Talk:Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman

"Mantra" or name/song/phrase?

Yes, I know that mantra is not a Jewish term, it is a Sanskrit or Hindu term, and some Jews object to it on those grounds. However, it has entered the English language, is universally-recognized, and there is a Wiki page on it, So it make sense to use it here.

Also, the reason there are so many saves by me one after the other at the beginning of the page's history is because my toddler grandson is staying here. To avoid having him accidentally delete my work, I save every time I leave the computer tonight. Better safe than sorry <g> User:rooster613

Na Nach is a name, a song, a phrase (all NPOV). It is inappropriate and offensive to call it a mantra, like calling prayer "magic," or calling Moses a "guru," chas v'shalom. It may fit a dictionary definition but this word is strongly shaded and associated with Eastern religions. Just look at the mantra article, which says, "Mantras (Devanāgarī मन्त्र) originated in the Vedic tradition of India, later becoming an essential part of the Hindu tradition and a customary practice within Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism..." To suggest a Jewish practice has roots in, or owes to one of these traditions (all/most/many of which are considered avodah zarah by Jews) is extremely objectionable to Jews. Please be considerate and refrain from calling Na Nach a mantra. Furthermore, all the examples I saw listed under mantras are Hindu, etc. Does the Shema article call the Shema a "mantra"?! Of course not. Even though it would fit the definition on the mantra page. Five_pillars_of_Wikipedia Pillar #4 says "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner." Does this not include avoiding labels that are heavily connotative in an offensive way? Thank you and I will assume this was done in good faith and in non-knowledge of the offensiveness of these associations. Nissimnanach (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Yoninah -- I didn't remove Mantra category from the article b/c it fit the technical definition, but I see someone has moved it to Hebrew Words and Phrases category -- much better! Nissimnanach (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Hebrew letters

I do not know how to do Hebrew letters in Wiki. If somebody reading this does, then please add them to the section explaining the meaning of the mantra. (Leave the transliterations of the names of the letters, for those who cannot read Hebrew). Thank you! User:rooster613

See User:Jfdwolff/Hebrew. Use the ampersand, then the code as mentioned. Write from left to right - the browser will understand the text direction (e.g. nun first, then chet etc etc). Spaces are as normal. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you -- I just did it, looks fine. What I needed was the table of Hebrew letters, which your link provided. Rooster613 14:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

How come there is no final mem, at the end of 'NACHMA'? instead they used reguler mem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.56.169 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why a "mem"?? Debresser (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Haskoma from Rav Moshe Feinstein

I presume you meant to write 1984 not 1994 here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_Nach_Nachma#Controversies unless this was another letter from heaven since Reb Moshe "ascended to the heavenly academy" in 1986) .:-)

• Yes, it was a typo, should be 1984. Rooster613 14:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

More forgery claims? Got References?

Re: edits by anonymous person User:80.178.15.203 that were reverted to my previous version: This person appears to be a Breslover in opposition to the Na-Nachers. Some of his/her points were possibly valid although not N-POV in style and not backed up by any sources (hence the revert). However, noting the writer's objections, I did modify "popular among Breslover Hasidim" to "popular among some groups of Breslover Hasidim" which should take care of that problem. Regarding forgeries: If indeed somebody claimed the approbation from Feinstein was a forgery, I would be willing to include that opinion under the Feinstein part of Controversies if there is a real reference to cite and not just an anonymous drive-by. Ditto for the same writer's claim that somebody "admitted" to forging the letter in an article in Maariv ten years ago. Who is this "somebody"? If anybody knows the refs. for this article, we could footnote that also. Although we should also note that anybody could claim to have done this to discredit Rabbi Odesser. I'm trying to keep this page N-POV while recognizing that there are controversies. I myself am not a Na-Nacher although I have no real objections to using the mantra, either. Rooster613 14:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

In some mainstream Orthodox circles, the "Na Nach Nachma" is considered somewhat mishuga. Some guys passing out Breslov pamphlets near my school, Yeshiva University, weren't open NightcapNachmaners (people who wear the huge yarmulkes with "Na Nach Nachma"s on them, usually white caps)...they were black-hat, black coat guys. This is considered more authentic by such people. Unfortunately, my source for this isn't a book--but a rabbi, so I can't put in the article, right? I'm new at this.Yodamace1

