Talk:Baal Shem Tov

message: It has become widely known recently that it is a common misconception of the photo being of the Baal Shem Tov. Rather, it is said to be of a Dutch Kabbalist who was called Israel Baal Shem (not to be confused with Israel Baal Shem Tov). If anyone has any sources on that, please post. 
:Take this to the image's talk page. 220.233.48.200 17:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All this is correct. I can vouch for these facts. No known contemporary image exists of the Baal Shem Tov, other then fanciful modern images. In fact there are very few images that exist of any of the rabbis of this era, unless something weird happened to them. For instance, Shneur Zalman of Liadi was imprisoned by the Tsar as a political prisoner and a court portrait was taken of him. No such thing happened to the Baal Shem Tov. Unfortunately, this page won't get an "A" rating because of circumstances of history.--Klezmer 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, . I inserted the link to onthemainline into the article. -- -- -- 02:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Image 

message: Many of his disciples believe that he comes from the Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, and by extension with the institution of the Jewish Messiah.
To
It is claimed he comes from a Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, it is unknown if this is true as he did not have the certificate that King David gave for all of descendants, but it was known that over the generations many families lost their's in fires, wars and the like.
If anyone can come up with a slight better wording, please share. If not with the possiblity of slight editing this version will go up in 48 hours. 220.233.48.200 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why changed the "many of his disciples beleive" part saying his disciples is not valid. As it was his family which claims it. 220.233.48.200 17:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing rewording

message: The Besht advocated panentheism, not pantheism. I am removing the catagorization. PhatJew 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pantheism

message: In the sentence king gave him the daughter of the vice-king, what is a vice-king? If no-one has a satisfactory explanation, this should be deleted.   Redaktor 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vice-king 

message: Unless I'm missing some context, the last line of the section on his miracles seems oddly out of place:
"Of course this story must be dismissed as falsehood because the idea of a man god is totally rejected by Judaism. Indeed, all who are of rationality deny this utter lie."
I could understand a commentary on the mismatch between a man-god and these miracles, but "utter lie" seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zipwow (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism, or bias? 

message: Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm sure that dozens of people will want to change things on these charts, from spellings, to links. But hey, I did my best and I thought it was worthwhile to add this.
--Klezmer 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear why Klezmer wishes to remove the link to the Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty) page. It appears to me that the target page does refer to the descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, which makes it  a legitimate link from this page.. Rather than continue the edit war, can we please leave the link for the time being and hold the debate in the proper place, here on the talk page? That will allow all arguments to be considered, and other editors to contribute if they wish.--Redaktor 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bring your discussion to Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties#Request for Comment: Adding Hasidic dynasties --Klezmer 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage Charts 

message: The edit wars which have taken place on this page recently are unseemly and unnecessary (WP:CON). Please use this talk page to resolve disputes, rather than engaging in multiple to-and-fro reverts.--Redaktor 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: I don't really understand the section 'Spiritual legacy'. Yes, by all means list the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov. But anything else beongs in another article.--Redaktor 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. The Baal Shem Tov spawned a new movement... a fundamental framework for a new type of Judaism. The 'Spiritual Legacy' shows how this happened. It's a great tool in the linkage-dependent world of wiki. It makes this article more valuable. It's needed in an article about the Baal Shem Tov to directly connect him with the other famous Chasidim (which we've got wiki articles about). Moreover, it shows the direct connection historically to the modern day. A chart like this is necessary for these multiple purposes.--Klezmer 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual legacy 

