Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Christmas. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Christmas. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, December 20, 2010

How Jews respond to Christmas: the research

We all "know" that Chanuccah's importance is magnified for diaspora Jews because of its proximity to Christmas. But last year, some researchers set out to prove it.

In a paper published in The Economic Journal, economists Ran Abramitzky, Liran Einav and Oren Rigbi showed evidence that Jews with children under 18 are more likely to celebrate Chanuccah than other holidays; that the correlation between having children and celebrating Chanuccah is highest amongst Reform Jews (most likely to be exposed to Christmas), then Conservative Jews, and lowest amongst Orthodox ones; that these correlations are not present for other festivals such as Pesach; and that "Jewish products" have higher sales at Channucah time in US counties with a lower share of Jews (ie amongst people likely to feel more pressure from Christmas). They concluded:
These patterns are consistent with the hypothesis that Jews increase religious activity during Hanukkah because of the presence of Christmas and this response is primarily driven by the presence of children. Jews with children at home may celebrate Hanukkah more intensively so their children do not feel left out and/or because they are concerned their children will convert or intermarry.
The other obvious explanation for their findings is that for parents who want to give their children some Jewish exposure, Chanuccah is far "easier" to "do" than Pesach, to which the researchers were comparing. They say they took this into account but to be honest, I didn't understand the stats talk (I'm an English major, so sue me).

Either way, it would be interesting if they could track observance of Chanuccah over several years, to show whether celebration of the Jewish festival increased the closer it was, in the calendar, to Christmas, or whether it decreased in years like this one, when there was a distance of some weeks between the two.

The researchers end by noting that Christmas does not just affect Jews; it has had an impact on Kwanzaa, for example.
One natural idea for further research is to investigate the behaviour of Jews who live in predominantly 'Muslim' countries and analyse whether Jews in such countries respond to 'attractive' Muslim holidays.
It is of course possible they developed their own customs around Muslim holidays (much as American Jews eat Chinese on Christmas, for example), but I doubt they responded by strengthening observance of their minor festivals, for the simple reason that the dates of the Muslim festivals tend to move quite radically over a short number of years, so any correlation between the dates of particular festivals wouldn't last that long.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

The grinch that stole Christmas (amongst other things)

The Forward, the NY Jewish Week and JTA are all running stories about the state of the Christmas wars in the US this year. All three seem to agree on two things: that whilst there hasn't really been an increase in the anti-Christmas movement compared to past years, there has been a significant pro-Christmas backlash from the Christian right; and that too often, the Jews have either explicitely or implicitely been blamed for the anti-Christmas moves.
I'm rather reluctant to write about this in great detail as, in the two years since I've moved back to the UK, I've become increasingly aware of how deep the cultural differences run between the UK and US/North America, and simply don't feel qualified any more to write about deeply American issues. However, based on my limited and now more European experience, I'll say this. Whilst there may be Jews who are vocally 'anti-Christmas,' the majority of the moves against so many public expressions of 'Western culture,' Christmas being just one element, across the West, usually come from two other sources. They are, first of all, left-wing, secular, somewhat self-hating do-gooders who assume they know what offends others -- even though they're usually completely mistaken -- and presume to act on their behalf; and zealous officials and petty bureaucrats who are so worried about any tiny possibility of being perceived as politically incorrect or insensitive to a minority group and hence getting into trouble that, on their own volition, and even though they probably don't care about these issues at all themselves, they act to 'protect' them -- which usually results in the most ludicrous cenorship of all. Of-course, this simply reinforces the extreme perception of what's allowed and what's 'forbidden' to say and do in our society and in that sense, political correctness has a momentum all of its very own and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That the Jews are being targeted instead by some elements of the Christian right in the US is a whole other issue which again, I can't go into, but it is these groups (primarily the first) more than any minority who, as far as I can see, are to blame for the increasing intolerance of all things majority-culture (including Christmas) in the West.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Christmas greatest hits

From the archives:
And quite a lot else besides. Enjoy the blast from the past - I'm away until Tuesday or Wednesday next week, so see you back here then.

Monday, December 13, 2004

What's wrong with 'Merry Christmas'?

