How to Be a Mentsh (and Not a Shmuck) - Softcover

Wex, Michael

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0061771120 ISBN 13: 9780061771125

Publisher: Harper Perennial, 2010

Synopsis

There are people out there, millions of them, who act as if they still believe everything their mothers told them in the first six months of their life—that they’re the nicest, most beautiful, and most promising and intelligent bags of flesh ever to walk the earth. We call these people shmucks.

In How to Be a Mentsh (and Not a Shmuck), bestselling author Michael Wex offers a wise and witty guide to being a good human being, regardless of your religion or beliefs. Referencing pop culture, current events, and Jewish tradition with equal ease, Wex explores the strategies developed by an oppressed people to pursue happiness with their dignity—and sense of humor—intact.

About this title

About the Author:

Novelist, lecturer, and translator Michael Wex is one of the leading lights in the revival of Yiddish, and author of the New York Times bestseller Born to Kvetch and its follow-up, Just Say Nu.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.:

One
What's a Shmuck?

I
My mother never told me anything about shmek, as more than one shmuck is called in Yiddish. She never uttered the word in my presence, not in English and certainly not in Yiddish, and might never have said it in her life. It wouldn't have been ladylike; it wouldn't even have been polite. Although most people who speak English are now familiar with the word, those who don't know any Yiddish are often unaware of its literal meaning. English has borrowed shmuck's extended meanings of "jerk, fool, metaphorical asshole and inconsiderate idiot who has no idea of the effect that he has on others" directly from Yiddish, but has left the original meaning, the one that generated all these other associations, so far behind that English-speakers are often shocked to discover that shmuck is one of the "dirtiest" words in Yiddish, the sort of thing that could make your mother try to wash your mouth out with soap, even if you're fifty years old when you say it. If you think of the power that fuck used to have in polite conversation, how it could convey both emphasis and offense, you'll have some idea of the force that shmuck still retains in Yiddish.

Its primary meaning in Yiddish is "penis," but just as prick, dick, pecker, whang, and pork-sword frequently reach beyond simple anatomy and into the realm of character analysis, so does shmuck. Unlike any of these English terms, though, or even such straightforward designations as tallywhacker or man-meat, shmuck started out as something cute and funny rather than big and potentially bothersome. It has its roots in the nursery, in little boys' discovery of themselves and the world around them, and began not as shmuck, the dirty word, but as shmekele–"shmucklet"–something much smaller than a shmuck, not as fully developed, and much more socially acceptable; a peashooter instead of a pistol.

Shmekele itself seems to have started out as shtekele, "little stick," the euphemism used by toddlers and their baby-talking parents for a little boy's penis. Shtekele is a diminutive form of the now obsolete shtok, which means "stick" or "club," and must also have referred to a full-grown male member (compare the difference between a big, thick cigar and its diminutive, cigarette); if a shtok is a walking stick, the shtekl, in this usage, becomes something of a candy cane.

It isn't entirely a matter of size, though. Somebody must have noticed that the little stick wasn't always as rigid as a stick is supposed to be–technically speaking, only the infantile erection is a shtekele–so the well-known shm prefix was substituted for the first few consonants, as if to say, "Shtekele, shmekele! Just look at it now. We know it's not really a cute little stick, so why don't we call it a shmute little shmick."

The shm prefix is one of the great Yiddish contributions to the English language. It can take anything, no matter how frightening, and make it innocuous, unthreatening, unimportant–quite a significant trick for victims of constant persecution. If you can't defeat an enemy or deal with a threat, the least you can do is to turn it into a joke:

mr. cohen: Hello, Mr. Levy. How's your wife these days?

mr. levy: Freg nisht, don't ask. She was just diagnosed with cancer.

mr. cohen: Cancer, shmancer, abi gezunt, as long as she's healthy.
This surprisingly popular old joke is still circulating in many versions, all of which turn on the reaction of Cohen, a know-it-all who isn't really listening and doesn't really care about the welfare of Levy's wife. He is so quick to throw in a shm in order to cut Levy's troubles down to their proper size–smaller than Cohen's, no matter how big they might look to Levy–so quick to come out with the standard kvetch-squelcher abi gezunt, "as long as you're healthy," that he misses the all too painful fact that this time it's something serious.

