The advent of the Reform Movement in the early 19th century ignited bitter debate over the question of Jewish identity with the normative form of Judaism then in existence. The Reform movement could appeal to the diversity of thought existent in far earlier periods  of Jewish history as a basis for its legitimacy, as was the case during the  Second Commonwealth. Finding examples of diversity in the Middle Ages was more complicated, however.  Jewish life since the medieval period reflected an overall  lack of diversity due to the considerable authority invested in the Jewish leaders of the Kehilah.  Despite the power of the Kehilah, aberrant movements did occasionally rise and pose a challenge to the authority of the Kehilah. They were often bitterly opposed and demonstrate the limited diversity of their day.

The Medieval Kehilah

External factors, whether in the form of ghettos, distinctive clothing, or restricted occupational opportunities, served to isolate Jewish communities. They also served to reinforce and maintain Jewish identity. The "ghetto" society of the middle ages reinforced communal authority and autonomy. The greatest reason for this fact is the following: Authority and autonomy were extended to the Jewish community  by the monarchs to whom they were attached in exchange for their "services" and loyalty.  Jews were extended  protection and the ability to administer their communities in accordance with their religious convictions. Jewish affairs were kept out of civil courts. The rulers of the community were granted the power to enforce their rulings. In matters of religious observance (not that a distinction was easily made between civil or religious matters), the rabbis were also empowered to excommunicate individuals. This served as a powerful deterrent to someone considering any serious defiance of rabbinic authority.  On a more practical level, the Kehilah also implemented internal taxation systems which consequently served to reinforce its control over its members. Membership in the Kehilah was obligatory, and conversion was the only means of ending association with it. Jewish communities were often capable of trying both civil and even criminal cases and administering punishment. Compulsory adherence to communal regulations was effected by rabbinical ordinances referred to as Takanot. The Kehilah was derived from Talmudic law and  the acceptance of rabbinical thought as key in Jewish life was foundational. As a consequence, diversity in medieval Jewish communities  throughoutEurope  was virtually non-existent. The decline of the Middle ages and the rise of the modern nation-state contributed significantly to the alteration of rabbinical authority in Jewish communities.

Nevertheless, there were some serious challenges to the monolithic character of Judaism and the authority reflected in the rabbinic sages before the rise of the Haskalah. Limited diversity is evident during the Middle Ages. The greater Jewish community experienced several events and movements which challenged the traditional modes of Jewish identity and created significant diversity of thought. The Karaite movement, the advent of Shabbati Zevi, and  the rise of Hasidism are examples of these movements.  Though several of these movements were short-lived, they do served to emphasize the existence of diversity of thought even amidst the power of the Kehilah.

Karaites

The first  major challenge to  rabbinic authority occurred with the rise of the Karaite movement in the 8th and 9th centuries.  The Karaites or "Scripturists" challenged the monopoly of the traditional Talmudic sages to dictate and defined Jewish life through the prism of halakhah. The Karaites existed primarily in eastern Mediterranean areas. The Karaites, however, proved incapable of sustained assertiveness on a significant scale  and diminished steadily over the subsequent centuries. Nevertheless, the  movement does represent a significant diversion from normative Jewish identity and thought. It continued its polemic against "rabbinism" for several centuries.

Shabbati Zevi

In the 17th century, Sabbateanism became the largest and most significant messianic movement since the Bar Kokhba revolt. The events leading to the rise of Shabbati Zevi stemmed from the general condition of Jews throughout the Diaspora and the desire for political and spiritual redemption fostered by traditional Jewish sources. Improved methods of communication and increased mobility of leading Jewish authorities coupled with the rise ofPalestine as a real center uniting Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora provided the impetus for Shabbati's movement to spread and grow beyond a local phenomenon.  New mystical trends in Kabalistic circles appear to have added a sense of messianic expectation.

The Diminishing the Role of Halakhah in Defining Religious Authority

Shabbati was often found to flagrantly defy biblical and rabbinical prohibitions. Yet despite his actions, masses followed him and even rabbis of considerable respect fell prey to his appeals. Many stepped from a frame work stressing perfect piety in meticulously observing the mitzvoth to adopting the view that their sacred duty lay in the acceptance of everything that was once forbidden. Though Shabbati's direct influence and responsibility in engendering this view its quite clear, some would argue that the seeds for such radical anti-nomian views might have existed just the same as the consequence of development in Kabalistic thought.

