Please wait...
The Lilith Blog
January 27, 2008 by admin
Could It Be, Orthodox Women Rabbis? Not Exactly.
There’s been lots of hype surrounding the announcement of the Shalom Hartman Institute’s new ordination program that would ordain Orthodox women as rabbis. But the Orthodox she-rabbi is really just a byproduct of the program, not the point of it. The non-denominational program is intended to train a new crop of Jewish educators, to teach in Jewish day schools, not to take on pulpit positions. In bestowing the title of rabbi on its graduates it will be invoking the original sense of the word — teacher.
Rabbi Donniel Hartman, co-director of the institute and the son of its founder, Rabbi David Hartman, told the Jerusalem Post, “We think the title ‘rabbi’ is important because in the Jewish tradition, the highest level of educator was given the title rabbi, which literally means teacher. Today, the top-tier educators seek the title of rabbi to reflect their status as well.”
And, the thinking goes, women who have the same high level of knowledge should get the same title, and the same status that goes with that title. Makes a lot of sense. But that title, as treated by the Hartman Institute program, is more akin to Doctor for a Ph.D. than for an M.D. Just as one wouldn’t trust one’s English professor to take out one’s tonsils, one isn’t meant to trust these rabbi-educators with decisions about Jewish law:
“This is a smicha [ordination] program that is not built around the classic learning of Jewish law, rather on the ability to communicate the central ideas of Judaism in an inspiring and meaningful way for the next generation of youth,” Hartman continued.
That is, the Institute’s rabbi graduates will have no authority in Jewish law or ritual life. Which is why the ordination can be non-denominational and why the modern Orthodox (but very liberal and feminism-friendly) Rabbis Hartman can get away with “ordaining” women. Still, the move has caused quite the uproar in some circles, and could certainly be a stepping stone toward full ordination of women as Orthodox rabbis (whether or not that’s one of the Institute’s ulterior motives — wink, wink ;-).
But is it good for Orthodox women? Samantha M. Shapiro ponders this question in Slate and points out the tough spot in which Orthodox women who seek the highest levels of Talmudic knowledge and, God forbid, the title “rabbi,” find themselves (that spot’s often called “between a rock and a hard place,” but in this context something like “between the bimah and the mechitza” seems more fitting). Shapiro makes the excellent point that, in Orthodox circles, women can often make more inroads into positions of responsibility and authority by not being called “rabbi.” For a woman, bearing the title is too brazen, too out-of-step with the status quo, for the community to be able bestow its trust and respect in her. It’s like walking into shul in a red halter dress (or with a big scarlet R around your neck). No matter how fervently you say your prayers, no upstanding Orthodox mother’s gonna want her son to marry a floozie like you. You have to be more subtle and modest to get what you want. Make them think you’re a good girl. Then you can pull out the handcuffs on your wedding night.
–Rebecca Honig Friedman
- 5 Comments
January 24, 2008 by admin
But Really, How Jewish IS Amy Winehouse?
Q. Amy Winehouse…
a) makes pretty great music.
b) is a crack-smoking trainwreck.
c) is Jewish.
The answer, as you probably know, is all three, and the media is obsessed with each of these factoids. After the release of a video of Winehouse doing various drugs was greeted with requisite shock and a reprise of “is she or isn’t she in rehab?”, I started thinking a little more about (c). In the face of the singer’s unraveling (about which there’s hardly need for yet another commentary), it’s become impossible to ignore just how psyched everyone seems to be that Amy Winehouse is Jewish.
There are different motivations behind this, of course. Both the ravenous press and Winehouse herself have joyfully portrayed her Jewish identity as a bizarre contrast with her bad girl image. The Jewish community, ever-eager to claim a celeb for the team, has managed to boast and sneer about her at the same time. Winehouse is the proud – and in many ways, welcome — antithesis of the “nice Jewish girl,” but since she does tend to identify with two out of the three elements of that little saying, both she and the media like to keep her options open.
Here are the oft-repeated basics. Back in 2004, The Guardian was one of many publications to pin her as “a slight 20-year-old Jewish girl from north London” and The Telegraph wrote, “Done up to the nines (lustrous lipstick, dark mascara, long black eyelashes, thick black hair), Winehouse looks every inch the Jewish princess.” In March of 2007, Rolling Stone‘s blog noted that “Ms. Rehab might in fact be the highest-debuting-female-solo-British-tall-Jewish-black-haired-tattoed-with-a-birthmark-on-her-left-arm artist ever to make the U.S. Billboard charts.” In May, the Toronto Star chimed in: “The beehived, heavily tattooed Winehouse might be a wee Jewish girl from North London, but she can snarl and wail like Etta James or Eartha Kitt.” From a Rolling Stonecover story that same month: “Those who have only heard her voice express shock upon seeing the body that produces it: The sultry, crackly, world-weary howl that sounds like the ghost of Sarah Vaughn comes from a pint-size Jewish girl from North London.” And from the Washington Post: “Winehouse has an exceptional voice that’s even more striking when you catch a glimpse of its source: a wispy, heavily tattooed young Jewish woman with a mile-high beehive for a hairdo and a Gothic level of mascara caked onto her face. It almost doesn’t compute.”
