13

When one reads stories of the old Chasidim, from the Baal Shem Tov through the first few generations, the impression one is left with is of a movement very different from the Chasidim of today. Specifically, Chasidim today are, across the board, associated with a level of stringency equalling if not exceeding that of other movements within Torah Judaism.

Where a Chosid of old might have considered himself to have davened Shacharis by going out into a forest for heartfelt conversation with G-d (R' Zisha, according to Buber's "Tales of the Hasidim") or sobbing into the paroches for five minutes at 2PM (told by R' Shlomo z'l about a Kotzker Chosid), this kind of behavior would be unthinkable in any Chasidic community today.

Was there a focal point at which the Chasidic movement re-aligned itself with the orthodoxy from which it originally sought to break? If Chasidus was an attempt to revive Judaism and free it from the excessive legalism and stringency that dominated Ashkenazi Jewry until then, what caused it to apparently fall in to the same trap?

Having written this question, I now want to stress that I don't think immersion in stringency and legalism is a trap. Rather, it is a legitimate expression of Judaism. I'm just trying to better understand how and why Chasidus came back around to that which it seems to have originally been striving against.

yoel
  • 7,221
  • 29
  • 59
  • 3
    I disagree that it's come "back around to that which it seems to have originally been striving against." Chassidus successfully changed the non-Chassidic world as well. The non-Chassidic world is no longer the same one that Chassidus originally broke from. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 16:53
  • @HodofHod I'd love to hear you expand on this in an answer. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 17:08
  • @yoel, Some examples: (Litvish) yeshiva bochrim all dressing the same, the spread of the gebrukts and glatt chumras, the spread of nusach sefard. – Isaac Moses Mar 14 '12 at 18:04
  • @IsaacMoses is there a source or proof that a uniform levush comes from Chasidus and wasn't in the Litvish world before? Do Litvaks keep gebrukts? I thought they didn't davka. Glatt came from Sefardim, maybe? As for nusach Sefard... do people outside the Chasidishe velt really daven it? – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 18:19
  • @yoel, these are all sociological phenomena, so sourcing may be difficult. My understanding about dress and glatt come partly from R' Rakeffet, who says that the former was not uniform in his day in the US or in Litvish Europe and that the latter was due chiefly to the influence of Satmar in the US. I know many people who are not chassidim who keep gebrukts, and I know that the proportion of non-gebrukts products on the shelves has declined over the course of my three decades. And yes, there are many shuls, including mine, that daven nusach sefard but aren't otherwise in the chasidishe velt. – Isaac Moses Mar 14 '12 at 18:51
  • 2
    yoel, I wrote something up, but it ended up being 770 words (completely unintentional) long. If you're interested, I'll post it. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 18:56
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrill and vice versa. :-D – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 19:03
  • @HodofHod please do – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 19:26
  • @IsaacMoses this is totally fascinating to me, as the perspective in the Chasidishe communities with which I have been involved is that "misnagdim" still conduct themselves very differently from us. It's actually pretty heartening to me to hear that we are both drawing closer together and closing the gap, and that may be the ultimate answer to my question. Maybe a new question would be what each side is losing in doing so. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 19:28
  • @yoel you asked for it.... ;-) – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 19:29
  • (I don't disagree with what @IsaacMoses wrote above. This is independent of that.) Re "Chasidim today are, across the board, associated with a level of stringency equalling if not exceeding that of other movements within Torah Judaism": this may be partially a question of the definition of "chasid". If you mean "anyone with the customs of chasidism" or "anyone who has a rebbe" then I disagree strongly: there are many such people who lack many stringencies. If by "chasid" you mean "people who..." (fill in the blank with your favorite stringency), then you're sort of claiming a tautology. – msh210 Mar 15 '12 at 00:31
  • @msh210 I agree, and for that reason I was careful to say "associated with", whether or not that popular association is correct. – yoel Mar 15 '12 at 00:41
  • perhaps somewhat related: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3821 – Adam Mosheh Jun 20 '12 at 02:53
  • 1
    chassidus never strived against halacha, chas veshalom. if you want to learn about chassidus then you should look at actual works of chassidus and not things that martin buber wrote who wasn't even observant of the most basic tenets of Judaism. – Dude Apr 29 '18 at 02:01
  • @yoel "This kind of behavior would be unthinkable in any Chasidic community today" -- It would not. – SAH Sep 17 '19 at 00:11
  • @yoel I think the stringency of chasidism is intended to derive from profound love: specifically, a yearning to serve Hashem with the truth and purity which naturally inhere in carefulness and attention to detail. It is, at its source, an emotional thing - though not a sloppy one. – SAH Sep 17 '19 at 00:18

