Uncategorized
A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools
(JTA) – Among the many books that conservative parents have recently asked their children’s schools to remove is a lushly illustrated version of the most famous Holocaust diary.
The graphic adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, published in English in 2018, has found itself at the center of a growing number of controversies involving book removals from school libraries. A small number of passionate activists have pushed for the book to be removed from schools in Florida and Texas, calling it “pornography” and even “antisemitic.” Sometimes, they’ve succeeded.
The movement to police children’s literature — particularly graphic novels — on the basis of race, sex and gender has encompassed thousands of different titles, and it has grown to become a potent political force with potential reverberations for the 2024 presidential race. The official who has played one of the biggest roles in enabling parents to challenge school library books, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is now running for president.
To defenders of the illustrated book — including the foundation created in Frank’s memory, historians and Jewish groups — the inclusion of Anne Frank’s diary among the list of banned books is a sign that the movement is bigoted and misguided.
Proponents of removing the book from schools say the graphic adaptation is essentially an obscene version that distorts Frank’s legacy and aids in “grooming” children. Even some Jewish parents and at least one Jewish lawmaker have objected to the book’s presence in schools.
“I read the diary of Anne Frank many times as a kid. I don’t remember any of that stuff that they put in that graphic novel,” Florida Rep. Randy Fine told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Calling the adaptation an “Anne Frank pornography book,” Fine continued, “And frankly that graphic novel is antisemitic. To sexualize the diary of Anne Frank in that sort of inappropriate way, it is antisemitic.”
Here is what you need to know about the book, the criticism it’s facing and the context that has made it a flashpoint in a deepening culture war.
What is ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’?
Published in 2018, “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” is a new, abridged version of Frank’s famous diary presented in comic-book format. The project was authorized by the Anne Frank Fonds, the Switzerland-based foundation started by Anne’s father Otto Frank, which controls the copyright to the diary Otto rescued after he survived the Holocaust. Anne herself perished in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after hiding out for most of the war with her family in an Amsterdam annex.
The Oscar-nominated Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman, together with illustrator David Polonsky, put the new book together. It was intended as a companion piece to the 2021 animated film “Where Is Anne Frank,” which Folman directed.
While the film tells the fanciful story of Anne’s imaginary friend Kitty coming to life and wandering through modern-day Amsterdam, the book is a straightforward, though heavily truncated, rendition of Anne’s original diary. All of the entries it reproduces are taken from her original text, and dialogue between the characters in the annex is based on Anne’s own recollections of their conversations. Some of its supporters resist the label “graphic novel,” which they say implies the story is fictional.
The new book, the foundation says, is not meant to replace Frank’s original diary, first published in Dutch in 1947 as “The Secret Annex” and in English in 1952 as “The Diary of a Young Girl.” That book, along with subsequent editions that restored some passages edited out of the first publication, continues to be published and widely read in dozens of languages.
Why and how is the book being challenged?
A handful of parent activists, the largest “parents’ rights” group in the country and at least one Republican state lawmaker — Fine — have specifically gone after “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” as part of their larger campaign against what they say is obscene and pornographic content in schools. After a few isolated incidents of parental opposition to the book over the last year, their efforts have gained steam in recent months.
Organized by members of “parents’ rights” groups such as Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education, parents nationwide have brought challenges against thousands of books in school libraries, the vast majority of which deal with topics of race, gender and sexuality. This movement began as parents organized to oppose COVID-19 mask mandates in public schools, and picked up steam in the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder, as well as recent political controversies involving LGBTQ-focused issues such as medical procedures for trans children.
The groups operate under the presumption that their children’s educators and librarians might be trying to sneak leftist viewpoints (including what they call “critical race theory” and “gender ideology”) into the classroom, or even that they are “grooming” their children.
Increasingly, such parents have trained this focus on books, and have become particularly sensitive to any literary depictions of sex and/or LGBTQ identity — particularly in graphic or comic-book format. Some of the most-banned books in schools across the country are graphic novels and memoirs with LGBTQ themes, including “Gender Queer” and “Fun Home.”
“People are just so uncomfortable with the idea of seeing anything represented visually,” said Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at the literary free-speech activist group PEN America. “Time and time again, when graphic novels are taken, an image is pulled out of context or an image is held up and declared as porn.”
Florida has emerged as a frontier for this movement under the leadership of DeSantis, who is a Republican. Under new laws he championed, educators can face felony charges for making obscene material accessible to students; the state also has a new law, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by its critics, that prohibits any classroom instruction on sexual identity or orientation in elementary and middle school, and limits it in high school.
Why are parents complaining specifically about the graphic adaptation?
Critics of the book say they are objecting to the small handful of passages in which Anne describes sexual matters. In one, she discusses a time she asked a female friend if they could show each other their breasts, but was rebuffed. (“If only I had a girlfriend,” she muses.) In another, she describes clinical details of her own vagina.
These passages are Anne’s own writing, and were part of her actual diary. Folman and Polonsky reproduce them in the book and show a full-page illustration showing her wandering through a garden of female nude statues in the Greco-Roman tradition.
This illustration, which is presented as coming from Anne’s imagination, has garnered the most intense blowback from parents. In Facebook groups devoted to book challenges, some members have shared screenshots of the page as evidence of the adaptation’s obscene qualities, questioning why any parent would want their child to read it.
Some people challenging the book have offered other explanations. Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms For Liberty whose Florida district has removed the book, told JTA that she was troubled by the fact that the adaptation only replicates a small percentage of the original diary, while leaving out what she believed to be crucial context: the original epilogue that shifted from Anne’s first-person narration to a larger study of the victims of the Holocaust. (An afterword does appear in the graphic adaptation.)
