Talk:Misnagdim

message: i've also seen the word spelled "mitnagedim". i'm not sure whether or not which or if both are the correct spelling.
Gringo300 08:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: spelling

message: The first draft of this article  was based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article which confirms this with it's short yet cogent entry at MITNAGGEDIM :
:"Title applied by the Hasidim to their opponents, i.e., to the Orthodox Jews of the Slavonic countries who have not become adherents of Hasidism (see Jew. Encyc. vi. 254, s.v. Hasidim). The latter have in course of time accepted that title, and "mitnagged" now means not necessarily an active or even a passive opponent of Hasidism, but simply a non-Hasid. An alternative title for "mitnagged" is "'Olam'sher Yid" (= "Jew of the world"), not in the sense of being worldly, but meaning one who belongs to the great mass of the Jews of the world who are not Hasidim." 
There are other sources as well. Unfortunately, too many Chasidim have come to believe their own propaganda, and are unaware of the facts. IZAK 06:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still does not prove the point. Everyone know's that chasidim "applied... to their opponents" the name Misnagdim, i.e. they called them by that name (and by the same token noone disputes that the Misnagdim would call the chasidim by the name Chasidim). The question here is who started the name. The sources I bring below are very specific about who started the name. Shlomke 08:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, this entry seems at least inaccurate. If I had no idea what Misnagdim were and I looked it up at this entry, I would get the impression that Misnagdim simply did "not become adherents of Hasidism" i.e. they just sat back and kept to what they were always doing, and therefore (for some odd reason) the Chasidim called them "their opponents". Our wikipedia article here does much better then that. Shlomke 08:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for origin of the term

message: *See Sefer Ha-sichos of the previos Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn 5701 page 32, where he says: "The Baal Shem Tov Loved Jews and he was a Mufla at this. Until the year 5515 (1755) the Ball Shem Tov would call his students by the name Ahuvim or Ye'didim, Chevre Ahuvim Or Chevre Ye'didim (The loved ones). But the Misnagdim gave them the name Chasidim. This took about 21 years. (the name change) ( the Ball Shem Tov was revealed in 5494 (1734)). 
*See also Igrot Kodesh  of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson V.8 page 504: When the Baal HaTanya was in the home of the Misnagdic leader Rabbi Nota Notkin, he was asked by Rabbi Notkin how Can the Chasidim take for themself's such a high name like Chasidim. the Ball HaTanya responded that the name was not taken by the Chasidim - generaly the Chasidim dont take things for them self's - The name was actualy given to them." 
As for the Vilna Gaon being called Hagaon Hachasid on the cover of his sefer... It's in many other places also. In fact the Baal HaTanya himself also called him Hagaon Hachasid in his letters (he had much respect for him).
About the Misnagdim Calling themself's "The bad guy's" .  See Encyclopedia Judaica in the Mitnaggedim entry:      
:"...The name originally arose from the bitter oposition  to the rise, way of life and leadership of the hasidic movement founded by Israel b. Eliezer Ba'al Shem Tov, but in the course of time lost its connotation of actual strife and became a positive description representative of a way of life..." Shlomke 05:12, April 2, 2006 (UTC)
*Hi again, these POV quotes from and by Hasidim only reveal that they are good at quoting themselves and not much else. Please use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign all your comments. Thanks again. IZAK 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer above. C'mon Encyclopedia Judaica is not from and by Hasidim (is it?), dont just dismis it all. Shlomke 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name Chasidim

