fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

June 26, 2025

Worldly Wisdom and the Jewish Tradition of Translation

Books /

A Yiddish translation of “Arabian Nights” sounds like the set-up to a Borscht Belt joke. Yet, as a recent finalist for a National Jewish Book Award shows, such a work is not only real, it testifies to the intellectual dynamism of the Jewish people throughout the ages.

As the Israeli scholar Iris Idelson-Shein documents in her “Between the Bridge and the Barricade: Jewish Translation in Early Modern Europe,” in 1718, an anonymously produced version of the Arab folktale collection appeared under the title “mar’ot ha-tsovot,” or “Mirrors of the Assembling Women.” In the preface, the translator writes “I have called this book a mirror of the world [shpigl for der velt] or ‘mar’ot ha-tsovot’ because it reflects the entire world in all its flaws and glories.” 

Over two long introductions, the unnamed writer then describes the religious, moral, cultural and didactic merits of the work, which includes Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp, Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves and Sinbad the Sailor. It, he states, incorporates a wealth of knowledge from around the world and provides educational content for parents to use for their children. Anticipating some push-back from his community, the translator adds, as Idelson-Shein puts it, “even though there are those who will view the work as a mere cornucopia of fables, the essential morality of such tales is a well-known fact of Jewish tradition. Indeed, he argues, the ancient Jewish sages themselves ‘provided various tales and fables in order to bring men under the bond of morality [den mentshen in musar tsu brengen].’”

Incorporating the best of world literature, “Between the Bridge and Barricade” argues, helped Jews emerge into the modern era. Between 1450 and 1800, countless books were made accessible from European languages and Latin through Yiddish, Ladino and Judeo-Italian versions. They were produced by Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, printers and doctors, rabbis and proponents of the Enlightenment. “Translations,” writes Idelson-Shein, “seem to allow us to travel throughout the world without visas, passports or border crossings. They grant us the opportunity to encounter other cultures without the inconvenience of learning foreign languages or the discomfort of leaving our own familiar spaces.”

During these centuries of social, political  and technological upheaval, using translation to filter in, or bridge, useful scientific, spiritual and educational knowledge “was vital for Jewish literary, linguistic, religious, and cultural survival,” as barricading out less edifying material. In one of the more striking examples of repurposing, a 1709 Yiddish prayer book by Aharon ben Shmuel Hergershausen turns out to have been largely an unacknowledged translation of a German prayer book by a Lutheran theologian named Johann Habermann produced in 1567 and titled “Christian prayers for all needs and estates in all of Christendom.” Around 16 of the 23 Yiddish tkhines, or personal prayers, that appeared in Hergershausen’s work were borrowed from Habermann’s, reworked with Jewish flavoring. Another Yiddish prayer collection utilized Protestant morning hymns composed by Martin Luther himself. 

More often than not, the translators were aware that their project came with significant challenges and spiritual dangers as they encountered opportunities for cultural exchange. Simmering beneath the surface of the entire endeavor was “a deep ambivalence towards non-Jewish culture and an acute awareness of the dangers inherent in direct, unmediated exposure to that culture.” Thus they strove to strike a balance between imitation and innovation, copying and re-creating.

The diverse range of works chronicled by Idelson-Shein using the Jewish Translation and Cultural Transfer database, including Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” into Hebrew, tales of Christian Knights retold in Yiddish but about great rabbis, “Robinson Crusoe” (also Yiddish, in 1719) and the Vilna Gaon’s son’s translation of the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon’s “Histoire Naturelle” “was a reflection on modernity, a wide-ranging, multivalent debate over its tensions, promises, hazards, and contradictions.” 

Through translation, Jews were able to navigate the unrelenting winds of change sweeping through their world, allowing writers to “both conceal the foreignness of their new ideas and texts, and, at the same time, adapt their sources to the norms, world views and requirements of the target Jewish culture.” As the historian Daniel Schwartz put it in a recent issue of the journal Sapir, “by selectively absorbing and tweaking the linguistic forms, cultural frames and intellectual currents of theirGentile neighbors even as they maintained their communal borders — be they physical or invisible — Jews kept Judaism from petrifying.”

Subject to ever-shifting political powers, cultural currents, religious polemics and rapidly-changing technological developments, Jews turned to translation as a mediating force, accepting but adapting, leaving our textual tradition as the People of the Book immeasurably richer as modernity moved unceasingly forward.

Rabbi Dr. Stuart Halpern is Senior Adviser to the Provost of Yeshiva University and Deputy Director of Y.U.’s Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought. His books include “The Promise of Liberty: A Passover Haggada,” which examines the Exodus story’s impact on the United States, “Esther in America,” “Gleanings: Reflections on Ruth” and “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States.”

Worldly Wisdom and the Jewish Tradition of Translation Read More »

Warriors and Prophets: Tensions of Our Time

Poetry /

When they emerged from sludge and sea, 

Armed with fang and claw,

Hope drew our most distant forebears forward:

A better place, bounty, new possibilities, new habitats,

Home.

When the first humans emerged from African savannah, 

Armed with spear and clubs,

Knives and arrows, 

We stood tall to scan the horizon,

Built sacred spaces to remind us to gaze above,

We found soul and voice and song.

We are drawn to the light but remain creatures of fear and force.

Fangs rip flesh

Spears butcher the youth

Torn human bodies, threats to home and possibility,

Drive us back to a swirling howl of war, blood, death.

The false security of force seduces us from our promise.

Humanity is one paradoxical blur:

Greater ways to deal death from a distance,

Greater insights toward advancing tranquility and hope.

Which do we choose? How do we elevate and heal when the threat remains real?

“Beating spears into plowshares” has an ancient pedigree.

So does, “When one rises to kill you, slay them first.”

Sometime the one is the path; sometimes, the other.