Inveighing against current child literacy levels she said are woefully low, Justice was also infuriated by the idea that Frank’s diary needed an illustrated version to begin with.
“Anne wrote the diary when she was 13,” she said. “So the diary is written at a level where children of that age can completely understand it.”
What has happened when parents have challenged the book?
The book first grabbed headlines in August 2022, when administrators at Keller ISD, a public school district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, ordered staff to remove it (along with a selection of other books) from their shelves. The book had been challenged by a single parent the previous year, and the school’s new board, backed by right-wing special interest groups, had ordered its review policy for classroom materials to be completely overhauled. Any books that had ever been challenged in the district were to be removed from circulation until the matter had been resolved. Following public outcry, the book was returned to Keller’s shelves a week later.
A second Texas school district, Katy ISD outside Houston, had also placed the book under review during the 2021-22 school year, ultimately determining it was only appropriate for high school students.
The book soon landed on the radar of parent activists in Florida. One Florida school district, Indian River County Schools on the state’s Atlantic coast, ruled in April that the book was “not age-appropriate” at any level of instruction, including high school. A parent there had challenged it, claiming that the book “minimizes the Holocaust.”
After a review, the district agreed with the parent, telling JTA it had determined the book to be “a fictional novel,” “not the real diary of Anne Frank,” and filled with “inappropriate content.” The district superintendent issued a statement backing the ruling, citing Florida’s statewide Holocaust education mandate as a reason why the school should not make the book available to students.
The national leadership of Moms For Liberty issued a statement siding with the district — and emphasizing that Anne Frank’s diary is not itself objectionable.
“There are multiple versions of Anne Frank’s diary of varying age appropriateness available to students,” the statement said. “Only this ONE version was removed.”
Justice, the Moms for Liberty cofounder, is a former board member for Indian River County Schools and still lives in the area. She told JTA she does not like the book either and said its removal was a sign of the system working as it should: School administrators took a parent’s challenge seriously and came to a decision.
“If the superintendent and the school board wanted it there, it would be there,” she said. “If the Holocaust education group in the county had wanted it there — these are Jewish people — had wanted it there, it would be there.”
Another Florida school district, Clay County Public Schools outside Jacksonville, has kept the book restricted from student access for some five months and counting, following a single parental complaint earlier this year. That parent, Bruce Friedman, is Jewish, and has become a leading voice of the broader book challenge movement. He challenged the graphic adaptation along with hundreds of other books in his district that he deemed to be inappropriate for students. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s grooming,” he told JTA about the adaptation.
Facing a backlog of book challenges, Clay County in April altered its challenge policy to make it harder for parents like Friedman to file blanket requests to remove many books at once for broadly defined reasons. But notably, the district retained the pending challenge to “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” even after its policy change. A final decision on the book is still pending.
How are the book’s supporters responding to the criticism?
Activists opposed to the book banning movement and experts on the diary’s publication history say critics of the Anne Frank adaptation are wrong even about the most basic facts of their objections.
First, while the visual format of the graphic adaptation (which incorporates some surreal imagery) arguably lies somewhere between fact and artistic interpretation, and its rendition of the diary is severely abridged, the book did not invent the passages these parents find objectionable, as some have alleged. Those came, word for word, from Frank herself. Both passages were fully restored to her English-language diary beginning with versions published in the 1980s, largely without incident.
A crucial part of the argument against the graphic adaptation is the idea that both of these passages were excised from the initial English-language edition of the diary. Both Friedman and Fine have told JTA they have no recollection of having read the passages with sexual content in their own childhood memories of the diary.
They almost certainly did, said Ruth Franklin, a book critic and author who is writing a book about Frank and her diary to be published next year by Yale University Press. According to Franklin’s research, the very first English-language edition of the diary did indeed include one of the two passages the parents are now objecting to: the part where Anne discusses her attraction to another girl.
Franklin said that, contrary to popular belief, Otto Frank was the one who pushed for the passage to be included in the diary’s first English-language edition after it was excised from the Dutch original. Otto is often portrayed as having been responsible for removing the passage so as to sanitize Anne’s language for a general audience.
Contemporary parents who insist they did not read the passage as children, she said, are “misremembering.”
“If they were to actually go to the library and open up the edition that has been in print since 1952, they would be unhappily surprised to find what’s there,” Franklin said. “It seems inconsistent to me to go after the graphic adaptation and not the diary itself.”
At least one parent has objected to the unabridged text-based version of the diary before. In 2013, a Michigan mom challenged an unabridged edition of the diary, citing the same passages that today’s parents are objecting to in the graphic adaptation. She argued that the unabridged diary was “inappropriate for the middle school,” and tried to push her daughter’s district to swap out the “definitive” edition of the diary for the original version that excised one of the objectionable passages. The parent’s objection made national news, was the subject of much condemnation and was ultimately rejected by the district.
Conditions in schools have changed in the last decade, with parents in multiple states newly empowered to challenge books in their children’s schools. The movement has caught up not only the graphic version of Anne Frank’s diary but a growing number of other titles with Jewish and Holocaust themes.
Meehan of PEN America suggested that the parents who objected to Anne exploring her sexuality were doing so because of the passages’ latent LGBTQ themes, meaning that the text had become an example of “intersectionality,” or representing more than one marginalized group. Some of the book’s opponents, including Justice, have separately attacked the idea of intersectionality.
“When there are multiple themes represented in a book,” Meehan said, “then that book becomes even more a focus of efforts to remove it.”
For the Anne Frank Fonds, the Swiss group that controls the diary and authorized the adaptation, the situation is clear-cut. From across the Atlantic, the group issued a statement responding to challenges of the diary in all its forms: “We consider the book of a 12-year-old girl to be appropriate reading for her peers.”
