Talk:Hasidic philosophy

Question

Hi,

Ummm I know next to nothing about Hasidic philosophy, so I'm not really in a position to clean this article up, but some of it (especially the section on "The Key To All Wisdom", which somehow manages to bring Star Wars into the discussion) looks like it could do with a clean. The grammar and spelling is off in a few places and looks like it has been text-messaged in (ie, lots of "Torah is all the names of Hashem, not a/t definite just the way u call them" and "you have all kinds of wisdom w/o putting in years studying it. U’ll automatically understand everything in the world." and "Cuz God is choosing without any external influences that he wants exactly like that")

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

cheers

--Gregrosman 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Greg you are right 100%. I had the real expert on the topic helping with this article and I'm trying to get him back to finish the job. I jotted down some notes from a class he gave and that's why you have the very messy later sections. If I knew I way to preserve that info somehow until its fixed up I'd do it but I don't want to simply delete it just yet.

• P.S. Who has just made this last comment without signing their name with the four tildes ~~~~ and who is "the real expert" as if there is one "real expert" that we are waiting for on this topic? Someone on Chabad.org? What about the dozens of other Hasidic dynasties, does the "real expert" know about them too? IZAK 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge to other articles

This article should either be re-edited or split up and divided as follows, reflected by the templates {{tl:merge to|Hasidic Judaism}}, {{tl:merge to|Chabad-Lubavitch}}, {{tl:merge to|Tanya}} because: (a) this topic is not different to Hasidic Judaism; (b) It basically reflects mostly Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic philosophy, links and sources; and (c) it reflects the teachings emanating from the Tanya. Thank you. IZAK 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic of Hasidic philosophy is extremely vast. This article could be three times as long as it is without even begin to scratch the surface of what it is all about. The answer to your criticisms is to ADD MORE information and links about other sects of philosphy and dynasties etc. not to merge it with other articles that are long enough as they are.

But also note that the amount of scholarship that has been produced on Hasidic philosphy by Chabad dwarfs that of all the other Hasidic groups put together, and their Hasidic philosophy is the most widely disseminated, learned and well known of any other group, so when you edit, I recommend that the emphasis reflect those facts. (In fact, the Chabad yeshiva system is the only one among all Hasdic groups that makes study of Hasidic philosophy a mandatory and significant part of the yeshiva curriculum.)

P.S. Maybe that person who wrote is like me and doesn't know how to leave a signature...if you show me how I'd be glad to use it.70.107.126.198 01:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks

• (The above was actually written by anonymous User:69.114.171.152 [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know where User:70.107.126.198 comes into the picture. Thank you. IZAK 09:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC).)

you leave a signature by writing four tildas ~

Itzik18 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous User:69.114.171.152: Your words only prove my point that this article is not about "Hasidic" philosophy but it is about Chabad-Lubavitch philosophy. Your argument that Chabad "dwarfs" other Hasidic movements only shows that you are a "snob" and your editing should have the warning "Chabad snob alert" because you have no respect or tolerance for anything besides Chabad, and how dare you come to my user page [5] [6] and preach to me that I am a "snob" when every word you utter here is sheer Chabad POV snobbery. Please don't be a shtunker and stick to editing articles and not insulting people. IZAK 09:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things: I don't know how you can claim I am intolerant of other Hasidic sects when I wrote in big letters that people should "ADD MORE" information about other sects who also espouse hasidic philosophy. Further, I did not say that Chabad dwarfs the other Hasidic MOVEMENTS. That would be false. I said that the quantity of SCHOLARSHIP on hasidic philosophy produced by Chabad dwarfs that of other groups, and that Chabad's take on hasidism is the most well known of any other group.

