fbpx

April 20, 2016

The Meaning of Passover in Troubled Times

This week we prepare for the holy Passover, and anticipate the holiday that falls on the night of Shabbat. On that night, we retell and explore our collective paths toward freedom, we honor miracles, contemplate pain and suffering, and consider the meaning of life and faith.

I feel a special anticipation for the beginning of this important holiday, for the familiar bitter herb and the salty water. These parts of the Passover Seder are symbolic of so much in all of our lives, of the conflict and difficulty that surrounds us. Perhaps it’s that we began this week learning of yet another attack on a bus in Jerusalem, or the tragic loss of 2 Azerbaijani children, their lives stolen by the gunfire of foreign invaders, only a few hundred miles from my home in Baku. This happened in Nagorno-Karabakh, a region of our country that has been torn by violence for over two decades.

I know, tragedy and violence take place every day, across the world. In the Passover style, I ask myself: so why this year, does it feel even closer, and more desperately sad, than in years past? It might be the proximity of concurrent violence, in Israel and Azerbaijan, and how it happened to innocent civilians in both cases. And both are places that want a safe society, and a right to peaceful life, for everyone. The fact that such places are under attack hurts especially more. When they are under attack at the same time, it feels so intense it is like a shadow has been cast on life, to some extent, as if to challenge faith as much as possible, and to say, there is no sunshine above to help us walk this difficult path ahead.

We’ve known the impact of senseless brutality against Azerbaijan before, and the same invaders, Armenian military forces, ravaged, ruined, and devastated entire villages in Karabakh, and murdered the men, women, children, even grandmothers and infants, that ran from their homes to the woods, for the sake of their lives. Many were lured under the guise of safe passage, only to be shot in the field en route, hunted down and slaughtered like animals.

Today, those same invaders are firing on our people again. My heart weeps for the victims, as I did in the 1990’s, when those forces invaded the same lands of Azerbaijan they still occupy today.

I realize in all this a great and definitely spiritual connection to what has recently happened to our people, in Israel and Azerbaijan, to the meaning of this week, as we ready ourselves to relive our history, of leaving a life of bondage and affliction to live in peace and in freedom.

I mentioned my sorrows and conclusions today to the Rabbi here at the Mountainous Synagogue in Baku, after morning prayers. At first he responded quickly: “What can you expect? Tragedy is tragic, nu?” But then he paused, and he shared his wiser thoughts. He said to me: “It’s important to feel these feeling of pain and sorrow right before Passover, even if the reasons for those feelings are so terrible. It’s good because the cause for freedom is truly the most serious of all struggles, and it’s easy for us to forget. So life reminds us, however unfortunately.”

This week, freedom is at stake, and the risks are closer to home than ever before. The question before us, is what are we going to do to stand up, even against the overwhelming armies and voices of hateful reason? And with Passover only days away, I am left with this additional question: what meaning do we derive from the retelling of our past if we hold back on our courage and conviction, in confronting the threats and occupiers of freedom that exist today?

From Azerbaijan, I wish everyone a Zasin Pesach.

The Meaning of Passover in Troubled Times Read More »

Seder at Bernie’s

“I want to welcome you all to the first Sanders White House Seder.

“I love Passover. People say I’m not religious — but all year long I argue over Israel, then once a year, I make a seder. So, aren’t I exactly like every other American Jew?

“Now, I want to say a few words about the festival we are about to celebrate.

“First of all, the food: Don’t get too excited. I mean, who are we trying to impress?

“The gefilte fish you’re eating tonight, it comes straight from the jar. You want fancy shmancy? Fine, we’ll throw on a dollop of that fish jelly and one of those carrot circles.

“Our matzo — also, straight from the box. Now, I have heard that at Spago restaurant in Beverly Hills, the chef rolls out his own matzo dough, sprinkles it with shallots and bakes it in a wood oven. Not here. Look, this is the bread of affliction. And I know something about affliction — I ran my whole campaign around it.

“Now, I will tell you something else. I know you Jews voted for Hillary, but if she had won, Michelle Obama’s White House garden would have been full of baby lettuce and heirloom tomatoes. That’s Goldman Sachs produce! Our garden is all bitter herbs. And by ‘bitter herbs,’ I mean medical marijuana, which I just legalized in all 50 states.

