Talk:Hasidic Judaism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Hasidic Judaism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Names/Usages/Transliterations

Dovber of Mezeritch but Mezhirech. Which is the right form? Andres 19:42, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Which transliteration is correct? Dovber is also Dov Ber, is also Dov Baer, and is also Dob Baer! And Mezeritch is also known as Mezhirech, which is also known as Meseritz! It depends on the transliteration scheme one uses. I don't know which form is considered more correct, but we can use the Google test to see which forms are more common. RK 01:51, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Which spelling is more common ? I used the name, +(Chasidism OR Hasidism)

Dovber 313; Dov ber 344; Dob Baer 2; Dobh Baer 9

Mezeritch 321; Mezritch 269; Mezhirech 204; Meseritz 45

Panentheism and pantheism

See Hasidic Judaism#Fundamental conceptions, Pantheism#Kabbalah, and Talk:Kabbalah/Archive 1#Panentheism and pantheism. --Eequor 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this description from "Kabbalistic understanding of God" does justice to this most delicate subject.

"Others, such as Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Lubavitch (Chabad) Hasidism), hold that God is all that really exists; all else is completely undifferentiated from God's perspective. If improperly explained, such views can interpreted as panentheism or pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet He includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that His creation of the world effected no change in Him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts."

Naming convention: Hasidic dynasties vs Polish/Ukrainian towns

I believe we need to work out some naming convention regarding Hasidic dynasties named after Polish or Ukrainian towns before yet another edit war, this time on the Polish-Jewish front, breaks out. The problem is that the Hasidim use Yiddish names of the towns, and so do many researchers dealing with the history of Hasidism. Therefore these Yiddish names are likely to appear in most Wikipedia articles on this subject. This may not please some Poles, who tend to be quite sensitive about Polish names of places in Poland.

I suggest a following convention:

separate articles for the town (under its Polish/Ukrainian name) and for the Hasidic dynasty (under its Yiddish name); of course they'd have to link (but not redirect) to each other;
in Hasidic-related articles use the Polish/Ukrainian name for the town, and the Yiddish name for the dynasty;
the names of tzadikkim should be written as: {name} of {Polish/Ukrainian name of the town}, eg. Elimelech of Lezajsk, Dovber of Mezhiritch, etc.

Of course, some of these towns are interesting only because of their importance to the Hasidim. In that case the Polsh/Ukrainian name may redirect to the Yiddish one, but then the Polish/Ukrainian name should be mentioned in the article, plus a few words about the town itself.

There are, as of now, very few Hasidic-related articles on Wikipedia (or at least much fewer then there should be) so we can still manage to work out a compromise before getting into more mess with more articles.

And finally, here's a short list of some towns which were centers of Hasidic life, with their Yiddish and Polish/Ukrainian names:

Yiddish           Polish/Ukrainian
Belz              Belz, Ukraine
Bobov             Bobowa
Breslov           Bratslav, Ukraine 
Ger               Góra Kalwaria
Kuzmir            Kazimierz
Lizhensk          Leżajsk
Mezeritch         Mezhirichi, Ukraine (not to confuse with Miedzyrzecz, Poland)
Skver             Skvira, Ukraine
Sanz              Nowy Sącz

Please add more to the list.
--Kpalion 10:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well done Kpalion. I must make one point: the names of the personalities MUST remain like they are (Elimelech of Lizhensk/Lezhinsk). Anyone looking for a page on him would go for the Yiddish name, much like the yeshiva of Telz is called the Telz yeshiva and not the Telsiai yeshiva (Lithuania). Otherwise I very much applaud this approach. I trust the Gerrer chassidim deserve their own page, disambiguated from Gora Kalwaria!! JFW | T@lk 11:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, but Halibutt has been advocating the opposite, so let's wait for his answer on this page and then see if we can achieve a compromise. --Kpalion 12:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS Kpalion, I agree with you 100%. Articles relating to Hasidism and Judaism, should use the names Hasidism and Judaism employs as they are part of the LEXICON of Hasidism and Judaism and are NOT meant to be used in the the context of originating countries' spelling conventions. IZAK 19:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal. Do you say that there should be separate articles on Leżajsk (the city), Lizhensk/Lezhinsk/Lizhinsk (the dynasty) and Elimelech of Leżajsk? If so, then it might add much confusion, but it seems reasonable.

As to the names of the important Hassidic figures - I'm not sure. Their names are of course indisputable. However, the problem is with what goes after them. From one point of view it can be treated like normal, 20th century surnames and should not be translated at all (Elimelech Lipman, the name he was referred to by his contemporaries Tzadik Elimelech or a simple transcryption of the name he used, without any English additions). On the other hand, what goes after their names could be treated like a toponymical surname. In this case a present-day name should be used since that is the name of the town used by wikipedia and are considered as English language names as well. Also, other names of a kind are translated as well - Kazimierz Jagiellończyk is called Casimir IV of Poland, even if he himself never heard this name. I support the version you propose since it is one of the very few that is both understandable and consistent. I think that it would be good to add a name in hebrew script and the transcryption of the yiddish name as well, but the article itself should be under Elimelech of Lezajsk. Two thumbs up!

And JFW has nothing to fear since we can add as many redirects as we please. This way we'd have one article (Elimelech of Lezajsk) and plenty of redirects from different versions of his name, including the three versions of the town's name in yiddish (Lizhensk, Lezhinsk, Lizhinsk). Halibutt 23:14, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've just created Góra Kalwaria and moved Ger (town) to Ger (Hasidic dynasty). Now you can look at these two articles to see what I mean. As for Tzadik Elimelech and the like one may argue if "of Lezhinsk" is a purely toponymical name or if it's the name of a dynasty. What about members of his dynasty who live now in the US or Israel? Are they "of Lezhinsk" or "of Leżajsk"? Personally, I don't really care as long as there are redirects, but it's just something to think about. --Kpalion 00:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mitzvah tanks?