message: I dispute the following item in the article: "In fact, Besht took sides with the Talmudists in the disputes with Frankists (Jacob Frank's followers) and was even one of the three delegates of the Talmudists to a disputation between the two parties held at Lemberg in 1759."
This statement is probably based on a forgery, Maaseh Norah bePodolia that places the Besht at the 1759 Lviv (Lemberg) disputation with the Frankists. M. Balaban, On the History of the Frankist Movement, v. 2, 1935, p. 295-311 proved that the Besht was not present. We have the minutes and attendees from these disputations, and the Besht was not listed. This event occured just a few months before his death.
I'm going to delete the end of this sentence starting "...and was even..." unless anyone has other evidence to the contrary. I'm not even sure the first part of the sentence can be proven, but I'll leave it.--Klezmer 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The antagonism between Talmudism and Hasidism was apparent to the representatives of each at Besht's first appearance; but the open breach did not come about until later. In fact, Besht took sides with the Talmudists in the disputes with Frankists (Jacob Frank's followers). It was only in keeping with Besht's character that he felt keenly upon the acceptance of baptism by the Frankists, for it is related that he said: "As long as a diseased limb is connected with the body, there is hope that it may be saved; but, once amputated, it is gone, and there is no hope." The excitement consequent upon the Frankist movement undermined his health, and he died shortly after the conversion of many Frankists to Christianity.
So.... Rabbi Baal Shem Tov was baptised by a Jewish sect known as the Frankists (Jews baptise??) and then he went on to convert members of that sect to Christianity?? And that amputation reference- What does that mean? Could we try to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and it should read like one, and not like some mystical Kabbalistic text? Oh, and what were the Talmudists and Hassids antagonized about? Philosophical questions? - Eric 06:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not at all. It was the Frankists versus the Talmudists. Besht was on the side of the Talmudists since the schism between the Talmudism and Hasidism happened later. If you follow the wiki link to the Frankists, you will find that the Frankist lost the battle and they converted to Christianity. Not the Talmudists/Hasids/Besht. If it is unclear to you, rewrite this section to better explain it.--Klezmer 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I hope I didn't butcher it too much, but hopefully it'll make sense to the uninitiated now. שָׁלוֹם - Eric 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I tagged a passage which makes no sense. Unless someone is willing to provide a source for it, I shall delete it. --Redaktor 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See G. Scholem, Kabbalah, , 1978, p. 287-309. Scholem devotes an entire chapter on this subject (Part II, Chapter 3). That should be a sufficient reference, and the book is widely available and widely quoted.--Klezmer 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It was only in keeping with Besht's character that he welcomed baptism by the Frankists as an end to its threat to mainstream Judaism of the day, for it is related that he said: "As long as a diseased limb is connected with the body, there is hope that it may be saved; but, once amputated, it is gone, and there is no hope." :
Doesn't the quote seems to completely contradict the statement that introduces it?  Besht seems to be saying that as long as the Frankists remained Jews, they might have been convinced of the error of their ways, but with their conversion they were lost forever.  Wouldn't "regretted" or "mourned" be a better description of his reaction than "welcomed"?  
Could someone more familiar with this edit to make it clearer? - Eleanorquantifier (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Good point. I can see the contradiction. Though, on the face of it, it can also make perfect sense. The quote from the Besht is true and can be verified. The real question is what does he mean by it? Was the Besht hoping he could change the ways of the Frankists back to Talmudic Judaism? Once they Baptized themselves, did he consider them lost forever (as an amputated limb)? Or maybe he considered them gone, therefore he rejoiced that there was no longer a problem? I can see where he might "welcome" (maybe "was relieved" is a better phrase?) the loss of the Frankists from Judaism. I don't have a good answer. If you want to reword, feel free. --Klezmer (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baal Shem Tov and the Frankists 

message: At p. 52 ('07 Penguin paperback) of Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett purports to quote Eli Wiesel as starting "God made Man because He loves Stories" (in "The Gates of the Forest") thus:
: When the founder of Hasidic Judaism, the great Rabbi Israel Shem Tov, saw ..."
I've created the Rdr to this talk page's accompanying article, but someone who can do so intelligently should probably comment on that usage. (E.g., does it reflect a preference on Wiesel's (or Dennett's) part for avoiding the more familiar title?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Shem Tov 

message: A long-simmering editorial dispute between  and  over how to deal with information about certain Hasidic topics has reached the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Please see and provide any helpful input at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal 

message: according to the book "Chasidic Masters" by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the baal shem tov was a talmid chacham and he even sites proof of it from his teachings... At first the baal shem tov was hidden and acted as a layman so that he may go unnoticed and delve into kabbalistic teachings, since at the time it was forbidden due to the uproar caused by shabtai tzvi... once he felt that it was necessary for him to share his teaching than he disclosed his knowledge in torah... it would be interesting and quite significant for you to cite an authoritative source proving that the baal shem tov was in fact an ingnoramous.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.141.125 (talk) 17/May/07
:For all those that really want to know, let me give you some food for thought.
:We know very little about the Baal Shem Tov; we know even less about his successor the Magid of Mezritch. Why this is so? I don't know; the best I can do is speculate. But those that are interested in facts, these are the historical facts:
:The Baal Shem had numerous disciples; that is undisputable. Many of the Baal Shem Tov’s disciples quote what they heard from him. So a smart alack might say that ok, he new Chumish and that's all. So let me tell you; it's very difficult to prove a negative, and in this case it's very difficult to prove a positive. But it can be proven by association that many of the Baal Shem Tov's disciples were in by themselves accomplished great men. Does anybody in their right mind think that he could have fooled so many, including the non-Chasidic Meir Nesivim? The world says that nobody can prove that Rabbi Nathan Adler was a Talmid Chochom but if he had a talmid like the Chasam Sofer then that should be ample proof that he was indeed a talmid chochom. 
:If that is not enough, then prove to me that Moshe Rabeinu was a talmid chochom; after all; all that he left us is a Chumish! Itzse 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  baal shem tov- not a talmid chacham? cite sources please! 

