Response from the Soul

First of all, I wish to thank my colleagues who have responded so thoughtfully to the challenge of a different way of thinking about reality. "I have learned from all my teachers" (Psalm 119:99), and you have all taught me and enriched my own thoughts. Indeed, your responses have been for me a "response to the soul." In particular I wish to thank my good friend and colleague Martin S. Cohen, who made this exchange of ideas possible.

I will respond to the responders' critiques in two major sections: the theoretical or philosophical (that is, the analysis of what Masorti ideology should be in the State of Israel) and the practical or realistic (that is, the idea of forming a political party to further the influence of Masorti ideology on Israeli society). In each section I will respond first in a general way, and then to specific points of individual essays.

The Analysis of Masorti Ideology and Zionism

General response: Most of the respondents seemed to agree with my approach to the nature of Masorti Judaism, so I have no general response.

Specific responses: My long-standing friend David Gordis is not happy with my presentation of Masorti Judaism. He writes:

And even if some substantial numbers would be drawn to Graetz's quite traditional formulation of a personal God, can this assertion that it is Israel's mission to make manifest the "reasonableness and correctness of God's faith in humanity" simply be stipulated without argument and discussion, without risking a kind of theological overreaching which Graetz himself, as a thoughtful philosopher of religion, would reject? A vision for Israel and for the Jewish people needs to embrace moral and spiritual dimensions; it requires a view of history and of the place of the reemergence of the Jewish people on the political stage in that history; it requires a view of the relationships among peoples, faiths, and cultures; and it requires a theology that moves past tired traditional formulations which have been abandoned by the majority of Israelis and large numbers of Jews throughout the world. All these dimensions are lacking in Graetz's "vision" of which Israel is in "dire need." A new, bold vision: absolutely. Graetz's vision: unconvincing to this reader.¹

I agree with David on most of these points, and I wish that the space allotted to me and the mandate for a trigger essay would have allowed spelling out all of the topics that David highlights in his response. However, my essay is a very condensed presentation which in no way reveals my whole thought on the issues raised. For example, I cannot see my views in any way as a "quite traditional formulation of a personal God"; see, for example, my article "Haikaron ha-teologi b'dat ha-y'hudit" in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly 2004, p. 171-181. I have written on the theology of Masorti Judaism, halakhah, Israel, and Jewish history for over forty years and I have covered the points raised by David in greater depth elesewhere. As to the boldness of my vision, I will comment on that at the end of this response. Indeed in the necessarily telegraphic style of my short essay all of these topics are mentioned, but I admit that perhaps the hints are either too subtle or not good enough to fill in the blanks that David thinks are there. His criticism must be addressed as we expand our thinking on entering politics in Israel.

A more telling and specific critique is that of Jeff Cymet. Jeff writes:

It appears that what happened to Judaism in Israel was in fact so revolutionary that Rabbi Graetz fails to even recognize it to be Judaism. The civil religion of Israel, however, is something that was clearly intended as a replacement to the failed religious theologies of the galut.²

Jeff has correctly identified "Israel Civil Religion," what I would call "the ethos of Jewish Israel," as a crucial factor in what is happening vis-à-vis Jewish identity in the State of Israel. Once again, in my own defense, I appeal to...