“Jewish Meditation Reconsidered”: Hitbodedut as a Meditative Practice and Its Transmission from the Egyptian Pietists to the Hasidic Masters

Abstract

This research challenges the prevailing consensus in the field of Jewish meditation that there is no longstanding tradition of Jewish meditation, but rather a plethora of independent, unrelated techniques. By applying a context-sensitive research methodology, this study reconsiders the common understanding of Hitbodedut as ‘concentration’ and suggests instead a new view of Hitbodedut as a three-step solitary meditation technique, used as a means for Devekut (cleave to God). Drawing on the work of past scholars, this research demonstrates the potential transmission of Hitbodedut from the school of Jewish Egyptian Pietists to the 13th-century Kabbalists of Acre, then to the 16th-century Kabbalists of Safed, and eventually to 18th-century Hasidism.

1. Introduction

Judaism is traditionally associated with the practical laws of Halacha rather than contemplative practices; consequently, the idea of Jewish meditation often meets with skepticism. However, this is changing with the growing popular literature on the subject (Kaplan 1978, 1982, 1985; Pinson 2004; Verman 1996),1 indicating a rising trend of interest in Jewish meditation.

Similarly, a growing number of researchers also address the subject of Jewish meditation and Jewish meditative practices: Scholem (1974), Verman and Shapiro (1996), and Persico (2016, 2019). Other researchers explored practices they refer to as ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’, which can also be described as meditative: Afterman (2011), Fenton (1987a, 1987b, 1994), Idel (1985, 1987, 1988a, 1988b), Koch (2023).

The current research aims to address whether a continuous tradition of meditative practice exists within Jewish history, and, if so, to elucidate its nature.

Despite various mentions in the primary literature of an ancient Jewish meditative practice that is passed down through generations, scholars largely deny the existence of such a continuous tradition. Instead, it seems to be widely accepted that there is no longstanding meditative tradition in Judaism, but rather a collection of independent and unrelated techniques.

Our research suggests an alternative view by reconsidering the Jewish tradition of the Hitbodedut ritual, demonstrating its explicit meditative nature, as well as its longstanding practice by pious Jews throughout history since at least the 12th century, possibly much earlier.

When comparing the primary and academic literature on Jewish meditative and spiritual practices, the lack of consensus regarding the concept of ‘Hitbodedut’ is striking. Literally meaning ‘self-seclusion’, Hitbodedut is often associated with ‘meditation’ by spiritual teachers, and in the Jewish meditation lay literature. However, scholars almost always refer to it as ‘mental concentration’. This discrepancy seems to have begun with Moshe Idel’s seminal work, “Hiṭbodedut’ qua ‘Concentration’ in Ecstatic Kabbalah” (1985), where he suggested replacing the understanding of Hitbodedut as ‘meditation’ with ‘concentration’. This research remains the locus classicus for Hitbodedut among scholars, who consequently continue to refer to Hitbodedut as ‘concentration’.

To demonstrate the clear and explicit meditative nature of Hitbodedut, as well as its practice across different regions and periods in history, we focus on reconstructing the similarities between various teachings of Hitbodedut rather than deconstructing their obvious differences. We approach Jewish meditation as part of what Jan Assmann refers to as Jewish ‘cultural memory’. The concept of cultural memory emphasizes that cultural information is preserved not only through written texts but also through symbols, oral transmission, and esoteric initiation.

Hence, it is important to expand our approach beyond the limitations of a text-centered approach and instead consider these other dimensions of the production of culture and its transmission through time and space. By emphasizing a context-centered approach to textual analysis, we were able to identify the recurring motifs of Hitbodedut, identifying it as a ritual of solitary meditation as a means for Devekut (cleave to God) and maybe attaining the Divine inspiration of Ruach HaKodesh (The Jewish Holy Spirit).

Although we suggest Hitbodedut should be considered as the main meditative tradition in Judaism, we do not, by any means, claim it is the only one. An important example is some of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia’s teachings, the analysis of which is beyond the scope of this research, for they are explicitly accepted as a separate technique in at least some of the primary literature.2

In the first part of our article, we begin with a critical reassessment of the existing literature on Hitbodedut, which has significantly shaped scholarly perceptions of this tradition. Early studies, by stripping Hitbodedut of its meditative nature and recasting it as mere ‘concentration’, established a misleading framework that later scholars have uncritically adopted. Consequently, subsequent research on Jewish meditation has overlooked Hitbodedut as Judaism’s primary and longest-standing meditative tradition.

In the second part, we reconstruct the Hitbodedut ritual based on the teachings of Abraham Maimoni and propose a new definition that restores its meditative core and enables us to conduct the first systematic comparative analysis of Hitbodedut teachings from later figures such as Rabbi Isaac of Acre, Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzato (Ramchal), and Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. Through this systematic analysis, we aim to demonstrate its continuous transmission as a longstanding meditative practice, used since at least the 12th century for Devekut and potentially as a method to attain Ruach HaKodesh.3

2. Research on Hitbodedut and ‘Jewish Meditation’

The study of Hitbodedut, one of the most enduring spiritual practices in Jewish mysticism, has evolved significantly in modern research. While it is often regarded as a meditative technique, the academic discourse surrounding Hitbodedut has been inconsistent, with varying interpretations and limited consensus on its definition and historical continuity. This section aims to provide a critical reassessment of the existing scholarship on Hitbodedut, addressing both the contributions and gaps in the research. By tracing its development from its early mentions in the Jewish pietist circles of Egypt to its later interpretations by Kabbalists and Hasidic masters, we seek to establish Hitbodedut as a central and longstanding meditative tradition in Judaism. In doing so, we also explore the broader context of Jewish meditation and examine how the concept of meditation itself has been treated in the scholarly literature.

