R. Hayyim of Volozhin's Controversy with Hasidism. R. Hayyim did not condone the social and political fights between the hassidim and the mithnagdim of the 18th century and even accepted hassidic students into the Volohin yeshiva, However, he did oppose hassidism for ideological reasons. This article explains this position.

The Hasidic movement founded by R. Israel ben Eliezer, Master of the Holy Name (the Besht), has commanded the interest of scholars in the fields of history, literature, and the study of religious beliefs and doctrines. Even if it were our intention to record all the works about or inspired by Hasidism, neither the time nor the space available would suffice. This survey is divided into two parts: the first tries to establish

Conservative Judaism, 1982

Shofar43.2, pp. 289-311, 2025

Joseph G. Weiss (1918-69) was one of the great early students of Gershom Scholem and made significant contributions to the research of Hasidism. Unfortunately, his innovative studies did not always receive the attention that they deserved and many of his important findings were ignored or even credited to other scholars. This article explores his many scholarly innovations across a variety of Hasidic topics, including his studies of R. Nahman of Bratzlav, the Mei HaShiloach of R. Mordechai Yosef of Ishbitz, and of Habad Hasidism. It also addresses important concepts within the Hasidic tradition, including Hasidic meditation, service through corporality, and Hasidic quietism. Weiss's unique methodology, which combines both intellectual and social history in his analysis of Hasidism, is also addressed, as is his use of typologies in describing various trends within Hasidism. Utilizing both Weiss's published works as well as his correspondence with various scholars, we also trace the trajectory of his tragically short life, his complex relationship with Gershom Scholem and how this interfaced with his scholarly development, from Budapest to Jerusalem, and ultimately to London, where he directed the Institute of Jewish Studies at University College London and edited its Journal of Jewish Studies. We thus hope to shed light on one of the great pioneers in modern Hasidic scholarship and his enduring contributions to the field.

Modern Judaism, 1991

The conventional understanding of Hasidism as exemplified by the perspectives of Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber, its two most influential interpreters, has undergone major changes in the last decade. ' Old issues have been re-examined in the light of new evidence and new areas of research have been explored. This essay will investigate the scholarly contributions of the last decade and will endeavor to indicate new directions for future research. A basic lacuna in much of the previous literature on Hasidism is a clear periodization of the movement. Let me suggest a periodization that may be helpful. The history of Hasidism begins with East European Jewish spirituality which is an integral part of the kabbalistic tradition prior to the Besht and ends with the destruction of East European Jewry. Developments in the post-1945 period are too recent to be considered history. The history of Hasidism can be divided into four periods: 1) origins, -1760; 2) the classical period, 1760-1815; 3) the period of dominance, 1815-1914/18; 4) the interwar period, 1918-1945. There are a few groups within the history of Hasidism that have a unique history and do not fit this outline. The two most notable examples are Habad and Bratzlav. The founding of Hasidism is traditionally ascribed to the year 1736 when, according to hasidic tradition, Israel Baal Shem Tov (Besht), the founder of Hasidism, revealed his spiritual powers and began to publicly preach his ideas. Recent research has shown that the ideas which characterized Hasidism were not the sole creation of the Besht but were already in existence when he came on the scene. Nonetheless, it is possible to speak of a period of hasidic origins that corresponds to the period of the Besht's activities. When the Besht died in 1760, he had a group of disciples who considered themselves his followers and who perpetuated his teachings. The Besht was succeeded by his erstwhile disciple, R. Dov Baer, *I would like to thank Prof. Gershon Greenberg for reading an earlier draft of this article and making helpful suggestions. Modern Judaism 11 (1991): 111-124 ? 1991 by The Johns Hopkins University Press This content downloaded from 129.2.19.102 on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:10:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Morris M. Faierstein the Magid of Mezhirech. R. Dov Baer had only met the Besht twice, spending a total of several months with the Besht. His teachings and religious practices differed significantly from those of the Besht. The relationship between the teachings of these two figures is one of the many basic questions of hasidic history that remains to be answered. The majority of hasidic figures who would shape the movement in the following generations were the disciples of the Magid. The period of the Magid and his disciples has often been called the classic period of hasidic creativity. By 1815, when the last of the Magid's-disciples died, Hasidism had become the dominant religious movement in the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe, with the notable exception of Lithuania. Simon Dubnow, the author of the only comprehensive history of Hasidism, ends his work at 1815 with the argument that the period of hasidic creativity had come to an end. What remained was the popular cult of zaddiqism, a debased and vulgarized caricature of the movement. As with all generalizations, there is a certain amount of truth in this argument. However, it neglects the creative contributions of hasidic groups such as the Przysucha-Kotsk and Zidichov-Komarno schools which made important and creative contributions to Jewish thought. It also neglects the changing status of Hasidism in the Jewish community and the challenges the community faced in the nineteenth century. As the dominant group trying to preserve traditional Jewish life, hasidic groups and zaddiqim devoted more of their energies to the preservation of the status quo than to spiritual creativity. In fact, by the middle of the century, creativity or change of any kind was viewed with suspicion and hostility. This period of hasidic dominance can be dated from 1815 to 1914/ 18. The latter part of this period was already a time of decline in the dominance of Hasidism. Modernity and urbanization were beginning to take their toll on the institutions of traditional Jewish society. The upheavals of World War I greatly accelerated this process. Hasidic rebbes and their courts were among the masses of Jews uprooted by the war and who found themselves in the large urban centers when the war ended. Zaddiqim living in Warsaw, Lodz, and Cracow still clung to their identification with the small towns of their origins.