There's nothing wrong with saying "cancer, shmancer," if what comes next is "I'm going to beat it" or "We just found a cure." Take away Cohen and his self-regard, and the shm helps to diminish the disease, rather than the sufferer, and show it who's boss: the comedienne Fran Drescher, a survivor of uterine cancer, has written a book called Cancer Schmancer (that's her spelling, not mine) and founded an organization with the same name dedicated to ensuring "that all women with cancer are diagnosed in stage 1, when it is most curable"; to turning cancer, in other words, into shmancer, something that might once have been important but isn't anymore. The most it can do is pretend to a status that we all know it doesn't have, in the same way as someone or something that you label as "fancy-shmancy" is not really so fancy after all: the shm explodes the pretensions of the thing, action, or quality that it modifies and then does its best to scorn these things into nothingness.

In its attempt to make such things disappear, shm can also let you know that only a fool, an out-and-out unreconstructed idiot, could really think that the thing in question is worth talking about. It's a distraction, a red herring– the only herring that Yiddish does not take seriously–something that has obtruded itself into a place where it shouldn't be:

mrs. cohen: So, tell me, Mrs. Levy, when' s your granddaughter getting married?

mrs. levy: Married, shmarried! She's nine months old.
"Don't," in other words, "be stupid. Where does marriage come to toilet training? If you can't be bothered to start making sense, the least you could do is make sure not to talk."

The path from shtekele to shmekele, from sht to shm, leads from childish whimsy to childish knowingness: regardless of what adults might think, kids can not only tell the difference between image and reality, they can also figure out which parts of their bodies will make grown-ups wrinkle their noses as much as the pee-pee and poo-poo that come out of those parts. They are learning to use these parts for comic effect, especially those of little boys, who have something that they can point and wave solely for the sake of fun.

Now, shmekele, the-little-stick-that-isn' t, is what linguists call a second-degree diminutive. If Mike is the first-degree diminutive of Michael, Mikey, the diminutive of Mike, is a second-degree diminutive. If shmekele is a second-degree diminutive, there should also be a first-degree form, maybe a bit more serious but no whit less cutesy. Shmekl, the first-degree diminutive, does in fact exist, and is nearly as common in Yiddish as its little brother, shmekele. What's unusual, though, is that there was no positive form, no base-word on which the diminutives depended. A shmekele was never really a diminutive shmok (the standard Yiddish form of shmuck); a shmok was an overgrown shmekele. Where the linguistic process of whittling a stick down to size begins with the full-sized shtok, which becomes a shtekl and then a shtekele, the more strictly penile progression, marked by the shm at the beginning, also works like the real thing: it starts off with something small, then teases it out to fullness.

Shmekl is not the only Yiddish word that contempt has made big. The word sheytl, which means the wig worn by Orthodox women to hide their own hair, looks and sounds like a diminutive, even though it really is not. Unable to find a full-sized form in the language as they knew it, though, Yiddish-speakers invented one: the shoyt is a larger, hairier, more mature version of the sheytl. Since anyone who's spent much time in the Orthodox world can spot even a good sheytl from a hundred yards off–they're not supposed to look too much like a woman's real hair–it isn't surprising that shoyt is used only to refer to a sheytl that's less fashionable, more obviously fake, much easier to spot at a distance than the average sheytl. When the diminutive is also the norm, the shoyt, which becomes monstrous by virtue of its size, is a sign of something gone grotesquely wrong.

If enlarging a diminutive can turn a ladies' toupee into a hunting trophy, imagine what it can do for something that can grow on its own. Shmok is to shmekl as shoyt is to sheytl–the only difference being that sheytl was always a "real" word, while shmekl was invented to make fun of shtekl and originally made no real sense without it, any more than a statement that we'd got just got back from Lost Wages would make sense to anyone who had never heard of Las Vegas. We're dealing with a mocking deformation of shtekele that grows into an equally sardonic takeoff of the full-sized shtok from which the shtekele grew.

Fabricating a positive form out of a humorous, baby-talk diminutive is no laughing matter; the full-sized shmok is to the child's shmekl as the giant ants that try to destroy Los Angeles in the 1954 classic Them are to the little fellows that King Solomon tells us to emulate. "Go to the ant, o slacker," he says in Proverbs 6:6, "behold her ways and wise up." Go to any ant in this movie, though, and it'll eat you alive while Edmund Gwenn (Santa Claus in the original Miracle on 34th Street) stands helplessly by and watches. What's cute and instructive and ecologically helpful when it's half an inch long is entirely different when it grows to nine feet.