—
The post A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Herzl’s grandparents reburied on Mount Herzl, fulfilling Zionist leader’s final wish
(JTA) — JERUSALEM — When World Zionist Organization officials working with the Israeli Foreign Ministry opened the grave of Theodor Herzl’s grandfather on July 29 in Zemun, Serbia, they found it empty.
Shimon Leib Herzl was not buried beneath his tombstone. So they kept digging to the side of his wife Rivka’s grave and found his remains there, according to Yizhar Hess, the WZO’s acting chairman, who was present at the exhumation.
On Wednesday afternoon, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog in attendance, Herzl’s grandparents were reinterred on Mount Herzl.
“The long journey of the Herzl family, from foreign soil to the soil of Zion, ends here today on Mount Herzl,” Netanyahu said. “The vision has arisen and become reality. Zionism has won.”
The reburial came 77 years to the Hebrew date after Herzl himself was laid to rest on the Jerusalem hillside that bears his name. The Knesset had voted on Aug. 10, 1949, to bring his remains from Vienna in one of its first acts.
The WZO says the ceremony completes the last unfulfilled clause of Herzl’s 1903 will, which instructed that his body be transferred to the Land of Israel along with the coffins of his father, his sister Pauline and several close relatives.
“Having a chapter of his will that was not fulfilled is something that needed to be fixed,” Hess said. He credited the effort to Yaakov Hagoel, the organization’s chairman, who he said had worked on the exhumation for four years.
The transfer was ready to proceed two years ago, but it didn’t. “We could have done it after two years, actually,” Hess said. “But we could not bring them back, because the hostages were not home yet, and we felt there are more urgent things than to bring Herzl’s grandmother and grandfather to Israel. Now that the hostage affair is done, we felt it’s the right time.”
In a statement, Hagoel said the WZO was closing a historic circle and reconnecting the Herzl family’s roots to the land Herzl had devoted his life to. “When Zion brings her children home, she also brings home their forebears,” he said.
Diplomats and officials from across the Zionist institutional world filled the Mount Herzl plaza on Wednesday. Seated near the family plot were Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, Police Commissioner Danny Levy, the Serbian ambassador to Israel and Sheikh Muwaffaq Tarif, spiritual leader of Israel’s Druze community.
An honor guard carried the two caskets and set them on a pedestal before the crowd. The mood was both somber and defiant, and both Netanyahu and Herzog turned quickly from the burial to the ongoing war.
Herzog used his remarks to argue that the day was about inheritance rather than ceremony.
“Dreams are not bequeathed in writing,” he said. “They pass at the Shabbat table, they pass in the living room, they pass in the story a grandfather tells his grandson.”
The Jewish section of the Zemun cemetery is small. The two tombstones — Rivka’s, and one bearing her husband’s name that had not been there originally — were only 65 feet apart, Hess said. He believes it was toppled at some point and reset carelessly wherever there was room.
Shimon Leib Herzl was born in Zemun in 1805, the son of a rabbi. He served as gabbai in the Sephardic synagogue where Yehuda Alkalai was rabbi.
Decades before the First Zionist Congress in 1897, Alkalai argued that Jews could not wait for the messiah to arrive, that they would have to buy land and petition the Ottoman sultan themselves. Today he is thought of as one of the forerunners of Zionism. Whether his ideas were the impetus for his congregant’s grandson, the eventual founder of the Jewish state, has never been definitively established.
Oded Feuer, who directs the WZO’s Herzl Center at the entrance to the mount, thinks they were.
“His grandfather was in touch with Rabbi Alkalai, one of the first people to speak about Zionism in the Orthodox world back then, to make Judaism not only a religious thing, but also a national thing,” Foyer said. “And his grandfather was in his synagogue.”
Hess said Herzl mentioned his grandfather more than once in his diaries and letters. Herzl’s bris was held in Zemun.
Herzog made the same case from the podium, describing Shimon Leib as a man who was not a leader, who addressed no congresses and wrote no books the world read, but the gabbai who opened the synagogue door first and locked it last. “We know one thing,” Herzog said. “He carried those words home with him.”
The reburial is also an argument about who Herzl was.
The Herzl most people know is the assimilated Viennese journalist who found Jewish nationalism at the trial of Alfred Dreyfus, the French army general falsely convicted of treason in an antisemitic affair at the turn of the 20th century. Hess said that portrait is out of date.
“Calling Herzl an assimilated Jew is a mistake in many ways,” he said. Herzl was raised in a house where Jewish tradition was, in Hess’s words, alive and well. He was secular, but that was a way of holding the tradition, not leaving it.
He said Herzl’s bar mitzvah is proof. It was held at a synagogue in Budapest that was associated with the Hungarian Neolog movement, which permits music on Shabbat but seats men and women separately.
Hess traced the assimilation charge to the fight between haredi Orthodox Judaism and the Zionist movement in the 19th century, when calling Zionism assimilation was a way to fight it. “There is more than one political interest in calling Herzl an assimilated Jew,” he said.
Netanyahu made the argument explicitly, telling the crowd that the monument was not the point. “Our gaze turns to the foundations of the building,” he said. “Judaism as the basis of Zionism. The Torah and the entire Bible as the bedrock of identity. The chain of generations as an anchor of values and heritage.”
The Herzl family plot on Mount Herzl has been filling in for 77 years. Theodor Herzl was reinterred there in 1949. His parents and his sister Pauline were brought as well. The bodies of his two eldest children, Pauline and Hans, came from Bordeaux in 2006. The remains of his grandson Stephen Norman, who died by suicide in Washington in 1946, followed in 2007.
One member of the family is still missing. Trude, Herzl’s youngest daughter and Stephen Norman’s mother, died at Theresienstadt in 1943. Her remains were never recovered.
