Talk:Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 Wrong Image 2 Proposing rewording 3 Pantheism 4 The Baal Shem Tov's Audience 5 vice-king 6 vandalism, or bias? 7 Lineage Charts 8 Medzhybizh in Lithuania? 9 Yisro'el der toita ? 10 Edit wars 11 Spiritual legacy 12 Baal Shem Tov and the Frankists

[edit] Wrong Image

It has become widely known recently that it is a common misconception of the photo being of the Baal Shem Tov. Rather, it is said to be of a Dutch Kabbalist who was called Israel Baal Shem (not to be confused with Israel Baal Shem Tov). If anyone has any sources on that, please post.

Take this to the image's talk page. 220.233.48.200 17:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, its Hayyim Shmuel Yaakov Falk, who was called the Baal Shem of London.

Source: Jewish Encyclopedia, under Falk.

Jewish Enlightenment in An English Key by David B. Ruderman

see http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6953.html

and

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/03/baal-shem-tov.html

All this is correct. I can vouch for these facts. No known contemporary image exists of the Baal Shem Tov, other then fanciful modern images. In fact there are very few images that exist of any of the rabbis of this era, unless something weird happened to them. For instance, Shneur Zalman of Liadi was imprisoned by the Tsar as a political prisoner and a court portrait was taken of him. No such thing happened to the Baal Shem Tov. Unfortunately, this page won't get an "A" rating because of circumstances of history.--Klezmer 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing rewording

Many of his disciples believe that he comes from the Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, and by extension with the institution of the Jewish Messiah.

To

It is claimed he comes from a Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, it is unknown if this is true as he did not have the certificate that King David gave for all of descendants, but it was known that over the generations many families lost their's in fires, wars and the like.

If anyone can come up with a slight better wording, please share. If not with the possiblity of slight editing this version will go up in 48 hours. 220.233.48.200 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason why changed the "many of his disciples beleive" part saying his disciples is not valid. As it was his family which claims it. 220.233.48.200 17:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pantheism

The Besht advocated panentheism, not pantheism. I am removing the catagorization. PhatJew 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Baal Shem Tov's Audience

I’ve changed the line “and the people, mostly from the lower classes, came to listen to him” to “and people, mostly from the spiritual elite, came to listen to him.” Although the jury is still out on exactly who made up the Baal Shem Tov’s audience it appears that his teachings were addressed to the spiritual elite and did not necessarily include the masses. It is true that in general his teachings can be read as inclusive but there are a number of indications that this was not his intention. See especially his epistle where the Baal Shem Tov is comforted that it will be possible for others to reach his level of spirituality. The term he uses is “Biney Gili” which usually means, especially as it is used here, my “colleagues”, “contemporaries” or “peers” which would indicate that his target audience was made up of people of spiritual stature. But as I mentioned the issue is still unclear in the scholarship literature. In my opinion the strongest evidence in support of this thesis is the nature of the content of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings. It would be hard to imagine the illiterate masses understanding the import of most of them.

[edit] vice-king

In the sentence king gave him the daughter of the vice-king, what is a vice-king? If no-one has a satisfactory explanation, this should be deleted. Redaktor 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the more appropriate term would be "Viceroy" - "A man who is the governor of a country, province, or colony, ruling as the representative of a sovereign".76.167.119.175 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism, or bias?

Unless I'm missing some context, the last line of the section on his miracles seems oddly out of place:

"Of course this story must be dismissed as falsehood because the idea of a man god is totally rejected by Judaism. Indeed, all who are of rationality deny this utter lie."

I could understand a commentary on the mismatch between a man-god and these miracles, but "utter lie" seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zipwow (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lineage Charts

Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm sure that dozens of people will want to change things on these charts, from spellings, to links. But hey, I did my best and I thought it was worthwhile to add this. --Klezmer 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear why Klezmer wishes to remove the link to the Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty) page. It appears to me that the target page does refer to the descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, which makes it a legitimate link from this page.. Rather than continue the edit war, can we please leave the link for the time being and hold the debate in the proper place, here on the talk page? That will allow all arguments to be considered, and other editors to contribute if they wish.--Redaktor 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please bring your discussion to Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties#Request for Comment: Adding Hasidic dynasties --Klezmer 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medzhybizh in Lithuania?

