This duality in my Jewish Identity isn’t something unique to my experience at Dickinson, I realized. It is important to note that it is not that there are places where I identify with my Judaism and places that I do not, it is just that it definitely is connected to who I am with. I bring this up because the people you are with definitely affect the way you feel. In high school, being a member of a conservative youth group (USY), most of my good friends that I made during high school were also members of USY. So I have come to the realization that because I was Jewish, I made friends with them and although it is not necessarily the only thing that we have in common it is definitely a binding factor. It was our common background that allowed us to meet one another, not for any other reason.

Now in college I am a member of the Hillel on campus, technically, but I am not extremely involved. At Dickinson I have made many more non-Jewish friends; and in juxtaposition to my Jewish friends from home my Jewish Dickinson friends are just friends that happen to be Jewish. Now I guess my connection between my friendships and this class would have to be that I have realized the existence of boundaries within the communities I am apart of. I can also say with certainty that I have realized more about my own personal Jewish identity after learning about why/how people form their identities.

One of the major themes of ethnographers analyzing the “Israel Experience” is that the program is packaged and delievered with meticulous precision and caution to ensure that they achieve the desired result. That result being the completion of youth’s Jewish identity and strengthening their connection to Israel. Now being about 2 or 3 years removed from the trip, I am now coming to the realization that much of my experience wasn’t truely authentic. By authentic I mean that when I stayed in a Bedouin tent and rode camels or when I went accended Masada before dawn and saw the sun rise that those were truely manufactured experiences. Or at least that is the feeling I get after going through my research.

But what has been repeated by sources, which I can identify with the most, is that the teens end up developing a stronger connection to their group than to the land of Israel. And that it is actually the group and the collective differences that forges solidarity amongst them so that impact of friendship supersedes the impact of Israel. Not that that is a bad thing. I just find it interesting that I am able to look at different parts of my research and have it agree with my beliefs, challenge them, or do both simultaneously.

An example of when my experience brought something unique from the movie would be in the first scene, which is set in a Hebrew school classroom. The Coen brothers set the scene with an elderly man teaching a class of obviously disinterested students a lesson in Hebrew grammar. The viewer can infer the disinterest of the class because the first shot is of a student listening to Jefferson Airplane on the radio trying to get the attention of  another student in the class. I was able to relate to this scene immediately because I have been taught the same lesson that the Coen brothers portrayed.

The movie also dealt with Jewish divorce and I found it interesting that the Coen brothers chose to use Jewish terms of art. Terms like Aguna and Ghet, which is a term traditionally used to describe a woman who is chained to her husband by marriage; and a Ghet is a formal Jewish divorce document which is required in order to remarry within the faith. I was surprised because the use of Jewish terms of art created a situation that could distance a non-Jewish audience from the film, however the Coen brothers do explain the terms in the movie.

The Book of Job is meant to address the struggle of human ability to remain faithful to God when everything seems to be hopeless; it also debates the concept that misfortune was dealt as a punishment for sin. The Coen brothers replace the biblical Job with a college physics professor, and throughout the movie the protagonist engaged a constant moral debate. The protagonist attempts to seek meaning without any result causing his life to continue in a downwards spiral. Without giving away the ending of the movie, the Coen brothers way of ending the movie is clever because it allows the audience to tackle the moral question presented by the film.

There is the school of thought known as Formalism, which believes that all of the answers to questions about the text should be confined solely to the text. That is to say, in application to what makes music Jewish, for example, that the answer would be in the lyrics of the song. Formalists would argue that from the lyrics of the song one would be able to argue either for or against the position of that music being Jewish. They would disregard the writer of the lyrics, the performer of the song, and the setting in which it was preformed. Those aspects would be ignored because they aren’t deemed important to the Formalist school of literary criticism.

Formalism would reinforce what we discussed today in class regarding the duality of textual meanings in the Torah. The duality is exposed after taking the letters from the text and substituting them with their corresponding match. This method know as AtBash would be the method for discovering a new meaning in the Torah.

Another literary school of literary criticism, known informally as Author and Culture, believes that it is important to look outside of the text. Looking outside of the text allows investigation into what historical events were occurring during the creation of the song or work of literature. This school would use the context to explore the meaning of the work. In class today we discussed the practice of childhood rite in Medieval Europe. Specifically the act of “Ingesting the Torah” were specific verses would be written onto specific foods. Sources from different times throughout history would show examples of different parts of this rite however, once taken into the context of the time its evident why this rite came to exist then. The rite of “Ingesting the Torah” was a direct polemic response to the Christian Eucharist. This Judaic response in context of Medieval Europe makes sense that at male child’s rite of passage they would deny the truth in Christianity.