May we find the strength to know when to pursue peace,

To create possibilities for sharing and coexistence previously unimagined.

May we find the wisdom to defang those who seek us dead,

Not as an end in itself, but for our lives and theirs,

Our liberation and theirs,

So we can continue, like our most ancient ancestors,

To climb onto new beachfronts of hope,

To emerge from savannas of blood and terror,

So our children can focus on building temples of learning, science, wisdom, and art.

Our right to live and thrive requires removing imminent threat,

But it also requires a willingness to offer peace, to share bounty,

To continue the work of making space for what was previously impossible.

Warriors are needed, yes.

But so are prophets.

Rabbi Dr Bradley Artson, a Contributing Writer to the Jewish Journal, is the Abner and Roslyn Dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies and Vice President of American Jewish University. He is also Rabbinic Leader for the Abraham Joshua Heschel Seminar, training Conservative/Masorti Rabbis for Europe.

Warriors and Prophets: Tensions of Our Time Read More »

‘You’re Better Off Sleeping, Herschel’

Commentary, Opinion /

For most Jews, regardless of denomination or lack thereof, watching the raucous supposedly “Free Palestine” demonstrations, teeming with antisemitic tropes and disingenuous attempts to not conflate antizionism with modern Judaism, is like a stab through the heart.

“Scratch a gentile and you get an antisemite,” was one cynical saying I heard intoned among the Holocaust survivors I knew (my father among them) when I was growing up. Thankfully, that didn’t turn out to be true when it came to my circle of friends and associates. But sadly, I have borne witness to more than a handful of antisemitic slights, slurs and jokes at my expense over the years and usually from people I would least expect.

There’s the father of an elementary school classmate/friend who, after I declined an invitation for a family dinner on account of rushing home for the first Passover seder, cracked “The only good Jew is a dead Jew.” My friend, not knowing what to do, burst into gales of laughter. Though I was probably 10 at the time, I didn’t laugh.

I did share this “joke” with my father, a child survivor of the Holocaust and my mother, a first-generation Israeli, the daughter of a fervent Zionist and member of the Haganah (an early Israeli paramilitary organization that would later morph into the IDF). Her father had smuggled Jewish refugees into Palestine past the British blockade and later died of complications from a fall he sustained while he and his colleagues were hiding from British police. Neither of them laughed (and no, I never went back to my classmate’s home).

There’s the college roommate who told me with a straight face that my problem was that I was Jewish. She also used to make numerous cracks about how certain Jews should have been “Auschwitzed.”

Then there was the old boyfriend who told me that because he grew up in a predominantly gentile community in the South, I was the third Jew he ever met. I remember him telling me that antisemitism was so pervasive in his hometown that it was standard for residents to use “Jew” in a derogatory context, usually as a verb meaning to fleece or steal money from someone.

“I jewed him out of 10 dollars,” he would recount.

Ever since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led pogrom, antisemitism has intensified to such a degree I’ve noticed I’m no longer so amenable to spending time with people whom I suspect freely support such sentiment. Work obligations are one thing but when I’m off the clock, I’m off the grid — with them. And so many of them. That includes fellow Jews who also like to join the Israel-hating brigade for fear of being ostracized by the cool kids. They break my heart the most because when I see them I remember how assimilation and a love for all things German didn’t prevent the majority of my father’s family from being rounded up and shot on a Latvian beach or in a forest. The peer approval they crave will end up biting them in the face and it won’t be pretty.

Last weekend, my mother and I visited my father’s grave. We were initially planning to do so on Father’s Day but Mom wasn’t feeling well, so we postponed it. Usually, when we pay our respects to his final resting place, we always talk aloud as though he was still here, still alive in the flesh, ready to answer. This time, we both felt an overpowering weariness that we haven’t felt in ages — a resignation that as things seemingly evolve and change, they also revert back to a familiar, depressing cycle. In this case, it’s the noxious contagion of antisemitism.

“Thank goodness, you’re not here Herschel,” Mom said to the headstone where the words “Shoah Survivor” are delicately inscribed for posterity. “You’re better off sleeping.”

It was the first time we didn’t long for him to be alive again.

Iris Dorbian is a journalist and author. Her upcoming third edition of “An Epiphany in Lilacs,” a coming-of-age story set in a displaced persons camp in post-WWII Germany and loosely inspired by her father’s experiences as a 14-year-old Holocaust survivor, will be published by Sunbury Press. 

‘You’re Better Off Sleeping, Herschel’ Read More »

Azi Jankovic on Sharing Her Mental Health Journey in a New Book

Books /

When Azi Jankovic was 17 years old, she went to a psychiatrist after experiencing some troubling symptoms like restlessness and anxiety. By the end of this 50-minute session, she was told she had bipolar disorder and would have to be on medication – indefinitely.

Over the course of the next three decades, Jankovic struggled with both her mental and physical health; the medicine would compound her problems. She was hospitalized seven times in the U.S. and in Israel, where she moved 10 years ago when she made aliyah. Throughout her mental health journey, she learned about holistic healing and took proactive steps to feel better. She stayed secretive, only telling some family members and close friends, until she felt she couldn’t be silent anymore. 

A friend called her one day and told her that a neighborhood girl who was only 18 years old had taken her own life – in the same psychiatric unit Jankovic had checked herself into two years prior. She knew it was time to speak up. 

“Whenever I shared my story, whether in person or online, people responded with questions, gratitude, and a desire to know more,” Jankovic said. “It became clear to me that my experiences could help others in a meaningful way.”

Now, she’s put out a new book, “Mental Health, Reclaimed: A Simple Guide to Thriving Beyond Labels or Limits,” where she tells her story and provides readers with a holistic roadmap for healing anxiety, depression, and overthinking. She combines scientific research with her firsthand experiences, giving readers insights they may not have previously considered.

