Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Use (Hasidic dynasty) to standardize naming of groups 2 New project 3 Definition 4 Pittsburgh? 5 Pishkivitcha 6 Change of Toldos Aharon to Shomer Emunim 7 List of Hasidic dynasties (comment) 8 Dushinsky 9 Brisdovitz ? 10 Lucy 11 Should we list all Rebbes by name? 12 Medzhibozh Dynasties - need to be removed 13 Request for Comment: Adding Hasidic dynasties 13.1 Summary of dispute 13.2 Statements from editors 13.3 Which pages does this affect? 13.4 Comments 14 Country identification

[edit] Use (Hasidic dynasty) to standardize naming of groups

In order to maintain a standard naming format for all these Hasidic groups, add (Hasidic dynasty) to each name so that it will be clear what the subject is. For example: "Nadvorna" is now Nadvorna (Hasidic dynasty), "Belz" is Belz (Hasidic dynasty) etc. IZAK 08:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New project

I'm undertaking to begin a stub for each of the Chasidic dynasties, any input from others would be greatly appreciated. Atheistrabbi 4 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Why does this article not explain what is meant by a "Hasidic dynasty"? - Nat Krause 05:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pittsburgh?

Is this entry correct? Rmhermen 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I know the Pittsburger Rebbe personally - however I have never heard of the Philadelphia dynasty Itzik18 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pishkivitcha

This has just been added (in the wriong place). Has anyone heard of such a dynasty? Redaktor 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Toldos Aharon to Shomer Emunim

I changed the name Toldos Aharon to Shomer Emunim in the larger dynasties list. I did so because that change accurately reflects the fact that TA is an offshoot of the Chassidus started by R' Aharon Roth, Admur M'Shomer Emunim ztzl. In sheer numbers, Toldos Aharon is the largest group of Chassidim that trace themselves to R' Aharon. However, it would be unrealistic to give the name "Shomer Emunim" a place only secondary to the more modern name "Toldos Aharon."

Furthermore, the article that was previously called Toldos Aharon really covered all three groups, Shomer Emunim, Toldos Aharon, and Toldos Avraham Yitzchak.

--Meshulam 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hasidic dynasties (comment)

Satmar (from Satu Mare, Romania) Hasidic group has only 120,000 followers. Why in the "Dominant Hasidic groups (arranged by estimated size)" it’s listed first? Chabad Lubavitch (from Liubavichy, Belarus) group has 200,000 followers, so Ger ((from Góra Kalwaria, Poland) group has 200,000 followers as well.

Ira (Eliyahu)

Chabad Lubavitch (from Liubavichy, Belarus) group has about 200,000 followers. Ger (from Góra Kalwaria, Poland) group has about 200,000 followers as well. Satmar (from Satu Mare, Romania) group has only 120,000 followers. Why then in the "Dominant Hasidic groups (arranged by estimated size)" Satmar (from Satu Mare, Romania) Hasidic group is listed first?

Ira (Eliyahu) 09.05.06 5:26pm EST

• These figues are nonsense. They do not have these numbers. Drop one zero from each group and you have the truer number! IZAK 07:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • No, Satmer and Chabad Lubavitch are about 200,000 and Ger about 120,00. --Shaul avrom 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Where do these figures come from? --Redaktor 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • They seem pulled out of a hat, to me. --Kotzker 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That explains it. To get them right they need to be pulled out of a shtraml. --Redaktor 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dushinsky

I wonder if Dushinsky really belongs among the major Hasidic dynasties. As far as I know, they're quite a small group. Are they really much larger than Boyan, Sadigura, Modzitz, Nadvorna, Tolna, and dozens of others, all of which are listed as minor? Can anyone provide an estimated number of Dushinsky chasidim? --Kotzker 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I doubt Boyan's status as small, they are pretty big (I took a look at their tish a few weeks ago, and it is sizable). Sadigura is pretty small. Dushinsky is probably slightly bigger then Boyan. --Chussid 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Dushinky's exist outside Yerusholayim (and maybe Bet Shemesh)? If not, they can hardly be considered major. --Redaktor 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisdovitz ?

