Talk:Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman

message: 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)
thread_title: "Mantra" or name/song/phrase?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Haskoma from Rav [[Moshe Feinstein]]

message: 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)
thread_title: More forgery claims?  Got References?

message: 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)
thread_title: more on the white yarmulkes

message: 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)
thread_title: Book Cover Image

message: 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)
thread_title: Revert of Tanchum's edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Regarding rabbi Moshe Feinsteins "approbation"

message: No meaning explained in the meaning section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.180.22 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: do you have a suggestion on how the article can be improved?  Jon513 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: wikipedia is so terrible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.231.76 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a b-class article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  "Fringe" is not NPOV 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Na Nach statistics