I've been overwhelmed in the last few days by articles both in the UK and the US suggesting that people should send out 'Happy Holidays' cards instead of 'Merry Christmas,' or reporting that workplaces should not display their Christmas decorations too prominently, etc. etc. etc. The most notable anti-Christmas move, of-course, came from Macy's, which suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.
The thought behind all this is that some people who are not Christians might be 'offended' because they are excluded.
Let me say that as a Jew, I am not remotely offended by other people celebrating their festivals. I accept that I am part of a minority culture, and do not want the majority culture to tone down their celebrations on my behalf. It would be different if I felt that I was in any way coerced to take part in celebrations which are not mine, or if I felt that I was being discriminated against because I am not taking part. But I'm not.
In the UK, at least, the country goes out of its way to mark Hindu and Muslim festivals, and indeed revels in their celebration. My entire office, for example, recently attended a Diwali party and everyone thought it was wonderful. I see no reason why Christians should be made to feel guilty about their own celebrations simply because they are the majority; religious freedom isn't just for minorities. Indeed, I find the suggestion that we might be 'offended' at this rather offensive in itself; how insecure and whiny do they think we are???

Monday, June 21, 2010

Why Jews love Chinese food

A comment by Elena Kagan, the American Supreme Court nominee, has set the Jewish blogosphere and Twittersphere (??) on fire.

As part of her confirmation hearing, she was asked where she was on Christmas Day last year. She answered: "Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant" - provoking much laughter.

So what is it with American Jews and Chinese food on Christmas day?

The obvious answer (as Senator Chuck Schumer helpfully pointed out amid the general hilarity following Ms Kagan's remark) is that there are very few restaurants, other than Chinese ones, open on Christmas. But the Jewish romance with Chinese food goes much further.

I always understood that part of the attraction was that many Chinese are lactose-intolerant, and therefore Chinese food does not involve a lot of milk products, making it easier to reproduce if you are kosher.

Hanna Raskin, who wrote a book about Jews and Chinese food, adds that Jewish immigrants to NYC thought that Chinese food was 'sophisticated' and adopted it as part of their assimilation process; they also felt more welcome in many Chinese restaurants than in mainstream, WASPish ones. But perhaps most importantly,

Location, location, location. Chinatown butted up against the Lower East Side, which made it easy for Jewish residents to grab dinner at a dumpling house. And, as Schumer would point out, those neighborhood restaurants were open even on Sundays. But here's the real importance of geography: The vast majority of American Jews trace their roots to the Lower East Side, meaning New York traditions became Jewish traditions. While Italian and Irish immigrants in New York certainly enjoyed Chinese food too, their brethren in Boston and Milwaukee and St. Louis didn't pick up the same habit -- or decide it was central to their ethnic group's identity. Jews eat Chinese food largely because that's what early 20th-century New Yorkers did.

Hey, that's good enough for me....

Friday, December 24, 2004

Nitl Nacht -- the origins

This time of the year, there really isn't so much going on other than Christmas. We look forward to getting back to writing about some more 'Orthodox' topics in about a week in a half. In the meanwhile, as a sort of compromise, let's talk about where the phrase 'Nitl Nacht,' or Christmas Eve, and the Chassidish custom not to learn Torah (and do a bunch of other things) that night come from.

1. The origin of the custom: Two main theories:

  • In Eastern Europe, most people were too poor to own sefarim, so they needed to do their learning at the Beit Midrash. On the night of 24 December, it was just too dangerous for people to walk around (i.e., to and from the Beit Midrash), and so the custom arose of not learning on that night.
  • Spiritual/mystical/Kabbalistic -What a Jew learns Torah, it brings about an improvement in the world. We don't want to bring about such improvements at a time when the Christian majority is devoutly steeped in their prayers, lest outsiders believe the improvement came from the Christian worship / lest any of the spiritual energy created by Jewish Torah learning to be diverted to Jesus' credit.
  • Another possibility is that the original practice was to go to sleep early and when the mid-night masses would begin Jews would gather in synagogues and learn all night. All that remains of this custom is not to learn on the eve of December 25th. Seemingly connected is the explanation brought by the Hatam Sofer (Likutei Shut Hatam Sofer no. 20, that ideally, Jews should be learning then to counteract the effects of the Christian prayer during midnight mass. But our leaders did not want to require a special seder(learning session) on that night, lest they appear to be reflecting the practice of non-Jews. Hence, they wisely prohibited learning before midnight, knowing that dedicated students of Torah would rise after midnight to make up the study they had missed.