Shtetlseeker gives 57 options, none of them obvious. Xx236 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where Brizdovitz is; but there is someone in Boro Park who has a Shul and calls himself the Brizdovitzer Rebbe, so for all practical purposes, there is a Brizdovitzer Rebbe Itzse 17:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

a gite vokh, Itzse. What is his yichus? --Redaktor 18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Redakter; I don't know what his claim to Brizdovits is. I would suspect that he had a grandfather there. I think that if someone calls himself a Rebbe then he should be identified as such here, because the purpose of this article is for someone searching for information, to get it here. The newspapers call him "Ho'Admir M'Brizdovitz" so who am I to second guess. If we should question any Rebbe's legitimacy; then I think we can disqualify a good portion of them. Itzse 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy

Wrong link.Xx236 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Litchek (non-existent) --Redaktor 23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we list all Rebbes by name?

I'm putting this question out. Should we list all Rebbes by name? That means that for every dynasty if there are numerous Rebbes like Spinka; we would list all Spinka Rebbes in alphabetical order.

To me it sounds like a good idea; as it will enable someone to have all the Rebbes names at a glance; browse through them and zero in on what they are looking for. I also think that it's feasible because to my estimation there are approximately only 200 to 300 people who are called Rebbe. Itzse 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not in this article. Rebbes can be listed within a dynasty page. Alternatively, I think a "List of Hasidic Rebbes" (past and present) isn't a bad idea. (Along the lines of the Yiddish article: yi:ליסטע פון חסידישע אדמורי"ם). --Kotzker 19:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Definitely not in this article. That was why Redaktor cleaned this article up. I also think that a list of Rebbes past and present is unnecessary and unwieldy. Just duplicates what already is in each dynasty's article. --ChosidFrumBirth 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of rebbes at Category:Hasidic rebbes. We need to ensure that every rebbe page is categorized. --Redaktor 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok; so it doesn't belong here which is a list of dynasties not Rebbes; but how would someone go about finding the Novominsker Rebbe or any other Rebbe who carries a title; has a Beth Medrash but isn't a Rebbe of a group of Chasidim? In the list under "Category:Hasidic rebbes" he won't be found because he doesn't head an established Chasidus. Maybe we should have a different category called "Living Hasidic Rebbes"? Itzse 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see some merit in Category: Living hasidic rebbes (by title). What I mean is that if we just categorize living rebbes we won't get very far, because person categories usually list personal names. What we seem to need is a category where the names entered are the names of the chasidus e.g. Alexandere, Belzer, Brisdovitser, Lelover, Novominsker, Pittsburgher, Slonimer etc. Does that make sense? If so, how do we make it work? --Redaktor 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too complicated and unnecessary. You can find the Novominsker by a) searching the word Novominsk, b) look in the article "Rebbe" which lists dynasties, or b) looking at the article on Chasidic dynasties, which also lists Novominsk. I don't see why we need duplications or more lists. --ChosidFrumBirth 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this? --Redaktor 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And what happens if someone only knows his name as Rabbi Perlow but doesn't know that he is Novominsker Rebbe; how would he find him? Therefore I think that Redaktor's suggestion is the way to go. Itzse 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You search under Perlow and lots of articles referencing him come up. I don't object to Redaktor's suggestion for living rebbes, just think it's not necessary and also means going through every article on every rebbeh to add the category so they come up in the list, and you also have long lists of many current rebbes for the same group, like Nadvorna. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right ChosidFrumBirth regarding Rabbi Perlow, because he is a world figure therefore he is mentioned in a few articles; not the least in Agudath Israel of America; but I searched for a more obscure figure like "Rabbi Meir Flintenstein" (Kopishnitzer Rebbe) and I came up with zilch; but Redaktors suggestion will solve this. As to multiple articles with overlapping information; it can only help as whoever encounters a missing name or dynasty can add it then and there; and someone will eventually update (synchronize) the other articles accordingly and before long I think we'll have the complete picture.

