Rabbi's Blog - June 2011

Bottoms Up!

22/6/2011

Oh no! Not the whisky! As a former occasional vodka drinker, I have since acquired a taste for the finer things in life, and have a rather respectable collection of single malts in my home. Each Shabbat there’s always at least one loyal congregant who ensures to pour me a tipple as well, during the Kiddush. Which is why I was most perturbed to read about the new Scotch boycott.

According to a report in the Jewish Chronicle, the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs, encompassing 250 clubs across the US, have initiated a boycott of Scottish distilleries in protest against West Dunbartonshire Council’s boycott of Israel.

This is what you call putting principles before personal pursuits. To be sure, I didn’t even know there was such a Federation representing more than 6000 members, but that’s a lot of whisky to pass up and some of the brands affected are amongst my favourites, including Auchentoshan. Still, such action is lamentably necessary if it prompts the distilleries to make representation, as some already have.

Regrettably one person doesn’t seem to think so. Stanley Grossman, co-founder of the Scottish Friends of Israel is reported to have said: “I certainly won’t be boycotting whisky. This has nothing to do with the distillers, and it defeats our case, which is in part arguing the stupidity of boycotts in general.”

A whisky drinker living on the doorstep of Chivas Brothers, Morrison Bowmore and Loch Lomond must be tantamount to a child with a sweet-tooth living next door to an ice-cream parlor. The aroma wafting through the living room window must keep one on a perpetual high. So I understand Mr. Grossman’s dilemma. But these distilleries I am sure pump a lot of money and resources into the West Dunbartonshire economy. Just as the decisions of the Israeli government are no fault of some Israeli winery in the Negev, (assuming those decisions are even faults), so the choices made by the West Dunbartonshire council are no fault of the distilleries. But this is a regrettable, yet necessary game of tit-for-tat using the same logic.

When John Lewis issued a letter requesting of its suppliers to indicate whether they source products Israel, I went on the offensive in my Jewish News column suggesting that if they were looking to initiate a boycott of Israeli products then “boycott the boycotters.” We will never know what the intentions of John Lewis were, but they did go scrambling after they endured immediate losses of six thousand pounds on cancelled orders. Their spokeswoman suggested I should have considered the possibility that perhaps they were asking for the benefit of shoppers who wanted to deliberately buy Israeli products.

Whatever the truth, boycotting boycotters gets results. For the moment, a spokeswoman on behalf of the council insists that “the council unreservedly stands behind its decision on the boycott.” This if course means I may have to switch back to vodka for a while. But so long as the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs maintains its resolve and Mr. Grossman gets off his high horse, I’m betting the council’s resolve will go bottoms up soon enough.

A Dogs Life

19/6/2011

Bow Wow! It seems all Israel is up in arms over a stray dog.

Gilgul is what well call him for the purposes of this article. It seems Gilgul wandered into the offices of a Meah Shearim Beth Din in the heart of Jerusalem and refused to leave. All the many attempts by the judges in the court did nothing to deter the canine. Im not sure why three men cant get a dog out of a building but I can only assume that three long bearded men sitting behind a desk and yelling, shoo, feh is going to result in little more than the dog looking at them with the same curiosity with which they looked upon him.

The story, as it broke in the international press is that the judges then decided it was a reincarnation of some secular lawyer who died years earlier and who was known to behave in a disparaging manner toward similar judges some twenty years prior. They then pronounced their verdict that the dog should be put to death by stoning.

Assuming for arguments sake the story is true, here are the obvious problems:

1) While reincarnation is fundamental to Jewish belief there are only some sources that maintain that this can extend to human beings being reincarnated into animals. Many others maintain you can only ever come back reincarnated as another human.

2) Even if it is the case that reincarnation can extend human to animal, by what objective criteria do these judges know and determine that this is a reincarnated person, let alone who it is? Indeed perhaps it was a recalcitrant husband who refused his wife a get in the same Beth Din years ago. Or maybe it was in fact a former judge who barked unfairly at a litigant (theyre known for their sometimes blunt and harsh tactics). Then again maybe it was a dog that dared to raise its hind leg in the presence of some esteemed judge years ago, and had to come back again, and behave more respectfully.

3) Assuming they arrived at their conclusions for whatever reasons, the whole point and purpose of reincarnation is as a rectification for misdeeds in a previous life. To that end, the very incarnation into the dog is the atonement. do they get off deciding to stone the animal on top of it, anymore than they would have had the right to stone the lawyer all those years earlier?

