The Jewish Renewal Movement in Israeli Secular society

The Jewish Renewal Movement in Israeli SecularSociety

Rachel Werczberger • Na’ama Azulay

Received: 24 September 2009 / Accepted: 8 February 2011 / Published online: 17 March 2011

� Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract In the last decade, one can note among secular Israelis the growing

interest in Jewish texts and non-orthodox Jewish ritual. This interest is manifested in

the increasing numbers of secular Batei- Midrash (Houses of Learning), Batei-Tfila(Houses of Prayer), and Jewish secular mass events taking place seasonally.

Common to these grassroots activities is the attempt to reconstruct the Jewish

secular identity and include new Jewish dimensions within it. These activities have

been named by scholars, media and activists as the Jewish Renewal phenomenon:

Hitchadshut Yehudit. In this paper, we propose that the various Jewish renewal

activities lead to collective action that alters the conception of secular Jewish

identity. Using the prism of the ‘New Social Movements’(NSM) theory we argue

that the Jewish Renewal Movement is a NSM with a shared narrative and vision.

The paper will present the characteristics of the various Jewish Renewal organi-

zations that identify them as a New Social Movement and the movement’s historical

development from the 1960’s to the present.

Keywords Jewish renewal � New social movements � Jewish identity �Secular Judaism

This paper was co-written by the two authors, with equal contributions to the paper by each of them.

R. Werczberger (&)

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Jerusalem, Israel

e-mail: [email protected]

N. Azulay

The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bar–Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Cont Jewry (2011) 31:107–128

DOI 10.1007/s12397-011-9063-x

Introduction

In the past decade, the secular Israeli public seems to be developing a special

interest in a variety of Jewish activities and issues, such as: pluralistic Jewish study

groups (Batei Midrash), secular prayer houses (Batei Tefilah), and more. These

activities, not previously of interest in the secular realm, are gradually attracting

Israelis from various walks of life.

Drawing on New Social Movement (NSM) theory (Melucci 1994; Offe 1985;

Touraine 1985) and Anthony Giddens’ (1991) conception of reflexive modernity

and the reflexive self, we claim that the range of Jewish Renewal1 activities have

come together in a collective action that is changing and restructuring secular

Jewish identity. These activities are not confined to the private arena, but influence

the public discourse in Israel, as evident in the media (for examples, see Ben-Ami

2006; Meir 2007) and in public political activity (Bender and Turgeman 2007; Ilan

2007). Despite the differences among them, the various organizations, informal

groups and collective activities, together, create a New Social Movement (NSM)

which challenges the binary discourse of religion versus secularism in Israeli society

(Shenhav 2008). Jewish Renewal aims to facilitate new Jewish expressions within

the Israeli Jewish arena, including the creation and cultivation of a viable, secular

Jewish existence within the secular Israeli sphere. In practice, this entails the

willingness to revive Jewish ways of learning and ritualizing, while retaining a

secular Israeli Jewish identity.

The scope of participation, the forms of activity and the variety of themes

addressed are expanding from year to year. Pluralistic Batei Midrash2 and learning

communities––to which the general public is exposed––have become the infra-

structure for Jewish identity activities among secular Israelis. In recent years, a

variety of activities have been added to these study groups, including lifecycle

ceremonies and holiday rituals, social justice projects based on Jewish values,

ordination of secular rabbis, secular Batei Tefilah, and cultural, experiential events

for the general public. In these groups and events, the secular search is extended

beyond study to the social and ceremonial aspects of the Jewish lifecycle and

calendar. Thus, for instance, in the case of the secular prayer house communities,

they all share an experimental spirit and seek to articulate new Jewish ideas, values

and ceremonies that reflect an underlying dialogue with Jewish heritage and Israeli

culture (Jaeger 2009).

1 It should be noted that the term ‘‘Jewish Renewal’’ in North America and in Israel refers to two

different movements. In the United States, Jewish Renewal is a trans-denominational, neo-Hasidic

movement whose goal is to renew Judaism by drawing on Hasidic and Kabbalistic sources and

emphasizing the spiritual aspects of Judaism (for instance: Weissler 2008, Magid 2006). The Israeli

‘‘Jewish Renewal Movement,’’ the topic of this paper, has no thematic or organizational connection to the

North American ‘‘Jewish Renewal.’’ The name ‘‘Jewish Renewal’’ was suggested by the movement’s

leadership in the early1990s. See footnote 3.2 Traditionally Batei Midrash are the central study halls in the male dominated yeshivot and synagogues.

In Jewish Renewal, this term is used to signify a mode of peer learning of Jewish and Hebrew sources by

men and women.

108 R. Werczberger, N. Azulay

123

From 1995 to 2001, some 2,000 people joined the pluralistic Batei Midrashyearly (Azulay 2001). During 2004, over 50,000 people participated in Jewish

calendar pluralist events and ceremonies organized by the Israel Association of

Community Centers (IACC) throughout the country; and in 2008, their number

reached 380,000 (IACC unpublished). These events typically include a variety of

cultural activities based on Jewish themes, among them lectures, workshops,

concerts and more. The purpose of the IACC programming is to enable community

members to learn about the historic and contemporary connotations of each of the

Jewish holidays by a creative and experiential approach.

The notion of secular Judaism is often perceived as an inherent contradiction by

those who define Judaism exclusively in religious terms. However, for those who

participate in Jewish Renewal activities, this participation does not contradict their

own self-definition as sociologically belonging to the Israeli secular realm. These

individuals and groups accept the contribution of Jewish texts, symbols and values

as part of their cultural heritage, while retaining their sociological definition as

secular Israelis.

It is important to distinguish between the approach of Jewish Renewal to Jewish

motifs and that of Zionist civil religion. While Zionist civil religion used Jewish

symbols, calendar, ceremonies, etc., in order to unite the Jewish Israeli national

collective and legitimize its political social order (Liebman and Don Yehiya 1983),

Jewish Renewal uses Jewish texts and rituals in order to render them meaningful for

secular Israeli individuals and communities.

The Jewish Renewal Movement3 (in Hebrew: Hatnu’a Lehitchadshut Yehudit)was formed against the backdrop of ongoing cultural and religious identity changes

in the Western world in general, and in Israel in particular, over the past 30 years.

On a global level, the individual is increasingly expected to create clear and well

defined anchors for his identity, some of which are to be found within his unique

cultural roots (Melucci 1996). On a local level, the erosion of the Zionist meta-

narrative enhances, to some extent, a return to the traditional Jewish identities

framed within contemporary meanings.

These changes can also be linked to parallel trends in US Jewry. Current research

reveals that Jewish identity among American Jews is gradually becoming an

achieved identity or achieved status (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Davidman 2003).

Studies of the moderately affiliated and the un-affiliated Jews stress the increasing

autonomy among the current generations of Jews in choosing ways to express their

Jewish identity. Within the traditional and historical confines of Jewish culture,

then, there is actually extensive room for autonomy (Davidman 2003).

To date, researchers have avoided defining Jewish Renewal in the secular realm

as a social movement, and have chosen to regard it as a phenomenon or trend

(Sagiv-Hacohen 2004). In this manner, they ignore the central aspects that

characterize contemporary social movements as interactive social networks that

create collective, organized, conscious and continuous activity (Diani 1999).

3 The term Jewish Renewal was first coined in the early 1990s by the founders of Panim, a Jewish

Renewal umbrella and advocacy organization working to promote pluralistic Judaism in Israel in

partnership with over 50 Jewish Renewal organizations and institutions.

The Jewish Renewal Movement 109

123

This study suggests an analysis of the Jewish Renewal phenomenon from the

perspective of a NSM.4 We begin our discussion of the Jewish Renewal movement

in the present in order to establish our claim that Jewish Renewal is a NSM.

