Uncategorized
American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?
(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.
The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.
“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.
“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”
The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.
Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.
“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”
Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)
We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?
Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.
I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.
Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.
What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.
I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?
I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.
If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.
But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.
So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?
First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.
There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.
It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.
One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.
What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?
I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.
It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.
There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?
Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.
But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.
So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.
The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.
There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.
I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?
Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.
I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.
And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.
But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.
And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.
Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.
The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?
Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.
So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.
—
The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
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.
Uncategorized
The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died
פֿון אַבֿיה קושנער און שחר פּינסקער
באַרבאַראַ הרשבֿ, פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר איינעם פֿון די וויכטיקסטע איבערזעצערס פֿון דער העברעיִשער און ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, איז אַוועק אין דער אייביקייט צו 85 יאָר.
הרשבֿ, באַקאַנט ווי באָבי בײַ אירע פֿרײַנד און קאָלעגעס, האָט איבערגעזעצט און אַרויסגעגעבן מער ווי 40 ביכער פּאָעזיע, דראַמע, בעלעטריסטיק, פֿילאָסאָפֿיע, עקאָנאָמיק, סאָציאָלאָגיע און געשיכטע. צווישן אירע איבערזעצונגען זענען געווען די ווערק פֿונעם נאָבעל־לאָרעאַט שמואל יוסף עגנון און די פּאָעטן אַבֿרהם סוצקעווער, מענקע קאַץ און יהודה עמיחי.
אַחוץ דעם וואָס זי איז געווען אַן ערשט-ראַנגיקע איבערזעצערין איז זי אויך געווען שטאַרק באַליבט בײַ אַנדערע אַקאַדעמיקער און איבערזעצער איבער דער וועלט, סײַ ווי אַ וועגווײַזערין אינעם געביט פֿון איבערזעצערײַ סײַ צוליב איר מענטשלעכקייט און ברייטהאַרציקער שטיצע פֿאַר אירע קאָלעגעס.
אַ צענטראַלער אַספּעקט פֿון איר קאַריערע איז געווען איר ברייטע און פֿרוכפּערדיקע צוזאַמענאַרבעט מיט איר מאַן, בנימין הרשבֿ (אַ העברעיִזירונג פֿונעם נאָמען הרושובסקי). צוזאַמען האָבן זיי איבערגעזעצט און רעדאַקטירט אויף ענגליש אַ ריי וויכטיקע טעקסט־זאַמלונגען ווי למשל דעם אייגנאַרטיקן באַנד „אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע פּאָעזיע: אַ צוויישפּראַכיקע אַנטאָלאָגיע“ (1986), וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ דעם אָריגינעלן ייִדישן טעקסט סײַ די פּרעכטיקע ענגלישע איבערזעצונגען. אַזוי אַרום האָט דער לייענער געקענט אָפּשאַצן די קוואַליטעט פֿון די ווערק אויף ביידע שפּראַכן.
איינער פֿון הרשבֿס גרעסטע אויפֿטוען איז געווען דאָס וואָס זי האָט נישט פֿאָרגעשטעלט די ייִדישע פּאָעזיע סתּם ווי נאָסטאַלגישן פֿאָלקלאָר, נאָר האָט זי געשילדערט אינעם קאָנטעקסט פֿונעם גלאָבאַלן מאָדערניזם. דער באַנד האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ אַוואַנגאַרדישע עקספּערימענטן סײַ שטאָטישע טעמעס, צוזאַמען מיט די וויזועלע קונסטווערק פֿון בען שאַהן און ראַפֿאַעל סויער, וואָס האָבן געהאַט אַן ענלעכן הינטערגרונט ווי די פּאָעטן.
מיט איר מאַן האָט זי אויך אַרויסגעגעבן דאָס בוך, „זינג, פֿרעמדער: הונדערט יאָר פֿון אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע“, וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען ווערק פֿון די „סוועטשאַפּ“־פּאָעטן מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד און דוד עדעלשטאַדט, ווי אויך „אינזיכיסטן“ ווי ציליע דראָבקין.
הרשבֿ איז געבוירן געוואָרן אין דעטרויט, מישיגען, אין 1940. זי איז נישט געווען קיין נאַטירלעכע רעדערין פֿון העברעיִש אָדער ייִדיש. „איך בין געווען 34 יאָר אַלט ווען איך האָב אָנגעהויבן זיך לערנען העברעיִש און איך האָב זיך ממש פֿאַרליבט אין דער שפּראַך,“ האָט זי דערציילט בעת אַן אינטערוויו אין 2012. מיט דער צײַט האָט זי אָנגעהויבן איבערזעצן די וויכטיקסטע העברעיִשע ווערק.
