Category: Opinion

Antisemitism a problem

The overwhelming joy of seeing the remaining hostages reunited with their loved ones, and Israelis and Jews heaving a sigh of relief after two excruciating years, is tempered with the sadness of all that was lost on and since Oct. 7, 2023. The entirely reasonable fear, also, is that this eight-decade conflict is not over. With the days-old ceasefire already fraying, it is not clear that even the immediate conflict is decisively ended.

For Jews in the diaspora, the past two years have seen two related but distinct conflicts. The war in the Middle East, with the fate of the hostages as well as the loss of Palestinian and Israeli lives, has been a constant source of pain. The paroxysm of antisemitism worldwide has been a parallel phenomenon.

We are careful to note that the phenomenon of antisemitism is parallel to the war in Gaza, not caused by it. The blame for antisemitism must always be placed where it belongs – on antisemites. To justify it as being a consequence of international affairs is to excuse the perpetrators and avoid the problem. Even so, it is naïve to ignore the parallel – for decades, every time violence flares between Israelis and Palestinians, trouble increases for Jews worldwide.

Assuming that the war is over, we will see whether the antisemitism we have witnessed and experienced – the violence against Jews, the attacks on Jewish institutions, the loss of jobs, the end of friendships, the graffiti, vandalism, and tsunami of online and verbal hatred and conspiratorial speculation (and even unintended offence) – abate. Even if it does subside, the underlying issue remains. Antisemitism in Canada is a Canadian problem. To accept that it ebbs and flows with international news is not an acceptable approach for people who claim to oppose racism and advance inclusion.

Two interesting approaches – and doubtlessly scores more that have received less publicity – take aim at the issue. They come from organizations with significantly different views and propose significantly different responses. This diversity is understandable, in part because antisemitism manifests in diverse ways and so requires diverse responses. This also points to a larger problem: antisemitism is so diffuse and varied, and so historically enduring, that we can disagree on its very nature, its manifestations and causes, let alone how to confront and overcome it. If anyone had the magic solution, we wouldn’t be having this discussion three millennia on.

The latest intervention is a report by the Nexus Project, a US-based nonprofit focused on combating antisemitism while protecting democratic norms like free speech and civil rights. The Shofar Report: A Call to Defend Democracy and Confront Antisemitism contends the best way to combat antisemitism is to strengthen the values of American society (and other Western societies). It argues that Jewish safety and security and American (or, we might extrapolate, Western democratic) institutions are inseparable. Put succinctly, their approach rests on the conventional wisdom that the very societies where antisemitism flourishes are endangered in existential ways. As such, antisemitism is a kind of canary in the coal mine of societal erosion.

The report has several calls to action, including expanding education around the Holocaust, media literacy and diverse Jewish contributions to society; strengthening civil rights enforcement; countering disinformation and conspiracy theories; preserving academic freedom; building cross-community coalitions; and so forth. It critiques antisemitism on the left and right of the political spectrum. While these are not fresh ideas, they are compiled and contextualized here within the apparent erosion of American democracy. If these approaches have not seemed to work, a response might be that we have not been doing them forcefully enough or with enough resolve. With a rapidly changing landscape, might focused attention and some new tactics yield better results?

The Heritage Foundation has a rather more assertive approach. The foundation is perhaps best known in this era as the authors of Project 2025, which serves as a policy map for the current American administration.

Project Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, which was released a year ago, rests on the assumption that antisemitism in the United States (and, again, to extrapolate, in the West) is not an incidental, populist phenomenon, but a deliberately fomented strategy of a coordinated “Hamas Support Network.” The strategy of this report is to put pressure across academic, social, legal, financial and religious spheres to identify and isolate forces they see as perpetrators, supporters or fence-sitters. Their aim is to dismantle the “pro-Palestinian” movement as it is currently constituted, including associated liberal and progressive organizations. To that end, they focus exclusively on left-wing antisemitism. They recommend a combative strategy based on existing and new counter-terrorism and hate-crime laws, investigations and litigation.

We may agree with aspects of one approach more than the other, or take nuggets from each and a thousand other tactics. The solution to antisemitism’s rise, if there is one, will probably come from some synthesis of strategies: building bridges, fighting for democracy, and holding individuals and institutions accountable for their failures and fomentation. The most important thing is to be engaged in the struggle and not to assume that, if an overseas conflict is resolved, the domestic problem will be solved. That would be a form of denial and, while we can disagree over the potential resolutions, we must be unanimous in recognizing the painful realities of the problem. 

MAID vs Jewish values

I am a Canadian Jew with deep roots in Canada. My grandfathers, one from Winnipeg and the other from Toronto, helped build two of Vancouver’s prominent synagogues in the postwar era. I married a Canadian, also the descendent of Canadian Jewish leaders. Now that my wife and I are raising children south of the border, we frequently hear from my relatives in British Columbia about how much more enlightened Canadian society is. We often agree.

However, my perspective on Canada has been shifting as I’ve learned more about Canada’s ever-expanding Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program. Recent international media attention has focused on the fact that Canadians are choosing MAID at rates far beyond expectations, particularly as Canada has expanded eligibility to include non-terminal cases (“Track 2”). I am deeply concerned about this direction.

