Wow! Quite the דברי בזיון on one of the most venerated Gedolei Yisroel. Actually, there is no excuse for such talk at this point in time, when you see how the greatest Tzadikim accepted the Bal Shem Tov. It takes quite the audacity to speak out like this. This can only happen to someone who isn’t careful about being לומד תורה מהאמגוש.
The entirety of the portrayal of the proto-chasidism is based on secular writings, with a sprinkling of just outsider perspectives — given by those who were predisposed to disdain Chasidus.
“Chassidus as originally intended by the Besht was problematic. Yes, he did introduce new ideas into Judaism. He claimed that learning Torah was not of utmost importance, and instead shifted the focus to tefillah, along with happiness. ”
All of these ideas are not new and are not just “originally intended”. Not only that, but they have become more widespread, and are being even more widespread nowadays. (Yes, I know that you lament that.) The Bal Shem Tov obviously never negated the countless Maamarei Chazal about the supremacy of learning Torah. In fact, that’s exactly what he spent his time doing with his close disciples, who were all well-learned and most of them held rabbinic positions. Emphasising, or putting weight into other Mitzvos (which hardly take away time from learning) is not a new concept. Davenning extra-long Shmone Esrei might be a new idea without a Mesora or reason, though.
Happiness itself is a trait that was extolled by many earlier pious groups. But, most importantly, if a Gadol has an insight into what he sees as helpful to Kirvas Elokim, that is not a new Torah. Plenty of great Rabbonium — before and after the Bal Shem Tov — have innovated, re-introduced, or narrowly focused on what others haven’t.
“His followers did things such as turn cartwheels while davening, spoke in tongues, and other strange actions. ”
This is bogus. There is a mention of one particular group, which obviously plays an oversized role in the mind of detractors, who have acted out over-the-top while Davenning as a means of ecstasy. This was not the Bal Shem Tov, nor the Maggid, but exactly one Talmid. And his friends were not happy about it, and it stopped. Speaking in tongues is simply baloney, but I can’t promise that Gershon Scholem didn’t mention it, since I wouldn’t read his ideas.
“There are other teachings which were concerning, and I won’t get into all of them. They can be summed up by his asserting the primacy of Kabbalah over traditional thought, even when it came to Halachah. Kabbalah is not supposed to be learned while young, and definitely not before one has a solid foundation in the traditional sources of Tanach, Mishnayos, and Gemara.”
The Hashkafos that the Bal Shem Tov taught, which are by now mainstream, that Hashem is not confined to being “up there” but that He is everywhere and more importantly, nothing is outside of His realm, reach and even plan; these ideas were not really negated by the main detractors. They were merely afraid of where it would lead people.
The Gra’s letter complains that. ‘האומר לעץ אבי אתה ולאבן אתה ילדתני’. This is a complaint against saying that Hashem is everywhere, since this would lead people to think that they can bow down to their own chairs and tables, if it is after all part of Hashem. While this precaution is understandable, we see that it didn’t turn out that way. The message was taught in a careful and well-designed manner, the way we all relate to it today.
The Gra actually continues by referencing the Zohar Hakadosh that is quoted by Chasidim, and he says that it is a secret and not meant to be taken in its simple form. And so, we see that although to the underlying idea there was no disagreement (since the Bal Shem Tov also did not teach it in the simple way), there was suspicion as to the irresponsibility of making asuch deep ideas available to the public. And, as it turns out, it went over well. Absolutely nobody relates to physical items as Hashem ר”ל. Even though most people won’t be able to easily explain how it all ties together, the ideas went over well, as we see every day.
Contrary to historians’ description, the Bal Shem Tov actually did not teach Kabalah to people. He discussed it with those who were already learned in it, and he did publicize some ideas from it, just as any Rav before and after him has done. And this can be seen in any Chasidish Sefer outside of Chabbad. They utilize certain Kabalistic ideas, usually famous ones, but never engage in explaining Kabalah per se. I would say that while it is true that one shouldn’t learn Kabalah before a solid grounding in Gemara and Halachah, the age is not a big deal. All successful Mekubalim began at a pretty young age.
Post Shabssai Tzvi there was a general caution of what the unguided study of Kabbalah can do. But seriously, that happened exactly once in history, and I’d blame mental illness before blaming Kabalah.
