Uncategorized
Lorraine Hansberry’s second play had a white Jewish protagonist. Oscar Isaac and Rachel Brosnahan are reviving it.
NEW YORK (JTA) — Sidney Brustein, Jewish Hamlet?
Anne Kauffman thinks so. She made the comparison in a phone interview about the play she’s directing — a buzzy production of Lorraine Hansberry’s “The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window” that opened on Monday at the Brooklyn Academy of Music starring Oscar Isaac and Rachel Brosnahan.
“One artistic director who was thinking of doing this [play] was like, ‘You know, it’s not like he’s Hamlet, but…’ And I thought, well, no, actually I think he is like Hamlet!” she said.
She added another take: “I feel like he’s Cary Grant meets Zero Mostel.”
Hansberry saw just two of her works produced on Broadway before her death from cancer at 34 in January 1965. Her first, “A Raisin in the Sun,” which follows a Black family dealing with housing discrimination in Chicago, is widely considered one of the most significant plays of the 20th century. The other, “The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window,” ran for a few months in the fall of 1964 until Hansberry’s death and has only been revived a handful of times since, all outside of New York.
Now, the star power of Isaac and Brosnahan is driving renewed interest in the play, which deals with weighty questions about political activism, self-fulfillment in a capitalist world, and racial and ethnic identity — including mid-century Jewish American identity.
The Brustein character, as Kauffman alluded to, is many things. A resident of Greenwich Village deeply embedded in that historic neighborhood’s 1960s activist and artistic circles, he is somewhat of a creative renaissance man. At the start of the play, his club of sorts (“it was not a nightclub” is a running joke) called “Walden Pond” has just shuttered and he has taken over an alternative newspaper. As the script reads, Brustein is an intellectual “in the truest sense of the word” but “does not wear glasses” — the latter description being a possible jab at his macho tendencies. Formerly an ardent leftist activist, he is now weary of the worth of activism and a bit of a nihilist. He’s in his late 30s and is a musician who often picks up a banjo.
Brustein is also a secular Jew, a fact that he telegraphs at certain key emotional and comedic moments. Others, from friends to his casually antisemitic sister-in-law, frequently reference his identity, too.
At the end of the play’s first half, for example, Brustein brings up the heroes of the Hanukkah story in talking about his existential angst — and his stomach ulcer. He has become belligerent to his wife Iris and to a local politician who wants Brustein’s paper’s endorsement.
“How does one confront the thousand nameless faceless vapors that are the evil of our time? Can a sword pierce it?” Sidney says. “One does not smite evil anymore: one holds one’s gut, thus — and takes a pill. Oh, but to take up the sword of the Maccabees again!”
Hansberry’s decision to center a white Jewish character surprised critics and fans alike in 1964 because many of them expected her to follow “A Raisin in the Sun” with further exploration of issues facing Black Americans, said Joi Gresham, the director of the Lorraine Hansberry Literary Trust.
“The major attack, both critically and on a popular basis, in regards to the play and to its central character was that Lorraine was out of her lane,” Gresham said. “That not only did she not know what she’s talking about, but that she had the nerve to even examine that subject matter.”
Hansberry’s closest collaborator was her former husband Robert Nemiroff, a Jewish New Yorker whom she had divorced in 1962 but maintained an artistic partnership with. Nemiroff was a bit Brustein-like in his pursuits: he edited books, produced and promoted Hansberry’s work, and even wrote songs (one of which made the couple enough money to allow Hansberry to focus on writing “A Raisin in the Sun”). But Gresham — who is Nemiroff’s stepdaughter through his second marriage, to professor Jewell Handy Gresham-Nemiroff — emphasized that his personality was nothing like Brustein’s. While Brustein is brash and mean to Iris, Nemiroff was undyingly supportive of Hansberry and her work, said Gresham, who lived with him and her mother at Nemiroff’s Croton-on-Hudson home — the one he had formerly shared for a time with Hansberry — from age 10 onward.