Looking beyond the picture of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe (there is no verifiably accurate picture of the Baal Shem Tov to my knowledge) I think you will find that the article focuses on the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov who predates the distinctions between Chabad and other Hasidim, and all hasidic groups hold of him as far as I am aware.70.107.135.104 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If this article is merged, it should merge to Hasidic Judaism. Hasidic philosophy is broader than Chabad or Tanya, which are significant but yet still only subsets of the larger topic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. At all. As for merging with Hassidic Judaism, both articles are, I think, long enough and important enough to stand on their own. I would never have thought that I would have come to have to explain why Hasidic philosophy shouldn't be subsumed in Tanya, but... There are not only many different kinds of chaddisut, but they can be radically different. Comparing Llikutei Moharan with Tanya is like including Judaism in Islam because they're both Abrahamic (don't read too much into the order, I'm not saying Chabad isn't Jewish...). As for the statementts that chabad dwarfs everything else or that "Looking beyond the picture of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe (there is no verifiably accurate picture of the Baal Shem Tov," I ought to point out-excuse me?! I don't know where to begin yelling ( ;) ) I don't know what makes you suppose that Tanya is so verifyably accurate. And furthermore, I don't know what makes you think that all his other followers and descendants know nothing. He DID have a grandson who was a great chassidic rebbe, and there are also many radically different intellectual descendants of the Besht. I agree whole-heartedly that if this article is currently all Chabad, we need to add more information about other groups. I'd remove the merge tags right now if it weren't such an apparently hot issue... Avraham 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused because I don't think your assertions here really contradict what was said above in the previous comment. Did the previous comment say that Chabad drawfs EVERYTHING? Did it say the other followers of the Besht don't know ANYTHING? And who ever mentioned anything about whether the Tanya is verifiably accurate? Do you mean its not? Do you have any basis for that? Can't both the picture and the Tanye be not verifiable? I'm lost. Much of the stuff you seem to be getting mad about are things you said-not things were said on this discussion page anywhere that I can find. I do beleive you are correct, though, that other chassidic groups should step up to the plate and represent themselves. 71.167.216.189 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the premise of anon. above, viz. that in terms of sheer quantity (and direct perusal will confirm that the same applies to quality) the volume of scholarship in the Chabad school of Chassidus is far larger than that of any other group, and this focus on intensive, in-depth study is reflected in the Chabad Yeshiva system, which designates 3 hrs. per day to this study, unlike any other Chassidic Yeshiva. This fact deserves recognition in the context of any discussion of Chassidic philosophy, and no disrespect towards other Chassidic groups and philosophies is meant by pointing it out.

In this light, it is only fair to leave the explanations sourced in Chabad Chassidus on the Chasidic philosophy page, and that does not violate NPOV. Those who wish to post insights that reflect upon other approaches to Chasidus are welcome to do so. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate over Chabad

Just a note to the people who keep on going back and forth on whether Chabad stresses some disciple more than other branches of Chassidus. What will help here is to cite a source for the given opinion. There are many academic books on Chassidism. If you can find your point supported in such an academic work, then cite that work for the point you wish to make. If a different author has a different view, then that can be cited as well. It is OK to have conflicting views if they are attributed to worthy sources. It will make a better article, I think. (In any case, it will be more useful to readers to see the various opinions laid out than to have the article itself keep flipping between different versions). My work here is done... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

As mentioned above, "the Chabad yeshiva system is the only one among all Hasidic groups that makes study of Hasidic philosophy a mandatory and significant part of the yeshiva curriculum." No non-Chabad makes study of Chasidus mandatory, or produces kovtzim with in-depth analyses of the most profound kabbalistic concepts.