Following that, we will depict the various stages of the movement’s development,

beginning in the mid-1960s to the present, and conclude the paper with a speculative

attempt to identify various issues regarding the movement’s future trajectory.

The empirical materials for this study are derived from a qualitative study

conducted by Na’ama Azulay from 2004 through 2007. In her study, Azualy aspired

to recognize the diverse locations and contexts in which the Jewish Renewal

movement is active. The research was based on over 50 participant observations in

various organizations, and 30 in-depth interviews with formal and informal key

figures in the movement. The choice to focus on leadership was based on the

perception that the leadership of the movement best represents its ideology, values

and attitudes (Hermann 1995). Accordingly, the interviews were based on criterion

sampling, in which leadership was the predetermining criterion. The research also

included observations of group rituals, study sessions, festivals, and long-term study

courses, as well as organizations’ meetings. In addition, various printed and

electronic media publications and minutes from meetings were analyzed.

Social Movement Theory: Old and New

A social movement is a collective, organized, sustained, and non-institutional

challenge to authorities, power-holders or cultural beliefs and practices

(Goodwin and Jasper 2003 p. 3).

Human history is fraught with examples of protest activities that reflect an

organized effort to change social reality. Such activities usually take the form of

social movements––non-institutional groups and organizations which deal with

issues that often challenge the political order (Dalton and Kuechler 1990). In

democratic nation states, these movements typically introduce new issues to the

public discourse and attempt to expand civil involvement patterns in processes of

policy decisions, planning and even implementation (Churchman and Sadan 2003).

Civil involvement is often contingent on the political opportunity structure, i.e.,consistent, permanent dimensions of the political struggle that encourage people to

engage in contentious politics. Tarrow (1998) argues that contentious politics via

social movements emerge when ordinary citizens, sometimes encouraged by

counter-elites or leaders, respond to opportunities that lower the costs of collective

action, reveal potential allies, show where elites and authorities are most vulnerable,

and trigger social networks and collective identities into action around common

issues.

4 The few academic papers that deal with this phenomenon have thus far focused mainly on its

organizational aspects (Azulay 2001; Yoffe and Arad 2003), studied the learning content and forms in

pluralistic Batei Midrash (Ben-Avot et al. 2002; Yair et al. 2006) or focused on the identity of its

participants (Sagiv and Lomsky-Feder 2007).


123

The social conflicts of the 1960s have led scholars to conclude that collective

identities are not merely a dimension in the collective action of the social

movements, but rather their primary goal. Thus, the NSM theory, first developed in

Western Europe and later in the United States, claims that the New Social

Movements of the post-industrial era, with their distinct ideological outlook, are

fundamentally different from the working class movements of the industrial period

(Olofsson 1988, Pichardo 1997). Rather than focusing on economic redistribution––

as working class movements do––NSMs emphasize lifestyle concerns and culture

and identity claims (Pichardo 1997). The focus on identity is considered unique in

modern movements because: ‘‘identity politics also express the belief that identity

itself––its elaboration, expression or affirmation––is and should be a fundamental

focus of political work’’ (Kauffman 1990 p. 67).

While some contest the newness of contemporary social movements, claiming

that even in the old movements, program and standing demands were often

accompanied by identity claims (Tilly 2004; Calhoun 1995), others point to the

changing meanings of these demands when set in new and different social and

cultural systems (Melucci 1994). Another possible way of rendering the differences

between old and new movements is by indicating that for the new movements,

identity and culture are not merely a means of mobilizing actors to pursue common,

often economic, interests, but rather, the new movements attempt to alter the

cultures and identities of the social actors.

The NSM theory emphasizes both the historic and cultural perspective and the

institutional structure from which, or in relation to which, new forms of organization

and action develop (Ben-Eliezer 1999). Thus, the theory links the evolution of

NSMs to the contemporary information, post-industrial or networked society

(Melucci 1996; Castells 1998) and to the conditions of late modernity (Giddens

1991). Melucci (1996) posits that in the contemporary era, social conflicts tend to

focus on personal identity, on the time and space of life, and on motivation and

codes of daily behavior. The production and re-appropriation of meaning seem to lie

at the core of contemporary conflicts, and identity must be forever re-established.

NSMs are thus rendered as a collective expression in which individual identities are

recomposed and unified into a unique group consciousness and their identity actions

are understood as the reflexive actions of a conscious actor (Melucci 1985; Touraine

1985).

According to Giddens (1991), the de-traditionalizing impulse of late modernity is

expressed through the pervasiveness of reflexivity. The self is seen as a reflexive

project for which the individual is responsible. Reflexivity refers to the continual

and organized use of knowledge about social life in order to re-order and transform

it (Giddens 1991). It is the constant monitoring and revision of beliefs and practices

in light of changing circumstances and constant flow of information (Mellor 1993;

Melucci 1994).

While Gidden’s rendition of reflexivity refers to the nature of the self and of late

modern society, it is also applicable to the NSMs. In fact, scholars have noted the

self-reflexive character of the new social movements as one of their unique,

ideological features along with their emphasis on identity (Pichardo 1997). This

means that NSM participants are constantly questioning the meaning of what is


123

being done, leading to conscious choices of structures and action (Cohen 1985;

Melucci 1994). In the case of the Jewish Renewal movement, the movement’s

participants question the meaning of their Jewish identity and attempt to reconstitute

it with new and contemporary meanings by engaging in Jewish study and ritual.

The Jewish Renewal Movement as a NSM

The various enterprises of Jewish Renewal in Israel should be seen as a NSM that

has developed over the course of the last three decades. This movement, developing

out of the changing Israeli political opportunity structure and evolvement of Israeli

civil society, operates with a reasonable degree of stability and continuity, and its

activity is carried out by organizations and groups growing in numbers and

constantly creating new methods of operation (Azulay 2001, 2006, Yoffe and Arad

2003).

Located within the Israeli civil sphere, together with other NSMs, such as the

feminist movement, the environmental movement, civil rights and peace organi-

zations, gay rights associations and more (Ben-Eliezer 1999), the Jewish Renewal

Movement is distinctive in the sense that it is centered on issues concerning

collective Jewish identity. The reconstruction of secular Jewish identity in new,

innovative, and non-Orthodox ways, and the ambition to gain public recognition for

this new formation, challenges some of the fundamental codes of Israeli society

dominated by Orthodox Jewish hegemony.

Thus, for instance, the Bina Center for Jewish Identity and Hebrew Culture,established in 1996 by the United Kibbutz Movement (Takam), strives ‘‘to

strengthen Israel as a democratic, pluralistic society, stressing humanistic aspects of

Judaism.’’ A closer look at the organization’s vision reveals the following goals5:

• To create a movement within the Israeli secular sphere that takes responsibility

for Jewish Hebrew culture and extends its influence through partner groups and

organizations;

• To develop a cultural-educational center for young adults where study groups,

holiday and cultural events and classes will be held. The centers’ students will

be encouraged to assume responsibility and become active within the

community, particularly in neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic levels;

• To establish and develop a network of Jewish renewal communities with a

common language, ethos, symbols and rituals;

• To generate public impact anchored in Jewish Renewal.

These goals, shared by many Jewish Renewal organizations, include some of the

key characteristics of social movements in general and of NSMs in particular. First,

the aspiration to generate social change articulated here as the wish to impact social

processes, is indicative of the emphasis placed by the movement on its role as a

social movement. Secondly, these goals disclose Jewish Renewal’s ambition to

influence the Israeli public sphere with respect to issues concerning Jewish culture.

