Torah at the Centerhuc.edu/sites/default/files/News-Events/legacy/2010/april... · 2019. 12. 12. · unionforreformjudaism volume13, no. 3 • spring2010 • aviv5770 in this issue

UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISMVOLUME 13, NO. 3 • SPRING 2010 • AVIV 5770

IN THIS ISSUE EMERGING VOICES

Torah at the Center

LET’S [NOT] TALK ABOUT IT LATER 2

RESPONSE TO ILANA MILLS 3

LOCATING ISRAEL’S EDUCATIONAL WHY 4

RESPONSE TO JOEL ABRAMOVITZ 5

INVESTING IN TEACHERS AS LEARNERS 6

RESPONSE TO BRAD COHEN 7

SOWING THE SEEDS FOR THE

WORLD TO COME 8

RESPONSE TO JESSY GROSS 9

HATING HEBREW: ISN’T IT TIME

FOR A NEW LEGACY? 10

RESPONSE TO LAURA ABRASLEY 11

RECREATING ISRAEL 12

RESPONSE TO MIRIAM PHILIPS 13

A RATIONALE FOR TEACHING

THE HOLOCAUST 14

RESPONSE TO TAMI WEISMAN 15

GARDEN, BUILD, DANCE: A VISION FOR

THE FUTURE OF ADULT JEWISH LEARNING 16

RESPONSE TO REBECCA REICE 17

NATE NEWS 18

HOW TO AVOID THE MOST EXPENSIVE

OVERSIGHT IN JEWISH EDUCATIONAL

HISTORY 20

RESPONSE TO LUANNE TYZZER 21

GOD IS A FOUR LETTER WORD 22

RESPONSE TO LAUREN LUSKEY 23

633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6778212.650.4110 • www.urj.org/learning

P L E A S E F E E L F R E E T O U S E A N D C O P Y T O R A H A T T H E C E N T E R

Continued on next page

EM

ER

GIN

G V

OIC

ES

E

MER

GIN

G V

OIC

ES

E

MER

GIN

G V

OIC

ES

E

MER

GIN

G V

OIC

ES

E

MER

GIN

G V

OIC

ES

Ever since Abraham and his father Terach, children have learned tooverthrow the idols of their parents, to question their values, tochallenge their operating assumptions and to recreate their institu-tions. Through this intergenerational process Judaism has evolvedand devolved, it has reviewed and renewed itself and above all it hascontinued to live. Even though the story about Abraham destroyinghis father’s idol shop is legendary, it proffers a timeless truth, a truth unto which thisissue of Torah at the Center attests.

Rabbi Tali Zelcowicz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Jewish Education at HUC-JIR’sRhea Hirsch School of Education, initiated a correspondence and made a symbioticproposal. In a course she teaches entitled “Sociology of Jewish Education” studentsare required to write an article for a publication to which reflective practitioners ofJewish education are invited to contribute. Each article strives to meet three criteria:

1. Address a dilemma, concern or problem facing Jewish education2. Provide some social scientific context for the issue 3. Offer a creative, refreshing, compelling analysis of the issue and propose a

course of action and/or vision for change

Intrigued by the prospect of providing the students with a targil ratuv, a livesimulation, so to speak, editor Wendy Grinberg engaged Tali in correspondence andconversation, perhaps a contemporary Pirkei Imahot, and as collegial partners theyarrived at terms of agreement. We are grateful for Tali and Wendy’s inspired partner-ship and for the bikurim, the first authorial fruits of aspiring Jewish educationalleaders. The students’ voices are included in Torah at the Center as new members ofthe educational choir. Accompanying them in the same issue are experienced andinsightful mentors, educational practitioners with expertise in the areas the studentsare seeking to influence for the better. The result is a harmony that leaves the integri-ty of each voice. Out of this conversation emerges a masechet, a type of web, a webthat links dor holech to dor hemshech, the current generation of Jewish educators tothe next generation of Jewish educators. The web intended to catch you, the reader, init. Indeed, if the web stops within the pages of Torah at the Center, we will havefailed to accomplish a major aim. The web of Jewish learning should include you, yourteachers, your colleagues and your students. At stake are not only our livelihoods asJewish educators but also our lives as Jews.

When Abraham proverbially overthrew his father’s idols, he “created” Judaism. Whenthe next generation of the Jewish people follows Abraham’s lead, they too will be[re]creating Judaism in their image. The process is sometimes painful and radical. It isalways predicated on a measure of faith and trust. Terach could not control Abrahamand we cannot control our children or our students. Instead, we have endeavored tokeep the intergenerational conversation alive, to pursue a dialogue that is as respect-ful of our differences as it is of our commonalities (if not more so). We are trulychildren of Abraham when we question the wisdom of our predecessors, when we dareto think differently from them. When our children and students do the same to us, maywe have the ability to enjoy the process and love them for it. Eventually Abrahamlearned to engage in respectful dialogue, even when his partner was divine. When hehad his own scion, Abraham learned to love and to realize that love and sacrifice are

TATC_Spring2010v13n3:Jan 2004 TATC 4/13/10 11:44 AM Page 1

always intertwined. May the spirit of intergenerational cor-respondence in this issue prove to be worthy, not only for thesake of our students but also for the sake of heaven. As weapproach Sinai once again on Shavuot and celebrate our stu-dents that confirm their Jewish identity, let us affirm thehope we have that the next generation will not only succeedus, but also exceed us.

Ken y’hi ratzoneinu! Ken y’hi ratzon Eloheinu!Kayitz naim! Have a lovely summer!

Rabbi Jan Katzew, Ph.D., RJE

continued from page 1

2 UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • TORAH AT THE CENTER • VOLUME 13, NO. 3 • SPRING 2010 • AVIV 5770

Torah at the Center

I know I am not the only person who receives calls like thefollowing from friends who were active in youth group andavid campers. They say, “It’s weird to see a Christmas tree inmy living room now that Jennifer and I are living together,but it’s important to her, so I won’t say anything to rock theboat.” Others, at least remotely acknowledging the presenceof significant religious differences, still deny their complexi-ty, saying, “I went shopping for a diamond ring today. I loveher so much. We have not settled or really even talked aboutour religious differences, but I am sure we can figure that outwhen the kids are born.” One young woman, who had beenpresident of her youth group and also went to camp for fiveyears, said the following when preparing for her wedding,“Judaism used to be so important to me. It makes Sethuncomfortable. Now I see that I can be happy without it.” Afew years later, the same woman had a powerful realizationat a Passover seder and shared with remorse, “I forgot howmuch I love the Jewish stuff. Too bad I cannot have that inmy life now.”

These are just a handful from the hundreds of people whograduated from Jewish teen programs with a strong sense ofJewish identity but were at a loss for words when religioncould and should have come up. Even as seniors in highschool, these three people probably would have said thatJudaism was a central pillar of their high school years. Yet,when they met a non-Jewish partner years later, they couldnot and/or would not express their connection to Judaism,perhaps even denying to themselves its significance. Early inthe relationship, young adults may fear rejection from apartner if they express a need for Judaism in their lives.

Sociologist Steven Cohen has shown that people who “wentto supplementary school that met twice a week intoadolescence, went to Israel and attended a Jewish camp…have a 14% lower intermarriage rate.” Bruce Philips, anoth-

er sociologist and professor at Hebrew Union College, notedthat teens who “continued supplementary Jewish schoolingbeyond age 13 and were exposed to any type of non-formalJewish education had the lowest rate of intermarriage(35%).” To be sure, our teen programs do have the powerto shape a person’s Jewish identity. At the same time,participants experience a 35% intermarriage rate. It is timeto shift the thinking that we can prevent intermarriage.

In most Jewish educational settings, we currently have twoapproaches to intermarriage. The first approach involvespreaching to children that they should not marry non-Jews.Although it has not been studied formally, it is my sense thatthis approach tends to be met with limited success. Thesecond approach to intermarriage in education is evenworse: to ignore it altogether. There is no mystery about whyand how neither approach gives young Jews the tools theyneed in the real world of dating.

Intermarriage is one of the realities of living as liberal Jewsin America. Let’s stop fighting against intermarriage, andinstead treat intermarriage as a reality which our teens needto be much better equipped to manage. Positive Jewishidentities are good, but we can go a step further to giveJewish youth the tools to express to a non-Jewish boyfriendor girlfriend that Judaism is important to them, and howand why. We need to admit first to ourselves and then to ourstudents, without judgment or condescension, that they may,in fact, date someone who is not Jewish. Then, it is our jobas liberal Jewish educators to make it safe for them to thinkthrough the complex and emotionally charged issues,without shame and blame. We need to teach them to say thesentence one young woman did early in her relationship, “Ireally like you and want to continue dating you. Judaism isalso core to me and I want to have a Jewish family. I need toknow if having a Jewish family is an option for you.”

Let’s [Not] Talk About It LaterBy Ilana Mills


UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • TORAH AT THE CENTER • VOLUME 13, NO. 3 • SPRING 2010 • AVIV 5770 3

Torah at the Center

The 1987 UAHC video “When Love Meets Tradition”documented a discussion group of five interfaith couples asthey explored issues of faith and family. When I was inconfirmation and youth group in the early 90s, we watchedit in class, at conclaves and in college programs. It was theheight of the “intermarriage crisis” mentality that IlanaMills so cogently recaps.

It’s now twenty years since I was confirmed, and Mills iscorrect: “Intermarriage is one of the realities of living asliberal Jews in America.” Given, then, that intermarriage is anorm to be faced rather than wished away, what are ourresponsibilities as Jewish educators? Mills describes severalscenarios in which young interfaith couples postpone orabdicate important conversations because of an inability orunwillingness to express their convictions. She suggests thatas educators we could do more to help provide those tools.

I see our commitments as threefold. Firstly, in line withMills’s recommendations, to strengthen the capacity ofyoung adults to articulate the role of Judaism in their lives;second, to foster authentic avenues for young adults toconnect with their Jewish heritage after college and beforekids; and third, foundational to both of these, to cultivateamong the families we serve an appreciation for the valueof distinctiveness.

In terms of helping teens gain confidence and skills, mycolleague Rabbi Melanie Aron expresses the hope that ourconfirmation students leave “prepared to explain to theirfuture spouses, in words, why Judaism is important andmeaningful to them.” Teens do need our help in developingthose skills, not only in explaining to others, but sometimeseven to themselves. An often overlooked avenue for buildingthose skills is through guided conversations with their ownparents.

