Moshe Rosman Hasidism – Traditional Modernization Hasidism – Traditional Modernization

Moshe Rosman Hasidism – Traditional Modernization Moshe Rosman Hasidism – Traditional Modernization Books by Lois Dubin, Todd Endelman, Shmuel Feiner, David Fishman, Gershon Hundert, Yosef Kaplan, David Ruderman, David Sorkin, and others have taught us that there were a number of varieties of Jewish modernization. This paper proposes that Hasidism was one of them. Nineteenth-century German-Jewish and some Eastern European Haskalah historiography written by men who sought to change the image of the Jew, who were often personally repelled by the institutions, manifestations, and image of Hasidism and sometimes involved in actively combating it, portrayed Hasidism as anti-modern; a religiously fanatic, culturally backward, and socially reactionary movement that sought to stymie modernization. While muted, this perception still resonates in some contemporary expositions.1 Later, some nationalist historiography romanticized Hasidism into a repository of authentic Jewish ideas and folkways that harbingered modern values and modern notions of social justice, Jewish identity, leadership and spirituality. These could be drawn on to serve as foundation, justification, and guide for various Jewish nationalist and modernizing projects. According to this construction, Hasidism itself was not modern, but possessed a kind of Jewish noble savagery such that if you penetrated to its heart you could see the prefiguring of many of the good developments that became fully articulated in the conditions of secular modernity. So according to this interpretation, the true heirs of the Ba‘al Shem Tov’s circle were enlightened, secular Jewish nationalists, especially Zionists. This argument maintained its cogency until about the second generation following the Second World War, as modernity, nationalism and Hasidism all seemed to lose their romance.2 According to that view, Hasidism was neither a block to modernization nor a rough harbinger of it. It represented rather yet another way in which 1 Moshe Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, Berkeley 1996, 10f. Contemporary echoes of this assessment of Hasidism appear in the Israeli media virtually every day. 2 See, for example, the accounts of Simon Dubnow, Toldot ha-Hasidut [History of Hasidism], Tel Aviv 1974; Rafael Mahler, A History of Modern Jewry, 1780–1815, London 1971, 430–525; Ben-Zion Dinur, Be-Mifne ha-Dorot [Historical Writings], 8 vols., Jerusalem 1955, vol. 1, 139–159; Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis. Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages, Syracuse 2000, 202–213. JBDI / DIYB • Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 6 (2007), xxx–xxx. 2 Moshe Rosman Jews responded to the conditions of the modern world – an additional “alternative path to modernity.”3 Hasidism’s role in Jewish modernization has been obscured by three things: First, the image of it propagated by its secularist opponents, as obscurantist and reactionary. Second, the movement’s self-image as tradition incarnate, for example in the person of Shneur Zalman of Ladi, who tried to convince his Russian interrogators that there was nothing novel or untraditional about Hasidic practice but that rather, continuing the custom of the people called Hasidim since ancient times, this Hasidism mandated praying with devotion and punctilious ritual observance.4 The third obscuring element has been the accepted periodization of the movement’s history. Both the hostile secularist image and the traditionalizing self-image might be deconstructed. Such an exercise – beyond the scope of this article – would likely show that the obscurantist image is simplistic, serving primarily as the construction of an Other for secularists to define themselves against. The traditionalist self-image is probably camouflage for any innovation that Hasidism brought, presenting it instead as the quintessence of traditional Judaism. Be that as it may, what this paper proposes is not deconstruction of images but construction of a different periodization. This can be a step toward an appreciation of Hasidism’s significant participation in the process of Jewish modernization. A New Periodization The conventional periodization of the Hasidic movement in both academic and Hasidic circles has been to identify three generations of the classic movement, founded by the Ba‘al Shem Tov (Besht), beginning around 1740, stabilized and spread by the Maggid of Mezerich from circa 1760 until his death in 1772, and conducted thereafter as an institutionally mature enterprise by the Maggid’s students. Academic researchers tended to assert that as the last of the Maggid’s disciples died around 1815, the movement peaked, lost much of its innovative profundity and went into a period of spiritual decline, even in some places degeneration. Scholars espousing this periodization concentrated their research efforts on the personalities and events of the eighteenth century, neglecting until recently the nineteenth.5 3 Cf. Yosef Kaplan, An Alternative Path to Modernity. The Sephardi Diaspora in Western Europe, Leiden 2000. 