From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Judaism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


There is lot of picking on Chabad - not as much on Breslov but still too much - in the "Usage" part of the article, do you know how many groups of polish chosidim (or hasidim as wikipedia pefers) got wiped out in the world wars!?! But have their chosidim still following them (which most would of passed away by now). While you are at it why don't you state the Germara that say the followers of Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) still followed him after his death!?! And where it goes in an arguement if Rebbi's family fulfilled their obligation of Kiddush when after Rebbi's death, Rebbi would come and make Kiddush for them. The Germara's conclusion (after many pages of argueing) is that they do fulfill their obligation, I don't want to misquote the Germara and as it isn't in front of me, I'll get the Germara where this arguement is found to quote it if anyone asks for it, if no one asks for it and I remember the next time I have it in front of me, I'll quote it. In fact there should be peace in all sections of the world.

So please stop picking on certain people/groups, because clueless people that write books/websites to make baseless hatred aganist these people/groups that they know so little about such as, what christians claim the Talmud to be...

Every article is a work in progress, and you are free to modify it. If you feel a section is biased, please change it. That's how a wiki works. Your aggressive edit summaries (and your tone above) are not very helpful. Bringing in unrelated arguments is also not constructive. JFW | T@lk 18:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I am accully in the middle of editing about 5 page a lot to remove the anti content without adding zelousness and adding in more detail in the best way possible... I accully posted this before I submitted my edit... and for my edits I was going to say "see talk page"... anyway it might be awhile before I submit all the edits as I have many I am in the middle of working on (yea I am one of those guys working on too many projects at once, and sometime submitting in part 2 before part 1). 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Grand Rabbi[edit]

An anonymous IP has been changing all of the titles (except Chabad) to read "Grand Rabbi". I have not known this terminology to be the norm. Can someone bring citations to prove otherwise? Daykart 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Bostoners use it for their Rebbe. In the Hasidic view, a Rebbe is not just a rabbi, and this is probably an attempt to improve the profile. If this term is actually in use I don't see why it shouldn't stay.
Perhaps the Grand Rabbi is the Rabbi's dad, like Grand Mother and Grand Father (heh). JFW | T@lk 13:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the term used quite often, actually. It is meant to distinguish between a normal Rabbi, and one that is followed by Rabbis. PhatJew 09:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not used in the Chassidic world at all. However, some writers (who write to a secular or at least uninformed audience) use the term to connote "Rebbe." I guess the assumption is that some might confuse the term "Rebbe" for "Rabbi." In Lithuanian Yeshivas, all of the teachers are called "Rebbe," but that does not connote "Grand Rabbi" status. It merely is a term of respect. The Bostoner Rebbe's shul uses that term, I imagine, for the sake of their more secular or non-Chassidic audience. (Of the many times I entered the Bostoner Rebbe's shul, I have only once encountered Bostoner Chassidim other than the Rebbe and his gabbai.)--Meshulam 15:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

When speaking to the outside world, the term "Grand Rabbi" is used by most Hassidim to refer to a Hassidic "Admor" 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In television interviews after the death of the previous Satmar Rebbe, many Satmar Hassidim used the term "Grand Rabbi". The term also appears on the stationary of many Chassidishe Rebbes. Itzik18 19:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater and lesser devotion to a Rebbe's "infallibility."[edit]

I hestitate in general to use the term infallibility, and even more so to use the term heresy. The article gives the impression that Chassidim believe that their Rebbeim are superhuman, and that it is literally heretical to believe otherwise. While that sociologically may not be far from the truth, it is literally false. Moses himself was fallable. While the general belief is that his failings were so small that were we to "fail" in the way that he "failed," it would be to our credit, it nonetheless remains true that Moses was human. Chassidim are bound by Torah law from ascribing to their Rebbeim powers greater than Moses himself had. Therefore, it is impossible for them to believe that their Rebbeim are infallible. Rather, Chassidim believe that for all intents and purposes, the Rebbe cannot fail.

Furthermore, heresy is a very specific legal concept in Jewish law. It is a great disprespect to doubt one's Rebbe's greatness, but it cannot be "heretical." Nonetheless I did not edit those statments, because as a sociological matter, they at least appear to be true.

However, I removed the list of Chassidim that have a lesser or a greater "devotion" to their Rebbe's "infallibility." First of all, ther are no sources for the list that was provided. Second, I don't even know that the list is accurate on any level. Third, it is not complete. Finally, and most importantly, devotion to the Kabbalistic notions like "Tzaddik HaDor" (a term, by the way, that never appears in Kabbalistic literature) depends entirely on the Rebbe's adherence to these notions. It isn't like some Chassidic Rebbes are weaker as leaders and therefore are not viewed as "infallible" with respect to other Rebbeim.

