Uncategorized
A new photo book celebrates the very Jewish cafeteria culture of a vanished New York
(New York Jewish Week) – Back in 1975, Marcia Bricker Halperin had just graduated from Brooklyn College with the dream of becoming a professional photographer when she stepped into the Flatbush outpost of Dubrow’s, a cafeteria-style restaurant, for a warm cup of coffee.
It was there that inspiration hit. “I was wonderstruck,” Halperin writes in the introduction to her new book of photographs, “Kibbitz & Nosh: When We All Met at Dubrow’s Cafeteria,” describing the “cavernous” space with mirrored walls and a mosaic fountain. “It was the most idiosyncratic room I had ever seen.”
“I sensed it was a vanishing world on its last legs, and that impelled me to document it,” she continues. “On many visits, the tables were empty, sans a painterly still life of condiment bottles and jars in the morning light. I also perceived cafeterias as places that embodied a secular Jewish culture, something that was of great interest to me.”
“I attended a lecture by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who was billed as an “Outstanding Anglo -Yiddish” author, at the Brooklyn Jewish Center on Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights,” Bricker Halperin writes in the introduction. “I adored his short stories, many of which were set in cafeterias, and I regret never finding the nerve that day to tell him about my own cafeterianiks.” (Marcia Bricker Halperin)
Halperin was prescient: She started photographing these once-ubiquitous eateries one decade before the final Dubrow’s location in the Garment District would close in 1985. The chain’s first location was founded in 1929 on the Lower East Side by Benjamin Dubrow, a Jewish immigrant from Minsk. By the mid-twentieth century, the family-owned company expanded throughout Brooklyn, Manhattan and Miami Beach, with ownership passing to the second generation, and then to the third. In Dubrow’s prime, a stop at one of the cafeterias was practically required for politicians such as John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
Nearly 50 years after her first visit, Halperin’s new book is a tribute to this now-defunct New York City cafeteria culture and the characters she met during the five years she regularly photographed there. The compelling 152-page book features her original black-and-white photos along with essays from Pulitzer Prize–winning playwright Donald Margulies and Jewish American historian Deborah Dash Moore.
“Although Jews were not the only ones to patronize cafeterias, they preferred them as inexpensive places to hang out to bars, which often attracted an Irish immigrant or working-class clientele,” Moore writes in her essay, titled “See You at Dubrow’s.” “By the 1930s, cafeterias were part of the fabric of Jewish neighborhood life in New York City, a welcome alternative for socializing to cramped apartments, street corners, or candy stores.”
Now living in Park Slope and retired from a career as a special education teacher, Halperin talked with the New York Jewish Week about the city’s lost cafeteria culture and what inspired her to capture it with her camera.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
New York Jewish Week: You took these photos nearly 50 years ago. What made you decide to publish them now?
Marcia Bricker Halperin: In the 1970s, there was such good feedback on the work. I was given a show, I was collected by a few people, I had a photo in The New York Times. People wrote me letters in the mail: “Ms. Bricker, I’m interested in buying one of your photos.” At the time, I was in a project called the CETA artists project, a federally funded arts project in the ’70s where I was paid to be a photographer. It was very much like the [Depression-era] WPA project, but one of the great differences with the CETA project was anything you shot, you owned.
So I continued photographing changing New York during those years — some of it by assignment for nonprofit organizations that I worked with, like the Jewish Museum and an organization in Brighton Beach that was resettling the Soviet Jews that were arriving in the ’70s. They wanted photographs to help both the Soviet Jews understand American life and the old Jewish population in Brighton Beach understand Russian life. What a great opportunity!
I was going to be an artist and I did adjunct teaching and different things to make it work. I kind of fell into teaching high school photography and then, from there, I fell into teaching special education — that took over. Thirty-five years later, I retired from teaching. The day after I retired, I took out my negatives and my photography stuff and bought a scanner and all kinds of printers and things.
