Dr. Michael Livni
Spiritual Leadership in Liberal Communities in Israel
(Translation: Shaul Vardi and Michael Livni)
From remarks made at a Shabbat seminar, Mevakshei Derech Congregation, Jerusalem
Parashat Chayei Sarah, 22 Cheshvan 5768, 3 November 2007
(Abridged and edited Kislev 5768 – December 2007)

Dear friends, Shabbat Shalom to us all!

Thank you for inviting me to participate in your reflections on a complex question: whether the congregation should engage a rabbi. In my opinion, a more proper phrasing of the question would be: what is desirable in terms of the character and form of spiritual leadership in a liberal Jewish-Zionist congregation in Israel? Needless to say, this question goes far beyond the walls of Mevakshei Derech Congregation…

“Where do I come from?”
As a member of Kibbutz Lotan, and in view of your own particular background, I feel obliged to add a comment regarding the distinction between Reform and Reconstructionism. The legendary Martian sociologist, arriving on planet Earth after studying the theoretical distinctions between the various schools of contemporary Judaism, would surely argue that Kibbutz Lotan is not a Reform kibbutz but a Reconstructionist one. 

Many years ago I felt that the relevance of this distinction had become blurred. Certainly this seemed to be true in the field, particularly in North America. Unfortunately, however, I believe there has been a particularly sharp retreat on this issue in the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ). This will be of great importance in the context of our subject today. The IMPJ is currently undergoing a process of branding (mitug), and now wishes to define itself as follows:

“The Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism is a religious Jewish stream [my emphasis - ML] that offers a contemporary Jewish identity for those seeking to renew that which is Jewish within them, while maintaining a free way of life.”

This might be seen as a return to Classical Reform, which defined itself as a religious stream in order to create a parallel between itself and the denominations within Christianity, and thus adapt itself to the model of a purely ritualistic community – the Kultusgemeinde. We should recall that as long as 75 years ago, during his debate with Reform, Mordechai Kaplan noted that Judaism is not a religion but a civilization. He added that the very word “religion” is an alien import in Judaism. 

During the branding process (and it is, in any case, far from pleasant to “brand” a supposedly ideological movement, as if the movement were Coca Cola), I proposed, together with some other members, that the word “Zionist” should be added to the word “Jewish.” This was not accepted and the matter remains open.

The branding is oriented toward the individual, focusing on the individual’s objective and subjective needs. There is no movement-based horizon here – a point I shall return to below.

During my Shlichut in the Reform movement in North America in the period 1975-1977, I worked with rabbis who were Reform, but who had been strongly influenced, among other sources, by Kaplan in terms of their communal orientation. They saw Kaplan’s theory as an example of an attempt to implement the ideas of Ahad Ha’am on American soil. Kaplan himself emphasized at length the influence Ahad Ha’am had on him in the preface to his book Judaism as a Civilization.

It is hardly surprising that Kaplan’s influence within the Reform movement was one of the ideological components that formed the backdrop to the practical cooperation that led to the establishment of two kibbutzim that defined themselves as Reform Zionist. The preamble to Kibbutz Lotan’s vision statement specifically emphasizes this communal commitment to Reform Zionism. 
_____________________________________________________________________

We now turn to review and renew the meaning of the term “Zionist” as I understand it today.

Two Faces of Zionism:  Political and Cultural
In Political Zionism, Herzl’s aim was to secure a national home for the Jewish people, the state of the Jews, recognized by all the nations and like all the nations. The strategic diagnosis of Political Zionism was that there is ultimately no place for Jews in Exile.

Naturally, the democratic and liberal Jewish state, that was to be a nation like all other nations (or at least in accordance with the model of the enlightened West), would be expected to ensure individual freedom of religion and conscience. The branding of the IMPJ indeed posits an option for Jewish identification within the state of the Jews in this spirit. The state exists. Political Zionism has been realized. From this perspective, we are now in the post-Zionist era. Accordingly, there is no need to mention the word “Zionist” when branding the IMPJ.

By contrast, the position of Cultural Zionism as expounded by Ahad Ha’am still stands.

In 1912, Ahad Ha’am attempted to summarize his position after a debate that had raged for 15 years: “Not a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but a permanent center for the Jewish spirit…” He went on to clarify the meaning of such a spiritual center: “Not merely to found schools and other ‘matters spiritual’, but also to purchase land, found rural colonies and urban neighborhoods.”
The goal was “the renewal of our national culture throughout the world through the renewal of our national culture in its historical center.” 

