Ritualization As Religious Renewal in 18Th-Century Hasidism

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 ZUTOT: Perspectives on Jewish Culture brill.com/zuto brill.com/zuto

Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism

Gadi Sagiv The Open University of Israel

Abstract

Rituals have always been a characterizing and significant aspect of Hasidism. Although ritual practices are often considered rigid and conservative, Hasidism showed tremendous flexibility in composing, reviving, and disseminating old rituals in novel religious settings. Highly visible, easily deliverable, not requiring intellectual background, and embedded in Jewish tradition, rituals and ceremonies were the perfect means by which to popularize pietism and esoteric knowledge among large audiences, while maintaining the prestige of their performers.

Keywords

Hasidism – ritual – ritualization – religious renewal – tzaddik – prayer – 16th-century Safed

Introduction1

The hasidic movement that emerged in 18th-century Eastern Europe is often described by scholars as a movement of religious ‘renewal’ or ‘revival.’ Martin Buber wrote that ‘[n]o renewal of Judaism is possible that does not bear in itself the elements of Hasidism,’ whereas Gershom Scholem characterized Hasidism, inter alia, as ‘a burst of original religious enthusiasm in a revivalist

1 The research on which this article is based was supported by the German Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (GIF), grant no. I-2409-101.4/2015.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/18750214-12161007Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access 20 Sagiv movement which drew its strength from the people.’2 Yet one wonders what was actually original in Hasidism, and to what extent the novelty was considered a reform. Namely, what were the connections between the novelties and the older traditions in which these novelties were embedded? Scholars of Ha- sidism have made several attempts to characterize the innovation of Hasidism. Some of them have highlighted modifications in existing Jewish tradition as innovation. For example, Gershom Scholem presented the popularization of devekut, the mystical communion with God, as the primary innovation of Ha- sidism in the spiritual domain. This trend constituted an act of renewal; devekut was an old idea that, according to Scholem, Hasidism imbued with a fresh interpretation.3 Other scholars underscored the role of the tzaddik, the hasidic leader, as the most striking innovation, in both social and spiritual domains.4 In the following discussion, I propose another aspect of renewal and revival in Hasidism: rituals and ritualization. I argue that hasidic masters added new rituals and reshaped existing rituals in ways that renewed the well-established Jewish ritual system of their followers. I will begin with introductory notes on rituals in Hasidism. Then I will focus on models of ritualization and offer two examples. It bears mention that I do not claim that ritualization is the only ‘renewalistic’ aspect of Hasidism. Ritualization is but one aspect of renewal in Hasidism. Nor do I claim that renewal is the only outcome of ritual in Hasi- dism. Rituals in Hasidism have much broader significance. Still, by discussing rituals in Hasidism, even from the specific angle of renewal, this article aims to shed light on a prominent aspect of Hasidism that has not yet received its due scholarly attention.5

2 M. Buber, The Legend of the Baal-Shem (London/New York 1955 [the original German was published in 1908]) xiii; G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem 1941) 338. For later examples: R. Schatz-Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism: Quietistic Elements in Eighteenth-Century Hasidic Thought (Princeton/Jerusalem 1993) 43; D. Assaf, ‘Hasidism: His- torical Overview,’ in G.D. Hundert, ed., The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (New Haven 2008) 659; A. Green, ‘Hasidism,’ in A. Berlin, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (New York/London 2011) 327. 3 G. Scholem, ‘Devekut, or Communion with God,’ in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York 1971) 203–227. 4 For example: A. Green, ‘Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq,’ in idem, ed., Jewish Spirituality, Vol. 2: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present (New York 1987) 127–129; M. Piekarz, ‘Hasidism as a Socio-religious Movement on the Evidence of Devekut,’ in A. Rapoport-Albert, ed., Hasidism Reappraised (London 1996) 226; A. Teller, ‘Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography: The Polish Background to the Spread of the Hasidic Movement,’ AJS Review 30 (2006) 1–2. 5 A striking example of the paucity of research on rituals in Hasidism is the fact that the defini- tive work on rituals in Hasidism is still considered by many to be a study completed almost eighty years ago: A. Wertheim, Law and Custom in Hasidism, trans. S. Himelstein (Hoboken,