4 Yehoshua Mondshine, The Two Incarcerations of Our Old Master in Light of New Documents, in: Kerem Habad 4 (1992), no. 1, 17–108, here 46–48, 95, 98f. (Hebrew). 5 Until recently, this periodization tacitly underlay virtually all scholarship on Hasidism. Three classic articulations of it are Dubnow’s and Mahler’s (see n. 2 above) and Avraham Hasidism – Traditional Modernization 3 Several studies over the past twenty years or so, most important among them Ada Rapoport-Albert’s article on Hasidism after 1772, have shown the ascribing of the organization of Hasidism to the early figures to be a romantic misconception, transposing later developments back onto the Besht and the Maggid.6 However, the message apparently still has not penetrated the broader scholarly community. As recently as 2005, a prominent scholar could state in a reputable journal that: “The Besht was the moving force behind the creation of the greatest Jewish mystical movement of the eighteenth century [. . .]. The great disciples and followers of the Besht consolidated the varied religious forms existent in his personality into fixed content and prescribed practices.” 7 If leading scholars can still credibly claim that Hasidism was a fully institutionalized movement in the eighteenth century, established as an iteration of the Besht’s personality, then as a corrective it is necessary to assert unambiguously that there was no Hasidic movement in the sense of an organization with institutions and an articulated ideology before the Maggid’s death in 1772. On the contrary, the Besht and the Maggid were interested in maintaining continuity with the past and emphasized their traditionalism.8 It was only close to and following upon the Maggid’s death in 1772, mainly in response to the persecution they suffered at the hands of their newly active opponents, that this collection of loosely associated charismatics and spiritualists began thinking of themselves as a differentiated group and started getting organized. In order to do so, they needed to develop a distinctive collective identity, to articulate an ideology, to canonize foundational texts, to crystallize institutions. None of this had been accomplished by the Besht, the Maggid or their contemporaries.9 6 7 8 9 Rubinstein’s summary article, see idem, Hasidism, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1972, vol. 7, 1391–1399. Also compare Mahler, A History of Modern Jewry, and his treatment of eighteenth-century Hasidism (n. 2 above) with his portrayal of nineteenthcentury Hasidism there (525–535) and in his Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, Philadelphia 1985. Ada Rapoport-Albert, Hasidism after 1772. Structural Continuity and Change, in: idem (ed.), Hasidism Reappraised, London 1996, 76–140; Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 173–186. Haviva Pedaya, Review of Immanuel Etkes, Ha-Besht. Magyah, Mistikah, Hanhagah, Jerusalem 2000 [The Besht. Magician, Mystic, and Leader, Hanover, N.H. 2004], in: Zion 70 (2005), 248–265, 264 (emphasis added). On the Besht’s traditionalism, see Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 118–120, 174. On the conventional nature of the Maggid’s hanhagot (instructions for moral conduct), see Zev Gries, Sifrut ha-Hanhagot [Conduct Literature], Jerusalem 1989, 106–111. The Besht was probably the leader of the old-style Hasidim centered around the Bet Midrash of Miêdzybo¿. He propagated some significant new ideas but did not start a new 4 Moshe Rosman This founding activity entailed experimentation with various forms. We find different models of the Zaddik, different styles of Hasidic court, different principles of succession and different doctrinal emphases all being tested simultaneously by various circles of Hasidim in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.10 In fact we know little about the social, cultural, and organizational history of what could be called the formative period of Hasidism, ca. 1780–1815 (that is, what is usually called the “third generation”). There are some studies of doctrines of various individual Hasidic leaders and Hasidic courts, Green’s leadership typology, Etkes’s discussion of how Shneur Zalman began organizing Habad Hasidism, Pedaya’s observations on the Jewish roots of the Hasidic court and Teller’s parallels between early Hasidic organizational expedients and those of the Polish state, the Polish Catholic Church, and magnate latifundia.11 We still have not traced the appearance of the differentiated self-conscious movement identity, the “framing” function, i. e., the conscious strategic effort of the group to explain, legitimate, and moti- group with a new self-conscious identity; see Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 173–186 and passim. Apparently, the Maggid did actively attempt to attract followers to his circle (havurah) and probably spread certain kabbalistic practices and concepts to a wider public, but there is no indication that he engaged in the types of movement-organizing, institutionalizing activities enumerated here, see Solomon Maimon, On a Secret Society and Therefore a Long Chapter, in: Gershon Hundert (ed.), Essential Papers on Hasidism, New York 1991, 11–24, here 19–21. 