5 Translated and edited from Bina’s website by Noga Samia.


123

Thirdly, it is the Jewish Renewal movement’s emphasis on identity creation that

enables us to categorize it not only as a social movement, but also as a NSM.

As NSM participants, Jewish Renewal participants reflexively question their

Jewish identity and aspire to renew its meaning by engaging in Jewish culture and

tradition. The reconstruction of Jewish identity is accomplished through the study of

canonic Jewish sources and performance of secular, non-Orthodox Jewish

ceremonies and rituals (Sagiv and Lomsky-Feder 2007; Goodman and Yonah

2004). It should be noted that although the formulation of a secular Jewish identity

avoids direct confrontation with Orthodoxy, the movement’s focus on Jewish study

and ritual does challenge and modify Israeli public discourse on Jewish identity, in

which secular and religious are typically polarized.

Beyond these specific goals, further features of NSMs are evident in the Jewish

Renewal Movement, such as the explicit wish to obtain and acquire public socialcapital (Dalton and Kuechler 1990) in the arenas of Jewish identity, culture and

tradition. By engaging in Jewish culture––either by studying Jewish texts or by

holding non-Orthodox, secular, Jewish rituals (Azulay and Tabory 2008)––Jewish

Renewal activists re-appropriate Jewish tradition from the stronghold of Orthodoxy.

Dr. Motti Zeira, director of Hamidrasha at Oranim College, and one of the

founders of the movement, says6:

We don’t want to forego Jewish terminology. Why give it up? Because one

sector of Judaism took full control of it? ‘‘Our’’ Beit Midrash, ‘‘Our’’

synagogue, ‘‘Our prayers,’’ ‘‘Our’’ God. Everything is ‘‘ours’’ [i.e., theirs—the

Orthodox]. I don’t want to forego use of these terms. Just the opposite! Why

do I have to try and define myself and invent a new dictionary? Because the

basic vocabulary is already expropriated [by the Orthodox] or carries so much

[Orthodox] meaning?

Moreover, the desire to gain ownership of collective goods or public commod-

ities, which is one of the central features of social movements at large, has lately

expanded beyond the symbolic and cultural realm to the concrete political world. In

recent years, the movement has taken part in legal struggles against the state for

funding equivalent to that of the Orthodox institutions; for the recognition of secular

conversion (giyur); and for the establishment and institutionalization of secular

lifecycle ceremonies in general and secular marriages in particular.

Like many NSMs, the Jewish Renewal Movement is not driven by a single

ideology, but is characterized by a pluralism of ideas and values (Johnston et al. 1994;

Touraine 1985). The movement does not have a clear model of an ideal society or a

comprehensive worldview. On the contrary, one of the defining traits of the

movement is its ability to include multilateral perceptions, various forms of Jewish

knowledge, and even ideological differences, as long as they do not constitute an

essential contradiction. Although all of the organizations of the Jewish Renewal

Movement focus on collective secular Jewish identity, one can find a rich variety of

action orientations, motivated by different value systems: some organizations, groups

6 The original quote in Hebrew is taken from an interview conducted on November 7, 2005.


123

or individuals emphasize the intellectual aspects, some focus on the cultural aspects,

and others on community or ritual dimensions.

The ideological segmentation of the Jewish Renewal Movement is also mirrored

in its structure. In a manner similar to other contemporary social movements, the

structure of the Jewish Renewal Movement is segmented, polycentric and

networked (Gerlach 2001). By segmented, we mean that the movement is composed

of many diverse, semi-autonomous groups with overlapping segments and

complexly intertwined, so that many people are simultaneously members of several

segments. Thus, a teacher in a secular Beit Midrash, may, at the same time, be a

member in Beit Tefilah and serve on the board of directors in a Jewish educational

organization.

The polycentric structure of the movement is reflected in the multiple, often

temporary and sometimes competing, leaders or centers of influence. The leaders,

like the segments, are not organized in a hierarchy. There is no one person who

claims to speak for the movement as a whole, any more than there is one group that

represents the movement (Gerlach 2001). While the leaders of the Jewish Renewal

movement are more likely to be charismatic than bureaucratic, a concerted effort is

made to avoid a clear and authoritative hierarchy, to the greatest extent possible.

Examples of this effort are evident in the shifting of positions within the

organizational hierarchy, and by involving members in decision making and action

committees in an attempt to include them in the development of the organization

and its future. Similarly, group ceremonies and prayers are usually led by a number

of people rather than by one leader, such as a rabbi or a cantor.

The diverse groups of the movement are not isolated from each other. On the

contrary, they form an integrated network or reticulate structure through non-

hierarchical, social linkages among their participants and through the understand-

ings, identities, and opponents these participants share (Gerlach 2001 p. 295).

Networking enables movement participants to exchange information and ideas, and

to coordinate participation in joint action. Networks do not have a defined limit, but

rather expand or contract as groups interact or part ways. Accordingly, the Jewish

Renewal Movement’s various organizations are now formed into several non-formal

and formal networks, such as the Batei Midrash network, the Batei- Tefilah network,and more.

Furthermore, the movement’s participants are not only linked internally, but are

in direct contact with members of other movements with whom they share attitudes

and values. Through these links, the movement can draw material support, recruit

new supporters, and expand coordination for joint action (Gerlach 2001). In the

Jewish Renewal Movement, this feature is discernible in the joint projects

implemented with the liberal-progressive movements, and Reform, Conservative

and liberal-Orthodox organizations.

Finally, it has been argued by some scholars (for example, Pichardo 1997) that

the NSM participants are the typical, new middle class––a recently emerged social

stratum employed in the non-productive sectors of the economy, i.e., in academia,

the arts, and human services agencies. The Jewish Renewal movement participants

fit this conception. Most of them belong to the old elites of Israeli society: middle

class, academic and of Ashkenazi origin (Kimmerling 2001), also belonging to the


123

new middle class of Israeli society (Yair et al. 2006). It can be assumed that the

social capital (Bourdieu 1973) possessed by these groups together with the late

modern value shift from material to post-material values (Ingelhart 1997), enables

them to become a significant catalyst in the reformulation of secular Jewish identity

in Israel.

The value shift from material to post-material values which stress issues of

identity, participation, and quality of life, rather than economic or national concerns

(Pichardo 1997; Ingelhart 1997), is emblematic of the multiple changes in Israeli

society, particularly in the middle classes in the last few decades. Accordingly, we

will proceed to describe the various stages in the development of the Jewish

Renewal Movement, emphasizing the social and cultural transformations taking

place in Israeli society as they are reflected in the various phases of the movement’s

development.

Stages in the Growth of the Jewish Renewal Movement7

Studies of social movements illustrate that the creation and establishment processes

of a NSM usually include various stages of change in cultural content and collective

identity consolidation (Whittier 1995). Analysis of the growth of the Jewish

Renewal movement reveals progressive restructuring of Jewish secular identity

mediated by social and historic changes in Israeli society, due to both local

processes and global effects.

Locally, as stated earlier, one can pinpoint the individuation processes in Israeli

society and a decline in the importance of collective values (Ram 2005) underway

throughout the last 20 years. The erosion of the Zionist national religion as the focalpoint of Zionist secular identity has resulted in the decline of the cultural-national

hegemonic center and created an alternative de-centralized and multi-voiced social

system. These new social orientations focus mainly on individual rights, legitimi-

zation of personal satisfaction and a capitalistic consumer lifestyle, alongside a

sense of dissatisfaction with Israeli public affairs (Taub 1997; Almog 2004;

Kimmerling 2001). Subsequent to these changes, many Israelis search for personal

meaning and explore sources of personal and group identity (Beit-Hallahmi 1992).

