Elliot Ratzman's Talk

I really enjoyed this speaker. He was very down-to-earth and spoke to us on an equal level, which is really important when presenting information such as his. Too often speakers on community service and social action talk down and make you feel like a terrible person, and guilty attacking is often not the most affective way to convince an audience to change. I really liked the points that Elliot Ratzman made, and I thought he had some fresh viewpoints and ideas on how we can affectively make a change.

For me, one of the hardest parts about giving is that I always felt like I couldn't truly make a difference. I was only a young member of society who no one really took seriously, and how was I supposed to convinve any one of what to do. How did I know my money was going to a good cause? How did I know if my action or donation would ever really touch someone's life? Recently, I have found inspiration in a good friend of mine, Hilary. She is a fellow students of mine here at UD, and it was she who organized the STAND at UD group on campus. This group works with the national STAND foundation to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Over the course of only two years, I have watched this organization grow from the ground up, to the point where they are now part of a network of thousands who help to fight this injustice. Hilary' s chapter was named "STAND chapter of the month" recently; they attend rallies, help promote awareness on campus, make phone calls and send countless letters to politicians and other local officials urging them to take action, and even help raise money in the community. Hilary leads a message board in which she encourages and helps countless people our age to find ways in which they can really help change the situation in Darfur. Before this, I really don't think I ever had an example of someone who I could identify with that truly made a difference. It is incredibly inspiring to see someone you consider a friend take such leaps to help people who are suffering at the hands of injustice. And finally seeing someone close to me have success has truly made me realize that I can do something concrete to help.

I also really liked that Elliot Ratzman gave me some points on how to affectively pick a cause that is right for you. He said to pick something I am passionate about, because then I will want more and more to help out. He also advised that I find somewhere where I can do more than just donate money occasionally, because then I will feel more mentally and emotionally involved. Most of all I like that he suggested I find something specific and possibly even solvable. By really honing in one one issue and using all available resources to make a change in it, then a concrete solution may result in the time you are working with that organization. Seeing an end finally put to the injustice that you have been working to stop is a really motivating factor to keep pushing and keep fighting for everyone in the world.

Rebekah Klein-Pejsova's talk

First and foremost, I'll agree with most of the other blog participants that this lecture was a bit over my head. I think there was too much crammed into one hour, and with little to no background in the subject area, I found myself lost for the most part. As far as the politics were concerned, I tried to follow along but found myself just getting more and more confused. When I asked Rebekah for a recap of "why this study of Slovakia helps us understand larger ideas," I was given four responses that I could almost understand. I guess I'm going to just try and talk about the one thing that I did get out of her lecture, and I hope that it was one of the things that she intended for me to understand: how Jews and their struggles with identity in Slovakia can provide a case study for how Jews struggle to maintain their own cultural identity and still have a national identity within the country that they live.

As far as I understood, Jews within Slovakia were put in a difficult situation when it came to the creation of Hungary's "Heroes Temple Memorial". On the one hand, this memorial was being created for the Jewish soldiers who lost their lives in the war. However, on the other hand, this was a Hungarian war memorial, and many of the Jews who were being asked to participate were part of the Slovak territory that now belonged to Czech Republic. The Czech repulic wanted to see that the Jews in Slovakia were really loyal to their new borders, and their fears were not unreasonable, given the delicate situation that these Jewish people were in. After conducting an investigation in 1931, they found that Slovak Jews really didn't participate in the Hungarian project. Why is this? The Slovak Jews, while they wanted to commemorate their dead, did recognize their loyalty to their new borders. They liked the higher standards of living that Slovakia provided, and were through dealing with the anti-semetic political platforms in Hungary. So, as a compromise, Slovak Jews began to commemorate their soldiers locally. The created plaques in local cemetaries, etc... They were able to maintain their Jewish identity and their duty to their lost loved ones while still operating within the boundaries of their new nation. It was not so much about assimilation, since for the most part these Jews kept a separate cultural identity; it was about respect for the land that, at the moment, they called home.

I can understand this scenario. Jewish people are scattered all around the world today, and they have been for as far back as I can recall. The concepts of Jewish identity and national identity have always been questioned; can the two be different and still exist harmoniously? It is a question that is difficult to answer, and for all of us who don't have the fortune to live in a Jewish nation, it is a problem that we struggle with daily. This goes back to when I talked about, in another post, whether I was a Jewish-American or an American-Jew. If I call myself a Jewish-American, then I am recognizing myself as nationally American, but culturally Jewish. In this conversation, I think this identification makes me most sense. At the end of the day, I am Jewish, and that culture comes with certain responsiblities that I refuse to ignore. However, I am also a citizen of the United States of America, and for better or worse, I do feel a sense of national identity to this place I have called home for my entire life. And so, when I make decisions, I try to still maintain my responsibilities to my Jewish culture, even if I have to accomodate them a little in order to stay loyal to my national identity. It's a confusing mix of labels, but throughout Jewish history there have been tons ofquestions surrounding Jews and their true loyalties, many times to the point that it lead to their destruction. It is unfortunate, too, that so often the Jewish people were persecuted, because I almost can bet that if you actually took time to ask the Jewish people living in those nations, they would give you an answer similar to that of mine and the Slovak Jews.