2.1. Historical Development of Hitbodedut and Research Gaps

Although defining a meditative technique is complex and lacks scholarly consensus, in this article, we base our working definition on Tomer Persico’s work, where it is viewed broadly as “an intentional action initiated to bring about personal mental transformation of a therapeutic or soteriological nature”.4 For the purposes of our research, we adopt this definition5 and seek to demonstrate the meditative nature of Hitbodedut as a spiritual technique for cleaving to God and attaining Divine inspiration.

The earliest appearances of the term Hitbodedut in modern research were usually presented as synonyms with ‘meditation’.6 However, with the exception of Kaplan,7 these were mere anecdotal mentions with no serious discussion regarding the meaning and essence of ‘meditation’ or ‘Hitbodedut’. Idel’s early Hitbodedut research, however, reframed the term, suggesting that within ecstatic Kabbalah, it should be viewed as ‘mental concentration within a defined mystical technique’.8

The discussion of Jewish meditation seems to have started with the short chapter Gershom Scholem dedicated to the matter in his 1974 book Kabbalah9 However, he did not mention the subject of Hitbodedut within that discussion, nor did he define what he meant by ‘meditation’. A couple of decades later, Marc Verman and Dean Shapiro published more extensive research in a chapter of ‘Comparative and Psychological Study on Meditation’.10 The chapter describes the history of meditative practices in Judaism, outlining that there is no one tradition of Jewish meditation but rather various teachings. Hitbodedut is mentioned in a footnote as a technical word that repeats itself in various meditative writings. Still, it pays no more attention to it and does not engage with Kaplan’s and Idel’s work on meditation and Hitbodedut.

More recently, in his PhD thesis, Persico analyzed various meditative teachings of key sages such as Moses Maimonides, Abraham Abulafia, Isaac Luria, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, Shneur Zalman of Liadi and his son Dovber Schneuri, Menachem Ekstein, and Klonimus Kalman Shapira. Similarly to previous research, he seems to continue with the line of thought that does not recognize a main Jewish meditative tradition.11

Persico’s thesis is indeed the most exhaustive and elaborated academic work on Jewish meditation to date, and it offers a thorough analysis of Hitbodedut as it was taught in the Breslov community in the past, as well as its evolution and practice in recent years.12 Although it does not mention the idea of Hitbodedut as synonymous with ‘meditation’, it does distinguish between the Breslov Hitbodedut, which is viewed as a meditative practice’, and earlier ‘mystical’ Hitbodedut, which is viewed as a form of mental concentration,13 a phenomenon that he did not engage with and that remained mostly disregarded.14

Although in later publications, Idel seems to accept the meditative meaning of Hitbodedut,15 his initial research was far more significant in shaping how Hitbodedut is understood, as it became the locus classicus for many scholars who often refer to it, never challenging this view and reconsidering Hitbodedut as a meditative technique.16

There are six main limitations we would like to point to in previous Hitbodedut research, at least in the context of Jewish meditation: First, as mentioned, reframing Hitbodedut as ‘concentration’, a view that is still being built upon in contemporary research. Second, there is a lack of a technical working definition for Hitbodedut, something to measure the various Hitbodedut teachings with. Third, as a consequence, the various teachings on Hitbodedut are compared with a focus on their differences instead of conducting a systematic comparison that could have revealed their similarities. Fourth, also probably due to the lack of a working definition, there is only a brief suggestion of a potential influence on later sages such as Ramchal17 and Rabbi Nachman of Breslov18, without actually comparing the teachings. Fifth, there is a needless distinction between separate Hitbodedut traditions, thus stripping away the perspective of a continuous practice.19 And sixth, the research misses Rabbi Hayyim Vital’s important discussion that distinguishes between ‘righteous’ Hitbodedut practice (contemplative in nature) to attain Divine inspiration and, in case the inspiration is not received, a second practice—the application of actions such as letter permutations in order to ‘force’ the inspiration (however, this second practice is less recommended by Vital, who views it as potentially dangerous).20

We believe these misconceptions are largely a result of a strict phenomenological approach to text analysis that risks neglecting important context.21

Other researchers have previously criticized this approach for similar reasons. For example, Peter Schäfer wrote: “I do not believe’ mystical patterns’ can be discovered and delineated—let alone compared with each other—outside their respective historical contexts… Idel’s phenomenological approach runs the risk of dehistoricizing the phenomena it is looking at and establishing an ahistorical, ideal, and essentialist construct”(Schäfer 2011, pp. 25–26).

The overlooked historical context in the case of Hitbodedut research is the connection between the Jewish pietists of Egypt and the early 13th-century Kabbalists, leading to the assumption that Abraham Abulafia’s Hitbodedut teachings were the first to present a practical and actionable form of Hitbodedut. As a result, his teachings have been placed at the center of the early Hitbodedut research.22 However, the Jewish pietists of Egypt also practiced Hitbodedut, and Abraham Maimoni’s (1186–1237) Kitab Kifayat al-Abidin (The Guide for Serving God) is the earliest and most comprehensive manual on the matter, offering detailed instructions that predate Abulafia’s work.23

The Kifayat teachings were consciously excluded from the early Hitbodedut research24 and, as a consequence, also from Jewish meditation research.25 It appears that these teachings were viewed as unrelated to Hitbodedut as ‘concentration’ in ecstatic Kabbalah, perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with the historical context that suggests a direct connection between prominent Jewish Egyptian pietists and key members of early ecstatic Kabbalah.

2.2. Hitbodedut: Reassessing Historical Context and Cultural Transmission

To fill in the missing historical context and better understand Hitbodedut, we now turn to the work of Paul Fenton, a researcher whose important contribution to Hitbodedut is almost completely ignored in Jewish meditation research.

