Peoplehood Papers 5

7/31/2019 Peoplehood Papers 5

1/42

1


2/42

2

Peoplehood Papers 5: April 2010

Tab le of Contents

On Peoplehood and Zionism An Edit or's Intro du ction

By Sh lom i Ravid 3

Jewish Peopleho od : Why?By Aryeh Coh en 5

Rethi nk ing Glob al Jewish Coll ecti vit y in a Post-Stat ist WorldBy Da vid N. M yers .. 8

Pushing Peoplehood: An Agenda t hat M atters

By Erica Bro w n a n d M ish a Ga lp erin . .. 12

On The Relation ship Betw een Peoplehood and Zion ism

By Gid eon Sh im o ni . 16

Zioni sm and Peopl ehood - Toward a Histori cal Synt hesis

By Gid i Grin st ein 19

When t he Jewish Peop le and Israel Con fl ictBy Lisa Grant . 21

Peoplehoods Overlooked Orig ins as a Crit ique of Zion ism and Nation alism

By Noam Pianko 24

Peoplehood Reconsidered

By Toba Spit zer .. ... . 28

Ahad Ha'Am At Last

By Wa yne Firesto ne . 34

Jewish Peoplehood and Zioni sm - Towards a Histori cal Synt hesis

By Yair Sheleg 37

Educatin g about Israel and Jewish Peop lehood:

Mur mur ings on a Field in Formation

By Yo na ta n Ariel ... . 40


3/42


4/42


5/42

5

Jewish Peoplehood : Why?

By Aryeh Cohen

Before one asks if there m ight be a historical synthesis betw een Jew ish

peoplehood and Zionism ,it m ight be helpful to ask w hat is Jew ish peoplehood?

W hat does it add to the discourse? W hat,perhaps,does it replace and w hy?

Peoplehood is used today as ifit translates a hoary traditional concept. This is an

interesting linguistic phenom enon. Prooftext is another w ord com m only used as

if it translates som e technical H ebrew term found in m idrashic or other Rabbinic

w orks. Its very clunkyness gives it an air of antiquity. It is,of course,a m odern

locution w hich has no H ebrew equivalent. It is far from clear that the verse w hich

generates a m idrashic reading should be called a prooftext rather thansom ething along the lines ofan alw ays already read text,w hich in its inelegant

opacity actually points to the operation ofm idrash at the level ofreading.

Peoplehood equally shares the clum siness w hich bespeaks translation,and yet

there is no w ord in the traditional vocabulary ofw hich it is a faithful rendering. The

H ebrew term amiyut is itselfa clunky neologism w hich actually faithfully translatespeoplehood, and not the other w ay around. (It seem s that amiyut entered thevocabulary som etim e betw een Even Shoshans definitive old-school dictionary in

w hich it does not appear,and Morfixs on-line dictionary in w hich it does1.)W hat

then does peoplehood refer to?

The earliest citation in the O ED in w hich peoplehood m eans som ething like

throng or m ultitude is from 1869 in the Fort W ayne G azette:Finally,w ith

bloody hands and pockets bulging w ith stolen m oneys,it fell before the w rath of

an indignant and outraged peoplehood. The first citation availab le to the British

lexicographers w hich fits the definition ofA com m unity ofpeople ofshared race

or nationality is from 1969 (The beautiful black sky ofan em erging peoplehood.).

This latter,som ew hat circular,definition seem s to be w hat the contem porary uses

ofJew ish peoplehood invoke.

Though the term has gained popularity in the last several years,it w as MordecaiKaplan w ho inaugurated the usage of Jew ish peoplehood as an alternative to

both nationalism and Judaism . Kaplan understood Jew ish peoplehood as

ethnic consciousness w hich is the product of historical circum stances2 In his

1954 essay,A N ew Zionism , w hich discussed the relationship betw een Jew ish

peoplehood and Jew ish religion he redefines the latter through the prism of

peoplehood in the broadest w ay.

1Peoplehood doesnt appear in the Encylopedia Judaica 2nd edition, 2007.

2

The Future of the American Jew, Macmillan, 1948, cited in Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, Emanuel S.Goldsmith, Mel Scult, Dynamic Judaism: The Essential Writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan, Fordham

University Press, 1991 (53-54).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/42

6

"Juda ism w il l have to be conceived as a non creedal rel igious

civil ization centered in loyalt y to th e body o f t he Jewish p eoplethroughou t the w orld. "3

There is really nothing here that exceeds Ahad H aam s form ula ofa Jew ish peoplew ith its center in the Land ofIsrael and a vibrant periphery in the D iaspora,and in

fact,using the im age ofa tree trunk and branches,this is Kaplans im age,too.

Kaplans peoplehood agrees w ith a certain distinction m ade in the Israeli

D eclaration ofIndependence. The first line ofthe D eclaration states:The Land of

Israel [Palestine]w as the b irthplace ofthe Jew ish people.4 (be-eretz yisrael kam ha-

am ha-yehudi)5 H ow ever,the subsequent narrative ofthe D eclaration,a narrative ofExile and Return,inevitably ends in the supercession of People by State. The

State then w elcom es the rem aining dispersed people back to its birthplace,and

appeals for its support. The People is no m ore,replaced by a low ercase im proper

noun, "people," a disjointed m ess of individuals aw aiting unity in the only formnow w orthy ofit:the State6. The State supersedes the People,and the rem ainder of

the people can either return hom e or live peripherally to the State and support it.7

Zionism ,in this narrative,vacates peoplehood ofany possible m eaning.

Kaplan him selfview ed she-erit ha-pleta h,the surviving rem nant w ho w ould not or

could not or,sim ply,did not im m igrate to the Land of Israel,m ore positively. For

Kaplan there w ould alw ays be a D iasporic com m unity w hich w as untied by the

notion of Jew ish peoplehood. W hat how ever is left to be contained in this notion

of peoplehood w hich is covered neither by religion nor by Zionism ? Is there

territory not occupied by Judaism ? W hat is that territory? Is it Yiddishkeit? W ell,inits secular and secularist vein,perhaps for a certain segm ent ofAshkenazi Jew s,the

aesthetics,language,cuisine and culture that is denoted by the term Yiddishkeitm ight be the com m on denom inator ofa people. If so,it is already claim ed,and,

furtherm ore,it only claim s a m inority ofthe people. Ifw e leave out claim s ofblood,

w e are left w ith no language to offer a com m onality ofpeoplehood aside from

religious language. Kaplan w as uncom fortable w ith the im plied faith dem ands of

creedal Judaism w hich w as one ofthe reasons he opted for peoplehood in the

first place. Be that as it m ay,in the D iaspora a m ajority ofJew s think ofJudaism as a

religion or,at least use religious language and sym bols w hen and ifthey discuss

their Jew ish identity. In Israel,this m ay not be so,as Judaism has becom e the civil

3A New Zionism pp. 111-112, cited in Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, Emanuel S. Goldsmith, Mel Scult,

Dynamic Judaism: The Essential Writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan, Fordham University Press, 1991

(55-56).4

The translation is from the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I am therefore

assuming that it is the official translation.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration

%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel (accessed 3/15/10)5

This is not the place to delve into the rendering of the verb kam by the noun birthplace.6

Thanks to Jeff Helmreich for this formulation.7This is the essence of the debate between Simon Rawidowicz and David Ben-Gurion in the exchange

of letters documented and discussed in Rawidowicz Bavel vi-Yerushalayim London: Ararat, 1957.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declarationhttp://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration


7/42

7

religion and therefore the popular culture is Jew ish in the w ay that m uch of

Am erican culture is Christian.

So, w hy is there currently a resurgence of the use of the notional concept

peoplehood? Ignoring for the m om ent the pow er ofgrant-m aking organizationsgrow n tired ofthe utter banality ofcontinuity I offer the follow ing. Peoplehood

opens itself to tw o lines of understanding. The first one is at the sam e tim e

harm less and perhaps trivial. The second is neither harm less nor trivial.

The form er,harm less,understanding of peoplehood is typified by the connection

betw een Jew s from different cultures, locations, languages and so forth w hich

gains in im portance w hen the tw o Jew s m eeting are in som e third location w here

being Jew ish is relatively rare. The fact of Jew ishness (necessarily unexam ined)

creates a bond for the duration,a com m on denom inator w hen none other exists. If

pressed upon,the com m onality w ill itselfinevitably disappear. How ever,until thatm om ent of analysis,this ephem eral bond defines a certain type of belonging,a

com m on com m unity. This experience of peoplehood is,as w e said,harm less and

banal.

The second,m ore robust notion ofpeoplehood,suggests a b orderless nationalism .

A nationalism w ithout a nation. W hen there actually w as no nation,this type of

borderless nationalism w as useful, even laudable. The m ystic poet of Jew ish

nationalism ,Rabb i Avraham Yitzhak H aCohen Kook,first Ashkenazi ChiefRab bi of

Palestine, sitting in Manchester during and after the first W orld W ar w rote the

follow ing paean to kn esset yi srael,the com m unity ofIsrael.

The com m un ity of Israels ow n com plexion is being revealed, th e

powers are developing, wisdom is returning to her, courage,uprigh tness, and th e internal purity, the nation (um m ah) is being

built, she is preparing herself for her redemption, eternal

redem ption , she is blossom ing w ith m agnificent splendor. (Orot , p. 15)

O nce there is a State,how ever,ifthe com m unity ofIsrael is seen as incorporating

the State,the results are m ore problem atic. Ifpeoplehood is so used,as a term

w hich lays claim to both D iasporic com m unities and the State ofIsrael,I fear thatthe true result is to render the residents ofIsraeli w ho are not part ofkn esset y israelinvisible. Peoplehood in this sense functions as a w ay of talking about Zionism

w ithout talking about territorial nationalism ,and therefore w ithout talking about

the occupation ofPalestine and the rights ofPalestinian citizens ofIsrael. This is not

harm less.