Could somebody please provide more description as to what exactly "Mitzvah tanks" are? Thanks

A "Mitzvah Tank" is an invention of the Chabad Lubavitch group of Hassidim, which has a strong outreach policy. A small group of young men (usually in their late teens or early twenties) move a small van to a busy public place and approach Jews to put on tefillin (phylacteries), disseminate literature etc. JFW | T@lk 23:10, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

If you think the current article is NPOV, please list why here. Jayjg 23:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that it does not follow User:Truthaboutchabads POV does not make it an NPOV dispute. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposition

I have added a paragraph to the opposition section which discusses that G-d permeates all physical objects in nature. It is unfair to make an accusation without hearing an explanation, since this page is describing hasidic judaism, therefore the Hasidic viewpoint should be on the same page. If the hasidic explanation is too hard for one to understand, this is because complicated concepts can't be written in one paragraph, if somone feels that because they don't understand the concept and don't have the time to properly understand it they will remove the explanation, then they should also remove the opposition section as well.--Truthaboutchabad 02:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can write a paragraph explaining the Hassidic persepctive, but it has to be sourced, it can't just be your own original research. As well, it has to present it from a NPOV perspective; that is, it can say "Hassidim believe these criticisms were incorrect because they believe etc.", not "these criticisms were incorrect because". Jayjg 02:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clothing

I have heard that different Hasidic groups wear subtly different attire. Perhaps the articles on the various dynasties would be improved if information were included on the status symbols each uses. Dinopup 03:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pics and references

This article should have more photographs of individual, living Hassidim. It should also have references. Dinopup 20:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Please help; if you live near Brooklyn you could take some pictures. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The picture with the caption "Hasidim in Hungary" was taken in Marienbad in 1924, which was in Czechoslovakia at that time and is now in the Czech Republic. In Jewish contexts "Hungary" is often used in a much broader sense, one that would delight any Hungarian nationalist, but on the one hand this is misleading, and on the other I'm pretty sure that the Czech Republic is beyond the limits of what anyone in any context would call Hungary, though I'm not sure how the caption should be changed. Bws2002 6:34, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Image page says 1923, not 1924: do you know which is correct? In any case, the answer is to caption it accuarately, something like "Hasidim at a rabbinical conference in Marienbad (now Mariánské Lázně), 1923." -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish

(I'm not very knowledgeable about the Hasidim, so I'm sticking to the talk page on this.) Shouldn't we say more about the strong relationship between Hasidim and the Yiddish language? The tradition of women praying in Yiddish? The fact that the Brooklyn Hasidim are probably the world's largest remaining Yiddish-speaking community? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

That would make sense, but I'm not an expert in it either. Women tend to get a Hebrew education today, and pray in Hebrew. It is possible that there are Yiddish speaking communities in Israel as large as the one in Brooklyn. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about the 18th and 19th centuries. As I understand it, the Hasidim formed a sort of a linguistic (as well as a religious) counterpoint to the Maskilim: as the latter were consciously reviving Hebrew, the former were (less consciously) laying many of the foundations of Yiddish as a literary language. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding differs; as I see it, Yiddish was simply the language of the Eastern European Jew. Amongst religious Jews (including Hasidim) only Hebrew garnered respect as a literary language; religious works in Yiddish were rare, though there are a few notable exceptions (often directed at women), and non-religious literature was seen as having little value. If anything it was the secularists who promoted Yiddish as a literary language. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The position of Yiddish is mixed. In some Hassidic groups, Ivrit (Modern Hebrew) has replaced Yiddish as lingua franca. Others (including many in the USA) hold on steadfastly to Yiddish. Its emphasis on Yiddish is much stronger than in the non-Hassidic Ultra-Orthodox community (although some, including Rabbi Aaron Kotler) have gone on record maintaining that Yiddish is far to be preferred over English as a language of instruction.

Some Hassidic works make out Yiddish as a holy language. The basis for these statements is unclear. Many sayings of Rebbes were originally in Yiddish and have been transmitted in that language. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To my humblest knowledge Ivrit has only displaced Yiddish in Gur and Lubavitch, and in Lubavitch only because of Baalei Teshuvah who already know ivrit but don't want to learn Yiddish. With Chabad one could easily say English has displaced YIddish. Most collections of vorts by any Rebbe will be in Yiddish. The Chabad Sichos are all in YIddish, and DIbrei HaKodesh (Satmar) is in Yiddish. Shia1 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Much of Chabad sichos are in Loshon Koidesh (not modern Hebrew). As produced by the Vaad Hanochos Beloshon Hakodesh. The massive Hisvaduyos is in Loshon Koidesh. As are chalokim 10-14 and 30-30 of Likutei Sichos. And all Maamorim are in Loshon Koidesh. --Yehoishophot Oliver 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Hasidism

The article needs improvement. As it stands it is currently biased, from one point of view only, and omits important discussion of Hasidut throughout the ages. For example there no mention of Hasidei Ashkenaz. Such an oversight needs objective correction please.Halakhic-Jews-Only 23:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Actually, it would be a better idea to start a seperate page. These are completely different phenomena. Hasidism was a populist movement, while the Hadidei Ashkenaz were the leaders of their generation. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say something perhaps related, perhaps not: this article and the article on Orthodox Judaism do not do a good enough job of explaining what the distinction might be. Either the articles should be merged, or they should be made distinct.

