text:
Talk:Baal Shem Tov

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): EdenJacnuk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Collin654321.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 17 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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Image
It has become widely known recently that it is a common misconception of the photo being of the Baal Shem Tov. Rather, it is said to be of a Dutch Kabbalist who was called Israel Baal Shem (not to be confused with Israel Baal Shem Tov). If anyone has any sources on that, please post.

 * Take this to the image's talk page. 220.233.48.200 17:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, its Hayyim Shmuel Yaakov Falk, who was called the Baal Shem of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.46.172 (talk) 22:35, 17/Mar/06

Source: Jewish Encyclopedia, under Falk.

Jewish Enlightenment in An English Key by David B. Ruderman

see http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6953.html

and

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/03/baal-shem-tov.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.223.201 (talk) 22:34, 18/July/06

 * All this is correct. I can vouch for these facts. No known contemporary image exists of the Baal Shem Tov, other then fanciful modern images. In fact there are very few images that exist of any of the rabbis of this era, unless something weird happened to them. For instance, Shneur Zalman of Liadi was imprisoned by the Tsar as a political prisoner and a court portrait was taken of him. No such thing happened to the Baal Shem Tov. Unfortunately, this page won't get an "A" rating because of circumstances of history.--Klezmer 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I inserted the link to onthemainline into the article. -- -- -- 02:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am completely in support of removing this image from this page since it unfortunately serves to re-enforce the error when the page link is syndicated across social media with only the page name and the image (without caveat) indicated. Aharonium (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing rewording
"Many of his disciples believe that he comes from the Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, and by extension with the institution of the Jewish Messiah."

To

"It is claimed he comes from a Davidic line tracing its lineage to the royal house of King David, it is unknown if this is true as he did not have the certificate that King David gave for all of descendants, but it was known that over the generations many families lost their's in fires, wars and the like."

If anyone can come up with a slight better wording, please share. If not with the possiblity of slight editing this version will go up in 48 hours. 220.233.48.200 17:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The reason why changed the "many of his disciples beleive" part saying his disciples is not valid. As it was his family which claims it. 220.233.48.200 17:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pantheism
The Besht advocated panentheism, not pantheism. I am removing the catagorization. PhatJew 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Most Mystics do... Its just panentheism is more of a mouthful and lesser known as a concept than pantheism... Good edit! ThePeg (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Baal Shem Tov's Audience
I’ve changed the line “and the people, mostly from the lower classes, came to listen to him” to “and people, mostly from the spiritual elite, came to listen to him.” Although the jury is still out on exactly who made up the Baal Shem Tov’s audience it appears that his teachings were addressed to the spiritual elite and did not necessarily include the masses. It is true that in general his teachings can be read as inclusive but there are a number of indications that this was not his intention. See especially his epistle where the Baal Shem Tov is comforted that it will be possible for others to reach his level of spirituality. The term he uses is “Biney Gili” which usually means, especially as it is used here, my “colleagues”, “contemporaries” or “peers” which would indicate that his target audience was made up of people of spiritual stature. But as I mentioned the issue is still unclear in the scholarship literature. In my opinion the strongest evidence in support of this thesis is the nature of the content of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings. It would be hard to imagine the illiterate masses understanding the import of most of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.251.87.194 (talk) 15:22, 24/Aug/06

vice-king
In the sentence king gave him the daughter of the vice-king, what is a vice-king? If no-one has a satisfactory explanation, this should be deleted. Redaktor 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the more appropriate term would be "Viceroy" - "A man who is the governor of a country, province, or colony, ruling as the representative of a sovereign".76.167.119.175 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism, or bias?
Unless I'm missing some context, the last line of the section on his miracles seems oddly out of place:

"Of course this story must be dismissed as falsehood because the idea of a man god is totally rejected by Judaism. Indeed, all who are of rationality deny this utter lie."

I could understand a commentary on the mismatch between a man-god and these miracles, but "utter lie" seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zipwow (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Lineage Charts
Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm sure that dozens of people will want to change things on these charts, from spellings, to links. But hey, I did my best and I thought it was worthwhile to add this. --Klezmer 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why Klezmer wishes to remove the link to the Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty) page. It appears to me that the target page does refer to the descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, which makes it a legitimate link from this page.. Rather than continue the edit war, can we please leave the link for the time being and hold the debate in the proper place, here on the talk page? That will allow all arguments to be considered, and other editors to contribute if they wish.--Redaktor 09:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please bring your discussion to Talk:List of Hasidic dynasties --Klezmer 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Medzhybizh in Lithuania?
I have tagged the phrase "Medzhybizh, which had once been part of Lithuania", as I can find no evidence that Medzhybizh was indeed ever included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. if anyone has a reference, please add it in.--Redaktor 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That's a correct statement. You need to read up a little bit more on the history of this region. It was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The two nations were essentially a democratic monarchy that shared royalty and nobles. See Poland. This happened in the Union of Lublin in 1569.

 * Medzhibozh was territorially part of Podolia Province. It was Podolia's oldest and most important town until Tsarist times. See Medzhibozh. Podolia is physically located in what is today Ukraine (actually now split between Khmelnitsky and Vinnitsa Oblasti). Podolia was "owned" first by the Kievan Rus until about 1360 when it passed into the hands of the Lithuanians after the Rus were severely weakened by Tatar raids. Then in 1569 Poland and Lithuania merged. Polish noble families ended up owning Podolia after they wrested control back from a brief period of Turkish occupation in the late 1600s. It remained in Polish hands until the Second Partition of Poland in 1792 when it became part of Tsarist Russia.

 * During the Baal Shem Tov's era, it was essentially part of Poland. The Baal Shem Tov was born in Turkish-occupied Podolia. I think the backdrop of history is important to the development of chasidism. Essentially, the Baal Shem Tov's generation was the first generation to live in relative peace after the 17th century upheavals. There was an economic boom going on and Medzhibozh was right in the heart of it as one of Podolia's largest towns and a jewel in the estate of the Polish lords. --Klezmer 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the history lesson. I never queried Medzhybizh being part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I merely wanted a reference to confirm that it actually was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I have now found a reference and added it to the article.--Redaktor 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yisro'el der toita ?
Hi Klezmer. For your knowledge Yisroel the son of Feiga was indeed called "Der toita". A story is told why he was called "der toita". The story goes something like this that the Baal Shem Tov instructed that no one should give a name after him. Feiga did, and this Yisroel died at age seven. His mother Feiga placed his corpse in the Ohel of the Baal Shem Tov, saying in anguish take him he is yours, and in the morning he was found alive. Since then he was always pale "blass" hence "der toita". Even if the story isn't true it still wouldn't change the fact that he was called "Yisroo'el der toita". Itzse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Everything I've seen calls him "Yisroel Meis". Even his gravestone says this. He lived to be over a hundred years old and there's a story behind him that I won't get into here. --Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * By seen, I take it that you saw it in books; and by that I take it that you saw it in books in Hebrew. But FYI more has been written in the Yiddish language "Mama Loshen" about Chasidus then in the Hebrew language; don't forget your grandmother didn't speak Hebrew.

 * "She'al Ovicho Vayegeidcho" (Ask your father and he'll tell you) "Zekainecho veyoimri loch" (Ask your elders and they will tell you) that your great great ... grandmother called him "Yisroel der toita". Itzse 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm looking at Rechtman, 1958, Yidishe etnografye un folklor, YIVO, Buenos Aries. This source is written in Yiddish - "Yisroel Meis". (however you want to spell it in English). Rechtman was an on-the-ground interviewer circa 1914. I'm betting that the words were interchangable in the Yiddish dialect spoken around Medzhibozh and it was completely acceptable and understandable. Maybe in some other regions, they spoke a more formal Yiddish - and that's where your stories are from. Rechtman records a similar story to the above, with slight variations that we won't go into here. The gravestone in the Medzhibozh Cemetery translates to (from Yiddish) "Here Lies Rabbi Israel Meis who died (toit) while still alive." --Klezmer 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Zevi" is an incorrect spelling of Tze-vi because at first glance I thought that his name was Zev (Volf); therefore I think Zvi or Tzvi is more appropriate. Itzse 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed.--Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the dates; it is a big question if it belongs here in the first place; since Reb Boruch of Mezhbizh takes a prominent place in an article on Medzhibozh and can be looked up there. But it is quite understandable that to understand things in context the dates can be given here too. But why the redundancy? a few lines above it already gives you the dates. As a general rule "Links" are given only once in an article or paragraph and usually on the first encounter; so why should dates be any different? Please explain Itzse 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I kinda like having the dates in the family tree. They are all in one place that way.--Klezmer 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You got to take into consideration that for others it's annoying; especially for us perfectionists.

 * Have a Gut Shabbos; and I hope you can resolve your dispute with ChosidFromBirth between yourselves; or call in someone to mediate. Itzse 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Shabbat Shalom. --Klezmer 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars
The edit wars which have taken place on this page recently are unseemly and unnecessary (WP:CON). Please use this talk page to resolve disputes, rather than engaging in multiple to-and-fro reverts.--Redaktor 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Redaktor is right -- both this page and the List of Hasidic dynasties -- please, Klezmer, dont ignore other people's opinions and facts. We went through this before and I finally just gave up. I didn't even bother to get involved in the dispute you had with Itzse even though I think that calling R' Hershel a comedian is insulting and not accurate, and relying on some exploration from 1914 to charge Boruch of Medzhibozh with crazy claims isn't appropriate or correct.