My message to Canadians, especially Canadian Jews, is this: please be more critical of your government. (Notice I said “please” – can’t shake those Canadian manners.) Just because MAID is legal does not mean it’s ethical. We Jews know all too painfully that the actions of Western, enlightened governments can be immoral.

Since I’m a rabbi, I’ll start with the ways I believe that MAID violates the most basic Jewish tenets. The Talmud teaches that three partners are involved in the creation of every human being: the two parents, and the Holy One. (Kiddushin 30b, Niddah 31a) This ancient teaching captures something profound about the limits of human authority over life and death – we are partners in creation, not owners of life itself.

Our tradition also teaches that “One who saves one life, it is as if he saved a whole world.” (Sanhedrin 37a) One of the most important theologians of our time, Rabbi Irving “Yitz” Greenberg, recently published Triumph of Life: A Narrative Theology of Judaism. In this book, a culmination of lifelong philosophical inquiry, Greenberg presents a theologically grounded vision of a world moving toward deeper recognition of the infinite value, equality and uniqueness of every person. I recommend reading it.

Judaism values protecting and supporting the vulnerable, not offering them death as a solution. Even Track 1 MAID presents complex questions within Jewish tradition. While Judaism prohibits hastening death, there is also a tradition against unnecessarily prolonging the dying process. Some Jewish authorities might find space within this framework for passive euthanasia for Track 1 cases; others maintain that any hastening of death crosses a fundamental line. But Track 2 MAID represents something categorically different and far more troubling from any Jewish perspective on the sanctity of life.

The Toronto Board of Rabbis wrote to Canadian senators in 2021 about MAID, expressing concern about “pressure, both subtle and overt” on vulnerable people to choose death. While this letter represented important rabbinic concern, it wasn’t enough. Canadian Jewish leaders from every denomination should articulate clearly that MAID’s existence and expansion fundamentally contradict Jewish values about infinite human worth.

Dr. Arielle Berger, a Toronto geriatrician studying for the rabbinate, writes about “fundamental ideas necessary for aging such as the centrality of gratitude to living a meaningful life, and the truth of interdependence, which allows us to both give and receive with generosity.” She notes the “transformative impact these counter-cultural ideas can have” on understanding worth beyond productivity. Berger uses a Jewish lens and Jewish texts to express that human worth isn’t contingent on productivity, independence or the absence of suffering. Dependence, weakness and need of others are universal features of being human.

I want to amplify voices like Berger’s and Greenberg’s, and urge more Canadian rabbis and other Jewish leaders in Canada to take a clear stance: MAID needs to be questioned on both societal and individual levels. Individual citizens should reject MAID. Rabbis and religious leaders should call on the Canadian government to repeal MAID, while also guiding congregants to choose life. Choosing to live, even when life is diminished or difficult, even when we might feel like “a burden,” remains sacred and valid.

Even non-religious people have good reasons for concern. When the government anticipates almost $150 million in annual savings from MAID, we’ve created a system where death becomes financially advantageous. The possibility of coercion is impossible to avoid.

It’s also deeply troubling for a government to play a role in killing citizens. Decriminalizing suicide is one thing; making death easily accessible through state systems is categorically different. And, if you wouldn’t end your own life directly, asking someone else to do it for you isn’t ethical either. It’s also unethical to be a doctor providing MAID; perhaps the people who do so need a new professional title – “euthanists” – since they’re no longer practising medicine in any traditional sense.

Additionally, MAID represents ageism and ableism dressed up in the language of autonomy and choice.

When my great-aunt Mona Winberg was born with cerebral palsy in Toronto in the 1930s, doctors told her mother to institutionalize her and forget her. The medical consensus was that her life would have no value. Her mother refused. Mona became a pioneering journalist and disability rights activist, receiving the Order of Canada, among other honours. But, even if Mona had never won awards or achieved public recognition, her life would have been important and worthwhile, just like my own.

If any of these more secular arguments speak to you, or if MAID just makes you uneasy, or if recent headlines feel like a dystopian novel, rest assured that you have support from Jewish wisdom that has guided our people for thousands of years.

The Canada my grandparents helped build was founded on the principle that society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Today’s Canada seems to have forgotten that value, bent on helping vulnerable members access easy death rather than better care. I’m not saying we in the United States have society all figured out; far from it. But Canadian Jews have an obligation to think and act critically, and to engage in this public conversation before MAID unravels in even more alarming ways. 

Seth Winberg is executive director of Hillel at Brandeis and senior chaplain of Brandeis University. This article was originally published by the CJN. For more national Jewish news, go to thecjn.ca.

Cheshvan a great month, too

The Hebrew month of Cheshvan, or “Mar Cheshvan,” is the second month on the calendar after Tishrei. It comes right after all the fall holidays end. The rabbis called it “mar,” or bitter, because it doesn’t have any holidays or special mitzvot (commandments). This mom has an entirely different take. I’m very tired … and relieved. 