DownloadedZutot from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2019) 19–29 03:29:01PM via free access Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism 21

Between ‘Hasidic Rituals’ and ‘Rituals in Hasidism’

Although the term ‘ritual’ has been discussed extensively in the field known as ‘Ritual Studies,’ I will bypass all of the debates around the definition of that term. I will employ a working definition of the term as conscious, voluntary, repetitious and stylized bodily actions.6 This broad definition includes not only self-evident and well-defined rituals with detailed prescriptions such as prayer and funeral, but also activities that do not have strict performance guidelines such as informal gatherings and customs. But broad as it is, ritual differs from theology, which is not bodily, and also differs from daily action, which is not always stylized. Notably, God, as well as other divine entities are absent from this definition. Throughout the history of Hasidism, the followers or members of the movement, the Hasidim, have been identified and characterized by their rituals. That is not surprising because the bodily, stylized, and repetitious aspects of rituals make them visible and easily recognizable by external observers. The 18th-century opponents of the Hasidim (the so-called Mitnagdim) described the Hasidim in polemical texts as people who do things differently, with ec- centric and pretentious customs, such as praying loudly and with excessive body movement.7 And in the 19th century non-Jews (officials and non-officials alike) who wrote on the Hasidim, referred to the particular practices of hasidic leaders and their followers, such as conducting prayers in separate prayer houses.8 Rituals were equally meaningful for the Hasidim themselves; Hasidim often describe their rituals such as the sacramental meal at the court of the tzaddik, termed ‘tish’ (‘table’ in Yiddish), as the most representative and significant phenomena of their hasidic experience, more so than the impact of

NJ 1992). This volume was originally a doctoral dissertation completed in 1940, and subse- quently published in Hebrew in 1960. It is difficult to point to another comprehensive discussion of rituals in Hasidism after this book. 6 This definition is based on E.M. Zuesse, ‘Ritual,’ in M. Eliade, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12 (New York 1987) 405. ‘Stylized actions’ mean actions of a conventional form that are neither natural nor spontaneous. 7 See the index of M. Wilensky, Hasidim u-mitnagedim, vols. 1–2 (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem 1970). See for the significant part of practices in the points of opposition D. Biale et al., Hasidism: A New History (Princeton, NJ 2017) 89–90. 8 Biale et al., Hasidism, 502–592. On the attention of the authorities to rituals that the tzaddikim performed when they visited their followers, see, for example, a report of a Polish of- ficial on the tzaddik Avraham of Trisk who came to various communities ‘to hold religious services’ and performed magical practices: M. Wodziński, Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland: A History of Conflict (Oxford/Portland, OR 2005) 286–287.

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access 22 Sagiv specific hasidic doctrines.9 Rituals, rather than details of theology, were the criteria with which a Jew was identified with Hasidism. And within Hasidism, particular rituals signified affiliation with a particular sub-group. Although there are many rituals that are considered hasidic, most of them were not innovations on the part of the Hasidim or their masters. Since Hasi- dism is a sub-culture of Judaism, most of the rituals performed in Hasidism tended to have pre-hasidic sources. Therefore, the term ‘rituals in Hasidism’ is more accurate than ‘Hasidic rituals.’ Still, I will employ the term ‘hasidic rituals’ in cases of rituals that eventually came to be associated exclusively with Hasidism even if one can prove that they have roots long before Hasidism. Thus, when I use the term ‘hasidic rituals,’ I am referring to rituals that were tagged ‘hasidic’ (either by Hasidim or by non-Hasidim) or were performed only by Hasidim (either by all of them or only particular factions). This definition is contextual rather than essential.