4 Answers4

7

Each generation of Chassidus had a different purpose. The Baal Shem Tov connected to the simple Jew, to show him or her that just because they are not learned in Torah doesn't mean that they don't have a connection to G-d. He traveled around Europe encouraging the Jewish people and waking them up from a spiritual slumber. The Maggid of Mezritch did not travel, instead he surrounded himself with an inner circle of tzaddikim to map out a spiritual plan to revive Jewish spiritual life. If the early Chassidim were not concerned with halacha but instead with a forest meditation, why would the Maggid ask the Alter Rebbe of Chabad to compile a Shulchan Aruch? Why would Rebbe Nachman, who is one of the biggest supporters of forest meditation, write that a Jew must learn Gemara and Shulchan Aruch?

IMHO the Chassidim experienced unbelievable success. Generations later those simple Jews have decedents that are Rabbis and Talmidei HaChamim. The movement has translated and printed more literature that helps one connect to G-d than ever before in history.

Most Chassidim today do not live near forests, and while Chabad and Breslov stress meditation, the rest of the Chassidim took the route of living a strict Torah life.

Most of the "Chumrahs and Stringencies" that we have today, come from those generations; they were not made up in America or Israel.

I agree that Chassidus has changed, mostly due to a mass uprooting of the Chassidic world, with millions being burned alive and the survivors moving across the world to America or Israel. Communities merged and completely absorbed each other.

Chassidus never sought to "break away from" Orthodoxy. It sought to give the non-elite a chance to live that Torah life that was locked away by the elite. The Chassidim wanted all Jews to be learned in Hashem's Torah which the Tanya quotes as being literally the "will of Hashem" and by learning it you connect to Hashem on an unbelievable level.

I agree that the spiritual vibrancy of Chassidus of old has left the movement, but IMHO you can thank the Holocaust for part of that. While WWI and the Industrial Revolution had devastating effects on European Jewry, it did not systematically destroy entire Chassidic Courts. The result of WWII is that a Satmar Chasid now was living next to Sephardim, Polish Chassidim, Litvaks and other Jews that never before had been the case. As the Rambam says in Hilchos Deos; You are product of your environment. Chassidim were now influenced by each other and other streams in Orthodox Judaism. Now 60 years later we are seeing the results of this.

Chassidus Chabad and Chassidus Breslov took some of your concerns and transformed them into what is known today as the "kiruv" movement which seeks to bring back Jewish souls to Hashem and the Torah.

Some might disagree, but Chabad Chassidus is the foundation of the "Kiruv" Movement, which is what some might consider to be a revival of the original vision of the Baal Shem Tov.