This doesn’t take away from any of the meaning, pomp or special parts of the fall Jewish holidays, which are all fantastic. I’m still holding one moment as dear: sitting in my sukkah, I could see the clear sky, with a few clouds floating past, see and hear the migrating birds, smell and see the fall leaves, and embrace the chill in the air. It was a fabulous family meal moment, only topped by the solitary lunch I ate on the back porch, in the sukkah sunshine. I had the newspaper, along with a big plate of food. I was warm. There were no wasps. A true triumph, considering it often rains or snows in Winnipeg during this harvest holiday.

Yet, I’m also worn out, and not just from two years of worry about the war. If you live outside big Jewish population centres and you want celebratory holiday meals, the options are limited. In Winnipeg, if you want kosher food, there’s only catering from two or three places. If you’re OK with kosher-style food, there are more options, but, for instance, a beautiful big challah is not always easy to procure at the last moment. Even if you’re not strictly traditional, purchasing and putting together a holiday meal can be expensive and time consuming, even if you don’t cook it.

Challah is a good example. If you want a buy a single challah, it costs somewhere between $6 and $12 in Winnipeg. I like to cook and bake. From what we’ve observed, my recipe is richer and has a higher food cost than these commercially produced challahs. In the past, I used to make one batch (about three pounds) using my bread machine and produce three loaves. One would go into the freezer for a future Shabbat or holiday. Two would go out on the table and last the weekend. I now have twin teenage boys. All three challahs might last through Sunday lunch. Doubling the recipe and doing it all by hand results in more loaves to freeze for another day, but I receive grumbling from the peanut gallery because it doesn’t taste the same.

The person in charge of food prep in your household is well-aware of the grocery planning and food preparation time needed. They’ll even know the time it takes to set a holiday table and get everything out onto it before a holiday starts. Yes, it’s sometimes easier if others help, but sometimes it results in bellyaching and goes slower than if the most efficient person does it all by themselves.

In recent years, this effort has been given a few names: mental load is one. I’ve carefully tried not to gender this task. However, just as women’s pay rates in Canada still don’t equal men’s, it’s also true that women tend to shoulder much of this unpaid burden. Yes, there are exceptions, absolutely. There are women who’ve never left the workforce to have children, haven’t married or compromised in any way for a man’s career, and never been a caretaker. These women might make an equal wage for their work, and that’s great. It’s also true that there are men who shoulder most household tasks. Just like the example of Golda Meir as Israel’s prime minister, simply because an exceptional woman has achieved equity or high office doesn’t mean we’re “there” yet in terms of equality and equity for everybody.

I recently pitched a class for Limmud (an international program offering Jewish learning, where everyone pays to attend and shares the cost) about positive tips for raising Jewish kids. Many of the tips I thought of relate to this situation: special foods or cooking together, holiday celebrations, Jewish stories, activities or events, and Jewish learning and home life. Again, many of these tasks often fall to women, even though there’s no essentialist reason why they should. If a mom wants to do some quiet quitting and pull back to regain some time for herself, her work life or other pursuits, it doesn’t always follow that the other partner will jump into action to fill the void.

While mainstream Jewish organizations bemoan the cost of Jewish life, it’s rare that the supports exist to make this kind of unpaid labour easier. One exceptional example is when Jewish preschools provide parents with a way to order challah for Shabbat. Every Friday or holiday when school was in session, we were able to bring home challah affordably. It made a huge difference.

This isn’t, of course, a new phenomenon. I recently read about the requirements of the priests’ clothing in the Babylonian talmudic tractate Zevachim. Essentially, in the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, if the priests’ clothing wasn’t appropriate, it could make a person’s animal sacrifice invalid. To do a sacrifice, a person incurred a lot of costs: raising or purchasing an animal, getting to Jerusalem, and more. An invalid sacrifice could result in a horrible outcome for the person and their family, the priest and the community. Yet, no one discussed in this section how the priests got the clothing in the first place. Other information indicates that predominantly women spun all this yarn (on spindles, by hand) and wove the fabric and likely sewed it all together for the priestly garb. This effort was thousands of hours of unpaid work behind the scenes.

I’m looking forward to a hopefully peaceful and easier Cheshvan ahead. It’s a time that some may find bitter, but, like a bitter coffee served with dessert, sometimes a little less hoopla might be a nice, restful contrast. It also might give families time to reflect on who provides all that planning and labour to make your home celebrations special and your holidays a reality – there are many ways to alleviate that burden. Further, we should stop using examples of truly exceptional cases – that woman with nine kids who works full time and makes all the meals – to shame everyone else. A better outcome would be more equitable distribution of these Jewish tasks – to increase holiday or Shabbat joy in every household. 

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

From the archives … a coin, etc.

My latest trip down a rabbit hole was inspired by this issue’s theme of Finance & Law. One of the first news items that caught my eye was “Model for U.S. Coin Revealed as a Jewess at Marriage.” The two-paragraph story appeared in the July 24, 1930, copy of one of the Jewish Independent’s predecessors, the Jewish Centre News.

“Through her marriage it was revealed that Miss Doris Doscher, whose face adorns the new twenty-five cent pieces issued by the National Treasury, is a Jewess. She was married yesterday to Dr. H. William Baum at the Jewish Institute of Religion,” reads the article.