As there is no objection; can someone please start the article and I'll try to do my part. Thanks everybody for the discussion. Itzse 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote that we combine Category:Hasidic rebbes into this page. They overlap anyway. I never saw Category:Hasidic rebbes until referenced here. Whereas this current page has lots of links to it. Besides Category:Hasidic rebbes is not up-to-date. We can keep all the lists up to date if they are in one place. --Klezmer 08:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not against combining pages; it is very desirable thing. But it has to take into consideration not to eliminate the benefit of each particular page. Category:Hasidic rebbes is neatly organized in alphabetical order of names; but it's missing to which dynasty each Rebbe belongs. It's also a combination of living and non-living Rebbes; which makes it just an index of names. This article on the other hand lists dynasties; but doesn't make it easy to search by name. IMO it's not enough that WP has all the information; the entire picture needs to be seen at a glance where possible. As to the concern that has been voiced here of maintaining multiple pages which in essence has the same information; I think we under estimate ourselves; we're quite a capable bunch and it shouldn't be a big deal to synchronize & maintain multiple articles.

What has to be taken into consideration is that right now Wikipedia is in its infancy, and that all articles pertaining to Chasidus can be browsed through in one sitting. But in the hopefully not so distant future where every Rebbe since the dawn of Chasidus will have a complete article; we have to make sure that someone looking for a particular information; but doesn't exactly know what they're looking for; should be able to find it quickly with only a few clicks. Maybe someone can come up with an idea on how to do it; but if not, there is nothing wrong with experimenting with different ideas until the right one emerges. Itzse 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Klezmer—in what way is Category:Hasidic rebbes not up to date? The main problem is that most of the biographies of rebbes have not yet been written! Everyone contributing to this discussion is invited to start a few biographies. There is much work still to be done. --Redaktor 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Redaktor, we're pioneers here in this subject matter. That's why it's important to lay out the framework well. Regarding the deficiencies in Category:Hasidic rebbes, where are the other Chasidic sects found here in this current page? Where's the link to our beloved Apter Rov/Rebbe? That's why I believe we should simply merge the pages together and keep one list current. We could have it redirect here.--Klezmer 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument, Klezmer. This article is a list dynasties, so there is no point looking for an individual rebbe here. The list or category of rebbes needs to be separate.--Redaktor 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medzhibozh Dynasties - need to be removed

I removed it once, but it was reverted back. See the comment on this page for a reason why it should be the way I originally had it set up. There is no single Medzhibozh dynasty. It is all mixed up by various claims from various families.--Klezmer 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just not factual. I didn't revert it back, but it should be this way. There was a clear inheritance from Rabbi Boruch as someone explained it on the Medzhibozh dynasty page. --ChosidFrumBirth 12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If what I'm saying is not factual, please provide the evidence, ChosidFrumBirth. I'm tired of being the only one here who gives original sources. Prove what you say is true! --Klezmer 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a fight or competition. And it's not a debate over what is a dynasty or isn't. It also isn't a discussion over the so-called scholars or what is proof. The fact is there is a lineage and descendants of Rabbi Boruch who continued whatever it was that you say Boruch was or wasn't. Period. Apt isn't Medzhibozh and Medzhibozh isn't Apt, so give it a rest. --ChosidFrumBirth 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see proof and I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation. If you are promoting what you believe are facts, prove it! I can tell you this... Tzvi M. Rabinowicz, 1996, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism, Jason Aronson, provides no such evidence. Most researchers in this subject consider the Rabinowicz source a fair, even-handed treatment of the subject. Moreover, it was always considered one of the most complete sources on this type of material. What it does say is that the Zvill/Goldman Rabbinic family was descended from the Baal Shem Tov spiritual heritage through R. Yekhiel Mikhel, which gives it the Mezhbizh connection. However, none of the Goldman bios listed in Rabinowicz was born or lived in Medzhibozh. Including - R. Yaakov Yisroel of Zvil (born in Zvil according to Rabinowicz, p. 154! No surprise there.) The Zviller Dynasty is represented in the Chasidic Dynasty charts I provided on this page, so no need for R. Boruch's so-called dynasty. Also, see Zvil Dynasty page. There is no reference to R. Mordechai of Medzhibozh as the father of R. Yekhiel Mikhiel of Zvil. R. Mordechai is of Zvil by both Rabinowicz and the Zvil Dynasty page. No document that I am aware of shows that either one had ever lived in Medzhibozh. If what you say is true, I'd like to see the proof. No such documents I've seen about Medzhibozh mentions this. If so, you've stumbled onto something new. --Klezmer 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please keep this in just one place. What you are saying means that the Medzhibozh dynasty doesn't exist and if so the whole article should be deleted. that was already discussed and it was decided that it should stay. there is good information there, and discussing whether it should be referred to as a dynasty or not or referenced elsewhere doesn't help so can't we just move on. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Adding Hasidic dynasties