  • This is a good answer, so maybe the second question is: does this generation need something of that "spiritual vibrancy" and how can that be reintroduced and delivered to the Jews who need it, especially those who r'l have fallen into (or grown up in) movements that are completely against our Torah? – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 15:43
  • Incidentally, I didn't mean to suggest that early Chasidim didn't care about Halacha (c'v!). I gave a few extreme examples to illustrate the general principle that early Chasidus seemed to have - that any path that brought one to sincere Avoda was a good one. It seems to me that many Jews today who are frightened or overwhelmed by our Torah would benefit from such a notion, but how to reconcile it with the "anything goes, whatever makes you feel good" approach of modern heretical movements? – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 15:46
  • @yoel If a person is serious about growing spiritually I have only found a clear path through Chabad and Breslov Chassidus. The path is long and could take a lifetime but they are the only groups that have writings on how to connect to G-d. No other group has this outside of 1 or 2 seforim that are usually deep deep complicated pirushim on Torah like Sfas Emes, Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, etc. The average person can not find a path for life in those seforim. –  Mar 14 '12 at 15:46
  • I agree with you 100% about Chabad and Breslev (maybe obviously, at least to me, since I'm a chosid of Rebbe Nachman who davens at a Chabad shul) and also about the seforim you mention (I would add Menoras Zahav and Toldos Yaakov Yosef to the list). It's interesting that the authors of those seforim didn't really found movements so much. Probably a whole other separate question. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 15:49
  • The Maggid had many students. Each student went to a different location to spread Chassidus. It seems to me that the reason why Chabad Chassidus developed a written derech was because (IMHO the Alter Rebbe foresaw his Chassidim being uprooted and spread throughout the world) From the Rebbe Rashab to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Rebbe wasnt in the city with all the Chassidim around. Lubavitcher chassidim were still in Russia after the Rebbe left. –  Mar 14 '12 at 15:58
  • 1
    The printed Chassidus is what kept them alive. This was and still is not the case with other Chassidic groups who are Rebbe centered and can not survive without a physical Rebbe who gives over Oral Chassidus for that Generation. Chabad Chassidus that is printed is for all generations for all time. –  Mar 14 '12 at 15:58
  • @mochinrechavim The revival of the Besht's original vision that you refer to is specifically the "kiruv", or general Chassidus Chabad? – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 16:32
  • @HodofHod An element of Chassidus was to connect all Jews to Hashem. The "kriuv" movement can be compared to the original movements goals albeit the Jews during the BESHT's time were mostly G-d fearing Shomer Shabbos Jews. Chabad revived this idea of connecting all Jews to Hashem, which was met with harsh criticism from Chassidic as well as non Chassidic circles. The Rebbe's Sicha titled "One the Essence of Chassidus" discusses in the beginning different ideas in chassidus, one being above and another that the whole spectrum of Jewish souls could connect to Torah through a Chassidus thought. –  Mar 14 '12 at 16:39
  • @mochinrechavim, I took the liberty of editing your answer to improve the spelling and punctuation, and while I was doing so I noticed a couple of inaccuracies, which I fixed. With respect to "breaking", the question doesn't state that Chassidus sought to break Orthodoxy, but break away from legalistic Orthodoxy ("from which it originally sought to break"), so I fixed that. Also, the uprooting was not a cause of the Holocaust, but a part of it, so I reworded that slightly. Otherwise it was mostly spelling and punctuation. Feel free to edit it or revert it if you disagree. – Seth J Mar 14 '12 at 16:40
  • 1
    @mochinrechavim Funny you should mention that Sicha; as soon as I saw this question, I went and turned on Rabbi Paltiel's shiur on that. :-D – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 16:41
  • 1
    @HodofHod It is quit a monumental Sicha as prior to it, I am not aware of any place where Chassidus is explained. Most think that Chassidus is a 5th interpretation in addition to the PARDES (simple, hint, expounded, esoteric) levels of expounding Torah. The points the Rebbe bringings in the beginning are all valid but it doesn't touch the essence of Chassidus. Modei Ani has never been the same. –  Mar 14 '12 at 16:44
  • Okay, now I'm curious because Rebbe Nachman zy'a also explains Modeh Ani according to Chasidus in L"M 54 (I think it's 54, anyway). I'll have to check this sicha out. I assume it's online somewhere... – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 16:55
  • @yoel http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1036483/jewish/On-the-Essence-of-Chassidus.htm –  Mar 14 '12 at 16:57
  • Thanks, I'll have a look. L"M 54 if you're curious. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 17:03
  • 2
    @yoel It's really fascinating. The Rebbe explains Modeh Ani first according to each of the Parde"s, then according to Chassidus. Then he explains how the Chassidic explanation illuminates the perspective of each of the explanations according to Parde"s that he already gave. It's a very unique Sicha. If you prefer to read it, it's available in Hebrew/English on HebrewBooks. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 17:16
  • I think this answer could be improved by telling us WHEN this shift occured. – avi Mar 14 '12 at 20:18
  • @avi it seems to me that mochin is saying it was a post-war shift. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 20:26
  • @yoel yeah, it would just be nice to have some argument to prove that the shift happened from WWII, and not say WWI, or the industrial revolution etc. – avi Mar 14 '12 at 20:29
  • @Avi While WWI and the I.R. had devastating effects on European Jewry, it did not systematically destroy entire Chassidic Courts. The result of WWII is that a Satmar Chasid now was living next to Sephardim, Polish Chassidim, Litvaks and other Jews that never before had been the case. As the Rambam says in Hilchos Deos. You are product of your environment. Chassidim were now influenced by each other and other streams in Orthodox Judaism. Now 60 years later we are seeing the results of this. –  Mar 14 '12 at 20:43
  • @mochinrechavim That makes a lot of sense, and would improve the answer. – avi Mar 15 '12 at 07:01
  • Satmar is not a chassidus. Just a head's up. – Yehuda Dec 01 '21 at 22:50
4

TL;DR:
Chassidus has already accomplished much of what it set out to do, and has caused significant changes in the "mainstream" of yesteryear, such that the non-Chassidism of today is really a product of both the "mainstream" of yesteryear, and Chassidus itself.

