fbpx

December 21, 2011

Candle power

Anyone familiar with religious practices can testify to the fact that candles play a crucial role in normative observance for many religions. It is not surprising to find an identical phenomenon in Judaism, the mother of so many contemporary beliefs.

In our practice, candles are present at almost every festive occasion. Perhaps, however, the two most familiar to us are the Shabbat candles and Chanukah candles. Yet if we examine the purpose of each, they not only serve different purposes, they are fundamentally separate from one another.

The Talmud teaches that Shabbat candles were instituted to create an atmosphere of tranquility within the home (Shabbat 23b). By illuminating the Shabbat table, the lights help prevent distress or bickering that darkness might promote. In the opinion of Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish philosopher, the tranquility that the Shabbat lights provide is so crucial that if one has only enough money to buy either a candle for Shabbat or wine for Kiddush, he must first purchase the Shabbat candle.

Chanukah lights are strikingly different from Shabbat lights. They serve not to emphasize private family tranquility, but rather to proclaim the miracle of the holiday to the public. Chanukah lights symbolize the entire drama of the Chanukah story, of the few overcoming the many, of the weak defeating the strong and, as such, constitute a public declaration to impress upon as many people as possible that the Almighty performed great miracles on our behalf. Therefore, Maimonides noted, “The commandment of Chanukah lights is precious since it publicizes the miracle and enhances the praise of God for all He did for us.”

Strangely, although both commandments to kindle lights seem to serve separate if not opposite purposes, the Talmud paradoxically appears to lump them together in the remark of Rav Huna, who said: “He who habitually practices the lighting of the lamp will possess scholarly children” (Shabbat 23b). This statement seems puzzling to us on two accounts. First, to what does the word “lamp” refer? Second, what is the meaning of the term “scholarly children”? The classical medieval commentator, Rashi, provides some clues.

Wondering to which “lamp” the Talmud was referring, Rashi surprisingly concludes that it was to both the Shabbat and Chanukah lights. Rashi, of course, felt no need to elucidate “scholarly children” since, for almost all generations of Jews, as People of the Book, the highest accolade has been the term “scholar,” which encompasses everything honorable, virtuous and worthwhile.

Obviously, Rashi recognized that the Shabbat and Chanukah lights shared a common denominator, and that both provide an educational message. Children are not raised in a vacuum. The first influence on their maturation process is their family environment. If within the family mutual respect, peace and tranquility prevail, the child has a chance to become an honorable Jew.

Rashi, however, recognizes that Judaism isn’t experienced only in the private domain as celebrated by the Shabbat lights. Rather, our faith promotes participation in public life as the Chanukah lamp vividly symbolizes. We place our Chanukiyah in our windows for public display that everyone can see.  On Chanukah we aren’t simply private citizens; we have a community mission to inform others of God’s presence.

In this manner, Chanukah provides us with two crucial lessons. On the one hand, it teaches us not to practice Judaism only behind closed doors. We must be willing to proudly wear our Judaism in public. On the other hand, Chanukah teaches us a feeling of community responsibility. We must not only concern ourselves with our own religious development, but also with the community at large.

Rashi, therefore, understood that the fusion of the private lesson of the Shabbat lights that illuminate not just the table but the children educated at and by that table, combined with the message of the public Chanukah lamps that can inspire faith and freedom for all people everywhere, offer us a complete picture of Judaism.

Elazar Muskin is senior rabbi of Young Israel of Century City (yicc.org), an Orthodox congregation in the Pico-Robertson area.

Candle power Read More »

Mumbai synagogue celebrates 150th

A synagogue in Mumbai, India, celebrated its 150th anniversary.

The Magen David Synagogue in Byculla was built in 1861 by David Sassoon, who was the treasurer of Baghdad between 1817 and 1829 and the leader of the Jewish community in Bombay after Baghdadi Jews emigrated there.

Foreign dignitaries from Israel, France, the United States, Canada, Poland and Italy attended Tuesday’s celebration at the synagogue. Indian President Pratibha Patil, who was scheduled to keynote the event, did not attend.