    2. Origins of the phrase, 'Nitl Nacht': Possibilities include:

  • Derives from the Hebrew word "nitleh" ("hanged"), describing Jesus' end (although Christmas of course celebrates his birth...)
  • The term "nittel" comes from the Latin, either dies natalis (day of birth) or Natalis Domini (birth of our Lord).
  • Some say it alludes to negativity - "nit"
  • Nitl is defined as a yiddish acronom for "nisht tor lernen"/"nisht yidden terren lernen,'-- ie. "not allowed to learn."

    For everything else you ever wanted to know about Nitl Nacht -- including strange customs and jokes (!), there's Ha'aretz. Extensive correspondence on the topic (including several paragraphs which I've shamelessly plagiarised above) here, here and here .
  • Sunday, December 19, 2004

    Jews vs. Christmas

    The question of how Jews should react to public Christmas displays continues to generate debate. Lamed seems, by tone at least, to disapprove; Charles Krauthammer and Jeff Jacoby are pro. My thoughts here.

    UPDATE: And one Jews Vs. Christmas wrap-up to rule them all: See Dov Bear.

    Wednesday, January 05, 2011

    Daniel Craig, Yiddishe mama

    There were quite a few broken Jewish hearts when it emerged late last year that Rachel Weisz had left hubbie Darren Aronofsky and was instead dating the rather dashing, but distinctly non-Jewish, Daniel Craig. But, rather than marrying "out", could she bring him into the faith?

    According to the Evening Standard diary today (no link), the Bond star - who has played a Jew in three movies, including a Mossad agent - was spotted this week paying a visit to a deli in the tony London neighborhood of St John's Wood:
    It is believed Rachel was suffering from a post-Christmas cold and considerate Craig ordered some hot chicken soup as the perfect cure for his ailing co-star.
    Chicken soup: a good start. We won't read too much into the reference to Christmas (which they spent together)...

    Tuesday, December 27, 2005

    Thursday, December 23, 2004

    'It was a strong outpouring of Jewish philo-Christmas-ism'

    I have a piece in the Forward this week about my -- ahem -- fondness for the Christmas season, inspired by my very brief comments on this blog (and incorporating some of my readers' comments!*).

    *For some reason, when Blogger archives my pieces, it always has the number of comments down as 0, although if you actually click on them, they're still there. Can anyone advise?

    Friday, December 17, 2010

    Santa Claus's Jewish secret

    A lovely anecdote in the Forward this week, straight from Brooklyn:
    I was on the subway, and I saw a little boy about the same age as I was when I met Santa. He sat with his mother, and across from them was a large, old Hasidic man. The little boy said, “Mama, why is that man so fat?” The embarrassed mom tried to quiet him, albeit unsuccessfully. Then the boy said: “Mama, why does he have such a long beard? Why is he so old?” The Hasidic man leaned over to the little boy and said, in an accent rivaling the Borsch Belt comedian Jackie Mason: “Oy vey! What, you’ve never seen Santa Claus in person before?”
    Related (but kind of opposite): During my childhood in Jerusalem, we used to go to Meah Shearim every year to buy the arba minim (four species) on Succot. While we were there, we would examine the various Succah decorations for sale: mostly tinsel and other Christmas decorations. Of course, they sold in droves, not that there's any problem with that. But another item on sale were pictures of Santa Claus. We were always amused at the thought of succot around Jerusalem, in some of the 'frummest' neighbourhoods, decorated with images of a big, fat, jolly Chossid, with a rebellious red coat.

    Thursday, July 29, 2010

    On Jewish racism

    A reader emails me, regarding Christina Patterson's piece:

    I agree about the jump from bad driving etc to Muslim circumcision... but isn't there something in that article for Stamford Hill to reflect on??????

    Well, now that 24 hours have passed and we have all calmed down (?), let's consider that question.

    As I wrote in my blog post yesterday, there is no question that many of the things Ms Patterson complained about concerning the rude behaviour of the Charedim in SH towards her probably did happen, or could have happened. The truth is that she would not be the first to complain about bad driving and parking, terseness in shops etc. Unfortunately, the conclusions she drew from these incidents were so wild and her general tone so hateful and, frankly, hysterical, that it made it impossible, for me anyway, to actually address this one valid point. So much of what she said seemed to reflect on her rather than on the people she was writing about.

