Abstract

This study attempts to analyze two ways of adapting the Jewish law to the new realities which Jewish life was to encounter in modern times. The study begins by examining Mendelssohn's approach to the Jewish law. At the outset it will be argued that Mendelssohn adopts a restrictive methodology whereby a total distinction is formed between Judaism, representing a body of practical observances, and religion, representing a group of theoretical truths. Judaism thus is left as a law and the Jew therefore is not distinguished from all other people in his particular knowledge of religious truths. Consequently, all that is binding upon the Jew are the laws of the Torah. These have been revealed in an act of supernatural revelation and as such human reason cannot and need not necessarily prove or understand their rationale. The Jewish law, being uncontestable by human reason, must be strictly observed--its rational validity being an irrelevant factor. ;The study then proceeds to analyze Cohen's approach to the Jewish law. Unlike Mendelssohn's Judaism which is, at best, not incompatible with reason, Cohen's Judaism is a religion of reason. The law of Judaism must therefore be both understood and affirmed by reason. Thus, the laws of Judaism become subject to human discretion--reason must accept them as duty. Ethics too has its origin in reason. It follows that the directly ethical laws must eternally be preserved. But the ceremonial laws must be constantly examined, modified or completely discarded insofar as they do not promote the idea of ethics. ;Finally, this study will identify the differences between Mendelssohn's and Cohen's treatment of the Jewish law. Mendelssohn distinguishes between Judaism and the religion of reason while Cohen identifies the two. But moreover, for Cohen, Judaism is not simply a religion of reason, it is in fact the religion of reasons. No other religion reached the degree of purity of monotheism that Judaism reached. Unlike for Mendelssohn, for Cohen, Judaism is a world religion; Judaism takes in Cohen's philosophy the place assigned to natural religion in Mendelssohn's system. Thus, in opposition to Mendelssohn, Cohen emphasizes the great contribution that must be made by the Jews to the rest of mankind. ;Universal messianism being at once both the task and raison d'etre of Jewish existence, total seclusion from the rest of humanity is a contradiction in terms. . . . UMI