So, I was a photographer once upon a time and then taught for many years and, overnight, I became one once again.
A man reads the Forvertz newspaper in Yiddish. (Marcia Bricker Halperin)
How did it feel to see these photos again? Had you developed any of them before?
Yes, I printed quite a few of them then. I worked as a darkroom lab technician, so I had an opportunity in the ’70s to do a lot of silver gelatin prints. I would bring in a thick envelope of the imperfect prints to the cafeteria and at that point, everybody knew me. I gave out portraits to people. If I hadn’t shot them, they would gather around me asking: “Do you have my picture? Did you print it?” Especially the staff — there was a very international cohort of people working there and they all wanted pictures to send home to their families.
After that, the pictures lay fallow for all these years. I protected them and stored them very carefully. When I had the opportunity to come back and put together a sample book, I started looking through the negatives and I said, “Oh, my God, I don’t remember that picture.” It was a time warp to see some of these photos taken in the 1970s. In Manhattan, the ’60s had happened, but Flatbush in Brooklyn was the “Old Country.” It hung onto the past for a while and some women dressed like they were still in the 1950s.
Dubrow’s Cafeteria, Kings’s Highway 1975. The photographer appears in the top left corner. (Marcia Bricker Halperin)
Dubrow’s closed just ten years after you started shooting there. Could you feel at the time that cafeteria culture was ending?
I kept a journal at the time. When I went back 42 years later to look at it, I had written: “One day I’m going to show up here and this is going to be closed.”
There were other cafeterias in Manhattan and the Bronx and they had all closed. I’ve collected like every article ever written about cafeterias, and there’s one from 1973: “Are cafeterias going to be gone?” So it was fairly well known that this was a vanishing kind of establishment in New York. The automats ceased having the little boxes, Burger King bought them out, they tried to modernize and it got pretty sad. Sometimes during the day, the huge cafeteria would be empty and people would say, “This business can’t survive.” So I knew I was photographing in the vein of needing to document the things that are there and will be gone. It was one of the things that propelled me to get out there and photograph.
Today, things are different. There’s food courts and wonderful little coffee places. There are many businesses, especially here in Brooklyn, trying to perpetuate “grandmother foods” and there are restaurants that are serving “reinvented Jewish-style foods.” So there are some continuations, but in terms of the huge, opulent cafeteria spaces — grand professional murals, intricate woodworking, food with a crazy amount of preparation, 300 items, 30 different cakes — no restaurant could possibly survive like that. The only thing that still exists are my photos of them.
Men and women converse around empty tables at Dubrow’s on Kings Highway. (Marcia Bricker Halperin)
What was the Jewish culture of Dubrow’s and Flatbush like at the time?
Growing up, we went to a little old “Conservadox” synagogue. We were the kind of family where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home, but on Sunday nights we’d go out to the Chinese restaurant. Dubrow’s menu was “Jewish-style” but it was also a place you could go out and have your first shrimp salad sandwich, which became their most popular food. They were famous for shrimp salad!
These cafeterias were all started by Jewish immigrants. But they were democratic for everyone — there was ham on the menu, shrimp. You could choose whether to have just meat or have a meat meal and then have a cream pie for dessert. That was your choice. With cafeteria-style, like religion, you pick and choose what you want and what you want to observe.
When I would go there, all the older people would ask: “Are you Jewish? You don’t look Jewish.” I’d say,“I’m Jewish. I know a few words of Yiddish, my parents speak Yiddish at home.” They would be satisfied with that. There was this sense that it was a club a little bit, it was a Jewish establishment. Not that everybody wasn’t welcome, and everybody socialized with everyone else.
Socializing was a big thing there, not necessarily eating. Many of my pictures are people sitting around — sometimes it’s a coffee cup on the table, most of the time the table is empty. They were there to meet their friends and talk. Some people said it replaced the synagogues. The old men would go to Dubrow’s and have a cup of coffee with their friends in the morning and gossip and talk.