Hess said the circle closes anyway. “On Mount Herzl there is a plot that will now be complete,” he said.
The ceremony comes at a moment when Zionism is contested abroad and inside parts of the Jewish diaspora, a frame the WZO has embraced.
“Zionism is again being attacked from all sides,” Foyer said. “And the first answer to those attacks is within ourselves. Strengthening our Jewish identity will help us give answers, though not everyone who attacks is willing to get an answer.”
Foyer added, “You can look at the Herzl family as the story of a Jewish family in the diaspora in Europe: The old grandfather was Orthodox, somewhere in the Balkans, in Serbia. And then starts the traveling of the Jew, the wandering Jew. His kids moved to central Europe, and they maintained a connection with Judaism, but in a different way, more secular.”
Asked whether removing Jewish remains from Europe in 2026 says something about the future of Jewish life there, Foyer declined the premise.
“This is not our goal,” he said. “This is not the reason for it.” Then he added, “Maybe I’m too optimistic and too naive. I’m choosing to be.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Herzl’s grandparents reburied on Mount Herzl, fulfilling Zionist leader’s final wish appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Orthodox Jews are scootering to synagogue. Will Shabbat ever be the same?
LOS ANGELES – For thousands of years, the Jews have walked. Dispatched by God to the promised land of Canaan, Abraham walked. When the Israelites became a nation in the desert, they camped, kvetched, warred, and worshiped, but mostly walked. And on Shabbat — when the Torah forbids riding horses, carriages, trains or cars — observant Jews have traditionally walked.
But when Ilana Jurkowitz and her two kids went to prayer services one recent Saturday morning, they did not walk. Nor, as Shabbat-observant Jews, did they drive. Instead, the trio made the mile-and-a-half trek to their Beverly Hills synagogue using a decidedly non-Biblical form of transportation: scooters.
They’re not alone. On Shabbat, the two-wheel, non-electric scooters — the kind you kick off to propel and brake by stepping on the back wheel — have in recent years become ubiquitous in Orthodox communities from LA to Miami Beach to the Five Towns. Kids and parents ride them to and from shul, tzitzit fringes flying in the wind, then to meals or playdates afterward. On long Saturday afternoons, Jewish teens cruise the streets on scooters like their California ancestors once did in classic cars.
Walking, it seems, has gone out of fashion, supplanted by what was once mainly a children’s toy. Sorry, Walter: These Jews do roll on Shabbos.
“We saw other people scooting and thought, OK, we need to start,” Jurkowitz said. “It makes it so much easier.”
For the Jurkowitz family, scooters cut what would be a 35-minute walk almost in half. Journeys the family wouldn’t dare take on foot — like the two-plus mile jaunt to Ilana’s parents — become manageable. “It extends the radius of the community,” she told me. For her kids, the scooters also signified maturity and taste. Seven-year-old Shylee Jurkowitz recounted her graduation from a three-wheel mini-scooter to the two-wheel model; Winston, 10, rocked a Transformers-themed helmet. Ilana, also wearing headgear, carried in a tote bag the straw hat she would wear in shul, and four-inch heels.
In Los Angeles, where electric scooters help residents and tourists alike navigate traffic congestion, the ascendance of kick scooters in Orthodox areas highlights the intersection of religious practice and 21st-century urban geography. As the Shabbat-observant population has surged — Orthodoxy being the fastest-growing Jewish denomination in the U.S. — neighborhoods like Pico-Robertson, where the Jurkowitzes live, have stretched the limits of walking distance. Factor in the heat and Shabbat formal attire, and long walks become a brutal proposition.
There’s just one catch. For all their analog simplicity — they contain no motor, battery, chains or gears — it’s not really clear whether scooters are a kosher Shabbat activity. I grew up in Pico-Robertson in the early aughts, when Razor scooters were a fad; I rode mine so much its orange foam handles turned auburn. But I distinctly remember my Modern Orthodox rabbi advising me that on Shabbat, I should leave my wheels at home — scootering, he said, was against the spirit of the Jewish day of rest. So what happened with everyone else?
Each Shabbat for the last several months, I’ve been putting that question to friends and strangers scootering on the streets of Pico-Robertson. The people I’ve spoken to — at least 30, including respondents to a survey I taped up on street corners — described a trend that speaks to climate and real estate, adolescence and parenting, gender and style, and ultimately the meaning of Shabbat itself.
Eventually I heard enough hype about scooters that I ordered one on Amazon; when the Jurkowitzes went to shul, I was rolling along with them.
Micromobility comes to the shtetl
As the Jurkowitz kids raced ahead, Ilana told me how they wound up living so far from shul.
Before they moved into their current home a little more than a decade ago, she and her husband Nick were living about a half-mile east of their synagogue, Beth Jacob Congregation. But with plans to grow their family, they were lured south by cheaper real estate. The Jurkowitzes’ block today would be considered the outskirts of Pico-Robertson; twenty years ago it might as well have been San Diego.
Initially, they walked, pushing their oldest in a stroller. “And then it just, you know, took a lot longer to get there,” Jurkowitz said. Putting the kids on scooters, she quickly learned, meant they could leave the stroller at home.
Shylee and Winston waited at the end of the block for us to catch up. There’d been some skinned knees and bloody elbows over the years, Ilana said, but nothing dramatic. (Other kids I spoke to weren’t so lucky — one teenager told me he’d broken his arm when his scooter plunged into a crack in the sidewalk and threw him off.)
Greater Los Angeles contains several Orthodox neighborhoods, of which Pico-Robertson is the largest. But since the early 2000s, the majority of them are bound by a single eruv, which is the ritual enclosure that allows observant Jews to bypass the prohibition of carrying objects in public on Shabbat. The ludicrously capacious LA eruv — bound by the 405, 10 and 101 freeways, it covers an area roughly the size of Washington, D.C. — allows people to scooter not merely between home and shul, but from one Jewish neighborhood to another.
