Jewish Renaissance and Renewal in Israel

A report of the Dorot and Nathan Cummings Foundations - Page 3 of 4

"RETURN TO JEWISH BOOKS" MOVEMENT: STUDY AS THE SPRINGBOARD TO JEWISH CULTURE, DIALOGUE AND COMMUNITY

The "Jewish Books" movement began as early as the 1960s, but gained steam in the ‘90s. It has been motivated largely by a perception that the true Zionist spirit of Israel is fading, and the natural connection to Jewish sources, once part of a Labor Zionist upbringing, is being lost for future generations. The movement has had enormous success in a limited, but influential, sector of Israeli society: primarily cultural and intellectual. It currently lacks a spiritual dimension or community structure, but this could evolve, particularly as it begins to attract younger participants through social action programs, mass-level events and festivals, and other efforts to place a communal foundation to this primarily intellectual activity.

Ever since the late 1960s, there has been a distinct group of Israelis, mostly secular, engaged in Jewishly-based cultural activities. The author Chaim Be’er labeled this group "the Return to Jewish Books" Movement (Aron Hasfarim Hayehudi, in Hebrew). In the 1970s and ‘80s there were two main learning centers where these activities took place. One was Jerusalem, particularly around the Shalom Hartman Institute, Melitz, and the budding Reform and Conservative movements. The other was in the north at the Oranim Kibbutz College.

The "Jewish Books" people articulated a fairly simple argument. They criticized the Labor Zionists’ abdication of Jewish scholarship and knowledge to the Orthodox. They called for reclaiming Jewish sources and returning them to the secular community as its cultural heritage. They suggested the addition of more experiential learning methods, and encouraged new Jewish expression in the arts, theater and poetry.

These early groups had little impact on the general public. Their activity involved only a few hundred people with limited exposure to the mainstream. In 1989, two young educators–Ruth Calderon, a secular woman who studied at the Shalom Hartman Institute, and Moti Bar-Or, a modern Orthodox rabbi–began to increase participation in the "Books" movement with the founding of Elul. Elul is a study center, a Beit Midrash (the traditional Jewish term for a learning center) that was innovative in several ways. First, it directed its focus primarily to young adults who were searching for a meaningful intellectual experience, and provided them with Jewish texts. Second, it incorporated a pluralist Jewish vision, in the form of Orthodox-secular dialogue, at the center of the learning process. Third, Elul expanded the group of learners far beyond the handful of Israelis previously engaged in similar activities.

Soon afterwards, toward the mid-1990s, the "Jewish Book" movement became well known when elite and celebrated groups in Israeli society began to engage in text study. One exclusive group, called Shaharit, consisted of media and cultural icons in Israeli public life: Orthodox and secular. The members of Shaharit met regularly to study and reflect on Jewish texts. One of the leading figures in the group was the journalist and critic Yaron London. In an interview in the newspaper Ma’ariv in September 1996, he gave these reasons for joining Shaharit: "I joined Shaharit because I have a feeling that the result of overlooking two thousands years of Jewish culture is the next generation’s alienation from language, culture and Jewish literature. I feel that soon my own children and grandchildren will not understand what I myself write."

The concern for the identity of the next generation is a recurring motif in the "Jewish Books" movement. Many Israelis, mostly from Ashkenazi backgrounds and educated in the (secular) Israeli system, came to study only in midlife. They were concerned that the true Zionist spirit of Israel was fading, and, with i t, the natural connection to Jewish sources that was part and parcel of the Labor Zionist orientation. Their emotional reaction can also be seen as a response to the westernization and rapid economic development of the 1990s, which enhanced the allure of influence of consumer-material values. Without a solid basis of Jewish culture as its anchor, they feared that Israeli culture would become indistinguishable from American.