The diagnosis offered by Cultural Zionism was that the modernist, and perhaps even more so the post-modernist, era poses a threat to Judaism as a culture. Accordingly, Ahad Ha’am argued, the task of Zionism is to ensure the continued creative survival of the Jewish people, wherever it may be. This implies a Jewish national home with a unique Judaism that radiates out to the Diaspora, rather than the state of the Jews. In contrast to Political Zionism, the goal and the mission here are infinite – not merely to secure a refuge for the temporal life of Jews in distress, but to establish a center ensuring that the people will enjoy eternal life.

Cultural Zionism in Israel – Characteristics
Here in Israel, different Cultural Zionist movements developed sometimes contradictory visions as they attempted to respond to the value-based essence of the Jewish state.

Three interconnected components are as vital now as they have ever been for any Cultural Zionist movement:
1.	An ideology, and an action plan derived therefrom, that is capable of recruiting a critical mass in order to promote its vision. The movement must bring people to act together passionately and with all their heart, with all their soul and all their might.
2.	A formal and informal education system based on a specific value-based worldview, from pre-school through to 12th grade and beyond.
3.	Model ways of life  that realize the vision in practice.

Alongside these components, movements require practical and spiritual leadership that is capable of supporting these aspects. An example from before the establishment of the state is the Labor Zionist movement. After the Six Day War, the militant religious Zionist movement Gush Emunim is a further example.

Reform Zionism has the potential to function as an option within Cultural Zionism, as a movement that is committed to a Jewish and democratic state. This movement also assumes the continued existence of the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Accordingly, Reform Zionism bears a responsibility and a special mission to bring messages from the Jewish state to the Liberal and Reform Jewish public in the Diaspora.

As a Reform Zionist movement we must promote action for repair in the spirit of the Jewish prophets, addressing the relations between individuals and between each individual and God. Where does Reform Zionism stand in the test of these components? 

Regarding God, let us not enter into a theological discussion. In any case, I accept the phrase “there are many entrances to the Place” (harbei petachim l’makom) as appropriate for liberal Judaism. In modern times, “the Place” comes to be understood as referring not only to the concept of God, but also to Creation. Divine Creation is granted to us “to work and to preserve”.  Regrettably, all too many are intent on sullying it.

What do Political Zionism and Cultural Zionism have in Common?
It is important to note, however, that Political Zionism (in the past) shares a common denominator with Cultural Zionism (both in the past and the present). Both approaches are based on an ideology that seeks to realize a vision. After all, “Where there is no vision, the people become unruly” (Proverbs 29:18).

In his book, The Zionist Ideology, Gideon Shimoni defined the term “ideology” as follows: “A logical and clear system of ideals and an action plan providing those who adopt it a comprehensive cognitive map of their positions and goals.”

Without a theory of ideas delineating a course of action in order to realize a vision, there can be no Zionist movement. As I noted, from the perspective of Political Zionism (and in contrast to Cultural Zionism), we are now in the post-Zionist era. The negation of ideology as a means of thought, and the negation of organization around an action plan designed to achieve an ideal are key characteristics of postmodernism. In order to illustrate the difference between modernism and postmodernism, I shall quote a comment by Leo Baeck regarding the harbinger of Zionism Moshe Hess:
“He saw the present from the vantage point of the future… He did not want to shape the future on the basis of what existed in the present.” The first of these is modernism; the second is postmodernism.

An even clearer example is Herzl’s maxim “If you will it – it is no fairy tale.” This is a modernist statement, defining a vision and a goal even if these seemed very far removed from the “reality” of the period. A Zionist movement can never be postmodernist. 

The branding process in the IMPJ, which was undertaken by means of a “market survey,” constitutes an attempt to shape the future on the basis of what exists in the present. The branding process is not only post-Zionist, but also postmodern. Accordingly, the branding is inconsonant with Cultural Zionism; from a broader perspective, the process is inconsonant with the prophetic stream of Judaism.

If the IMPJ is no more than a collection of ritual congregations, a manifestation of a Jewish religious stream as presented in the branding, then my comments are in vain. Moreover, if this is the case, spiritual leadership could exist in such a religious stream in accordance with the model found in the liberal ritual congregations in the Diaspora – provided someone can be found to pay for this. On the other hand, if we are dealing with a cultural, liberal-Reform Zionist movement – are we even on the map?

Thus far I have presented basic assumptions. We can now turn to examining the question of spiritual leadership in a Reform Zionist movement – as distinct from spiritual leadership in congregations affiliated together in a religious stream.