One man I spoke to planned to scooter four miles that night from Pico-Robertson to his house in Hancock Park, an Orthodox neighborhood colloquially referred to by Pico’s Jews as “the other side of town.” Another rode to Pico from Chabad of Mount Olympus — a distance of more than five miles. The eruv meant these journeys have long been possible on Shabbat. But the scooters are making them almost routine, and in turn, challenging the paradigm of Orthodox community. Having to walk to synagogue on Shabbat has kept Jews living in close proximity for centuries; with a scooter, Orthodox Angelenos really can live anywhere in a 67-square-mile area.
For now, those crosstown treks — facilitated by dry weather, wide residential streets and the generally flat LA basin — represent the extreme in trip length. But they underscore the appeal of intra-community scoots like the Jurkowitzes’. Property values around the neighborhood’s edges have nearly doubled in the past decade, reflecting the increased demand from Orthodox families priced out of the core. Scooters don’t just help people get to synagogue faster; in some cases — especially families with kids — they are the difference between getting there at all or just staying home.
Of course, people do more than pray on Shabbat, and the turn to scooters had as many social motivations as religious ones. For older kids, having a scooter was the first whiff of independence, a status symbol that made you both taller and faster than your peers. And for younger adults, it was an antidote to Saturday doldrums.
Motti Zuker and Joshua Engelson, Orthodox millennials who I met up with one recent Saturday night, use their scooters less to pray than to meet friends and make afternoon plans. “If I was married and had a family, I wouldn’t,” Engelson told me. But as an older single, he said, “I need to move around places.” In other words, he’s shmooze-maxxing.
Though Shabbat-observant themselves, he and Zuker sometimes attend Jewish Friday night functions where most of the other guests drove. Self-conscious of their garishly unsexy devices — Engelson called it “social suicide” to be caught with one at his age — the two have turned their foldable off-brand scooters into a kind of ironic shtick.
“My go-to thing when I introduce myself is I’ll say, ‘Yeah, it’s the vintage model,’” Zuker said with a grin. He’d used that line on me a few days earlier, when I flagged him down on my walk home from Friday night dinner.
Pumping the brakes
So many yidden breeze by you on scooters in Pico-Robertson that it can be easy to forget how many people object to them. What reminded me was the experience of riding one myself. After services ended at Beth Jacob, I grabbed my ride from a rack in the alley behind the shul and kicked off toward my usual religious haunts. As I hurtled past my coreligionists on the sidewalk, it seemed they were looking at me with a mix of bemusement and contempt. My “Good Shabbos” greetings went ignored.
There is nothing in the Torah that overtly forbids riding a scooter on Shabbat. Instead, scooters fall into the gray area of Shabbat prohibition known as uvda d’chol, or “weekday activity.” Uvda d’chol encompasses activities not explicitly prohibited on Shabbat but which are discouraged — as my rabbi did 25 years ago — because they undercut the notion of the Jewish day of rest. The Talmud specifies modes of transportation as an example: The way one gets around on Shabbat, it instructs, should not be the same as how one travels during the week. (The Shulchan Aruch, a 16th-century legal compendium, forbids running on this basis.)
A scan of Orthodox commentary in the last five years seems to reflect consensus that scootering on Shabbat is improper for this reason. An article on the website of the Orthodox Union, the organization to which most Modern Orthodox synagogues belong, and various lectures about scooters on Orthodox learning library YUTorah, declare scootering uvda d’chol.
But uvda d’chol is an evolving designation, determined not by mere rabbinic mandate but also by community habit. And something unusual occurs in the sources discussing scooters: The rabbis tend to concede it’s happening anyway. Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, a rosh yeshiva (senior rabbinic scholar) at Yeshiva University who leads a synagogue in Long Island, said in a lecture last year that he once forbade his son from scootering places on Shabbat, a stringency not abided by the boy’s friends.
“But then the yeshivish community moved in, and they’re all on scooters,” said Lebowitz, referring to a more strictly religious crowd. “The adults are on scooters. So now, people in my shul say, ‘How do I tell my kids not to?’”
According to at least one halachic authority, however, kids are in the clear. Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon, an influential Orthodox legal scholar based in Israel, permits children scootering on Shabbat because it is a leisure activity, rather than a form of transportation. And he says that in communities where families live far from their synagogue, adults, too, should not be prohibited from scootering to get there — just as the Shulchan Aruch grants an exception for adults to run to shul, because it facilitates the mitzvah of prayer.
In any event, most riders I spoke to weren’t considering it a gray area at all. To Ilana Jurkowitz, scootering wasn’t a thing she did during the week — so how could it be considered a weekday activity? The upsides, on the other hand, were obvious: They made shul more accessible to the whole family, deepened friendships, and enabled her kids to spend more time with their grandparents.
She had not seen a need to consult her rabbi, she said, because so many other families at her shul were doing it first.
“I’ve just looked at the community and seen it as an adopted mode of transportation, and so kind of went with that,” Jurkowitz said. “I guess I felt like if there was an issue with scooting on Shabbat, knowing that so many do it, that the rabbis would address it.”
At least one Pico-Robertson rabbi had tried to ban scooters from his shul. In an interview, he compared their appeal to that of cars in the Conservative movement, which in 1950 permitted driving on Shabbat only for the purpose of getting to services. “Ultimately, it was exactly this — that, ‘Well, people are living far away, so they have to come on Shabbos,’” said the rabbi, who asked to remain anonymous. “Then people kept going further away, and then the whole community, the sense of community faded.”