Dr. Aryeh Cohen is an Associate Prof essor o f Rabb ini c Lit eratu re at t he Ziegler Schoolof Rabb ini c Stu dies, the Amer ican Jewish Universit y


8/42

8

Reth ink ing Global Jewish Coll ect ivit y in a Post-Statist Wor ld

By David N. M yers

Som e sixty years ago,the Am erican rabb i and thinker Mordecai Kaplan w rote abriefessay assessing the im pact ofthe new State ofIsrael on the Jew ish w orld,The

State ofIsrael and the Status ofthe Jew (The Reconstructionist,1949). The essay

w as decidedly lacking in the celebratory spirit that so m any Jew s the w orld over

felt at the creation ofthe State all the m ore unusual given Kaplans strong Zionist

faith. Let us not get carried aw ay by our enthusiasm , Kaplan w rote,to the point

of losing our sense of reality. In fact,he w arned in a rem arkably dire and blunt

form ulation:The em ergence ofthe State ofIsrael has raised m ore problem s for us

Jew s than it has solved.

Kaplan w ent on to discuss a variety ofm aterial challenges facing the new state. H ealso raised the question of w hether the State ofIsrael could be a Jew ish state,as

distinct from an Israeli state,in light ofthe presence ofnon-Jew s w ithin its borders.

But w hat occupied him m ost in this essay w as a related issue:the condition ofthe

Jew ish nat ion, the global Jew ish collective, at a tim e w hen nearly 95% of itsm em bers lived in the D iaspora. Sw im m ing against the tide ofeuphoria in his day,

Kaplan sum m oned up the spirit of Ahad Ha-am w hen he suggested that not the

state,but rather the Jew ish com m unity of the new state w ould constitute the

nerve center ofw orld Jew ry. Through this form ulation,Kaplan w as perform ing a

clever sleight of hand by placing the nation,not the state,at the center of his

concerns and ofthe broader Jew ish w orld. This act ofdisplacing the state as thew orld Jew ish nerve center m andated,on his view ,an additional necessary step:

a form al and publicly recognized renew al ofcovenantship am ong all the Jew s of

the w orld. In essence,Kaplan w as im agining a constitution not ofthe new State

of Israel, but of w orld Jew ry. This constitution w ould, first, nam e the Jew ish

collective and, then, establish governing principles to regulate its affairs and

guarantee its w ell-being.

Mordecai Kaplan is principally rem em bered for his role as the founder of

Reconstructionism . But there is good reason to recall the prescience of his 1949

essay about Israel and w orld Jew ry. To be sure, the dem ographic picture has

changed. Today a bit few er than 60% ofJew s in the w orld live outside ofIsrael,and

that num ber w ill continue to fall in the com ing decades. But unsettling as it m ay be

to som e,the core proposition ofKaplans essay rem ains w orth discussing indeed,

is ofparticular relevance and urgency in the present. W hy? First,w e inhabit an age

of globalization in w hich traditional notions of sovereignty, citizenship, and

jurisdiction are being rethought. The ease of global travel,the instantaneous

nature ofcyber-com m unication,and the resulting shrinking ofthe w orld com pel

us to ask w hether the regnant standard--territorially dem arcated borders--is the

best determ inant ofnational identity. IfJew s are not concentrated in a single state,

but in fact a m ajority live outside it,m ight w e not be em boldened to think ofa new

paradigm of global collectivity in our globalized w orld? Just as w e aw ait a newtheory to explain and order political organization in our tw enty-first century w orld,


9/42

9

so too w e m ight ask w hether the prevailing state-centered m odel of Jew ish

collectivity is in need ofm odification or even replacem ent.

There is a second reason w hy the tim e m ay be propitious to recall Mordecai Kaplanand rethink w hat m ight be called the Statist paradigm . This is,quite sim ply,

because Statism has failed. This is not to deny for a m om ent that the State ofIsrael

has provided physical security,econom ic sustenance,and even a fram ew ork for

cultural creativity for its citizens,especially its Jew ish citizens. It is rather to argue

that Statism the ideological proposition that the State is not just a m eans,but the

end of Jew ish history and life hasnt delivered to D iaspora Jew ry. Statism

dem ands allegiance,absolute allegiance,of its adherents,but it offers D iaspora

Jew s (and,for that m atter,som e Israeli Jew s)a thin form of cultural identity. The

Statist profession that I am Jew ish because I support the State ofIsrael dim inishes

the im port of the rich fabric of Jew ish religious,social,and cultural life that w asw oven over centuries,both in Erets Yisrael and the D iaspora. It arrogates to itselfa

m ajority stake in and attendant control over--Jew ish peoplehood. In its m ost

extrem e case, it becom es, as Yeshayahu Leibow itz understood w ell, a form of

`avodah zarah, idol w orship--a fetishistic attachm ent to a set of political andm ilitary institutions at the expense of Jew ish culture, H ebrew language, and

yidishkayt (all of w hich Mordecai Kaplan referred to as the identity-form ing

differentia ofJew ish life).

Statism thus privileges state over nation, political sovereignty over global

collectivity. And this,in turn,produces a m ost curious effect:the Jew s,a fam ouslyverbal people, have lost a language to describe their collective self except via

Statism . There is no nam e to designate w hat once w as know n in centuries past as

Klal Yisrael or sim ply Yisrael,the global Jew ish collective unified by a shared senseof past and future. O f course,it w ould be nave to suggest that Jew s alw ays

possessed a coherent sense of or singular nam e for their groupness. There w ere

periods of greater and lesser attention to the nam e and language of Jew ish

groupness. An especially im portant period in this regard w as the golden age of

Jew ish nationalism ,an era that extended roughly from 1897 to 1939. It w as in this

period that a dizzying range of ideological positions em erged,all of w hich w ere

debated passionately in a robust m arketplace of ideas. Little w as agreed upon,

except for perhaps the m ost significant of first principles:that the Jew s w ere a

nation.

W e w ould do w ell to sum m on up the energy and passion ofthat bygone era. This

requires engaging in a rigorous debate over w hat the Jew ish nation is and looks

like. As a result,w e m ay end up m odifying the existing Statist paradigm ofJew ish

collectivity. Rather than conceiving ofthe State as the center and the D iaspora as

the periphery (im age #1), w e m ight instead conjure up a single global Jew ish

collective,represented by overlapping circles of D iaspora and the other Israeli

Jew ry (im age #2). It is the area ofoverlap,not either ofthe tw o circles alone,


10/42


11/42

11

These questions point to the need for a serious consideration ofnew m odalities to

regulate the affairs of the collective. A w orld Jew ish parliam ent seem s a bit far-

fetched and risky,although it is im portant to note that the idea has been proposed

variously over the last hundred years,from Leo Motzkin and Menachem U ssishkinin 1919 to Yossi Beilin and Moshe Katsav in the past decade. In theory, an

institution such as the W orld Jew ish Congress,as conceived by Stephen S. W ise

and N ahum G oldm ann in 1936, bore the potential to be an appropriate

institutional fram ew ork for the global Jew ish collective,but it has not lived up to

that potential. W hether the Jew ish Agency for Israel can overcom e its ow n Statist

bias and serve as an effective vehicle rem ains unclear;the recent announced shift

in focus from aliyah to identity is a prom ising,but sm all first step. In any event,

w hat is required,alongside constant bottom -up efforts to revitalize local Jew ish

com m unities,is a sustained top-dow n effort to invigorate debate about global

Jew ish collectivity.

By w ay of conclusion, Id like to offer tw o specific proposals that m ove in this

direction,each ofw hich seeks to seize on the m om ent ofopportunity afforded by

the current age of globalization to re-im agine Jew ish peoplehood. First,a m ajor

effort should be m ade to assem ble Jew ish artists,w riters,and intellectuals from

across the globe under the rubric of a W orld Jew ish Cultural Forum ;the goal of

such a Forum w ould be to engender passionate and w ide-ranging debate over the

nam e,nature,and function of Jew ish collectivity,w ith a particular em phasis on

analyzing the cultural com m onalities that bind Jew s to one another. Such a step is

not an end,but a beginning ofthe long road leading out ofthe state ofconceptualpoverty in w hich w e dw ell today. It m ight also advance thinking about a new

organizational fram ew ork for the global collective that w ould be both

representative and dem ocratically elected.

Second,w e can and should alter the w ay w e fram e Jew ish program m ing in line

w ith new global (and global Jew ish)realities. Take,for exam ple,the m ost hallow ed

ofyoung adult program s,Birthright/Taglit. Rather than continue to conceive ofthe

program in unidirectional term s,w hereby young Jew s m ake pilgrim age to Israel in

order to receive a dose ofJew ish vitality,w e m ight think instead offostering bonds

ofm utuality in m ultiple directions by introducing regular Birthright trips from Israel

to Melbourne,Montivideo,or Montreal,as w ell as trips from those sites to N ewYork,Paris,and Johannesburg en route to Israel. The result w ill be a m essier m atrix

of global Jew ish collectivity,but a far richer one and indeed one truer to the

geographic and cultural condition of the Jew ish nation,as it struggles to gain a

solid perch in the fast-m oving globalized arena.