Warning: Serious over-simplifications below.

While it is true that Chassidus has changed quite a bit from it's origins, I disagree that Chassidus has returned to the ways and practices that it originally broke from.

As mochin rechavim's answer correctly points out, one of the main points of Chassidus was to break away from the idea that the only way to serve G-d properly was to be a Talmid Chocham, and if you weren't, you were a nothing. This was simply the metzius of how simple Jews were viewed back then. If a Jew couldn't learn Torah, then he was viewed as inferior. In addition, if a Jew didn't learn Torah, or didn't do mitzvos, he was considered completely lost to Judaism. I don't mean halachically, I mean in the public perception.

Now, as everyone knows, Torah learning is incredibly vital to Jewish life (and learning ;-)). (Toras HaChassidus itself is Torah of the deepest and most profound kind.) But this does not mean that it is the only way to connect to G-d. Chassidus taught (and teaches) that the Jew is innately connected to G-d, and is precious to G-d no matter what. This had (and has) the effect of: 1) causing the Jew to feel closer to G-d, and to therefore act in such a way, and 2) removing sadness and depression from the Jew, and replacing it with joy. (As is known, the Besht and other Chassidic masters placed much emphasis on serving G-d with joy.)

So this was one of the things that Chassidus set out to accomplish (and was incredibly successful at, I believe): to change that perceived inferiority of the simple Jew. This was necessary in two ways: 1) to change the community's perception of unlearned Jews, and 2) to change the unlearned Jew's perception of himself.

In this respect, Chassidus was incredibly successful. Look around today to see how much.

Also, Chassidus also introduced Toras Hachassidus, a new dimension in learning and understanding G-d and his Torah. This is certainly still studied today.

As far as breaking away from "the excessive legalism and stringency that dominated Ashkenazi Jewry", I'd say that Chassidus wanted something more.

Chassidus injected an idea of connection and closeness to G-d that (I believe) did not exist before. It tried to show that observing halacha by rote is, at best, half the picture. It was at least equally important to think about the One who you're learning about, or praying to, as it was to learn and pray in the first place. This is not to say that Chassidus advocated (or advocates) anything less than what halacha requires. But it tried to bring back the life into it's observance. Chassidus wanted to make Jewish practice more G-d-conscious.

I'd say that Chassidus has been successful at this, and is continuing to try to bring this into the public consciousness.

Has Chassidus moved back more into the "mainstream" from when it first started? Yes. This is a result of both Chassidus moving towards the "mainstream", but also, and perhaps more importantly, of the "mainstream" moving towards Chassidus.

I'd compare this to the Rambam's dictum: When you want to change a flaw, move to the opposite extreme. Then, once you've become accustomed to that, you will be able to move toward the middle.

Also, as mochin recahvim said, every generation needs something else, and this is what this generation needs. What was necessary for yesteryear's generation may no longer be necessary for our's. So while Toras HaChassidus and the fundamentals of it's practice and theology (for example "Chassid Sorfon") remain unchanged, some of the externals have changed.

This ended up a lot longer than I had originally intended, but what I've mentioned is really only a snippet of the larger effect of Chassidus.

For more information on this, I suggest listening or reading the beginning of "Inyana Shel Toras HaChassidus, available as an audio lecture (thanks @mochin rechavim) or Hebrew/English PDF. This is geared towards Toras HaChassidus (specifically as taught by Chabad), but starts from the Baal Shem Tov.

For a more general history of the time, and the effects that Chassidus hoped to have (and had), as well as the fundamentals (rather than the externals) of Chassidus, I very strongly suggest Rabbi Yossi Paltiel's Shiurim here. (Again, it's from the perspective of Chabad, but he goes through all the history.)