According to Fenton, Rabbi David HaNagid (1212–1300), son of Abraham Maimoni, resided in Acre at the same time as Rabbi Isaac of Acre (1250–1340)—a key figure among the Kabbalists of the Middle East (who is in the center of the early Hitbodedut research).26 Considering Rabbi David Hanagid’s popularity, particularly at a time when he publicly defended his grandfather’s teachings in the famous Acre 1288 Maimonidean Controversy with Rabbi Solomon Petit, in whose Yeshiva Rabbi Isaac studied, combined with the striking resemblance in the way they describe Hitbodedut (See Section 3.2 below), suggests a likely connection between the Jewish pietists’ practice of Hitbodedut and the way it is described by the early Kabbalists, a view that has also been accepted by later scholars.27

Rabbi Isaac’s Hitbodedut teachings then went on to explicitly influence the 16th-century Kabbalists of Safed, who often cited him when referring to Hitbodedut; this includes figures such as Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Rabbi Elazar Azkiri, and Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas.28 Furthermore, Fenton provides evidence that Maimoni’s Kifayat was still being read in Safed in the mid-16th century, suggesting that in addition to the likely oral transmission, there was also a textual one.29

Indeed, instead of the phenomenology of the text, using Jan Assman’s concept of ‘cultural memory’ can help us fill in the gaps between the textual testimonies of Jewish meditative practices available to us and understand that a lot could have been transmitted without necessarily being popularly recorded. The concept of ‘cultural memory’ can help us identify oral traditions, which, by definition, would leave little to no written trace, as well as esoteric practice, which, by definition, is hidden from the masses and reserved for exclusive circles of initiated ones. The meditative Hitbodedut tradition seems to be both oral and esoteric, with some sages explicitly mentioning an oral tradition, for example, Rabbi Elazar Azkiri in his Sefer Haredim,30 or Rabbi Hayyim Vital, as pointed out by Idel in his research.31

Deriving from Maurice Hallbawch’s famous notion of ‘collective memory’, Assman’s ‘cultural memory’ refers to a collective memory that is stored in stable symbols, making it amenable to being shared across generations and situations. For ‘cultural memory’ to remain alive in society, these symbols must be actively maintained and re-engaged by the community.32 For Assman, esotericism is one of the ways cultural memory is transmitted.

Taking the example of Judaism, he distinguishes between “general participation” (Torah reading), “specialized participation” (Talmudic study), and “the esoteric world of kabbala, to which only select adepts are admitted”.33 And this one, the world of initiation—mostly oral—from Master to Disciples becomes, in his view, a propitious conduit for cultural memory to be transmitted through space and time:

“There is (…) yet another sense in which the participation in cultural memory may be structured in a society: that of restricted knowledge, of secrecy and esotericism. Every traditional society has areas of restricted knowledge whose boundaries are not defined merely by the different capacities of human memory and understanding but also by issues of access and initiation.”

34

As we shall see, the primary literature on Hitbodedut often associates this practice with the Jewish esoteric traditions of Ma’aseh Merkabah, thus correlating with Assmann’s idea of ‘Restricted Knowledge’. This means that, for the most part, it was not meant for the mass of the public but for a select few, and this can explain why there is little textual production on the topic.

At this point, we turn to reconsider Hitbodedut as a meditative practice based on the earliest and most detailed Hitbodedut manual. We build upon this to propose a coherent definition of the Hitbodedut ritual and use this working definition to conduct a systematic comparative analysis of its development in later Hitbodedut teachings.

3. Hitbodedut Qua Meditation

In the first part of our research, we presented previous work on Hitbodedut and its valuable insights into the subject, not least of which is recognizing the phenomenon’s existence and importance35 and its continuous mentions among the Egyptian Jewish pietist circle and the Kabbalists who followed it.36 We also pointed to some important limitations in the Hitbodedut research, which we believe may have disrupted the ability of later scholarly studies on Jewish meditation to recognize the importance of Hitbodedut for their field, particularly its meditative nature and its continuous practice, as it eventually concluded that there is no longstanding tradition of Jewish meditative practice.

Drawing from the Kitab Kifayat al-Abidin (The Guide for Serving God) by Rabbi Abraham Maimoni, the oldest and most elaborative teaching on Hitbodedut, we would now like to offer a new definition for the term as meditative practice comprising three key elements: withdrawal from physical stimuli, directing awareness toward the Divine, and applying focused concentration to cleave to God and potentially attain Divine inspiration. Using this definition, we conduct a systematic comparative analysis of Hitbodedut teachings, demonstrating the continuous presence of this practice from the Egyptian pietists through the early 13th-century Kabbalists of Acre, the 16th-century Safed Kabbalists, and later the early Hasidic and Kabbalist masters of the 18th century.

3.1. Hitbodedut According to Rabbi Abraham Maimoni

The purpose of Rabbi Abraham’s special spiritual practice in the Kifayat (of which Hitbodedut is the last step) is to achieve a close relationship with the Divine. He often refers to this as Wusul—a kind of ‘Encounter’ with God: “…All of these paths have a common purpose… They all lead to the goal of Encounter (Wusul)…”37 Wusul seems to signify an intimate approach to the Divine that is similar to Devekut. There are various degrees of Wusul in the Kifayat, one of which is that of Ruach Ha Kodesh.38

Ruach HaKodesh is a complex concept, and it is not in the scope of the current research to elaborate on it. Some have carried this out before, and we refer to their work.39 However, for the sake of our research alone, and based on the teachings of Rabbi Abraham Maimoni and his father, the Ramabam, but also later, Hayim Vital and Ramchal, we suggest an alternative definition of Ruach Ha Kodesh, as the faculty which generates various degrees of Divine inspiration, resulting in new forms of knowledge, insight, or intuition. If the individual is unconscious when receiving the inspiration, it can be referred to as ‘prophecy’, whereas if they are conscious, they experience a ‘sub-prophetic inspiration’ and are said to ‘possess’ Ruach HaKodesh.40

Thus, attaining Ruach HaKodesh means reaching an elevated state of consciousness that entails access to new knowledge and understanding. Although not identical, the nature of Ruach HaKodesh seems to resemble that of an intense intuition. There are various degrees of prophecy, which may, broadly speaking, be separated into two main categories: conscious and unconscious. When the individual is conscious, they are said to reach a degree of ‘Ruach HaKodesh’, which is not prophetic. Meanwhile, when they are unconscious and receiving inspiration, they are said to reach a degree of proper prophecy.

