The Meaning of Hasidut - Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem

The Meaning of Hasidut: Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem
Author(s): Michael Oppenheim

Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), pp. 409-
423
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1462381
Accessed: 21-05-2019 12:45 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Academy of Religion
This content downloaded from 194.81.33.242 on Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of the American Academy of Religion, XLIX/3
The Meaning of Hasidut:

Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem
Michael Oppenheim
he effort to maintain or to reestablish continuity with the

religious life and values of the Jewish past has permeated the
writings of modern Jewish thinkers. Many modern Jews have
understood that the dramatic changes and challenges that were ushered
in during the period of the Emancipation resulted in a radical gap
between the past and present. Two of the most influential Jewish
thinkers, Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem, held that the barrier
between past and present demanded a radical reexamination of Jewish
history. They held that continuity could be established only by looking
at those areas of the Jewish past that were dismissed or rejected by
earlier scholars. They ultimately concluded that Jewish mysticism em-
bodies the most creative elements of Jewish religious experience and is
the most accessible of all past expressions of Jewish life. Yet, despite
these common conclusions, Buber's and Scholem's understandings of
the nature and meaning of Jewish mysticism are quite divergent. These
differences are particularly acute when their views of Hasidut, the latest
phase of Jewish mysticism, are examined. In light of the central role
given to Jewish mysticism by both these scholars, their conflicting
portraits of Hasidut have great significance for understanding the efforts
of modern Jewish thinkers to understand and to appropriate their past.
In the following pages it will be demonstrated that one way of
interpreting the disagreement about Hasidut is to focus on Buber's and
Scholem's conflicting views about the concept of God that activated that
movement./1/ Buber holds that the power of Hasidic life emerged from
the relationship between man and the God who is both Creator of the
universe and partner in dialogue. Hasidut revealed the redemptive
Michael Oppenheim (Ph.D., University of California at Santa Barbara) is

associate professor and director of the graduate program in Judaic Studies in the
Department of Religion at Concordia University, Montreal. His articles have
appeared in Judaism and Studies in Religion.
410 Michael Oppenheim
quality given to human life

and man, and Buber sees th
offers to the modern Jew as
Scholem affirms that it is pr
of God that permits it to speak to the Jewish-and the broader
human-situation in the modern world.
In exploring the conflicting portraits of Hasidut presented by Buber

and Scholem, the question of the influence of Kabbalah (the "tradition"
of Jewish mysticism that traces its origins to the thirteenth century in
Provence and Spain) on Hasidut is of major importance. For Buber,
Hasidut is a "protest against Kabbalah," which "pursues Kabbalah"
only "peripherally" (1960:178). However, Scholem accentuates the
continuity between Kabbalah and this latest phase of Jewish mysticism.
He writes that "the mystical ideology of the movement [Hasidut] is
derived from the Kabbalistic heritage, but its ideas are popularized, with
an inevitable tendency towards terminological inexactitude" (1941:344).
Even the hotly debated problem of which literary sources provide the
most accurate picture of Hasidut can be reduced to the more general
question of the relationship between Kabbalah and Hasidut. Both Buber
and Scholem seem to agree that the "theoretical writings" of the
movement, i.e., sermons, commentaries on biblical literature, and tracts
on particular areas of religious life, share significant terminological
similarities with Kabbalistic writings (Buber, 1960:173-74; Scholem,
1971:233-35). Yet Buber claims that one can penetrate to the inner life
of Hasidut only by way of its extensive collections of legends about its
zaddikim or "masters" (1947a:v-vii). In working his way through these
legends Buber found that they do not speak with the voice of Kabbalah.
Buber's attitude toward Kabbalah, which pervades his later writ-
ings,/2/ is shaped by his recognition of its gnostic character. He believes
that Kabbalah, which is described as an "anti-dualistic" gnosis, destroys
the lived dialogue of I and Thou between man and God. According to
Buber, the gnostic nature of Kabbalah, and gnosticism in general, stresses
man's "knowing relationship to the divine" rather than the relationship
of call and response between God and man. Consequently, God is no
longer regarded as an actor in the human world. God becomes a mere
object, the "object of an ecstatic contemplation and action" (1967:734).
The "Kabbalistic-gnostic schemata" and "gnostic theologema," which are
essential expressions of Kabbalah, reinforce the importance that
Kabbalah attaches both to speculations about the interior mysteries of
God and to the efforts of practitioners to travel up through these spheres
to the highest levels of the divine (1960:173-81, 253)./3/
Meaning of Hasidut 411
While it is difficult to presen

