Daily Archives: January 17, 2022

Rabbi Dr. Berman, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik, Dr. Trapedo and the Shakespeare and the Talmud students

By Dr. Shaina TrapedoStraus Center Resident ScholarandSam GelmanStraus Center Communications and Program Officer

On Thursday, Dec. 9, 2021, Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, gave a guest lecture in Stern College for Womens Shakespeare and the Talmud course, which was offered in collaboration with the Zahava and Moshael Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought in fall 2021. The class was co-taught by Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, Straus Center director, and Dr. Shaina Trapedo, Straus Center resident scholar .

After getting to know each student by name, hometown, and favorite Shakespeare character, Dr. Berman addressed the unique opportunity and value of studying Shakespeare at Yeshiva University.

Fascinating similarities and differences emerge when the same concerns and complexities of the human experience that Shakespeare addresses in his works are studied in conversation with biblical narratives and Torah tradition. What relationships matter? How should we prioritize personal and communal interests and obligations? Who deserves authority and leadership?

Among the breadth and depth of Shakespeares canon, Dr. Berman shared that Hamlet is his favorite play, in part, because of its focus on the relationship between elocution and action, and the pleasure and purpose that comes with the ability to unpack [the] heart with words.

Dr. Berman invited students to bring the page to life with an enlivened reading of an understudied and often-trimmed scene in modern productions. In Act 4, Scene 4, as Hamlet departs for England by the kings commission, he sees Fortinbras of Norway leading his army (over the stage) through Denmark on their way to attack Poland. In questioning the captain, Hamlet learns that thousands of men are marching into battle to gain a little patch of ground that hath in it no profit but the name. Fortinbras, driven by honor code and courage, spurs Hamlet to reflect on his own failure to avenge his fathers murder and finally resolves that from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth.

Guiding the class through a careful close-reading of this scene and the plays dramatic conclusion, Dr. Berman noted that Hamlet and Fortinbras have been understood as foils for centuriesthe former a man of words and the later a man of actionand while Fortinbras emerges as the ostensible hero who gains property and power by the end of the play, it is Hamlets story that we are obliged to tell, forcing us to re-evaluate which stories endure and why.

Turning to Tanakh, Dr. Berman invited the students to consider another case of contrasts. Using classical commentaries and Midrash, Dr. Berman demonstrated that the Patriarchs were either shepherds (like Abraham and Jacob, who spent time engaged in reflective isolation) or farmers (like Isaac, who favored his son, Esau, also a man of the field).

Yet in Joseph, we find a remarkable synthesis. While Shakespeare presents and preserves a dialectic between Hamlet and Fortinbrasnoble intellect in pursuit of truth against steadfast worldly engagementJoseph, driven by faith and service to God, directs his wisdom and skills toward the well-being of society, offering a powerful paradigm for Jewish leadership today. The story of the Jewish people, Dr. Berman emphasized, is still being written, and Yeshiva University students have an active role to play in the collective betterment of humanity and moving history forward.

You can learn more about the Straus Center and sign up for our newsletterhere. Be sure to also like us onFacebook, follow us onTwitterandInstagramand connect with us onLinkedIn.

Read more here:

Dr. Berman on Leadership, Shakespeare and the Talmud - Yu News

A woman who claimed on Facebook that Grenfell Tower victims were burnt alive in a Jewish sacrifice has been found guilty of stirring up race hate.

Tahra Ahmed, 51, posted virulently antisemitic conspiracy theories on social media, with one sent just days after the fire in West London that claimed the lives of 72 people.

An Old Bailey jury deliberated for eight hours to find her guilty by a majority of 11 to one of two charges of stirring up racial hatred by publishing written material.

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

During the trial, prosecutor Hugh French said Ahmeds posts in January and June 2017 had crossed the line as to what is acceptable in a liberal society.

On June 18 2017 four days after the disaster she posted a video on Facebook of the blaze and referred to it as a Jewish sacrifice.

She stated: Ive been at the scene, at the protest and at the community meetings and have met many of the victimssome who were still in the same clothes they escaped in.

They are very real and genuine, their pain and suffering is raw and deep and their disgusting neglect by authorities continues.

Watch the footage of people trapped in the inferno with flames behind them.

They were burnt alive in a Jewish sacrifice.

Ahmed went on to link Grenfell to an antisemitic conspiracy surrounding the 9/11 terror attacks in New York in 2001.

An earlier post, on January 26 2017, also set out an antisemitic conspiracy theory, jurors were told.

Police launched an investigation after a story was published in The Times newspaper on December 11 2017, focusing on some of those who attended public meetings after the fire.

An examination of Ahmeds Facebook account revealed a history of antisemitic comments, the court heard.