In Maimoni’s Kifayat, he explicitly perceives Hitbodedut as a tool to this end: a ritual used by the prophets and the Pious in order to approach God and seek Divine inspiration. He describes it as the last step of the path of the Pious. One would practice Hitbodedut solitary meditation in order to ‘cleave’ to God and achieve an ‘Encounter’ with the Divine: “[Therefore, if one does fulfill all this] so that his mind cleaves to God and is occupied with Him to the exclusion of all else, he has attained Encounter…”41

According to Adam Afterman, the concept of Devekut represents the pinnacle of a spiritual quest, serving either as its central aspect or ultimate goal, sometimes to the extent of a unification of the individual with the Divine.42 Indeed, the notion of Devekut as a rare state that can be proactively achieved as a means to attain the Divine inspiration of Ruach HaKodesh is not an innovation of Rabbi Abraham and dates back at least to the second-century students of Rabbi Akiva.43

It is also important to consider the fact that Rabbi Abraham associates Hitbodedut with the esoteric Ma’aseh Merkabah: “…God radiates a spiritual influx toward those who have reached Encounter (wusul). It is compared to light, as it says ‘Through your light, we see light’. It delivers genuine spiritual delight through its appropriate medium…However there also is a danger of being harmed by its intensity…it is told in the stories of our Sages, ‘Ben Azai gazed (at the Divine) and was Harmed’…”44 As we shall see, later Hitbodedut teachings suggest a similar association, for example, by Rabbi Isaac of Acre, Rabbi Hayyim Vital and Rabbi Yosef Even Tziah.

The Kifayat chapter on Hitbodedut opens by identifying it as the technique used by the prophets, explaining its nature, and providing detailed instructions on engaging in it: “Hitbodedut (Khalwah) is an ideal path to intimacy with God. It is the way of the greatest Hasidim, and through it, the prophets achieved Encounter with God”. He also offers a typology of Hitbodedut practices, distinguishing between “outward” and “inward” Hitbodedut:

“There is outward Hitbodedut, and there is inward Hitbodedut. The purpose of outward Hitbodedut is to realize inward Hitbodedut, which is the highest rung in the ladder toward Encounter, and is [a degree of] Encounter itself. Inward retreat is the complete focus of the heart… [This requires one] to empty the heart and mind of all besides God and to fill and occupy them with Him.”

45

Thus, Hitbodedut manifests in two forms: ‘outward’ Hitbodedut, which entails physical self-seclusion to avoid distractions,46 and quiet the senses,47 and from there, ‘inward’, mental Hitbodedut, which includes two main elements. These elements include directing the awareness (“heart and mind”) away from the mundane (“all besides God”) and a focused concentration on God (“fill and occupy them with Him”).

The physical practice (secluding oneself) is, therefore, just the vessel for the inner practice aiming at going deeper and deeper into Devekut until one disappears to merge, ultimately, with the Divine into Wusul (Encounter), of which, as we mentioned earlier, there are various degrees, one of which being the inspiration of Ruach HaKodesh. Maimoni also provides detailed practical instructions for Hitbodedut:

“Totally or partially quieting the sensitive soul; detaching the appetitive (i.e., desiring) soul from the rest of one’s worldly occupations and reorienting it toward God; filling the rational soul with God; and [finally,] using the imaginative soul to assist the intelligence in its contemplation of God’s magnificent creations, which testify to their Creator.”

48

Quieting the sensitive soul seems to be achieved through outward Hitbodedut, which involves solitude, preferably at night time and in complete darkness,49 maybe suggesting that this setting may help in detaching from the external world and focusing inwardly. Next, detaching the appetitive soul from worldly occupations suggests an aspect of awareness, where one’s consciousness is directed away from the mundane and towards God. And finally, filling the rational soul with the Divine presence is accomplished by contemplating God’s creation with the help of the imaginative faculty.

Based on this teaching (See

Table 1. The three steps of the Hitbodedut ritual in the Kifayat.

Aspect	Definition of Hitbodedut51	Practical Instruction52
Quieting the senses	…practice Hitbodedut in dark places, remaining there until the sensitive part of the soul becomes atrophied…	totally or partially quieting the sensitive soul
Directing the awareness	empty the heart and mind of all besides God	detaching the appetitive (i.e., desiring) soul from the rest of one’s worldly occupations, and reorienting it toward God
Concentration on God	to fill and occupy them (the heart and mind) with Him	filling the rational soul with God; and using the imaginative soul to assist the intelligence in its contemplation of God’s magnificent creations, which testify to their creator

), we propose a new definition for the ritual of Hitbodedut: a meditative practice comprising three key elements—withdrawal from physical stimuli, directing awareness toward the Divine, and applying focused concentration to cleave to God and potentially attain Divine inspiration.50

However, as Idel suggested, Hitbodedut does not always necessitate the framework of physical seclusion,53 and Fenton outlines three principal aspects of Hitbodedut: the “physical retreat”, the “ritual technique”, and the subsequent state of consciousness, which he describes as a “vacuity of the mind.”54 Thus, depending on the context, ‘Lehitboded’ (to self-seclude) can refer to practicing the Hitbodedut ritual as a whole but also to mere physical seclusion or only specifically to the action of applying the concentration technique (even outside of the ritual). However, it is clear that physical seclusion helps calm the senses and also enables an uninterrupted concentration.