Mechanisms of Ritualization

As most rituals in Hasidism are not new, I will focus less on the content of the rituals but rather on the ways they were imported or modified by Hasidim. I call these processes ‘ritualization’ in a sense similar to Catherine Bell’s definition of ritualization as a ‘way in which certain social actions strategically distinguish themselves in relation to other actions.’10 The focus on ritualization rather than rituals themselves allows for a more nuanced understanding of rituals in Hasidism against the backdrop of rituals in Judaism in general. Ritualization in Hasidism was done in more than one way, and I would like to now introduce a few mechanisms of hasidic ritualization. The following mechanisms of ritualization are not mutually exclusive; in many hasidic rituals, it is possible to identify more than a single mechanism:

1) Adoption and appropriation: Hasidim adopted various rituals without any significant change in content, nevertheless claiming that they were ‘hasidic.’ Namely, that they were of hasidic origin, or that they should be performed by hasidic leaders. An example of this sort of ritualization is a ceremony of inaugurating cemeteries, a ritual devel- oped from older Ashkenazic ritual and later attributed to the so-called

9 See, for example, G. Sagiv, Ha-shoshelet: beit Chernobyl u-mekomo be-toldot ha-hasidut (Jerusalem 2014) 181–213. 10 C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York 1992) 74.

DownloadedZutot from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2019) 19–29 03:29:01PM via free access Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism 23

‘founder of Hasidism,’ Israel Baʾal Shem Tov (Besht), despite a lack of evidence connecting him to that ritual. In some areas only tzaddikim were allowed to perform the inauguration because it required possess- ing concealed mystical knowledge that only the tzaddikim had.11 2) Popularization: In many cases, ritualization occurred as a result of wid- ening the circle of performers. Hasidic leaders encouraged their followers to perform rituals that were hitherto performed within smaller circles of a select few, rabbis and kabbalists. An example is the adoption of various purification and ascetic rites by all Hasidim that were previously common only in small circles of kabbalists.12 3) Re-composition: Constructing new rituals from existing building blocks. One example is the hasidic sacramental meal, the aforementioned tish, which is actually a cluster of rituals that includes established elements such as the public sermon and the tzaddik’s distributing of residues of food.13 4) Intensification or ‘pietization’: Performing existing rituals with more devotion, and possibly with new meaning. An example is the hasidic ritual slaughtering, in which Hasidim expressed or performed pi- ousness when they insisted upon using polished knives rather than regular knives and emphasized the kabbalistic meaning of taking the soul.14 5) Sanctification of daily activities: Hasidim imbued non-religious activities with religious meaning, an approach that is known as ‘worship through corporeality’ (ʿavodah be-gashmiyut). Examples for those activities are smoking of tobacco and dancing. Dancing, for example, was perceived to have magical powers.15 6) Enactment of old traditions: The practice of bringing old verses or nar- ratives (back) to life through their enactment constitutes a special

11 G. Sagiv, ‘Hasidism and Cemetery Inauguration Ceremonies: Authority, Magic, and Perfor- mance of Charismatic Leadership,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 103 (2013) 328–351. 12 An example of that sort of purification rite is ritual bathing. See T. Kauffman, ‘Ritual Immersion at the Beginning of Hasidism’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 80 (2012) 409–425. On ascetic rituals in Chernobyl Hasidism, see G. Sagiv, ‘The Rectification of the Covenant and the Element of Asceticism in Chernobyl Hasidism’ (in Hebrew), in R. Elior, ed., ‘New Old Things’: Myths, Mysticism and Controversies, Philosophy and Halacha, Faith and Ritual in Jewish Thought through the Ages (Jerusalem 2011) [= Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 23] 355–406. 13 Biale et al., Hasidism, 194–198. 14 For example, C. Shmeruk, ‘The Social Significance of Hasidic Shehitah’ (in Hebrew), Zion 20 (1955) 42–72. 15 On dance in Hasidism, see Biale et al., Hasidism, 216–220.

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access 24 Sagiv

case of Hasidic renewal, and I am going to demonstrate its mechanism and impact in the next section of this article.