“I have come to believe that there are root causes to many, if not all mental health symptoms,” Jankovic writes. “While this science is still evolving, the cutting edge of research in this space has identified the major building blocks of mental health. It would be convenient if the solution could be bottled up and sold in pill form, but for better or worse, the situation is more complex than this for most people.”

The author, who also hosts the “Mental Health Reclaimed” podcast, explains, for instance, how nutrition factors into your mental health.

“When we talk about mental health, the focus often lands on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,” Jankovic writes. “But here’s the truth: your mental health doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Beneath it all, your body and mind are working together in deeply connected processes, shaping everything from your mood to your energy levels to your overall well-being.”

She continues, “by making physiological upgrades in your life, you have a high likelihood of impacting your brain’s functioning which can lead to all sorts of improvements by way of your mental health and wellbeing.”

Not only is it important to eat nutrient-rich foods, but also to prioritize sleep, move regularly, and get natural light every day, even if it just means taking a 20-minute walk outside.  

Jankovic, who is from California and lives in Modi’in, has been getting out as much as she can while staying near a shelter in case a siren goes off, as it has been since the Iran conflict began. She was already sharing mental health tips post-Oct. 7, and she continues to now, as Iran is sending missiles into Israel. Nefesh B’Nefesh reposted some of her tips, which include starting the day with hydration and morning vitamins, connecting with a calm and hopeful friend, feeling your feelings without guilt or comparison, and distracting yourself in healthy ways by listening to music, lifting weights or taking a walk. She knows that Israelis are in need right now, as they have been for the past year and a half.

“We are dealing with PTSD in numbers that are quite significant, and higher than what was happening before the war,” she said. “So many young people’s lives are consumed with fighting this war. The lives of their entire generation have been halted. We also have so many citizens in the reserves, and families are struggling. I know that there have been lots of divorces due to the stress of this war. At the same time, you can find signs of life and love and ‘doing life’ despite the tragedy going on around us. I think for many people, me included, we are confronted with the concept of life and death – the fragility of life – and it reminds us to be grateful and make the most of the time we have on this earth.”

From afar, Jews in America and the diaspora can also help out their Israeli brothers and sisters by reaching out, and sending a message like, “’I know there is a lot going on in Israel right now, and I want you to know that I’m thinking of you, and I care about you,’” Jankovic said. “It looks like staying connected and remembering that everyone who is in Israel is in the one Jewish nation that will be here for all Jewish people, and humanity in so many ways, at all times.”

Even though it’s difficult to be in Israel right now, Jankovic doesn’t regret her decision to move there.

“One of the things I’m most proud of is having made aliyah in 2015 and having the blessing of raising our four children here,” she said. “Living in a close-knit community with a focus on spirituality has been a source of strength and support.”

Jankovic hopes that her work helps others in this challenging moment – and beyond.

“Judaism teaches that life is sacred, and that whoever saves a life it is as if he/she saves a world,” she said. “I consider it my duty to share the hard-earned lessons of my mental health journey … I want to make sure that my book gets in the hands of everyone who can benefit, so that we can alleviate unnecessary suffering and struggling wherever possible.” 

“Mental Health, Reclaimed” is available on Amazon. 

Azi Jankovic on Sharing Her Mental Health Journey in a New Book Read More »

Jewish Manager Who Made the Beatles: Brian Epstein’s Story in ‘Midas Man’

Film, Hollywood /

In an interview with Paul McCartney in 1997, he was quoted as saying, “If anyone was the fifth Beatle, it was manager Brian Epstein.” Many believe that if not for Epstein, the Beatles wouldn’t have achieved such massive success — at least not so early on in their career.

While Epstein’s contribution to the Beatles is widely recognized among fans of the British band, the general public—especially younger generations—are not as familiar with his name.

In a new biographical film, “Midas Man,” scheduled to premiere in Los Angeles at the Jewish Film Festival, Epstein finally receives the recognition he deserves. Epstein was included in Hunter Davies’ 1968 authorized Beatles biography and, more recently, in the first volume of Mark Lewisham’s magisterial “All Those Years Ago,” but this is the first movie to tell his story. It has an impressive cast, including Jacob Fortune-Lloyd in the role of Epstein, and Emily Watson and Eddie Marsan as his parents.

The screenplay was written by Brigit Grant, who will arrive in L.A. for the opening night and participate in a panel discussion following the screening.

Brigit Grant and director Joe Stephenson
(Photo courtesy Brigit Grant)

In a phone interview with Grant, as she was driving back to her home in North London, she told the Journal that Epstein was her hero, and the more she researched him and spoke to people who knew him, the more she felt connected to him.

Grant, who is Jewish, is the executive editor of Life Magazine & Features at Jewish News, and since Oct. 7 has been very outspoken in her support of Israel.

While writing the script, she tried to include as much as possible about Epstein’s Jewish background and the antisemitism he faced as a child, as well as the challenges of being gay. In the end, though, she said they had to cut out some of those scenes because, after all, “It’s a 112-minute film and not a Netflix series.”

As part of your research, you’ve spoken to people who knew Brian, but not the Beatles themselves. How come?

“Because the film is about Brian, and it’s his story. It would have been wonderful to talk to Paul, who had lots of affection toward Brian. However, if you want to get an audience with the Beatles, it’s like getting an audience with the Pope. Also, while we were making this film, it was announced that they were going to make four separate films about each one of the Beatles with [director] Sam Mendes, so we knew that anything they are going to share won’t be available to us.”

Who did you end up speaking with?

“I started speaking with Basil Hyman, Brian’s first cousin, who also lived around the corner from Paul. He was the person who was most significant in my research. He also went to the same school as Brian and spent a lot of time with his family. They were a very tight family, with Friday night dinners and very involved with the synagogue in Liverpool. Basil also went to a Jewish boarding school with Brian and told me many stories, like when Brian learned his Bar Mitzvah portion while in boarding school. A week before his Bar Mitzvah, they realized they gave him the wrong portion and he needed to learn a new one. He still was able to deliver it beautifully. I also spoke a lot with Freda Kelly, who ran the Beatles fan club and was Brian’s secretary.”

