THE idea of dedicating a conference on hasidism to the memory of Joseph Weiss is entirely appropriate. Although historians before and after him have engaged in the study of the hasidic movement and its teachings, and some may have contributed more to its elucidation, I doubt if any were as fascinated and absorbed by it as he was. He was committed to studying hasidism, and particularly the hasidism of Bratslav, not only intellectually but also emotionally, and-dare I say it-existentially.

I shall not spell out in detail Weiss's material contribution to the study of hasidism because I am not sufficiently familiar with all the relevant aspects of this vast field. What I can offer instead is an attempt to characterize his methodological approach and the quality of his achievements.

Anyone acquainted with Weiss's opus will have observed that most of his publications are predicated on a meticulous analysis of the relevant sources, on the basis of which he then attempts to substantiate the thesis of the article in question. His groundwork is thus of a philological nature based on intimate acquaintance with the nomenclature employed by the hasidic authors. These drew their terminology from the vast literature of the aggadah and homiletics, medieval philosophy and kabbalah, allowing themselves at the same time to deviate from and revise the original meanings. Correct interpretation of the hasidic sources therefore requires due attention to the terms employed in them and their historical background, an enterprise whose success depends upon continual rereading and examination of the texts. Weiss recognized this: he once told me that in order to be sure of one's handling of the sources, one should peruse all the relevant texts every year. From the fact that he returns again and again to the basic sources of hasidic history and teachings in his publications and constantly offers new insights into the intentions of their authors, I suspect that he tried to live up to this.

I said that most of Weiss's articles were philologically based. Most, but not all. Some of them are no doubt informed by close study of the relevant sources but do not specifically mention them; rather, they are bold generalizations offering most important insights.