Parents of teens and young adults, parents, perhapsintermarried themselves, are often diffident to have heart-to-heart conversations with their children about their ownvalues around passing on Judaism. Articles such as therecent “Are You a Buttinsky?” in Reform Judaism Magazineunfortunately reinforce the idea that parents are better offkeeping their mouths shut when it comes to discussing

controversial and emotional topics with their young adultchildren. Because educators often have enduring relation-ships with both teens and their parents, we are well-positioned to facilitate these types of conversations inproductive, healthy ways. Programs such as “fishbowls” inwhich one group listens while another discusses and “whatI wish I could tell my kid/ask my parent” may be ways toopen these dialogues.

Secondly, the Jewish community must continue its recentefforts to engage young adults in Jewish life after college.Just as we used to talk about “pediatric Judaism,” so too weshould be cautious about creating a type of “adolescentJudaism,” in which young adults look nostalgically back atthe fun they had in youth group, seeing Judaism as awonderful phase that they have since outgrown. The main-stream Jewish community has become increasingly aware ofthe need to do outreach to young adults. More importantly,several new initiatives have sprung up to help create authen-tic Jewish communities for young adults. These projects,such as Moishe House and Birthright Next, offer ways tocarry the meaning and intensity of their teen experiencethrough the increasingly long bridge until married life.

Finally, the tremendous challenge that lies before us is tocontinue to make the case for cultural distinctiveness. AsAmerican Jewry increases in distance from the immigrantgeneration, our ethnic and cultural uniqueness wanes. I donot mean that we should mourn it in some kind of atavisticharkening to the Borscht Belt. Rather, we should encouragethe families we serve to cherish the aspects of our heritage,tradition and culture that set us apart. A generation ago, wesought commonality with other religious and culturalstreams, finding comfort in ideas like: We all worship thesame God, or religion is about being a good person. Thistype of approach, while accurate to an extent, obscures theobstacles that beset interfaith relationships. Instead, wewould better serve our families by taking a page from the“cultural diversity” playbook, appreciating the differences ofothers as well as our own. Jewish values are profoundlycounter-cultural. Let’s help our families celebrate the idea ofdifference for the risk and reward of swimming upstream.

Response to Ilana Mills

By Rabbi Lisa Levenberg, Educator, Congregation Shir Hadash, Los Gatos, California



Torah at the Center

In 1979, philosopher of education Barry Chazan wrote thefollowing regarding a problem with Israel education:

…While there is both a practical and ideologicalcommitment to Israel by American Jewish educa-tion, there is no clearly-enunciated [or] explicatedideology of Israel. That is, there is agreement thatIsrael is important; [but] what Israel means and howit relates to being a Jew today in America is eitherunclear or not at all dealt with in the AmericanJewish schools.

Thirty years later, researching the same question, professorof Jewish education Lisa Grant reiterated almost the sameconclusion:

Even among those individuals and institutions atthe forefront of Jewish educational innovation, feware able to articulate a clear vision or purposefor teaching Israel that extends beyond vagueand implicit expressions of Israel being a corecomponent of Jewish identity formation.

Educational philosopher Neil Postman is emphatic thateducation has an overarching narrative that fuels themeaning of the schools. Indeed, the narrative needs to berich and sustaining, filled with aspects of community,identity, continuity and meaning, otherwise the educationalendeavor is a lost cause. Narratives are the driving forcesbehind the teaching of a curriculum. Israel education issorely lacking in clearly stated, comprehensive narrativesand rationales.

Jewish educators don’t know where we stand in relationto Israel. The contemporary sociological atmosphere hasvoided traditional rationales. Liberal Jewish America lives inrelation to a relentlessly contested Israel. Barry Chazanargues that since liberal American Judaism has never consis-tently or fully made Israel central to Jewish identity andcommunity, we were “doomed—or consciously chose—toportray Israel as a society of fellow Jews in need, rather thana source of positive content, like the Bible, the siddur, andJewish thought.” While prayer Hebrew is an educational pri-ority, there has been a substantial decline of ModernHebrew education that parallels a growing dissonance withregards to determining the centrality of Israel. (Ackerman)One of the most widely used rationales for teaching Israel isto foster “love of Israel.” Affective goals as the core of an

educational rationale almost undermine the seriousness ofthe educational endeavor, generating educational goals thatare hard to achieve and even harder to assess. Perhaps themost ubiquitous basis for Israel education is building“Jewish peoplehood.” In a lively 2007 online exchange, JoeyKurtzman, the founding editor of the online magazineJewcy, and Jack Wertheimer, professor of American Jewishhistory at the Jewish Theological Seminary, debated thepotential demise of Jewish peoplehood. What emerged fromtheir provocative conversation was that how American Jewssee peoplehood correlates strongly with age: Namely, olderJews have a stronger sense of unity with Jews around theworld while younger Jews are oriented by a localized,individualized identity. The role of Israel as “caretaker” alsofeels less urgent to today’s younger generation.

Moreover, America’s cultural model of “a melting pot”has always made wrestling with two distinct identities achallenge, particularly when the Jewish frame is connectedwith a separate nation-state. Other Jewish communities,from Canada to Argentina to the Former Soviet Union, donot face the same difficulties of juggling multiple identities.(Chazan) While Israel is a Jewish cultural center, manyliberal US Jews do not see it as the critical center because todo so would diminish our own accomplishments, communi-ty and history. What often emerges from these rationalesand their counter-arguments is a zero-sum mentality. But ourworld, our relationship to Israel, is messy, nuanced andcomplex. Our rationales have to account for this messinessand be nuanced and complex.

As a result of these fractured components of Israel-basedJewish identity, determining a holistic rationale for Israeleducation may actually be impossible. Psychologist KennethGergen describes modern identity as a pastiche, made up ofvarious pieces of different identities, ultimately formingsomething utilitarian that helps us to reconcile theconflicting rationales and truths we inherently know but canalso argue against. Today’s rationales for teaching Israel arenot peoplehood, or caretaker, or culture or Hebrew, butrather the potential aggregate of all of these ideas.The educational why for Israel education is a conglomera-tion of many puzzle pieces that come together to form acomprehensive, nuanced collage. Such a rationale providesJewish educators the ground to stand on to build a strong,compelling Israel curriculum.

By Joel Abramovitz

Locating Israel’s Educational Why


Joel Abramovitz has done an excellent job stating the casefor introspection into the enterprise of Israel education inour congregations. In developing a proposal for the LegacyHeritage Fund’s Israel Engagement grant, our congregationfaced the same question. We knew it was important todeepen our congregation’s connections with Eretz, M’dinatand Am Yisrael. We knew it in a visceral way, in our kishkes.The challenge was to articulate it and then make it a part ofour congregational DNA. Without going into a lot of detail,we have begun to succeed, but institutional gene therapy isnot about sudden impact.

At the end of the day, I do not believe the “why of Israel”is actually that difficult to articulate. Embracing it afterarticulating it is a different kind of challenge. For me andour Israel Engagement Task Force, which is charged withdeveloping and coordinating activities, conversations andbehaviors that we believe will allow our members of all agesto breathe the air of Israel and encourage them to travel toEretz Yisrael, Israel is an essential part of the Jewish being.Its absence leaves a hole in the soul. It is difficult to embracethat in the face of political reality.

Many of the people in our Reform congregations look at thenews, at the conflict, and see injustice toward one side or theother and bemoan the imperfection of Israel, throwing theirhands up and booking a trip to the Bahamas instead. Weneed to own up to our real connections and articulate theideology. Disappointments don’t negate the rightness ofthe cause. I once wrote an Israel curriculum based on thepremise that we need to confront the real Israel, not justmoon over beautiful kibbutznikim dancing in the moonlight.Today we seem to have overdosed on the reality and forgot-ten the dance and the music. We need to remember andincorporate the wonderful exciting aspects of Israel in orderto deal with the challenges Israel faces in the political realm.

I would also like to address Joel’s point that the vastmajority of congregational schools have moved frommodern, spoken Hebrew to the language of prayer as theircore curriculum. Colleagues in Israel have accused me (onbehalf of all of us in North America) of giving up on Israelwhen we gave up on Modern Hebrew. In the 1980s, the

major publishers of classroom materials for synagogueschools made the decision to move from Modern to liturgi-cal Hebrew learning for their flagship series. Principals ofthree of those companies (Torah Aura Productions, BehrmanHouse and ARE) all espoused the belief based on researchthat a minimum of three repetitions per week is required tomove whole language learning from short term to long termmemory. With the large number of schools teaching Hebrewonly one or two days per week, liturgical Hebrew seemed thebest way to have more successes than failures. There wereand are little or no opportunities for casual reinforcementof Modern Hebrew in the life of the average North AmericanJewish middle schooler. Useful textbooks that mighthave been effective in transmitting the whole languagewere crippled when faced with only one or two teachingopportunities per week.

In recent years, new materials have emerged to challengethe status quo. Some colleagues are being judicious andintroducing the modern language to students who havedemonstrated ability and desire to focus on this moredifficult to learn form of the language. We did not give up onIsrael. We tried to focus on giving students successfuloutcomes by making our expectations more realistic. I amheartened by the new materials, and two-thirds of thestudents in my kitah vav (6th grade) class are now learningModern Hebrew, having mastered the siddur ahead of theother third.

Joel has thrown down a gauntlet that every educator,rabbi, cantor and lay leader must take up—to define theeducational why of teaching Israel. Finding that rationaledemands that we step aside for a moment from the thingsabout M’dinat Yisrael that make us uncomfortable and countour Israel blessings. If we don’t start with thetranscendent Israel, then the corporeal one will send us tothe Caribbean.


Response to Joel Abramovitz

Torah at the Center

By Ira Wise, RJE, Director of Education, Congregation B’nai Israel, Bridgeport, Connecticut



Torah at the Center

It is no secret that teachers in synagogue supplementaryschools often lack the pedagogical knowledge and skills toteach Jewish subjects in a deep and effective way. Sadly,synagogues don’t seem to expect much of their teachers.Instead, synagogues love their religious schools for bringingin membership. Religious schools never make a profit, butthe bar and bat mitzvah requirements of religious schoolsmake members.

We have enormous potential to influence or even reinventprofessional learning in synagogues. Synagogues need torecognize the value of their teachers and guide them notonly in pedagogic knowledge but in their own learningabout Judaism. Hebrew Union College Professor and Jewishhistorian Michael Meyer states, “The school, too, should beunderstood as a community of learning, the teacher a fellowlearner...” A professional learning community, or “PLC,” isthe term educational literature uses to describe a collegialgroup of administrators and school staff who are united intheir commitment to student learning. The members ofPLCs share a vision, work and learn collaboratively, visitand review other classrooms and participate in decisionmaking.” (Hord)

Implementing a PLC model in synagogue education bearsthe potential to affect liberal Jewish congregationaleducation on different levels. Specifically, a PLC is structuredto help teachers increase their knowledge and learn to bemore effective in the classroom. In meetings with theeducation director or an experienced teacher, teachers studycontent related to what they are teaching in the classroom.The teachers then collaborate in groups of colleagues to planlessons using the information they learned. After puttingtheir new knowledge into practice in the classroom, teachersmeet to discuss and evaluate.