A shmekele is small and cute and can sometimes be very funny. Its owner might wave it around once in a while, and the absolute worst it can do is to give the owner himself and anyone in the line of fire a good soaking. With respect to Jewish life, it's the only visible sign that a child too young to wear a yarmulke or ritual fringes is in fact a Jew. "Small is beautiful" comes to an end at roughly the same time as the shmekele, grown considerably larger, becomes capable of more than what Chaucer called "purgacioun of uryne." By the time we get to shmok, the shm is simply the first part of the word, as it is in such other well-known Yiddish terms as shmatte or shmooz, in which the shm has no connection with the pejorative prefix. Shmok becomes a word like any other, only dirtier. Technically speaking, shmok masquerades as the full-sized, positive form from which the diminutives shmekl and shmekele are derived: compare a boy four or five years old who goes up to the lady next door and announces proudly, "I have a penis," to a man of thirty who does the same thing. That's the difference between a shmekl and a shmok.
II

As the ant and the penis both teach us, enlarging a diminutive, blowing it up as if life and speech were photo labs, can turn something that used to be cute into something unpleasant and often frightening. Growth alone, though, doesn't account for the aura of really distasteful obscenity that still clings to shmuck in Yiddish. Where such English terms as prick and dick can hardly be called sophisticated, using them in polite company to refer to either a penis or a person will cause real offense only if the person, his penis, or some of his friends and family are present. The speaker' s breeding, education, and social skills might be called into question; his choice of words might be labelled inappropriate, but not as overtly offensive as asshole or worse, cunt, would have been in the same conversation. Shmuck's power to offend derives from its deeper cultural context, from a couple of unusual features of Jewish religious and cultural life.

The most significant of these is the central importance of circumcision in Jewish life. As the only ritual that the religion itself considers indispensable–the word orel, "man with a foreskin," is a synonym for gentile in both Hebrew and Yiddish–circumcision was until recently considered the infallible sign of the Jew throughout Europe and the Americas. This identification of circumcision with Judaism, the idea that a man's penis can determine the nature of his relationship with God, invests the child's shmekl with a significance and allure that might not be immediately apparent to adherents of other faiths. It's not unusual for a Yiddish-speaking mother to lift up the baby boy whom she's diapering and, while cataloging the rest of his body parts and their beauty, wax just as dithyrambic over what she will inevitably call his kosher shmekele, his kosher little shmekl, the one body part that, even for the baby's mother, has more to do with Mount Sinai than with cocktail weenies, no matter how strictly kosher the latter.

An equally powerful tradition, the role of which is slightly less easy to discern at first glance, is the Jewish refusal– strictly speaking, the Jewish inability–to utter the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God that is said to be His only real name. It's what God calls Himself when He's at home. So powerful is the prohibition against saying it–when the Temple was still standing, no one but the High Priest was allowed to utter it, and even he could do so only on Yom Kippur–that the secret of its pronunciation was lost after the Temple was destroyed: you couldn't say it if you wanted to. Another, less sacred name is used in its place, one that everybody knows is a less powerful substitute. God's real name can be seen in any Torah, but it is never heard; anything you can call Him involves some kind of diminution. The prohibition against using God's name has expanded to the point where the stand-ins have acquired a taboo quality of their own, as have even some of the substitutes for the substitutes. You'll say adonai when praying, but adoshem or Ha-Shem (literally, The Name) when merely making reference to God. You'll say elohim in prayer, but otherwise it's elokim: what would look like blasphemy anywhere else–imagine calling Jesus, Mesus–is a sign of respect among Jews.

Although Yiddish has more than its share of euphemism and antiphrasis–calling a fat person Tiny or an evil eye a good eye–the only things or beings whose names are programmatically excluded from a child's universe are God and the kid's own penis. No living being, young or old, knows what God is really called, and no little boy knows the real name of his shtekl or shmekl. All he knows about it is that his penis is no shtekele, no candy cane, and that it is the only part of his body that doesn' t seem to have a name of its own. Shmekl thus expresses an attitude to shtekl, a name that the child quickly learns has nothing to do with the part of him to which it's supposed to refer. An arm is an arm; a leg, a leg; even his tukhes or rear end has a name that it doesn't have to share. Only his penis is referred to obliquely, metaphorically, by a name that really belongs to something else. Any pre—Hebrew school pisher already knows that his member is a "shtekele," not a shtekele, and he therefore uses the term only in its irreverent, slightly contemptuous shm-form–shmekele–lest anyone think that he can't tell metaphor from reality. The parallel to the Tetragrammaton turns on his using a deformed version of a name that has been substituted for the real name that he doesn't know–and knows that he doesn'...

About this edition

• Publisher: Harper Perennial
• Publication date: 2010
• ISBN 10: 0061771120
• ISBN 13: 9780061771125
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 240