David N. Myers teaches Jewish histo ry at t he Universit y of Calif orn ia, Los Angeles. Hecan be r eached at my ers@histo ry.ucla.edu


12/42


13/42

13

W hat Cohen discovered w as not surprise. Peoplehood m atters. It m atters on m any

levels,but practically,its prom otion has im portant consequences for fund-raising.

H igh levels on this index translated into regular and increasing financial

com m itm ent to Jew ish institutions. W eak peoplehood ties resulted in w eakened

support. D onors,as a population,are m ore engaged in Jew ish activities,Jew ishlearning and Jew ish institutions than the Jew ish public at large. In term s of their

giving patterns,they not only give to m ore Jew ish institutions than non-Jew ish

institutions,they also give larger gifts. Interestingly,their charitable contributions

to non-Jew ish charities w ere not dependent on Cohens 5 factors in any m easure.

The other area ofconcern is the dem ographic represented. Those w ho have a high

peoplehood profile tend to share certain characteristics. In general, they are

older,m ore affluent and m ore m ale than fem ale. Research dem onstrates that they

tend to be m ore in-m arried than interm arried. Ifw e exam ine the data,it is clear

that those w ho have a strong peoplehood profile represent a shrinking population

in N orth Am erica today. If nothing proactive is done to reverse this trend,theresults could be calam itous.

Working Backw ards, Movin g Forw ard

There is a tem ptation to leverage this inform ation into short-term gains in

fundraising by translating Jew ish pride or any of the other m easures of

peoplehood upon w hich Cohen based his research into a m arketing cam paign.

That w ould be good utilitarian im plem entation of the research,b ut it w ould be

m issing the ultim ate point from a leadership perspective. The data dem onstrates a

m ore profound truth. W e m ust w ork im m ediately and urgently to strengthen

peoplehood before larger cultural norm s, w hose effects have already w orked

against us,take even deeper root. In m any w ays,the results ofCohens w ork create

m ore w ork for us all. Fund-raising is the very last,and arguably the least im portant,

step in the process ofintegrating this research into the w ay that w e do business.

Tzedaka is an expression of an individuals values. If w e w ant to raise charitablegiving,it is incum bent upon us to enhance the Jew ish values quotient ofthose w e

w ork w ith, particularly along the lines of the peoplehood profile identified in

Cohens 5 attitudes.

O ur first order ofbusiness is to ask w hat m ust be done to enhance Jew ish pride,

attachm ent to other Jew s and Israel,a com m itm ent to continuity and a sense ofresponsibility to other Jew s. W hen w e are able to answ er this m ulti-pronged

question,w e w ill have raised m ore than m oney;w e w ill have significantly altered

and reversed the direction of Jew ish identity in N orth Am erica. W here personal

autonom y and individual responsibility are hallm arks of Am erican life,the Jew ish

com m unity w ill, as a result of a changed institutional focus, be able to act

counterculturally,striving to becom e w hat w e once w ere.

Judaism should not only be an outgrow th of social,spiritual or cultural ties but

should surface em otional belonging. In exam ining the m easures ofpeoplehood,


14/42

14

m ost of them are not cognitive or behavioral but em otional. Pride,connection,

loyalty and attachm ent are feelings that people have. W hat w e think about and

w hat w e subsequently do are a result prim arily of w hat w e feel. Cohens research

tells us that Jew ish institutions m ust do a better job engendering certain feelings

that are intangible in nature. Intangible,how ever,does not m ean not actionable.There are w ays to increase the Jew ish em otional barom eter.

In a general statem ent about strengthening peoplehood,C ohen m akes the case

for a variety of different approaches:Policies w hich prom ote Jew ish association

(inform al netw orks),affiliation (ties to institutions),socialization (organic process of

value inculcation), and education w ork to elevate Jew ish peoplehood

com m itm ent,and,by extension,engagem ent in Jew ish philanthropic endeavors as

w ell.2

In our book, The Case for Jewish Peoplehood (Jew ish Lights:2009), w e take thisfurther; enhancing peoplehood requires new , positive and m ulti-dim ensional

touch points of a certain quality. Em otional changes in the w ay that people feelabout their Jew ish lives are not only dependent on associations and education. It is

dependent on the depth ofthe association and the excellence ofthe education.

O n a program m atic level,events and initiatives should m easure them selves against

a peoplehood scorecard. They should,w herever possible:

Strengthen Jew ish literacy and m eaning

Be inspiring Involve and affirm the beauty and necessity ofcom m unity

Support,teach,and dem onstrate Jew ish values.

Reflect w arm th and enhance intim acy w ith other Jew s

Reinforce m utual responsibility rather than passive participation

D em onstrate a concern for t ikkun olam or social activism

Create contexts w here Jew s ofdifferent w alks oflife can com e together and

bridge the boundaries ofdifference

Prom ote outreach3

Im agine such a scorecard. Im agine the w ays that such an intentional approach tocreating Jew ish program m ing w ould begin to show im pact over tim e. Enhancing

peoplehood is not necessarily about providing m ore opportunities to connect w ith

the Jew ish com m unity as it is about deepening the intensity ofsuch opportunities

through the above lenses.

2

Ibid, p.19.3Erica Brown and Misha Galperin, The Case for Jewish Peoplehood (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights,

2009), p. 169.


15/42

15

A young professional shared w ith us his concern that he could go to a Jew ish event

every night ofthe w eek ifhe w anted to. W hat w as m issing,according to him ,w ere

experiences ofJudaism and encounters w ith other Jew s that w ere able to shape

and even shake him out ofhis current assum ptions. As w e w rote in the book:

U sually, w e affirm our life choices by creating relatively hom ogenous social,cultural,religious and professional circles. It is hard to intensify your experience of

Judaism if everyw here you turn is never m arkedly different from w here you

currently are. The provocation ofdifference gives us a chance to transcend our

norm al boundaries and experience Judaism from others places of interest and

intensity.4

Since w e w rote these w ords,not m uch has changed. W e suffer dim inishing im pact

not because w e lack research and inform ation on our com m unities but b ecause w e

fail at im plem enting the conclusions of peoplehood research. Steven Cohen has

now offered us yet another set ofim portant data points to inform w hat w e do,buthis conclusions and our ow n seem too insignificant to attack Jew ish com m unal

inertia.

Next Steps

There are those w ho do not like the w ord peoplehood and find it a new and

m eaningless term in the Jew ish com m unal lexicon. The point is not to exhaust

ourselves w orrying about the language but to energize ourselves in considering

Jew ish identity anew in an age ofshifting and fluid identity boundaries. W e are not

the sam e,yet Jew ish institutions continue to pursue the sam e agendas.

In order for Jew ish identity to shift in its orientation in N orth Am erica, Jew ish

institutions m ust w ork backw ards from Cohens research on charitable giving and

enhance opportunities for m eaningful Jew ish living. In 2008, the Jew ish

Federations of N orth Am erica conducted a Peer Yardstick Review that

dem onstrated that the alignm ent ofpersonal and Jew ish values has a significant

im pact on charitable gift increases. N ot only that,Jew ish charitable values are the

single best predictor of increases in federation contributions. Federations and

other institutions that are seen by donors as contributing to their understanding of

Jew ish values such as tzedakah and t ikkun olam do better w ith donors. H ow m uchm ore proofdo w e need to do business through the lens ofvalues?Its tim e to push

peolpehood.

Dr. Misha Galperin h as just annou nced t hat h e is leaving hi s posit ion as the CEO of

The Jewish Federat ion of Greater Washingt on t o head u p The Jewish Agency's Glob al

External Affairs efforts, working with Natan Sharansky and Alan Hoffmann as the

new l eadership team of JAFI

Dr. Erica Brown runs adult education for t he Partnership for Jewish Life and

Learning. Her most recent b ook i s Spiri tua l Boredom .

4Ibid, p. 170.


16/42

16

On The Relati onship Between Peoplehood and Zionism

By Gideon Shim oni

W hat is the relationship betw een our current discourse on the idea "peoplehood"on the one hand,and the Zionist idea on the other? Are they one and the sam e

thing or are they adversarial opposites? D o they overlap and ifso,to w hat degree?

Can advocacy of peoplehood stand alone as the ideological com pass for

contem porary Jew ish life? O ne cannot even begin to address these questions

m eaningfully w ithout first defining w hat one m eans by the tw o term s under

exam ination. It is w orth noting that in such m atters there is really no such thing as

a correct or incorrect definition. At best one can only hope to reach consensus on

w hat is the m ost serviceable definition for optim al com prehension of the

phenom enon being scrutinized.

Let us b egin w ith "peoplehood."The suffix "hood" im plies "a state ofbeing";so it

literally m eans the state of being a people. W hat is "a people"? ( in H ebrew )

Surely,it is the com m on or colloquial term for a hum an social entity consensually

described in contem porary social science as an "ethnic group." Serviceable

definitions of"ethnic group"run som ething like a nam ed group ofpeople bound

together by a beliefor m yth in com m on ancestry or origin and a tenable m easure

of cohesion rooted in any variety of shared cultural characteristics, such as a

specific language or languages, religious codes, beliefs or rituals, historical

experiences and m em ories,connections to specific territorial spaces or m em ories

ofterritorial hom elands.

