• Rabbi Alan Miller

    Come and learn why you should know more about this fascinating rabbi than you probably do.

    On Sunday afternoon, December 3, 2017, we gathered at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism in Manhattan for a conversation about Rabbi Miller with Ms. Ruth Messinger, Rabbi Philip Pohl, Dr. John Ruskay, and Rabbi Dr. Deborah Waxman, moderated by Dan Cedarbaum.  To see more about the panelists, click here.  For a video recording of that program, click here.

    To hear one of the greatest pulpit orators of the 20th century, click here.

    We will be adding other materials about Rabbi Miller to this page from time to time.

    God of Daniel S.: In Search of the American Jew (1969)

    In this remarkably current book, Rabbi Dr. Alan Miller, z”l, the rabbi at the Society for the Advancement of Judaism in New York for more than 30 years (from 1961 to 1992), elucidates the principles of Reconstructionism and, via the device of a seeker estranged from his Judaism, walks him through what belonging to a Reconstructionist community would entail.

    Perhaps most interesting is the central section of the book, where Rabbi Miller makes a quick run through Jewish history with a psychological approach.  In the same way that a child can only make sense of her personal history once she achieves a stage of self-consciousness, so the Jewish people, Rabbi Miller claims, could only make sense of its history when it achieved self-consciousness during the period of the Prophets.  The early stories of creation were myths (analogous to scientific theories today), and the stories of Abraham and his progeny were legends, refashioned over generations to suit the time of the telling.  The Prophets reconstructed the theology of the Torah in light of the destruction of the Temple so that it was meaningful for a people in diaspora, and envisioned a God who embodies righteousness.  The calamities that had befallen the Jewish people were interpreted as retribution for transgressions.

    Miller divides Jewish history into four sections: Biblical, Rabbinic, modern, and democratic, and sees Kaplan as an archetype of the democratic Jew.  We at the Kaplan Center were privileged to count Rabbi Miller among our esteemed Senior Fellows.

    The SAJ sanctuary as it looked during Rabbi Miller’s tenure:

    •

    Hirsch Fishman

    •

  • The Kaplan Quiz

    Round 11

    In 2022 we will be celebrating the centennial not only of the SAJ’s founding, but also of Judith Kaplan Eisenstein’s Bat Mitzvah.  With that in mind, we ask:  What famous 20th-century rabbi wrote the following regarding Bat Mitzvah?

    “Clear logic and principles of pedagogy virtually require equal celebration for a girl when she reaches the age of responsibility for mitzvot.  …  The difference which is made in the celebration for a boy and a girl upon reaching maturity makes a very hurtful impression on the feelings of the maturing girl, who has in all other areas attained equality.”

    Question: Was it:

    (a)  Ira Eisenstein;

    (b)  Mordecai Kaplan;

    (c)  Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg;

    (d)  Stephen Wise;

    (e)  Moshe Feinstein; or

    (f)  Robert Gordis?

    Answer: (c) Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg

    The writer was Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (1884-1966), a fascinating figure in the history of modern Orthodoxy.  Rabbi Weinberg is often known by the title of his most famous work, the Seridei Aish, and, indeed, the quoted passage is from a responsum published in that collection.  (Unfortunately, the responsum is undated, and the collection was not completely published until 1966, the year of Rabbi Weinberg’s death.)

    The prize goes to Ittai Hershman.  Honorable mention to Richard Blum, Shel Schiffman, and Jonathan Zimet, all of whom got the correct answer but were just a little slower in submitting it.

    Full disclosure: Rabbi Weinberg was writing about celebrating a girl’s becoming a Bat Mitzvah (and, at that, outside of the synagogue), not about any ritual recognition of the transition from Jewish childhood to adulthood. Still, his view was notably liberal, in its time, within Orthodoxy.  For the highly interested, the full text of the responsum (in Hebrew) is available here.

    Round 10

    In a letter to the chairman of the board of trustees of a well-known synagogue, a prominent American rabbi wrote the following in defense of another prominent American rabbi, whose authority was then under attack:

    “In Jewish tradition, the office of its Rabbi, who is authorized to speak for the entire Jewish people, young and old, rich and poor, is highly sacrosanct.  To take it upon oneself to render a legal decision in the matter of law in the presence of the Rabbi is to incur divine punishment (Erubin 63a).  While we do not subscribe to the severity of the punishment, we have to reckon with the principle that for Jewish life to survive, authorized rabbinic leadership must be respected.  …  No self-respecting Rabbi can afford to have the laity exercise authority in matters pertaining to the synagogue ritual or the pulpit.”

    Question: Was it:

    (a)  Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan writing about Rabbi Alan Miller (1971)?

    (b)  Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan writing about Rabbi Ira Eisenstein (1956)?

    (c)  Rabbi Milton Steinberg writing about Rabbi Ira Eisenstein (1944)?

    (d)  Rabbi David de Sola Pool writing about Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan (1921)?

    Answer: (a)  Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan writing about Rabbi Alan Miller (1971)

    The letter in question* was dated May 18, 1971 and was written by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan to Robert L. Krause, then the chairman of the board of trustees of the Society for the Advancement of Judaism (SAJ), concerning Rabbi Alan Miller.  Interestingly, almost everyone who participated in this round of the quiz went for the trap we set with “Rabbi David de Sola Pool writing about Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in 1921,” when Kaplan was still the rabbi of The Jewish Center, which certainly seemed plausible, if not (as some respondents claimed) “obvious”.

    The prize goes to George Hyman, who, although he tried to hedge a bit, did get the correct answer.

    Almost as interesting as Kaplan’s letter to Krause is the memorandum, dated June 16, 1971, that Rabbi Ira Eisenstein wrote to Rabbi Kaplan in response to the letter.  Among other criticisms contained in that memorandum, Rabbi Eisenstein complained that Rabbi Kaplan “quote[d] the Talmud to the effect that one must not ‘take upon one’s self the responsibility of rendering a legal decision in the matter of law in the presence of the Rabbi [sic] .’  It seems to me that for many years you have tried to make the point that when it comes to ritual we must not invoke the halakhah.”

    In addition, Rabbi Eisenstein wrote that, “When we prepared the Guide to Jewish Ritual at one of the conventions of the Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations, we did so jointly with the lay people.  We did this precisely because we believed that in matters of ritual the laity should have an equal voice since religious service is intended for their inspiration and edification, and rabbinical authority should be looked upon as the authority of expertness rather than power.  In fact this is exactly what you and I did when it came to the question of giving aliyot to women [at the SAJ].  We did not make the final decision at all.  We initiated the idea; we recommended it; we strongly defended the concept but until a consensus was achieved at a membership meeting no action was taken.  This meant, in effect, that the laity has a veto power over the rabbi rather than vice versa.”

