1. cf. Landa, Yiẓḥak, Sefer zikaron tov (Piotrków, 1892), 18Google Scholar.

2. Ross, Nicham, Masoret ahuvah u-senuah: zehut yehudit modernit u-ketivah neo-ḥasidit be-fetaḥ ha-meah ha-‘esrim (Be'er Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

3. On the ideological and contemporary dimension in Mapu's romantic writing on the biblical past, cf. Moshe Ungerfeld, “Avraham Mapu, Hozeh ha-tehiya ha-‘ivrit,” Ha-Yom: a National Daily Paper (Tel-Aviv, 1968), 5; Patterson, David, Abraham Mapu: The Creator of the Modern Hebrew Novel (London: East and West Library, 1964), 63–77Google Scholar.

4. cf. Ben-Ari, Niẓa, Roman ‘im he-Avaravar (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1997)Google Scholar.

5. Here I think of works like Mapu, Abraham's Ahavat Ẓion (Tel Aviv: Yizrae'el, 1957)Google Scholar, or, in a later period, Frischmann's, DavidBa-midbar: ma‘asiyot bibliyot, sipurim ve-agadot (Tel Aviv: Keneset, 1949)Google Scholar.

6. Howe, Irving and Greenberg, Eliezer, eds., I. L. Peretz: Selected Stories (London: Elek, 1975), 38–40, 83–95Google Scholar. On the nature of the relation towards Hasidism in Peretz's stories, cf. Niger, Shmuel, Yod lamed Peretz ve-yeẓirato (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1961)Google Scholar; Freiden, Ziv, “Parodiya ve-hagiography: Sippurim Ḥasidiyim keveyakhol shel Peretz,” Huliot 7 (2002): 45–52Google Scholar; Nowersztern, Avraham, “Literature and Life: the Growth of Modern Yiddish Literature” in Le'an? Zeramim ḥadashim mi-kerev yeudei mizraḥ eropa (Tel-Aviv: Open University Press, 2000)Google Scholar, Unit 2; Roskies, David G., A Bridge of Longing: The Lost Art of Yiddish Storytelling (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

7. Berdichevsky, M. Y., Sefer Ḥasidim (Warsaw: Tushiya, 1900), 11, 14Google Scholar. Regarding Berdichevsky's attitude towards Hasidism, cf. Werses, Shmuel, “ha-Ḥasidut be-‘olamo shel Berdichevsky,” Molad 1 (1968): 465–475Google Scholar; Idem, “ha-Ḥasidut be-‘olamo shel Berdichevky le-or ḥiburo shenignaz,” in Mikha Yosef Berdichevsky: meḥkarim u-te‘udot, ed. Holtzman, Avner (Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 2002), 215–258Google Scholar; Nurit Guvrin, “Ha-neshamah patha et lo'a,” in Holtzman, Berdichevsky, 515–526; Mark, Zvi, “Ḥasidut ve-hefkerut,” Zafon 7 (2004): 219–237Google Scholar; Mordecai, Yiẓḥak Ben, “Sipurim hasidim misug aher,” Moznayim 62 (1989): 60–64Google Scholar.

8. There were of course a few exceptions that do not conform to my theory. Particularly salient is the “Hasidic” writing of Hillel Zeitlin in the early decades of the twentieth century, who, despite the fact that he too originally belonged to the circle of Eastern European writers who were involved in a re-interpretation of their Jewish tradition and identified with their perspective, eventually his engagement with Hasidism revealed a deeper sense of reverence epitomized by the call for a return to religious Judaism and to the Hasidic movement, along with the traditional religious commitments and practices entailed. For further details regarding this turning point in his writing and personal life, see: Bar-Sella, Shraga, Bein sa‘ar le-demamah: ḥayav u-mishnato shel Hillel Zeitlin (Tel Aviv: ha-kibuẓ ha-me'uḥad, 1999Google Scholar; Meir, Yonatan, ed., R. Naḥman me-Brazlav: ẓa‘ar ha-olam ve-kissufei mashi'aḥ—shtei massot me'et Hillel Zeitlin (Jerusalem: Hess, 2006)Google Scholar; Moshe Aryeh Waldox, Hillel Zeitlin: The Early Years (1894–1919) (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1984).

9. Schweid, Eliezer, Ha-yaḥadut veha-tarbut ha-ḥilonit: pirkei ‘iyyun be-haggut ha-yehudit shel ha-me'ah ha-esrim (Tel Aviv: Ha-kibuẓ Ha-me'uḥad, 1981), 223 ffGoogle Scholar.