I have tagged the phrase "Medzhybizh, which had once been part of Lithuania", as I can find no evidence that Medzhybizh was indeed ever included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. if anyone has a reference, please add it in.--Redaktor 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a correct statement. You need to read up a little bit more on the history of this region. It was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The two nations were essentially a democratic monarchy that shared royalty and nobles. See Poland. This happened in the Union of Lublin in 1569.

Medzhibozh was territorially part of Podolia Province. It was Podolia's oldest and most important town until Tsarist times. See Medzhibozh. Podolia is physically located in what is today Ukraine (actually now split between Khmelnitsky and Vinnitsa Oblasti). Podolia was "owned" first by the Kievan Rus until about 1360 when it passed into the hands of the Lithuanians after the Rus were severely weakened by Tatar raids. Then in 1569 Poland and Lithuania merged. Polish noble families ended up owning Podolia after they wrested control back from a brief period of Turkish occupation in the late 1600s. It remained in Polish hands until the Second Partition of Poland in 1792 when it became part of Tsarist Russia.

During the Baal Shem Tov's era, it was essentially part of Poland. The Baal Shem Tov was born in Turkish-occupied Podolia. I think the backdrop of history is important to the development of chasidism. Essentially, the Baal Shem Tov's generation was the first generation to live in relative peace after the 17th century upheavals. There was an economic boom going on and Medzhibozh was right in the heart of it as one of Podolia's largest towns and a jewel in the estate of the Polish lords. --Klezmer 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the history lesson. I never queried Medzhybizh being part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I merely wanted a reference to confirm that it actually was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I have now found a reference and added it to the article.--Redaktor 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yisro'el der toita ?

Hi Klezmer. For your knowledge Yisroel the son of Feiga was indeed called "Der toita". A story is told why he was called "der toita". The story goes something like this that the Baal Shem Tov instructed that no one should give a name after him. Feiga did, and this Yisroel died at age seven. His mother Feiga placed his corpse in the Ohel of the Baal Shem Tov, saying in anguish take him he is yours, and in the morning he was found alive. Since then he was always pale "blass" hence "der toita". Even if the story isn't true it still wouldn't change the fact that he was called "Yisroo'el der toita". Itzse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've seen calls him "Yisroel Meis". Even his gravestone says this. He lived to be over a hundred years old and there's a story behind him that I won't get into here. --Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

By seen, I take it that you saw it in books; and by that I take it that you saw it in books in Hebrew. But FYI more has been written in the Yiddish language "Mama Loshen" about Chasidus then in the Hebrew language; don't forget your grandmother didn't speak Hebrew.

"She'al Ovicho Vayegeidcho" (Ask your father and he'll tell you) "Zekainecho veyoimri loch" (Ask your elders and they will tell you) that your great great ... grandmother called him "Yisroel der toita". Itzse 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at Rechtman, 1958, Yidishe etnografye un folklor, YIVO, Buenos Aries. This source is written in Yiddish - "Yisroel Meis". (however you want to spell it in English). Rechtman was an on-the-ground interviewer circa 1914. I'm betting that the words were interchangable in the Yiddish dialect spoken around Medzhibozh and it was completely acceptable and understandable. Maybe in some other regions, they spoke a more formal Yiddish - and that's where your stories are from. Rechtman records a similar story to the above, with slight variations that we won't go into here. The gravestone in the Medzhibozh Cemetery translates to (from Yiddish) "Here Lies Rabbi Israel Meis who died (toit) while still alive." --Klezmer 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Zevi" is an incorrect spelling of Tze-vi because at first glance I thought that his name was Zev (Volf); therefore I think Zvi or Tzvi is more appropriate. Itzse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the dates; it is a big question if it belongs here in the first place; since Reb Boruch of Mezhbizh takes a prominent place in an article on Medzhibozh and can be looked up there. But it is quite understandable that to understand things in context the dates can be given here too. But why the redundancy? a few lines above it already gives you the dates. As a general rule "Links" are given only once in an article or paragraph and usually on the first encounter; so why should dates be any different? Please explain Itzse 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like having the dates in the family tree. They are all in one place that way.--Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You got to take into consideration that for others it's annoying; especially for us perfectionists.