    *containing the following statements: “In Jewish tradition, the office of its Rabbi, who is authorized to speak for the entire Jewish people, young and old, rich and poor, is highly sacrosanct.  To take it upon oneself to render a legal decision in the matter of law in the presence of the Rabbi is to incur divine punishment (Erubin 63a).  While we do not subscribe to the severity of the punishment, we have to reckon with the principle that for Jewish life to survive, authorized rabbinic leadership must be respected.  …  No self-respecting Rabbi can afford to have the laity exercise authority in matters pertaining to the synagogue ritual or the pulpit.”

    Round 9

    We occasionally hear a grumble to the effect that the Kaplan Quiz is too “heavy”.  Want a little popular culture in the quiz?  Try this:

    One of Rabbi Kaplan’s sons-in-law was a prominent entertainment lawyer and producer.

    Question: Which two of the following four celebrities were his clients?

    (a)  Doris Day

    (b)  Paul Newman

    (c)  Ethel Merman

    (d)  Zero Mostel

    Answer: (a) Doris Day and (d)  Zero Mostel

    The trick here was not to take the Ethel Merman bait, which almost everyone went for.  The correct answer is Doris Day and Zero Mostel, both of whom were clients of Saul Jaffe (1914-1977), who was married to Kaplan’s daughter Selma (1915-2018).  Frank Sinatra and Grace Kelly were also among his clients.

    Congratulations to R.D. Eno, of Cabot, Vermont, who gets the prize.  Extremely honorable mention to Uri Wilensky, of Glenview, Illinois, who got the answer but was just a little slower in responding.

    Round 8

    On December 8, 1950, a modern Orthodox rabbi in Pittsburgh named Morris Landes wrote to Rabbi Kaplan to introduce the work that would become Rabbi Landes’ doctoral dissertation at the University of Pittsburgh, an “analysis of the varying conceptions of the mitzvot massiot held by accepted leaders of American Jewish thought in the Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, and Orthodox ranks.”  Rabbi Landes asked Rabbi Kaplan “to list ten men in the general Conservative ranks and ten among the Reconstructionists, who would be considered accepted leaders of their denominational thought.  It is understood that the same names may appear in both lists.  There is no desire here to put you in the difficult position of choosing the ten leaders of your denomination, merely ten representative leaders of denominational thought, whose published works are available, with the understanding that there might be others who might equally appear on this list.”

    In a letter dated December 21, 1950, Rabbi Ira Eisenstein replied to Rabbi Landes on behalf of Rabbi Kaplan.  Rabbi Eisenstein wrote that Rabbi Landes’ letter “was discussed by [Rabbi Kaplan] and one or two of us in the Reconstructionist Foundation office, and I am pleased to submit herewith the names of ten Reconstructionists whom you might want to use for your study.  I think that it would be best for you to approach the Rabbinical Assembly of America to get the list of ten Conservative men.”  (Rabbi Eisenstein for some reason did not mention in his letter that he was then the president of the Rabbinical Assembly.)

    The list of Reconstructionist leaders set out in Rabbi Eisenstein’s letter included Rabbis Kaplan and Eisenstein themselves as well as Rabbis Eugene Kohn, Jack J. Cohen, and Milton Steinberg, who had died a few months earlier.  The other five names on the list are far from obvious.

    Question:  What is the name of one of those other five people on the Reconstructionist list (two of whom were not rabbis)?

    Answer:  Rabbi Solomon Goldman, Rabbi Samuel Blumenfield, Dr. Samuel Dinin, Rabbi David Polish, and Dr. Jacob S. Golub (in the order listed in Rabbi Eisenstein’s letter).  You can learn a little about each of these men by clicking on his name.    

    This round was really hard.  The prize goes (again) to Professor (and Rabbi) Alan Brill.  (If you are not familiar with Professor Brill’s wonderful blog, The Book of Doctrines and Opinions, you should check it out here:  https://kavvanah.wordpress.com.)  Professor Brill correctly identified Rabbi Goldman and Dr. Dinin.  No one else got even one of the five.

    Round 7

    Question:  What well-known rabbi claimed, in 1974, that he had persuaded Kaplan to add the word “religious” to his original definition of Judaism as “the evolving civilization of the Jewish people”? (Hint:  That rabbi at the same time reported that he had turned down Kaplan’s invitation to serve on the first editorial board of The Reconstructionist magazine forty years earlier.) 

    Answer: Robert Gordis.

    The prize goes to Rabbi Dennis Sasso, who set a new speed record by responding correctly within five minutes of our sending the question. Extremely honorable mention to Miriam Eisenstein, Benjamin Goldberg, Rabbi Richard Libowitz (the previous speed-record holder), and Marc Swetlitz, all of whom answered correctly, just a little less quickly.

    Round 6

    In a June 1972 letter, the writer said of the recipient that “you, and you only [were] the founder” of the Reconstructionist movement.

    Question:  Who wrote the letter, and to whom?

    (a)  Louis Finkelstein to Mordecai Kaplan

    (b)  Mordecai Kaplan to Ira Eisenstein

    (c)  Ira Eisenstein to Mordecai Kaplan

    (d)  Mordecai Kaplan to Harold Schulweis

    (e)  None of the above  

    Answer: (b)  Mordecai Kaplan to Ira Eisenstein

    The prize goes (again) to Rabbi Zachary Silver, whose expertise on Kaplan is evident elsewhere on this website. Extremely honorable mention to Abraham Clott, Ron Glickman, David Goldfarb, Rabbi Richard Hirsh, Eric Levine, Alan Marcum, Rabbi Arnold Rachlis, Rabbi Dennis Sasso, Carol Stern, and Rabbi Deborah Waxman, all of whom answered correctly, just less quickly.

    Round 5

    Question:  What well-known rabbi wrote the following in his synagogue bulletin dated December 16, 1949?

    “I am closest in spirit to Reconstructionism.  My disagreements with it are minor.  My approach to the Halachah and my conception of a modern Prayer Book may be somewhat to the right or left of it as you please. … The Prayer Book should be much briefer, less apologetic, argumentative, and sermonic than the Reconstructionists have made it.  The Jews of to-day may perhaps still form the habit of praying if we give him [sic] little, and direct that little to his emotions.  In other words, a service in our day must become, within our modern setting, what it was at its inception—drama, pageantry, song.  It would make me happier if … the Reconstructionists realized that for those of us who take a modern view of revelation the theological discussion of the selection [sic] of Israel has become superfluous and monotonous; and … if they were less vague about their community approach.  But there is blessing in what the Reconstructionists have thus far done, and of all of our present Jewish ideologies they hold out the greatest promise.”