message: The title of this article is long and unwieldy. It should be moved back to its original title Baal Shem Tov, in my opinion. Please comment.--DLandTALK 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something to be said for this. --Redaktor 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  He was known as Baal Shem Tov and that's a much more accurate and better title than Yisroel ben Eliezer. --ChosidFrumBirth 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the general reader will recognize Baal Shem Tov more readily than Yisroel ben Eliezer, which is the reason for which we pick article names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Those that know that his name was Yisroel ben Eliezer, call him the "Baal Shem Tov"; those that have never heard his real name know him as the "Baal Shem Tov" or in short "Besht". Either way Google gets its most hits on people searching for "Baal Shem Tov". Itzse 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The section listing the descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, which is not in dispute, has been deleted without discussion. It seems proper to include in this article a list of prominent descendants. --Redaktor 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted that Reb Nachman of Breslov was the Baal Shem Tov's great-grandson, and I added a sentence about him. Other than him (and R. Baruch of Mezeritch, who is already mentioned), I don't think that any of his other close descendants - at least those who were formerly in the "family tree" - are prominent enough to need to be included in this article.--DLandTALK 23:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Redaktor on this issue. The descendants themselves were a valuable piece of this article and it was not in dispute. It shouldn't have been deleted so abruptly. Regarding your additional comment about Nachman, I believe it is completely out of place. "One of the most well known bearers of the Baal Shem Tov's legacy..." I think that all the founders of various dynasties can say this and standard-bearers today will want them to be included. For instance, some people would say that R. Shneur Zalman of Liady should be included because the Baal Shem Tov appear to him in a dream, therefore he can claim to be a "well known bearer" of the legacy. I think it opens up pandora's box. I don't think we want to go there. Better to simply put back the family tree because that explains both Boruch and Nachman without controversy.--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how about this: Part of the reason that I didn't like the family tree is that it was crudely made and seemed to exist only for the purpose of highlighting the biological relationship of Reb Boruch and Reb Nachman to the Baal Shem Tov. But if a real, graphical family tree could be constructed I would have less objection to it. So, let me suggest turning to User:Rachack or User:Eliyak for help on making one, as they have experience with family trees and other graphics (see Template:Brisker Family Tree for an example).--DLandTALK 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baal Shem tov descendants 

message: Did Luria really encourage the view that this world was contemptible and to be passed over? I am not so sure. ThePeg (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Besht vs Ari

message: Can someone edit the page to inform those of us who don't know how to phonetically pronounce his name? I don't read Hebrew.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.83.209 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: This article is so full of OR and POV that I simply don't know where to start. Almost nothing is referenced. Could others who actually know about this topic please weigh in; I'll start. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major editing needed 

message: This article reads like an attempt to proselytize, or, at best, hagiography, so I've tagged it with POV-lead.  
Here's a list of some of the statements that can hardly be considered POV neutral...
:::"Due to his recognized honesty and his knowledge of human nature..."
:::'The magnificent scenery in this, the finest region of the Carpathians, and the possibility of enjoying it without the interruptions of city life, compensated him for his great privations."
:::"Israel ben Eliezer had learned how to use plants for healing purposes and to effect wonderful cures."
:::"The Besht’s refreshing new approaches to Judaism were welcome, expanding with little resistance in a community hungry for change."
:::"This panentheism would have been ignored, had Besht not been a man of the people"
:::"Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God."
:::"Besht is quite naturally one of the most interesting figures in modern Jewish history."
PainMan (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV violations; reads like an advertisement/propaganda 

message: For all of these bits of data, I'm citing from The Light and Fire of the Baal Shem Tov by Yitzhak Buxbaum. Unless noted, the article currently has no citation as of this writing.
# Article: Besht was born 1698; L&F says it was 1700 (p. 18).  
# Article: Besht was appointed leader of the Lamed Vov at age 18; L&F says "In 1718, when he was eighteen years old, the Baal Shem Tov suggested a program.... The Besht wanted the hidden tzadikim to accept upon themselves the task of educating children." (p. 30) Later, he assumes sole leadership at age 30; before then, we was on a committee of three that made the decisions in place of R. Adam Baal Shem of Ropshitz, the previous leader. (p. 103)
# Article: no date of joining Lamed Vov; L&F says age 14 (p. 27)
# Article: Besht married first wife at 18; L&F says he was unmarried at 20 (p. 35). Then he married his first wife Chava, who died soon afterwards (p. 38).
# Article: Second wife named Chana; L&F says Sarah (p. 41); Chava (with a vav) was first wife (see above). However, endnote says that her name was Leah-Rachel according to Chabad tradition (Shochet 46, Hilsenrad 42).
# Article: "only in keeping with Besht’s character that he welcomed baptism by the Frankists" ??!!!; L&F says "Many of the rabbis rejoiced at this mass conversion, because the Frankists... had become a serious threat.... The Baal Shem Tov, however, was deeply depressed by this event... 'The Shechinah is weeping and wailing over them. As long as a diseased limb is attached to the body, there's hope that it may recover. But once it's cut off..." (p. 336)  
Musashiaharon (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact-check me, please! 

