Uncategorized
We need to talk about New Jersey’s Jewish master of literature. No, not that one
Philip Roth and Judy Blume were born five years apart in the 1930s. Both grew up in New Jersey, in the crucible of Jewish American suburban assimilation. Both were haunted by the Holocaust, news of which trickled stateside just as they were nearing adulthood. And both are literary icons.
But they’re icons of different kinds.
We see Roth as a giant of American Jewish literature, and Blume as a giant of American children’s literature. Within that distinction is a kind of tacit hierarchy. Roth was perceived as a writer for serious adults with serious concerns; Blume, as a writer for girls with girlish concerns. When Roth wrote about diaphragms (see Goodbye, Columbus) it was a bracing examination of shifting sexual mores at an inflection point in American culture. When Blume did, in Forever, it was sex education with a narrative twist.
I’ve been reading Mark Oppenheimer’s new biography Judy Blume: A Life, and thinking a lot about that hierarchy. I’ve read and loved a decent amount of Philip Roth, and a lot of Judy Blume. (I’ve written about both of them for this publication.) But I have a stronger relationship with her work than with his. One measure of a great novel is the dimensionality with which a reader experiences it. Do you see the characters as you read, smell their surroundings, hear their music? With Blume, my answer is always “yes.” With Roth, it’s “sometimes.”
So why have I, like many others, tended to think of Roth as an Important Writer, and Blume as merely an important writer to me?
This is a classic conundrum when it comes to children’s literature. As Alison Lurie wrote in her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Foreign Affairs — which I am, by coincidence, also reading right now — children’s literature is the “stepdaughter grudgingly tolerated” in any English department. We must read extensively to grow up well, but there is a sense that anyone who stays overly attached to the things they read in those early years has somehow gone developmentally awry.
The book that has most influenced me is almost certainly Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery, but for much of my adult life, I would never have named it if a stranger asked me about my favorite novel. Not just because doing so would have seemed like a bit of a faux pas — what if that stranger thought I was childish, rather than merely open to the joys of childlike wonder? — but because it felt private. Like the part of me that loves that red-headed orphan beyond measure was too personal to share.
Roth and Blume both made careers out of writing about things that felt too personal to share. Both were taboo breakers, who experienced the vicious backlash that can accompany such transgression.
But Blume broke taboos in what might be seen as safer ways. Roth engaged with the unspeakable; she attacked the impolite. By being open about the stranger parts of girlhood — the bleeding, the sexual experimentation, the friendships that collapse in ways neither party really understands — her work made it feel a little safer to be a girl. The intimate things could now be intimate, but shared.
A tragic literary paradox is that women writers often need to win male readers to be taken seriously. Once they’re known as a writer who women like, the spectre of “chick lit” attaches itself to their work, a phenomenon that predates the development of that label by centuries. Aphra Behn, one of the first professional women writers, broke boundaries in the 17th century only to be dismissed by the 18th as a lightweight who was too open about sex. I once spent a six hour drive from Chicago to St. Louis fighting with my progressive-minded college boyfriend about his reluctance to read Jane Austen. The fight wasn’t really about him; Persuasion was never going to be quite his style. It was about my sense that the things I liked lost respect in some vaguely defined public eye because people like me liked them.
On a certain literary level, it’s strange to argue that Judy Blume should be considered as great an American Jewish literary master as Philip Roth. Her sentences are simpler. So are her themes. Her approach to great American issues, like race, can be hamhanded. (To be fair, Roth’s could, too.)
But on another level, I think it’s not just reasonable but right to define great literature in part by its impact. Books are meant to deepen our connection to the world. They are meant to brighten our experience of life. They are meant to help us understand ourselves and our neighbors. Few American authors have done either of those things more powerfully, or for more people, than Judy Blume.
The release of Oppenheimer’s book has been clouded by the mystery of why Blume fell out with the author after reviewing his first draft. As a reader, I understand: Nothing is more enticing than a mystery. But I find it, frankly, sad that the first in-depth accounting of how Blume came to be a writer of such impact has been clouded by the desire for an accounting of what mysterious rifts opened between her and her biographer.
By 1964, Oppenheimer writes, Blume’s “specific milieu of suburban Jewish middle-class ease was nationally recognizable,” thanks to Roth’s work. When Blume had not yet started to write, Roth had produced a “shorthand for a kind of tacky, nouveau riche suburban Jewish experience.”