Mr French said that, while Ahmeds Facebook account demonstrated strongly held beliefs, the two posts identified were clear demonstrations of racial hatred.

The prosecutor said: Looking at the language of the posts, the crude racial stereotyping and the insulting tone, the Crown say that you can infer that she posted them either intending to stir up racial hatred (or) that racial hatred was likely to be stirred up.

Mr French told jurors that people sometimes expressed outspoken or offensive views on social media and were entitled to their opinions.

But there was a limit, and the right to express views had to be balanced with the rights of other people, often minority communities, to live without being stigmatised or abused, he added.

Ahmed, from Tottenham, North London, denied wrongdoing, arguing her posts were political rather than antisemitic.

She made no reaction in court as the jury delivered its verdicts on Friday.

Judge Mark Dennis adjourned sentencing until February 11.

Ordering a pre-sentence report and allowing Ahmed continued bail, he said: All sentencing options are open. Nothing must be read into that one way or another.

Tahras post

According to the CST, the prosecution said posts on Ahmeds Facebook account revealed a history of antisemitic comments and propagation of a number of conspiracy theories, including references to the Holocaust and 9/11.

TheCST made a formal complaint to the police about Ahmeds post, and Mark Gardner, its chief executive subsequently provided a series of witness statements for the prosecution case, explaining the antisemitic and grossly offensive nature of Ahmeds comments.

Dave Rich of CST told Jewish News:Tahra Ahmeds claim that the Grenfell fire was a Jewish sacrifice is one of the most despicable antisemitic slurs I have ever heard. Grenfell was a terrible tragedy and for her to exploit it to promote her vile hatred of Jewish people is beyond belief. It is absolutely right that she has been held accountable for her actions. Tahra Ahmed left nobody in any doubt about her twisted worldview when she gave evidence herself. It was an antisemitic stream of consciousness full of abusive, hurtful and utterly false claims about Judaism and Jewish people. She is in a long tradition of antisemites who claim that they are only criticising the religious teachings of the Talmud, or Zionist politics, or some mysterious secret cabal, but really it is all just a way of dressing up old-fashioned hatred of Jews.

A police investigation into Ahmeds activities arose as a result of a story published in The Times newspaper on December 11 2017 focused on some of the people who attended public meetings after the Grenfell fire.

Following the verdict at the Old Bailey,Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: Tahra Ahmed sought to twist the Grenfell Tower tragedy to fit her venomous world view in which it seems that any evil can be attributed to Jews. She used peoples suffering and anger in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy and tried to wield it as a weapon against Jews before an audience of tens of thousands on social media.

We are pleased that the jury has convicted her over her wicked fabrications. As we have seen, her hatred has not only enabled her to abuse the Grenfell tragedy, but also to accuse Jews of being responsible for 9/11 and of supposedly exaggerating the Holocaust. As the prosecution observed, she used her position as an aid volunteer in the aftermath of Grenfell to bait the mob against Jewish people, making her conduct particularly repulsive.

More:

Woman who said Grenfell victims 'burnt alive in Jewish sacrifice' guilty of race hate - Jewish News

A few days ago I came across the recently published The Social Justice Torah Commentary, an anthology of essays by various rabbis and Jewish social justice activists on issues such as racism, climate change, mass incarceration, immigration, disability, womens rights and voting rights. The book is meant to be a guide for weekly Torah study and is undoubtedly a rich source of material for sermons. I havent read all the essays, but the ones I have read provide an interesting take on Jewish texts and concepts.

As a criminal justice reform and mental health advocate, I especially appreciated Rabbi Joel Mosbachers essay riffing on Parashat Acharei Mot, addressing the overrepresentation of people with severe mental illness in our criminal justice system. I do not agree with every point made in the books essays but regard such commentary as a completely legitimate way to look at Torah in light of contemporary moral and social realities.

But then I read a Times of Israel article by Rabbi Barry Block, the anthologys editor, and I was reminded of precisely whats wrong with contemporary Jewish social justice discourse and, perhaps, with the book itself.

Referencing the battles over the way race and racism are taught in K-12 schools, Rabbi Block said that as a rabbi he is troubled by this assault on the concept of social justice, which Jewish religious leaders have been championing for longer than the term has existed.

The truth is, he said, that social justice is a noble and worthy concept that has every place in our classrooms and our broader society. At this critical time in our nations historywhen many Americans have a renewed understanding of the extent to which systemic racism has infected our nation, while many others willfully close their eyes to that harsh realityembracing our Jewish tradition of social justice has never been so pressing.

I couldnt agree more that social justice is central to who we are as Jews and our role in the world. And I couldnt disagree more with the narrow manner in which some rabbis and activists define that term for the community.