3.2. Hitbodedut across the Years—A Systematic Comparative Analysis

Based on the teachings of Abraham Maimoni, we define Hitbodedut as a meditative practice comprising three main elements: withdrawal from physical stimuli, directing awareness toward the Divine, and applying focused concentration to cleave to God and potentially attain Divine inspiration. To demonstrate the nature of Hitbodedut as a central meditative technique in Jewish tradition, we will now use this definition to conduct a systematic comparative analysis, examining these three elements in the Hitbodedut teachings of sages from different times and regions: Rabbi Isaac of Acre, Rabbi Elazar Azkiri, Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Ramchal, and Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.

There are various mentions of Hitbodedut in the teachings of the 13th-century Rabbi Isaac of Acre. However, one instance strikes a close resemblance to the Kifayat’s Hitbodedut more than any other and includes all three aspects of Maimoni’s definition (see Table 2) “When he will withdraw from the material and tangible, self-secluding (Mitboded), and will remove all the intellectual inquiries of his reasoning soul from them, and will give them a very strong elevation in the mysteries of Divinity by contemplating the Divine, these thoughts will draw upon him the overflow of God from above to his abode and will dwell in his soul.”55

Similarly to Rabbi Abraham, Rabbi Isaac also associates this practice with the esoteric Ma’aseh Merkabah: “And I say that if a person, whose soul inclines toward the proper ways of self-seclusion (Hitbodedut), and his soul immerses to gaze deeply into it, he will die like Ben Azai, who gazed and died. And it is not right to do so because the death of His devout is precious in the eyes of God. For whoever strives to break through the barrier and enter within His partition will be bitten by a snake. And because Rabbi Akiva returned to his place as his heart raced, he was saved, and he entered in peace and left in peace.”56

Next, Rabbi Elazar Azkiri, a 16th-century Safed Kabbalist, references Hitbodedut in his Sefer Haredim, noting that the practice was transmitted to him by his teacher, the Kabbalist master Yossef Sagis. He also explicitly referred to the teachings of Rabbi Isaac of Acre (among others),57 and in one notable passage, he defines Hitbodedut succinctly: “When they were alone, separating worldly matters from their minds and attaching their thoughts with the Lord of all”58. While not explicitly mentioning the quieting of the senses, this aspect may be implied through the phrase “When they are alone”, which suggests outward Hitbodedut; thus, here as well, all three elements of the ritual can be identified (see Table 2).

Rabbi Hayyim Vital, a contemporary of Rabbi Azkiri who belonged to the same circle of Kabbalists in Safed, also provides instructions for Hitbodedut practice for the attainment of Divine inspiration in the third part of his Sha’arei Kedusha. He distinguishes between two types of practices for this end, one similar to previous Hitbodedut teachings and another that includes actions such as letter permutations (which we will not discuss here)59:

“…when preparing oneself to receive the Holy Spirit after all good traits have been acquired… one should enter a house alone, in immersion and holiness, in a place where human voices and bird chirps do not disturb, and if it will be after midnight it will be better, by all means, and he shall close his eyes… and clear his thought from all worldly matters as if the soul has left the body, like a dead body that feels nothing… Then, he shall strengthen himself in great yearning and desire to contemplate the higher worlds and cling there to the roots of his soul and the higher lights, imagining himself ascending above, and picturing the higher worlds as if standing in them… and he will seclude himself (Yeetboded) in thought as if the spirit rests upon him for a certain measure…”

60

And like Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Isaac, Vital also associates this practice with Ma’aseh Merkabah: “And when it (the spirit) befalls him, he must discern whether perhaps he is still not pure and clean, and this spirit is the Sitra Achra, or at the very least a mixture of evil with good, and the incident of Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma ascending to Pardes will prove…” 61

More recently, Kosch demonstrated the direct influence of Vital’s solitary meditation on Ramchal’s meditation, suggesting that it “exhibits a striking resemblance to the objectives outlined by Vital in Sha’arei Qedushah”.62 Ramchal’s Hitbodedut solitary meditation is alluded to in the description of the last step in his path, the trait of Holiness: “he devotes himself assiduously, in passionate love and intense fear… If he detaches himself by degrees from the material, and directs his every deed and movement to accord with supernal secrets and with the hidden paths to true devekut… Until a spirit is poured upon him…”63

However, the instructions to attain this trait are short and vague: “What is helpful in the attainment of this trait is seclusion (Hitbodedut) and much abstinence, so that in the absence of distractions one’s soul may gather strength and conjoin (LeHitdabek) with its Creator.”64 While Hitbodedut and Devekut are only briefly mentioned here as the means for attaining Ruach HaKodesh, they were presented at more length in previous chapters: “Conjoining [with God] mandates that man’s heart cleave so closely to the Creator that he ceases to turn or attend to anything else but Him… a person should cleave in this fashion to His Creator at each and every moment. But at the very least, while engaged in Divine service, he who loves his Creator should cleave to Him in this manner”.65

Hitbodedut is mentioned in various places within Mesilat Yesharim.66 When mentioned as physical seclusion, it is always in the context of contemplation (Hitbonenut),67 or cleaving to God (Devekut).68 In other instances, as demonstrated by Koch, mental concentration is a better fit, for instance:

“The one and only thing I found to be helpful in this, is deep reflection and abundant contemplation. For when a person frequently contemplates the great majesty and ultimate perfection of [God], blessed be He, and the immeasurable distance between His elevation and our insignificance, he will become filled with awe and trembling before Him… a strong love will certainly burn within him, and he will choose and long to conjoin with Him… For this to transpire, a person must seclude himself (Yet-Boded) in his chambers, gathering all his knowledge and understanding…”69 The resemblance to the way Devekut (loving so much to the extent of forgetting anything else), and the ‘Hitbodedut’ ritual (notably the contemplation of creation in seclusion) are described by Maimoni and his father before him is explicit and should not go unnoticed.