Also known as the Sassoon Synagogue, it now has difficulty getting a minyan together for Shabbat and holidays, its chairman, Solomon Sopher, told Indian media. Approximately 4,000 Jews are living in India, mostly in Mumbai.

Mumbai synagogue celebrates 150th Read More »

Polish journalist Leopold Unger dies

The Polish journalist and commentator Leopold Unger has died at the age of 89.

Polish media said Unger, a Holocaust survivor who was born in Lvov in 1922, died Tuesday in Brussels, where he had lived for many years.

Unger was forced to leave Poland along with thousands of other Jews following the Communist regime’s anti-Semitic campaign in 1968.

An authority on Soviet and eastern European affairs, he wrote for publications including the International Herald Tribune, Radio Free Europe, the BBC and Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza, and also wrote books. He received the Polish PEN Club’s award in 2009.

Polish journalist Leopold Unger dies Read More »

Robert M. “Bob” Brookman dies at 88

Robert M. “Bob” Brookman, born July 3, 1923, in New York City, died Dec. 15 at 88. He passed away peacefully in his sleep at his Westchester, Calif., home of 63 years. A veteran of World War II, Brookman served in England in the U.S. Air Corps Bomber Squadron. He was married to Mary (nee Meyerson) from 1945 to 1994. He is survived by his three children, Daniel (Linda), Adrienne (Paul) Barrett and Gary (Joan); and seven grandchildren, Benjamin, Alena, Rebecca, Zachary, Jordan, Myles, and Max. He is also survived by his wife, Betty (Lewis).

Robert M. “Bob” Brookman dies at 88 Read More »

Top 10 anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs of 2011

This one slipped onto the backburner for me: the Simon Wiesenthal Center has complied 2011’s ” title=”Rev. Jeremiah Wright” target=”_blank”>Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes in at No. 10:

10. “The state of Israel is an illegal, genocidal place… to equate Judaism with the state of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”

– Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a speech to thousands of people, June 14, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland.

Read the Top 10 anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs of 2011 Read More »

Marvin Saul, Junior’s Deli founder dies at 82

Marvin Saul, proud founder of Junior’s Delicatessen in Westwood, died of a heart attack Dec. 8 at 82. Known by his son David as the “Mayor of Rancho Park,” Saul could be found three days a week, up until his death, greeting guests at his deli, where lines often run out the door on weekends for the kosher-style food and warm atmosphere.

Saul was born on June 28, 1929, in Atlantic City, N.J., to Ralph, also a restaurateur, and Lillian Saul. A Korean War vet, he gave up a career in uranium mining to found the original Junior’s in 1959 on Pico Boulevard. What began as an eight-table delicatessen, named after Saul’s childhood moniker, was moved in 1967 to its present, much larger Westwood Boulevard location. Today, Junior’s 300-item menu reads like a novel and includes classic Jewish foods like knishes, kugel, matzoh ball soup and potato latkes. The restaurant’s regulars include celebrities such as Mel Brooks.

“It was never about the money we earned,” said long-time Junior’s manager Jose Sorto. “It was about the way that he treated you — and he treated us like gold.”

In 1990, when Saul was 61, his sons, David and John, took over the daily running of the deli, leaving Saul to do what he did best: shmooze with the customers and encourage hearty eating.

“One of the most important things he taught me was not to look at people by color. The first time Mr. T came into the deli in the late ’80s, my dad sat down with him and talked, at a time when that just wasn’t done,” son David said.

Saul is survived by his wife, Bette; sons David and John; and four grandchildren.

Marvin Saul, Junior’s Deli founder dies at 82 Read More »

Remembering Christopher Hitchens: The Shtarker

Of all the eulogies and essays about Christopher Hitchens that have appeared following his death Dec. 15 at age 62, one is particularly pernicious.

“The Trouble With Hitchens,” by Benjamin Kerstein, surfaced on a Web site called JewishIdeasDaily.com.  In it, he accuses Hitchens of being anti-Semitic.

Someone far, far more astute than I could make hash of such nonsense.
Unfortunately, that someone just died. So I’ll give it a shot.