2013

These are notes from the lecture that I gave at University College London at the conference in memory of Prof. Joseph G. Weiss z"l, September 2019. In my paper I demonstrate how Weiss was, in many ways, the forerunner of modern Hasidic scholarship.

It is difficult to ascribe to Hasidism sets of distinctive regional characteristics, because Hasidism transcended both communal and national boundaries. Aware of this problem, the authors of this article seek to characterize Hasidism in Russia, while eschewing the essentialist assumption that Hasidism in Russia had a Russian character.

Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia

R. Hayyim Volozhin, the main disciple of the Vilna Gaon, set up the Volozhin Yeshiva in 1802. Unlike his mentor, R. Hayyim was not interested in perpetuating the animosity between Hassisdm and mirthnagdim, welcoming Hassidic students in his yeshiva. Despite this, R. Hayyim had a major ideological dispute with the Hassidic world. This is obvious from the collections of questions and answers we have from him, the sheiltot, in which he spells out his differences with Hassidism. His Nefesh Ha-Hayyim, his only autographic work published posthumously, was both a polemic on Hassidism as well as an alternative Judaic-Kabbalistic world view to Hassidism. R. Hayyim's polemic strengthens the point of view that the Vilna Gaon and his students were more ideologically than politically opposed to Hassidism.

The major expressions of Hasidic literary activity during its early generations are reperesented by various types of musar literature: homiletic discourses (derush), conduct literature (hanhagot), letters, and hagiography (shevahim). A still unresearched phenomenon is the single exceptional example of halakhic literature, the Shulhan Arukh ha-Ray of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady.'5 The student is amazed at the lack of a primary study defining the scope of each type of musar literature, its relationship to the other types of musar literature and to Jewish literature in general.16 Such a study would enable determination of the use of the various literary types mentioned above, and the specific Hasidic contribution to the Jewish world of beliefs. It is almost superfluous to point out again that musar literature, common throughout the Middle Ages and at the beginning of the modern period, had as its purpose guiding the Jew in the proper mode of conduct, in both worldly and heavenly matters-in other words, the strengthening of halakhic observance. Thus, whoever made use of the musar genus was not necessarily concealing his ignorance by adoption of a popular means of expression, but rather was utilizing an excellent, widely accepted vehicle for reinforcing the Jewish way of life according to the Torah, and for spreading beliefs and doctrines.

The emergence of the Hasidic movement as a major force in eastern European Jewish life, and in what was to emerge as Jewish modernity altogether, was almost entirely the creation of the circle of disciples around Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch. It was they who turned outward, during their master's lifetime but even more fully after his death, to extend the Hasidic message over broad areas of territory, and to articulate its message. In the years following 1772, that message was made accessible to ordinary Jews, as well as to the sort of learned and enthusiastic devotees to whom the Maggid had originally addressed himself. In the various controversies and debates about Hasidism, lasting until the end of the 18 th century, it is always the Maggid's disciples who are in the foreground. Almost all of the major schools and dynasties that came to dominate Hasidic life have their ultimate origins in Mezritch. 1 Writing in the mid-nineteenth century, the Hasidic bibliographer Aaron Walden offer a list of thirty-one figures whom he describes as Dov Baer's disciples, based mostly on quotations from the Maggid as "my teacher" in their writings. We do not know how close the discipleship of each was, nor do we have any idea how frequently each of them visited the Maggid's court, or how long he stayed. 2 Attempts to identify the key figures in this group, as it existed before the Maggid's death, are also problematic. Often they rely either in the success of the disciple's reputation for written texts, collections of sermons published only decades later, or on his role in the later growth and spread of Hasidism, either through disciples or descendants who themselves became rebbes in the early 19 th century.

Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2023

https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/the-battle-over-hasidic-radicalism-the-belz-munkacs-controversy-101628jsq-2023-0017?no_cache=1 Throughout its history Hasidism has faced various challenges, including frequent internal controversies that augmented its ramified social and cultural frameworks. Many of these controversies have revolved around competition and political antagonism rather than ideological or theological incentives. This article addresses a harsh controversy that erupted between the Belz and Munkacs Hasidic groups after World War 1. This feud reflects the profound challenges that Jewish lay leaders and rabbis faced during this period, clarifies the socio-political considerations of the Hasidic rebbes, and affords readers a better understanding of the idiosyncratic anatomy of intra-Hasidic controversies. The reconstruction of the drama of the Belz-Munkacs controversy, which has thus far attracted no scholarly attention, reveals an important and unfamiliar chapter in the evolution of interwar Jewish fundamentalism.

The Lehrhaus, 2024

Jewish History (forthcoming)

• Explore
• Papers
• Topics

• Features
• Mentions
• Analytics
• PDF Packages
• Advanced Search
• Search Alerts

• Journals
• Academia.edu Journals
• My submissions
• Reviewer Hub
• Why publish with us
• Testimonials

• Company
• About
• Careers
• Press
• Help Center
• Terms
• Privacy
• Copyright
• Content Policy