=============================================================

Spiritual Leadership in Israel
Eliezer Schweid has discussed the question of spiritual leadership in contemporary Israel. As I understand them, his remarks constitute a comprehensive and profound commentary on a verse that is familiar to all of us from the Ethics of the Fathers (1:1): “Moses received the Torah at Sinai. He transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly.” This verse embodies a narrative (or a myth, to use Schweid’s terminology) of the transmission of the scepter of leadership and authority within the Jewish people. 

Schweid comments: “… I assume that the success of sages, rabbis, moral leaders, and the Mekubalim and Rebbes of the Hassidism in providing spiritual leadership for their community has its foundation in the presence of a ‘myth’ that unifies the community and provides it with an agreed values system and norms for agreed behavior. Such a myth, through the characteristics of which the picture of reality is formed, and through the characteristics of which people respond to this picture, created a direct bond between the rabbinical elite and the ‘masses,’ and establishes a contiguous hierarchy of leadership that absorbs and transmits a spiritual message from the leadership to the people, and a message of desires and questions from the people to the leadership…”

In the context of the discussion of spiritual leadership, Schweid explains Maimonides’ theory of leadership: “God is the model for Moses, and Moses is the model for the people or, more precisely – for the leaders of the people, since the character of Moses himself is too lofty and ideal for the people to be able to imitate him directly… Prophets imitate Moses, and sages and elders imitate the prophets, and the people imitates its sages and elders, and children imitate their parents. Thus leadership operates through a hierarchy of leaders with independent powers of leadership. Each one both leads and is led… Accordingly, the supreme spiritual understanding of Moses, even though he alone is capable of such a level, becomes highly meaningful for the entire Jewish people, down to the youngest child… For as long as this myth shaped an agreed perception of reality and a common language through its symbols, spiritual leadership in Israel was a tangible and powerful fact…

“It may readily be discerned that in modern times this myth has been undermined, and has not been replaced by any other myth capable of uniting a community through a similar sense of reality…

“The undermining of the myth and of the leadership that operated on its foundation has indeed been a historical process; it has created along its way different models for an alternative myth. In this context, it is worth examining the operations of the rather effective spiritual leadership of the early Zionist movement. The Zionist movement sought to provide the Jewish people with a new, effective leadership in place of the previous religious leadership, which seemed unsuccessful and disintegrating…”

Schweid explains that the spiritual leaders of Zionism worked through literature, emphasizing that they came to literature for the purpose of spiritual leadership. The examples he gives include Ahad Ha’am, H.N. Bialik, A.D. Gordon, and Berl Katzenelson.

Schweid also comments on the religious Zionism of the period, and I believe this aspect is important for our discussion: “… As an aside, I would note that the religious Zionist leaders were also such people: They included great rabbis, but their strength as leaders did not derive solely from the rabbinate and most of the rabbis probably did not cooperate with them.” 

I would add the example of Avraham Shlonsky, a spiritual leader of the Third Aliyah who managed to express his generation’s approach to tradition and traditional leadership. His life and works are a model of Cultural Zionism. As those who are familiar with his poem “These against These” will recognize, I have taken the liberty of rearranging the order of the lines for the didactic purposes of our current discussion:
“And so we shall stand by the bookshelf
At the junction of the generations between night and dawn
We dared to create from a new beginning
For we came here to continue the way
This is the command of the sons who rebelled, for they took over
The secret of the inheritors who break down the fence.” 

From Rabbinical Judaism to Sovereign Judaism
Yariv Ben Aharon (the son of Yitzhak Ben Aharon, who died recently at the age of 99) discusses the ramifications of the abandonment of the classical model of spiritual leadership as described by Schweid. Yariv Ben Aharon argues that the Zionist revolution led to the end of rabbinical Judaism and the beginning of a new era – the era of Sovereign Judaism.

It is not irrelevant to note that Yariv Ben Aharon himself is a literary figure, one of the spiritual leaders of a movement that has developed over the past decade, establishing urban kibbutzim and cooperative communities that operate in Israel’s social and geographic periphery. Regrettably, Noar Telem, the Mechina, and the Young Forum are currently absent from this endeavor. 