    But now, Damian Thompson, editor of the Telegraph blogs, who has many times written in support of Israel and Jewish issues, has picked up on this, and written a post about Jewish attitudes to Christians. While his point is surely equally provocative, his tone is entirely different.

    Please read the whole thing, but here is the crux:

    Stephen Pollard, the brilliant editor of the Jewish Chronicle, described [Patterson's piece] as “pure, unrelenting unadulterated anti-Jewish bigotry,” on the part of Ms Patterson and indeed some of its undertones are disturbing. But monosyllabic terseness towards goyim? I’ve experienced it, and it’s maddening. Let me recommend a gripping book called Postville by the secular Jewish journalist Stephen Bloom, who records the extreme bad manners of Lubavitch Jews who moved en masse to a town in rural Iowa to run a huge kosher butchery. In the end, angry Christian townspeople, who had initially been welcoming, voted to annexe the land on which the factory was built, so they could tax and regulate it. Bloom, who felt the Lubavitchers had displayed “despicable” attitudes verging on racism, supported the move.

    Jewish hostility towards Christians isn’t confined to the ultra-Orthodox. A woman friend of mine tutored the daughter of a Jewish couple in north London. When she said she wanted to take a break for Christmas, the wife went bananas. “We do not allow that word to be spoken in this house,” she said. An unrepresentative incident, no doubt; but my friend’s attitude towards Judaism changed after it took place. And I could tell other stories, of unbelievable haughtiness by the leaders of Anglo-Jewry, which would have led to diplomatic incidents if the Christians involved weren’t afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism.

    Mr Thompson, you are welcome to email me privately....

    I suppose I’m afraid of that, too, which is why I’m going to point out the following. This blog has often highlighted the alarming growth of Islamic anti-Jewish rhetoric, much of it flavoured by the propaganda of the Third Reich. I’ve drawn attention to the case of Baroness Tonge, the appalling Lib Dem peer who has called for an inquiry into allegations of Jewish organ-harvesting (and who still takes the party whip). I warned in advance that the Vatican was doing a stupid thing by lifting the excommunication of the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX.

    But until now I’ve never written a word about Jewish prejudice against Christians, even though I’ve seen it at close hand, at a series of Jewish-run conferences I attended in America in the 1990s at which evangelical Christian believers were stereotyped as fanatics who needed only the right demagogue to turn them into murderous anti-Semites. If the conferences were being held now, I suspect most of the flak would be taken by Catholics.

    Let's not beat around the bush here. Painful as it is to admit, there is some truth to what Mr Thompson says. There are some Jews, and some parts of the community, which do look down on "the goyim", and express this in words and sometimes in action. There are elements in this community (and I'm not singling out any one in particular - as Mr Thompson says, this is not restricted to strictly Orthodox Jews) who do have a "non-Jewish problem" and see themselves as somehow superior. I'm not only talking about Christians. Anti-Muslim racism is even more rife.

    Most of this is historical. For most of the last 2,000 years, Jews were victims of discrimination, explusions and pogroms, and had good reason to fear and despise the Christians amongst whom they lived. It takes a lot to erase two millenia of antagonism. When it comes to Muslims, there is nowhere near the historical enmity, but Muslim attitudes to the state of Israel, and modern Muslim antisemitism, have scared Jews.

    There are also theological factors - as well as the idea of "chosenness" (which too many Jews, in common with so many antisemites, misunderstand as meaning superior, while it really only means chosen to spread monotheism) - and, as my colleague Simon Rocker points out, an ongoing fear of Christian missionaries. Some of the prejudice also arises through a lack of familiarity. If you don't know or work with non-Jews, it is easier to regard them as 'different'.

    In Israel, where most Jews have never come across a Christian; where the country is engaged in a battle for survival with its Muslim neighbours; and where Jews are actually a majority and have power, many of these problems are magnified.

    I think it is important to point out that while the other forms of prejudice Mr Thompson points to (Christian anti-Semitism, Muslim anti-Semitism, Christian Islamophobia, Muslim persecution of Christians) have, historically, routinely resulted in terrible violence, Jewish anti-Christian prejudice rarely has. Perhaps this is because the Jews have, until Israel, not been in positions of power, but nevertheless, people being rude in shops is hardly on par with burning down mosques, shuls and churches, crusades, physical antisemitic assaults etc.