message: It looks like parts of this article were written without regard to the rest of the article. Two examples are the fact that there are two sections called "Legacy" and "His Legacy," and that the same quote "He who believes..." appears twice in the article with different translations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary, Fragmentary, or Supplementary? 

message: I just came across this and merely from reading the second sentence (The Besht is better known to many religious Jews as “the holy Baal Shem”) I noted the astounding lack of neutrality (writing the above is as neutral as writing that he's better known to mitnagdim as "the Baal Shem Ra" [master of the bad name], i.e., it's not neutral at all). After I read the notice on the top (going back to August 2011) that the neutrality of this article is disputed, I naturally said "par for the course." Someone skilled at this kind of thing has to carefully go through the whole article (which has POV issues all over like someone pointed out above under "POV violations") and create a tone of neutrality. For example (not particular to this post, just an example), instead of writing "he was observed to perform many miracles" or "he was observed to fool people in supposed performance of miracles," one writes something like "his adherents related that he performed miracles." And that's not even talking about what is missing from the article, i.e., more than two seconds of reference to mitnagdim, which is pretty significant for the purposes of neutrality. Anyway, I have no personal interest in getting into editing of the article (and one can only imagine how contentious it must have been to have its neutrality in dispute for almost five years already), I'm just noting that that neutrality notice should not come down the way this article is on Wikipedia. Contributor613 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued pervasive lack of neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baal Shem Tov. 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/20140222163751/http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=42&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf to http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=42&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222163753/http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=43&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf to http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=43&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430214832/http://www.otzadikim.com:80/AboutUs.aspx to http://www.otzadikim.com/AboutUs.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108165235/http://www.isbs.com/partnumber.asp?cid=&pnid=392756 to http://www.isbs.com/partnumber.asp?cid=&pnid=392756
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910102633/http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6663.html to http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6663.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615023546/http://baalshemtov.com:80/story.php?type=1 to http://www.baalshemtov.com/story.php?type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629155111/http://baalshemtov.com:80/library.php to http://www.baalshemtov.com/library.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: (Moved to correct position in page. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: EdenJacnuk: I think that would be a more appropriate addition to Hasidism, rather than the founder's biography. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

text: EdenJacnuk: I agree with Hasirpad. If you can tie those developments to the Baal Shem, though, then I think these developments do deserve to go in here.Chapmansh (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Hasidism Spread Section

message: Right now, the section regarding the practices of the Besht could use some expansion, so I am planning on adding to it with information from the eighth chapter of Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov by Moshe Rosman, a historian from the Department of Jewish History at the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. In the book, Rosman writes about letters sent to the Besht by his brother-in-law which describe the practices he was said to have taken part in. These include prophecy, communication with the divine, the ability to see the souls of men, as well as medical practices both mundane and supernatural in origin. This should account for the bulk of the expansions I plan on making. Rosman also explains how different interpretations of the Besht's practices exist, as not all sources agree on the nature of his abilities. This will likely be another paragraph after the former--in which his generally accepted practices are explained--and will not be as large of an addition.
If there is anything anyone wants to add or change, please do so: comment here or on my Talk page and I will listen to your advice.
Collin654321 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a great addition.Chapmansh (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing Additions to the "Practices" Section 

message: Please see: Centralized discussion at Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Descended from Baal Shem Tov? Proof please!. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged claims of descent from the Baal Shem Tov requires [[WP:RS]] 

message: : I see the article title has been moved around and ended up with the current name. The subject's name is Israel ben Eliezer and even though it may likely be the more common presentation, the use of honorifics is generally against policies and guidelines. Baal Shem is certainly an honorific title the subject is noted in the lead as being the "Baal Shem Tov".   --  Otr500 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:COMMONNAME for this article and the other one you just moved. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article naming 

message: In the article it says: 
In Hasidic tradition, there’s a saying, “Someone who believes in all the stories of the Baal Shem Tov and the other mystics and holy men is a fool; someone who looks at any single story and says “That one could not be true' is a heretic.”
The reference given is to an interview by Kenneth Woodward of R. Simon Jacobson: https://www.meaningfullife.com/miracles-ken-woodward/
The quote above, however, is not accurate.
This is what Jacobson actually says:
Jacobson: . . . In Chassidic tradition, there’s a saying, “Someone who believes in all the stories of the Baal Shem Tov and the other mystics and holy men is a fool; someone who doesn’t believe them is a heretic.”
So, a correction is in order, I think!   Mwidunn (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chasidic Saying Is Quoted Incorrectly