Others I spoke to shared his sentiment, but few were willing to say so publicly; two local pulpit rabbis I reached out to for this piece declined to speak at all about the topic.
The rabbi who banned the devices empathized with those colleagues. A rabbi’s imperative, he noted, is to set rules his congregation can follow. Taking a position against an activity that is already accepted community practice may only serve to undercut their authority on everything else.
“The reality of the situation regarding scooters,” he said, “is that it’s not where they want to make their battles.”
Day of leisure or day of rest?
There’s an adage in the Talmud that a man is blessed for every step he takes to reach his synagogue — the longer the walk, the greater the reward. But the heavenly incentives, it turned out, shrank in the glare of Los Angeles sun.
Scooter riders cited fatigue, the heat and time commitment as the main reasons they didn’t want to walk. The first two factors went together; Los Angeles now experiences roughly nine to ten more days per year when temperatures hit 90°F or higher compared to two decades ago. In the parts of Pico-Robertson where the Orthodox community has expanded more recently, shade is in short supply.
But people’s resentment of time wasted on foot may say as much about modern social anxieties as it does about the built environment. Whether shul-hopping singles or families of five, people wanted to squeeze more out of the day of rest.
When I was flitting around town on my blue Razor, my Shabbat itinerary became more ambitious. I timed myself riding from Beth Jacob to another synagogue, then headed to lunch on the eastern edge of Pico-Robertson. From there I swung over to my folks’ for dessert, then kick-pushed another 1.4 miles back southeast to my apartment. By nightfall, and without ever leaving Pico-Robertson, I had scootered just under seven miles. I am confident I have never walked that much on one Shabbat; realizing that, I wondered whether that was a sign I had altered something essential about it.
Wisely, I did not reach out to my childhood rabbi until after I completed my experiment; Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, who today holds the same position as senior rabbi of B’nai David-Judea, had not changed his stance on scooters since I first sought his counsel some 25 years ago. “I’m glad that I’m consistent,” he said when I shared the memory.
Kanefsky, who recently relayed Rimon’s teachings to congregants, said that enabling more children and parents to get to shul was an important consideration in permitting scooters. But he still wasn’t entirely comfortable with the activity more broadly. He recalled the instruction Moses gives the Israelites not to collect manna on Shabbat. “Shvu ish tachtav,” Moses tells them: Stay put.
“Filling our day with busyness, that’s what the other six days are for,” Kanefsky said in an interview. “We fill our schedule with busyness, and Shabbat is intended to be a day of non-busyness. ‘I got places to go. I got things to do. I can’t stay here too long’ — that’s really what we’re supposed to take a break from.”
Perhaps the best case to be made against scootering, then, is not that it feels like a weekday activity; it’s that walking — even or especially a distance you’d rather drive — feels like a Shabbat activity.
But the debate around scooters isn’t just about scooters. The deeper matter, Kanefsky said, is that as technology has become more advanced, more and more things we would intuitively consider Shabbat-violating actually fall into uvda d’chol rather than clear Biblical prohibitions. Lighting a candle on Shabbat is Biblically prohibited, but turning on an LED light? That’s probably uvda d’chol. Same goes for a smartphone, getting in a short-distance Waymo or talking to Alexa.
This is not to say that permitting scooters on Shabbat means allowing Snapchat, too. But scooters do expose an unavoidable fact about Shabbat in the 21st century and beyond: It will ultimately reflect how communities define uvda d’chol for themselves.
“We need this category, desperately,” Kanefsky said. “If we have the opportunity to be a little more conservative with this category — literally to conserve it — I think that’s in our interest. Because — well, just imagine a Shabbat in which everyone’s phone is on, everyone’s computer is on, and everyone’s taking their EV to shul. That’s the future if uvda d’chol disappears as a category altogether.”
Until then, the scooters roll on. The last person I interviewed for this story was the kid who broke his arm — 14-year-old Natan Wintner, a rising high school freshman. Wintner rounds up what he called “a little Jewish scooter gang” most Shabbat afternoons — five to ten guys bouncing from house to house to pass the time. Girls did this too in their own groups, Wintner said; for him it was “having our bro time.”
Wintner’s dad grew up on the other side of town, back when scootering on Shabbat was a clear no-go. But in a sign of the changing times, Natan got his first scooter when he was 5 and — save for the broken arm a few years ago — has been riding it ever since.
He expects to grow out of the Razor someday. “I do view it as somewhat childish,” he said. But when he sees parents scootering with their kids, he begins to imagine an older version of himself grabbing the handlebars again.
“I think I speak for most kids when I say that walking isn’t really fun,” he said. “Just being able to push yourself off a scooter and give yourself a little less to do, it really makes a big difference for kids. And it’s just more fun, you know? You get to gain speed.”
The post Orthodox Jews are scootering to synagogue. Will Shabbat ever be the same? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why did Moses command Jews to choose between a blessing and a curse?
אין פּרשת ראה רופֿט משה רבינו דאָס ייִדישע פֿאָלק צו זען די ברכה און די קללה, וואָס דער באַשעפֿער גיט פֿאַרן מקיים זײַן אָדער, חלילה, פֿאַרן עובֿר זײַן אויף זײַנע מיצוות. „ראה, אָנוכי נותן לפֿניכם היום ברכה וקללה“ — זעט, איך גיב אײַך הײַנט אַ ברכה און אַ קללה.
אין די פֿאָריקע פּרשיות האָבן מיר שוין דערמאָנט, אַז דער חומש „דבֿרים“ פֿאָקוסירט אויף דירעקטע באַציִונגען צווישן דעם מענטש און דעם באַשעפֿער. דער רבונו־של־עולם האָט אָנגענומען משה רבינוס ווערטער ווי אַן אינטעגראַלן חלק פֿון זײַן תּורה, ווײַל משה האָט דערגרייכט די הויכע מדרגה פֿון אַ געטלעכן מענטש; די הייליקע שכינה אַליין האָט גערעדט דורך זײַן מויל.
