Amy Straus

Counterculture Judaism
EXP-38

3. In this essay I will argue that Judaism is not a matter of strict

interpretation but instead, is the practice of interpreting the text. In

order to support this contention, I will do the following: first I will

highlight the history of challenging traditional interpretations of text in

Judaism and suggest that this practice has been invaluable. Next, I’ll

discuss three cases of radical interpretations that resonated within

some minority communities and gained a following. Rather than

understanding these movements as deviations from a monolithic

conception of Judaism, these should be understood as constituting a

more fractured conception of Judaism. Finally, I’ll discuss some of the

limitations to understanding Judaism as this consolation of closely

related but importantly different ideologies.

Questioning Jewish authority is not an anomaly. From the start of

Judaism, with the rabbis in the Talmud, there have always been radical

moves, individuals who push back against the traditional

interpretation. How should one understand the role of these disputes

within Judaism more generally? Many Jews look at the development of

the tradition and view authority as not vertical, or directly from God,

but horizontal, where there is room to question, wonder, and be

curious. Challenges to Judaism stem from the authoritative nature of

the original text. Once Jews question this original text, they are
essentially questioning all of authority.

Because resisting the trend is not a new phenomenon in Judaism,

there is clearly value in questioning Jewish authority. Yet, the real

question is whether this push gets the individual anywhere and

whether their voice is heard. This depends on a multitude of factors:

are you part of a community? Do you have support? What is your

external environment? Judaism has constantly been changing as a

result of the time period; as an evolving religion, not everyone has

been able to make his or her voice heard. Because Jews continue to

question authority, they feel connected to their religion in an individual

way. Throughout history, Jews have not accepted that Judaism is a

“one size fits all” religion, and therefore, have interpreted the texts in

ways that are applicable to the individuals’ needs and desires. This

personal connection and ability to work within the framework of

Judaism yet still make it work for you is invaluable.

This sense of back and forth is the essence of Judaism; this IS

the holy work. The value of questioning authority is that it gives the

ability to keep Jews connected to the religion. Jews are not pushing

back for the sake of it; they have reason to diverge from the

mainstream tradition and clearly are putting in the time and energy. It

would be much easier for many Jews to check out and disaffiliate from

the religion entirely because they were dissatisfied. Instead, the Jewish

people have continued to question authority and interpret the texts in

a way that works for them.

While the many counterculture movements of the 1960s appear

quite different from one another, they all attempt to change the face of

American Jewish life without deviating too far from the core of the

faith. People voted with their feet, and this was how they changed the

process. Action was taken—religion was no longer viewed as a single,

monolithic institution yet shifted to a more pluralistic Jewish

community.

In “Voluntary Covenant,” Irving Greenberg, an orthodox Jew,

provided an example of a radical interpretation in Judaism by

discussing how Judaism had evolved post the Holocaust. He

emphasized that the holocaust, as a deeply rooted evil event, undercut

God’s power. Jews lost faith, and Greenberg argued that the covenant

subsequently became voluntary. This was a radical realization; Jews

are no longer obligated to do certain things and can no longer simply

rely on God. Greenberg argued that there are multiple ways to have

worthwhile relationships with Judaism and God. This was an

extraordinarily radical idea, especially from an orthodox rabbi who

traditionally has interpreted the text as directly from God in one

specific way. Through this counterculture realization, Greenberg

argued that Judaism was no longer a one size fits all relationship, and

that all Jews are now Jews by choice. “In the age of the voluntary

covenant, every person who steps forward to live as a Jew can be

compared to a convert insofar as a convert, one who voluntarily opts to

be a Jew, must make certain commitments and express certain

beliefs,” (Greenberg, 38). The holocaust demonstrated, “a recognition

that all Jews have chosen to make the fundamental Jewish statement

at great personal risk and cost.”

The feminist movement is an example of a counterculture radical

movement that gained a tremendous amount of traction within the

Jewish religion. Judith Plascow is a feminist who questioned whether

Jewish law was inherently sexist and the implications of this. She

questioned and evaluated the masculine language in Judaism, and how

God has always been viewed as a male figure. Plascow stated,

“Clearly, the implications of Jewish feminism, while they include

halakhic restructuring, reach beyond halakhah to transform the basis

of Jewish life. Feminism demands a new understanding of Torah, God,

and Israel: an understanding of Torah that begins with

acknowledgment of the profound injustice of Torah itself,” (Plascow,

231). Here, Plascow is questioning fundamental aspects of Judaism and

allowing room for interpretation within the original text.

Another quintessential example of a countercultural movement in

Judaism is the Havurah movement. This movement was resisting big,

spiritual Judaism. How can I understand a personal God if I am in an

atmosphere that is huge? This movement believed that Judaism had

become too big and impersonal, and therefore, they broke off and
started something new. The Havurah movement was designed as a

countercultural institution. “It was created as an alternative, a critique

of American Jewish life at a particular time,” (Holtz, 16). They yearned

for more of an authentic connection to their traditions and to God.

Through challenging authority, the Havurah movement opened up

more space for personal meaning and intimacy within the Jewish

experience. This, again, displays the evolution from passive religion to

becoming the owners or “do-ers” of religion.

Yet, there are risks and limitations to challenging authority. Many of

the countercultural movements risked loosing the community for the

individual. While often one gained an intimate connection, they risked

loosing a sense of where they stood as a Jew in the world. Where are

the limits and when does one throwaway their personal ego and go

with the flow? How far can the various interpretations diverge from the

mainstream? The individual need versus assimilating oneself into

something bigger was an essential question and large risk for every

individual who questioned Jewish authority. While questioning authority

can make the experience more personalized, this is an exchange for

the comfort and support that the “bigness” of Judaism often provides.

Regardless of the risks and limitations that questioning Jewish

authority presents, this has not stopped Jews. In fact, it is this back and

forth that is the essence of Judaism. Challenging authority and realizing

that Judaism is not a “one size fits all religion” allows individuals to

continue to stay engaged, connected, and passionate. Yet, through this

challenge Jews also risk loosing the resources and support of the

mainstream Jewish community as a whole.