10 Rapoport-Albert, Hasidism after 1772, 101–140; David Assaf, Leadership and the Inheritance of Leadership in Nineteenth Century Hasidism, in: Hannah Amit (ed.), ’Aharav. ‘Al Manhigut u-Manhigim [On Leadership and Leaders], Tel Aviv 2000, 59–72; idem, The Regal Way. The Life and Times of Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin, Stanford 2002, 47–66, 212–264; Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 188. 11 Studies of doctrines and individual leaders: e.g., Samuel H. Dresner, The Zaddik: The Doctrine of the Zaddik According to the Writings of Yaakov Yosef of Polnoy, London 1960; idem, Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev, New York 1986; Rachel Elior, The Paradoxical Ascent to God. The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, Albany, N.Y. 1993; Louis Jacobs, Seeker of Unity. The Life and Works of Aaron of Starosselje, London 1966; Gedalyah Nigal, Torot Ba‘al ha-Toledot [The Doctrines of Ya‘akov Yosef of Polonne], Jerusalem 1974; Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism. Quietistic Elements in Eighteenth-Century Hasidic Thought, Princeton 1993. The other studies are: Arthur Green, Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq, in: idem (ed.), Jewish Spirituality II, New York 1987, 127–156; Immanuel Etkes, The Zaddik. The Interrelationship between Religious Doctrine and Social Organization, in: Rapoport-Albert (ed.), Hasidism Reappraised, 159–167; idem, Darko shel R. Sheur Zalman mi-Ladi ke-Manhig shel Hasidut [R. Shneur Zalman of Ladi’s Way as a Hasidic Leader], in: Zion 50 (1985), 321–354; Haviva Pedaya, On the Development of the Social, Religious, and Economic Model in Hasidism. The “Pidyon,” The “Havura,” and the Pilgrimage, in: Menahem Ben-Sasson (ed.), Religion and Economy, Jerusalem 1995, 311–373 (Hebrew); Adam Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography. The Polish Background to the Spread of the Hasidic Movement, in: AJS Review 30 (2006), 1–29. Hasidism – Traditional Modernization 5 vate itself, that Teller has directed us to expect. Something is known of how the doctrines evolved, but not what their cultural and social contexts were. Neither can be said how the experimentation with different institutional forms progressed – what was discarded compared to what exactly was kept. What is understood now is that if we want to talk about Hasidism as an institutionally and doctrinally articulated, identifiable movement, it should be looked at in the nineteenth century. Glen Dynner, Marcin WodziAski, and David Assaf have each shown us how nineteenth-century Hasidism was not a shadow of the supposedly genuine, authentic and ideal Hasidic circles of the eighteenth, but their apotheosis. By the mid-nineteenth century Hasidim had the numbers, the financial resources, the organization, the institutions, the doctrines, the visionary, and talented leaders, the power and the sophistication of a confident and influential movement that actively engaged the other elements in modern society and exploited modern expedients in its drive to achieve its earthly program of dominating the Jewish community, and its heavenly program of thereby bringing near the Redemption.12 If the nineteenth century was a time of Jewish modernization, Hasidism cannot be bracketed off as somehow operating in a different dimension, by different rules, in a different period. Hasidism as Part of Jewish Modernity Hasidism was a protagonist on the modern scene and in the process of modernization. It was acknowledged as such by its self-consciously modernizing opponents, by government authorities and by members of the new modernist capitalist and proto-industrialist elites who, as Dynner and WodziAski have shown, gave it both generous financial support and political cover.13 The fact that, as WodziAski has observed, the Maskilim blamed Hasidism for all of the misfortunes of the Jewish people, and used them as an excuse for the 12 Assaf, The Regal Way; Glenn Dynner, Men of Silk. The Hasidic Conquest of Polish-Jewish Society, Oxford 2006; Marcin WodziAski, Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland. A History of Conflict, Oxford 2005. 