Recent edits: gender

Could someone who has been active in this article take a look at the recent, anon effort to introduce a lot of gender-neutral language? Given what I know about Hasidism, I suspect some of it results in statements that are not strictly true. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Someone apparently agreed with me on this, and reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

That was me. The edits were POV, pure and simple. JFW | T@lk 13:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the edits, I have not seen them, and I don't have a d-g in this fight, but if on some topic gender-neutral terms are POV, wouldn't gendered statements necessarily represent just a different POV? (anon 8 Aug 2005)

On at least some of the statements that were in question, about Hasidic beliefs, gender-neutrality made the statements false. The Hasidic belief involved gender. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bathing

Are there special rituals about bathing that have to be followed by Hasidics? I worked within a Hasidic community for several years and was told by several sources that semi-public baths were used by the community and that certain rules had to be followed. If it is a myth, perhaps there should be a sentence or two confirming this. David Farmbrough 6 Apr 2005

Jewish law mandates a type of ritual immersion at certain times. For example, cooking utensils must be immersed in a particular way before they are used by Jews. Also, women immerse in order to become ritually pure for marital relations. It is less well known that rabbis must immerse in the proscribed manner prior to performing ritual slaughter and other rites. There is a custom among the pious for men to immerse in the morning following marital relations prior to prayer, and this custom has some legal support. Men also have an obligation to immerse prior to the onset of the Spring, Summer, and Autumn festival days as well as Yom Kipur and Rosh HaShanna. The hasidic community has adopted the custom of immersing daily before prayer.

The body of water used for immersion is called a mikveh. There are legal specifications for a kosher mikveh, detailing the minimal volume of water it must hold, the type of origin the water must have, etc. The immersion itself must be performed with the person (or object) first being cleaned very thoroughly with any intervening substances like loose hairs, flaking skin, bandages, stickers, et al removed. Among Hasidic men who immerse daily, the legal specifications are not adhered to strictly, since the custom has no accompanying religious mandate.

Perhaps the most salient point is that this immersion is designed to achaive a certain spiritual cleanliness, not a physical one, and so probably is not best described as bathing.

This is very interesting. Just as Moslems have (more well-known) obligations to bathe ritually, it seems once again that there is a mirror within Jewish lore. I think that part only of the above relates to Hasidism, so I have distilled it and inserted it in the article. David Farmbrough 27 May 2005

Universal Chasidic custom is to go to a mikveh once a day. In practice this means taking a shower with a huge bunch of other men. (In E.Yisroel 2. One before, like in America; and one after. Usually one after is against halachah as it could appear one believes the shower purifies, but in E.YIsroel there were cholera outbreaks that led to a heter or takkanah.) Most men will use these showers as their hygenic shower as well as just preperation, so yes, it is true that Chasidic men will shower together as a big public thing. And yes, it is true this time is also used for socializing while waiting to gwet into the shower or mikveh. Shia1 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Satmar and Zionism

From the article: "…and so has Satmar's opposition to Zionism, but not its secular offshoots…" Can someone who knows what this refers to please flesh it out? I assume it means secular offshoots of Zionism, not of Satmar, but even so it is not clear what it refers to. What constitutes a cooling of opposition in this case? What is Satmar still opposed to? etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what it means since I wrote. By this I meant that Satmar is not generally amiable to Israel, or at least neutral but it is hostile to the secular aspects that it still espouses. It is mainly hostile because it believes that certain areas still make it hard to live a religious life.

Guy Montag 01:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see how the second clause of "Satmar is not generally amiable to Israel, or at least neutral…" relates to the first clause.

Attempted parse: "…it [Satmar] is hostile to the secular aspects [what aspects?] that it [Israel? or Zionism?] still espouses."

I have no idea what you mean by "…certain areas still make it hard to live a religious life." "Areas" in the geographic sense? or what?

The short of it is that the passage in the article is unclear, and nothing you've written here clarifies it, at least not to me. Could you please edit the sentence in the article to something with a clear meaning? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best; what do you both think? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, much clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

since there is an article on hasidic judaism, shouldn't there also be an article on mitnagedic judaism? Gringo300 20:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, if the mood strikes you. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

about all i really know about mitnagedic judaism, is that it's the opposite of hasidic judaism in many ways. from what i understand hasidic judaism is oriented towards mysticism and mitnagedic judaism is oriented towards rationalism. i don't think that's sufficient info to start an article. however, i plan to know more in the future... Gringo300 06:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Classically, misnagdic Judaism was also mystical, only with different mystical views. German Orthodox Judaism is the rational branch. Sefardic Judaism today is mostly mystical, however in medieval times there was a rational branch in the Sefardic world as well.

What is being said here?

In a series of edits I can't quickly sort out, "Israel ben Eliezer's disciples attracted many followers; they themselves established numerous Hasidic sects across Europe" became "Israel ben Eliezer's disciples attracted many followers; they themselves established numerous Hasidic congregations across Europe." This is a very different and much weaker statement. I believe the older statement was true. I think this should be reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The word "sect" is loaded. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You might think so, but it holds true here. The Chabad chassidim are not simply a synnagogue, they're a seperate sect from Satmar Chassidim. The biggest difference is who the Rebbe is, but all further changes derrive from that. Chassidic Judaism is a branch, not merely a sect with different congregations. I believe "congregations" is being misuesed here.

Sect: A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. SF2K1

Precisely. I'm going to restore the word "sect" here, it is precisely correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know I am really late with this, but, my thought is that Chassidic Courts is appropriate.--Shaul avrom 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is even more to the point. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Attire

Major series of anonymous edits without edit summary. No citations given, complete change to this section, a topic I know little or nothing about, but someone should review this closely. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The "ancient Isrealite traditions" stuff looks pretty dubious to me; I've read a number of sources and never heard of this. The "ancient judaic concepts" might be a real folk justification for the dress, though I doubt it's historically accurate. The straight descriptive stuff seems like it's probably accurate. I say we revert to the old version, and selectively add details as necessary from the straight descriptive part of the anon's edits.--Pharos 16:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The reality is that there is no source for the theory that Hasidic dress stems from "Polish Nobles". All historians that alledge this do so without any primary source -just other historians repeating the same line. Numerous Hasidic Rabbis claim their dress code is of Israelite origin. And the fact does remain that the basic outline or principle of the dress is identical to the Kohen Gadols dress(Kaftan, Knee Breeches ,Sash) The original contributor showed his/her ignorance by mentioning "buckles" worn by no Hasidim at all and very "gentile". The Talmud describes jewish dress and I will post it. The amount of ignorance passed of as Jewish history is remarkable. Hasidic dress in the 19th century was rather different to the modified hasidic dress of the 20th-it is the 19th century dress that is clearly levantine. Unfortunately jewish hisotry tends to be hijacked by politics. the kaballah mentions the Kaftan as having spiritual qualities and being the prefered dress for the pious jew. Shalom Aleichem(most famous yidddish writter) gives the reason for the white socks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kapuster (talk • contribs) 7 Oct 2005.