4) Even after all said and done, assuming they had all the explanations in the world, why go public with it and indeed who was there to go report it to the press? Surely they knew theyd lay themselves open to ridicule.

Heres my take on the story. As much as a dog may be mans best friend, Jews, especially the ultra orthodox are known to be afraid of them for a whole host of reasons. Youd be hard pressed to ever find one in an Orthodox Jewish home. On the streets of Meah Shearim a dog sighting is almost as rare as the Abominable Snowman or the Loch Ness monster. So when a stray dog goes wandering into a Jewish court house one could well picture the judges suddenly huddling behind their bench yelling, Oi! Shoo! Feh! Arois! The dog evidently doesnt speak Yiddish and so didnt budge. The visibly shaken Rabbis would have made their exit - it was them or the dog - and one of them probably passed a tongue in cheek comment about it being a reincarnation and telling some neighbourhood kids to go in and get rid of it - maybe he even said kill it.

There was a fly that flew out of the ark in my synagogue when it was opened on a Shabbat morning several months ago. I commented to the chazan who also saw it, that it must be a reincarnation. After all how did a fly get into the sealed ark in the first place? Whats more, it was the second week in a row that it happened, as I told the chazan to his bemusement. What I didnt say was that it was probably a past chairman, maybe even a previous Chief Rabbi. Nor did I recommend that it be swatted. Now that would have made headlines.

Thankfully Gilgul (Heb. reincarnation) escaped the building. There have been no reports of him taunting any other paranoid people any else in Israel. Has he gone back to heaven - mission accomplished?

Moral of the story: Be careful what you say and to whom you say it. You never know whos listening and you could end up walking off with your tail wagging between your legs.

Fathers Day

19/6/2011

Today is Father’s Day. Many clichés abound such as “every day should be father’s day,” “my Dad had a special influence in my life,” and even something like, “if it wasn’t for Dads, Moms wouldn’t have what to complain about.”

But it is a time for some serious reflection not least insofar as paternal responsibility is concerned. PM David Cameron wrote a piece in today’s Telegraph in which he argues that fathers who abandon their families should be “stigmatised” by society in the same way as drink-drivers.” At least one person argued to me, “Why doesn’t he say the same about Moms?” It’s simple really. Moms don’t abandon their kids. That’s not a generalisation – it’s a fact. One can argue the psychological difference between the mother who carries the child in her womb for nine months and the metaphysical umbilical chord which remains attached, sometimes till the child is forty and often longer than that. The father on the other hand makes his biological contribution at the outset and thereafter may not share in the same deep emotional bond. But he is the Dad after all – he’s a fifty percent stakeholder in the child, and every child needs to have the stability of both parents active in their lives in order to grow as productively as possible.

Does that mean that children who find themselves raised by only one parent are unstable and unproductive? Certainly not! But there is some unquestionable void which impacts on them one way or another, especially as they get older and set out to become parents themselves.

I hold the portfolio on the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet for issues appertaining to “Family.” Over the years this has given me a glimpse into a lot of the causes and effects of family life. So when the Prime Minister writes that family life is the “cornerstone of our society,” no truer words could be spoken. If one was to round up all the renegade youth of our society, especially the many presently sitting in young offenders’ institutions, you’ll come to discover that an overwhelming proportion are victims of their upbringing – whether single parent homes, abusive homes, etc.

I dare say, and I’ve observed this on too many occasions even in Orthodox Jewish homes so much emphasis is put on family life; when there is a sad breakdown in the family, one can readily discern the difference between a child raised the father remains financially and emotionally active in his child’s life and a father will shirk that responsibility.

Mr Cameron stressed: “It is high time runaway Dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them.” The same should hold true for the Jewish community, sometimes communities tend to rally around one spouse or the other.

“They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, every part of our culture, that what theyre doing is wrong - that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isnt acceptable.”

You’ve got my vote on that one, Mr. Prime Minister.

Dont Run - Dont Hide

10/6/2011

I was very disturbed to read about Jersey Senator Freddie Cohen’s resignation politics. The former president of the Jersey Jewish community is not standing for re-election as planning and environment minister because of serious Anti Semitic abuse received and threats to his own family.

