ט באב תש"ע: Freye Yidden

לִהְיוֹת עַם חָפְשִׁי בְּאַרְצֵנוּ
אֶרֶץ צִיּוֹן וִירוּשָׁלַיִם

"To be a free people in our own land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem." These are the words that end the Hatikvah anthem. For generations, many of the more traditional factions in Judaism opposed the idea of "Political Zionism", and their opposition could easily be manifest in this last verse of Hatikvah; the Secular Jews who revived Zionism and established the Jewish State in Zion wanted a society "free" from G-d's laws and free from religious responsibilities. Quite simply, they wanted to be freye yidden, or "free Jews", a derogatory term used by the Ultra Orthodox in Europe connoting Secular Jews.

What I always wondered how they overlooked though, is that Hatikvah is obviously not the first Jewish text yearning for national "freedom". Every day we say in our prayers תְּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל לְחֵרוּתֵנוּ, "Blow the great ram's horn to liberate us". Also the famous prayer in the Hagadah לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, "Next year in the Land of Israel, free men". We see that Jewish liturgy has always been replete with prayers for freedom. Not freedom from religion, as traditionalists naively suppose about Hatikvah, but freedom to serve G-d as we're meant to.

This topic of national liberation finds an appropriate place in our current spot on the Hebrew calender. Tonight we mourn the destruction of our beloved Temple in Jerusalem, and the subsequent fleeing of G-d's Direct Presence from the earth. Our sages say the main reason for this destruction was because our ancestors harbored too much baseless animosity for one another (Yoma 9b). But that is a more spiritualistic reason responding to why G-d allowed it to occur, but there were naturalistic political reasons the Talmud discusses as well (Gittin 56a), and what arises from the entire narrative is that the reason for the Destruction was the stubbornness of the Nationalist Party, who were always looking to oust the Romans from the Holy Land. Since, had the Peace Party been the only ones in power, there would have not been any reason for war, and Israel would have prospered, yet, under the boot of the Roman, prosperity is quite relative, and for many war is preferable to peace (if it seems silly to you to make such an ado out of the Roman presence in Israel, just see how fired-up the Arabs are today in contemporary Palestine about "foreign occupation").

Were they sinners then? Those who brought about the destruction of G-d's Sanctuary on Earth? I think it would be silly to say such a thing, because, unlike what the Haredim propose, freedom has always had a prominent place in our liturgy and our national conscience. Even in the face of adversity, it is a mitzvah to strive towards the further emancipation of our people. Not to give this post a political tone, but just to be clear: Even today, in what is called the "Israeli Occupied West Bank" and Judea, while we are in fact in power and it is the Arabs who are struggling for their emancipation, there is still much action taken to prevent our people from living freely on its land. So, today as well, it would be wrong to criticize their struggle.

May we all merit to work in unison, drive the Arab off the Temple mount, and rebuild the Third Temple brick by brick with our own two hands. Amen.

Commentary on Esther- תש"ע

I hope you are all enjoying your Purim, friends. Usually I have ideas about the Megillah but forget them by the time I get around to writing them down, but this year I remembered a lot more, so I want to get this done before I forget. I did write a bit last year though, but not as much as I would have liked to. As it happens I was even able to read the Megillah tonight in a limited assembly, so I guess that might have jogged my memory a bit.

I've got a few things to say on almost every chapter:

Chapter 1: "הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ"- I don't know why it didn't seem as obvious to me in the past, but now it's quite obvious to me (not to mention it's well known by now) that this is a response to a confusion by the part of the reader when hearing "אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ"; the natural question is "Which אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ are you speaking of?", since the book of Ezra also mentions an "אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ" (it seems Xerxes (חְשָׁיָארְשָׁ) and Artaxerxes (אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׂתָּא) were called by the same name in ancient Hebrew, although in Aramaic it mentions the latter by his actual name). To that it responds "the one who was the great emperor over all these lands".

"בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ, לְמָלְכוֹ"- Since the destruction of the Judean kingdom, the Tanach counts years according to the Babylonian kings, and then according to the Persian kings. This change is evidenced clearly in the book of Daniel, which occurs before and after the twelve year Ahasuerus-reign of the book of Esther, but can also be seen in Ezra and "Tobit".

"וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת"
"כָּל-יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין"
"כְּדָת, מַה-לַּעֲשׂוֹת"
"אַחַת דָּתוֹ לְהָמִית" etc etc- It's well known that the book of Esther uses the word "דת" a disproportionately large amount of times. Many commentators say that in this context it's simply just another word for "law" or "royal law", but I'm starting to think it does have what to do with religion. With the rise of Persian prominence worldwide the Zoroastrian religion gained unprecedented renown and it's priests had much more political influence than they once did, considering that the emperor had to abide by their rulings. It seems to me that a lot of this "דת" in the megillah is speaking of religious decrees enacted by the Zoroastrian priests onto the monarchy. From the decision about what to do with a queen who doesn't show when summoned to the death penalty for someone who approaches the emperor without having been summoned. I use the word "emperor" by the way, and not "king", since he was, in fact, an emperor, it's just that there's no word for "emperor" in Hebrew, so it uses the same word for the ruler of a city state as for an emperor.

Chapter 2: "וַיֶּאֱהַב הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-אֶסְתֵּר מִכָּל-הַנָּשִׁים, וַתִּשָּׂא-חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו מִכָּל-הַבְּתוּלוֹת"- The "One Night with the King" movie (which, I feel, has been a very successful attempt of the Evangelical community to create top notch entertainment that doesn't sacrifice Christian values in the process) portrays a romantic love between the emperor and Esther. I think anyone would agree that it's unlikely that they had an emotional attachment. He did want her to be the queen, but it was extremely uncommon back then for there to be anything but a political connection between king and queen.

Chapter 3: "הָמָן בֶּן-הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי"- As if it would be possible to verify if he was some long-lost descendant of Agag. I think it might be saying that since he was so gung-ho about killing the entire nation of Mordecai, it must be he's from the seed of Amalek, i.e. a descendant of Agag (but it's hard to believe he went parading that fact in a nation who didn't know from such things).

"וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן, לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם-אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד בֵּין הָעַמִּים, בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ; וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל-עָם, וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים, וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין-שֹׁוֶה, לְהַנִּיחָם. אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם; וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר-כֶּסֶף, אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל-יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה, לְהָבִיא, אֶל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ."- I was thinking of making a post out of this and calling it "What Haman can teach us about Blogging"(!), but I'll just stick with this format. To me it seems that Haman has been reading his Dale Carnegie, and is being a very efficient public speaker. Now, notice that in the previous verse we're told that this is the twelfth year of Ahasuerus's reign, in other words four entire years since he was thinking about killing Mordecai and his people, and it was still on his mind. So he was probably looking for a way to carry it out for years, and he ends up accomplishing it in a couple of seconds by a very witty use of words. First, he takes advantage of the fact that the emperor is probably just as interested in hearing a twenty hour lesson on the history of the Jews, and about all their kings and how they ended up in Persia as Bush was interested in hearing the history of Iraq and what the deposition of Saddam Husein would do to it's infrastructure. He doesn't mention them by name and quickly demonizes them. Then he promises loads of cash if Ahasuerus lets him go through with it. So he's basically saying "There's some lawless group of anarchists throughout the empire that aren't willing to comply with us; you're better off without them. If it pleases the king, I'll rid you of them, aaaaand add ten thousand gold bars to the treasury". And viola, the signet ring is suddenly on his finger.

The connection to blogging is that people need quick sound bytes and can't be bothered to listen or think to much. If you want someone to be swayed by your words, they have to be biast, unclear, sweet and powerful!

Chapter 4: "כִּי אִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ תַּחֲרִישִׁי, בָּעֵת הַזֹּאת--רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר"-I think this is one of the most theologically significant points in the megillah; what would happen if Esther did nothing, would everything turn out the same for the Jews. Or, more importantly, what if Esther only fasted two days, or what if she said one less prayer? In other words: what exactly did any given spiritual activity affect in the world. Perhaps a Jewish community in some Persian occupied city on the North African coast heard about it; how much did the particularly fervent prayer of a young Jewish boy in that community affect the emperor's decision? What if he never did pray?....

