Talk:Shneur Zalman of Liadi

Not according to but what is called
Pinchas: Even the Nusach Ari article says it is called Nusach Ari but isn't actually Nusach Ari. To quote: "The Ari and his immediate disciples did not themselves publish any prayer book." 210.84.40.154 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is 'according to' not 'is' --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nusach Ari is not the Nusach of the Ari. It is what Chabad calls Nusach Ari. 210.84.40.154 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, as Pinchas said, Chabad does not claim that it is the actual nusuch of the Ari, but that it is *based on* that nusach.Yehoishophot Oliver 04:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oliver, so you agree with me that it is CALLED Nusach Ari and not according to nusach ari. 203.217.41.188 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is so difficult to understand? The AR's nusach is על פי נוסח אר"י - according to the nusach of the ARI.  That is how it has been described since the first printing.  If you have a point you'll have to make it much more explicit.  Zsero 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wife 1
As far as I know, Sterna outlived the Alter Rebbe and is buried in Lubavitch, why then the term Wife 1? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Good point. I've edited Template:Infobox Rebbe to fix this.  The number 1 now only appears after "Wife" and "Issue" if there is a second wife (see, e.g., Shmuel Schneersohn).  Zsero 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Dershowitz
In this article it says "Alan Dershowitz argues that Rabbi Shneur Zalman believed that suffering was good for the Jews. Suffering would inspire asceticism and bolster the Hasidic cause." I concede that Alan Dershowitz is a person of note. However, he has no mandate to express an opinion on matters of Hasidism, of which he knows next to nothing. He is a professor of law, not religion. Although he has made a name for himself as a commentator on Jewish life in his books, the books are all centred around secular issues. I propose that this paragraph be deleted from here, and also from the controversies of Chabad article, where it is reproduced. Dershowitz is entitled to his opinion on the matter, but his fame doesn't make that opinion notable. --Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrest not a result of Misnagdim
Isnt it already a well accepted fact that it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.255.223 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also of the understanding that it was. Shlomke (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC) i changed it to 'some' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.255.223 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! The arrest of Rabbi Shneur Zalman was not the result of the Misnagdim, per se, but only the result of various deplorable things that the Misnagdim said and did. Toddcs (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox
This article says he was an orthodox Rabi. There was no orthodoxy back then, there were only Rabanims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.49.133 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, ok, but don't we call Moshe Rabbeinu Moshe Rabbeinu, even though there were no rabbis back then! Well, ok, you'll probably answer that of course there were. Well, ok, maybe so, but they weren't called that (rabbis). Well, ok, you'll probably say that of course they were. Well, ok, maybe so, but the Torah (The Five Books) never calls them that. (Unless, of course, you maintain that when Esav said "yesh li rav" he was telling us that he had a rabbi). You know, a little anachronism here and there never hurt anyone (we hope :), especially when used as a literary device. But, ok, I should add that in spite of all of the above, I actually agree with your original point. (But not with your use of a pluralized plural "rabanims" any more than I agree with the Russian language calling cherubs "keruvimi" [the English equivalent would be "cherubses"], as if "keruvim" is singular -- which it actually is in Russian). Toddcs (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch
Is his title "Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch" in reference to the Shulchan Aruch of Yosef Karo, which is what is linked at the moment, or in reference to the Shulchan Aruch that he wrote? Zerotalk 08:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The second. I'd say 'obviously', because the first was written as you correctly mentioned by somebody else. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll unlink it since his own book is already linked. Also, regarding his acronym "Razash": although I see that in reliable sources, I see "Rashaz" (רש"ז) more often, including in the Hebrew wiki article.  I'll add it, but let me know if I'm missing something. Zerotalk 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with both the unlinking and the addition of רש"ז. I never heard of "Razash", and it looks like a mistake. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's gone. Zerotalk 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Family tree
Everyone in the family tree is either "Rabbi" or "Rebbetzin". I believe this is contrary to WP:HONORIFIC and since everyone has the same title it doesn't provide information either. It also makes the diagram too wide for a tablet. So I plan to remove the titles; does anyone wish to argue against? Zerotalk 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a violation of WP:HONORIFICS, which allows one mention with a relevant honorific. Since they were (unless in specific cases you have reason to believe otherwise) all rabbis and rebbetzins, I think it makes sense to say so, and that this would be in accordance with WP:HONORIFICS. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Unification of transliteration