Was Brian’s family religious? Was Judaism important to him?

“They weren’t religious but kept kosher at home and went for services. Harry, Brian’s father, wanted to be on the synagogue board, but because he was working on Saturdays in his shop, he knew they wouldn’t let him. It was an Orthodox synagogue. Although Brian wasn’t religious, when the Beatles were on tour in Hong Kong, he asked a journalist from the Daily Express—who was Jewish—if  he can get him tickets for a synagogue service for Rosh Hashanah, but in the end, he didn’t go. Brian was also engaged to be married early on to a young Jewish woman, Sonia Seligman. Her family were jewelers in Liverpool and were wealthy, like Brian’s family.”

She didn’t suspect he was gay?

“Not at first. People, though, would leave her notes in her coat pocket and told her that he was queer.”

In the end, Epstein didn’t marry Sonia. He was gay at a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain and struggled with his identity and the pressure to conform. It’s believed that the engagement was an attempt to meet his family’s expectations to settle down and have a family. Sonia was heartbroken but eventually moved on.

A few years later, in 1961, while managing his family’s music store in Liverpool, NEMS (North End Music Stores), Epstein first discovered the Beatles. Customers frequently came in asking for a local band’s record — one that hadn’t even been released yet — which piqued his curiosity. Intrigued, Epstein went to see the Beatles perform at the Cavern Club and was immediately struck by their charisma, talent and raw energy.

 Although their stage presence was unpolished, Epstein saw their potential and offered to become their manager. He refined their image, encouraging them to wear suits, tone down onstage antics, and present themselves professionally. He worked tirelessly to secure them a record deal, ultimately landing one with EMI’s Parlophone label. His belief in the band and dedication to promoting them played a pivotal role in launching the Beatles from a local sensation to international superstars.

The Beatles rose to fame in 1963, and in 1964, they broke into the American market with “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” and performed on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” drawing 70 million viewers. Epstein played a key role in arranging this appearance.

In 1967, Epstein died at the age of 32 of combined alcohol and barbiturate overdose. At the time of his death, the Beatles were a global sensation.

“When Brian died, Paul said that it felt like the adult left the room,” said Grant. “He wasn’t that much older than the Beatles. When they first met, Brian was 27 and John was 21, but he brought an adult disposition with him.”

It’s interesting that years before he died, he already wrote his will at 22. It’s like he almost predicted the future.

“It tells you something about his character. You don’t hear about young people this age writing their wills. He specified in the will that he doesn’t want anyone to read Kaddish when he dies. He wanted his parents and brother to know he loved them and that his own personal effects like clothing be sent to Israel.”

“When it comes toward the end of the film, the moment before I know he’s going to die, I always have in my head, ‘Why did he have to die like that?’ I cry each time.”

A couple of months before he passed away, homosexuality was finally legalized in Britain. Epstein could have finally lived as a proud gay man, but it was too late for him. 

“Not fitting in, was a big part of what he was battling with,” said Grant. “His life was illegal and he also wanted to fit in inside the Jewish circle. One of the reasons he liked the Beatles so much was their playfulness, the fact that they were so young and irreverent. He wanted to fit in with that.”

Grant revealed during the interview that the Beatles once wanted to perform in Israel. However, back in the 1960s, some believed the band would corrupt the younger generation, and the visit never materialized.

Grant revealed during the interview that the Beatles once wanted to perform in Israel. However, back in the 1960s, some believed the band would corrupt the younger generation, and the visit never materialized.

Grant visited Israel shortly before October 7. Her daughter had flown there with a group organized by the Federation, and she arrived soon after with her husband, Neil —a huge Beatles fan. During their visit, they met with friends from the entertainment industry. “It was a splendid vacation,” she said.

“Israel is a remarkable country, and it’s heartbreaking to see what has happened to so many young men and women, and how the UN refused to acknowledge what was done to Israeli women on October 7. What happened in Israel took me back to the fact that so many Jews were killed 80 years ago, and who knows how many of them could have cured cancer or done amazing things.”

Unfortunately, many in the entertainment business refuse to show this support, yet you are very outspoken.

Have you yourself experienced antisemitism growing up, like Brian did?

“Not really. I went to an ordinary state school, and my class was made up of every race and religion—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus. Antisemitism wasn’t really a thing then. But things have changed. I was invited to speak at a rally for Israel, and people were driving by waving Palestinian flags and chanting against Israel. After October 7, I felt it would be powerful to tell Brian’s story—to show the world this remarkable Jewish man who gave the Beatles to the world. I’m very proud of who he was and what he had accomplished. He was an extraordinary man.”

The 20th Annual Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival Kicks Off with Gala Opening Night Premiere of Midas Man on June 26 at 7 p.m. at the Saban Theatre.

Jewish Manager Who Made the Beatles: Brian Epstein’s Story in ‘Midas Man’ Read More »

Cloudy with Meatballs and Artichoke Stew

Food /

You cannot imagine how surreal it is to be stuck in Israel during this time of war. All the places that make Israel iconic are closed — the Kotel, the museums, the antiquities, the parks and the beaches. It doesn’t feel like a visit to Israel without a salty float and mud bath at the Dead Sea and a ride on the cable car to Masada. This trip we have not visited Tiberias and Safed, or the Roman ruins of Caesaria and the vineyards of Zichron Yaakov.