from the BOOK Modern Hebrew Literature by Robert alter-"Finally, Haskalah (Enlightenment) literature was often seriously limited by its ideological character. Imaginative literature with a point to prove--or an axe to grind--often ends up being shaped by a narrow, shrilly insistent imagination, more concerned with laying down a program than evoking a complex world. As the Israeli critic Dov Sadan put it, the Haskalah writer, indignant over the ultra‑Orthodox Jew who wore a filthy kaftan instead of decent modern European dress, was in no position to describe that Jew in loving detail, as a novelist should, down to the last spot of grease on the kaftan. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.131.23.230 (talk • contribs) 8 Oct 2005.

more resources

HASSIDIC MUSIC - Jewish Communities - 1994 from http://www.spielbergfilmarchive.org.il/ . Regards Gangleri | Th | T 14:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Chabad and Satmar

The following was recently and anonymously removed from the article without comment "Chabad especially offended Satmar Hasidim by sending 'mitzvah tank' caravans into their neighborhood, as if they needed prodding into observance." As far as I've heard, this is entirely true, though I wouldn't have a citation for it. I certainly think that if true it is notable. Does someone have a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I doubt this specific incident needs mention in this very broad article on Hasidic Judaism. There have been numerous clashes between various Hasidic factions, and this particular incident is nothing but illustrative. Just because Chabad and Satmar have their respective enemies does not really make the story any more noteworthy. JFW | T@lk 05:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this removal. All but the first sentence of the following were removed:

For years, two "superpowers" of the Brooklyn Hasidic world existed: Satmar and Chabad — based in Williamsburg and in Crown Heights respectively. Though other Jews regarded them as very similar, the two groups had a hostile relationship. Satmar expressed militantly anti-Zionist views, while Chabad supported Israel (though the Lubavitcher rebbe never visited Israel). Satmar also disdained Chabad's tendency to do outreach among non-observant Jews. In recent years the tension has cooled, as has Satmar's overt opposition to Zionism, though it still opposes the current form of Israeli government as a secular democracy.

Non-Orthodox Jews have demonstrated a significant revival of interest in Hasidic Judaism due to the writings of non-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish authors like Martin Buber, Arthur Green and Abraham Joshua Heschel. Consequently, one can now find some minor Hasidic influences in the siddurim (prayer books) of Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism.

The edit summary is simply "deleted not accurate info". It this looks perfectly accurate to me. Where is the inaccuracy? However, it lacks citation. I'd suggest that someone find citations for all of this and restore it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, what about the recently added "suggested reading"? Looks to me like nothing but a bunch of commercial links. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I put in the suggested reading. The publisher does vast ammounts of publishing on the topic and it is very relevant. Although I agree i put in many of the same links. I concur with the correction because they are all just links to buy books. SO I have added reasing material on the net to the list, so that people can read further on the subject without spending any money. --Reb Roovie 14:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

When we make references to books, we provide publication information including ISBN, which will bring up a range of sources including libraries. We do not link to a sales site unless it is also an encyclopedic or near-encyclopedic reference as well as a sales site. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"as has Satmar's overt opposition to Zionism," would be inaccurate. In 2005 R' Moshe Teitelbaum, Ztz"l declared war on Zionism. His words were, "I have declared war on Zionism. We are now at war with Zionism." His son Aaron's chasid, the Dor Acharon, also publicly supported the Iran mission of Neturei Karta. Shia1 07:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible phrase

Caption: "The picture of a "Ba'al Shem" erroneously contributed to Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Hasidism". As in it meant to give its money to the UJA? Does this mean to say The picture of a "Ba'al Shem" erroneously atttributed as Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Hasidism"? Or does it mean to say something else? - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Israel ben Eliezer article has it being a real photo of him. ems 12:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

it cannot be a photo - there were no cameras then - many say that the picture is not of him but of a frankist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.155.94.92 (talk • contribs) 18 June 2006.

There's no picture.--Shaul avrom 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Misnagdim

IZAK, I was bold and removed the statement "who were in fact themselves the "opposers" since they opposed the status quo of Judaism as it had existed until that time." for two reasons:

It was completely unreferenced.
It portrays an anti-Chasidic attitude.

Now, personally, I'm mainly yekish by extraction :). I am sure that if you asked the alter Rav or the Magid or the Ba'al Shem themselves, they would feel that there was more hachzoras ha'atara l'yoshna than innovation. What does it say in the Tochachah in Ki Savo? Tachas asher lo avadta es H' Elokecha b'simcha uv'tuv layvav. On the other hand, there is no arguing that the misnagdic style predated modern Hasidism. The yemenites could probably look at us both and shake their heads. Therefore, I feel that while mentioning that the term originated with Hasidim is proper, the sentence about the apparent hypocracy is not. -- Avi 20:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about How Many Chasidic Jews exist

I was looking here for how many Chasidic Jews there are, but did not see this in the article. Could someone add some estimate on how many Chasidic Jews there are in the U.S., Israel, and the rest of the world? —This unsigned comment was added by DrJ1m (talk • contribs) 27 March 2006.

I think that's a great idea: the only two numbers I've seen from even semi -reliable sources are for Lubavitchers (about 200,000) and Satmars (about 120,000). I guess it is difficult for Hassidic groups to count themselves since as far a I know there are no official membership lists, but members of the groups themselves must have some educated guess (number of shuls, approximate number who show up for prayer, multiplied by 6? 8? 10? for family size). For example it would do all of our hearts good to know that the Bobavs, almost annilated during WWII, were now large and vigorous - and wouldn't it be great to discover that there were over a million hassids in the world (which actually might be the right number).Incorrect 23:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Sects have "phone books" of all people who are affiliated with the sect. (although many are unaffiliated (chassidish but not chassidim of a specific rebbe and heimishe and hungarian descent jews that pray chassidic nusach sfard but are otherwise not connected to a specific chassidic gadol ) and yet, many people are affiliated with more then one group). but that should help to give a number of Chassidic Jews.