Accordingly, I suggest that w e m ay usefully distinguish betw een at least tw o

dim ensions ofm eaning for the term "peoplehood"w hen applied to the Jew s. O ne

is objective the proposition that the entity "Jew s" is an objectively identifiableethnic group. In sim pler w ords the Jew s constitute a people. (The significant

im plication here is that,although Jew ish peoplehood is inextricably intertw ined

w ith the religion ofJew s and this m ay be a phenom enon unique am ong peoples

the Jew s are not sim ply w hat the Christian w orld calls "a religion.")The second

dim ension ofm eaning is subjective,that is to say description ofa sense or feeling ofbelonging to the Jew ish people. If one advocates "peoplehood" one is positing

that it is a value to feel and cultivate the sense ofbelonging to the Jew ish people,and at least potentially this m eans com m itting oneselfto interest and involvem ent

in,or concern and care for,the collective w elfare ofthe Jew ish people.

I com e now to "Zionism ." O fcourse it is m any things a m ovem ent,a variety of

organized or institutionalized entities and so on. But,ifw e are to com pare it to the

idea of peoplehood w e m ust focus on the idea or ideology of Zionism . By

"ideology"is m eant an action-related set ofideas relating to a given reality,in this

instance the reality ofthe Jew ish condition in the w orld. As a research specialist in

this field I have attem pted to define the propositions that constitute the com m on

denom inator ofthe Zionist ideology over all tim e and in every place and for all its


17/42


18/42

18

(2)This can only be realized through the existence and thriving ofthe State ofIsrael

as in som e m eaningful sense a Jew ish state (ofcourse,view s differ greatly as to

definition of the political requirem ents for this). (3) Israel's w elfare and cultural

creativity is of central significance for Jew ish life everyw here (of course,defining

the nature ofthis "centrality"is controversial).

From the above analysis,it follow s that the peoplehood idea is fully congruent w ith

the basic underlying proposition of the Zionist idea, as it has been understood

from its very beginning up to the present. Yet,in ideological term s,w hereas any

and every adherent ofZionism ipso facto m ust uphold the peoplehood idea,not

every peoplehood advocate is ipso facto a Z ionist. In other w ords the peoplehood

concept is ideologically m inim alist. Therein lies its advantage, since it can truly

serve as a com m on denom inator for Jew ish cohesion, solidarity and collective

creativity that is m ore encom passing than Zionism . This is im portant,given today's

plurality ofJew ish identities,especially the deep division betw een orthodox andnon-orthodox religious m odes,and also the potentiality ofdivision betw een Israeli

Jew s and D iaspora Jew s. But therein also lies the peoplehood concept's lim itation

as an effective action-oriented ideological stim ulant for Jew ish life. For m ajor

factors ofdivisiveness am ong Jew s revolve around the affirm ation or rejection of

the Zionist propositions outlined above.

It is possible to advocate the peoplehood idea w hile objecting to the Zionist idea

that Jew s have a need or entitlem ent to national self-fulfillm ent in the form of a

political state oftheir ow n. But it is an instructive fact that attacks upon this Zionist

postulate are inherently subversive of the Jew ish peoplehood idea. W itness thecurrent dissem ination of an ideological onslaught entitled The Invention of the

Jew ish Peopl e by a self-avow ed Israeli opponent ofZionism ,Shlom o Sand.

The point I w ish to m ake,in conclusion,is that the peoplehood idea in itselfis no

panacea. It cannot suffice as a guiding com pass for Jew ish life today. Far m ore

significant and fateful issues ofcollective Jew ish life revolve on interpretations and

em phases w ithin the context ofZionist discourse. The face ofZionism am ong Jew s

as w ell as in the international arena is today gravely tarnished and discredited;a

situation the causes of w hich lie beyond the scope of the present discussion.

N evertheless,there can and should be no evasion ofthis reality by escaping into a

sim plistic m antra of "peoplehood" discourse. In this context, Mercaz Metzilah(Center for Zionist,Jew ish,liberal,hum anistic thought ) is dedicated to exploring,

defining, elaborating and acting upon the vital Zionist dim ension of the

peoplehood idea.

Professor Gideon Shimoni, of the Hebrew University's Institute of Contemporary

Jewry , has been an academ ic advi ser to Bet Hatefut zot's School fo r Peoplehood

Stu dies and is current ly chief academic advisor of it s planned new M useum of t he

Jewish People. He is a memb er of Met zilah's Executi ve Com mi tt ee.


19/42

19

Zionism and Peoplehood - Toward a Histo rical Synt hesis

By Gidi Grinstein

Pesach is an intellectual feast for those ofus that are engaged w ith Jew ish identity.As w e read the Haggadah and go through the Seder,w e leisurely engage the three

anchors of our identity religion,nationalism and peoplehood and have an

annual opportunity to revisit the center ofgravity ofour identity.

For m ore than 22 centuries, at least since the days of the Hashmonaim , thecollective identity of our people has three distinct poles: our religion that

em phasizes belief and ritual;our nationalism that calls for sovereignty over and

self-determ ination in Eretz Yisrael, and peoplehood that focuses on the sharedm em ories, fate, and destiny that bond us. For m ost of this period, since the

destruction of the Second Tem ple in the first century, it w as religion that

overshadow ed nationalism and peoplehood.

The rise of Zionism dram atically altered this equilibrium by challenging every

com m unity and m any individuals to re-anchor their values,priorities,and patterns

of behavior around Jew ish nationalism . It often dim inished the im portance of

tradition,texts or rituals;negated the D iaspora and system atically attem pted to

dism antle it through Aliyah;placed com m unity-building and later state-building in

Erez Yisrael as the top priority ofthe entire Jew ish people;pledged to build a m odelsociety that w ould m ake w orld Jew s 'proud',as w ell as provide them w ith a 'safe

haven';and used the objective hardships in the prom ised land to legitim ize a rich

uncle-poor nephew m indset and to dem and not only political and financial

support but also im m igrants,olim .

This narrative of Zionism dom inated the discourse of our people since the

H olocaust and the establishm ent ofthe State ofIsrael. Millions answ ered its call by

im m igrating to Israel or supporting it w holeheartedly, and m ost others w ere

pushed to root their identity deeper in religion or peoplehood. Furtherm ore,m any

institutions fram ed their m ission around it,prim arily the Jew ish Agency for Israel,

Keren HaYesod or U nited Jew ish Appeal Federations ofN orth Am erica,

Yet the tectonic shifts of our history relentlessly underm ine the dom inance of

classical Zionism and the institutions that are based on it. For exam ple,not only

that m any Jew s no longer view Israel as the m ain effort of the Jew ish people,em phasizing service of hum anity for Tikkun Olam and shared responsibility forJew ish com m unities around the w orld in stead, but also there is increasing

disinterest in,ignorance ofand even alienation from Israel.

At the sam e tim e,Israeli society has been transform ing as w ell:Israel has becom e

relatively secure and prosperous,yet facing m oral and practical issues that distance

it from representing a m odel society in the eyes of m any;religious factions,and

even ultra-orthodox groups,undertake a grow ing role in building and protecting

the state w hile grappling w ith its m undane issues; com m unity life in Israel is

surging,and m ore Israelis are engaging w ith their Jew ish heritage;and a


20/42

20

perm anent Israeli D iaspora seem s to be a grow ing reality w hen m any Israelis

relocate overseas for education or w ork.

H ence,classical Zionism is forced to evolve into w hat m ay be referred to as new

21st century Zionism , w hich no longer view s religion and peoplehood ascontradictory to Jew ish nationalism ,b ut rather com plem entary. Negation of the

D iaspora is being replaced by the understanding that a vibrant D iaspora is an

im perative for long-term survival ofthe Jew ish people. A strong call for 'aliyah'has

m orphed into encouraging lifecycles of com m itm ent to Israel and m ovem ent

am ong Israel and the Jew ish w orld. As Israel ascends to first-w orld prosperity w hile

w orld Jew ry seeks its unique voice in Israeli society,the rich uncle-poor nephew

m indset is no longer an appealing fram ew ork for the relationship,w hen both sides

increasingly seek synergy,m utuality and partnership am ong equals,.

Furtherm ore,the narrative ofstate-building and mamlacht iyut ('statism ')has been

replaced by a focus on com m unity-building and diversity. As Israelis em brace theirJew ish heritage and Israel's pub lic sphere is filled w ith spiritual innovation,Israel

w ill soon be enriching w orld Jew ry w ith its progressive cultural and substantive

creativity.

These are not just big-picture trends but a tangible reality. O n the level of

individuals,m any ofus synthesize in our personal,professional and com m unal life

a never-been-seen-before blend of nationalism , peoplehood and religion,

facilitated in part by globalization. O n the institutional level, organizations that

w ere designed to serve classical Zionism face the excruciating pains ofadaptation.

O r,recently,Mem bers ofKnesset w ere called to debate absentee voting ofIsraelis

w ho are abroad.

Yet the em erging synthesis betw een nationalism and peoplehood requires a new

agenda that captures the hearts and m inds of m illions both in Israel and around

the Jew ish w orld and is based on m utuality and synergetic partnership. W e m ust

w ork together to strengthen our w orld w ide netw ork ofprosperous and resilient

com m unities;serve the value of t ikkun olam and m ake a distinctly Jew ish andIsraeli service at the frontiers ofhum anity;continue to b uild a secure,prosperous

and dem ocratic Israel that offers a unique Jew ish experience; teach and speak

H ebrew not only as a tool for global com m unication am ong Jew s but also for

engaging the richness ofour history and culture;or to preserve,develop and share

the collective w isdom of Jew ish culture,rituals and traditions through text study,

art, literature or poetry and in a w ay that enriches Jew ish and non-Jew ish

individuals,households and com m unities.