Imagine a religious school that has created a professionallearning community. Let’s take a glimpse at what that couldlook like on a daily basis and how it could affect thecongregation and its students. When the teachers are hired,they are paired with a mentoring team which consists of

other teachers in the school and occasionally the educationdirector. The interview process would need to establish thatthe teachers are making a commitment to their own Jewishlearning, and teachers would select a specific focus for theirown study. Such study could include classes ranging fromcollege level to those taught at a synagogue. Teachers wouldreceive a monetary bonus as an incentive for pursuing thislearning. At the beginning of the year, the teacher wouldmeet with this teaching team at a retreat outside of thesynagogue. The team would set personal and team goals forthe year under the guidance of the educator. Teaching teamscould meet once a month during the year for forty-fiveminutes after school. The meetings focus on lesson plans forfuture classes and provide time to discuss challenges. Theeducator would meet with each teacher for a mid-yearcheck-in and an end of the year evaluation, but thesewould be just two moments in a weekly series of collegialconnections among all the teachers as colleagues.

PLCs also have the potential to influence the entirecongregation. In this environment of stimulated teachers ina learning community, the students are no longer bored withreligious school because teachers have the support and skillsto take creative risks with their teaching. The teachers,themselves, feel valued as part of the community. Theparents no longer feel the strain of the eternal powerstruggle involved in forcing their kids to go to religiousschool. Parents and students are intrigued by what Jewisheducation has to offer them. The teachers feel that they aremaking a difference. The education director is empoweringthe teachers to take ownership of their classroom.

Synagogue schools need to shift to function as a PLC that istreating teachers as professional learners and helping tocreate a meaningful community while at the same timemodeling the value of lifelong Jewish learning.

Investing in Teachers as Learners

By Brad Cohen



Torah at the Center

For the last three years, I have been the Director of LifelongLearning at Central Synagogue in New York City. Here,in addition to supervising a number of part-time teachers,I have the luxury of ten full-time teachers, young profession-als whose job it is to write, revise, teach and evaluatecurriculum, develop relationships with the families of theirstudents and involve themselves in the broader reach ofsynagogue life, and who are, by design, their ownprofessional learning community (PLC). This program wasdesigned with the intention of not only engaging teacherswhose first priority is to their work in the religious schoolsetting, but also fostering collegiality among facultycommitted to the same goals and core values whileallowing for professional and personal growth through theirinteractions with one another and with their mentor.

The full-time teacher program involves a variety of differentcomponents that enable the PLC. First, while every teacherhas a particular area of focus, be it a specific grade orsubject area, the brainstorming and the implementation oftheir lessons is done collaboratively. The teachers sit withme, the Religious School Assistant Principal and oneanother daily to discuss ideas for upcoming lessons, workout the final details for the lesson being taught that day (thesame lesson is taught in each class in each grade with somemodification for learning style and ability) and review theprevious day’s lesson. In addition, each teacher has adesignated time every other week to sit with me,one-on-one, to discuss further curricular issues, concerns orhopes for the team and other areas of focus, like an adulteducation course they would like to teach or a graduate classthey would like to take to enhance their own learning. Thissurely speaks to Brad’s vision for an ideal setting for religiousschool faculty as a whole, but I know what a rare andcomplex model I have just described.

I have also had the opportunity to supervise the religiousschools at two other Reform congregations and to serve as amentor to a number of congregational principals, so I have abroad picture of what exists elsewhere and the possibilitiesand challenges others face. In my particular experience,I worked with traditional groups of faculty who were

expected, at the bare minimum, to arrive within 30 minutesto an hour of when school began and remain until theirstudents were dismissed. Some of those teachers were in theschool multiple days throughout the week, teaching morethan one class and were also present for region-wide one-daykallot and a few meetings throughout the year. The staff wascomprised of all types of people—those who were raised inthe Orthodox movement, those who spent summers atJewish camps or years in Jewish day schools and those who,though limited in their formal education, had a fondness forJudaism and a commitment to passing it on to the nextgeneration. What is most significant is that in both of thoseschools I was fortunate to not only work with faculty who,for the most part, were interested in expanding their skills,but I was also supported by leadership who valued whatthe religious school could offer to its membership. Sure,adequate time and resources were not always available,but we made it work, and fortunately, I am not alone inthis experience.

There is no question that religious school programs facemany challenges, among them inconsistency of facultyability. PLCs are surely one way to combat this inconsisten-cy and raise the level of the teachers as a whole. The goodnews is that, in contrast to Brad’s statement, I do believe thatmost synagogues “recognize the value of their teachers.”I believe the onus is on the educator to provide properguidance over the faculty and to be an advocate for theschool to the synagogue leadership in order to garnernecessary support.

Response to Brad Cohen

By Yonni Limmer Wattenmaker, RJE, Director of Lifelong Learning, Central Synagogue, New York



Torah at the Center

During recent years, Jewish institutions and organizationshave taken great first steps to become “green.” As communi-ty leaders lay important cornerstones to becoming moreenvironmentally friendly, a flourishing of new contributionsto Jewish environmental education has emerged.

Imagine the following: Fourth grade religious schoolstudents meet their teacher to begin class in the communitygarden. The last Sunday of each month, students areinstructed to come dressed in clothes that can get dirty.For the first half of class, the students help to plant newseeds and tend to ripened produce ready for harvest. Thesecond half of class is spent in the grass where students askquestions and draw comparisons between work they do inthe garden and texts from Jewish tradition. At the end ofclass, one student and her family are responsible for takingthe harvested produce to the local food pantry with whichthe synagogue has chosen to partner. The family will spendthe afternoon engaging in the daily tasks of the pantry.At the beginning of the next class, the teacher will ask thestudent to share her reflections on the experience. This is justone example of what is possible into today’s milieu of Jewishenvironmental education.

In order to appreciate the significance of our currentjuncture, however, we must recall what got us here. In 1994,Surprise Lake Camp in upstate New York established theTeva Learning Center, where educators live on site and workwith visiting groups (mostly middle-school aged students)who attend four-day programs exploring the relationshipbetween the environment and Judaism. In 2003, theADAMAH fellowship program was established. ADAMAHis located at the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Centerand is a three-month program for “Jewish young adultsaged 20–29 that integrates organic farming, sustainableliving, Jewish learning and teaching and contemplativespiritual practice.”

Here is just a sampling of the bikurim (first fruits) emergingfrom Teva and ADAMAH alumni. The Kayam Farm islocated at the Pearlstone Retreat Center, twenty minutesoutside of Baltimore. Stories from the Torah and agricultur-al legal discussions from the Mishnah inform the layout and

practices of this five-acre organic farm. Kayam FarmDirector Jakir Manela explained to me, “Our covenant isbased on an eternal relationship to the land. We don’t haveto find a connection between ecology and Judaism becauseit is already so deeply embedded in our tradition. [Ourrole at the farm] is really more about showing people whatis already in our tradition and allowing it to inform howwe might deal with the spiritual and environmentalpredicaments we find ourselves in today.”

The Jewish Farm School (JFS) was founded in 2005 byNati Passow and Simcha Schwartz, who worked togetherpreviously as educators at the Teva Learning Center. Lastyear, JFS completed a curriculum entitled Alumot: TheJewish Gardening Project, A Resource Manual for JewishEducators. A Jewish educator needs only to obtain acurriculum like this one to begin growing a program likethat of the 4th grade class mentioned earlier.

This summer, 2010, Eden Village Camp will open in upstateNew York. Eden Village will include “organic farming,wilderness trips…working towards a zero-waste goal [and]Jewish expression.” The Kayam Farm will launch its firstsummer-long beit midrash for adults who want to spendmornings working on the farm and the afternoons studyingJewish agricultural laws. The Jewish Farm School will run sixtrips for our college-aged Jews, providing an opportunity forstudents to spend their break from classes getting back tothe land and doing so in a Jewish way.

The Jewish community has taken important steps tobecoming more sustainable and environmentally aware.Now, thanks to graduates of programs like the TevaLearning Center and ADAMAH, one need not be anenvironmental expert to have the opportunity to integrateJewish environmental education into religious education in adeep and meaningful way. Today, there are over 3,000synagogues in North America and over 350 JewishCommunity Centers. If each of these organizations planteda vegetable garden of modest size and donated the yield to alocal food pantry, the North American Jewish communitycould donate a quarter million pounds of produce each year.Now that is a vision of a world to come.

By Jessy Gross

Sowing the Seeds for the World to Come


UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • DEPARTMENT OF LIFELONG JEWISH LEARNING • VOLUME 11, NO. 2 • SPRING 2008 • AVIV 5768 9

Jessy Gross does a good job of conveying the excitement andthe power of the learning that takes place at ADAMAH, TheTeva Learning Center and The Jewish Farm School. I canpersonally attest to the magic that happens at each of theseprograms, having served on the first Teva Learning Centerstaff and continuing to serve as a colleague and mentor tomany of the individuals involved with these organizations.

What started as a miniscule effort has burgeoned into a full-fledged field that includes such topics as the relationshipamong hunger, poverty and environmental injustice; thecreation of organic, biblical, Havdalah and Israel gardens;nature walks, camping and canoe trips; nature Shabbatonim;food awareness programming and more. What Gross doesnot express is how deeply these topics have already reachedinto American Jewish life. Here are a few examples of whatis happening around the country:

• Helping Hands Gardens, an American Jewish Universityproject in Los Angeles, has a half-acre school gardenwhere students and community volunteers assistJewish congregations, families and schools to createmini-organic gardens on their grounds. These gardenspractice “reverse tithing” and donate 90% of theirproduce to food pantries. To date, there are 15 gardensin existence, with a goal of creating 101 gardens by 2012.

• Over 100 Jewish early childhood centers and schools areusing the curriculum Indoor Gardening for YoungJewish Gardeners. These schools are using their indoorgardens to teach about God, prayer and tikkun olamby enabling students to see the awe and wonder ofGod’s creation.

• Temple Beth Am in Pinecrest, Florida recently tore downtwo buildings to create a 2500-square foot green courtwhich is used for school programming, youth groupevents and special Friday night services “Under the Stars.”

• 700 people of all ages and all Jewish ideologicalbackgrounds from across the United States attended the2009 Hazon Food Conference in California.

• In 2009, Los Angeles Jewish organizations acrossthe socio-religious spectrum created a grass-rootsorganization called Netiyah (Hebrew for “planting”),

dedicated to combating hunger through organicgardening; educating the Los Angeles Jewish communi-ty about food awareness issues; and advocating for moresocial and environmental equity.