A basic feature shared by those mechanisms was that they are indeed ritu- alizations according to the definition above: they highlight the image of the Hasidim as doing things differently. The rituals of the Hasidim were different from rituals of other Jewish groups in two dimensions: Diachronically, compared to previous spiritual trends in Judaism such as Lurianic Kabbalah. Syn- chronously, in relation to contemporaneous non-Hasidic traditional Jews. The sense of difference was not only an external observation, as noted ear- lier, but also an internal socio-cultural need of the Hasidim. They shaped their identity as a distinctive movement in Judaism on the basis of the difference in the performance of rituals.16 And within the intra-hasidic context, rituals were used by particular hasidic groups to form their particular group identity and to differentiate them from other hasidic groups.17 After briefly presenting various mechanisms of renewal through ritualization, I would like to now turn to two examples of ritualization in which the abovementioned mechanisms can be discerned.

Example 1: Enactment of Ancient Texts

The public appearance of the hasidic leader to an audience of his followers has always been an important aspect of hasidic life. The tzaddik showed himself in public through various rituals, including sermons, ritual meals, and prayers. These rituals were performed on various occasions and places, such as on Sabbath and during holidays at the tzaddik’s court, visits of his family members for wedding ceremonies, and regular visits to the communities of his followers. Of all of these rituals, I would like to draw attention to those in which the tzaddik appeared as an embodiment of God, imbuing his community with a sense of close connection with God. An example of that sort of appearance can be found in a testimony about the tzaddik R. Israel of Kozhenits (1736–1814). It is a paragraph from a polemical

16 This observation goes in tandem with neo-Durkheimian research on rituals. See, for example, B. Giesen, ‘Performing the Sacred: A Durkheimian Perspective on the Performa- tive Turn in the Social Sciences,’ in J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, and J.L. Mast, eds., Social Performance: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual (New York 2006) 325–367. 17 For example, A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Sagiv, ‘Habad versus “Polish Hasidism”: Towards a History of a Dichotomy’ (in Hebrew), in J. Meir and G. Sagiv, eds., Habad: historia, hagut ve-dimui (Jerusalem 2016) 223–265.

DownloadedZutot from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2019) 19–29 03:29:01PM via free access Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism 25 text against Hasidism, penned by David of Makow, one of the most important literary opponents of Hasidism:

And one trustful man told me that he saw [R. Israel] in Kozhenits on the holiday of the New Year, sitting on a chair during the prayer of the Psalm verses until the word ‘the King’ when the prayer leader begins loudly. And when he began saying ‘the King’ he [R. Israel] stood up roaring like a bear, and sat on another chair to show that he was standing from the chair of judgement and sitting on the chair of mercy, and acted as if he was a chariot. Hence, the heavens should burn him, and the earth should swal- low him as it did to Korah and his followers. Because we did not find any- thing like that neither in [the texts talking about] R. Simeon ben Yohai and his disciples [= the texts of the Zohar] nor in the texts of R. Isaac Luria that someone acted as if he was a chariot. And the conceit of [R. Israel] grew too much so that it could hardly be endured, and one should tear one’s clothes to [mourn] this. And the fools who saw that act consider him God, and one fool of his disciples ran toward him until he saw his face, and immediately went backward, like the verse ‘and the living creatures ran and returned’ (Ezekiel 1:14).18

David of Makow informs us that an eyewitness saw the tzaddik of Kozhenits physically moving from one chair to another at a particular moment during the prayer of the New Year, a movement amplified by a loud voice. That movement was understood, at least by that eyewitness, to be a clear reference to a midrashic text about God moving from a chair of judgement to a chair of mercy, where he becomes replete with mercy upon Israel.19 The tzaddik of Kozhenits was seen as enacting or performing that Midrash. In fact, the eyewitness said that R. Israel acted as if he was God himself. That behavior was considered in his eyes unprecedented and unacceptable. It was considered blasphemy. How- ever, the point that most bothered David of Makow was the bad influence this had on the foolish followers of R. Israel, who adopted that sort of behavior and took part in another role-play by performing another text: the verse from Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot about living creatures running back and forth. One should bear in mind that this text has some problems: It is a polemical text that may be unreliable; it reports on a specific event and we do not know if this really was a habit of the tzaddik of Kozhenits; and finally, we do not know

18 Wilensky, Hasidim u-mitnagedim, vol. 2, 249. The quote is from David of Makow’s will. 19 M. Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah (New York/Jerusalem 1993) vol. 2, ch. 29, par. 3, 674.