“Chassidus ended up becoming accepted because a few generations later, the leaders walked back on some of the ideas, and accepted the traditional views, merging some chassidic thoughts into them. Most of the things that were problematic were abandoned (although not all).
So Chassidus as the Besht envisioned it is long gone. Yet as I said, some problematic parts do remain. ”
This is simply not true. We have his teachings, and they are relevant. And as I wrote earlier, the all-too-famous cartwheels were not from him. The ideas of Torah Lishmah are widely known and quoted, although few are holding there. IT is mentioned by the Bach, and it is the Nefesh Hachaim who suggests taking a quick break in middle of learning to strengthen Yiras Shamayim. (Like the Mishna in Rosh Hashana 29a.)
His main ideas, which was about putting life into Yiddishkeit applied to those who learn as well as those who can’t learn enough.
ר’ נחמיה אומר מניין שכל הכושה מצוה אחת באמונה לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם כדאי הוא שתשרה רוח הקדש עליו (מכילתא דרשב”י י”ד)
“But let’s be clear about this: The Besht did NOT have a mesorah for his teachings. He didn’t learn about the supremacy of tefillah over learning Torah from his father (he was orphaned at the age of 5) or his Rebbe.
There are no seforim on learning from the Besht. Only quotes from his students, and mostly on matters of Chassidus. So there is absolutely zero proof that he was knowledgeable in Shas. In fact, the people who supported him had hoped he’d become a Rabbi, but he frequently skipped cheder to walk in the woods, and they gave up on him. When he finished cheder (at the age of 12), they gave him a job walking escorting the small children to cheder in the morning, and davening with them. ”
The Mesorah aspect was already addressed, as well as the fact that Tefillah was never made to be more important than Torah Study.
The rest is just a failed attempt at לישנא בישא. The quotes that are from him are all about parts of Torah. You can find them in a compilation called ספר בעל שם טוב. And again, just like the acceptance of any Gadol or Tzaddik is based on the testimony of other Gedolim, we can see the works of the Bal Hatanya and we know his regard for his Rebbe, the Maggid and the Bal Shem Tov. All of his disciples were Rabbanim, as mentioned above. As for having Seforim, the fact is that most Gedolim didn’t make Seforim. Did you ever see the Abrabanel’s sefer on Bava Metzia? Was he then not learned in Torah SheBal Peh? (Just in case you’d actually think so, you can see the great regard that the Beis Yosef has for him when mentioning a Pshat in the Rambam Hilchos Brachos.) Did the Rokeach write on Shas? How about Reb Yakov Pollack?
“My personal belief is that the stories of the Besht were inflated by those who came after, such as the Maggid of Mezritch, Yaakov Yosef of Polonye, and others. ”
גדול מחלוקת שמגיע עד כסא הכבוד
So here you have someone made you happy by writing a Sefer (not of stories), and your preconceived notion of putting down the Bal Shem Tov would lead you to speak Hotzaas Shem Ra on other Rabbanim that they would simply lie in order to venerate their Rebbe. Once you speak of famous Gedolim as liars, you should have realized that you are leaving the Machane.
Never mind that this is a chicken before the egg. These Talmidim all came to the Bal Shem Tov after having checked him out. They couldn’t have done so on the basis of their own future propaganda. Now, it is obvious from the poor insight into Chasidus that you aren’t well versed in the writings of Talmidei Bal Shem. But one thing is clear, it is all Divrei Torah, and they all reference Maamarei Chazal from all over, including Lomdish Sugyos.
“Since chassidus today was tempered by the traditional Jewish population, and they abandoned most of the teachings, chassidus became more accepted. But if the many of the practices were problematic, why do we think that those which remained are ok? If the source had problems, wouldn’t it be better to cut off all those teachings? ”
Since the premise is wrong, and no one went back on the teachings of the Bal Shem Tov, the postulate falls along with it. Even if you think that the Rebbes of the great Talmidei Chachamim couldn’t learn (somehow), being that, according to your portrayal, the learned ones hacked out a useable approach, it is after all designed by Gedolim who finally arrived at the scene.
Besides for all of the above, you should be pragmatic. Why would you pick a losing fight? You know that when you denigrate someone who is held in the highest esteem, you will not be listened to.