But he had done so for only a select portion of that populace: the young man on the come-up, the wealthy, bored girl trying to throw off her parents’ values without breaking herself off from their comfortable lifestyle.
The unspoken others in that vision — the basically good mothers, the mostly obedient daughters — needed their own chance to be recognizable, too. They were just as interesting, only, perhaps, in quieter ways. The literature of American Jewish life isn’t just more complete because Blume gave them voices. It’s better, too.
The post We need to talk about New Jersey’s Jewish master of literature. No, not that one appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jews used to conjure spirits and snakes in Belarusian
דעם 26סטן מײַ עפֿנט זיך אין ייִוואָ די אויסשטעלונג „ייִדן זענען מאַגיע‟ וועגן דעם ייִדישן אָקולטיזם. נישט לאַנג צוריק האָב איך אָנגעזאַמלט אַן אייגענעם מין ווירטועלע „אויסשטעלונג‟ פֿאַר זיך אַליין אויף דער דאָזיקער טעמע און אַנטדעקט עפּעס גאַנץ חידושדיקס: רײַכע אוצרות שפּרוכן און מאַגישע רעצעפּטן אויף רײַסיש (ווײַסרוסיש), פֿאַרשריבן מיטן ייִדישן אַלף־בית. עטלעכע פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע מומחים אין ייִדישע און סלאַווישע פֿאָלק־טראַדיציעס האָבן מיר געזאָגט, אַז דאָס איז אַן עכטע וויסנשאַפֿטלעכע אַנטדעקונג.
מע ווייסט, אַז אויף רײַסיש האָט מען געשריבן מיט דרײַ פֿאַרשיידענע אַלפֿאַבעטן: די קירילישע, לאַטײַנישע און אויך די אַראַבישע, וואָס איז געווען פֿאַרשפּרייט בײַ די ווײַסרוסיש־רעדנדיקע טאָטערן. אַחוץ ריין מוסולמענישע טעקסטן, טרעפֿן זיך בײַ זיי אַ סך מיסטישע סגולות, וווּ פּסוקים פֿונעם קאָראַן ווערן צונויפֿגעוועבט מיט סלאַווישע שפּרוכן.
קיינער האָט אָבער ביז הײַנט נישט געוווּסט, אַז בײַ ייִדן איז פֿאַראַן אַן ענלעכע אַלטע און צעצווײַגטע טראַדיציע צו שרײַבן רײַסישע סגולות מיט ייִדישע אותיות. שוין 16 אַזעלכע כּתבֿ־ידן פֿונעם 18טן און 19טן יאָרהונדערט האָב איך אָנגעזאַמלט און איך בין זיכער, אַז דאָס איז בלויז דער אָנהייב פֿון אַ נײַ געביט אין דער ייִדישער און סלאַווישער לינגוויסטיק, פֿאָלקלאָריסטיק און געשיכטע. אין איין פֿאַל קלינגט די שפּראַך ווי אוקראַיִניש און נאָר טיילווײַז ווי רײַסיש; אָנגעשריבן האָט מען יענעם כּתבֿ־יד אין בריסק, ווײַסרוסלאַנד; עס קאָן זײַן אַן איבערגאַנג־דיאַלעקט.
אין 1921 האָט דער ייִדישער און ווײַסרוסישער שרײַבער און היסטאָריקער זמיטראָק ביאַדוליאַ (אמתער נאָמען – שמואל פּלאַווניק) אָנגעשריבן אַ קורצן אַרטיקל וועגן אַ ריזיקן כּתבֿ־יד, וווּ צווישן סגולות אויף לשון־קודש און ייִדיש טרעפֿט זיך אויך רײַסיש. צום באַדויערן, איז יענער מאַנוסקריפּט פֿאַרלוירן געוואָרן, און די פֿאָרשער האָבן במשך פֿון איבער 100 יאָר געמיינט, אַז דאָס איז, אפֿשר, געווען בלויז אַן איינציקער אויסנאַם־מוסטער פֿון ייִדיש־רײַסיש.