On the current issue, how can you possibly put Boruch in the Pinchos of Koritz line and not in the line of his own grandfather -- yes, these are not necessarily blood relationships in this area and the other page, but Boruch was his grandfather's prodigy, Pinchas of Koritz said the Baal Shem Tov designated Boruch as his successor and asked Pinchas to tutor him, and in terms of spiritual legacy (which is the title here) Boruch clearly declared he was following his grandfather and wasn't a hassid or real student or follower of anyone else, and it says in Degel Machne Ephraim that it was Boruch who would be asked what the Baal Shem Tov's hanhogos and minhogim were. Then there are all the stories about Boruch as a child being an ilui and living under the Baal Shem's direction. I just don't see how you can put him under Pinchos of Koritz or anyone else except the Baal Shem Tov.

You also seem committed to eliminating the Medzhiboz dynasty and links and references in other articles as much as you can. That's your own point of view, going back to your think about the Bicks, but it's not accurate or factual. Boruch should be under the Baal Shem Tov and the reference to the Medzhibozh dynasty should be put back. --ChosidFrumBirth 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm committed only to the facts and to wiki's policy of neutrality. Bottom line is that the chart in question is a teacher-student relationship chart. The chart is not about blood relationships. R. Boruch was the student of R. Pinchas until he became the rebbe of Tulchin. Documents indicate that the apprenticeship lasted some 15 years. R. Boruch was only 7 when his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov died. It would be hard to make a case that the main teacher-student relationship was between the Besht and him. Especially, when you consider that his formative years of age 7 through about age 22 was spent with R. Pinchas, a key disciple of his grandfather. And if you make the claim that most Chasidim have a direct teacher-student relationship with the Besht, that's fine except that's not what this chart is all about. The reason I can make that statement is that I am the one who devised this chart originally. It is my definition of teacher-student that seems to be in question here. I'm the one who added here in wiki.

It would be interesting to know why ChosidFrumBirth is so quick on the trigger finger. And why he is so nasty and rude to me. I've added a lot of new (heavily referenced) material here in wiki, but for the life of me I can't find very much new material that he has ever added. Instead, he seems to want to criticize other's work but can't seem to provide independent references for his own extreme positions.

I submit to ChosidFrumBirth: why doesn't he provide indisputable proof that R. Boruch's major teacher-student relationship was only with his grandfather. Indisputable means published sources, not just his opinion. Otherwise, leave it alone if he doesn't have proof. I personally believe it should remain how I originally entered it into my chart that I developed from numerous independent sources. --Klezmer 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not being nasty or rude to you. Its just frustrating for you to insist on having your version and only your version of the "truth" without regard to what other people know. For a long time now you just revert anyone else's edits that you don't agree with and ignore reason and other people's opinions unless it meets with your criteria of what is "proof"-- that's rude and nasty.

Indisputable proof? If everything required that the books and encyclopedias would be almost empty. And you call what you've done indisputable proof? Not everything can be scientifically proven by your crieteria, and not everything is documented and published, and not everything that you bring down as documented and published is necessarily accurate, but you insist on reverting over and over and ignoring everyone else. Credibility here doesn't depend upon how much new material I've added, I'm interested in reading and I "edit" mainly to correct what I know to be wrong, and not everything you added is factual just because it's written somewhere. There is more to history than just what researchers claim to know or find, particularly in hassidic circles where so much has been oral for generations.

I understand why you want to keep exclusive rights to edits on what you call "your" chart, and that's your opinion and bias, and you shouldn't just ignore everyone else. Oral tradition has credibility too -- ask any historian or reasearcher.

As for this teacher-student thing you're hung up on, almost every rebbe alive today was tutored or had a teacher other than his own father or grandfather, but that doesn't change what "spiritual legacy" they should belong to. Yes, Boruch was only 7, but for example the Belzer Rebbe of today was also just 9 when his uncle the previous Belzer Rebbe died and he was picked to succeed his uncle. His teacher for the next ten years until he became rebbe was Chaim Beryl, a student of his uncle and grandfather, so does that mean the Belzer should be put under Chaim Beryl and not under Belz and his own uncle and grandfather? Ridiculous. It's the same thing here, Boruch was an ilui, received a lot of the Baal Shem's teachings, and then afterwards Pinchos of Koretz was the Baal Shem Tov's appointed caretaker for Boruch who just said over to Boruch what the Baal Shem had taught. Boruch followed the "spiritual legacy" of his grandfather not of Pinchos of Koritz, and if you can't see that, then I give up, do what you want and let wikipedia suffer for it. If you want to be one-sided and close-minded then I really don't care. --ChosidFrumBirth 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And then of course many of the other listings have links to the dynasties, but for some reason you also continue to revert and eliminate the Medzhibozh dynasty under Boruch -- another bias of yours. --ChosidFrumBirth 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual legacy
I don't really understand the section 'Spiritual legacy'. Yes, by all means list the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov. But anything else beongs in another article.--Redaktor 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree. The Baal Shem Tov spawned a new movement... a fundamental framework for a new type of Judaism. The 'Spiritual Legacy' shows how this happened. It's a great tool in the linkage-dependent world of wiki. It makes this article more valuable. It's needed in an article about the Baal Shem Tov to directly connect him with the other famous Chasidim (which we've got wiki articles about). Moreover, it shows the direct connection historically to the modern day. A chart like this is necessary for these multiple purposes.--Klezmer 10:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Baal Shem Tov and the Frankists
I dispute the following item in the article: "In fact, Besht took sides with the Talmudists in the disputes with Frankists (Jacob Frank's followers) and was even one of the three delegates of the Talmudists to a disputation between the two parties held at Lemberg in 1759."

This statement is probably based on a forgery, Maaseh Norah bePodolia that places the Besht at the 1759 Lviv (Lemberg) disputation with the Frankists. M. Balaban, On the History of the Frankist Movement, v. 2, 1935, p. 295-311 proved that the Besht was not present. We have the minutes and attendees from these disputations, and the Besht was not listed. This event occured just a few months before his death.

I'm going to delete the end of this sentence starting "...and was even..." unless anyone has other evidence to the contrary. I'm not even sure the first part of the sentence can be proven, but I'll leave it.--Klezmer 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a less obscure reference that says the same thing: G. Scholem, Kabbalah, ISBN 0-452-01007-1, 1978, p. 298. "The tradition which sprang up in popular accounts circulating years later that Israel b. Eliezar Ba'al Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, was also a participant, has no historical foundation." (italics are mine). Scholem further quotes various sources, including the Catholic Church and the Frankists themselves who documented the meeting.--Klezmer 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, wait, this is really cryptic and confusing to me:
 * The antagonism between Talmudism and Hasidism was apparent to the representatives of each at Besht's first appearance; but the open breach did not come about until later. In fact, Besht took sides with the Talmudists in the disputes with Frankists (Jacob Frank's followers). It was only in keeping with Besht's character that he felt keenly upon the acceptance of baptism by the Frankists, for it is related that he said: "As long as a diseased limb is connected with the body, there is hope that it may be saved; but, once amputated, it is gone, and there is no hope." The excitement consequent upon the Frankist movement undermined his health, and he died shortly after the conversion of many Frankists to Christianity.

So.... Rabbi Baal Shem Tov was baptised by a Jewish sect known as the Frankists (Jews baptise??) and then he went on to convert members of that sect to Christianity?? And that amputation reference- What does that mean? Could we try to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and it should read like one, and not like some mystical Kabbalistic text? Oh, and what were the Talmudists and Hassids antagonized about? Philosophical questions? - Eric 06:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * No, not at all. It was the Frankists versus the Talmudists. Besht was on the side of the Talmudists since the schism between the Talmudism and Hasidism happened later. If you follow the wiki link to the Frankists, you will find that the Frankist lost the battle and they converted to Christianity. Not the Talmudists/Hasids/Besht. If it is unclear to you, rewrite this section to better explain it.--Klezmer 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. I hope I didn't butcher it too much, but hopefully it'll make sense to the uninitiated now. שָׁלוֹם - Eric 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redaktor, there's not a single section in this article that in-an-of-itself is referenced! References to this specific section are contained right here in this talk section. Are you expecting someone to transfer them over to the main article? If so, then there's a lot of work to do on other parts of this article because it is unclear about the references for those, as well.--Klezmer 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I tagged a passage which makes no sense. Unless someone is willing to provide a source for it, I shall delete it. --Redaktor 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

 * See G. Scholem, Kabbalah, ISBN 0-452-01007-1, 1978, p. 287-309. Scholem devotes an entire chapter on this subject (Part II, Chapter 3). That should be a sufficient reference, and the book is widely available and widely quoted.--Klezmer 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of this section currently reads:
 * It was only in keeping with Besht's character that he welcomed baptism by the Frankists as an end to its threat to mainstream Judaism of the day, for it is related that he said: "As long as a diseased limb is connected with the body, there is hope that it may be saved; but, once amputated, it is gone, and there is no hope." :

Doesn't the quote seems to completely contradict the statement that introduces it? Besht seems to be saying that as long as the Frankists remained Jews, they might have been convinced of the error of their ways, but with their conversion they were lost forever. Wouldn't "regretted" or "mourned" be a better description of his reaction than "welcomed"?