[edit] Summary of dispute

There is a dispute about what qualifies as a Hasidic dynasty. This is particularly focused on whether or not R. Boruch of Medzhibozh left a "Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty" or not. --Klezmer 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements from editors

ChasidFrumBirth claims that heresay evidence and evidence from Alfasi's web page is good enough evidence to claim that R. Boruch left a dynasty. Klezmer claims that multiple sources from key books (which he provided) have no such evidence and contradictory evidence. Klezmer further asks that someone provide better references, which so far no one has. ChasidFrumBirth and Klezmer has participated in more than 3 undos of each other's work. --Klezmer 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• 18:19, 5 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) {Provided original list of dynasties - original work}
• 00:28, 9 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) (→Spiritual Legacy from Besht){Added R. Boruch dynasty for the first time}
• 14:46, 10 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) m (→Spiritual Legacy from Besht - R. Boruch was very vain and did not leave a legacy. That opened the door for the Apter Rebbe to establish his dynasty in Medzhibozh.)
• 23:47, 10 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) m (Revert == Please don't revert again. Rabbi Boruch may have been vain, but he left successors which continues today.)
• 03:15, 21 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) m (→Spiritual Legacy from Besht - Until ChosidFrumBirth provides proof that such a dynasty existed, I stand by my original list.)
• 13:19, 21 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) m (←Undid revision 109725520 by Klezmer (talk))
• 06:41, 23 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 109805398 by ChosidFrumBirth (talk))
• 14:30, 23 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110267898 by Klezmer (talk) - restore factual information)
• 20:36, 24 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110330308 by ChosidFrumBirth (The way I had it originally is factually correct. See Rabinowicz, 1996. Don't add a non-existent dyn))
• 00:40, 25 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110655209 by Klezmer (talk) Don't delete a hasidus that exists and is connected however you define dynasty)
• 02:24, 25 February 2007 Klezmer (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110709626 by ChosidFrumBirth (talkProve it FIRST, then it can stay. Wiki is based on facts.))
• 02:25, 25 February 2007 ChosidFrumBirth (Talk | contribs) (Alfasi says it's a fact. It's not up to you to decide what's fact and what isnt.)

[edit] Which pages does this affect?

This dispute mainly affects three Wiki pages:

• List of Hasidic dynasties
• Baal Shem Tov
• Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

Also see the discussions located here for complete detailed statements by editors:

• Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties#Medzhibozh Dynasties - need to be removed
• Talk:Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

For the sake of this dispute, let's keep the discussion within this page as a central source. --Klezmer 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Just to clarify -- Klezmer provides references from works by academics who either were not aware or did not look into this dynasty or don't have a Hasidic background. First, just because it's not written somewhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist; second, there is in fact an existing dynasty that traces back, so if it's not written anywhere does that mean it's in dreamland; third, this is something I happen to have personal knowledge of as a Chernobler descendant and which I personally heard from rebbes who are related; fourth, I don't know anything about an Alfasi website -- I gave the reference of Sefer Meshivas Nefesh Yizhak, and also Alfasi's encylcopedia listing all the dynasties and rebbes etc. So how can Klezmer deny what is a) a fact and b) in two books, just because it isn't in some other books. We all went through this discussion originally when someone (not me I think) started the original Medzibohz dynasty article and the conclusion after all the debate was that it should be kept. How can Klezmer now come and try to eliminate it (not the article obviously, but reference to it on the other pages which talk about Rabbi Boruch etc. --ChosidFrumBirth 04:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sheim USheiris by Grossman lists a 'Mezhbizh' dynasty (#38) comprising the Baal Shem Tov and his descendants including, for example, the Averbuchs of Mezhbizh. He also list a separate Apt-Meszhbizh dynasty (#8) of the Heshl family. --Redaktor 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is a valid source. However, it was written in 1943 and a tremendous amount of new information has emerged since then, including the opening up of the Russian archives. So you really have to take that into consideration when you evaluate the quality of these so-called facts, which I believe I have. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that academics can be discounted because they don't have a Chasidic background, that's a completely outrageous comment. It clearly demonstrates the narrowmindedness on the part of ChosidFrumBirth in helping to resolve this dispute. One can't make such a statement when one doesn't know who these academics are. Some of them may in fact be Chasidic, but it is completely irrelevant to the process of getting neutral facts on the table - which is what Wiki is all about. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sefer Meshivas Nefish Yizhak, you are going to have to clarify this. Give me an ISBN number and a page number. There are many sources titled Sefer Meshivas Nefish. I am not familiar with any that contains the claims mentioned above. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Alfasi's encyclopedia, please provide an ISBN number and a page number. I've done some extensive searching and can't find this reference. I question its value as being so definitive in your eyes. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oral history should be enough, since that's what made up most of Hasidic dynasties until recently. However, in addition to what Redaktor brings, and in addition to Sefer Meshivas Nefesh Yitzhak and Alfasi's encylcopedia, there is also www.Rebbe.org, Sefer Zichron Meier by Rabbi Yehudo Meier Shapiro of Lublin, Sefer Toldos Anshei Shem (Part I - Toldos Admorim), edited by Rabbi Osher Rnad and Aron Moshe Greenblat, all of which name Rebbe Mordechai as the last "Admor MiMezhibuz", direct descendant of the Baal Shem Tov and R. Boruch, and father of Rebbe Yaakov Yisroel Korff Shlita.--ChosidFrumBirth 23:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Need to prove these references to me before I can accept your word for it. These are obscure references. Quote me an ISBN and a page number. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