I just found it interesting that by using the methods of literary criticism in one class, I was able to better understand and explore the central question in another class. I am also relieve to know that although I will not be majoring in English, the skills I am killing myself to learn this semester will continue to be useful throughout my college career.

There was a stark contrast between the children’s interviews and the adult interviews. The difference in their answers, to what I’d assume to be, the same prompt was very interesting. All of the children made short, unfiltered, concrete statements regarding their beliefs; whereas, the adults when prompted gave answers that tended to be longer and more contemplative in nature. Now obviously one has to take into account that the difference I just raised can be attributed simply to the fact that most children can’t be expected to have the same higher reasoning capabilities as an adult; however, the children’s statements regarding their religious beliefs were unambiguous and all of them were from the same viewpoint. I found that strange at first but after seeing the credits it makes sense because they all attended the same Solomon Schecter Day School in New York, so they were most likely taught the same thing.

The adults interviewed had contrasting views regarding the existence of God. There was one man who was a native Israeli poet, who considers himself Jewish, but claims no religious or spiritual affiliation. However, after the birth of his first son while he was driving and experienced a sunset, he was tempted to take a moment and thank God the miracle of childbirth. The poet chose not to, his reason being that had he stopped to thank God, it would open the door to the possibility of acceptance of the existence of a divine being, which he was not prepared to do. I think it’s interesting to note how he stopped to think about thanking God, thus acknowledging the possibility of a divine entity, but subsequently rejected it.

There was also a Yemeni Jew, Ephraim, who was interviewed using the same prompt, and during his response he had to pause for a moment and think about what words to use to describe God. Because Ephraim is a religious person, who chooses not to use any of the names for God in order to avoid the possibility of using God’s improperly; instead he used, “the divine, supreme power”. So for Ephraim not only does he believe in the presence of God, but he is so devout in his beliefs that he will not use any representative name for God in fear of possible using God’s name in vain.

The contrast between the two adult’s notions of God is very interesting. Both had to stop and think about God, however, the poet stopped to question God’s existence and the Ephraim had to stop and think to make sure he would not use God’s name in vain. For men to have polar opposite veiws about God and both consider themselves just as Jewish is remarkable.

While listening to the Kol Nidre prayer I found myself actually singing along in my head, because after all it does happen to be one of my favorite prayers of all time. It may seem weird to think that someone could have a prayer that is truly one of their favorites, but I would encourage anyone who isn’t familiar with it to just type it into YouTube and just listen to it. Now I feel that I must clarify even further that the Kol Nidre incantation, which I am referring to is from the traditional Ashkenazic service; and by Ashkenazic, I am referring to Jews that descend primarily from Eastern Europe and Russia. This prayer is a very emotional and soulful prayer, which is chanted and repeated three times and every year. While in services I tend to get chills, I am just absorbed into a trance (which is the best way I can describe it, although it might seem foreign to some); and in class I experienced a similar feeling even though I wasn’t in services. I guess I can explain my reaction to the connection I make personally with that prayer. That would explain how I started to feel the same way I did the week previously while listening to my Shliach Tzibbur (Cantor) chant the prayer.

While I listened to Jerusalem by Matisyahu, I experienced the similar feelings to when I listen to Kol Nidre. The feeling I got put me in a sort of Jewish trance, which made me think about my trip to Jerusalem only a few years ago. Matisyahu adapts some of his lyrics for that song directly from Psalm 137:5, which is why I make the claim that his music is Jewish. However, his music is enjoyed by the secular community as well.

Which causes me to ask, can both the secular and Jewish communities enjoy Jewish music, but have it still represent something uniquely special to Jews?

I would argue yes because, although non-Jews may enjoy the music of Matisyahu I believe that I am able to make a deeper connection to the songs. In the song Jerusalem, he makes an allusion to the Holocaust, “years gone by, about 60 / Burn in the oven in this century / And the gas tried to choke, but it couldn’t choke me”; and having been to the death camps in Poland, those lyrics strike a particular chord in me because they bring back those memories. The verse continues with,

“Change your name and your identity
Afraid of the truth and our dark history
Why is everybody always chasing me
Cut off the roots of your family tree
Don’t you know that’s not the way to be”,

which stresses that you should not forget your past, which is an ideal that I believe strongly in. Now I am unsure if that connection is the same to all Jew’s, I doubt it is, however, I would also wager that a non-Jew would be distanced even further from making a personal connection of that sort.

I just think that it is interesting that the soulful sorrowful lyrics of the Kol Nidre prayer and the powerful lyrics of Matisyahu can illicit similar reactions from me.