• Thank you for your comments, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm aware of the controversies. However, what "mainstream Orthodox circles" think is not the purpose of the article. After all, mainstream circles have always considered Breslov (even non-Na-Nachers) as a bit meshugga. (Mostly because we go off by ourselves to meditate in the forests... but that's another issue.) Even when he was alive, Rebbe Nachman was criticized for accepting all types of people at his table, including the local meshugganers. <g> Now, regarding this article, the purpose is to explain the history and meaning of the mantra in a factual, neutral way. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. However, we can discuss the issues here in "discussion" and people do read the discussions, so your rabbi's opinion is noted. In reply, I ask: Is this mantra any more meshugga than Lubovitch children shouting "We Want Moschiach Now!" cheers or bumper stickers that ask "Did you put on tefillin today?" (I just made this into 2 paragraphs to sub-divide topics here) Rooster613 01:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

more on the white yarmulkes

As for the white yarmulkes, I have one of those, more as a collector's item, although I have worn it on occasion. (Perhaps I should take a photo and add it to the article.) I have always preferred a large knitted yarmulke that covers my whole head. The Na-Nacher version is actually a modification of a traditional white yarmulke that has been worn for centuries in Jerusalem, which in turn is a modification of the medieval hats with the little ball on top -- hence the tassle. People wear them for group identity -- and is that any different than wearing a Zionist yarmulke that says "Yerushalayim" or some other slogan or, for that matter, one with pictures of cartoon characters like the kids wear nowadays? Breslov does not have a dress code (other than halachic zniut, tzitzit, etc.) so there is no requirement to dress in black like the Mitnagdim/Haredim. After all, if Jews wanted to be really, really authentic, we should all wear long robes, since that is how Abraham and Moses dressed. <g> Rooster613 14:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

Well, I'm not trying to make it a debate forum. And if you're asking about if it's more meshuga the the messianic Lubavitcher belief, that is also considered quite mishuga. I'll quote from the Chabad-Lubavitch page:

Berger asserts that a few Chabad followers hold Schneerson to be God incarnate, and that they worship him as such. Responses from various Jewish spokespeople have been aimed specifically at the last two expressions of messianism. Longtime critic Allan Nadler (2001) and Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller (1998) warn that Chabad has moved its focus from God to Schneerson to the point that they "worship him".

• Well again, in these cases, there are specific rabbis who have taken public stands and can therefore be quoted. So far all I've seen re: this page is vague urban legends. I did, however, provide a link to a site that takes the stance that the letter was forged. If there are other such refs, either on paper on the Net, I have no objection to referencing them. Rooster613 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

So I thought it might be appropriate, sorry if it wasn't...I don't think there's a mention of the 'NachmanNightcap' in the article, you seem to know a lot about it, maybe you should post about it. Yodamace1

As both a Wiki novice and someone only slightly learned in the significance of the phrase, I can't help but wonder if the the "pop culture" aspects of this phraseology should be explained in greater detail. In a recent trip to Israel, I saw the Na-Nach-Nachma-Nachman graffiti everywhere (and I've seen it a few times also in the U.S.), as well as on bumper stickers and placards and whatnot. This article seems to indicate that it is insignificant, but it seemed rather pervasive to me... Also, IIRC, there is a reference to the mantra in the Israeli "Bumper Sticker Song" which could be referenced in the article as well.Nolij (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I plan to take a photo of mine and upload it as common domain, but probably not until after Rosh Hashanah. Meanwhile I added a text ref today, which, because my computer timed out and I had to log back in, did not show up with my Rooster613 sig, but the text of that edit is mine. (Apparently the "remember me" option does not work right on my system.) Rooster613 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613
  • OK, I uploaded the photo as Image:Na-nach-nachma-yarmulke.jpg and that went OK, it's up there -- but for some reason the link to this page does not work.  ??? Rooster613 18:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613
    • Photo file was apparently corrupted en route -- I uploaded it again and it works fine now Rooster613 04:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

You put in your edit that Chareidi disparagingly call such Breslovers NightcapNachmaners. I honestly didn't know that, thought I made it up. I'll stop using the term, sorry about that. Yodamace1

• I was taking my cue from you <g> But if you are the only one using the term, then the sentence is not authentic, so I removed it. The part you added to the Controversies is fine now -- you are citing the opinion of specific rabbis. Very good addition! This will be my last work here for a while -- tomorrow is erev RoshHashanah... shanah tovah! Rooster613 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

Thanks! Shanah tovah! And thanks for the niggun advice. I've been to Kiryas Yoel for a wedding, but that's a bit out of the way...Williamsburg, here I come! Yodamace1

Book Cover Image

I upladed a scan of the cover of "The Letter from Heaven: Rebbe Nachman's Song" and linked it here. My justification for the fair use of this image is that the book is discussed and referenced on this page. Rooster613 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Rooster613