It is saddening to see young and old head to the bomb shelter when the warning alerts sound. It triggers a little trauma when the sirens wail. It is devastating to see the destruction wrought by Iran’s ballistic missiles — both beautiful modern glass towers with the glass blown out and old buildings from the 1950s with their shutters and windows shattered by the concussion of the missiles. It was scary to feel our building shake when there was a direct missile hit close by.

But the energy of Israel still vibrates — the heat and humidity, the loud, buzzing streets and the stores filled with the best summer fruits (watermelon, cherries, peaches, lychee and berries) and an abundance of fresh vegetables.

The trendy restaurants and fabulous coffee shops of Tel Aviv are filled with native Israelis living their best life. Alan, the girls and I have been doing our best to support the Israeli economy by eating wonderful meals and drinking the best cappuccinos, chais, matchas and iced lattes. We can heartily recommend Kirsh Cafe on Dizengoff, Cafe Xoho on Ben Yehuda and Tea Wei on Bograshov.

But it is Shabbat in Jerusalem that truly stands out. We were at the home of my cousin Sarah (follow on Instagram @sarahsassoonwriter) and her husband David and we were eating lunch al fresco. A towering leafy eucalyptus tree provided a gentle breeze in the heat of the day, and tall dark green cypress trees provided shade. The garden was dotted with plants climbing the walls and pretty flowers lent a touch of bright beauty.

Sarah’s table was set with old fashioned Dutch style blue and white china and pretty floral napkins. She baked us the most delicious homemade challah (hopefully she’ll share her recipe in a future SSG Column in the Journal).

It was remarkable that although oceans and age divide us, she serves the same fried eggplant and Israeli salad that I make, that we learned to serve from our beloved grandmother Nana Aziza.

Recently, I made this meatball and artichoke stew. Served with rice, it was a delicious comforting meal. Exactly the kind of bright, tangy tomato and onion based stew my Nana Aziza would have made.

This stew contains thinly sliced nutty, earthy artichoke bottoms, delicately soft Mexican squash and creamy Yukon gold potatoes.

The meatballs are light and fluffy because they are filled with grated onion and potato starch. The addition of chili oil, paprika and cinnamon lends them a sublime, flavorful taste.

—Sharon

We hope you try this classic albondigas recipe. Popularized in medieval Spain, the difference between albondigas and a regular meatball is that albondigas have the addition of subtle spices and are cooked at a slow simmer in a light, lemony broth.

A classic dish that can be served as part of your Friday night dinner menu or as a hearty weeknight meal.

—Rachel

Meatballs in Artichoke Stew

Meatballs

1 lb ground beef

1 tsp salt

1/2 tsp black pepper

1 tsp cinnamon

1 tsp sweet paprika

1 Tbsp chili oil

1 egg

1 medium onion, finely grated

1 cup Italian parsley, finely chopped

1 cup potato starch

In a medium bowl, mix all the ingredients together until well combined. Set aside.

1/4 cup olive oil

1 large onion, finely chopped

1 tsp kosher salt

1 tsp ground black pepper

8 garlic cloves, finely chopped

2 tsp sweet paprika

2 tsp ground coriander

2 tsp turmeric

4 Yukon Gold potatoes, diced

3 large Mexican squash, sliced.

1 package frozen artichoke bottoms, thinly sliced

1 14 oz can diced tomatoes

4 cups water

1 lemon, juiced

In a large, heavy bottomed pot, warm olive oil over medium heat. Add onions and sauté for 4 to 5 minutes until onions are soft and translucent.

Add the salt and pepper and garlic and continue to sauté. Add the paprika, coriander and turmeric and mix well.

Add the potatoes, squash and artichoke bottoms. Add the tomatoes, water and lemon juice and bring to a boil.

Cover tightly, lower the heat and allow to simmer for half an hour.

Form the meatball mixture into golf ball size balls and gently drop into the broth. Continue to simmer for another 30 minutes. Serve over hot fluffy white rice.

Sharon Gomperts and Rachel Emquies Sheff have been friends since high school. The Sephardic Spice Girls project has grown from their collaboration on events for the Sephardic Educational Center in Jerusalem. Follow them
on Instagram @sephardicspicegirls and on Facebook at Sephardic Spice SEC Food. Website sephardicspicegirls.com/full-recipes.

Cloudy with Meatballs and Artichoke Stew Read More »

Table for Five: Korach

Judaism, Torah /

One verse, five voices. Edited by Nina Litvak and Salvador Litvak, the Accidental Talmudist

The Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the congregation saying, ‘Withdraw from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

– Num. 16:23-24

Gilla Nissan

Teacher, Poet, Author and Essayist

Korach was, in many ways, the first democrat. A Levite from Moses’ own tribe, he had fame, wealth, and strong lineage — yichus. But he lacked understanding of spiritual hierarchy. He believed that since all are holy, leadership shouldn’t belong exclusively to Moses’ family. “This isn’t a family business!” he argued.

I can’t write about this story as if it belongs only to the past. Like many stories in the Torah, it speaks powerfully to the present — especially in Israel today. 

When challenged, Moses had no answer of his own — so God responded. And it was a strange response: the earth herself, witness to Truth since creation, opened her mouth and swallowed this radical ideology — an ideology that tried to distort and erase divine order. This story reminds us that true leadership belongs not to us, but to the Leader of the World. I had to teach myself to accept this. It wasn’t easy — but Truth is more important than comfort. 

When I see questionable leaders rise to power, I remind myself: if they are there, they must be serving something in the divine scheme. I ask, What does this serve? I remind myself that there is a larger picture I cannot see. And I accept it — with faith. But this is not a call to passivity or fatalism. It’s a call to humility, discernment and trust — that Truth will stand, even when the ground seems to tremble beneath our feet.

Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky

Ansche Chesed, New York City

Like Sherlock Holmes, our Sages always notice the “dog that didn’t bark.” They are attentive when something expected is absent. In our verse, God warns the people to shun the tents of Korach, Datan and Aviram. But one of the original conspirators, On ben Pelet, is missing from the list. What happened to him? 

