Uncategorized
A new book made me appreciate Jewish Sunday schools — and the volunteer women who have powered them
(JTA) — As a kid I went to Sunday school at our Reform synagogue. I didn’t hate it as much as my peers did, but let’s just say there were literally dozens of other things I would have preferred to do on a weekend morning.
As a Jewish adult, I had a vague understanding that Sunday school was a post-World War II invention, part of the assimilation and suburbanization of American Jews (my synagogue was actually called Suburban Temple). With our parents committed to public schools and having moved away from the dense urban enclaves where they were raised, our Jewish education was relegated to Sunday mornings and perhaps a weekday afternoon. The Protestant and Catholic kids went to their own religious supplementary schools, and we Jewish kids went to ours.
In her new book “Jewish Sunday Schools,” Laura Yares backdates this story by over a century. Subtitled “Teaching Religion in Nineteenth-Century America,” the book describes how Sunday schools were the invention of pioneering educators such as Rebecca Gratz, who founded the first Sunday school for Jewish children in Philadelphia in 1838. As such, they were responses by a tiny minority to distinctly 19th-century challenges — namely, how to raise their children to be Jews in a country dominated by a Protestant majority, and how to express their Judaism in a way compatible with America’s idea of religious freedom.
Although Sunday schools would become the “principal educational organization” of the Reform movement, Yares shows that the model was adopted by traditionalists as well. And she also argues that 20th-century historians, in focusing on the failures of Sunday schools to promote Jewish “continuity,” discounted the contributions of the mostly volunteer corps of women educators who made them run. Meanwhile, the supplementary school remains the dominant model for Jewish education among non-Orthodox American Jews, despite recent research showing its precipitous decline.
I picked up “Jewish Sunday Schools” hoping to find out who gets the blame for ruining my Sunday mornings. I came away with a new appreciation for the women whose “important and influential work,” Yares writes, “extended far beyond the classrooms in which they worked.”
Yares is assistant professor of Religious Studies at Michigan State University, with a joint appointment in the MSU Program for Jewish Studies. Raised in Birmingham, England, she has degrees from Oxford University and a doctorate from Georgetown University.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Tell me how your book came to be about the 19th century as opposed to the common 20th-century story of suburbanization.
There’s a real gap in American Jewish history when it comes to the 19th century, chiefly because so many American Jews today trace their origins back to the generation who arrived between 1881 and 1924, the mass migration of Jews from from Eastern Europe. So there’s a sense that that’s when American Jewish history began. Of course, that’s not true at all.
The American Jewish community dates back to the 17th century and there was much innovation that laid the foundations for what would become institutionalized in the 20th century.
Sunday school gets a very bad rap among most historians of American Judaism. If they’ve treated it at all, they tend to be dismissive — you know, there was no substance, they just taught kids the 10 Commandments, it was run by these unprofessional volunteer female teachers, so it was feminized and feminine.
But there’s also a lot of celebration of Rebecca Gratz, who founded the first Sunday school for Jewish children.
That’s the first indication I had that there might be more of a story here. Rebecca Gratz is lionized as being such a visionary and being so inventive in developing this incredible volunteer model for Jewish education for an immigrant generation that was mostly from Western Europe. And yet, by the beginning of the 20th century, [Jewish historians] say it has no value. So what’s the story there?
Two other things led me on the path to thinking that there was more of a story in this 19th-century moment. I did my Ph.D in Washington, D.C. And as I was searching through the holdings of the Library of Congress, there were tons and tons of Jewish catechisms.
“Sunday school gets a very bad rap among most historians of American Judaism,” says Dr. Laura Yares, author of the new book, “Jewish Sunday Schools.” (Courtesy of the author)
A catechism is a kind of creed, right? It’s a statement of religious beliefs. “These are things we believe as Jews.”
So Jewish catechisms had that, but they were also philosophical meditations in many ways. Typically, the first question of the catechism was, what is religion? And then the second question is, what is Jewish religion?
And then I started reading them. They were question-and-answer summaries of the whole of Judaism: belief, practices, holidays, Bible, you name it, that the children were expected to memorize. This idea that you’ve got to cram these kids with knowledge went against this historiographic dismissal of this period as being very thin and that kids were not really learning anything. The idea that children had a lot to learn is something that Sunday school educators actually really wrestle with during this period.
What was the other thing that led you to pursue this subject?
When I was beginning to research my dissertation, I was working as a Hebrew school teacher in a large Reform Hebrew school in Washington, D.C. And I remember very distinctively the rabbi coming in and addressing the teachers at the start of the school year. He said, “I don’t care if a student comes through this Hebrew school and they don’t remember anything that they learned. But I care that at the end of the year they feel like the temple is a place that they want to be, that they feel like they have relationships there and they have an (he didn’t use this word) ‘affective’ [emotional] connection.”
And so I’m sitting there by day at the Library of Congress, reading these catechisms that are saying, “Cram their heads with knowledge.” What is the relationship between Jewish education as a place where one is supposed to acquire knowledge and a place where one is supposed to feel something and to develop affective relationships? The swing between those two poles was happening as far back as the 19th century.
You write that owing to gaps in the archives, it was really hard to get an idea of the classroom experience. But to the degree that there’s a typical classroom experience in the 1860s, 1870s and you’re the daughter or grandchild of probably German-speaking Jewish immigrants, maybe working or lower middle class, what would Sunday school be like? I’m guessing the teacher would be a woman. Are you reading the Bible in English or Hebrew?
You are probably going for an hour or two on a Sunday morning. It’s a big room, and your particular class would have a corner of the room. It’s quite chaotic. Most of the teachers were female volunteers. They were either young and unmarried, or older women whose children had grown. Except for the students who are preparing for confirmation — the grand kind of graduation ritual for Sunday schools. Those classes were typically taught by the rabbi, if there was a rabbi associated with the school.
There would be a lot of reading out loud to the students with students being expected to repeat back what they had heard or write it down so they had a copy for themselves. Often the day would begin with prayers said in English, and often the reading of the Torah portion, typically in English, although in many Sunday schools, we do have children reporting they learned bits of Hebrew by rote memorization. Or they memorized the first chapters of the book of Genesis, for example, but I’m not sure that they quite understood what they memorized. “Ein Keloheinu” is a song that often children tell us [in archival materials] that they had memorized in Hebrew. They probably would have learned at least Hebrew script, and a little bit of Hebrew decoding. But it is fair to say that if they were reading the Bible, they were reading it mostly in English, because you have to remember that most of the women who were volunteering to teach in these schools came of age in a generation where Hebrew education wasn’t extended to women.
What’s the goal of these Sunday schools?
The Sunday school movement arose because there was a whole generation of immigrant children who did not have access to Jewish education, because their parents didn’t have either the economic capital or the social capital to become part of the established Jewish community. They couldn’t afford a seat in the synagogue, they couldn’t afford to send their children to congregational all-day or every-afternoon schools [which were among the few options for Jewish education when Gratz opened the Philadelphia Sunday school]. Sunday schools are really a very innovative solution to a problem of a lack of resources.
You also write that the founders of these supplementary schools want to defend children against “predatory evangelists.”
That was how Rebecca Gratz described her goal when she created the first Sunday school. She was very, very worried about the Jewish kids who were not receiving any kind of Hebrew school education. She talks about Protestant missionaries and teachers who would go out onto the street ringing the bell for Sunday school and offering various kinds of trinkets, and Jewish kids would get kind of swept into their Sunday schools. There was a very concrete need to give Jewish children somewhere else to go.
So Gratz and the people who created the first Hebrew Sunday school in Philadelphia looked at what the Protestants were doing and they saw that Protestant Sunday schools were providing very accessible places where kids could go and get a basic primer in their religious tradition.
The approach was to teach Judaism as a religion, as opposed to Judaism as a people or culture, to demonstrate that being Jewish was as compatible as Protestantism with being wholly American.
That is certainly part of it. It’s a demonstration that Judaism is compatible with American public life. But I think there’s actually a much bigger claim that the Sunday schools are making. The claim is not only that Judaism is as good as Protestantism, but that Judaism does religion better than Protestantism. These rabbis who were writing catechisms and teaching confirmation classes were saying that Judaism does liberal religion better than liberal Protestants, liberal Catholics and other kinds of liberal denominations. You see the same sentiment in the Pittsburgh Platform as well, which is the foundational platform of the Reform movement written in the 1880s. Sunday schools take that idea and bring it down to a grassroots level.
There are many, many fewer Jews in America in much of the 19th century, before the waves of Eastern European immigrants arrived beginning in the 1880s They didn’t really have strength in numbers, or the kind of self-confidence to have a system of day schools, yeshivas or heders, the elementary schools for all-day or every day Jewish instruction.
And this is also a community that has grown up at the same time as the birth of public education in America, independent of churches. That really emerged beginning on the East Coast in the 1840s.This generation of Americans really believes in the power of public education to craft an American public. It’s a project that 19th-century American Jews believe in and want to sustain. So Sunday schools don’t just become the preferred Jewish model because of lack of resources, but because American Jews really believe in the idea of public education.
What happens at the beginning of the 20th century, with the arrival of Eastern Europeans with different models for Jewish education?
A new generation tries to reform Jewish education, led by a young educator from Palestine named Samson Benderly, who leads the new New York Bureau of Jewish Education. He tries to change American Jewish education to make it more professionalized, but to bring more traditionally inclined Jews on board he has to convince them that he doesn’t want to make more Sunday schools, because Sunday schools by the end of the 20th century had become very much associated with the Reform movement in a way that they weren’t when they were founded and for much of the 19th century.
A painting of Philadelphia philanthropist and Jewish education activist Rebecca Gratz by Thomas Sully. (The Rosenbach of the Free Library of Philadelphia)
Benderly is surveying the scene of recent immigrants living in New York City [tenements] and other kinds of downtown environments, and his proposal is to create these community institutions for these dense communities, where children can be taught Hebrew in Hebrew. His disciples also created Jewish camps as a way to get children out of the inner cities and develop the muscular Zionist ideal of healthy bodies and a robust sense of Jewish collectivity.
You write that Benderly’s vision is a sort of masculine response to the “feminizing” perception of the Sunday schools.
These women teachers are recognizing that they’re being criticized for the kind of thinness of the Jewish education that they’re teaching in comparison to other models, but in periodicals like The American Jewess women are writing back and saying, “But you didn’t teach us Hebrew! I didn’t get that opportunity as a woman, so what do you expect?” It’s really important to note that the women did the best that they could in the time that they had available, and that they were the product of opportunities that were denied to them.
What lessons did you learn about Sunday school and Hebrew school education in the 20th century that relate to your research into the 19th century?
The move that is so decisive for shaping American Jewish education is suburbanization. Rather than having a large immigrant generation who are living in these tight ethnic enclaves, you have American Jewish children who are predominantly growing up in the suburbs, and socializing with children from all sorts of different backgrounds who are attending public schools. The place that you go to get your Jewish education is the synagogue supplemental school, which becomes the dominant model for American Jewish education up until today. Benderly might reflect that it looks a lot more like the Sunday school movement of the 19th century than his vision.
Today’s model is really a religious model. And by that I mean that students go to Hebrew school primarily to kind of check a religious box, to learn about the thing that makes them distinctive religiously, and to achieve a religious coming-of-age marker, which is the bar, bat or b mitzvah. Certainly the curriculum today is more diverse, embracing more aspects of traditional Judaism then you would have seen in a 19th-century Sunday school: more Hebrew, more of a sense of Jewish peoplehood, ethnic identity and Zionism of course. But the question that American Jews are increasingly asking themselves is, is this a model that they still want? So you may have seen that the Jewish Education Project published a report recently on supplemental schools, which saw that enrollment has really, really declined.
Sunday schools are based on a vision of Judaism as a set of a religious commitments that American Jews actualize through belonging to a synagogue and sending their children to a synagogue or a religious school, where they will learn primarily a set of religious skills: the ability to read from the Torah, the ability to decode Hebrew, the ability to navigate the siddur.
Is that still the vision that most American Jews have for what Judaism means to them? I think increasingly the answer seems to be no.
How else did experience in a Hebrew school classroom influence you? Did you access anything else when you were writing the book?
I think about the number of college kids and graduate students and empty nesters who are either volunteering or earning minimum wage, working at Hebrew schools, all over the country. That’s the labor force of American Judaism. These people also bring so much to the table. There are a lot of skills, dispositions and knowledge that don’t tend to get taken very seriously because this is a workforce that just gets kind of put into the category of “oh, they’re part time.” That made me look really closely in the historical archives to see if I could find anything out about the women who are volunteering to teach in Sunday schools. And what I found out was that [many] were public school teachers. And they brought a lot to the table. It was women in fact who were really pushing to make the Sunday school curriculum more experiential and to move away from rote memorization.
As a historian formed by feminist methods, I find it really important to recognize that these women were giving over what they had, as opposed to critiquing them for not teaching in a more traditional way. I think we need to pay attention when women are being scapegoated for problems that are described as problems of Jewish continuity. It blinds us to the role that women’s volunteerism has played in American Jewish life. This whole Sunday school movement was possible only because these women volunteered their time and largely were not paid.
—
The post A new book made me appreciate Jewish Sunday schools — and the volunteer women who have powered them appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today
אין דער פֿריִערדיקער פּרשה האָבן מיר געלייענט, ווי אַזוי דער מואָבֿישער מלך בלק, בשותּפֿות מיטן בייזן כּישוף־מאַכער בלעם, האָט אַרײַנגעשיקט פֿרעמדע פֿרויען צו די ייִדן, כּדי זיי צו פֿאַרפֿירן צו דינען עבֿודה־זרה.
אַהרנס אייניקל פּינחס האָט דערזען, אַז זמרי, דער נשׂיא פֿונעם שבֿט־שמעון האָט אָנגעהויבן אָפֿענערהייט אַן אינטימע באַציִונג מיט אַ געוויסער נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי, כּזבי. די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דאָס איז געווען בלקס טאָכטער. פּנחס האָט אַרויסגעכאַפּט אַ שווערד און דערהרגעט דאָס פּאָרל; אַ מגפֿה, וואָס האָט דעמאָלט געבושעוועט צווישן די ייִדן, האָט זיך אָפּגעשטעלט. הגם פּנחס איז לכתּחילה נישט געווען אַ כּהן, האָט אים דער אייבערשטער פֿאַר זײַן קנאָות געגעבן די כּהונה.
אַן אַנדער וויכטיקער פּערסאָנאַזש, וואָס ווערט שפּעטער באַטראַכט אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה, איז יהושע בן נון. בײַם סוף פֿון די פֿערציק־יאָריקע וואַנדערונגען אין מידבר, האָט דער אייבערשטער געהייסן משה רבינו פֿאַר זײַן טויט אָנצושטעלן יהושע בן נון ווי דעם קומענדיקן מנהיג פֿונעם גאַנצן כּלל־ישׂראל.
פֿון דער הײַנטצײַטיקער פּערספּעקטיוו, זענען פּנחס און יהושע זייער צווייפֿלהאַפֿטיקע פּערסאָנאַזשן. אין הלכה איז פֿאַראַן אַ באַקאַנטע דעה, לויט וועלכער דער תּורה־איסור חתונה צו האָבן מיט אַ נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי איז חל בלויז אויף די „שבֿע עממין‟, די זיבן אוראַלטע פֿעלקער פֿון ארץ־כּנען. כּזבי איז געווען פֿון בנות־מדין, אַן אַנדער פֿאָלק. אויב זמרי וואָלט מיט איר חתונה געהאַט, וואָלט עס לויט אַ גאַנצער ריי ראשונים און אַחרונים געווען בלויז אַן איסור מדרבנן. דווקא פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט פּנחסן לערנען מיר אָפּ, אַז אין אַ זעלטענער סיטואַציע קומט פֿאַר אַזאַ אינטימער באַציִונג אַ חיובֿ־מיתה. זמרי האָט פֿאַרבראַכט מיט דער מדינישער פּרינצעסין אָפֿענערהייט, פֿאַר די אויגן פֿון אַ גאַנצן מנין ייִדן, דערפֿאַר האָט פּנחס געהאַט דאָס רעכט זיי צו דערהרגענען בשעת־מעשׂה. ווען כּזבי וואָלט נישט געדינט עבֿודה־זרה, וואָלט פּנחס אויך נישט געטאָרט עס טאָן אַפֿילו אין אַזאַ אויסטערלישער סיטואַציע.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז פּנחס איז אַ גאַנצער „אַנטיפּאָד‟ פֿון קורח. קורח האָט געגלייבט, אַז ער מעג אויך דינען ווי אַ כּהן און האָט אָרגאַניזירט אַן אויפֿשטאַנד קעגן משה רבינו. אין אַ געוויסער מאָס, האָט ער געהאַט ריכטיקע משיחישע כּוונות, אָבער אויסגעמישט מיט גאווה. פּנחס האָט דווקא נישט געהאַט קיין ספּעציעלן פּלאַן. כּדי צו פֿאַרטיידיקן די תּורה האָט ער זיך באַנוצט מיט אַ שווערד, און צוליב דעם געוואָרן אַ כּהן. על־פּי קבלה ווערן די כּהנים אַסאָציִיִרט מיט דער מידת־חסד; הגם פּנחס האָט אָנגעווענדט אַ בלוטיקן מעטאָד פֿון זײַן מעשׂה־קנאָות, האָט ער דערמיט אַ פּנים געטאָן אַ גרויסן חסד דעם גאַנצן ייִדישן פֿאָלק.
פֿונדעסטוועגן, קלינגט די מעשׂה שרעקלעך פֿאַר אַ הײַנטצײַטיקן לייענער. מע מעג דרשענען וועגן דער סאָציאַלער סכּנה פֿון געמישטע חתונות, אָבער קיין רבֿ וועט נישט פּראָפּאַגאַנדירן די מעשׂה־קנאָות ווי אַ פּראַקטישן מעטאָד. הײַנט וועט אַ נאָרמאַלער מענטש נישט פֿאָרלייגן צו לייזן סאָציאַל־דעמאָגראַפֿישע פּראָבלעמען מיט אַ שווערד.
די מקובלים און חסידישע צדיקים דערקלערן די אינערלעכע דינאַמיק פֿון דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה. זמרי איז געווען אַן עכטער תּלמיד־חכם. ער האָט געוווּסט, אַז כּזבי האָט אַ ייִדישע נשמה און געוואָלט אויף אַן אויסטערלישן ווילדן אופֿן ווײַזן די אַנדערע ייִדן, אַז צוליב זײַנע פּערזענלעכע השׂגות מעג ער זיך מיט איר מזווג זײַן בפֿרהסיא. פּנחס וואָלט עס געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין און דן צו זײַן זמרי לכף־ּזכות. דווקא צוליב דעם, וואָס ער האָט אויסגענוצט אַן אומגעוויינטלעכן קנאָות־מעטאָד, האָט דער באַשעפֿער אויף אַ חידושדיקן אופֿן געביטן זײַן כּהונה־סטאַטוס.
אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה ווערט ווײַטער אַנטוויקלט די טעמע פֿון אומגעריכטע חשבונות. עס טרעפֿן זיך צומאָל זעלטענע סיטואַציעס, ווען אַן אַגרעסיווער אַקט לשם־שמים ווערט אין די אויגן פֿונעם באַשעפֿע פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר אַ גרויסן חסד.
יהושע בן נון איז אַן אַנדער פֿיגור, וואָס קאָן בײַ אַ מאָדערנעם לייענער אַרויסרופֿן אַ סך קשיות. אויב מע נעמט אָן דעם תּנ״כישן ספֿר־יהושע כּפּשוטו, שאַפֿט זיך אַ פֿינצטערער אײַנדרוק, אַז אונטער זײַן פֿירערשאַפֿט האָבן די ייִדן אויסגעהרגעט גאַנצע פֿעלקער אין ארץ־כּנען. געוויסע מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישע מפֿרשים טײַטשן אָפּ דעם ספֿר־יהושע שלא־כּשפּוטו. למשל, דער פֿרומער פּראָפֿעסאָר־היסטאָריקער לאָרענס שיפֿמאַן האָט באַמערקט, אַז אין די שפּעטערדיקע תּנ״כישע ספֿרים פֿיגורירן גאַנץ אָפֿט די זעלבע פֿעלקער, וועלכע יהושע האָט, כּלומרשט, אומגעבראַכט. אַ צאָל אַנדערע היסטאָריקער באַטראַכטן יהושע ווי אַ מין רעוואָלוציאָנער, וואָס האָט געקעמפֿט בלויז קעגן געוויסע רישעותדיקע שיכטן, וועלכע האָבן באַזעצט די פֿעסטונג־שטעט אין ארץ־כּנען און האָבן עקספּלואַטירט די פּשוטע באַפֿעלקערונג.
די חז״ל לייזן די דאָזיקע עטישע פּראָבלעם אויף אַן אַנדער אופֿן. פֿאַר יעדער מיליטערישער אַקציע, האָט יהושע פֿאָרגעלייגט די כּנענים זיך אָפּצוזאָגן פֿון עבֿודה־זרה, שלום צו מאַכן מיט די ייִדן אָדער צו אַנטלויפֿן. בלויז די, וואָס האָבן זיך פּרינציפּיעל אָפּגעזאָגט פֿון אַלע אַנדערע אָפּציעס, האָט מען אויסגעהרגעט. דערצו, איז עס געווען דער איינציקער יוצא־מן־הכּלל, וואָס איז חל נאָר אויף די אוראַלטע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע זענען שוין לאַנג נישט בנימצא אין דער וועלט.
לויט דער ייִדישער מסורה, האָט יהושע אַליין חתונה געהאַט מיט רחבֿ, אַ געוועזענע כּנענישע זונה, וועלכע האָט זיך מגייר געווען. לויט אַן אַנדער דעה, איז זי געווען בלויז אַ באַרימטע וווּנדער־שיינע בעל־הביתטע פֿון אַ האָטעל, צו וועלכער יעדער מאַן האָט געחלומט זיך אָנצורירן, אָבער למעשׂה האָט זי קיינעם נישט געלאָזט. עס באַקומט זיך אַן אינטערעסאַנטע אינווערסיע פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט זמרי און פּנחס, וואָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז נישט אַלע כּנענים האָט יהושע בן נון אויסגעהרגעט מיט אַ שווערד.
אַזוי צי אַזוי, טרעפֿן מיר זיך ווידער אין אונדזער פּרשה מיט אַ פּערסאָנאַזש, וועלכער איז באַקאַנט אין דער ייִדישער טראַדיציע ווי אַ גרויסער נבֿיא און צדיק, אָבער זײַנע מיליטערישע מעשׂים ווערן באַטראַכט ווי אַן אוניקאַלער אויסנאַם, וואָס מע טאָר נישט נאָכמאַכן. וואָס שייך פּנחסן, שטייט אין די פּראַקטישע הלכה־ספֿרים געשריבן, אַז „אין מורין כּן‟. זײַן קנאָות־מעשׂה געהערט צו דער קאַטעגאָריע פֿון ריין־טעאָרעטישע הלכות.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז מיט די דערמאָנטע צוויי פּערסאָנאַזשן שליסט זיך אַ גאַנצער ציקל פֿון אומגעוויינטלעכע פּערזענלעכע חשבונות אינעם חומש „במדבר‟. פֿריִער האָבן מיר געלייענט וועגן קרח, דעם משיחישן אויפֿשטענדלער; די מיצווה פֿון „פּרה אדומה‟, וואָס אַפֿילו שלמה המלך האָט זי נישט געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין על־פּי שׂכל. מיט אַ וואָך צוריק האָט די פּרשה געטראָגן דעם נאָמען פֿון בלק, אַ רשע און שׂונא־ישׂראל, וועלכער האָט פֿאָרט געוויזן אַ מוסטער פֿון מסירת־נפֿש. פּנחס און יהושע בן נון רעפּרעזענטירן אַן אַנדער מין פּאַראַדאָקסאַלע מענטשן: צדיקים, וועלכע האָבן געדינט דעם אייבערשטן מיט אַ שווערד.
די תּורה ווײַזט אונדז אין דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה אַן אינטערעסאַנטן לעבנס־פּאַראַדאָקס. זמריס „פֿרײַע ליבע‟ האָט דערוועקט אין הימל די מידת־הדין, אָבער פּנחסן האָט זיך מיט גוואַלד־מיטלען אײַנגעגעבן צו דערוועקן די געטלעכע מידת־הרחמים. ביידע פּערסאָנאַזשן האָבן דעמאָנסטרירט דעם דאָזיקן פּאַראַדאָקס אויף היפּוכדיקע עקסטרעמע אופֿנים.
The post Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous.
I moved to New York City in the early 1990s. My original commitment was for only one year, but I quickly fell in love with the place. Part of the appeal was the city’s Jewishness.
Everywhere you looked, there were signs of Jewish influence. This was an era where people repeated jokes from Seinfeld by the water cooler. And it was conventional wisdom that any candidate who wanted to hold office in New York had to appeal to the three “I’s” — Italy, Ireland, and Israel.
While being Jewish was not a big part of my identity — I am not religious and have always lived an assimilated life — I immediately felt comfortable in this kind of environment. I intuitively understood the humor and the rhythm of the city. Many prominent New York public officials — figures like Ed Koch and Ruth Messinger — were familiar types that I recognized from my extended family gatherings.
And so I ended up staying put, becoming yet another liberal Jewish New Yorker. For more than 30 years, I never really thought much about these three overlapping identities — liberal, Jew, New Yorker — because I didn’t have to. Nothing could be more natural than being a liberal Jewish New Yorker — the town was practically teeming with people more or less just like me.
The number of Jews in New York has remained basically the same since I first moved here, but the city no longer feels quite as hospitable as it once did. In fact, some prominent commentators and publications have begun asking: Is it still safe for Jews in New York?
This question doesn’t come out of nowhere. The years since Oct. 7, 2023 have been challenging for Jews in New York. The day after the attack, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America held a gathering in Times Square to show their support for the Palestinian cause, marching under the banner “by any means necessary.” This was the start of a season of protest that featured encampments and demonstrations at many New York universities.
The energies unleashed by the pro-Palestine protest movement could not be contained on campus. Events kept landing closer and closer to my doorstep. The Israeli restaurant around the corner from my house was vandalized. My friend Andy Bachman, a liberal rabbi, was prevented from speaking at a Brooklyn bookstore because he supports the existence of Israel.
Then, last week, my congressman, Rep. Dan Goldman, went out to get a cup of coffee at Poetica, a café in Brooklyn. Afterward, Poetica posted a photo of him on Instagram, along with a message that the coffee shop does not serve “genocide enablers.” The post added, “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
This insult was soon followed by (political) injury: Goldman lost his primary to Brad Lander, whose campaign was largely focused on accusing Goldman of not being tough enough on Israel, even though Goldman has been critical of the conduct of the war in Gaza and supportive of imposing conditions on American aid.
All of this is disconcerting, but let’s be clear: Today’s New York City is not Weimar Germany. Rep. Ritchie Torres — among the Democratic Party’s most vocal and consistent defenders of Israel — just won his primary by a wide margin. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly vowed to protect the local Jewish community. Indeed, Mamdani likely would not have been elected without the support of roughly a third of Jewish voters.
New York City may still be safe for Jews, but what is less clear is whether the default position of many liberal Jews — who are critical of the Netanyahu government and supportive of a two-state solution — still has a place in the Democratic Party, either locally or nationally.
In Exit, Voice and Loyalty, economist Albert O. Hirschmann argued that when people are confronted by a deteriorating situation, they effectively have three options: to accept the decline, to leave, or to stay and fight. Jews have been building institutions and fighting for belonging in New York City for hundreds of years. Abandoning that work now would be a colossal overreaction.
However, liberal Jewish New Yorkers who choose to stay in the city will have to reckon with a changing reality. The demographics of New York have shifted. The Muslim population has grown. Younger New Yorkers have different political instincts than the generations that preceded them.
The recent New York congressional primary victories by three candidates who are extremely critical of Israel are not flukes — they are reflective of a significant turn in public opinion.
There has been a massive erosion of public support for Israel in the United States in recent years, with Americans now expressing more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis. Writing in Jewish Currents, Peter Beinart triumphantly announced: “Restricting U.S. support for Israel is no longer politically perilous; it’s politically expedient.”
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party should include activists who are fiercely opposed to Israel. That ship has sailed. The question is whether the party — and polite society — will follow Poetica’s lead and declare people like Dan Goldman unwelcome.
Is there still a place in the Democratic Party for liberal Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist? It remains to be seen. But for the first time in more than 30 years, I find myself thinking about the words “liberal,” “Jewish” and “New Yorker” as potentially separable things. I doubt I am the only one.
The post My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us?
If you always dreamed of working in artificial intelligence, perhaps you studied computer science, or math. Who knows, maybe you did computational biology to better understand how to build a neural network. What you probably never imagined might be useful was Talmud, halakha and Jewish history.
Yet those are exactly the skills Judd Rosenblatt, founder of AI consulting company AE Studios and AI ethics nonprofit the AI Alignment Foundation, is looking for.
Rosenblatt thinks that the evolution of Jewish thought might be core to solving a very specific — and worrying — issue with artificial intelligence.
That issue is recursive self-improvement, or RSI, the process of an AI editing itself, and then editing those edits, and so on — all without humans in the loop, checking its work or even knowing about the changes. This skill is the current holy grail of AI research, because it will allow for exponential speed in improvements; every major AI company is racing toward RSI and, according to rumors, Anthropic has likely already achieved it. That means changes at a speed and scale human brains are not built to comprehend.
But RSI isn’t just a way to quickly improve AI — it is also the end of human control and oversight over artificial intelligence. It’s a sort of Ship of Theseus paradox, which asks whether a boat is the same object after all of its boards have been replaced. If AI rewrites itself over and over, faster and faster, will it cease to be the machine humans created and become something we can’t understand, predict or control? Which is where Rosenblatt’s project comes in.
“How do you make something that is poised to get exponentially smarter than you continue to do what you think is right and good?” he said. “How do we make it such that it does not kill us?”
This project is known in the business as AI alignment — basically, to make sure AI aligns with human values and ethics. The challenge is that AI might edit out those values during its upgrading; we already have evidence that AI will discard certain commands if it concludes they are extraneous or contradictory to its other goals. So the AI needs to believe that these ethical tenets are useful or valuable enough that it doesn’t delete them when it is rewriting itself.
The crux of Rosenblatt’s research is figuring out how to keep those values alive. He’s not only looking at Judaism; he’s also considering the history of thought, immune systems and even bookkeeping for ideas. (He is himself Jewish, raised Reform and bar mitzvahed — and recognized this may give him a bias toward halakha.) He is particularly interested in far-fetched ideas, outside the current Overton window of alignment techniques, none of which he thinks are sufficient for the coming problem of RSI.
“A lot of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science come from individuals with strong hunches that no one else believed in. But these people chose to stick with their hunches,” Rosenblatt said.
He believes that finding “neglected visionaries” who are outside the norms and might struggle to find funding, and pairing them with a team of engineers and tech-minded experts, could lead to a breakthrough. To do this, he is taking some of the profits from his AI consulting firm AE Studios and putting them into the nonprofit AI Alignment Foundation.
“It’s interesting to study what has survived adversarial pressure over long periods of time. So you can say let’s study things that have survived evolutionary adversarial pressure,” and examine biological survival mechanisms, he said. “And then there’s civilizational adversarial pressure.”
Before the Second Temple was destroyed, Judaism revolved around temple sacrifice and the priesthood. Yet after its destruction, Judaism didn’t die; instead, it became something different.
The reason Judaism survived is not despite the changes, Rosenblatt hypothesizes, but because of them. “I think a tradition that reinterprets nothing is the more fragile one,” he said. “A rule that cannot be bent, cannot adapt to a new world and dies out.”
There are interesting parallels between the structure of arguments in the Talmud and the problem of RSI: Both involve constantly layered, referential rewritings; it even preserves the ideas that do not end up winning the arguments canonized in the writings. In the Talmud, the original text — the Torah — is interpreted into the Mishna, the Gemara and countless later commentaries that shift the practice of the laws over time. Yet certain values remain. Some of Judaism’s traits have even survived an even bigger change: Christianity. Yet even Christianity keeps some of Judaism’s core ideas, like monotheism and pikuach nefesh, the idea that saving a life supersedes any other command.
“It is maybe the best working example that I know of that survived the total destruction, multiple times, of the thing that was it,” Rosenblatt said. “And it did that using mechanisms that it built into itself, on purpose. That is the alignment problem, stated in Jewish terms.”
Another promising angle is the idea of covenant as a relational bond; Jews inherit the covenant, but must also choose to engage with Judaism, and with God, just as the AI might one day have to choose to preserve certain values even as it adapts them.
“Everything that lasts in Judaism is sort of organized around a covenant which endures the transformation from one generation to the next,” he said. “You inherit it, but you also choose to participate in it.”
Of course, Judaism has changed enormously over time — and some people might argue that its core has changed enormously too, with many Jews centering tikkun olam over keeping kosher, for example, or differing widely on Israel or even not believing in God.
But Rosenblatt said this is part of the point; some traits get selected for and last through major changes, and others don’t, just like in evolution. That’s how you winnow it down to its strongest components.
The question is what is that core that remains, and why. Rosenblatt has a lot of ideas. But he didn’t want to tell me what his hunch about Judaism’s eternal core; he doesn’t want to bias anyone. He wants those neglected visionaries to come and tell him their biggest, best ideas. The door is open.
The post We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us? appeared first on The Forward.