PS -- Redaktor also makes a very good point that the "Medzhibozh Hasidic Dynasty" page seems overwhlemed with a huge section on Rabbi Bick who as you (Klezmer) point out was not Hasidic and was rov not rebbe and not the Hasidic Dynasty of Medzhibozh. --ChosidFrumBirth 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The question really is "What constitutes a chasidic dynasty?

I'll start off what I think the definition should be... I believe it represents (1) a lineage of thought and (2) followers of that brand of chasidism throughout time. I don't believe it necessarily means that the leader had children! The key is whether the children carried on the traditions of their direct ancestors. Thus, even though R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev had children and there are decendants of him alive today (some of which are Rabbis!), he didn't leave behind a legacy of followers in his specific brand of chasidism. Thus, I think most people here will agree that he left no dynasty even though he was an important figure in early chasidism.

Then you also have someone like R. Nachman of Bratslav, who also had children, but they didn't take on the mantle of leadership of his particular brand of chasidism. Yet the Braslavers survive today because R. Nachman's had followers who adhered to his legacy of thought. I think most would agree that this is a dynasty.

Now, back to the argument at hand regarding a supposed dynasty for R. Boruch. I'll concede that he had children. But the question is whether they carried on the traditions of the lineage R. Boruch's unique brand of chasidism. More importantly, did they carry with them followers of this brand throughout time? To me that's what makes a dynasty. So to me, when R. Boruch died, no one carried the brand onward with a continuity of followers. At least no one can conclusively provide evidence. And there is plenty of good documentation out there, so don't hide behind heresay or weak evidence. The thought legacy ended with R. Boruch. Therefore, the "Dynasty of R. Boruch of Mezhbizh" fails the definition of dynasty.

Next, you get into this whole mess of what constitutes the name "Medzhibozh" tagged to a dynasty name. I have old documents that clearly refers to the Medzhibozh brand of chasidism linked to the Apter Rebbe. Documents tag it the Zinkover or Mezhbizher chasids depending upon the town the master of the legacy resided at the time. The Apter dynasty had followers throughout time and numerous documents show they were clearly the dominant chasidic sect in Medzhibozh from 1813 until the 1920s. I think everyone will agree the Apters were a dynasty. Were they the "Medzhibozh Dynasty" carrying on the continuity of traditions from the Baal Shem Tov? Then you also have the Bicks, who were also called a Mezhibozher Dynasty, even though they weren't chasidic (though later generations of Bick rabbis married into chasidic families, so the lines are blurred). Clearly in the older documentation, the town tag is strictly about where the leading rabbi lived at the time. If you use this criteria, clearly the Apter dynasty and the Bick dynasty have a more legitimate claim to the town name of Medzhibozh then anyone descended from R. Boruch - where apparently there is no corraborating evidence that they continued to live in the town.

