ONE of the most frequently treated subjects in the historiography of Jews in Poland is hasidism. Within this field of research the formative period of the movement, c.1740‒1815, has until recently received a disproportionate share of scholarly attention. Amongst this scholarship one source has stood out from all the rest, appearing in the majority of studies and itself serving as a frequent object of research. This source is Shivḥei ha Besht (In Praise of the Ba'al Shem Tov), first published in Kopys in 1814.

A collection of some 250 stories about the putative founder of hasidism, Israel ben Eliezer, the Ba'al Shem Tov, and his associates, Shivḥei haBesht has fascinated scholars both because of its vivid depiction of its subjects and because of the complex methodological puzzles it poses. While it is an eminently accessible text, it is also a complex one, particularly when used for historiographical purposes, and over the last 150 years or so scholars have been engaged in a seemingly endless spiral of deconstruction, interpretation, and application of it. The purpose of the discussion which follows is, first, to alert the reader to some important methodological considerations before undertaking historical analysis of Shivḥei haBesht; and, secondly, to review the historiographical usefulness of the most significant available editions.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

The question which has been central to historical studies of Shivḥei haBesht has been its reliability as a historical source. Virtually no one accepts the stories at face value. Their obvious mythical content,5 and the book's very title, proclaim its hagiographic nature, and have induced scepticism among scholars and hasidim alike.

Yehoshua Mondshine, himself a devoted Habad hasid, in summarizing later hasidic responses to Shivḥei haBesht (all of which date from the mid-nineteenth century onwards), asserted, ‘One can discern the doubts which held sway among the Hasidic community with regard to the degree of reliability … of the collection of praises…. The various tales should be treated as pleasure-reading material and not as Hasidic literature.’