Elliot Ratzman

I thought Elliot Ratzman's speech was enlightening. I was especially drawn to his explanation of some theologists ideas about our responsibility to strangers. I like the idea of treating the relationship as holy, and essentially treating everyone as equals and with a blank slate. It is hard to imagine taking this idea to its fullest extent, because of basic human nature, but I like the ideal. A common thread of Judaism is the idea of the mitzvah and I thought this falls in that category. To be able to give to people you most likely will never meet is the ultimate mitzvah. Every day people get caught up in their own problems and don't consider how truly lucky they really are. Knowing that by donating a very insignificant amount of money could help cure children of a life-threatening disease is saddening to me because so few people actually do that. It is very honorable that many Jewish groups have stood up against other genocides not only because of the Holocaust but because of the injustices and atrocities that take place. I liked Ratzman's ideas of how to give as much as you can by using donations as wedding presents. In my own family during the holidays we give small presents to one person and donate the money we would have spent on everyone else to a specific charity. From this lecture I will definitely try to be a better person and Jew, trying to remember how fortunate I am and that I can always give something whether it be time or money to helping those who need it most.

Elliot Ratzman

I really enjoyed Elliot Ratzman’s lecture this week. The talk raised many thought provoking questions, such as “where does the responsibility lay in battling injustices in other countries?”, “why aren’t more people today outraged?” and “how do we manage concern of suffering?” I found two aspects of his lecturing very important. 1. He didn’t encourage all of us to go home, throw out all our wordly possessions, and start a brigade to save the world. Rather, he suggested that if one does want to help, they could start by picking a cause they feel very strongly for, and maybe setting aside part of their income to champion it. 2. He noted that the Jewish community as a whole puts a strong emphasis on helping others, but this of course is not simply limited to Jews. Ratzman mentioned Peter Singer’s views on how we let atrocities be committed around us everyday. Singer calls our indifference “letting children drown,” which I find to be a painful, and sadly true fact of society. Ratzman mentioned that we have a responsibility to help those in need, and with today’s technology, our actual proximity to the problems is inconsequential. I found Ratzman’s lecture to be encouraging for us to make a difference, and not berating us for not doing enough.

Elliot Ratzman- Amy Zitelman

Mr. Ratzman's lecture was really interesting.  During his lecture I was thinking about my sister.  My sister, Jackie, is a really caring and giving person; so much so that most of her everyday thoughts revolve around giving to others.  She completely believes in an unending and infinite responsibility to others.  I really appreciate her and others like her who encourage people to make an extra effort to "click" on the breast cancer site, do freerice on the internet, and participate in other giving products such as those.  I really admire my sister and others that think and act like her, since I do not.  I appreciate their constant and sincere worry and obligation to others because, I admit, I am not that kind of person.  I am willing and happy to be able to give when I can, but I definitely need others to point me in the correct direction.

I appreciated the fact that Ratzman mentioned that Jews should not look at the demand of giving to others as a Christian view of Saints.  It is not our way to give completely of ourselves in order to provide for the other.  Rather there should be a balance; such as the Tzadik that still lives with his family and community.

This lecture was really inspirational to me.  It really made me want to make more of an effort to give when I can, and to live my life with the "others" in mind. 

Dr. Klein

I feel that this lecture was not for a Jewish studies student of my knowledge level. I did not posses the background knowledge assumed by Dr. Klein to understand the depth of her lecture. Although i was quite lost from the majority of the presentation i did find a few details she discussed interesting. I was fascinated by the tactics (or rather the lack there of) used to establish the boarders used to represent the new Jewish community. From what i gathered her main points were on citizenship in inter war Slovakia, Jewish loyalty and nationality. I am interested in her area of studies and would definitely like to expand my knowledge on the history like topics Dr. Klein discussed, but her lecture was just a bit too complex and advanced for someone with my level of experience in Jewish studies. Some pears agree with me on the idea that it would have been possible for her to make her information more understandable and clear as well as more interesting. One thing that i may have been a little more interested in hearing and better able to follow and relate to would have been more about the individual challenges of the Jewish family in the time period and settings she discussed. Again, good discussion but unfortunately for me just not any thing i could really grasp.

Dr. Klein-Pejsova

Having no previous knowledge of the subject, Dr. Klein-Pejsova’s lecture was very confusing and vague. Prior experience with the topic of Judaism in Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechoslovakia would have greatly helped understanding this lecture. Her main point of connecting Jews to their national identity seemed unfounded by her lecture and the slides she showed. I don’t understand how a synagogue being built in a country really relates to those Jews feeling a sense of national identity. That point seemed to be unjust in that there was really no national pride evidence in what she showed us. I thought the point about the borders being randomly selected and the effect that had on people’s lives was very interesting. It was good to know that the Jews in Europe did feel a great sense of belonging to there homelands before Israel came about. The Slovakian Jews were not tormented like other countries after the First World War, which comes as sort of a surprise to me. But the fact that this innovative Jewish nationalistic lifestyle would fall only years later highlights the importance of that time.