10. Steinman, Eliezer, Sha'ar ha-ḥasidut (Tel Aviv: M. Nyuman, 1957), 18Google Scholar. Regarding the tone and spirit of Steinman's Hasidic projects, see his own testimony: idem, “Darki el ha-ḥasidut,” Be'er ha-ḥasidut: Sefer ha-Besht (Tel Aviv: s.n., 1958): 339–372Google Scholar; cf. a brief survey: Sal'ei, Y., “[Steinman's] Hasidiana,” Moznayim 14:3 (1962): 200–203Google Scholar; Pnueli, S. Y., “Ḥasidut lefi Shteinman,” Davar 20 no. 2 (1959): 5Google Scholar.

11. Bar-Yosef, Hamutal, Mystika ba-shirah ha-‘ivrit ba-me'ah ha-‘esrim (Tel Aviv: Miskal, 2008)Google Scholar; cf. Jacobson, David C., Creator, Are You Listening? Israeli Poets on God and Prayer (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

12. Schleiermacher, Friedrich, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, trans. Oma, John, (New York: Harper, 1958)Google Scholar. C.f. Guttman, Julius, Devarim ʿ al ha-filosofiya shel ha-dat (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 32Google Scholar.

13. Buber, Martin, “Jewish Religiosity,” Te'udah ve-yi'ud 1 (1984): 70–79, 117Google Scholar (and in the Hasidic context, 78); “Spirit and Reality,” ibid, 118.

14. On Georg Simmel's influence on Buber, see Simon, Akiva Ernst, Ye'adim, ẓematim, netivim: haguto shel Mordekhai Martin Buber (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat po'alim, 1985), 316Google Scholar. For a somewhat different Hebrew distinction between “religion” and “religiosity” stemming from the generation of Zionist revival, see Epstein, Zalman, “El ha-no'ar,” in Kitve Zalman Epstein (Tel Aviv: Agudat oneg shabat-Ohel shem, 1938)Google Scholar.

15. Guttman, Devarim ʿal ha-filosofiya, 32.

16. This already appears in his first book on Hasidism, cf. Buber, Martin, The Tales of Rabbi Naḥman (New York: Humanities Press International, 1988), 15Google Scholar.

17. Green, Arthur, Seek My Face Speak My Name: A Contemporary Jewish Theology (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2003), xix, xxivGoogle Scholar.

18. Green, Seek My Face, xxii.

19. Green, Seek My Face, xxii–xxiii.

20. Green, Seek My Face, xix–xxv.

21. Berdichevski, Sefer Ḥasidim, 20. For a Hasidic mocking of this reading on the part of Berdichevski, see Yiẓḥak Naḥum Twersky's letter that was published in Assaf, David, Ne'ehaz ba-svakh: pirkei mashber u-mevuha be-toldot ha-ḥasidut (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2006), 317–348Google Scholar.

22. Shechter, Yosef, “Perushim ḥasidim ha-ḥashuvim le-zemanenu,” Yahadut ve-ḥinukh ba-zeman ha-zeh (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1966), 103Google Scholar. On Shechter's use of Hasidism, see Tadmor, Isaiah, Hinukh eksistenẓiyali dati be-mishnato shel Yosef Shechter (Tel-Aviv, 1994)Google Scholar.

23. Eliezer Steinman, Sha'ar ha-ḥasidut, 392. Regarding the spirit that permeates Steinman's Hasidic project, see his personal testimony in Steinman, Be'er ha-ḥasidut, 336–379, and for a succinct review: Salei, Y., “Po'alo be-sade ha-ḥasidut,” Moznayim 14 no. 3 (1962): 200–203.Google Scholar

24. Cohen, Jonathan, “Min he'avar el he'atid,” Haagut: mehkarim be-hagut ha-hinukh ha-yehudi 7 (2006): 52–55Google Scholar.

25. Wiesel, Elie, Souls on Fire (New York: Random House, 1972), 5Google Scholar.

26. Wiesel, Souls on Fire, 1. For more on Weisel's use of the Hasidic legacy, cf. Berman, Mona, “Nahman and Wiesel: The Motif of the Beggar in Jewish Storytelling,” Jewish Affairs 49 no. 3 (1994): 43–48Google Scholar; Christopher James Frost, “Some Issues of Approach and Method Involved in Relating Psychological and Religious Studies, as Exemplified in a Study of Elie Wiesel and his Hasidic Masters” (PhD diss., Boston University, 1984).

27. In an interview with Antonio Monda, Elie Wiesel states his belief in God. Wiesel admits that his belief is a broken one (due to the Holocaust), and refers to the well-known Hasidic saying attributed to the Rebbe of Koẓk (“There is nothing so whole as a broken heart”) as a modern religious legitimization for a “broken faith.” See: Monda, Antonio, “Do you believe?” Conversations on God and Religion (New York: Vintage, 2007)Google Scholar.