To explain this unexpected silence, the Talmudic sage Rav wove a charming legend about how On’s wife prompted him to repent, while Korach’s wife egged her husband on. These characters, unmentioned in the Torah, are said to illustrate Proverbs 14:1: “Women’s wisdom builds a house” — that is Ms. On — “but if she is foolish, she destroys it” — that is Ms. Korach [Sanhedrin 109b-110a]. 

Ms. On’s argument is not noble. She reminds On that whether Moses or Korach prevails, he would still only be middle management, so what would he get out of rebelling? Spiritually and morally, I would prefer that she inspired On to choose Moses over Korach by persuading him that communal holiness is worthier than self-aggrandizement. But, fine. 

Still, I appreciate how this midrash undermines the rigid good/evil binary that dominates the main narrative. We hear of good Israelites shunning wicked mutineers, who are doomed to be obliterated. That’s definitely good counsel. But let’s also pay attention to the story of On, a person with bad instincts that led him astray, and good instincts that helped him turn around in time. And enough good sense to listen to his wife.

Rabbi Barry J. Chesler

School Rabbi, Jewish Studies Faculty, Schechter School of Long Island

The parsha identifies Korah, Dathan, Aviram and On as the principal rebels against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Korach represents the other Levitical families with a claim to leadership, while the other three are descendants of Reuben, Jacob’s first-born. 

The rabbis consider Korah a demagogue. Demagogues are often spell-binding orators, using words and speaking ability as weapons. They succeed when people concentrate more on their speaking than on their speech, more on cadence than reasoned argument. The demagogue’s power, though, comes from without, from the consent of the listeners.

In order to defeat the demagogue, he must be isolated. We might lock them up as we do with criminals sentenced to prison. There is exile, as with Napoleon. Or, as in our parsha, death. Alternatively, consent can be withdrawn. 

Before God punishes the demagogues in our parsha, he instructs the people: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Speak to the community and say: ‘Withdraw from about the abodes of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’” 

The simple explanation is that the people must leave the danger zone so they are not swept away with the guilty. By stepping away, the people demonstrate devotion to God with a concrete action. The larger truth is that sometimes we must first step back in order to go forward. By stepping back, the people show that the demagogue no longer has power over them. Now powerless, he is subject to the divine punishment. Only then is God’s order restored.

Dr. Sheila Tuller Keiter

Judaic Studies Faculty, Shalhevet High School

I’ve wondered when Table for Five would finally ask us to interpret “And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying,” and today is that day! Yes, there’s more here than just that ubiquitous phrase. Still, the repetition of the word leimor, or “saying,” invites examination. Leimor appears throughout the Torah, but what does it actually mean? 

The term leimor usually introduces a direct quote. ”Hashem spoke to Moshe, and this is what He said,” so to speak (pun always intended). Ramban, aka Nachmanides (13th century), notes that many of the classical commentators understood leimor more literally as “to say.” In other words (pun again), Hashem spoke to Moshe to say the following words to Israel. 

Ramban, however, rejects this contention. He understands leimor as “to instruct clearly.” Hashem is not commanding Moshe to repeat His words verbatim but to convey their intention with clarity to the people, not through metaphor or innuendo, but with unmistakable meaning. Here, Hashem needs to clearly instruct the people to distance themselves from the rebels lest they share their fate; crucial, life-saving information not to be misconstrued. Stay away and do not fall for their deception. 

Israel had to see through Korach’s twisted words. Today we must navigate slant, spin, euphemism, Newspeak, code-switching, dog-whistles, slang, jargon, equivocation, outright lies and even scared silence. A healthy society must be able to share ideas in forthright terms, and healthy relationships are built upon open and honest communication. Say what you mean and mean what you say. I’m just saying.

Aliza Lipkin

Writer and Educator, Ma’aleh Adumim, Israel

Korach, a Levite, felt entitled to the priesthood, which G-d designated for Aaron’s lineage. He rallied Datan and Aviram from the tribe of Reuven, along with 250 leaders, to challenge Moshe and Aaron’s authority. 

Korach led a protest, claiming Moshe and Aaron elevated themselves above the community, which he argued was equally holy. His intentions were purely ego-driven and selfish, using deceit to amass a following and seize power. 

Moshe, dismayed, proposed a test: the rebels and Aaron would offer incense the next day to reveal God’s chosen leader. Meanwhile, Hashem instructed Moshe and Aaron to tell the congregation, “Separate yourselves from the dwellings of Korach, Datan and Aviram.” Manipulated by Korach, the nation believed their cause served the greater good. God urged the people to distance themselves from Korach’s influence, emphasizing that only by removing themselves from his trappings could they achieve moral and spiritual clarity. 

This lesson resonates today as well-intentioned individuals become entangled in causes that appear just but conceal nefarious motives. To remedy this, people must step away from these deceptive circles. Such distance provides the perspective needed to discern what is truly holy. Like the Israelites, we must recognize and reject the allure of crafty bad actors, ensuring our actions align with divine truth and moral integrity.

Table for Five: Korach Read More »

Changing History

Commentary, Cover Story, Featured, Opinion /

History

Sometimes it is difficult to identify a historic moment. Napoleon Bonaparte’s initial rise to power seemed at the time like one more twist in the ever-shifting ground of the French Revolution era. It was not. 

Sometimes it is easy to identify a historic moment. Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, following a highly successful Israeli campaign over Iran’s skies, cries “history is  being made”

If you were following Middle East events of the past week without hearing the winds of history blowing with gusto, go check your ears. If you were following these events without a sense of awe, without missing a beat, go check your heart. 

History was made. History is being made. 