JJ211219 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how possible it is to get a good estimate. I have heard the numbers quoted above for Satmar and Lubavitch. And I have heard the same flipped. And I have heard that both have considerably fewer than those numbers. There aren't really censuses taken of these things. I know that there is apparently an estimate about Lubavitchers in the book "The Rebbe's Army," but I don't know how the author would have come to that estimate. I tend not to believe it. Just my two cents. --Meshulam 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Haaretz (12/16/06)in an article about the Satmars said the Satmars claim to have 100,000 members.

Hi, I found this by accident, but a good way to do it is simply by estimating the largest groups populations, then writing "More than - number" The book Boychiks In the Hood says Bobov is tied for third with Vishnitz and has more than 100,000 members. So if you take the 120,000-140,000 Satmar number usually quoted, add that to roughly 100,000 Bobov, 100,000 Vishnitz, and 200,000 Chabad (some don't count chabad as hasidic anymore) you get 440,000. Gur and Belz also have at least 50,000 each; so you can add another 100,000. That's 540,000. I don't think there's a million chasidim in the world because the stat given for number of people who identify as Orthodox is usually 10% of Jews. There are roughly 14 million Jews in the world. I'd be surprised if only 400,000 non-Chasidic orthodox existed. Shia1 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider Boychiks In the Hood a reliable source? "Who "doesn't count Chabad"? --Yehoishophot Oliver 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Many people wouldn't call Chabad a Hasidic group. Next: Chabad most definitely doesn't have 200,000 adherents. This is more likely and realistic: Satmar 100,000, Ger 50,000, Belz 50,000, Chabad 40,000, Vizhnitz 30,000, Bobov 30,000, Klauzenburg 30,000 - and then we get the various smaller groups. --Rabbeinu 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These numbers have all just been pulled out of a hat. What's more, they don't even say what they are counting. Is it meant to include men, women and children?--Redaktor 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly are "many people"? Chabad follow derech haBaal Shem Tov. What kind of nonsense is this? Where'd you get this baloney? --Yehoishophot Oliver 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling consistency

I believe that at the moment we have a mix in the article of Hasidim and Hassidim, Hasidic and Hassidic, and of Chassidism, Hassidism, and Hassidism (and I may have missed something). Since our own title is Hasidic, and the issues are entirely ones of transliteration, is there any objection to giving the alternative transliterations in one place and then (except when quoting or giving titles) being consistent about Hasidic, Hasidim, Hasidism? - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Good idea.--Meshulam 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How recent are "Recent events"?

Many Hasidim remained in the Soviet Union (primarily in Russia), intent on preserving Judaism as a religion in the face of increasing Soviet opposition. Soviet opposition? While I don't doubt that there was opposition in Russia both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union, I don't think its at all proper to call current opposition "Soviet". Any thoughts? Lizz612 02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to this, but I agree. That's an almost laughable anachronism! Awakeandalive1 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't current. They remained in the Soviet Union in the face of Soviet opposition. Not in the lest anachronistic.--Redaktor 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the other poster was a little confused about the meaning of the statement; my concern was for its being in the "recent" section. I tend to think of "recent" in an article as having more to do with things that occurred within the last two decades or less. It seems like some more recent recent information is called for - eg: the conditions Hasidim face in the former Soviet bloc; reactions of Hasidim to the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. Awakeandalive1 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very POV link

In the external links: the link (oddly) labeled as "More Baal Shem Tov assumptions and thesis" strikes me as little more than a Hasid's diatribe against other forms of Judaism. I would be inclined to remove it as unrepresentative—to me it reads like an intolerant rant, and I bet its author would take "intolerant" as praise—but I don't feel that as a secular Jew I'm the person to make the call on this particular link. I'd appreciate if a religious/observant Jew (Hasidic or otherwise) who is also an experienced Wikipedian would weigh in on whether the link is appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple way of dealing with it, it fails WP:EL. In any event, given my personal experience with chassidm I would say many have attitudes similar to those contained in the link and many do not. But since it fails WP:EL that isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New Book Reveals Darker Chapters In Hasidic History

http://www.forward.com/articles/new-book-reveals-darker-chapters-in-hasidic-histor/

“Neehaz ba-Svakh: Pirkei Mashber u-Mevucha be-Toldot ha-Hasidut” (“Caught in the Thicket: Chapters of Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism”), written by David Assaf, chair of Tel Aviv University’s Jewish history department, appeared in Israel just three months ago, but it has already generated fierce controversy. Indeed, although the book, which is in Hebrew, can be ordered from the publisher, it cannot be easily obtained in bookstores. According to reliable sources, who insist on anonymity, several tri-state area dealers of Orthodox books, as well as a few in major Canadian and European cities, are stocking limited copies of Assaf’s explosive book “under the counter” — selling them only to their trusted elite clientele, contingent on a strict promise that the transaction remains a secret. As is so often the case with controversial literature, those who claim to be most offended are usually the ones buying, reading and simultaneously trying to repress the books in question.

... The purpose of Assaf’s book is to revisit and clarify some of the most shocking episodes in the history of Hasidism, events that have been deliberately suppressed or extensively distorted for apologetic purposes by Hasidic historiography. The book consists of seven chapters, each of which examines in great depth some very embarrassing oddities of Hasidic life — some of which have long been known to historians of Hasidism. ...

....Assaf is not satisfied with verifying and clarifying the obscure scandals and crises of Hasidic history; equally important are the incredible lengths to which the internal chroniclers of Hasidic history have gone to censor, repress or recast these scandals. Assaf’s book effectively constitutes a double-barreled assault on the apologetic narrative of Hasidic historiography and the exaggerated misuses of these embarrassing episodes by modernizing Jewish historians to discredit Hasidism entirely, both of which have molded the lives of Hasidic rebbes according to false stereotypes.