    Answer:  Rabbi Solomon Goldman

    The prize goes to Professor (and Rabbi) Alan Brill, of Seton Hall University.

    The bulletin was that of Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago, the congregation that Rabbi Goldman served from 1929 until his death in 1953.  Goldman was a devoted student of Kaplan’s, and, in addition to being one of the great pulpit rabbis of the 20th century, Goldman was one of the most important leaders of the American Zionist movement.

    Round 4

    On December 6, 1949, in a speech to a conference of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, Mordecai Kaplan proposed the formal recognition of “Rightist, Centrist and Leftist groups” within the Conservative movement, and in particular the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.  [The speech was reprinted in Mordecai Waxman ed., Tradition and Change: The Development of Conservative Judaism (New York: The Burning Bush Press, 1958), pp. 289-312.] Kaplan believed that a sympathetic discussion of his proposal at the conference led by a particular prominent figure in the Conservative movement would have made its acceptance more likely, and Kaplan was very disappointed when that person declined to lead that discussion.  On December 2, 1949, that person sent Kaplan the following letter:

     

    [Courtesy of The Eisenstein Reconstructionist Archives of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College.]

    Question: Who wrote this letter?

    Answer: Rabbi Milton Steinberg

    Rabbi Steinberg, who died, tragically, at the age of 46 just a few months after having written this letter, was one of Kaplan’s most brilliant disciples and one of the great pulpit rabbis of the mid-20th century.

    The prize goes to Rabbi Zachary Silver, whose expertise on Kaplan is evident elsewhere on this website.  Popular answers to this question were Rabbi Louis Finkelstein and Rabbi Robert Gordis, both of which are good guesses.

    Kaplan stated, more than once, that he believed that Louis Finkelstein, then the Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, was prepared to support Kaplan’s 1949 proposal until convinced not to do so by another member of the JTS faculty. Kaplan speculated that the objecting faculty member was Saul Lieberman (see Round 2 of the Kaplan Quiz, below).

    Round 3

    Question:  Who wrote the following (in 1974)?

    “If I had known about philosophy and theology what I have come to know since I became a professor of philosophies of religion, I would have refused to continue teaching under that title.  Philosophy, as I now know it, is the immaculate conception of thought not sired by experience.  Moreover, in view of Philo’s and Maimonides’ ‘negative theology,’ a theologian is a philosopher who admits he does not know what he is talking about and is proud of it.”

    Answer:  Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan

    The text comes from a letter, dated May 10, 1974, that Kaplan wrote to his former student Gerson Cohen, then the Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.  Kaplan noted at the top of the letter that he did not mail it, without specifying a reason.

    Although his position as a professor of homiletics at JTS is better known, Kaplan was indeed also a professor of philosophies of religion there.  In the letter, Kaplan writes, “You [Cohen], no doubt, recall my having proposed to you that you succeed me when I retired as professor of philosophies of religion.”

    [Addendum:  We recently came upon the letter from Cohen to Kaplan, dated October 22, 1961, in which Cohen declined Kaplan’s invitation:

    Courtesy of The Eisenstein Reconstructionist Archives of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College.]

    The prize goes (again) to Alan Septimus, who threatens to become the Ken Jennings of the Kaplan Quiz.  The most frequently submitted answer to this question was Rabbi Dr. Neil Gillman, Kaplan’s student and devoted disciple (and, we are proud to say, Kaplan Center Senior Fellow), who indeed taught philosophy for many years at JTS.

    We are surprised that no one raised the question of whether the writer had conflated (perhaps intentionally?) the doctrine of the immaculate conception with that of the virgin birth, but we will not opine on matters of non-Jewish ideology.

    Round 2

    Although deservedly famous as an important and influential Jewish thinker, Mordecai Kaplan is rarely given sufficient credit as a Jewish scholar, particularly in the field of Midrash.  However, at least one very prominent Jewish scholar had great respect for Kaplan’s expertise in Midrash, as evinced by the following letter to Kaplan from 1941:

    [Courtesy of The Eisenstein Reconstructionist Archives of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College.]

    Question: Who wrote this letter?

    Answer: Saul Lieberman, perhaps the 20th century’s greatest Rabbinic texts scholar.

    This was a very hard question.  (Perhaps we should not have removed the Jewish Theological Seminary letterhead from the letter image, but we thought that would have been too broad a hint.)

    Not surprisingly, only one of you, Professor (and Rabbi) Richard Libowitz, of Temple University, got the correct answer, and he is a Kaplan scholar who had previously read the letter! Among the good, educated guesses were Robert Gordis, Max Kadushin, Louis Ginzberg, J.D. Eisenstein, and Samuel Lachs.

    Many have thought that Lieberman’s relationship to Kaplan could be captured in a single word: nemesis.  That turns out to be an over-simplification.  Lieberman clearly respected and valued Kaplan’s expertise on esoteric Midrash questions. Moreover, although Lieberman has been reported to have “honored” in some ways the Kaplan cherem (“excommunication”) in 1945, we have found a letter from Lieberman to Kaplan written (in Hebrew) less than three years later that is, at least to all appearances, extremely respectful.  (One scholar, however, has suggested that at least some of the language in that letter may have been sarcastic.)  Interestingly, according to Kaplan’s diary, when in 1959 Lieberman turned up as a guest at a small engagement party for Kaplan and Rivkah Brandstater Rieger, Kaplan was surprised, but apparently pleased, to learn that Lieberman was a cousin of Rivkah’s, and so shortly thereafter Lieberman became Kaplan’s relative by marriage. For more on the cherem, please click here.

    Round 1

    Question:  Who wrote the following passage (published in 1967)?

    “Religion is the sum total of the customs and teachings articulated and formulated by the religiosity of a certain epoch in a people’s life; its prescriptions and dogmas are rigidly determined and handed down as unalterably binding to all future generations, without regard for their newly developed religiosity, which seeks new forms. Religion is true so long as it is creative; but it is creative only so long as religiosity, accepting the yoke of the laws and doctrines, is able (often without even noticing it) to imbue them with new and incandescent meaning, so that they will seem to have been revealed to every generation anew, revealed today, thus answering man’s very own needs, needs alien to their fathers.  But once religious rites and dogmas have become so rigid that religiosity cannot move them or no longer wants to comply with them, religion becomes uncreative and therefore untrue.”

    (Thanks to Rabbi Shai Held for pointing us to this text.)

    Answer: Martin Buber

    The author was an important 20th century Jewish thinker whose first name begins with an “M” … but not Mordecai Kaplan, as, not surprisingly, quite a number of you thought.

