Talk:Misnagdim

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cristian237.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

new content

In regards to the new content I added today (Mar 8, 05) please see the detailed and extensive article in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing. That work is still under copyright, so this material of course is not a direct quote. Most Jewish synagogues, and any decent University or College library, should have a complete set of the Encyclopedia Judaica. I am using the new CD-ROM edition, which includes many additional articles and updates. RK 23:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

jfwolff, which kashrus methods were changed by chassidim? and who used nussach ari if not for chabad, and th nussach ari that was used who changed it to the current form?--Truthaboutchabad 00:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hasidim decided that the knives used by other Jews were not sharp enough, and thus that all their meat is - or may be - treif (unkosher). (Others held that the meat might not be treif, but rather that a truly religious Jew would hold himself to a higher standard.) Hasidim also believed that a non-Hasidic mashgiach (supervisor of kashrut) could not be trusted on this matter, and on other matters, so they instituted their own mashgichim. As such, from this point on Hasidic Jews could not and/or would not eat at the tables of their orthodox bretheren. As a Hasidic Jew, I am a little surprised that you are unfamiliar with this. Do Hasidic rabbis teach that their practice was the traditional one, and that it was the practice of non-Hasidic orthodox Jews that changed? RK 00:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to Nusach Sepharad, the Hasidic (Kabbalistic) rite, please note the following. Their liturgical rite is based the siddur of Rabbi Yitchak Luria, aka the Ari. He combined kabbalistic prayers with the Sephardic liturgy to develop his own unique rite, the Lurianic nusach. The exact text of the Ari's siddur was not preserved. Nonetheless, its influence lies in the Hasidic siddurim available today. Over time, the Ari's siddur spread to the Jews of Europe, where it became popular among the Hasidim. Since Hasidim were Ashkenazim, they felt it inappropriate to pray from a Sephardic text. Thus, they adapted his siddur by taking an Ashkenaic siddur, and added to it some Sephardic and Kabbalistic elements of the Ari's siddur. This resulted in the creation of a new rite. RK

Confusingly, this new rite became known to European Jews as "Nusach Sepharad", even though it is not really a Sephardic rite. Thus, to avoid confusion, the actual Sephardic rite is now denoted by either Minhag Sepharad (or Minhag Sepharadi), or Nusach Aedot Hamizrach (Nusach of the eastern community). RK

Many editions of such siddurim are used today by Hasidic Jews. One of the most widely seen is the Lubavitch [Habad] Siddur. The first Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shneur Zalman of Liady, edited a siddur now termed Nusach ha-Ari'zal, or Nusach Ha'Ari. It has become the official rite of Lubavitcher Hasidim. RK 00:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

spelling

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)

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) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the name Mitnagdim and Hasidim

What is the source to the statement "Ironically, it was the Hasidim who appplied to themselves the name "Hasidim" ("righteous ones") and to those who opposed them as "Mitnagdim" ("opponents")". I actualy Remember (dont know where at the moment) hearing that it was the Mitnagdim the called them Chasidim. Shlomke 08:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one responded and there's no source, Im removing this unsourced POV peice. Shlomke 06:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shlomko, where did you hear that the Litvaks (i.e. your "mitnagdim") called themselves "the bad guys"? The Vilna Gaon is referred to as HaGaon HaChasid MeVilna in the cover pages to his books. So that makes him a "Chasid" and those who opposed him the "mitnagdim". IZAK 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for origin of the term

The first draft of this article [1] 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." [2]

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)

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)

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)

Origin of the name Misnagdim

See these [3][4] talks by the Lubavitcher Rebbe where he states that in theory the chasidim should have been called the misnagdim since they were the ones who were bringing in new concepts in opposition of what was already there. but in actuality divine providence had it that the name Misnagdim was given to the Misnagdim by themselves , and they were the ones who called Chasidim with the name Chasidim. (from Toras Menachem V.2 p. 78 and V.4 p. 222)(Sicha Shabbos Lech lecha 5511)

(This does not mean that Litvaks today should be Called Misnagdim. I heard that the Lubavitcher Rebbe also said That there are no Misnagdim Today (or something to that affect)). Shlomke 05:12, April 2, 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, citing Hasidic POV theology is not a "proof" of anything except that Hasidim like to quote themselves! Also, please sign all your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ so that we can know who said what, right? Thanks. IZAK 04:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, I dont know that we can realy find something from other non - hasidic sources, since it's abovious that this "naming" argument is going on from the dvery day's of the original machlokes between the Chasidim and Misnagdim itself. There probably weren't any historians from that time writing about this either. We have the words of the Rebbes on this subject which are considerd very reliable by non chasidim also! (at worst, it is still considerd another POV).