The Jewish world now recognizes that integrating the teach-ing of Jewish values with meaningful, hands-on nature expe-riences is a highly effective means of education. Numerousstudies (from 1998-2003) conducted by the Coalition on theEnvironment and Jewish Life (COEJL) in partnership withBrandeis University, the Jewish Environmental and NatureEducators Institute (JENE) and PIC (a consortium of Jewishenvironmental educational organizations) demonstratedhow highly students of all ages valued these types of pro-grams. Furthermore, longitudinal studies over a ten yearperiod of time proved that students remembered what theyhad learned from Jewish experiential nature programs andthat their attitudes, behaviors and/or beliefs had beenchanged as a result of these learning experiences.

Though we do not know with absolute certainty how manycongregations and Jewish schools across the nation haveadded environmental curriculum, gardens or nature experi-ences to their programs, it is clear that the number is in thehundreds, if not thousands. Unfortunately, it is also clearthat many of these organizations are having problemsdeveloping and sustaining these programs. The mostcommon reason for failure is the lack of professional andlay leaders with “green” training. Congregations are seekingto overcome this weakness by expecting their new rabbisand assistant rabbis to function as “green experts” and totake on a gamut of environmental/nature responsibilities.

As educators we have a responsibility to provide guidanceand mentoring in this area to new rabbinic and educationschool graduates. Perhaps we could offer a two-week “GreenBoot Camp,” where participants would be able to learnabout the role of sustainability in Jewish practice and tradi-tion. Most importantly, they would have the opportunity tolearn through experience what others have already devel-oped and perfected, making it possible for these new leadersto bring with them programs which will succeed, enrichingthe lives of their congregants and encouraging the furtherdevelopment of eco-Jewish consciousness.

Torah at the Center

Response to Jessy Gross

By Dr. Gabe Goldman, Director of Experiential and Service Learning, American Jewish University, Los Angeles



Torah at the Center

The clipped conversation between Josh and his committedbut conflicted father as they walk towards their car makesJewish educators everywhere cringe: “I know you hateHebrew school, Josh. You know what? I hated it too. Butyour mother and I really want you to become a bar mitzvah.”Josh looks briefly at his father but then drops his head ashe silently acquiesces. When did we trade the legacy ofJudaism’s beautiful, layered, meaning-infused sacredlanguage for a dreaded detachment and hatred towards afoundational aspect of our collective Jewish past, presentand future? Somewhere over the years of becoming resolute-ly American, we Jews have lost the point and the purpose ofteaching Hebrew to our children. Hebrew school and, inparticular, the instruction of Hebrew that takes place inits halls, may well have ruined the liberal American Jew’srelationship to the Hebrew language.

In thinking about why Hebrew is important to teach, Jewisheducators often put forth the “Jewish language” argument,proposing that Hebrew is the common language of Judaismand all Jews, or the “synagogue skills” argument, articulat-ing that Jews need access to Hebrew in order to be activeparticipants in synagogue life. In both cases, Hebrew isportrayed as an entry ticket to full Jewish participation. Botharguments are compelling in the abstract but often failsharply when put to the test of current sociological realities.While there are American Jews who can read Hebrew, it hasfailed to become the language of Jewish communication forthe vast majority of this Diaspora community. This has ledto the perhaps paradoxical situation that American Jewscan feel a strong sense of Jewish identity but lack any realknowledge of Hebrew. Furthermore, most American Jewsparticipate regularly in liberal synagogue life with veryminimal Hebrew skills.

What, then, might be a compelling rationale for AmericanJews, especially those who participate in liberal Jewishcommunities, to learn this complicated ancient language?One powerful answer can be found in the “Ten Principles forReform Judaism” (1998). The ninth principle argues thatHebrew is our “holy tongue.” It represents the preservationof our heritage. It is the language of Jewish ideas for all

generations. “Hebrew connects us with ancient and modernJewish ideas which are difficult to render in [vernacular]translation.” Thus, while it can be argued that Hebrew is nolonger the main marker of Jewish identity, it remains“instrumental in creating identity” as well as “enforcing andperpetuating that identity.” (Shohamy)

The time has come to rephrase and rethink our questions.Jewish educators need to examine the reasons behind whywe teach Hebrew before we can move forward to thequestions of what Hebrew to teach and how to teach thatHebrew. Imagine the power of a frank and open communityconversation about the 21st century reasons for teaching andlearning Hebrew. What might happen if, like linguist LewisGilbert suggests, we “remove all of the preconceptions ofwhat teaching a foreign text ought to be about” and worktowards a solution that reflects the variety of reasonsan American Jew today might want to engage with theHebrew language?

Some would suggest we should only teach Hebrew as alanguage of heritage and history. Then again, perhaps weshould create programs that emphasize the spiritual qualitiesof the language instead of the socio-linguistic approach. Ormight we radically redefine the American Jewish lexiconand teach Hebrew as phrases, idioms and quotations? If wegenuinely aspire to be a pluralistic Jewish community, thenwe must adopt a “pluralistic view for teaching [Hebrew] thatmatches the pluralistic identities of Jews in the UnitedStates.” (Shohany)

Jewish educators today must open wide the debate of whyHebrew is so essential to American Jewish identity. If it isindeed, as the Reform Movement’s principles suggest, acenterpiece in the intimate relationship between culture andidentity, we must create multiple pathways that all Jewscan comfortably navigate. Each and every Jew deserves awelcoming way into a connection with the language and achance to decide how to make it a part of their unique Jewishidentity. These multiple pathways require all of us to wrestlenow with the educational and instructional questions as wellas the multitude of solutions.

Hating Hebrew: Isn’t It Time for a New Legacy?

By Laura Abrasley




Torah at the Center

Laura Abrasley ably portrays the dilemmas inherent in thedesire to teach Hebrew to American Jewish children. Theseinclude, among others, a lack of clarity regarding therationale for Hebrew learning, the seeming lack of relevanceof Hebrew in the life of most American Jews and the senseamong North American Jews that they can develop whatthey consider a robust Jewish identity without knowledge ofHebrew. She also rightfully challenges Jewish educators toembrace and address the ninth principle of the CentralConference of American Rabbis’ 1998 Statement ofPrinciples which characterizes Hebrew as core to ReformJewish identity.

Abrasley’s assessment of the continual decline of the value ofHebrew in the American milieu does not accurately reflectthe historical record. As much as we might want to blamethis generation’s apathy and inadequacy in addressing theproblem of Hebrew teaching and learning, we would beneglecting at least 250 years of American Jewish history.As early as 1766, Isaac Pinto, a member of New YorkCity’s Shearith Israel, noted that Hebrew was “imperfectlyunderstood by many, by some not at all.” (Sarna, AmericanJudaism) His solution was to translate the siddur intoEnglish. The curriculum of Rebecca Gratz’s Sunday schoolsin the mid-19th century included the study of Bible storiesand Jewish holidays. Hebrew was not on the agenda. Indeed,Jewish leaders of the time (and for the preceding 100 years)bemoaned the sorry state of Jewish education in NorthAmerica. Already in the 19th century, Jewish leadersunderstood that bar mitzvah was the hook needed to enticeparents to bring their children to Jewish learning. The postWorld War II generation cannot take responsibility for thebar mitzvah fixation.

The period being discussed in the previous paragraphprecedes the modern revival of Hebrew as a modernlanguage. In other words, the possibility of learning to speakand write Hebrew as a language did not even exist until the20th century. The only Hebrew learning option open toJewish educators in the 18th and 19th centuries was ancientHebrew (Biblical and siddur based). Hence, it makes nosense to pine for the good old days of deep engagement with

Hebrew language learning in the United States. They simplydid not exist. As Elana Shohamy points out, even in the earlydays of the Yishuv, the battle was between Yiddish andHebrew. Hebrew eventually prevailed – but not with theauthority or strength that other national languages prevailedfor other ethnic groups. Shohamy also suggests that Hebrew,unlike Yiddish, did not become the lingua franca of theDiaspora but, rather, became one symbol, among many, inthe construct called Jewish identity. In other words, Hebrewis one symbol among others, such as tikkun olam work,synagogue affiliation and holiday celebrations.

I do not mean to imply that Hebrew shouldn’t be a corecomponent of Jewish education in the 21st century. Indeed,the opposite is true. I wholly agree with Abrasley that thefirst step is for the Jewish community (and not just Jewisheducators) to grapple with the question of rationale: whyHebrew? A number of responses might emerge, many ofwhich might be acceptable. For example, the teaching ofModern Hebrew language is often rejected out of hand dueto lack of contact hours. This is not necessarily the case andshould be re-examined. On the other hand, teaching child-ren to “read” Hebrew without comprehension is not, inmy estimation, a readily achievable outcome for moststudents and most often leads to a sense of futility. Clarity ofpurpose, therefore, must be accompanied by a realistic andhonest assessment of what will be meaningful for ourconstituents. Once these are realized, we can begin toaddress the question of how to achieve the purposes wehave identified, including professional development andcurricular design. Conversations such as those taking placein the newly established Hebrew Project wiki should beencouraged and highlighted in Jewish communal circles.

Finally, it is time to stop calling the educational endeavorassociated with congregations “Hebrew schools.” This doesa disservice both to the important learning that is takingplace in other subject areas and to Hebrew learning. If thelabel “Hebrew school” disappears, perhaps Josh and his dadwill need to find something else to complain about.

Response to Laura Abrasley

By Lesley Litman, Education Consultant, The iCenter: Inspiring Innovation in Israel Education



Torah at the Center

Almost all Jewish congregations include teaching Israelas part of their religious school curriculum. Yet, Jewisheducators and schools articulate few rationales for teachingIsrael. Many teachers who are passionate about Israel willsay, “I love Israel,” but are unable to explain why teachingIsrael to a particular grade level in a congregational schoolsetting matters and works.

I am not the first to note fuzzy rationales and objectives inthe teaching of Israel—notably the Jewish educationphilosopher Barry Chazan has done so, in addition to DavidBreakstone and Lisa Grant. Loving Israel is not enough. Ifeducators avoid reflecting more deeply on the value of Israeleducation we risk another twenty years of unreflective,directionless teaching. For an organizing framework, I turnto another Jewish education philosopher, Michael Rosenak,who suggests three commonplaces for Jewish education:Judaism, Jewry, and Jewishness. I hope my colleagues mightjoin me in helping to create a serious and sustained discourseon this topic and in implementing the resulting rationales intheir curricula.