    Four of you got it.  We had a tie for first place (chronologically, that is) — congratulations to Joshua Krug and to Alan Septimus. Honorable mention to Michael Blackman and Sam Fleischacker.

    This was a tough question, I think, in part because, although the “religion”/”religiosity” distinction is classic Buber, the language of “accepting the yoke of the laws and doctrines” is not.  Also, the stated publication date (1967), two years after Buber’s death, understandably may have thrown some people off track, for which I may owe you an apology.  The text comes from a lecture, originally given in German more than 50 years earlier, titled (in English) “Jewish Religiosity,” which was published in 1967 in On Judaism, Nahum Glatzer’s collection of Buber’s addresses.  (I do not think that the English version was published before 1967; please correct us if we are wrong.)

    Mel Scult says that he has files titled, respectively, “Heschel as Kaplan” and “Kaplan as Heschel”. Perhaps this text will be the beginning of a “Buber as Kaplan” file.  We know that Kaplan and Buber interacted in Palestine/Israel, but we know frustratingly little about the substance of those interactions.  One small gem:  In a letter from Kaplan to Rabbi Ira Eisenstein dated November 5, 1937, while Kaplan was a visiting professor at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he writes that “Buber has been hard at work learning Hebrew prefaratory to his coming to the University.  He already knows enough to make himself understood.  But he hasn’t acquired yet the knowledge of that Hebrew which he has to use in order not to be understood.”

    In addition to Kaplan, Abraham Joshua Heschel was a popular answer to our quiz question, and a logical one because of the substantial influence of Buber’s thought on Heschel’s.  (And my mention of Rabbi Shai Held was read by at least one of you as a clue to Heschel.)

    •

    Hirsch Fishman

    •

  • Vision Statement

    Prelude/Hakdama

    Kaplan takes Judaism personally.  It is a magnificent obsession with him. I have a suspicion that just as the mystics of old used stay up at  midnight worrying about the Shekhina, he stays up at midnight doing Tikkun Hatzos [a midnight ritual drawn from Jewish mysticism] and worrying about the Jewish people.”

    — Abraham Joshua Heschel, speaking at Kaplan’s 90th birthday celebration

    This vision statement for the Mordecai Kaplan Center for Jewish Peoplehood is designed to be both inspirational and aspirational. The vision outlines the way in which the Center seeks to help interested individuals and groups of Jews access a range of Kaplanian resources that can deepen their sense of Jewishness and also make as vibrant a connection as possible between meaningful Jewish identity and the making of a better world (tikkun olam). In the most immediate sense, the vision guides the activities of the Center itself.  It is also suggestive of the broader contributions of Kaplanian thought to the contemporary Jewish/world stage by others who are “Kaplanian” but not in the immediate orbit of Center programs and activities.

    VISION

    Mordecai M. Kaplan (1881-1983) is widely acknowledged to have been one of the most influential Jewish thinkers of the 20th century. The goal of The Mordecai  Kaplan Center for Jewish Peoplehood is to insure that the influence of Kaplan’s thought in the 21st century is commensurate with that stature.

    Why is this task so important? It is of vital importance to us that serious but religiously progressive alternatives in Jewish communal life will exist for our descendants, and we believe that implementation of Kaplan’s agenda for the reconstruction of North American Judaism and beyond is the best way to do so. While progress has been made in the last decade in launching initiatives that are explicitly or implicitly Kaplanian, the fullest realization of his agenda has yet to occur.  The Center also continues to seek deepest possible alignment of a Kaplanian emphasis on Peoplehood (particularism) and Tikkun Olam (universalism).

    CORE PRINCIPLES

    • To be a Jew entails identification with the great drama that is the life of the Jewish people. We do so when we converse with Jews of the past and present, throughout the world, and use their wisdom and experience to enrich our own lives. This conversation includes Jews of Color, Jews who were not born Jewish and LBGTQ Jews. Jews should seek the freedom, security, and the social and spiritual welfare of Jewry everywhere.  
    • Judaism exists to serve the needs of the Jewish people. The Jewish tradition is an ancient yet fully contemporary way to attain what Kaplan called personal and collective ‘salvation’ or ‘shlemut’ [wholeness] – what others might call self-actualization or full mentshlikhkayt.
    • Our religious traditions must be interpreted in terms of understandable experience that can be made relevant to our present-day. Jews will not abandon a Judaism that is vibrant and inspirational.
    • Judaism is an evolving religious civilization. Its continuity through different stages, and its identity amid diversity of belief and practice, are sustained by its sancta: the heroes, events, texts, places, and seasons that it most values.
    • All efforts to build a meaningful Jewish life must be evaluated from a critical perspective that is never complacent or self-satisfied. 

    ELABORATION OF CORE PRINCIPLES

    • Jews today need non-supernatural understandings of religion that allow for pride, connection, and meaning without the triumphalism of choseness. The Divine must be worshiped in sincerity and in truth. This worship emanates from the appreciation of the infinite which must supplement every concept of the finite. 
    • Democracy is important to both the Jewish and global future. Jewish communities must underscore the multiple perspectives found in historical Judaism, value dissenting voices today, and embrace pluralism. Jews must engage with other Jews who view Judaism differently.
    • Men and women should have equal rights and responsibilities in the synagogue, in other Jewish communal institutions, and in general society. Though Kaplan did not address issues of sexual orientation, the inclusion of LGBTQ Jews is in the spirit of his thought and writings.
    • True religion is the will to live creatively, the will to face the world and change it, the will to face people and transform them, the will to bring forth the best out of the worst. The Jewish community in our day must join the global struggle against poverty, disease, ignorance, oppression, debilitating climate change, and war. But to qualify for participation in this struggle, Jewry must also set its own house in order. The Jewish community is not free from the evils that beset society in general.
    • Jews must build educational frameworks that further the moral development of our youth and enable them to accept with joy their heritage as Jews. In all specifically Jewish instruction, whether in the traditional sacred texts, in Jewish history, in the languages and literatures of the Jewish people, or whatever else is Jewish, it is not enough to convey that information for the sake of satisfying intellectual curiosity, or bolstering Jewish pride, or perpetuating Jewish ritual, or even developing certain skills that may contribute to Jewish survival. All these achievements have their place in Jewish education as subordinate purposes. But the primary purpose must always  be to qualify the Jew for such participation in the life of both the Jewish and the general community as will make for a better world.