Instead, Gresham argued, the Brustein character was the result of Hansberry’s deep engagement with Jewish intellectual thought, in part influenced by her relationship with Nemiroff. The pair met at a protest and would bond over their passion for fighting for social justice, which included combating antisemitism. The night before their wedding, they protested the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and they would remain highly involved in the wave of activism that blossomed into the Black-Jewish civil rights alliance.
“Bob and Lorraine met and built a life together at a place where there was a very strong Black-Jewish nexus. There was a very strong interplay and interaction,” Gresham said. “I think Lorraine was very influenced by Bob’s family, the Nemiroffs, who were very radical in their politics. And so there was a way in which she was introduced to the base of Jewish intellectualism and Jewish progressive politics, that she took to heart and she was very passionate about.”
Robert Nemiroff and Lorraine Hansberry were married from 1953-62. They are shown here in 1959. (Ben Martin/Getty Images)
Hansberry didn’t hesitate to criticize Jewish writers who said controversial things about Black Americans, either. When Norman Podhoretz wrote “My Negro Problem — And Ours,” an explosive 1963 article in Commentary magazine now widely seen as racist, Hansberry responded with a scathing rebuke. She also sparred with Norman Mailer, who once wrote an essay titled “The White Negro: Superficial Reflections on the Hipster.”
Gresham said Brustein’s nihilism represents what Hansberry saw in a range of Jewish and non-Jewish white writers, whom she hoped could be kickstarted back into activism. But Hansberry also nodded to the reasons why someone like Brustein could feel defeated in the early 1960s, a decade and a half after World War II.
“You mean diddle around with the little things since we can’t do anything about the big ones? Forget about the Holocaust and worry about — reforms in the traffic court or something?” Brustein says at one point in the play to a local politician running as a reformer.
Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, a Jewish scholar of literature who has written on Hansberry, said the resulting Brustein character is a very accurate depiction of a secular Jew at the time — both keenly attuned to prejudice in society and also lacking some understanding of the experience of being Black.
“I was just intoxicated that Hansberry could conjure that world, both so affectionately, but also so clear-sidedly that it seems like she can see the limitations of all of the characters’ perspectives,” he said. “But she also represents them with sympathy and humor.”
Kauffman, who also helmed a revival of the play in Chicago in 2016, is impressed with how “fully fledged” the Brustein character is.
“Who are the cultural icons who have sort of articulated the Jew in our culture in the last 50 years or 60 years, you know?” she said. “Brustein is not a caricature of a Woody Allen character, he’s not even ‘Curb your Enthusiasm’ or a Jerry Seinfeld character. He’s a fully drawn character.”
Isaac, who is of mainly Guatemalan and Cuban heritage, has played Jewish characters before, including a formerly Orthodox man in an Israeli director’s remake of the classic film “Scenes From a Marriage.” In the lead-up to this play, he has largely avoided getting caught in headlines focused on the “Jewface” debate, over whether non-Jewish actors should be allowed to play Jewish characters on stage and screen.
But when asked about the responsibility of playing a Jewish character in a New York Times interview, Isaac referenced the fact that he has some Jewish heritage on his father’s side.
“We could play that game: How Jewish are you?” he said to interviewer Alexis Soloski, who is Jewish. “It is part of my family, part of my life. I feel the responsibility to not feel like a phony. That’s the responsibility, to feel like I can say these things, do these things and feel like I’m doing it honestly and truthfully.”
When Kauffman directed a version of the play at the Goodman Theater in Chicago in 2016, her lead actor had “not a single drop of Jewish heritage…in his blood,” and she said she had to convey “what anger looks like” coming from a Jewish perspective. Working with Isaac has been different — instead of starting at a base of no knowledge, she has been pushing for more of an Ashkenazi sensibility than a Sephardic one.
“I believe that his heritage leans, I’m guessing, more towards Sephardic. And mine is pure Ashkenazi,” she said. “We sort of joke: ‘[The part] is a little bit more Ashkenazi than that, you know what I mean?’ Like, ‘the violence is actually turned towards yourself!’”
—
The post Lorraine Hansberry’s second play had a white Jewish protagonist. Oscar Isaac and Rachel Brosnahan are reviving it. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Epstein and Iran are an antisemitism mega-crisis. Here’s what Jewish organizations should do about it.