JudaismA rationale deriving from the Judaism category might teachIsrael as a messianic hope and symbol of redemption, as areturn to an ideal time and place. Such a rationale mightinvolve studying Biblical and rabbinic texts about Israel andmessianic hopes, especially in the liturgy. Admittedly, theidea of a messianic Israel presents cognitive dissonance formost liberal, American Jews who do not yearn for an ideal-ized time of Jews worshipping God at the Temple under theirown sovereignty in the land of Israel. For liberal Jews, then,an alternative rationale in the category of religion mightassert that the land of Israel can deepen an understandingof the characters and events of the Bible and the contextin which Judaism emerged. This rationale requires experi-encing the land of Israel and would involve the study of geol-ogy, ecology, agriculture, archaeology and ancient history.

JewryDepending on what aspect of “peoplehood” matters to thecurriculum writer, radically different curricula might arise. Ifthe desire is for students to identify with Israelis as their

fellow Jews, the rationale might demand a curriculum thatdemands cross-cultural study, mifgashim (meetings betweenIsraelis and Americans) and experiential education, with anemphasis on visiting Israel. If the priority is to recognizeIsrael as the other most substantial and influential popula-tion of world Jewry, the curriculum might include culturalstudies, some history and a focus on understanding currentevents and how they might relate to the American Jewishcommunity and to the future of Jewry in general.

JewishnessI understand “Jewishness” to refer to the cultural side ofbeing a Jew, including ritual and customs. The study ofIsraeli culture might enhance how students understand theirown American Jewish culture, both by looking at theexchange between American and Israeli culture and byoffering contrasts to what students might have taken forgranted about their own culture. Israeli cultural studiesmight also express the value of multivocality, teachingstudents that Jewishness includes many diverse ways to be aJew and express one’s Judaism. In another approach, onemight study the connection between the land of Israel andrituals and practices.

Of the three categories, I find that “peoplehood” is thewellspring for rationales to which I constantly turn.Although all the categories and rationales offer meaning andimply meaningful curriculum, the value of K’lal Yisrael isthe one which I believe Israel best embodies and which offersthe most possibility. Peoplehood is also the basis for the mostconsistent rationale used in the past, one that rarely express-es itself as an educationally sound, clearly articulatedrationale: The fear of Jewish survival. I believe we fail ourstudents and dim the glory of Judaism if we teach out of fear.Rather, education serves the future when it reveals theintrinsic worth of Judaism and Jewry, and when educatorsconvey their love of Judaism, Jewry and Jewishness, includ-ing Israel, through clearly articulated rationales that capturethe meaning and value inherent in the subject matter.

Whatever the rationale, it should be consciously chosen andthe curricula should reflect it. We have a better chance ofengaging our students with Israel and teaching them to loveit if we know why it is worth loving and worth teaching.

Recreating Israel

By Miriam Philips



Torah at the Center

Miriam Philips is correct that Jewish educational programsand systems need to devote more time to the creation ofcompelling rationales for Israel education. She invitescolleagues to join a “sustained discourse on the topic,” andI am happy to do so.

Philips suggests we frame the discussion around ProfessorRosenak’s commonplaces for Jewish education: Judaism,Jewry and Jewishness. I agree wholeheartedly that nodiscussion regarding Israel education can be divorced from1) our visions for what it means to be a Jew in the worldtoday and 2) how to educate towards those visions. In thisregard, I find useful the language of Professor DanielPekarsky, who describes the answer to the first questionas an “existential vision” and the answer to the secondquestion results in a curricular or “institutional vision.”

Returning to Philips’s invitation, here is my thinking on thekey questions for Israel education according to the threecommonplaces of Judaism, Jewry and Jewishness.

Looking at Israel education in the commonplace of Judaism,we find some significant challenges for North AmericanJewish education: Our Jewish thinkers have not had aserious conversation about the meaning of Israel for our livesin 30 years. When Israel was young, when the story wasgrand and inspiring, Jewish theologians respondedaccordingly. In the shadows of the Shoah, it was easier toalign history with the language of messianic hope. But Israelhas matured into a functioning, modern state. We needtheological language that is nimble enough to connectancient vision to the messiness of statecraft. Although Israelitheologians continue to struggle with these questions, recentNorth American Jewish theologians (Fishbane, Gillman, andothers) do not. Until we have a contemporary theologicaldiscussion about the place of Israel in our lives, we willhave a hard time creating a compelling rationale in thiscommonplace.

I feel more at ease in the commonplace of Jewry, although Ibelieve there is still a lot of work to be done in this area.Modern Zionism and the State of Israel have successfullyreminded us that we are an historic people and that we canbe confident players on the world scene, whether we live in

Israel or pursue lives in our global communities. Howeverwhen we go beneath the surface of this grand picture to thestreet level, people-to-people reality, we find a tremendouscultural gap between American and Israeli Jews. Philips ismost correct when she writes about students identifying“with Israelis as their fellow Jews.” What is missing from herdiscussion is the concept of mutuality inherent in the rootmeeting of mifgash; there is a tremendous amount of workto be done with Jewish educators in Israel so that Israelis cancome to really appreciate our North American students as“fellow Jews.”

Finally, I see in the area of Jewishness rich opportunities forthe creation of compelling rationales. Israel has succeeded inmoving Jewishness to the public sphere, and there is a lotof inspiration we can draw from that unique expressionof Jewish life. Considering the avenues that allow fortechnological connectedness with Israel, our students canhave more and better access to the by-products of Jewishnessplayed out in television and film, in music, in the calendar,in the application of Jewish values to societal problems andin the vitality of the Hebrew language. The American Jewishcommunity has shown that vital Jewish expression can thrivein a voluntary mode. The Israeli model provides us with analternative view of Judaism in the world, one that strives toshape an entire society around its values and teachings.When that model is experienced, understood and appreciat-ed by our students, they are confronted with the realpossibility that religious school lessons are relevant beyondthe synagogue walls.

Response to Miriam Philips

By Rabbi Reuven Greenvald, Director of Comunity Initiatives,MAKOM:The Israel Engagement Network of the Jewish Agency for Israel, New York



Torah at the Center

The Holocaust is a complicated, difficult, tragic event tomake sense of not only for the Jewish community, but for theworld at large. It is loaded with moral issues, historicalfacts, unanswerable questions and challenging ideas thatthreaten our basic sense of humanity. Since Holocaustsurvivors, sadly, will not be with us in the near future, theresponsibility to teach the Holocaust effectively becomeseven more important.

There are traps in the teaching of the Holocaust that are easyto fall into. One common assumption is that Holocaustartifacts or exhibits require no introduction in order forthe students to grasp the implications of the event. Forexample, in 1994 a well-meaning teacher from Castlemontencouraged a group of his students from Oakland,California to see Schindler’s List. The movie was thestudents’ first exposure to the Holocaust. After viewing themovie for an hour, “a boy shouted as a young Jewish womanwas slaughtered on screen. ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘that was cold.’”Laughter followed, and the students were asked to leavethe theater. (Schweber) Without providing sufficient andappropriate context, teachers do more harm than good.

Some educators fall into the trap of being reductionist andin over-collectivizing the Holocaust. In her article, “ReadingAnne Frank and Elie Wiesel: Voice and Gender in Stories ofthe Holocaust,” sociologist Mary Lagerwey explains thatElie Wiesel and Anne Frank are iconic figures of theHolocaust who each have come to represent the survivor andthe victim. Their stories have shaped the way the Americansociety collectively envisions the Holocaust. While individualstories can be more accessible than reports of mass suffering,reducing the collective memory to two stories is oversimpli-fying. There is a danger to using any one of these personalaccounts, movies or artifacts to tell the entire story of theHolocaust.

In Making Sense of the Holocaust, Simone Schweberobserves that in high school classes, the Holocaust tendsto be taught through one of two lenses: history or morality.Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt warns againstextracting the moral lessons laden in the historical contentexplicitly. Instead, she suggests an implicit approach that

uses the historical content to shape the students’ moralinsights of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is unquestionablyfull of moral issues. But, when the moral issues are removedfrom their context, the questions unique to the Holocaustbecome universal. The life and death decisions that survivorsand victims made were a result of unimaginable circum-stances. They need to be read and understood within theirhistorical context. Based on her own teaching experience,Lipstadt reassures the reader when she concludes thatstudents will most assuredly apply these lessons to theirown universe as they see appropriate.

The Holocaust changed the reality of the Jewish communityand who we are today. The scope of the calamity comparesto the fall of the Temple and the exile from Spain. Theseevents in our history completely transformed Jews andJudaism. So, too, did the Holocaust transform the Jewishcommunity. There is no satisfying explanation of why thisevent happened. We should not feel compelled to make senseof it. But lacking neatly packaged explanations is no excuseto avoid teaching something, much less the Holocaust. Wemust have the courage to teach about it well, as it is sosignificant to our modern Jewish collective memory. In YosefYerushalmi’s book, Zakhor, he reflects upon his charge as ahistorian. He wonders, “Is it possible that the antonym of‘forgetting’ is not ‘remembering,’ but justice?” The charge ofa teacher is similar to that of the historian. Teachers musthave greater goals than memorializing the Holocaust;teachers seek justice every day when they inspire theirstudents to learn from the atrocities of the Holocaust. Ateacher’s charge should not be to make sense of the event,but to teach about it in an honest and complex way.This model of teaching the Holocaust not only honors themultiplicity of experiences that create the collective, but paystribute to those who will no longer be around to tell us oftheir personal experiences.

A Rationale for Teaching the Holocaust

By Tami Weisman



Tami’s heartfelt and carefully thought-out essay raises thequestion of how the Holocaust can be conveyed andpreserved in our memories going forward. My first responseto the issues Tami raises is evidence-based. Based onresearch interviews with leaders in the field, specificprinciples guide effective Holocaust education across allaudiences and ages. Notably, effective Holocaust education:

• Uses powerful primary teaching materials• Takes an interdisciplinary approach• Connects the Holocaust to ideas, beyond the

historical narrative• Requires longer learning arcs, not one-time events• Attends to age-appropriate cognitive and emotional

learning • Demands an emotionally safe environment

In addition, when presented in a well-prepared educationalcontext, first-hand survivor accounts convey the Holocaust’sreality. This personal interaction is invaluable and has greatemotional power for students. The field will lose this possi-bility over time, highlighting the priority of creating tapedtestimonies and integrating the other principles of effectiveHolocaust education. With these guidelines, teachers cancreate educational experiences with rich learning outcomes.

A second approach to these issues is more holistic. Tellingthe events of the Holocaust is story-telling and story-preserving, and Jews have long used storytelling to recountand then give meaning to events as a way to guide our lives.Jewish tradition and practice are centrally about movingfrom the historical and real to the symbolic and meaningful.