    FOCUSED DELIBERATION AND CREATIVE ENDEAVORS

    As a civilization, Judaism best flourishes when Jews join together to creatively engage with all of the constituent elements of Jewish life. Specifically, Jews should strongly be encouraged to join together to:

    • Revive the intensive study of our religious classics and extend the concept of Talmud Torah (study of Torah) to include all study that is motivated by the desire to improve human relations and to hallow human life. All the natural and social sciences of our day, as well as the literature and art of all cultures, can be drawn upon to deepen the spiritual life and broaden the spiritual horizons of our people.
    • Embrace Jewish rituals of the past and create new rituals. Historical rites should be surrendered only when either their form or content is objectionable on esthetic or moral grounds, or when circumstances make their observance a practical impossibility. When the full traditional form of a custom cannot be followed, we should attempt to preserve it, in modified form, rather than discard it altogether.
    • Study and use Jewish languages. Hebrew has played a unique role in unifying the Jewish people throughout its history. We recognize that other Jewish languages (Ladino, Yiddish…) have also enriched our civilization.
    • Engage with the State of Israel. The number of Jews who visit Israel, who study in Israel, who are moved to learn its language, sing its songs, read its literature, participate in the solution of its social and economic problems, naturally live a more creative life than if the State of Israel did not exist.  Israeli Jews gain as well from their interactions with Diaspora Jews and Judaism. Through the State of Israel, the Jewish People can play a significant role in human affairs and demonstrate the validity of its holiest ideals. Accordingly, Jewish nationalism cannot involve injustice to others including Palestinians who have different historical claims to the land. 
    • Utilize the wisdom of Jewish texts and tradition to continually engage in tikkun olam, the process of positive world transformation. Such global issues as racism, global warming, and resource inequity should be first critiqued from the perspective of Jewish values and then acted upon in such a way to bring more tzedek (justice) and rahamim (compassion) to the world.  
    • Develop the Jewish arts. Music, drama, dance, literature, architecture, painting and sculpture—all can and should be utilized to express and enhance the values experienced in living as Jews.
    • Build compelling Jewish communities at the local, national and international levels.

    SUSTAINING ACTIVITIES

    On a more concrete level, the Kaplan Center’s agenda will include the following projects and programs, some of which are already in progress: 

    1. The promulgation of Kaplanian ideas that are tried and true and the incubation of new Kaplanian approaches online, in print, and in selected small conferences sponsored by the center or larger conferences cosponsored with others. 

    2. The publication of Kaplan’s writings that have never appeared in print, as well as the republication of Kaplan’s lesser-known books and articles. 

    3. The dissemination of portions of Kaplan’s diaries, as well as of audio recordings of conversations with Kaplan, and transcriptions of conversations with him.

    4. The development and dissemination of visions of Jewish education that apply and adapt Kaplan’s conceptions of Jewish education to the realities, possibilities, and challenges of the 21st century.

    5. The development of partnerships with North American Jewish institutions to further the above-listed goals.

    6. The development of a close collaborative relationship with the existing Kaplan Center in Israel, currently housed at Kehillat Mevakshei Derech in Jerusalem. 

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ VISION AL REGEL ACHAT

    Simply put, the mission of the Kaplan Center is to disseminate and promote the thought and writings of Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan and to advance the agenda of the Kaplanian approach to Judaism in the 21st century. The Mordecai M. Kaplan Center for Jewish Peoplehood is an independent, trans-denominational, not-for-profit organization. The Kaplan Center works in cooperation with the institutional bodies of Reconstructing Judaism and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association but has no affiliation with  those organizations. 

    •

    Hirsch Fishman

    •

  • Kaplan and Democracy

    It is often observed that for Mordecai Kaplan (and others) democracy was the religion of America. 
    The Kaplan Center appreciates our grant from the Jewish Partnership for Democracy: A More Perfect Union. This grant allows us to embark on a “religious” journey from this February through next October. Each month we will select and distribute to our friends and partners a passage from Mordecai Kaplan or one of his students and collaborators.

    February 2024

    This month features Rabbi Manny Goldsmith, zichrono l’veracha.

    For Kaplan, the idea underlying democracy is that the interests uniting human beings, if they become truly aware of those interests, are strong enough to ward off the divisive influence of people’s differences. The crucial problem of freedom is how to guard our individuality and the capacity to think for ourselves and yet cooperate with those whose backgrounds, upbringings and outlooks are different from our own. This is an art, said Kaplan, that human beings are slow to learn. Democracy should be conceived as a process of social experimentation by which people are seeking to learn that art and to apply, step by step, the wisdom acquired as a result of such experimentation. That is why the art of free, voluntary cooperation, the ultimate objective of democracy, must constantly be cultivated.

    -Rabbi Manny Goldsmith, Reconstructionism Today, Spring 2003

    VOTE

    • In your own life, how do you balance authenticity and devotion to your beliefs and deeply understand the belief systems of those different than yourself?
    • How do your communities engage in the ongoing “experimentation” of creating balance between these two forces?
    •  Why indeed are we so slow to practice “the art of democracy?  
    • In your own life, when do you practice this “art of democracy” most naturally and fully?

    •

    Margie Jacobs

    •

  • Policies

    Sexual Harassment Policy Statement

    The Kaplan center board is in the process of making minor revisions to this template about sexual harassment recommended to 501c 3 non-profits by the IRS.   In the interim, we will be guided by the spirit of the guidelines which lawyers have advised us are essentially sound. 

    This policy is based on common practices and includes all the components which make a sexual harassment policy comprehensive, and any effective policy must include most if not all of the content of this sample sexual harassment policy.

    The Kaplan Center is committed to providing a safe environment for all its employees free from discrimination on any ground and from harassment at work including sexual harassment.

    The Kaplan Center will operate a zero tolerance policy for any form of sexual harassment in the workplace, treat all incidents seriously and promptly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment. Any person found to have sexually harassed another will face disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from employment.

    All complaints of sexual harassment will be taken seriously and treated with respect and in confidence. No one will be victimized for making such a complaint.

    Definition of sexual harassment in a workplace

    Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated. It includes situations where a person is asked to engage in sexual activity as a condition of that person’s employment, as well as situations which create an environment which is hostile, intimidating or humiliating for the recipient.

    Sexual harassment can involve one or more incidents and actions constituting harassment may be physical, verbal and non-verbal. Examples of conduct or behavior which constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to:

    Physical sexual conduct

    • Unwelcome physical contact including patting, pinching, stroking, kissing, hugging, fondling, or inappropriate touching
    • Physical violence, including sexual assault
    • Physical contact, e.g. touching, pinching
    • The use of job-related threats or rewards to solicit sexual favors

    Verbal sexual conduct

    • Comments on a worker’s appearance, age, private life, etc.
    • Sexual comments, stories and jokes
    • Sexual advances
    • Repeated and unwanted social invitations for dates or physical intimacy
    • Insults based on the gender of the worker
    • Condescending or paternalistic remarks
    • Sending sexually explicit messages (by phone or by email)

    Non-verbal sexual conduct

    • Display of sexually explicit or suggestive material
    • Sexually-suggestive gestures
    • Whistling
    • Leering

    •

    Margie Jacobs

    •

  • Mordecai Kaplan on Women

    by Mel Scult

    [See Chapter 6 of his Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: A Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993).]