Rabbi Nachmann’s teachings on Hitbodedut are so central to the Breslov Hasidic community that many people today identify it as a mere Breslov trend. As mentioned in the first section, according to Persico, rather than mental concentration, Hitbodedut in the teachings of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov is viewed as a meditative practice that leads to a mystical experience of unification with God. He suggests Likutey Moharan 52 is one of the main passages in which Rabbi Nachman explains his Hitbodedut, a view with which we agree. However, we would like to consider the fact that, rather than the exact words of Rabbi Nachman, much of the Breslov teachings are, in fact, reproductions of his student, Rabbi Nathan.

We therefore choose to focus on the Hitbodedut definition provided in the final words of Likutey Moharan 52, both because of its concise nature and because it represents Rabbi Nachman’s genuine words, as Rabbi Nathan testified that they were written by Rabbi Nachman himself:

“…Know, the essence of bitul—that a person negates his corporeality and becomes ayin (nothingness), becoming encompassed in the oneness of God—is achieved only through hitbodedut. Now the hitbodedut requires a special place and time so that he is not disturbed by distractions. The time is at night… The place is on a secluded road… a road not frequently traveled—he should go there and seclude himself… Then he will be able to empty his heart of all <dross and waste>, and be able to attain a bitul of all <his> corporeality <and become naught and nothing>… And then, when he is entirely transparent, he is encompassed in the oneness of God…”.

70

Aside from the obvious identical name, the early teachings on Hitbodedut solitary meditation share various similarities with the Breslov ones: they have the same purpose- cleaving to God,71 they both suggest Hitbodedut should be practiced alone and at nighttime, and both rituals entail pivoting the awareness away from the mundane, emptying the heart (i.e., consciousness) of everything and either filling it with God (in the case of Maimoni) or becoming encompassed in His unity (according to Rabbi Nachman). Although not providing a comparative analysis of the two, Fenton made a similar observation regarding a potential connection between early Hitbodedut teachings and the Breslov Hitbodedut,72 and this was also alluded to by Idel,73 and to some extent by Zvi Mark.74

Table 2. Hitbodedut in the 13, 16, and 18th centuries.

	Abraham Maimoni75	Isaac of Acre76	Elazar Azkiri77	Hayyim Vital78	Ramchal79	Nachman of Breslov80
Quieting the senses	“totally or partially quieting the sensitive soul”.	“When he will withdraw from the material and tangible, secluded…”	“when they were alone”	“enter a house alone, in immersion and holiness, in a place where human voices and bird chirps do not disturb, and if it will be after midnight it “will be better, by all means, and he shall close his eyes”,	What is helpful in the attainment of this trait is the Hitbodedut and much abstinence,	requires a special place and time so that he is not disturbed by distractions. The time is at night… The place is on a secluded road…
Directing the awareness	“detaching the appetitive (i.e., desiring) soul from the rest of one’s worldly occupations, and reorienting it toward God”.	“And will remove all the intellectual inquiries of his reasoning soul from them (the material and tangible)”	separating worldly matters from their minds	“and clear his thought from all worldly matters as if the soul has left the body, like a dead body that feels nothing.”	so that in the absence of distractions, one’s soul may gather strength	he should go there and seclude himself… Then he will be able to empty his heart of all…and be able to attain a bitul of all corporeality
Concentration on God	“filling the rational soul with God; and using the imaginative soul to assist the intelligence in its contemplation of God’s magnificent creations, which testify to their creator”.	“and will give them a very strong elevation in the mysteries of divinity by contemplating the Divine, these thoughts will draw upon him the abundance of God from above to his abode and will dwell in his soul”	and attaching their thoughts with the Lord of all	“Then, he shall strengthen himself in great yearning and desire to contemplate the higher worlds and cling there to the roots of his soul and the higher lights, imagining himself ascending above, and picturing the higher worlds as if standing in them.”	And conjoin (Le-Hitdabek) with its Creator	… And then, when he is entirely transparent, he is encompassed in the oneness of God.

Table 2. Hitbodedut in the 13, 16, and 18th centuries.

	Abraham Maimoni75	Isaac of Acre76	Elazar Azkiri77	Hayyim Vital78	Ramchal79	Nachman of Breslov80
Quieting the senses	“totally or partially quieting the sensitive soul”.	“When he will withdraw from the material and tangible, secluded…”	“when they were alone”	“enter a house alone, in immersion and holiness, in a place where human voices and bird chirps do not disturb, and if it will be after midnight it “will be better, by all means, and he shall close his eyes”,	What is helpful in the attainment of this trait is the Hitbodedut and much abstinence,	requires a special place and time so that he is not disturbed by distractions. The time is at night… The place is on a secluded road…
Directing the awareness	“detaching the appetitive (i.e., desiring) soul from the rest of one’s worldly occupations, and reorienting it toward God”.	“And will remove all the intellectual inquiries of his reasoning soul from them (the material and tangible)”	separating worldly matters from their minds	“and clear his thought from all worldly matters as if the soul has left the body, like a dead body that feels nothing.”	so that in the absence of distractions, one’s soul may gather strength	he should go there and seclude himself… Then he will be able to empty his heart of all…and be able to attain a bitul of all corporeality
Concentration on God	“filling the rational soul with God; and using the imaginative soul to assist the intelligence in its contemplation of God’s magnificent creations, which testify to their creator”.	“and will give them a very strong elevation in the mysteries of divinity by contemplating the Divine, these thoughts will draw upon him the abundance of God from above to his abode and will dwell in his soul”	and attaching their thoughts with the Lord of all	“Then, he shall strengthen himself in great yearning and desire to contemplate the higher worlds and cling there to the roots of his soul and the higher lights, imagining himself ascending above, and picturing the higher worlds as if standing in them.”	And conjoin (Le-Hitdabek) with its Creator	… And then, when he is entirely transparent, he is encompassed in the oneness of God.