Diverse Jewish rituals exemplify this profound use ofstorytelling, each with a different trope. As we read theTorah, we seek meaning from often troubling stories. FromCain, who killed his brother Abel and logically was theprogenitor of all humanity; through Joseph, the interpreterof dreams; to the leader Moses, who cannot arrive in thePromised Land, we interpret difficult events for meaning.The Pesach seder epitomizes storytelling. Four childrenreceive the story in four different ways, resulting in theconclusion: “You are to tell the story…” Moses’s absence inthe Haggadah suggests we even interpret what we don’t

hear. The words “B’chol dor v’dor…,” in every generationyou shall see yourselves as if you left Egypt, teach us to feelanother’s experience empathically, a person in another time,perhaps in another place, perhaps just in different shoesfrom our own. Others have adapted the seder’s storytellingpower to express their longing to fully become who they areand to bring diverse people together. Purim’s central ritual,the megillah reading, tells its unique story; and theChanukah lyrics that begin, “Who can retell…” later suggestwe need heroes and sages, both people of action and peopleof interpretation.

The events of the Holocaust are not only challenging in theirown right, existentially, spiritually, politically. They are alsoa challenge to the Jewish tradition of storytelling. How totell the story, how to wrest meaning, when the events are soclose, the losses and pain so difficult to accept? As Jews,we record and then interpret, weave events into a long,continuing story of survival and spiritual development. Sowe struggle in this generation, without an interpretation inresponse to events that cannot be easily distanced.Symbolism is not easy when witnesses still suffer.

It is meaningful that we are concerned about losing touchwith these events, as the survivors pass from our immediateenvironment. The effort expended to preserve their storiesand re-tell them is ultimately a lesson in two directions.First, we may need to wait until we get the distance neededto interpret and live “with” the story of this historical time.We do not know how long we will need to wait, and we arenot even sure how to get there. We can only do what we cando in this time, as best we can, and hope that we are on thepath to understanding. Second, our struggle with theseevents so close to us now reminds us of what the sederenjoins us to understand: Events that are distant from uswere once fresh, and they too challenged their survivorsto seek understanding, meaning and preservation of theexperience to good purpose. We can draw on that well ofpast experience, knowing that all people are worthy of ourempathy and careful attention to their pain and triumphs.

Response to Tami Weisman

By Shirah Weinberg Hecht, Ph.D., Independent Research Consultant, Boston

Torah at the Center



Torah at the Center

A 1995 study of U.S. adult participation in Jewish learningpublished in the Journal of Jewish Communal Serviceshowed that 49% of adults surveyed “did not participate inany formal adult Jewish education during the 12 monthsprior to the time they completed the survey.” However, thestudy found that “most respondents reported engaging insome informal Jewish educational learning pursuits.” In thearea of motivation, of the adults who participated in Jewishlearning “more than 90% said I value knowledge for its ownsake as a reason that was ‘somewhat to very important’ intheir learning.” These numbers speak to an important issuein our synagogues. Our adults value knowledge and want tolearn, but what we offer in our synagogues is attractingfewer than half of our adults.

Common forms of adult education, like speaker series andtext study sessions, reach some learners but they do notengage the variety of “intelligences” that Jewish educatorsare capable of reaching. Howard Gardner’s theory ofmultiple intelligences presents a critique of the belief in asingle human intelligence that can be adequately assessed byan IQ test, and asserts that there are a range of humanintelligences. It is time to push past the use of linguisticintelligence alone and engage our adult Jewish learners withlearning experiences that draw upon the full range of spatial,musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal,spiritual, existential and naturalist intelligences. By meetingthe needs of the few, we lose students whom we could haveengaged in meaningful Jewish learning. With more robustapproaches, we may also manage to maintain the interestand engagement of those people who do walk through thedoors of adult education from time to time.

This alternative approach focuses on creating activitieswithin a course of study that concentrates on differentintelligences and opens up spaces for different learners.Consider the example of a Torah study group, in which theclass could delve into classical midrash on a particularportion and use paints or clay or movement in addition towords to describe and illustrate the interpretations.

In portions about the Tabernacle, specifically, the class mightdraft a design of what is described in the Torah text and then

compare it with the congregation’s own ark. When studyingany passages that lend themselves to music, the groupcould listen to and/or create music rooted in those Biblicaltexts. To study portions of the Bible in which individualsexperience visions of God, the group could experiment withdifferent meditation practices and create journals for writingand sketching to track the “visions” and experiences of theDivine in their own lives. In agricultural passages, the groupcould examine the connection between the Jewish calendarand farming, especially in the land of Israel. After examiningthis relationship between plants, people and God, the classcould translate their knowledge to work in a communal orcongregational garden. These are just a few ideas, but thepossibilities are nearly endless for the intersections of Jewishtradition and multiple intelligences.

There have always been Jews with strengths in movement(from the Biblical Miriam to Jerome Robbins), music (fromKing David to Carol King), visual art (from Betzalel to MarcChagall), building (from King Solomon to Frank Gehry),storytelling (from the prophet Nathan to Isaac BashevisSinger) and agriculture (from Ruth’s Boaz to today’sADAMAH Fellows). Surely, our sacred tradition is deep andvast enough to support those strengths and interests in ouradult Jewish learners today. The richness of Jewish traditionmay even suffer if we limit our teaching styles and learningoptions.

By Rebecca Reice

Garden, Build, Dance:A Vision for the Future of Adult Jewish Learning



Response to Rebecca Reice

By Sharon Amster Brown, Educator, Temple Israel, Long Beach, California

Torah at the Center

Diversity has been the key to success in our adult educationprogram at Temple Israel. For many years, we maintained afairly standard series of lecture-style classes and welcomedvarious speakers to give large-group presentations. Althoughsome congregants attended such programs, we were notreaching many others. Our adult education committee and Ithen made the conscious decision to diversify our programand create a multitude of entry points. No longer wouldour adults only have Sunday morning, traditional “sit in aclassroom” options.

We have found that adults, especially those who are stillworking or have children at home, need variety inscheduling when it comes to adult education. What mayhave worked for them one month may not work the next.Therefore, we currently offer adult education opportunitiesweekday mornings, weekday afternoons, Saturday andSunday mornings and Sunday evenings.

We are also committed to offering classes and learningexperiences at various levels. We do not assume that peoplehave backgrounds in certain areas. Conversely, we alsorealize that many of our adults want to learn at higherlevels. Pediatric Judaism is not appealing to these adults, andwe take this as a wonderful challenge.

As Rebecca Reice writes in her piece about the importanceof Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences,moving beyond the classes that appeal solely to thelinguistic and auditory learners has been the heart and soulof our adult education program over the past five years. Likechildren, adult learners connect to Judaism in diverse ways.We understand the importance of offering music, dance andart classes to our youngsters. We must commit those sametypes of resources to our adult learners. Our ultimate goal isto help our congregants feel connected to God, the Jewishcommunity and our rich history and culture. To me, itdoesn’t really matter how people get there.

Some examples of our current offerings: For our kinesthetic,spiritual and naturalist learners, we offer learning opportu-nities such as Spirituality in Nature, which have taken placeout on the trails or the local mountains. Our Krav Magaseries has been a wonderful way of reaching our bodily-

kinesthetic learners as well, as they learn about contempo-rary Israeli society through physical movement and exercise.Art and cooking classes have been very popular at oursynagogue, attracting spatial and interpersonal learnersthrough their hands-on activity and small group discussion.We also offer learning opportunities that allow for personalself-reflection for those intrapersonal learners who bestconnect to Judaism through further exploration ofthemselves.

I am happy to report that our attendance at adult educationprograms has greatly increased since diversifying ourprogram. Our weekly Torah study, filled with chevruta studyand the use of support texts from the worlds of art andmusic, along with more traditional frontal teaching, enjoysa class size of at least fifty people every Saturday. Ourhands-on cooking, art, dance and hiking programs seeapproximately twenty people per session. Our congregantshave the desire to participate and can now find ways toplug in that fit their scheduling and learning needs. Iwould estimate that the number of congregants regularlyparticipating in adult education has tripled over the pastfive years.

Of course, one never knows what type of learner will beattending which type of class. A linguistic learner could verywell join us for an art-based class or a musical learner couldjoin us for a Torah study. I work with our many teachersto help consider ways to reach as many different typesof learners in each setting as possible. I also seek outteachers who bring various skill sets to the table. This is ourresponsibility as educators, as we open our doors to adultsand create wide-open windows into Jewish learning.


NATE NEWSSpring 2010 • Vol. 51, Issue 3 National Association of Temple Educators tymrwpr twdhyl µyknjmh tdWga

I am impressed and inspired by the articles in this issue ofTorah at the Center. I am impressed by the manner in whichthis group of dedicated and talented students challenges usto break down old assumptions, develop clear rationales andraise the bar in our work. Mostly, I am inspired by the idealsand directions that they set forth. While they surface manydifferent issues, the articles in concert call upon those of usin the field to act.

How can we bring difficult topics such as God, Israel andHebrew to the table in a serious and focused manner? Howcan we work to develop and articulate clear and attainablegoals for our learners? How can we provide the appropriatecontext for teaching difficult subjects or embed Jewish learn-ing experiences within the larger community? How do weseriously develop Jewish identity in our learners? How canwe nurture and develop our teachers so that they have thechance to succeed? How can we help learners explore theissues facing our world and work to actively address themthrough a Jewish lens? How can we extend learning to adultsin meaningful ways that meet their needs? And, we know alltoo well, this list of questions is not exhaustive.

Most of us do not have the benefit of a thoughtful professor,class discussions or a graded assignment to motivate us totake the time to think deeply about Jewish education and thechanges we need to make. Therefore, we need to worktogether to motivate ourselves as a community of educators.There are many ways within NATE that we engage in theseimportant dialogues. The listserv is a wonderful way tobegin conversations. Not only is it a great problem solving,data collecting device, it can be a forum for asking criticalquestions and sharing ideas about how we can start totackle the big issues in Jewish education. The NATE wiki canbe a forum for discussion as well as the perfect place to shareprograms and curriculum that support a new way of think-ing about some of the larger issues in our field. There aremany interesting samples of curriculum and programsalready online. The webinars this year have also been anexcellent way to learn from outstanding scholars aroundsome of these very issues and spark conversations within

your communities or institutions. Inaddition, we are exploring the creationof Communities of Practice (CoPs), inwhich NATE members can have conversations aroundtopics of interest to them. Groups set their own agenda andtimeline while focusing on common concerns. Let us knowhow you think NATE can facilitate conversations that willhelp us all address those issues that continue to challenge usin our work.

Thanks again to the brave students and to our colleagueswho responded for raising many thorny issues and remind-ing us that there are things that we can and should be doingto make Judaism and Jewish learning more compelling forthe families with whom we work. We look forward towelcoming all of our student authors into the membershipof NATE where we will continue to tackle these veryconversations.

The NATE List: To sign up for the NATE listserv, send anemail to [email protected] with a blank subject line andthe message body of: subscribe NATE-LIST FIRSTNAMELASTNAME. Be sure to remove any signature from theemail. Once subscribed, post a message to the NATEList by sending an e-mail to [email protected] leave the subject line blank. Contact Ron Leff [email protected] with any questions.

