The Land as a Preservative

… The food growing in the fields around each city was placed inside (the city).        Genesis 41:48 Every district preserves its own produce, therefore the grain was stored with earth from the place in which it grows, and this prevents it decaying.             Rashi, quoting Breishit Rabba

            According to Rashi’s explanation, every land has special qualities which positively influence the preservation of the grain grown within it.

            This approach explains the special aspect of burial within the Holy Land. Regardless of where a Jew was physically born, the Land of Israel is his natural habitat. Thus, the Land has the unique quality of helping preserve the physical remains of a Jew who has departed this life, in Rashi’s words, the Land “prevents its decaying” while awaiting resurrection.

Indebted to the Difficult Times

This Dvar Torah is in memory of Gloria.

And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: 'because God has made me forget (nasheh) all my troubles - and even my father's house.'                                               Genesis 41:51

The translation, though rooted in traditional commentaries (including the two thousand year old Aramaic translation of Onkelos), is problematic. It seems strange that Joseph would name his first-born son in celebration of having forgotten his "father's house!"

Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch suggests that the verb "nasheh" in our verse is properly translated as "has made me indebted" [as in Exodus 22:24, Deuteronomy 24:11]. Thus, with the birth of his first son, Joseph acknowledged that he was indebted to his difficult experiences. Having survived his brother's jealousy and hatred, their desire to kill him, being sold as a slave and imprisoned in Egypt, Joseph appreciated that each of these experiences, difficult though it was, contributed to his personal development and advancement. Further, (at least thirteen) years after having been forced to leave his father's home, Joseph more fully appreciated the debt he owed his "father's home" in determining the person he had become.

Rabbi Hirsch's translation/commentary (for every translation is also commentary) resonates especially with me now. Three weeks after Gloria's death, I have had time to reflect and more fully appreciate not only Gloria's boundless love, but what she and her love contributed to my development and to the enrichment of my life.

While I have no pretensions of reaching the level of Joseph (known traditionally as "Yoseph haTzadik" - Joseph the righteous), I do believe that even the difficult times which Gloria and I experienced made us better people, and not the least because we shared the troubles and were able to support each other.

Different Dreamers

And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed, and behold he stood on the river.                      Genesis 41:1

          My father noted the contrast between Pharaoh’s dream and that of Jacob [Genesis 28:12-13]:

And he dreamed, and there was a ladder set up and the earth and the top of it reached heaven, and there were angels of God ascending and descending the ladder. And behold, the Eternal stood above it …

The ancient Egyptians considered the River Nile to be a divinity, yet Pharaoh saw himself standing on the Nile. Pharaoh considered himself to be above his god.

Jacob, on the other hand, saw his God as being above him and as master of everything [our Sages’ tradition is that the width of the ladder was the width of the earth]. It is Jacob’s approach which leads him to accept the divine will.

          The difference in approach of Pharaoh and of Jacob led to rather different responses to their respective dreams. Pharaoh awakened after his first dream and was able to return to his sleep [apparently without difficulty, as we read in 41:5]. Jacob, upon awakening from his dream was afraid and in awe [28:16-17]. For one who stands above his god, that god is ultimately powerless and meaningless. It is Jacob’s awareness of his being subservient to his God which gives meaning to their relationship.

The Good the Bad and Pharaoh

And, behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the river, ill-favored and lean-fleshed; and they stood by the other cows on the bank of the river.                 Genesis 41:3

          When Pharaoh related his dream to Joseph, he deleted the fact that the lean cows came out of the river, and says simply: “And, behold, seven other cows came up after them, poor and ill-favored and lean-fleshed..” [v.19]

          For the ancient idolaters, there were separate gods for good and for evil. Since the Nile was revered by the ancient Egyptians as a good deity; Pharaoh could not bring himself to say that anything bad could come out of the river.. (This inability to speak ill of the Nile seems in contrast to Pharaoh’s seeing himself as being above the river.)

One Dream, Two Dreams

And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof, and Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.      Genesis 41:8

          Kli Yakar notes that the verse begins with the singular “his dream” yet concludes with the plural “but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.”

          We can understand the change based upon Naḥmanides’ comment that Pharaoh understood that his two dreams were actually one (as Joseph would tell him [verse25]), thus Pharaoh related his dream to the magicians and wise men. However, the magicians and wise men thought the two dreams to be separate, hence they could not interpret them unto Pharaoh.