“Miss Doscher was selected several years ago by the government representatives as the model for the new twenty-five cent pieces because she characterized ‘the highest type of American Womanhood.’”

Doscher, who lived from 1882 to 1970, was an actress (in silent films!) and model. Her main claim to fame movie-wise seems to have been the role of Eve in 1918’s The Birth of a Race. Her most famous modeling ventures were for the Standing Liberty Quarter (in circulation 1916-1930), designed by Hermon Atkins MacNeil, and for the Pulitzer Fountain of Abundance by Karl Bitter (and Thomas Hastings, according to nycgovparks.org), which was dedicated in 2016, having been completed by Isidore Konti and Karl Gruppe after Bitter died in 1915. The fountain is located at Grand Army Plaza in Manhattan.

From the late 1920s, Doscher worked as a newspaper columnist and radio broadcaster, even having her own health and beauty column for a time; she also lectured on the topic. But, back to the Standing Liberty Quarter, which was controversial for a couple of reasons.

The first iteration of Liberty was quite risqué, with her right breast exposed, which apparently appalled the women’s movement of the day, as well as clergy and others. According to edmontoncoinclub.com, “The initial production run of 52,000 pieces had made their way through the Treasury system by January 1917; by then, the production of the ‘Type 1’ 1917 issue was already in full-swing … but by early 1917 clearly something had to be done. Hermon MacNeil was obliged to modify his design, which he strenuously objected to [an article on uscoinnews.com asserts that MacNeil never authorized the design change], and the reasons that were given to him by the mint were everything from poor striking characteristics, relief problems, die wear, coin wear, anything else but that exposed breast. The dies were modified in time for the 1918 strike (known as ‘Type 2’), and it featured a now ‘clad-to-the-neck’ in chain-mail Liberty.” Other changes were made for that casting and there were later revisions. 

“The last run of the Standing Liberty Quarter took place in 1930, with only Philadelphia and San Francisco minting them. None were made in 1931 or 1932, possibly reflecting an oversupply because of the Great Depression, which had decimated the world economy in 1929,” notes the article on edmontoncoinclub.com.

The second controversy – which is still unresolved – arose after Doscher died. In 1972, another actress and model, Irene MacDowell, claimed to have been MacNeil’s model. According to various reports, her husband was friends with MacNeil and would not have approved of her modeling for the sculptor, hence, the secrecy. Another rumour is that MacNeil’s wife considered MacDowell a threat to her marriage, and so the sculptor kept her identity hidden.

It may never be known whether MacDowell or Doscher was the real model for the Standing Liberty Quarter, but Doscher was publicly credited, becoming known as known as “the girl on the Quarter.” And the moniker stuck. As noted on a memorial site for MacNeil (hermonatkinsmacneil.com), “100 years after the birth of Hermon MacNeil and fifty years after the Standing Liberty Quarter was minted, Doris Doscher Baum appeared on the TV quiz show I’ve Got a Secret on April 4, 1966.” The video is on YouTube.

There’s even more on this whole topic – including the reason the Standing Liberty coin was made. According to a blog on greatamericancoincompany.com, “When Robert W. Woolley took office as Mint director in April 1915, he asked [Philadelphia Mint superintendent Adam] Joyce to have [Mint chief engraver Charles] Barber submit some new designs for the dime, quarter and half dollar. It seems Woolley misinterpreted a memo from the assistant treasury secretary stating that coin designs could be changed after 25 years. Woolley took it to mean they must be changed and set the redesign wheels in motion.”

Barber’s suggested designs did not impress, and so a few sculptors were asked to make a submission, and MacNeil’s won. In the end, the blog notes, more than 214 million MacNeil quarters were made.

I could have spent as many hours exploring the other clippings I picked for this issue’s theme. I settled on a group that, to me, shows the paper’s diversity, as well as how technology and societal attitudes change over the years. 

image - April 4, 1947: In an article by Winnipeg Jewish community member David Orlikow, Saskatchewan’s then-premier Tommy Douglas talks about the Bill of Rights his province was introducing  – the first such bill in Canada. Orlikow would have a 43-year political career, including 26 years as an MP (1962-1988)
April 4, 1947: In an article by Winnipeg Jewish community member David Orlikow, Saskatchewan’s then-premier Tommy Douglas talks about the Bill of Rights his province was introducing  – the first such bill in Canada. Orlikow would have a 43-year political career, including 26 years as an MP (1962-1988).
imaeg - Oct. 17, 1969: An organization called the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education was appalled, to say the least, by the goings-on at the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival, which, it contended, created “a national hallucination which has distorted the minds of 200,000,000 Americans as to what is wrong morally"
Oct. 17, 1969: An organization called the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education was appalled, to say the least, by the goings-on at the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival, which, it contended, created “a national hallucination which has distorted the minds of 200,000,000 Americans as to what is wrong morally.”

image 1 - Community organizations need to fundraise, of course. A couple of the longest-running initiatives were the Hadassah Bazaar, which may have started in 1933 as a small affair at the JCC that graduated to Seaforth Armories in 1952, though the 1952 bazaar is generally counted as the first one and the 2007 event at the Hellenic Community Centre as the last; and the community phone directory, a fundraiser for Vancouver Talmud Torah that ran from 1959 to 2013-14.