Revert of Tanchum's edits

I reverted the material added by Tanchum in the Controversies section because it is not NPOV, being very disparaging of the people who use the mantra, essentially calling them inauthentic ignoramuses. This was obviously posted by an anti-mantra person as debunking opinion. This is the deleted text:

The Na Nach Nachma phrase, derives neither from any of the writings in the entire canon of Breslov literature, nor from the traditions of Breslov itself, nor the Bible, Talmud, or code of Jewish Law. For this reason, "Na Nach Nachma" cannot be represented as an authentic expression of Breslov doctrine--precisely because Breslov chassidus is based, like any legitimate Jewish movement, on classical Jewish sources. Hardly everyone within what can be called "mainstream", traditionally Chassidic Breslov communities believes that the "petek ha-geulah" is an authentic writing from Rebbe Nachman. Most treat the subject with passive obliviousness. At this point, "Na-Nach" is more of a rallying cry for Israeli and Sephardic returnees to Judaism, although it has caught on amongst some of the disaffected American youth who come to Jerusalem, or people who are not yet familiar enough with Breslov literature to distinguish between what is authentic and what is not.

The points are already made in the article that the mantra is controversial, that not all Breslovers use it and some actively oppose it, that some claim the note is a forgery, that it does not date to Rebbe Nachman himself nor did he use it, that this is a sub-group and not all of Breslov, etc. -- without the negative polemics of this text. It is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what is or is not "authentic" or "legitimate" in theological controversies, only to present the facts as they are. Like it or not, there is a group of people who call themselves Breslovers who use this mantra, and that must be respected in the text. I myself am neither for nor against the mantra, merely watching this page to try and keep it NPOV... Rooster613 19:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Regarding rabbi Moshe Feinsteins "approbation"

Rabbi Odessa was a Mishulach; he came to the US to collect Tzedaka. He went to Rabbi Feinstein (who, incidentally, was a non-chassidic rosh yeshiva)and asked him for a "hamlatza" letter that people could be presented with, to help him raise money (this is a standard practice of people collecting tzedahka). he showed the letter to rabbi feinstein while meeting him. Rabbi Feinstein's hamlatza does not imply legitimatacy at all; it was merely a polite "and when he was here he showed me something unique he has in his posession"... Ask any of rabbi Feinsteins sons or Talmidim, they would concur. The legitimacy of the "petek" being from heaven is a bubbehmeiseh.. Ther person that inserted the paper addmitted to doing it before his death.gevaldik! 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask: WHO is/was this mysterious "person who inserted it (the petek)" in the book, if indeed such a thing ever happened? So far, nobody has named a name, it just keeps coming back as hearsay. If there is a real source with a real person taking credit/blame, we can add it to the Controversies, but so far all I see is anti-Odesser urban legend -- in this case, from an unsigned comment by who-knows-who... Rooster613 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

just signed my original comment, im still new to wikipedia and i forget someitmes. gevaldik! 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The gentleman who wrote it is Yoel Ashkenazi. 79.180.238.123 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What did Yoel Ashkenazi write? Does "it" refer to the comment here, or to the supposed forgery? If the latter, do you have documented sources? Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

The Petek has a signature: Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman. So that is who wrote it. Being that there is no other known place of this signature it can not be a forgery (for it is not imitating another signature)! So the only point of contention can be; who is Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman?! There is great evidence that Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman is Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, besideds the fact that NaNach is based on his name, there are also many proofs that this is a representation of Rabbi Nachman's name. Now it is very very difficult to claim, prepostrous, that some stranger claimed the hidden, secret, and unknown identity of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov! Added to this simple logic is our knowledge that great personage such as the Saba, Rabbi Israel Dov Odesser, Rabbi Shmuel Horowitz, Rabbi Shlomo Wexler, Rabbi Moshe Feinstien and many others all agreed to the veracity of the Petek and thus attested to it's authorship by Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman! So there is really no reason to contend with idiotic claims, at least not in an encyclopedia. If Rooster613 you are interested in the theological aspect of Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman that, as you often have cited, does not have it's place in the encyclopedia. No offence meant. Just Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman!Moshenanach (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is whether the person who signed it as "Na Nach Nachma Nachman M'uman" was in fact Rabbi Nachman ben Feiga who died in 1810 and is buried in Uman. You believe it was. Others believe it was not. Both opinions are here as they should be. Rooster613 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not this is a mantra

(new topic heading inserted by Rooster613 to help focus a long unsigned article by someone who appears to be a pro-Na Nacher.)