I think it's important to unify the transliterations of hebrew pronunciation of names into english. For example, in line 5, there is "Baal HaTanya ve-haShulchan Aruch',  "Admor HaZaken", i.e. the sephardi pronunciation and next:  "Rabbeinu HaZokein", "Rabbeinu HaGodol" i.e. one of the different ashkenazi pronunciations (not even the lubavitch one which is "hagodeil"!). I think it is important to use a consistent and constant system of transliteration, and since the sephardi one is the most widespread and prevailing, it is the one that should be used. In note 5: "Sipurie" doesn't exist in hebrew: it's either "sipure" or "sipurei". About his bar-mitzwah speech: In "hayomyom" at the date of the 7th of shvat it is written that he was 12 years old: ז שבט בהיות אדמו"ר הזקן בן תשע שנה למד חכמת ההנדסה והתכונה. בן עשר - סדר לוח על חמש עשרה שנה. בהיותו בן שנים עשר נזדמן שלמד ברבים הלכות קדוש החדש להרמב"ם, ולא מצאו הגאונים, שהיו באותו מעמד, ידיהם ורגליהם בבית המדרש. Therefore that was not his bar-mitwah speech. "elevation of Tzar Alexander I" at the end of the paragraph "Arrests" should be replaced by "accession of ... to the throne" — Preceding unsigned comment added by אלימיט (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:HEBREW would seem to apply. As a rule, we use modern Hebrew transliteration, with sometimes the addition of "also pronounced as X". So basically I agree with the above. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * אלימיט, updating the spelling is a good thing, and you did a nice job. However, in a few cases you updated spelling in quotations or links. That you should not do. For quotations we, as a rule, use the original spelling. If you change spelling in links, they don't work any more, which is called that you "broke the link". Please repeat your edit, just leave out the quotations and links. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was not aware of the problem and did not understand the first time17:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)אלימיט (talk)


 * The same is true for internal links, like the link to Yisroel Hopsztajn. I changed back Boruch and Rochel, because these are names, and if we would have articles for these people, these articles would almost certainly use the "o". Debresser (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've changed in situ Yisroel to Yisrael for the same reason of unification. Moreover, if you want to spell names as they were pronounced, then, since he lived in central Poland and not in Lithuania, the spelling should have been Yisruel and not Yisroel. And also, in the same line where you changed Rachel to Rochel, appears Devorah who should be spelled Dveire in the Lubavitch pronunciation. And so on and on in the whole article. That's one of the reasons why I insisted to have an unique way of spelling hebrew names or concepts.22:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)אלימיט (talk)

Tanya
"The legendary 1797 Tanya got lost in a fire and no copies survived. The extant and more authoritative version of this work dates from 1814." — How can it be maintained that something is more authoritative than something that doesn't exist? To me it makes no sense. Zerotalk 06:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it would be a good idea to remove "and more authoritative". Debresser (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shneur Zalman of Liadi. 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/20120218125150/http://www.world-geographics.com/europe/russia/kursk-3399/511648-pena.html to http://www.world-geographics.com/europe/russia/kursk-3399/511648-pena.html
 * Added tag to http://www.asknoah.org/Zalman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Gentiles
The fact that his writings are notable for their extremely negative assertions about gentiles should be mentioned on this page. An example of a reliable source for this is Roman A. Foxbrunner, The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, pages 107 and following. Zerotalk 00:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on my knowledge of his writings, I think that the statement is not correct, and therefore would not recommend to add this to the article. @Zero Do you have access to that source? I would like to examine it. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it. It is published in the Judaic Studies Series of the University of Alabama Press. "Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Consequently, references to gentiles in RSZ's teachings are invariably invidious. In general terms, they were created only to test, to punish, to elevate, and ultimately to serve Israel (in the Messianic Era). More specifically, even their wisdom is actually foolishness, because it leads to ego inflation and arrogance rather than to the self-nullification of Hokhmah." ... "All Jews were innately good, all gentiles innately evil. Jews were the pinnacle of creation and served the Creator, gentiles its nadir and worshipped the heavenly hosts." The source has more than two pages of such material, cited in detail to his writings. I'm surprised you are surprised, since this attitude is hinted in the Tanya. Confirmation from Ismar Schorsch, The Ethos of Modern Jewish Scholarship, The Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Volume 35, Issue 1, 1 January 1990, Pages 55–71: "Thus, for example, at the very threshold of the emancipation era, Shneur Zalman of Lyada, the founder of the Habad (Lubavitch) Hasidim denies Gentiles any trace of a divine spark. In his popular ethical reformulation of Lurianic Kabbalah first published in 1796 - Likkutei Amarin - he concedes them only a one-dimensional animalistic soul which emanates from the darkest regions of existence." And additional sources are not hard to find. Zerotalk 09:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am well acquainted with the Tanya and other writings of Shneur Zalman, and subsequent leaders of the movement, but I still disagree. It seems to me that Shneur Zalman made statements comparing Jews and gentiles, pointing to certain differences, but the judgmental statement that he considered Jews superior and gentiles inferior seems to be to be the fruit of interpretation, especially by the writers of the Judaic Studies Series.