I don't really care whether there is a web or wiki page on it or not. I think we have to get down to basics and agreed upon - What's the appropriate definition of dynasty? Then we can move on and correct the pages with a crystal-clear understanding. --Klezmer 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So now you want to quibble over a technical definition of dynasty (which according to your suggestion would eliminate 75% of those now listed), and your real agenda seems that you want Medzhibozh exclusively only for the Bicks who according to you weren't even Hasidic. Doesn't make sense. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Such nastiness from ChosidFrumBirth here and on other pages such as Talk:Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty) is completely uncalled for. Is this what his rebbe teaches him? Does his rebbe teach him to be rude and unreasonable to people who don't agree with him? That's apparently his agenda. I have no agenda other than the wiki truth. I have nothing whatever to do with the Bicks, I simply have provided documentary evidence about them, that's all. It might be hard to accept, but that's what it is. I have documentary evidence about lots of other people as well that I willing shared in wiki and no one seemed to want to beat up on me for it as they have here. All I'm trying to do is to provide the truth from corroborating evidence in public sources that aren't obscure or self-serving. I believe wholeheartedly that my sources provide a neutral definition, which is what wiki is all about.

And I'm asking a simple question, to which no one seems able or willing to provide an answer: "What is the definition of a dynasty?". I provided a proposed answer. But they apparently are afraid to answer this question because they don't like the real answer - the truth. Once this problem is resolved, it should be obvious what needs to be done from this point on. --Klezmer 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- didn't think I was being nasti -- but you don't answer when I leave comments on your talk page, and you ignore everyone else's opinion and just continue to revert to your own version over and over without any compromise --that doesn't sound like reasonable discussion to me -- and your calling us "Hasidic fanatics" whose making the personal attacks here?

I wasn't being rude or unreasonable -- I explained that a lot of Hasidic facts are unpublished and part of oral tradition, and on top of that I actually found several published books that contained those facts -- and yet you continued to ignore all that and revert based upon one or two sources that you had that don't even really contradict those facts but just don't include them. Then you call all of us "Hasidic fanatics" for disagreeing with you, while you continue to unilaterally revert to your own point of view.

We're all just interested in getting the facts out there -- don't take it personally.