image 2 - Community organizations need to fundraise, of course. A couple of the longest-running initiatives were the Hadassah Bazaar, which may have started in 1933 as a small affair at the JCC that graduated to Seaforth Armories in 1952, though the 1952 bazaar is generally counted as the first one and the 2007 event at the Hellenic Community Centre as the last; and the community phone directory, a fundraiser for Vancouver Talmud Torah that ran from 1959 to 2013-14.
Community organizations need to fundraise, of course. A couple of the longest-running initiatives were the Hadassah Bazaar, which may have started in 1933 as a small affair at the JCC that graduated to Seaforth Armories in 1952, though the 1952 bazaar is generally counted as the first one and the 2007 event at the Hellenic Community Centre as the last; and the community phone directory, a fundraiser for Vancouver Talmud Torah that ran from 1959 to 2013-14.

 

image - Nov. 17, 1995: Antisemitic graffiti on Beth Israel Synagogue concerned a passerby, but it was a “false alarm.” BI had agreed for its exterior to be used for “an episode of the locally-produced cop show The Commish.”
Nov. 17, 1995: Antisemitic graffiti on Beth Israel Synagogue concerned a passerby, but it was a “false alarm.” BI had agreed for its exterior to be used for “an episode of the locally-produced cop show The Commish.”

When approaches differ

News of a possible breakthrough that could lead to the end of the war between Israel and Hamas is encouraging, but there is effectively no happy ending to this situation. Nothing can return the lives lost or undo the horrors of the past two years. Even if it ends tomorrow, the tragedy of this war will go down as one of the saddest, most protracted chapters in a heartbreaking history.

The international repercussions have been less lethal but will have permanent implications for, among other things, the stability and well-being of Jewish communities in the diaspora. Global antisemitism has reached unimagined heights. And, globally, Jewish people and organizations are at odds over how to proceed.

For many months, voices in Israel, among Jews worldwide and in our own local community have been divided over, among other things, whether Israel should unilaterally end the war, pursue it to the stated end of eliminating Hamas or, depending on the perspective, something on a spectrum between these views. Some are calling for an Israeli or international occupation of Gaza. 

Here in British Columbia, weekly solidarity rallies at Vancouver City Hall have continued, sometimes with small numbers, and featuring a diversity of voices. Other rallies, including marches across the Burrard Street Bridge and, this week, a community commemoration of the second anniversary of 10/7, have brought together overlapping and different participants.

It is sometimes hard for human beings, especially those deeply determined to do the right thing, to accept that there can be legitimate but differing opinions on the best way forward. We should be able to agree on this: no one can predict the future or know for certain what is best for the people of that region (or for Jews worldwide). We may disagree on fundamentals, such as whether a two-state solution remains a viable possibility or whether, at the other end of opinion, the West Bank and Gaza should be absorbed into an enlarged state of Israel (a perspective still generally viewed as extremist), or whether some kind of federated one-state system might integrate both peoples’ needs and futures. If we disagree on the end goal, we will almost certainly find fault with the other side’s means of reaching it.

Stuck as we may be in what seems an ideological, moral, political, strategic and theological disagreement, it is easy to view others, even those in our own community, as adversaries – this certainly is reflected in some of the messages we have received in recent days. On the one hand, we received an open letter to community rabbis ostensibly reminding them what Jewish morality entails, and, on a different hand, we received messages declaiming those in our community who call for a ceasefire as being in cahoots with nefarious groups, including one proscribed by the federal government as a terrorist entity. Both missives encourage community members to call out those who do not agree with their approach.

The passions ignited around this topic are understandable. These are existential issues faced by our people and our homeland. With no universally agreed-upon ends or means, division is inevitable. We should, though, keep in mind that, while it is our obligation to pursue justice, that pursuit includes minimizing harm in our own community. We should be guided by the understanding that our actions will have greater impacts on our people’s well-being here at home than on events halfway around the world. 

While it may be difficult in the moment of discord to see the sincerity and humanity of those we see as our opponents, there is a commonality at play. Believe it or not, the people in our community most vehemently hostile toward your outlook are convinced, as you are, that they are acting in the best interests of the Jewish people, and, in most circumstances, the best interests of our homeland.

Human affairs are an art, not a science. There are – surprise! – no right answers, only opinions and presumptions. As convinced as we may be otherwise, not one of us can conclusively know for certain the best avenue to pursue to bring about the future we dream of. 

At a minimum, let us presume we are all committed to a future of peace, justice and security. What that looks like, and how we get there, will differ.

Let us further presume the best intentions in others and celebrate our shared desire for positive outcomes and the impassioned commitment even of those with whom we disagree. 

Grammar insight on holidays

This year, I volunteered to help during High Holidays at my congregation. As a result, I became one of the “ticket ladies” on Rosh Hashanah. I used a cellphone that scanned bar codes on service tickets. When I first saw this being done on a holiday, I was surprised because of the technology use at a Conservative congregation on a day when some might not carry a phone. My family chose to print out our tickets, but times change. Even though everyone in my family had a printed ticket, we carried our cellphones anyway as we volunteered. It seemed safer to have our phones while walking to synagogue and while we were there. After all, that’s what the tickets are for, too. They indicate that the person belongs or has a spot and that the person is “safe.” 

