Uncategorized
Meet the rabbi running for State Assembly on the Upper West Side
(JTA) — Rabbi Stephanie Ruskay has worked for American Jewish World Service and the Jewish Service Corps. She’s been an associate dean for the last 10 years at the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary.
Ruskay has made a point of centering justice at each of those organizations, including in the curriculum at JTS, where community organizing and social justice are part of her fourth-year seminar.
Now, Ruskay is hoping to bring that commitment to justice to a new, wider stage as she runs for State Assembly in Manhattan.
Ruskay, a self-described progressive, is running to represent the 69th district that includes parts of the Upper West Side, Morningside Heights and West Harlem. A victory would make her the first female rabbi to hold elected state office in American history.
In a phone interview, Ruskay said she would view being elected to the State Assembly as “an extension of her rabbinate.”
“I don’t feel like I’m changing careers,” she said.
The Assembly seat opened up in the fall when current Assembly member Micah Lasher, whom Ruskay praised, decided to run for Congress.
Ruskay has been endorsed by former Manhattan borough president and onetime Democratic mayoral nominee Ruth Messinger, a longtime Jewish mentor of Ruskay, and City Council member Shaun Abreu.
In a conversation this week, Ruskay talked about rabbis who sign petitions, the Jews who are wary about Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, and why running for State Assembly is the next step in her career.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
What prompted you to run for State Assembly? Why now?
I have felt like the country and the world are in a difficult spot, and I have been civically engaged and doing multifaith justice work for many years. And I felt like I needed to and wanted to be doing a bit more than I’m able to currently do. I’ve been watching the New York legislators and feeling like [they’re] doing a formidable job trying to make New York the safest it could be for all people in the face of real difficulty in the country, and I wanted to be part of that.
What would be your biggest priorities in office, and how do you describe yourself on the political spectrum?
First of all I would describe myself as a community organizer who listens to people and looks for the intersection of what they care about and I care about and meet it together. I’m a progressive and a Democrat. My priorities are immigration, housing, education, environment. In some ways they’re all bastions of democracy. Democracy did not used to be a thing we had to say was overtly a goal — it is today.
You’ve been endorsed by former Manhattan borough president Ruth Messinger, who was president of American Jewish World Service from 1998 to 2016. What’s your relationship with Messinger like, and have you spoken with other current or former elected officials or public figures?
Ruth has been my mentor and friend and teacher for many years. I worked for her at AJWS, and that was a place that really shaped my philosophy around how you partner with people. They work in the developing world with the philosophy that people know best what they need — we won’t tell you what you need, we’ll bring the resources we have and we’re going to work together. And the reason it’s in our self-interest [as Jews] is that we don’t think we can live in a world where other people’s dignity is not valued; it’s a diminishment of our ability to be human and Jews in the world. I was 22 then, I’m 51 now, so that was a formative time in my life.
I’ve been talking to current and former elected officials. We do plan to announce other endorsements in the coming weeks. I am a person who believes you can and should learn from everyone. I think my campaign is going to be a combination of lots of things I hear from other people who served over many decades.
The incoming Zohran Mamdani mayoral administration will take over in just a few weeks. There are many Jewish constituents who have concerns about a mayor whose views on Israel are completely opposed to theirs on Israel. What do you make of this moment for Jewish New Yorkers, and how do you view your role as a Jewish leader?
I feel like choosing to run for State Assembly is actually an extension of my rabbinate. I don’t feel like I’m changing careers. I feel like, if I take seriously the things that I teach about and preach about and study about related to caring for people who are poor and making a community that is safe for people and where people can thrive — that is some of what our texts teach, and the way you do that is you go be involved in how their lives unfold and be partners.
I’m doing this like I’ve done everything — you listen to people. So, of course, I have my own perspective on the election and voted. And if I want to be people’s representative, I have to listen to what’s on their minds, and take that into account in a serious way. So I’m hearing from people who are very excited, I’m hearing from people who are very anxious. And I’m hoping to be the representative of all those people. And you come in and bring their voices into the room.
What was your perspective during the election?
I think this is an exciting and anxiety-provoking time all at the same time, and so we now have a mayor-elect, and I think that you go in and you be a partner and you represent your people. And when we agree, I’ll be very excited to work together, and when we don’t agree or when I know that I represent people who have a very different perspective from what’s happening, then my job is to bring that into the room. In organizing, we say no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. You work with people who you can work with at every moment, and that’s what I’ll do as an assemblyperson.