So far, 2026 has been a banner year for antisemites.
All hateful ideologies have slivers of truth within them; that’s why they work, moving from partial truth to wild exaggeration to scapegoating all members of the group for the perceived sins of some of them. Which is why 2026 has been a bonanza.
First, the release of the Epstein Files revealed a massive network of rich, connected elites — disproportionately Jewish and connected to Israel — who, at the very least, socialized and worked with a convicted sex offender, and in some cases may even have participated in his crimes. .
Then, Israel’s prime minister lobbied a U.S. president in the Situation Room (completely unprecedented), persuading him to launch a rash, costly, bloody, and thus far unsuccessful war on Iran, in violation of everything “America First” was supposed to stand for.
Worse, for some on the internet, those two stories are connected. The conspiratorial compulsion to manufacture facts to fit the larger theory leads to a fictional storyline: Epstein was working for Israel, Epstein handed the Israelis kompromat, Israel is blackmailing Trump, Israeli interests are dictating American foreign policy, and only Iran and China are standing up to the ‘Epstein Government.’
To be clear, there is no evidence for this hyperbole and speculation, which moves beyond valid critique of Israel into antisemitic conspiracy-mongering. Donald Trump has been pushing for war on Iran for 40 years, he wanted to push the Epstein Files out of the news, Epstein was working for himself not the Mossad, and there are some geopolitical reasons why some people might’ve seen this war as a good idea. Nor do Benjamin Netanyahu’s lobbying or AIPAC’s influence in Congress, however nefarious one may believe their intentions to be, amount to a Zionist conspiracy. The tech industry, the Christian Right, the fossil fuel industry, Big Pharma, Wall Street and other groups exert equal degrees of influence, often for equally nefarious ends.
But there is at least some basis for these false claims, and online influencers are connecting the dots. And whatever I may write in this article, it will be read by around .001% of the people who’ve seen China’s “White Eagle” videos or Iran’s “Lego” videos, which have gone viral online and amassed tens of millions of views, not to mention interviews by Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson. Sometimes these commentaries cross into overt antisemitism, sometimes they ‘merely’ allege a sinister conspiracy of Zionists or Epstein Associates to control the United States. Sometimes they’re from the Right, sometimes from the Left, and sometimes they horseshoe together. But this combination of real-world events and motivated propaganda is now a five-alarm fire, Defcon-1 crisis.
This crisis demands a response. But so far at least, what we’ve heard from the Jewish Establishment has been… crickets.
Unbelievably, the ADL’s website is focused on its “Best Schools in Antisemitism Report Card,” as the organization still obsesses over campus activists and professors instead of addressing the explosion in antisemitism since the Epstein Files release and Iran war, largely from networks of right-wing antisemites in government and online.
And, to my knowledge, no major Jewish organization has put out a statement in response to the Epstein Files, and the avalanche of revelations they have contained about his social and business relationships with Jewish figures and organizations, particularly in the years after his 2008 conviction in Florida for procuring sexual massages from a teenager. Indeed, files released last January revealed that prosecutors had prepared a much more significant indictment against Epstein, charging him with abusing more than a dozen girls over a period of six years, but set it aside when Epstein pled to lesser state charges.
(The Wexner Foundation, whose patron Les Wexner was Epstein’s leading client for two decades and who one witness claimed was a participant in his sexual parties, wrote a letter to its alumni following Wexner’s evasive congressional testimony saying that, at present, “we are only listening. We will sit in a posture of taking in your feelings and feedback.”)
However much the people in Epstein’s orbit did or did not know, or did or did not do, they must be brought to account. Yet there has been no reckoning, no accountability, hardly any response at all from the Jewish mainstream.
This has been a profound moral failure. In the words of Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, who has spoken out forcefully on the issue, “That there has been overwhelming silence since the release of era-defining information on the theft and raping of children — including not only the nation’s most powerful leaders, but Jews who routinely gave prestigious talks in our community — is a moral desecration and abdication of duty. Our sacred obligations require us to show up unequivocally for those harmed — especially children! — and to condemn all sexual abuse and violence. I do not know why this might ever seem complicated.”
