Feminism and Modern Jewish Theological Method (review)

112 SHOFAR Summer 1998 Vol. 16, No.4 The study of Kaplan may be, in the long run, less significant. The value of the authors' thorough research is reduced by the prism of Orthodoxy through which the material has been filtered. Kaplan is repeatedly referred to as a "heretic" rather than a dissenter, and accused ofmaintaining hypocritical silences or gainsaying his true beliefs in order to retain his position in Orthodox institutions. There is no question that, while at Kehillath Jeshurun, Kaplan tended to hold his tongue. Yet it must also be recognized that the young rabbi, while breaking with traditional belief in "Torah min hashamayim ," had not yet developed a replacement understanding ofJudaism; that would begin to emerge with some clarity in the Menorah Journal articles published years after his departure from Kehillath Jeshurun. Prudence, rather than duplicity, would have dictated silence at that time. The Jewish Center project is presented as the idea of a number ofOrthodox businessmen-most notably Joseph H. Cohen-who then sought out Kaplan, rather than a concept presented by Kaplan to Cohen and others as early as 1915, accepted by them and jointly developed until its opening in 1918. Kaplan's continued presence within that institution-despite the growing personal enmity of Cohen and the refusal of the Board to permit non-Orthodox innovations into religious services-is accounted to greed, yet the authors acbowledge that Kaplan did not accept the generous salary which was voted to him. The breakthrough of Jewish Studies in colleges and universities throughout the United States and elsewhere in the final decades of the twentieth century represents a triumph ofJudische Wissenschaft as proposed by Leopold Zunz and others more than a century earlier. Traditional critics of the Wissenschaft des Judentums have often remarked that the secularization ofJewish Studies causes the material-no matter how thoroughly researched-to be incomplete because it lacks the ta 'am, the flavor which can be found only from the inside, i.e., within traditional Yiddishkeit. The same may be said for the work of Gurock and Schacter: despite its depth of research, it lacks the ta 'am of Kaplan, leaving it, from an non-Orthodox perspective, incomplete. Richard Libowitz Intellectual Heritage Program Temple University Feminism and Modern Jewish Theological Method, by Lori Krafte-Jacobs. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. 192 pp. $38.95. Lori Krafte-Jacobs sets a very straightforward task for herself and accomplishes her goal with admirable clarity and simplicity. She begins with the problem of reconciling Judaism and feminism. She places herself in the Jewish feminist school of thought alongside Judith Plaskow and others which argues that in order for this reconciliation Book Reviews 113 to take place, Jewish feminists must seek changes that go beyond equal rights to the creation of new theological perspectives to define a feminist Judaism. Krafte-Jacobs' contribution this conversation is to assert the need for methodological underpinnings for this new theology. Krafte-Jacobs predicates her search on the idea that Jewish feminists maintain their Jewish commitment by basing their work on the three foundational symbol-sources God, Torah, and Israel. While these symbol-sources may be interpreted differently, they are fundamental to Jewish thought and cannot be ignored or replaced. By adhering to this concept, feminist Judaism would follow the path oftradition and change and remain within acceptable boundaries. This search for an appropriate methodology for Jewish feminist thought leads her to the great male modem Jewish philosophers, and the body of the book is an examination of the works of Cohen, Baeck, Soloveitchik, Heschel, Borowitz, Buber, and Kaplan. Krafte-Jacobs suggests that each of these philosophers chooses one element, God, Torah, or Israel, as dominant. It is this methodological choice which determines the adaptability of the particular philosophy for feminist purposes. The God-centered methods ofBaeck and Cohen are rejected for feminist purposes because their focus on theological unity and truth does not leave room for feminist reinterpretations of the Jewish God. Soloveitchik and Heschel's Torah-centered methods also fail from a feminist perspective because of their insistence on universal revelation as obligation. And the work of Buber and Borowitz, which makes a hybrid of God and Israel as the dominant focus...