Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
246whole movement, whic h started in the last c entury and whic h has about it
remarkable elements of modernity, the so-c alled ‘Mussar Movement’ (on whic h see
Hillel Goldberg) is perhaps best understood as a version of medieval rabbinic ethics.
Piet ist ic et hic al lit erat ure is assoc iat ed wit h a c irc le of Jewish myst ic s and
piet ist s c alled Hasidei Ashkenaz, who were ac t ive in t welft h- and thirteenth-c entury
Germany. T his literature, by and large, is concerned with specific problems and
ac tual situations, rather than with the searc h for general princ iples. It is marked by
deep piety, by superstitious elements typical of Jewish folk as opposed to elite
religion, and by an emphasis on the effort involved in the performanc e of a moral
or religious ac t ion: t he great er t he diffic ult y in performing an ac t ion, t he more
praisewort hy it is. T his idea, and t he parallel not ion t hat t he piet ist (hasid) is
marked by his adherence to the ‘law of Heaven’, whic h is stric ter and more
demanding than the ‘law of the Torah’ to whic h all others must adhere, may not
have been totally unprecedented in Judaism, but were surely given new emphasis
by the Hasidei Ashkenaz. T his c all for supererogat ory et hical behaviour had great
influenc e on subsequent developments in European Jewry.
One of t he most st riking int ellec t ual development s in t he hist ory of medieval
Judaism was the rise and spread of a Jewish mystical movement called Kabbalah
(on whic h see Sc holem, 1946, and Moshe Idel, 1988). A Kabbalistic idea whic h had
important influenc e on Jewish ethic s was the notion that religious ac tions c an have
a profound impac t on the very struc ture of the universe. This, of c ourse, makes
sense in the c ontext of a world-view whic h sees t he physic al and t he spirit ual in a
c onstant state of ac tive interpenetration. On this understanding there is no problem
with maintaining that a definite interdependence can exist between the deeds of
human beings and developments in the world.
Not until 1789 in Europe and muc h later in the Muslim world were Jews
allowed, to all intents and purposes, fully to take part in the c ultures of the
soc ieties around them. When suc h partic ipation was made possible, the Jews dove
in ent husiast ic ally. This openness to and involvement in the broader c ulture is one
of t he c ruc ial dist inguishing marks of modern as opposed t o medieval Judaism. A
sec ond distinguishing mark of modern Judaism is the way in whic h it has bec ome
frac tured into many c ompeting movements, trends, and even, perhaps,
denominat ions. Judaism t oday, t herefore, is dist inguished from medieval Judaism
by virtue of its being open to the entire problematic of modernity, and in that it no
longer speaks with one voic e (or with many different but st ill essent ially
harmonious voic es, for those who insist that Judaism was always marked by
pluralism) in it s at t empt t o answer t hat c omplex of problems.
T his sit uat ion is part ic ularly c lear in t he c ase of et hic s. One c an find Jewish
thinkers who maintain that Jewish ethic s is essentially autonomous in the Kantian
sense and others who glory in the fac t that it is, was, and should be absolutely
heteronomous... Every possible position on the question of the relation between
et hic s and Halakhah is forc efully maintained by different thinkers as being the
authoritative position of the Jewish tradition. On a more c onc rete level, you have
rabbis who c an boast of impressive c redent ials as expert s in t he fields of Jewish law
and ethic s testifying before c ongressional c ommittees studying the question of
abort ion and present ing diamet ric ally opposed posit ions on t he Jewish at t it ude
towards abortion. (On all these matters see the essays in Kellner, 1978, and S.
Daniel Breslauer’s import ant annot at ed bibliographies.)