“Kibbitz & Nosh: When We All Met at Dubrow’s Cafeteria” will be published on May 15, 2023. The photos are on exhibit at the Edward Hopper House in Nyack, New York through June 25.
—
The post A new photo book celebrates the very Jewish cafeteria culture of a vanished New York appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’
(JTA) — Viewers of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary debate on Tuesday night could be forgiven for at times forgetting that one candidate comes with the heavy backing of pro-Israel donors.
“The prime minister of Israel has failed,” Rep. Haley Stevens said when asked about Iran, saying that both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump had failed to achieve “long-term peace.”
Later, Stevens added that she supported “aid into Gaza” and reiterated that she believed Netanyahu has been bad for American Jews.
“It is very clear that Mr. Netanyahu has not made us safer, has not brought us closer to peace, and he is a danger to Jews in America and around the world,” she said.
The lines represented sharp criticism of Israel’s leadership for a candidate who, according to federal campaign records, has received more than $10 million in support from donors affiliated with AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, has excoriated on the campaign trail and during Tuesday’s debate. Regarded as one of Congress’ more reliable pro-Israel Democrats, Stevens made the comments as Democratic voters have largely shed their sympathies for Israel.
El-Sayed, meanwhile, said during the debate that the United States’ foreign policy “has been handed to us” by Israel and AIPAC and called Israel a “rogue state.”
The former Wayne County health director, whose grassroots campaign has gained momentum as it has increasingly centered anti-Israel rhetoric, did not hold back in his criticism.
Citing “the impact of AIPAC in our politics” as the reason for the joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, El-Sayed asserted that the lobbyist’s goals were “to annex Lebanon or to do genocide in Gaza.” He added that Israel was committing “human rights abuses, genocide and apartheid” and called for the United States to “stop funding the Israeli military unilateral blank checks.”
He also tied voters’ economic woes to Israel. “Ask yourself why it is that we are paying $5 gas, why it is that we can’t get out of this quagmire,” he said. “It’s because for too long, our foreign policy has been handed to us by the likes of the state of Israel and AIPAC, who has made sure that both Democrats and Republicans are doing their bidding.”
He further claimed there was no difference between his Democratic opponent and the presumptive Republican nominee, former congressman Mike Rogers, on Israel.
“If Congresswoman Stevens makes it, or if Mike Rogers wins, either way, Israel will win,” El-Sayed said. “AIPAC is perfectly fine with either of my two opponents because they know they will have a comfortable, reliable vote in the U.S. Senate.”
Stevens, who noted that she supports a two-state solution, rejected the line of attack. “No one owns my vote and no one owns my policies,” she said. “Anyone who’s contributing to my Senate campaign is doing so because of my proven record of fighting for Michigan.”
El-Sayed also suggested that Stevens’ sparring with Netanyahu, who is deeply unpopular with American voters, was ingenuine. Earlier in the day, Netanyahu told CNN that he believed Stevens’ previous comments accusing him of making American Jews less safe represented her “probably trying to excuse antisemitism.”
Sayed said he wasn’t convinced the remark was authentic. “I don’t think Benjamin Netanyahu is attacking her to actually attack her,” he said at the debate. “I think he’s attacking her to try and steer away the stink of how staunchly she stands for their policy.”
El-Sayed also attacked Stevens over a June 2025 vote she made in the House to “thank” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. The appreciation was embedded in a resolution condemning the firebombing of a peaceful march for Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado. Stevens accused Republicans of having “put in a cynical point” about thanking ICE and El-Sayed of falling into a trap laid by the GOP.
Israel has grown increasingly central ahead of the Michigan primary, set for Aug. 4, in a crucial battleground state with large populations of both Jewish and Arab/Muslim voters. A third candidate who sought to tread a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed suspended her campaign earlier this week, ratcheting up anxiety among American Jews around the race.