דערנאָך האָט זי זיך גענומען צו ייִדיש. „ייִדיש איז די לעצטע שפּראַך וואָס איך האָב זיך אויסגעלערנט. צוליב דעם וואָס איך האָב שוין געקענט דײַטש און העברעיִש, האָב איך שוין פֿאַרשטאַנען אַרום 90% פֿון ייִדיש.“ כאָטש אירע טאַטע־מאַמע האָבן געקענט ייִדיש האָבן זיי עס בלויז געניצט צווישן זיך ווען זיי האָבן נישט געוואָלט אַז די קינדער זאָלן פֿאַרשטיין. „דערצו בין איך סײַ ווי נישט געווען אַזוי פֿאַראינטערעסירט אין וואָס זיי זאָגן,“ האָט זי געזאָגט.
איין סיבה פֿאַר וואָס זי איז געוואָרן אַן איבערזעצער — האָט זי דערקלערט — איז „ווײַל די איבערזעצונגען וואָס איך האָב געלייענט זענען געווען אַזוי שלעכט. כ׳האָב דעמאָלט געוווינט אין ירושלים און כ׳האָב זיך באַקענט מיט אַ שרײַבער וואָס האָט זיך באַקלאָגט פֿאַר מיר, און טאַקע מיט רעכט, וועגן די אומגעלומפּערטע איבערזעצונגען וואָס מע האָט געמאַכט פֿון זײַנע ווערק. האָב איך אָנגעהויבן לייענען יענע איבערזעצונגען און דערפֿילט אַז איך קען דאָס טאָן בעסער. ס׳איז מיר אָבער געווען אַ חידוש, ווען מײַן ערשטער פּרוּוו איז טאַקע פּובליקירט געוואָרן אין אַן אַקאַדעמישן זשורנאַל.“
אַחוץ איר אַרבעט ווי אַן איבערזעצער האָט הרשבֿ אויך געדינט ווי די פּרעזידענטין פֿון דער אַמעריקאַנער אַסאָציאַציע פֿון ליטעראַרישע איבערזעצער, און האָט געפֿירט איבערזעצונג־וואַרשטאַטן אינעם דעפּאַרטמענט פֿון פֿאַרגלײַכיקער ליטעראַטור אין יעל־אוניווערסיטעט, דערבײַ שטיצנדיק יונגע איבערזעצער זיך צו פֿאַרנעמען מיט דער ייִדישער און העברעיִשער ליטעראַטור. זי האָט זיך אויך איבערגעגעבן צום קאַמף פֿאַר געשלעכט־גלײַכקייט און פֿאַר שלום און גערעכטיקייט אין ישׂראל/פּאַלעסטינע.
אין 2018 איז הרשבֿ געוואָרן די ערשטע העברעיִשע און ייִדישע איבערזעצערין צו באַקומען די „פּען/מאַנהײַם מעדאַל פֿאַר איבערזעצונג“.
פֿאַר אונדז וואָס האָבן זי געקענט, איז באָבי געווען אַ בריליאַנטענע, ברייטהאַרציקע פֿרײַנדינע און קאָלעגע, שטענדיק גרייט צו העלפֿן אַנדערע מיט עצות און הדרכה.
The post The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’
(JTA) — The pursuit of Greater Israel is a corrosive fantasy, veteran Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel is expected to tell a Tel Aviv audience on Wednesday, calling it as “destructive and fanatical” as the chant “from the river to the sea.”
Emanuel, who has held multiple top roles in the Democratic Party, in Congress and in the Obama White House, is a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
He will warn that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the country to a “dead-end” that has turned the country into a “pariah” and is threatening Israel’s historic alliance with the United States, according to an advance copy of his speech shared with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday.
He blamed as “our mistake” America’s assumption that “the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences.” That path has led to policies including Israeli extremists terrorizing West Bank Palestinians and Gazans suffering from a lack of food that means “Israel has never been so isolated,” a situation that he terms “a countdown clock” for Israel’s security.
Instead, his remarks state, “we need a fundamentally new and different approach to the alliance.”
At the same time, he criticized the Palestinians for what he said were mistakes and obstacles to peace over the years. He lambasted their supporters in the United States who support replacing Israel with a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“Those chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ need to hear this loud and clear: they will never have their way,” he declares in his prepared remarks. “But those calling for a greater Israel must also hear this loud and clear: you’re never going to have your way, either. Both are fantasies chanted by fanatics.”