    Still, there is today no excuse for Jews holding racist attitudes. We spend a lot of time complaining about antisemitism and it is only fair that we make sure we are free of racism as well. We need to make sure we all understand that the odd comment about "the goyim" is not just a joke; that there are consequences to treating non-Jews as if they are inferior; and show no tolerance of these things when the emanate from our own community. Not only are these attitudes inherently wrong, they are a massive chillul hashem and result in long-term damage to our relations with our neighbours. Mr Thompson's blog (and, I'm afraid, Ms Patterson's piece too) should be a sobering wake-up call as to how we are, too often, perceived, including by our friends.

    Thursday, April 22, 2010

    Political correctness gone mad

    A letter jaw-dropping in its stupidity, in this week's JC:

    Miriam Shaviv, [JC April 9] wrote: "US President Barack Obama has confirmed that he is a bully, responding aggressively to weakness and snubbing allies while kowtowing to dictators and rogues."

    I, and many other Jews, have a very different view. We regard President Obama as a reasonable and far sighted man who, because of the weight that he carries in the "Arab street" offers Israel a unique chance of making a peace settlement that might actually stick.

    But my argument with Shaviv is not so much what she says as the way she says it. At least one group of people in British society would, I believe, find her remarks almost personally insulting.

    I am a Jewish broadcaster working on a radio station which has a largely black management and listenership, I wonder if Shaviv truly appreciates the enormous esteem in which Obama is held in this community. His astonishing rise against the odds has been theirs too.

    The JC has an influence much wider than that of its Jewish readership. So, if Jewish/black relations matter, Shaviv might be advised to use more judicious language in future. I am not suggesting that she should not be as critical of American policy as she feels she needs to be. But to be personally insulting is careless and unwise. This is not about censorship; it is about common sense and a sensitivity towards the feelings of others.

    Richard Phillips

    So, according to Mr Phillips, Jews cannot criticise Barack Obama personally because it will offend black people. Perhaps we should also avoid criticising Mr Brown because it might offend Scots, and Mr Cameron because it might offend toffs? Really.

    Unfortunately, Mr Phillips falls into a category which is becoming increasingly common: do-gooders making ridiculous demands on behalf of a minority to which they do not belong, doing more harm than good.

    The classic example is of the many liberals, here and in the US, who make it their business to demand that shops do not put up signs wishing customers 'Merry Christmas' in December, because it might offend Jews or Muslims. I can't recall ever hearing from a Jew or Muslim who actually cares.

    Friday, December 03, 2010

    Ghosts of Chanuccahs past

    My brother writes that before Jews ever played dreidl on Chanuccah, they played cards. Which reminds me of a post I wrote in 2005, on the non-Jewish origins of the dreidl:
    [I]t was in fact a popular game in Europe, and especially Germany, in the 16th century -- particularly around Christmas time (aha!). As this site explains, the word 'dreidl' itself is derived from the German word drehen, which means to spin...

    So far, so unsurprising. I was intrigued to discover, however, that not only is the game itself Germanic in origin, but that the letters on the dreidl come directly from the German as well.
    Read the rest here. And while we're at it, check out the post last year on the real reason for Chanuccah: it's connected to Sukkot.

    Shabbat shalom!

    Wednesday, December 01, 2010

    Howard Jacobson's childish Chanuccah

    A disappointing and shallow piece, I think, from Booker Prize winner Howard Jacobson in the NYT today. He basically doesn't see the point of everyone's favorite festival, Chanuccah:

    Everyone knows the bare bones of the story. At Hanukkah we celebrate the Maccabees, also known as the Hasmoneans, who defeated the might of the Syrian-Greek army in 165 B.C., recapturing the desecrated Temple and reconsecrating it with oil that ought to have run out in a day but lasted eight. Indeed, Hanukkah means “consecration,” and when we light those candles we are remembering the re-dedication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

    But how many Jews truly feel this narrative as their own? I’m not asking for contemporary relevance. History is history: whatever happens to a people is important to them. But Hanukkah — at least the way it’s told — struggles to find a path to Jewish hearts...

    The cruel truth is that Hanukkah is a seasonal festival of light in search of a pretext and as such is doomed to be forever the poor relation of Christmas. No comparable grandeur in the singing, no comparable grandeur in the giving, no comparable grandeur in the commemoration (no matter how solemn and significant the events we are remembering), in which even the candles are small and burn out pretty much the minute you light them.