Dr. KIein - Pejsova

For this lecture, I thought that we needed previous background of the Jews in Hungary before World War I. I was unclear about how the lines were drawn and what the treaty put in place for Jewish citizens. I did think that it was very interesting how Slovakia became a breeding place for Jewish culture and tradition when Jews previously had been ostracized by their peers. I wish we could have learned more individually what life was like for Jews in each community. I felt that she talked a lot about Jewish life as a whole and even she pointed out that in various parts of the nation, life was extremely different. It's crazy to think that borders that were drawn fairly randomly decided how Jewish citizens would be treated and how much their treatment differed from the neighboring countries. It was interesting the story she told about the Memorial for Jewish Soldiers in Budapest because this could have been an opportunity for Slovakia's government to use the Jewish people as a scapegoat and turn the other Slovakians against them but instead they placed a ban that interfered with Jewish people talking to the Hungarians but did not place harm on the citizens' views on Jews. It was sad knowing that the culture that she talked about so excitedly would be destroyed in World War II. However, t was refreshing to hear of a place that wasn't filled with antisemitism as so many other countries of that time.

Dr. Klein-Pesova

I am not often one to be critical, but I too was dissatisfied with this presentation. The topic of Judaism in inter-war Slovakia could be interesting, but the discussion was too jumbled and did not mesh properly.  In contrast to our other lectures, this one was overly specific and not able to be broadened or applied to other topics. However, Dr. Klein-Pesova did have some interesting points and ideas. The idea of Judaism as a nationality and its ties to the Jewish identity within post-war developing states is an interesting perspective. In thinking of European Jewry, one tends to think of independent Jewish communities, not a collective identity. With the rampant effects of nationalism in Europe, it is no surprise that Judaism arose as a sudo-nationality. I was surprised at the information that Jews were very quick to disassociate with the Magyars and realign with the Slovakians as the transition from empire occurred. In the fall of an empire into different states, I would have thought that a strong, established Jewish community may have pushed for a region or area of their own. This was all taking place at the same time as a main push of Zionism was developing, yet there was no mention of Zionist activity in this region. The rise of religious community, i.e. the synagogues, mikvahs, and kosher slaughterhouses, didn't lead to any sort of push for autonomy. This lecture had some interesting topics and points, but it was difficult to understand and process. 

Dr. Klein

I did not feel Dr. Klein adequately explained how the Jews of Hungry,Slovakia or Czechoslovakia identified nationally with their respective country.
The photographs she presented to the class were of Orthodox and Hasidic synagogues.This implies that Jews were at a higher level of observance,but what was their connection to national identity?How does a Hasidic Jew,with his Hasidic garb,believing in G-d and practicing an Orthodox way of life,possibly care to identify with a nation in which he is incidentally born into?The only nation a Jew can have an intrinsic connection to is the land of Israel.Dr. Klein was not clear about how the building of synagogues created a national identity for Czechoslovak Jews.Building synagogues creates a Jewish identity, not a national one!
Dr.Klein assumed way too much from her audience.For instance,we could have all benefited from a map depicting the shift of borders before and after WWII.The map she used was confusing and not everyone is familiar with European geography.
Finally,I did not find Dr. Klein receptive to related questions nor could she answer them confidently without the use of her notes.When asked,"Why did the Jews have German names that did not correspond to their Hebrew names?" her answer was,"a persons' German name has no correlation to their Hebrew name." WRONG!!!!The German names referred to those written on the gravestone in a Reform (Neolog) cemetery.Oftentimes Reform Jews were the ones most willing to accommodate their Jewish lifestyles to that of the host nation.If Dr. Klein had done her research she would have known that Reform Jews used their German names as a way to assimilate to the nation they were living under.This was their way of identifying with their nation---but she did not say that.
Overall,I would have liked to hear less of what she discussed and more of the daily challenges and struggles a Slovakian Jew experienced,how their life differed from mine,and what hopes and dreams they envisioned for the future.

Interwar Slovakia

Rebekah Klein-Pejsova spoke to us about Jewish loyalty, nationality and citzenship in Interwar Slovakia. To be honest, the entire presentation was way over my head. As of late, we had focused on differing modes of Judaism, but this was an entirely different subject alltogether. Having no previous knowledge of Jewish involvement in Slovakia, I found it difficult to follow. Mrs. Klein-Pejsova told us that the Jews were a suspect minority in Slovakia, and that a Czech was a Czech and a Czechoslovak was a Slovak. In terms of us learning from what the Jews experienced while in Slovakia, we can observe 1. the transition to an empire state, 2. broad changes in the region and 3. how an international situation affects dom developments. A large portion of the lecture dealt with the Treaty of Trianaan (sp?) which was a disaster for Hungary. The Hungarian Jewry wished to revise this treaty entirely. I wish that this lecture had been easier to follow, and that relevance to us being Jews today was introduced. I felt the topic to be very unrelatable for me. Having some connection made between us and the Slovakian Jews would have given the lecture more of an impact.

Amy Zitelman march 18

 I was not in class today... will not be posting for this week.