Also, acording to what your saing you would have to bring your sources from Chasidic literture, or else it would be no proof except for showing us that Misnagdim (Litvaks) like to quote themselves.

Of cours I a agree wholehartedly that the litvaks / Oilomisher are not Misnagdim today and should not be called by that name, and this should also be clearly noted in the article. I just found that statement in this article and others very misleading and out of place, as though the chasidim had quite some Chutzpa giving themself's that name and giving Misnagdim theirs, which as stated here was not the case. Cheers, Shlomke 07:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name Chasidim

• 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)

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)

Misnagdim, not Mitnagdim

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)

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)

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)

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).

The used term is "misnagdim". Shlomke 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeshiva movement

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)

Issues

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)

Extended historical "See also:" list on Misnagdim page

Note: This latter part of a discussion about an extended "See also:" list for the Misnagdim page was moved here from User talk:Debresser#"See also:" links on Mitnagdim page. It's about the relevance of a second, improved, succinct list added this week by April8, in reponse to agreed irrelevance in his longer, first version list. The proposed second version of the list, that April8 thinks should be included, is displayed in this-[5] old edit version of the Misnagdim page. Additionally, from the previous discussion this excerpt is relevant:

...a future "Lithuanian Judaism" Wikipedia page. Its ridiculous that no such collected page yet exists, as the parallel alternative Eastern European tradition to Hasidic Judaism. The two articles would be comparative spiritual histories. Without it, half of Eastern European Judaism is dispersed across the pages Vilna Gaon, Chaim Volozhin, Volozhin yeshiva, Yeshiva, Mussar movement, Yisrael Salanter, Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty, Yisrael Meir Kagan, Gadol, and the non-Lithuanian Hungarian Oberlander Jews, Moses Sofer, and the demographic political-social terms Orthodox Judaism and Haredi etc etc!...colate the topics together on one page, linked to all the sub-pages. Lithuanian Jews and History of the Jews in Lithuania are broader topics, including non-religious history, while "Lithuanian Judaism" would focus on the spiritual history and thought of Non-Hasidic European Haredim.

Continuing the discussion:

Regarding the second, shorter clarified version of the list, the subsequent development of Non-Hasidic Eastern European Judaism is relevant here on this page, as it demonstrates the unique independent spiritual integrity behind Mitnagdic opposition, rather than incorrectly defining Mitnagdim merely and solely by their opposition to Hasidism. For the same reason, the image-caption on the top of the page philosophically pinpoints the location of Mitnagdic Judaism within the broader map of all Jewish thought. Therefore:

1. If your reason of irrelevance of the extended "See also" list were correct, there would similarly be irrelevance to the informative, crucial and helpful philosophical definition and image, which is not the case
2. The list directly relates, additionally, to the philosophical-historical conclusion of the image caption, that "Hasidic and Lithuanian-"Yeshiva" paths continue separately today as the two reconciled alternative streams of Eastern European Judaism".

Consequently this shows that the list is not irrelevant at all. However, much more directly:

1. As with the page on Haskalah: there the "See also" lists the chronological extrapolation of the philosophical position of the Haskalah movement, into subsequent movements and expressions. There, it is the Haskalah veiw that later transformed or provoked in counter-reaction the See Also list: eg. "Secular Jewish political movements" evolved from original Haskalah. "20th century Jewish mysticism academia" evolved from "19th Century Science of Judaism", that in turn evolved from the Haskalah. Haskalah provoked "Hasidic opposition" etc etc.

Parallel dynamics apply here too:

1. With Mitnagdim, the philosophical opposition to Hasidism, and seeing its success at spiritual revival, defined, shaped or contributed to the spiritual ideologies of the "See also" list, as it meant that Non-Hasidic Judaism chose alternative substitutes to Hasidic philosophy: "Mussar-Ethics spiritual movement" was developed partly as a substitute for Hasidic philosophy. "Lithuanian Yeshiva movement" and pilpul "Brisk tradition" intensified the Talmudic root basis of earlier Mitnagdim. "Lithuanian Judaism leadership" contrasts with "Hasidic leadership". "Political organisation of Haredi Judaism", united social demographic of "Haredi Judaism", and "Haredi Judaism and Zionism" united the Hasidic-Mitnagdic schism. Joint opposition to "Secular Jewish reform in Eastern Europe" (Haskalah) and later "Secular Jewish political movements" was the main factor in uniting the two camps in practical life, and healing the schism. "Non-Hasidic Hungarian Judaism", philosophically defined by Moses Sofer's "Hungarian opposition to Reform Judaism" (his slogan "there is no innovation in Judaism" defined the ideology of Oberlander Non-Hasidim), shows the geographical dispersion of Non-Hasidic (originally historically Mitnagdic) Judaism. "Early Lithuanian emigration to Israel" revealed the Messianic philosophical idealism within Mitnagdim, as "spreading the Wellsprings" of Hasidic thought did in Hasidism. "Shtetl", "Partitions of Poland", "Pale of Settlement" and "History of antisemitism" were sociological factors that helped influence the Talmudic strength of Lithuania, versus the dimminishment of learning in Ukraine, Hungary, Poland: Similar sociological factors are covered on Hasidic Judaism page.