The real importance of Assaf’s research is the extent to which it complicates the hitherto regnant accounts of Hasidic history, both the romantic and the polemical. By examining the inner demons and doubts that tormented a variety of hasidic leaders, torments that evoked a wide spectrum of responses, from conversion and suicide, to alienation and despair, Assaf enriches our understanding of the hasidic world. far from disdaining his subjects, assaf succeeds finally in humanizing them by cutting through the apologetic mythologies of the hasidim and the polemical mockery of their opponents and demonstrating the natural frailties of even the most pious and revered of men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark3 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.

Proposal to merge Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) with WP:Hebrew

Hello. There have been two parallel attempts to devise a standard method of transliterating Hebrew, and it has been proposed to merge them. The WP:Hebrew approach seems considerably more academic than the other, with a strong emphasis on scholarly phoneticism including a proposed requirement to use the International Phonetic Alphabetic and to mention Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation, and what appears to be a rule against the use of standard English transliterations. Feel free to weigh in. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Barry Gurary article

Hi: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why removed?

This teaching practically led to the contribution by the people of their last pennies toward the support of their tzaddik (rebbe), and the tzaddik untiringly "poured forth blessings on the earth, healed the sick, cured women of sterility," etc. The vocation of tzaddik became hereditary. A multiplicity of Hasidic dynasties contested for supremacy.

I don't really care either way on whether this is restored, but it seems to have been deleted some time in the last two weeks or so without a relevant edit summary, so I thought I'd point that out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

merge from|Hasidic philosophy

The Hasidic philosophy article should become part of this article and those parts that are about Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic philosphy should go onto the Chabad-Lubavitch page. IZAK 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely -- there is no need for a separate article on Hasidic philosophy. It should be merged. And Chabad doesn't have an exclusive on Hasidic Judaism -- those parts about Chabad-Lubavitch, including R' Shneor Zalman of Liadi's picture, should go onto the Chabad-Lubavitch page. --ChosidFrumBirth 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ChosidFrumBirth,

1. Hasidic Philosophy is a vast area of knowledge whose content could fill several libraries, and should thus not be relegated to a subcategory; it merits a page of it's own.

2. Granted, Chabad-Lubavitch "doesn't have an exclusive on Hasidic Judaism," but it does not therefore follow that its mention should be removed almost completely in what is in effect a form of reverse discrimination. Yehoishophot Oliver 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. How can you have an article on Hasidic Judaism that doesn't explain its philosophy? Hasidic Philosophy is an essential part of any article on Hasidic Judaism and not a separate topic.

2. Chabad-Lubavitch should of course be mentioned, but shouldn't be either the sole representative of what Hasidic Philosophy is or dominate the article, particularly since there is a lot of disagreement in Hassidic circles about Chabad-Lubavitch, and also the public not familiar with Hassidic Judaism already things that all Hassidic Jews are Lubavitchers. The main presentation of Chabad-Lubavitch Hassidic Philosophy should be in the Chabad-Lubavitch article not here. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not saying that it is not related, just that being a subheading in a general page on Chasidic Judaism doesn't do it justice.

2. I didn't suggest that it should be the sole or even the main representative, just that it shouldn't be shunted to the side and excluded, as you suggested, that all discussion of Chabad and the picture of R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi, whose works are studied by all Chasidim, be removed from this weboage. Exactly what do you mean, "there is a lot of disagreement in Hassidic circles about Chabad-Lubavitch" Disagreement about what? Yehoishophot Oliver 14:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The philosophy of Chasidic Judaism is a part of Chasidic Judaism, isn't it? Why separate an article on Chasidic Judaism from what it's philosophy is.

2. Not all hasidim study R' Shneur Zalman, and in fact some groups say he established his own approach to hasidus. That's the disagreement -- Chabad says that Chabad philosophy is the "emes", and the only emes, while others say that Chabad is only one approach and doesn't represent all of hasidus. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Of course it's a part of it; in fact, that's a total understatement--it's crucial to it. However, it's a topic complex enough to require its own page. It's like saying that since the Talmud is crucial to Orthodox Judaism, there shouldn't be a separate page about the Talmud.

2a. According to the Satmar page on wikipedia (perhaps not the most reliable source), even they study the Tanya. So who doesn't? Also, as is well-known, the Maggid of Mezritch, direct successor of the Baal Shem Tov, asked R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi to write a Shulchan Aruch for all Chassidim to follow. Do some not follow the Maggid's wishes? I haven't heard of this before.

2b. I've learnt much Chabad philosophy, and I've never seen it discount other Chasidic traditions, G-d forbid. In fact, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who represents Chabad more than anyone, would meet with leaders of other groups and encourage them to expand their activities and publicise their Rebbes' teachings. Yehoishophot Oliver 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Frum here?

See discussion at Talk:Orthodox_Judaism Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Claim by anon

Regarding this edit- does anyone know if this is accurate? JoshuaZ 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Yehoishophot Oliver

