Mystical movements invariably stress the mystical experience. It is an experience of all-pervading ecstasy: sensing a reality different from that of our every-day life.

It means penetrating beyond the world that appears to our physical senses and being absorbed in a higher, spiritual realm.

This spiritual realm is regarded as true and real. The awareness and experience of it is seen as an ultimate goal.

Man is to experience, to be aware of, and to be gripped by, the true and real, as opposed to being confounded by the transient and thus misleading world of appearance.

This goal, however, can be achieved only by transcending the confinements of time and space: by a profound concentration on the Absolute immanent throughout, albeit hidden and concealed.

Mysticism thus demands purity of intent - kavanah.

All one's doings must be ordered in such a way that they are not performed by rote, mechanical or habitual. They require an intense devotion that places all actions into the full context of the all- pervasive reality of the Absolute.

Perfunctory motions, egocentric pursuits, self-concern in any shape or manner, have no place in this scheme. Self-effacement - bitul hayesh - is the prerequisite major premise, and pure awe and love of the Divine are the means, to achieve the ideal.

This poses a serious problem.

What is one to do when enjoined to fulfill specific religious duties, when subject to an objective code of laws, as mandated by Torah and mitzvot?

It would seem that tensions must arise between the legal obligation to perform rituals on the one hand, and the ideal condition of the religious experience on the other.

What is one to do if there is a duty (mitzvah) to be performed in a set time and place, when one is not in the proper frame of mind to do so in ideal fashion of right intent and devotion?

Which of the two takes precedence - the physical act or the mental- emotional consideration?

This problem is quite serious.

It would seem to affect Chassidism in a very special way. For Chassidism is emphatic in its insistence to inculcate the principle of the "ideal action." It insists that our life and actions, particularly with respect to Torah and mitzvot, be imbued with the right intent and proper devotion: with ahavah veyirah (love and awe);lishmah leshem Hashem (for the good deed's own sake - for the sake of G‑d).

Paradoxically, this very problem is at the root of the secular-popular stereotype distortion of Chassidism.

In this misinterpretation, Chassidism is presented as careless or negligent in matters of Halachah, or as an emotional reaction and sentimental rebellion against the formal `rigors' of Halachah and `Rabbinic legalism.'

In other words, Chassidism is depicted as having surrendered Halachic duties for the sake of the mystical experience. Formal ritual is said to have been sacrificed for the sake of emotive awareness, the objective act yielded for the sake of subjective feeling.

This view of Chassidism, however, is based on total ignorance.

Those who present it betray their failure to study or understand the teachings and practices of Chassidism. Obviously they did not take the trouble of studying, at the very least, the basic, seminal teachings and practices of the first leaders and guides of Chassidism, namely R. Israel Baal Shem Tov and R. Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezhirech.

Even a cursory glance at their teachings would have shown how totally wrong and distorted these views are.

Chassidism itself was fully aware of the problem. Its leaders dealt with it quite explicitly and in no uncertain terms.

Let us examine and see how R. Dov Ber of Mezhirech, disciple and successor of the Baal Shem Tov, dealt with this question.