Where are the Middle American Chavarot?

Why do Chaverot/Partnership Minyanim flourish in larger Jewish communities, while they are less common in much of Middle America?

Many synagogues in the American Midwest have continued to close or merge since the 1990s, as Jewish communities in the Rust Belt have declined. Given this situation, one might expect these communities to embrace the concept of Chavurot, or partnership minyanim, to reduce the costs of maintaining a synagogue building and paying a rabbi or cantor.

Chavurot (chavurot in Hebrew, meaning ‘fellowships’ or small groups of friends) primarily function as self-directed small communities within larger congregations or, in some cases, as fully independent Chavurot. They provide informal social, educational, and spiritual connections that larger, formal synagogues may not always offer. These groups are often referred to as Partnership Minyanim.

Few chavurot have formed or thrived in Middle America outside of some larger cities, such as Cleveland and Chicago, and this trend is unlikely to change in the future. Established synagogues in my state of Indiana often try to accommodate those who might consider breaking away by offering monthly separate minyans, facilitating special services, such as musical Shabbats, providing Jewish camp-style music, or hosting a monthly meditative minyan at my own synagogue, among other options. For instance, Bloomington, Indiana’s Congregation Beth Shalom offers a Reform service on Friday and a Conservative service on Saturday morning. Notably, a Renewal minyan also meets at this synagogue, which aims to cater to a diverse array of Jewish preferences.

In my early 20s, I discovered a book in a used bookstore: the famous 1970s DIY book “The Jewish Catalog,” published in 1973 by the creators of Havurat Shalom. The figurative Bubbe and Zayde of the chavurah movement, which was the first non-affiliated Jewish religious community, was founded in 1968 and still exists to this day in the same home in Somerville, Massachusetts. This was the spark that originated my interest in the chavurah movement.

Almost 20 years ago, I also discussed this phenomenon with my professor at Indiana University, Shaul Magid, who romanticized the idea of chaverot and believed that partnership minyans represented the future of Jewish practice. He argued that without the burdensome bureaucracy and expenses, individuals could focus more on spirituality and building their connection to ruach (spirit). This approach, in my mind, could recreate the lively prayers reminiscent of experiences in Jewish youth movements, camps, or Hillel.

My personal experience with the private Partnership Minyan occurred when I was living in Tel Aviv nearly 15 years ago. Among the many synagogues I could have chosen, I joined a lively group minyan called “Wandering Jews.” This group mainly consisted of Anglo-Jewish immigrants in their 30s who were also seeking a sense of community. The term “Wandering Jews” describes Jews who have no permanent home or who frequently move from place to place.

Every week, the “Wandering Jews” Minyan had a secret location in Tel Aviv, and our Shabbat gatherings included a Kosher potluck dinner. Each week felt like unwrapping a new, exciting Chanukah present, as we looked forward to what the next gathering would bring. This created a sense of religious awe reminiscent of what Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel often spoke about.

Tel Aviv or New York had all the right ingredients for successful independent minyanim, with many traditional yet unconventionally inspired younger Jews seeking alternative Jewish experiences in smaller settings. In the past, many of those involved in chavurot (Jewish study groups) came from the countercultures of the 1950s and 1960s, particularly former Beatniks and Hippies.

Yeshivat Hadar was founded in 2006 and has advocated for the partnership minyan as a model for the future. “Empowered Judaism: What Independent Minyanim Can Teach Us about Building Vibrant Jewish Communities,” a bestselling book by Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, a Rabbi at Yeshivat Hadar and a co-founder of the Kehilat Hadar minyan, explores this idea. The term “Empowered Judaism” refers to a movement that encourages individuals to take an active role in their Jewish practice and community, often through participation in independent minyanim.

Prominent Historian of Jewish American History Jonathan Sarna was quoted as saying, “[I]ndependent minyanim remain among the most exciting and successful innovations in American Jewish life. They are nurturing a new generation of Jewish leaders and worshipers and are stimulating new and sometimes controversial ideas—about Jewish prayer, Jewish community, and Jewish learning—that promise to have a long-lasting impact.”

Chavurot have not replaced traditional synagogues in Middle America because they are generally designed to complement, rather than replace, the synagogue structure.

Key reasons for this dynamic include:

1. Chavurot create a small, intimate “extended family” atmosphere, let’s call it a “Complementary Function” for shared Jewish experiences. At the same time, synagogues remain the central institutions for formal, large-scale communal worship, major life-cycle events (such as weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, and funerals), and the maintenance of the community’s physical Jewish infrastructure.
2. Synagogues own and maintain physical buildings, employ professional clergy (such as rabbis and cantors), and run formal educational systems (e.g., Hebrew schools). These significant investments and services are beyond the capacity of informal, small chavurot to manage independently. In short, institutional infrastructure is not always readily available in smaller communities.
3. Traditional synagogues offer a wide array of services, social welfare programs, and educational opportunities that exceed the typical activities of a small chavurah, which limits the scope of services.
4. Many Jews, particularly in Middle America, value the structure, traditions, and formal programming that synagogues provide. While some younger generations seek more informal connections, a large portion of the Jewish population continues to rely on and support the established synagogue model.
5. Some Jewish communities lack the volunteers and Jewish-trained or educated lay leaders to be able to lead services week after week and to educate Jewish youth.
6. Most Chavurot are offered as a type of alternative to Jews who already have many choices in larger Jewish communities. They often start from larger synagogues. Whereas in the Midwest. synagogues usually need “all hands on deck” and fear breakaway minyans’ because they already struggle to get a minyan and often work in a synagogue in a city with an aging and shrinking Jewish population. more intimate type of Jewish experience, albeit with a non-egalitarian framework. In some ways, 
7. Chabad has also filled the void for some Jewish middle American communities for a smaller, Chassidism could be considered a chavurot movement, becoming a grassroots revival of Jewish spirituality and practice and a critique of establishment Jewish practices.

The synagogue model, led by a professional rabbi or cantor, has been normative throughout much of the Jewish diaspora’s history. In the North American context, informal minyanim make sense, as Jewish congregations were often led by laypeople in homes or businesses throughout much of the 19th century when few rabbis were available. This historical context adds depth to the understanding of the synagogue model.

Traditional synagogues, with their formal membership and dues model, can sustain their extensive operations and offer a range of services expected by the community. In contrast, Chavurot that operate outside the synagogue framework often face challenges with long-term financial stability because they operate on an informal, volunteer basis.

One would think that Jewish Studies scholars, such as my former professor Shaul Magid, could have looked out of their windows, where they spent much of their academic careers in Bloomington, Indiana, at the crossroads of Middle America, and explored whether the model of Partnership Minyans or Chavurot could work in “flyover country,” a colloquial term used to describe the central region of the United States, particularly the Midwest.

Clearly, a few attempts were made to establish Chavurot south of Indiana, such as in Lexington, Kentucky, in the early 2000s, but few have endured. I wonder whether I should ask Professor Magid whether his views on Chavurot have changed, or whether it takes a “tree in Brooklyn,” as the saying goes, to find the special soil needed to plant a successful Partnership Minyan.

Many successful Partnership Minyanim exist in places like Brooklyn, Tel Aviv, and Boston, where there are numerous opportunities to engage in Jewish life. However, when a Chavurah is the only available option, many Jews tend to revert to the traditional synagogue model of centuries past. This choice often serves to insulate them when living as a tiny minority in places like Muncie, Indiana, or Indianapolis.

In summary, the chavurot movement seeks deeper and more intimate community connections. However, they often lack the infrastructure, formal religious leadership, and a broad range of services needed to fully replace the traditional synagogue in the American Jewish landscape.