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access 26 Sagiv who gave the interpretation of the act of moving from one chair to another. Was it the tzaddik himself? Or possibly some of his followers? Or perhaps the eyewitness alone, or other opponents? Despite all of these reservations, I believe we can still conclude that the tzaddik of Kozhenits was known for enacting a text during the ritual of New Year prayer, a performance that cast the impression that he was behaving as an embodiment of God. The somewhat theatrical performance,20 which enacted the text of the Midrash, greatly impacted upon the followers of the tzaddik, imbuing them with a feeling of being close to God. The performance of R. Israel exemplifies ritualization both because of the act of moving from one chair to another, and because it was performed within the ritual of prayer. The enactment of the midrashic text revived the ritual of prayer when making it a visible spectacle. Moreover, the act of revival was con- nected to its broader liturgical context. The tzaddik did not only revive the prayer; he also introduced a performance that was relevant to the timing of Rosh Hashanah. The tzaddik performed the role of God at the approximate time (according to the Midrash mentioned above) in which God was expected to do that very act in the real upper world. Via this performance, the tzaddik communicated the divine to his followers, affording them a sense of elevation and intimate connection to the divine.

Example 2: Renewal of Safedian Rituals

From enactment of texts as a form of ritualization I would like to turn to revival of older rituals, rituals of 16th-century Safedian culture. Safed of the 16th century was a glorious cultural and spiritual center for the Jews. Among the Safedian Jews at that time were famed rabbis, kabbalists, preachers, and poets. The pietistic lifestyle of the Safedian culture, characterized by numerous kabbalistic practices, coupled with the tremendous spiritual creativity that existed there, carved an indelible mark on Jewish religious culture.21

20 The relationship between ritual and theatrical performance has been researched extensively, in particular in the interdisciplinary field of ‘Performance Studies.’ To give but two examples of classics in the field: V.W. Turner, From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Serious- ness of Play (New York 1982); R. Schechner and W. Appel, eds., By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual (Cambridge 1990). 21 On 16th-century Safed, see for example, S. Schechter, ‘Safed in the Sixteenth Century: A City of Legists and Mystics,’ in Studies in Judaism: Second Series (Philadelphia 1908) 202–306, 317–328; R.J.Z. Werblowsky, ‘The Safed Revival and Its Aftermath,’ in Green, ed., Jewish Spirituality, 7–33.

DownloadedZutot from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2019) 19–29 03:29:01PM via free access Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism 27

Notably, some important rituals performed by the 18th-century Hasidim were attributed to rituals of Safedian culture, in particular Safedian Kabbalah. A striking example is the Safedian custom of wearing white garments on Sab- bath, which was adopted, perhaps appropriated, by some of the Hasidim, in particular hasidic leaders. Opponents of Hasidim accused them of popularizing practices that should have been limited to elite circles of kabbalists.22 Another example is the hasidic prayer book. Hasidim named their prayer version ‘Luria’s Version’ (nusaḥ ha-Ari), after Isaac Luria, one of the legendary figures in Safed. However, the hasidic prayer book – or more accurately, prayer books, because there was no conformity – was not Luria’s version. It was an amalgamation of various versions.23 Still, the nominal fact does bear weight: The title ‘Luria’s Version’ actually determines that prayer version as a renewal of Safedian prayer. Polemical texts against Hasidim banned those who used Luria’s prayer book, opining that it should be limited to the elite.24 This ban shows that the association between the Hasidim and Safedian culture was rec- ognized by some of the observers of Hasidism. The opponents did not say that the prayer book of the Hasidim was not Luria’s version. On the contrary; they accepted this as fact yet objected to the break from Ashkenazic custom, which was allowed, according to the opponents of Hasidism, only to limited circles of kabbalists and not to wider circles. As it were, they objected to any expression of renewal of the ritual of prayer. The prayer book was but one of those expressions of the renewal of Safedian rituals. Other examples can be found in the numerous collections of brief recommendations for religious behavior composed in the school of the Maggid of Mezhirech. Much of this advice origi- nated in 16th-century Safed, and was adopted about 200 years later by wide circles of Hasidim.25 To be sure, the pietistic rituals of Safed were not rejected by Eastern Euro- pean Jews. Rather, they were limited to elite circles of rabbis and kabbalists. The hasidic renewal in this respect involved disseminating these rituals across wider circles. They began to be performed by lay Hasidim. And when these lay Hasidim performed these sorts of rituals, they were accused of being pretentious, ordinary people adopting practices intended to be performed only by religious figures of high esteem. Hence, it is not improbable that Hasidim thought of themselves as more pious or religiously elevated than those who