Choice of Languages

And there was a lad with us, a Hebrew, servant of the minister of cooks …                   Genesis 41:12 Cursed are the wicked, for the favors they do are never complete. The butler mentions Joseph with disparaging language: a lad – foolish and unworthy of a position of greatness; a Hebrew – who does not even know our language; a slave – it is written in the laws of Egypt that a slave may neither become a ruler nor wear princely robes.         Rashi

          The question has been raised: the butler apparently is relating a lie when he alleges that Joseph does not speak Egyptian, for Joseph must have spoken to the butler in Egyptian.

          My father explained that the intention is while Joseph speaks the Egyptian language, he is not in touch with the cultural connotations of the language. Though Joseph can converse in Egyptian, he is unaware of the value system conveyed by the language. Joseph is oblivious to the fact that Egyptians consider it an abomination to eat with a Hebrew [43:32]. This “lad” instead of trying to hide his embarrassment, takes pride in his being a Hebrew.

          Interestingly, the quality which Pharaoh’s butler sees as Joseph’s shortcoming, is in truth a great virtue. Our Sages [Bamidbar Rabba 20:29] taught us that the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt because they changed neither their clothing nor their names nor their language. Indeed, language is a vehicle which conveys culture. The fact that the Israelites in Egypt continued to speak their own language implies that despite their having sunk to the forty-ninth depth of impurity, they still maintained a connection with their own culture, and for this reason the Israelites were worthy of redemption.

True Plenty

Behold, there come seven years of great plenty (sava) throughout all the land of Egypt.                                          Genesis 41:29

          Ba’al haTurim relates our verse’s use of the word “sava” with that in Proverbs [3:10]: “So shall your silos be filled with plenty (sava), and your vats shall overflow with new wine.”

          The implication is that true “sava” plenty is when one feels that his silos are full, that is when a person feels that he has a sufficient amount. Without being satisfied with what one has, he will never achieve a feeling of “plenty”, as our Sages taught: ”who is wealthy, the one who is satisfied with his lot.” [Ethics of the Fathers 4:1]

We Are All the Sons of One Man

We (naḥnu) are all sons of one man, we are honest men, your servants have never been spies.                                                     Genesis 42:11

          Ba’al haTurim connects our verse’s use of the word “naḥnu” (as opposed to the much more common form “anaḥnu”) with the word’s use in two other verses:

“We (naḥnu, the sons of Gad and of Reuven) will cross as the vanguard” [Numbers 32:32], and “We (naḥnu) have transgressed and have rebelled.” [Lamentations 3:42].

          My father suggested that the brothers’ use of the word “naḥnu” implies their confession of having sinned in the matter of Joseph, as per the verse in Lamentations, with the verse from Numbers conveying the underlying message that as the sons of one man, they were obligated to save Joseph, even if it necessitated their fighting as a vanguard.

          Additionally, the message is that ultimately all the Israelites are the sons of one man, and therefore must be united. This common ancestry creates a mutual responsibility, so that if even one Israelite sins, it is as if “we (all) have transgressed,” and when any Israelite is in straits, “we (all) must cross as the vanguard” to save our fellow Jew.

Joseph's Blessings

And to Joseph (u’l’Yoseph) were born two sons before the year of the famine came, whom Osnat the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On bore him.                                         Genesis 41:50

          Ba’al haTurim relates our verse’s use of the word “u’l’Yoseph” with that in introducing Moses’ final blessing to the tribe of Joseph:

And of Joseph (u’l’Yoseph) he said: Blessed by God be his land, by the fruit of the heavens, by dew, and by the floods which rest below.                                     Deuteronomy 33:13

and comments that Joseph’s land was blessed due to the fact that he chose to experience the suffering of the famine despite his position as viceroy of Egypt, as our Sages taught: one who participates in the troubles of the congregation will merit seeing the congregation’s comfort.

          Taking the phrase “blessed by God”, my father suggested the additional implication of the common use of the word “u’l’Yoseph” is to teach that the truest blessing is having children who follow in ones path.

Hanukka and the Land 2

            The holidays of Ḥanukka and Purim differ in their nature. Purim commemorates the physical salvation of the Jewish People, while Ḥanukka celebrates spiritual redemption.