This article about Na Nach was, in my opinion, written very nicely and objectively. However there are many mistakes and insufficiencies. In truth there really isn't anyone worthy of writing about Na Nach, which is (as clearly stated by Rabbi Yisroel Dov Odesser ZTVK"L) the root of the whole Tora and all of the souls of Israel!

It is a theological opinion that "none is worthy" to write about this -- we are simply trying to present neutral facts. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

The article states that R' Yisroel was born in a year and later recieved the Petek in years that most accounts differ. This requires extensive research. Bear in mind that the Saba (R' Yisroel) said frequently that he was older than one hundred years. Unfortunately I can't write at great length right now.\

I have also found discrepancies in his age and when he received the petek BUT this is not unusual in a time when many people did not have birth certificates. If you have a verifiable source(s) for a different date(s) that info can certainly be added. Perhaps we should note the controversies over these dates? If "most accounts differ" what are the refs for those differing accounts? Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

The article refers to Na Nach as a mantra, this is a fallacy which I put most of the blame on the late Rabbi Arye Kaplan ZT"L who not withstanding his saintliness and mesirat nefesh for Israel and the amazing things he did, was not 100% Bresluv, to say the least (if your not Bresluv i.e. Na Nach you'll say, so what, but even you can understand that this will prevent him from fully capturing, portraying, and correctly and accurately giving over the ways, ideology, and wel. of Rabbi Nachman). If I remember correctly, Rabbi A. Kaplan himself writes that possibly his biggest chidush (novelty) was his breakthrough in transalating the hebrew word Kavana, which previously had been concentration, to medidation. This led the RAK z"l to the path he chose of teaching the ways of Jewish meditation and Kabala. The RAK z"l is the one that brands hisbodidus as meditation. At first I felt that writing this was okay for those that get excited by this, and are strengthened and motivated to actually carry out what Rabbi Nachman says. However in truth, this is not a correct interpretation of Hisbodidus, and Na Nach is not a mantra.

Rabbi Kaplan doscusses various forms of meditation, some of which were not mantras. Meditation does require concentration and focused attention which are also meanings of kavanna but that is too complex to go into here. If in Hisboddidus you pour out your heart to HaShem in a spontaneous flow of words & prayer, then this is a form of a flow-of-conciousness meditation -- a form that Rabbi Kaplan also discusses. Meditation does not necessarily have to use a mantra or lead to altered state of conscious to be meditation. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

A mantra is a word or phrase meant to be repeated over and over. Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun MayUman, we should be blessed to say it over and over, but even to say it one time in a lifetime is a mind boggling accomplishment! (It has been said that it is worth coming down to this world for 80 years just to say one time Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun MayUman! There is some discussion whether hearing it one time would also be sufficient). Just as it is obvious that Shma Yisroel is not a mantra, even though it is recomended (by unknowledgable people and or Briskers, as opposed to Halacha and Kabala which forbids the recital of Shma repeatedly) to be used as a mantra.

The Hare Krishnas say the same thing about their mantra, i.e., to say it even once brings about great merit and redemption in their theology, to say it more times is more is meritorious, etc. So you cannot say that something is not a mantra simply because there is power in saying it once! And Shema Yisroel has indeed been used as a mantra and not just by so-called "New Agers." Your purpose here seems to be to discredit any comparison with other spiritual practices because de facto they are "unjewish" even if there are clear parallels in the practices. Again, that is a theological opinion and not an impartial presentation of facts. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

Dear Rooster613, it seems to us that you are avoiding the main point. Just because something could be used as a mantra does not brand it as a mantra. As you yourself write anything can be used as a mantra, and almost any activity can be called a meditation. This Nanach has heard people categorizing sports as a meditation, and it could very well be a meditation for some, but that does not define sports as a meditation! Hisbodidus is not an act of meditation, even if many can also use it as such. Shema Yisroel, aside from the fact that it halachicly, as stated by Na Nach Nachmu Nachmum is not allowed to used as a mantra, is not a mantra, it is a holy verse from the Bible which Jews use daily to proclaim their belief in the One All-Merciful God. To define Shema Yisroel as a mantra is ludicrous! This article begins with the title "History of the Mantra", I have already revised this many times to a more correct title, "History of the Song", Na Nach Nachma Nachman is a song, as explained in the article. If you have an issue with such a title please let me know what it is, and offer an alternative title, but to entitle this article labeling Na Nach Nachma Nachman as a mantra is unacceptable. The reason why the title should call Na Nach a song, because this is in fact what Na Nach is, a song. This is clearly written in the Holy Zohar (Parshas Pinchas, and in Tikunay Zohar page 51 and in Likutay Moharan Tineena 8:1) and found in many other places.Moshenanach (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Na Nach Nachma Nachman does discredit other spiritual practices and you should mention that in the article. Rabbi Nachman said that his way is completely new, so obviously Rabbi Nachman felt that the comparsins that you are drawing are incorrect. Now it could be that you feel that since you are living in modern times that you are more knowledgable than Rabbi Nachman, but even still since this is an article about Rabbi Nachman himself we should take into account what Rabbi Nachman himself was trying to give over.Moshenanach (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the same way hisbodidus should not be branded as meditation, which is an exercise to achieve different states of mind.