What makes this story all the more tragic is that Jersey just celebrated its 66th anniversary of liberation Nazi occupation. Cohen himself is a member of the Jersey Holocaust Memorial Day Committee. Even as Stephen Regal, current president of the Jewish community, insists that such abuses “just dont happen here, it is clear that the tentacles of Anti Semitism are reaching even offshore.

But is Cohen right not to seek re-election? Is it sensible to give in to the threats of Anti Semitism rather than defiantly rising above them? Far be it for me to judge someone who was bombarded with Anti Semitic messages including a death threat against him and his family. In Cohen’s own words, My family has been very upset by recent events and I feel that it would therefore be better not to stand for re-election at the end of the year.” But in principle isn’t it something of an own goal when we capitulate to the venom of Anti Semitic scare mongers? What sort of message does this send out to both the perpetrators who are now emboldened by this result, and the tiny Jewish community who will surely feel defeated by it?

I maintain that when reverting to what author Israel Zangwell referred to in his book ‘Children of the Ghetto,’ as the ghetto shtoop – walking with our heads down, keeping below the radar, we feed into the stereotype – we nurture the germ – we score an own goal. If the whole point and purpose of Anti Semitism is to reduce the Jewish people into oblivion, then surely we are accommodating the process when we choose to lie low as it were. The forceful response, the only response is to walk with your head held high in appreciation of who you are and what you stand for. It is only when you don’t respect yourself that others won’t respect you either.

I once met with someone in broadcasting who told me how at the beginning of his career he would always take off his yarmulke as soon as he pulled up to his office. One day he met with Sir Trevor McDonald in the men’s room. Trevor turned to him and said: “You’re that guy upstairs. I see you every morning and I want to ask you a question: ‘Why do you remove your head covering each morning as you step out of your car?” The young man explained about not wanting to be different, to look different, to stand out. At which point Trevor turned to him and said: “I am the only black person in this building apart the cleaner. How should that make me feel? When I walk into a board room I am the only black man there, I immediately sense my difference.” He then pinched the black skin of his face and added: “You see this? It doesn’t wash off! It’s who I am!”

I must reiterate that I am not fully au fait with the details surrounding Senator Cohen’s particular situation so I don’t know whether what he is doing is the right thing in the circumstances. What I do know however is that kids who are encouraged to switch yarmulkes for baseball caps, and adults who try hard not to be too overtly Jewish, it is who you are, it doesn’t wash off. It’s a mistake to let others even think that they’ve managed to scrub any of it off you too.

A Jewish King for England?

3/6/2011

Is the future King of England going to be a Jew?

It could happen!

The mother of Kate Middleton, wife of Prince William, is Carol Middleton, daughter of Ronald Goldsmith and Dorothy Harrison, said to both be Jewish.

The parents of Dorothy Harrison are Robert Harrison and Elizabeth Temple, also said to both be Jewish as the latter is a descendant of the Myers family, traditional English Jews in the 19th century.

Of course this is all hearsay. Id like to hear what geneologists and historians have to say about this, if anything. But if proven to be true then Princess Kate is a Jew of matrilineal descent, a true JEP* in every sense. If so, forget a new Chief Rabbi, the future king of England will be a Jew according to Jewish Law and tradition.

Then again would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe we shouldnt bother finding out.

*(JAP is a term typically used to describe a Jewish American Princess akin to the English Beck. A JEP would be the English equivalent).

Yiddish: Here Today, Gevalt Tomorrow!

1/6/2011

Oi the joy of Yiddish. I was standing in Bushey Cemetery the other week and overheard two superintendents chatting in Yiddish. When I commented about it to one of them, he inadvertently replied: “Well you know someone’s got to. It’s a dying language!” The irony of his remark considering we were standing was lost on him.

But is he right? Is Yiddish going to all but disappear over the next few decades? What are its origins, how has it retained its vitality, albeit diminished, till today?

Yiddish is more a broad mix of German, Hebrew and Aramaic languages. While Biblical Hebrew has been around since, well, Biblical times, (more than three millennia) modern Hebrew (Ivrit) only became popularized at the beginning of the twentieth century in Ottoman Palestine. Yiddish on the other hand, originates the tenth century and was therefore always the mame loshon – or mother tongue. (Another example of the mix, as mame is mother in Yiddish while loshon is Hebrew for tongue).