A time will come to return to the day-to-day business of talking about the personalities of Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu. A time will come to return to the day-to-day business of talking about Israel’s social upheaval, about populist bravura, about the many deficiencies of Israel’s current governing coalition, about Trump’s dismissive approach toward science, about all the justified and exaggerated complains one has as one considers the leadership of these two clearly flawed men.  

A time will come to return to the day-to-day business of talking about Trump and Netanyahu, Israel’s social upheaval, populist bravura, the deficiencies of Israel’s current governing coalition, and so on.  But now is not the time. Now, History is being made.

A time will come to return to all these things. But now is not the time. Now, History is being made.

Ending

Writing on Tuesday, a few hours after the ceasefire is announced, I can’t yet tell you how the story of Iran’s nuclear program ends, except that it probably ends with Iran not having a military nuclear capability. At least, not in the near future. Probably – but even that is still a work in progress. In the coming days, or weeks, or months, the international community, led by the U.S., is going to have to more than trust, but verify that Iran is truly devoid of this capability. All the facilities involved in the program must be found and dismantled, all the highly enriched uranium must be found and taken away. This might be a process that involves more violence or might be a process that involves negotiation and understandings.  

So, for now, a ceasefire is in place, but it is not over. “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” So said Winston Churchill, referring to the Allied victory at the second battle of El Alamein, another Middle Eastern battle, back in 1942. But it’s possible that this time it is the beginning of the end. 

The end of what? That’s a good question. Most likely: the end of Iran’s ability to be an immediate threat to its neighbors. The end of Iran’s rise as a regional menace. The end of the most tangible risk of a collapse of nonproliferation. Less likely, yet still possible: the end of Iran as a revolutionary, reactionary force. 

The beginning of what? That’s another good question. Most likely: the beginning of an era of eased tensions in the region. Less likely, yet still possible: the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Iran could become a leader in science, economic development, tourism. Iran could become a shining city upon a hill (Jewish and Shiite friends — please forgive the allusion to such Christian symbolism). 

Trump

Last week, one of Israel’s cable services was streaming “The Apprentice,” Ali Abbasi’s film, for free. So, three or four hours before the U.S. bombing of Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan, I was watching the fictional Roy Cohn explaining to the fictional young Trump his three principles of always winning – the first of which is “attack, attack, attack.” 

One of the great ironies concerning Trump is that he is both a shameless liar and a bold truth teller. When he says: I did not lose an election – he lies. No president before him dared to lie with such careless casualness. When he says: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons – he tells the truth. No president before him conveyed this message with such determined intentionality.

His international crowd often misreads him, because of this contradiction — because of his ability to be exceptional in both being deceitful and straightforward. The Iranians clearly erred by misreading him. They did not see the difference between him and his many predecessors who vowed to prevent Iran – and other countries – from having nuclear weapons. 

Case in point: open your books to page 625. The book is “My Life,” by Bill Clinton. A few days ago, Clinton claimed that “Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office forever.” So open your books and read the following sentence: “Three successive administrations had tried to bring North Korea’s nuclear program under control.” They failed but, claims the author, the Clinton administration was successful because of “our clear determination not to allow North Korea to become a nuclear power, or a seller of nuclear weapons and materials.” 

Israel discovered long ago that a Clinton-type determination ends with a nuclear bomb. That’s why Netanyahu, as the PM, fought tooth and nail against the 2015 Obama nuclear accords. That’s why he decided to gamble on attacking Iran. More than a decade-and-a-half ago, when Israel was already hinting that an attack on Iran might be forthcoming, I wrote an article for The New Republic in which I tried to layout the rationale for attacking a nuclear program whose facilities Israel might not have the ability to destroy. 

The follow-up – I argued back then — “will determine the outcome more than the level of destruction that a strike can achieve.” According to this line of thinking, I explained, “which has adherents among some high-ranking officials and former officials in the Israeli defense establishment, focusing on the tactical questions surrounding such an operation – How much of Iran’s nuclear program can Israel destroy? How many years can a bombing campaign set the program back? – is a mistake. The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis.” The headline for that long-forgotten article was “stirring the pot.” And what Israel did in the days prior to the U.S. attack was exactly that — stirring the pot. 

Israel could have “stirred” at any point in time since I wrote that article, back in 2008. But to make the stew edible, it was forced to wait for a pot that could stand the hit.

Alarm

“Yitzhak Rabin clearly recognized this threat in its early stages.” 

That’s a quote. 

The speaker, surprisingly, is Netanyahu. 

In January 1993, the late Rabin, then Prime Minister of Israel, declared in the Knesset that “Iran is in the early stages of an effort to acquire unconventional capabilities in general and nuclear capabilities in particular.” In 2012, at Rabin’s annual memorial, Netanyahu gave Rabin credit for the early warning. More than 30 years had passed since the early warning. More than a decade since the generous credit. 

Israel had lived with the threat of a nuclear Iran since, well, forever. All my children were born when Iran was already rushing to get a bomb. Most of Israel’s population can barely remember a time when Iran wasn’t a grave threat on the horizon. Rabin warned about Iran, followed by Netanyahu in his first term. In 2002, PM Ariel Sharon argued that after Iraq, Iran ought to be the next target of international attention. In 2007, PM Ehud Olmert declared that if the world is going to “turn a blind eye now, while ignoring reality, dragging one’s feet and attempting to reach dangerous compromises while avoiding taking clear steps,” then “those of us who wish to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power will, down the road, not be left with any choice but to take much more severe steps in the future.”

Israel had lived with the threat of a nuclear Iran since, well, forever. Most of Israel’s population can barely remember a time when Iran wasn’t a grave threat on the horizon.

In all those years, Israel had many other enemies, some permanent, some periodical, some very dangerous, some more of a nuisance: Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, Syria, Iraq, the Houthis, ISIS … the list goes on. But Iran always occupied a special place among Israel’s enemies. The only body with both the declared intention and the possible capability to end the Zionist dream. 