Matthew Lagrone

There were many points during this lecture where I was very lost, however I did find Mr. Lagrone’s lecture to be very informative on the subject of modern Judaism in America. The views of Kohut and Kohler were discussed, each having opposite visions for the future of Judaism in America. Kohut was the traditionalist of the two, believing things should carry on as they had for years unchanged. Kohler hoped that Jewish law would adapt to current American culture, saying that Jewish law was from a near pre-historic like bygone era. I think both of these offer valid points but neither really highlights the key to Judaism’s success in America, in my opinion at least. As Matthew Lagrone emphasized, Judaism is not a hierarchy as other religions are. There is no final authority on anything, something that really separates it from other faiths. I think this is a vital attribute to the success of Judaism and all religions in American. Faith needs to be open for interpretation; there can’t be any right or wrong way in which religious law is practiced. However, this must be done with an eye on the roots of religion, it can never stray to far from the center of the beliefs it was founded on.

Matthew Lagrone

Similar to past lecturers, Matthew Lagrone’s talk discussed different modules of conservative Judaism, specifically concerning Alexander Kohut and Kaufman Kohler. While I was admittedly quite confused during most of the lecture, I did find that Kohut articulated conservative philosophy, defined by 1. volunteerism, 2. denominationalism and 3. pluralism. Volunteerism is considered to be the hallmark of American Judaism. Mr. Lagrone discussed other trademarks of American Judaism. First, American Jews are Jews by birth and choice. Second, American Jews have no chief rabbi. Mr. Lagrone said this was more akin to baptists then catholics. I found this part of the lecture to be interesting, as it made me take a step back and observe who I am as a Jewish American. Kohut also allowed some changes, and defines Judaism as conservative progress. The talk centered around differing views regarding the fluidity of Jewish law. I believe that part of my confusion was due to the usage of many words unfamiliar to me. For example, I am only mildly acquainted with the term “kehila.”

Matthew LaGrone

I am skipping this week.

Matthew Lagrone

Like some of my peers in the class, I have found it hard to talk about last weeks lecture. In efforts not to be critical of Mr. Lagrone's delivery of the material, I find that I'm at a loss of words. For most of the lecture, I was confused, although with the help of the knowledge from the past lecturers, I wasn't completely lost. The main point i took away from Lagrone's lecture was that the conservative movement serves as a balance between traditional and reform. Kohut was a figure who embodied the centrism in the argument of traditionalist vs. reform. I believe that the thoery behind the conservative movement is to be centered between orthodox and reform, yet I dont necessarily think the theory is always put into action. We have briefly talked about how Jewish people tend to make their own rules and exceptions, so i think that the balance of the conservative movement is just the case. As it is, i belong to an egalitarian conservative temple. The men and women are mixed in the synagogue and woman can go on the bima and say prayers from the Torah. In other conservative temples, this may not be the case. What I am trying to say, is what i got from Lagrone's lecture was that there is a theoretical balance between reform and orthodox within the conservative movement, but like many aspects of American Judasim, people take the restrictions and such into their own hands. Subsequentially they have created a personalized version of what we call the conservative movement.

Matthew LaGrone; Amy Zitelman

I have been trying to figure out who I agree with more; Kohut or Kohler.  Both have really interesting opinions on where Judaism should have gone in America.

Kohut wanted to extend the chain of tradition, thought that "reform is a deformity", and that fidelity to Jewish Law will preserve the Jewish people.

On the other hand, Kohler wanted to end the chain of tradition and live under American Law, was "receptive of ideas of present" and thought that the "rabbinic observe obsolete laws of bygone days."

After thinking about it for a while, I realized that Kohler's opinion really disturbed me.  Kohler was too reformed; almost to the extent that I believe that if we followed him, Judaism would be lost.  Although, if Kohut's ideas were wholly followed, it would be very difficult to live as a Jew in America. 

Hence, a combination of them is, in my opinion, the solution.  And it is a combination of their opinions that I find I live my life.  I am "receptive of ideas of present" but also follow Jewish tradition and laws as major parts of my life.

Although my balance makes me not as observant of a Jew, I find that the culture and tradition still unite me with my people, and my reforms keep my in contact with the world and others around me.

March 11th Talk

I will not be posting a blog for this week. I was away on a family vacation.

Post Guidelines

Please remember that your posts should be critical reactions to the content of the talk, and not about the presentation itself.

Prof. Silver

Jordan Rosenblum's Talk

Jordan Rosenblum made a really good relation in regards to food and identity, and he was pretty funny in the process. So often when people crack a joke about a Jew or reference the Jewish religion, food is one of the first things that comes to their minds. From bagels to matzah to a strict "no bacon" policy, we certainly do have some interesting eating habits. And so often it is with a negative connotation that we are told we are different. I do admit that even I sometimes wonder how it is that many of my friends have never given in to the temptation of a juicy bacon cheeseburger, but again, that's just the American in me :) I was not brought up in a Kosher household, but I did know a couple of people who were, and I never fully understood it. I knew that it was part of the mitzvot and that there were many different rules depending on the day, but the part that always bothered me was that no one could ever give me a good reason why. "Pigs are dirty" or "GOD says so" just really weren't explanation enough for me.
I think Rosenblum made a valiant effort to try and explain why it is that pork is so forbidden, but I still feel a bit unsatisfied. I guess just because the point about the hoofs and the chewing of the cud are so random that I have trouble understanding how those could really be qualifications. Not to say that maybe at some point in history they didn't have a more prominent meaning--just now they seem like very obscure qualities. I guess there just really are no clear cut answers to this and many other issues, and so it just gets frustrating in the search for answers. I did enjoy the packet of quotes that accompanied the talk, however, sometimes I felt like they carried the presentation too much, and there wasn't enough of his own explanation inbetween. But overall Rosenblum had a good point. Everyone has to eat; it's what they choose to eat that can tell you something about them.