Also, if anyone can claim that Chabad chassidus is not in another league from other Chasidus in terms of its depth and complexity, nothing personal, but all that demonstrates is that they've never learnt Chabad chassidus. It ain't called Chabad chassidus for nothing. Where else will you find tens of thousands of discourses discussing the hisavus ho'or, the reshimu, the koach hagvul and the koach habli gvul, the difference between the mo'or and the or ha'kolul be'mo'or, the koach hamaskil vs. the etzem ha'koach, the yechido, nefesh nosei kochos vs. etzem hakochos, eser sfiros hagluyos vs. eser sfiros hagnuzos, gilui ha'helem vs. yesh mei'ayin, yecholes ho'atzmus, the tsiyur in the oros, akudim, nekudim u'vrudim, olamos dechlolus vs. olamos diprotus, etc., etc. Other branches of Chasidus barely even touch on these concepts, never mind explain them in such overwhelmingly vast depth and breadth. This is not a statement of chauvinism, but of fact, and anyone who wants to clarify the matter for himself is free to do so; for one online source, see the maamorim of the Rebbe Rashab here: http://otzar770.com/library/ and maamorim from all the Chabad Rebbeim here: http://chabadlibrary.org/books/ Yehoishophot Oliver 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you don't need to convince me. All you need is a reliable source. (While "see the maamorim of the Rebbe Rashab" may be useful for people who want to pursue the study of chassidus, this does not constitute a "source".) Go to the library, get a book on Hasidism, and see if there is a scholar who shares your view. Then cite that person in the traditional fashion. That's the way to do it, man. If you are correct about this, I don't think you will have any difficulty in finding a good source. Heck, cite the Jewish Encyclopedia, which says something to this effect. I'm sure you can find a much stronger source thought if you do a little legwork. —Dfass 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh....Most CHasidic yeshivas have learning chasidus as part of the curriculum, most chasiduses are jost not large enough to have their own yeshivahs. Breslov, however learns their seforim as part of the seder, and Satmar kollels have learning Maamar SHlosh Shavuos as part of their system (must be learned 10% of the time spent learning is a fairly common requirement), and Munkatchers learn Minchas Eliezar. This article is obviously written mostly by a Chabadnik. "Chagas" is not a term used by any other Chasidis to describe anything. It's a term invented by Chabad to describe others. Having it in this article without mentioning it is a Chabad term is like me going over to the article about Humans and puting, "Humans (homo sapien sapiens) are a species of primates generally divided into the Chinese and the Weilo. They are bipedal tool users." 88.152.134.66 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You prove my point. Only Breslov, who are known to take study of Chasidus seriously, even include it in their Yeshiva seder, ve'kol ha'kovod lohem. However, I guarantee that they don't have a mandatory seder to learn it for three hours daily. Maamar Shlosh Shavuos is not a text that describes gadlus Hashem, the levels of the neshomo, or seder hishtalshelus, so it doesn't really qualify as Chasidus, and Minchas Elazar, though written by a great Rebbe and Tzaddik, is a book of Shaalos U'teshuvos, again not Chasidus. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to our Chabad friends, it is of course wonderful to have long involved theoretical discourses about the details of chasidus and kabolo. But the essence of Chasidus is its practical side, to directly perceive the Divine in the world. And this is not achieved by study of theory, but by focused use of the techniques of chasidus. Until one has achieved this shift in perception, one does not know the reality that words such as 'the tsiyur in the oros' refer to. The Piasezna Rebbe in Hachshoras Avrechim explains the difference between the mekubal and the chosid mekubal. The mekubal learns kabolo, and reads that bread has three shemos in it. Then he looks at his sandwiches and wonders what that means. The chosid mekubal looks at his sandwiches, sees three shemos, and opens the kabolo sefer to find out more about it. General Chasidus therefore focuses on studying the mainstream texts of Judaism, to give a good theoretical grounding, and those that achieve the higher levels will be guided to the appropriate texts at the right time. My experience of Chabad chasidim is that they have studied chabad texts almost exclusively, and because of the advanced nature of these texts, they have not really grasped the basics properly. Aniksker (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

1. It's true that the ultimate purpose of the study is to have it put into practice. When did anyone suggest otherwise? It doesn't follow from that, however, that the study should be neglected, or de-emphasised.

2. Some Chabad chasidim understand more, some less. However, not all Chabad texts are advanced, and beginners are directed to more basic texts. In any case, as mentioned, the undeniable fact is that the emphasis on study is greater than anywhere else: three hours daily for a Yeshiva bochur, and an hour daily for an alumnus of Tomchei Temimim. I fail to understand what you mean by "General Chasidus therefore focuses on the mainstream texts of Judaism." That's apparently a way of saying that it doesn't focus on studying Chasidus because it is thought to be not accessible to everyone (in contradiction to the pashtus of the loshon of Moshiach, yofutzu mayonosecho chutzo). I guess this too confirms my point about the degree of emphasis placed in Chabad vis a vis other groups. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

1. or over-emphasised.

