The linguistic theory of discourse markers may often help us to decipher the roots of theological controversies in traditional cultures, where both of the parties declare loyalty to the same doctrines. According to this theory, if two sentences are coupled by “but,” the conjunction bears the implicature that the statement that comes after the “but” is the one that the speaker wishes to emphasize, or grant salience over the statement that comes before it. Examined on the theological texts of the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, the theory is proved useful: for the Hasidim, statements on the Simple Unity of God are placed after “but,” while the Mitnagdim place statements on the multiplicity in which it appears in our world.
ChiarcosChristianClausBerryGrabskiMichaelChiarcosChristianClausBerryGrabskiMichael“Introduction: Salience in Linguistics and Beyond.”Salience: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on its Function in Discourse2011New YorkDe Gruyter128
EliorRachel“Rabbi Yosef Caro veRabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov: Metamorphosa Mystit, Hashraah Kabbalit VeHafnamah Ruhanit” [Rabbi Joseph Caro and Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov: Mystical Metamorphosis, Kabbalistic Inspiration and Spiritual Internalization]Tarbiz1996654671709
EtkesImmanuelBa’al HaTanya: Rabbi Shneur Zalman MiLiady VeReshitah shel Hasidut Habad [Ba’al HaTanya: Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady and the Origins of Habad Hasidism]2012JerusalemThe Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History
HornLaurence R.GutzmannDanielGärtnerHans-Martin“I Love Me Some Datives: Expressive Meaning, Free Datives and F-Implicature.”Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-Conditional Meaning2013accessed 24 May 2014LeidenBrill151199URL: http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/horn/Horn2013_DativesPaper.pdf
MargolinRonMikdash Adam: HaHafnamah HaDatit Ve’Itzuv Hayei HaDat HaPenimiyim BeReshit HaHasidut [The Human Temple: Religious Internalization and the Structuring of Inner Life in Early Hasidism]2005JerusalemMagnes Press
RossTamar“Shnei Perushim LeTorat HaTzimtzum: Rabbi Hayim MiVolozhin VeRabbi Shneur Zalman MiLyadi” [Two Interpretations of the Doctrine of Zimzum: Hayim of Volozhin and Shneur Zalman of Lyadi]Mehkerei Yerushalayim19822153169
WilenskyMordecaiHasidim UMitnagdim: LeToldot HaPulmus SheBeineihem BaShanim 5532–5535 [Hasidim and Mitnaggedim: A Study of the Controversy between Them in the Years 1772–1815]1990JerusalemMosad Bialik2 vols
See Chiarcos, Claus, and Grabski2011:1–30; Errington 1988:149–151; Verschueren 1999:173–175.
Jacob Joseph of Polnoe1781:55a. See also Jacob Joseph of Polnoe 1781:88a. This is cited with some light modifications by Aharon of Apta (1795:5a–5b). This parable has many parallels in hasidic literature. For a detailed discussion of different interpretations, see Brown (Hoizman) 2009, esp. 114–115.
Jacob Joseph of Polnoe1780:20a, 129c. For additional sources reflecting this approach, see Menachem Mendel of Gorovtchov 1938: section 2, n. 4.
Jacob Joseph of Polnoe1781:99b. The editor of the collection Baal Shem Tov Al HaTorah holds that the allegory was not offered, in the original source, as an answer to “the philosopher’s question,” and that the connection between them was mistakenly made by the printers. See Menahem Mendl of Gorovtchov 1938:252–253. Lacking any proof or evidence, his argument appears to be apologetic.
See also Jacob Joseph of Polnoe1781:54b. In Kabbalah, the name “Lord” is attached to the attribute of ḥesed (lovingkindness), which reflects the divine measure of unity; ḥesed is also called “gedulah,” i.e., greatness.