 * In addition, you admit yourself that this is only hinted at in the Tanya (which I am not conceding, but let's assume so for a momnet). Apart from the fact that hints can be misunderstood and wrongly interpreted, if this is only hinted at, how come the writers of e.g. Judaic Studies Series make such blatant statements. Surely we on Wikipedia should abide by its policies and not attribute such statements to Shneur Zalman based on such flimsy evidence and negligent research. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The claims do not appear particularly exceptional to me. In any event, the sources are strong - Foxbrunner was, at least at the time, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Harvard Center for Jewish Studies, university presses like the University of Alabama Press, are considered highly reliable, and Ismar Schorsch's biography outlines his own credentials (which seem entirely appropriate). Zero, do you have a third source to round that out and remove any possible additional objection? Jayjg (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me start from quoting the English translation of the Tanya from chabad.org: "The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done from selfish motives. So the Gemara comments on the verse, "The kindness of the nations is sin,"— that all the charity and kindness done by the nations of the world is only for their own self-glorification, and so on." And later: "This stands in direct contrast to the so-called kelipah and sitra achra, wherefrom are derived the souls of the gentiles who work for themselves alone, demanding, 'Give, give!' and 'Feed me!' in order to become independent beings and entities, as mentioned above, in direct contrast to the category of chochmah. Therefore they are called 'dead,'... ". It is entirely consistent with what Foxbrunner expanded on using a wider selection of Shneur Zalman's writings. (My word "hint" was too weak, clearly.) Debresser calls Foxbrunner's work the "fruit of interpretation", but interpretation is exactly what we use expert secondary sources for. Citing Foxbrunner rather than interpreting Shneur Zalman ourselves is exactly the type of editing that Wikipedia policy demands of us, so that is hardly a criticism. Debresser's stronger statement "flimsy evidence and negligent research" is not only an obvious BLP violation, but since Debresser admitted above that he doesn't have the source how does he know that the evidence is flimsy? This is simply unacceptable and Debresser should strike that comment. Zerotalk 13:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding extra citations, I don't know of anything in English that goes into so much detail as Foxbrunner does. Unsurprisingly, the detailed commentary is in Hebrew. The basics can be found in multiple places, though, such as Henry Goldschmidt, Religion, Reductionism, and the Godly Soul: Lubavitch Hasidic Jewishness and the Limits of Classificatory Thought, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 77, Issue 3, 1 September 2009, Pages 547–572. Zerotalk 13:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strike that comment? Please... I am definitely not going to strike everything you disagree with. Please refrain from such suggestions in the future, since I find them offensive.
 * I understand how that quote might lead one to believe that Sh.Z. attitude to gentiles is not positive, but I think that is precisely the mistake being made here: a theological discussion is not the same as a real-world attitude. As can be seen, by the way, in the opposite case as well, as witnessed e.g. by the fact that religious Christians can still be prejudiced against Negroids. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you accuse a living academic of "flimsy evidence and negligent research" you are committing a BLP violation. It has nothing to do with what I disagree with. You have been here far too long to not understand this key policy. Then you argue solely on the basis of what you disagree with, which doesn't matter a damn around here. I wonder if you have any policy-based contribution to make at all. Nor does it matter that arguing against your "theological" versus "real-world" gambit would be very easy. What matters is what reliably sources write about it, and for that we have a highly detailed analysis by an acknowledged expert who cites much more than the Tanya. Zerotalk 00:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Deflecting from the issue, as usual. Sigh. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar at that time are given in the Gregorian calendar."
According to this quote from Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, the birthdate should be given in New Style, the date of Death in Old Style (Liozna was on the Gregorian Calendar from 1582 to 1772, then on Julian again from 1772 to 1918). -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe thaty is because sources use the Old Style date? Debresser (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)