Last I checked, nowhere in the voluminous commentary on social issues in the Jewish tradition is there a single mention of the term systemic racism. To be sure, racism is a perfectly valid explanation of disparity among different groups in society. But it is not the only explanation. Attributing our social ills to systemic racism alone ignores the crucial role played by poverty and socio-economic status (especially generational wealth), family structure, and the sheer amount of time it takes for a community that experienced centuries of oppression to rise out of its previous conditions. Indeed, insisting that there is a single way to understand group outcomes and that anyone who disagrees or cites alternative explanations is willfully closing their eyes is mind bogglingly illiberal.

This is gospel, not commentary.

This shrunken conception of social justiceI call it Tikkun Olam Hakatan (a small tikkun olam)excludes from its covenant millions of American Jews who want to make the world a better place but may not agree with this particular formulation about what needs to be fixed or how to fix it. We shouldnt have to all agree on exactly what ails society or from where it derives in order to be part of the social justice fold.

According to the Pew Survey, 45 percent of politically conservative Jews say that social justice is essential to their Jewishness. Seventy percent of very liberal Jews agree. If social justice werent so closely linked to a particular ideological and political agenda, imagine how many more conservatives might emphasize it. Nearly half do already!

My friend Leon is a Jewish political conservative. He is highly engaged in supporting people with disabilities, volunteers an untold number of hours to the cause and donates thousands of dollars every year. While Leon recognizes that American history is replete with racial discrimination and that such discrimination persists in certain sectors, he doesnt believeand not for lack of consideration of the evidencethat systemic racism exists in America today. While I do not agree with Leon that there is no systemic racism in society, I know that his heart is in the right place and I honor his support for people with disabilities in the best tradition of Jewish social justice.

Does Leons wrongthink on systemic racism bar him from this very exclusive Jewish social justice club for the ideologically pure?

One can feed the hungry and not agree with the systemic racism explanation of disparity.

One can welcome the stranger and not agree with that explanation of disparity.

One can work to change our criminal justice system and not agree with that explanation of disparity.

Whats missing from the Social Justice Torah Commentarynot just from the book but from the philosophyare the multiple ways people can engage in social justice and make the world a better place. The Talmudthe original commentary on Torahis a collection of thousands of arguments among rabbis, and then even more arguments by later rabbis about what the earlier rabbis were arguing about.

One would expect that progressive Jewish thinkers would emulate this mode of commentary and argumentation about how to best lift people up. One would hope that their vision of a more perfect world would include people with whom they disagree just like the rabbis in the Talmud did in their time.

Nothing about social justice should be controversial, Rabbi Block tells us. To the contrary, everything about social justice should be controversial.

It is through controversy and argumentation that we develop both better insights into and more creative solutions to our social ills. The Rabbis in Talmudic times understood this in their own context. Too many in todays progressive rabbinate dont.

The problem with modern Jewish social justice discourse is not that it doesnt have anything valuable to add to Jewish life, but rather that it claims an absolute monopoly on the truth and regards anyone who disagrees as willfully closing their eyes.

The problem with modern Jewish social justice discourse is not that it doesnt have anything valuable to add to Jewish lifeit has much to addbut rather that it claims an absolute monopoly on the truth and regards anyone who disagrees as willfully closing their eyes.

We need a bigger, more inclusive vision of Jewish social justice.

David Bernstein is the Founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values (JILV.org). Follow him on Twitter @DavidLBernstein.

Here is the original post:

The Incredibly Shrinking Conception of Jewish Social Justice - Jewish Journal

The first teaching of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah famously speaks of four new years, among them Tu BShevat as the New Year for the Trees. In Jewish law, the 15th of Shevat marks a turning point for the status of fruit, from forbidden to permitted; in kabbalistic tradition, its an occasion for a mystical Seder. In this Yiddish story, Tu BShevat resounds, instead, with the awe of the High Holiday season: It is the arboreal Day of Judgment. The trees stand trial, while the prosecutor and the defense argue their cases with Talmudic proofs. Published in 1904, Fridmans fable presents a dark and unsettling take on the notions of sin, merit, and justice before the Heavenly Court.

Though the trees intone hymns and three times a day they sway with praise for His beloved Name, He who gives them sun and rain in their season; though the trees persist in exalting the One whose praises cannot be exhausted, who told humankind that grapes are delicious and olives rich, so that they should be ripped and eaten; though the trees have never strayed to another, they do not even know the taste of their own fruitsstill, their hearts flutter: perhaps they are not pure of sin

But the great, massive trees with their wide branchesthey, who hoarded the suns warmth for themselves, hiding its shine from the others; they, who were the first to be dampened with fresh dew drops and the last to fall in a storm; they, who looked upon the lovely flowers and youthful saplings with bare condescension, at times sparing them a few rays of sunthese trees stand tall and secure. Such trees need not tremble on the Day of Judgment! Satan himself has not enough power to accuse them. And when they do join the others in their appeal to the heavens, it is a gesture of goodwill.