Toward the end of the 1990s, the "Jewish Books" movement saw a significant growth in the numbers of participants and in its geographic spread. Batei Midrash (the plural of Beit Midrash) opened all over the country under a wide range of sponsorship. New players entered the field: the Reform and the Conservative movements, the Israeli Association of Community Centers, the newly-formed Administration for Values Education in the Ministry of Education, local municipalities, and more. By the end of the 1990s, foundation and government-funded programs served thousands of mostly secular adults.

In some cases, the "Jewish Books" movement received attention in the national media. Occasionally, especially around holidays, there were live broadcasts of events taking place at centers for text study: for example, a Passover Seder at the Alma College in Tel Aviv attracted many viewers.

The media now reports on several mass-level Jewish Learning Festivals that fall under the rubric of text study. These include the Kfar Blum Festival in the month of June, and the Hakhel Festival during the holiday of Sukkot: times when the country shuts down and the public is hungry for leisure activities. Each year, these mass events attract thousands of participants, and create a cultural impact through their advertisements and media coverage. The festivals serve many purposes. They draw Jews of diverse backgrounds, and are places to introduce and experiment with creative forms of Jewish expression. The success of these gatherings raises the possibility that Israelis acquire cultural and spiritual nourishment through intensive "one shot" events — at least initially — rather than through routine daily or weekly practice, but there is a need to investigate this hypothesis and its implications further.

Critiques of the "Jewish Books" movement come from both the religious and secular sides of the spectrum. One is that the Jewish Books movement is only a marginal cultural fad for "Yuppies" that is bound to fade. Another calls the movement reductionist, apologetic and without basis in an ongoing community. It is true that almost none of the "Books" groups have included any form of ritual or community involvement, with participation limited to a weekly study session of some sort. However, this analysis overlooks the reality that regular, group study of text often becomes a ritual and source of community in its own right. Leaders in the "Jewish Books" movement, interviewed for this paper, are now convinced that the next challenge for the secular Jewish cultural camp in Israel is to develop a comprehensive approach to Jewish life. This approach should include some sort of ritual and community structure, as well as study and/or holiday celebrations.

SECULAR — RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE: REDUCING TENSION OR LASTING CHANGE?

Following the Rabin assassination, Israelis began to address the societal rift caused by the profound gap between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. New groups formed to facilitate dialogue for all levels and age groups, hoping to encourage both sectors to learn about one another. These dialogues were very important at the time as a mechanism to reduce tension in Israeli society. Some failed to move beyond this important purpose, while others have successfully helped participants to understand themselves and their counterparts more deeply, and provided a framework for lasting change.

The need to bridge the gap between secular and religious Israelis was identified as early as the 1970s. Most of the initiatives that took place in the first years were efforts to bridge a gap in the Israeli educational system. Israeli Jewish society is segregated along religious lines, and parents are required to choose between sending their children to an Orthodox (in Hebrew, dati) or a secular school. The bridge-building programs were aimed at narrowing the gap that the segregated system created.

Most of the programs did little to change the social order. The idea was to let each side "peep" into the life of the other in order to reduce stereotypical attitudes. Such experiences, it was believed, would show the "other" side in its true character, while highlighting the common elements of Israeli Zionist values. Educators on both sides assured parents and leaders that the interaction would not change participants’ attitudes or behavior. This underscored the observation that secular and religious Israelis both are threatened by the possible influence of the "other" side, and that they carry their prejudice into politics, educational programming and daily interaction.

In the 1990s, there was a qualitative shift in the religious-secular dialogue . Its goal became more ambitious than exchanging points of view. Programs like Elul, where learning already incorporated religious-secular dialogue, developed a more interactive dialogue demanding of participants self-reflection, self-critique, growth and, ultimately, a new perspective.

Also, Rabin’s assassination triggered many new dialogue initiatives. Dialogue groups surfaced all over the country and began meeting in the hopes of preventing an even greater catastrophe. The assassination defined an agenda for many of these conversations: protection of democracy, prevention of violence, tolerance, and the need to create a social contract. Many programs introduced new forms of shared learning. One particularly popular program was the Binah seminar at Efal: the Kibbutz Movement’s educational center near Tel Aviv. It was co-taught by Rabbi Yoel Bin-Noon, a prominent Orthodox figure, and Muki Tzur, a leading figure in the Kibbutz movement.