Not necessarily. There are also forms of meditation that are more like contemplating an idea from all angles. And I would say that many people who chant Na Nach do indeed use it to achieve an altered state of consciousness. Rav Odesser is described as being in ecstasy when chanting it -- so isn't that an altered state??? Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

Once again, just because something can be used as a meditation does not brand it as such. Certainly Na Nach will often bring one to ecstasy, and certainly people in ecstasy will be chanting Na Nach, this is the nature of holy songs and prayers. Prayers can be meditations, but we call them prayers, and those that want to meditate on them are more than welcome.Moshenanach (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hisbodidus is nothing more and nothing less than what it's definition connotates, being alone i.e. with G-d. Hisbodidus is also often used to mean personal conversation, musing, and accounting a person conducts alone, i.e. with G-d. Certainly this can be extended to meditation, but the whole message of Rabbi Nachman is complete simplicity (even though the advocates for meditation may claim that the goal of meditation is to achieve a state of simplicity etc.. Rabbi Nachman's message is of complete simplicity from beginning to end, not having to resort to any methods, systems, and practices). Rabbi Nachman taught everyone how to act on simple truth that they knew in their own hearts.

Chanting a mantra is indeed "simplicity" compared to the complex Lurianic kavvannot that were popular among kabbalists in his day. But even Rebbe Nachman himself used Ribbono Shel Olam as a mantra, and he clearly recommends saying a holy word or phrase over and over as this article cites. I see no conflict between "simplicity" and using a mantra. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

When someone in distress and great anguish call out to the Holy All-Mericful One God, he has no plans and intentions, just from the depth of his heart he cries out to his creator. That is called simplicity. A mantra, even though it is much simpler than other forms of meditation, is much more complex. Mantra is repeated, the previous example of a person crying out to God, that person does not have any intentions or plans, he is more than overcome by the prediciment he's in, he's not looking to do anything, he's just, simply, crying out to God. This is something very simple to understand, and you must very steeped in your philosophies and complexities to acquiess. Try saying Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman this will help you lose all the intricit sophistications, and to be really simple in front of the Lord.Moshenanach (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

well put Moshenanach! According to what you wrote it is clear as well that Rabbi Nachman did not use the word "Ribbono Shel Olam" as a mantra, as R' Aryeh Kaplan and Rooster613 suggest. Rabbi Nachman said explicitly that during Hisbodidus one should try to come up with new words to present to God, but if one is unable to then what ever he could say he should, even if he will just be repeating himself. Thus it is clear that the person doing hisbodidus and calling out to the One All-Merciful God, "Ribbono Shel Olam" is hoping and praying that the Holy Merciful One will send him new words and he will not have to resort to repeating himself. Thus it is quite clear that Rabbi Nachman was not trying to tell people to use it as a mantra. Although it is obvious that if one will actually be forced to repeat himself in front of God, he will merit to great things, far and above a regular mantra invoker.Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Moshenanach shapir kaamart! NA NACH NACHMA NACHMAN MEUMAN IS THE SONG-NAME OF RABBI NACHMAN, IN FORM OF (and in partnership with (LM II 8 et al) THE DIVINE SONG OF THE FUTURE (Tikkunei Hazohar #21, daf 51: "When the sinners are annulled from the world, prayer will ascend in the melody of the four species -- which is the song that is single -- yud; doubled -- yud kay; tripled -- yud kay vav; quadrupled -- yud kay vav kay. In the name of yud kay vav kay, the prayer -- which is the Divine Presence -- rises. The Torah in a song, the Divine Presence in a song, Israel leaves the Exile in a song. As it is written, `Then Moshe and the children of Israel will sing this SONG to Hashem' [Ex. 15]" The labeling as "mantra" is POV and repulsive. May God enlighten your heart to change this. NA NACH NACHMA NACHMAN MEUMAN Nissimnanach (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Nissimnanach: Perhaps there is a language problem here? In English, a "song" is something you perform or sing through once, not something you chant over and over. The "Song at the Sea" you reference was a long song with multiple verses and fits the common ENGLISH definition of what a song is. The NaNach, on the other hand, is a short phrase repeated over and over as a chant. The question is not whether you sing it (the Hare Krishna mantra is also sung) but whether it is repeated over and over as part of a devotional practice. And you cannot deny that Nanachs DO repeat the Na Nach phrase over and over and over. I realize that you do not like the term mantra because you feel it somehow disparages your Rebbe, or because it is a term from Eastern mysticism, or whatever -- but it is a technical term that has been adopted into English and IN ENGLISH it conveys a more accurate description of the practice than "song." This is not about "God enlightening my heart" (your words) it is about academic requirements for writing a secular encyclopedia. And frankly, I am getting very, very tired of all these little digs at me personally from members of your group. If anything here is "repulsive" (your word), it is your own behavior toward people who do not agree with you. Rooster613 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Authenticity of the Petek

