Rebbe’s Biography Erased from English Hayom Yom

9-year-old Mushky returned home from camp and proudly showed her parents the prize she had received from her counselor – an English translated volume of Hayom Yom printed by Sichos in English.

Her father, the Head Shliach of a city on the East Coast, leafed through the sefer with visible satisfaction, until he noticed something very disappointing. At first he thought that it was a printing error, because it couldn’t be that such important pages were deliberately missing. But after a few telephone conversations with other parents of Mushky’s bunk-mates who had received the same gift, it became clear that this was no accident.

At the beginning of the Hayom Yom, which the Rebbe published at the behest of the Previous Rebbe in 1943, a brief biography appears of all the Chabad Rebbeim from the Alter Rebbe and on. The Rebbe explained that this was a sort of ‘introduction’ to the Sefer.

This would be the first time that the Rebbe compiled a history of the Chabad Rabbeim, and he spent many hours ensuring that each word was meticulously accurate.

This section of the sefer would be edited and updated by the Rebbe himself each time it would be reprinted. In 1957, the Rebbe completed the Previous Rebbe’s biography from 1943 until his passing, and added his own biography as well.

But in this Hayom Yom he held in his hands, the entire biography of the Rebbe was completely eliminated.

When informed of this, the reaction of Rabbonim, Shluchim and Mashpi’im was that of shock and disgust.

“There is no good reason to erase the entire history of the seventh generation of Chabad leadership,” said one Shliach; “I am surprised the staff of that camp did not look into which sforim they were distributing to the girls.”

“What were these people thinking? That with the stroke of a key they can wipe out 110 years of the Rebbe!?” said one Mashpia in Eretz Yisroel. “This is what those who were fighting the Rebbe were claiming in court during the chapter of Hey Teves.”

A friend of the publishers who was reached for comment said that the reason for eliminating the Rebbe’s biography was to avoid any dilemma with what to write for the year of 1994, when the Rebbe passed away. But he couldn’t explain why they had to remove the entire bio – couldn’t they just leave out the last year!?

Many Chabad Rabbonim, Shluchim and Mashpi’im are now discouraging their families, friends and students from buying this sefer, saying it would not be appropriate to insult the author of the sefer, the Rebbe himself, by supporting those who fight against him.

This article was translated from the original Hebrew, which appeared on Shturem.net

49 Comments

  • 1. Mekach Toias wrote:

    A few pepole I know bought this item and then relized the problem.

    I heard that the publisher gave money back to some of buyers.

    This article should have been posted before innocent pepole were Nicshal

  • 2. SG wrote:

    Propaganda much? The ‘hidden agenda’ behind this article isn’t so hidden to anyone with a brain.

    I am not a tzfati and I’m not an “anti”

    Just someone sick and tired of all this nonsense.

  • 4. Mendel wrote:

    LOL, Rabbi Avtzin of SIE created a beautiful Hayom Yom, and he is selling it like crazy, Yossi Freedman in the Kehot bookstore is stuck with the old Hayom Yom Shemtov created years ago, so he is creating this controversy regarding Rabbi Avtzin’s new Hayom yom.

  • 6. HAAA! wrote:

    Advertisement is advertisement, now you all know there is a beautiful new hayom yom in english. Go out and buy it!!!

  • 8. the pshat wrote:

    It’s a copyright issue and only using the 50 year old version which has an expired copyright were they able to print it without kehos permission

  • 9. Avrohom wrote:

    I personally use this sefer at the dinner table with my family and find that it is most inspirational and practical.

  • 10. Avrahom wrote:

    It shows how far people will go to be politically correct and not offend people living in denial.

  • 11. Sara davis wrote:

    To #1. Whether you’re pro or anti whatever you are campaigning isn’t the issue!! It’s the fact that history, important history to who you are as a Lubavitcher Chossid and NOT whatever ideology you stand for, was deleted.
    How can you NOT print this information?

  • 12. Me wrote:

    This is a beautiful sefer which helps me because i always found hayom yom somewhat cryptic. Why spread these issues around? People, this is a deep, insightful sefer, please continue to share it with friends

  • 13. Dr. Holmes wrote:

    Yep. If the Rebbe wrote it you gotta keep it in. Best solution just leave it the was without mentioning gimmel tamuz. that way the publishers can say that is how the rebbe wrote it if anyone has a problem with that.