Could someone more familiar with this edit to make it clearer? - Eleanorquantifier (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can see the contradiction. Though, on the face of it, it can also make perfect sense. The quote from the Besht is true and can be verified. The real question is what does he mean by it? Was the Besht hoping he could change the ways of the Frankists back to Talmudic Judaism? Once they Baptized themselves, did he consider them lost forever (as an amputated limb)? Or maybe he considered them gone, therefore he rejoiced that there was no longer a problem? I can see where he might "welcome" (maybe "was relieved" is a better phrase?) the loss of the Frankists from Judaism. I don't have a good answer. If you want to reword, feel free. --Klezmer (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel Shem Tov
At p. 52 ('07 Penguin paperback) of Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett purports to quote Eli Wiesel as starting "God made Man because He loves Stories" (in "The Gates of the Forest") thus:
 * When the founder of Hasidic Judaism, the great Rabbi Israel Shem Tov, saw ..."

I've created the Rdr to this talk page's accompanying article, but someone who can do so intelligently should probably comment on that usage. (E.g., does it reflect a preference on Wiesel's (or Dennett's) part for avoiding the more familiar title?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal
A long-simmering editorial dispute between and  over how to deal with information about certain Hasidic topics has reached the Mediation Cabal. Please see and provide any helpful input at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

baal shem tov- not a talmid chacham? cite sources please!
according to the book "Chasidic Masters" by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the baal shem tov was a talmid chacham and he even sites proof of it from his teachings... At first the baal shem tov was hidden and acted as a layman so that he may go unnoticed and delve into kabbalistic teachings, since at the time it was forbidden due to the uproar caused by shabtai tzvi... once he felt that it was necessary for him to share his teaching than he disclosed his knowledge in torah... it would be interesting and quite significant for you to cite an authoritative source proving that the baal shem tov was in fact an ingnoramous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.141.125 (talk) 17/May/07

 * For all those that really want to know, let me give you some food for thought.

 * We know very little about the Baal Shem Tov; we know even less about his successor the Magid of Mezritch. Why this is so? I don't know; the best I can do is speculate. But those that are interested in facts, these are the historical facts:

 * The Baal Shem had numerous disciples; that is undisputable. Many of the Baal Shem Tov’s disciples quote what they heard from him. So a smart alack might say that ok, he new Chumish and that's all. So let me tell you; it's very difficult to prove a negative, and in this case it's very difficult to prove a positive. But it can be proven by association that many of the Baal Shem Tov's disciples were in by themselves accomplished great men. Does anybody in their right mind think that he could have fooled so many, including the non-Chasidic Meir Nesivim? The world says that nobody can prove that Rabbi Nathan Adler was a Talmid Chochom but if he had a talmid like the Chasam Sofer then that should be ample proof that he was indeed a talmid chochom.

 * If that is not enough, then prove to me that Moshe Rabeinu was a talmid chochom; after all; all that he left us is a Chumish! Itzse 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
The title of this article is long and unwieldy. It should be moved back to its original title Baal Shem Tov, in my opinion. Please comment.--DLand TALK 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * There is something to be said for this. --Redaktor 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. He was known as Baal Shem Tov and that's a much more accurate and better title than Yisroel ben Eliezer. --ChosidFrumBirth 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the general reader will recognize Baal Shem Tov more readily than Yisroel ben Eliezer, which is the reason for which we pick article names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Agree. Those that know that his name was Yisroel ben Eliezer, call him the "Baal Shem Tov"; those that have never heard his real name know him as the "Baal Shem Tov" or in short "Besht". Either way Google gets its most hits on people searching for "Baal Shem Tov". Itzse 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual legacy dispute
I just turned the long "spiritual legacy" tree into a short paragraph listing the Baal Shem Tov's direct students. I think that anything more elaborate than that is beyond the scope of this article, and is more relevant to an article on Hasidic Judaism in general (though I don't necessarily think it belongs there either). This hopefully should solve the dispute regarding R. Baruch - there is little dispute that, for at least the first seven years of his life, R. Baruch was taught by the Baal Shem Tov. If an editor wishes to dispute this, a referenced sentence can be added to indicate that there are those who believe that the two never met (or whatever the argument might be, I don't really know) - rather than deleting the current content. — Preceding comment was added by, 15:41, 11/July/07.
 * I support the idea of deleting the Spiritual Legacy chart. I'm the one who originally wrote it and included it in the article, but it is way too controversial to keep. On May 1 and again on May 21 I proposed it be deleted, but I was over-ruled by a number of people. I applaud you, DLand, as I'm not so sure deleting it is going to be a popular move. More power to you if you can pull it off!--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Regarding R. Baruch being taught by the Baal Shem Tov, I'm more convinced then ever that this was simply not true. And the sources clearly back me up. All the sources say that R. Pinchas was R. Boruch's mentor, tutor, teacher. They all say identically the same thing, they don't conflict in this regard. These sources are well known: Eli Weisel - Four Hasidic Masters ISBN 0268009473, Eli Weisel - Souls on Fire ISBN 0-671-44171-X, Avraham Finkel - Great Chasidic Masters ISBN 1-56821-939-3, Tzvi Rabinowicz - The Encyclopedia of Hasidism ISBN 1-56821-123-6, and many others. Most sources claim that R. Boruch was 7 years old when the Baal Shem Tov died. Weisel claims that R. Boruch was only 3 when the Baal Shem Tov died (Souls on Fire pg. 83). There's considerable doubt that the two ever even met. Rabinowicz (pg. 37) claims that from infant to when the Baal Shem Tov died, Boruch was retained in Dov Ber's court. It is recorded (on pg. 92) that Dov Ber only met the Baal Shem Tov twice but not during Boruch's lifetime. That means that (except possibly as an infant), Boruch didn't meet his famous grandfather in person. Therefore, he could not have possibly been taught by him. Weisel says something very similar and supports the doubt that the two met. Boruch was under R. Pinchas' tutorlage for over 15 years after the Baal Shem Tov's death, though. There's no doubt that later in life, Boruch claims (maybe "flaunts" is a better term) the legacy of his grandfather. But that doesn't mean he was taught directly by the Baal Shem Tov.--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For this reason, I don't believe the last line of your new paragraph is supported by the sources: "The Baal Shem Tov imparted his teachings to his students...include[ing]...the Baal Shem Tov's grandson, Boruch of Medzhybizh (1757-1811)." It cannot be demonstrated by any source I have seen where the Baal Shem Tov specifically taught Boruch as his student while he was still alive. That part needs to be deleted, or the paragraph needs to be reworded somehow to properly reflect the sources.--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I really can't believe what's going on here. This is just dead wrong, as anyone even slightly familiar with the Baal Shem Tov knows without question.  Claiming that Baruch never even met his grandfather is sheer nonsense, and the one source you cite for that, Rabinowitz, who is wrong on a lot of other things throughout his "encyclopedia", not only doesn't prove anything but instead just calls that source even more into question.  Klezmer starts with two unrelated questionable "facts" in the first place and then with dubious logic puts them together, adds an assumption, and then concludes that Baruch never met his grandfather?  Absurd.  Citing Wiesel that Baruch was only 3 when the Besht died also doesn't prove anything, since every one else said 7, Wiesel is the only one that said 3 and he wasn't being careful because he wrote a story-telling type book, not a researched historical documentary to be relied on for its facts.
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 04:20, 15/July/07.

 * Here we go again... On the one hand, ChosidFrumBirth evaluates which sources are "right" or "wrong". But when I did this previously in the mediation, I was scolded for it. I learned my lesson, did ChosidFrumBirth? If ChosidFrumBirth doesn't remember the conclusion of these source-validity questions, the answer is very simple. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" See WP:V. I provided verifiable sources above. Whether one agrees or not with Weisel or Rabinowicz, it doesn't matter. I simply cite their positions.--Klezmer 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Right, here we go again. You cite their positions and reject anything else.  Klezmer, at the end of the day you rejected mediation, as well as every other editor's suggestions and just kept reverting without any discussion.  Second, I already provided sources, you just don't like them because they're not modern "scholarship": Mekor Baruch, Degel Machne Ephraim, Professor Alfasi, Imrei Pinchas, Shivchei HaBesht, and Treasury of Chassidic Tales, all support the fact that Baruch was at his grandfather's side his entire life.  I'm not doing this anymore, so if you want to just have your version of the "truth" then just go ahead.  I give up. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, ChosidFrumBirth, find me a specific reference. You probably can't, because I can't find a single verifiable source that says that Boruch was taught specifically by the Baal Shem Tov during his lifetime. I've gone ahead and checked each and every one of these so-called sources. Unless I'm missing something, none of these ever say this. Some that you provide above are just thrown out for no apparent reason. For instance, Shivchei HaBesht only mentions Boruch twice - and just as an afterthought that he was born, nothing else (Tales 196 and 222, pgs 26a and 31a). I'm glad you're finally giving up, because the verifiable evidence (WP:V) apparently doesn't exist.--Klezmer 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, all the traditional sources, old and new, say that Baruch grew up for the first seven years of his life on the Baal Shem Tov's knee, tutored by him, mentored by him, raised by him, nurtured by him, and quoting Pinchas and Yosef of Polonnye chose Baruch as his successor as it says in Mekor Boruch. Udl, Baruch's mother, was constantly present by the Baal Shem Tov's side (and that's even in Wiesel too), and wasn't going to send her precious Baruch (also in Wiesel) off to Mezritch at birth.  That's sheer nonsense.
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 04:20, 15/July/07.