לאָמיר אַרײַנקוקן אין צוויי כּתבֿ־ידן, וועלכע זענען מיר אויסגעפֿאַלן צו טרעפֿן צו ערשט. איינער איז נומער EE.011.037 פֿון וויליאַם גראָסעס קאָלעקציע. פֿון אַ ריזיקן מאַנוסקריפּט זענען פֿאַרבליבן בלויז 14 זײַטלעך; 5 זענען אויף רײַסיש.
איין סגולה איז ממש אַ וווּנדער. ס׳איז אַ שפּרוך קעגן אַ ביס פֿון אַ גיפֿטיקער שלאַנג – „עקרבֿ‟, אַן עקדיש, וואָס אינעם ווײַסרוסישן פֿאָלקלאָר מיינט אַ שלאַנג; קיין עקדישן זענען אין ווײַסרוסלאַנד נישטאָ. עס שטייט אַזוי: צופֿרי, אַנטקעגן דעם קאַיאָר, דאַרף מען זיך נײַן מאָל בוקן אויף די קני און זאָגן „אויטשע נאַש‟ („אונדזער פֿאָטער‟, Lord’s Prayer אויף רײַסיש), ווײַל „דאָס איז זייער תּפֿילה‟ („כּי היא תּפֿילתם‟)! דערנאָך גייט מען אַרום דעם געביסענעם מיט אַ מעסער און שפּרעכט אָפּ די שלאַנגען. כ׳זעץ איבער אויף ייִדיש: „איינער איז אַ גאָלדענער, דער אַנדערער אַ זילבערנער, און דער דריטער – מיט הונדערט ציינער. ס׳צי זיי אַוועק‟.
ווי באַלד דער אומבאַקאַנטער סגולות־זאַמלער פֿונעם 19טן יאָרהונדערט איז געווען אַ ליטוואַק, שרײַבט ער אי אויף ייִדיש, אי אויף סלאַוויש, מיט אַ געדיכטן ליטווישן אַקצענט, אויסמישנדיק „ס‟ מיט „ש‟, „צ‟ מיט „טש‟ און „אוי‟ מיט „איי‟. די באַקאַנטע קריסטלעכע תּפֿילה איז בײַ אים אויסגעלייגט „אייצא נאַס”. די אַנדערע אַנטדעקטע כּתבֿ־ידן האָבן דעם זעלבן ליטוואַקישן אויסלייג.
אינעם באַקאַנטן מדרש „פּרק שירה‟ ווערט דערציילט, ווי אַזוי אַלע באַשעפֿענישן דאַוונען צום אייבערשטן מיט פֿאַרשיידענע תּנ״כישע פּסוקים. בפֿרט פּאָפּולער איז דער דאָזיקער מדרש בײַ פֿרויען; מיט אים הייבט זיך אָן שחרית אינעם באַקאַנטן ווילנער סידור „קרבן מנחה‟ מיט עבֿרי־טײַטש. ווען מע בלעטערט די אַלטע רײַסיש־ייִדישע סגולה־ספֿרים, ווערט אָבער קלאָר, אַז לויט דער פֿאָלק־טראַדיציע איז די נאַטירלעכע שפּראַך פֿון וועלדער און ווילדער נאַטור דווקא רײַסיש. אויב אַזוי, ווענדט מען זיך צו די שלאַנגען דווקא מיט אַ באַוווּסט ניט־ייִדיש געבעט!
ווײַטער, אין אַן אַנדער שפּרוך, ווערט דערקלערט, וווּ עס וווינט די שלאַנגען־מלכּה, „זמיייִצאַ־צאַריצאַ‟: „אין אַ וויסט פֿעלד שטייט אַ גאָלדענער באַרנבוים, אויף יענעם באַרנבוים איז אַ גאָלדן נעסטעלע, און אין יענעם נעסטעלע איז די שלענגעלע־מלכּהלה‟.
די שלאַנגישע מלכּות צי בת־מלכּות הייסן אין די אַנטדעקטע כּתבֿ־ידן קאַראַפּעיאַ, סאַכאַוועיאַ, מאַרינאַ, קאַטערינאַ און אַרינאַ. אָפֿט באַווײַזן זיי זיך ווי קאַסאָקע (קרום־אויגיקע) מיידלעך, וואָס זיצן אין עפּעס אַ פֿאַרוואָרפֿן אָרט. אינעם סלאַווישן פֿאָלקלאָר (און נישט נאָר סלאַווישן) רופֿן קאַסאָקע מיידלעך אַרויס אַסאָציאַציעס מיט שלאַנגען, עין־הרע, וכּדומה.