Stevens’ bid for the Senate comes four years after she ousted Andy Levin, a Jewish progressive congressman who expressed criticism of Israel, in a race that drew more than $4 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending. In the years since, she has remained in a dwindling minority of House Democrats who have voted against all measures that would block or condition military aid to Israel.
El-Sayed’s bid comes as other anti-Israel progressives have prevailed in congressional primaries, shifting campaign discourse about Israel to the left. In an interview with CNN also published Tuesday, El-Sayed took aim at the very idea of a Jewish state.
“Every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values, every single one,” he told CNN. Asked if support for Israel could ever be about more than money, he responded, “Not if you’re a Democrat and you believe in human rights.”
Other Michigan races are also turning into referendums on the Democratic stance on Israel. El-Sayed has cross-endorsed two left-wing congressional candidates, state Rep. Donavan McKinney and activist William Lawrence, who have both said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Stevens, meanwhile, has endorsed pro-Israel Jewish state Sen. Jeremy Moss for her House seat.
Further down the ballot in Michigan, Democratic activist Abbas Alawieh, a key architect of the 2024 “Uncommitted” movement designed to pressure national Democrats on Gaza, on Tuesday picked up the endorsement of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in his bid for a state senate seat on the party ticket. Alawieh has also met with former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost Michigan to Donald Trump in the general election after the state’s large Arab and Muslim population expressed strong dissatisfaction with her stance on Israel.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions
(JTA) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire with Iran was “over” after the U.S. military pounded sites in Iran and the Islamic regime struck dozens of American military facilities in the region.
“I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” Trump told reporters in Ankara, Turkey, where he is attending the NATO summit. “They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
At the same time, the president did not appear to rule out further negotiations with Iran, adding, “I’ll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate.”
Trump’s comments came hours after the military’s U.S. Central Command announced Tuesday evening that it had launched a “series of powerful strikes against Iran” in retaliation for Iran hitting commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Following the U.S. strikes, Iran targeted dozens of U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, according to the Iranian Fars news outlet.
“In the initial response to the US aggression, the naval and aerospace forces of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, in a joint missile and drone operation, struck 85 locations of important US military facilities,” the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps said in a statement Wednesday.
The exchange of fire further imperiled the shaky ceasefire between the United States and Iran, as well as negotiations with Iran that were supposed to resume after the dayslong funeral for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ended Thursday.
Following Trump’s announcement, the price of oil jumped to its highest level in weeks.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cancelled a planned visit to Israel Wednesday to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to media reports.
The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding last month to provide a 60-day framework for the sides to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and other sticking points.
Following Tuesday’s U.S. strikes, Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused the United States of violating the Memorandum of Understanding, including “Continued Zionist aggression on [Lebanon]” in a post on X.
“The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold,” Ghalibaf wrote.
During Trump’s meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday, the president also signalled that he would likely restore the country’s ability to purchase F-35 fighter jets, a move that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staunchly opposed.
“Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal,” Trump said when asked if he is going to sell the jets to Turkey, according to Axios. “So it is something we definitely would consider.”
Hegseth’s scrapped meeting with Netanyahu was widely expected to touch upon the idea of U.S. selling the advanced stealth plane to Turkey.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Can the Trinity be kosher?
„אַ ייִדישער שילוש‟ (A Jewish Trinity) — אַזוי הייסט דאָס נײַע בוך פֿון אַלאַן בריל, דער ראָש פֿון ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע שטודיעס אינעם סעטאָן־האָל־אוניווערסיטעט (ניו־דזשערזי) און אַ באַקאַנטער פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישקייט און צווישן־רעליגיעזע ענינים. ברילס פֿאַרגלײַך־אַנאַליז איז אַ וויכטיקער שטאַפּל אין ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע באַציִונגען, וואָס קען העלפֿן ייִדן און קריסטן בעסער פֿאַרשטיין איינער דעם צווייטן.