 * Verifiable source please? Nobody's arguing about his mother Udl, just about Boruch. You're leaping to conclusions here, which is a wiki no-no. See WP:NOR. Please provide a verifiable source that says specifically that Boruch was taught directly by the Baal Shem Tov while the latter was still alive.--Klezmer 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * As above, all of the seforim I referred to, plus Professor Alfasi and Treasury of Chassidic Tales, all say so. I'm not going to waste time going to the library to give you page numbers or ISBN numbers that these work don't have, because you'll just say they're not reliable or they lie, just like you did the last time when you challenged for sources and then refused to acknowledge the sources that were provided.  Again, I give up.  Do whatever you want.  I thought Wiki was a place where the truth comes out, but Klezmer obviously has some agenda.  In fact he was the one who suggested that if Baruch had to be included he'd rather delete the whole chart.  Now he's not even satisfied to have one little mention of Baruch at the very end that has him connected in anyway to his grandfather.  I don't have any personal interest in these articles so all of this just isn't worth my time, so go ahead with your agenda. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You're simply going to have to prove it. Otherwise, it is not a verifiable source (WP:V). I've checked every reference you provided and I can't find where they ever say that the Baal Shem Tov taught Baruch while still alive. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.--Klezmer 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Degel Machne Ephraim, Baruch's older brother, says he always asked Baruch when he had any question about their grandfather's practices. Ephraim was older than Baruch, yet he asks his younger brother about their grandfather? That would only be if it was accepted fact that Baruch was closest to the Besht.
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 04:20, 15/July/07.

 * But that is jumping to a conclusion again - "original research", again something I was scolded for previously as against Wiki policy, but ChosidFrumBirth is doing it himself here. See WP:NOR--Klezmer 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It is not "original research" or jumping to conclusion -- the Sefer itself says "I" asked my little brother about what our grandfather's shitah was. Why didn't he ask Pinchas or Dov Ber or somebody else?  There is no other conclusion.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosidFrumBirth (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15/July/07

 * Mekor Boruch talks about how close the Baal Shem Tov was with his grandson Baruch who was his favorite. Imrei Pinchas, Professor Alfasi, Shivchei HaBesht, A Treasury of Chassidic Tales, and lots of others have hundreds of stories about the Baal Shem Tov and his grandson Baruch being together, learning together, even one about how one hasid asked the Baal Shem Tov a question and Baruch was there and answered and on and on.
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 04:20, 15/July/07.

 * Please cite a specific example of this (page number, etc.). I have these sources, too, and I don't see what ChosidFrumBirth is seeing in them. It's hard to verify if there are no specifics.--Klezmer 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * DLand came up with an excellent workable solution, and this is just more of the same agenda trying to downgrade Baruch and any Medzbhibozh dynasty. It's getting very tiring. --ChosidFrumBirth 04:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we can't just keep both claims and make sure both are properly sourced? This whole thing can be accomplished in two sentences - just put after the sentence and it's done. This doesn't need to be so divisive.--DLand TALK 05:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * That's fine with me. I provided verifiable sources. Can ChosidFrumBirth? If he can't, that part of the sentence needs to be deleted, per Wiki policy.--Klezmer 13:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Why don't we just delete Baruch entirely, as well as the Medzbhibozh dynasty -- that's what Klezmer has been trying to do since this whole thing started. I'm done. --ChosidFrumBirth 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to hold on to the information that was in the tree, you can easily go to the earlier reversion and userfy it. I hope this is satisfactory to all the parties involved in the dispute.--DLand TALK 15:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Can you please point out the major dispute you solved? I found the tree quite helpful. --Shuki 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Note that the primary reason I had for removing the tree was that I think that it is beyond the scope of an article that relates specifically to the Baal Shem Tov. Solving the dispute (pending comment from the two main parties, who are still blocked for 3RR) is a secondary benefit. Again, I'm not arguing that the information itself is not substantive and helpful, just that this is not the place for it.
 * I disagree. It is not beyond the scope of the article to include the family tree of an important historical figure.--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 * On an unrelated note, please comment above on my page-move proposal - there needs to be some kind of consensus before the page can get moved.--DLand TALK 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Baal Shem tov descendants
The section listing the descendants of the Baal Shem Tov, which is not in dispute, has been deleted without discussion. It seems proper to include in this article a list of prominent descendants. --Redaktor 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I noted that Reb Nachman of Breslov was the Baal Shem Tov's great-grandson, and I added a sentence about him. Other than him (and R. Baruch of Mezeritch, who is already mentioned), I don't think that any of his other close descendants - at least those who were formerly in the "family tree" - are prominent enough to need to be included in this article.--DLand TALK 23:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redaktor on this issue. The descendants themselves were a valuable piece of this article and it was not in dispute. It shouldn't have been deleted so abruptly. Regarding your additional comment about Nachman, I believe it is completely out of place. "One of the most well known bearers of the Baal Shem Tov's legacy..." I think that all the founders of various dynasties can say this and standard-bearers today will want them to be included. For instance, some people would say that R. Shneur Zalman of Liady should be included because the Baal Shem Tov appear to him in a dream, therefore he can claim to be a "well known bearer" of the legacy. I think it opens up pandora's box. I don't think we want to go there. Better to simply put back the family tree because that explains both Boruch and Nachman without controversy.--Klezmer 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this: Part of the reason that I didn't like the family tree is that it was crudely made and seemed to exist only for the purpose of highlighting the biological relationship of Reb Boruch and Reb Nachman to the Baal Shem Tov. But if a real, graphical family tree could be constructed I would have less objection to it. So, let me suggest turning to User:Rachack or User:Eliyak for help on making one, as they have experience with family trees and other graphics (see Template:Brisker Family Tree for an example).--DLand TALK 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Baruch and Baal Shem Tov
I'm probably a fool for falling for this once again, but:

Is Martin Buber's Tales of Hasidism (ISBN 0-8052-0995-6) good enough, or will Klezmer discount that too: Page 87, the section on "Barukh of Mezbizh": "An old man once asked the Baal Shem Tov . . . Barukh, the Baal Shem's grandson, who was three years old at the time, was present and heard the question.  He said: "Grandfather,. ." . . . After the death of his grandfather, the Baal Shem Tov, the boy Barukh was taken into the house of Rabbi Pinhas of Koretz . . . "

Professor Alfasi, in HaHasidut, page 31, says Baruch was his grandfather's favorite, and Mekor Baruch says that Baruch went to Pinchas' home because the Baal Shem Tov instructed Pinchas that Baruch was to be his designated successor.

Does this finally end Klezmer's theory that Baruch was a disciple of Pinhas and may never have even met the Baal Shem Tov, or are we going to have more of this? --ChosidFrumBirth 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to go with Klezmer on this one. While the two source indicate that R. Baruch was close with his grandfather, they don't necessarily suggest that he was a student per se. Klezmer's version is more neutral as it stands right now, unless we can dig up a source that says explicitly that they had a student-teacher relationship.--DLand TALK 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * A few last comments before I just give up:
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 12:29, 18/July/07.

 * Should have given up a long time ago. You've threatened to many times, but for some reason, you keep arguing. We're all tired of your nonsense. Give it up already.--Klezmer 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all, Klezmer cites Rabinowitz, but Rabinowitz points to no hard facts and makes only the passing statement as a “maybe” based purely on speculation which actually contradicts all logic and everything we do know from sources about the Baal Shem Tov, his daughter Udl, and her son Baruch, and their relationships. According to the stories, Baruch was considered a precious treasure by them and brought “light” into the house.  There are many stories about Baruch interacting with the Baal Shem Tov and others at the Baal Shem Tov’s house, tish, etc., etc.  Buber and others didn’t just make it up.
 * — Preceding comment was added by, 12:29, 18/July/07.

 * You should have learned that lesson a long time ago. We are not allowed on wiki to evaluate sources for "truth" only for verifiability (WP:V). Rabinowicz is a verifiable source. I've argued for a long time that government records contradict many of the Chasidic sources and these gov't records are recognized in most academic circles as over-riding primary evidence. But through the mediation process that you participated in here at wiki, my point of view was overturned by merely the fact that a source existed and is verifiable, not anything about the quality of the source. You can argue all day long that Rabinowicz and nobel-prize winner Weisel are bad sources, but it makes no difference. I could argue all day long that Mekor Baruch is a slanted, biased source that may not contain "true" facts and that Buber pretty much plagiarized it, but my opinion (as does yours) about the quality of the sources doesn't matter. All that matters is that a verifiable source exists.--Klezmer 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I have two sources which specifically say that Boruch and the Besht never met (at least outside of infanthood) and that Boruch was not directly taught by him. You have a source that indicates a 3 year old Boruch was together with his grandfather but no source that says he was directly taught by him. An effective wiki neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) is to leave the words as they stand and basically be silent on the issue.--Klezmer 13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Second, Klezmer says no way "all the Besht's wisdom was imparted to a three year old" -- so, that makes Baruch not a student at all? And was "all" the Besht's wisdom imparted to anyone?  How much has to be imparted to qualify?  More importantly, it is also clear in the sources that Baruch was a precocious and a genius, as the story about his giving deep answers to complicated questions in front of the Baal Shem Tov at age 3 shows, and so he was perfectly capable of learning and understanding from his grandfather at a very young age, participated in discussions, observed, listened, and was clearly trained and educated there for the most important first seven years of his life.