I am dividing the discusson into this new topic here, since it seem to have done that anyway. BTW, if we use the word "petek" on the main article, it needs to be defined the first time it is used. Rooster613 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the authenticity or better yet the importance of the approbation given by R. Moshe F.. It is very important to point out that even though it is known that R. Moshe went out of his way to help people, never in his whole life did he write anything remotely similar to what he wrote for R. Yisroel. R. Moshe, as the Saba points out, was a Litvak, i.e. someone who puts the study of Gemura on the forfront and will never engage (at least openly) in the study of Kabala. In all the written books of R. Moshe the closest discussion related to Kabala is a response about the proper time to say the prayer Brich Shmay. There is great differences of opinion among the followers of R. Moshe as to whether or not R. Moshe did or did not study Kabala secretly. So it is amazing that apx. 2 years before his passing R. Moshe meets the Saba and writes an approbation stating that the Saba has great knowledge of Kabala! R. Moshe's meeting with the Saba obviously had a tremendous effect on R. Moshe, leading him to pubicly acclaim Kabala. There is much more to write about this but presently I am unable.

Also R. Moshe wrote explicitly that he saw the Petek and it very wonderous! Also there are people living today who were in the room together with R. Moshe and the Saba (R. Moshe also approached the Saba and asked him for his blessing, and R. Moshe called his wife to recieve a blessing from the Saba!), and there are people that can tell over the turn of events that led R. Moshe to ask to be introduced to the Saba (after R. Moshe was shown the Petek he said, this, don't laugh at this, it is very wonderous, and then he asked to meet the person that recieved the Petek, and the meeting was arranged).

This is an issue that is not likely to be solved objectively. Some say he thought it was authentic and others not. Only Rav Feistein knows for sure what he actually thought, and he is no longer with us, a"h". Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

That seems ridiculous. If there is a signed approbation from Rabbi Moshe F. why is that not sufficient evidence of his belief?Moshenanach (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though Rabbi Nachman never explicitly revealed that his name is the song of simple, double, triple, quadruple, there is an almost explicit reference to this in the beggining of his holy book Likutay Moharan. {It is also interesting to note that the acronym for Rabbi Nachman is RuN, which is the hebrew word for sing, and the title of his holy book Likutay Moharan, the Saba told the kamarner rebbe, is to be pronounce Likutay Meron i.e. a reference to the master of the Zohar (Book Of Splendor, the sourcebook of Kabala) Rabbi Shimon, who is buried in Meron, and as related by the Saba (Israel Saba, hebrew, somewhere around page Run), when Rabbi Nachman visited Rabbi Shimon in Meron, Rabbi Shimon asked him, Meron, Me Rone?, i.e. who's singing, and Rabbi Nachman answered Me Rone? Ani (I) Rabbi Nachman, Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun MayUman! (although it is not for certain that Rabbi Nachman revealed Na Nach to Rabbi Shimon then, perhaps the Saba added it)}. There is a poem composed by Rabbi Nachman published there, in the poem Rabbi Nachman spells out his name in the first letters of every line, then proceeds to double them and triple them and then includes the name of his father Simcha (which has a numerical value of Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun). In the introduction to the poem it says that the poem will discuss the song that will arise (an allusion to the song that is simple, double etc., as it is refered to in the Zohar and in Likutay Moharan), and finishes by stating that Rabbi Nachman's name is signed in the poem, double triple quadruple. This is basicly a clear cut exclamation that Rabbi Nachman's name is this holy song which is simple, double, etc..