Of less theological significance to me is the fact that Mordecai knew that salvation would come to the Jews no matter what, since there's some sort of biblical pact between G-d and Israel in the Tanach, that he would never destroy them.

"וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ--אִם-לְעֵת כָּזֹאת, הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת"- To us readers it seems quite obvious that she became queen for this reason, and he very fact that Mordecai finds it necessary to say this is indicative of the fact that Esther wasn't Evangelically quick in attributing Providence to everything in her life. After all, for a second it seemed like she was going to turn her back on her people since "כָּל-אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא-אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל-הֶחָצֵר הַפְּנִימִית אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִקָּרֵא אַחַת דָּתוֹ לְהָמִית". Even Mordecai seems to be mention the prospect of Divine intervention in very theoretical terms ("Who knows")....

"וּבְכֵן אָבוֹא אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ"- The funny thing is that after Mordecai's little speech, she seems to have gone 360 degrees and even be willing to show up by the king after having fasted for three days (which can't be the best thing from a cosmetic perspective), thus leaving the possibility of success entirely upon Divine Providence.

Chapter 5: "יָבוֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן, אֶל-הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לָהֶם"- Esther understood the importance of mystery and mystique. Which is something people are attracted to. Which is the same reason people are attracted to the anonymity of having an online personality.

Chapter 9: "וְהָרוֹג בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם, חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף"- It seems the exiled Judeans were still war-ready if they could kill 75,000 armed soldiers at the tip of a hat. This was well before the "ultra-urbanization" of the Jew...

"לְקַיֵּם אֶת-יְמֵי הַפֻּרִים הָאֵלֶּה בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר קִיַּם עֲלֵיהֶם מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי וְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, וְכַאֲשֶׁר קִיְּמוּ עַל-נַפְשָׁם, וְעַל-זַרְעָם: דִּבְרֵי הַצּוֹמוֹת, וְזַעֲקָתָם"- It seems that Ta'anit Esther is considered one of "the days of Purim".

Chapter 10: "וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו"- Again, in a more tribe-oriented reading of the text, it's possible that the Judaite Zealots were wary of a Benjaminite finding favor with the emperor, since he might have wanted to become a new monarch over Judea and have founded a new non-Judaite dynasty...

Another important point is the chronology, since the Megillah seems to span from the third year of Xerxes' reign to at least the twelfth, which is a pretty long timespan for a story to come together, especially considering that Xerxes' reign lasted only twenty years altogether...

Lomo on Chanukah - '09

I was just looking over my Chanukah post from last year, and while it does badly need to be rewritten, the core idea is correct.

One quirky little idea I've been pondering about Chanukah thus far this year is how different the historical reality of those times are from the historical setting I once imagined: when I think Chanukah I usually think Jews against Greeks, and the Greeks being at the height of their empire and having no rivals. In the meantime the reality of Chanukah is far more complex and unexpected than one would imagine: The original "Greek" conquerors weren't even Greeks but Macedonians who despised real Greeks, and the height of Greek culture had passed long ago (people like Aristotle had lived in the First Temple period, well before there was any Greek Empire, and Antiochus VI was one of the last great Seleucid kings).

One also imagines the Persians as having stepped into the historical background long before then, but they were still very much around at this time. The very same Persians who allowed for the Second Temple to initially be constructed, were in fact, Antiochus's main difficulty outside of the Judeans (he actually died waring against the Persians). The funny thing about the people of Iran is that they keep appearing in history under different names: Medes, Parthians, Sassanids etc. And the Romans, whom one thinks of as having thrived later in history were also very active at that time, and even made a pact with the Haasmonean Judeans against the Seleucids and Helenized Judeans. Since it was essentially some sort of civil war among the Judeans themselves, and the Seleucid king only came at the behest of the (Judean) Tobiads, who were at odds with the Onias/Hasmonean party, which represented the majority of the people, and who favored the Seleucid rival, the Egyptian Ptolemaic kingdom (who, after all, were just as Greek as the Seleucids, and were also an impediment to Judah's autonomy, yet was still preferred over the latter). All these historical complications are what make reading the Book of Maccabees so difficult: "We know the story, the oil burnt for eight days. What's all this with Onias and Romans?"!