  • 14. Chosid wrote:

    To number 2:

    You claim you are not a Tzfati…
    Yes you are correct.
    You are much worse if erasing the rebbe zy”a name you call propaganda.

  • 15. boaz wrote:

    this is worse than what Satmar did, when they printed a Tanya (without permission from Kehot), they omitted all the Rebbe’s notes from the back of the Tanya!

    and now, so called Lubavitchers (Sichos in English), omitted the Rebbe’s Biography that the Rebbe himself edited for the Hayom-Yom.

  • 17. corection wrote:

    just to be more medayek:
    the rebbe didn’t write his own biography, although he was magia it.

  • 18. #17 is 100 percent correct. wrote:

    #17 is 100 percent correct.
    A smear campaign by Kehos to try and boost their own edition.
    I personally think it is a beuitfull Sefer!

  • 19. adding to wrote:

    adding to what the Rebbe was Magiah by adding Gimmel Tamuz 5754 is also not a correct thing to do … but two wrongs don’t make a right …although it could be Y.A. did not want to write about the Rebbe because he was told he must write it with Gimmel Tammuz and does not have the Chutzpa to add to what the Rebbe was Magia … again i don’t know just trying to be dan lakav Zechus (which we should all be doing anyhow – especially in this month of Elul) … in the Zechus of Achdus …Moshiach NOW!

  • 20. to #13. ruvi pinny and chaim wrote wrote:

    Get your facts straight. there are many brothers. you and the author of this article have been motzeit shem ra on two individuals. mechila before yom kippur is due…

  • 21. to #12 thanks for clarifying wrote:

    we need to stop all this loshon hora and rechilus and think before we speak or print things without finding out the facts.

  • 22. and the other side of the store is... wrote:

    that when Yona Avtzon made it, Kehos was the one who would not give him permission to print the Rebbe’s bio, and so he was not able to do so (copyright issues).
    next time he should print it without their permission…

  • 23. Credit wrote:

    Give credit where credit is due. The book is a beautiful book. Yes, it should have had the Rebbe’s bio included. But at least Avtzon has some politics to go around talking about now.Keep him busy instead of messing up shidduchim.

  • 24. living in 2012 wrote:

    Thanks for lotting me know about this sefer.

    Kohos has been changing seforim for years and this has been the tanneh from mishichistin. Kehos deleted the mission statements in hayom yom for machneh yisroel and merkoz years ago. If ppl knew how off-mission merkoz is today, they would be shocked. The kohos siddur has changes as well.

    I’m happy there is more competition so we see better and better seforim coming out all the time. If kohos doesn’t like this hayom yom, let them publish an even better one and I’ll go out and by it.

  • 25. chaim wrote:

    Krisnky and co. CHANGED things in the Likuttei Sichos they reprinted from VLS, did anyone say boooooo?

  • 26. @ #17 wrote:

    Shemtov wrote the original Hayom Yom?!?

    Kagen worked on it and wanted to publish it in English and for many years the Rebbe did not allow it. Finally, it was allowed as a project of NESHEI CHABAD of Detroit.

  • 27. Levi wrote:

    The work is a book of thoughts by Sichos in English writer Rabbi Uri Kaploun from Israel on Hayom Yom.

    He never should have added his own thoughts to the Rebbe’s Hayom Yom. This book is flawed in its very existence. It’s not a pirush on Hayon Yom, in many places he has his own Hayom Yom vertlach.

    I’m sorry, but the old vort don’t judge a book by it’s cover is absolutely correct in this case.

    The book LOOKS good but is flawed not only by finishing Chabad history with the Frierdike Rebbe but by a chosid adding his own thoughts to the Rebbe’s.

    Rabbi Kagan’s original translation of Hayom Yom is excellent, and he was a true chossid.

  • 28. Yossi wrote:

    I have yet to understand why Lubavitchers have a problem with histalkus. Every human being, besides eliyahu hanovi, died and was buried, it’s time we as chasidim stopped being idiots about 3 tammuz and gave it the correct kavod it and the Rebbe so deserves.