Generally, the dialogue initiatives proposed some closure of the gap between the Orthodox and secular, but often they left Conservative and Reform Jews in Israel out of the process. The irony is that liberal American Jewish groups funded many of the dialogue programs that excluded the more liberal movements.

The ability of dialogue to make lasting contributions to pluralism is still open to question. The numbers of participants are encouraging. However, unless dialogue initiatives leave a noticeable contribution such as a new text, artistic expression or a new communal response, they serve the important, but limited, function of reducing social tension .

THE BREAKTHROUGH OF THE REFORM AND CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS

The 1990s ended with a growth in influence of the so-called "liberal movements" in Israel: Reform and Conservative. These movements have established a presence in Israeli society that is not necessarily reflected in synagogue attendance (as it might, say, in the U.S.). Rather, the movements exert influence through other means, including: work in the national education system, undertaking public advocacy and, more recently, providing a non-Orthodox venue for Israelis to mark important lifecycle events. The large increase in non-Orthodox weddings alone constitutes a kind of "quiet revolution" against the Orthodox establishment. One observer traces the enhanced influence of the liberal groups to two sources: Israelis exposed to Jewish alternatives in America and who want religious choices at home, and Israelis who wish to register protest against the ultra Orthodox political, legal and religious stronghold. The movements also appeal to secular Israeli values, such as egalitarianism. The movements still face significant questions about their ongoing role in Israeli religious life, but they emerged from the last decade no longer at its fringe.

Ephraim Tabory, a Bar Ilan University sociologist, has been observing the development of the liberal movements over time. He writes that, while the measured success of the two movements shows only small strides, their influence far exceeds the number of registered participants or dues-paying congregants. (Together, both movements have, at most, 75 congregations that meet weekly, with only several thousand worshippers.) The leadership of both movements takes this position, and maintains that the movements have become an accepted religious option for many Israelis.

The place of the liberal movements in Israeli society has been studied in several recent surveys. Rabbi David Ariel-Yoel of the Israeli Movement for Progressive Judaism believes that about a quarter of the Israeli public supports the philosophy and the legitimacy of Reform Judaism in one form another, and this, according to him, suggests a huge untapped potential for growth. He cites four different polls that show strong support among the Israeli public for Reform Judaism. According to a poll that was commissioned by ARZA - World Union for Progressive Judaism, 56 percent of Israelis support the government’s providing the non-Orthodox streams with funding equal to what Orthodox streams receive. 35 percent of those polled said they identified most with Reform Judaism and 13 percent with Conservative. 51 percent of those who defined themselves as Hiloni (secular) said they most identify with Reform Judaism, and 27 percent of those who defined themselves as masorti ("traditional") identified with Reform Judaism.

To understand the growing influence of the liberal movements, it is necessary to look beyond the institution of the synagogue. Each movement has made its headway in different arenas. The Conservative movement has had great success by training teachers and by focusing on leadership development, while working to nurture its small network of synagogues all over the country. The Reform movement had made its strides in advocacy work: presenting legal challenges, influencing public opinion, at the same time continuing to provide alternative religious services. Both movements also provide models of egalitarian worship and leadership. Women rabbis, in particular, are important role models.

Both movements have also developed significant education initiatives to feed the growing interest of Israelis in an enriched Judaic program. The most well-known of these is the network of Tali schools: a group of 60 schools within the secular public school system that offer an expanded Judaic program. Thousands of Israeli children, from predominantly secular backgrounds, are enrolled in schools that have some sort of a liberal Jewish program. Both movements also operate initiatives that serve the secular school system, including: curriculum development, teacher pre-service and in-service training, rabbis’ visits to schools to teach about holidays, adult education and youth work. These are undertaken through the movements’ academic arms: the Hebrew Union College (Reform) and the Schechter Institute (Conservative), both based in Jerusalem.