Hi Yehoishophot Oliver. If you're going to claim that the Chasidim were viewed as "ignoramuses" by someone (which carries a very negative connotation), you need to provide a citation to primary literature in which such a view is expressed, or to secondary literature which supports your position. Likewise, for the idea that Chasidic scholarship surpassed some other form of Jewish scholarship. This is an encyclopedia article, so we would like to stick to facts here. I'm sure you can find some other forum for your subjective appraisals Chasidic and Misnagdic scholarship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi. I didn't claim that they were viewed as ignoramuses, that was the implication of the existing post. That post said that Misnagdim advocated a "more scholarly" approach to Judaism, clearly implying that in their eyes Hasidism was all about singing and dancing and not serious Torah study. I clarified that this was only according to their perception. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence reads "On a more prosaic level, other Misnagdim argued that Jews should follow a more scholarly approach to Judaism." What about this statement do you dispute? It sounds accurate to me. Would you be satisfied if I added a citation? Or is it a matter of the wording? Should it be changed to something like this: "other Misnagdim regarded Chasidim as pursuing a less scholarly approach to Judaism, and opposed the movement for this reason." Does that address your concern? Dfass 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would a citation help to back up a false premise? Yes, that correction would address my concern, and I would be satisfied with it. I'll leave you to put it in. Yehoishophot Oliver 12:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. In general, a citation to a good source always helps, because it establishes that the statement being attributed, or the claim being made, is an accurate one. If I want to write that "The Hasidim thought the Misnagdim were spiritually empty," I ought to produce a citation to verify that this is not just my own subjective impression, or my own subjective reading of history. I could choose to cite a mainstream Hasidic personality who said such a thing, or I could choose to cite a respected scholar on the issue who made a similar claim, and which interested readers can then investigate using the scholarly apparatus. (Of course if I begin selectively citing just one opinion about an issue on which multiple opinions have been expressed, then again, this is a problem.) Summary: Citations are good, especially when contentious points are being expressed. —Dfass 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously citations are good. The point I was making is that the page as it was included a false premise, and no number of citations can change that. If I dare say so in the relativistic world of Wikipedia. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot use 'scientific' articles as sources for the subject matter. Those so-called 'reliable' (sic) sources are far from reliable in this matter. I've seen the greatest idiotic nonsense written about Jewish (particularly chareidi/chassidishe) things written by great professors with a lot of titles affiliated with great universities. That doesn't change the fact that it is nonsense. For example, a university doctoral study which told us that Satmar counts about 700 families and Lubavitch has 500,000 members. Yes, a doctoral study, a reliable source. --Chussid 16:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You use the best sources available for the point being made. Sometimes the best source is a first-person account from the 18th century. Other times the best source is a recent scholarly work. If there are caveats to be made about the "sympathies" of a particular source, then you can add those caveats. What we cannot do is just throw around controversial assertions without any sourcing at all. —Dfass 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasidism

The article states:'Some refer to Hasidic Judaism as Hasidism'. However the Hasidism page redirects to Hasidic philosophy.

So can we please decide whether Hasidism means (a) Hasidic Judaism (b)Hasidic philosophy or (c) both. --Redaktor 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the name od this article should be changed to Hasidism. In fact i am certain. We always use the most common name. Hasidism is that name. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Hasidism is more vague, and often refers to the philosophy, not the practice. I support the current naming.Yehoishophot Oliver 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

South-eastern Provinces of Poop?

"Leanings to mystical doctrines and sectarianism showed themselves prominently among the Jews of the south-eastern provinces of Poop, while in the Lithuania provinces, rabbinical orthodoxy held sway. In part, this division in modes of thought reflected social differences between the northern (Lithuanian) Jews and the southern Jews of Ukraine."

I don't know enough medieval Eastern European geography to know for certain that this is not a real place but it seems like plagarism. Arthurian Legend 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

this has been changed to Poland.

Role of Kabbalah

I notice that this article doesn't say anything at all about the role of Kabbalah in Hasidic Judaism. Would it be possible for someone who knows something about the subject, particularly its history, to add a section on Kabbalah? --Shirahadasha 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 24,700 for chasidus. (0.14 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 118,000 for chassidus. (0.16 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 59 for khsidish. (0.05 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 12,700 for chassidish. (0.15 seconds)

Redaktor, I am quite surprised about you changing these words. Please explain what "khsidish" means?! --Rabbeinu 07:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point. The word חסידיש in Hebrew lettering is unintelligible to 99% of readers of the English Wikipedia. So we romanize Yiddish words for their benefit. The question is how to romanize Yiddish? Certainly not by writing the yeshivish word 'chassidish', which does not convey the correct pronunciation. In the absence of any agreement on the subject, most editors seem to be using the YIVO transcription scheme, or something close to it. (This is nothing to do about whether we agree with the secular YIVO—it just provides a system of romanization in the absence of any other.)

So, yes, I am serious that khsidish is an accurate romanization of חסידיש which conveys its pronunciation. Think about it! (It took me a long time too!!) --Redaktor 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail, and will always fail to see how "khsidish" will be more meaningful to the average John Doe than "chassidish". It's "chassidish", and that's it. For one, I and all other Europeans pronounce a K as exactly that - a K. The K of "kill". Thus, the pronunciation would be "xidish". After all, ks = x. It will remain "chassidish" (one or two Ss, as you like). --Rabbeinu 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So how does John Doe read "Chernobler chasidim"? It just isn't accurate enough for this purpose.--Redaktor 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We simply have to assume that John Doe knows a little bit about Judaism/Hebrew. There is no other way. Writing "khsidish" is not a solution. --Rabbeinu 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I think you may be missing my point. Within running English text, we may write chasidic or chasidish, as these are accepted spellings. However English WP has a policy of romanizing any text displayed in a non-Roman script, such as Hebrew or Cyrillic. This romanization is not a word in English and is usually achieved using standard romanization rules. It is pretty well accepted that for romanization of Yiddish, Russian and Ukrainian, the letter combination kh represents the sound of ח/כ in Yiddish.--Redaktor 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your argument on this elsewhere, and had to remark. I disagree that in Yiddish the ח is non-vowelized. Although it might be used that way colloquially, I don't think anyone can argue the correct vowelization to be חְסִידִיש instead of חַסִידִיש. --Kotzker 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by vowelization in this context; in Yiddish there is no such thing as a chatof vowel. Just how most people pronounce it. I am not really going to argue the toss on this, but listen closely to how Yiddish speakers say it.--Redaktor 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even most, but in fact everybody says 'ch'sidishe'. So yes, 'ch'sidish'. HOW you can ever transliterate that correctly, must be one of the most difficult transliteration issues we have ever encountered. I agree that it is indeed most definitely not 'chassidish'. My apologies for that. Silly comments by me. I speak fluent Yiddish, by the way. Read also, but can't write. --Rabbeinu 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard plenty of people say chassidish with the ah, patoch sound. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In American, Hebrew, sure. We are talking about *Yiddish* here. Are you? (I never knew you spoke Yiddish.) --Rabbeinu 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I speak Yiddish, as it says on my user page, but a more "Americanised" version of it, admittedly. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blurring of Chasidism with Orthodoxy

There's an odd suggestion in this article that if Chasidism was once distinct from Orthodox Judaism, that is no longer the case. I refer specifically to the description of chassidism as being a part of Charedi Judaism and to the statement that Orthodox Judaism has "subsumed" Chassidism.