22 Wilensky, Hasidim u-mitnagedim, vol. 1, 48. 23 L. Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer (London 1972) 36–42. 24 Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer, 40. 25 Z. Gries, Sifrut ha-hanhagot: toldoteha u-mekomah be-hayei hasidei R. Yisraʾel Baʿal Shem- Tov (Jerusalem 1989).

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access 28 Sagiv did not perform these rituals. Hasidic rituals, then, had an elitist image, perhaps infused by the older kabbalistic prestige of many of these rituals, and hence garnered opposition among non-Hasidim.

The Effectiveness of Hasidic Ritualization

The ritualization that characterizes Hasidism should be understood as part of a broader process of ritualization in Early Modern Judaism.26 As Avriel Bar- Levav noted, the cultural role of this process is not entirely clear. Namely, it is unclear whether processes of ritualization preserved or paralyzed Jewish tradition.27 However, in the case of Hasidism it seems possible to conclude that many of the rituals performed by tzaddikim and Hasidim were considered a novelty by both opponents and proponents of Hasidism. The opponents, by accusing the Hasidim of pretentiously adopting the rituals of kabbalists, were essentially conceding that ritualization in Hasidism was an act of renewal, albeit an undesired one. The Hasidim, who attempted to justify themselves, presented their rituals as conservative rather than innovative; they described their rituals as an authentic return to previous traditions. At the same time, they described the events in which the tzaddik appeared in public as imbued with unprecedented spiritual elevation, which was an implicit expression of renewal. In any event, ritualization was effective in carrying renewal into Hasidism. What was it about hasidic ritualization that made it an effective route of renewal as compared to other forms of innovation (such as doctrines and social institutions)? Among other features, rituals and ritualization were:

1) Traditional: Hasidism did not abolish ritual, as did the Sabbateans. On the contrary, Hasidim added to the contemporaneous ritual scene by enriching existing rituals or popularizing them, thereby fortifying tradition. 2) Deliverable: Guidelines for performance can be easily delivered in brief discourses. Moreover, they can be easily codified and sent to Hasidim living in distant locales. 3) Accessible: Rituals were accessible to wider circles because they focused first and foremost on the experience of the senses, whereas

26 A. Bar-Levav, ‘Ritualisation of Jewish Life and Death in the Early Modern Period,’ Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 47 (2002) 69–82. 27 Bar-Levav, ‘Ritualisation,’ 82.

DownloadedZutot from 16 Brill.com09/26/2021 (2019) 19–29 03:29:01PM via free access Ritualization as Religious Renewal in 18th-Century Hasidism 29

doctrines required understanding and preliminary education not nec- essarily available to all. To be sure, rituals had meaning, too, but the focus on physical performance provided a basic layer to which every- one could relate. The educated could gain more by focusing on the meaning of the ritual, but this was not mandatory.

Thus, embedded in Jewish tradition, highly deliverable, and not requiring intellectual background, hasidic rituals and ceremonies popularized pietism and esoteric knowledge among large audiences.

Zutot 16 (2019) 19–29 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 03:29:01PM via free access