  • 29. Yakov Kirschenbaum wrote:

    This is a dumb, inciteful,article. I’m not surprised that Crownheights.info posted this. Whether SIE is right or wrong about this doesn’t change the quality and “buy-ablity” of the sefer and certainly wouldn’t make it something which needs to be boycotted. I could think of equal or bigger problems with other seforim, which I won’t get into right now, for various reeasons.

    “Many Chabad Rabbonim, Shluchim and Mashpi’im are now discouraging their families, friends and students from buying this sefer…”

    This is either an exaggeration or completely made up. Did 9-year old Mushly get on the phone with all the big rabbonim and mashpi’im? This sefer has been out for a few years now. Thousands of people have noticed this before Mushky the 9-year-old, and there was no tumult. Only now, when Mushky comes home from camp, the whole Lubavitch becomes aware of this and is outraged! Give me a break. This this absolute gibberish.

  • 30. Someone in the know wrote:

    PURE POLITICS :(((

    It was omitted because the directorship of Kehot threatened to sue (they were embarrased that someone else put out such a beautiful work, while they do nothing……).

    To avoid being sued, it must be a reprint of an older version on which the copyright has expired!
    thats why they used the original version which had no biography of the Rebbe.

    Maybe if kehot moved out of the way of good things, and stopped blocking every effort to produce good books, things would’t be so sad in lubavith today!!

  • 31. Motl wrote:

    To #12:

    SO IT IS A CASE OF STEALING?

    TAKING AWAY A BOOK THE BELONGS TO KEHOS BECAUSE OF A LOOPHOLE?

  • 32. To #24 wrote:

    Please… Your comment looks nice, but its premise is wrong.
    Rabbi Kagan OBM also added interpretations to the Hayom Yom, in the back and in the notes.
    Rabbi Zeligson Shlit“a has several volumes of the Hayom Yom with his own explanations and Ma’rei Mekomos, for which he received beautiful answers from the Rebbe, brochos and encouragement for the printing, as well as notes on what he wrote. Clearly, the Rebbe was happy when Chassidim delved into his words, and found practical lessons and inspiration. Particularly the Hayom Yom, which is pretty cryptic.
    It was a big mistake to delete the Rebbe’s biography, obviously without ch”v any malicious intent on their part, but still stupid. However, anyone who reads any single day’s entry, and still feels that the editors were trying ch“v to offend the Rebbe r”l, is pretty blind.

  • 33. CR wrote:

    Frankly, this is one reason I will not use or own any seforim of Chassidus Chabad printed after 27 Adar, 5752. Anything after that date is replete with Da’as Ba’ale Batim or worse.

  • 34. what about kehos adding 3 tamuz wrote:

    how can Kehos have the chutzpa of adding lines to what the Rebbe was magia

  • 36. Old Timer wrote:

    Good comment CR (#33), I’m with you. Like you I avoid all Lubavich publications published after 3 Tamuz 5754… Maybe you have more inside information than I do and therefore your cutoff date is 27 Adar 5752. I’m not sure this is the forum for it, but I’d appreciate it if you would explain. Sh’koach.

  • 37. Kehos needs to change wrote:

    Those who run Kehos should stop blocking Seforim from being printed. They stop there OWN Sefirim from being printed, and everyone else’s Seforim from being printed. Ask Moznaim, Otzar, SIE, even artscroll back many years ago…

  • 38. To no. 3 wrote:

    What you are writing is factually incorrect and informatively wrong. Factually incorrect because Chanoch and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi have both been entered into Gan Eden as a living person. (see last page of 7th chapter of kesuvois).

    It is also informatively incorrect as the Ramban on chumash Vayikra ch. 18 verse 4 writes that any tzaddik is able to reach the level of Eliyahu Hanavi and to live forever. In the words of the Ramban himself “ichyeh lo’ad bgufoi vnafshoi”.

  • 39. Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Director, SIE wrote:

    Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Director of Sichos in English, wrote:

    For the record, once and for all, here are six facts:

    1. The anonymous article implies throughout that the Rebbe is ח“ו not mentioned throughout his whole work! (”פשוט מחקו את הרבי מהספר שלו“). In fact, in the SIE edition the Rebbe is spoken of and his teachings are cited in over fifty (50) places.