I wouldn't have posted this since it bears no lesson, but...it's better than nothing!

Pesach- 2: AGNVS DEI; The Crying of the Lambs

Well, it's time to fulfill my wish and write a bit about the "meat and potatoes" of what I see Pesach to be about. That's something I like about Pesach; there're just so many aspects of it: יציאת מצריים, the personalities of it's main players, the קרבן פסח, the leavening idea, the סדר, etc..

I would like to initiate this monologue by saying that the aspects of Pesach that are generally stressed today are, at best, only secondary aspects of what the "true" Pesach once was. What I mean of course is that since the Pascal Sacrifice has (generally) not been performed for a while, the stress has shifted a bit more to חמץ and מצה issues. This year the ברכה to be recited over the renewal of and appreciation for our star's once in 28 year renewed cycle (ברכת החמה) is also apparent, yet this too pales in comparison with the more important (Biblical) commandments regarding the קרבן פסח. It's interesting to note, for example, that there are a great many Biblical stipulations in regards to this mitzvah, while it's well known that mitzvot such as שבת and תפילין receive little Biblical representation comparatively.

So, even though we personally might not be fulfilling this command this year, it is of great importance for he who wishes to focus their minds on the essential aspects of Pesach, to ponder this mitzvah, and more importantly, to attempt to visualize what significance those to whom G_d spoke concerning this would have attributed to it (thereby revealing the Divine purpose inherent within it).

It is well known that "the Egyptians worshiped sheep" and that G_d commanded to kill the sheep as a representation of separation from Egypt and all that she held important. Which is why I have always felt that the best way, then, to understand this sacrifice would be to better understand this aspect of the ancient Egyptian religion, and the best way to understand this aspect of that religion is to better understand the concept of "animal worship" in general (there is historical evidence that Egyptians didn't believe in animal sacrifice). In that realm there seems to have been a difference of opinion between Herodotus and Diodorus as to what this worship meant to the Egyptians; the former suggested that the Egyptians did not "worship" animals, rather they respected animals that (they felt) the gods held sacred and, at times, manifested themselves in, while the latter felt they were actually worshiping the animals. Herodotus' view has been accepted as being more correct than that of Diodorus.

The Ram (Sheep) represented a number of deities, one of whom was the chief god, Amun (who, at most times in the history of his worship, seemed to have been at the head of their pantheon, and was representative of virility).

....I once read that it's really kind of silly to say "people worshiped" so-and-so god in ancient times. It's almost like writing in an abridged history for future students, "Adolf Hitler was a political leader in Germany in the 1930's and 40's". Yes, he was a political leader, but that doesn't display how people felt when they went to Hitler's rallies. The same wonder one would have as to why Germany voted for a destructive leader in the 30's without knowing about the emotions that were rampant then is that which he would have when atempting to understand why people worshiped a statue of a guy with a ram head without knowing the prevailing moods people had in his worship. It was everything; patriotism, religion, euphoria, numinous and social event all in one (I mean, people shed tears in those temples, man!)..

Then we are faced with this commandment to sacrifice this national representative of the divine, with all it's particularities (איסור שבירת עצם, נותר, וכדומה). So again, I feel it would be wrong to jump to conclusions about how the lesson of the קרבן פסח can be translated to our lives, yet I also feel it's not advised to come to quick speculations about how the Israelites were to feel about these קרבן פסח commandments. I feel the best is to present the premises, and allow individuals to come to the conclusions they see the most logical, and the most applicable to their lives.

Pesach- 1: Miracles

It has recently become my custom, friends, to browse through the library closest to where I stay on ערב שבת for something to occupy my mind (outside of our never-ending and unceasingly interesting Torah and Talmud) while sitting on a chair for a long while. This past Friday I picked up, among other things, Kugel’s “How to Read the Bible”. I was particularly interested in Kugel because I heard he had become somewhat popular among Modern-Orthodox (Chana Wiznitzer spoke of him for example), and I figured that seeing what he had to say on the Exodus narrative would give me a beginners idea of what he’s all about. Well, for someone who didn’t even read the cover sleeve, I was pretty surprised, I felt like I thought I was reading Gemara, but the content turned out to be pornographic. So for the uninitiated: It’s basically just a compendium of the ideas and conclusions of Modern Biblical scholars (critics), though it does mention some of the more traditional explanations, and on what premises they were formulated. Now, not that I feel all Biblical criticism books should be burned, but for a book with such an unassuming name I was a bit surprised. I did find a few of his points insightful, and it’s sort of easy reading because of its surprisingly colloquial style (probably because he’s Israeli).