message: Misnagdim are Ashkenazim. Yes, there are now also some sefardim who identify with the yeshivishe/litvishe velt, but they are a tiny minority. The concept here is an Ashkenazi thing. Why should we use an Israelicized version of this name? It's misnagdim, not mitnagdim. --Daniel575 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't someone have dealt with the whole article back when you had this discussion a year ago? As it is right now, we have "Misnagdim" in the article title and "Mitnagdim" throughout the body of the article and no consistency on capitalization. I buy the argument about Sephardic transliteration and unless someone tells me not to, I'll go through and change the entire article to "Misnagdim" upcased. The term seems to parallel "Hasidim" which is usually (always?) upcased. I'd like to get some consensus first, though, if I can. --Steven J. Anderson 10:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, now I see the conflict on this issue is a little more current than I thought it was. Can we get some kind of formal dispute resolution going on this? I'm trying to make links that don't redirect. --Steven J. Anderson 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole first section is a garbled mess (apart from the zillion different spellings). A major rehaul is needed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The used term is "misnagdim". Shlomke 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's due to the Hebrew ת being sounded as either a 't' or a 'th' depending on emphasis in original Hebrew, and the Yiddish conversion of the 'th' sound to a complete 'ss' sound. So in current Hebrew it is spoken as 'mitnagdim', while in Yiddish inspired Hebrew, mostly used by Haredim, it is spoken as 'misnagdim'. 77.138.224.125 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Misnagdim, not Mitnagdim

message: There was scanty mention of the importance that Misnagdim played in developing hte modern Yeshiva movement. I added this to the intro --Shigaon
Some editing was done to the intro. What source is there for the attendees of the yeshivas being one thing or another...Hungarians, Romanians, or Russians. I am changing it to a more reliable phrasing, namely, instead of claiming that they ARE russian, hungarian, or romanian, the claim ought to be made that the attendees of the Yeshiva movement need not be litvish in origin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.137.25 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeshiva movement

message: This is one of the more interesting articles about Jewish history, and I see a lot of potential for expansion.  However, there is not a single reference cited in the article, and many statements sound biased or reflect the POV of the editor.  Frankly, this would not be tolerated in any other article, and I'm tagging it as unreferenced. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: This passage is unclear and some of it is meaningless:
Hasidic Jews also added some halakhic stringencies on Kashrus, the laws of keeping kosher. They made certain changes in how livestock were slaughtered and in who was considered a reliable mashgiach (supervisor of kashrut). The end result was that they essentially became less stringent with kashrus considered some kosher food as less stringent. This was seen as a change of traditional Judaism, an over stringency of halakha (Jewish law), and, again, a breach of communal unity.
Were they less stringent or more stringent?   79.69.205.239 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I suspect one sentence was added at a later time. Let me check. I'll come back to you on this. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The change was made in this edit by an IP user on April 30, 2010. I'll change the text back to the original, which read "The end result was that they essentially considered some kosher food as less stringent." Debresser (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashrut 

message: You need to clarify the relationship between the Chmelnitski massacres and the rise of Chassidism a century later.  This phrasing: "especially following the Chmelnitzki pogroms (1648–1654)" makes it seem like a direct relationship.  If you had quoted your sources it would be easier to evaluate.
71.163.114.49 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation given in the source is that with the Jewish people being devastated by those massacres, the time was ripe for a popular movement to arise. I'd have to look what that source is, since I don't remember that. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear historical reference 