The silence has also fanned the flames of antisemitism, especially because, as a Jewish Studies colleague put it to me, antisemitism thrives on the claim that you aren’t supposed to talk about when Jews in powerful positions act wrongly.
Now, if you’re of the opinion that antisemitism is a mysterious, baseless hatred that has always existed and always will exist, maybe you don’t think this news matters much. Today they hate us for Epstein and Iran, tomorrow will be something else.
But that view is dead wrong.
First, it flies in the face of the data that shows massive increases in antisemitism in the wake of Trump’s nationalism, and, later, the Gaza war. The hatred underlying antisemitism may be timeless, but it is fueled by the times. It is not a binary; it rises and falls and rises again.
Second, the Judeo-Pessimistic view ignores how antisemitism feeds off of conspiracy theories, political ideologies and resentment. The “Jews will not replace us” chant did not come from nowhere; it came from the nationalist right’s Great Replacement Theory. And the recent explosion in attacks on American Jews came as a response to the Gaza War; just as innocent German Americans and Japanese Americans were scapegoated during World War II, innocent Jewish Americans are scapegoated today.
Nothing Jewish leaders say or do will eradicate antisemitism. And preschoolers at a Michigan synagogue are not in any way responsible for the crimes of Epstein or the machinations of Netanyahu. Any time Jews are scapegoated and targeted for the perceived misdeeds of others, that is antisemitic, full stop. But, to paraphrase the Yom Kippur liturgy, we can mitigate the severity of the decree.
What might that look like? Let’s look at Epstein first, Iran second.
First, we need a real, public reckoning with the Epstein Files and the long relationships Epstein had with notable and/or rich American Jews (Wexner, Larry Summers, Howard Lutnick, Leon Black, Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Ehud Barak, Robert Maxwell, Leon Botstein, and, most notably for antisemites, Lynn Forester and Ariane de Rothschild), and his support of Jewish and Jewish-adjacent institutions (including Ramaz, Hillel International, Harvard Hillel, YIVO, the Jewish National Fund, Mount Sinai Hospital, UJA-Federation of New York, Seeds of Peace, Touro College, Friends of the IDF, American Jewish Committee, and several Orthodox yeshivas).
This isn’t about outing or shaming; individuals or organizations who dealt with Epstein before 2008 can honestly claim they had no knowledge of his criminal behavior. Rather, it is about public, communal teshuvah, recognizing that our community institutions failed, our ethical values failed, and some of our wealthiest members failed as well. We did not protect the vulnerable (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:16), judge rich and poor alike (Deuteronomy 1:17, Leviticus 19:15), or treat all people as made in the image of the Divine (Genesis 1:27).
These should not be mere performative statements. We should act, as a community, to repair what is broken – first and foremost by listening to Epstein’s victims, financially compensating them, and sharing their stories. There should be a community-wide campaign to fund organizations that combat sexual abuse and domestic violence, and help victims recover. (Examples include Za’akah, Shalom Bayit, as well as initiatives at Mount Sinai and many Jewish federations.) And our organizations should also use this moment to revisit their own politics on preventing misconduct and abuse. There should be strong words and even stronger actions.
Regarding the Iran War, the problem runs deeper.
A large majority of American Jews oppose the Iran War, just as they opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza. Yet individuals and organizations that publicly take such positions are marginalized in the Jewish community, and are often banned or shadow-banned from Jewish gatherings and religious institutions. (For example, 70% of American Jews oppose unconditional aid to Israel, but AIPAC targeted a pro-Israel congressional candidate for taking that view, leading to an anti-Israel opponent being swept into office.) We like to say that our community tolerates a wide range of views, but our institutional rhetoric of “standing with Israel” and a quick glance at the speaker list of any mainstream Jewish gathering makes it clear that some views are more favored than others.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu and Trump say, repeatedly, that anyone opposing the Israeli government’s policies (let alone the state itself) is a self-hating Jew, a traitor, or an antisemite. They are the antisemites’ best partners, insisting that there is no daylight between Israel’s actions and American Jews. That you’re either for us or against us.