3/11/08

I skipped this week.

Jordon Rosenblum

Three or four days before Jordon Rosenblum's lecture, I was sitting in my friends apartment listening to the four of them order sandwiches (all are Jewish by birth). My first three friends ordered and all their sandwiches had some type of pig in them (bacon, ham, etc.). At this time, the fourth roommate turned to me and said, “I don’t understand these kids, they just order ham with no problem, I’m Jewish, I’d never do that.”

For some reason these words echoed in my head. Of all the things to associate being Jewish with, he chose not eating pig. At this moment my own life came into reflection, I to had chosen food as my connection to Judaism. When I first came to the University of Delaware, I kept the exact laws as I did in my father’s home, not driving on the Sabbath, putting on Teffilian, etc. However, over my 3 years here I have gave up a lot of what I did before I came here, but I never gave up being kosher. I’ve tired to eat trief, but every time I put the food to my mouth, I always stopped and I didn’t know why.

Jordon Rosenblum’s lecture and my friend put it in perspective for me. It’s not just me who looks as eating pig as a non-Jewish thing, but the world. Jordon gave us quotes from pop culture, as well as history, telling us how the world looks at not eating pig as a Jewish thing. I really enjoyed his lecture.

Jordan Rosenblum

This was another extreme clarification for me. I knew that the Jewish did not eat pork, but i had no idea why. Mr Rosenblum did a terrific job of thoroughly informing us of his topic. The background he gave of the origins of the ban of pork was above and beyond what i had expected from someone speaking on his topic. My only off beat thought was how can he be a specialist in foods in Judaisms, there is only so much to know about foods. But by the end of his presentation i realized that there was much more to food and linking it to the culture (for example an extensive history) than i had perceived. How he used the quote from the Senator to open his presentation and start every ones brains up on the topic really pulled threw in the end after he had really explained everything. The fact that the Senator used pork to disprove him being a Jew before Mr Rosenblum really didn't do much for me. But When he brought the instance back up in the end i could definitely see how the quote was relevant and made the Senator legitimate.

Identity and Pork

Jordon Rosenblum's lecture on Jews, Pork and Identity was replete with sources from academic, rabbinic, and pop, culture. I applaud his research on questions of Jewish identity and the relationship food has on its development. I feel very strengthened to know that Jews of yesteryear have adhered to the prohibition of not consuming pork.

For traditional Jews, the Torah is the only source to find answers on what is permitted to eat and what is not. The Torah is very clear about its position on the pig. The Torah singles out the pig from other animals because on a superficial level it appears to be kosher- it has split hooves, but if we examine it a little deeper, we could ascertain the pigs' status by whether or not it chews its cud- and it doesn't.

The prohibition of abstaining from pork is a direct commandment. The commandments in the Torah are classified into 3 different types. The first type are commandments that can be easily understood, for example, do not kill, do not steal etc... The second type of commandment are those that testify to G-d's creation of the world, for example, keep the Shabbos holy. The third type of commandment are those that have no rationale for doing then. Refraining from eating pork is an example of this type of law. The Torah offers no explanation other then saying that a pig is impure.

For me, the historic and cultural meanings attached to pork discussed in class have no bearing on my decision not to eat pig. Instead, because I'm Jewish, my identity is shaped by what the Torah says is allowed to eat and not by cultural norms. It appears that everyone has a rationale to offer as to why Jews don't eat pork.From Rosenblum's handout,Philo explains that by eating pig, a Jew sabotages his/her ability to think or act rationally; the Roman author, Tactious states that Jews abstain from eating pig because of the fear of trichinosis, and French writer Grimad de la Renier claims the pig to be natures perfect food so why not indulge!

When Jews follow cultural norms instead of what the Torah wants form us, we distance ourselves from G-d and thereby sever our spiritual connection with G-d. A Jewish person's identity is tied to G-d.It is not only defined by what one does or does not eat. There are many commandments a Jew is bound to, keeping kosher is only one of them. When a Jew keeps kosher he/she rises above the physical act of eating and brings spirituality into his/her life.More than this,following the commandments is where a Jewish person's identity lies.Still,when a Jew decides not to keep kosher,he/she may temporarily sever his/her connection with G-d,but the identity remains Jewish. Senator George Allen was mistaken.Eating pork chops may have distanced him from G-d,but he is very much a member of the tribe!

