Talk:Hasidic Judaism
|
|
Template:Onlinesource2004 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
| Contents |
Panentheism and pantheism
See Hasidic Judaism#Fundamental conceptions, Pantheism#Kabbalah, and Talk:Kabbalah#Panentheism and pantheism. --Eequor 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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 Lezhinsk Leżajsk Mezeritch Mezhiritch, Ukraine (not to confuse with Miedzyrzecz, Poland) Zanz 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test 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)
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)
That was me. The edits were POV, pure and simple. JFW | T@lk 13:21, 5 Apr 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
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)
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)