Also anyone of proper belief and knowledgable in Rabbi Nachman's writings knows that the name of the Tzadik is united in the name of G-d, and know that Rabbi Nachman is THE tzadik, and therefore knows that the song that is alluded to in the Zohar as simple, double, ect. Y, YH, YHV, YHVH, is going to apply to the name of Rabbi Nachman. These two paragraphs are objective proofs and substantation for Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun MayUman, irrigardless of whether or not one believes in the Petek.

Nobody is denying that the Na Nach is based on Rebbe Nachman's name. The controversies center around whether Rebbe Nachman himself wrote the petek or whether it was written by somebody else. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

The Petek was written by the one who signed it: Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman! Now you may want to dispute who exactly Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman is, but the fact is that Na Nach Nachma Nachman May-Uman is the author of the Holy Petek.Moshenanach (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Now to say that some prankster, even one with good intentions, merited to chance upon signing Rabbi Nachman's name in such a way is almost as big as a miracle as the actuality that it was in fact written by Rabbi Nachman.

Theologically it is true that God can work in strange ways, and the article does suggest it could have been "a miracle of timimg" or some such. But in an NPOV encyclopedia, we can only state what various people believe happened, not whether or not is was actually a miracle.

There is a general rule that G-d doesn't use unworthy people to be agents of miracles (c.f. the Brisker rav, beginning of Parshas Toldos, that the scoffers wanted to say that Sara became pregnant from King Avimelech, the commentators ask that even still the main miracle was that Sara, who was her whole life barren and now 90 years old, gave birth.

Whether or not God uses "unworthy people" -- or even deciding who "merited" to do such and such -- is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. As the article states, some people accept the miracle, others do not. In an objective article such as this you cannot discount possible historcal facts because they contradict a theological principle. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

If the people disputing the article believe in the theological priciple, then certainly we can question their claims. So the question is dear Rooster613 do you believe in God and His Holy Ones?Moshenanach (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is over the line, Moshenanach. Submitting me to an inquisition about my personal beliefs is irrelevant. However, if you go to the Yonassan Gershom page that somebody created about me here, I think it will be pretty obvious that I believe in God. So I will ignore the insult, the same as I have ignored other put-downs here -- which only prove you are not on a very high spiritual level, or you would not resort to personal insults as "proofs" of your POV. As for believing in "His Holy Ones," that depends on your definition of "beleive in." I am a monotheist, I worship ONE GOD. I do not worship Rebbes and Zaddikim, although I do believe that such holy people exist and we can learn from them. But only GOD is perfect, everyone else is capable of making mistakes. As for disputes, sure, you can dispute. But Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox and you Na Nachers insist on trying to make it into one. Why not spend your energy in finding documentable second party sources (published books, articles, opinions from OUTSIDE your own websites) and footnote them? That would be much more productive than dragging me over the coals for not believing exactly as you do. Rooster613 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brisker Rav say that this is the way of scoffers, they'll admit that a great miracle took place, but they will take the credit away from the Tzadik and give it to the Rusha). There are countless other proofs, not to mention that the Saba vouched for it testifying to its authenticity and amazing powers. Also Rabbi Nachman says in Sichot HuRan, it is better to be a foolish person who believes everything, and therefor believe in what he is supposed to, rather than being a wiseman who due to all his analyzation refuses to believe in most things, thus missing out on important beliefs. Na Nach is in no way similar to the Lubavitch falsehood proclaiming their dead rabbi as moshiach, which is a belief borderlying on rejection of basic tenets of Jewish belief and logic which even non Jews are required to heed. Someone opposed to Na Nach at worst can call it dubious or meaningless, or possibly G-d forbid a somewhat disrespectful name calling of a Holy Tzadik, but there is no way to associate it G-d forbid with Kfira, therefore certainly one should heed Rabbi Nachman's words in the Sichot, and believe in Na Nach.

There are presently a few books written about the Petek and Na Nach. First and foremost a composition of the Saba's conversations titled: Yisroel Saba, this is available in Hebrew, English, and French (possibly other languages). Seventy Rectifications of the Petek (this is not a completely accurate book as the author himself states while he records his own 'dimyonot' and upholds certain things which I don't consider to be completely pure to Na Nach). Matzpon Hapetek, a booklet which anlyzed all of history in the light of the Petek. In addition there are various little booklets floating around. The author of these comments, myself, has the makings for a book apx. 90 large pages about Na Nach. The book is meant primarily for someone already very familiar with the common knowledge of Rabbi Nachman his disciples in particularly the Saba. There is a blogspot recently started, and presently containing only one thought, visit it: NaaNaach.blogspot.com. Or email me at NaaNaach@gmail.com.