13 Dynner, Men of Silk, 89–116; idem, Merchant Princes and Tsadikim. The Patronage of Polish Hasidism, in: Jewish Social Studies 12 (2005), 64–110; WodziAski, Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland, 17–19, 116–153, 169–170, 180–199; idem, Hasidism, “Shtadlanut,” and Jewish Politics in Nineteenth-Century Poland. The Case of Isaac of Warka, in: Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005), 293–295 and passim; idem, Congress Poland’s Government Faces Hasidism. The Beginning of “Hasidic Policy” in the Congress Kingdom, 1817–1818, in: Krzysztof Pilarczyk (ed.), >ydzi i Judaizm w wspóBczesnych badaniach polskich [Jews and Judaism in Contemporary Polish Research], t. 3, Cracow 2003, 65–77. 6 Moshe Rosman failure of the Maskilic program, should not be naively taken as evidence for Hasidic withdrawal from the modern world but rather as proof of how much they were engaged with it. Moreover, he has also shown that some self-conscious modernists regarded Hasidim as an ally in the struggle for the future of the Jews in the new modernizing Poland.14 Here some may object that Hasidism cannot possibly be classified as a “modern” phenomenon because of its explicitly anti-modernist ideology, its emphatic rejection of modern values and hostility toward modern cultural practices. To be a modernizer one had to believe in the necessity of revolting against the traditional; Hasidism’s adherents saw themselves as the defenders of the traditional. Hasidism was not revolutionary and therefore modern; it was reactionary and thus the enemy of modernity. This reflects the limited, unsophisticated view that modernist ideology gave birth to modernity and was the engine of modernization. It subsumes the entire process to ideology – and allows those best versed in ideology (like modern secular academic scholars) to be the gatekeepers of club moderna; keeping out those – like Hasidim – who do not resemble them. Such a stance rests on an old premise: ideas are the primary moving force in history. Despite its pedigree, this view has not stood up well to criticism. Studies of Haskalah during the past generation, for example, have argued convincingly that ideology was an effect of Jewish modernization and not its cause. Ideology was a component-cum-technique of modernization – analogous to capitalism, urbanization, and industrialization – not its prime mover. Moreover, in the modernization of the Jewish communities in Georgian England, Trieste, Amsterdam and some others, ideology was not a very significant factor.15 If Hasidim took a path to modernization that did not include modernist ideology, that choice does not disqualify them as moderns. It should pique researchers’ interest; not engender their scorn. Moreover, it is probably true that there is a multitude of “modernist ideologies” which share some features but differ in others. Hasidism’s rejection of secularization and seeming affirmation of traditional religious beliefs should not blind us to its acceptance, even promotion, of other aspects of modernization (see below). Contrary to secularist expectations, modernity did not sound the death knell for religion, and religion’s accommodations to modernity – even when such adjustments 14 WodziAski, Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland, 249–255 and passim; idem, Jacob Tugenhold and the First Maskilic Defense of Hasidism, in: Gal-Ed 18 (2002), 13–41; idem, Neither Hatred nor Solidarity. Integrationists and Hasidim in Congress Poland in Light of “Jutrzenka” and its Circles, 1861–1863, in: Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005), 120–137; Dynner, Men of Silk, 89–116. 15 See Rosman, Haskalah. A New Paradigm, in: Jewish Quarterly Review 97 (2007), 129–136. Hasidism – Traditional Modernization 7 were ostensibly hostile to modernity – are a proper subject within the study of modernization. The criterion for membership in the club moderna should, as this paper suggests, be not declared belief in modernity but engagement with it. By that standard, Hasidism perhaps should actually be regarded as implementing the most successful nineteenth-century Jewish modernizing strategy. Judging by the findings of the studies mentioned here, and measured in terms of economic power, number of followers, geographic spread, political influence and the ability to maintain and perpetuate itself, Hasidism seems to have flourished and grown under the conditions of modernity more than any other single contemporary Jewish group, at least through the late nineteenth century. Hasidism and Modernization How did Hasidism engage modernity and embark upon the path of modernization? Upon inspection it is evident that Hasidism was characterized by some of the prominent markers of Jewish modernization. For example, as Feiner and others have explicated, Jewish modernization was contingent upon the development of new sources of cultural authority and new venues where it could be applied. Usually these are seen to be secular: Science in place of tradition, the book in place of the Sefer, the newspaper in place of the sermon, the university trained teacher or scholar in place of the rabbi, the school instead of the Heder, the lecture hall instead of the Yeshivah, the café table instead of the Sabbath table.16 Hasidism also offered new sources of authority and new venues for their exercise. The Rebbe or Zaddik could replace both the rabbi and the parnas (communal elder), usurping the spiritual authority of the first and controlling from behind the scenes the secular authority of the second. The Zaddik’s court gave Jews a new opportunity for pilgrimage and spiritual renewal which Teller has compared to Catholics making pilgrimage visits to monasteries. The Hasidic shtiebel (prayer hall) rivaled the synagogue; the Rebbe’s tisch (Sabbath table gathering) came at the expense of the family one.17 16 Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment, Philadelphia 2004, 2, 5–8, 16, 366, 371–373 and passim. 