This synthesis seem s to be inevitable in the com ing years,and perhaps decades. Its

advantages are m any. Yet,m ost im portantly,it not only legitim izes a m ore relevant

relationship betw een Israel and the Jew ish w orld that w ill bring significant value to

both, but w ill also im prove the prospect for sustaining our contribution to

hum anity.

Gidi Grinstein is t he President and Founder o f t he Reut Instit ut e, an Israeli pol icy andstrategy group .


21/42

21

When t he Jewish Peop le and Israel Con fl ict

By Lisa Gran t

The w ord Israel has m ultiple m eanings and associations. In the new s,it refers to

the m odern state ofIsrael. W hen it appears in the siddur,it m ight be referring to

the Jew ish collective or to the actual Land ofIsrael. In the Bible,it m ight also refer

to the collective or to the patriarch Jacob w hose nam e w as changed to Israel after

he w restled w ith the angel. In contem porary parlance, the w ord (lom ),

usually translated as nationality, is used in sim ilar fashion to Israel, at tim es

referring to the m odern nation-state and at other tim es referring to the entire

Jew ish people. Placing an adjective in front of Israel adds to the m ultiplicity of

m eanings. Am Yisrael can be understood narrow ly as the m odern nation or m ore

broadly as encom passing all Jew s everyw here. Sim ilarly,Eretz Yisrael is used both

to refer to the land on w hich the State is situated as w ell as the sacred Land thatG od prom ised to Abraham and his descendents.

The am biguity of the three term s am ,eretz,and lom ,is intentional,signifying

the actuality ofa rootedness in a particular geographic locale and the aspiration

that all Jew s are part of the Jew ish collective regardless ofw hether they live in

that locale or not. A far less am biguous descriptor is Medina,the state,w hich is

defined by citizenship. And yet here too, w e find som e blurred boundaries,

literally in term s ofits defined and disputed borders and figuratively,in term s of

considering just w ho is a part of this civic collective. W e see this play out in

com m on parlance. For instance,m any of the quasi-governm ental agencies thathistorically have connected D iaspora Jew s to Israel, the Jew ish Agency, W ZO ,

Keren H ayesod, Keren Kayem et (JN F) are referred to as " " the

nation/peoples institutions,not the States. Likew ise,you can see a blurring in

the distinction betw een m edina and lom for exam ple,in the nam e for a new

parking lot by the G overnm ent Center (Suprem e Court, Bank of Israel, Prim e

Minister's O ffice, Knesset...): , the nation/peoples parking, not

governm ental or state. And for decades political figures refer regularly to the

population of the State of Israel as Am Yisrael or even " " (the entire

am /people Israel).*

The intentionality of this am biguity actually conveys a clear m essage: Israels

raison detre is to be the national hom eland for the Jew ish people. That is the core

purpose for the establishm ent and ongoing project ofnation b uilding w ithin the

Jew ish state. For m any Jew s,both in Israel and the D iaspora,Israel serves as an

anchor and som e w ould say the center of the Jew ish collective experience,the

place w here Jew s can enjoy full equality and express the full m easure of their

hum anity. O thers how ever,reject the notion of Israel as the (or even a)center of

collective Jew ish experience. Indeed,there appear to be a grow ing num ber of

those w ho suggest that Medina t Yisrael the state, presents an obstacle toidentification and solidarity w ith Am Yisrael,the Jew ish people and w ho m ay even

reject the idea that collective Jew ish experience is a value w orth upholding andacting upon at all.


22/42

22

Attention to these m ultiple m eanings is far m ore than w ordplay w hen

considering the im pact on the next generation of Am erican Jew s and Jew ish

leadership. The sam e m ight be said for Israeli Jew s as w ell,although m y focus

here draw s from m y experience w ith young Am erican Jew ish adults. O ver thepast several years,Ive had the opportunity to engage in serious,substantive,and

ongoing conversations about Jew ish Peoplehood w ith rabbinical and education

students at the Hebrew U nion College. These conversations have been

structured around form al and inform al encounters w ith people and ideas w ith

the intent of fostering a greater consciousness about and com m itm ent to Klal

Yisrael,a less am biguous term than those already noted,that connotes Jew ishPeoplehood w ithout a specific connection to nationhood. For m any of these

young adults,Klal Yisrael is a foreign and even alienating concept,so it logically

follow s that the ideas ofam ,lom ,and m edina are even m ore distant from their

consciousness and experience. Three core tensions seem to contribute to thisdetachm ent. The first relates to the prim acy ofthe individual over the collective,

the second concerns the relationship betw een varying stream s of Jew s,and the

third is the relationship betw een the Jew ish State and the Palestinians.

O n the surface, the first of these factors m ay appear to be unrelated to the

tension betw een Am Yi sr ael and Medinat Yisrael, but in fact, it does shape

foundational perceptions and assum ptions about the Jew ish collective and Israel

as a Jew ish state. Most Am erican Jew s today see Judaism as a personal m atter,

w here individual autonom y is privileged over a com m itm ent to a com m unal set

ofnorm s,values,and behaviors. This sentim ent is often given expression by the

phrase m y Judaism , m eaning that Judaism is w hatever I m ake it. Am erican

Jew s,including these highly engaged and deeply com m itted future rabbis and

educators, feel fully com fortable choosing w hether,w hen,w here,and how to

connect to Jew s and Jew ish beliefs and practice. They also prefer com m unities

w ith porous and fluid boundaries betw een Jew s and non-Jew s. For them ,this is

norm ative,w hich is hardly the case in Israeli society today.

This then relates to the second issue,w hich is w hen these Am erican young adult

Jew s com e to Israel for their first year of graduate studies at HU C, m any share

experiences w here they encounter derision and disdain for Reform Judaism and

Reform Jew s both from Am Yisrael,the Jew ish nation/people and Medinat Yisrael,the Jew ish state. They experience this in inform al conversations and in the public

square. At the extrem e,they are sw orn at and spat upon w hich lately occurs w ith

som e regularity at the Kotel during W om en at the W all Rosh Chodesh services. In

m ore benign fashion,they are sim ply dism issed as inauthentic, ignorant, and

non-halachic. Their response is one of alienation and profound hurt that often

gets expressed in the retort:W hy should I w ant to feel connected to Klal Yisrael

w hen there are m any in that collective w ho reject that Im studying to be a rabbi

and m aybe w ont even accept that Im a Jew ?

A third tension that inform s their experience ofIsrael concerns the relationshipsand attitudes ofAm Yisrael,the Jew ish nation/people,tow ards the Palestinians,


23/42


24/42

24

Peoplehoods Overlooked Origins as a Critique of Zionism and

Nationalism 1

By Noam Pianko

O ne of the underlying issues in todays conversations about the m eaning of

peoplehood is situating the term s relationship w ith historical expressions of

Zionism . There is a lot at stake in establishing precisely w here the concept falls on

the spectrum betw een nationalism s inclination to place the state at the center of

collective cohesion and a m ore diaspora-oriented predisposition tow ard

deterritorialized, voluntary, and perm eable notions of m inority com m unities

categorized as ethnic or religious groups. W here does connection to/support ofthe

state belong in evaluating an individuals sense of peoplehood? To w hat degree

should theories of Jew ish peoplehood recognize, and even affirm , the blurryboundaries ofgroup identity that tend to characterize a postethnic and global era?

As the diverse essays in this volum e attest, no clear consensus has em erged

regarding these fundam ental questions.

This w ide range of view s regarding peoplehoods historical and norm ative

association w ith Zionism sharply contrast w ith the m otivations of the thinker

generally acknow ledged w ith introducing the term into com m unal discourse.

Mordecai Kaplan,the Am erican Jew ish rabbi and founder ofthe Reconstructionist

m ovem ent, am bivalently introduced the term peoplehood in the 1950s out of

frustration w ith post-1948 conceptions of Zionism . The creation of the state of

Israel, Kaplan believed, had m arginalized alternate conceptions of Jew ishnationalism that had thrived during the first halfof the tw entieth century. Kaplan

eventually settled on peoplehood because he needed an alternate category to

articulate the principles he had previously identified w ith Jew ish nationalism and

Zionism .

Kaplans essays, books, and diary entries indicate that peoplehood w as not

Kaplans first (or only)choice in his efforts to articulate the ties that b ind Jew s to

one another. From Kaplans first pub lished essay (Judaism and N ationality, 1908)

to his final book (The Religion of Ethical Nationhood,1970)Kaplans m ission w as todefine Jew s as the exem plar of a m ore progressive type of nationalism that

separated the historical bonds of national groups from the political ties of

citizenship. Kaplans pre-state w ritings contrasted Jew ish nationalism (and his

understanding of Zionism ) w ith paradigm s of nationalism that em phasized

territory and sovereignty as the prim ary m arkers of m em bership. Kaplan view ed

absolute national sovereignty as liable to destroy the very foundations of

hum an civilization. Jew ish nationalism taught the antidote to these trends:

cultural diversity, solidarity across geopolitical boundaries, and non-coercive

criteria ofinclusion.

1This essay is adapted from an essay that originally appeared as Peoplehood: Kaplans Forgotten

Act of Disloyalty? in Shma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility April, 2010 (www.shma.com).