Kerstein acknowledges that over the course of his lifetime of intellectual discourse and writing, Hitchens traveled far from his youthful left-leaning anti-colonial, anti-Zionism to find common cause with neo-cons later in life. But Hitchens’ acid criticisms of Judaism, the religion, and Zionism as a movement, according to Kerstein, still warrant labeling him a particularly sneaky kind of anti-Semite.

There are, according to Kerstein, long passages in Hitchens’ best-selling “God Is Not Great” that seem to single out Judaism for the original sin of institutionalizing monotheism.

“Hitchens goes out of his way not merely to criticize Judaism but to portray it in the ugliest possible terms,” Kerstein writes, “invoking many of the classic themes of anti-Semitism in order to do so.”  

“Circumcision, [Hitchens] claims, is the ‘sexual mutilation of small boys’ and ‘most probably a symbolic survival from the animal and human sacrifices which were such a feature of the gore-soaked landscape of the Old Testament.’ ”

News flash: Hitchens despised all religion, and in making an argument, any argument, he pulled no punches. (Another news flash: Circumcision is a form of partial sacrifice — which is much more enlightened than actually killing someone).

It isn’t brain surgery to troll through Hitchens’ writings and pull out the sentences that are most critical of Judaism and Israel. But that doesn’t prove Hitchens is anti-Semitic; it does show that Kerstein is fishing.

I met Hitchens three times. Once, I moderated a debate between him and Rabbi David Wolpe on whether religion is good. Another time, I moderated a panel on which Hitchens, Rabbi Wolpe, Rabbi Brad Artson and author Sam Harris debated “Is There an Afterlife?”

I’ll leave it to Rabbi Wolpe, who became close with Hitchens, to voice his own memories of Hitchens in the eulogy he wrote for The Journal (on Page 33).

But the second time I met Hitchens is the most relevant here. It was on the occasion of the eighth annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture, which Hitchens delivered at the request of Ruth and Judea Pearl, parents of the late, esteemed journalist, at UCLA on March 3, 2010.

Kerstein alludes to the lecture, but dismisses it as too little, too late. I couldn’t disagree more.

In it, Hitchens, who didn’t discover that he, himself, was Jewish until age 38, and who married a Jewish woman, made a case in his talk that the Jewish gift to the world of the art forms of argument, skepticism and cosmopolitism is precisely what anti-Semites seek to destroy.

“I was late in discovering some occluded parts of my heritage, and I once wrote that anyone who wanted to defame the Jewish people would, if they were doing so, be defaming my wife, my mother, my mother- and father-in-law and my daughter. So I thought I didn’t really have to say anything for myself, but I did add that in whatever turn of voice the question was put to me — whether it was friendly or hostile — ‘Was I Jewish?’ I would always answer, ‘Yes.’ The denial in my family would end with me.”

Hitchens went on to dissect exactly what anti-Semitism is. Is criticizing Israel anti-Semitic? Hitchens asked. No — unless you deny the right of Israel to exist. Is questioning the facts of the Holocaust anti-Semitic? No — unless you question its basic occurrence, too. Is monotheism anti-Semitic? Yes, said Hitchens, at least two-thirds of it is.

“It’s the very bitch, I’m saying, anti-Semitism,” Hitchens continued. “This plague is very protean and very durable and very volatile. Just as you think it’s been eradicated, up it pops again, surges. It’s exploded with or without the existence of the State of Israel, with or without finance capitalism, for which Jews were blamed, and with or without communism, for which, amazingly, Jews were simultaneously blamed.

“Our task is to call this filthy thing, this plague, this pest, by its right name,” Hitchens said of anti-Semitism, “to make unceasing resistance to it, knowing all the time that it’s probably ultimately ineradicable, and bearing in mind that its hatred toward us is a compliment and resolving some of the time, at any rate, to do a bit more to deserve it.”

Hitchens once said that the role of the journalist is to “go out and make mischief.” I suppose this is his corollary — the role of the Jew is to deserve the hatred of people who embrace conformity, blind acceptance and unexamined belief.

If Kerstein, like too many Jews today, wants to create litmus tests for what makes one sufficiently pro-Jewish or pro-Israel, Hitchens reminded us, by his words and life, that there is that other kind of Jew, the Jew among Jews, who like Jacob, wrestles not just with God, but especially with God.