17 Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography, 16f., 26–28; Assaf, The Regal Way, 175–211; Chone Shmeruk, Mashma‘utah ha-Hevratit shel ha-Shehitah ha-Hasidit [The Social Significance of Hasidic Ritual Slaughter], in: Zion 20 (1955), 47–72; Ada Rapoport-Albert, On Women in Hasidism. S.A. Horodecky and the Maid of Ludmir Tradition, in: idem/Steven J. Zipperstein (eds.), Jewish History. Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, London 1988, 495–525. 8 Moshe Rosman In addition to transformation of cultural authority, Jewish modernization meant new kinds of political authority and new ways in which it was organized. The traditional Kehillah, with its managing Kahal (Jewish communal governing council) and coercive authority over all the Jews in the community it governed, progressively receded. In its drive to bring all of its subjects under maximum control, the modernizing state kept restricting the Kehillah’s authority and sometimes even tried to impose a non-traditional leadership on the Jews. The modern Jewish community had to metamorphose into a voluntary association. Hasidism was a participant in these trends in three ways. While the traditional community was still viable, Hasidim launched largely successful strategies for dominating it wherever Hasidism was strong.18 At the same time, the system of the Zaddik’s court with far-flung, non-contiguous collections of Hasidim who gladly offered their holy man leader their financial and moral support, devotion and loyalty; and accepted his authority virtually without question is a model of voluntary community. Its pattern of headquarters (the hatzer, or court) that communicates in various ways with distant and diffuse membership cells, occasionally bringing significant numbers of them together in one place for large, formal conventions is typical of modern organizations.19 Thirdly, as the official political mediating role of the traditional community was abrogated, and Jews individually and collectively were supposed to come directly under the aegis of the government, Hasidim found new ways to communicate and negotiate as a collective with the bureaucracy. By the second half of the nineteenth century, Hasidim were even developing a talent for local electoral politics.20 Economically, as the Jewish community lost the power of taxation, new ways had to be found to finance religious, social, and cultural functions. The Eastern European Maskilim often tried to solve this problem by appeal to the government, requesting subsidies for their activities that reinforced government policies, and being employed by government institutions connected 18 Dynner, Men of Silk, 55–88; Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography, 14–17; David Assaf/Israel Bartal, Politicking and Orthodoxy. Polish Rebbes Meet Modern Times, in: Rachel Elior et al. (eds.), Studies in Polish Hasidism, Jerusalem 1993, 65–90 (Hebrew). 19 Assaf, The Regal Way, 267–324, 334–337; Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography, 18–24. 20 Dynner, Men of Silk, 78–90; Assaf/Bartal, Politicking and Orthodoxy; WodziAski, Hasidism, “Shtadlanut,” and Jewish Politics in Nineteenth-Century Poland, 295–320; Rachel Manekin, Politics, Religion, and National Identity. The Galician Jewish Vote in the 1873 Parliamentary Elections, in: Polin 12 (1999), 100–119; Andrzej Zabikowski, The Jewish Community in Cracow, 1869–1914. The By-Laws and Balance of Power in the Communal Establishment, in: Elchanan Reiner (ed.), Kruke-Kazimierz-Kraków [Studies in the History of Cracow Jewry], Tel Aviv 2001, 119–130 (Hebrew). Hasidism – Traditional Modernization 9 to modernizing the Jews, such as schools and censor’s offices. The Hasidim responded to this new modern circumstance by cultivating philanthropy: the voluntary ma‘amad tax which rank and filers paid for the Rebbe’s household expenses, the pidyonot (lit.: redemption monies) which were individual occasional donations to the Zaddik usually in anticipation of a favor about to be granted, and finally large scale contributions from nouveau riche adherents – sometimes women – who were rewarded with the status and prestige of a direct relationship with the Zaddik.21 Based on the time of its development, the issues and interlocutors it engaged, its strategies of