One penetrating point he made that I recall off hand is a theory that many (including myself) have been puzzled by greatly; there were many British rationalists in the past 200 years who consistently tried to explain the miracles of the bible (especially those mentioned in Exodus) in a naturalistic sense, with the premise that the laws of nature cannot be changed). These are well known ideas, and new ones always appear, and traditional theologians and lay people of religious sensibilities usually quickly dismiss these ideas, and Kugel mentions the obvious reason for this. To paraphrase; if one does not feel that G-d can change nature than the entirety of religion must be manmade, and therefore somewhat bogus, for if G-d cannot intervene in nature, He cannot inspire prophesy to anyone, and prayer to Him is obviously also useless. Obviously the entirety of religion is based on the concept of prophesy, and prophesy is based on the premise that the creator of the universe somehow communicates His will to actual human beings, and listens when they speak. Now, while it is true that the Bible usually indicates that some form of natural means are generally employed to carry out salvation for His people (like the east winds in this case) it is obviously impossible to have a “theologian” who does not believe that the miracles of Exodus did not and could not have veered from the course of nature in any way (….unless they’re some sort of Humanist theologian or something).

In the past though, I thought the only purpose in hearing what the Bible critics had to say at all was because it was included in the general goal of expanding knowledge (especially in the field of religion). There’s a book that slightly changed my mind about that though; Lonely Man of Faith. In it, Rav Soloveichik, through a knowledge of the early form of the Documentary Hypothesis developed by the early German Bible critics that Genesis 1 and 2 (for example) were written by different groups (J and E, respectively), takes advantage of them by using them to explain those chapters in a very novel way, while not necessitating that the chapters have different authors, but rather (obviously) one author discussing different themes.

I would take advantage of this kind of theory to use a word I love so much; “post” (you know, like “post-modernism”). In other words; originally there was Biblical scholarship. In the eighteenth century “Modern” Biblical scholarship was started, and now, I feel, is time for religious people to confront Modern scholarship and create a “post”-modern Biblical scholarship, one that does not necessarily always refute modern scholarship, but uses it to further understand the bible based on our own, Divine inspiration premises. For the modern scholarship itself, I feel, is only the outcome of a simple premise, founded by a simple conclusion (which is not necessarily lacking in logic); namely that the Bible was not of any extra-human inspiration. All the critical theories are obviously a natural outcome of that premise. Yet we too have a simple, logically based premise, and there is no reason not to take advantage of the type of study for our purposes, just as we would use the result of any other discipline (such as archeology and anthropology) for our own “purposes”.

Random Megilah Thoughts

OMG, it's, like, almost Purim and I didn't write anything about it yet!

Well, one thing that quickly crossed my mind last night, that others I spoke with actually concurred with a bit, is that it seems that it was Mordecai who started the whole debacle, since he was the one who incurred Haman's anger when he refused to bow or rise for him. It is obvious that Haman was a pathological individual, and that it would serve him better not to be heeded, but according to what I was reading in the NIV he wouldn't have been transgressing any sin if he did bow to him (since there are other biblical characters who did bow to people--Abraham bowing to the sons of Heth for example), and the only reason he would not was due to an obvious strife he had with a personage such as Haman. Yet the fact remains that if he did bow, Haman's anger against the Jews might not have been incited, he would not have plotted against the exiled Judeans, and we would never have heard the story (and it was Mordecai himself who later sends to Esther that "if you don't risk your life to save us, salvation will come from another source", as if to suggest that he is sure a salvation must somehow come, although it is he that caused the very need for a salvation).

But that is just a whimsical thought, obviously it was part of G-d's plan for Mordecai not to bow or rise (since that is what happened), and there is a likelihood that based on the circumstances refraining from showing honor to such a person was in fact the superior course of action.