As for whats a dynasty? Dynasty isn't a scientific term -- it's a general word for various hasidic traditions. For example, when there is a rebbe that can be a dynasty even if there is an interruption, even if there isn't another rebbe for a generation or two or three or even a hundred years later if a desendent of the rebbe continues or becomes rebbe. In hasidic terms a dynasty is really a family, just like a rebistriveh is a rebbe's family. Look at Bratslav, or Chabad, or Boyan, or Belz. Lots of hasidic dynastsies skipped a generation or more in one form or an other -- doesn't mean their not dynasties, doesn't mean its not a dynasty even if it ended but especially if what the first rebbe started exists today in any form at all. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so do you agree or disagree with my definition? (it represents (1) a lineage of thought and (2) followers of that brand of chasidism throughout time) --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's examine the sources, folks. ChosidFrumBirth is quoting [a] Alfasi's Encyclopedia, [b] Sefer Meshivas Nefesh Yitzhak, [c] unsourced Chasid oral histories. Source [a] is really not provided as a reference in any Wiki article I can find nor have I been able to locate it on my own. Source [b] is confusing because there are lots of sources with similar names and I'm unable to find any passage in the ones I have that make reference to these dynasties. Source [c] is an unacceptable primary source from a scholarly / academic point of view.--Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Redaktor quotes [d] Grossman, Sheim USheiris (1943), which is a valid source, but old. I make the claim that newer information supercedes it. Remember, this work was published before the end of WWII before organizations existed to categorize this information (such as Yad Vashem, Diaspora Museum, etc.). Also, a substantial body of new raw material exists after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s.--Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Klezmer quotes [e] Chapin & Weinstock, The Road from Letichev ISBN 0-595-00666-3 (2000), [f] Rabinowicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism ISBN 1-56821-123-6 (1996), [g] Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, ISBN 0-520-20191-4 (1996), [h] Finkel, The Great Chasidic Masters, ISBN 1-56821-939-3 (1992). All of the above are publicly-available sources. None has a particular self-serving agenda and they are independent points of view. Yet all 4 references are completely consistent with regard to evidence (or lack thereof) of Medzhibozh rabbinic dynasties. These references do not support ChosidFrumBirth nor Redaktor's point of view. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition Klezmer provided 3 other references that are not as easy to obtain that seems to demonstrate that the Baal Shem Tov's house was unoccupied after he died, casting doubt on the unreferenced story that descendents of Rabbi Boruch lived there (seemingly legitimizing their dynastic claim). These references were [i] Testimony of Dora Zichroni, who lived in Medzhibozh 1910-21, [j] Memoirs of Abraham Rechtman, an ethnographer who studied Medzhibozh in 1914 (Rechtman, 1958, Yidishe etnografye un folklor, YIVO, Buenos Aries), and [k] Yad Vashem Holocaust testimony by Holocaust-survivor Moishe Einhorn.--Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Klezmer further scoured [l] every Polish and Russian census, tax rolls and maps he has of Medzhibozh unable to find a single name from a descendent of Rabbi Boruch. [m] Grave inventory of the Medzhibozh Jewish Cemetery does not list any of these people, either. [n] No Jewish Pichas book entries for these people exist, either.--Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Klezmer has provided a preponderance of collaborative evidence that no one else seems able or willing to provide. The preponderance of evidence points to the end of the Baal Shem Tov - Rabbi Boruch dynasty (however you want to define it) after the death of Rabbi Boruch. Rabbi Boruch may have left descendents, but they must have been obscure individuals indeed. Certainly no continuity of thought or followers carried on beyond Rabbi Boruch. Nor apparently did it carry on in the town of Medzhibozh. Therefore, I believe the dynasty (by any definition) ends there.--Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But Medzhibozh was home to several other dynasties of rabbis, notably the Apter Rebbe line and the Bick family. The Apter Rebbe dynasty was called the Medzhibozh (Zinkover) dynasty, too. And both these dynasties seem to have a more legitimate claim to using the name of the Medzhibozh in their dynastic names. So it gets very confusing how we wish to deal with this in Wiki. --Klezmer 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll try this one more time -- Klezmer, I did not insult you or historians, and about being Hasidic it's only because there are things that are just generally known in rebbe and hasidic circles as much as the sun rises in the east that are fact without any documents and you also can't ignore oral history and published works even if they don't have ISBN numbers. Nobody objects to your contribution of material on the Apter and the Bicks (although they should go in the right places as Redaktor points out), but don't try to wipe out an entire dynasty just because you or others weren't aware of it, and there are plenty of other dynasties listed in wiki with the same issues -- wipe them out too? Alfasi and other historians and writers obviously knew about it, and I can assure you that all the rebbes from then to now knew about it. Yad Vashem and others aren't experts in Hasidus and don't have the last say just because they recently discovered it and are trying to document it. If an older book says there was a dynasty how can "newer information" supersede it. If it existed when the first book says then it didn't just disappear retroactively. You quote books and testimony of people from 1910 or 1914 after Rabbi Mordechai's son left for Zvil and he died. This isn't a trial where you have to have preponderance of evidence or prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously things after the Baal Shem and Boruch were obscure and were overshadowed by the Baal Shem and Boruch -- it doesn't mean that nobody carried on or didn't exist. The records from back then aren't complete, how do you know there weren't any descendants of Boruch if nobody has a complete list of names, and there are lots of confusions and duplications in names, people went into hiding and moved around and then returned, people were buried in different places for different reasons, and there is plenty of unknown and guessing. But there is certainly enough independent evidence and fact and personal testimony and knowledge and books around, non of it self-serving, to establish without doubt that there is a dynasty today that traces back to Boruch. Given that, I don't think you can justify deleting. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Preponderance of evidence is important here, especially if it's independent and it corraborates other evidence. That's what the Wiki policy of neutrality is all about. So if I get the gist of what you are saying, the information that circulates as oral histories within the Chasidic community carries more weight than any other type of evidence? Absurd.