of the Kabbalistic conception of
concern. Buber does not explicit
concept of the personal God wh
the Bible. Yet he certainly realized that Kabbalah had tendencies to
replace the biblical conception of God with a more acosmic one. In his
later work there are passages that suggest that Kabbalism remained true
to the concept of the personal God. Buber writes, for example, that,
despite the prima facie similarities between Kabbalism and other tradi-
tions of mysticism that dissolve the "Person" of God into a "super-
personal, inactive Godhead" (1960:194), Kabbalah retains the "limit-
less, the absolute Person," that is, the "Godhead" or "Being" which
"speaks the 'I' of revelation" (1960:196). However, Buber's affirmation
is not very convincing. One has the feeling that Buber refuses to
acknowledge something that he all but concludes on many other
occasions, that is, that on the whole the Kabbalah is not concerned with
the God who turns toward man with the "I" of revelation./4/ In this
vein Buber writes that gnosticism-and in this context it appears that
Kabbalah represents gnosticism for him-offers an ultimate portrait of
the self in which nothing is allowed to remain over against it, including
the "I" of God: "The gnostic redemption comes from the liberation of
the world-soul in the self. In the manifold variants is hidden the same
primal motif of the knowing majesty of the self in the all. It also has a
love: which pretends to sleep with the universe" (1960:244). Thus, as a
result of Buber's recognition of the gnostic dimension of Kabbalah, he
sees in it the danger that, at the very least, the "Person" of God is
swallowed up into a universal, impersonal principle that is immanent
both in the self and the world. In turning to Buber's presentation of
Hasidut, we will see that Hasidut's greatness lies in its ability to
overcome the gnosis of Kabbalah with its attendant danger.
The Hasidic "protest against," "break" with, or "transformation"
of Kabbalism occurs precisely at the place where Kabbalism is inclined
to lose the "I" of God within the "knowing majesty of the self." Stated
in another way, Buber regarded the protest of Hasidut as the protest of
"devotio" against "gnosis." He writes: "In Hasidism devotio has ab-
sorbed and overcome gnosis. This must happen ever again if the bridge
over the chasm of being is not to fall in" (1960:254). Hasidut guards
against the tendency to break down the distinction between the living
God and his human partner by praising the simple man rather than
enshrining the "knower." The simple man lives fully in the world and
dialogues with God in the lived everyday. This individual recognizes
that at every moment he is called by God to help him in the task of
redeeming the world. Thus, for Buber there is a great distance between
Kabbalah and Hasidut, because only the latter leaves in all of its purity
"the greatest of all values:

human and the divine, the r
cease at the rim of eternity"
In contrast to Buber, Sch
concept of God that is pecu
description of the gnostic
affirm that its conception of
"impersonal" stamp. Scholem
of an impersonal basic rea
personalistic basis of the Bib
Against the backdrop of Sc
tinuity between Kabbalah an
he breaks radically with Bub
In Major Trends in Jewish M
popularized the earlier Kabba
of the immanence of God in all that exists" (336) and "ideas of a
mystical life with God and in God" (339). According to Scholem, the
boldness and enthusiasm that accompany the "pantheistic, or rather
acosmistic, interpretation of the universe," which is especially distinctive
of one of the schools of Hasidut, Habad, is also common to the
movement as a whole (341). He writes of Habad that "the secrets of the
divine realm are presented in the guise of mystical psychology," and
that "it is by descending into the depths of his own self that man ...
discovers that God is 'all in all' and there is 'nothing but Him"' (341).
The foregoing discussion of Buber's and Scholem's presentations of
Hasidut disclosed their radical disagreement about the concept of God
that characterized the movement. This disagreement, in turn, reflects a
wider dispute, one that goes beyond the question of the nature of
Hasidut. The differing portraits of this mystical movement parallel
divergent philosophical approaches to the dynamics of man's religious
consciousness.
Buber's life-long interest in Hasidut did not confine itself to the
effort to reconstruct the movement historically. In fact, he has writte
that he had "not aimed at presenting a historically or hermeneutically
comprehensive presentation of Hasidism" (1967:731). From the begin
ning of Buber's fascination with Hasidut his studies were tightly inter
twined with his attempt to formulate a more general philosophy o
religion. Stated more precisely, his philosophy of religion, which under
went considerable change at first, acted as a "filter" through whic
Hasidut was made to pass./6/ By the time he had developed his bas
insights about the relationship between man and God-insights whic
were unfolded in his famous work I and Thou-he had come to see
Hasidut as the greatest example of this philosophy. In this light, Buber
wrote that Hasidut was "solely concerned with the happenings between
man and God" (1960:62). Hasidut

dimensions of the religious li
himself to be addressed by, an
revealing God. Further, in I an
point out the error of any my
pantheistic or other type of th
turn, he wrote that Hasidut "ha
destroys or stunts the greatest
between the human and the div
Scholem's study of Hasidut i
reconstructing a historically accu
the movement. Yet it is wrong
fully satisfied with this goal. His
all areas of Jewish mysticism
phenomenon of mysticism in
probably erroneous as well, to s
nature of religious life act as a
certainly are parallels between
Hasidic teachings and his views
thought in general.
In Major Trends in Jewish Mys
"the conditions and circumstanc
historical development of religi
monotheistic systems" (6). The
sketched by way of a three-stag
ness" (7). At the first stage, the
as "being full of gods whom ma
presence can be experienced w
(7). As religious consciousness pa
cal form," monotheistic religi
realization that there is a gulf
signifies the creation of a vast
God, the infinite and transcend
ture" (7). At the third, mystic s
gulf. Scholem writes: "Mysticism
on the contrary, it begins by r
proceeds to a quest for the secr
that will span it. .... Thus the
path through the abysmal multip
Divine Reality, now conceived
becomes its main preoccupation"
The movement of religious co
sketch is depicted as both progr
brings together all of the eleme
and unites these in a highe

"world of mythology and th
(8). Since mystic consciousn
Scholem is proposing that
mysticism is the fulfillment
God that has as its presuppo
and man. Consequently, with
the hidden God, or En-Sof,
who stands apart from man and yet who addresses man. Mystic
consciousness, which recognizes that the soul of man can experience
"the primordial unity of all things," therefore represents a higher grasp
of ultimate reality than the classical monotheistic belief in a personal
God. Finally, as we have seen, Hasidut gives full expression to this
mystical conception of God.
The status of the concept of a personal God has been traced in
three areas of the dispute between Buber and Scholem. First, the
question of the acceptance or rejection by Hasidut of the Kabbalistic
view of God was the core of their disagreement about the extent of
Kabbalistic influence on Hasidut. Second, these two scholars' recon-
structions of the nature of Hasidic teachings focused on the understand-
ing of God that characterized this movement. For Buber, Hasidut gives
pure expression to the belief that God is both an "I" who is distinct
from man and a "Thou" who is man's partner in dialogue. On the other
hand, after studying the theoretical writings of the early Hasidic leaders,
Scholem confidently affirmed that the pantheistic or acosmic view of
God that developed in Kabbalah found an enthusiastic reception in
Hasidut. Third, the question of the nature of God was also at the
forefront of these thinkers' conflicting philosophical judgments about
the development of man's religious consciousness. Buber asserted that it
is erroneous to believe that one can go "beyond" an understanding of
God as Person. In fundamental contrast to this, Scholem has presented
a diagram of the three-stage development of religious consciousness.
Within the diagram, the way of life which is built upon the belief in the
personal God is not the ultimate expression of the religious life of man.
With the third, mystic stage, the earlier separation of God and man is
overcome and incorporated into the experience of "the primordial unity
of all things."
II
The disagreement between Buber and Scholem extended to their