    2. The Rebbe gave SIE permission to translate whatever they wanted, such as Likkutei Dibburim (whose translations the Rebbe graced with his comments) and Sefer HaMinhagim (to which the Rebbe added the date bichsav yad kodsho, 14 Kislev). Nevertheless, as the new edition of HaYom Yom was being prepared for publication, SIE constantly updated Kehot at every stage. In the course of those years, Kehot never responded. Finally, when the SIE edition was already laid out and ready for publication, Kehot stated their objection to any new translation, and refused SIE’s request to buy the rights to the post-1943 biographical notes on the Rebbe Rayatz and the biographical notes on the Rebbe. SIE then informed Kehot that the new edition would therefore translate the 1943 edition, and pointed out that this would of course mean that the post-1943 biographical notes would be omitted.

    3. The Foreword to the SIE edition clearly states that it translates the edition of תש”ג. Since this was during the lifetime of the Rebbe Rayatz be’alma dein, the objection of the anonymous “senior spokesman for Kehot” that the last years of the Rebbe Rayatz were ח“ו obliterated in the SIE edition is absurd.

    4. In the SIE edition, the added insights and related stories of Rebbeim and chassidim are all typographically distinct from the body of the text. They also have separate headings.

    5. At a meeting between the director of SIE and several Kehot representatives, Rabbi Yosi Friedman conceded that the SIE translation is in fact superior.

    6. After having been pressured, against his better judgment, to produce a literal translation of HaYom Yom, Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Kagan ע”ה expressed his hope that he would yet be able to bring his original plan to fruition – via Sichos In English. Moreover, SIE has on file the noble and warm-hearted encouragement that the Kagan family ‘שי has repeatedly given to the SIE edition.

    Those are the facts.

    Uvechein: For over three years the sefer has been accepted by several thousands of Anash and by hundreds of Yidn who do not identify as Anash. In these days before Rosh HaShanah, we would like to see Bnei Yisrael – and Anash as the archetypes – stand ke’achadim ke’echad – “united, as one.” This unity will make us collectively a keli for a kesivah vachasimah tovah – a good and sweet year that includes the greatest blessing, the coming of Mashiach.

  • 41. sa wrote:

    to #22 – and others

    yes, it was printed 3 yrs. ago but not everyone the world over has seen it.

    and yes, the issue was already raised three yrs. ago. and it is a somewhat strange to omit the Rebbe’s bio which he has constantly reviewed when the sforim – Haoros V’Tziyuim on the Hayom Yom were published during the 1980’s and on.

  • 42. CR wrote:

    In the early Nuns the Lamed- volumes of Likkutei Sichos were published. The first volumes came out around the time of the Rebbe’s stroke. As the bulk of the preparation work had been done over years prior they represented works consistent with the content of earlier volumes. By the time Lamed-Gimel and Dalet were published (around the time of the Rebbe’s histalkus) the alleged “change” in the Rebbe’s focus was apparent in those volumes as those sichos were far more in line with Meshichistic views than the prior ones. The differences were quite obvious and I attribute it more to the influence of the editors than any particular change in the Rebbe’s style or emphases. This actually dawned on me as a bochur “back in the day” when I was reading a Lamed-Dalet sicha in a shiur and thought “someone wanted the Rebbe to have said this!” Suffice to say, when I pick up a book of the Rebbe’s work I want to read his words, not just the ones filtered or “enhanced” by the desk jockeys at Va’ad Lahak, SIE, Kehot or whoever.

  • 43. Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Director, SIE wrote:

    {UPDATED POST, WITHOUT ANY HEBREW LETTERS (which previously came out in Chinese), FOR THE ENGLISH EDITION OF crownheights. info}

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Director of Sichos in English, wrote:

    For the record, once and for all, here are six facts:

    1. The anonymous article implies throughout that the Rebbe is Chas VeShalom not mentioned throughout his whole work! (“Pashut machaku es haRebbe meihasefer shelo.”) In fact, in the SIE edition the Rebbe is spoken of and his teachings are cited in over fifty (50) places.