25/42

25

Zionism appealed to Kaplan as a m ovem ent capable ofshepherding a new era of

depoliticized nationalism . Instead of contributing to the division ofthe w orld into

discrete territorial units w ith hom ogeneous national populations,Zionism w ould

underscore the practical and m oral lim itations of national sovereignty. Modern

dem ocracies, including the United States, Kaplan insisted should follow theteachings ofZionism and refrain from dem anding any degree ofethnic,religious,

or cultural conform ity of its citizens. The establishm ent of the state of Israel,and

w ith it the m essage that Jew ish nationhood w as synonym ous w ith statehood,left

Kaplan in a bind. The language ofnationalism and Zionism had becom e too closely

associated w ith national sovereignty for him to use it effectively. O nly by

introducing a still undefined conceptual term ,such as peoplehood,could Kaplan

continue his lifelong vision of prom oting Jew ish nationalism as a theoretical and

practical replacem ent for the nation-state paradigm .

Zionism s increasingly dom inant assum ptions about nationalism ,Kaplan believed,w ould create a rift betw een Jew ish populations by reinforcing tw o disparate (and

even incom patible)categories ofJew ish identity as a m ajority national culture in

the hom eland and a m inority religious com m unity in the diaspora. A robust sense

of solidarity w ould endure only if an alternate concept, such as peoplehood,

established a shared understanding of the m eaning of Jew ish collectivity as

distinct from both political citizenship and religious creed. Peoplehood w ould also

need to address potentially conflicting attitudes about dem ocracy and citizenship.

Jew s in the U nited States w ould advocate for the separation of citizenship and

patriotism from particular religious, ethnic,or national criteria. The Jew ish state

w ould insist on precisely such preservation of a particular religio-national

character. Kaplan envisioned peoplehood as forging m iddle path betw eenAm erican Judaism and statist Zionism by dem anding that both poles reconsider

their foundational assum ptions.

The recent explosion of interest in Jew ish peoplehood has overlooked Kaplans

perceived need to create an analytical distinction betw een Jew ish peoplehood and

Zionist ideology as it developed in the decades follow ing the establishm ent ofthe

Jew ish state. There are certainly prudent reasons to dow nplay the historical

function of peoplehood as a substitute for Zionism . By rem aining intentionally

vague,peoplehood can theoretically appeal to Jew s w ho feel deeply invested in

Zionism s assum ptions about the centrality ofthe state ofIsrael and those w ho findlocal expressions of Judaism far m ore integral to their sense of being part of the

Jew ish people. At a m om ent in w hich Zionism has becom e a controversial term

and a younger generation ofJew s feels increasingly disconnected from the state of

Israel,peoplehood provides a far less contentious language for prom oting the

im portance ofJew ish solidarity and unity. Peoplehood thus functions as a big-tent

concept capable ofuniting an increasingly diverse and fragm ented Jew ish w orld.

But, a definition of peoplehood that retains an am biguous relationship w ith

Zionism also has significant shortcom ings. Kaplans prescient call to create space

outside the orbit of Zionist ideology to define a m odern language of Jew ish

collective identity is especially relevant today as a younger generation internalizes
http://www.shma.com/


26/42

26

very different conceptions ofpeoplehood,ethnicity,and race. For instance,Rogers

M. Sm ith, a Yale political theorist and author of a recent book called Stories of

Peoplehood : The Politics and M orals of Political M emb ership,defines peoplehood inopposition to chauvinistic political narratives that prom ote exclusive,descent-

based,or coerced conceptions of collectivity. Instead,Sm ith,like other theoristsinterested in the m orality ofgroup allegiances,view s collective bonds as particular,

ideally voluntary,attachm ents that engender a greater appreciation ofm ultiplicity,

diversity,and eq uality.

It is no w onder that m any Jew s shy aw ay from any discourse ofpeoplehood that

espouses (or even subtly condones) unquestionable allegiance to other Jew s

regardless of their w orldview s,privileges particular over universal concerns,and

m aintains rigid boundaries betw een Jew s and non-Jew s. As long as the lines

betw een peoplehood,Zionism ,and support for the state ofIsrael rem ain nebulous,

the effectiveness ofthe concept as an organizing principle w ill be severely lim ited.Conceptions ofpeoplehood that repackage old assum ptions about Jew ish identity

m olded by classical Zionist assum ptions w ill not resonate w ith Jew s w ho find that

these prem ises clash w ith their other political and ethical com m itm ents.

In order for peoplehood to gain traction as a com pelling idea for a new generation

ofJew s,com m unal leaders and theorist ofpeoplehood m ust be w illing to critically

assess deeply internalized assum ptions about Jew ish collectivity shaped largely by

Zionist ideology during the last several decades. Meaningful discussions of Jew ish

peoplehood dem and com ing to term s w ith realities that last centurys theorists of

Zionism could not have im agined because they lived in a w orld organized by the

logic of nation-state nationalism . The reality of perm eable borders,transnationalnetw orks, and geographic m obility require very different foundational

assum ptions. So do changing conceptions of race, ethnicity, and religion

em bodied by the election of the first African Am erican president w hose personal

narrative celebrates the harm onious integration of identity categories long

considered incom patible.

This is not to say that a paradigm of peoplehood calibrated to prom ote m ultiple

loyalties, local netw orks, and cosm opolitan objectives cannot and should not

include m eaningful relationships w ith Israeli Jew s or the state ofIsrael. Rather,as

Kaplan understood,preserving a sense ofshared past and future across such stark

ideological divides as nationality in a political hom eland and m inority religiouscom m unity in the diaspora dem ands that both com m unities acknow ledge and

debate fundam ental differences. Paradoxically,only by distinguishing peoplehood

from Zionism ,survivalist fears of Jew ish continuity,and the rom antic prem ise of

Jew ish unity w ill future generations of Am erican Jew s view group identity and

connection to the state ofIsrael integral aspects oftheir Jew ish self-definition.

Noam Pianko i s Assistant Professor o f Jewish Stu dies at t he Universit y of Washing ton

in Seatt le. He is the author of Zionism and th e Roads Not Taken: Rawi dow icz, Kapla n,and Kohn (Indiana Universit y Press, 2010).


27/42

27

Peoplehood Reconsidered*

Rab bi Toba Spit zer

O ne of the m ore intriguing m om ents to m e in our Biblical story,in that central

narrative about w ho w e are as a people the Exodus story is during the story of

the G olden Calf. As you m ight recall,Moses goes up on Mt Sinai to receive the Ten

Com m andm ents, the instructions for the Israelites to form a new society. H e

disappears for 40 days and nights,and the Israelites begin to freak out theyre

convinced hes not com ing back. In his absence, the Israelites convince Moses

brother,Aaron,to construct a golden calf,w hich they begin w orshipping as the

sym bol oftheir liberation from Egypt.

U p on Mt Sinai,G od is understandably upset about this turn ofevents. The G reatPow er ofCreation and Liberation tells Moses that the Israelites have already broken

the covenant that theyd agreed to,and that G od is now going to destroy them ,

and w ill start all over again w ith Moses and his descendants.

W hat is intriguing is the scene that follow s, as Moses argues w ith God not to

destroy the Israelites. In essence,Moses here is rem inding G od that G od needs the

people this covenant business is a tw o-w ay street,and just as the people need

G od,so too does G od need the people.

I w ould suggest that this is a significant proof-text for Mordecai Kaplansargum ents about the centrality ofpeoplehood for an understanding ofJudaism .

Moses here is m aking Kaplans argum ent: that there can be no Judaism no

covenant,no revelation of Jew ish law and tradition w ithout the Jew ish people.

G od cant do it alone,and Moses all by him selfis not enough. God G odselfneeds

this stiff-necked Israelite com m unity in order to becom e m anifest in the w orld

through w hat today w e call the Jew ish civilization.

Kaplans notion ofthe centrality ofJew ish peoplehood w as revolutionary w hen he

articulated it in the early decades of the 20th century,but I think it needs som e

serious revisiting and perhaps reconstructing as w e begin the 21st century. Its a

concept that too often in our m ovem ent has gotten a bit thin. W hat I w ould like to

suggest today is a w ay to refram e how w e think about this central idea,to give it

m ore pow er and m eaning in this historical m om ent.

W hen Kaplan said that belonging precedes believing, he w asnt saying that

belonging w as necessarily m ore im portant than believing. He w as m aking w hat

w as to him a statem ent offact:that hum an beings form their beliefsystem s in the

context ofcom m unity,w ithin a particular culture and civilization. And even m ore

than cultural context,a persons civilization especially his or her religious


28/42

28

civilization is the vehicle for that persons salvation, m eaning,for Kaplan,the

fulfillm ent of his or her potential as a hum an being. People need com m unity

because it is only in the com m unal context,and in relation to ones history and

inherited beliefsystem s,that a person can discover m eaning and attain the highest

hum an values.

And even m ore:for Kaplan,the ethnic or religious group had a kind of creative

energy,as w ell as a group consciousness,that gave life to those values and ideals,

that shaped them over tim e. Kaplan understood that ideas and beliefs couldnt

exist in a vacuum ,didnt float out there in som e detached w ay. They w ere the

organic outgrow th ofvital,m eaning-m aking com m unities.

Based on this understanding,Kaplan called on Am erican Jew s to invigorate the

structures of organic com m unity, because he w as afraid that as cohesive and

coherent Jew ish com m unal structures fell apart,Jew ish beliefs and custom s w ouldw ither. And he w as right. As Jew s have assim ilated into the dom inant Am erican

culture,as Jew ish neighborhoods becom e a thing ofthe past,as few er and few er

Am erican Jew s are fluent in any Jew ish language,w hether Yiddish or H ebrew or

som ething else,Jew ish civilization for a m ajority of Am erican Jew s has becom ing

increasingly superficial and haphazard,ifit retains any m eaning at all.