HodofHod
  • 21,056
  • 5
  • 91
  • 156
  • Thanks, I think the Rambam you bring sums up the ultimate answer to my question very nicely. I'll look at R' Paltiel's shiurim. I guess my question originally spurs from wishing we had a R' Levi Yitzchok, a R' Zisha, etc. in today's day and age. I think we need it desperately. – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 19:32
  • 1
    The Chabad Rebbeim have said (and I'm sure many others) that by learning a tzaddik's Torah, you keep them alive. Nevertheless, we definitely need Moshiach now! – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 19:35
  • 1
    @yoel Rabbi Paltiel's shiurim are very in depth, he starts the first couple with all the history of the world that the Besht was born into. I'm listening to it for the third time now. (It's 12 hours in total). – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 19:36
  • I think it's actually a Gemara that when you learn a tzadik's Torah he speaks the words with you, and also a Gemara that a tzadik isn't ever "dead". – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 19:40
  • @yoel The second part I know is from Gemara, but the first I never heard from there. Makes sense, though. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 19:42
  • 2
    @yoel , HodofHod : the first part is a gemara in Bechorot 31b אמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי כל תלמיד חכם שאומרים דבר שמועה מפיו בעולם הזה שפתותיו דובבות בקבר – Double AA Mar 14 '12 at 20:01
  • I think this answer could be improved by telling us WHEN this shift occured. – avi Mar 14 '12 at 20:18
  • @avi It was a gradual change, that started with the Baal Shem Tov, and continues today. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 20:24
  • @HodofHod I do not believe that is true. There are certain dates in history where the descriptions of Chasidim change. I'm not sure if it was WWII, or closer to the turn of the century, but I know that a difference in culture is noted. – avi Mar 14 '12 at 20:28
  • @avi I don't understand. The Jewish world has been changing gradually since the beginning of time, with the exception of a few great cataclysmic events that changed everything overnight. What change specifically are you referring to that you don't think happened gradually? – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 20:33
  • @HodofHod The institutionalization of Chassidic communities. Moving from a loose collection of people, to organized communities. There must have been some historic events which allowed those changes to happen. – avi Mar 14 '12 at 20:36
  • @avi My answer doesn't cover that change at all. I did not, and will not, attempt to cover every change that occurred in Chassidism and non-Chassidism. That is the subject for a book. The particular change you mention is not really an ideological one, which is what the question asks about. – HodofHod Mar 14 '12 at 20:46
  • 1
    @Avi After the Maggid, Chassidus shifted to central areas in Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Hungary. Once those communities were established some of them developed into dynasties which had 6 or more generations of Rebbeim living in one city. IE: Lubavitch, Ger, Belz, Bobov. Other Rebbeim moved city to city ie: Satmar came from Litzensk to Lubin to Sighet to Satmar. I am not sure what a "loose collection of people" means but most Chassidic courts worked around many Chassidim living with the Rebbe and the rest traveling to visit on Yom Tovim. Some groups being larger than others. –  Mar 14 '12 at 20:51
  • @HodofHod I disagree that such a change is not ideological, although I don't think a good and complete answer needs to address every aspect of the ideological shifts of Chasidus – yoel Mar 14 '12 at 21:40
  • @ShmuelBrill Just to clarify, the Nikolsburger Rebbe who I am very close with is a descendent of R' Shmuel Shmelke, the Baal Shem Tov, and R' Zusha among others. –  Mar 15 '12 at 03:57
  • @HodofHod I'm suggesting that something along of the lines of established school buildings, and all that comes with it, might have been the historical starting point for the shifts you describe in your answer. I don't know, that's why I'm just commenting, and why I think dates in the answer would be helpful. – avi Mar 15 '12 at 07:00
  • @avi The Rebbe Rashab founded Tomchei Temimim in 1897. Prior to that I am unaware of any Chassidic Yeshiva that was formally institutionalized. –  Mar 15 '12 at 16:15
  • In this answer, the term "legalism" is again used; and I am trying to do a search in rabbinic (i.e. Hebrew) literature. Would somebody please kindly tell me, what are the rabbinic or Hebrew words for "legalism"? – ninamag Sep 05 '17 at 16:50
4

You seem to be confusing Buber's neo-Chassidism and Carlebach's kiruv-Chassidism with actual Chassidism. Both of these authors had an agenda of advertising a secularized version of chassidism to their followers. Original Chassidism was more about adding on to existing Jewish practice by providing commoners with something that they could connect outside of simple Torah study. They had the same, if not greater emphasis on practical observance, with the main differences being in the extent of their focus on prayer and the centrality of mystical 'rebbes' who were (/are) believed to be miracle workers and spiritual mediums.