In truth, Yariv’s perspective is broader still. He discusses the far-reaching change that occurred in spiritual leadership between the First Temple and Second Temple periods. A  leadership of kings, priests, and prophets was replaced by sages. This transition was far from easy and was not completed overnight. Now, in our Jewish, Zionist, and democratic society, a transition is needed from rabbinical Judaism to sovereign Judaism, with the appropriate spiritual leadership. This is part of the transition “between night and dawn” and, of course, it will certainly require several generations. I do not know whether we have the luxury of such a long timeframe. Reform Zionism could be part of the solution. Due to the current course of the IMPJ we are actually, I believe, part of the problem.

It is difficult, to put it mildly, to reconcile the profile of spiritual leadership in a sovereign liberal religious community with the profile of spiritual (rabbinical) leadership based on a concept which, in terms of non-Orthodox Cultural Zionism, has become redundant. The situation in the Diaspora is different, I would agree; but we are in Israel.

The Implications of the Perpetuation of Rabbinical Judaism in the IMPJ
It is pointless to argue that “our” rabbis are different. They certainly do not enjoy the authority of poskim (arbiters of law), but solely that of advisers. They certainly view the Halacha as a source rather than an authority. But this does not matter. The intention of the term “rabbi” is to attach oneself to the chain of spiritual authority that was rejected by the Zionist revolution. In terms of the public, this is the message that is projected. 

We might note that the very term “Council of Progressive Rabbis” (MARAM) seems to allude to a parallel with the “Council of Torah Greats” or the “Council of Torah Sages.” It would have been quite possible to establish an informal body – the Circle of Progressive Rabbis.

This aside, the appointment of an official spiritual leader in a community has implications in terms of the internal dynamics in that community. Retaining a rabbi creates dependence and passivity in the community. After all, we pay money so that he or she will “do our Judaism for us.” The process that results clashes with the dynamics required in a creative cultural Zionist community.

The current format of a “religious stream” demands paid spiritual leadership – professional Jews. In a sovereign Zionist community, this leadership must come from within. This does not negate occasional retention of educational or other services from outside the community. Even on Lotan we occasionally do so. But there is a big difference between this and officially appointing a rabbi in the community.

Another negative ramification is of concern to me as an educator. What message are we conveying to the younger generation? Do you wish to live a Reform Jewish life and, perhaps, even make a living from it? Here are your role models – the rabbis. Only as a professional Jew can you realize your inclination. Beyond a given normative limit, volunteering means that you are a “sucker.”

However, the dangers to the movement inherent in the adoption of the model of the rabbi as spiritual leader are not confined to the internal community level. By attempting to apply the model of rabbinical Judaism to our movement, we reflect the tendency to align ourselves with passing on the tradition of authority (mesira) as this emerged during the Second Temple period and the Exile that followed. (Avot 1:1)  In so doing, we quite simply lose any credibility among that section of the public we seek to influence – the minority within Israeli society that still consciously identifies with the idea of Cultural Zionism. Paraphrasing A.D. Gordon, these are Jews who believe in infinite goals and in eternal life (chayei olam), as opposed to solely everyday life (chayei sha’ah). These are believing Jews (and, as such, they are not “secular”), though they are free of a commitment to Halacha. It is such Jews, consciously sovereign and free, that we seek.

Note that when I use the term “free Jew,” I do so to refer to people with faith, people who believe that we have a purpose, as distinct from perceiving us as a “chosen people.” The desire to realize this purpose constitutes our destiny – transformation (Tikkun) of the individual, of the people, and of the world. It is an infinite process.

“Secular” Jews (just like the word “religion,” the word “secular” has no roots in Jewish tradition) do not have faith in purpose or in any infinite goals. For the secular there is no eternal center (Buber) that imbues their everyday life with flashes of  sanctity. The idea of infinite purposive life embodies Buber’s “eternal thou” and Gordon’s “eternal life.” The eternal purpose grants meaning and sanctity to everyday life.

The individuals Schweid mentions saw themselves as free Jews – free of Halachic commitment. Shlonsky’s poem is not the work of a secular man, but of a man steeped in Zionist faith. David Ben Gurion, too, never saw himself as secular. The primary target population of Reform Zionism are free Jews – not necessarily secular Jews rummaging through the stalls in our supermarket of Judaism.

Rabbinical, Halachic, secular, and sovereign… I have described all of these terms in black and white. I know that shades of gray also exist. I know that people can change. Sometimes deeds whose intention is mundane can morph into higher purpose.

Having said all the foregoing, if Reform rabbis constitute our calling card to the free Zionist public then we are sending out an ambiguous message. On the one hand, our messenger represents rabbinical Judaism (with all the accompanying historical baggage).  On the other hand we claim to offer sovereign Judaism. Remember that the medium is the message. Placing a rabbi as our role model may turn out to be a self-inflicted goal in terms of that public that identifies with sovereign Cultural Zionism.