 * Last, but most important, when we’re talking about teacher-student in this context, we have to remember what we’re really talking about. The Baal Shem Tov didn’t have a school or hold classes or even give shiurim.  He “taught” all of those disciples by speaking at meals, in conversations, etc., etc, and that teaching happens even more so with family members like children and grandchildren, especially if they are living together.  The teaching goes on continually in homes of tzadikim, every minute of every day, by example, in conversation, by casual remarks, by divray torah, etc., etc. and Baruch was automatically taught this way and more constantly and regularly than other “students” who didn’t live there and weren’t even in Medzhibozh all the time.  That’s how fathers and grandfathers pass things on.

 * Every Rebbe’s son, even today, and for that matter Hasidim in general, goes to heder and has tutors, but their spiritual legacy education and real training comes from the Rebbe, their father or grandfather.

 * To say that Baruch didn’t learn from his grandfather is just ignoring the facts and wrong. This just never ends.  First there was never anybody in Medzhibozh after Baruch, then there was never a dynasty or family, then Baruch never met his own grandfather, then when we finally get past all that that he didn’t learn from him.  What next?  This is for the birds.  I’m sorry for my frustration, but this has been going on for months and is just getting too much for me.  The earth is flat too. --ChosidFrumBirth 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Besht vs Ari
Did Luria really encourage the view that this world was contemptible and to be passed over? I am not so sure. ThePeg (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request
Can someone edit the page to inform those of us who don't know how to phonetically pronounce his name? I don't read Hebrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.83.209 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

what happened to the baal shem tov when he wa 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.141.219 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Major editing needed
This article is so full of OR and POV that I simply don't know where to start. Almost nothing is referenced. Could others who actually know about this topic please weigh in; I'll start. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

POV violations; reads like an advertisement/propaganda
This article reads like an attempt to proselytize, or, at best, hagiography, so I've tagged it with POV-lead.

Here's a list of some of the statements that can hardly be considered POV neutral...

 * "Due to his recognized honesty and his knowledge of human nature..."

 * 'The magnificent scenery in this, the finest region of the Carpathians, and the possibility of enjoying it without the interruptions of city life, compensated him for his great privations."

 * "Israel ben Eliezer had learned how to use plants for healing purposes and to effect wonderful cures."

 * "The Besht’s refreshing new approaches to Judaism were welcome, expanding with little resistance in a community hungry for change."

 * "This panentheism would have been ignored, had Besht not been a man of the people"

 * "Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God."

 * "Besht is quite naturally one of the most interesting figures in modern Jewish history."

PainMan (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, not a low IQ children's fairy tale. I think a moderator needs to clean this article up into proper third-person form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.196.58 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fact-check me, please!
For all of these bits of data, I'm citing from The Light and Fire of the Baal Shem Tov by Yitzhak Buxbaum. Unless noted, the article currently has no citation as of this writing. Musashiaharon (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Article: Besht was born 1698; L&F says it was 1700 (p. 18).
 * 2) Article: Besht was appointed leader of the Lamed Vov at age 18; L&F says "In 1718, when he was eighteen years old, the Baal Shem Tov suggested a program.... The Besht wanted the hidden tzadikim to accept upon themselves the task of educating children." (p. 30) Later, he assumes sole leadership at age 30; before then, we was on a committee of three that made the decisions in place of R. Adam Baal Shem of Ropshitz, the previous leader. (p. 103)
 * 3) Article: no date of joining Lamed Vov; L&F says age 14 (p. 27)
 * 4) Article: Besht married first wife at 18; L&F says he was unmarried at 20 (p. 35). Then he married his first wife Chava, who died soon afterwards (p. 38).
 * 5) Article: Second wife named Chana; L&F says Sarah (p. 41); Chava (with a vav) was first wife (see above). However, endnote says that her name was Leah-Rachel according to Chabad tradition (Shochet 46, Hilsenrad 42).
 * 6) Article: "only in keeping with Besht’s character that he welcomed baptism by the Frankists" ??!!!; L&F says "Many of the rabbis rejoiced at this mass conversion, because the Frankists... had become a serious threat.... The Baal Shem Tov, however, was deeply depressed by this event... 'The Shechinah is weeping and wailing over them. As long as a diseased limb is attached to the body, there's hope that it may recover. But once it's cut off..." (p. 336)

Documentary, Fragmentary, or Supplementary?
It looks like parts of this article were written without regard to the rest of the article. Two examples are the fact that there are two sections called "Legacy" and "His Legacy," and that the same quote "He who believes..." appears twice in the article with different translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued pervasive lack of neutrality
I just came across this and merely from reading the second sentence (The Besht is better known to many religious Jews as “the holy Baal Shem”) I noted the astounding lack of neutrality (writing the above is as neutral as writing that he's better known to mitnagdim as "the Baal Shem Ra" [master of the bad name], i.e., it's not neutral at all). After I read the notice on the top (going back to August 2011) that the neutrality of this article is disputed, I naturally said "par for the course." Someone skilled at this kind of thing has to carefully go through the whole article (which has POV issues all over like someone pointed out above under "POV violations") and create a tone of neutrality. For example (not particular to this post, just an example), instead of writing "he was observed to perform many miracles" or "he was observed to fool people in supposed performance of miracles," one writes something like "his adherents related that he performed miracles." And that's not even talking about what is missing from the article, i.e., more than two seconds of reference to mitnagdim, which is pretty significant for the purposes of neutrality. Anyway, I have no personal interest in getting into editing of the article (and one can only imagine how contentious it must have been to have its neutrality in dispute for almost five years already), I'm just noting that that neutrality notice should not come down the way this article is on Wikipedia. Contributor613 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Baal Shem Tov. 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/20140222163751/http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=42&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf to http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=42&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222163753/http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=43&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf to http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&st=%D7%99%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C+%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C+%D7%A9%D7%9D&pgnum=43&hilite=e38977fb-dc8d-4e65-80bb-20ee1d6178cf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430214832/http://www.otzadikim.com:80/AboutUs.aspx to http://www.otzadikim.com/AboutUs.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108165235/http://www.isbs.com/partnumber.asp?cid=&pnid=392756 to http://www.isbs.com/partnumber.asp?cid=&pnid=392756
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910102633/http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6663.html to http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6663.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615023546/http://baalshemtov.com:80/story.php?type=1 to http://www.baalshemtov.com/story.php?type=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629155111/http://baalshemtov.com:80/library.php to http://www.baalshemtov.com/library.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why Hasidism Spread Section
(Moved to correct position in page. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

I am going to create a section titled, The Bal Shem Tov and The Spread of Hasidism. I will add information from the article, Why Hasidism Spread by Stampfer. I will include information about how Hasidism began with the Bal Shem Tov in Podolia. I will then talk about how the Hasidic movement spread from Podolia to nearby regions in Europe. I will also include information about why Hasidism spread to some regions and countries and not to others. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this talk page or on my talk page. EdenJacnuk (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * EdenJacnuk: I think that would be a more appropriate addition to Hasidism, rather than the founder's biography. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * EdenJacnuk: I agree with Hasirpad. If you can tie those developments to the Baal Shem, though, then I think these developments do deserve to go in here.Chapmansh (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that I tied them to the Baal Shem Tov EdenJacnuk (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposing Additions to the "Practices" Section
Right now, the section regarding the practices of the Besht could use some expansion, so I am planning on adding to it with information from the eighth chapter of Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov by Moshe Rosman, a historian from the Department of Jewish History at the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. In the book, Rosman writes about letters sent to the Besht by his brother-in-law which describe the practices he was said to have taken part in. These include prophecy, communication with the divine, the ability to see the souls of men, as well as medical practices both mundane and supernatural in origin. This should account for the bulk of the expansions I plan on making. Rosman also explains how different interpretations of the Besht's practices exist, as not all sources agree on the nature of his abilities. This will likely be another paragraph after the former--in which his generally accepted practices are explained--and will not be as large of an addition.

If there is anything anyone wants to add or change, please do so: comment here or on my Talk page and I will listen to your advice.

Collin654321 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great addition.Chapmansh (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Alleged claims of descent from the Baal Shem Tov requires WP:RS
Please see: Centralized discussion at Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Baal Shem Tov's Signature
I'm trying to make-out or read what his signature says.... I can make-out what I think says "Israel ben HaRav Eliezer"... not sure if I'm reading that correctly with the two `"`...  Not seeing any consistency between the "b" in Ben, and the "v" in Reb/Rav...

