Talk:Hasidic philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal Hasidic philosophy is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Zealotry. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

Contents 1 Question 2 Merge to other articles 3 Debate over Chabad 4 Debate over Chabad 5 JdWolf's attempts to delete article

[edit] Question

Hi,

Ummm I know next to nothing about Hasidic philosophy, so I'm not really in a position to clean this article up, but some of it (especially the section on "The Key To All Wisdom", which somehow manages to bring Star Wars into the discussion) looks like it could do with a clean. The grammar and spelling is off in a few places and looks like it has been text-messaged in (ie, lots of "Torah is all the names of Hashem, not a/t definite just the way u call them" and "you have all kinds of wisdom w/o putting in years studying it. U’ll automatically understand everything in the world." and "Cuz God is choosing without any external influences that he wants exactly like that")

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

cheers

--Gregrosman 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Greg you are right 100%. I had the real expert on the topic helping with this article and I'm trying to get him back to finish the job. I jotted down some notes from a class he gave and that's why you have the very messy later sections. If I knew I way to preserve that info somehow until its fixed up I'd do it but I don't want to simply delete it just yet.

• P.S. Who has just made this last comment without signing their name with the four tildes ~~~~ and who is "the real expert" as if there is one "real expert" that we are waiting for on this topic? Someone on Chabad.org? What about the dozens of other Hasidic dynasties, does the "real expert" know about them too? IZAK 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to other articles

This article should either be re-edited or split up and divided as follows, reflected by the templates {{tl:merge to|Hasidic Judaism}}, {{tl:merge to|Chabad-Lubavitch}}, {{tl:merge to|Tanya}} because: (a) this topic is not different to Hasidic Judaism; (b) It basically reflects mostly Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic philosophy, links and sources; and (c) it reflects the teachings emanating from the Tanya. Thank you. IZAK 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic of Hasidic philosophy is extremely vast. This article could be three times as long as it is without even begin to scratch the surface of what it is all about. The answer to your criticisms is to ADD MORE information and links about other sects of philosphy and dynasties etc. not to merge it with other articles that are long enough as they are.

But also note that the amount of scholarship that has been produced on Hasidic philosphy by Chabad dwarfs that of all the other Hasidic groups put together, and their Hasidic philosophy is the most widely disseminated, learned and well known of any other group, so when you edit, I recommend that the emphasis reflect those facts. (In fact, the Chabad yeshiva system is the only one among all Hasdic groups that makes study of Hasidic philosophy a mandatory and significant part of the yeshiva curriculum.)

P.S. Maybe that person who wrote is like me and doesn't know how to leave a signature...if you show me how I'd be glad to use it.70.107.126.198 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks

• (The above was actually written by anonymous User:69.114.171.152 [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know where User:70.107.126.198 comes into the picture. Thank you. IZAK 09:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC).)

you leave a signature by writing four tildas ~

Itzik18 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous User:69.114.171.152: Your words only prove my point that this article is not about "Hasidic" philosophy but it is about Chabad-Lubavitch philosophy. Your argument that Chabad "dwarfs" other Hasidic movements only shows that you are a "snob" and your editing should have the warning "Chabad snob alert" because you have no respect or tolerance for anything besides Chabad, and how dare you come to my user page [5] [6] and preach to me that I am a "snob" when every word you utter here is sheer Chabad POV snobbery. Please don't be a shtunker and stick to editing articles and not insulting people. IZAK 09:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things: I don't know how you can claim I am intolerant of other Hasidic sects when I wrote in big letters that people should "ADD MORE" information about other sects who also espouse hasidic philosophy. Further, I did not say that Chabad dwarfs the other Hasidic MOVEMENTS. That would be false. I said that the quantity of SCHOLARSHIP on hasidic philosophy produced by Chabad dwarfs that of other groups, and that Chabad's take on hasidism is the most well known of any other group.

Looking beyond the picture of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe (there is no verifiably accurate picture of the Baal Shem Tov to my knowledge) I think you will find that the article focuses on the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov who predates the distinctions between Chabad and other Hasidim, and all hasidic groups hold of him as far as I am aware.70.107.135.104 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If this article is merged, it should merge to Hasidic Judaism. Hasidic philosophy is broader than Chabad or Tanya, which are significant but yet still only subsets of the larger topic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. At all. As for merging with Hassidic Judaism, both articles are, I think, long enough and important enough to stand on their own. I would never have thought that I would have come to have to explain why Hasidic philosophy shouldn't be subsumed in Tanya, but... There are not only many different kinds of chaddisut, but they can be radically different. Comparing Llikutei Moharan with Tanya is like including Judaism in Islam because they're both Abrahamic (don't read too much into the order, I'm not saying Chabad isn't Jewish...). As for the statementts that chabad dwarfs everything else or that "Looking beyond the picture of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe (there is no verifiably accurate picture of the Baal Shem Tov," I ought to point out-excuse me?! I don't know where to begin yelling ( ;) ) I don't know what makes you suppose that Tanya is so verifyably accurate. And furthermore, I don't know what makes you think that all his other followers and descendants know nothing. He DID have a grandson who was a great chassidic rebbe, and there are also many radically different intellectual descendants of the Besht. I agree whole-heartedly that if this article is currently all Chabad, we need to add more information about other groups. I'd remove the merge tags right now if it weren't such an apparently hot issue... Avraham 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused because I don't think your assertions here really contradict what was said above in the previous comment. Did the previous comment say that Chabad drawfs EVERYTHING? Did it say the other followers of the Besht don't know ANYTHING? And who ever mentioned anything about whether the Tanya is verifiably accurate? Do you mean its not? Do you have any basis for that? Can't both the picture and the Tanye be not verifiable? I'm lost. Much of the stuff you seem to be getting mad about are things you said-not things were said on this discussion page anywhere that I can find. I do beleive you are correct, though, that other chassidic groups should step up to the plate and represent themselves. 71.167.216.189 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of anon. above, viz. that in terms of sheer quantity (and direct perusal will confirm that the same applies to quality) the volume of scholarship in the Chabad school of Chassidus is far larger than that of any other group, and this focus on intensive, in-depth study is reflected in the Chabad Yeshiva system, which designates 3 hrs. per day to this study, unlike any other Chassidic Yeshiva. This fact deserves recognition in the context of any discussion of Chassidic philosophy, and no disrespect towards other Chassidic groups and philosophies is meant by pointing it out.

