Talk:Boruch of Medzhybizh

Badchan or Comedian

Hi Klezmer; I have nothing against you; no need to lash out against me. It is perfectly okay to disagree. So you thought that my changing "comedian" to "badchan" was wrong; maybe you're right. But why go and do a complete reversion of "all" my changes? The correct thing to do is to edit out what you think is improper and leave the good. Reversion should be used as a last resort, not as a way to vent anger.

Now to the question at hand; you're right that he wasn't exactly a "Badchan", but "Comedian" isn't either correct; it imparts the wrong information. We need to find something more factual. I looked up all synonyms of "Comedian" and I think that "Jester" which you originally used is the most appropriate.

Again I value you're work and am not in any "Cabal" against you. Please don't take it personally. You can delete my constructive criticism after you have read it. I’m sure we’ll work in tandem on many articles Itzse 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to accept that he actually claimed to his followers that he had supernatural powers derived directly from his blood-connection to the Baal Shem Tov; but if you have a source then "im kabolah hee nekabel" (if it has mekor a source; then so be it). Itzse 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't undo all your edits, just the ones that watered down Hershel's connection. I left your other grammatical corrections intact. Second, before you go changing things, it's always best to do some research. I have, otherwise I wouldn't have added what I did. Badkhen was not appropriate - he wasn't a wedding MC nor a standup one-line Henny Youngman-type comedian - which is what a badkhen was. Jester does not fit into the second line about him either. Perhaps "comic" would be a better compromise. He wasn't the first Jewish court jester, but he was the first Jewish comic figure (after Balaam's donkey). I have lots of stories about Hershel and I chuckle at each one. I'm usually laughing with him ("comic") not at him ("jester").

The source I have for R. Borukh's supernatural claim is testimony collected by Abraham Rechtman during his 1914 ethnographic expeditions. I'll add the reference.--Klezmer 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal

A long-simmering editorial dispute between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) 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 15:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chasidim (followers) numbered in the thousands

The following line "his chasidim (followers) numbered in the thousands" is problematic. Does Chasidim mean talmidim (pupils); then I doubt it numbered in the thousands; probably not even a hundred. If Chasidim means people who came for advice and a blessing, which could have numbered in the thousands; then the term Chasidim would be wrong, they need to be called something like "admirers", "reverers" or "venerators".

Another line "The visit ultimately resulted in Rabbi Shneur Zalman and his followers being evicted from Podolia." doesn't tell us by whom; who evicted them out of Podlia? The government or the Chasidim? Also how did they accomplish it? Itzse 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to your first point about the thousands, but it is footnoted. I suggest you visit the source, if it is a verifiable reference. However, to the second point about R. Shneur Zalman's eviction, this is documented in numerous sources. Notably, Tracing Ansky, also Weisel says this, as well as Abraham Rechtman, who is probably the source for Tracing Ansky. Essentially, R. Shneur Zalman was not welcome in any Podolian town that had Jews, as Jews loyal to R. Boruch would refuse to allow him to stay. This was generally very easy at this time, since there was typically only one inn in each small town and Jews almost always owned the inn arenda (concession). The town's rebbe could easily convince the Jewish innkeeper who could or could not be permitted lodging. That's one way R. Shneur Zalman could be run out of town. I'm sure that followers of R. Shneur Zalman could also be blacklisted from the town as well, if they tried to recruit or settle. You needed papers to go from one town to the next, usually a reference letter from someone in the town was good enough. If no one was willing to vouch for them, they weren't permitted in the town by government officials. --Klezmer 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I only have the first edition of Alfasi, but I'll try to find by someone his second and updated edition. If he does write that Reb Borach'l had thousands of Chasidim then he surely doesn't mean it in today's sense. Chasidim who are not talmidim is relatively a new phenomenon. The first few generation of Chasidus was a Rebbe and his talmidim with the hamoin am (laymen) coming for a Broche.

Not welcoming the Baal Hatanye is a far cry from "The visit ultimately resulted in Rabbi Shneur Zalman and his followers being evicted from Podolia." "Evicted" is too powerful a word for a situation of Persona non grata. Besides I'm not sure that Reb Borach'l had that much power. People were very poor those days and an arender (innkeeper) would be hard pressed to deny anybody entry; he needed those few Kopeks. That's my opinion; I might be wrong and we need to clarify this better. Itzse 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that Kopecks has no article in WP. Kopeck redirects to ruble not to Russian ruble. Itzse 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It was more than not welcoming. He was "evicted" (not my term, see Tracing Ansky). He was visiting Medzhibozh and visiting with R. Boruch, when in a fit of anger, R. Boruch told him in no uncertain terms to leave. (There's much more to the story, but I leave it to you to uncover.) R. Shneur Zalman returned to Lithuania never to set foot in Ukraine again. His followers didn't establish a foothold in Ukraine until the 20th century. And, yes, R. Boruch was a very rich and powerful man with many government connections. R. Shneur Zalman was noted for having very poor government connections (to the point where he was jailed for treason).--Klezmer 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I take your word for it; but still "evicted" (as in Gaza) is too powerful a word. My question isn't necessarily to you. I had no idea who wrote it, and it wouldn't make a difference to me. Even if the source says so, I think, it should be qualified including making it clear in the article what we're talking. Itzse 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wives and children clarification

In the info box, the information claims wife number 1 was mother of Boruch's 3 daughters. It lists wife number 2 as Sima Chisha, with no children. My information is that Sima Chisha (daughter of R. Aaron of Titov) was the mother of Boruch's 3 daughters and I have no information about Boruch having a second wife. Can someone provide a source to validate the info box as it is now? If not, I'll modify it to match my information. --Klezmer (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the new Butzina D'Nehora Chodosh that just came out in two volumes, the first volume is stories and other information about Boruch's life and family, and it says his first wife was the mother of his 3 daughters, and the second wife was Sima Chasya, who was the daughter of R. Aaron of Titov, son of R. Tzvi who was his uncle (his mother's brother) -- so it looks like he married his first cousin's daughter.

On another issue that was hotly debated in Wikipedia about the claim that Boruch may not have even met his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, this sefer quotes many sources which say Boruch was the Baal Shem Tov's designated successor, he was raised in the Baal Shem Tov's home until his grandfather's death, learned and studied with him, and often even slept in his grandfather's bed as a child. So much for the claim he never even met his grandfather or wasn't a student of his. --ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,that's helpful information. Does it mention the name of wife number 1?--Klezmer (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think I ever saw the first wife's name mentioned anywhere, but I wasn't looking. --ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo in Wiesel quote?

In the second to last sentence of the first paragraph of the Elie Wiesel quote, where "usurer" is written, surely "usurper" is intended? Perhaps someone with access to the source of the quote can check and correct this. --Shorn again (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)