1

I know Satmar is a chassidic group. But do they have their own form of chassidus? Other chassidic groups like Chabad, Ger etc. all have their own chassidus, does Satmar?

( A "form of chassidus" is the theological thought that combines esoteric kabbalistic texts with the more commonly studied texts; ie Gemara )

4

Satmar, with the name Satmar, started with Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum. Their Chassidus comes through his father (who was a Rebbe in Siget and who's Chassidus came through the Chozeh of Lublin).

However, Rabbi Teitelbaum himself famously held that Nishtachach Toras HaBa'al Shem Tov - the Torah of the Ba'al Shem Tov was forgotten.

So it may be correct to say that they don't have one, or in the alternative you could look at Rabbi Teitelbaum's Haskafah as their Chassidus. It is certainly as well defined as most any Chassidus.

  • 2
    How do you understand Nishtachach Toras HaBa'al Shem Tov? And of course the other side of the Machlokes? If you think it will be too long I can ask it as a question which you can answer. – user6591 Oct 6 '14 at 15:13
  • If their chassidus is as well defined as anyone's, then how could it be correct to say that they don't have a chassidus? With each chassidic group, don't we just say that the teachings of their rebbes constitute the chassidus of that group? In the case of Satmar, by the way, I understand that they allow or encourage their chassidim to learn other chassidic seforim other than Satmar (such as Breslov), so they don't necessarily insist on learning only certain seforim. – Kordovero Oct 6 '14 at 15:29
  • @Kordovero, I said their Hashkafah is as well defined. – Yishai Oct 6 '14 at 15:37
  • @user6591, I'm not going to authoritatively say, but my understanding is that the point is that the philosophy and underlying view of the Ba'al Shem Tov is not accurately understood. – Yishai Oct 6 '14 at 15:38
  • Yishai, my Lubavitch brotha from a nutha mutha, don't wiggle out like that. What was Baal Shem's philosophy that Reb Menachem Mendel and Reb Yoel were arguing if it is still understood? I'm sure it can be summarized, and I'm sure Reb M.M. explained why it is still valid, and I'm sure Reb Y. explained why it is not. I am very curious what the give and take was. Is there somewhere or something I can read that delves into this? – user6591 Oct 6 '14 at 15:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .