THE APERTURE by Uri Cohen

By the end of 2003 Kol Zimrah, Kehilat Hadar and Darkhei Noam had begun, stabilized, and developed as individual prayer communities. They got better and better at serving the needs of their constituents, and the communities flourished on the upper west side, surrounded by the synagogues and other groups which had preceded them.In March of 2004 a new group came on the scene, bent on  giving the UWS Jewish community an opportunity to expand its horizons.

Tikvat Yisrael was formed in late 2003 by 8 post-college individuals who had moved to New York City. I was one of them. We had enjoyed our college experiences, which were based on our experiences on our campuses, mostly in Hillel environments. We had enjoyed the opportunity to celebrate shabbat and other Jewish commonalities with others on the campus, and really understand what it means to be a Jewish community made up of a multitude of backgrounds.

When we moved to New York we had a whole new experience. No longer were we limited in our prayer options to the two or three or four services which were sustainable in our Hillels. In New York each person could come as close as is possible anywhere to finding a prayer service which meets their exact needs and interests. Floating from shul to shul, minyan to minyan was possible, and we enjoyed it. By the end of 2003, however, we realized that the community aspect was missing, and we felt that lack quite strongly.

We organized in late 2003, incorporated in January 2004, and had our first program in March of the same year. Our core model involved multiple prayer services operating simultaneously, yet independently under one roof in the same building. Housed in the Abraham Joshua Heschel lower school on 89th and Broadway, we operated three services which we called “liberal”, “traditional egalitarian” and “orthodox”. We stayed away from “conservative” and “reform” because it was our experience that many people felt pigeon-holed rather than described by these titles, and that those terms carried associations that were more harmful than helpful. On the other hand, we felt that we should call the third minyan “orthodox” to serve as a “hekhsher” of some kind for the attendees who would be looking for assurance that the service would meet their needs.

Following the services (held along the same hallway on the first floor), we devised a communal shabbat dinner, to be held upstairs in the gym. The idea was to provide an opportunity for everyone who attended to see, not just hear about others who were dedicated to prayer. To experience community, rather than just read or think about it. The doors on the service rooms were open, melodies flowed out as people could see in. We were hoping that this would be an attractive model, and one that would draw at least 10 people per service (and at least 10 men for the orthodox service).

We were absolutely shocked by the result. We took registrations for the dinner (and charged a nominal fee) and we sold out a week in advance with 140 registrants. We had been hoping to hit 40. We were hoping for 40-50 people  come to services, and we were thrilled to see 200. There were people asking if they could come for dinner at the last minute, and we sat as many as we could.

The traditional egalitarian and orthodox services each saw around 80 attendees. The services were lay-led, and featured a traditional liturgy and a devar torah. The traditional egalitarian service featured mixed seating and full participation for women, and the orthodox service featured male-led prayer and a mehitzah. The liberal service was led by an accomplished service leader who led a beautiful non-traditional service using a guitar, with the chairs formed in a circle. This service had around 50 attendees.

For this first event we had men lead kiddush (blessings over the wine) and birkat hamazon (the grace after meals). A woman led the hamotzi (blessing over the bread). While we knew that this could not be a long-term solution to the gender participation issue, we thought that people would allow us some leeway in using this relatively mainstream approach. Though we did get some feedback about this, for the most part people were satisfied with this solution – for now.

The feedback was wonderful. People enjoyed the services, the experiences and the meal. People told us how they had missed these experiences and had really enjoyed them in their college lives. They were grateful to have such an opportunity and were excited for the next one to take place.

Meanwhile, we got press in the Jewish Week, and word began to spread…