בײַ אַ סך ייִדן איז די קריסטלעכע דאָגמע וועגן דער געטלעכער דרײַ־פּערזענלעכקייט אַזוי פֿרעמד, אַז זיי ווייסן נישט אַפֿילו, אַז אין דער פּאָלעמישער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור איז פֿאַר איר פֿאַראַן אַ ספּעציעלער טערמין — שילוש. דאָס וואָרט ווערט אָבער אין ערגעץ נישט דערמאָנט אינעם בוך און ס׳איז דאָ אַ גוטע סיבה דערפֿאַר. בריל באַנוצט זיך מיט דער באַקאַנטער קריסטלעכער טערמינאָלאָגיע און מײַדט דווקא אויס די אַלטע מיטל־עלטערלעכע דיספּוטן צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן. זײַן צוועק איז אַ קאָנסטרוקטיווע פֿאַרגלײַך־שטודיע, נישט קיין פּאָלעמיק. ער פֿאַרגלײַכט די ייִדישע און קריסטלעכע רעליגיע און ווײַזט אָן, אַז אַפֿילו אַזעלכע קאָנצעפּציעס, ווי די קריסטלעכע אמונה אין דרײַ געטלעכע פּערזאָנען, זענען לאַוו־דווקא פֿרעמד פֿאַר ייִדן; עס ווענדט זיך, ווי מע טײַטשט זיי אָפּ.
אין זײַן בוך פֿאָקוסירט בריל אויף דער מאָדערנער קאַטוילישער טעאָלאָגיע. אָפֿט מאָל ציטירט ער דעם דײַטשישן יעזויִט־גלח און פּראָמינענטן טעאָלאָג קאַרל ראַנער, ווי אויך אַ ריי אַנדערע: ייִרגען מאָלטמאַן, וואַלטער קאַספּער און האַנס קינג.
דאָס בוך איז אײַנגעטיילט אין זעקס קאַפּיטלען וועגן דעם שילוש; אינקאַרנאַציע (דער גלויבן, אַז גאָט האָט זיך פֿאַרקערפּערט אין יעזוסן); אָדם־הראשונס חטא; עולם־הבא; משיח, און דעם ברית צווישן גאָט און מענטשן (Covenant).
אין דער הקדמה דערקלערט בריל זײַן אייגענע פּאָזיציע. ער גלייבט נישט, אַז די אונטערשיידן צווישן וועלט־רעליגיעס קאָן מען פּשוט באַשרײַבן ווי „אָט דאָ גלייבן מיר צוזאַמען אין דער זעלבער זאַך, אָבער יענער גלויבן אײַערע איז אונדז פֿרעמד‟. עס זענען פֿאַראַן אַלערליי וואַריאַנטן פֿון ייִדישער און קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע. אין געוויסע אַספּעקטן איז דער חילוק צווישן דעם רמב״מס און אַ חסידישן מקובלס צוגאַנג צו ייִדישקייט גרעסער, ווי צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן.
ס׳איז אינטערעסאַנט, אַז צו אַזאַ טעמע איז בריל צוגעקומען נאָכן וווינען עטלעכע יאָר אין אינדיע, וווּ ער האָט זיך באַקענט מיט הונדויִזם און אַנטדעקט פֿאַר זיך, אַז די אינדישע הויפּט־רעליגיע איז אויך נישט אַזוי ווײַט פֿון ייִדישקייט, ווי עס טראַכטן אַ סך מענטשן. בריל דערציילט וועגן דעם אין זײַן בוך „אַ רבֿ אויפֿן טײַך גאַנג‟. און אַז מע רעדט שוין פֿון הינדויִזם, מעג מען צוקומען צו אַן אַנדער, מער באַקאַנטער רעגיליע, וועלכע האָט במשך פֿון דורות אַרויסגערופֿן בײַ ייִדן ממש אַן אַלערגיע – קריסטלעכקייט.