Let me share with you some evidence I'm looking at right now. 1739 Polish tax census Medzhibozh, house #95, occupied by Moses (don't know who this is). Same for 1740 census. 1742, house #95, occupied by the Baal Shem Tov (yes, it actually says that in Polish, I'm not making this up. BTW, he didn't have to pay any taxes!). Same for 1758 and 1760 census - Baal Shem Tov is the occupant. In 1763 census, it is no longer occupied by the Baal Shem Tov, but by someone by the name of Hershel (Baal Shem Tov's son or adopted son maybe?). From that point on in every census, the house is occupied by the Kahal, while every other house surrounding it has a named occupant. That means it was a community resource. It also means no one lived there! Once the Russians took control, the census was less frequent, but the results are the same. There was an 1795 census. There was an 1826 and 1835 census. There was a "synagogue list" in 1853, which listed all the places of worship and every practicing rabbi in town. There was an 1861 census, an 1872 and 1898 census, 1905 voter registration list (which listed all the rabbis). House #95 is listed in several of these lists. The results are the same, no one was occupying the house! Moreover, none of these lists contain the names the descendents of Rabbi Boruch in any house in the town. There is a possibility that when they say they lived in the Baal Shem Tov's house, they really meant Rabbi Boruch's house. But I can't figure out which one that would have been because we are missing lists from Rabbi Boruch's period.

Next, I'm looking at two Pinchas (minutes) books, recorded in the Russian archives. These are written in Yiddish and in Russian. One is the Pinchas of the Mishna Society of the Apter Rebbe. It lists members from the mid 1800s until about 1890. Interesting that there is a Pinchas for the Apter Rebbe Chasidim, but no other Pinchas for any other so-called dynasty. The other is the Pinchas of the Khevrah Kadisha which records all the deaths in the community from about 1830 to about 1890. No names listed from R. Boruch's descendents in either one. BTW, this is corroborated by the next piece of evidence, they correspond very nicely...

Now I'm looking at the inventory of the Jewish Cemetery in Medzhibozh. This was produced by the Jewish University of St. Petersburg in their ethnographic expeditions in the mid 1990s. Burials are recorded in this cemetery from 1555 through to the early 1900s. No one is buried in this cemetery by any of the names that you list as R. Boruch's descendents. The Baal Shem Tov is buried here. So is Rabbi Boruch, but that's it. The point is that this is pretty critical evidence that you can't dismiss so easily. And it was only discovered in the past 15 years. Much as you are trying to, you can't run from these facts.

Maybe the Chasidic circles you seem to run in want to believe so badly that these people had a direct connection that they spun stories about them living in the Baal Shem Tov's house, for instance. This is not unheard of in Chasidic circles. Don't they try to make claims that certain rebbes are direct descendents of King David when no real documentary evidence of this exists in our time? Point is, unless it is independent and collaborated by other evidence, you can't always believe what you hear. --Klezmer 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is straying far from the main points. There are many hasidic dynasty articles which have not yet been written. It is not clear to me why the details of the descendants of Rabbi Boruch of Mezhbizh need to be analyzed in fine detail on this talk page. One of the many missing dynasties is the Apt dynasty (or Apt-Mezhbizh dynasty if you like). If nobody else writes that article I shall do it myself one day. I don't see the need for an acrimonious debate with multiple ding-dong reverts.--Redaktor 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's analyzed here because that is where the discussion is. ChosidFrumBirth keeps undoing my edit. There's a reason I removed the statement "Reb Mordechai, was the last Mezibuz Rebbe to inherit and hold court in the Baal Shem Tov's home and Beis Medrash in Medzhiboz." It is completely unsupported by huge number of facts. That's why the minutia of the argument here. No one is straying from the main points. It gets to the brass tacks of the whole business where ChosidFrumBirth claims he knows better because he hears this bubbameisis circulating in his circles, while I'm simply stating the preponderance of the evidence. It gets to the heart of what is or is not a dynasty, which apparently no one wants to address. --Klezmer 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that an article has appeared at Apta (Hasidic dynasty). Actually should be Apt; the final 'a' is a quirk of Yiddish spelling, also found in Belz etc.--Redaktor 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no article on Rabbi Boruch of Medzhybizh? If he left a dynasty or he didn't; still an article on him is needed. Itzse 22:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just started the article on Rabbi Boruch of Medzhybizh based on information found in the other Medzhybizh articles. Itzse 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country identification

A number of towns in this article are identified by country. In some cases two countries are shown—then and now. I don't see much merit in this information. Does it really matter whether a town was in Poland, Lithuania, Turkey, Russia or Ukraine? All this information is available in full detail on the town page, which should be linked from here. Country names are too variable, with changes in jurisdiction which have no bearing on this topic. I propose that we delete all country names from this article?--Redaktor 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)