Sources:

Mainly personal experience - readings and lectures over the years and such, but for quick reference here are some relevant wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Hasidism_and_mysticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism

Yaakov Kuperman
  • 1,952
  • 10
  • 15
  • 2
    Hello ShinTav, welcome to Judaism.SE and thank you for your added perspective! Your answer could be improved by explaining what (if anything) happened to this Chassidus. I'm glad to see you've registered your account, and I hope to see you around! – HodofHod Mar 19 '12 at 04:27
  • Those were the examples I had readily at hand, but I'm basing myself on the stories that circulate about the tzadikim and their works. Look at Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Degel Machane Efraim, Siach Sarfei Kodesh... That said, I've rethought my question and I think it ought to be better framed in the context of attitude during observance, cf. R' Levi Yitzchok's "matzo zu!" – yoel Mar 19 '12 at 04:51
  • I would further modify (or even re-ask, if I thought it would produce answers different from this question) to ask "why do tzadikim today not conduct themselves like those of the early Chasidim?" – yoel Mar 19 '12 at 06:45
  • To clarify, I think if you look historically that much of early Chassidus has been retained until today. Chassidic tales are renowned for being folk tales with little grounding in actual fact. This is especially true of the neo-Chassidic take, as discussed in the wikipedia article on Buber. If you want examples of the extreme devotion typical of early groups, here's some more wiki pages

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlin-Stolin - Yell their prayers instead of the traditional service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amshinov_(Hasidic_dynasty) - The rebbe takes an extremely long time to daven

     – Yaakov Kuperman Mar 19 '12 at 23:03
1

Yoel,

I hope this good question you asked leads you to strive for originality and being real with HaShem.

In the general Judaism of today, it is forbidden to have your own opinion unless you're considered one of the "gedolei hador". Spiritual expression is prohibited, and everyone is expected to dryly recite prayers with little or no emotional involvement. Everyone says you have to pray with a minyan, even if they pray at 10,000 words per second - this is preferred to them over praying alone, for example, at the pace of your heart and with full intention and emotional involvement in your prayer - as it is supposed to be.

Most of modern Judaism has lost aspects of Torah, such as halakhoth regarding qorbanoth, Melakhim, war, and have lost a whole aspect through some of these things about what it is to be a Jew. Sometimes, Jews resort to eastern mysticism for their spiritual needs. Expression of spirituality is a taboo, everything must be in the lines.

In some part, Judaism has become a dead system. Perhaps this was foreseen by the successor of Besh"t, Rabi Nahman of Breslev. However, many of my fellow adherents of his hasiduth make him out to be some hippy peacenik. Everyone is under the assumption that a good Jew is one that sits all day with his head in a book, his wife may even work to support him entirely. Her parents may even support their family with some finances as well. In order to get married in the first place, though, he must talk to the Rav. He must wear a nice jacket, a nice hat, he must come from a prestigious family (or else he's scum). It would even help to know how his parents stacked their dishes in the cupboard, and what kind of tablecloth they used. If an Arab from the neighboring city comes up to attack him, he would be defenseless; he would get killed and everything of his would be plundered.

The way it used to be is that Jews were warriors and had personal, spiritual relationships with HaShem. Hitbodedut and spiritual expression was more common. Wives were bought and attained by the man, not the other way around. Original Hasiduth was a big strive in that direction, to return to that originality. And this was brought on by HaShem. Moshe returned throughout generations, inhabiting different leaders, ending with Rabi Nahman until Mashiah comes.

It would be highly advisable for every Jew to do actual teshuva and return to HaShem on every level they are able to, in light of the world conflict about to come.

(My comments are not merely opinion, but based on personal experience both in life and from the mesora I've received).