Have no idea what that last part is supposed to say... The date maybe, his last name? Almost looks like it says Baal Shem Tov to me... but that last character looks more like a zayin not a bet for the word Tov. Not sure if that 2nd to last character is supposed to be a colon or a vav with a dot...

Maybe a combination of some sort? What do you guys think? T he l azy l eo  ( talk ) 05:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ישראל במוהר"ר אליעזר בע"ש
 * (Stands for: ישראל בן מורנו הרב רבי אליעזר בעל שם)
 * with something else written under the word בע"ש, that I can't make out either (perhaps not part of the original signature). -- -- -- 08:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah במוהר"ר as you say. Couldn't make out that Mem without a joint line, was too busy thinking it was a `"`. His signature seems to curve upward toward the end. No idea what that is on the bottom. That 3rd to last character on the bottom definitely looks like a Bet though. I can almost make out the bottom there, but no idea what that figure-eight looking character is supposed to be... The last part looks like a Bet colon Zayin to me. Maybe some sort of verse quote?

I started a discussion over here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Besht_Signature.svg Hopefully someone can gives us a bit of context to work with regarding where the image came from T he l azy l eo   ( talk ) 02:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Pinging uploader . Good luck. -- -- -- 05:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. It's unlikely that Baal Shem Tov would use a colon, as he was most likely not familiar with modern punctuation. -- -- -- 05:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Article naming

 * I see the article title has been moved around and ended up with the current name. The subject's name is Israel ben Eliezer and even though it may likely be the more common presentation, the use of honorifics is generally against policies and guidelines. Baal Shem is certainly an honorific title the subject is noted in the lead as being the "Baal Shem Tov".  --  Otr500 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME for this article and the other one you just moved. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Chasidic Saying Is Quoted Incorrectly
In the article it says: In Hasidic tradition, there’s a saying, “Someone who believes in all the stories of the Baal Shem Tov and the other mystics and holy men is a fool; someone who looks at any single story and says “That one could not be true' is a heretic .”

The reference given is to an interview by Kenneth Woodward of R. Simon Jacobson: https://www.meaningfullife.com/miracles-ken-woodward/

The quote above, however, is not accurate.

This is what Jacobson actually says: '''Jacobson:. . . In Chassidic tradition, there’s a saying, “Someone who believes in all the stories of the Baal Shem Tov and the other mystics and holy men is a fool; someone who doesn’t believe them is a heretic .”'''

So, a correction is in order, I think! Mwidunn (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baal Shem Tov


text:
File:Altered Carbon cover 1 (Amazon).jpg

Cover shot of Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon, from Amazon.com

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:80.47.160.225

Don't vandalise people's user pages. [[smoddy ]] 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That means mine too. [[smoddy ]] 21:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And please, no personal attacks. Please stop vandalising, or you will be blocked.  [[smoddy ]] 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:80.47.160.225


text:
Slobozia District

Slobozia District (Raionul Slobozia; Слободзейский район; Слободзейський район) is a district of Transnistria. It is the southernmost district of Transnistria, located mostly south of Tiraspol. Its seat is the city of Slobozia, located at 46.73333°N, 29.7°W, on the river Dniester. The district contains 4 cities/towns and 12 communes (a total of 24 localities, including small villages/hamlets):

In addition, the breakaway authorities control the commune of Chițcani of Căușeni District, on the western bank of the river Dniester.

According to the 2004 Census in Transnistria, the population of the district including Chițcani is 95,742. The ethnic composition is: 39,722 (41.49%) Moldovans, 25,436 (26.57%) Russians, 20,772 (21.70%) Ukrainians, 7,323 (7.65%) Bulgarians, 512 (0.53%) Gagauzes, 496 (0.52%) Germans, 475 (0.50%) Belarusians, 35 (0.04%) Jews and 971 (1.01%) others and non-declared. The population of Chițcani is of 9,266 inhabitants. The city of Slobozia had a population of 16,062 in 2004, including 7,315 Moldovans (45.54%), 6,507 Russians (40.51%), 1,696 Ukrainians (10.56%), 97 Gagauzes (0.6%), 94 Bulgarians (0.59%), 72 Germans (0.45%), 61 Belarusians (0.38%), 3 Jews (0.02%) and 217 others and non-declared (1.35%).

List of heads of administration of Slobozia District and the town of Slobozia

 * Sergei Diligul (? - 12 October 2012)
 * Vitaliy Dmitrievich Televka (9 November 2012 - 22 October 2013)
 * Leonid Nazarovich Petriman (22 October 2013 – )

title: Slobozia District


text: Category:Languages of Papua New Guinea

title: Category:Languages of Papua New Guinea


text:
Talk:Alex Auld

Comment by Marcus1060
It is my opinion that Alexander Auld is a more stable goaltender than Dan Cloutier, He is steady in the net and does not panic when pressure is on him. I feel it won't be long before he becomes the Canucks' #1 goaltender.

Auld has a great ability to shake off goals, and to keep playing his game. I too feel it won't be long before he becomes the Canucks' number one aswell. I think it is interesting that we pay our backup (Oullet, $877,800.00) more then Auld who only gets $513,000.00. Marcus1060 04:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying the fact that Alexander Auld is a great goaltender, and The Canucks are lucky to have a dependable backup goalie, but despite everything else Cloutier is statistically a better goalie than Auld, and I don't think that Auld will become The Canuck's #1.

Cold Lake, Alberta vs Thunder Bay, Ontario
What's with the differing place of Birth? Primary sources :NHL.com lists Cold Lake, nhlpa.com lists Thunder Bay. ccwaters 00:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I pretty sure he's from thunderbay. I've heard it mentioned several times during games.

He was BORN in Cold Lake, and then moved to Thunder Bay when he was about 6 months old. Some of the confusion may come from his origin being listed as Thunder Bay, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he was born there, just raised there for most of his life and his stage point from where he was recruited.--198.161.102.118 00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if he was born in Cold Lake, it should say born in Cold Lake. Marcus1060 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That would have been dandy enough for me, but any links that I could find saying so were counterbalanced from other sites (NHL.com, Canucks.com). Since I live in Cold Lake, though, I know he's from Cold Lake; word of mouth is strong enough around here, but that doesn't go a long way for evidence on wikipedia.--198.161.102.118 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no doubt he was born in Cold Lake, AB. He was raised in Thunder Bay, ON, hence the confusion, but it's not as though several different sources would have simply made up another birthplace. Whereas the fact that he grew up in Thunder Bay could lead to the misapprehension that he was born there. Not vice versa. J21 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

GA?
My problem with the application for a good article is that it's definitely not ready. Most notably, there's no real lead, no images, and not that many references. You said you just wanted to see what needs improving, and with that statement you're more than welcome to request a peer review to find out what needs improving. It's not a GA yet certainly, but over time it could be. Not trying to bite with the quick fail, just thought you shoudl do a peer review first. -- Wizardman 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not that familiar with WikiBiography's project standards yet; although I'm not sure that the references are terribly lacking, given that most of this info is available online at the external links section, anything that isn't common knowledge is referenced. Otherp oints are taken under advisement. Thanks. --Scimitar 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The references you have in place are good, and the total's not too bad. I'm just saying that most users like to see a LOT of them for GA to FA status. I thought they were good personally, but I can only speak for myself and I'm sure many would disagree, hence the addition. -- Wizardman 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed edits
I recently added a photo *I TOOK PERSONALLY* of Alex Auld dealing black jack cards for charity, along with a link to the article *I WROTE PERSONALLY* on the website *I OWN PERSONALLY* and yet it was removed because of suspect copy-right? Do you editors not bother to look into it before removing them? --PixelSyndicate 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo is suspect because you don't use a real name, and often new accounts upload pictures they claim are theirs which are infact not theirs. This is the reasoning behind atleast the picture. For why the writing was removed, it was because it was not a notable aspect of his life, you have to think of it from the perspective of a historian looking back at this article in 50 years. Of his entire hockey playing career, is the fact that he dealt cards at a charity event one year going to matter to someone researching him? And the answer is quite clearly no it would not. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Alex Auld. 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/20060629053409/http://www.canucks.com:80/news/pressreleases.asp?sectionID=31&id=595 to http://www.canucks.com/news/pressreleases.asp?sectionID=31&id=595
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/95051?source=rss&dest=STY-95051

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alex Auld. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canucks.com/news/pressreleases.asp?sectionID=31&id=595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111150708/http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=0f79a93d-5a0f-490f-ae31-76d03c1b97a2 to http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/story.html?id=0f79a93d-5a0f-490f-ae31-76d03c1b97a2
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905130347/http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/hockey/hockey-wires/story/1133293.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/hockey/hockey-wires/story/1133293.html

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) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alex Auld


text:
HMS Ithuriel (1916)

HMS Ithuriel was a Marksman-class destroyer flotilla leader of the British Royal Navy. Originally to have been named Gabriel, the name was changed before her launch. The ship was built by Cammell Laird at Birkenhead, being launched on 8 March 1916 and entering service in August that year. Ithuriel served with the Grand Fleet during the First World War, leading both a destroyer flotilla and a submarine flotilla. She survived the war, before being sold for scrap on 8 November 1921.