Jordan Rosenblum

I thought Jordan Rosenblum was very knowledgeable on pork and other food in Jewish culture. Personally, I love bacon, so it was very interesting to see the roots of the expulsion of pigs from Jewish Cuisine. I thought he did a great job of showing different examples, using ones that ranged from the time the torah was handed down to modern day films. He really researched and presented the topic in a professional manner. He linked food and a part of Jewish identity, which I found very true. As I look around in Jewish culture and tradition today, food is as big as a part of it as anything. This really shows the understanding Mr. Rosenblum has for Jewish life today. He didn’t only limit the discussion to pork being banned from Judaism. He told many stories and examples showing how the Jewish banishment of pork has led it to be looked down upon in many other cultures. I’ve always heard that many other cultures reject eating pigs as well, but Mr. Rosenblum was the first to really explain it in terms that applied to Jewish law and modern society.

Jordan Rosenblum

I found Jordan Rosenblum's lecture to be quite fascinating, primarily because it had to do with Jews and food. I enjoyed his presentation of the information and felt that it allowed us as students to relate through his quotes. After his lecture, I found myself being acutely aware of food as it pertains to Jews. I shopped in Borders over the weekend and in the "Jewish" section there were books on Kabbalah and keeping kosher, two things many gentiles attribute as the key parts to our widespread, multi-faceted, ancient religion.
Pork always stood out as something in my mind that was a little "ify" to eat. I do not keep kosher but for some reason, pork was taboo to my pallate. After Rosenblum's lecture i can see the lineage of how pork stands out as the key forbidden food to jews.

Dr. Cohen

My mother always used to say, “If you have two Jews, you need three Synagogues.” I always thought this was a funny saying for two reasons, first being that it is an obvious exaggeration and second, because Judaism to me is very straight forward in what is permitted and what is not permitted. So why should two Jews need three Synagogues? The answer is simple. Jewish people always argue over what should be permitted and what should not be, even when it is clearly stated.

This is certainly the case with Schechter and his disciples. They tired to unify Jews by what each group was similar about and neglected each ones differences. That was there mistake. It is easy to connect people based on there similarities, but extremely difficult to connect people over differences.

Dr. Cohen made great points and was very enthusiastic about his lecture; however, being an orthodox Jew, at least in ideology, I have a hard time understanding why people took it upon themselves to try modernizing Judaism. Modernizing Judaism has led to intermarriage and other practices that are shrinking our religion. I do not mean to offend anyone by this post; it is just my personal feelings on the matter.

Response to Jordan Rosenblum

I found this presentation to be very interesting. Jordan hit on a point that is integral to Judaism, food. Just about every major Jewish event has to do with food, be it special for the occasion or fasting from it for a short time. His analysis of the absence of pork from Jews and some of the different reasonings behind this practice was well researched and presented. I especially liked the fact that he took us back through the different sources, the Bible, Rabbinic texts, texts of the middle ages as well as some contemporary ideas so that we were able to understand not only the idea now, but also where it comes from. This lecture made me interested in the topic and I would now like to study some more and examine food as a par of identity. There are so many different foods and traditions that could be examined, everything from whitefish salad to noodle kugel to Manischevitz. Food is such a mainstay in our daily lives that it is not always associated with identity and I was very pleased and intrigued with the lecture bringing up this point.

Jordan Rosenblum- Amy Zitelman

Jordan Rosenblum's has been my favorite presentation so far.  I thought his topic was very relevant, interesting, and well presented.

Jordan mentioned that the Greek/Romans noticed 3 things about Jews; that they are circumcised, that they observe Shabbat, and that they do not eat pork.  If we still walked around naked, and lived in close communities I think today's society would notice the same 3 things since many people notice when people do not eat pork.  I was actually sitting in the dining hall, and mentioned to someone that I don't eat pork, and their immediate response was to ask if I was Jewish.

My friend, also Jewish, but not observant in the least bit, also doesn't eat pork.  She claims it is because she does not like the taste, but I think that on a subconscious level she does not eat pork because of her Jewish culture and heritage.  Her parents do not serve pork in her house, and although she does not follow anything else pertaining to Judaism, not eating pork was in a way etched into her being.

I think Jordan's focus in Judaism and our culture pertaining to food is an extremely interesting subject.  I for one love food, and know that it is an important concept in any Jewish gathering.  I think Jordan has really fun subjects to be able to add into the Jewish Studies courses here.

-Amy Zitelman

Jewish Identity and the role of pork

I thought that Jordan Rosenblum gave a great discussion on the role (or lack thereof) of pork in Jewish culture and identity. The lecture started by discussing Senator George Allen’s controversial and idiotic statement that “my mother made great pork chops,” which was supposed to somehow nullify his jewish roots, but ended up being somewhat of a suicidal political move. From there the talk turned to other examples of pork in history, from Leviticus to Shakespeare.
One pork example that I found to be fascinating was “The Terefah Banquet” menu for (conservative I believe?) rabbi’s being ordained in 1883. The menu included every conceivable form of treif, barring pork. I couldn’t believe that the rabbi’s would go out of their way to indulge in clams, soft-shell crabs and sweet breads. However, these rabbi’s still did not eat pork. This shows the forbidden status of it in Jewish culture: though this particular group of rabbi’s was making an effort to show that kashrut was old-fashioned, swine was still taboo.
Having his talk center on this topic was a great idea, since probably just about all Jews know about the concept of pork being forbidden. Mr. Roseblum appeared very comfortable speaking to our class and was very knowledgable on the information.

