Search Results

This chapter is an overview of the notion of incarnational thinking in Hasidism. It traces this idea through a series of early Hasidic texts to suggest that Hasidic literature moves top the edges and in some cases crosses over into blatant incarnational thinking regarding its depiction of the biblical figures and the Hasidic zaddik. The chapter begins by surveying modern Jewish philosophers who are influenced by Moses Maimonides in readers to Jewish conceptions of monotheism, It then proceeds to show through close readings of Hasidic texts that Maimonides notion of monotheism was not adopted by these Hasidic writers. Quite the opposite, they seemed either oblivious or openly resistant to the radical transcendent God of Maimonides that stands at the center of Maimonides thinking and, more significant for my concerns, the project of Modern Jewish philosophy.

This chapter focuses on the zaddik. The bulk of the scholarship concerned with the position of the leader in hasidism has been focused on the ideology, usually referred to as the doctrine, of zaddikism rather than on the social institution of the zaddik. There are two principal reasons for this preference. First, for the past few decades, the academic study of hasidism has been dominated by the late Gershom Scholem and his students, all of whom have approached the subject primarily from the point of view of the history of ideas. Second, while the religious teaching of hasidism has been preserved in an abundance of primary literary sources, the documentary sources for the study of hasidism as a social movement have been scarce. It is therefore not surprising that much of the discussion on the doctrine of the zaddik has been conducted without reference to the socio-historical phenomenon of zaddikism. As a result, the relationship between doctrine and social institution has not been addressed in a systematic way. Scholars have tended to view the theory as a blueprint for social action—a programme by which the institution of the zaddik was ultimately shaped in reality. The chapter then examines the relationship between the theory and practice of zaddikism.

This chapter studies personal redemption in hasidism. The question of messianism or redemption is one area where the distinctions between the popular and élitist aspects of hasidism can be clearly discerned. Though messianism in hasidism has been discussed at length, there is very little discussion of personal redemption, a theme closely related to the élitist aspect of hasidism. Personal redemption is relevant to a small spiritual élite who attempt to attain this state in their personal lives without regard to the redemptive state of the world as a whole. This concept is found in the writings of R. Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye who attributes it to the Baal Shem Tov. The Maggid of Mezhirech relates it to his doctrine of unio mystica. His disciples moved away from this concept as the idea of the popular zaddik grew in prominence. Personal redemption again became a central concern with the rejection of popular zaddikism by the Przysucha-Kotsk school. It reached its fullest development in the writings of R. Mordecai Joseph of Izbica who made it the cornerstone of his teachings.

This chapter discusses hasidism as a socio-religious movement on the evidence of devekut. Nothing throws the socio-religious élitism in hasidism into sharper relief than the treatment of devekut. This is exemplified by the subdivision of the concept into ‘first-class’ devekut for zaddikim and ‘second-class’ for the common people. R. Jacob Joseph's second category signifies recognition of the authority of the zaddik and the duty of providing material support for him. Although devekut was not associated with zaddikism to begin with, the two became integrated during the formative stages of the institution of the zaddik, and it was not for nothing that R. Jacob Joseph's remarks on the second category of devekut were accompanied by a fervent polemical criticism of the common people—a term in which he included householders and communal leaders—who refused to recognize the special authority of new leaders.