Construction and design
In November 1914, as part of the Emergency War Programme of shipbuilding, the British Admiralty ordered three Marksman-class flotilla leaders (i.e. large destroyers intended to lead flotillas of smaller destroyers in action) from the Birkenhead shipyard Cammell Laird. The second of these three ships, HMS Ithuriel (originally to be named Gabriel ) was laid down on 14 January 1915 and was launched on 8 March 1916. The construction of the three Marksman-class ships by Cammell Laird was problematical, with the ships suffering machinery problems and construction delays, with the Admiralty complaining to Lairds that "better workmanship and supervision" were needed for Ithurial and Gabriel, which were 8 months behind programme. Ithuriel was commissioned on 2 August 1916.

The Marksman-class ships were 324 ft long overall, 324 ft at the waterline and 315 ft between perpendiculars. They had a beam of 31 ft and a draught of 12 ft. The design displacement was 1440 LT normal and 1700 LT full load. Ithuriel was propelled by three sets of Parsons steam turbines, fed by four Yarrow three-drum boilers, rated at 36000 shp, which gave a speed of 34 kn. Four funnels were fitted. Up to 515 tons of oil fuel could be carried, giving a range of 4290 nmi at 15 kn. The ship's crew was 104 officers and men.

Ithuriel was armed with four QF 4 in Mk IV guns mounted on the ships centreline, with two 2-pounder (40-mm) "pom-pom" anti-aircraft guns and four 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes.

Service
On commissioning, Ithuriel joined the 14th Destroyer Flotilla, serving as one of two leaders for the flotilla (the other being the Faulknor-class flotilla leader HMS Botha), with normal duties including escorting the ships of the Grand Fleet. From 15 June 1917 the destroyers and submarines of the Grand Fleet took part in Operation BB, a large scale operation against German submarines, with 53 destroyers and leaders together with 17 submarines deployed on offensive patrols on the transit route for the Germans from the North Sea and around the Orkney and Shetland Islands to the Western Approaches. Ithuriel led eight destroyers of the 14th Flotilla on patrol to the west of Shetland. Heavy seas made the 14th Flotilla's patrol duties difficult, with it being forced to take shelter in St Magnus Bay on 22 June. Only one submarine was sighted by the ships of the 14th Flotilla during the operation, on 23 June, when HMS Mons (1915) sighted and unsuccessfully attacked a submarine (possibly SMU U-55 or SMU U-61). Overall, 61 sightings were made of German submarines were made by the destroyers and submarines of the Grand Fleet until the operation ended on 24 June, of which 12 resulted in attacks on the submarines, but no submarines were sunk or damaged. In October 1917, the Grand Fleet carried out another large-scale anti-submarine operation, in which destroyers and submarines were to be used to drive German U-boats that were returning to port from operations and passing to the east of the Dogger Bank into a large (several miles long) array of mine nets. Ithuriel took part in this operation, and again was forced to take shelter with her flotilla by heavy seas, this time in Aberdeen and Peterhead on 4 October, with the weather making it impossible for the ships to patrol. The operation lasted for 10 days, and British Intelligence believed that three U-boats were probably sunk in the operation. However, the submarines in question were almost certainly lost in other mine-fields.

In October 1917, Ithuriel left the 14th Destroyer Flotilla, joining the 13th Submarine Flotilla, still part of the Grand Fleet, consisting of K-class submarines, fast, steam-powered submarines intended to operate with the fleet. On the night of 31 January 1918, units of the Grand Fleet, including the K-class equipped 13th Submarine Flotilla (Ithuriel and the submarines HMS K11, HMS K12, HMS K14, HMS K17 and HMS K22) and 12th Submarine Flotilla (the light cruiser HMS Fearless (1912) and the submarines HMS K3, HMS K4, HMS K6 and HMS K7) set out from Rosyth to take part in exercises. Despite the night being very dark, with occasional patches of fog, the ships were running without lights. When K14 altered course to avoid a number of minesweepers ahead or her, her rudder jammed and she was rammed by K22. The two disabled submarines were then overtaken by the heavier units of the fleet, and K22 was rammed by the battlecruiser HMS Inflexible (1907). Despite the damage, both submarines remained afloat. On hearing distress signals from the two submarines, Commander E. Leir aboard Ithuriel decided to turn the Flotilla back to go to the assistance of K14 and K22. This put the flotilla on a collision course with the rest of the fleet, including the 12th Submarine Flotilla. On meeting the fleet, Ithuriel had to turn to avoid the battlecruiser HMAS Australia (1911), which took the flotilla directly into the path of the 12th Flotilla. Fearless collided with K17, which sank, then K4, following Fearless, pulled out of line and stopped to avoid hitting K17 and Fearless, and was herself hit by K6, which cut K4 in two and K7. Two submarines had been sunk with 103 killed.

Ithuriel remained as leader of the 13th Submarine Flotilla through the end of the war, and remained when the Flotilla was renamed the 1st Submarine Flotilla in April 1919. She was relieved by the light cruiser HMS Inconstant (1914) in October 1919, and after a short period at Rosyth, was sent to Portsmouth, being reduced to care and maintenance status on 1 December 1919. By February 1921, Ithuriel had been transferred to the disposal list, and was sold to the Slough Trading Company on 8 November that year for £2,402. She left Portsmouth for scrapping in Germany on 22 March 1923.

title: HMS Ithuriel (1916)


text:
File:Black Man cover (Amazon).jpg

Cover shot of Richard Morgan's Black Man, from Amazon.com

title: File:Black Man cover (Amazon).jpg


text:
Blender Game Engine

The Blender Game Engine was a free and open-source 3D production suite used for making real-time interactive content. It was previously embedded within Blender, but support for it was dropped in 2019, with the release of Blender 2.8. The game engine was written from scratch in C++ as a mostly independent component, and includes support for features such as Python scripting and OpenAL 3D sound.

History
Blender Game Engine was developed in 2000 with the goal of creating a marketable commercial product to create games and other interactive content, in an artist-friendly way.

Key code in the physics library (SUMO) did not become open-source when the rest of Blender did, which prevented the game engine from functioning until version 2.37a.

Blender 2.41 showcased a version that was almost entirely devoted to the game engine; audio was supported.

Version 2.42 showed several significant new features, including integration of the Bullet rigid-body dynamics library.

Version 2.5 alpha0 was the first version of Blender to have the Logic Editor workspace for coding, which came along with the UI redesign.

A new system for integration of GLSL shaders and soft-body physics was added in the 2.48 release to help bring the game engine back in line with modern game engines. Like Blender, it uses OpenGL, a cross-platform graphics layer, to communicate with graphics hardware.

During the 2010 Google Summer of Code, the open-source navigation mesh construction and pathfinding libraries Recast and Detour were integrated; the work was merged to trunk in 2011. Audaspace was coded as well to provide a Python handle for sound control. This library uses OpenAL or SDL as a backend.

In 2019, with the release of Blender 2.8, the Blender Game Engine was entirely removed from Blender itself. The engine's capabilities and appeal had largely fallen behind other rising game engines of the time, and it was difficult to update both Blender itself alongside the game engine. Users were instead recommended to use other, more powerful open source alternatives, like Godot.

Following its removal from the official version of Blender, an unofficial fork of the game engine source code was created, named UPBGE (Uchronia Project Blender Game Engine). This was done with the aim of maintaining and modernizing the engine. Since then, UPBGE has been updated with support for Blender's new realtime renderer, EEVEE, and runs on top of Blender 3.0 source code.

Features
The Blender Game Engine uses a system of graphical "logic bricks" (a combination of "sensors", "controllers" and "actuators") to control the movement and display of objects. The game engine can also be extended via a set of Python bindings.

 * Graphical logic editor for defining interactive behavior without programming
 * Collision detection and dynamics simulation now support Bullet Physics Library. Bullet is an open-source collision detection and rigid body dynamics library developed for PlayStation 3
 * Shape types: Convex polyhedron, box, sphere, cone, cylinder, capsule, compound, and static triangle mesh with auto deactivation mode
 * Discrete collision detection for rigid body simulation
 * Support for in-game activation of dynamic constraints
 * Full support for vehicle dynamics, including spring reactions, stiffness, damping, tire friction etc.
 * Python scripting API for sophisticated control and AI, fully defined advanced game logic
 * Support all OpenGL lighting modes, including transparencies, Animated and reflection-mapped textures
 * Support for multimaterials, multitexture and texture blending modes, per-pixel lighting, dynamic lighting, mapping modes, GLSL Vertex Paint texture blending, toon shading, animated materials, support for normal and parallax mapping
 * Playback of games and interactive 3D content without compiling or preprocessing
 * Audio, using the SDL toolkit
 * Multi-layering of Scenes for overlay interfaces.