The police and private security guards asked where they should position themselves. More than once, they indicated that being indoors in the lobby might be a good spot. Instead, they were asked to stand outside, in autumn’s sunny weather, guarding the doors and/or directing traffic. I heard only one incident of loud, angry shouts on the street, near the police officer there. That was enough for me. I was relieved police were there, and that there were master lists of everyone who might be in the building that day, just in case. 

While outsiders might think that this security is new, this is just the usual necessity at Jewish gatherings, though admittedly now more than ever. At odd moments between ticket scans, I thought of a dear family friend named Marge, who passed away in her 90s. Marge was a venerable and respected volunteer at the temple where I grew up. She was famous for her High Holiday ticket lady efforts. Marge was all business at the front door, a big smile for those she knew as they flashed their tickets. Yet, even if Marge knew you for 50 years, if you forgot your ticket, that grin vanished. A stern reprimand ensued. Marge kept us safe, and she wasn’t playing. She took that job seriously. 

The congregation where I grew up, Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va., is right near Washington, DC. Rodef Shalom started out small in the 1960s, when my paternal grandparents were founding members. It grew rapidly, along with the Washington area. My mom started its preschool, ran the entire education program, and ended her career there as the administrator/executive director. As a Jewish professional’s kid, I knew where the emergency alarm buttons were and that synagogues near DC were frequent targets of hate. Congregation members who worked for the FBI or CIA formed part of the volunteer security patrol for the High Holidays, too. Everyone smiled as they said that “no-nonsense” Marge ran a tight ship. She was their best line of defence. 

Nobody knew this history in Winnipeg when I was given the ticket lady designation. I’d emailed with Marge right up until her passing. I tried to see her at every family visit. She loved to tell me about her Canadian grandfather, a fur trader whose family came from Sault Ste. Marie. The whole holiday, in between wishing everyone gut yontif, shana tova or sweet new year, I longed to tell Marge all about how I was a ticket lady now. I knew she’d love it. When I mentioned this to my mother, we both smiled over the phone. I’d never be as good at it as Marge was, but my mom also said, “Don’t worry, I’m sure Marge knows. She’s proud of you.” 

Being a ticket lady was an education. I’ve been in Winnipeg 16 years, so I recognized many names on the tickets, but definitely not all the faces. As people rolled in, I also recognized how diverse we are as a people. Some of us are early, others right on time – and then, there are the rest. 

This experience let me greet new people and hold on to lifelong connections. It made me think about a grammar term that’s fallen out of use. I wondered at how, as individuals, we are also dependent clauses. For years, we have seen news, books and other sources where the editing allows a sentence to start with “and” or “but” in a way that’s clearly dependent on the prior sentence. When I see this, I want to chastise, just as Marge might have. To me, that editorial choice still grates, but the volunteer experience made me see how the Jewish community works together. At the best of times, we are an enormous team, dependent on one another to function at our best.

Volunteering is an important part of Canadian identity. It was a required topic to study for my Canadian citizenship test, and I wondered why more congregants hadn’t volunteered. It was a vital part of my holiday this year. It reminded me how reliant we are on one another, as well as on our allies, our laws and law enforcement. Dependent clauses aren’t full sentences on their own. We, too, must remain connected to maintain meaning as Jews in Canada. 

In the Babylonian Talmud’s tractate of Zevachim, which I’m now studying, there’s a lot of time spent on what happens when a Temple (animal) sacrifice goes wrong. If the priests in the Temple had the wrong intention or person in mind when performing a sacrifice, it could mean the person’s sacrifice wasn’t valid. We don’t sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem anymore, but our intentions, towards ourselves, the community and the world, still matter. Volunteering wasn’t a sacrifice for me. It felt like I was fulfilling my role with the best intentions while I depended on others to keep me safe at that open door. Instead of any kind of sacrifice, it was a High Holy Day bonus. 

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

From the archives … social life

Oct. 10, 1935: This week, 90 years ago, community members were coming and going from the city. There was a Folk Song and Dance Festival and Arts and Crafts Exhibition coming up. Beth Israel, Young Judaea, AZA, BB Junior Auxiliary, Junior Council and Sub-Junior Council all had meetings and other events. China Seas and Page Miss Glory were screening at the Capitol Orpheum and Heart’s Desire was playing at the Strand.

The Jewish Western Bulletin / Jewish Independent has always covered the arts and culture scene. Amid the harder-hitting news, there have been society and social notes columns, social and club news sections, synagogue calendars, event listings, notices and advertisements, as well as articles promoting, reviewing or otherwise profiling various creatives (including community organizers) or their creations/events.