Earlier in the fall, there was a letter signed by 1,100-plus rabbis from New York and around the country, which called out anti-Zionism and specifically named Mamdani. I’m curious what went into your decision not to sign the letter, and what you made of this huge open letter as it was circulating?
I’m an administrator at the [Jewish Theological] Seminary, so we don’t sign letters at all, it’s just the institutional policy. I think the war of the letters is a challenging thing. I understand what would move somebody to sign on, either they feel personally very moved or they’re getting a lot of pressure from constituents and they want to go on the record. I don’t know, I guess in 50 years we’re going to look back at this time and decide if all the letter-signing was productive or not.
In my time working, I have seen people choose to sign letters and then have enormous ramifications in looking for jobs. It’s very complicated, and at some point there’s too much noise of too many letters and it’s hard to keep track of. And you have to ask yourself, are all the letters making an impact, and in what way?
According to your campaign site you would be the first female rabbi elected to state office in American history. What does that mean to you?
I’m not doing it to be history-making, I’m doing it because I feel like I don’t know what else to do in this time. It happens to be that a female rabbi has not done that before — maybe I’ll start a trend and there will be tons of us, you know, the first of many. But I think if you want to walk the walk, you have to not be inhibited by not having seen it before. This is my idea of what I could do that would have even more impact than I’m having now.
Could you tell me more about your experience as associate dean of JTS? What have you learned from the role, and how might that inform how you operate as a State Assembly member?
I love my job. I feel like it’s always different. The student body is constantly changing, you’re constantly having to ask, ‘Why are we doing it this way?’ We are continuously experimenting. And the world doesn’t stay still — I’ve been there 10 years, you don’t do the same thing for 10 years. You’re constantly trying to meet the moment, and the moment has changed a lot.
I recently had a chance to meet someone who’s an Assemblyperson, and watching how they interacted in the community made me think there was a lot of similarity between constituent services and what we do in the dean’s office. In the dean’s office, students come in with individual issues — it could be about money, course requirements, a lot of things. And you have to try to help the person who’s right in front of you, but you also have to think, ‘Who else is struggling with this issue?’ And is there a policy that would help alleviate this issue for more people?
What’s been your career journey as a rabbi, and how did that lead you to your role with JTS?
I grew up in the Conservative community. I was born in Manhattan, lived in a Mitchell-Lama building [for moderate and middle-income families], 50 West 97th St., until I was 7, and then we moved to Mahopac, which is in Putnam County. We spent a lot of time at our synagogue, and we learned about tradition and history. But justice at that time was not a piece of Jewish life that we talked about in a big way. I thought, how come these feel like separate endeavors? And so I think a lot of my career is about trying to integrate those two things and be part of leading in the Jewish community in a way in which justice and service were as important as all of the other halachic observances — not more important, but as important.
So prior to rabbinical school, I served for a year in Bulgaria in the Jewish community for the Jewish Service Corps for the Joint Distribution Committee, and then worked at American Jewish World Service. Part of my role with AJWS was communicating with rabbis around the country, trying to raise up justice work and civic engagement and international development into what they were doing in communities. I thought, ‘Rabbis play a really important role in setting the agenda for the Jewish community,’ so I thought, ‘I would like to become one!’
I went to rabbinical school at JTS, I worked at Auburn Theological Seminary running their multifaith conflict resolution and leadership program for teenagers — Israelis, Palestinians, South Africans, Northern Irish and American kids. After rabbinical school, I worked at Avodah, the Jewish Service Corps, and led alumni and community engagement. And through that work, I ended up having a relational meeting with someone at JTS — and the next thing I knew, I worked there. The challenge was: Maybe you can come here to make justice more central to how we train students. And I thought, I don’t know if I can. But if I don’t try, I definitely won’t.
Favorite spot for Jewish food in the district?
I’m going to say I spend an equal and large amount of time at both Kosher Marketplace and Six 60 One. And I meet people I know at both places regularly.
The post Meet the rabbi running for State Assembly on the Upper West Side appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America
The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.
Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.
What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”
The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.
There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda. All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.
The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.
There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)
Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.
The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.
There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.
Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)
The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.
For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.
Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)
What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.
An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.
An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)
There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.
The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.
Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.
Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.
Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.
Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.
Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”
“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.
Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.
“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”
Uncategorized
War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General
Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
i24 News – A senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.
The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.
“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.
He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”
Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.
“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”