Yet aside from that, every year I come upon a few small realizations about Megilat Esther that I had in the past. Though aside from seeking textual, moral and literary insights, I, in general, like reading Megilat Esther in a "realistic" sense, especially through the subject of archaeological and person identifications. This is due to the fact that in the "Boro Park society" in which I reside the Megilah is obviously taken far from it's original meaning, and contorted to become some Chasidic fairy tale, where Mordecai is an "Admur" and Haman is visibly villainous. If one does believe that the events recorded in the Megilah actually occurred in reality, one obviously must distance such imagery from himself. Now, as far as we're concerned Haman was indeed sinister, but considering his stature, most probably saw him only as an elderly statesman.

Also in regards to Mordecai, some interpret that he himself was exiled from Jerusalem, while some, based on the dates we have, say that it is impossible for him to have come from Jerusalem, and it is more likely that he was first or second generation foreign-born. Also, I mentioned before a "villainous appearance"; keep in mind that Persians are known to despise middle-easterners. Mordecai must have been somewhat racially different than the others, which is enough to create within him the animosity of his countrymen.

In regards to Vashti as well, there is textual as well as historical evidence that she was not killed, but rather dethroned, and actually returned after Esther either died or lost favor with the king.

Something I enjoy thinking about in regards to Ahasuerus that he is, for the most part, associated with the Persian king "Khashayar-sha", which sounds more Persian, since it ends with "shah".

Yet these are essentially trivial points. The main point is obviously to internalize the lesson of the Megilah, something which, I'm afraid, is somewhat overlooked due to the pervasive cultural aspects of Purim. I am actually of the opinion that few, very much including myself, fully perceive the spiritual significance of Ta'anit Ester, and Purim itself.

Lomo on Chanukah - '08

Sorry, my internet wasn't working for a few days, though there were a few things I wanted up here..another time perhaps. ...what was it I was supposed to write about? ..Oh yes, Hannukah.

One thing about Hanukkah which I think is clearly agreed upon across the spectrum of ways of understanding it, is that Hanukkah is ‘commemorating’ two things, and the amount of import one places on either reason classifies their understanding of it (in a way), though even within these two reasons for commemoration there is much disagreement as what exactly about these events is worth commemorating.

These two commemorations are obviously for either the great victories the Judeans wrought on the Seleucid Greek armies, and the subsequent liberation of Judea and of Judaic ethical monotheism from their hands, as well as the ritual and political purification of the Temple from foreign control, or the miracle of the oil for the Temple’s perpetual lamp (lighting more than physically possible) which ensued (huge run-on, I know). The Baraith’a, which primarily quotes the "oil miracle" is somewhat representative of the more Religious spectrum , while the Book of Maccabees, the "The Scroll of Antiochus" as well as the more well known prayer (“A’l Hanisim”) which all commemorate the military victory are usually the aspect more commemorated by the more ‘Nationalistic’ elements among us.

To me it is unquestionable that both extremes are somewhat erroneous; the significance of the ‘miracle of the oil’ aspect, and what it should mean to us should not be under-emphasized, yet the military/political victory should certainly not be understated.

If so, a very brief restatement:

‘Oil miracle’- I do not feel that stating something like “the menorah was nothing more than the Jewish nationalistic symbol” is unfounded, but for what reason was it our symbol if not for the elements of light and ritual purity inherent in it? I do not feel that anybody is of the opinion that the Priests felt it so overbearingly important to reconstruct and rekindle the Menorah with specifically ritually pure oil (which was not a halakhic necessity) only to replace some symbol of National unity. There is no question that to them the speedy relighting of the Menorah was representative of the ethical and cultural victory they had won against the Greeks. That could and should be a lesson to us today- for even those among us with the longest and blackest of coats, and the furriest of hats has the most despicable of Western/American ideals in their hearts (myself, obviously, very much among them). The lesson of the purpose of the Divine radiance shown to our ancestors at the Temple should serve to bring well needed ‘mind over matter’ ideals to our spiritually-starved souls.