“Before we eat, we’re going to go through the story of Passover. Once we were slaves, now we are free. Once we were in Egypt, now we are in the Promised Land. But, I’d appreciate it if no one asks me my policy on Egypt tonight. I don’t have my papers in front of me, just this farkakteh book with the Maxwell House ads.

“I will say that on Passover, we are taught to welcome the stranger because we were once strangers, just like my Polish ancestors. So tonight I am proud to announce I am admitting 1 million Syrian refugees into the country, and using the power of eminent domain to put them all up only on Trump properties. Who’s feeling the burn now, Donald?

“By the way, when I said throughout the campaign that my ancestors were Polish, I meant Jewish. But how else was I going to make it through the primaries?

“Now, I just want to alert you to the fact that I have replaced a third of the traditional haggadah with the story of the Palestinian people. Before some of you spit out your Manischewitz, let me explain. For too long, no president has stood up to the Israelis. Not a single one, until I came along. Now just before dinner, one of you pointed out that Eisenhower forced the Israelis to retreat in the 1956 war, and Kennedy refused them nuclear weapons, and Johnson tried to hold them back in 1967, and Nixon held up arms shipments, and Carter pushed them on Camp David, and Reagan sold AWACs to Saudi Arabia, and Bush’s secretary of state told them to screw off, and Clinton fought with Bibi, and George W. called for a Palestinian state, and Obama rammed the Iran nuclear deal down their throats. These are points well taken, but … hey, how’s that chicken soup?

“Now, in the Sanders administration, the Palestinians finally have a place at the table. That is why I’d like to point out we are doing the Ten Plagues a little differently this year. You will pour out some wine for each plague, plus a little more for the 150,000 Palestinian infants killed during Operation Cast Lead. Wait. … Oh. I am told it was 2,000 Palestinians, many of them fighters. Fine, let’s just say 75,000.

“The point is, I want to tell our many Palestinian guests here that I understand that they never had a chance to control their own land. Now again, one of you wise guys just told me that in fact Palestinians had an opportunity in 1937 with the Peel Commission partition, and during the 19 years of the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, and in 2000 when Arafat refused the Camp David accords, and in 2008 when they rejected the Olmert proposals. OK, four chances. But nothing this week.

“Now, we will begin our seder with the Four Questions. Typically, the youngest person at the table asks them, but Simone Zimmerman was called away on urgent business, by which I mean, my campaign hid her away like an afikomen.

“So allow me: ‘Why is this night different from all other nights?’ Vice President Clinton, would you like to answer that? Exactly, because on this night an old socialist Jew is president of the United States!

“So I welcome you to the first Sanders White House Seder. The bread is afflicted, the herbs are bitter, the water is salty, the brisket is dry. OK, that last thing isn’t part of the liturgy. I’m just warning you.

“Happy Passover!”


Rob Eshman is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. E-mail him at robe@jewishjournal.com. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram
@foodaism.

Seder at Bernie’s Read More »

On TV today, Jewish characters and themes come into their own

The entertainment industry is famously full of Jews, from actors and writers to lawyers and studio heads. (We even have a Jewish-Israeli Wonder Woman now.)

But until recently, if you were watching television and wondering, “What are Jews like? What is meaningful to them?” you’d have no idea.

Sure, there are the old, superficial stereotypes. Jews and humor are a binding association that stretches back decades — even further than the character Tim Whatley who converted to Judaism “for the jokes” in a 1997 episode of “Seinfeld.” Maybe TV shows in December would show a menorah or offer a perfunctory “Happy Chanukah,” but there was never any further discussion. Actual depictions of Jewish life, customs, observance, tradition or meaning were very rare.

Compare that to today’s landscape, where characters keep kosher, battle golems and rap about seder plates. Nowadays, you almost can’t avoid overt Jewish themes, hidden symbolism, and even substantial narratives on anti-Semitism and Jewish identity.

