Ibid., 4:1.
35. Ibid., 4:7.
36. Ibid., 5:23.
37. Ibid., 6:4.
38. Derech Eretz Zutta.
39. Ibid.
40. Ethics of the Fathers, VI, 6.
41. Leviticus Rabba 34.
42. Shabbat 114a.
43. Airuvin 13.
44. Baba Kama 117.
45. Baba Mezia 84a.
46. Baba Bathra 12a.
47. Berochot 46.
48. Genesis Rabba 33.
49. Aboda Zara 10a.
50. Kethubot 113a.
51. Sanhedrin 11 a.
52. Sukka 28a.
53. Hagigah 14a.
54. Berochot 20a.
55. Genesis Rabba 79.
56. Baba Bathra 8a.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. R. Yosef Yehuda Bloch, Sheurai Daat (New York, 1949), pp. 18, 22.
3
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
LOOKING at the total spectrum of Jewish ethics, one sees that the popular notion, that the Law governs every question in Judaism, is a fallacy. There were indeed times when nearly all creative principles were locked into the rigid categories of an all-embracing law that was presumed to be God-given. But pan-halachism is more characteristic of extremist Orthodoxy in the modern period than of the premodern tradition. In the Talmud the cast-iron logic of legalism was balanced by several factors—the projection of an ethical domain “beyond the law” (lifnim mishurat hadin), the recognition of the validity of the mores and morals of civilized humanity (derech eretz), and by the mystical or philosophical notions that were cultivated in esoteric circles. As late as the sixteenth century, when the Shulhan Aruch was codified, the realm of Perfection beyond the Law was cultivated in pietistic and mystical literature.
Throughout the medieval period, the inner tensions within the Jewish community did not disrupt the façade of unity. There were recurrent struggles in the thirteenth century between those who favored the rationalism of Maimonides and those who insisted on unquestioning faith. Later, the Qabbalah impressed its theosophic and mystery-mongering seal upon the piety of some localities, while other regions rejected it in part, if not entirely. However, prior to the upsurge of Hassidism, the popular mystical movement of the eighteenth century, these disputes did not split the communal organization. After the first two generations, even the Hassidic-rationalist controversy was largely resolved.
The centripetal force that prevented the fragmentation of the scattered community was the authority of the Talmudic law, which remained unchallenged until the nineteenth century. The Qaraite rebellion against the Talmud and against the Gaonic-Exilarchate hierarchy hardly touched the Jews of Christian Europe, and in the Near East it declined steadily. The law of the Talmud was loose-jointed, allowing for considerable flexibility and adjustment to local conditions. In Western and Central Europe, there was no concrete social focus to attract the rebellious, since there was no self-perpetuating hierarchy. And the rabbinate was not so closely allied with political power as to be corrupted by it. In addition, the persistent pressure of a hostile environment served to cement the beleaguered community and to restrain the divisive forces within it.
With the dawn of the emancipation, Jewish people plunged avidly into the streams of secular thought. In a short time, the incisive criticism of modern philosophy and the scientific approach to the study of religions made their impact upon the Jewish community. Today the Reform Jews no longer regard the Law as divinely revealed and eternally valid. They accept the dynamic moral-religious impetus behind the façade of the Law—not the details of its prescriptions. The Conservatives accept some ritual laws and negate others, on the ground that the living community must be the judge as well as the custodian of the heritage from the past. Even those sections of the Law that they accept, the Conservatives regard as divinely inspired in essence, not in detail. The entire tradition bears the contingent marks of its human, historical formulations. For the Conservatives, the legal pattern of rituals is a series of regulations, which the historic “congregation of Israel” accepted, as if it were ordained by God. This pious rhetoric reflects a twofold truth: first, all that is done “for the sake of His Name in love” is “revealed,” or “inspired,” since our love derives from Him and leads to Him; second, the dedicated community of Israel is a vehicle of the Divine Presence (Shechinah), and its authorized spokesmen reflect the unity of God, Israel, and Torah. Rabbinic ordinances and interpretations were therefore considered to be authoritative only when the people accepted them.
For the Orthodox today then, Jewish ethics tends to merge into the accepted code of laws (Shulhan Arukh). However, Orthodoxy too cannot be of one mind, since the Law is part of a more complex tradition. The various parties within Orthodoxy derive their inspiration from the diverse streams within that tradition.
The ultra-Orthodox, led by the Grand Rabbi Joel Taitelbaum, are most uncompromising. They regard the State of Israel as the product of a sinful rebellion against the injunction to wait for the Messiah.1 Less intransigent but still uncompromising are the pietists of the Agudat Yisroel, who conduct an independent school system in the State of Israel. The Mizrachi in Israel and the “modern Orthodox” in America seek to effect a “synthesis” between the modern realm of ideas and the Talmudic ways