נאָך איין וווּנדערלעכער אוצר איז דער כּתבֿ־יד נומער 1226 פֿונעם בר־אילן־אוניווערסיטעט. דאָרט פֿאַרנעמט רײַסיש כּמעט אַ טוץ זײַטלעך. צו געפֿינען אַ פֿאַרבלאָנדזשעטן מענטש, שטייט דאָרט געשריבן, דאַרף מען אויסבאַקן נײַן בולקעס, גיין שטילערהייט צו אַן אויסגעוואָרצלטן בוים, בוקן זיך 27 מאָל, אָפּגעבן די בולקעס דעם וואַלד־רוח און בעטן אים אומצוקערן דעם פֿאַרלאָזטן. אײַ, קלינגט עס דאָך ווי אַן עבֿודה־זרה? ווײַזט אויס, האָבן ייִדן געמיינט, אַז ווי באַלד דער גײַסט איז בלויז דער בעל־הבית איבערן וואַלד, נישט קיין עכטער אָפּגאָט, איז אַזאַ ריטואַל סתּם דרך־ארץ פֿאַר אים.
אַ סך אַנדערע רײַסיש־ייִדישע סגולות האָבן צו טאָן מיט מכשפֿות, וועלף און בערן, פֿערד און בהמות, עין־הרעס, קינדער־קראַנקייטן, וכּדומה – בקיצור, מיט טיפּישע פּויערישע און דאָרפֿישע ענינים. גאָר וויכטיק איז צו באַמערקן, אַז אַ סך נוסחאָות חזרן זיך איבער במשך פֿון דורות אין עטלעכע זאַמלונגען, הגם זייער גראַמאַטיק איז צומאָל גרײַזיק, בפֿרט וואָס שייך די קאָמפּליצירטע סלאַווישע בייגפֿאַלן. דאָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז זיי שפּיגלען אָפּ אַ רײַכע אינערלעכע ייִדישע טראַדיציע, נישט סתּם איבערגעשריבן וואָרט נאָך וואָרט בײַ די קריסטלעכע שכנים.
איבעריק צו זאָגן, אַז ס׳רובֿ קמיעות און סגולות אין אַזעלכע זאַמלונגען זענען פֿאַרשריבן אויף לשון־קודש און אַראַמיש. נישט זעלטן זענען זיי אָבער אויך פֿאַרבונדן מיט דער סלאַווישער פֿאָלק־מאַגיע. די גאָר רײַכע טראַדיציע פֿון ייִדיש־שפּראַכיקע סגולות איז אויך ווייניק באַקאַנט און פֿאָדערט אַ סך ווײַטערדיקע פֿאָרשונגען.
The post Jews used to conjure spirits and snakes in Belarusian appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Anti-Israel Republican Thomas Massie ousted from Congress as Trump endorsee wins primary
(JTA) — The only Republican to refrain from supporting Israel in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack will exit Congress following a decisive primary loss on Tuesday.
Rep. Thomas Massie, who has represented Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District since 2013, lost to Ed Gallrein, an endorsee of President Donald Trump who drew support from pro-Israel PACs.
Massie conceded the election on Tuesday night — but not without a dig at Gallrein’s purported relationship to Israel.
“I would’ve come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv,” he said in his concession speech.
With almost all ballots counted on Tuesday night, Gallrein had drawn 55% of the votes.
The result means that Massie, the most anti-Israel Republican in Congress and the only Republican to vote at times with far-left Democrats on measures opposing Israel, will leave Congress at the end of the year.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, which long opposed Massie, congratulated Gallrein in an extensive statement that cast the primary as a referendum on the Republican Party’s recent divide over Israel. The party is increasingly split between acolytes of Trump and those who believe Trump has been too accommodating to Israel.
“Kentucky Republicans sent an unmistakable message: there is no place in the Republican Party for those who turn their back on the MAGA agenda,” said CEO Matt Brooks.
He added, “We know that Ed Gallrein, a 5th-generation Kentucky farmer, decorated Navy SEAL, and true MAGA patriot, will serve with honor and distinction, as he has his entire career.”