On ABC’s “Agent Carter,” which takes place in the 1940s, audiences learn in the first season that Mr. Edwin Jarvis, butler of Howard Stark (future father of Iron Man Tony Stark) and Agent Carter’s partner in espionage, was discharged from the British Royal Air Force for crimes committed to save his Hungarian-Jewish wife.

And let’s talk about the 613s. This number, correlating to the number of mitzvot in the Torah, has popped up in so many television universes in recent years that it can’t be an accident. In the original science fiction series “Heroes” (2006-2010), genetics professor Mohinder Suresh lives in apartment 613, and in “Heroes Reborn,” which premiered in September, the major action takes place on June 13 (6/13).

On the ABC hit “Scandal,” the secret branch of the government is B-613. In the first season of FX’s “Fargo,” 613 is the street address of main character Lester Nygaard; in Episode Two, the amount of ransom money demanded is $43,613. I don’t know what the odds are of that occurring randomly, but I think if you add a lot of Jewish writers into the mix, the odds just keep getting better.

When it comes to mystical events, including Jewish and Hebrew references has become a no-brainer. We’ve seen golems on “Supernatural,” “Grimm” and “Sleepy Hollow.” And on “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,” the agents discovered an ancient chamber marked by the word “maveth” (Hebrew for “death”), that turned out to be a portal to a desolate and demon-filled alternate universe.

While one could explain away such references as winks from Jewish writers to Jewish viewers, the equivalent of a Carol Burnett ear-tug to members of the tribe, we’re still seeing not just a proliferation of these references, but a deepening exploration and consideration — even by non-Jewish characters — of what it means to be Jewish.

In Season Two of “The Knick,” Cinemax’s 2015 medical drama set at the fictional New York Knickerbocker Hospital at the turn of the 20th century, Dr. Bertram Chickering realizes he’s the only gentile working at Mount Sinai Hospital. Using Yiddish he learned from Eastern European typhoid patients — the only Jews he’s met previously — he earns some acceptance from his peers and catches the eye of Genevieve, an adventurous reporter who is Jewish.

Michael Angarano as Dr. Bertram Chickering in “The Knick.”

When his mother is stricken ill with cancer, Chickering complains to a former colleague that the head of surgery, Dr. Zinberg, won’t do experimental procedures (although Zinberg later changes his mind). “I have to say I feel like it’s because he’s a Jew,” Chickering says. “I believe being a universally despised race has stiffened their resolve to never act rashly and risk being thought a failure in the eyes of a hostile world.”

And while Whatley may have joined Judaism for the jokes, in Season Three of Netflix’s “Orange Is the New Black,” inmate Black Cindy converts to get access to the kosher meals in prison. But by the end of that season, she finds meaning in her Jewish identity, taking the name “Tova,” and even getting her mikveh miracle in the final episode, as the inmates discover a hole in the prison fence and jump into a lake — immersing themselves, if only for a few minutes, in a ritual bath of freedom. Black Cindy’s embrace of Judaism becomes a catalyst for transformation and possibility, and fixes their broken world.

Black Cindy (center) converts to Judaism in “Orange Is the New Black.”

Speaking of mikvaot, the imagery of water, rebirth and reinvention also permeate Amazon’s “Transparent,” a show in which the patriarch of a Jewish Los Angeles family comes out as transgender. Its first two seasons are filled with Jewish themes and details: the family’s attitude toward Jewish ritual, identity through food, observance of Yom Kippur, a character who is a rabbi and helps them find connections and meaning within Judaism … the point keeps getting hammered home. “Transparent” is so Jewy that I wouldn’t be surprised if, in some communities, watching the show was a core requirement for conversion programs.

As for the CW’s wacky musical comedy “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,” it drops Jewish references in nearly every episode. And what’s interesting is that many of these references reflect the current state of not-necessarily-religious Jewish identity. Consider the recent “J.A.P. Battle Rap” in which protagonist Rebecca Bunch battled her childhood nemesis Audra Levine with rap lyrics like, “We were egged on like seder plates” and “ ’Cause we’re liberals / progressive as hell / though of course I support Israel.” She also issued a threat to her opponent to “sheket b’vaka-shut-the-hell-up.”