views about the appropriate or relevant forms that Jewish faith will take
in the future. They both held that Jewish mysticism was one of the
highest expressions of Jewish religious life and that it still contains some
of the most powerful forces of

divergent portraits of the nature
opposing understandings of the co
Buber often displays his annoya
his portrait of Hasidut by refer
significantly transformed or entir
ber readily admits that a full hist
is not his intent. His annoyance s
historical question, in contrast to
the present obstacles to, and futu
the beginning of his studies of H
ment had a profound grasp of th
essay of 1918, "My Way to Hasidi
contact with the teachings of the
Shem, he "experienced the Hasidic
primally Jewish" (1958:59). Alth
"primally Jewish" essence in Hasi
his studies, his latest formulation
reaffirmed by him over many dec
fundamental expression to the lif
The individual who lives in this ma
escape from the world and a me
through responding to the personal God who is encountered in the
world. For Buber this is also the basic teaching of Judaism itself: "The
great deed of Israel is not that it taught the one real God, who is the
origin and goal of all being, but that it pointed out that this God can be
addressed by man in reality, that man can say Thou to Him, that he can
stand face to face with Him, that he can have intercourse with Him"
(1960:91).
Many of Buber's writings on Hasidut reflect his belief that Hasidut
is a key to the possibility of a renewal of Judaism. He asserted that "no
renewal of Judaism is possible that does not bear in itself the elements
of Hasidism" (1955:xiii). Three considerations brought Buber to this
conclusion. First, as we have seen, he identified Hasidut with the
essence of Jewish faith. Second, he believed that it was a dynamic voice
of the Jewish spirit in the past. Buber wrote in this connection that
Hasidut was "the last great flowering of the Jewish will to serve God in
this world and to consecrate everyday life to him" (1947a:11). Third,
although the movement lost its energy after the first decades of its
explosive vision, Buber held that its spirit and message are still acces-
sible to the Jew of today. These aspects of Hasidut are summarized in
the following statement: "In fact, nowhere in the last centuries has the
soulforce of Judaism so manifested itself as in Hasidism. The old power
lives in it .... Still bound to the medieval in its outward appearance,
Hasidic Judaism is already op

the degeneration of this grea
stop entirely the process in t
(1958:48-49).
There are hints in the abov
significance of Hasidut exten
future renaissance. Althoug
connection with mankind's sp
often accentuates its teach
(1958:27). He means by this t
were able to bring a fervor an
They felt no absolute barrier
they knew that at every mo
liberating "the sparks of Go
(1947a:3). Buber explains
participate in God's redempt
the undiminished power of y
do what you must do at this
your whole strength and wit
about the union between G
which resides in this world"
Buber has diagnosed the sp
ming from the mistaken b
between the sacred and the p
sacred has become in many c
Modern man limited the sph
life and then he spiritualiz
with "the spiritual," that is,
end, "one no longer knows
Buber believes that the crisi
by reintroducing the inner
portrayed a way of life in wh
God in the lived everyday,
what is happening here and
While Scholem's theologic
those of Buber, they repre
modern Jewish thought. Sch
relationship to the central
stating that "there is no sing
is altogether lacking in Ha
standing of it is apparent onl
history of Kabbalah.
Scholem's study of Kabbala
for him) first sprang out of
Judaism alive" in the past (1976