            There is also a major difference in the practices of the two holidays. The mitzva of Purim is hearing Megilat Esther. The mitzva of Ḥanukka is seeing the candles. Indeed, according to the Halacha, one who has not yet lit candles may say the blessing upon seeing the candles lit by another Jew.

            Rabbi Yehoshua Weitzman, the head of the Hesder yeshiva of Ma’alot explained the different practices. Purim reminds us of a miracle which took place outside Israel. Outside Israel, it is only as if one hears of miracles. The events of Ḥanukka took place in Israel, where one is closer to God, and therefore sees the miracles.

            This difference, Rabbi Weitzman noted, is apparent also in the choice of words of the Babylonian Talmud versus that of the Jerusalem [Eretz Yisrael] Talmud.  When the Babylonian Talmud presents a proof to an argument, it uses the introductory phrase ta sh’ma (“come and hear”). The Jerusalem Talmud introduces proofs with the words ta chazi (“come and see”).

Hanukka and the Land 1

Following are comments of Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1882–1946), chief rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1936 until his death.

Ḥanukka is the lone Jewish holiday which commemorates events which took place within the Holy Land (until the addition of Yom haAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim, which Rabbi Amiel did not live to see]. Pesaḥ, which commemorates the exodus from Egypt and Shavuot, the time of Israel’s receiving Torah, both celebrate significant events on Israel’s journey to its Land, but nonetheless, the venues of those events were outside the Land. Ḥanukka, therefore, from beginning to end, is the holiday of Eretz Yisrael.

The celebration of Ḥanukka involves light because the only true light for the nation of Israel issues from its Land. The lights of Ḥanukka remind us that we were not always relegated to wandering throughout the lands of the world, but had our own Land, as other nations do, a Land though small in quantity, vast in quality. The Ḥanukka lights bring the atmosphere and spirit of the Land to Jews throughout the four corners of the earth, as it were, showing them the clear blue skies of the Holy Land. When Jews throughout the world light Ḥanukka candles, in a sense the atmosphere of the Land reaches all the lands of Israel’s dispersion and re-establishes the indelible bond between the nation and its homeland. The Ḥanukka candles warm the hearts of the Israelites, enlightening and shining from within the Jewish soul, carrying a reminder of the blessings of Zion, of the pure oil of the Holy of Holies, of the eternal light which will never be extinguished.

Why Eight Days, Not Seven

Beit Yosef (Rabbi Yosef Karo 1488–1575) notes that the jug of oil found with the seal of the High Priest provided sufficient oil to light the menorah for one day, hence the actual miracle lasted only seven days, and asks why Ḥanukka is celebrated for eight days rather than the seven days of the miracle.

It is said that more than one hundred answers have been suggested for the Beit Yosef’s question. Following is my favorite answer, taken from Rabbi Eliyahu KiTov’s Sefer haToda’a.

Greek culture and philosophy clashed with the traditional Jewish approach. The Greeks deified nature, while Judaism sees nature as being governed in a direct and ongoing way by the Almighty. (Rabbi Yehoshua David Hartman phrases it thus: “for the Greeks, the miraculous was natural, while for Jews, nature is miraculous.”)

Rabbi KiTov quotes “Maoz Tzur (traditionally sung after lighting the Ḥanukka candles): “Sons of understanding (bina) established eight days in song and rejoicing,” and notes that our Sages’ definition of “bina” is inferring one thing from another. The insight that “nature” does not exist independently of Divine providence, leads to the conclusion that the first, “natural,” day is no less miraculous than the seven days of overt miracle.

Sfat Emet offers an additional explanation: it was the commitment of the Hasmoneans to rededicating the Temple and their fervor in kindling the menorah upon finding the single jar of oil that God provided the miracle. Thus, though lighting the menorah on the first night of (the original) Ḥanukka was not a miraculous event, it is commemorated since it was the act which brought about the miracle.  

No Eulogy or Fasting During Hanukka

Our Sages taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev (commence) the days of Ḥanukka, which are eight, on which eulogy for the dead and fasting are forbidden.            Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 21b

          Rabbi Kook explains that God’s salvation of His people influences both their physical and spiritual needs.