This systematic comparison demonstrates that the Hitbodedut ritual should be understood as a meditative technique continuously practiced since at least the 12th century by the Egyptian pietists, eventually spreading to various Jewish traditions, including early and late Kabbalah and later Hasidism. As a result, Hitbodedut can now be viewed as the central meditative tradition in Jewish history, consistently used by pious Jews as a means to cleave to God.

Contemporary Jewish meditation scholars missed Hitbodedut as a longstanding Jewish meditative tradition, and continue to distinguish between Hitbodedut as ‘mental concentration’, practiced by ‘different Jewish mystics’, and Breslov Hitbodedut, which is accepted as a meditative practice; furthermore, they actively insist upon the complete absence of a Jewish meditative tradition, suggesting instead that:

“Jewish meditative techniques are not, as it were, variations on a theme, or different branches expanding from the same trunk. There is no one meditative stem in the Jewish tradition, such as you will find, for example, in Buddhism. This is due to the marginal place meditation had within the Jewish world. When taken up it was by unique individuals setting their own course, often with no knowledge of their predecessors and usually being inspired by non-Jewish practices in their surroundings.”

81

This highlights the importance of critically reassessing the academic consensus that has overlooked the meditative nature of Hitbodedut and, rather than look for similarities in various Hitbodedut teachings, focused on their differences.

3.3. Postural Instructions

Interestingly, one aspect that is absent in the Hitbodedut teachings we examined is postural instructions. However, given the explicit association with Ma’aseh Merkabah, there is a plausible perspective that they followed the same tradition described by Rav Hai Gaon in the 10th century, where he refers to an old tradition of solitary meditation in which the individual puts the head between the knees.

According to Paul Fenton, Rabbi Hai Gaon’s testimony became popular during the medieval era.82 Perhaps the fact that these teachings leave the posture of Hitbodedut unmentioned was deliberated, either for secretive reasons and/or because within the mystical circles that transmitted Hitbodedut, it was self-evident, especially given the connection to Rav Hai Gaon’s instructions. In any case, the continuous practice of this tradition is clearly demonstrated by Fenton.

For instance, it is demonstrated with prophet Elijah: “Elijah meanwhile climbed to the top of Mount Carmel, crouched on the ground, and put his face between his knees” (Kings I, 18:42).

It is demonstrated with Hanina Ben Dosa, a prominent member of the Hasidim HaRishonim: “Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed his head between his knees and prayed for mercy upon his behalf.” (Berakhot, 34, b).

It is demonstrated in a letter written by the 10th century Rabbi Hai Gaon: “Many scholars were of the belief that one who is distinguished by many qualities described in the books and who is desirous of beholding the Merkabah and the palaces of the angels on high, must follow a certain procedure. He must fast a number of days and lay his head between his knees and whisper many hymns and songs whose texts are known from tradition.”83

It is demonstrated with the 12th-century Hananel ben Shemuel Ha-dayan, father-in-law of Rabbi Abraham Maimoni and prominent member of the Jewish Pietists of Egypt: “Thereafter Elijah seated himself and put his face between his knees, intending thereby to turn away his attention from all creation and devote his Meditation solely to his present pursuit. The nations [=Sufis] have taken this practice over from us…”.84

It is demonstrated with Rabbi Yosef Even Tziah, a 16th-century Kabbalist master from Jerusalem: “And they enter in a fiery blaze to Ma’aseh Merkavah by a short and broad path… through the secret of the Pardes, which is known to them, which is to self-seclude (LeHitboded) on matters known to us in this wisdom, and bowing the head like a bulrush between the knees until the sensations are nullified due to the absence of his senses… so that he will not gaze and be harmed as we find happened to some of the early sages.”85

It is demonstrated with the 17th-century Italian Kabbalist Aaron Berechiah of Modena: “I have found that when Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa would pray for the sick, he would place his head between his knees. Therefore, one of the amendments of fasting is to bow one’s face to the ground… because the preparation for hearing prayer and being imbued with Ruach HaKodesh is by pressing one’s face to the ground.”86

And more recently, it is demonstrated in the 20th century, with Rabbi Yeshaaya Asher Zelig Margaliot’s testimony regarding Rabbi Solomon Eliezer Alfandari: “He placed his head between his holy knees and ascended in reverence, as was always his sacred way.”87

Here, we have various testimonies regarding a meditation posture that is associated with Hitbodedut, Ma’ase Merkabah, turning attention away from the mundane, nullifying the senses, and the pursuit of Ruach HaKodesh. The fact that this meditation posture is associated with the prophet Elijah and the Hasidim HaRishonim as well as with the esoteric Ma’ase Merkabah is yet another example of the transmission of “Restricted Knowledge” as part of Jewish “cultural memory”.

4. Discussion

To be sure, the Hitbodedut teachings we presented in this research share a striking resemblance, but they are not identical. Although the first two steps of ‘quieting the senses’ (i.e., outward Hitbodedut) and ‘directing the awareness’ are fairly similar in all teachings, the third element of ‘concentration’ (i.e., inward Hitbodedut) is rather distinct.