אויב אַזוי, קאָן מען פֿאַרשטיין, אַז פֿון משה רבינוס דערהויבענער פּערספּעקטיוו האָט ער פּערזענלעך געזען די ברכות, וואָס קומען ווי אַ רעזולטאַט פֿונעם מקיים זײַן די מיצוות. אין אונדזער פּרשה לייענען מיר אָבער, אַז משה האָט אָנגעזאָגט די ייִדן דורכצופֿירן אַ קאָקרעטן ריטואַל בעתן אַרײַנקומען אין ארץ־ישׂראל, כּדי יעדער זאָל משׂיג זײַן די דאָזיקע קאָנצעפּציע מיט זײַנע אייגענע אויגן. ווי די תּורה דערקלערט שפּעטער, האָבן זעקס ייִדישע שבֿטים געדאַרפֿט זאָגן אַ גאַנצע ריי ברכות אויפֿן באַרג גריזים, און די אַנדערע זעקס שבֿטים האָבן געשאָלטן די רשעים אויפֿן בשכנותדיקן באַרג עיבֿל, כּדי אויף אַ גשמיותדיקן אופֿן צו שילדערן דעם חילוק צווישן שׂכר־מיצוות און דער שטראָף פֿאַר עבֿירות.
די חסידישע מפֿרשים אַסאָציִיִרן דעם נאָמען פֿון אונדזער סדרה מיט די ניסים פֿון מתּן־תּורה. די תּורה באַטאָנט, אַז ווען דער אייבערשטער האָט געגעבן די תּורה אויפֿן באַרג סיני, האָבן אַלע ייִדן געזען דאָס קול פֿונעם באַשעפֿער; די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דעם אייבערשטנס ווערטער האָבן זיך אין זייער שׂכל פֿאַרוואַנדלט אין וויזיעס.
הרבֿ אַריה קאַפּלאַן, דער באַקאַנטער וויסנשאַפֿטלעך־אָריענטירטער פּאָפּולאַריזאַטאָר פֿון קבלה און חסידות, האָט אין זײַנע ווערק מסביר געווען, אַז לויט דער מאָדערנער פּסיכאָלאָגיע זענען די דאָזיקע דבֿרי־חז״ל גאַנץ פֿאַרשטענדלעך. הגם אונדזער מוח באַהאַנדלט די אינפֿאָרמאַציע פֿון די אויערן און אויגן אויף באַזונדערע אופֿנים, איז דער פּראָצעס בעצם דער זעלבער. אין אויסעראָרדנטלעכע סיטואַציעס – און די מתּן־תּורה איז זיכער אַ גוטער בײַשפּיל דערפֿון – קאָנען אונדזערע חושים זיך צונויפֿשמעלצן. למשל, ווען מיר זעען אַ חלום און עצעמער פּרוּווט אונדז אויפֿצוּוועקן, ווערן די ווערטער פֿונעם דרויסנדיקן מענטש צומאָל פֿאַרוואַנדלט אין חלומדיקע וויזועלע פֿיגורן. אין דער הײַנטיקער פּסיכאָלאָגיע ווערן אַזאַ פֿענאָמען אָנגערופֿן „סינעסטעזיע‟.
די תּורה בלײַבט אָבער אַקטועל אין יעדן דור. הגם מיר זענען ווײַט פֿון משה רבינוס דערהויבענער מדרגה פֿון דבֿקות און פֿונעם מיסטישן שׂכל־צושטאַנד בעת דער מתּן־תּורה, זאָגט אונדז משה רבינו קלאָר, אַז אין אַ געוויסער מאָס קאָנען מיר אַלע זען די פּירות פֿון אונדזער עבֿודת־השם אין דער וועלט. די גײַסטיקע דערפֿאַרונג בײַם באַרג סיני בלײַבט אײַנגעקריצט אין אונדזערע נשמות, און מיר זענען טאַקע מסוגל צו זען מיט אונדזערע אויגן דעם באַשעפֿערס שפֿע פֿאַרן מקיים זײַן די מיצוות.
אין די פֿריִערדיקע צוויי סדרות האָבן מיר געלייענט די ווערטער פֿון דער וויכטיקסטער ייִדישער תּפֿילה: קריאת־שמע. צוויי מאָל אַ טאָג, מוזן מיר זיך דערמאָנען, אַז אַלץ אין דער וועלט איז אַ געטלעכע אַנטפּלעקונג. דער אות „ח‟ אינעם וואָרט „אחד‟ איז מרמז בגימטריא, אַז דער רבונו־של־עולם איז איינער אויף די זיבן הימלען און אויף דער ערד, און דער אות „ד‟ דערמאָנט אונדז, אַז אין אַלע פֿיר ריכטונגען אַרום אונדז און אין אַלע פֿיר עלעמענטן פֿון דער נאַטור דערשפּירט זיך דער געטלעכער כּוח. ווי רבי לוי־יצחק באַרדיטשעווער, דער באַרימטער חסידישער צדיק, זינגט אין זײַן ניגון „דודעלע‟, געפֿינען מיר איבעראַל דעם אייבערשטן און פֿאָרט בלײַבט ער פֿון אונדז באַהאַלטן. ווי דער בעל־שם־טובֿ האָט זיך אויסגעדריקט, ווען אַ בלאַט פֿאַלט אַראָפּ פֿון אַ בוים, איז עס אַ טייל פֿונעם געטלעכן באַשאַף־פּלאַן.
