(RNS) — “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?”
Those are the immortal words of Shylock, a central character in William Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” Shylock is the Jewish money lender — and one of the most infamous portrayals of a Jew in world literature. An iconic figure in theater, for more than two centuries, he has been portrayed by some of the greatest actors in history, including Laurence Olivier, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and Patrick Stewart.
So, yes: this Jew hath eyes, dimensions, affections and passions.
This Jew also hath ears, and this Jew, and every other Jew, hath heard President Donald Trump use the term “Shylock” in a July 3 speech in Iowa.
Describing bankers and taxes to promote his now-signed “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Trump said, “Think of that, no death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people.”
Trump later said he didn’t realize the term was offensive. That is hard to believe, but never mind. Even alleged ignorance of offense doesn’t negate its harm. “Shylock” is not a neutral name — it’s a symbol of centuries of antisemitism, of the libel of Jewish greed and of Christians casting Jews as heartless moneylenders.
In other words, it’s not just a word. It is a dog whistle. As Philip Roth put it in his book “Operation Shylock”: “In the modern world, the Jew has perpetually been on trial; still today the Jew is on trial, in the person of the Israeli — and this modern trial of the Jew, this trial which never ends, begins with the trial of Shylock.”
What do you need to know about “Shylock?”
In Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” Shylock is a moneylender who demands a “pound of flesh” from Antonio, a Christian merchant, as collateral for a loan. He is thwarted because the “pound of flesh” would not have included any blood, which would make it impossible for him to collect. Ultimately, Shylock loses his daughter, and his faith; he is forced to convert to Christianity.
Which is odd, and telling: At the time Shakespeare wrote the play, there were no Jews in England. King Edward I had expelled them in 1290, and they weren’t officially readmitted until the mid-1600s, when Oliver Cromwell needed them to create a merchant class and boost the English economy.
This means English audiences likely had little real contact with Jews and were predisposed to believe and spread negative caricatures of them.
And that’s what happened. Shylock’s character echoed broader European antisemitic ideas, portraying Jews as alien, dangerous outsiders. Shylock is vengeful, obsessed with money and lacks mercy. That portrayal aligns with antisemitic stereotypes common in Elizabethan England.
It is a dark legacy that continues. Over the centuries, “Shylock” became shorthand for a greedy or unscrupulous moneylender — specifically a Jewish one.
When someone uses the term today, they are resurrecting the tired tropes of Jewish cunning and exploitation. It’s a slur wrapped in literary credentials.
When it emerges from the president of the United States, that is not a gaffe, it is a moral failure. It’s a moral failure Joe Biden also committed, several years ago when he was vice president, for which he apologized.
When this term emerged from Trump’s mouth, it was not only a gaffe, but continued a pattern, because Trump is not a stranger to antisemitic verbiage regarding Jews and money.
In 2019, during a speech to the Israeli American Council in Hollywood, Florida, Trump said: “A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me, you have no choice,” and “Some of you I don’t like at all, actually.”
And in 2016, his campaign tweets shared an image of Hillary Clinton with a six-pointed Star of David on a pile of cash, invoking stereotypes of Jewish financial corruption.
In 2015, at a speech for the Republican Jewish Coalition, he told Jewish donors: “I don’t want your money. You want to control your own politician.” In the same speech, he referred to himself as “negotiators like you.”
In 1988, as reported by author Jack O’Donnell, he said: “I’ve got Black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
Shylock may have been a Shakespearean character, but for many Jews, he has been a mirror held up by a hostile world. We cannot afford to let that image go unchallenged when it reappears in modern discourse.
That goes for Jewish organizations as well — especially those on the right that were vocal in praising Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. They must also criticize this president when he uses antisemitic language and promotes antisemitic ideas, especially when such ideas have become part of American discourse. That’s because this isn’t about Trump alone. It’s about the cultural soil that allows this kind of speech to take root and go unchallenged.
Over the past few weeks, American Jews have been rightly upset when New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani refused to understand the impact of “globalize the intifada.”
“Intifada” hurts. So does “Shylock.”
Returning to Shylock’s famous speech, in which he said: “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” That might have been Shakespeare’s way of expressing sympathy — both to Shylock and to the Jewish people.
History and recent events have made it very clear that if you prick us, we do, in fact, bleed. And, when we bleed, we will speak out.