However, given these teachings’ contextual framework, we view these discrepancies as natural. First, there is a language factor. It is clear that the local spoken language influenced the way Jewish sages wrote in Hebrew. Some were Arabic speaking and either wrote in Judeo-Arabic or frequently used Arabic vocabulary (Maimoni and Rabbi Isaac of Acre), others had a Spanish/Italian background (Azkiri, Vital, and Ramchal), while Eastern European languages essentially influenced 18th-century Hasidism (Rabbi Nachman, in our case).

Second, even if we are to exclude language barriers, there is the notion that any subject is likely to be described subjectively by different individuals. A perfect example of this is the two distinct descriptions of Hitbodedut by Vital and Azkiri. Both lived in Safed at the same time and learned from the same masters; while clearly describing the same meditative technique for cleaving to God (Devekut), their descriptions are distinct.

And third, there is the question of the writer’s intention, which may or may not have influenced the way this practice was described. For example, it is not at all clear that Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Abraham Maimoni intended their Hitbodedut teachings to reach the eyes of the masses, quite the contrary,88 especially given that they could not consider the future invention of the printing press.89

Rabbi Hayyim Vital’s intentions in this regard are vague, while it is clear that Azkiri wrote for the public. Rabbi Nachman’s premise is that of Hasidism, thus clearly intending to spread his teachings as much as possible. And Ramchal, although writing for the public, had to self-censor himself given the imminent danger of excommunication he was facing.90

Considering these factors may explain, at least to some extent, why their instructions for Hitbodedut are not identical and, incidentally, why Idel’s phenomenological approach to text analysis could be crippling when used in the field of Jewish meditation in general, and particularly in the case of Hitbodedut.

As mentioned earlier, according to Persico “there is no one meditative stem in the Jewish tradition” and the existing Jewish meditative techniques were developed by individuals who were “Usually being inspired by non-Jewish practices in their surroundings”.91 In the current research, we challenged this consensus. Instead, we demonstrated that Hitbodedut, a ritual of solitary concentration meditation to cleave to God, has been practiced at least since the 12th century, possibly much earlier.

An important aspect of Hitbodedut is the context in which it was practiced. Just like in other world traditions—the Yogic path (Hinduism)92, the noble eightfold path (Buddhism)93, or the Sufi Tariqa (Islam)94—meditative techniques are not a ‘standalone’ practice, but rather one element in a broader spiritual path. We suggest that the ethos of the early generation of pious man (Hassidim HaRishonim) has traveled as a symbol of piety within Judaism’s ‘cultural memory’ and that Hitbodedut belongs to this ethos.

Thus, we would like to point to three spiritual manuals that seem to share this ethos: the Kitab Kifayat al-abidin (The Guide for Serving God) by Rabbi Abraham Maimoni Maimoni (1186–1237), Sha’arei Kedusha (Gates of Holiness) by Rabbi Hayyim Vital (1542–1620); and Mesilat Yesharim (The Path of the Just) by Ramchal (1707–1746).

All three attribute their tradition directly to the Hasidim HaRishonim and the prophets before them; they explicitly distinguish between the ‘common path’ of the Tsadik and the more intimate ‘path of the Hassid’. They all preach for intensive ethical effort, awareness of the Divine presence, and Hitbodedut solitary meditation as a means to cleave to God and receive the Divine inspiration of Ruach HaKodesh.

Thus, in future research, we will attempt to compare these three spiritual guidebooks that, although written at different times and in different places, share a similar structure and focus on similar concepts and practices.

5. Conclusions

Our study aimed to challenge the prevalent belief that there is no main tradition of Jewish meditation but rather a plethora of independent and unrelated techniques. We sought to demonstrate that Hitbodedut, commonly understood as ‘mental concentration’, is rather a ritual of solitary meditation that has been consistently practiced by Jewish pious men since at least the 12th century and possibly much earlier.

We illustrated how the early research on Hitbodedut, by opting for a strict phenomenological approach to text analysis, had limited the scope of contemporary Jewish meditation studies by limiting Hitbodedut as concentration, thereby casting a shadow both on Hitbodedut’s meditative nature and its continuous practice throughout history.

Instead of a phenomenological text-centered approach, we adopted a context-centered methodology that allowed for a reconsideration of the Hitbodedut teachings. Drawing upon Jan Assmann’s teachings on ‘cultural memory’, we were able to provide a technical definition for Hitbodedut as a ritual of solitary meditation that comprises three main elements and conduct a new systematic comparative analysis of various Hitbodedut teachings, demonstrating its continuous practice at least since the Jewish pietists of Egypt in the 12th century, the Kabbalists of Acre in the 13th century, the Kabbalists of Safed after them, in the 16th century, and eventually the Hasidic masters of the 18th century.

In our efforts to establish the meditative nature of Hitbodedut, we also pointed to its potential correlation with another tradition, the use of a specific meditative posture involving placing the head between the legs, suggesting that this posture was likely employed within the context of Hitbodedut. Moreover, we suggested that the Hitbodedut ritual may belong to a specific ethos within the Jewish tradition—the ‘Hasidim HaRishonim’, which distinguishes between the religious worship of the righteous (Tsadik) and the Pious (Hasid).

With our research, we hope to contribute to the understanding of Jewish meditation but also to highlight the limitations of a too-strict ‘phenomenological’ approach, underscoring the methodological virtue of reconstructing the textual meaning of millenia-old traditions within their wider historical, sociological, and biographical contexts.

With these findings, we hope to have shed new light on Jewish meditation and allow for a new perspective and framework through which Jewish meditative and spiritual practices can be examined and analyzed. Furthermore, these findings could also serve in developing the contemporary field of practice of Indigenous Jewish meditation.