We need the opposite of such false binaries and false equations. We need space for legitimate criticism, precisely so that illegitimate antisemitism can be recognized and called out. It’s not always easy to do so: The Nexus Project, which works to disentangle antisemitism and valid critique of Israel, has produced a helpful three-page guide to doing so in the context of the Iran War, in which the difference is often one of degree, rather than kind.
For example, it is indeed outrageous that Netanyahu pitched this war in the way he did to our increasingly demented-seeming president. One doesn’t need to resort to conspiracy-mongering to note that. Was this war ever in the American national interest? Did anyone really think the Iranian people would rise up against their government after America blew their cities to smithereens? All these are valid questions. Yet often they are posed in terms of antisemitic imagery depicting Jews, or Israel, as a giant puppetmaster or octopus manipulating world affairs. By validating legitimate criticisms, we can better call out illegitimate ones.
Honestly, I’ve long ago given up on most large Jewish organizations making space for diversity of opinion, because their donors tilt to the right, a structural reality I wrote about in this publication 10 years ago.
So my call, instead, is to Jewish centrists, moderates and progressives. If you want a Jewish community that reflects your Jewish values, you need to pay for one: You need to donate at the same levels as right-wing donors do. You need to take back the mainstream Jewish community by spending money and dictating your priorities.
To repeat, these efforts won’t end the scourge of antisemitism; there is no use arguing with bigots. But the bigots are not our audience — rather, the point is to combat the narratives that are persuading more and more people to join their ranks. By standing up for our values, we can put some space between Jeffrey Epstein (and his accomplices) and the Jewish community as a whole. And we can differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and antisemitic conspiracy theories based on them. We can stand up to the lies about Jews that are spreading like wildfire right now — by proudly and forcefully telling the truth.
The post Epstein and Iran are an antisemitism mega-crisis. Here’s what Jewish organizations should do about it. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In major shift, all but 7 Senate Democrats vote to block weapons sales to Israel
(JTA) — A record number of Senate Democrats voted on Wednesday to block the sales of certain weapons to Israel, marking a sharp rise in the number of senators backing the move.
Wednesday was the third time in as many years that the Senate voted on resolutions to limit weapons sales to Israel, introduced and promoted by the Vermont independent and progressive leader Bernie Sanders.
In 2024, 19 Democrats voted for at least one of the “Block the Bombs” resolutions on the table at the time. Last year, 24 senators endorsed the move.
Now, 40 senators — all but seven Democrats — voted for at least one of the two resolutions they faced on Wednesday, more than doubling the support in two years. The new backers include several Jewish moderates who describe themselves as pro-Israel as well as multiple senators who are seen as likely 2028 presidential candidates.
“I have struggled with these Joint Resolutions of Disapproval as much as any vote since I joined Congress,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a moderate from Michigan, in a statement calling the issue of support for Israel “raw, painful and personal.”
“My entire life, I have been — and continue to be — a strong supporter of a Jewish and democratic State of Israel. The people of Israel, like all people throughout the region, deserve long-term security and peace,” Slotkin said. “But being pro-Israel today is not about simply supporting the political or military agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu, just like being pro-American should not be equated with loyalty to President Trump.”
All three measures fell short in the Republican-led Senate. Still, the vote on the weapons sales resolution in particular offered a powerful demonstration of shifting sentiment in the party about Israel. A survey released this week found that 80% of Democratic voters hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up sharply over the last three years. The findings correlate with a growing number of polls showing rising opposition to Israel in both parties, with a steeper rise among Democrats.
In addition to Slotkin, three other Jewish senators newly voted for the resolutions: Adam Schiff of California, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Jon Ossoff of Georgia.
Mark Kelly of Arizona, who is seen as a likely presidential contender and is married to the Jewish former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, said in a speech on the Senate floor that he “cannot and will never abandon Israel” but was voting to stop the weapons transfers because he opposes “the reckless decisions being made by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump.”