Emanuel, who is a former U.S. congressman from Illinois as well as a former Chicago Mayor and served as White House Chief of Staff under President Barack Obama, is considering a presidential run in 2028. His trip has garnered media attention given that his ideas on Israel could signal the direction of his party on the issue, particularly as they come from a Jewish politician with close ties to the country. Emanuel once volunteered as a civilian with the Israeli army and his father was an Israeli citizen.
His trip to Israel to underscore the importance of the Israeli-U.S. alliance and to advocate for a new regional diplomatic initiative comes at a time when politicians in his Democratic Party are increasingly disavowing Israel to gain an edge in upcoming elections as the country’s reputation plummets.
A Pew Research Center Poll published in April found that 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Israel, but its standing was worse among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, where 8 out of 10 had negative views about Israel.
According to his prepared speech, Emanuel is set to highlight his deep connection to the Jewish state and his family’s sacrifice in bringing about its creation, noting that his uncle, who was a member of the pre-state underground, is buried on Jerusalem’s Mt. of Olives. His father, Benjamin, was born in Jerusalem in 1927 and fought in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence before immigrating to the United States, where he raised his family in Chicago.
Emanuel plans to recount Israel’s history of overtures in the name of peace and in the face of Palestinian violence during the second intifada and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. He will explain that he understands Israel’s cynicism regarding any future arrangement with the Palestinians since Israel’s past offers of Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for security were frequently met with violence.
“I understand why, even if you oppose the Netanyahu government, you’re so prone to dismiss criticism from the outside world,” Emanuel wrote, underscoring that a “corrupt Palestinian leadership has never lived up to the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.”
Still, he wrote, Israel’s future can’t be “held hostage to a past defined exclusively by recriminations,” warning that such a stance will endanger its “historic alliance with the U.S.,” which is now “at a crossroads.” Israel must embark on a path that pairs military and diplomatic efforts, rather than relying solely on military prowess, he wrote.
“Israel will be alone if its leaders choose to attempt to annex the West Bank and pursue the fantasy of a greater Israel,” Emanuel plans to say.
“America will not and cannot be complicit or complacent in that endeavor,” he wrote, explaining that it has erred in the past by “blindly and silently” supporting Netanyahu’s government.
The speech calls for an end to the “American taxpayer’s subsidy of Israel’s defense budget,” maintaining that Israel should buy U.S. arms with the same financial terms and restrictions as every other ally “that abides by our laws.”
The speech laid out a broad-based policy with regard to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that rejects extremist Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and illegal West Bank settlement building but does not spell out prescriptions for divisive issues such as the future of Jerusalem or using the pre-1967 lines for determining the borders of a Palestinian state.
Emanuel does not mention the U.S.-based political advocacy group J Street in his speech, but the text picks up on the 23-state policy idea that J Street put forward last year, involving 21 Arab states, alongside Israeli and Palestinian ones, that would include recognition of Israel by the Arab League.
Such a regional integration would allow for Israel and the larger Middle East to become a technological and transit hub for trade between Europe and India, he plans to say.
To achieve this regional peace, Emanuel continues, the Arab states would have to support a Palestinian governing entity that would accept the Jewish historic connection to Israel, stop teaching its children to hate Israel and end the “heinous practice” of financially rewarding terrorists who kill Jews.
Israel, he wrote, would have to halt unilateral actions in the West Bank, stop nurturing harmful organizations and support “real partners in pursuit of peace.”
This scenario rests on a three-part U.S. policy in the region that would leverage the Arab world’s desire for stability, Israel’s need for security, and Palestinian demands for sovereignty.
“The political benefits for all parties would be far greater than a two-state solution could ever offer. But to get there, everyone would need to make good on their piece of the bargain,” he wrote in his speech.
The alternative path, he wrote, is one that has seen Israel isolated and turned it into a pariah state.
“Israel has failed to convert its military wins into strategic advantages,” Emanuel is expected to say, noting that the country has “lost Europe” and its support in the U.S. is plummeting. U.S. unconditional support for Israel without demands and consequences has been a mistake, he added in his speech, in which he blamed Israel’s poor global standing on Netanyahu’s policies.
A centrist Jewish Democrat embracing a policy promulgated by J Street, a group founded in 2008 to counter the influence of what was then the mainstream pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, illustrates the degree to which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its credo of creating a bipartisan consensus of support for Israel has eroded.
Emanuel plans to recall his own tensions with Netanyahu, who during his time as White House Chief of Staff labeled him a “self-loathing” Jew for opposing West Bank settlement construction.
Netanyahu, he wrote in his prepared remarks, “cannot fight indefinitely against a world that has stopped believing you have the right to fight. You must instead find a new sustainable path to peace, security, and prosperity.”
Alternatively, he wrote, the United States would stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Israel as it pursued peace and security.
The post Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’ appeared first on The Forward.