engagement and its overall ability to thrive under the conditions of modernity, Hasidism should properly be classified as part of the Jewish modernization project. Earlier it was noted how little we know about the formative period of Hasidism, which dates to the 1770s, when this particular path to Jewish modernity got its start. One should like to conclude with a concrete example of how Hasidism-in-formation utilized a new or renewed tool of late eighteenth-century modernist culture, namely book publishing, as a means of what has been referred to before as framing: presenting an image of itself as having been created by the Ba‘al Shem Tov himself, and as in possession of his doctrinal legacy. These were steps crucial in fashioning a movement that could respond to the circumstances of modernity. A Modern Collective Hasidic Identity in Formation In 1793 one of the most important early Hasidic books, Zava’at ha-Rivash (The Will of the Besht), was published in Ostrog. This is a book of hanahagot (moral conduct instructions) and drashot (homilies) which were all taken from Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev’s copies of the Maggid of Mezerich’s teachings. It is similar to a volume published the previous year, called Likutim Yekarim (Precious Excerpts). Both are primarily the Maggid’s hanhagot, which are, as Gries has shown, conventional and non-transgressive.22 Likutim Yekarim appeared with no particular fanfare and elicited no negative reaction, at least until Zava’at ha-Rivash was published. Zava’at haRivash, however, was greeted with fierce opposition: banned in several cities, burned in Vilna and savagely attacked in print.23 What was the problem? The title. By presenting this book, falsely, as the testament of the Besht, the publisher was putting a label on this group. He 21 Teller, Hasidism and the Challenge of Geography, 24–26; Dynner, Men of Silk, 89–116; Assaf, The Regal Way, 285–309. 22 Gries, Conduct Literature, 106–111. 23 Ibid. 10 Moshe Rosman turned a collection of conventional hanhagot into an ideological tract identified with the new Hasidim. He converted a moral instruction manual into a manifesto and a manual of adherence to the emerging movement. This can be seen in the angry critique of the book by the Mitnagged Yisrael Loebl: “The sly Rabbi Yisrael Baal Shem [. . .] cast his net over the rich people around him. In order to attract them to his cause, he printed a book called Zava’at ha-Rivash [. . .] and informed them that this was the law book of his movement (miflagto). This was the badge (semel) by which his Hasidim were distinguished and differentiated – not only from the Christians and those of other faiths – but also from the faithful of Israel. By means of this book, full of ideas that arouse disgust, he tore his sect out of the Jewish people and caused an enormous schism.”24 We know that it was not the Besht who had formulated this supposed Hasidic manifesto, but its publisher who transformed these innocuous hanhagot into the apparent declaration of independence of a heretical sect, simply by giving them a title that set them in a new, threatening context. The publishers used printing to create a book – utilizing fairly generic material from the Maggid – to lend credence to the image of the Besht as the teacher of a new doctrine that was to help guide the newly self-conscious Hasidic movement into what turned out to be modernity. This is but one example of how Hasidim showed themselves to be keenly attuned to the potential of modern cultural and technical tools to further their program and ensure their successful adaptation to the emerging modern world. The list of models of Jewish modernization has been lengthened in recent years to include “non-German” styles which de-emphasized modernist ideology. Sorkin even applied the seeming oxymoron “Orthodox Haskalah” to a trend within German-Jewish society.25 Perhaps we can expand our concept of modernization to include modernization without secularization, for which Hasidism serves as perfect example. As a successful framework that helped many Jews to negotiate their way in the modern world, Hasidism deserves to be classed with other “modern” phenomena of Jewish history and studied, not as a block to modernization, but as a version of it. 24 As quoted in ibid., 149f. 25 See, for example, Shulamit Volkov, The Modernization Project of European Jewry. Division and Unity, in: Shmuel N. Eisenstadt/Moshe Lissak (eds.), Zionism and the Return to History, Jerusalem 1999, 279–305 (Hebrew); David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780–1840, New York 1987; idem, The Berlin Haskalah and German Religious Thought, London 2000; Steven J. Zipperstein, The Jews of Odessa. A Cultural History, 1794–1881, Stanford 1986; Todd Endelman, The Jews of Georgian England. Tradition and Change in a Liberal Society, 1714–1830, Ann Arbor 1999; cf. David Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key, Princeton 2000.