Who Goes to Uman?
Quantity and Demographic Profile of Visitors to the Tomb of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov in Uman Among the Jewish Public in Israel.
Photo by Yaakov Naumi/Flash90
- 8% of Jews in Israel over the age of 18 have visited the tomb of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov in Uman on at least one occasion. Of these, 43% are traditional, 23.5% are ultra-Orthodox (Haredi), 20% are national religious, and 13.5% are secular.
- 40% of visitors to Uman repeat the visit every few years, and another 4% visit the site at least once a year.
- At least one in ten Haredi, national religious, and traditional Jews have visited Uman, while the equivalent share of secular Jews is just 1 in 50 (2%).
- Within the Haredi public, 21% of Sephardim have visited Uman, as have 15% of Hasidim, but only 9% of Lithuanians.
- 20% of Shas voters have visited Uman, compared to 13% of United Torah Judaism voters, 11% of Religious Zionist Party voters, and 10% of Likud voters. Among voters for parties in the Center and on the Left, only a small percentage have made the trip.
Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772–1810) was the founder of Breslov Hasidism, which he led at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. His tomb (known among Breslov Hasisdim as “Holy Zion”) is located in the city of Uman, Ukraine, where he lived at the end of his life, and has been a significant site of pilgrimage for Jews from Israel and around the world for decades. During his lifetime, and especially toward his death, Rabbi Nachman expressed a desire for his followers to be with him on Rosh Hashanah, and his students concluded that his intention was for them to visit his tomb on Rosh Hashanah even after his death. For this reason, many people still visit his tomb on Rosh Hashanah (according to estimates, about 50,000 people each year), but there are also many who make the trip at other times of the year.
This report presents information on the scale of pilgrimage to Rabbi Nachman’s tomb among Israeli Jews, and on the demographic profile of Israeli Jews who visit the site.
The information presented here is based on analysis of a comprehensive survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in September 2024 for the Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State published by the Israel Democracy Institute (edited by Ariel Finkelstein, Ayala Goldberg, Shlomit Ravitsky Tur-Paz, and Ya’ari Padan). The survey sample contained 1,001 Jewish interviewees aged 18 and over, constituting a representative sample of Jewish society in Israel (with a maximum sampling error of ±3.1%). Among other things, the respondents were asked whether they had visited Uman, and if so, how often. In addition, the survey included various demographic questions, producing data that are used here to present segmentation of findings by religious self-definition, gender, income, age, vote in Knesset elections, and Haredi sub-group.
Figure 1 presents data on the share of Jewish Israelis who have visited the tomb of Rabbi Nachman in Uman. It shows that 8% of Israeli Jews report having visited the site on at least one occasion.
Figure 1. Jews in Israel, by visit to the tomb of Rabbi Nachman (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
Figure 2 shows the frequency of visits to the site among the 8% of Jewish Israelis who report having visited it. It shows that 56% of them have done so only once, while 40% have visited the site once every few years. A smaller share of 4% make the trip at least once a year. Seemingly, this group includes those who carefully observe the tradition of visiting the site every Rosh Hashanah.
Figure 2. Frequency of visits to the tomb of Rabbi Nachman, among those who have visited at least once (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
Figure 3 presents the distribution by religious self-definition of those who have visited Uman on at least one occasion, who constitute 8% of the Jewish population in Israel. The figure reveals a wide diversity of visitors: 43% are traditional (28% traditional religious and 15% traditional non-religious), 23.5% are Haredi, 20% are national religious, and 13.5% are secular. This distribution indicates that visitors to Uman come from every sector of the Jewish population in Israel.
Figure 4 presents the share of visitors among each of the religious groupings. It shows that 16% of Haredim have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman on at least one occasion, compared with 13% of national religious Jews, 10% of traditional religious Jews, and 11% of traditional non-religious Jews. By comparison, the share of secular Jews who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb is much lower, at just 2%.