    The Hasmoneans, he complains, do not resonate; the Book of Maccabees "doesn't quite feel authentic"; we didn't defeat the Greeks in an interesting enough way; the chanucciah is fun but uninspiring; heck, he even moans about the songs. I know he's trying to be funny, but one rather gets the sense he doesn't like Chanuccah.

    But then I do, and I suspect many others do too. For me, the basic themes of Chanuccah resonate today more than ever: the temptations and dangers of cultural assimilation; the fight for religious freedom; the desire for national independence; and, for those who know a little more about those boring Hasmoneans, the corruption of power. These are not just historical curiosities, nor is understanding their relevance to today simply an academic exercise; the story of the Maccabees speaks directly to our experience as Jews in the 21st century, perhaps more than any of the other historical festivals (indeed, it seems like only yesterday that we were discussing, on this blog, the amazing malleability of Chanuccah, and how it has a message for every age).

    It's hard to understand how a man who writes so convincingly, in fiction and non-fiction, about Israel, the diaspora and Jewish identity can fail to connect to these themes - or, better still, find some original message of his own. In his piece, he calls Chanuccah "a children's festival". It does rather feel as if he is stuck in a childish Chanuccah. You would have thought the winner of the Man Booker prize, 68, would have grown out of it by now.

    RELATED: Commentary and Avraham Bronstein. Tablet inexplicably thinks the piece is "a mini-masterpiece".

    Monday, January 02, 2006

    All a game

    In between their Christmas celebrations, the British public spent much of last week worrying about the fate of Kate Burton, 24 -- who spent the past year working for a Palestinian organisation -- and her parents, who were kidnapped in Gaza and released a few tense days later. But now that she's free, apparently, she's not particularly grateful:
    British officials have already spoken briefly to Ms Burton, 24, and her parents after their release but are keen to find out more. However, Ms Burton was extremely reluctant to give any descriptions of her captors.
    “Kate had long ideological discussions with the kidnappers which certainly tired her out,” one official said, “but we have been trying to impress on her that it was serious and that she was kidnapped...”
    Last night Seren Wildwood, 47, Kate Burton’s half-sister, said that she had spoken to her father, Hugh.
    “It’s been reported that [Kate] badgered her kidnappers and I could believe that. You can just imagine: there’s this outcry over the kidnapping and she’s arguing with them in Arabic about ideology. They probably thought ‘get her out of here’.”
    This lack of cooperation, despite the fact that her captors have already threatened further kidnappings.
    But best of all is the report in the Mail, which quoted her as saying that
    she felt a "sense of guilt" at putting her parents in danger, but was "pleased that they saw "the positive side of the Palestinians".
    "I was aware there was a risk and still took the chances and put my parents at risk. In retrospect I think I shouldn't have done that, but I am pleased they saw the positive side of Palestine," she said.
    Somewhere else -- I can't find the source any more -- another friend or relative says that Kate wouldn't blame her captors as she wouldn't believe they could do such a thing 'without good reason.'
    Was there ever such a great illustration of the complete moral blindness of so many of the foreign volunteers amongst the Palestinians? Even when this ridiculous girl is a victim of terrorism herself, she still thinks the terrorists are the good guys. One wonders what exactly they'd have had to have done to her to open her eyes.

    Monday, December 19, 2005

    Putting our spin on the dreidl

    It doesn't take a great genius to realize that the dreidl probably did not originate, per the myth, with Jewish children in Hasmonean times trying to disguise the fact that they were learning Torah. But where does it actually come from? I'd previously never really thought about it, but learned today that it was in fact a popular game in Europe, and especially Germany, in the 16th century -- particularly around Christmas time (aha!). As this site explains, the word 'dreidl' itself is derived from the German word drehen, which means to spin (the explanation I had today, which I don't have to hand , connected it to another German word as well -- will try and update this tomorrow).
    So far, so unsurprising. I was intrigued to discover, however, that not only is the game itself Germanic in origin, but that the letters on the dreidl come directly from the German as well:
    The letters on the faces of the gambling toy, which were mnemonic for the rules of the game, varied in each nation. The letters on the English spinning top were: T for Take, H for Half, P for Put, N for None. In the German game, the letters were: N for Nichts (nothing), G for Ganz (all), H for Halb (half), S for Stell (put). The Hebrew letters on the dreidel seem to have come directly from the German gambling toy: Nun for Nichts (nothing), Gimel for Ganz (all), Hay for Halb (half), Shin for Stell (put). In an effort to link the game to the celebration of Hanukkah, the Hebrew letters nun, gimel, hay and shin were said to stand for the phrase Nes Gadol Haya Sham, which means "a great miracle happened there."
    Also interesting because I had always assumed that 'nun-gimmel-hay-pay' was the real thing and that our diaspora 'nun-gimmel-hay-shin' was the poor cousin....