In all these cases-the whole See also list-these are the "quoted" link terms I used for the page names (eg. Haskalah, Mussar movement etc). If you still disagree, some extra text to the article could be added, demonstrating the influence and subsequent consequence of Mitnagdic philosophy on these later topics. But even without that, I think this post demonstrates the necessity to include the second succinct list on this page, in the format I made yesterday. April8 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My argument is simple: the hatnote says clearly "This article is about the historical Rabbinic opposition to Hasidism from the 1700s, centred in Lithuania. For the full history and spirituality of the non-Hasidic stream of Eastern European Haredi Judaism, see Lithuanian Jews main article." This is precisely the opposite of your argument for inclusion.

Also, IMHO, even there these links would be out of place. As if the shtetls were populated only by mitnagdim and not by chassidim as well!? And other arguments for the other links you want to add. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't quite mean that last point! As if "Mussar-Ethics spiritual movement", "Brisk tradition", "Volozhin yeshiva" links etc would not be relevant on the Lithuanian Jews article! -"Shtetls" across Eastern Europe, while populated by both Misnagdim and Hasidim are clearly connected too. (That's why it's on the Hasidic main "See also" list-on Hasidic philosophy) However, I'm not in favour of including this extended Mitnagdic "See also" list on Lithuanian Jews "main article" for the reason that that page is inadequate to cover "Lithuanian Judaism". Lithuanian Judaism-"Yeshiva/Litvish Judaism", broadly refered to, is half of Eastern European Judaism and that page doesn't yet exist! The See also links would be relevant there!

Regarding the relevance of the succinct, second version "See also" list on this Misnagdim page, my argument is simple: That's why it's called "See Also". Especially, as I describe above the extrapolation evolution/synthesis from Mitnagdism to the other topics. As a thought experiment, consider this: Imagine a person discovering the topic of Misnagdim for the first time. It is rather too likely, perhaps due to shortage of time preventing further reading (as it is, they would most likely find Misnagdim through reading up Hasidic Judaism), that they could come away with the mistaken notion that Mitnagdic Judaism reconciled itself to Hasidism, and all became Hasidic. If they read up more fully, thay could still emerge with the more subtle missaprehension that Misnagdic spirituality was only shaped by its opposition to Hasidism. They could emerge without any sense that, to the contrary, the spiritual evolution of Misnagdic Judaism in subsequent development was, like Hasidism, also creative, ingenious, sophisticated etc. As well as evolving due to its oppositional component to Hasidism, it also evolved due to its integral self sufficient component. This person might not grasp the full significance of the contemporary spiritual division of Eastern European Judaism into two camps. The more clearly the "See also" links outline the main spiritual and political factors in the later story of Mitnagdic Judaism, the better would be this reader's grasp!

I really appreciate your vigilant monitoring of Jewish Wikipedia pages. However, in this case I think your vigilant attention is a double-edged-sword, as I believe my argument is more convincing. Even if I havn't convinced you, I think that reinstating the second list version is the default position. Arguing against becomes unjustly exacting, in the context of the argument in favour of including the list! April8 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You were right that some links would definitely belong on the Lithuanian Jews page. But not all. Debresser (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Kashrut

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)

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)

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)

Unclear historical reference

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)

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)

One sided (the position of the Hassidic dynastic movement)

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)

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)

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)

Please explain, if you will each of these, debresser if you will, " including removal of sourced info, bad English, speculation, generalization. Sorry". My explanation is that, I have studied this subject for years. Was taught the subject by my grandmother. I have never seen an Encylopedia article where Jews refer to each other as torturers, persecutors, which you say should remain, such a scurrilous claim. The claim is outlandish, based on what really happened, but in this case thank god also is in no sources (yet, anti-Semite sources will start existing soon enough). If anything the Hassidic dynasties acted unscrupulously, according to the real oral tradition, and framed the Jews, and judging by their libel holiday, and edits of this page and 3 others, which I had seen, continue to do so. Usually switching it around it seems. While the rare defenders of the Misnagade bears absolutely no grudge. Hassidim activists seem to be petty to me, at least their general editing does.Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Haredi

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)

Historical Referencing and Minor Grammatical Clean-Up

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)

Sabbatean

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)

True concerns? :) Debresser (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for clarifying this. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"entire universe nullified to God"

can't make out what this might mean. --142.163.195.18 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Section on criticism against misnagdim?

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)