Jews, Pork, and Identity

I thought this lecture by Jordan Rosenblum was interesting, but I would have hoped that he would have talked about other food identities in Judaism. He gave us some teasers about other Jewish food identities but never really ended up explaining them. I would be interested to know about how bagels became a Jewish identity food as well. I also would have liked to learn more about where the idea that pigs were unclean to eat came from. He talked about a theoretical explanation, but I think considering this was the whole topic it should have been explained further. I did like the way he taught the lesson with the examples of how pork was viewed within the religion as well as outside the religion. It did prove a lot and seemed like it showed stereotyping and at times antisemitism at its best. I was especially interested in the fact that the Reform Rabbis luncheon had other non-kosher food except pork. It was very telling about how far this forbidden food has been ingrained in Jewish people's heads. Overall, I enjoyed this lecture, but it left me wanting to know more.

Jordan Rosenblum

Personally, I found Rosenblum's lecture to be very interesting and relevant in the way people look at Judaism today. The fact is keeping kosher and not eating pigs is one of the first things that comes to people's minds when they think of Jews. It's interesting to think that our eating habits are such a small portion of our identity yet so prominent in people's minds when considering Judaism. One of the reasons I think people refer to the fact that Jews have somewhat strict eating rules is because eating is such a social event, and when it can be limited because of someone's religion, people notice that. I was particularly reminded of this when reading the quote Rosenblum picked out from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" when Shylock lists an abundance of things he will do with Bassanio (pretty much anything, in fact) except eat. But, since eating takes up so much time and so many things can be accomplished while eating (meetings, socializing, etc.) it was significant.
In my opinion, this topic is one that I would be interested to hear more about because it was though provoking and also has an effect on many people on such a day to day basis.

Dr. Cohen

After Rabbi Reisner's speech the previous week, I felt like Dr. Cohen's tied in well with what we had learned. I think the Conservative movement is important to understand (not necessarily more or less than any other) because it is a sort of mix between what the people want and tradition. Dr. Cohen's stress that conservatism focuses on ideology but is a movement of the middle seemed to tie into this concept.



I had only ever heard the name Shechter but was unaware of his contributions to the religion. Learning of his contributions and his vision to unite the traditional values with today's world on the basis of english sermons, modern educational methods, and order and decorum in the synagogue (a refined atmosphere) was very interesting. They were all things I have experienced during my time at synogague and while studying Judaism, but never really paid attention to. Reflecting on Shechter's contributions, I realize how imortant they were to preserving a sense of tradition in the religion. He was able to give people a way to create the unity they strove for without having to create a whole new movement. Overall, I found the speech very thought provoking and it left me wondering how my own view of Judaism would have been different without people like Shechter and their views.

Dr. Cohen

I was very interested in hearing this weeks' speaker, Dr. Michael Cohen. The history behind how Conservative Judaism unfolds, not initially as a separate group, but as a means to unite all Jews under one umbrella group, is truly a sign of Ahavat Israel, love of a fellow Jew.

I did not realize that Solomon Schechter helped establish the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) and that it began as an Orthodox establishment. It all makes sense! Jewish immigrants who come to America in the early 20^th century were looking for religious freedom, for many of them, according to noted Jewish scholar Samuel Heilman, they did not abandon their traditions despite the obstacles they faced. For example language barriers, different styles of worship and different standards of keeping kosher, to name a few.

Soloman Schechter had the vision to initiate principles that would help Jewish immigrants acculturate into American society. The principles were put into practice by Schechters’ disciples who were sent to obscure places. At first glance, the three principles, English sermons, modern educational methods and decorum in the synagogue do not appear as radical innovations by today's standards , but at the time must have been met with resistance (at least by some Orthodox factions). The reason being, when Schechters’ students implemented the principles, some students went too far. For example playing the organ on Shabbos or not keeping kosher. This created a divide between the very Orthodox and Conservative Jews Schechter envisioned to unite! Once the standards outlined in Halacha, Jewish law were not being followed, then Orthodox Jews no longer felt they could be affiliated together with the Conservative movement.

It’s abosultely true that keeping Halacha in a modern society means more often than not, standing alone. Still, I’m sadden to learn that time and time again, no matter where Jews came from or to which host country they were living in, the thing that makes them and US most Jewish is our religion.However it seems like our very religion is the first to be compromised when faced with assimilating trends into gentile societies.

Response to Dr. Michael Cohen

I don't mean to sound repetitive, but I also found Dr. Cohen's lecture to be interesting and enjoyable. The formation and history of the Conservative movement tied in nicely to last week's lecture about Tikun Olam in Conservative Judaism. I had previously heard of Solomon Schechter, mainly through the Jewish day schools he established, but I did not actually know anything about him. I found it very interesting and ironic that the United Synagogue became splintered and forced the new movements to define their positions on issues. From the lecture, Solomon Schechter seems to be a true mensch, a Jewish teacher and leader who sought to do it all and do it well. His attempts to focus on similarities rather than differences reinforces this idea. His vision has not only been realized in his Conservative movement, but other movements and practices have adopted similar practices, of which many can probably be attributed to him. Dr. Cohen's lecture made me more interested in the topic and I now hope to learn more about this.