Along with Kelly, Ossoff and Slotkin, two other possible presidential candidates also newly voted against weapons sales to Israel: Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona. (Both have Jewish family members.)
Senate Democrats also voted as a bloc to restrict President Donald Trump’s ability to continue the war against Iran, which he launched jointly with Israel in February without congressional approval. Trump entered a ceasefire last week without achieving the varying goals he had outlined.
The weapons resolutions would have blocked the sale of D-9 bulldozers, widely used in military operations, and 1,000-bombs to Israel, while not affecting the sale of smaller and defensive munitions. Four senators who voted to block the bulldozer sales voted not to block the bomb sales.
Jewish critics of the war and the Israeli government applauded the votes.
“It’s encouraging to see a growing number of senators recognize that unconditional US military support for Israel is no longer tenable in light of the Netanyahu government’s policies,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, which this week came out against U.S. support for Israel’s defensive systems for the first time.
Morriah Kaplan, executive director of the progressive group IfNotNow, said the vote represented “a powerful step toward shared safety” in the Middle East and a bellwether of change in the United States.
“Establishment Jewish institutions will spend the next week writing angry letters to the Senators who voted ‘yes’ and trying to convince U.S. Jews that these politicians are putting our community in danger,” Kaplan said. “But our community is no longer falling for the disastrous lie that our safety will come through bombs, bulldozers, walls, or repression.”
There was little sign of immediate public condemnation by the Jewish groups that historically have taken aim at lawmakers who vote against support for Israel. Following the votes, the American Jewish Committee tweeted only, “Thank you to the Senators who continue to stand by Israel as it continues to face ongoing terror threats on multiple fronts.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post In major shift, all but 7 Senate Democrats vote to block weapons sales to Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
On Yom Haatzmaut — a tribute to the mallow plant
במשך פֿון דער זעקס-וואָכיקער מלחמה מיט איראַן, וואָס האָט זיך געענדיקט מיט אַ פֿײַער־שטילשטאַנד דעם 8טן אַפּריל, זײַנען מיר, ישׂראלים, און בפֿרט די אײַנוווינערס פון תּל-אָבֿיבֿ, געבליבן נאָענט צו דער היים צוליב די סכּנה פֿון דערווײַטערן זיך פֿון אַ שוץ-קעלער. די צאָרן און דער צער זײַנען געוואַקסן פון טאָג צו טאָג: ס׳איז מיר קלאָר געווען אַז דאָס איז אַ געפֿערלעכער שפּיל מיט פֿײַער, אַן איבעריקע מלחמה, און מיר — און די אײַנוויינערס פֿון איראַן — וועלן באַצאָלן דעם פּרײַז. (אונדזער דירה איז טאַקע אַ ביסל צעשעדיקט געוואָרן אין איינער פֿון די באָמבאַרדירונגען). דערפֿאַר קאָנט איר זיך פֿאָרשטלען מיט וואָס פֿאַר אַ פֿרייד האָב איך אָנגענומען דעם פֿײַער-איבעררײַס; תּיכף נאָך דעם בין איך טאַקע אַרויסגעגאַנגען פֿון דער שטאָט, און גלײַך אין דער נאַטור.
און עס איז ווי געשען אַ נס: די נאַטור האָט זיך מכּלומרשט אָפּגעשטעלט אין דער צײַט פֿון דער קריג. דער פֿרילינג, וואָס ענדיקט זיך דאָ בדרך-כּלל פֿאַר פּסח, האָט דאָס מאָל געוואַרט אויף אונדז, זײַנע פֿאַרערערס. כּמעט די גאַנצע צײַט פֿון דער קריג איז געווען ווינטערדיק, מיט אַ סך רעגנס, און איצט, סוף חודש ניסן, איז נאָך אַלץ געבליבן גרין, פֿול מיט בלומען און געוויקסן — אַ זעלטנקייט.