Have a Gut Shabbos; and I hope you can resolve your dispute with ChosidFromBirth between yourselves; or call in someone to mediate. Itzse 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Shabbat Shalom. --Klezmer 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

The edit wars which have taken place on this page recently are unseemly and unnecessary (WP:CON). Please use this talk page to resolve disputes, rather than engaging in multiple to-and-fro reverts.--Redaktor 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Redaktor is right -- both this page and the List of Hasidic dynasties -- please, Klezmer, dont ignore other people's opinions and facts. We went through this before and I finally just gave up. I didn't even bother to get involved in the dispute you had with Itzse even though I think that calling R' Hershel a comedian is insulting and not accurate, and relying on some exploration from 1914 to charge Boruch of Medzhibozh with crazy claims isn't appropriate or correct.

On the current issue, how can you possibly put Boruch in the Pinchos of Koritz line and not in the line of his own grandfather -- yes, these are not necessarily blood relationships in this area and the other page, but Boruch was his grandfather's prodigy, Pinchas of Koritz said the Baal Shem Tov designated Boruch as his successor and asked Pinchas to tutor him, and in terms of spiritual legacy (which is the title here) Boruch clearly declared he was following his grandfather and wasn't a hassid or real student or follower of anyone else, and it says in Degel Machne Ephraim that it was Boruch who would be asked what the Baal Shem Tov's hanhogos and minhogim were. Then there are all the stories about Boruch as a child being an ilui and living under the Baal Shem's direction. I just don't see how you can put him under Pinchos of Koritz or anyone else except the Baal Shem Tov.

You also seem committed to eliminating the Medzhiboz dynasty and links and references in other articles as much as you can. That's your own point of view, going back to your think about the Bicks, but it's not accurate or factual. Boruch should be under the Baal Shem Tov and the reference to the Medzhibozh dynasty should be put back. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm committed only to the facts and to wiki's policy of neutrality. Bottom line is that the chart in question is a teacher-student relationship chart. The chart is not about blood relationships. R. Boruch was the student of R. Pinchas until he became the rebbe of Tulchin. Documents indicate that the apprenticeship lasted some 15 years. R. Boruch was only 7 when his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov died. It would be hard to make a case that the main teacher-student relationship was between the Besht and him. Especially, when you consider that his formative years of age 7 through about age 22 was spent with R. Pinchas, a key disciple of his grandfather. And if you make the claim that most Chasidim have a direct teacher-student relationship with the Besht, that's fine except that's not what this chart is all about. The reason I can make that statement is that I am the one who devised this chart originally. It is my definition of teacher-student that seems to be in question here. I'm the one who added here in wiki.

It would be interesting to know why ChosidFrumBirth is so quick on the trigger finger. And why he is so nasty and rude to me. I've added a lot of new (heavily referenced) material here in wiki, but for the life of me I can't find very much new material that he has ever added. Instead, he seems to want to criticize other's work but can't seem to provide independent references for his own extreme positions.

I submit to ChosidFrumBirth: why doesn't he provide indisputable proof that R. Boruch's major teacher-student relationship was only with his grandfather. Indisputable means published sources, not just his opinion. Otherwise, leave it alone if he doesn't have proof. I personally believe it should remain how I originally entered it into my chart that I developed from numerous independent sources. --Klezmer 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not being nasty or rude to you. Its just frustrating for you to insist on having your version and only your version of the "truth" without regard to what other people know. For a long time now you just revert anyone else's edits that you don't agree with and ignore reason and other people's opinions unless it meets with your criteria of what is "proof"-- that's rude and nasty.

