Chassidei Ashkenaz - Extent and Influence

Extent and Influence

There has been much debate regarding the extent and influence that this movement had on the Middle Ages and beyond. Scholars debate whether or not this pious community described in Sefer Chassidim existed beyond the imagination of Rabbi Judah the Pious. For instance, Yosef Dan posits that Sefer Chassidim was an individual work by Rabbi Judah the Pious, not a “national work” of Ashkenazic Jewry. He concludes that the community depicted within Sefer Chassidim was merely a blueprint a blueprint for a structure that was never built. Rabbi Judah’s plans were never carried out. Many proofs motivated this approach. First, there is no reference in any Ashkenazic literature to any of Sefer Chassidim’s particular ideas. Additionally, there is no external proof of existence for Pietistic communities. A controversial movement such as this one, who castigated much of the broader community, labeling them Reshaim, would certainly have been referenced by contemporary literature.

However, others such as Isaiah Tishby maintain that Sefer Chassidim is an “enormous anthology, reflecting the work of generations of Ashkenazi Hasidic leaders”. This led him to formulate this phenomenon as a movement, which existed for generations and had a distinct group of leaders. Ivan G. Marcus raised support for the community’s historicity by pointing out references to Chassidei Ashkenaz practices in Arba‘ah Turim and Sefer ha-Manhig. He further admitted that all of the points questioning its existence do raise questions, but the questions raised by Dan and Gruenwald "do not prove that the pietist world as described in SH did not exist", and "the existence of the hasidim per se and the influence of their customs are attested in non-pietist rabbinic sources". Tishby also postulates, that the fact they considered all other Jews Resha (iniquitous) and other anti-social tendencies (asceticism), is the reason they are not mentioned by anyone other than the Baal Tur and the Safer Haminhag, both of which only mention them but do not give them respect, rather than a reason they would be counted by their contemporaries, and the Jewish community, precisely opposing what Israeli scholar Joseph Dan holds. Prior to Dan no one questioned their existence, for the centuries the book was studied.