    Kaplan’s first congregation, The Jewish Center, was Orthodox.  Seating was separate though equal and there was never any question of altering the synagogue ritual to include women.  The major question of the day was women’s right to vote.  Kaplan advocated the emancipation of women.  In his preaching, he went beyond mere support of the vote which he took for granted but did not argue for changing any rituals to include women.  In the fall of 1918, he took the occasion of the Sidra (Torah portion) “Haye Sarah” to deal with the issue of women’s rights.  Preparing the way for the sermon, the center journal published the following question during that week: “Shall the Emancipation of women be merely a duplication of men?”  On Shabbat morning Kaplan pulled no punches when he said that, “Judaism of the Galuth [Diaspora] has said nothing and done nothing to lay claim to any share in the Emancipation of women.”  The major religions, moreover, always lagged behind when it came to movements for social betterment.  He asserted that, “the movement to emancipate women was nothing more than the logical extension of democracy.”

    If Judaism in general offered no help on the issue of emancipation, Kaplan suggested looking to the Bible for guidance.  He pointed out that there are many strong holy women in the Bible including Deborah, Miriam and of course Rebecca, who was the focus of the week’s portion.  If Genesis presented us with the matriarchs, however, it also presented us with the curses of Eden.  The curse on Eve reads, “Toward your husband shall be your lust, yet he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).  It is clear, Kaplan maintained, that women are destined to be redeemed from this curse in the time to come just as man will be redeemed from his curse.  We know this because Genesis also tells us that God said, “Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!  Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…”  The key word here is Veyirdu; “they,” both male and female, shall rule the earth together.  The ideal is that men and women were meant to be equal and the world is a fall from that ideal.

    He looked closely at Rebecca and used her as a model.  Women must be emancipated not for power but for service.  Man’s essential sinfulness stems from his lust for power; the same is true for women.  Women in the past have sought to gain power through their charms.  Women have both gained and lost because of this — in Kaplan’s words, “What if not her desires to entrance man with her charms has caused man to look upon her as his doll and play thing to minister to his wants?”  Thus the enslavement of women has resulted from her femininity, “The power of the eternally feminine,” as he called it.  Now women must be emancipated, not essentially for more power, but for greater service.  Just as Rebecca went the extra measure in her service to Abraham’s servant so must women do the same.  It is almost as if Kaplan were talking about women in the same terms that Jews in general have always talked about themselves – as the chosen people.  The Jews alone are the only ones who have known God says the prophet, and therefore they have a higher standard to follow.  If women were really free they would revolutionize the political sphere by lifting it to a higher level.  The chosenness of women, he believed, made them more humane.  “Women will purify politics, make industry more humane and make justice to the consumer instead of profits to the producer the standard of the market.”  Emancipation is not aimed at power “…neither her own particular power, nor that masculine power which has contributed so much to the destruction of the world.”  As Hannah so eloquently put it in her hymn of thanksgiving to God, “…for not by strength (power) shall man prevail.”[1]

    Kaplan was often at his best when he attempted to reinterpret fundamental concepts.  At one point he put forth the idea that reverence for the individual was more basic than the concept of ‘love thy neighbor.’  Being created in God’s image was the Biblical way of talking about the absolute value of human life.  “…the reason it is wrong to take human life is that the human being wears the image of God, therefore, when a human being is slain, something more than that which is merely human is destroyed, the very image of God is shattered.”  The proper attitude toward our fellow human beings is respect, the same awe and respect “…we associate with the idea of God.”  We revere human life because “…it is a spark of that life that animates the universe,” Kaplan told his congregation.  He believed that acting out of reverence was a higher principle than acting out of love.  “It is only after mankind will have acquired the principle of reverence for man that it will be possible to love man as he should be loved, not merely ‘as thyself’ but as the reflection of the Divine.  ‘Beloved is man’ said R. Akiba, “for he was made in the image of God.”[2]

    Footnotes:

    [1]. The Sermon on the Emancipation of Women was delivered at the Center on November 2, 1918.  The concept of the chosenness of women is clearly in the text of the sermon although the word chosen is not used there but supplied by this author.  The verse is from I Samuel 2:16.  The translations from Genesis are from Everett Fox, In the Beginning – A New English Rendition of the Book of Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, Inc., 1983).  The verse in Zachariah 4:6 expresses the same thought about power and was a favorite of Kaplan’s although he did not use it here.  “Not by might nor by power but by My spirit, sayeth the Lord of Hosts.”

    [2]. The notion of the primacy of  man as the image of God is found not only in Jewish sources but in Christian as well. It was a staple of  16th century Ranaissance Platonists who saw man as a reflection of God and therefore worthy of love.

    •

    Hirsch Fishman

    •

    ,

  • One Jewish Evanston – Shavuot 2016/5776

    “Ki gerim heyyitem b’eretz Mitzrayim: For you were strangers/sojourners/refugees/non-conformists/converts? in the land of Egypt”

    All are welcome to join us on Saturday evening, June 11, 2016, beginning at 7:00 p.m., as multiple Evanston communities will again join together under the banner of “One Jewish Evanston,” to mark the end of Shabbat and to celebrate the beginning of Shavuot.

    The evening will feature, in addition to Shavuot evening services and good food, a Tikkun Leyl Shavuot (an evening-long series of learning sessions) with some of the best teachers anywhere, selected by each of the participating communities.  The learning will focus on a phrase that appears repeatedly in the Torah, “Ki gerim heyyitem b’eretz Mitzrayim: For you were strangers/sojourners/refugees/non-conformists/converts? in the land of Egypt”.  We will explore various aspects and interpretations of this phrase, particularly as they relate to the experience at Sinai that is central to the celebration of Shavuot.

    The full schedule for the evening is available by clicking here.

    Feel free to join us for all or part of the program.  Advance registration is required, but you need to pay for the event if and only if you will be joining us for dinner after services.  

    For more information, please call Dan Cedarbaum at 847-492-5200 or e-mail him at dan@kaplancenter.org.

    One Jewish Evanston is sponsored by The Mordecai M. Kaplan Center for Jewish Peoplehood. Based in Evanston, the Kaplan Center is an independent organization devoted to the transformation of Jewish community.  Its mission is to disseminate and promote the thought and writings of Rabbi Kaplan and to advance the agenda of the Kaplanian approach to Judaism in the 21st century, perhaps most importantly by spurring creative experimentation in the formation or reorganization of various kinds of Jewish communities and institutions.  The Kaplan Center’s perspective is explicitly trans-denominational.