ווי אַ מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישער רבֿ, ווענדט זיך בריל זעלטן צו קבלה און חסידות, וווּ מע קען געפֿינען אַ סך מער כּמו־קריסטלעכע פּאַראַלעלן. לייענט, למשל, שאול מגידס בוך „חסידות אינקאַרנירט‟ (Hasidism Incarnate), דערמאָנט אין דער ביבליאָגראַפֿיע פֿון ברילס בוך. בריל שטעלט דעם טראָפּ אויף דעם מין ייִדישקייט, וועלכן ער באַטראַכט ווי דעם ראַציאָנעל־געשטימטן הויפּטשטראָם. ער ווענדט זיך יאָ צו מיסטישע שיטות, אָבער נישט צו אָפֿט. פּונקט אַזוי באַציט ער זיך צום הײַנטצײַטיקן קאַטויליציזם, שילדערנדיק אַזעלכע דעות, וואָס קלינגען מער מאָדערן און ראַציאָנעל, וואָס טײַטשן אָפּ דעם שילוש בלויז ווי פֿאַרשיידענע אַספּעקטן פֿון איין גאָט, און גאָטס פֿאַרקערפּערונג אין יעזוסן מער סימבאָליש, נישט אין גאַנצן בוכשטעבלעך.
על־פּי קבלה אַנטפּלעקט זיך דער אייבערשטער צו דער וועלט און צו דער מענטש דורך צען ספֿירות — פֿאַרשיידענע פּערזענלעכע אַספּעקטן, וועלכע מע קען פֿאַרגלײַכן מיטן קריסטלעכן שילוש. בריל באַמערקט אָבער אַ ספּעציפֿישן חילוק: די ספֿירות באַציִען זיך איינע צו דער צווייטער לויט אַ שטרענגער היעראַרכיע, און בײַ די קריסטן זענען „דער טאַטע, דער זון און דער רוח־הקודש‟ אַבסאָלוט גלײַך. די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטן, פֿאַרקערט, באַטראַכטן גאָט דעם טאַטן ווי אַ מלך איבער זײַן זון און דעם הייליקן גײַסט ווי זײַן עמאַנאַציע. בריל האָט מיר דערקלערט, אַז אין דער פּראַוואָסלאַוונער טראַדיציע האָט ער זיך נישט געגריבלט. ער באַשרײַבט נאָך אַזעלכע וואַריאַציעס פֿון קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע, וואָס זענען גוט באַקאַנט דעם ברייטן אַמעריקאַנער עולם.
בדרך־כּלל איז בריל גערעכט, אַז די ספֿירות ווערן אָפֿט באַטראַכט ווי אַ שטרענגע היעראַרכיע. כ׳מוז אָבער צוגעבן פֿון זיך, אַז אין אַ ריי באַקאַנטע חסידישע ספֿרים ווערט זייער סדר רעלאַטיוו אָדער דווקא איבערגעקערט. בפֿרט איז דאָס בולט בײַ חב״ד. די ליובאַוויטשער רביים באַטאָנען כּסדר, אַז מלכות — די לעצטע ספֿירה, באַטראַכט ווי אַ ווײַבלעכע און אָפֿט אינעטניפֿיצירט מיט דער שכינה, איז אין איר שורש די העכסטע. מע קען זאָגן, אַז ס׳איז „העכער‟ צו באַטראַכטן דעם באַשעפֿער ווײַבלעך, ווי אַ געטין. מעג דאָס קלינגען אומטראַדיציאָנעל, נאָר אין געוויסע גאַנץ כּשרע קבלה־קוואַלן געפֿינען מיר סימנים פֿון אַזאַ צוגאַנג. פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונד – צו האַלטן זיך נישט צו ווײַט פֿונעם הויפּטשטראָם – איז גאַנץ פֿאַרשטענדלעך אַזעלכע ענינים נישט צו דערמאָנען.