And the hoarse cry of a shofar sounds through forest and garden. A branch cracks, the wind howls. The trees strike Ashamnu and the whole forest quivers and trembles before the mighty and awesome Day of Judgment.

It is winter, and the trees, poor things, are frozen from the cold. Branches that once bore fruit are shriveled now, stooped under heavy snow. Fruits lie gathered in cellars; no one cares for the trees until they are needed once more.

They were told that winter was for their sake; granted to them, to rest and gather strength for the summer, to grow and to bloom. They were told that winter would only last three months, it would be over quickly, and then a sweet spring would arrive, with its fields of flowers and fragrant breezes, brilliant sun and skies

And the trees, Gods precious creationswith the power to nourish a world but not a drop of intellectdo not ask of what use this summer may be; as though they had forgotten that their shadows shielded others, their fruits nourished someone else. And so they wait for spring, hoping for summer.

And in the summertime? They struggle to support fruits they can barely lift; too often a branch breaks from the unbearable load, a tree withers before its time. But things are a touch happier. From time to time a warm ray alights; one is sprinkled with dewdrops. Though theres not much to enjoy, one forgets his troubles, the noise all around, savoring the sensation of pride and vengeance as humans walk past another tree that has borne less fruit

But now its winter and oh, how difficult it is to live in such bitter cold! Oh, how difficult to withstand a storm! It is a strange winter; it started already in autumn, and now it stretches on endlessly, unceasing. Who knows how long it will last? And what if, heavens forbid, they receive a damning decree on the Day of Judgment?

And the hoarse cry of a shofar sounds through forest and garden. A branch cracks, the wind howls. The trees strike Ashamnu and the whole forest quivers and trembles before the mighty and awesome Day of Judgment.

The court is ready; the prosecutor reads aloud the record of sins.

The first accused is an apple tree. His branch felled a neighbors fruit, and for this sin he will be judged.

And he weeps, the accused, swearing he is not guilty. A rascal threw a rock that hit his branch; the branch, bending over in pain, felled the fruit.

He defends himself! the prosecutor cries. He asks for mercy: This is proof of guilt. Next.

The defense counsel tries to rise, but they wont allow it. An admission by the accused is worth the testimony of a hundred witnesses. No further claim can redeem him.

The grapevine is second on trial. He has made souses who have succumbed to drink.

And the vine, he bursts out laughing:

Drinking is a crime? Then may their mouths be stopped up! I forced no one!

The defense counsel rises. The prosecutor does not stop him; he appears to be asleep.

Is it really the vines fault, the defense counsel opens, that they drink themselves to intoxication? His wine is sweet and stronga joy for God and man. To punish him would be a crime.

The mouse does not steal the foodthe hole does, the prosecutor cries out, then catches himself. It is pointless.

Next is the cherry tree. A bird of prey poisoned itself from his berries.

The court rings with cries: Murderer! Murderer! The tree quivers in fright.

If only it would quiet down, the murderer could defend himself: The bird of prey devoured his choicest fruits! He is not guilty that the cherry juice turned to poison as the bird stuck its tongue inside. But the clamor of the birds party and the cries of Murderer! silence him.

The defense counsel is lost for words, and the prosecutor yells and carries on frightfully. The court is glad when the case is quickly resolved.

The olive tree is fourth. His sin: drawing from an unkosher source

The audience lets out a wave of astonished cries as the olive tree approaches. Him, under trial? They do not understand.

Glancing around, the olive tree stands calm. Its no simple matter, charging an olive tree.

The defense counsel finds a merit: One uses his oil for the menorah. The wicks of the Eternal Flame are soaked in its fats. Therefore

He neednt say more. This is a fine merit. And if it draws from an unkosher source, then, G-d forbid, the menorah would be unfit, the Eternal Flame impure ... The prosecutor knows this, and lets him continue.

And so it goes, tree after tree, some of them proud and assured, others stooped and broken.

And when no accused remain, the sexton of the court reads the verdicts aloud:

The apple tree confessed to felling the fruit of his neighbor. The righteous court sentences him to grow without rain.

The vines claims have been accepted. He is not guilty.

The cherry tree is a murderer. He confessed, and must therefore give his fruit to the bird of prey in perpetuity. His confession has saved him from death.

The holy olive tree is pure.

And this tree ... and that tree The list continues until the last defendant.

And when the court hall empties, the prosecutor and the defense counsel smile, watching the trees depart. They are pleased with their compromise.

Translated by Dalia Wolfson

See the original post:

The Day of Judgment for the Trees - Tablet Magazine