Brooks criticized both Massie’s record in Congress and his behavior as a candidate, saying, “Notably, Massie’s conduct throughout this campaign — trafficking in antisemitism and bottom-of-the-barrel nativism at a time when Jew-hatred is on the rise — was wildly unacceptable and outrageous from an elected member of Congress.”
A widely condemned pro-Massie campaign ad last week claimed that a Gallrein win would bring “trans woke madness” to Kentucky at the behest of billionaire Jewish Republican donor Paul Singer. The ad placed a rainbow Star of David next to a photo of Singer’s head.
The ad came amid a blitz that watchdogs say made the race the most expensive congressional contest in U.S. history, with an estimated $32.6 million spent according to the advertising tracking firm AdImpact. That includes $5 million from a PAC affiliated with the Republican Jewish Coalition and a reported $2.6 million from PACs affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby.
Massie’s record in Congress has placed him far outside the Republican mainstream. In October 2023, he voted with the progressive “Squad” against a resolution expressing support for Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack. The next month, he was the only member of Congress from either party to vote “no” on a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist. Last year, Massie called for ending all U.S. military aid to Israel.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Anti-Israel Republican Thomas Massie ousted from Congress as Trump endorsee wins primary appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish groups rally behind bipartisan Senate antisemitism bill with $1B security allocation
(JTA) — Major U.S. Jewish organizations are calling for the quick passage of new bipartisan Senate legislation aimed at protecting Jews and Jewish institutions from antisemitism.
The Jewish American Security Act is sponsored by James Lankford, a Republican from Oregon, and Jacky Rosen, a Jewish Democrat from Nevada. It would require the federal education department to adopt a civil rights strategy to fight antisemitism and would force social media platforms to share more details about how they handle antisemitism online.
The legislation also proposes $1 billion in security funding for houses of worship and other at-risk nonprofits, a key demand in a six-point security proposal that Jewish Federations of North America has been promoting on Capitol Hill.
The legislation was announced Tuesday as hundreds of Jewish advocates traveled to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to promote the call for the $1 billion allocation, which would triple the amount appropriated by Congress this year for security at houses of worship.
“Jewish Americans are being targeted, attacked, and killed simply because of who they are. This alarming trend demands a comprehensive, bipartisan approach that addresses both the seeds and the impacts of this vile hatred,” Rosen, who is famously a former synagogue president, said in a statement.
The bill follows several other recent attempts to advance antisemitism legislation in Congress.
In December, four progressives in the House of Representatives introduced the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act, which calls for fully funding the federal Office of Civil Rights while also repudiating the Trump administration’s tactics around antisemitism that progressives say “weaponize” antisemitism in support of a repressive agenda. It has not advanced in the Republican-led House.
A Senate bill sponsored by Chuck Schumer, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, meanwhile, failed to advance despite intense advocacy by Jewish groups. It would have enshrined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which is contested on both the left and the right for its citation of some forms of Israel criticism as antisemitic and examples that some conservative Christians say would constrain their religious expression.
A wide swath of Jewish groups are endorsing the Jewish American Security Act, including JFNA, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Organizations affiliated with the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements of Judaism — which are often split politically — also signed on.
“At this perilous moment of violent antisemitism experienced by congregants, clergy, and congregations in our own Reform Jewish community and beyond, the need for meaningful steps to bolster security and the fight against hate is vital,” Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a statement. “The Jewish American Security Act strengthens the government tools and funding that will be available to help us meet this moment and uphold the American commitment to religious freedom.”
One group that opposed the Antisemitism Awareness Act is listed among supporters of the new legislation: the Nexus Project, which launched to fight antisemitism and simultaneously “speak out when fears of antisemitism are cynically exploited to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or US policy.” It is a critic of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
The Nexus Project did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Unlike the Antisemitism Awareness Act, the new legislation does not seek to enshrine IHRA into law. While the legislation’s prognosis is not clear, the omission could prove to be one less hurdle in a Congress where appearing to support Israel is increasingly a third rail.
Lankford said in a statement that Jewish Americans are facing “an unprecedented surge in antisemitism” and that action was needed.
“These are not just numbers, these are real stories impacting real people,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Jewish groups rally behind bipartisan Senate antisemitism bill with $1B security allocation appeared first on The Forward.