The decimation of European Jewry during the Holocaust, the subsequent integration into mainstream societies in America and Western Europe and the ever increasing assimilation rates, are all contributing factors to the demise of Yiddish. In addition, since 1948, with Israel becoming the focal point of identity for most Jews around the world, it was inevitable that Modern Hebrew was going to overtake it as the more popular language.

Today, approximately 300,000 people speak Yiddish in Israel, while most of the rest of the six million of the population speak Hebrew. That’s only about 3%. In the United States the Yiddish speaking population is just under 200,000 in an overall Jewish population of five million. That’s an even smaller percentage. Strikingly, in the UK it is suggested there are close to 30,000 Yiddish speakers in a population of 300,000 Jews. It can be assumed that this higher proportion is attributable to the fact that an overall higher percentage of the UK Jewish community is made up of Chassidic Jews, mostly in Stamford Hill, Golders Green and Manchester.

One of the contributable factors that helped retain the vitality of Yiddish is that children were often taught to translate original text into Yiddish. One gentleman put it to me: “I was taught to translate the Torah into Yiddish as a child, or more to the point, to translate one language I didn’t understand, into another language that I didn’t understand.” The truth of the matter is that only because he was taught to translate into Yiddish is he able to understand the language till today. There are still hundreds of thousands of Jewish children around the world that are taught to translate their Torah study into Yiddish.

I too spent my primary school years translating into Yiddish, though in High School this was abandoned for the sake of the many that joined other schools Yiddish was never spoken. Back in the Yeshiva world this was resumed, as in fact in many Yeshivot today, a lot of text and certainly key lectures are delivered in Yiddish. So I speak it fluently and always welcome the opportunity to do so, especially with members for whom it forms a part of their dialect as well. Alas all too few. I even ensured to speak to my eldest son at home in Yiddish. This lasted only while living in New York and disappeared almost immediately upon arrival to the UK. The sad fact is that my children are not taught to translate into Yiddish in their schools and while texts and lectures in Yeshiva are still in Yiddish, it may be enough for them to understand but hardly to speak it. There are snippets of words we’ll use at home with our toddler – words like hais – meaning hot, or haisey – our own innovation to describe a warm milk bottle. My kids all call me Tatty which is Yiddish for Daddy, even as I grew up calling my father Daddy, while he in turn always referred to his own father as Papa. Interestingly, Bubbe (Grandma) seems to have made it into many Anglicised homes, oddly even more so than Zaideh (Grandpa).

Of course a lot of Yiddish words have made their way into the Jewish mainstream but some of the gross errors reflect the demise of the language. Many for example talk about schlepping nachas. That translates as “dragging pleasure,” out of your kids. No parent wants to have to drag joy out of their offspring. You’d really rather it would be a more natural occurrence. Thus the correct phrase is schepping nachas which means drawing or “deriving pleasure.” (Interesting again to note how the first word is Yiddish while the second is Hebrew).

Another common word is broiges (anger / upset) mostly because almost everyone’s got one. Here again it tends to be used in a slightly wrong context. I can be broiges (angry) with you, but you can’t really have a broiges with someone anymore than you can have ‘an anger’ with someone. Many are unaware that this too is a Yiddishization of a Hebrew word. The scriptural origin is b’rogez as in b’rogez rachem tizkor (Habakkuk 3:2) “in wrath, remember compassion!”

While on the topic of anger, it behoves me to point out, there is no such thing as to be gefruntzeled even if it sounds good. You could be tzumisht (mixed up) and even tzuchist (crazy) but not gefruntzeled.

Whatever happens to Yiddish in the future, parts of it have become immortalized. Bupkes (used to describe something worthless, though literally “horse pings”), kibbitz (to joke around), klotz (lit. a block of wood but used to describe an imbecile), maven (an expert and the Hebrew word of the same spelling meaning to understand), mentch (a decent, upstanding person) are all Yiddish words that make up part of any conversation between two Jews. Other words such as the aforementioned schlep, chutzpah, schmooze, spiel, shtick, and a few unmentionables, have all made their way into mainstream society, such that even Microsoft Word doesn’t flag red lines under them.

It’s a shande (shame) that Yiddish is fading the mainstream, confined only to pockets of conversation on burial grounds and the occasional elderly member I might visit. If my Zaideh (Grandfather; actually I called him Saba – Heb.) was alive, he’d wave his hand in disgust and say Feh! (No translation required). All I can really say is, “Gevalt! What a broch.”