28. The term “redressive relation” (zikat tikun) was coined by Elstein, Yoav, Tarbut yehudit be-yameinu: mashber o hitḥadshut (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983), 75Google Scholar. Elstein himself calls for a return to the Hasidic sources via such a “redressive” relationship in the interests of regenerating modern Jewish culture.

29. Shechter, Yosef, bi-ferozdor le-hashkafat ‘olam, (Jerusalem: M. Nyuman, 1972), 148Google Scholar.

30. Interestingly enough, a similar modern and existential use of this specific Hasidic tractate (Zava'at ha-rivash) for healing the modern alienation from spirituality also appears in Yoav Elshtein, Tarbut yehudit be-yamenu (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1983): 77, 80, 84.

31. For example, I. L. Peretz, “Between Two Peaks,” in I. L. Peretz: Selected Stories, 93–95; Manger, Yiẓḥak, “Baal Shem,” Moznayim 21 (1961): 353Google Scholar.

32. On Gershom Scholem's suspicion that Buber remained an atheist even during his later thought, cf. Simon, Ye'adim zematim, 246–250.

33. cf. Scholem, Gershom, Devarim be-go, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: ‘Am ‘Oved, 1963), 361–382Google Scholar, especially 377.

34. Friedman, Maurice, A Dialogue with Hasidic Tales: Hallowing the Everyday (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1988), 21Google Scholar.

35. Horodezky, Shmuel Abba, Yahadut ha-sekhel ve-yahadut ha-regesh (Tel Aviv: N. Twersky, 1947), 34–36Google Scholar.

36. Berdichevsky, Mikha Yosef, Sefer Ḥasidim (Warsaw, 1900), 8–9Google Scholar. These words were written in 1894, and from then on Berdichevsky became increasingly smitten by the radical philosophy of Freidrich Nietzsche and his notion of the “death of God.” Such a position seemed to contradict the quests for God related in Berdichevsky's works Sefer Ḥasidim or Ḥorev, but still, we should not forget the distinction between religiosity and the quest for “spirituality,” which even Nietzsche himself continued to strive for.

37. Joseph Klausner, “Sifrutenu ha-yafah bi-shnat taras: skirah bikortit,” in Sefer ha-shanah tarsah 2, 251.

38. For previous examples of Neo-Hasidic writers who also distinguish between the inspiration of early Hasidism and their sense of estrangement from its subsequent developments, see Nicham Ross, Masoret 'ahuvah, 18, 33, 253–254, 171–193.

39. Green, Seek My Face, 193.

40. A good example for this tendency is Yeḥezkel, Mordecai Ben, “lemaḥut ha-ḥasidut,” Hashiloah 17 (1906\7): 219–230Google Scholar.

41. Ross, Nicham, “The Pantheon of the Hasidic Rabbis in Neo-Hasidic Writing: The Charm of Nachman of Breslov as a Test Case,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, 13 (2001)Google Scholar, In Lekket—The World Union of Jewish Studies' online collection of articles.

42. An opportunity to examine the literary and textual scope of this extensive phenomenon is given in David Assaf's bibliographical book, Breslov: biblografiyah mu‘eret (Jerusalem, Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2000)Google Scholar.

43. Naḥman, R. of Breslov, Likutey Moharan (New York: n. p. 1976), teaching 64, 78–79Google Scholar.

44. See, for example Elboim, Dov, Masa be-ḥalal ha-panuy: autobiografiyah ruḥanit (Tel Aviv: ‘Am ‘Oved, 2007)Google Scholar.

45. Roi, Compare Biti, “Safek ve-ḥidush 'eẓel Reb Naḥman mi-breslav,” Dimui 19 (2001): 48–52Google Scholar. Regarding R. Naḥman's tale “The Humble King,” which describes a quest for a king hiding behind a curtain, Arthur Green writes: “we are forced to ask whether king and seeker are not also separate aspects of the same self. When the curtain is thrown aside, what is it that both king and seeker see?” (Green, Seek My Face, 2003, xvii.). Indeed, as the excerpt quoted above attests, one can say that alongside the “Epicurean” seductiveness of Breslov's “open space” teaching, Arthur Green is attracted no less to the Ḥabadic metaphorical interpretation of the “contraction” teaching, as it allows him to figure a quintessentially immanent divinity, which more closely approximates his own “Epicurean” formulations of the identity relation between divinity and existence itself (ibid., 63, 224).