The NATE Wikipage: Find the link to the Wiki on the mem-bers’ only pages of the NATE website www.natenet.org.Contact Avram Mandell at [email protected] any questions.

The NATE Webinars: Find out more about our webinarsat www.natenet.org/development/opportunities. Formore information, email Rabbi Stacy Eskovitz Rigler [email protected]

To Share Your Ideas: Email the Operations TeamCoordinators, Vanessa Ehrlich at [email protected] and Lori Daitch at [email protected], who willshare your ideas with the appropriate team or committee.

From the PresidentMindy B. Davids, RJE

18 WWW.NATE.RJ.ORG

President, Mindy B. Davids, RJEFirst Vice-President, Lisa Lieberman Barzilai, RJEVice-President of Finance,

Anne Berman-Waldorf, RJEVice-President, Lisa J. Goldstein, RJEVice-President, Deborah S. Niederman, RJE

Vice-President, Rabbi Laura Novak Winer, RJEVice-President, Joan P. Carr, RJEMembership Involvement Coordinator,

Lynda K. Gutcheon, RJEExecutive Director, Rabbi Stanley T. Schickler, RJE

National Associationof Temple Educators


During the leadership meetings of NATE in December webegan our first steps in the process of going back to thebeginning. What does that mean?

Approximately six years ago NATE leadership determinedthat there was a need for a strategic plan which would pushus to examine who we were as an organization, thinkforward to determine who we want to be and what changesare necessary to realize our vision for the future. Duringthe process we created NATE’s mission, vision and valuesstatements. We also restructured the leadership to not onlyinclude the Board doing governance work but also createdan entirely new structure we have called the OperationsTeam, whose primary function is to move the work of NATEforward, and we established goals to focus our deliberationsand our work to better serve our members.

In December, both the Operations Team and the Boarddeliberated regarding what should be NATE’s goals for thenext two to three years:• NATE is visionary and sustainable.• NATE builds a community of learning and practice

among Reform Jewish educators.• NATE elevates and professionalizes the position of

Reform Jewish educator within and outside theMovement.

We will continue to keep these goals along with our mission,vision and values in the forefront of our conversations,deliberations and work. Each committee and task forceof NATE will look toward these goals to shape and focustheir work

Strategic Plan UpdateBy Lisa Lieberman Barzilai, RJE, NATE First Vice President

WWW.NATE.RJ.ORG 19

NATE NEWS

It seems like everywhere I go I hear about the effects of thedownturn in the economy. Our local food pantry is experi-encing greater than normal demand, many in our communi-ty have lost jobs and budgets everywhere are being trimmed.Unfortunately for many educators, they have seen drasticreductions in or the elimination of their professional devel-opment lines. In a moment of serendipity, NATE was alreadyarmed to meet the new needs of these educators.

In 2006, I was asked to join the continuing education com-mittee of NATE in the position of “phone call coordinator.”My task was to arrange conference calls for NATE memberswith interesting scholars. Since I had just stopped working,I jumped at the chance to participate in learning opportuni-ties that would keep me fresh in the field without costing memoney. Participation in our first calls ranged from 30-40people and felt like a huge success. As our comfort and skillwith technology grew, the quality of what we could offergreatly increased. For the past year and a half, the continu-ing education committee has been offering two differentwebinar series free to NATE members. Our “Meet theAuthor” webinars invite authors to present new work andshare their process, research and expertise. Our secondseries of calls, “New in Education,” offers participants a wayto connect to NATE’s onsite learning events, whether or notthey can be there in person. Speakers presenting at kallot,conferences and symposia teach webinars that can standalone or complement the learning for participants in thosevenues. This helps to create a common conversation acrossNATE’s membership regardless of a member’s ability to

attend in-person learning opportunities. The continuingeducation committee works as part of the professional devel-opment team to make sure that NATE is offering a widevariety of learning opportunities both onsite and “at home.”

To date, over two hundred NATE members have participat-ed in one of our phone call or webinar programs—that’s25% of NATE’s membership. We were pleased to present awebinar in August on thinking about staff development,with Valerie Mitrani and Julie Lambert, who created theSharshert program at the Center for Advancement of JewishEducation in Miami. Dr. Tali Zelkowicz presented on Jewishidentity formation in the 21st century. Rabbi Deborah BodinCohen shared her new book Papa Jethro and used it as aspringboard to jumpstart a conversation about diversity inthe Jewish classroom. Most recently, Rabbi Jonah Pesner,director of Just Congregations, offered a webinar oncommunity organizing for educators.

There is still another continuing education webinar comingup this year. On Wednesday, April 21 at 1:00 p.m. EasternTime, Dr. Ron Wolfson will be teaching a webinar inspiredby his book The Spirituality of Welcoming, published byJewish Lights. For more information about this webinar orany other upcoming webinars, please see the professionaldevelopment opportunities section at www.natenet.org. Inthe near future you will be able to view past webinars in themembers’ only section of the NATE website. In addition, ifyou have never participated in a webinar and would likesomeone to talk you through it, please contact MarisaKaiser, RJE at [email protected].

Continuing Education UpdateBy Melissa Werbow, NATE Continuing Education Committee Co-chair


Since its inception, Birthright Israel has maintained that “itis every Jew’s birthright to visit Israel.” With that unfalteringconviction and the financial capital to support it, theprogram has availed the opportunity to over two hundredthousand young Jewish adults; its vision has become reality.These young Jewish adults received a gift of Israel education,worth an estimated $3,000. Stakeholders note high impact ofthe trip, and desire a way to transfer the trip’s momentum toparticipants’ local communities upon their return.Unfortunately, recent studies such as “Generation BirthrightIsrael” (Saxe, et al.) reveal that despite the two year old post-trip educational initiative called Birthright Israel NEXT,many Birthright Israel alumni are ill-equipped to return theinvestment and engage in Jewish life once back in theirhome communities. Although much research exists aboutthe importance of encouraging engagement, a lingeringquestion begs to be asked. While so many ask what happensto continued identity formation once that El Al flightreturns, no one is inquiring about what happens before ittakes off.

The trip is designed to introduce participants to all aspectsof Israel: People, places, sights, smells and sounds. It is not,however, designed to be the first lesson in Jewish education.Though Birthright is an Israel education trip and marketsitself as such, its current participants are not the sameBirthright Israel Participants of 2000. Ten years ago, 75% ofBirthright Israel participants were involved with Hillel oncampus and represented a degree of affiliation with theJewish community. (Saxe) A recent Cohen Center studyentitled “Generation Birthright Israel” finds that in recentyears, “the proportions of Orthodox applicants hasdecreased substantially, while the percentage of applicantswith limited Jewish education and those who came fromdisengaged households increased.” These numbers point to anoticeable disconnect between participants’ prior Jewishknowledge and the program’s current objectives.

Low Jewish education levels, combined with limited Jewishexperiences and community affiliation, show that numerousBirthright Israel travelers go on the trip without any of theprior Jewish background knowledge needed to frame their

intense ten-day experience. Instead of enhancing theseparticipants’ understanding of Judaism and their Jewishselves, the trip gives them but a taste of what Jewish life andJewish community can be in their daily lives. This reinforceswhy the current post-trip initiative called BirthrightIsrael NEXT, which seeks to integrate the Birthright Israelexperience of continued identity formation and communalinvolvement, and its “no strings attached” motto, mightmiss the mark in our communities. As Fern Chertok,co-author of “Tourists, Travelers and Citizens” reports,“Alums are happy to eat free food and drink free beer atthose big events, but they don’t feel it meets their needs tofind Jewish community.”

If it can collaborate with local communities, it is possible forBirthright Israel to affect Jewish communal life too. Annuallyaccommodating 40,000 of these young Jewish adultsbetween ages 18–26, it is a movement in and of itself.Participants want to learn more about their Jewish roots andculture. (Fishkoff) Given Birthright’s prominence, it seemslogical that it would facilitate learning and bolster identityformation before the intense ten-day trip. The fact that itdoesn’t is no less than a missed opportunity for shaping thefuture of the Jewish world.

Jewish education is key, and as our young adult generationseeks people-to-people connectivity, it will take more than a“Go Learn” section on the program’s website. Some ideasfor experimentation are seminars, webinars and collegecredit for a preparatory Birthright course. The core curricu-lum should cover Jewish heritage from antiquity to todayincluding Jewish history, with an emphasis on AmericanJewish history, holidays and ritual objects, Israel educationand optional Hebrew. Combining the experiential withthe practical could create a solid program that teachesparticipants how to apply Birthright Israel’s lessons.


By LuAnne Tyzzer

Torah at the CenterHow to Avoid the Most ExpensiveOversight in Jewish Educational History


Birthright is one of the most meaningful Jewish gifts to theJewish people by the Jewish people. The Birthright initiativehas contributed greatly to the lives of many young Jews,serving as a powerful trigger for profound Israel journeys forthe Jewish world. Many of these individuals build upon theirBirthright experience upon their return, engaging in moreJewish experiences and fostering their Israel connection.In other cases Birthright is, unfortunately, a stand-aloneexperience.

The Hebrew name of the Birthright initiative is Taglit, whichmeans “discovery.” This name encapsulates the magic andimportance of this initiative. The ten-day educationalexperience in Israel is an opportunity to discover and exploretheir connections to Judaism and to Israel, and is ameaningful trigger to embark on or continue their identityquest.

It is true that there is a noticeable difference between theparticipants during the first few years and those of recentyears. In recent years, the Birthright participants have largergaps in their Jewish knowledge or have only had limitedJewish experiences. If anything, the onus is placed morefirmly on the providers of the program to create and modelJewish and Israeli “moments” for the participants, andprovide the participants with experiences to reduce thosegaps as well as motivate them to continue learning and expe-riencing. The real challenge, however, is the transitioningfrom this meaningful experience back to the participants’homes and routines. Most of the participants returnenthusiastic and highly motivated to continue their quest,to connect to Israel and engage in Jewish experiences,but many do not find accessible opportunities to meettheir needs.

I agree with Tyzzer’s point that it would be more than ashame to miss out on the opportunity this project offers notjust for the participants but also for the Jewish people. Itwouldn’t be appropriate, though, to call the project the“most expensive oversight in Jewish educational history,”even if a large number of participants do not stay involvedafter the journey. The question is how to maximize the effectthe experience has had on the participants and build on

the momentum it has created, while bearing in mindand addressing the idiosyncrasies of this group and thechallenges they face upon their return.