    2. The Rebbe, Bichsav yad kodsho, gave SIE permission to translate whatever they wanted, such as Likkutei Dibburim (whose translations the Rebbe graced with his comments) and Sefer HaMinhagim (to which the Rebbe added the date, 14 Kislev). Nevertheless, as the new edition of HaYom Yom was being prepared for publication, SIE constantly updated Kehot at every stage. In the course of those years, Kehot never responded. Finally, when the SIE edition was already laid out and ready for publication, Kehot stated their objection to any new translation, and refused SIE’s request to buy the rights to the post-1943 biographical notes on the Rebbe Rayatz and the biographical notes on the Rebbe. SIE then informed Kehot that the new edition would therefore translate the 1943 edition, and pointed out that this would of course mean that the post-1943 biographical notes would be omitted.

    3. The Foreword to the SIE edition clearly states that it translates the edition of Taf-Shin-Gimmel. Since this was during the lifetime of the Rebbe Rayatz Be’alma dein, the objection of the anonymous “senior spokesman for Kehot” that the last years of the Rebbe Rayatz were Chas VeShalom obliterated in the SIE edition is absurd.

    4. In the SIE edition, the added insights and related stories of Rebbeim and chassidim are all typographically distinct from the body of the text. They also have separate headings.

    5. At a meeting between the director of SIE and several Kehot representatives, Rabbi Yosi Friedman conceded that the SIE translation is in fact superior.

    6. After having been pressured, against his better judgment, to produce a LITERAL translation of HaYom Yom for Detroit (i.e., the Kehot edition), Rabbi Yitzchok Meir Kagan A“H expressed his hope that he would yet be able to bring his original plan to fruition – via Sichos In English. Moreover, SIE has on file the noble and warm-hearted encouragement that the Kagan family Sheyichyu has repeatedly given to the SIE edition.

    Those are the facts.

    Uvechein: For over three years the Sefer has been accepted by several thousands of Anash and by hundreds of Yidn who do not identify as Anash. In these days before Rosh HaShanah, we would like to see Bnei Yisrael, with Anash as the archetypes, stand Ke’achadim ke’echad – ”united, as one.” This unity will make us collectively a keli for a Kesivah vachasimah tovah – a good and sweet year that includes the greatest blessing, the coming of Mashiach.

  • 44. Dr. Holmes wrote the best comment wrote:

    Yep. If the Rebbe wrote it you gotta keep it in. Best solution just leave it the was without mentioning gimmel tamuz. That way the publishers can say that is how the rebbe wrote it if anyone has a problem with that.

  • 45. chazanovitcher wrote:

    To Rabbi Avtzon #41

    With everything you write, you are avoiding the main question: why did you take out the Rebbe’s Biography that the Rebbe himself edited for the “HaYom Yom”?
    If what you say is true that “The Rebbe gave Sichos In English permission to translate whatever they wanted,” – so why were you afraid of a copyright?

  • 46. ask and he will tell you wrote:

    the simple reason why it was omitted is because he wasnt sure what to write about gimmel tammuz so he took it out all together

    to most this make total sense to others………………..

  • 47. to chazanovitcher wrote:

    let me answer for Rabbi Avtzon.
    Some people may have the right answers that can and would hold up in court, but unlike certain Chabad Mosdos, would rather use their fundraised monies on their actual work than on lawyer fees and on dragging Chabad’s name through the dirt in the courts.

  • 48. to #46 wrote:

    To #46

    I think he explained that clearly; this edition was based on the 1943 edition which did not have the Rebbe’s biography included.

    As to avoid a machloikes (yes, there are ppl who, although are in the right, still try avoid machloikes), SIE chose to go through that avenue.

    Let us all put this aside and approach 5773 in a spirit of unity; set aside differences. Let ppl who have differences work them out amicably – or through an appointed arbitrator – and work things out. after all, this manner has always proven to be the most effective. Hanging laundry to the open only makes a wound turn into a scar.

    Please, Adas Hachassidim… Please. For YOUR sake.

  • 49. to chazanovitcher wrote #46 wrote:

    I would just like to add one point. A person may be correct and will win their case. But do you know how much it cost just to win a case you should win. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rabbi Avtzon would rather use that money to print more seforim. This is the right choice. Kehos is in court and people are spending tons of money just to ferret this out.
    A ksiva vchasim tova to all and we all await the day when the Rabbaim’s works can freely flow without any hindrence by any organization.

    I ask you, why in the world would Kehos object to allowing such a sefer?

×

Comments are closed.