46. Cf. Magid, Shaul, “Through the Void: The Absence of God in R. Nachman of Braslov's Likutey Moharan,” Harvard Theological Review 88 no. 4 (1995): 495–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and also the following studies: Nov, Devorah, “he-ḥalal ha-panui ve-ha-rek ha-keyumi: ben r. Naḥman me-Breslav le-existentialism,” Dimui 19 (2001): 58–60, 90Google Scholar; Mark, Ẓvi, “Shetika ve-nigun le-or he-halal ha-panui be-kitve reb Naḥman mi-breslav,” Kabbalah 7 (2002): 175–197Google Scholar; Dov Elboim, “Shlemut leshon ha-kodesh” (Master's Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2005); Zadoff, Noam, “The Open Space, Shabbateanism and Its Melody: Considerations of Teaching 64 of Likutey Moharan from the Estate of Joseph Weiss,” Kabbalah 15 (2007): 197–232Google Scholar; Ornat, Leah, “On the Philosophical Meaning of the Open Space and the Questions Emerging from It in Likutey Moharan,” Da'at 71 (2011): 75–91Google Scholar. A good illustration of the quasi-Epicurean charm of this specific Breslovian teaching is provided by the 2001 issue of the Hebrew periodical Dimui dedicated to the legacy of R. Naḥman of Breslov, which presents this Hasidic rabbi as a “contemporary culture hero.” And here, alongside the extensive attention given in this issue (predictably in a journal devoted to art and literature) to the tales of Breslov, no less than five different articles (by Yehuda Liebes, Menaḥem Fruman, Devorah Nov, Mordechai Gafni and Biti Roi) deal directly with “Teaching 64” of Likkutei Moharan, that is, the teaching that has to do with the idea of the “open space” as an expression of how to properly relate to queries of faith to which there is no answer.

47. Naḥman, R. of Breslav, Likutey Moharan, teaching 64 (New York: n. p. 1976), 79Google Scholar.

48. See, for instance, the centrality of such Breslovic self-testimony in Peretz's, Y. L. “The Chickens and the Parchments,” in Y. L. Peretz's Complete Writings, Vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1962), 83–97Google Scholar, or Arthur Green's explanation of what he believes to be the secret to the charm of R. Naḥman's tale “The Humble King,” which for Green became his own life story (Green, Seek My Face, xvi).

49. Solomon, Robert C., Spirituality for the Skeptic: The Thoughtful Love of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There have been of course many other attempts to define spirituality that is not necessarily religion-dependent. See for example: Elkins, David N., Beyond Religion: Eight Alternative Paths to the Sacred (Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House, 1998)Google Scholar.

50. Solomon, Spirituality for the Skeptic, xi.

51. Solomon, Spirituality for the Skeptic, xii.

52. Solomon, Spirituality for the Skeptic, xii.

53. Solomon, Spirituality for the Skeptic, 28–43. This is the term used as the subtitle of his book.

54. Martin Buber, Hasidism and Modern Man (New York: Horizon Press, 1958), 31, 43–42.Google Scholar

55. Buber, The Tales of Rabbi Nahman, 10; Buber, Tikva le-sha‘ah zu (Tel Aviv: ‘Am ‘Oved, 1993), 121ffGoogle Scholar.

56. Cohen, David, “Ḥamesh midot 'ahavah,” Rinat ne‘urim: mivhar ‘agadot (Tel Aviv: Tarbut ve-ḥinukh, 1964): 274–275Google Scholar. For more on the modern tendencies of David Cohen in his adaptation of the Hasidic story tradition for extra-Hasidic inspiration, see: Mikhal Oron (Kushnir), “Ha-margalit ha-noẓeẓet: mi-sipur ḥasidi le-sipur ḥasidi,” Sadan 1 (1994): 203–216Google Scholar.

57. Ross, Masoret 'ahavah u-senu'ah, 122–123, 126; Ross, “I. L. Peretz's ‘Between Two Mountains’: Neo-Hasidism and Jewish Literary Modernity,” in Modern Jewish Literatures: Intersections and Boundaries, Jewish Culture and Contexts, ed. Jelen, Sheila E., Kramer, Michael P., and Lerner, L. Scott (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 104–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Buber, Hasidism and Modern Man, 28, 37; Idem, “Interpreting Hasidism,” Commentary 36 (September 1963): 223–225Google Scholar.

59. Ross, Masoret 'ahuvah u-senu'ah, 338–349. On the manner in which the concept of “work in corporeality” is regarded in Hasidic thought itself, see especially: Kauffmann, Ẓippi, Be-khol de-rakhekha da'ehu: tefisat ha-elohut ve-ha-ʿ avodah be-gashmiyut be-reshit ha-ḥasidut (Ramat Gan, 2009)Google Scholar. For Kauffman's discussion of an important instance of modern usage of the Hasidic notion of “work in corporeality,” see: Kauffmann, Ẓippi, “A. J. Heschel and Hasidic Thought: Avoda be-Gashmiut as an Ethical Total Demand,” Akdamot 24 (2010): 137–155Google Scholar.