צווישן די פֿאַרשיידענע בלומען און געוויקסן האָב איך באַמערקט אַז אויך די מאַלווע, וואָס אויף העברעיִש הייסט עס חוביזה, בליט נאָך מיט אירע חנעוודיקע וויאָלעטע בלומען. די בלומען בליִען, די קליינע פֿרוכטן זײַנען רייף, און די בלעטער זײַנען נאָך גרין.
די מאַלווע וואַקסט אין אַפֿריקע, אַזיע און אייראָפּע, און ישׂראל בתוכם. בדרך-כּלל שפּראָצן די ערשטע בלעטער פֿון דער מאַלווע אַרויס נאָך די ערשטע רעגנס פֿון ווינטער — אַרום דעצעמבער. זי וואַקסט פֿון זיך אַליין אין דער נאַטור, אָבער אויך אין די שטעט, אין די הויפֿן און אין נאָכגעלאָזטע גערטנער. אין פֿאַרגלײַך מיט די רקפֿות (ציקלאַמען), למשל, אָדער אַנדערע איידעלע בלומען, איז זי נישט קיין מפֿונק, און וואַקסט אומעטום.
די בלעטער קאָן מען עסן פֿריש, אָדער געקאָכטע צי געפּרעגלטע (ווײַטער אונטן וועט איר געפֿינען אַ רעצעפּט דערפֿאַר). עס איז אַ ביסל שלײַמיק; איר טעם דערמאָנט אין שפּינאַט, און זי האָט אַ סך געזונטע קוואַליטעטן. אין די פֿריסטע סטאַדיעס איז די מאַלווע גאָר נידעריק, אָבער אַרום פֿעברואַר דערגרייט זי ביז דער הייך פֿון אַ מענטשן. אַרום מערץ באַווײַזן זיך שוין די שיינע בלומען פֿון דער מאַלווע און דערצו די רונדיקע קליינע פּירות, וואָס קינדווײַז האָבן מיר אַלע געגעסן מיט הנאה.
די מאַלווע וואַקסט טאַקע ווילד, אָבער זי איז נישט סתּם קיין פּראָסטע געוויקס. קודם-כּל, איר נאָמען אַליין: דאָס וואָרט „חוביזה“ איז אַן אַראַבישער טערמין, כובעזאַ. אויף אַראַביש הייסט עס „אַ קליין ברויט“ („כובז“ איז ברויט), און טאַקע, אויך אין עבֿרית רופֿט מען עס אַמאָל „לחם ערבֿי“ (אַראַביש ברויט). עס האָט אייגנטלעך אַן אָפֿיציעלן נאָמען: „חלמית“ (לויט דער משנה כלאיים ח, א), און דערצו אַ וויסנשאַפֿטלעכן נאָמען: malva. אויף ענגליש הייסט עס Mallow. אָבער אַ חוץ אַ קליינער צאָל מומחים, רופֿט קיינער דאָ עס נישט אַנדערש ווי כובעזאַ.
צוליב איר ברייטהאַרציקער מנהג צו וואַקסן אומעטום, האָט מען באַנוצט די כובעזאַ, מאַלווע, אויך אין דער צײַט פֿונעם „מצור“, די בלאָקאַדע פֿון ירושלים אין יאָר 1948. אין די ווינטער־חדשים וואָס ירושלים איז געשטאַנען איבערגעריסן פֿונעם ייִשובֿ, האָבן די ירושלימער באַלאַבאָסטעס אָפּגעריסן די מאַלווע־בלעטער און געמאַכט פֿון זיי פֿאַרשיידענע מאכלים, בפֿרט קאָטלעטן. לזכר דעם האָט מען שפּעטער, אין די פֿופֿציקער יאָרן, פֿאָרגעשלאָגן אַז מע וועט דערלאַנגען די באַרימטע קאָטלעטן לכּבֿוד יום־העצמאות (דעם אומאָפּהענגיקייט-טאָג). אָט למשל האָט דער דערציִונג-מיניסטעריום אין 1955 פֿאָרגעלייגט אַן אָפֿיציעלער יום-טובֿדיקער מעניו: כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן אין פּאָמידאָרן ראָסל, סאַלאַט-כובעזאַ אין טחינה, יויך מיט קרעפּלעך, „שבֿעת המינים“-טאָרט אאַז״וו. אַזאַ מעניו קאָן מען געפֿינען אויך אין דעם פּאָפּולערן קאָכבוך „365 שולחנות ערוכים“ (365 געדעקטע טיש), וואָס איז אַרויס אין 1961, און וואָס מײַן מאַמע האָט געהאַלטן כּמעט ווי אַ שולחן-ערוך.