אויב מע טראַכט זיך אַרײַן, זעען מיר יעדן טאָג מיט אונדזערע אויגן גאַנץ קאָנקרעטע ברכות און קללות אויף אַ גאַנץ פּשוטן אופֿן, אָן קיין הויכע עבֿודות און מעדיטאַציעס. אַדרבה, צום באַדויערן, זענען די מענטשן אָפֿטמאָל אַליין שולדיק אין דעם, וואָס דעם אייבערשטנס השגחה בלײַבט פֿון אונדז באַהאַלטן. ווען אין די נײַעס דערציילט מען שרעקלעכע ידיעות וועגן מלחמות און אַנדערע צרות, דאַרפֿן מיר געדענקען, אַז די וועלט נייטיקט זיך אין אַ תּיקון. וואָס מער מיר זאָרגן זיך וועגן די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו, אונדזערע עטישע פֿליכטן לגבי אַנדערע מענטשן, אַלץ קלאָרער זעען מיר מיט אונדזערע אויגן, ווי די וועלט ווערט אַ בעסער געבענטשט אָרט.
דער גרויסער מקובל און בעל־מוסר אלעזר אַזכּרי באַמערקט אין דער הקדמה צו זײַן „ספֿר־חרדים‟, אַז דער באַקאַנטער ספֿרדישער צדיק רבי יוסף סרגוסי האָט זוכה געווען צו דערגרייכן אַ הויכע מדרגה פֿון רוח־הקודש, ווײַל ער פֿלעגט אַרומלויפֿן אין צפֿת, כּדי שלום צו מאַכן אַפֿילו צווישן צופֿעליקע צעקריגטע אַראַבישע פּאָרפֿעלקער. אונדזער באַטייליקונג אינעם וועלט־תּיקון, לאַוו־דווקא אין אונדזערע אייגענע קהילות, ברענגט גאַנץ פּראַקטישע רעזולטאַטן סײַ אין דער אַרומיקער סבֿיבֿה, סײַ אין אונדזערע נשמות.
פֿון דער צווייטער זײַט, כּל־זמן ערגעץ אין דער וועלט הערשט שׂינאה און אומיושר, בלײַבן מיר אין גלות, פֿאַרזונקען אין סיטרא־אַחרא. אַדרבה, ווען אַ ייִדישע קהילה זאָרגט זיך בלויז וועגן אירע אינערלעכע ענינים, ווערט זי אָפֿט באַוואַקסן מיט אַ גאַנץ פּעקל קללות און צרות. אין אַ סבֿיבֿה, וווּ מע היט זיך אָפּ אויף כּלערליי אופֿנים פֿון דער „פֿאַרשאָלטענער‟ דרויסנדיקער וועלט, קריכן גרינג אַרײַן אינטריגעס, קריגערײַען און אַנדערע פּראָבלעמען; צוליב אַזאַ באַציִונג, נעבעך, קאָן מען אַליין פֿאַרשאָלטן ווערן. אויב מע טראַכט זיך אַרײַן, קאָנען מיר גאַנץ קלאָר דערזען, אַז די וועלט נייטיקט זיך אין אונדזער גלאָבאַלער עבֿודת־התּיקונים; די לעכערדיקע און קרומע באַציִונג צו די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו זענען אַ קוואַל פֿון בפֿירושע קללות.
עס באַקומט זיך, אַז וואָס שייך די צווישן־מענטשלעכע מיצוות, איז גאַנץ גרינג צו דערזען די ברכות און קללות, וואָס ס׳שטעקן אין זיי. די תּורה באַטאָנט אין אונדזער פּרשה, אַז דער אייבערשטער האָט פֿאַרטריבן די כּנענים און געגעבן זייער לאַנד צו ייִדן נישט צוליב די ייִדישע זכותים, נאָר צוליב די רישעותדיקע מעשׂים פֿון די אַמאָליקע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע האָבן אויף עקסטרעם אַכזריותדיקע אופֿנים צעטראָטן די עטישע יסודות פֿון מענטשלעכקייט.
פֿון דער צווייטער זײַט, איז גאַנץ גרינג צו דערשפּירן די ברכה אין אַ היים, וווּ עס הערשט שלום־בית און פֿרידלעכע באַציִונגען מיט די שכנים. אין אַ שיל, וווּ אַלע מתפּללים זענען בשלום איינער מיטן צווייטן און האָבן דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער אַרומיקער וועלט רוט אויך אַ געזונטע און געבענטשטע אַטמאָספֿער.
רבי פּינחס־אליהו האָראָוויץ דערקלערט אין זײַן „ספֿר הברית‟, אויפֿן סמך פֿון רבי חיים וויטאַל און אַנדערע קלאַסישע קבלה־קוואַלן, אַז אין אַ ברודערלעכער און פֿרײַנדלעכער געזעלשאַפֿט קאָנען אַפֿילו דורכשניטלעכע מענטשן דערגרייכן דעם רוח־הקודש. אויב מיר זענען מקיים ווי געהעריק די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו, קענען מיר אויך דערזען די ברכה, וואָס שטעקט אין די מיצוות בין אָדם־למקום, ריין־גײַסטיקע באַציִונג־ענינים צווישן דעם מענטש און דעם אייבערשטן. כּדי צוצוקומען אויף וויפֿל מע קען צו דער שכינה־אַנטפּלעקונג און אויסצומײַדן די דערמאָנטע קהילה־פּראָבלעמען, מוזן מיר זיך קודם־כּל פֿאָקוסירן אויפֿן סאָציאַלן אַספּעקט פֿון דער תּורה, וואָס דערמעגלעכט צו זען דירעקטע פּאָזיטיווע רעזולטאַטן פֿון אונדזער עבֿודת־השם.
The post Why did Moses command Jews to choose between a blessing and a curse? appeared first on The Forward.
