [part of the arcane and esoteric knowledge of Kabbalah - as can be found in sefer raziel hamalach etc.] - and as I heard from the Previous Rebbe, in these letters and also amongst those that were published can be found concepts that were not known to the public, but rather kept as a tradition from Rebbe to Rebbe, starting from the Alter Rebbe until the father of the Previous Rebbe. I only mentioned here [a few] general points, but in my opinion, they suffice to not only to remove the claims of the above-mentioned article [where the questions of the veracity of the Kherson Genizah can be found ] but furthermore bring an entirely opposite and easily accepted conclusion:   It is clear that the Ruzhiner zt"l was arrested [under the libelous claim that he was complicit in the death of two Jewish informers] (at the moment there still is yet to be found 'scientific' historians that contradict this fact, though there is a well-known historian in Poland that came to the "irrefutable scientific conclusion" that Ba'al Shem Tov never existed) under very harsh conditions and that any documents found in the possession of the one arrested would be confiscated. Surely then the Ruzhiner would have manuscripts from others in his generation and those in proximity to it, as well as beloved books that he inherited etc -either in great quantity or less; and surely upon finding a place of safety [Kishinev and then to Iaşi] the Ruzhiner would look for ways to bring about their return. If so, it is obvious that that they would not be able to openly petition the government for the return of his articles, since it from the said government which he has escaped from imprisonment; rather they would go about their return in a surreptitious manner. If those attempting [the return of the Ruzhiner's documents] managed to successfully bribe in any way those in charge - what would those in charge due to minimize, at the very least, the possibility that the government officials will discover the return of the documents to their rightful owner? The simplest manner would be to put in place of the documents others that, at least superficially, resembled the manuscripts that were taken. It is understood then that none of this could have gone about in a peaceful matter over an extended period of time, and therefor there was no time to properly edit them, as well as little use in such, since those making th switch as well as the investigators from which they feared understood Russian better then Chassidus [that is the philosophy of Chassidus]. It is also understood that these copies would be done on the parchment or paper of the time in which they were switched, not when they were written; especially since at that time it was not yet known how determine the age of the parchment. -M. Schneerson Source: Igeros Kodesh Vol. 8 Pp 249 250 and 251   Adar Rishon, 5714    . .