What a study in contrasts!
When she’s prodded to comment on her bad girl ways, Winehouse tends to bring up her Jewishness herself, offering it as a reassuring counterpoint to the rest of her image. “She says what she really wants to do in 10 years’ time is to settle down and be a good Jewish mum,” Australia’s Sunday Times reported last summer. The paper went on to quote the singer as saying, “I would like to uphold certain things, but not the religious side of things, just the nice family things to do. At the end of the day, I’m a Jewish girl.”
The news that Winehouse planned to have a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and (bonus!) convinced her husband to convert, had the press slobbering.
After music producer Mark Ronson laughed off rumors that he and Winehouse were having an affair, he shared this highly pertinent information: “Amy makes a really nice meatball dinner. She’s good at making Jewish mother food.” More recently, he announced that he and Winehouse may team up to do a holiday album that will include ditties with names like “Kosher Kisses.”
Because all of this is not enough, the Jewish Chronicle recently posted a short write-up entitled “How Jewish is Amy Winehouse?”**
In what I can only assume is a very (very, very) lame attempt to be funny, the piece manages to embrace stupid stereotypes in the name of policing Jewish identity. In the “pro” column, “Amy is on record as saying she loves her grandma, she likes to make roast chicken on a Friday night and looks forward to a matzah and edam sandwich after an evening out.” On the con side, she has all those tattoos “(of naked ladies, no less)” and, you know, drinks a lot. The verdict? “Once she comes out of rehab, we’ll have her back,” the Chronicle reassures. “So we say she is 78% Jewish.”
What a relief! Now we know.
**”How Jewish is…” looks to be a recurring feature at the Chronicle, which also put French President Nicolas Sarkozy* on the hot seat. The results? His grandfather was Jewish (before he converted to Catholicism – but “we have made a halachic decision not to recognise it,” says the Chronicle)! He can boast of family members who died in the Holocaust! And woah, his girlfriend Carla Bruni once recorded a song written by Serge Gainsbourg, a bonafide Jewish person!!!
–Eryn Loeb
- 23 Comments
January 23, 2008 by admin
The New Jew Food?
I’ve been doing a lot of cooking lately. In comparison to the stereotypical “I use my oven as an extra shoe closet” New Yorker, I’ve
probably always cooked a lot for this city. But since I started freelance writing two days a week last summer, and especially since the New Year when I renewed my commitment to preparing my own meals, I’ve found myself spending much more time in the kitchen.
I’ve also discovered that there’s lots of time to think when one cooks – even if NPR is playing in the background. As I’ve tinkered with various types of cookies and tried out new recipes from my favorite Chanukah present, Veganomicon: The Ultimate Vegan Cookbook (thanks Mom!), I’ve started to wonder, “what makes food feel Jewish?”
Yes, there are the old standbys – Chicken soup with matzah balls, fresh challah, pastrami on rye. And then there are the mysterious, and often severely unappetizing foods that you find in the “kosher food” section at the supermarket – gefilte fish, pickles, Manischewitz, and Tam Tam crackers. Honestly, I can only imagine what folks who aren’t familiar with Jewish eating must think when they see a supermarket shelf of glass jars filled with gelatinous objects suspended in a bunch of different colored murky liquids.
But when I fast forward to THIS century, and I start to think of all my amazing Jewish (and Jewishly committed) friends – friends who are worldly eaters, friends who are vegetarians, pescatarians and ethical meat eaters, gluten-free, local-food advocates, friends who are both Ashkenazi and Sephardi – the supermarket borscht just doesn’t seem to capture the breadth of their eating habits. So, does that mean that my Jewish friends just don’t eat “Jewish food,” or does it mean that the typical understanding of “Jewish food” hasn’t caught up to the Jewish people who eat it?
Two weekends ago, I made a Shabbat dinner for friends. I made vegetarian three-bean chili in my slow cooker, whole wheat challah, and a jicama and tangerine fruit salad, and an apple pie with a crumble-top crust for dessert. We ate it with store-bought hummus, pickles jarred by my friends (local Jewish farmers) and
artisanally-crafted cheese. Except for the challah and pickles, my bubbe probably wouldn’t recognize any of the foods I made as “traditional Jewish foods.” But to me, the meal couldn’t feel more Jewish – it was homey, and warm and brought friends and family around a table to celebrate Shabbat.