          Eulogy is a form of spiritual pain, while fasting is physical, thus both eulogy and fasting are forbidden as we commemorate the salvation of Ḥanukka, in order to teach that the spiritual and physical must be interrelated.

          The downfall of many nations came about through their successes. When a nation gets caught up in its tangible victories, it often does so at the risk of its spiritual development. The prohibition of both eulogy and fasting teaches that we must constantly view our material successes through a spiritual lens.

Hanukka and the Flood

            Tzror haMor (Rabbi Avraham Sava, a kabbalist who was among the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492) comments, based upon a Midrash, that the birds which Noah sent from the ark symbolize Israel’s subjugations. Specifically, the dove symbolizes the nation’s subjugation to the Greeks. Based upon this understanding, Tzror haMor explains the parallels between the Bible’s description of Noah’s sending out the dove and Ḥanukka. Concerning the olive leaf which the dove brought to Noah [Genesis 8:11], Tzror haMor comments: “Had God not enlightened the Kohanim, who are anointed with olive oil, namely the Hasmonean and his sons, the remnant of Israel may have been lost.”

            Beyond Tzror haMor’s fascinating insights, Rashi [7:12] notes a connection between the flood and Ḥanukka, as a simple reckoning of the chronology indicates that the forty days of rain ended on the 28^th day of Kislev, which is the middle of Ḥanukka.

            Since we believe that there are no chance happenings, but everything is guided by Divine Providence, there must be significance to this timing.

            We can suggest that the rain is merely the means for God’s destruction of the world. Ending the rain did not end the flood, which continued for an additional 150 days. [7:24] That is, the effects of the rain lasted well beyond the period of rain itself. Similarly, Ḥanukka, cleansing the Temple, was a means, which brought a renewal of the Temple service. As such, Ḥanukka had a long lasting effect, similar to that of the rain.

            Since we continue to celebrate Ḥanukka, we may suggest that the effects of the historic events are felt until today, and obligate us to continue to study and discern the practical lessons of those events.

We can note an additional parallel between Ḥanukka and the flood. Ḥanukka expresses the superiority of the Holy Land over all other lands on earth. (Our Sages [Babylonian Talmud Megilla 14a] note that Hallel is recited only to commemorate miracles which took place within the Land.) Similarly, the flood conveys the superiority of the Land, as our Sages taught, the flood did not affect the Land of Israel. [Yalkut Shimoni, Parashat Noaḥ, 59]

Hanukka as an Expression of Appreciation

Ḥanukka, commemorating, as it does, post-Biblical events, is a rabbinic holiday, yet Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762–1839) asserts that there is a Torah-ordained mitzva to celebrate Ḥanukka, since we are required to appreciate God’s miracles. Thus, the obligation to celebrate is Torah-ordained, though the specific nature of the celebration was left to the Sages. In essence, commemorating Ḥanukka is a matter of Hakarat haTov (recognizing the good done to/for one). As the late Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe noted, the obligation of Hakarat haTov applies not only between man and fellow man (bein adam l’havero), but between man and the Creator as well (bein adam laMakom). Just as we must appreciate the good done to us by our fellow human, so we must appreciate the good done for us by God.

The Torah readings for the eight day of Ḥanukka are the description of the offerings of the tribal princes at the dedication of the Tabernacle [Numbers 7:2ff]. Since the Torah does not waste a single letter, let alone a word, it seems surprising that the verses repeat, almost verbatim, the same formula for each of the twelve princes.  Naḥmanides explains that “God wished to mention each prince by name and specify their offering in order to give full honor to each prince.” Thus, Rabbi Wolbe explains, the matter of Hakarat haTov goes a step further and applies bein haMakom l’adam as well. As we are to appreciate that which God does for us, so He appreciates that which man does for Him!

Rabbi Wolbe adds that there is an additional plane on which Hakarat haTov applies, between man and himself. Thus, in Parashat VaEra we read that it was Aaron, not Moses, who struck the River Nile to bring the plague of blood, that Aaron brought the frogs out of the Nile, and that Aaron, not Moses, was instructed to hit the soil of Egypt to bring out the lice. [Exodus 7:19, 8:1] In each instance, Rashi, quoting our Sages, explains that Aaron acted because had Moses done so, he would have demonstrated a lack of Hakarat haTov. Because the Nile had saved him when he was an infant, and because the soil of Egypt which had protected him when he killed the Egyptian and buried the body in the sand, Moses was obligated to appreciate what the river and the land had done for him.