Part of wrestling is resistance, and part of wrestling is embrace. Over his too-short life, Hitchens, like most Jews I know, treated his heritage and his People to both.

After the afterlife debate, I wanted to introduce my son, then a high-school senior, to Hitchens, and say goodbye.

“My son is a big fan,” I said to Hitchens.  

“Oh,” he said, reaching for my son’s hand. “Don’t be fan, be a critic. Be a doubter. Find faults. Argue.”

Christopher Hitchens, alav ha-shalom.

Remembering Christopher Hitchens: The Shtarker Read More »

Steven Spielberg: Still in the throes of movie passion

“I just know what it feels like to be overwhelmed with a desire to make a movie,” the director Steven Spielberg told the New York Times, giving a clue as to why he has two movies in theaters this holiday season.

Spielberg directed both the animated adventure “Tintin”, based on the bestselling European comic books by Herge, as well as the film adaptation of the play “War Horse,” which his producer, Kathleen Kennedy first saw on Broadway.

Two things struck me about this interview. First, when the reporter asked him the question about why he wanted to make “Tintin”, he basically said that he saw himself in the character.

I became enthralled with the way Hergé told his stories. Grand, epic, global adventures about a young reporter who goes all around the world looking for stories to tell and then gets himself deeply involved, and dangerously involved sometimes, in the stories he’s telling. And then eventually becomes the story itself. And I always related to that because I do the same thing. I go out and look for a good story to tell and if I like it enough and I decide to direct it, I become dangerously involved in becoming a part of that story.

The first thing that came to mind, of course, was “Schindler’s List,” which for Spielberg, became something of a permanent project. He invested heavily—both financially and otherwise—in creating The Shoah Foundation, a non-profit Holocaust memorial effort that cataloged visual histories of survivors. Holocaust preservation, subsequently, owes much to Spielberg’s personal connection.

Though his family-friendly fare is not every cinema-goer’s delight, that Spielberg himself is still ensorcelled by his vocation is kind of astonishing. Even at age 65 (which he became on Sunday), he still possesses the childlike wonder that attracted him to movies in the first place. And he isn’t afraid to try new things as “Tintin’s” experiment in form proves. “It made me more like a painter than ever before,” he told the L.A. Times last February.

The other bit I found both nostalgic and sweet was his admission that he runs a “mini-industry”—though he couches it in terms of community. It’s as if he works in an entirely different Hollywood than the one we’ve come to know, a cold-competitive corporate world that values profit above all. The way he puts it, Spielberg’s industry is a vestige of the way Hollywood used to be, preserved through the commitment of a devoted community.

[A]s an adult, filmmaking is all about appreciating the talents of the people you surround yourself with and knowing you could never have made any of these films by yourself.

My job was constantly to keep a movie family going. I’m blessed with the same thing that John Ford and Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock were blessed with, a mini-industry very similar to the one from the golden era of Hollywood, where it was the same people making movies with you each and every time. And it makes life so much more enjoyable when you get to go home to your family and go to work with your other family.

It’s redundant to say, but how Jewish is that?

Steven Spielberg: Still in the throes of movie passion Read More »

In the beginning, there was Monterey

One way to mark the chronology of the counterculture, a pastime that is beloved by the baby boomers, is by reference to rock festivals. Woodstock and Altamont, for example, are now fully transformed into transcendent symbols of life and death, good and evil, the beginning and end of something. But the real starting point, the uber-festival, was Monterey.

The story of the Monterey International Pop Festival, which took place in a sleepy coastal backwater in California over three days in June 1967, is told by music journalists and music-industry veterans Harvey Kubernik and Kenneth Kubernik in “A Perfect Haze: The Illustrated History of the Monterey International Pop Festival (Santa Monica Press: $45). It is an appropriately phantasmagorical scrapbook that will trip out those of us who were adolescents at the time and teach our children about one of the defining moments in American music and, in a larger sense, American civilization.