I think that the definition of Jewish food is changing – or needs to change – to include the way we eat today. Perhaps the iconic foods will stick around and my children will someday serve potato kugel to their families, but I truly hope that the spring vegetable matzah lasagna, or the roasted root vegetables I make in the winter make for Passover make it into the canon as well.
Rabbi, Chef, and food historian Gil Marks described what he thinks makes food Jewish on a recent PBS special on American Jewry. He focused mostly on tradition and the time-tested recipes our mothers and grandmothers made throughout history. I’m a big fan of Rabbi Marks, but I also think that defining Jewish food in this century is up to all of us. So – I’m wondering – what makes food feel Jewish to YOU?
–Leah Koenig
- 3 Comments
January 22, 2008 by Mel Weiss
Happy Anniversary
There’s lots to comment upon this week—especially as the primaries start stacking up (McCain in South Carolina say what?!)—but in honor of the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22nd has been designated by NARAL Pro-Choice “blog for choice” day (there are other ways to commemorate as well). We’re all supposed to address the question of why it’s important to vote pro-choice. For this endeavor, I interviewed my roommate and feminist partner in crime, Molly. We’re definitely both loud and proud pro-choicers, but we bring different baggage to the table. (Come by some night when we discuss religion—it’s always a barn burner.)
The first thing I want to mention is, admittedly, slightly less academic and a little more personal—but the personal is the political, right? I really don’t like the way the anti-choice right has managed to change from a fringe coalition to a front and center movement. I resent it. And I resent that people—mostly women, but not only—are so used in the process. It’s profoundly unethical, I think, and it’s doubly wrong when put into the service of making the far anti-choice right palatable.
But I digress. Molly and I discussed our first initial reactions to the question, “Why is it important to vote choice?” Molly’s vote is an expression of her deep conviction that people in America have a pathologically fearful relationship with women’s agency. I vote pro-choice with the idea foremost in my mind that choice is yet another battlefield in the war to maintain the separation of church and state. Not that we don’t agree with each other—I feel very strongly that choice is a human right, and please see above barn-burner reference for a clue as to Molly feels about the Religious Right. But our answers were our gut reactions, and they ended up revealing more about us.
Molly’s answers, and her line of thinking, can be summed up in her well-honed phrase: “I don’t think women can be equal partners in society if we don’t have control over our bodies.” Extremely true. But as queer woman, I’m less worried about an accidental pregnancy. For me, there was the galvanizing experience of learning that Jewish law permits abortion. But even stronger than that, there’s an absolute love of the separation of church and state—I’ve been reading too much Jewish history not to feel that way. So while Molly—brilliantly, might I say—is dedicated to changing people’s minds about the topic of choice, I am more concerned with what’s on the big black books in Washington, D.C. She’s got the long view and I’ve got the short view. Neither one is wrong, and used in conjunction, they should work quite nicely for ensuring women’s right to choose.
So vote pro-choice. We say so.
–Mel Weiss with Molly Theobald
- 2 Comments
January 21, 2008 by admin
The Winter Issue is Up!
Lilith’s Winter 2007-2008 issue is out, and we want to hear your thoughts! Please make sure you say what article you’re responding to, and leave your comments below. (If you’re having trouble leaving a comment, you can send it to us at info@lilith.org and we’ll post it for you.)
- 4 Comments
January 17, 2008 by admin
Running Commentary
I was jogging in Jerusalem on Rehov Yaffo on Saturday night when I was harassed by a hasid. Well, I’m not sure if it was really harassment proper (by which I mean harassment improper), but it was an unwelcome comment. The man, who was wearing a long robe and a streimel, called out to me, “Why do you have to do this here? Where are you running to?” grunting disapprovingly. I was modestly dressed in long pants (to the extent that pants can be modest) and a long-sleeved T-shirt, and I even had my hair braided underneath a kerchief. And yet my presence still disturbed him.