The ‘War miracle’ as well, though, cannot be overlooked; yet for what did those agrarian Judean ancestors of ours fight, if not to cleanse our land –G-d’s land— from the most objectionable of Greek ideologies and practices being shipped into Judea. This victory created a situation the Judeans had not known in their recent past, and have not known since—full autonomy in their own land.

This is going on too long, is it not? ..not my style…it is not without need of editing though..

צילא דמהימנותא

Well, we got our Succah up (wasn't too difficult, being that it's principles of engineering were the same as those of Lego(!)), and what is perhaps my most beloved holiday begins tonight. I always liked Succot more than others holidays because there are just so many interesting actions and thoughts to ponder, and in my opinion the main purpose for the commandment of these actions is to cause one to ponder.

So ponder I shall! One particular nuance that I enjoy reminding myself of, and one that I think plays a central role in this festival, is what some of the sixteenth century Kabalists said about the Succah; that it is a holy place due to the fact that in a kabalistic sense the aura of G-d (שכינה) is there, and therefore one's level of respect and awe while in the Succah should be the same as it would in a place of worship (דינה כדין בית הכנסת). A 'Succah' (דבר שמסכך) is defined only by the 'סכך' itself (by the 'shade' itself). It is defined as being under the shade and protection of this temporary roof, commemorating G-d's protecting cover over our ancestors in the wilderness, and known in kabalah as 'צילא דמהימנותא' (the shade of belief').

But then again, we know that that which it says in the Torah "בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים" means that one should live in the Succah as one lives in their house. The Mishna and the Talmud explain that every aspect of living should be transferred to the Succah, from eating to drinking to sleeping! From enjoying one's idle time in good conversation to writing blog posts using the neighbors wi-fi (well, the Gemara didn't actually mention that, but..)!

So we therefore are faced with a paradox of sorts; one the one hand we have the injunction to live in the Succah in the most mundane of ways, being instructed to bring all of our daily squalor into the Succah, and on the other hand we have this idea that one must be in the same awe of the place (due to G-d's presence there) as we would in a house of prayer (it's known for example that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn didn't feel comfortable sleeping in his Succah at all due to it's holiness)-?-

But that itself is obviously the lesson. That after seven days of feeling that "well, I can't fully 'let my hair down here because 'G-d is here' ", we then return to our actual bedrooms. And the obvious dawns on us; is G-d not also present in my bedroom?!

I was once by the kotel (I was doing that whole '40 day thing' once) and on Shabbat, a not religious guy asked me what I thought was a legitimate question; isn't praying by the kotel a type of idol worship? I thought the question was "how can we say G-d is in the Temple as opposed to other places?", but I soon realized he didn't know there was ever a Jewish Tmple there, and thought everyone was praying to the wall (*sigh*, Israeli public schools!). But in essence it's a good question; how can we suppose G-d was 'more' in the beit hamikdash than outside of it? Without all the discussion, one answer is "He isn't! It's all about our perception of it!

Which also reminds me of all the times I have had to sleep in Synagogues; I would say to myself "I'm so self-conscious now- then why not when I sleep in a bed?" Is G-d not as 'present' in the Succah as in the bedroom?! In the house of worship as in the night club?! Before a Rabbi as before a comedian?! By the Kotel as on Ben Yehudah st.?! We have to reshape some perceptions, friends, as we sit 'בצילא דמהימנותא'.

חג שמח

לכפור בכפיית כופר הכפרות

A bit of Background:

There were two men who lived in the same era, knew each other and one's son even married the other's daughter. They both had very strong influences on the Jewish people, but they took different perspectives based on their differing traditions, backgrounds and leanings.

I'm discussing of course the 'Beit Yosef' (Joseph Caro) and the Ari(za"l)(Isaac Luria). Just one example out of quite a few is that which the Jews take for themselves an 'atonement' in chickens (or money..or plants(?)) on the eve of the day of Atonement. They both were raised seeing this phenomenon. Rabbi Caro, in following the tradition of many of the Spanish halakhist scholars, did not even omit this practice (which would be expected) but frowned heavily upon it in his 'Shulkhan Arukh'. Rabbi Luria, in the tradition of the European Rabbis (a community from which he descended), and based on 'great hidden meaning' associated with it, not only encouraged, but added stringencies and guidelines in the practice of this 'taking of chickens'.