2. The simple message of the Baal Shem Tov is that chasidus is accessible to the common man. This involves a change in the person, not an academic degree in the details of chasidic philosophy. As far as study is concerned, I would remind you of the Tanya's point that learning is grasping the King through his clothes. The texts of the Torah are vehicles to draw down and attach oneself to the light of the Ein Sof, which purifies and elevates the person. This is the standard derech even before chasidus, but the problem was that those learning forgot that there was a goal to be attained through the learning, and simply focused on intellectual knowledge. The greater the author of the text, the more light is embodied in it, and therefore chasidus in general prefers spending more time on Gemoro, containing the light of the Tanoim and Amoraim, to the later works. (One also needs a good understanding of shas and halocho as a basis to chasidus). Aniksker (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC) (einikle of chabadskers)

1. 1 Call it what you like, that's the opinion of the Chabad Rebbeim, that this study should be emphasized greatly and have significant time devoted to it

1. I'm baffled. Are you saying that Chasidus contains more quotes from the Gemoro than later sources? In which sifrei Chasidus do you see this? (Not saying it's not so, just trying to understand.) Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate over Chabad

What gives? We've been discussing this for months and you go and unilaterially merge the entire article, effectively wiping out months of work and nobody get's a say about it.

If you don't like the emphasis, edit it. Help it. Make it better. Join the discussion. Don't just remove it. That is wrong in my opinion no matter where you stand.72.89.212.50 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

JdWolf's attempts to delete article

Jdwolf: If you think this article "adds nothing to the Chabad article" or the "hasidism article", then you haven't seen the Chabad or hasidism articles. They don't even scratch the surface of what Hasidic philosophy is all about nor does any other article I have seen on any hasidism related topic.

I have seen several complaints on wikipedia talk pages for the past couple of years, that no one has attempted to explain what Hasidic philophy actually is all about. "What do Hasidim actually believe?" is a common question. Especially since the growing visibility of Hasidic Jews in New York, in movies, in the media and especially with the recent popularity of regggae artist Matisyahu. In that sense, this article fills a very great need.

As said before, the main discussion of this article is the teachings the Baal Shem Tov who predates the distintions between different groups of Chassidim. Sure the Tanya is mentioned but that is one the most well-konw works of hasidic philosphy and the article would be remiss not to mention it. If you think a particular line or sentence in the article is unfairly exclusive to Chabad, then tell us which one it is and let's talk about it.

Thanks.68.161.101.218 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Query: What give you the right to delete the article and say "discuss before restoring". I say: leave the article and discuss before deleting. It's kinda hard to discuss an article that no longer exists.

Another query: Are you such an expert in non-Chabad hasidic texts that you can say that the ideas found in this article don't exists there too? I think if you learn them you will find that they do.

Final Thought: If on any other article on wikipedia someone would say "hey, this article is one-sided, let's delete it!" Ppl. would think that's madness-why not just better represent the other side? But I guess when it comes to anti-chabad sentiment anything goes...Very sad.

What the ....

Okay what's with the weird Baal Teshuvah driven stuff about the Satmar Rov vs. Chabad and Breslov. (For whoever wrote the stuff, Breslov in Jerusalem and Monroe is a virtual satellite of Satmar.) If you can't source the stuff about R' Teitelbaum being the evil darth vader of the chasidic world and making it all extreme when before it was fluffy, I'm going to erase the whole thing as unsourced. 79.183.238.107 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hassidus v Mussar

[The following was inserted into the article today, but it belongs here instead, so I've moved it here.]
-- Zsero (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Unreliable source to explain Mussar being that the authors of that website do not learn Mussar and therefore can't be relied upon to give an accurate definition on material that they are unfamiliar with.)

Here is a more accurate definition:

Mussar is the study and application of improving one's character traits with the ultimate goal of attaching oneself to Hashem. (See Sefer Even Sheleima, GRA, Ch. 1, 1-2, and footnote 3)

-- Softwords (Talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[My response:] The mussar movement came well after the GRA. In general, Mussar's main goal is shleimus rather than dveikus. What you describe is actually more typical of chassidus than of mussar.

R Y.G. Bechhoffer has written at length about this; if you search for "bechhoffer chassidus mussar" you should find it. -- Zsero (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent that Zsero lacks a basic background in the topic of Mussar. Although it is true that Reb Yisroel Salanter, z"tl, popularized the study of Mussar, non-the-less the existence of this form of Torah study goes much further back than then. Most of the famous works of Mussar were written by Rishonim (such as Orchos Tzaddikim, Chovos Halevovos, Sefer HaYasher, Shaareh Teshuvah, etc). The truth is that Mishlei, Avos, and the Agodos and Maamarim in the Talmud are also studies of Mussar and that is why they are quoted all over by the more contemporary authors of Mussar (ex. Mesilas Yisharim is based on a Maamar of Rav Pinchus ben Yair brought down in the Gemorah)-- Softwords

"In general, Mussar's main goal is shleimus rather than dveikus." -- Zsero

I'm sorry to have to be out of character, but I find it necessary to give harsh rebuke here.