The content was strongly — and proudly — Jewish, if not exactly glatt kosher. I don’t know why the “Will it play in Peoria?” network people didn’t object to these references as being too obscure, but I’m glad they didn’t.

And let’s not forget about Israel. A recent episode of “Broad City,” titled “Getting There,” featured protagonists Abbi and Ilana encountering obstacles as they try to get to the airport for their big trip to an unnamed location. They almost miss their flight, as the gate attendant says to them, “You are two lucky Jews.” As they enter the plane, they’re greeted by their ponytailed “Birthmarc” trip leader, Jared (Seth Green), who promises that the trip will teach them “all about Judaism, its rich history and — I’m looking at the two of you — its reproductive future.” He then starts a chant — “Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!” — among the trip participants.

Abbi explains to Ilana that the trip is “about our souls … we’re going to find ourselves in the mother land.” Jared tells the besties — who are appalled by the fact that they’re not sitting together — that it is “a free trip to Israel sponsored by your living ancestors, so we’re seated according to match potential.”

The episode ends with a shot of the airplane’s screen: they’re flying “El Ol” and credits roll as the “Birthmarc” participants continue to chant “Jews! Jews! Jews!” The next episode, titled “Jews on a Plane,” debuted April 20 on Comedy Central.

Seeing Jewish culture, identity and exploration reflected on television — beyond the cliché tropes of circumcision or bagels or an unwillingness to pay retail — is good for us all. It creates nuance in conversations between Jews and other cultures, and engages Jews of all stripes in an active process of discovering Jewish identity, showing us that there’s more than one way to be, live, speak, act, write, produce Jewish.

On TV today, Jewish characters and themes come into their own Read More »

The Elijah dilemma: How do you welcome the stranger when you can’t stand your neighbor?

Here’s the truth: I don’t love my neighbors. Neither do I like them. In fact, I simply can’t bear them. Every second spent in proximity to them diminishes the quality of my life. And I find this deeply troubling given that I regularly stand at the front of a university classroom and talk to students about what it means to love one’s neighbor, what it means to be ethically responsible human beings in a world that grows madder and madder. It’s even more distressing given that I lecture regularly about the imperative of seeing the refugee, the stranger, the foreigner — as the neighbor.

want to love my neighbors — truly, I do. But it seems that desire does not always crystallize into reality. My fantasy of good intentions is hardly compatible with the state of my heart. And I can’t help but wonder whether the impulses that have guided my experience with my proximate neighbors have become a touchstone for my capacity to care for those neighbors who are not so geographically close.

The impending arrival of Pesach — a week of remembering our own historical and symbolic exile — makes such questions even more pronounced. Why do we fill that fifth symbolic cup with wine for Elijah, and for whom do we really open the door?

My husband and I moved into the upstairs unit of a lovely Beverly Hills duplex nearly five years ago. Our downstairs neighbors introduced themselves to us quickly, the woman regularly offering us delicious baked goods and homemade granola. We were pleased to find that, despite their professed love of bacon, they were Jews, just like us. We shared Shabbat dinners and family celebrations with our neighbors. When my baby was sick while my husband was out of town, they drove to the pharmacy to get medicine for him and even helped me administer it. Having raised two children of their own, they had been where I was only beginning to tread. We were grateful for them.

And because we were grateful, we overlooked things like dog excrement (they had two unruly dogs, each well more than 100 pounds) in our shared backyard nearly every time we tried to use it. Let’s not make a fuss, I would say to my husband — they are good to us, and we don’t need to use the backyard (this, of course, was before we had an energetic 3-year-old). We told ourselves that it was no big deal that they wanted to use the driveway to park their cars, while we parked on the street.

cov-dogBut when my son was born and I struggled getting into the house with the weight of a new baby and all the accompaniments, they offered to let us share the driveway. “See?” I said to my husband. “If you don’t put people in a position to be defensive or territorial, they will be generous. They will do the right thing.” He was not as certain. Perhaps he had a more innate understanding of the disconnect between the ideals to which we aspire and our behavior in reality.

Months later, my husband was bitten badly by one of our neighbors’ dogs. They apologized profusely and told us they understood if we needed to call animal control. “No,” I said. “You are our friends, our neighbors, and I know that you love your dog. I know that you guys will do what needs to be done here so that we can safely use our backyard.” My words were arguably ambiguous, but my meaning was clear: Your dogs shouldn’t be in a shared backyard if they are going to attack people, but I leave it to you to do the right thing. I fully expected that our generosity, given that this was the dog’s second attack (he had severely bitten a child a year ago), would be returned.

To say that it wasn’t is an understatement. The dogs continued to run free in the backyard, while we remained confined to our home. We grew resentful. We started to hate our neighbors. And as our animosity grew, we finally began to demand common courtesies that we should have requested at the beginning: Please clean up after your dogs; please share the driveway; please don’t slam the door. The list continued indefinitely. No matter how politely we made our requests known, the relationship had soured, and they were not inclined to live peacefully with us.

Things did not end well with our neighbors. Nothing was ever resolved. No relationship was reclaimed. They moved out, and so did we.

As I finish writing this piece, which I began months ago and then abandoned, I am looking out of the window of my office in our new home in the canyon — a home tucked away near the top of a hill. It’s quiet. We don’t have to share anything with anyone. In fact, the street is so quiet that we hardly see any of our new neighbors. Rarely do we have to wave hello or exchange pleasantries. It concerns me that this feels most natural, most right — the distancing of ourselves from neighbors, the narrowing of possibilities for friendship.

With the threat of dog bites and slamming doors lifted, there is time to think. And I can’t help but consider what really was the reason for the collapse of our relationship with our neighbors — which, given how close we once were, still pains and baffles me.

But I see it now. It occurs to me that I might be the most to blame. I was reluctant to set boundaries with them in the beginning, because I wanted to be seen in a certain light. I wanted to appear kind and easygoing. I wanted to make friends and have a meaningful relationship with the people with whom we shared walls.

I wonder now how it would’ve turned out if I had laid better groundwork in the beginning — if we had expressed our early dismay at seeing our shared backyard overrun by animals, rather than let them have it for years only to suddenly change our tune after we had a toddler who needed to play in the backyard. I wonder how differently things would’ve turned out if, instead of faking a smile and laughing when one of the dogs jumped and clawed at me until my legs bled underneath my pants, I had been honest. But I wanted to be liked. I suppose I was just playing at being a good neighbor. And I suspect I got it all wrong.

The topic of neighbors is one that is important to much of my academic work, and so it rarely leaves my mind, which is why my inability to make something work with my neighbors is a bit of a personal irritant. As I recently spoke to my literature students about refugees, suggesting that they too are our neighbors, my own personal situation haunted my lecture. And yet the narrative of the crumbling relationship with my neighbors always brings me back to the topic of refugees and of our responsibility to them. Given the pervasiveness of the issue in the media and in much of our current political discourse, I suppose it’s impossible not to. And Pesach, each year, is the time when we are called to remember that we were once foreigners in a land not our own. As part of this crucial Jewish memory, we’re called to care for both neighbors and strangers. But what does it really mean to respond to this admonition?

I keep seeing the face of a man, holding his children close — they’re all wearing life jackets; it’s an image most of us have seen. They’re refugees from Syria. The man is clearly anguished as he holds his children. Like me, he just wants to know that he can keep his children safe. Nothing else matters. This is what I read, unmistakably, in his expression.

cov-twitter-refugee

I see this man’s face — the photo is one of many that have gone viral — and I believe that I can do whatever it takes, that I can open my heart and my home and my borders to him and his little ones. I imagine that once they are here, I can show them how welcoming and compassionate we are. I believe that I can love someone I know nothing about — whose religion, language, culture and customs are not mine.

Yet I cannot love my very own neighbors, those in closest proximity to me, who are like me in so many ways, even though they have shown me love in the past. I find this deeply troubling, and I’m sure that I am not alone in my impulse to make abstract gestures of compassion that I can’t promise will extend beyond gestures.

I can’t help but wonder if this is a uniquely American impulse — this desire to show the world something, to prove that we are who we say we are. My initial generous behavior toward my neighbors was not really about them; it was about me. It was about wanting to be liked.

Maybe America, too, wants to be liked, to be seen in a certain light — to carry on our legacy of taking in the tired, the poor, the homeless, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” the “wretched refuse” of our teeming shores. But maybe we can’t follow through. Or at least, maybe we don’t follow through often enough. Perhaps the spirit of our generosity is tainted with anxieties about who we are and what people think of us.

We want to take on the world, to take in the world and the denizens of suffering that get lost from time to time. We fall in love with the idea of being the savior to the world, with the idea that we are big enough and brave enough to reach our arms across the ocean and take in all of the suffering refugees. And sometimes we do this — sometimes we do the right thing. But our compassion always seems to expire once we are no longer receiving attention for it.

I recently co-edited a book that includes an excerpt from Dave Eggers’ “What Is the What,” a novel (based heavily on a true story) that tells of a Sudanese refugee — one of the “Lost Boys” taken in by the U.S. When I teach this story, I also show my students a “60 Minutes clip where a number of the “Lost Boys,” years after being taken in by the U.S., are in dire straits. Fantasies of going to medical or law school or meeting a woman and starting a family have disintegrated into the reality of what it often means to be a refugee in America today. After the hype has worn off, after the benevolent Christians and Jews stop showing up at the foreigner’s door with casseroles and fruit baskets (because, let’s face it, we can keep that up only for so long), the honeymoon with his or her new American neighbors ends for the refugee, the immigrant, the stranger: our new neighbor. 

It’s as if we are saying to refugees: We want to help you get here, and we like how it feels when we accomplish it, but we refuse to take responsibility for what your life looks like after you get settled in your new home (which is often akin to the life of poverty and squalor experienced by early 20th-century Jewish immigrants packed into Lower East Side tenements). We will get you here, we will save you, and we will look and feel good for it. But after that, you’re on your own. We will be on to the next cause, the next opportunity to demonstrate just how much we care.

I have this wild thought — one that conflicts with my gut impulse to say, yes, we need to take in as many refugees as we can. Hear me out.

Maybe there are only two ways to resolve this. Either we take real responsibility for incoming refugees and how their lives take shape on American soil, or we acknowledge to them and to the world that our compassion doesn’t run deep enough to take on long-term responsibility for these people — that once they are here, they must fend for themselves, and that many if not most of them will not make it. Yes, perhaps that dark reality is better than the alternative of living in a refugee camp or on the streets in another country. But shouldn’t America have more to offer these people? Shouldn’t we, as Jews, have more to offer them? If you save someone’s life, do you not become responsible for it? 

Perhaps these are the kinds of startling boundaries we need to consider, if only hypothetically, boundaries that reflect an honest accounting of the state of our heart, the extent of our compassion — painful boundaries that take from us the opportunity to feel and appear generous and good. Perhaps we cannot take in the refugee until we are ready to take full responsibility for his or her life, until we are ready to respond ethically to the call to care for our neighbor.

And yet we cannot quite do that for those who are closest in proximity to us. Perhaps we might start by considering first those who are already our neighbors — how we should relate honestly and ethically to neighbors with biting dogs or slamming doors or loud music. And more importantly, how we care for the hungry and homeless, the destitute and downtrodden we see daily, or choose to ignore.

I wonder what it would look like if we were to take real responsibility for those who have become invisible, who live in the shadow of others who are perceived to be more needy or more deserving. What would it look like if we were to take quiet responsibility for these neighbors? It’s less glamorous, but I suspect that such gestures of responsibility might open us up to a place where we are ready to take responsibilities for our neighbors across oceans.

Each year at Pesach, I take something to heart — throughout the week, I turn it and turn it. This year, it will be a question: What does it mean to be a good neighbor? And, just maybe, with the pouring of the fifth glass of wine and the opening of the door for Elijah, this perpetual question will become a new lens through which to see my obligation to others, to the world.


Monica Osborne is the visiting assistant professor of Jewish studies at Pepperdine University. She is currently finishing a book on midrash, contemporary literature and trauma.

The Elijah dilemma: How do you welcome the stranger when you can’t stand your neighbor? Read More »