Figure 3. Distribution of Jewish Israelis who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman at least once, by religious self-definition (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
Figure 4. Proportion of Jewish Israelis who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman at least once, by religiosity grouping (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
Figure 5 presents the share of those who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman by age, gender, and income.
Figure 5. Proportion of Jewish Israelis who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman at least once, by age, gender, and income (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
These are the main findings that emerge from the figure:
Age: Analysis of the data by age group shows that the younger people are, the more likely they are to visit the tomb of Rabbi Nachman in Uman: 11% of those aged 18–34 have visited Uman, compared to 7% of those aged 35–54 and 5% of those aged 55 and over. This finding is particularly interesting, since members of the older age groups have had more years during which they could have visited Uman, and of course, they themselves were members of the younger cohort at one time. It is evidence of the young age profile of visitors to the site, and perhaps also reflects the fact that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of visitors to Uman.
Gender: As for the comparison between men and women, the figure shows that the share of men visiting Uman is slightly higher at 9%, compared to 7% among women. The gap between men and women is relatively small, which seems surprising given that those visiting Uman on Rosh Hashanah are almost exclusively men. Breslov rabbis oppose visits to Uman by women on Rosh Hashanah, and in recent years the women’s section at the site has even been closed on Rosh Hashanah and on the days surrounding the holiday. In light of this, most of the women who visit Uman presumably do so at other times of the year, rather than during the mass prayer events on Rosh Hashanah. It is worth noting that there are organized women’s trips to Uman led by rabbis’ wives, a form of religious-spiritual journey intended for women only.
Income: Analysis of the data by income shows that the group earning below the median income has the largest share who have visited the tomb of Rabbi Nachman in Uman (10%), but the differences relative to those with incomes close to or above the median income are not large.
Figure 6 presents information about visitors to Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman by vote in the most recent Knesset elections (2022), that is, it shows the percentage of those who have visited Uman among voters for each of the parties. The figure shows that the party with the highest percentage of voters who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb is Shas (19%), followed by United Torah Judaism (13%), Religious Zionism/Otzma Yehudit (11%), and Likud (10%). The proportion of visitors to the site is particularly low among voters for Labor/Meretz (1%) and Yesh Atid (3%).
The particularly high percentage of Shas voters who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman reflects the Haredi and traditional profile of the party’s voters, as well as the strong connection of the Sephardi-Mizrahi public in Israel to the personage of Rabbi Nachman. This connection is also evident in the figure in the next section, which presents the proportion of visitors to Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in each of the sub-groups within Haredi society.
Figure 6. Proportion of Jewish Israelis who have visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman at least once, by vote in the 2022 Knesset elections (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute
Figure 7 shows that 21% of Sephardi Haredim report having visited Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman on at least one occasion, compared to only 15% of Hasidic Haredim and 9% of Lithuanian Haredim. Though Rabbi Nachman is associated with the Hasidic movement, he is in fact affiliated with a very specific Hasidic group with which many Hasidim have no direct connection, while in the Sephardi Haredi community, there would appear to be a more widespread sense of identification with the figure of Rabbi Nachman.
Particularly striking is the small share of visitors to Uman within the Lithuanian public, smaller than the equivalent share among the national religious and traditional groups (as shown in Figure 3). In addition, in the Lithuanian public, most of those who have visited the tomb have done so only once, while the majority of Sephardi and Hasidic Haredim who have visited the site have done so more than once. The small proportion of visitors from the Lithuanian public is understandable in light of Rabbi Nachman’s affiliation with the Hasidic movement rather than with the founding fathers of the Lithuanian stream, and also because the Lithuanian public attaches less importance to visiting the tombs of the righteous than do the Hasidim and Sephardim.
Figure 7. Frequency of visits by Israeli Haredim to Rabbi Nachman’s tomb in Uman, by Haredi sub-group (%)
Source: Author’s analysis of data from the 2024 Biennial Statistical Report on Religion and State, Israel Democracy Institute