One of the longest-lasting social columns is Between Ourselves (Tsvishn Unz Alein) by Lazar, which started on April 14, 1949, when the JWB was run by the Vancouver Jewish Administrative Organization (akin to our Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver) and Abraham Arnold was managing editor. When Sam and Mona Kaplan took over the paper in 1960, Mona Kaplan penned her first Between Ourselves (Tsvishn Unz Alein) by Lazar columns, in the Aug. 5 issue of that year, and she continued to be “Lazar” until the paper again sort of changed hands in mid-1995. While the Kaplans still owned the JWB, it came under new management, as they were beginning their retirement journey. At first, the new publisher, Andrew Buerger, kept the Lazar column – minus its Yiddish flavour – but editor Ariela Friedmann bid “Farewell to Lazar” (then written by Cara Loebl) a couple of months’ later, on Aug. 18, 1995.

Its replacement was Menschenings, which, Friedmann noted, would “give voice to all ages and aspects of the community, from social news, to what’s new, who’s new, some schmoozing, a bit of this and that.” 

Initially, the column was alternately written by two different writers, Jacqui Roitman and Alex Kliner, both of whom had experience in theatre and film. As many readers will know, Alex became the sole face of Menschenings, continuing through the Kaplans’ sale of the paper in mid-1999 to Kyle Berger, Pat Johnson and me. From his first column to his last, in 2016, when he retired, Alex’s writing was infused with Yiddish, having a heimishe (homey and familiar) quality like Lazar’s, meaning that Between Ourselves/Menschenings lasted some 67 years. 

image - Between Ourselves/Menschenings history in newspaper clippings

More unenforced laws?

Rumours were that the federal government was about to table “bubble zone” legislation last week, which, if passed, would have criminalized protests in specific locations such as places of worship, community centres and schools.

That didn’t happen.

While the almost-proposed legislation was to be universal in terminology, there were few doubts that its intent was really to limit protests at synagogues, Jewish community centres and Jewish day schools. This was a response to concerns from Jewish organizations about persistent and often aggressive targeting at community institutions.

Bill C-9, which saw first reading Sept. 19, proposes amending the Criminal Code to add new hate-related offences and to criminalize obstruction or intimidation that prevents people from accessing certain places, like those mentioned. It does not include the “bubble zone” provision, at least not as most advocates had envisioned it. It would proscribe not mere “protests” but criminal behaviours such as obstructing or intimidating people accessing community spaces. However, if such obstruction or intimidation is already criminal behaviour, we’re not sure why new legislation is needed. In fact, this is the larger issue with this whole approach.

The so-called “bubble zone” idea was mooted alongside another piece of legislation being considered. In the last Parliament, the Liberal government had proposed an online harms bill that was wide-reaching, emphasizing content that could lead, for example, to young people self-harming, but also addressing racist ideas that foment hatred. This died on the order paper when the election was called, as all incomplete legislation does.

Both of these proposals elicited concerns from civil libertarians, and rightly so. The right to free expression, while not as unrestrained in Canada as it is in the United States, is, we assume most Canadians agree, a sacrosanct characteristic of Canadian society. Canadians also, though, have tended to accept some limitations on individual expression for what is perceived as the greater good. For example, limiting hateful commentary in the interest of intercultural harmony. 

In the case of the bubble zone approach, there is at least one court case that will presumably help determine the balance between free expression and the ability of identifiable groups to be protected from harassment. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is challenging a municipal bubble zone bylaw in Vaughan, Ont. Some commentators believe the bylaw – and, by extension, the concept – will be determined to be excessive and an unnecessary impediment to legitimate protest under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One’s hearts and minds can be at odds on this issue, as they can be on so many things. The infuriating and deliberately taunting protests we have seen adjacent Jewish institutions belies the idea, in many cases, that these protests and protesters are always operating in good faith. But people being deliberately provocative and mean isn’t the legal litmus test here.

While the Liberal party made commitments during last spring’s federal election to introduce bubble zone legislation, we do not fault them for awaiting relevant legal decisions. (If we fault them, it would be on making promises in a campaign that they might have known would be subject to Charter challenge.) Here, though, we come back to what we consider the larger issue: we already have laws.

The Criminal Code has prohibitions against harassment, incitement to hatred, uttering threats, intimidation, mischief motivated by hate targeting religious property, schools, community centres and so on. And yet, too often these laws act neither as a deterrent nor as a form of accountability and consequences, perhaps because they don’t seem to be enforceable or enforced. For example, it has been noted that police hesitate to recommend charges because Crown prosecutors don’t lay charges. Crown doesn’t recommend charges, we are told, because they have wasted too many resources on cases courts throw out. 

A particular case that has upset and disturbed Jewish community members involves a Vancouver woman who led a shameful chant of “Long live October 7” and called the perpetrators of those atrocities “heroic and brave.” 

This case seems, to many of us, an example of incitement to hatred. And yet, no charges have been laid, a reality that some observers have attributed to a lack of political will at the top of the province’s law enforcement bureaucracy – that is, the attorney general’s office.

When a case like this languishes for more than a year without charges, is the problem the people in charge, or the system more broadly? Given the multiplicity of laws already on the books, is the answer to this problem more laws? Or is the problem something related to the human, political and judicial forces that are responsible for enforcing and judging those laws that leads to frustration in communities like ours?

This is the national conversation we would like to see as the new-ish Parliament approaches these topics in the coming weeks. 