אינעם קאַפּיטל „אינקאַרנאַציע‟ דערמאָנט בריל נאָר אַ ביסל, אַז פֿאַר די חסידים איז אַן אמתער צדיק אַ געטלעכע אַנטפּלעקונג, און פֿאַרגלײַכט עס מיט דער „פֿאַרגעטלעכונג‟ פֿון קריסטלעכע הייליקע דורכן רוח־קודש, נישט מיט דעם, ווי די קריסטן קוקן אויף יעזוסן. אויב מע פֿאַרגלײַכן די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע טעאָלאָגיע מיט געוויסע חשובֿע חסידישע ספֿרים, ווערט אָבער דער חילוק נישט אַזוי קלאָר. צום בײַשפּיל, שטייט געשריבן אין שײַכות צו משה רבינו אינעם ספֿר „זרע קודש‟ פֿונעם ראָפּשיצער רבין (פּרשת „ואתחנן‟), אַז אַן אמתער צדיק איז גאָט — ממש מיט אַזעלכע ווערטער. דעם דאָזיקן ספֿר האַלטן די סאַטמאַרער חסידים ווי איינעם פֿון די כּשרסטע און הייליקסטע.
ווידער, פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונקט איז דווקא ריכטיק אַזעלכע ראַדיקאַלע דעות נישט צו דערמאָנען. אַפֿילו אין די חסידישע קרײַזן קאָנען זיי שאָקירן אַ פּשוטן ייִד. אַזוי באַציִען זיך אַ סך חסידים צום „זרע קודש‟: דער ספֿר איז טאַקע אַ הייליקער, נאָר גיי פֿאַרשטיי, וואָס דער ראָפּשיצער רבי האָט באמת געמיינט! פֿון דעסט וועגן, אויב עמעצער וואָלט פֿאַרגליכן דעם ראַדיקאַלן „צדיקיזם‟ מיט פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטלעכע געדאַנקען, וואָלט זיך באַקומען גאָר אַן אַנדער בילד מיט נאָך מער פּאַראַלעלן צווישן די רעליגיעס.
די לייענער פֿון מײַנע אַרטיקלען ווייסן, אַז איך האָב ליב אַרויסצוגראָבן, אַמאָל פֿון זעלטענע און ווייניק באַקאַנטע ספֿרים, דווקא ראַדיקאַלע, אומגעוויינטלעכע און יוצא־דופֿנדיקע דעות. ווען איך האָב געלייענט ברילס בוך, האָב איך כּסדר געטראַכט: פֿאַרוואָס גייט נישט דער מחבר נאָך ווײַטער? דאָס איז אָבער אַ מעלה פֿאַר די, וואָס האָבן ליב אַ מאָדערנעם ראַציאָנעלן צוגאַנג. בריל האַלט זיך בײַם מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישן דרך און שטיצט אַן ענלעכן מין קריסטלעכקייט. פֿאַר מיר, אַ ליבהאָבער פֿון מיסטישע און שאַמאַנישע זאַכן, איז זײַן בוך געוואָרן אַ גוטער באַלערנדיקער אַרײַנפֿיר אין דער וועלט פֿון הײַנטצײַטיקע קאַטויליקער, וואָס קלינגען טאַקע ווי קריסטלעכע „מאָדערנע אָרטאָדאָקסן‟.
דאָס בוך ענדיקט זיך מיט אַ דערמאָנונג פֿונעם פּראָמינענטן רבֿ יונתן סאַקס ז״ל, וועלכער האָט באַטאָנט, אַז „די וועלט ווערט גרעסער צוליב די אונטערשיידן‟ און דערבײַ אָפּגעשאַצט די קריסטלעכע רעליגיע, ווי אויך די רעליגיעזע פֿאַרשיידנאַרטיקייט בכלל. בריל איז מסכּים, אָבער שליסט זײַן פֿאָרשונג מיט די ווערטער: „די צוויי רעליגיעס בלײַבן באַזונדערע אומאָפּהענגיקע בריתן מיטן באַשעפֿער‟.
The post Can the Trinity be kosher? appeared first on The Forward.