We (Jews of the Orient) have been directed to follow the halakhic guidelines of Rabbi Caro (as opposed to his contemporaries or those who came after him who might argue), but in this case his words are abandoned by even the most Oriental Jew in preference to the teachings of his contemporaries, or those that came after him.

There's much more to it than that, but that's what I feel is really the main point, and all I wish to mention on that note at the moment.

My Perspective:

Well, unfortunately abandoning many an injunction -as those I just discussed-, and relying on the rulings of the more contemporary Rabbinic leaders, I personally prefer to indulge in the practice of 'kaparot' before yom kippur when it makes itself available to me. I see in it a reasonable amount of psychological and ethical significance, for the entirety of the process is of acute irony for a sound mind; a bird is taken, a white chicken who has obviously very few 'sins' to atone for, if any, as it stands. We then proceed to declare upon the chicken that it is "in our place", "our redemption", our "atonement", and then kill it, feeling that some level of our 'responsibility' has been transferred to the chicken. On face value it obviously seems a bit absurd, but this is the essence of the sacred sacrificial ceremony performed in the Temple in Jerusalem (which is one of the main reasons many opposed it).

.

To me this utter irony is the most important aspect of the whole process; it is invariably us who should "לשחיטה ילך", and the chickens who should be going "לחיים טובים ולשלום", and yet we're changing this preferable arrangement so that we should feel we must run back in protest, exclaiming that an error has mistakenly occurred; "we should stay and the chickens should go home"!

.

...I feel bad writing about such an insignificant issue though, on the eve of this ever-important day...

לעמל יולד

If repetition is hated by Man, then how much more so is it hated by G-d when Man is in perpetual folly.

לפום גמלא שחנא תנן. י

ריש שתא טבתא לכולי עלמא. ( : י

מורא

זה שאמרנו שמכבסין ומסתפרים בער"ה (תקפא-ד), ועליו אומרים "להראות שאנו בטוחין בחסדו יתברך שיוציא לצדק משפטינו", אינו בא להגיד שר"ה חג ככל החגים (ח"ו), ושלא (ח"ו) כמו שעושים כמה אנשים קלות-ראש יתירה בסימנים. אלא אדרבא- זה שאנו מלובשים בבגדי החג וכו, נעשה לטעם מסויים, ואינו בא לשנות בכלל את מהות היום, שהיא יראת יום הדין ממש. והדברים פשוטים, ואין צורך באמירתם...י

מתן תורה

The June 8th article in The Jewish Philosopher is worth reading with the commentaries (the commentators hate him and religion, but it's still important knowledge).

Bindng Issac, Crossing the Red Sea

YO!

Ugh! Tonight is similar to so many nights, I had so many interesting thoughts, but can't get around to recording them. So; here goes, some main points; Genesis 22: G-d tells Avraham to kill his son? Murder? That kind of murder? What was Avraham thinking? -Probably that "G-d told me I'll have many children etc., I'm sure G-d knows what He's doing and will get things together right. Maybe Yitzchak is like "זרע פסול", like Yishmael (sending out to dessert also sort of like killing). What G-d said back to Avraham in response to his acquiescing was basically 'well now I see you fully -trust- me (made a lot more sense while I was walking!)

But that's a similar idea to the yam suf. What? We're all going to die now, just like that? But G-d told us He'll take us to Israel (they were still on the right level, Moshe was with them). Now, it could be they all trusted G-d, but only one person -not Moshe!- decided to walk -not swim- straight into the water because "G-d said we should go, let's go, and nothing can get in our way!" Now, it could be G-d would have made a different miracle if circumstance demanded, but He also wanted to sort of test the people to see what direction they would take -after all, He put them in that situation-. And all G-d wanted to see was people who could transfer the logical into the emotional and physical, and say; "if G-d said to keep going, we"ll keep going and He'll protect us!". To fully trust in G-d.

And so too in our lives; Chanukah is a good time for teshuvah. How do you do teshuvah? Above all else- determination! You have to be determined that this is what you must do no matter what. And if you have that determination, you will trust that G-d could help you change your own reality, and run a counter-culture, and let logical healthy living overcome natural-instinctive living -Amen!