    Tuesday, December 13, 2005

    The lion, the witch, the wardrobe, the Christians and the Jews

    Blogger has just eaten this rather long post twice in 24 hours. Aaarrgh!
    The short of it was a criticism of this JTA piece, which poses a strong thesis --
    The re-oiling and firing up of the machinery that pulled Christians into theaters and made 'The Passion' a huge hit, as well as 'Lion's' Christian overtones, have given some Jews reservations.
    -- and then fails to back it (or at least the first part) up, for one thing interviewing only two people (one of whom is a media professor -- is he even Jewish?).
    It's true that the Lion's Christian overtones have made some people in the community ask whether they or their children should / could or are even permitted to see it -- see discussions on hirhurim and yudelline. From there to arguing that Jews have what is essentially a political objection to the movie is a long way. If they do -- and they might -- JTA certainly doesn't show it.
    The closest they get is this quote from a young rabbi who, after a long rumination in which he in any case expresses no particularly strong feelings either way, says:
    "I haven't seen the movie, but I wouldn't be surprised if they fleshed out the Christianity a bit more to be satisfying to the Christian audience. That's the part that's most disconcerting to me. I also have concerns about the marketing. Hollywood has a way of being very in-your-face."
    Extremely respectfully (seeing as I was a bridesmaid at this very same rabbi's own wedding...), I beg to disagree. Would it really be disconcerting to Jews if the studio did flesh out the Christianity a bit to satisfy the Christian audience? Why? Christians are an audience like any other. Studios are allowed to make movies with Christian messages just as they are allowed to make movies with Jewish messages -- or perhaps Ushpizin should be 'toned down' before distribution? In addition, there is an implication here that if the Christian message is overt in the movie, it's somehow a misrepresentation in order to cater for the Christian audience. Let's not forget that the book was written as a Christian allegory, and just because most of us read it at an age when we weren't equipped to recognize this doesn't mean that the Christian message was ever secondary.
    The fear of anything overtly Christian in the public sphere (so reminiscent of the great Christmas debate), even a movie, actually gets comical when JTA gets to Peter Sealey, a marketing professor at the University of California Berkeley's Haas School of Business and the former president of marketing and distribution for Columbia Pictures, who
    saw "duplicity" in the way Disney is shying away from mentioning Lewis' Christian message in its general publicity materials. In a 16-page "Narnia Educator Guide" that Sealey found on the film's Web site, religion and Christianity aren't mentioned even once.
    "The issue is secular audiences. Will they appreciate seeing a religious message without knowing it?" he asked. Disney "should make a statement, they should let people know. The lion is resurrected. "It's a great piece of entertainment and you can enjoy it if you're Christian or not. However, the underpinnings of the work reflect the New Testament."
    Since when is religion something audiences need to be 'warned' about -- like sexual content or violence? Perhaps we should create a special label -- pg, pg-13, x, r and rel? Really.
    It comes down to this. This movie isn't being imposed on anyone. No one is being forced to watch it. If you don't want to, ignore it. If you want to, enjoy. End of story.
    Incidentally, as an English major I discovered pretty quickly that practically every major work in the English language written before 1900 had major Christian themes and influences (or at least that was the joke -- when all other essay ideas fail, you can always draw a parallel to the trinity). If you don't want your children reading the Narnia series, you might as well keep them away from the majority of the English classics.
    Of-course, that is some people's choice. But that doesn't mean that the English cannon should be abolished or include warning labels -- or that movies like Narnia shouldn't be made.