While non-observant Israelis are not yet disposed to go or to belong to a synagogue, there is a growing number of Israelis who will choose a Conservative and/or Reform service when in need. This is particularly true in Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremonies and the newly emerging practice of non-Orthodox weddings. Today, rabbis from the two movements conduct at least 600 wedding ceremonies during the course of a year and around 3000 Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremonies. Rabbis of both movements describe the pressure they feel to officiate in lifecycle events for Israelis who are not members of their congregations. Today it is more common to find waiting lists, back-to-back Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremonies and fees for religious services. As a result, the exposure to the wider Israeli public has grown substantially.

The growth of the liberal movements is a political as well as a cultural phenomenon. Since the mid-1980s, the two movements have engaged in a political and legal campaign for legitimacy and public support. The harsh response they receive at times from the Orthodox rabbinate and the Israeli government often has the unintended effect of arousing public opinion in favor of legitimizing the alternatives to Orthodoxy.

IRAC, the Israel Religious Action Center is the Reform Movement’s advocacy group. It has led the campaign to bring religious pluralism to the political and legal spheres. Established in 1987, IRAC systematically challenges the legal system to overcome many of the obstacles that the liberal religious streams have had and still have to face. In general, IRAC is involved in almost every major issue of religious life that has anything to do with unequal treatment resulting from discrimination against non-Orthodox denominations. IRAC worked through the courts to eliminate legal obstacles that block the growth and practice of liberal Judaism. It fought for the right of rabbis to perform burials, weddings and conversions, to participate in local religious councils, and the right of women to pray at the Western Wall. All too often, its court victories are thwarted by the Knesset or local governments. For example, while the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of non-Orthodox representatives to serve on local religious councils, localities repeatedly defy the order.

In 1999, the liberal movements adopted a new strategy to build the kind of public support they were unable to achieve through the courts. They launched an advertising campaign which carried the slogan: "There is more than one-way to be Jewish". The advertising campaign was co-sponsored by the Israeli Reform and Conservative Movements and financed by the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund of San Francisco. The campaign featured radio and newspaper ads, as well as banners on buses and posters on bus stops. In Israeli terms, it was a massive campaign that exposed the movements to the public at large in an unprecedented way.

The campaign began prior to the High Holiday season. It used the season as a trigger to call upon the public to celebrate the Jewish holidays in a different way. The campaign was clearly aimed at the secular majority, which is believed to know little about Reform and Conservative Judaism apart from the groups’ struggle for legitimacy in Israel. The campaign was bold and slick, using an assertive language with no apologies. One ad began with a little girl saying to her parents: "Mommy, Daddy, it’s not your fault that you’ve developed such a negative attitude toward Judaism." The ad goes on to explain that Judaism belongs to all of us, and that the antagonism is the direct result of the Orthodox establishment. Therefore, for the sake of the children, parents are encouraged to examine the alternative movements that are offering a more appropriate solution. Later on a similar campaign was launched around life cycle events, particularly weddings and Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremonies.

Despite their recent growth, the liberal movements are still weak. In recent years, some government funding was available for the first time for their schools, but their increase in social acceptance continues to outpace any changes in their formal, legal status. They still face tremendous political and legal opposition, and it is not always clear if their support comes as a protest against the ultra-Orthodox or as a positive and lasting embrace of liberal Jewish values.

The movements are facing the same fundamental questions they did when they entered the Israeli scene: can there be a thriving liberal religious alternative in Israel? What is the particular role of the non-Orthodox synagogue and the non-Orthodox rabbi? What roles should the religious streams play in Israeli culture and society? Will Israelis choose non-Orthodox alternatives once the restrictions are removed? Will there be genuine forms of Israeli Reform and Conservative Judaism? Will they differ from their Diaspora counterparts? Answers to these questions will continue to emerge, if slowly, as religious pluralism grows in Israel .

 

continued on page 4