Notable games

 * Yo Frankie!
 * Sintel The Game
 * Garn47

title: Blender Game Engine


text:
Talk:First Jewish–Roman War

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): KaiArwas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name of this article.
Simple question: is this the best name for this article? I've always referred to it as 'The Jewish war' (maybe the 'first Jewish war' or perhaps 'The (first) Jewish revolt'. I'm coming from a scholarly Christian environment, so I'm particularly interested in how Jewish works refer to it. Hyam Maccoby refers to it as 'The Jewish war against Rome' - but I don't know how typical he is --Doc (?) 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't remember where exactly I got the title from (Josephus?) but I thought it is common enough. I am not a scholar, though. Does First Jewish-Roman War sound better?
 * Unrelated to this, I think the article titled Great Uprising should be renamed into something more sensible.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've always known/referred to it as either the Jewish War or periphrastically as something like the Fall of Jerusalem or the Destruction of the Temple. Jewish War is also the standard English title of Josephus' work (I think we all have at least seen the Pelican translation, and most reading this probably own a copy). To be frank, I've never heard of "Great Jewish Revolt" in any context. I don't think Josephus ever referred to it this way. And speaking of Josephus's Jewish War, a major rehab is in order. This is an extraordinarily important work of history. --FourthAve 23:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy with per Humus sapiens. Either that or 'Jewish War (66-73)' (but that may be too akward}. I'd prefer simply 'Jewish-War' (but would be confused with Josephus' work) or simply 'The Jewish-Roman War' but that might be confused with Bar Kokhba. Any takers or objections to 'First Jewish-Roman War' then? --Doc (?) 22:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tabbed and marked this as a proposed move to First Jewish-Roman War - I'll do it in a few days, unless someone objects, or beats me to it. --Doc (?) 11:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 18:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I know I shouldn't but part of me wants to disagree just because it is taken from that prick Josephus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 04:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish-Roman War is misleading. In a vast majority of Jewish studies, it is most commonly known simply as "The Great Revolt" (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library). Given that this was by far the largest revolt, and the biggest catastrophe for the Jewish people, it can easily be distinguished versus the remaining and much smaller revolts. Britannica labels it as the "First Jewish Revolt". Therefore I propose that we combine the two for context purposes to: The Great Jewish Revolt. I am open for discussion, but according to my research, the term "War" to me signifies a group consensus and complete adoption, which it most certainly was not. It was more of an uprising by the people, which more closely identifies with resistance as opposed to a more formally recognized declaration.

Supposed challenge to Josephus about Masada
Ben-Yehuda does not challenge Josephus' account of a mass suicide by the besieged on Masada. Rather, he refutes, by reference to Josephus, the modern mythologising that casts those besieged, and their group suicide, as heroic. Josephus, the "Masada myth" that Ben-Yehuda criticises, and Ben-Yehuda himself fully agree that the suicides took place.

So I have taken out the "this view has been challenged". I left the reference in, though, because it applies even so.

Lonewolf BC 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben Yehuda notes that the archaeological findings do not support the idea of mass suicide exactly since only a few remains were found. The view has also been challenged by others. Shaye Cohen noted that the story that the Romans breached the walls but waited until the next day to enter Masada is a bit fishy. Mewnews (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Jewish success, the Fall
If I was a Roman I would consider "Jewish success" to be biased, non-neutral, racist, bigoted. Just like 99% of WP. Happy holiday, MF's. Fourtildas (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Is "Roman losses" any better, colleague? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is poorly written and full of inaccuracies. Pretty poor show.
This is becoming a perpetual habit of Wikipedia. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is written mainly from primary sources (Josephus). It is not much help for inclusion in the relevant sections of Antisemitism and History of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * So correct it. Take, for instance, the X Fretensis: that legion was left in Syria by Julius Caesar (it was his favourite unit, take for example the famous signifer leap leading his troops ashore in Britain) during the Civil War well over a hundred years before, and although recruiting from the Minervois north of Narbonne in France (the area's modern name still recalling the Legion's tutellary goddess), it never moved, despite at least one major reorganisation. So the suggestion that it landed with Vespasian from Rome is just plain wrong, the legion's LXF stamp on all the Sephoris and Caesarea Maritime roof tiles dating from c30BCE show it was well implanted in Judea and all Vespasian did was call on the garrison force. Some reference works here: Caesar's Legion, Stephen Dando-Collins, ISBN 0-471-09570-2. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series #60, Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Comference Centre (Binyanei Ha'uma) ISBN 1-877829-60-1.

 * A further point. Josephus is NOT a primary source. His entire commission from Vespasian was to take the primary sources, consolidate them, and write a warts-and-all history of the Jewish War with insider knowledge, and that makes him a very authoritative secondary source, not least because his study was vetted from a very modern viewpoint by Vespasian himself, who wanted to learn lessons from an external observer's criticism of his own failings. Some critics suggest Josephus spun his own role, but then what author does not put something of himself into his work? Indeed, almost all history is written from the victor's viewpoint. The warning suffices to allow us to take appropriate pinches of salt.

Tens of thousands on crosses around Jerusalem cannot possibly be accurate. That number needs to be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.189.192 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Your source, please? This kind of subjective thinking is what's wrong here in the first place. The reason I'm not tackling it is that WP refuses to value primary sources, reducing itself to third-hand commentary by rejecting OR, which is too often used to mean "working from primary sources", and thereby falling victim to exactly this kind of subjectivity. A balance is needed, representing secondary sources where authoritative, placing them in the context of the primary references. And where authoritative secondary sources do not exist, then the primary sources should most certainly be used alone, but appropriately annotated and cross-referenced.

yes i do agree what you say because it would be fair to other people so ya i do agree with you Why is Phaissees in the list of opponents when the word pharisees is listed only once this page?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.249.198 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Blaming the Revolt on Caligula?!?!
Seriously? First off, there were pleanty of Jewish-Greek tenions prior to Caligula. Second, Caligula reigned from 38-42 and the revolt wasn't until 66. Third, Caligula's statue never went up in Jerusalem (Caligula period riots were over a Greek clay alter). Fourth, Caligula's religous policy only varied in Rome (making Senators honor him as a God). Augustus and Tiberius commonly referred to as a living god in the east already.

Image copyright problem with Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg
The image Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How are we able to call it the second temple, if there is no evidence for a first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AD vs CE edits.
Per WP:ERA, the use of CE vs AD as abbreviations after dates should not be changed without consensus. Both are equally valid, and the version already in use on an article takes precedence unless there is broad consensus to change. Recent edits that changed the abbreviations in this article from CE to AD were therefore reverted. IF there is a wish to change, then it must be discussed and an agreement reached between interested editors before this can proceed. Triona (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should remain CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should revert to and standardize on BC/AD in English language versions. 173.71.10.232 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BC/AD is valid only for Christian related articles, the rest is made per editor agreement, which in this case is CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bar Giora faction
It is true that Bar Giora is often considered a Zealot. However in fact, he was leading a faction of his own, completely unrelated to the Zealot factions of northern revolt. Bar Giora's faction is often named "peasantry faction", and its role during the revolt was complicated. Initially Bar-Giora fought together with the main Judean government (Matityahu and Ben-Gurion), but upon defeat of Syrian army, he was not given an official position. He then turned a renegade bandit, leading his comrades to pillage the country-side in Hebron area. In the year 68, however, with the civil war in Jerusalem turning in favor of the Zealots, Bar-Giora was called by surviving elements of the Judean government, and succeeded to take much of the city from the Zealots. From then on, he functioned as one of the leaders of the Judean government and presented a strong counter-force to John's and Eleazar's factions. Further, upon the fall of Jerusalem, unlike John, who was sold into slavery, Bar-Giora was executed as "Jewish leader", recognizing his official role in Judean rebel government.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Undid two acts of vandilism
205.126.85.0 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)unsigned

Change in Outbreak of Rebellion
Hello editors of this wiki article, I will be making changes to the "outbreak of the rebellion," adding more descriptions of the events that took place and people named such as Eliezar ben Hanania. I will also be adding events and views that motivated the Jews to revolt against the Romans. I will be using the Article, "Roman Domination," by Shaye J.D. Cohen as a secondary source. Please feel free to comment on my changes on this talk page or on my talk page. KaiArwas (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the article is problematic
The article is problematic because it is laden with grammar mistakes, missing citations, incorrect and missing information. The secondary source from our course that I plan to use to solve some of the problems is Lawrence Schiffman’s From Text to Tradition, Ch 9: “Revolt and Restoration.” I plan on using the secondary source as a point of comparison to find inconsistencies, fallacies, and mistakes and correct the Wikipedia article to be more truthful, well-rounded, and detailed in its portrayal of the event. I will first correct the mechanical issues within the Wikipedia article. For example, the sentence: “Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger” is a run-on sentence and should have a period between “siege” and “a sizeable portion” or a conjunction to connect those phrases. This wikipedia article also fails to discuss the specs of how Jews adapted to Roman influence, so I plan to add more background on Jewish life under Roman rule. Jimmy19951 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Jimmy19951

Jimmy19951 - what do you mean "from our course"? Wiki users don't know that. Why is this comment under the title "AD vs CE edits"? Why not add a new section to Talk Page? "fallacies, mistakes" - vague. What background do you have in mind? More concrete plans would be helpful. Chapmansh (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Menorah and the Table of the Bread
"the Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence, which had previously only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple"

This is an error. The Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence were also seen by the other priests, not only the High Priest.

--ThePro (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IV/ IIII
The Legio IIII Scythica is a common way of Writing the number of this legion in academic sources, and in the epigraphic records we have seems to be how the legion numbered itself. IV maybe the more common version of the number in general use, but in this context it is not necessary to change.Pipsally (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Roman campaign ended with their success at the siege of Masada in 736–776.
Is 736 - 776 a different calendar or just the wrong date for the siege?

131.152.225.37 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Jewish–Roman War