I was about to quote to him from Pirkei Avot and ask him why he was talking to a woman (which is discouraged by R. Yossi ben Yochanan), but I had a better idea. Having recently completed a masechet of the Talmud, I knew by heart the formula for the Hadran, the prayer traditionally recited upon completing a significant unit of text study. Much of this prayer compares “us” to “them” – “we” study Torah, while “they” engage in idle pursuits:
*We express gratitude to you, God, that You have established our portion with those who dwell in the study house, and have not established our portion with idlers. For we arise early and they arise early; we arise early for words of Torah, while they arise early for idle words. We toil and they toil; we toil and receive a reward, while they toil and do not receive reward. We run and they run; we run to the life of the World to Come, while they run to the Well of Destruction.*
“To the Well of Destruction” in Hebrew is “l’ve’er shachat,” which is what I hollered over my shoulder to the Hasid who asked me to where I was running. I wish I could have seen his face, and I wonder if he shared this story when he arrived, surely less breathless, in the World to Come.
–Chavatzelet Herzliya
- No Comments
January 16, 2008 by admin
Jewish Metadata: Suggestions for the Womb
Is there any other ethnic or religious group that devotes as much time, effort, and money to thinking about itself as the Jewish community does?
As a people, we are so “meta.” Case in point: The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI) releases an annual report on the state of the Jewish community, with suggestions for improvement. (Another case in point — the fact that there is a Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, and numerous other organizations with similar concerns).
2007’s report finds Israel placing a less central role amongst Diaspora Jews, a largely cosmopolitan bunch who aren’t as wealthy as one might think we are, and who are often in mixed marriages but also often raising their children Jewish (the Jewish Chronicle has a good summary of the report’s findings but you can read it in its entirety on the JPPPI website). Still, the JPPPI’s main suggestion for improvement? More Jewish children. Seems the ancient precept of p’ru u’rvu [be fruitful and multiply] is still the best advice they can come up with. And they would have the community give middle class families financial incentives to have a third or fourth child.
Can you say Big Brother?
Almost a year ago, I wrote about a debate over a similar suggestion to increase childbirth in Israel (JPPPI focuses on the Diaspora) and sided with the demographics researcher rather than the feminist who told him to “spare my uterus your fancy ideas.” Yet, now, maybe because of the mention of money and the desire to put this demographical theory into practice, this suggestion makes my skin crawl. There’s something about using children for a cause that’s just yucky, not to mention the increased social pressure (already so intense in the Jewish community) to have children.
The suggestion reeks of desperation — typical Jewish anxiety over the destruction of our ranks — and there’s nothing less attractive. As a people seeking to attract new members, and keep existing ones, we need to get beyond it. Don’t pay people to have children, pay to create communities and programs that will make the children they do have, of their own volition, want to stay.
–Rebecca Honig Friedman
- 2 Comments
January 14, 2008 by Mel Weiss
Women, News, Media and Politics: I’m Exhausted
Wow—has it ever been a week for women, politics and the media. It started with the unthinkable—Hillary Clinton showed emotion. (I’m not going to remark upon the blood-pressure-raising aspects of this being front-page news across the nation, because we’ve got a lot to get through, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t steaming up as it happened.) Hillary Clinton then won the New Hampshire primary. Whether those two events are related or not is not an issue within my limited understanding, but boy, did that upset some people. And I’m not talking about the usual suspects, either, misogynists and Republicans and conservative pundits like Chris Matthews. No, the most hurtful shit-slinging came from inside the ranks of liberal-leaning women. (Of course, the misogynists, Republicans and conservative pundits all had plenty to say as well. I just try not to listen too much.) She only won because women felt bad for her, women voted for Hillary to spite the horrendously unprofessional news coverage of her, women are stupid and vote out of female solidarity instead of any understanding of the issues—all theories treated as valid in the aftershocks of the news that there would be no Democratic coronation, and that maybe it’s not okay to trash powerful women for fun in front of female population of over 50%.
But certainly the news didn’t stop there. On the morning of the primary, Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. It’s too long to explain fully here, so go read it for yourselves, but the point I think (and hope) she really wanted to make was that, while racism and sexism are both huge problems in our society, it’s much more acceptable to be overtly sexist than overtly racist. I happen to agree that there’s tons of evidence to support this theory, but Steinem included a lot of information that was somewhat extraneous to that thesis, and it created some drag. A lot of drag, in fact. This time, I didn’t even bother to read the reactions of right-wing America—I was too busy following the Talmudic deconstruction of Steinem’s comments by fellow feminists. Sometimes measured and thoughtful, sometimes incredibly scrutinizing, I could feel these comments tugging at the sometimes tenuous connections between waves. The next generation of every movement needs to rebel, friends assured me, but I’ve always taken particular pride in how respectful the inter-generational feminist dialogue has appeared, at least to me. I was also very scared, in this age when bloggers end up on pundits’ shows, of watching this vivisection move from my computer screen to the television screen. I was afraid of a shande in front of the not-so-friendly neighbors.