This is flatly untrue. Though the term "misnaged" has gone out of fashion, and there have been some surface cease-fires between Orthodox Jews and Chasidic Jews, there are still very different. In the place of misnagdim, many Orthodox Jews now refer to themselves as modern Orthodox, emphasizing the distinction between themselves and those who de-emphasize secular study. Though to outsiders they might seem very similar, the distinctions are prevalent. Even very orthodox Jews (black hats in the internal nomenclature, or Charedim) dress differently, pray differently. Unless forced by circumstances, they do not go to the other's schools or attend the other's services. In certain areas, the relations are quite tense because the old debates may have been papered over but they still remain. This article needs to make explicit the current distinctions between the two movements to be accurate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsaamo (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, Elsaamo, you are completely alone in your view of things. Your view is simply incorrect. Since you claim (elsewhere) to have gone to a chassidishe school, you will certainly disagree with me, but I just don't see the purpose in continuing this discussion. Your edits of the sort that you have made will simply be reverted by me or by others until you give up, and that's it. --Eidah 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice but would note that I respectfully disagree that I stand alone. I'd refer you first to this http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=349&letter=H&search=Chasid which again and again distinguishes Hasidism with "Rabbinic Orthodoxy," a synonym of Misnagdim. I'd refer you to the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Hasidism (I apologize, you need a university proxy to access it), which refers to Hasidism as a "reaction to against an orthodox religious system." Under normal circumstances I'd ignore your misquoting of mine - in fact, I went to a charedi school in a Chassidishe town - except I think it just confirms a general uninterest in subtle distinctions. I'm assuming that if you claim a degree of expertise on this field, you recieve it either from scholarly learning or practical experience, and more likely a combination of the two. As apparently you are not familiar with the popular encyclopedic material or you'd have accepted it to be at least a debated point, I'd ask you then, to go to either a very Orthodox (black hat or above) friend or acquaintance of yours, or to a Chasid, and ask them if they are the other. The occasionally venomous debates between them are not due to minor ideological differences but because of an essential divide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsaamo (talk • contribs) 13:59, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

You are correct in arguing that in the time of the Besht and his talmidim, Hasidism was perceived as deviating from 'common' Orthodoxy (represented by the 'misnagdim'). But that is not the CURRENT situation. Nowadays, Hasidic Judaism is a subset of Haredi Judaism (which has another subset called 'Litvishe' Judaism (which includes Yekkishe chareidim) - and also Sefardi Haredi Judaism) which is in turn a subset of Orthodox Judaism which consists of M-O/R-Z and Chareidi.

This article is not about the situation of the distant past, but about the current situation. Do you know anyone (aside from yourself) who is seriously going to argue that Hasidim are not Orthodox / Haredi Jews? I'm talking about someone with at least some knowledge of the subject matter. --Eidah 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Quibble: you are correct that at one time hasidim were perceived as being less than orthodox, which is why there was so much opposition to them. But there was never a time when hasidism was in fact not completely orthodox. Neither hasidism nor orthodoxy changed - all that changed was the perception, as non-hasidim learned more about it and observed that it remained orthodox.

2nd quibble: the term "Orthodox" when applied to early hasidism is an anachronism, since it was invented by the Reform movement, which did not yet exist. But what we mean today by that term includes not only modern hasidim but also 18th-century ones.

As for "haredim", that term as it is used today only dates back about 30 years. In the early 20th century "haredi" was simply the Hebrew term for "Orthodox"; it gradually gave way to "dati", and was then recycled when a term was needed to distinguish black-hat Orthodox from other strains. As a term in English it was deliberately introduced in the late '70s and early '80s to replace "ultra-orthodox", which was seen as pejorative. In its revived form it refers to all "black-hat" Jews, including hasidim, litvaks, yekkers, sefardim, etc.

Zsero 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Elsaamo: No, No. Your view is incorrect. Hasidim are Orthodox - Haredi Jews- not open to debate.JJ211219 17:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As an American-Yeshivish-Frum Jew of Yekkish extraction (with Chassidishe blood on my maternal grandfather's side), I concur. Currently, "Haredi" Judaism, for lack of a better term, is comprised of Chasidim, "Yeshivish/Litvish", (Perhaps Non-Chasidic Oberlanders and Galicianers from Eastern Europe), and the Haredi Sefaradi community. These, with Modern Orthodox comprise Orthodox Judaism. Not a perfect delineation, but more accurate than the 18th century divide found in sifrei mussar or sifrei chasidus. -- Avi 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick summary? No?

Why is it that I can't find on this gigantic page, a quick summary of what the heck it is that Hassidic Jews believe that is different from his Reform or Conservative (or Orthodox) cousins?

Who the hell writes these things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.99.54 (talk) 08:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hasidic Judaism is just a subgroup of Haredi Judaism, which is in turn a subgroup of Orthodox Judaism. It's like this:

Judaism
- Reform Judaism
- Reconstructionist Judaism
- Conservative Judaism
- Orthodox Judaism
  - Modern-Orthodox Judaism / Religious-Zionist Judaism
  - Haredi Judaism
    - Lithuanian (Haredi) Judaism
    - Hasidic Judaism
      - Tens and tens of Hasidic dynasties

Hope you understand. If you have any questions, please ask! --Eidah 08:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't agree more with the request above. I came to the page to get a quick idea of what makes the hassidic jews different, and I'm still not much wiser. My suggestion is that someone much better informed than me writes an intro paraghaph in the tone that one would answer the question 'can you explain the word hasidic please?' to a gentile at a social event. Thanks Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)