There is much more to be written, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.88.110 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are a sincere beleiver and as such, it must be very hard to see others question the very foundations of your beliefs. However, the role of an encyclopedia is not to debate the untimate "truth" of any theology. I've been involved in this page since its creation and my goal has always been to keep it NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and see all sides presented objectively. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out, there are many good references in your comments which, although they might not fit into the article itself, do provide some clairification of a Na Nacher POV for those who might come here to read them. I must log off now to get ready for Rosh Hashanah tomorrow -- Shanah Tovah 5769. Rooster613 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

Meaning

No meaning explained in the meaning section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.180.22 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

do you have a suggestion on how the article can be improved? Jon513 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The meaning is given. It is explained that it is an expansion of the Hebrew letters of the name "Nachman." A translation is given at the bottom of that section as "now to Nachman from Uman." Some of the sounds used in the repetition do not, in and of themsleves, have a translateable meaning. It is a play on Hebrew letters and sounds -- hard to convery in English. Rooster613 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Rooster613

It should be mentioned that the concept of expanding a name of a person probably relates to the Talmudic idea of vanishing a demon, by chanting its name continuously, whilst subtracting the last letter, until the last remaining letter is gone, as is the demon. The reverse effect seems to be at play here, a matra to conger up the spirit of Rav Nachman. 93.172.122.215 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can mention anything as long as you have a source for it. :) Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

this is a b-class article

wikipedia is so terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.231.76 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe" is not NPOV

I forgot to log in before changing "fringe" to "spin-off" in two places. Here is my reasoning: To call something a "fringe group" is to disparage it as not important, unworthy, a bunch of crazies, etc. It is a value judgement that does not belong here. A "spin-off," on the other hand, is neutral, as for example, Deep Space Nine is a spin-off from the original Star Trek series. "Spin-off" indicates that something is a branching-off from the original but without the negative connotations of "fringe." I think we can agree that since Reb Odesser, "revealer" of this mantra, was himself a respected Breslov leader in his day, that the current movement is a spin-off from mainstream Breslov.

There has been an ongoing war here between the supporters and opposers of this mantra. Supporters want to canonize Reb Odesser as the saint of saints, opposers want to discredit him as a fake, etc. Please stop it! The purpose of this encyclopedia is to give FACTS, not be on a [[soapbox]. Rooster613 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rooster, Sorry I didn't see this note before I reverted your edit. I agree with your reasoning and will honor it in this article as well as the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) article. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Yoninah -- as you know from previous discussion, I'm neutral on this mandtra, I'm just trying to keep the article NPOV. We have both worked hard on this page, trying to keep sectarian squabbles from ruining it. We need to watch carefully for attempts to skew it in either direction (pro or con). I posted my reasoning for preferring "spin-off" to "fringe" on the discussion of the Na Nach page also. Kol tuv! Rooster613 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Spin-off" may be fine for a secular topic -- it is flippant and disparaging for a religious one. "Fringe" is obviously POV and marginalizing. "Subgroup" is most accurate and neutral, in my opinion. I believe Na Nachs, Breslevers and everyone can be happy with it, for it is even written that Rabbi Nachman said "I will make you into subgroups and subgroups (kitot kitot)!" (Chayey Moharan 319). Nissimnanach (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

It was not my intent to be "flippant and disparaging" with "spin-off," which is neutral to me. But if people prefer "subgroup" then I am OK with that, too. Rooster613 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge complete

I merged the contents of The Petek into both this article and Yisroel Ber Odesser. Yoninah (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Na Nach statistics

Is there any reliable data on how many Breslover Hasidim believe in Na Nach?

I think there is not.

While it is true that most sects of Breslov do not endorse the petek, and some are against, it is not clear what the individuals actually think. It is possible that significant numbers of members of other sects believe in the petek in their individual capacities even if it goes against their sect's official position.

Furthermore, it is unknown how many Breslover Hasidim there are. Breslov is not a well defined group without any official membership. There are many Breslover Hasidim that have no outward Breslov appearance and may not be affiliated strongly with any group. Therefore, it is hard to estimate what percentage of Hasidim believe in the petek.

Since we don't know how many Breslovers are out there, and we don't reliably know what they think, we don't know if most Breslovers believe in the petek. Shalom Dym (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)