    •

    Hirsch Fishman

    •

  • Dan Cedarbaum Eulogy by His Wife, Caryn Jacobs

    Dan Cedarbaum was my husband since 1987, but we were together since 1981, when we were both students at Harvard Law School. He was the love of my life, and I – and our entire family – are devastated by this loss.

    We started dating during our second year of law school and were together for the next 40 years. In him, I saw a handsome and brilliant man, funny, cultured and well-read. In me, he saw a pretty girl who knew how to cook. And Dan certainly had a legendary appetite. He also wanted someone smart, which I was, but everyone knows (and I will admit now) that Dan was much smarter. He was so smart that he would often pontificate on arcane facts that my sons and I suspected he was making up but rarely had the knowledge, ourselves, to challenge. We would come to call these DACTS (Dad Facts).

    We had almost everything in common, and where we did not, we brought each other into our interests. I instilled in Dan a love for classical music and he became devoted to Mozart operas, so much so that we would always see Marriage of Figaro or Don Giovanni whenever it played in town. We even dragged the kids to a performance, with limited success (they are long operas). He knew the Italian words to the arias, and although famously tone-deaf, would always attempt to sing along.

    For his part, Dan introduced me to Judaism, which continues to enrich my life. We both relished the cycle of holidays and traditions, especially with our kids. Every Shabbat, he would buy me fresh flowers, to decorate our table. We put up an elaborate Sukkah every year, and with it the inevitable arguments between the two of us over which parts went where. The kids would decorate it with the non-religious Christmas ornaments and paper chains. Dan always made sure we did the right blessings and screened ornaments to make sure they were appropriately Santa-free.

    Judaism was one of Dan’s great passions and he eventually largely retired from law to pursue various Jewish causes. He founded and ran and Kaplan Center for Jewish Peoplehood, and in that role, planned and presented numerous important scholarly programs. He sponsored such programs as One Jewish Evanston, which united all branches of Judaism in worship and study. And he was one of the world’s foremost scholars on the life and writings of Mordecai Kaplan. For 15 years he ran a Talmud study group, which I hope to continue in his name. He was a leader and board member of many synagogues and a founder of Camp JRF. During COVID, he led Shabbat and High Holiday services in our backyard; he kept the community going, and many said these services sustained them through those dark times.  

    Dan’s greatest passion, however, was for his family. He was always holding and kissing our two boys, learning how to change their diapers even though he was very persnickety about cleanliness. I can still see the joy in his eyes as he would hold our babies during High Holiday services, enjoying the renewal of life in both liturgy and in fact. They knew from Day One that they had his unconditional love. And Jacob and Samuel, he was so proud of you and loved you so much.

    Because of my work, which frequently required me to be out of town, Dan was a solo parent much of the time. He watched over the children with love and attention, going to pediatrician appointments and teacher’s conferences, helping with homework and college applications, coaching soccer, taking the kids to Hebrew School, playing board games, golf, and tennis with them … the list is endless. He even deigned to play Hearts with us, which, as a lifelong ace Bridge player, he considered to be “Bridge for Idiots.”  

    He was at his best on family vacations. Sometimes we would play 72 holes of mini golf straight. Frequently accidents were incurred during these activities, especially biking. I heard about them only much later. Sometimes there was negligence, such as allowing our two toddlers play in the Florida sun for hours without sun screen, requiring a trip to the walk-in clinic for severe sun burn. The kids, who survived, loved him, all the same. The attempt by him, my mother, and our longtime nanny, Joy, to hide the incident from me was laudable but ultimately futile. But Dan was of the view that fathers were less careful with children than mothers, and that this was a good thing. I think he was right.  Our kids are intrepid because of Dan.

    He truly loved our extended family. He was happy to include my relatives in all of our vacations. My sisters Laura, Julie, and Jessica, and my brother Jimmy, know how much he did for them and with them. And my mom, Ann, depended on him for everything from financial management and assistance with medical matters to card playing and printing online recipes.

    Dan had his own enjoyments, too. He was a consummate foodie and wine connoisseur and knew his way around any wine list. We loved going out to dinner, and I loved for cooking for him. There was no more appreciative audience for a good meal. His own cooking skills were perhaps more lackluster. In law school, I once handed him a head of lettuce and asked, “do you know how to wash this,” and he said yes. Then, after a few silent moments, he said, “pretend I don’t know how to wash lettuce.”

    He loved cars. His latest being a Shelby Cobra, a white Mustang with a big blue racing stripe. The more horsepower the better. He loved dogs, from his childhood dog, Cookie to our late family dogs Briar and Snoopy, and our new puppy, Lizzy, with whom he played fetch and raced around the yard endlessly.

    As a husband, he was attentive and loving. He lavished me books and jewelry, and always encouraged me to go shopping or on outings with my sisters or friends. He plied me with candy, despite my ever increasing waistline. When I was obsessed with Colin Firth in the A&E Pride and Prejudice, he got him to send me a signed picture postcard. He even rooted for the Cubs during the World Series, despite being a die-hard Mets fan. He planned and emceed a huge 40th birthday party for me, with numerous speakers and roasts that remains among my fondest memories. And for my 60th birthday he planned a wonderful family trip to Paris, including multiple Michelin-starred meals.

    Dan was a mensch. He was not superficial. He had depth and convictions and made every day count. He was a DO-ER. He had a happy and beautiful and complete life, and he made an indelible mark for the good.  

    In his last few days, Dan and I would sit in the yard at night and watch the lightening bugs (which Dan called fireflies). Two nights ago, after Dan’s death, I was sitting in the yard at 2 AM, unable to sleep, and saw a lightening bug on the ground. It flashed its light for a time and then the light stopped. Dan was the light of my life; of our family’s life. And while that light is now out, the memory of the light will last with us forever.

    •

    Eric Caplan

    •

  • Realism, Pluralism and Salvation – Reading Mordecai Kaplan in the 21st Century

    An Invitation to Future Kaplanian Scholarship

    by Dr. Vered Sakal

    For many years, most of the scholars who wrote about Kaplan were people who knew him personally. During the past few decades, however, more scholars are joining the conversation about Kaplan’s work. This shift is both welcome and unsurprising, as Kaplan continues to fascinate academics and Jewish leaders who seek to communicate his work to a broad as possible audience. Being one of those “second generation” Kaplan scholars, I find this transition – from firsthand to secondhand knowledge – fascinating.  Are we getting to know a different Kaplan, when we separate the man from the ideas? I believe we are, as the distance allows us to explore the relevancy of Kaplan’s work to our own time and socio-political realities.