Many of the Birthright participants do not perceivethemselves as a “movement” or as members of a certaincommunity. National Jewish organizations and congrega-tions offer returning participants programs for continuedengagement with Israel and Jewish life. However, since thegroup leaders and Israeli tour guides play a significant rolein the experience and create meaningful and lastingrelationships with the participants, it would be moreeffective if a relationship was created with these organiza-tions and the participants through the group leaders andinitiated during the trip. This personal connection is pivotalto future conversations and engagement. Group leadersshould also try to identify future peer leaders among theparticipants and encourage them to take this role. Withappropriate mentoring these peer leaders could advance theconversations and journeys of their groups.

I am not certain that what the participants seek before theyleave or are interested in before the journey starts is Israel orJewish related knowledge. They go on the trip for variousreasons, and what we should hope and create for them arevarious experiences that will help them create their personalconnections with Judaism, the Jewish people and Israel.The current participants of Birthright are not necessarilydrawn to or active members of Jewish organizations, and notnecessarily because they are not aware of their existence.Therefore I’m not convinced that simply inviting them toevents is going to elicit the best results. It behooves thesegroups to think of ways to make the events more appealingand even discuss with the participants their needs anddesires for Jewish involvement. By honoring their choices,challenging them to find meaningful ways to connect andempowering the Birthright alums, we can help participantstake the next step in developing their Israeli and Jewish con-nections. Taglit, for many of its participants, is a first step,or first step back, into Jewish lives; it is important that weshow participants we are a partner as they take the nextsteps on their Jewish journeys.


Response to LuAnne Tyzzer

By Yehudit Werchow, the Jewish Agency’s Central Shlichah for the Union for Reform Judaism

Torah at the Center



We are facing a God crisis in our Reform communities. Asthe younger generations turn toward more internal andinformal modes of practicing their faith, they also turnaway from traditional forms of Judaism. Rabbi Eric Yoffie,President of the Union for Reform Judaism, explains,“Younger people are looking for transcendence and holi-ness. They’re looking for God, even if they don’t believe inGod.” Unfortunately, many Jews have sought this spiritualconnection outside the Jewish community. Moreover, thiscontemporary quest for spirituality and a connection to Godhas moved beyond the walls of the synagogue and into thevirtual world. If we do not begin to address these spiritualyearnings within the walls of our synagogues, our congre-gants will seek spiritual fulfillment elsewhere.

Because most of our supplementary school teachers havebeen socialized into the “God as taboo” culture in their ownsupplementary school experiences, it is not surprising that somany of our teachers are “reluctant to enter into discussionsof theology” (Wachs and Shatz) with their students, andequally as important, with one another. If we cannotarticulate our own beliefs in God and how God relates toour identity as Jews, how can we expect the same from ourstudents? The Reform Movement’s CHAI Curriculumemphasizes religious content, including God. However, eventhe finest curriculum can only go so far. If our teachers lackappropriate God language and comfort in talking about Godwith their students, then a curriculum cannot reach ourstudents. Unless we make a serious effort to introduce openand direct discussions of God into the supplementary schoolclassroom, God will remain a taboo. We must now welcomeGod into our classrooms, making the following two changesto create a supplementary school environment in which Godis an accepted and encouraged topic of conversation.

In order to facilitate open and meaningful conversationabout God in our classrooms, our teachers must be equippednot only with an awareness of and a comfort with a range ofstatements and questions about God, but also a repertoire ofappropriate responses. Therefore, we must first provide ourteachers with what I’m calling a “God-concept toolbox.” Inthis metaphorical toolbox would be a variety of language

and methods for discussing God with their students. Thetoolbox should be filled with student phrases ranging from,“I don’t believe in God—I’m an atheist,” to “I’m not surewhat I think about God,” to “I talk to God every time Ipray.” Questions should also be included in this toolbox,such as, “How do we know there is really a God?” and“Why does God punish good people?”

After we have established the questions that will open con-versations about God, we can fill our teachers’ toolboxeswith specific responses, from Jewish tradition, about God.We must also help them to feel comfortable discussing Godopenly with their students. One way to develop this aspect ofthe toolbox is for us to discuss God with our teachers, andto encourage the teachers to discuss God among themselves.We must bring God into professional learning, discussingour personal beliefs in God with our faculty and allowingthem to explore these ideas with one another. The moreeducational leaders and teachers can talk about God andstruggle with their own theologies among their peers, themore at ease they will be discussing God with their students.

Secondly, God conversations should be embedded in oursupplementary school curricula. Too often, God is relegatedto the realm beyond the walls of the classroom, in thesanctuary or in nature. Our students need to feel comfort-able discussing God in a more academic setting, where theycan describe and challenge their beliefs in a more structuredenvironment. Because God is a central pillar of Judaism, wecan easily incorporate God into every unit we teach.

It is possible to create an environment in which our childrenare comfortable talking about God. If our teacherscan model their own theology in class and draw upontheir God-concept toolboxes, it is possible to transformblank stares into probing exploration and heateddebates, resistance into encounter (or at least curiosity) andinsecurity into confident Jewish God-talk.

By Lauren Luskey

Torah at the Center

God is a Four Letter Word


Ms. Luskey rightly calls us out on the elephant in the room:We are a religious movement whose members rarely succeedin articulating the ideas and the language required to bringGod into our conversations. I’ll go further: The majority ofour members do not engage in sincere, religious practice,often because they have no use for God. Sure, fundamental-ists have an easier time with theology than liberals, but wepay a price for avoiding the issue. There are wonderfulcounter-examples in our Movement, but God-talk is theexception, not the rule.

Teachers do not have “the tools to engage in meaningful andorganic discussion” about God, Ms. Luskey writes. In myview, this is mainly because teacher credibility does notcome from knowing what Maimonides wrote about God.Rather, it is the personal stories of a teacher’s spiritual searchand his or her commitment to Judaism as the framework forthat search, which command respect.

This leads to two immediate conclusions. 1) Not everyoneshould teach about God. I wouldn’t want to learn violinfrom a sax player, even if they read every book on violintechnique. 2) We need to invest less in curriculum and morein enabling teachers to pursue their spiritual search on theirlevel. On any subject a good teacher is more important thangood curriculum. This is even truer regarding spirituality,where successful teachers are first and foremost role models.Can teacher training not include time for spiritual reflectionand practice? Part of the draw of teaching in a ReformMovement institution should be that rabbis, cantors andeducators—serious searchers themselves—will personallysupport the teacher’s spiritual exploration.

I agree with the idea that we must work hard to find theideas and words to articulate our relationship with God.God “concepts” are important, as often our minds (rightly)won’t let our hearts go to places deemed unacceptable.And we need to communicate the experience of God’spresence. But I am concerned that this statement could beover-emphasized and taken in the wrong way.

I once heard a Jewish educator say before a group of middleschoolers, “Tell me what you think about God and I’ll find

you a Jewish thinker who agrees with you.” The educatorthought he was inspiring and inviting. In reality, he was adispassionate relativist in a place where a passionate rolemodel was needed. Of course we must remain liberals,encouraging pluralism and discussion, but in spiritualeducation, students are apprentices, not academics, andteachers must embody what they teach.

Rarely do people find God by reading a book in a library.Rather, most people get to God, if they get to God, throughcertain kinds of life experiences, and more important thanteaching God-ideas is teaching the skills that enable one tohave those experiences (which make God-concepts relevant).That’s why most contemporary spiritual seekers and teach-ers revere Buber, Heschel and the mystics, who articulate theencounter with God, over other Jewish thinkers.

“God-education,” in my view, should aim to inculcate thespiritual virtues: Sensitivity to the pain of others, a thirstfor wonder and awe, a love of justice and beauty andmuch more. We should do our best to give our studentstranscendent moments and heartfelt experiences and sharethe stories of such moments in Torah. Then, our talk aboutGod-concepts can make some sense.

Two final points. 1) Prayer is the great work of the heart. Itis experiential; it cuts across most every other aspect ofJewish life; it addresses the question of God directly.Teaching prayer before liturgy and helping children acquirethe skills of prayer would change everything we say and dowith regard to God. 2) There is a place where most every onefeels wonder and awe, where most people directly experiencethe sacred, where the question of God is not contrived. Thatthe Torah was revealed in wilderness is not coincidental. Butthe Jewish community is culturally divorced from the natu-ral world. Why don’t we use this proven classroom to teachabout God? Many thousands of times a year, a young Jewfeels the sacred gift of spirit in nature and cannot connectthe experience to Judaism, an ironic blow to a people whoseorigins lie in the wilderness.

For more about Rabbi Comins and his latest book, go towww.makingprayerreal.com.


Response to Lauren Luskey

By Rabbi Mike Comins, Founder, TorahTrek Spiritual Wilderness Adventures

Torah at the Center


24 UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • DEPARTMENT OF LIFELONG JEWISH LEARNING • VOLUME 11, NO. 2 • SPRING 2008 • AVIV 576824 UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • DEPARTMENT OF LIFELONG JEWISH LEARNING • VOLUME 11, NO. 2 • SPRING 2008 • AVIV 576824 UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • TORAH AT THE CENTER • VOLUME 13, NO. 2 • WINTER 2010 • TEVET 577024 UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM • TORAH AT THE CENTER • VOLUME 13, NO. 3 • SPRING 2010 • AVIV 5770

Torah at the Center

Rabbi Jan Katzew, PhD, RJE, Lead SpecialistWendy Grinberg, RJE, Editor

© 2010

UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6778

Phone: 212.650.4110 • Fax : 212.650.4199 • www.urj.org/learning

The Union is Here for YouContact an education or youth specialist for consulting.

urj.org/about/contact/specialists

Join a network to talk to others in the Movement about adult learning,Hebrew education, early engagement or other topics.

urj.org/connect/network

Learn from experts by joining a live webinar or watching an archived one.urj.org/webinars

Mira Angrist, Hebrew

Lisa Lieberman Barzilai, RJE, Young Adults

Margie Bogdanow, Youth

Joan Carr, RJE, Education

Rabbi Joan Glazer Farber, RJE, Adult Learning

Melanie Cole Goldberg, RJE, Education

Wendy Grinberg, RJE, Adult Learning

Rabbi Jan Katzew, Ph.D., RJE, Lead Specialist

Lisa Langer, RJE, Education

Alan Levin, Ph.D., Education

Jennifer Magalnick, RJE, Early Childhood

Marlene Myerson, RJE, Education

Deborah Niederman, RJE, Education

Cathy Rolland, Early Childhood

Craig Rosen, Youth

Rabbi Vicki Tuckman, Education

Jane West Walsh, Ed.D., Day School

Rabbi Laura Novak Winer, RJE, Youth


Documents

Torah at the Centerhuc.edu/sites/default/files/News-Events/legacy/2010/april... · 2019. 12. 12. · unionforreformjudaism volume13, no. 3 • spring2010 • aviv5770 in this issue