It was called “an existential threat.” It was often compared to Nazi Germany. In 2006, speaking in Los Angeles, Netanyahu argued that “it is 1938. … Iran is Germany, and it is about to arm itself with nuclear weapons.” And it wasn’t only him. Olmert, in a speech dedicated to Iran, reminded his audience that “the Jewish people, on whom the scars of the Holocaust are deeply etched, cannot allow itself to again face a threat against its very existence.” And here’s Netanyahu, again, in 2012 dismissing those who “prefer that we not speak of a nuclear Iran as an existential threat” and “do not like it when I speak such uncomfortable truths.”

Some Israelis did argue that Netanyahu is going overboard. Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister said that Israelis “are not in the ghetto, and there is no place for Holocaust comparisons.”

Writing for The New York Times about this debate more than a decade ago, I confessed that “on the one hand, there’s the unease that comes from considering that a second Holocaust might happen. And so even the wee bit skeptical dismiss the politicians’ alarmism and recoil at their warmongering. On the other hand, there’s good reason to be uneasy with that very unease. What if – what if – Netanyahu is right? Wasn’t disbelief part of the problem the first time around?”

Psychology

Most Israelis thought Iran is as dangerous as Netanyahu claimed. Most Israeli leaders thought it was very dangerous, even when they felt this above-mentioned unease with the language he tended to use. But at some point, some of them no longer believed that Israel could deal with the threat efficiently or concluded that Israel is going to have to learn to live with it. 

A decade ago, Olmert said that “the Iranian threat is serious, but the way to deal with Iran is by settling with the Palestinians.” A motion that would seem quite bizarre today. Three years ago, former PM Ehud Barak wrote that “the effort to block Iran from turning into a nuclear power is at its lowest ebb ever, apparently headed for failure.” 

Now – there’s suddenly a hope that the effort is not headed for a failure, but rather for a resounding success. Now – there’s suddenly a possibility that Israelis are going to have to learn to live without the threat of Iran.

When this happens, if this happens, Israel will dramatically change. Just imagine an existential threat hanging over your head – hanging over your children’s heads – for 30 years – then imagine it suddenly disappears. Imagine the shock, the need to readjust, the weirdness of the threat’s absence, the sense of relief. 

Power

A few hours after the U.S. attack on Saturday, Netanyahu released a videotaped message to the nation in which his almost 30 years in power were encapsulated. “First comes power,” he said, “then peace.” 

When Netanyahu entered the political scene, he was making a similar argument against Rabin and his government and against Bill Clinton and his administration following the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. He then made the same argument against the 2000 pullout from Lebanon. Then the same argument against the 2005 disengagement from Gaza. In 2022, he opposed the maritime border and gas field agreement between Israel and Lebanon using the same argument. Netanyahu is a highly suspicious man. He does not believe in good intentions, he does not believe that all people want peace, he does not believe in international laws or understandings.  

Netanyahu believes in power as the only trustworthy stabilizer. In Trump he found a kindred spirit. A leader – to once more quote from “The Apprentice”– who believes that men, and countries, are either sharks or losers.

Netanyahu believes in power as the only trustworthy stabilizer. In Trump he found a kindred spirit. A leader – to once more quote from “The Apprentice”– who believes that men, and countries, are either sharks or losers.

Netanyahu

This is not a good time to talk about politics, and yet, one can recognize that such talk is available in a constant stream of messages from all political camps. On one side – expressions of euphoria. On the other side – slight anxiety and attempts at containment. 

This is not a good time for politics, and even less so for drawing hasty conclusions about what will happen in the political arena if and when the current phase of the war comes to an end, since there is no telling what the end result will be. And yet we ought to write a few words about politics. Maybe three.

First – Netanyahu and his government have gained quite a few political points in the last two weeks. In fact, it is mainly Netanyahu, personally. It is possible that morale in his camp is a bit too high, because the points that have been accumulated are not currently translating into an abundance of new expected seats if an election were to take place. But the rate of trust in the PM has increased. If the PM’s supporters believe that this newly found trust will lead the entire nation to the understanding that he is an irreplaceable leader, they may find evidence in the data. But it is also possible that the sudden increase in trust is a one-off increase: it relates to the conduct of war and nothing more. 

Second – in the past, great achievements did not change Netanyahu’s political situation much when elections were held. Case on point: the outbreak of COVID. During that time, Netanyahu was at his best, at his peak. He made Israel an exemplary nation, effectively coping with the pandemic. And what were the political implications of his model leadership? He lost the 2021 election. Having brought the world’s first doses of vaccines to Israel, having effectively implemented a policy of lockdowns and releases, having been an exemplary world leader – the Israeli public sent him home. Excellence did not beget victory.

Third – a successful war is no guarantee of success at the ballot box. Netanyahu’s fans like to compare him to Winston Churchill – well, Churchill is a good example. In May 1953, an American student asked Churchill how one could prepare to face the challenges of leadership. “Study history. Study history,” was Churchill’s emphatic reply. “History contains all the secrets of statesmanship.” The story of his dismissal is well known: on the verge of victory, riding waves of admiration, Churchill received what he himself called “the Order of the Boot.”

Why? Because the British decided to look to the future rather than the past. The war was over, Churchill had completed his historic role. Now it was time to look inward, to deal with the mundane tasks of economy, society, everyday hardships, the things in which Churchill – at least that’s what the British thought at the time – was less outstanding. 

Will Netanyahu face a similar fate? Can he entertain such a scenario in this historic week of victorious achievements? Here’s a proposed line for his future concession speech, one that we should all hope he could make in short order: “It is no longer 1938, Iran as Nazi Germany is no more. It’s finally 1945, and it’s time to look inward and rebuild Israel.” 

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

Changing History Read More »