I think that the inclusion of Satmar in the list was particularly wrong: Many Satmar Chassidim did not accept that R' Moshe Teitelbaum was the Satmar Rebbe, causing them to doubt his leadership. That's not the same thing as being less devoted to the infallibility of their Rebbe: They simply rejected that the "Satmar Rebbe" was their Rebbe. Furthermore, the current conflict (see the Satmar page) has everything to do with what the Satmar Rebbbe wants! The Ahronis say that the Satmar Rebbe wantes R' Aharon to be Rebbe, but that he is feeble and therefore being manipulated by people in his inner circle. The Zollies say that the Satmar Rebbe wants R' Zalman Leib to be Rebbe, and that he is totally lucid. There is no aspect of non-devotion here. Merely, both sides claim that they are the most devoted, and that the other side is manipulating the facts. However, this subject pains me much, and i fear I have already said too much. --Meshulam 16:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC) The fact is that in Satmar (as in Klausenburg, Vizhnitz and some others) even by the old Rebbe, as much as he was revered by his hasidim there was more of a rational approach to it than by those hasidims listed in the artical as the more extreme ones. Especialy by the curent Rebbe even by his real hasidaim and much before the conflict they were very rational about him and never went crazy about him like many other hasidisms.Ortho 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? What constitutes rational vs. "crazy"? They still accept shiraim, they still go (went) to him for brochos, etc. If you think Lubavitchers never questioned the Rebbe, you're mistaken. While everyone always listened to the Rebbe, and (for the most part) did what he said, it wasn't without kvetching on many occasions. I'm not disagreeing here. I just want to lay down (what I think are) the facts so that we can compare notes. Thanks for responding. I await the rejoinder. --Meshulam 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just the degree of belife in the Rebbe. Also the difference between that belife as a religeous belife and a feeling that it would be heresy to doubt it, rather than a personal one, but I admit its indeed dificult to bring out concretely.Ortho 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


There's very little information about this position or title other than a list of all the various instances of it. Therefore I have flagged it a stub. Falcon 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was more info, but someone removed it - i have restored it 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Skverr -boro park and skverr-flatbush are not mentioned in skverr.

so if anyone knows the information, please edit it.

gevaldik! 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They have been added to Skver (Hasidic dynasty). -- -- -- 01:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


What is the story with Karlin? Just because the Karliner Rebbe doesn't like pictures does that mean his picture should not be here? There is a picture of the Viznitz-Monsey Rebbe on the article about Viznitz. This is an encyclopedia and I feel that pictures do belong here. The question I have is does the information about Pinsk-Karlin, or for that matter Skver Boro Park, belong here? There needs to be some guidelines about this page. On the list of Viznitzer Rebbes there is no mention of Seret Viznitz. That is mentioned in the actual Viznitz article, and I think the same should be sufficient with Karlin and Skver. I would like to hear some feed back on this. Itzik18 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the Karlin-Stoliner Rebbe really adds nothing to this article. They belong, if anywhere, in an article on that dyansty. Redaktor 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph[edit]

The intro, which I reproduce here, is out of place.

Rebbe which means master, teacher, or mentor is the pronunciation by Ashkenazic Jews of the Hebrew word "רבי". Its transliteration should be Rebbi, but the "i" (eeh sound) is rarely stressed, rendering its pronunciation as the "a" in "America", hence Rebbe. In modern Hebrew (as used in Israel), which uses the Sephardic dialect, it would be pronounced as "Rabbee".

This is very interesting, but absolutely thing to do with the use of the Yiddish word rebbe רבי which, although derived from the Hebrew word רבי, is nevertheless a distinct word (being in a different language!) Redaktor 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Catalogue of dynasties[edit]

The section Rebbes of different dynasties seems totally out of place here. Can anyone provide a good rationale for putting these lists in this article? They would be placed better under the individual dynasties. Redaktor 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- no need to list all of the different dynasties when there is already another page doing that -- the "See also" reference at the end to the page listing all the Hassidic dynasties is enough. --ChosidFrumBirth 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have made a start. Before deleting a section I am making sure that the material is present in the article on the relevant chasidus. Redaktor 20:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Great start - will look even better after the deletions, or maybe just a reference to the articles listing all the dynasties and all the rebbes (forget which articles those are). --ChosidFrumBirth 21:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding the section Links to rebbes of different dynasties; I searched the entire Wikipedia for all articles of chasidic dynasties, and added their links. Quite a few don't have any articles, so I linked them to its city names.

I think that it makes sense to have links to all chasidic dynasties; so that someone searching for a particular rebbe, can now look in the article Rebbe under the section Links to rebbes of different dynasties and browse quickly all dynasties; then zoom in on the particular dynasty desired. In its horizontal layout all articles shouldn't take up a screenful.