טאַקע אַ שיינער אײַנפֿאַל — עסן כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן לכּבֿוד יום־העצמאות — נאָר איין חיסרון האָט עס. ווי געזאָגט, וואַקסט די מאַלווע ווינטערצײַט, און אַ חוץ הײַיאָר, און נאָך זעלטענע יאָרן, זײַנען די בלעטער אין דער צײַט פֿון יום־העצמאות שוין אויסגעטריקנט, אָדער די אינסעקטן (וואָס האָבן אויך ליב כובעזאַ) האָבן זיי שוין אויפֿגעפֿרעסן. דערפֿאַר קאָן מען נישט פֿאַקטיש גרייטן די כובעזאַ-קאָטלעטן אָנהייב מײַ, ווען עס פֿאַלט בדרך-כּלל אויס יום־העצמאות.
מע דאַרף זיך מודה זײַן אַז בכּלל, מיט די יאָרן, האָט מען אַ ביסל גרינגעשעצט אָט די „לחם עוני“, די אָרעמע מאַלווע/כובעזאַ. ישׂראל איז געוואָרן רײַכער, און אין יום־העצמאות האָט מען אָנגעהויבן עסן דער עיקר פֿלייש „על האש“ – דאָס הייסט באַרבעקיו. אין די לעצטע יאָרן, נאָך דער „יורידישע רעוואָלוציע“ פֿון יאָר 2022, און בפֿרט נאָך דעם 7טן אָקטאָבער 2023 און די בלוטיקע מלחמות זינט דעמאָלט, האָבן אַ סך ישׂראלים בכּלל פֿאַרלוירן דעם אַפּעטיט צו יום־העצמאות. ווי עס שטייט אין קהלת: „לשׂמחה מה זו עושה“ (אויף לוסטיקייט — וואָס טוט זי אויף?). די פֿײַערונגען פֿון די לעצטע אומאָפּהענגיקייט-טעג האָבן עפּעס אַ ביטערן נאָך־טעם.
אָבער אפֿשר דווקא דאָס יאָר, לכּבֿוד דעם שפּעטערדיקן פֿרילינג און דער האָפֿענונג אַז עס וועט שוין נעמען אַ סוף צו דער מלחמה, קאָן מעט זיך צוריקקערן צו די באַשיידענע גוטע בלעטער. דערבײַ קאָן מען אַ תּפֿילה טאָן אַז ישׂראל זאָל אַליין אויפֿגעריכט ווערן, און איך גלויב נאָך אַלץ אַז עס קאָן זײַן בעסער סײַ פֿאַר אונדז און סײַ פֿאַר אונדזערע שכנים.
צום סוף, אָט איז דער צוגעזאָגטער רעצעפּט פֿון די געשמאַקע מאַלווע-קאָטלעטן:
500 גראַם מאַלווע־בלעטער, גוט געוואַשן
ציבעלע, צעהאַקט און געפּרעגלט
2 ציינדלעך קנאָבל, צעריבן
2 אייער
½ גלאָז מצה-מעל צי ברייזל (ברויט-קרישקעס)
זאַלץ און פֿעפֿער
איילבערט־בוימל
קאָכט די מאַלווע־בלעטער אין וואַסער אַ פּאָר מינוט. קוועטשט אויס דאָס וואַסער, און צעהאַקט די בלעטער. דערנאָך גיט צו די אַנדערע אינגרעדיענטן, און קנייט אויס רונדיקע קאָטלעטן. פּרעלגט (אָדער באַקט) זיי ביז זיי ברוינען זיך צו.
The post On Yom Haatzmaut — a tribute to the mallow plant appeared first on The Forward.