tional Jewish forms" would su
(1976:22), he believed that Kabb
give expression to new forms
recognized that there might be o
continued to believe that Kabbala
Scholem justified Kabbalah's cl
ing to three aspects of its relati
past. First, as we have seen, Kab
development of Jewish religio
culmination of the earlier myth
Second, the Kabbalah disclosed t
that were only partially revealed
essay that examined the Jewis
Scholem wrote the following: "T
word heretics. Rather they stro
predecessors, into the meaning
sought to unlock the innermost
so to speak .... In a way, they
quence from the assumption o
and tradition as religious cate
sought to satisfy some of the f
which had been ignored by th
praised Kabbalah for reintrod
pantheistic dimensions of the li
Scholem states that, unlike Jew
"did not turn its back upon the
region where mortals are afraid
According to Scholem, Kabbala
mation from medieval to moder
the world. Kabbalah presented
(1941:28). It was able to indicate
depth that lies in the midst of t
kabbalists were symbolists" who
is a mystery-a secret-in the w
to the sanctity and mystery of
foundation from which future J
writes:
The particular forms of symbolical t

attitude of the Kabbalah found its ex
to us (though even today we cannot e
appeal). But the attempt to discover
shapes of reality and to make visib
nature of all that exists reveals itself
today as it was for those ancient

are conceived as His creations, an
highly developed religious life
transcendent element in such cre
important preoccupations of the
Scholem's conception of Kab

past and future of Judaism,
tion of God that was and is t
that Kabbalah is central to th
past, he has found that the i
archaic. Just as the latest exp
to this understanding of G
wrote, for example, that the
biblical conception of a God
speaks with man (1976:281). T
should espouse some type o
should be treated as a symbo
sanctity of life and the impo
finds that any attempt to g
God, that is, the attempt to
to a sterile paradox (1976:281
Finally, in addition to the j
the possibilities for Jewish s
the prospect that Kabbalah m
as a whole. Kabbalah has a message for modern man, even if its
particular forms are not fully accessible today. The Kabbalists' attitude
toward the world can be viewed as a corrective to modern man's
fragmentary life of private symbols, on the one hand, and pu
rationalism and shallow technology, on the other hand. In contrast
the desperate attempt to find meaning through private, incommuni
symbols, the Kabbalists "displayed a symbolic dimension to the who
world" (1976:48), and thus brought man to experience something ot
than his own lonely, subjective world. Further, while technology se
to eradicate any spiritual depth from man or the universe, the Kab
lists proclaim that there is "mystery-a secret-in the world" (197
and thus that there is a sacred dimension to all that exists.
III
The line of argument of this inquiry has illuminated the ser

ramifications of the controversy between Martin Buber and Gersho
Scholem that takes its point of departure from the question of
Kabbalistic influence on Hasidut and quickly leads to their conflicti
portraits of the understanding of God that underlies this Jewish my
movement. The disagreement ab

mental differences about the
religious consciousness and abou
the future development of b
spiritual life.
For Buber, the future of Ju
modern man's life in the world
and to respond to the God who
well as the father who teaches H
93). Buber believed that the hig
was embodied in the stance of t
"biblical immediacy," "the purel
the being of God, which is no
personally over against the pray
of Israel to teach of this possi
inclined to replace the life of di
self looking into itself, Hasid
message in all of its power and p
Scholem contested at every lev
Hasidut had not repudiated the
sonal God that dwells both beyon
fact, espoused this acosmic con
went beyond earlier Kabbalist
revealed itself as a legitimate he
is both an original source withi
more naive and classical expres
found in the Bible and in rabbin
Kabbalah's teachings may cont
Jewish life. As the Jew entered the stream of modern life he had to
leave much behind. The challenges of science, of historical criticism
and of modern philosophy have unalterably cut him off from the
immediacy of biblical and rabbinic faith. Yet the Kabbalistic portrait o
the world is still translatable today. Its message is that there is a dept
dimension to human life in the world, a dimension that will foreve
elude all purely rational attempts to know and control life. Thus, whil
Kabbalah has the power to speak to the modern Jew and to modern
civilization, it stands radically opposed to the secularism that knows only
rational needs and powers. Scholem stated that, if the Kabbalah's vision
of the symbolic nature of existence were ever lost, man would be
spiritually at an end. However, he felt that mankind would never totally
abandon the "mystery" that dwells in the midst of life (1976:47-48).
As a final note to the present inquiry, in the essay "Reflections On
Jewish Theology" (1976:261-97) Scholem seems to recognize that there
is at least a prima facie conflict between his understanding of the
modern Jew's conception o

