B”H.

So first of all, it is not clear which part with regards to the Rashag is a wrong interpretation. The article does not “quote extensively how Rashag portrayed himself to Meckler”. It is merely a word for word translation of a article published at the time by Meckler.

Secondly, the Rashag did not run any Yeshiva at the time.

Thirdly, you are wrong on the facts.

The Rashag of course worked day and night on all aspects of the Frierdikers askonus.

By the way, a year before the Frierdiker Rebbe came to America to fundraise for Russian Jewry, the Rashag traveled to various western countries in Europe pleading the Freirdiker Rebbe’s cause.

[By the way, I should note that on the very first day that the Frierdiker Rebbe came to America for the second time, the 9th of Adar 5740, the Rashag was already sending out letters trying to set up meetings with various officials to help out Chassidim in Europe and Russia. He did not rest. But rather was on his feet running the very day he got off the boat.]

The articles were printed in 5690 while the Frierdiker Rebbe was in America. It is hard to believe that Frierdiker Rebbe didn’t read at least some of the articles that he devoted so much time to transmit.

We know that the Rebbe received copies of many of these articles from the estate of R. Leib Horowitz of Boston who passed away in 5724 (Teshurah Kinus Torah France, Pesach 5656, p. 51). It would seem that these are the copies that the Rebbe gave to R. Chitrik a few years later for publication purposes.

This comment—and your follow-up—is highly disrespectful, in addition to being wrong on every count.

Rashag was deeply involved in literally every single matter of askonus the Freirdiker Rebbe worked on during these years. Anyone who has skimmed through the pages of Toldos Chabad Berussia Hasovietis knows this. For you to dismiss the mesiras nefesh mamash he poured into the Frierdiker Rebbe’s holy work and call him a liar is disgraceful. You should ask mechilah at his kever for this libel.

You are also factually wrong about the articles title Fun Lubavitcher Rebbens Hoif. R. Aharon Chitrik related the story behind the publication of these articles as follows (Teshurah Gross 5760, p. 56-58):

In 5726-5727 R. Chodakov instructed him, in the name of the Rebbe, to collect the Meckler articles from 5690 for publication., He was instructed to contact Meckler and ask him to edit the articles for style, so that they would be suitable for publication in a book bearing the Frierdiker Rebbe’s name. This was stylistic editing, and it was to be entrusted to Meckler himself.

Meckler told R. Chitrik that the newspaper archive is disorganized and advised him to look in the public library’s archive. After weeks of searching R. Chitrik was only able to find some of the articles, and the copies he made were of low quality. A few days later the Rebbe brought from his house a folder with many of the articles in them.

R. Chitrik brought the articles to Meckler and he started to work on them but then he took ill and later passed away. R. Chitrik asked the family what happened to the papers and they didn’t know. Years later he found out that Meckler’s papers had ended up in the YIVO library and was able to obtain the articles. They were prepared for print, but some editors at Kehos after 27 Adar 5752 decided not to print it at that time. R. Chitrik was very critical of this decision. A few years ago Kehos decided to re-edit that articles with footnotes and print them.

As to Rashag’s involvement in the original preparation of these articles. When the articles were published Meckler wrote they were based on oral conversations with the Frierdiker Rebbe and “original material received through his son-in-law R. Gurary.” Obviously this is referring to written material from the Frierdiker Rebbe that Rashag was the middleman to hand over. Rashag had no involvement in the content of these articles.

Of course, there are some mistakes in these articles, as much of it is based on Meckler’s understanding of oral conversations. Sometimes it is even evident how Meckler confused the names of places that sound similar in speech. Like manichim of sichos, he was human and made mistakes occasionally.

If you want clarity, no problem.

Its obvious the frierdike rebbe was happy with the articles that became sefer hazichronos. We also know they were based on the frierdike rebbes own kisvei yad.

It tells us nothing about his first set of articles accuracy, or the opinion of the rebbeim, as they were written when our rebbekm were not in the usa, and it isn’t clear how many of those article got to them in Europe. The rebbe later said in USA that he did not have those articles in the usa. They were not found until shortly before 27 adar.

The article has meckler quoting Rashag taking credit for things we know were done by others. He ran the yeshiva, and nothing else. Veda”l.

BH

I tried to read this comment, however It is not clear to me as what is the writers intention.

I get it that the writer decided that the Rabbeim were lav Davke happy with meckler.

However the writer also claims that Rashag lied about himself to Meckler. However the comment is totally unclear as to what it is referring to, and to be quite frank, it is a bit jarring to read.

In this article itself, you quote extensively how Rashag portrayed himself to Meckler – inaccurately – and Meckler himself said, as you note, that those original articles were based on conversations including that person, not on any documents he was given.

BALTIMORE

https://anash.org/newspaper-records-historic-visit-to-baltimore/

DETROIT

https://anash.org/commemorating-ninety-years-since-detroit-visit/

https://anash.org/if-the-rebbe-comes-to-america-america-will-come-to-him/

https://anash.org/campers-follow-the-friediker-rebbes-footsteps/

ST. LOUIS

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3715920/jewish/The-Historic-Visit-by-the-Sixth-Rebbe-of-Chabad-to-St-Louis.htm