In this light, it is only fair to leave the explanations sourced in Chabad Chassidus on the Chasidic philosophy page, and that does not violate NPOV. Those who wish to post insights that reflect upon other approaches to Chasidus are welcome to do so. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over Chabad

Just a note to the people who keep on going back and forth on whether Chabad stresses some disciple more than other branches of Chassidus. What will help here is to cite a source for the given opinion. There are many academic books on Chassidism. If you can find your point supported in such an academic work, then cite that work for the point you wish to make. If a different author has a different view, then that can be cited as well. It is OK to have conflicting views if they are attributed to worthy sources. It will make a better article, I think. (In any case, it will be more useful to readers to see the various opinions laid out than to have the article itself keep flipping between different versions). My work here is done... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

As mentioned above, "the Chabad yeshiva system is the only one among all Hasidic groups that makes study of Hasidic philosophy a mandatory and significant part of the yeshiva curriculum." No non-Chabad makes study of Chasidus mandatory, or produces kovtzim with in-depth analyses of the most profound kabbalistic concepts.

Also, if anyone can claim that Chabad chassidus is not in another league from other Chasidus in terms of its depth and complexity, nothing personal, but all that demonstrates is that they've never learnt Chabad chassidus. It ain't called Chabad chassidus for nothing. Where else will you find tens of thousands of discourses discussing the hisavus ho'or, the reshimu, the koach hagvul and the koach habli gvul, the difference between the mo'or and the or ha'kolul be'mo'or, the koach hamaskil vs. the etzem ha'koach, the yechido, nefesh nosei kochos vs. etzem hakochos, eser sfiros hagluyos vs. eser sfiros hagnuzos, gilui ha'helem vs. yesh mei'ayin, yecholes ho'atzmus, the tsiyur in the oros, akudim, nekudim u'vrudim, olamos dechlolus vs. olamos diprotus, etc., etc. Other branches of Chasidus barely even touch on these concepts, never mind explain them in such overwhelmingly vast depth and breadth. This is not a statement of chauvinism, but of fact, and anyone who wants to clarify the matter for himself is free to do so; for one online source, see the maamorim of the Rebbe Rashab here: http://otzar770.com/library/ and maamorim from all the Chabad Rebbeim here: http://chabadlibrary.org/books/ Yehoishophot Oliver 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you don't need to convince me. All you need is a reliable source. (While "see the maamorim of the Rebbe Rashab" may be useful for people who want to pursue the study of chassidus, this does not constitute a "source".) Go to the library, get a book on Hasidism, and see if there is a scholar who shares your view. Then cite that person in the traditional fashion. That's the way to do it, man. If you are correct about this, I don't think you will have any difficulty in finding a good source. Heck, cite the Jewish Encyclopedia, which says something to this effect. I'm sure you can find a much stronger source thought if you do a little legwork. —Dfass 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over Chabad

What gives? We've been discussing this for months and you go and unilaterially merge the entire article, effectively wiping out months of work and nobody get's a say about it.

If you don't like the emphasis, edit it. Help it. Make it better. Join the discussion. Don't just remove it. That is wrong in my opinion no matter where you stand.72.89.212.50 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JdWolf's attempts to delete article

Jdwolf: If you think this article "adds nothing to the Chabad article" or the "hasidism article", then you haven't seen the Chabad or hasidism articles. They don't even scratch the surface of what Hasidic philosophy is all about nor does any other article I have seen on any hasidism related topic.

I have seen several complaints on wikipedia talk pages for the past couple of years, that no one has attempted to explain what Hasidic philophy actually is all about. "What do Hasidim actually believe?" is a common question. Especially since the growing visibility of Hasidic Jews in New York, in movies, in the media and especially with the recent popularity of regggae artist Matisyahu. In that sense, this article fills a very great need.

As said before, the main discussion of this article is the teachings the Baal Shem Tov who predates the distintions between different groups of Chassidim. Sure the Tanya is mentioned but that is one the most well-konw works of hasidic philosphy and the article would be remiss not to mention it. If you think a particular line or sentence in the article is unfairly exclusive to Chabad, then tell us which one it is and let's talk about it.

Thanks.68.161.101.218 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Query: What give you the right to delete the article and say "discuss before restoring". I say: leave the article and discuss before deleting. It's kinda hard to discuss an article that no longer exists.

Another query: Are you such an expert in non-Chabad hasidic texts that you can say that the ideas found in this article don't exists there too? I think if you learn them you will find that they do.

Final Thought: If on any other article on wikipedia someone would say "hey, this article is one-sided, let's delete it!" Ppl. would think that's madness-why not just better represent the other side? But I guess when it comes to anti-chabad sentiment anything goes...Very sad.