Indisputable proof? If everything required that the books and encyclopedias would be almost empty. And you call what you've done indisputable proof? Not everything can be scientifically proven by your crieteria, and not everything is documented and published, and not everything that you bring down as documented and published is necessarily accurate, but you insist on reverting over and over and ignoring everyone else. Credibility here doesn't depend upon how much new material I've added, I'm interested in reading and I "edit" mainly to correct what I know to be wrong, and not everything you added is factual just because it's written somewhere. There is more to history than just what researchers claim to know or find, particularly in hassidic circles where so much has been oral for generations.

I understand why you want to keep exclusive rights to edits on what you call "your" chart, and that's your opinion and bias, and you shouldn't just ignore everyone else. Oral tradition has credibility too -- ask any historian or reasearcher.

As for this teacher-student thing you're hung up on, almost every rebbe alive today was tutored or had a teacher other than his own father or grandfather, but that doesn't change what "spiritual legacy" they should belong to. Yes, Boruch was only 7, but for example the Belzer Rebbe of today was also just 9 when his uncle the previous Belzer Rebbe died and he was picked to succeed his uncle. His teacher for the next ten years until he became rebbe was Chaim Beryl, a student of his uncle and grandfather, so does that mean the Belzer should be put under Chaim Beryl and not under Belz and his own uncle and grandfather? Ridiculous. It's the same thing here, Boruch was an ilui, received a lot of the Baal Shem's teachings, and then afterwards Pinchos of Koretz was the Baal Shem Tov's appointed caretaker for Boruch who just said over to Boruch what the Baal Shem had taught. Boruch followed the "spiritual legacy" of his grandfather not of Pinchos of Koritz, and if you can't see that, then I give up, do what you want and let wikipedia suffer for it. If you want to be one-sided and close-minded then I really don't care. --ChosidFrumBirth 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And then of course many of the other listings have links to the dynasties, but for some reason you also continue to revert and eliminate the Medzhibozh dynasty under Boruch -- another bias of yours. --ChosidFrumBirth 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual legacy

I don't really understand the section 'Spiritual legacy'. Yes, by all means list the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov. But anything else beongs in another article.--Redaktor 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Baal Shem Tov spawned a new movement... a fundamental framework for a new type of Judaism. The 'Spiritual Legacy' shows how this happened. It's a great tool in the linkage-dependent world of wiki. It makes this article more valuable. It's needed in an article about the Baal Shem Tov to directly connect him with the other famous Chasidim (which we've got wiki articles about). Moreover, it shows the direct connection historically to the modern day. A chart like this is necessary for these multiple purposes.--Klezmer 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baal Shem Tov and the Frankists

I dispute the following item in the article: "In fact, Besht took sides with the Talmudists in the disputes with Frankists (Jacob Frank's followers) and was even one of the three delegates of the Talmudists to a disputation between the two parties held at Lemberg in 1759."

This statement is probably based on a forgery, Maaseh Norah bePodolia that places the Besht at the 1759 Lviv (Lemberg) disputation with the Frankists. M. Balaban, On the History of the Frankist Movement, v. 2, 1935, p. 295-311 proved that the Besht was not present. We have the minutes and attendees from these disputations, and the Besht was not listed. This event occured just a few months before his death.

I'm going to delete the end of this sentence starting "...and was even..." unless anyone has other evidence to the contrary. I'm not even sure the first part of the sentence can be proven, but I'll leave it.--Klezmer 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a less obscure reference that says the same thing: G. Scholem, Kabbalah, ISBN 0-452-01007-1, 1978, p. 298. "The tradition which sprang up in popular accounts circulating years later that Israel b. Eliezar Ba'al Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, was also a participant, has no historical foundation." (italics are mine). Scholem further quotes various sources, including the Catholic Church and the Frankists themselves who documented the meeting.--Klezmer 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)