But barely had the emails stopped whizzing about Gloria Steinem when they fired up anew. This time, two of my personal greatest loyalties were straining against one another, and the issue still is still hot. As reported by the JTA, the Forward and a few blogs, the American Jewish Congress had an ad rejected by Ms. Magazine. The ad was about Israel and featured three prominent Israeli politicians. Once the news hit the internet, the accusations started flying, and it makes me nervous. That being a good liberal and a good Jew leaves room for many different feelings about Israel—a complicated psychic space where nothing reduces well—is an argument I feel like I’ve been having for years and years, and to have feminists specifically drawn in—well, it makes me antsy.
The moral of this story is not that we, feminists, women, Jews, citizens, need to be a house completely united, to butcher Lincoln’s famous phrase. I believe in an America where we can disagree. But this is definitely an age when disagreements can become public—and thus ten times as nasty—in the time it takes to click a mouse. So unless we can disagree respectfully, and always work towards improving our ideas and ourselves instead of tearing each other down, I worry that we’ll leave ourselves open to attack from our real opponents—people who scream about socialized medicine and rapist immigrants and baby-killing abortionists. And fighting them off is work enough, no?
–Mel Weiss
- 6 Comments
January 10, 2008 by admin
Meeting of Minds
Last night I had the good fortune of attending a completely packed lecture at the 92nd Street Y called, “Hedonistic, Healthy, and Green: Can We Have
it All?” Featuring Michael Pollan (of The Omnivores Dilemma fame), Dan Barber (Head Chef of Blue Hill at Stone Barns), and moderated by Joan Dye Gussow (This Organic Life: Confessions of a Suburban Homesteader), it was the kind of event that sustainable foodies like me drool over. These are our movie stars, the people we choose when asked, “which famous person would you most want to take to dinner?”
The event itself was pretty straightforward: glowing introductions, 10-15 minutes from both speakers (Pollan on his new book In Defense of Food and
Barber on the fate of Boris, an over-the-hill – ahem – pig, that after much consideration by Barber’s team at Stone Barns, was turned into 500
pounds of the most delicious sausages he’d ever tasted and shared (20% of Boris’ sausages were donated to a local food bank), followed by questions
from Gussow and then from the audience.
The real meat of the evening was not in the format of the event, but in the meeting of these amazing minds. For Pollan, Barber, and Gussow, this
is life: travelling, speaking (often about the same thing), and answering questions. But for the audience, watching the exchange between these
sustainable food “rebbes” felt like watching your grandmother make her favorite recipe. It looked so simple and obvious, and you left feeling
full and nourished and inspired to try it yourself.
Many ideas were presented over the course of the evening, and I highly recommend purchasing In Defense of Food and making the trip to Blue Hill
at Stone Barns (even if you keep kosher and can’t eat in the restaurant, walking around the grounds – an old Rockefeller property – and seeing the
working farm would be worth it.) But to give you a taste, I’d like to focus on three, somewhat disconnected (but of course also connected)
points I heard either for the first time last night, or heard again in a new way.
B’tei Avon!
1. Food Tastes Better with a Story – Barber said that one of the reasons Boris’ sausage was so delicious, is that diners knew his back story. Not
only could they match their food with a source, but they could follow along the heartbreaking decision-making process Barber went through in
deciding ultimately to slaughter Boris.
So much of the food we eat in America comes frozen or processed or from far away. We don’t know who grew it, and – in many cases – human beings were replaced by machines in its processing. On the flip side, knowing where our food comes from, and the people and animals involved in bringing it to us, makes it all the more delicious and satisfying to eat. Barber said, “When you have a story to tell about food, people taste things they wouldn’t otherwise taste.”
2. Iowa and Food Politics – On the blog Serious Eats
Ed Levine asked the question, “which presidential candidates have actually articulated a food policy?” With all of the press around the Farm Bill this year, and so much interest around food and eating, you’d think that food would be a contending topic in the debates.
The full answer to Levine’s question is very complex, but Pollan gave one part of it, which I found really fascinating. He said that the Iowa
Caucus is actually a problem for farm policy. Politicians, he said, must bow down before the commodity crop subsidies and ethanol lobbies that rule
the state. It could be very dangerous for them to propose progressive food policy, and risk losing support in the first state everyone looks to
in the primaries.
3. Making Time to Cook – Many people claim that they don’t cook for themselves because they simply don’t have the time. Indeed, one of the
panelists quoted the statistic that the average American spends a mere hour and a half preparing their food every day.
That said, the same American spends 4 hours watching television and countless hours answering emails and surfing the internet. Where do those
hours come from, the panelists asked, and wouldn’t they be better spent preparing delicious meals to enjoy with our families and friends?
–Leah Koenig
- No Comments