“On that memorable weekend in June 1967, the cusp of my 13th birthday, I should have been rigorously preparing for my bar mitzvah,” recalls co-author Kenneth Kubernik, who is shown with his brother in a snapshot from the same year, both of them attired in tuxedos. “Instead, my ears were riveted to a puny transistor radio, feasting on KRLA’s live broadcast from the Monterey Fairgrounds. My mother was screaming from downstairs, ‘Don’t embarrass me, young man! Practice your haftarah now!’ Sorry to disappoint, but I answered to a higher God. …”

Kubernik, in fact, was present at the creation, at least via the airwaves, because Monterey was the archetype of the rock festival as a showcase of musical genius and, not incidentally, a gathering of the tribes. As we learn in Lou Adler’s foreword, the idea snapped into focus at Cass Elliot’s house only six weeks before the musicians took the stage at Monterey. Adler, along with John and Michelle Phillips, Paul Simon, Johnny Rivers and Terry Melcher, put up $10,000 apiece, and six weeks later, history was made.

The stars were in alignment, literally so. The lineup at Monterey shattered barriers of race, class, culture and musical taste — Jimi Hendrix, Laura Nyro, and Simon and Garfunkel shared the stage with Buffalo Springfield, The Grateful Dead and The Association. Ravi Shankar, The Byrds and The Who were there, and so was Hugh Masekela and Otis Redding and Jefferson Airplane.

The unlikely enterprise, a result of both calculation and impulse, is captured in all of its richness in the images and artifacts on display in “A Perfect Haze” — candid shots and publicity shots, press releases and newspaper clippings, posters and advertisements, legal documents and telegrams. Many of the participants contribute their own vivid reminiscences in short bursts of oral history. But the whole kinetic collection is tightly stitched together by the Kubernik brothers, who indulge their enthusiasms with rhapsodic prose but fully grasp the significance of what they are writing about.

The result is both a scrapbook and a serious work of pop-culture history, all of it informed with an acute and astute sense of the time and place. The first group to take the stage was The Association — “this L.A. group was dismissed by the snob set as nothing more than the Four Freshman with Telecasters and mustaches” — followed by Lou Rawls (“the scent of Vegas showroom trailing after his canned intros and overworked arrangements”) and Eric Burdon (“The blues boy from Newcastle had supped deeply from the American South, from Broadway’s Brill Building, and now turned his appetite toward an acid-laced approach”), among others. The first night ended with Simon and Garfunkel, and we learn from first-nighter Johnny Rivers that Simon had approached all of the other acts and warned them not to go over their time limits “because he didn’t want to cut his own set with Art short, because of the curfew.”

Monterey was a convocation of the counterculture, a phenomenon that was not yet fully understood, but everyone recognized that what was happening on stage was the real thing. Synthetic pop stars like The Monkees were in the audience, Mickey Dolenz dressed in full Native American regalia, but so was pop royalty — Brian Jones, a founding member of The Rolling Stones, was “a kind of unofficial king of the festival,” garbed in “a mind-shattering gold lame coat festooned with beads, crystal swastika and lace.” Some famously achieved stardom at Monterey, as when “a homely young girl walked onto the stage with fright in her eye” and the world witnessed “a volley of 12-gauge musical buckshot” from Big Brother and the Holding Company and its girl singer, Janis Joplin.

Above all, Monterey succeeded in shattering the boundaries that had characterized the American music industry. Redding, for example, had been confined to the “chitlin’ circuit” before Jerry Wexler, chief of Atlantic Records, encouraged Redding’s manager to accept the invitation to appear at Monterey “as a foothold into the exploding white rock market.” Some audience members were already heading for the gates when he took the stage late in the evening, but as soon as Redding’s Memphis sidemen started pumping out the backbeat, “They raced back to their seats as if swept up in a tidal force.”

Monterey, the Kuberniks conclude, was “a tipping point in the way the music industry conducted its business.” Indeed, “A Perfect Haze” allows us to see that the subtext of the Monterey Pop Festival was a matter of money and career for many of its participants. But this glorious and pleasurable book also captures the ecstasies that were on offer during those three history-making days in Monterey.

Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is book editor of The Jewish Journal. He blogs on books at books@jewishjournal.com.

In the beginning, there was Monterey Read More »