    Sunday, September 11, 2005

    The beginning of the systematic exclusion of Jews and Judaism in European society

    The UK Sunday Times reports that a government-convened 'advisory committee' on the causes of extremism among UK Moslems is to recomment the abolition of the UK Holocaust Memorial Day as it offends Moslems - and its replacement with a 'Genocide Day' that includes, naturally, the commemoration of the "Palestinian genocide."
    I was never convinced of the wisdom of instituting a UK Holocaust Memorial Day, for reasons that we needn't go into here. But it's there, and now there will be pressure in the UK (Jewish votes - very weakly organised, if at all - max 250,000; Moslem votes - heavily concentrated and highly motivated - est. 1.6m) to abolish, change or 'universalise' it. Don't expect the UK Jewish Community to be effective in countering this. They will wake up after the event. Don't expect the Labour Govt. to resist it, because it is a simple way of appeasing the Moslems without offending the Christian majority. And get used to it, becaue it may well be the pattern of the future. Any and every expression of Jewish identity in public life, especially anything that signifies identity with Israel or with persecution of Jews, will be under scrutiny and attack. I daresay that UK politicians will be extremely reluctant to appear on Jewish community platforms (if they aren't already). The only acceptable platform will be at the UK Neturei Karta convention, and the only "acceptable" Jews to represent the community will be our NK co-religionists.
    Next: Christmas Day -- offensive to Moslems. Oops - forgot -- in many areas of UK society it has already been effectively stripped of its Christian identity.

    Friday, August 12, 2005

    Cancel Christmas Tisha b'Av!

    Former MK Avrum Burg, son of former NRP leader Yosef Burg Z'L, seems to have created a rather large commotion with an announcement that he intends to break his fast halfway through Tisha b'Av and have a Seudat Mitzvah with his family, "since Jerusalem is no longer destroyed, but built up and flourishing, and because the people of Israel control their own destiny."
    Predictably, the comments on NRG are extremely hostile, accusing him of making up his own religion, being a shameless publicity-seeker, and -- the ultimate insult in some circles -- being a 'Reformi,' or a Reform Jew.
    In fact, what Burg (who, to the best of my knowledge, davens at a masorti shul) is doing is relying on a Conservative Tshuva which says exactly what he's arguing. See the full thing here (in Hebrew) or a short summary in, of all places, answers.com.
    There is actually also a very good Conservative tshuva by David Golinkin against this idea, which you can see here. I've only skimmed over it, but very broadly it approaches the question historically (showing that the people fasted on Tisha b'Av even while the second temple was still standing and when the Jews were sovereign), halachically (showing that there's no halachic concept of stopping the fast midday -- it's all or nothing -- and that you cannot treat Tisha b'Av seperately to 17 Tammuz, 10 Tevet etc.) and philosophically (arguing that the biblical condition for turning these fasts into days of happiness has not yet been fulfilled, mainly as we do not yet have a third temple). This is also, incidentally, not the first time this discussion has come up. In England, for example, in 1968 or '69, a new* rather fine translation of the Tisha b'Av kinnot came out (the Abraham Rosenfeld edition), in which Nachem was amended to reflect that fact that Jerusalem had been 'rebuilt.' After a big fight, it was changed back again.
    As far as I'm concerned, (much as some of us would like to...) it goes without saying that cancelling any portion of Tisha b'Av is, at this point in time, dubious, to say the least, and outrageous to say the most. It is one thing to celebrate the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which you can do on Yom Yerushalayim or Yom Ha'atzmaut, and another to play down the historical memory of the city's destruction, to ignore that fact that its revival, without the temple, is not yet complete, and to tamper with what is one of the most seminal, and deeply rooted and evocative days in our calendar. Eating a 'Seudat Mitzvah' on the day, moreover, is what the term 'sacrilegeous' was coined for.
    Perhaps in the ecstacy of the aftermath of 1967, sentiments in this direction were understandable, if misguided. It's hard to see Burg's statement, however, in anything but a political and social context. He is deliberately making a public statement about where he stands, ideologically, on Israel and Zionism. Why would he bother? Apart from publicity-seeking, I'm guessing this is, or this began as, a dig at the haredim who don't celebrate Yom Ha'atzmaut etc. They're pareve about the state -- he's going to reaffirm just what it means to him....
    Either way, I am simply astounded by his truly awful timing, remarkable even for a failed politician. First of all, Tisha b'Av is about to take on a new significance and new resonance for a large portion of the religious population, who from now on will forever associate it with what they perceive as the national tragedy of the disengagement. Then, you have the country at real risk of civil war, wallowing in needless hatred -- and he wants to eat a Seudat Mitzvah on Tisha b'Av!?!?!?!?
    Words fail.

    *The copy of the Rosenfeld edition I'm
    holding in my hands at this moment says the first edition came out in 1965
    -- presumably this was a second or third edition.