The lasting influence lay in the shift of religious values and their relationship to changing social and political conditions in that day and age. Without intending to, Lurianic influence in Kabalistic circles eventually created its own religious elite. The Kabalist in many communities, became superior to the Talmudist. As time progressed, however, the student and master of Kabbalah began to exert the same respect once reserved for the scholar and even draw the financial support that had been afforded to the rabbinical class.

The rise of the Sabbatean movement centering on the mystic Shabbati Zevi, sent considerable shockwaves throughout the Jewish world. For all the complexity of the Sabbatean movement, it engendered a sense of religious anti-nomianism by subordinating Halakhah to the words and revelation of the supposed messiah and his mystical interpretations. For the first time since the rise of the Karaites, who rejected the authority of the rabbi's centuries before, the binding nature of Jewish law as the key factor determining Jewish identity was called into question.  Though the movement faded after the demise of Shabbati's demise, it does provide another example of a movement seriously challenging the status quo.

Sabbeteanism sent rattles throughout the Jewish world, but the overall structure of the Jewish community was retained. The rise of the Hasidim in Eastern Europe and the Haskalah in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th century respectively, did not preserve the structure of traditional society, however. Both movements were not simply variations on the past but rather resulted in a major reevaluation of current models of authority and identity.

The Rise of Hasidism

Hasidism presents something more complicated entity to review. Unlike the Haskalah, it did much to maintain accepted religious forms. Yet its existence shifted the spiritual basis and understanding that had permeated through Jewish society to that point in history. Hasidim is  distinguished by its establishment of  new values or ideological beliefs alongside those of tradition.  By doing so, the exclusivity of normative tradition was challenged and this led to historic changes.

Hasidism arose more out of internal religious factors than by outside influences. Hasidism was characteristically Jewish. It operated solely within the confines of the Jewish community. One important factor that does appear to have come from the outside is that of economic disparity. As economic fortunes at the institutional level suffered, growing numbers of Jews found themselves in dire poverty.  Relationships between Jews and the governing authorities became increasingly strained.  Changing political circumstances gave way to the weakening of communal organizations and the re-adjustment of Jewish communities to powerful local influences. By the second half of the 18th century the integrity of Jewish communal structures of government were severely weakened.

The economic and political turmoil of the day was accompanied by erosion of moral authority in the various aspects of the Kehilah. Corporate institutions like the Yeshivas, which served to reinforce normative Halakhic views on identity, and authority struggled to survive in the face of less funding. Many simply disappeared.  The growing crisis in rabbinical institutions often led to a new scenario. Purchasing rabbinical positions became a reality and as a result unqualified candidates were often found in these important areas of authority. As time progressed, the qualifications for rabbinate were considerably lessened and lower standards were adopted.

Hasidism's great challenge to traditional authority lay in the following: Hasidism did not simply alter or deviate from traditional values. It grew to displace and substitute traditional values with its own views on the Jewish experience. Rooted in its Kabalistic leanings, Hasidism's charismatic outbursts were viewed by its participants as drawing their authority by their direct relationship and contact with the divine.

Since Talmudic scholarship was not accessible to the common man lacking money and ability to comprehend because of either cost or talent, piety could secure the masses a sense of religious immensity.  But this view easily led to an important connotation in Hasidic thought.  The Talmudic elite, was in effect, heavily critiqued. For many in early Hasidism, joy was absent from Talmudic learning.  Hasidism argued for the experiential element in what they perceived to be a solely intellectual pursuit. This view of Talmudic study (intellectual accomplishment) coupled with the "doctrine" of immanence appears to have engendered the conflict between the Mitnagdim and the Hasidim. Rabbinical authorities found the question of immanence very problematic. In their eyes, this belief promoted a form of moral relativism. If that were the case, the rabbis feared, the distinctions expressed in Jewish law could easily be undermined. G-d had commanded distinction and separation between good and bad values, the essence of Halakhic thought.

Hasidic theology viewed the shared ecstatic religious experience of the masses as an independent source of authority. The Hasidim remained loyal to the overall view of traditional Jewish life, yet they viewed the mitzvoth as the key to unlocking intense moments of spiritual exaltation. In essence, the Halakhic observance was not considered to be the underlying justification or the authoritative source for observance. Instead, the accompanying religious experience determined the value and perhaps necessity regarding the observance of the mitzvoth. Hasidism thus found its way on a direct collision course with the Torah scholars and Halakhists that devoted themselves exclusively to study. The controversy between Hasidism and the Mitnagdim foreshadowed the break-up of the kehilah as a coherent religious community. Hasidism, like many of the revolutionary movements in modernity, rebelled against communal authority within Judaism. Volunteerism as opposed to previous compulsory membership dominated the movement.