These years have also demonstrated the impact of globalizing processes shaping

Israeli society as a post-modern or post-industrial society (Ram 2005). As noted

above, modernity, or rather late modernity institutionalizes the principle of radical

doubt and uncertainty. In the post-traditional order of modernity, the self has to be

reflexively made amid a puzzling diversity of options and choices (Giddens 1991).

The search for a self-identity has led individuals and groups in Israeli society to

attempt to redefine the meaning of Jewish identity in the secular realm of

contemporary Israeli society.

7 The history of the Jewish Renewal Movement described here is based on interviews held by Na’ama

Azulay in a previous study (Azulay 2001) with the following Jewish Renewal entrepreneurs: Shai Zarhi,

Dr. Motti Zeira, Dr. Zvi Zameret, Ari Alon, Meir Yoffe, Dr. Elan Ezrahi and Dr. Ruth Calderon.


123

The development of the Jewish Renewal movement can be divided into four

main historic stages which represent the development of collective Jewish secular

identity and the transformation of Jewish Renewal ideas and perceptions regarding

the Jewish tradition. The first stage, the late 1960s and early 1970s, is that of the

initial initiatives, in which a handful of people acted as pioneers in the field. In the

second stage, the first generation of students began to form the first organizations

and recruit students of their own.

In these two initial stages of the movement, the study of Jewish traditional texts

reflected the attempt to confront Orthodox domination and to re-appropriate the

traditional Jewish textual sources in a non-Orthodox and secular manner. The secular

Jewish identity of these stages can be characterized as confrontational––a Jewish-

secular identity framed vis-a-vis and in defiance of the Orthodox religious one.

In the third stage, the growth decade, from the mid-1990s to 2005, the movement

grew and expanded significantly, both in terms of numbers of participants and the

types of programming conducted. This stage is characterized by the pluralism of

ideas and values regarding Jewish Renewal. While the intellectual confrontational

approach was still very much apparent––especially in literary and artistic projects

(Sperber 2006; Alon 1999)—other modes of Jewish engagement emerged as well.

Most notable among them is the dialogic approach. The deepening schism between

religious and secular Jews which followed the assassination of Prime Minister

Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 generated a desire to engage in a dialogue through the

mutual study of Jewish texts. The study of Jewish sources was now regarded as

a basis for the renewal of collective Jewish Israeli solidarity. Other forms of

Jewish engagement which began to develop in this period were experiential

Jewish activities, such as celebration of Jewish holidays. At these events, Jewish

ceremonies, such as Seder Tu-Bishvat or the Passover Seder, were celebrated by

reading short texts from the Jewish canon and Israeli literature, combined with

Israeli folk singing.

Generally speaking, during this stage, the overt defiance of Jewish tradition

characterizing the former stages started to decline and a more placid approach to

Jewish secular identity began to emerge. Jewish tradition was now conceived as a

tool kit (Swidler 1986)––a wide range of available, cultural artifacts––symbols and

values, etc., from which the secular Jew may choose. Usually, the symbols that were

selected were those that proved to be the most instrumental to the needs of the

movement. The movement drew on Jewish festivals, texts, symbols, etc., which

were embraced by a wide consensus in Israeli culture––such as Tu Bishvat or

Kabbalat Shabbat (ceremony welcoming the arrival of the Sabbath). It was around

this that Jewish Renewal participants were able to find the source for a cohesive

bond among themselves.

The fourth and current stage is that of institutionalization and integration. In this

phase, we see the beginnings of orderly and stable forms and structures, which

include the consolidation of loose activities into established and permanent ones.

This stage is characterized by expansion of secular Jewish engagement, beyond

study, to the social and ritualistic aspects of the Jewish lifecycle and calendar. This

development has two distinct forms: the first is the significant growth of activities

centering on Jewish lifecycle ceremonies such as weddings or Bar and Bat Mitzva


123

ceremonies, which led to the development of new organizations for dealing with

these issues; the second is the establishment of communities and prayer houses in

which secular members assemble in order to celebrate Jewish ritual and prayer.

Typically, these communities congregate for the Sabbath prayer services (Azulay

and Tabory 2008; Azulay and Gur 2008). While each one of these communities has

its unique character, they all share an experimental spirit and seek to articulate new

Jewish ideas, values and ceremonies which reflect an underlying dialogue with

Jewish heritage and Israeli culture (Jaeger 2009).

In this stage, Jewish tradition is affirmed, and at the same time, is reinterpreted in

order to accommodate contemporary modern values. By actively engaging in Jewish

praxis, the activities of the movement challenge the perceived dichotomy between

the religious and secular identities. The Jewish secular identity is recreated as a

hybrid identity––secular and religious at the same time.

It should be noted that the periodic definitions of the stages are somewhat

arbitrary. Indeed, in practice, the periods somewhat overlap.

The First Stage: Initial Initiatives

The Six Day War was in many senses a watershed moment in the short history of the

State of Israel. The Yom Kippur War, which followed, wiped out the bogus power

intoxication of the period. The cumulative result of the two wars was the decline of

the mythological Sabra (native-born Israeli) image and the beginning of the Israeli

identity crisis (Almog 2000). At this time, certain politicians and kibbutz members

began to explore the concept of Israeli and to incorporate Jewish dimensions into it

(Auron 1993; Ufaz 1986). Avraham Shapira (Patchi), Yariv Ben-Aharon and Muki

Tzur gathered together a group of young people who were committed to secular

Jewish culture. In 1960, they established Shdemot––the kibbutz periodical and the

Shdemot Havura (circle). Until the Six Day War, Shdemot and the Shdemot Havurawere not widely known, but following the publication of The Seventh Day: SoldiersTalk about the Six-Day War8 in the aftermath of the war (Shapira 1971), a new

cultural, secular Jewish realm developed. The book, written by leaders of the

kibbutz movement and leading intellectuals, proved to be the expression of a new

cultural phase in which a platform for methodical contemplation and reflection on

the issue was offered (Hadari 2002). In 1969, following the publication of the book,

the American Conservative Movement proposed that Avraham Shapira recruit a

group of Israeli kibbutz members to live and study with its rabbinical students in

Israel (Paz 2003). It was the very same group of students who later, in the 1970s,

dispersed throughout Israel and initiated the first Jewish Renewal organizations.

In the 1970s, the ideas of the Shdemot Havura spread slowly and gradually.

During this period, the first network of individuals and groups in the realm of Jewish

renewal was formed. This network would later serve as a platform for the

development of additional entrepreneurs, groups and organizations. Towards the

end of 1977, Oranim College of Education in northern Israel decided to establish

8 The book, titled in Hebrew: Siah Lochamim (Soldiers’ Talk), was published right after the war in 1967.


123

the Zionist Institution of the Kibbutz Movement. The lack of secular teachers well-

versed in the field of Jewish identity proved to be the catalyst for the initiative of

Muki Tzur, Yariv Ben-Aharon and Aviva Zamir to establish an interdisciplinary

workshop at Efal Seminar in 1978. Some of the workshop participants later became

the entrepreneurs of the Jewish Renewal movement in Israel.

In summary, the first stage of the Jewish Renewal movement is characterized by

individual entrepreneurs who challenged the myth of the Israeli Sabra, whose

Jewish identity had been weakened and constricted. Chiefly by means of study, they

enabled the emergence of much wider Jewish identity awareness.

The Second Stage: From Individual Entrepreneurs to Ideological Expansion

The fundamentally critical stage in the development of any social movement is the

stage at which the activity, which, initially reserved for the few, begins to expand

and to influence wider circles and communities. In the case of the Jewish Renewal

Movement, this stage occurred, and not by chance, in the late 1980s, when civil

protest and NSMs began forming in Israeli society (Ben-Eliezer 1999). The political

opportunity structure of the time (Tarrow 1998), reflected in the transition from

centralized economy to decentralized open market, the first Intifada (Palestinian-

Arab uprising) that changed the Israeli security perception, and the partisan political

crisis of the late 1980s led to the eruption of social political protest that created, in

time, different forms of collective action and expanded Israeli civil society

significantly (Ben-Eliezer 1999).

At this point, we can detect three main directions of development in the Jewish

Renewal Movement, the footprints of which are discernable to this day: 1. The

formation of study groups that dealt with the secular–religious dialogue. 2. The

establishment of organizations which focused on construction of Jewish secular

identity. 3. The creation of an ideological platform centered on the concept of

Judaism as a culture, by which Judaism is understood as the sum of Jewish heritage

throughout the ages.

The first direction is marked by the establishment, in 1989, of the organization

Elul, founded in order to promote joint Jewish study in an open and equal

environment for religious and secular members. The second direction is represented

by Hamidrasha at Oranim, established the same year. Its vision was to construct an

educational identity pedagogy approach that draws from Jewish, academic, Zionist

and psychosocial sources. The third direction, which mainly aspired to promote the

concept of Judaism as a culture is represented by the establishment of the Israeli

Secular Movement for Humanistic Judaism (Techila) in 1992.

These organizations were the first established efforts that emerged on the Jewish

identity arena in Israel and paved the way for legitimization of secular Jewish

identity development. By offering new and innovative ways to study, explore and

experience this identity, they increased the ability of the secular Israeli to realize

autonomy in the construction of his Jewish identity. Thereafter, secular Jewish

identity would include an extended toolbox (Swidler 1986)––a repertoire of unique

cultural characteristics––richer in Jewish components.


123

The Third Stage: Breakthrough

In the mid-1990s, additional groups and organizations active in the Jewish Renewal

scene were established in quick succession, and the media picked up on the

phenomenon. Various new social phenomena, such as the Shenhar Committee

(Yoffe and Arad 2003), New Age spirituality (Simchai 2005), the increase in travel

to India (Maoz 2005) and the rise of the Mizrahi voice (North African and Middle-

Eastern Jews) facilitated a view of the nature of Jewish identity from a broader

perspective by the secular public. The launch of Partnership 2000 by the Jewish

Agency, and, consequently, the connections forged between North American Jewish

and secular Israeli communities, revealed new alternatives to non-Orthodox Jewish

expression (Azulay 2001).

Nevertheless, it seems that the main catalyst for the Jewish Renewal

breakthrough was the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. This

event forcibly reflected the dire consequences of the polarization between religious

and secular in Israel to the Israeli public (Peri 2005). The recognition that Israelis

were divided not only by different opinions, but by firm intercultural boundaries as

well, created the desire to begin a dialogue process (Sheleg 2000). Groups such as

Du-Siach (Dialogue), Bamidbar, the Yahad Unit of the IACC and the joint secular–

religious, pre-military preparatory programs (Mechinot) (Hacohen-Wolf et al. 2006)

were formed as a result.

Besides these organizations that centered on the concept of secular-religious

dialogue, others were formed as a venue for self-reflection. Among some secular

Israelis, the Rabin assassination heightened the sense that Judaism had been

expropriated by Orthodoxy. These organizations stressed the aspects of conflict with

Orthodoxy in their activities.Bina,Alma andothers are examples of suchorganizations.

In the late 1990s and the early 21st century, new Jewish spiritual communities

emerged. Some of these communities took on a New Age form (Werczberger) and

others emphasized more non-Orthodox Jewish lifecycle ceremonies. Both types of

community revolved around the Jewish calendar and held events like KabbalatShabbat (ceremony welcoming the arrival of the Sabbath) and holiday prayers. The

first secular prayer group, Niggun Halev (Melody of the Heart) was instituted in

2001 by a group of secular Jewish Renewal entrepreneurs. Such groups sought to

create a framework for a meaningful expression of Jewish spirituality that addresses

the needs of non-affiliated secular Jewish Israelis. Today, there are over 30 such

communities of worship active in Israel (Azulay and Tabory 2008), some of which

hold lifecycle ceremonies and other communal activities as well.

The Fourth Stage: From Organizations and Groups to Cohesive Networks

With the rapid expansion of Jewish Renewal organizations, its leaders became

aware that they were all active in the same arena and shared a common goal.

Consequently, the fourth stage is characterized by deliberate creation of organiza-

tional perception among the movement’s adherents, organizational networks and

inter-organizational cooperation, and finally, political advocacy.


123

Development of the Sense of Being a Movement

By this, we mean that the leaders of the movement are consciously striving to create

a sense of belonging among the participants of the different Jewish Renewal groups,

organizations and communities. At the same time, they try to produce the sense of a

cohesive movement among non-participants. This endeavor is executed by two

strategies of action. The first is the production of mass events intended to expose the

general public to Jewish Renewal activities. A good example of a joint inter-

organizational initiative is the Hakhel Festival of Jewish Learning, a study festival

combining Jewish identity and Israeli culture themes, held annually during Sukkoth.Another example is a Tikkun Leil Shavuot event, organized by Alma––Home forHebrew Culture, at the Tel Aviv Museum, which attracts thousands of participants

annually (Azulay and Tabory 2008). Typically, these events include a variety of

cultural activities based on Jewish and Israeli cultural themes, among them lectures,

study sessions, panel discussions and creative workshops, as well as perfor-

mances––music, plays, dance, and film. The importance of such events is derived

not only from their mass attendance, but from the significant media exposure and

the public discourse they provoke (see Blau and Sharon 2006; Sheleg 2006, and

others).

The intention of the second strategy is to create and train the future leadership of

the Jewish Renewal Movement, through courses such as Tehuda––a professional

Jewish leadership program conducted by Hamidrasha at Oranim and Kolot (voices)or Gvanim (hues), a leadership program sponsored by the Jewish Community

Federation of San Francisco. Furthermore, recently the movement developed

courses specializing in various intellectual and ritual activities, aimed to create

standardization in the field, such as: Havaya (lifestyle of existence) training courses

for facilitators of secular wedding ceremonies, or the Batei Midrash Association’s

courses for moderators of pluralistic Jewish study centers.

The Creation of Organizational Networks and Inter-Organizational

Collaboration

Panim for Jewish Renewal in Israel was the first umbrella organization, established

in 1998, by over 40 Jewish Renewal organizations in order to ‘‘make meaningful

and diverse Jewish cultural experiences the birthright of all Israeli Jews, and work

towards long-term, national reform that will make pluralistic Judaism an ever-

present and key factor influencing all aspects of the public agenda’’ (Panimwebsite). In 2005, the Network of Batei Midrash for Jewish Renewal was

established in order to explore ways to cooperate and empower the varied voices of

Judaism in the Israeli public discourse. In 2006, Havaya was founded as an

organization by Hamidrasha at Oranim, while Bina was founded, as was the SecularCeremonies Center, as an umbrella organization for lifecycle ceremonies.

Collaboration within the movement’s organizations for programming and events

increases from year to year, often influenced by the personal relations existing

among the leaders. These collaborative efforts are important in establishing a

common inter-organizational terminology as well as for reaching out to new


123

audiences. The involvement of liberal religious (Cohen 2005) organizations such as

Maagalei Tzedek (Circles of Justice), Tzohar (Window) or the Herzog Center, in

some of the Jewish Renewal struggles, indicates the expansion of the secular Jewish

identity arena and the increasing effacement of the secular-religious categories.

Moreover, the liberal denominations that have had difficulties integrating into

Israeli society for years (Tabory 2000) are now creating strong, personal and

organizational ties with the movement’s leaders. These developments affect the

boundaries of the Jewish identity arena by blurring them, and allow richer and more

complex Jewish identities to evolve.

As the networking processes expanded and the number of activists grew, the time

became ripe for political activism in the form of legal struggles, political lobbying

and use of the media to influence public discourse. In 2001, 22 pluralistic Jewish

education organizations formed a coalition led by Panim in order to protest against

discriminatory state funding. In early 2008, the movement’s political activity gained

an added dimension following an initiative by MP Yossi Beilin, Panim and

representatives of Jewish Renewal organizations to establish the MP Forum toPromote Secular Pluralistic Judaism in the Knesset. The lobby set forth the

following objectives: civil marriage, secular conversion, separation of religion and

state, funding for secular Jewish education, and, in the long run, the establishment of

a pluralistic Judaism movement.

These developments indicate that the Jewish Renewal Movement has made a

significant step towards the realization of the explicit goal of transforming the

personal, civil and political realms of the secular Jewish identity.

Future Trajectory of the Jewish Renewal Movement

In the late 1960s, a new social movement emerged in the Israeli social arena. Its aim

was to create a collective and affirmative Jewish identity within the secular realm.

The future trajectory of this movement is largely dependent on several social,

economic, ideological and structural issues which it must now face. We shall

proceed to consider the likelihood of the movement succeeding in attaining its goals

in relation to the foreseeable future course for the aforementioned issues and the

possibilities for their resolution.

Numerical Growth and Expansion

While the number of participants has grown significantly in recent years,

numerically speaking, the movement has not yet reached what Gladwell (2000)

calls the ‘tipping point’, i.e., the levels of participation at which the momentum for

the creation of a social movement becomes unstoppable. In order to have a

significant impact on Israeli society, the movement must continue its growth and

expand its activities. In order to increase the number of participants, the different

organizations implement new methods of recruitment, such as the creation of mass

exposure at Jewish pluralistic events as is the case for the Hakhel Festival or theShavuot Eve study event (Tikkun Leil Shavuot) at Alma College. In addition, there


123

has been a considerable increase in the movement’s public exposure through the

written and electronic media.

Furthermore, there is a constant active effort to make the movement more

inclusive with regard to various demographic populations, such as audiences of

Mizrachi origin, young adults, and first and second generation immigrants from the

Former Soviet Union (FSU).

As noted above, for a long period, most members of the Jewish Renewal

Movement belonged to the old elites of Israeli society characterized by middle class,

higher education, middle age and Ashkenazi origin (Hacohen-Wolf and Amasleg-

Bahar 2003). From the mid-1990s the Jewish Renewal Movement began gradually

spreading to peripheral areas of Israel, i.e., Ayarot Pituach (development towns)

such as Yeruham in the south, Beit Shemesh in the center and Migdal Ha’emek in

the north (Azulay 2001). Today, about 20% of all learning communities’ members

are of Mizrachi origin (Yair et al. 2006) and a much higher percentage can be found

in IACC groups and ORT schools’ parent study groups. The shifts in the

movement’s demography are a direct reflection of the composition of the Israeli

middle class. The new Israeli middle class is no longer composed solely of secular

Ashkenazim. Today, middle class Mizrachim also take an active role in the

reconstruction of the public sphere and the cultivation of new collective identities

(Cohen and Leon 2008).

With regard to new and old immigrants from the FSU, it is important to note that

generally for this group, Judaism does not play a crucial role in their personal

identity as compared to the role of their Russian origins (Dayan 2002). However,

efforts are still being made by the movement to reach out to this population. These

attempts are focused on three main areas: school activities, lifecycle ceremonies

(especially secular, civil weddings) and forming cultural Jewish communities. If at

first these attempts were designated mostly as marketing tools, FSU immigrants are

now looked upon as partners in the shaping of the movement.

Moreover, during the past few years, the movement’s leaders have realized that

the future of the movement largely depends on the existence of a next generation.

Today, almost all of the different organizations are developing programs aimed at

engaging young adults. However, and despite all these efforts, the involvement of

the old elites in the movement is still quite apparent and central. Changing this

pattern may be one of the movement’s greatest challenges in years to come.

Financial Resources

Like many of the other social movements, networks and organizations active in the

Israeli civil sphere, the movement’s ability to continue growing is contingent on its

future capacity to develop financial resources. At present, many of the Jewish

Renewal Movement’s groups and organizations are supported by American Jewish

philanthropy: the Jewish Community Federations and private funds.

Three issues influence the movement’s present economic status. The first

concerns the absence of a tradition of philanthropy in Israeli society. This absence––

which stands in striking contrast to the Jewish communities of the Diaspora and

particularly the United States––implies that the funding that is available from Israeli


123

philanthropy is usually directed to social causes, and not to Jewish identity causes.

Second, the movement’s ability to gain formal state support is limited due to the

state’s preferential treatment of Orthodox organizations and activities. Finally, since

the tradition of voluntarism is nearly absent in Israeli society, Israelis in general and

secular Israelis in particular, are not in the habit of supporting their religious

communities by voluntary contributions or aid, and instead tend to rely on

government assistance.

The current situation in which the movement’s activities are not funded by

participants, the state, or Israeli philanthropy, generates an overdependence on

external non-Israeli resources. Therefore it will be essential for the movement to

succeed in changing this situation: to continue the struggle to obtain equal

governmental resources similar to those allocated to the Orthodox institutional

establishment, to obtain local Israeli philanthropic funding and to familiarize the

participants with the concept of membership dues. Overcoming these obstacles

would help to create a stable economic platform for the movement’s future

operations.

Human Resources

As noted in the first section of this paper, the movement’s leadership has been

mostly grassroots with tendencies towards the charismatic type. However, in order

to facilitate further growth, the movement needs to move towards institutionali-zation of charisma, if we invoke Weberian terminology, and to train a new,

committed generation of skilled leaders. It seems as though the movement’s present

leadership is indeed aware of these concerns and attempts to develop various

leadership training courses such as Tehuda or Gvanim. However, these courses

presently concentrate more on Jewish knowledge and community building and less

on management skills.

The Movement’s Structure

As described above, the movement’s structure is networked, decentralized and

segmented. The attempt to develop an internal organizational language may be

rendered as the effort to overcome this segmentation. The use of a shared

terminology is intended to create a feeling, at least among leaders and participants,

of a common activity field. Accordingly, various terms and concepts have been

coined, such as pluralistic Batei Midrash, learning community (Kehilah Lomedet),Batei Tefilah, wedding workshop and more.

Organizational networks are another method through which the movement is

trying to overcome the problem of decentralization. As we demonstrated earlier, the

efforts to create new, inter-organizational networks have increased significantly in

the past few years, for example: Batei Midrash networks, educational networks,

Batei Tefilah networks, etc. We anticipate that in the future, this phenomenon will

continue to expand. If the development of common terminology and additional

networking continues, a cohesive movement identity may develop and strengthen

over time.


123

Bringing the Ideological Perception into Focus

Since the inception of the movement, a dialectical tension between two ideological

opposing perceptions has always existed. On the one hand, there is the tendency to

redefine Jewish secular identity while retaining its distinction from other Jewish

identities in the field (Orthodox, Reform, etc.). On the other hand, there have been

attempts to extend and modify the boundaries of the secular Jewish identity to

include other Jewish identities as well. By this approach, secular Jewish identity is

understood as a complex, hybrid entity that may include some religious dimension

as well. While this ideological ambiguity allows the Jewish liberal denominations

and even the Modern Orthodox to play a role in the development of the movement,

it may also prove to be a serious hindrance to the movement’s ability to have a

significant impact on the public sphere. In either case, the articulation of a coherent

ideological perception and the creation of a wide consensus among the various

groups and organizations, may lead to a higher success rate in achieving definite

objectives.

A Move Towards Formal Politics

The Jewish Renewal Movement aspires to create a counter-hegemonic worldview in

the field of Jewish identity in Israel. To this end, it seeks to transform the public’s

and the political establishment’s perception on this issue. While the efforts of the

movement’s first activists were directed towards the personal-private sphere, today

it is possible to detect increasing conscious efforts to actively influence the public

sphere. Nevertheless, these endeavors are not yet sufficient so as to be translated

into concrete politics (Cohen and Arato 1992; Della Porta and Diani 1999) which

can affect Israeli society in a significant manner. So far, only a few initial steps have

been taken, the last and possibly most important being the 2007 joint initiative by

MP Yossi Beilin (Meretz) and a number of Jewish Renewal groups to establish a

pluralistic lobby in the Knesset (Ilan 2007; Bender and Turgemann. 2007). Initiated

by the Panim Organization in 2008, the lobby was active in the struggle to change

the conversion (giyur) process in Israel.

Summary

The existence of the Jewish Renewal movement in the secular realm in Israel

indicates that various groups in Israeli society are challenging the existing social

order regarding Jewish identity. These groups’ aspirations to structure more

comprehensive and flexible definitions of Judaism create a NSM within Israeli civil

society. In the present, post-modern era, in which the individual’s personal identity

is under continuous attack by uncertainty, the Jewish Renewal movement aspires to

fill the need for a stable collective identity anchor in an unstable world.

Observing the developmental stages of the Jewish Renewal movement, from its

inception with unorganized and non-institutionalized individual initiatives in the

late 1960s, to the present organizational networks and state of political action,


123

reveals a coherent social movement with a narrative, activist orientation and

common strategies.

The intense evolution of the movement in the last few years makes it hard to

predict its ideological future. Contemporary trends raise a number of questions that

should be examined in future research: will it succeed in its efforts to penetrate new

populations and audiences? Will the Jewish Renewal movement become involved in

politics and what form will this involvement take? How will the movement expand

its financial resources? What form will the relations between the movement and

other actors in the Jewish identity arena take? How successful will the movement’s

struggle be in gaining public recognition and legitimization?

In Israeli society––a society that amalgamates Jewish identity with Jewish

Orthodox practices––the Jewish Renewal Movement forms a basis upon which new

identities that are not subordinated to the secular versus religious dichotomy can be

developed. The importance of the Jewish Renewal movement lies not in its size, but

in the fact that it creates new definitions of Jewish secular identity. The continued

development of the Jewish Renewal Movement depends, to a great extent, on its

ability to create a significant transformation in the existing systems of the Jewish

cultural and social symbols in Israeli society.

References

Almog, Oz. 2000. The Sabra: The creation of the new Jew. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Almog, Oz. 2004. Farwell to Srulik: Value changes in Israeli elites. Haifa: Haifa University Press

(Hebrew).

Alon, Ari. 1999. Alma-Di. Tivo’n: Sdemot (Hebrew).

Auron, Yair. 1993. Jewish Israeli identity. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim Publishing House Ltd (Hebrew).

Azulay, Naama. 2001. Secular Jewish identity: The organizational dimension. MA dissertation, Touro

College, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Azulay, Naama. 2006. Jewish renewal in the IACC communities––evaluation research. The Jewish

Federation of New York (Hebrew).

Azulay, Naama, and Eli Gur. 2008. Emerging spiritual communities in Israel’s secular arena. SurveyReport for the Jewish Federation of New York (Hebrew).

Azulay, Naama, and Ephraim Tabory. 2008. From houses of study to houses of prayer: Religious-cultural

developments in the Israeli secular sector. Social Issues in Israel 6: 121–156 (Hebrew).

Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. 1992. Despair and deliverance: Private salvation in contemporary Israel. NewYork: State University of New York Press.

Ben-Ami, Yuval. 2006. Le-Tzlileley Ha-Brera Ha-Tiv’it Be-Tel Aviv Ir Ha-Kodesh. Haaretz, January 10.Ben-Avot, Aaron, Talia Sagiv, and Noa Apeloig. 2002. The minischool program in Israel––a feasibility

report. Jerusalem: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

(report submitted to the Avi Chai Foundation).

Ben-Eliezer, Uri. 1999. Civil society in Israel society: Identity and politics in new social movements.

Israeli Sociology B(1): 51–98 (Hebrew).

Bender, Arik, and Yeshurun Turgemann. 2007. Yozmat Beilin–Get Kritut La-Torah. NRG, February 13

(Hebrew). http://www.nrg.co.il/Scripts/artPrint/artPrint.php?channel=11andchannelName=channel_

judaismandts=13022007182656. Accessed 23 Feb 2007.

Blau, Sahara, and Ro’i Sharon. 2006. Ve-Toda Le-Horai Sh-Heviuni Ad Halom. NRG, June 7.

http://www.maariv.co.il/online/11/ART/955/453.html. Accessed 10 June 2006.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Knowledge, education, andcultural change, ed. Richard K. Brown, 77–112. London: Tavistock.

Calhoun, Craig. 1995. New social movements of the early nineteenth century. In Repertoires and cyclesof collective action, ed. Mark Traugott, 173–216. Durham: Duke University Press.


123

Castells, Manuel. 1998. The power of identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Churchman, Arza, and Elisheva Sadan. 2003. Another look at participating. In Participating: Your way to

impact, ed. Arza Churchman and Elisheva Sadan. Tel-Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad (Hebrew).

Cohen, Asher. 2005. Ha-Kippa Ha-Sruga U-ma She-Acharia. Akdamot 15: 9–29.Cohen, Jean L. 1985. Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social

movements. Social Research 52(4): 663–716.

Cohen, Jean L., and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil society and political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cohen, Steven M., and Arnold M. Eisen. 2000. The Jew within: Self family and community in America.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cohen, Uri, and Nisim Leon. 2008. Le-She’elat Ha-Ma’amad Ha-bienoni Ha-Mizrachi BeIsrael. Alpaim32: 83–101.

Dalton, Russell, and M. Kuechler. 1990. Challenging the political order. New York: Oxford.

Davidman, Lynn. 2003. Beyond the synagogue walls. In Handbook of sociology of religion, ed. Michele

Dillon, 261–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dayan, Aryeh. 2002. Lo Rotzim Zehut Yehudit, Lo Rotzim Medina Yehudit. Haaretz, June 11. http://

www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=175116&contras.sID=2&subContrassID=2&sb

SubContrassID=0. Accessed 10 May 2007.

Della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. 1999. Four core questions for social movement analysis. In

Social movements, an introduction, ed. Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani, 5–19. Boston:

Blackwell Publishers.

Diani, Mario. 1999. Social movement networks virtual and real. Paper presented at the conference ‘‘a new

politics?’’ West Midlands, September 16–17, CCSS, University of Birmingham.

Gad, Yair, Talia Sagiv, Sari Shimburrsky, Sivan Akrai, and Maya Lichtman. 2006. Study of learningcommunities and batey midrash. Report submitted to Avi Chai foundation. http://www.avichai.

org/Static/Binaries/Publications/learning-summ-eng_0.pdf (Hebrew).

Gerlach, Luther P. 2001. The structure of social movements: Environmental activism and its opponents.

In Networks and netwars, ed. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, 289–310. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-Identity: Self and society in the late modern age.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York:

Little Brown.