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
Aman
  • 522
  • 3
  • 9
  • Interesting, I had never heard that Rabi Nachman was considered to be an ispashtusa d'Moshe (let alone the last one), do you have a source for this? – HodofHod Mar 15 '12 at 13:39
  • Also, what's your source for "Jews were warriors and had personal, spiritual relationships with HaShem. Hitbodedut and spiritual expression was more common"? I assume you mean pre-Churban? – HodofHod Mar 15 '12 at 13:47
  • 2
    @HodofHod there's no explicit written source, but it's a Breslev tradition that does have basis. The more explicit source, alluded to in the hakdama to Likutey Moharan, is that Rabbenu is a gilgul of Rabi Shimon bar Yochai. In Breslev we see it as a progressive revelation of Torah, Moshe Rabenu, Rashbi, Arizal, Besht, Rebbe Nachman, and Rebbe Nachman said that his fire - his teachings - are the last stage of revelation until Moshiach comes. That said, I don't want to lend any credence to this answer which contradicts the very first lesson in L"M (along with a number of halachos). – yoel Mar 15 '12 at 14:46
  • 1
    HaYom Yom 21 Adar2 The Tzemach Tzedek said "My grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, is the Moshe Rabeinu of Chassidus Chabad. Our sages say that the Torah was given to Moshe but he acted generously (sharing it with Israel)1. The G-dly "constant fire" related to the teachings of Chabad Chassidus was given by the Maggid to the Alter Rebbe who acted generously and gave it to anyone who occupies himself with the study of Chassidus. I am absolutely certain that whoever teaches another and arouses in him that G-dly "constant fire" is assured of his reward, that this merit of his will never be extinguished. –  Mar 15 '12 at 17:53
  • Yoel, My Rav and his brother, who share the same sentiment as I do, were known by and lived with Rav Yisroel Ber Odesser who claimed my Rav's brother KNOWS Liqutei Moharan. Note, they're not like some of the crazy NaNahim who take some things too far. My Rav also lived with and spent most of the time with Rav Yitzhak Qaduri z"l before his passing. I know several Rabanim who share my same sentiments as expressed. Because I realized them correct via my relationship with HaShem through hitbodedut, and through logic and being honest with myself, I adopted their views. – Aman Mar 16 '12 at 09:11
  • I'd like to add, you say my words above contradict L"M 1. How wrong of you. You twisted my words to say that learning Torah does no good. On the contrary, you must learn Torah for its sake and especially for deed. That's why learning Torah is considered so high - it leads to you fulfilling its concepts. When someone comes to kill you, you're to kill him first. Shulhan `Arukh and Mishne Torah are 86% the same. However, the former is more shayakh to galut, as it lacks the inclusion of many laws pertaining kings, nazirut, wars, etc. You can NOT annul action with emuna; they go together. – Aman Mar 16 '12 at 10:45
  • @Aman Do you have any source for your quote in my second comment above? – HodofHod Mar 19 '12 at 05:35
  • HodofHod, my Rav's community have a masora from bayit rishon. Kings were nazirim. The tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin shaved their mustaches, as did royalty. There were some customs of mourning that I am not personally aware of. There is a fighting system for lack of a better term that is circular, the otiot are found throughout the flow of the whole system, and different tribal styles exist, usually based on the animals or objects of their symbols. It is bio-mechanically natural and doesn't have the flaws (nor the elements of avoda zara) of the systems the goyim used... – Aman Mar 19 '12 at 19:44
  • ...it is also tried against those systems and in real action. As stated, its style is circular, and it relies upon gravity and motion, momentum, and flow, rather than brute strength. I.e., on HaShem's forces and His will rather than a man's pride. Israelites dressed in colorful garments and wore a white imama/turban in peace and a black one in war. Men often wore a hizmi, a kilt-like garment. Tzniut wasn't an issue among men as it is made to be today (tzni`ut was an issue, just not by today's standards, I mean). And there as extensive health and natural cure knowledge. – Aman Mar 19 '12 at 19:48
  • @HodofHod I've seen in the introduction to Igros Moshe V. 9 that R' Moshe Feinstein was the ispashtusa d'Moshe shebechol dor – ertert3terte Apr 23 '13 at 04:09
  • In this post, the term "legalism" is used a number of times; and I am trying to do a search in rabbinic (i.e. Hebrew) literature. Would somebody please kindly tell me, what are the rabbinic or hebrew words for "legalism"? – ninamag Sep 05 '17 at 16:49
  • I can't bring myself to like this answer. I'm withholding with downvoting for now, but my problem is that this answer is not an answer. It does not explain whether or how chasidut has changed (see OP), and is an unsourced rant (sorry for this harsh qualification, I mean no ill will). I think this answer confuses two things: (1) whether spiritually empty judaism is rampant, and (2) whether this is an enforced norm with any serious jewish authority. I think most will agree with (1) without source, but the leap to (2) needs serious support to be an acceptable thesis-statement. – RonP Oct 18 '19 at 13:52