Be more solution-oriented

Leaders are simply people, of course. And all people have strengths and weaknesses. Just like the traditional approach to weaving Persian rugs with an intentional mistake, we must remember that only the Almighty is perfect. 

But some leaders become lionized and celebrated, their human failings swept under the rug (sorry). However, we’re in a political moment where some leaders’ mistakes are all too obvious. No need to name anybody. Many fit this description. It’s upsetting and confusing to realize that even those chosen as “the best” or “brightest” fail sometimes. It’s a useful learning experience, too.

Awhile back, I was discussing politics online with other Canadians. I came upon something that stopped me cold. A poster criticized a political leader. I asked what she saw as solutions. The questions I asked were how, if she were in charge, she’d do things differently.

Her response surprised me. She said the only thing she could do was vote and complain. That, essentially, it was her right to find fault, but not her obligation to offer solutions. Her opinion was that she wasn’t passive because, well, she voted consistently and complained vociferously.

From a Jewish perspective, we have plenty of examples of whiners. Remember the Israelites, wandering in the desert, who wanted to go back to Egypt because they didn’t have meat, fish, onions, garlic, leeks or cantaloupes? (Numbers 11:4-5) It’s a normal response to crave foods when you’re unable to get them. As a high schooler studying abroad, I craved M&Ms so much that my mother brought them when she visited. They were superfluous, but I wanted them.

The opportunity to complain is always available, but it’s unattractive, especially if there’s something you can do to fix the problem yourself. Since that high school moment, I’ve lived many places where I’ve craved food but couldn’t buy it locally. As a result, I’ve become a more creative cook. When traveling, it’s good to “load up” on cravings if they’re available. Not to hoard, but just as an extra pleasure.

Worldwide political upheaval made me study the Babylonian Talmudic tractate of Horayot with more interest. It’s a small part of the Talmud but it’s about how people in charge (kings, high priests, judges, teachers, etc.) can make amends or do the right sacrifices or actions to atone for their mistakes. This text assumes that there will always be errors in judgment. People in certain important positions have societal roles to play, and that means their atonements to seek forgiveness for errors must be bigger sometimes than if they were private citizens. 

This may sound irrelevant but consider the role of a teacher. Teachers make mistakes. The best resolution to this would be a public acknowledgement of the error and a demonstration of how to fix it. We might shrug and get on with things after a private math mistake. Yet, if a math teacher makes this error in front of the class, the best lesson is having a student find and correct the error. Then, the teacher can perform the act of learning from their error, thank the student, and acknowledge that no one is perfect.

In our lives, even if we are not teachers, parents, supervisors, or in any authority roles, it’s a great idea to try to practise this approach: to remember that no one is perfect and that it’s all our jobs to find solutions. As Rabbi Tarfon teaches, “that it’s not upon us to complete the work, but neither are we free to stop doing it.” (Pirkei Avot 2:16) 

This sounds simple. But, in the tractate of Horayot, there’s a very powerful ending about how our pride and ego can get in the way. It’s about three rabbis and their leadership roles: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (Rashbag) was the leader of the Jewish community in the Galilee during the late second century, after the Bar Kochba Revolt; the head of the court was Rabbi Natan; and a great scholar at the time was Rabbi Meir. 

Rashbag is upset with a lack of protocol in the Torah academy. He wants everyone to stand when he comes in until they’re told to be seated. Rashbag suggests that, for Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Meir, who he perceives as less important, those studying should rise when they enter, but students can sit down again right afterwards. Rabbis Meir and Natan try to put Rashbag to an intellectual test to prove that he isn’t above them, but Rashbag finds out in advance and bests them. 

Rabbis Meir and Natan are expelled from the Torah academy and forced to study outside. However, the academy couldn’t continue without their expertise, so there was the ancient equivalent of paper airplane communication happening. The expelled rabbis would throw questions into the academy, students would try to answer. If the students couldn’t, they’d ask for more help. 

Obviously, this was a bad way to learn. Rashbag was forced to readmit the scholars, but only with the proviso that their rulings couldn’t be under their own names. Essentially, the glory of Torah was more important than the glory of Torah scholars. This remained true for all except for Rashbag and his descendants, who insisted on maintaining their grudge and hereditary leadership and denying these two learned men their due.

Where does that lead us? Leaders are fallible. Each of us has the potential to uplift, lead and find solutions. When necessary, we need to stop being passive and lead more. Sometimes, that means trying to avoid big egos or coming up with creative responses to difficult problems. It can feel uncomfortable to raise our voices and act, if we’re used to letting others do the hard work. Also, we need allies to help make change. This means building connections with others, particularly outside the Jewish community.

The pressing example for the Canadian Jewish community is our political leaders’ refrain after antisemitic incidents: “This isn’t who we are as Canadians.” Well, in fact, it is who we are, as evidenced by the dramatic rise in hate crimes. We have leaders who aren’t acting to solve this problem. It’s getting worse. In response, we must step up and ask our allies to do so, too. Nobody’s perfect. People make mistakes. That said, we must hold leaders – and all those passive followers – to account if we expect to remain safe in Canada. It’s time to find solutions. Complaints alone don’t cut it. 

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.