Goodman, Yehuda, and Yossi Yonah. 2004. Maelstrom of identities: A critical look at religion andsecularity in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad (Hebrew).

Goodwin, Jeff, and James M. Jasper. 2003. The social movements reader: Cases and concepts. Malden,

MA: Blackwell Publication.

Hacohen-Wolf, Hagit, and Haya Amasleg-Bahar. 2003. ‘Batei-midrash’ and learning communities,participants’ point of view. Evaluation study conducted by ‘Matve’ company for the devision for

identity and Jewish renewal of New York appeal (Unpublished) (Hebrew).

Hacohen-Wolf, Hagit, Haya Amasleg-Bahar, and Dganit Yafe-Argas. 2006. Mehinot and pre-militaryprograms for advancement of solidarity in Israel. Report submitted to the New York Federation

(Hebrew).

Hadari, Yona. 2002. Messiah rides a tank: Public thought between the Sinai Campaign and the YomKippur War 1955–1975. Jerusalem: The Shalom Hartman Institute and Hakibutz Hameuhad

(Hebrew).

Hermann, Tamar. 1995. Social movements and political protest in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Open University

(Hebrew).

Ilan, Shachar. 2007. An argument in Meretz: Is secularism a Jewish path? Haaretz, February 14

(Hebrew).

Ingelhart, Ronald. 1997.Modernization and post-modernization: Cultural, economic and political changein 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jaeger, Rani. 2009. A song for many voices: The soul of secular Israel. Havruta: A Journal of JewishConversation 2: 34–41.

Johnston, Hank, Enrique Larana, and Joseph R. Gusfield. 1994. Identities, grievances and new social

movements?. In New social movements—from ideology to identity, ed. Enrique Larana, Hank

Johnston, and Joseph R. Guesfield, 3–35. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kauffman, L.A. 1990. The anti-politics of identity. Socialist Review 20: 69–80.

Kimmerling, Baruch. 2001. The invention and decline of Israeliness: State, society, and the military.Berkeley: University of California Press.


123

Liebman, Charles, and Eliezer Don-Yehiya. 1983. Civil religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism andpolitical culture in the Jewish state. Berkley: University of California Press.

Magid, Shaul. 2006. Jewish renewal: Toward a ‘new’ American Judaism. Tikkun 21: 57–60.

Maoz, Daria. 2005. Aspects of life cycle in the journey of Israelis to India. PhD dissertation, Hebrew

University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Meir, Yedidia. 2007. Tehilim La-Ishonim. Maariv Weekend Supplement, January 5.

Mellor, Philip.A. 1993. Reflexive traditions: Anthony Giddens, high modernity, and the contours of

contemporary religiosity. Religious Studies 29(1): 111–127.Melucci, Alberto. 1985. The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Social Research 52(4):

789–816.

Melucci, Alberto. 1994. A strange kind of newness: What’s new in the social movements? In New socialmovements––from ideology to identity, ed. Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Guesfield,101–130. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging codes––collective action in the information age. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Offe, Clause. 1985. New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. SocialResearch 52: 817–868.

Olofsson, G. 1988. After the working-class movement? An essay on what’s ‘new’ and what’s ‘social’ in

the new social movements. Acta Sociologica 31: 15–34.

Paz, Yair. 2003. Me-Neve Shechter Le-Machon Shechter. The Shechter Institute Alumni Newsletter.http://www.schechter.ac.il/hadashotarticle.asp?id=2. Accessed 2 April 2007 (Hebrew).

Peri, Yoram. 2005. Brothers at war: Rabin’s assassination and the cultural war in Israel. Tel-Aviv:Babel (Hebrew).

Pichardo, Nelson A. 1997. New social movements: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology 23:

411–430.

Ram, Uri. 2005. The globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel-Aviv, Jihad in Jerusalem. Tel-Aviv: Resling(Hebrew).

Sagiv, Talia, and Edna Lomsky-Feder. 2007. An actualization of a symbolic conflict: The arena of secular

batey midrash. Israeli Sociology: A Journal for the Study of Society in Israel 8(2): 269–299

(Hebrew).

Sagiv-Hacohen, Talia. 2004. The dynamics of secular Israelis studying Judaism. MA dissertation, The

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, School of Education, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Shapira, Avraham. 1971. The seventh day: Soldiers talk about the Six Days War. Middlesex, England:

Penguin.

Sheleg, Yair. 2000. The new religious Jews: Recent developments among observant Jews in Israel.Tel-Aviv: Keter Publishing House (Hebrew).

Sheleg, Yair. 2006. The fourth stream––secular Judaism in Israel. A series of articles appearing in the

Ha’aretz newspaper in 2006: June 1, June 9, June 23, July 7, July 12, August 18, September 30,

October 6 and October 13.

Shenhav, Yehouda. 2008. An invitation to a ‘post-secular’ sociology. Israeli Sociology: A Journal for theStudy of Society in Israel 10(1): 161–188 (Hebrew).

Simchai, Dalit. 2005. Resistance through hugging, paradoxes of social change in the new age. Haifa:University of Haifa (Hebrew).

Sperber, David. 2006. He who distinguishes the holy from the profane: Halakha in contemporary Jewishart in Israel. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, The Gerson and Judith Lieber Jewish Art Exhibition

Center (Hebrew).

Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51:

273–286.

Tabory, Ephraim. 2000. Reform Judaism in Israel: Progress and prospects. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan

University and the American Jewish Committee (Hebrew).

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Taub, Gadi. 1997. A dispirited rebellion: Essays on contemporary Israeli culture. Tel Aviv: HakibbutzHameuchad (Hebrew).

Tilly, Charles. 2004. Social movements 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigms Publishers, LLC.

Touraine, Alain. 1985. An introduction to the study of social movements. Social Research 52(4):

749–788.


123

Ufaz, Gad. 1986. The ties of the Kibbutz to Jewish sources as expressed in the thought of the ‘Shdemot

circle’. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv (Hebrew).

Weissler, Chava. 2008. ‘Women of vision’ in the Jewish renewal movement: The Eshet Hazon [‘Women

of Vision’] ceremony. Jewish Culture and History 8(3): 62–85.

Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist generations: The persistence of the radical women’s movement.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Yoffe, Meir, and Uzi Arad. 2003. Third sector organizations in the field of ‘Judaism as culture’ education.

In Judaism as culture: A decade since the Israel government’s Shenhar commission report, ed. UziArad and Meir Yoffe, 15–36. Lucerne: Posen Foundation (Hebrew).

Websites

BINA center for Jewish Identity and Hebrew Culture website: http://www.bina.org.il. Accessed 20 Dec

2008.

HAVAYA Israeli life cycle ceremonies website: http://www.havaya.info. Accessed 4 Nov 2009.

Panim for Jewish Renaissance website:http://www.panim.org.il. Accessed 20 Dec 2008.

Author Biographies

Rachel Werczberger is a PhD. candidate in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology in the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her doctoral dissertation focuses on Jewish Spiritual Renewal

communities in Israel. Her research interests include the Sociology and Anthropology of contemporary

Judaism, new age spirituality and gender and religion.

Dr. Na’ama Azulay received her PhD. (with honors) in 2010 at the Department of Sociology and

Anthropology in Bar-Ilan University. Her dissertation focused on the Jewish Renewal Movement in

Israeli secular society. She is now researching the subject of Jewish identity of young adult social activists

in the secular arena in Israel and the role and voice of women in the Jewish Renewal Movement.

Dr. Azulay is the Director of Alliance-Kol Israel Haverim school network in Israel.


123

Documents

The Jewish Renewal Movement in Israeli Secular society