In the article List of Hasidic dynasties, I think we should list all Rebbes who are alive today. In my estimation there are about three hundred. Itzse 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We can certainly list all rebbes, but please don 't confuse rebbe with dynasty (שושלת); the latter refers to a chain of rebbes. --Redaktor 00:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added Mosholu and linked it as well as Stroznitz, to the Nadvorna dynasty. The Wallabouter Rebbe is named after a street in the same way the Mosholu Rebbe is named after Mosholu parkway in the Bronx. Tshenstechov and Tshenstkovitz are two different places; one is in Poland and the other is in Galicia. Itzse 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Chasidim (spelling)[edit]

The spelling 'hasid' found in older scholarly works is transliterated from the Hebrew spelling of the word. It is hardly used nowadays. The common spelling is 'chasidim'. Certainly chasidim do not refer to themselves as 'hasidim' or 'hassidim'. The article should reflect widespread usage. Redaktor 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous edit by breaks all the rules of English grammar. Only proper nouns should be capitalized; other nouns are spelt using lower-case only. Rebbe and chasidim are not proper nouns. They should not be capitalized in general. I also see no justifcation for a double 's' in chasidim. Redaktor 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

but this is an encyclopedia and should reflect scholarly writing, not the way we pronunce it. The letter ח is generally an "H" (sometimes with a dot under it) and the letter כ is "ch" because they are two different pronounciations technically. in English it is Hassidic. I think the best way is if it is an english word like "Hasidism" or "Hassidic" it should be H and when it is a Yiddish word like "Chassidish" or Hebrew a word like "Chassidim" it should be "ch".Bobover1 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate points here. 1) there is no justification whatsoever for the double 'ss'. Let us at least agree on that. 2) The use of H for ח is unhelpful, since H is for ה. And we don't want ḥ (it took me ages to find this character!!!). So that is one argument against h for ח. But bear something else in mind. The 'scholars' were trying to respresnet Hebrew. But nowadays we use words like chosid/chasidim etc as borrowing sfrom yiddish, not Hebrew. And absolutely no-one suggest writing H for the ח in Yiddish.
I would settle for the following compromise which Ii think Bobover is half suggesting: spell 'Hasidism' (meaning חסידות) with an H – most of us would not use the word anyway; it is a purely English invention. But we stick to 'chasidim', since we are using that word a s a borrowing from Yiddish. And I am willing to buy Hasidic or chasidish (but not chasidic). Is that generally agreeable? - Redaktor 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not a Jewish encyclopedia, it is a general secular one. When writing in English we should use English words, and perhaps write the Hebrew word in Hebrew or the Yiddish word in Yiddish, followed by a transliteration in italics.Bobover1 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
What determines an English word? 'Hasidim' cannot be found in most dictionaries, nor does the average Wikipedia reader know what it means. We might as well popularise spellings that we are comfortable with. Yes, by all means put chasidim in italics to show that it is a foreign loan word. — --Redaktor 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you put the title directly in the Hebrew script? In the Hebrew Wikipedia there are many pages with the title in the latin script? -- (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. Most users of the English language Wikipedia can not read Hebrew script.
  2. The policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia are not necessarily the same as those of the Hebrew Wikipedia. -- -- -- 22:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Functions carried out by Rebbes[edit]

I am reverting the edits made, no doubt with the best of intentions, by user The word kvitl is normally spelt קוויטל; even those who spell it קוויטעל pronounce it kvitl. The word kvitelach is not Yiddish at all, but Yeshivish (see my user page). - Redaktor 10:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Rebbe![edit]

The article currently includes the sentence, His followers would address him as "the Rebbe" or refer to him when speaking to others as "the rebbe". I may be a verkakte goyische wikipedian, but shouldn't that be followers would address him as "Rebbe"? Nobody keeps the article in direct address (except when Strong Bad says, "Thar she blows, The Cheat"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it means that people addressed him in the third person, as one does to a very important person, and therefore kept the article. -- Zsero (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, like saying, "Would the Rebbe like a cup of tea?" instead of "Would you like a cup of tea?". This discussion would be clearer in Latin, where we could distinguish the nominative case from the vocative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

the rebbe[edit]

when you search for rebbe in general or you google it the lubavitcher rebbe will come up so when you wikipedia rebbe i think the picture should be the lubavitcher rebbe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Distinctions between Rebbe and Rav[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable rewrite this section (Rebbe#Distinctions between Rebbe and Rav)? It's got extra words in it, apparent restatements, and confusing language such that it's hard to understand clearly the distinction it's trying to draw (or I would re-write it myself :) ). My guess is that it's trying to say that a Rav is an authority on Halacha alone, while a Rebbe is authoritative not only on Halacha, but all spiritual matters, and life in general. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. E.g. what is "sprouting Chasidim"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)