Dr. Cohen

Growing up with many friends in the Solomon Schechter schools and belonging to a synagogue that housed one, I found this lecture very practical, peaking my interest. I’ve always wondered about the origins of this movement, and what differentiates it from other like Jewish sects. I have heard the name Solomon Schechter everywhere, but little did I know how important he was to Judaism and what he is today. I found what Dr. Cohen said about the different interpretations of Judaism is very intriguing. I have always wondered why some forms of Judaism seems to have adapted to modern influences and the like practices of other religions. What I did not know was the big part Solomon Schechter played in the progression on Judaism through the twentieth century. Dr. Cohen did a great job explaining how the students went on to try and spread Judaism throughout the country and the great deal or adversity and scarce resources. He did a great job explaining in detail how the division in Judaism was unforeseen. I left with a much better understanding of how the Jewish assimilation and modernization cam about in America. It’s a very interesting transformation, and Dr. Cohen described it in detail and in very relatable terms.

Dr. Cohen-Conservative Judaism

I really enjoyed hearing Michael Cohen speak about the foundation of Conservative Judaism. Having him tie in one of Solomon Schechter’s students with Delaware, and a shul which I am somewhat familiar with, definitely sparked my attention. I found it to be very important that he stressed that G-d did not declare on Sinai that there would be orthodox, conservative, and reform. Instead, he made it clear that these divisions came to be, instead of being pre-existing entities.

I found the information he gave us on Schecter very interesting. I had no idea that he created a group of disciples with which to form conservative Judaism as we know today. I also was unaware of the incredibly self sacrifice these disciples went under to try and form conservative communities. It seems that defining conservative Judaism has been anything but simple. Dr. Cohen said the 1970’s push to ordain women rabbi’s alienated people which seems to go against what Schechter’s aim was in trying to be all inclusive.

I thought that Dr. Cohen had a great presentation. He seemed very excited and interested, and really tried to engage the audience. His talk was more conversational then lecturing which I really enjoyed.

Dr. Michael Cohen

Sorry this took me so long to post...!

I was really interested in what Dr. Cohen spoke about.  I've always wanted to learn more about the differences between the Jewish movements and how they came about.  

I was especially shocked and interested in the fact that through Shechter's movement which was created to unify Judaism; Judaism ended up becoming more divided.  

I'm not really sure what else to write about the subject because Dr. Cohen did such a good job explaining everything clearly and answering questions.

The one aspect of Shechter and his disciples that made me uncomfortable was Dr. Cohen's second point; that Shechter and his disciples created institutions that emphasize what they have in common, and tended to ignore their differences.  They never discussed controversial issues because they did not want to alienate anyone.  This just seemed to me like such a juvenile idealistic way to go about business.  I understand why people got frustrated with that mentality, and eventually created even more movements.

The Shechter movement reminds me of today's Modern Orthodox.  From what I understand, Modern Orthodoxy respects observance but also understands the importance of modernity and association with the real world.  

Shechter's original mission and vision is very logical to me, and in an ideal world I think that it would be most beneficial for Judaism if it could work out.  

Dr. Cohen over all was a really good speaker.  He knew his material really well.  He seemed a littler uncomfortable, but that is understandable since he is extremely young and new at teaching.  I liked that he was really open minded to the teaching suggestions kids in the class offered.

-Amy Zitelman

Rabbi Reisner

I found Rabbi Reisner's talk very interesting, especially on two points. Though I consider myself a conservative Jew, and I have always known and realized the obvious differences between Orthodox, Conservatism and Reform, I had never before heard about the actual separation and how it came about. I found myself wondering what it would be like if there had not been a separation and if more people would have converted away from Judaism or simply not practiced because there were no options that fit their life style. It seems to me that with the Conservatives respect of Jewish law and awareness of the world around them, as Rabbi Reisner specified, it leaves much interpretation open to many Jews from different backgrounds and with different ideas of what religion means to them.
Given this seeming open mindedness within the Conservatives, I was very surprised to hear about the rather closed minded views in regards to gays/lesbians. First of all, the fact that they are not accepted (at least as leaders) unless they are celibat seems offensive to me. Furtheremore, that gives the impression that Conservatives are actually NOT accepting of them, and therefore ought to redetermine their decisions and pick a side, either accepting gays/lesbians for who they are in every sense or not. Being on the fence does not work.

Michael Cohen - How Solomon Schechter's Students Created Conservative Judaism

Dr. Cohen was a very animated speaker about this topic. You could sense his enthusiasm about Solomon Schechter and his teachings. This topic was very interesting especially because it is so foreign to me. Being a Reform Jew, I don't know if its my naivety or it is not recognized, but I had never heard of this man or his teachings. It is interesting that he had followers even before he had arrived to the United States, and that they listened and carried out his teachings. It is an enigma that although his teachings were to unite people they drove people apart instead and created these three major sects of Judaism. It even broke up these three sects into more divisions by not making strong statements supporting certain issues. I find the institutions fascinating because they skirted around many issues that it's hard to believe they could come to a consensus about anything to teach.

I'm amazed that people followed him still despite how many problems they had when they tried to bring his teachings to other areas. This speaks to his hold on people and how much they believed in him. I'm not sure that I could portray that much of a confidence in a leader like that facing so many obstacles like they did.