"existentialist" stream of m
such thinkers as Buber, Fr
However, Scholem argues t
repudiated the naive realism
speaks to man and who direc
all of these thinkers have ta
describe revelation. In approp
cording to Scholem, tacitly a
standing of God could not w
historical criticism (1976:270
While Scholem's critique of
the conflict between himse
Jewish existentialism is still
that, by utilizing the mystic
thinkers have escaped from
revelation in history. Howev
continued to struggle with t
acts in history. The best ex
works. In such writings as
Return Into History, Facken
of the Holocaust and the establishment of the modern state of Israel in
terms of God's acting and revealing himself in history./9/ Thus, despite
Scholem's statements to the contrary, the debate continues over the
significance of the concept of a personal God in modern Jewish thought
and life.
NOTES
/1/ An analysis of the differences between Buber's and Scholem's

standings of the relationship between language and mysticism is prese
David Biale: 81-92. Biale does not explore Scholem's views about the con
tion of God as person nor the controversy between Buber and Scholem
this point of departure.
/2/ Buber's attitude toward Kabbalah, and mysticism in general, un

an important change in the second decade of the present century. Scho
notes Buber's older and more positive evaluation of Kabbalah in his essa
Buber in The Messianic Idea in Judaism: 231-32.
/3/ A short analysis and critique of Buber's attitude toward Gnosticism is

given by Hugo Bergman, "Martin Buber and Mysticism," in Paul Arthur
Schilpp and Maurice Friedman, eds., pp. 306-8.
/4/ As stated above, it is diffi

Kabbalistic conception of God. Th
ities in Buber's later work, rathe
over the decades. It seems that when he discusses the relationship between
Kabbalah and Hasidut, he acknowledges the impersonal character of the Kabba-
listic conception of God. For him, Hasidut radically breaks with Kabbalah
precisely at this point! However, when he turns to elucidate the Kabbalistic view
of the Godhead without reference to Hasidut, he is not willing to admit that the
"I" of revelation is missing. It is as if Buber refuses to state, even if he suspects
it, that a phase of Judaism could abandon the life of dialogue. See Martin
Buber, 1960:176-81, 190-99, 252-54.
/5/ A discussion of Scholem's understanding of Gnosticism is presented in

the chapter "Myth" in Biale: 129-47.
/6/ Buber writes of himself as the "filter" in "Replies to My Critics," in

Schilpp and Friedman, eds.: 731.
/7/ The influence of Hegel's treatment of the history of religious conscious-

ness on Scholem's diagram is very clear. In both discussions there is a three-
stage dialectic: Hegel-religion of nature, religions of spiritual individuality,
absolute religion; Scholem -mythological stage, classical (monotheistic) stage,
mysticism. Of special interest is the correspondence between the last two stages
in Hegel's and Scholem's schemes. The second stage presents a God who is
separated from man by an abyss, while the culminating stage reveals the
harmony, if not the full identity, between the spirit of man and the spirit of
God. Scholem diverges from Hegel in setting out these stages as part of the
inner development that occurs within some religious traditions. For Hegel, the
stages bring all religions into a single hierarchical system. Scholem is thus part
of a whole tradition of Jewish scholars and philosophers who were influenced by
this German Idealist. The parallels between Hegel and Scholem were first
brought to my attention by the work of Nathan Rotenstreich: 69-70.
/8/ An autobiographical account of Scholem's early studies in Kabbalah is

given in Gershom Scholem, 1980.
/9/ Fackenheim's endeavor to understand the Holocaust and the founding

of the modern state of Israel in terms of God's action in history is briefly
analyzed in my review of his book The Jewish Return Into History: Reflections in
the Age of Auschwitz and a New Jerusalem (1979).
WORKS CONSULTED
Biale, David
1979 Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buber, Martin
1947a Tales of the Hasidim: The Early Masters. New York:
Schocken.
1947b Between Man and Man. Translated by Ronald Gregor

Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1952 Eclipse of God: Studies in the Relation Between Religion
and Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.
1955 The Legend of the Baal-Shem. Translated by Maurice
S. Friedman. New York: Harper and Brothers.
1958 Hasidism and Modern Man. Edited and translated by
Maurice S. Friedman. New York: Harper and Row
1960 The Origin and Meaning of Hasidism. Edited and
translated by Maurice S. Friedman. New York
per and Row.
1967 "Replies to My Critics." In Schilpp and Friedman,
eds.
1970 I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
1972 On Judaism. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New

York: Schocken.
Fackenheim, Emil L.
1967 The Religious Dimension in Hegel's Thought. Boston:
Beacon Press.
1970 God's Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Phil-

osophical Reflections. New York: Harper and Row.
1978 The Jewish Return Into History: Reflections in the Age
of Auschwitz and a New Jerusalem. New York:
Schocken.
Friedman, Maurice S.
1955 Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Kohn, Hans
1930 Martin Buber, sein Werk and seine Zeit: Ein Versuch
iiber Religion und Politik. Hellerau: Jakob Hegn
Verlag.
Oppenheim, Michael
1979 Review of The Jewish Return into History, by Emil L.
Fackenheim. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses
8:202-3.
1980 "Sons Against Their Fathers." Judaism 29:340-52.
Rotenstreich, Nathan
1963 The Recurring Pattern: Studies in Anti-Judaism in Mod-
ern Thought. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Schaeder, Grete
1973 The Hebrew Humanism of Martin Buber. Translated by
Noah J. Jacobs. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press.
Schilpp, Paul Arthur, and Friedman, Maurice, eds.

1967 The Philosophy of Martin Buber. La Salle, IL: Open
Court.
Scholem, Gershom
1941 Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schock-
en.
1971 The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on

Jewish Spirituality. Translated by Michael A. Meyer e
al. New York: Schocken.
1973 Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676.

Translated by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. Princeton
Princeton University Press.
1974 Kabbalah. Jerusalem: Keter.
1976 On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays. Edited

by Werner J. Dannhauser. New York: Schocken.
1980 "How I Came to the Kabbalah." Commentary 69:39-
53.
Schweid, Eliezer
1974 Judaism and the Solitary Jew (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am
Oved.

The Meaning of Hasidut - Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Meaning of Hasidut - Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Meaning of Hasidut: Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem

Author(s): Michael Oppenheim

The Meaning of Hasidut:

he effort to maintain or to reestablish continuity with the

Michael Oppenheim (Ph.D., University of California at Santa Barbara) is

quality given to human life

In exploring the conflicting portraits of Hasidut presented by Buber

While it is difficult to presen

"the greatest of all values:

man and God" (1960:62). Hasidut

and unites these in a highe

The disagreement between Buber and Scholem extended to their

of the most powerful forces of

Hasidic Judaism is already op

Judaism alive" in the past (1976

The particular forms of symbolical t

today as it was for those ancient

Scholem's conception of Kab

The line of argument of this inquiry has illuminated the ser

movement. The disagreement ab

modern Jew's conception o

/1/ An analysis of the differences between Buber's and Scholem's

/2/ Buber's attitude toward Kabbalah, and mysticism in general, un

/3/ A short analysis and critique of Buber's attitude toward Gnosticism is

/4/ As stated above, it is diffi

/5/ A discussion of Scholem's understanding of Gnosticism is presented in

/6/ Buber writes of himself as the "filter" in "Replies to My Critics," in

/7/ The influence of Hegel's treatment of the history of religious conscious-

/8/ An autobiographical account of Scholem's early studies in Kabbalah is

/9/ Fackenheim's endeavor to understand the Holocaust and the founding

1947b Between Man and Man. Translated by Ronald Gregor

1970 I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New

1972 On Judaism. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New

1970 God's Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Phil-

1980 "Sons Against Their Fathers." Judaism 29:340-52.

Schilpp, Paul Arthur, and Friedman, Maurice, eds.

1971 The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on

1973 Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676.

1976 On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays. Edited

You might also like