But unfortunately,w hat I see in response from a num ber of m y Reconstructionist

colleagues is a call back to peoplehood that m isunderstands Kaplans basic

prem ise. People both w ithin and outside our m ovem ent seem to think that ifyou

just tell Am erican Jew s to feel m ore connected to other Jew s,they w ill m agicallyfeel it. And that ifthey do then feel that connection,Jew ish life w ill flow er once

again.

But you cant tell people to belong w hen they dont feel a sense ofconnection,

any m ore than you can tell som eone to believe in som ething that is alien to their

experience,or tell people to behave according to Jew ish law w hen those law s are

no longer relevant to their lives. My observation is that m any perhaps m ost--

Am erican Jew s dont experience,any longer,a sense oforganic connection to Jew s

w ith w hom they are not in any im m ediate or close relation. An organic,pow erful

sense of belonging to a Jew ish collectivity that is greater than ones ow n

im m ediate Jew ish com m unity is m ore or less a thing ofthe past for a m ajority of

Am erican Jew s. W hile there are m arvelous, creative things happening in the

Am erican Jew ish com m unity, and w hile Jew ish civilization in a broad sense

continues to develop and grow ,a sense of belonging is not,to m y m ind,the

driving factor behind those creative im pulses. Ethnic Judaism still a pow erful

force in the first halfofthe 20th century,w hen Kaplans ideas took shape--is on the

decline. In Kaplans form ative years,Zionism w as a dynam ic,visionary expression of

Jew ish nationhood. In our tim e,it is prim arily defense ofthe status quo,or fearful

reaction to attacks on Israel.


29/42

29

But even w ith all that,I do not w ant to give up on peoplehood. I just w ant to

think about it a bit differently. I w ould suggest w e start by rem em bering that

Kaplan never argued for com m unity for com m unitys sake alone. H e understood

that Jew ish peoplehood w as in the service of som ething greater. And that

som ething w as salvation. For Kaplan,G od w as not just a Process or a Pow er itw as a Process that Makes for Salvation. Sim ilarly,Jew ish civilization like every

religious civilization w as a m anifestation of a com m unal search for salvation.

U ltim ate salvation,for Kaplan,m eant a w orld in w hich every hum an being could

com e into the fullness of his or her potential,a w orld free of the poverty and

oppression that keeps so m any people unable to achieve that goal. And the G odly

Pow er of Salvation is that force, active in the universe, that both guides and

em pow ers us to achieve that goal. The Jew ish people,then,are a collectivity,a

civilization,that m akes for salvation both for its m em bers,and as part ofa larger

hum an project ofliberation and fulfillm ent.

I think the traditional Jew ish concept w hich m ost pow erfully captures this idea is

the notion ofbri t , covenant. In im agining the m om ent at Sinai,the book ofExodus

introduced an entirely new and radical idea into the w orld. This w as not the idea of

one G od. Rather,it w as the idea that divinity,the Creative Pow er ofthe U niverse,

w ould seek to com e into relationship w ith a hum an com m unity through the

m echanism ofbrit .

U ntil this innovation,the type ofcovenant w hich w e associate w ith the receiving of

Torah at Mt Sinai w as a political convention,a w ay that a m ore pow erful nation

secured the loyalty ofa less pow erful nation. But the brit betw een YH W H and theIsraelite nation w as m uch m ore than a political treaty. It w as an all-encom passingsystem ofob ligation that dem anded not only tribute to the law -giver G od but

also a code of ethical and m oral behavior tow ards every other person in the

com m unity. It w as founded on the centrality oftw o principles:tzedek,justice,andchesed,covenantal love or loyalty. The Israelites w ere told that their relationship

w ith God that is, their connection to the ultim ate Source of blessing, of

goodness,of pow er w as contingent upon their treating one another w ith the

proper balance of justice and love. The relationship of hum an beings w ith G od

could not b e separated,in this new idea ofbrit,from their relationships w ith one

another.

H ow m ight w e understand the Biblical ideal ofcovenant as Reconstructionists? I

w ould im agine that m ost ofus do not believe in a supernatural G od w ho revealed

H is law s at Sinai and im posed a covenant on a com m unity there. H ow can

covenant be m eaningful ifw e understand G od as a Process,and ifw e dont adhere

to the stipulations ofthe covenant as law ? Can w e reconstruct the notion ofbrit outside the confines of the idea of chosenness? And how m ight this all help us,

anyw ay??


30/42

30

H ere is how I understand the Biblical notion ofcovenant from a Reconstructionist

point of view : Most sim ply put: by entering into covenantal relationship w ith

others, w e m ake possible a real relationship w ith G od. And vice versa: our

com m unal relationship w ith the G odly Pow er of Creation and Salvation m akes

possible true,m orally grounded relationships w ith one another as a com m unityand as a society.

W e can think of covenant as a structure a social structure,a structure m ade of

practices, both ritual and ethical, a structure m ade up of m oral norm s and

obligations. It is through this structure that the Pow er of G odliness becom es

m anifest in the w orld. This is w hat it m eans to say that G od needs the Israelites at

Sinai; that G od needs us today. W ithout the covenantal structures the

com m unities,the congregations,the societies that w e create,God or G odliness

cannot becom e m anifest, cannot becom e real, in this w orld. And w e, in turn,

cannot achieve w hat Kaplan called salvation our fullness as hum an beingsoutside ofthe covenantal relationship w ith other people and w ith God.

So peoplehood rem ains critically im portant,but it m ust be understand not as

ethnic identity, not m erely as a sense of belonging, but as covenantal

commitment . The traditional notion of covenant challenges us to experience a

sense ofobligation as a collective w e have m utual obligations w ith all those w ith

w hom w e are in covenantal relationship. W e experience this in our congregations

as obligations ofchesed ofcaring for one another,ofw elcom ing new m em bers.W e also experience covenantal com m itm ent in taking seriously that w hich is at the

center of our com m unities: our m ission and vision,our com m itm ents to Jew ishlearning,to social action,to acting on our values both internally and in the broader

society. W e experience belonging ideally not as a value in and ofitself,bu t as the

fram ew ork w ithin w hich w e carry out the sacred w ork offulfilling our brit w ith oneanother and w ith G od.

The level of the congregation is at the sam e tim e the place w here w e can m ost

easily experience covenant as real, and the place w here w e face the very real

challenges ofliving up to the covenantal ideal. U nderstanding the centrality ofbritin the w ay that I am suggesting m eans that w e begin to understand our

congregations as laboratories for covenantal living. W hat is the realistic extent of

the obligations that w e ow e one another,from helping one another care for sick

fam ily m em bers to providing financial assistance to m em bers in need to providing

em otional and spiritual support to those w ho struggle and suffer? W hat can w e

dem and from one another,how can w e challenge and support one another,in the

realm ofspiritual practice and com m itm ent to Jew ish living?

Covenant is m eaningless ifit does not involve real ob ligations and standards w ith

w hich w e can hold ourselves accountable. W hile our current em phasis on

belonging im plies that inclusivity is the overarching Reconstructionist value

and I have encountered m any in our m ovem ent w ho do believe that that value


31/42

31

trum ps every other a shift in em phasis to covenantal com m itm ent m akes clear

that inclusion in the com m unity is m eaningful only to the extent that w e are a

collective that shares values and vision and goals. W e certainly w ant to be as

w elcom ing as possible but at the sam e tim e w e can never forget that ourcom m unities exist for the sake of som ething Else,som ething higher,som ething

G odly,and that w e fail in that goal if w e focus too m uch on m aking everyone

com fortable,and not enough on rem em bering w hy w ere together in the first

place.

The idea of covenantal com m unity is harder w hen w e m ove beyond our ow n

congregation,and beyond our m ovem ent,ou t to the Jew ish people in a m ore

general w ay. H ere I think w e have serious questions to w restle w ith questions

that m any in the Jew ish com m unity are dealing w ith right now . W ho,exactly,am

I are w e in covenantal relationship w ith? W ith every Jew , no m atter w hat?W ith those Jew s w ith w hom I share som e basic assum ptions and values? W ith Jew s

in m y city? In m y country? In Israel? All ofthem ? Som e ofthem ? I w ill be honest

and tell you that at this m om ent,I do not feel particularly connected,on any level,

w ith the ultra-O rthodox Jew s w ho are violently trying to suppress the gay pride

m arch in Jerusalem w hich is scheduled to happen tom orrow . Should I? Should

they feel covenantally connected to m e? I pose this as a real question,one w e need

to ponder further.

O ur legacy as follow ers ofMordecai Kaplan also dem ands that w e understand the

im portance ofentering into covenantal relationship w ith non-Jew s. As Am ericansor as Canadians or as citizens of w hatever country w e reside in,w e need to b e

thinking about our covenantal com m itm ents to our fellow citizens. H ere in

Am erica,especially and it is w onderful to be able to talk about this so near the

historical roots ofour republic w e need to revitalize the language ofcovenant,to

m ake it kosher once again to talk about the com m itm ents that citizens ow e one

another,the obligations w e have to care for one another,the legitim acy of the

governm ental and social institutions that help us im plem ent the dem ands ofhesed

and tzedek . According to the dem ands ofthe Torah,the covenant dem ands that w ebe particularly m indful of our obligations to those w ith the least pow er in our

com m unities. O ur rejection of the notion of chosenness allow s us to use the

language ofcovenant not only in connection to our particular life as Jew s,but also

in thinking about our relationships w ith the larger non-Jew ish w orld.