1) Wikipedia is a website to receive factual information, not opinions. Leave opinions for other websites such as bloggers!!!

2) It is blatantly obvious that you've never learned a word of Mussar in your life! Mesilas Yisharim is the most fundamental Mussar sefer. If you look at the very second paragraph in the very first chapter it say the following: "When you look in to the matter you will see that true perfection is ONLY Deveikus in Hashem... (he continues the rest of that paragraph bringing proofs and expounding on this point.)

So I ask you, how can you come with such guile and make the claims you do? The truth is that I know the answer to this, but don't feel it appropriate to reveal it in the public eye. I do, however, request of you to stick to facts, not opinions. Thank you. -- Softwords

Those earlier seforim are just as much part of chassidus as of the mussar movement. Reishis-chochmo-type mussar you can find in any maamar of chassidus. When chassidus is contrasted with mussar we are talking about the mussar movement, which started with R Yisroel Salanter. And that movement saw the primary goal as shleimus. -- Zsero (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gonna translate the whole kaboodle into (in Italian)

I'm creating an entire new section on Chabad et al. on it.Wikipedia, with respective "Chabadfooter" template, links, images, references. The works.
This article is part of the program: naturally, I'm going to edit it a bit, but not tooooo much.
Wish me luck!--Daubmir (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

English literature on Hasidic thought

I think the examples in this section are completely superfluous. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Probably are! -should be reduced to a list of referencies/further reading, citing especially academic books. I'm sorry to say that I added this section "English literature on Hasidic thought" (anonymously) in 2008. I did so as a temporary measure until the page receives a proper academic write up. Perhaps, in the meantime, this section might stay, as it (poorly) fills in some background information?? - eg. discussion of unreliability of Buber's Tales of the Hasidim for undersatanding of Hasidism (ignores Hasidic theoretical thought, downplays Kabbalah, adapts Hasidism to Buber's own Existentialist philosophy). But, I embarassingly admit that the section is very (very!) bad/unsuitable! - but so are other sections of the page, eg. sections "Connection to the Jewish Messiah", "Key to all wisdom"...."Schools of Thought" (needs much fuller treatment)....in fact, basically, everything! Bizarely, 3 people have rated the page highly! Bashfully, April8 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hasidic "philosophy" or "thought"

User April8 posted on my talkpage that "Hasidic thought" would be a more correct name for this article. I have been convinced by his arguments. At the moment Hasidic thought redirects here. Any opinions? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Make sure you also move this talk page to "Talk:Hasidic thought", or does that happen automatically? (This is the first time I've dared to look at this talk page - see my new comment, added today directly above this entry) April8 (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Happens automatically. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research tag

You tagged Hasidic philosophy with a {{Original research}} tag. Please see the edit summary of my consequetive edit: this one. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you. Apart from being written poorly and relying on sources such as "AskMoses.com", all the talk about Nistarim and the "aims of Hasidic thought" strikes me as OR. This article should be put on a crash diet, especially the sections relating to Kabbalah in general. AddMore-III (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I cut some paragraphs (>8.5 thousand characters) and still this article is ridiculously inflated. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, thank you again. I'll take a more thorough look here and try to give a hand after I'm done with Hasidism itself. AddMore-III (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, I refer you to the discussion here. AddMore-III (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AddMore-III - Thank you for pinging me and bringing this discussion to my attention. After looking through all of the content you removed, I agree that there were problems with a significant portion of it, and that removing it was correct. I've reverted the article back to the revision of your last change. While I think some of the content was sourced, I think that further discussion should take place before any changes are made; it'll be easily sorted out using DR. Thanks again for the ping :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, how is this paragraph relevant for this article? This is one *long* (and inaccurate) etymology section. I'll add a concise one to the main article. AddMore-III (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, why would you say it is inaccurate. Furthermore, etymology sections are always relevant, per definition. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge

After culling this article from a ton of low quality OR+syntheis, there is little left. The section "the term Hasidus" covers the etymology of the term. It has nothing to do with Hasidic philosophy, and there is a parallel and better one in the main article Hasidism. "Overview in historical context" actually covers the history of the movement, yet again surveyed better in the main article. Without these two, we're left with "in general" and "characteristic ideas" - which I find both lacking and badly written, but especially *short*. There is really nothing here that merits its own article. When you compound this with the problem of defining a distinct Hasidic ideology, I see no reason not to make this a redirect to the segment "philosophy" in the main article. AddMore-III (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there is enough left for a standalone article, and also to avoid overstraining the general article. In addition, I think the subject deserves a standalone article. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There's very little here that merits its own article - really only the section on 'characteristic ideas.' In fact, the section on Hasidic philosophy contained in the Hasidic Judaism page seems to me more comprehensive than what we have here. I think any strain on the general article is due to the overly in-depth and non-encyclopedic style used there.Jbrzow (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The article deserves its own page, as it is a valid topic. That said, the article in its current state needs a good cleanup (I've started with bits and pieces and hope to continue). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge tag removed. Sections from main Hasidic Judaism page moved here, and I've redone the section there so it is a nice few paragraphs, now with a main:article link. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As the writer of almost all of Hasidic Judaism, I don't understand your edits. You just moved material (quite randomly, it seems) between the articles. Now the content I wrote there appears also here: the important "distinctions" paragraph which opens the main article was copied and became "In Jewish scholarship" here, completely out of context. I thank Jbrzow for his support, the non-copied matter here is just bad and disorganized. AddMore-III (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph from Background section

This paragraph is repetitive (topics are already covered on page) but appears to be full of content (though I don't think it is from the actual source). I've removed it from the page, but think if something jumps out at you, highlight it and re-add. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hasidic thought builds upon Kabbalah, and is sometimes called a new stage in its development. However, this generalisation is misleading (although implicit in Hasidus are new interpretations of Kabbalah, that can be drawn out and related to its new philosophical positions). Kabbalah gives the complete structure of traditional Jewish metaphysics, using subtle categorisations and metaphors. This studies the Divine interaction with Creation, through describing the emanations that reveal, and mediate Godliness. Because of the concern to divest these ideas from any physical connotations, Kabbalists traditionally restricted their transmission to closed circles of advanced scholars, for fear of misinterpreting sensitive concepts. Hasidus leaves aside the Kabbalistic focus on complicated metaphysical emanations, to look at the simple essence of Divinity that it sees permeating within each level, and transcending all. Hasidus looks to the inner spiritual meaning within Kabbalah by relating its ideas to man's inner psychological awareness, and conceptual analogies from man's observation. This independence from the esoteric nature of Kabbalah, gives Hasidic thought its ability to be expressed in its spiritual stories, tangible teachings, and emotional practices, as well as the ability to pervade and illuminate other levels of Torah interpretation, not only the hidden ideas of Kabbalah. Hasidism only utilises Kabbalistic terminology when it explains and enlivens the Kabbalistic level of Torah interpretation. This distinctive ability to bring Kabbalah into intellectual and emotional grasp, is only one of the characteristics and forms of Hasidic thought. The more involved Hasidic writings use Kabbalah extensively, according to their alternative paths within Hasidism, but only as a means to describe the inner processes of spirituality, as they relate to man's devotional life. The spiritual contribution of the range of Hasidus avoids the concerns that traditionally restricted Kabbalah, and for the first time, offered the whole population access to the inner dimensions of Judaism.

Is this a real Hasidic idea? Hamschat ha-Shefa

The article talks about "Hamschat ha-Shefa," "absorption of effluence" but there are no references, and I can't find any mention of this in any books on Hasidic Jewish thought. The article claims that this idea is: > The complementary opposite of corporeal worship, or the elation of the > finite into infinite, is the concept of Hamshacha, "drawing down" or > "absorbing", and specifically, Hamschat ha-Shefa, "absorption of effluence". > During spiritual ascension, one could siphon the power animating the > higher dimensions down into the material world, where it would manifest > as benevolent influence of all kinds.

I just can't find any evidence of this belief anywhere. I think that this needed verifiabl references or we need to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8202:14B0:E9AF:754C:3C6B:5A4 (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirect

This article is not about philosophy but about Hasidic Judaism and should be redirected to that article. Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's too long for that, see bellow. Editor2020 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy?

Shouldn't this article's title be changed to Hasidic thought? Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)