    Kaplan, the founding father of Reconstructionist Judaism, based his project of the reconstruction of Judaism on the rejection of supernatural cosmology and the idea of a transcendent God. But even though his work is often portrayed in psychological and sociological terms, his writing also addresses deep philosophical and theological issues, such as linguistics, ontology and epistemology. Presented as such, we come to see how Kaplan’s efforts can relate to current religious debates that explore the tension between transcendent and non-transcendent religious worldviews and seek justification of religious pluralism. For, even though Kaplan’s work does not offer an organized theoretical account of these matters, it does contain the necessary elements to support and inform such discussions. 

    It is very exciting to think about the new ways through which Kaplan’s vast body of work – some of it is still being sorted and published for the first time by scholars such as Mel Scult – invites 21st century scholars to explore, expand and reshape the Jewish universe. This same universe that Kaplan was so keen on preserving and adapting for Jewish people all over the world – an open, pluralistic, optimistic universe in which individuals and groups can achieve peace and salvation.

    Vered Sakal is the 2021-2023 Melanie and Andrew Goodman visiting fellow for the Olamot Center for Scholarly and Cultural Exchange with Israel, at Indiana University, Bloomington. She holds a PhD in Jewish thought from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Vered was a fellow at the Tikva Center for Law and Jewish Civilization at NYU, the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, the Minerva Humanities Center at Tel Aviv University, and the Bloomington Symposia, IU Institute for Advanced Study. Her fields of research are religious studies, modern Jewish thought, liberal theory and subaltern studies. Vered is ordained as a Rabbi by Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.

    •

    Margie Jacobs

    •

    ,

  • IsraelNow Curriculum

    IsraelNow.org

    IsraelNow provides 8th graders an immersive, emotional, and memorable taste of Israel through a week-long trip. Participants return from the program excited to be involved in their respective synagogues and communities, but IsraelNow believes that engagement and education should begin before departure. IsraelNow hopes to develop a curriculum that is experiential and learner centered in order to better engage students while in Israel. This curriculum is for 8th graders and will be flexible so that it can reach children who are already involved in formal, supplemental religious schools, students who only engage in social Jewish programs (youth groups, camps), and those who are not involved in synagogue or Jewish life at all.

    IsraelNow’s program ethos centers around three core principles: Ahavat Yisrael, Medinat Yisrael, and Am Yisrael. In response to an open letter from rabbinic and cantorial students critiquing Israel, Rabbi Sharon Cohen Anisfeld succinctly clarified the importance of Ahavat Yisrael. She said, “we are responsible to and for each other,” explaining that we can both view Israel with a critical lens and have a productive and positive relationship with it. Medinat Yisrael, the modern state of Israel, is a focus for IsraelNow, as it’s the place participants will experience. In the generations since 1948, Israel has evolved from a theoretical hope to a concrete homeland. Judaism is as much a peoplehood as well as a religion, and Israel is a connection point for all Jews, we are part of Am Yisrael, even if we are part of the Diaspora.

    The goal of the IsraelNow curriculum is for learners to analyze Israel’s history and to recognize essential elements of Israel’s identity in order to form a foundation for personal connection prior to IsraelNow’s trip. The curriculum will be split into three units that are anchored to the trip itinerary: Contrast between Old and New, Modern Life and Coexistence, and Where do we Come From. The core competencies of the curriculum will be for learners to create personal definitions of Zionism, identify how they can be represented in Israel, understand Israel’s contributions to their lives in the US, and to recognize the evolution of the geographic modern state. These themes and enduring understandings will be taught through the lens of the three core tenets of IsraelNow.

    Post b’nei-mitzvah engagement continues to be a confounding problem for the Jewish community. In a time when students and families are over programmed and pulled in many directions, it’s easy to set religious instruction on the back burner. IsraelNow provides an incentive for 8th grade participation- a trip to Israel. The trip is successful at creating the opportunity for connection but misses the chance to engage within community at home. The IsraelNow curriculum will fill that need. It will be a resource that can be used in various settings and will be flexible enough for communities across the US to implement in a way that fits respective needs. Specifically, the curriculum will include lessons for a traditional supplemental religious school. IsraelNow also hopes to develop resources so that families unaffiliated with synagogues can form cohorts and have private tutors or parents teach the lessons. In more informal spaces, IsraelNow hopes to create sessions that can be implemented over the course of a youth group convention or Shabbaton. And at the camp level, these lessons can be further adapted to shorter sessions, which can be completed during limmud periods.

    Along with providing the resources for formal education, implementation of IsraelNow’s curriculum will help communities foster the soft skills of collaboration and relationship building. The long-term benefits of maintaining engaged students through high school also means that these students will have a foundation for productive and well researched conversations about Israel as they become young and emerging adults. It is not new information that antisemitism is on the rise on college campuses, so it’s of tantamount importance to equip students with the skills and knowledge to participate in dialogue about Israel.

    In the 2020 Pew Research Center’s study on Jewish Americans, it was noted that rabbis interviewed for the project found it harder now to speak about Israel from their pulpits than ever before because of political implications with Israel in the US today. Because IsraelNow explicitly avoids advocacy work with its participants, congregational leadership will not have to worry about further dividing their congregants. The curriculum should do the exact opposite- it should unify the greater community through education without bias. 

    Curricular Goals and Objectives:

    • Unit 1: Contrast Between Old and Less Old Israel (Jerusalem District)
      • Established Goals: 
        • Learners will be able to identify the reasons why Jerusalem  is the biblical capital of Israel.
        • Learners will be able to name  key Jewish leaders who helped create the modern state of Israel and their contributions to the founding of the modern state.
        • Learners will answer, “What does Israel/Zionism mean to me?” 
    • Unit 2: Modern Life and Coexistance (Tel Aviv District)
      • Established Goals:
        • Learners will be able to explain the different cultural groups within Israel.
        • Learners will be able to describe what day-to-day life is like in a modern city in Israel.
        • Learners will expand upon their answers to the question, “What does Israel/Zionism mean to me?”
    • Unit 3: How did we get here? (Southern District)
      • Established Goals
        • Learners will be able to identify stories from ancient Israel locate on a map where they took place in Israel. Learners will be able to outline the ‘morals’ of the stories.
        • Learners will expand upon their answers to the question, “What does Israel/Zionism mean to me?”
    • Unit 4: Post Trip
      • Established Goals: 
        • Learners will be able to construct an answer to the question: Why is Israel important to me and how has my time on IsraelNow informed who I am as a Jew?
    Back to the Innovation Garden

    •

    Sheridan

    •