Id like to close w ith a few sentences from a w onderful article by Rabbi Jonathan

Sacks,the chief rabbi of Britain,w here he w rites about the distinction betw een

social contract and social covenant. Rabbi Sacks says:

W hat binds society,[in the Biblical]view ,is not a contract but a covenant.

The difference betw een them is this:Parties can disengage from a


32/42

32

contract w hen it is no longer in their interest to continue w ith it. A

covenant binds them even perhaps especially in difficult tim es. The

reason is that a covenant is predicated not on [self]-interest,but rather on

loyalty and fidelity A social contract is m aintained by the threat ofexternal force, the Leviathan of the State. A covenant, by contrast, is

m aintained by an internalized sense of identity, kinship, loyalty,

obligation,duty,responsibility,and reciprocity

To com e back to that m om ent on Mount Sinai,w hen G od and Moshe and the

Israelites confront the reality of the Golden Calf: here w e see that even or

perhaps especially at the m om ent of crisis, a covenant binds them . Its very

difficult just to w alk aw ay from a covenant,even for G od. And it is precisely that

internalized sense ofidentity,kinship,loyalty,obligation,duty,responsibility,and

reciprocity that m akes the Sinai covenant endure,and that has allow ed the Jew ishpeople to endure. But the reality is that covenant doesnt just happen. It takes

effort,intentionality,patience,a w illingness to open ourselves to others and to take

seriously our com m on com m itm ents. May w e be renew ed in our ow n efforts

tow ards building covenantal com m unity, and m ay the blessings of those

com m unities continue to strengthen and inspire us.

Rabb i Toba Spi t zer has served Cong regat ion Dorshei Tzedek since she was ord ained

in 1997 at t he Reconstr uctio nist Rabbi nical Coll ege (RRC).

* A speech delivered at the JRF Convention N ovem ber 2006


33/42

33

Ahad HaAm At Last

By Wa yne Firesto ne

The new era ofIsrael-D iaspora relations isnt a rejection ofclassical Z ionism . Rather,

it is the acceptance ofa different m odel of classical Zionism ,the one propounded

by cultural Zionist Ahad H aAm . And it is uniquely suited for the todays

generation ofcollege-age Jew s,the so-called Millennials that are the focus of the

w ork ofH illel:The Foundation for Jew ish Cam pus Life.

Asher G insbergs pen nam e, Ahad HaAm , proclaim ed that the w riter w as,

m odestly,one ofthe people. A slight tw ist on his pseudonym ,Am Ahad, or onepeople, m ay be m ore appropriate. Unlike his political Zionist contem poraries,he

did not seek to create a bipolar w orld ofIsrael versus the D iaspora. He understood

that the D iaspora w ould continue to exist alongside a Jew ish State. In his view ,theJew ish State w as to becom e the cultural center ofthe entire Jew ish people:[F]rom

this center,the spirit ofJudaism w ill radiate to the great circum ference,to all the

com m unities of the D iaspora,to inspire them w ith new life and to preserve the

over-all unity of our people.1 H ibbat Zion, his brand of Zionism , stands for a

Judaism w hich shall have as its focal point the ideal of our nations unity, its

renascence,and its free developm ent through the expression ofuniversal hum an

values in the term s ofits ow n distinctive spirit.2

Theodor H erzls political Zionism w as a response to Jew ish polit ical w eakness:H e

saw the creation of the Jew ish state as the answ er to persistent anti-Sem itism .Ahad H aAm s H ibb at Zion w as a response to Jew ish spiritual w eakness. This

spiritual m alaise w ill rem ain unsolved and unaffected even ifthe troubled ofthe

Jew s all over the w orld attain com fortable econom ic positions,are on the best

possible term s w ith their neighbors,and are adm itted to the fullest social and

political equality.3

Today H erzls w orldview is alien to young Jew s. H is great success,the creation ofa

sovereign Jew ish state,is sim ply a fact oflife. H is great m otivator,anti-Sem itism ,is

largely a thing ofthe past to Millennials. Most ofthe w alls that separated Jew s from

each other and from the rest of the w orld have crum bled. Jew s are no longer

subject to special racial law s in their ow n countries. They can travel easily and

inexpensively across b orders. Ahad H aAm s vision has com e true.

As the Zionist prophet predicted,young people born into this global village are still

seeking answ ers to their spiritual q uestions. Their Jew ish heritage can and does

provide them w ith answ ers,w hether they live in Tel Aviv,or Rio,or Kiev or Los

Angeles. Thus,a young w om an w ho w as born in Bosnia-H erzegovina and raised in

1 Ahad Haa m , The Jewish Stat e and t he Jewish Problem , 1897 in Arthur Herzberg, The

Zionist Idea, p. 2672

Ibid., The Law of t he Heart, 1 894, p. 2553

Ibid., The Jew ish Sta te a nd t he Jew ish Problem , 1 897, p. 266


34/42

34

Israel can serve effectively as a H illel/Jew ish Agency for Israel Fellow at Baruch

College in New York City,helping young people understand Israel and their ow n

Jew ish identity. An Israeli soldier can learn the m eaning ofhis Jew ish identity as

opposed to his Israeli identity -- from a college student he m et on a Taglit-Birthright Israel trip. Educational techniques that w ork in Chicago are equally

useful in Buenos Aires or Moscow .

As educators w e can and m ust strengthen this sense ofglobal Jew ish peoplehood

and the centrality ofIsrael.

1. Israel as a Jewish Id ent it y Right of Passage

N o surprise here,but perhaps som e have taken for granted the success w e have

w itnessed in w atching the num ber of young people not m erely visiting Israel butalso generating Jew ish identity m em ories and questions that can endure a lifetim e.

O ver the past decade,w e have seen the success of Taglit-Birthright Israel,MASA,

and other im m ersive initiatives as a lens that focuses the m odern identity

kaleidoscope of young Jew s on authentic, accessible experiences of Zion

regardless of religious or ideological predisposition. W hen young D iaspora Jew s

experience Israel for the first tim e,they see a country in w hich the Jew ish past fuses

w ith the present to create a coherent com m unity. They m ay arrive in Israel thinking

that the country is their Jew ish destination but they leave understanding that its

an im portant m ilestone in their personal identity odyssey. Yet,unfortunately,w e

cannot provide Israel trips to all 350,000 young Am erican Jew s w ho are on

Am erican cam puses,let alone the tens ofthousands in Europe and Latin Am erica --

and for those w e can,w e cannot m erely say lehitraot,w hen they depart Ben-G urionAirport.

Taking a cue from the corporate w orld,w e can adapt a practice of the successful

Southw est Airlines w hich has a director of first im pressions to ensure that a

custom er or potential custom er has a pleasant experience or interaction. Jew ish

organizations in the D iaspora should develop D irectors ofSecond Im pressions for

those returning from these im m ersive journeys.

2. Israelis as mo dern Jewish role mod els/creati ve for ces for t he Diaspor a

Although som e people are surprised to learn that H illel now operates eleven H illels

in Israel for a self-defined group of religious and secular tzabra students,no oneshould be surprised that their w ork is already generating new m odels of Jew ish

education and expression that are em erging from the public space and not only

traditional study academ ies and yeshivot. The Yedidi Hashachta initiative that

started at H ebrew U niversity brings together m odern m usicians and w riters w ith

traditional singers and cantors from Ashkenazi and Sephardi traditions in order to

explore and celebrate the creation ofJew ish m usic based on m odern and ancient

texts,piyut im and niggunim .


35/42

35

Further, in partnership w ith the Jew ish Agency for Israel (JAFI) and w ith the

support ofphilanthropists and local Jew ish Federations,H illel brings Israel to the

college cam pus itself,sending scores ofIsrael Fellow s to serve on N orth Am erican

cam puses each year. These recent college and Israel Defense Force graduates helpstudents understand Israel and w ork w ith them to create their ow n unique

expressions of Jew ish identity on cam pus. These are not older adults foisting

history and ideology upon students but peers w ho b ring a young persons

perspective to the com plexities of contem porary Jew ish identity. These young

people are an im portant exam ple for Jew ish and non-Jew ish students alike:They

are neither the m onsters ofanti-Israel propaganda nor the m ythical figures ofsom e

m odern Am erican Jew ish literature. They are young people from a variety of

backgrounds and beliefs w ho represent the contem porary faces of Israel. More

im portantly they provide on the ground support to a generation that is still seeking

to find a voice and in m any respects,selfconfidence in expressing identity.

3. Jewish Values and Servi ce Learning

W hile Jew ish life,organizations and structure m ay be in a period ofredefinition for

a num ber of years, arguably the m ost enduring assets of the Jew ish people

continue to thrive in the form of our oldest texts,teachings and values. In this

regard, H illel in partnership w ith Jew ish organizations like AJW S and JD C and

secular organizations like City Year, has w atched student-driven Jew ish service

learning rapidly em erge am ong Russian speaking com m unities,N orth and South

Am erican and Israeli alike. W hile som e have questioned w hat is Jew ish about

service in N ew O rleans or N icaragua, it is im portant to note that all of these

activities provide daily Jew ish study resources and m aterials in order to transm it

values that w ere previously

Documents

Peoplehood Papers 5