message: The picture had the longest explanation for a pic that I had ever seen, all covered in the article. The torture charge, isn't in the source, check. You need a source for such a claim. Even then if you can pull another source out of your hat, still not relevant, this article explains a philosophical dispute between 2 wiped out sects of minorities, who had some severe restrictions put on them to begin with, can we please be a bit less explosive? I added what is an EXTREMELY important (source put in) to the history, presence of Reformed Jews, yes the newer evidence points to Reformed Jews getting to Eastern Europe that early. Also mentioned at the end of the era Zionism and Marxism became part of the equation, just one teeny mention at the end.
Please don't be mean to my edit, it has been in that one sided state, let it be in a more neutral less accusatory, mean spirited state for a few months. The reason it had been in that state is that people who have no particular interest in the subject, want it to be extra morbid and gory and accusatory, so that it will prove that Jews do such things in their nature, like they had allegedly done to the early Christians. I would prefer the article, rather give a general outline of the 2 philosophies. The customs, and a bit about the secular surrounding factors, and a bit about the facts of the culture itself. Assuming both sides views are given their best and honest (without too much anger directed at one or the other, as it had) representation.  Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I had to revert your edit. You may be right about the caption of that picture, but you made tens of other changes which taken all together are unacceptable. These include speculation, generalization, bad English and removal of sourced information. Sorry, but you will have to raise the standard of your changes. Also, it is advisable to make several minor edits, each with an explanational editsummary, rather than one general rewrite of the article. Debresser (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you should have no say in this page, due to the fact that you have an extreme bias toward the Habad Hassidic sect, and even celebrate holidays libeling the Misnaggeds who are now dead. Their is no living group today known as "misnagged" and therefore the page has to go to a length to remain neutral, due to the fact that the only contributors to their page are obviously fanatically against them reading the page, such as my respected colleague Debresser. Who is admittedly a member of the Habad sect, his revert is obviously done with that libel of the other 'sect' in its intent. An unsourced charge of 'torture', and implication that the Gaon allowed violence, though no source for that exists, and so on prove this page is written from an antagonistic perspective, quite easily.Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: One sided (the position of the Hassidic dynastic movement)

message: Calling them Haredi is like calling Abraham, Christian. The first usage of Haredi is in the 20 Century, to describe a group of people, You will not even find a reference before the late 1990s, the earliest speculative reference is from the 1930s and that is a leap. There has not been a group of people self-identified as 'Misnagged' since the 19 Century, a large one since the 18 Century. Hasidism at least in terms of sect names had won. You may if you would like to speculate say Misnagged led to the Haredis, which is mere speculation.
Fact is that no Christians or Jews had freedom of conscience internally or by external communal standard until the 19 Century. You were either Jewish which meant Jewish or Christian, which meant Christian prior to the spread of freedom of conciseness and atheism in the 19 Century.Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Haredi

message: I was parsing through the content and noticed a lack of citation references for the information provided, particularly in the Struggles and Persecution section. Granted, the information may indeed be correct, but to be up to Wikipedia standards, statements in-article should be linked to their respective secondary sources for documentation.  For my part, I'll be utilizing the The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe entries on the Hasidim and the Misnagdim as my chief references.  As I go, I'll also try to clean-up some language issues that I happen across (run-on sentences, awkward language, etc.). Of course, input from others is always appreciated. Cristian237 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Referencing and Minor Grammatical Clean-Up

message: I removed The reference to Sabbatean from the first paragraph because even though there was a fear of chassidim being Sabbatean it was not the main concern and by starting off with that and following up with a separate paragraph about it the author is implying that Sabbatean was the main drive behind misnagdus thereby distracting from some some true concerns with the chassidic movement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonthegreat88 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: True concerns? :) Debresser (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  In keeping to the Talk page guidelines i will not argue about Chassidim vs Misnagdim. (btw when I said true concerns I didnt mean that they were necessarily right rather in comparison to the Sabbatean concerns witch were not true at all there were concerns about some practices that were real changes in the way of Jewish life and not some kind of phobia).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonthegreat88 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clarifying this. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sabbateans|Sabbatean]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Misnagdim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301092755/http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=375 to http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=375
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: can't make out what this might mean. --142.163.195.18 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality of the universe vs the reality of God. God's reality makes the world's reality look non-real. The slightly out of date analogy is sunlight, while still in the sun. 82.16.148.165 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "entire universe nullified to God" 

message: It seems common on wikipedia for most entities page's to have a controversies or criticisms section. As someone impartial, it strikes me as odd that not a single criticism is offered against the misnagdim, nor are the criticisms of the misnagdim against the hassidism phrased properly as quotes. It comes across often that the article itself is against the hassidic movement, as well as the misnagdim. This is clearly very poor quality.
Surely some touching up to the wording to make the latter bias disappear, and adding some section with the historical criticisms made against the misnagdim or their actions is in order? 82.29.238.101 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on criticism against misnagdim?