The IMPJ as Replica of the Diaspora Congregation
As I have already noted, however, I am forced to admit that much of what I have said here is irrelevant if the IMPJ is merely a religious stream – a replica of the model of the Diaspora congregation, at least in terms of the pattern of spiritual leadership. I should emphasize that I am not opposed to the adoption of models developed in the Diaspora. The idea of the Israel Religious Action Center, for example, was copied from the Religious Action Center in Washington DC, and IRAC serves as the key Reform Zionist institution of the movement in Israel. In a completely different field, almost 30 years ago the youth movement adopted the idea of the creative prayer service from NFTY, the youth organization of what was then the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. They gave the creative prayer service the Hebrew name ma’amad. Creative prayer made a serious spiritual contribution to the culture of our youth in Israel, and indeed not only to the youth.

In the field of spiritual leadership, however, the adoption of a model based on a rabbi by liberal Cultural Zionism is an error and is contrary to the idea of sovereign Judaism.

The Financial Aspect
If, though, we are indeed dealing with a Reform religious stream rather than a sovereign Cultural Zionist movement, we must then speak about an aspect I have deliberately avoided until this point – the financial aspect. As the representative of Kibbutz Lotan on the National Board of the IMPJ, I cannot present ideological Zionist arguments as I have tried to offer to you today. Well, obviously I can do so – I enjoy freedom of speech. But in the context of a body that sees itself as a religious stream and which hesitates to even address the question of its own Zionist Jewish identity, because for many Zionism has become a pejorative or redundant term – the Cultural Zionist argument lies outside legitimate boundaries of discussion. .

In my opinion, though, the Executive – with the consent of the majority on the National Board – is leading the IMPJ to a dead end. There is no money. The method of establishing more congregations according to the current method of subsidizing the rabbis and staff, and subsidizing the maintenance costs of the congregation, is unsustainable. Requests from all kinds of educational institutions, including teacher training colleges, go unanswered for budgetary reasons, and sometimes also because of a lack of appropriate human resources. The Executive and the National Board represent the existential needs of the congregations in a religious stream. They are not institutions of Reform Zionism. There is no such movement in Israel; perhaps it is time one were established. 

I accept that Reform Judaism in the Diaspora, even if it is not Zionist, is pro-Israel and is interested in promoting the existence of Reform congregations in Israel in its own image.

Clearly, in the foreseeable future, the congregations in Israel will be unable to cover by themselves the cost of buildings. But the provision of an unending transfusion of money from abroad to cover operating costs of congregations is a scenario that is nearing the end of its days. The current policy has no viable economic horizon. I would not recommend that any other congregations enter into this flawed setup by taking on a financial commitment that cannot be met from the congregation’s own resources. In Lotan, we do not have the money for a rabbi, and we are also opposed to the idea on an ideological level. One of the members of Lotan is a rabbi. She certainly makes a great contribution to the Culture Committee, but she is not the rabbi of the community.

Reform Judaism in Israel – “Halukka” Judaism?
The economic dependence on Diaspora Jewry has a further dimension; let us call it the moral dimension. The IMPJ has become dependent on the “Halukka” (the distribution of funds from abroad) just as much of the Jewish community in Eretz  Yisrael was during the pre-Zionist era. In the final analysis, how can the World Union for Progressive Judaism be persuaded that it must subsidize ongoing and current religious services for a population that can hardly be described as indigent?

Rabbis as Spiritual Leaders in Education
If we accept that the IMPJ is a religious stream that follows the model of rabbinical spiritual leadership as based on the tradition of transmission (mesira) from the Second Temple period and through two thousand years of exile, we may still demand a change in the format of work of our rabbis. Our rabbis must make a living for themselves from other work, just as was the case in the past: “It is good to combine the study of Torah with an occupation … All Torah study that is not accompanied  by work, will come to nothing and bring sin in its wake.” (Avot  2:2).

In modern times, every rabbi should undertake to teach Jewish studies in high schools or teacher training colleges. This is not just a matter of making a living, but also a mission. Given the current ideological and economic reality, to train rabbis for IMPJ congregations without ensuring that they also have a teaching certificate is irresponsible both to the rabbinical students and to the movement. Today, at least, some of our young rabbis seem to have understood this.

Good luck to all of us as we continue on our path.

*******************************************************************