          Of course, both the River Nile and the land of Egypt are inanimate objects, which cannot feel being struck, but personifying the Nile and the soil, if they are to be struck, it makes not a whit of difference to them whether they are struck by Moses or by Aaron. Thus, we learn that Moses refrained from striking the River and the soil for his own benefit, not for the benefit of the Nile or the land of Egypt. It would be morally wrong, hence a sin against himself, for Moses to ignore the fact that he had been saved both by the Nile and by the land. Rabbi Wolbe explains that the Torah teaches the important lesson that Hakarat haTov extends beyond man’s relation with his Creator and beyond his relationship with fellow man. Hakarat haTov is obligatory in man’s relation to himself as well.

The Spiritual Legacy of the Hasmoneans

            Al haNissim (for the miracles), the prayer which is added on Ḥanukka, casts Mattityahu as its “hero”. On the face of it, one would expect Judah the Maccabee to be featured, since it is he who led the Jews in defeating the Greeks and rededicating the Temple.

            It is likely that our Sages who composed the prayer wanted to stress the spiritual aspects of Ḥanukka over the military and political side.

            As my father wrote: the Sages’ emphasis on the spiritual dimension reflects the fact that the Hasmoneans’ goal was much loftier than simply achieving a military victory. The goal was to achieve religious freedom in order to be able to continue Jewish tradition. The military aspect was merely a physical means to achieve a spiritual end. The Maccabean wars were a struggle of conflicting ideologies. The battles were geared not towards conquest of territory, rather towards ideas. (It is worth noting that the Hasmonean revolt was the first revolt in world history which was aimed specifically at achieving religious freedom.)

            Perhaps another reason to stress the spiritual side of the events is the simple fact that this is the permanent aspect of Ḥanukka. The Hasmoneans’ military victories ushered in a period of Jewish independence and sovereignty in the Land of Israel which lasted a mere two generations. The spiritual victory achieved by the Hasmoneans survives until today (to the extent that we keep it alive).

            Rabbi Kook commented that many a nation’s downfall has been brought about specifically through the nation’s success. When a nation gets caught up in its tangible victories, it often does so at the risk of its spiritual development.

            It is incumbent upon us to be the guardians of the spiritual legacy of the Hasmoneans.

Hanukka as Renewal

          Our Sages taught us that there were three mitzvot which the Greeks wanted to abolish: mila (circumcision); Shabbat and ḥodesh (proclaiming the new month).

          Sfat Emet notes that at first glance it is easier to understand the Greek opposition to mila and Shabbat than to ḥodesh. However, the mitzva of ḥodesh was targeted by the Greeks for a deep philosophical reason, explains Sfat Emet. The Greeks deified nature. The mitzva of ḥodesh teaches that God gave man the power to imbue time with sanctity. In this sense, ḥodesh teaches that man is above nature. It is not the renewal of the moon which establishes the new Hebrew month, but the Sanhedrin's proclamation of the new month. The Jewish concept expressed by the mitzva of ḥodesh, that human behavior has an influence on heaven, was antithetical to Greek philosophy, and therefore the Greeks wanted to abolish ḥodesh.

          Sfat Emet adds that, philosophically, Ḥanukka is similar to ḥodesh. The Hasmoneans' devotion to Torah and mitzvot brought God to perform the miracle of Ḥanukka, and brought about a renewal of the Temple as well as a renewal of the Jews' connection to their spiritual roots. Ḥodesh is all about renewal. Ḥanukka adds the dimension of renewal even at the "time of darkness," at the end of the (lunar) month.

          It is not by chance that Ḥanukka includes Rosh Ḥodesh. Rosh Ḥodesh is the beginning of renewal, while Ḥanukka is the culmination.

Hanukka and Jewish Sovereignty

In (the era of) the Second Temple, the Greek kingdom issued decrees against the Jewish people, nullifying their faith and not allowing them to observe the Torah and its mitzvot. They extended their hands against the Jews’ property and their daughters; they entered the Sanctuary, wrought havoc within, and defiled the sacraments. The Jews suffered great difficulties from the Greeks, for they oppressed them greatly until the God of our ancestors had mercy upon them, delivered them from their hand, and saved them. The sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priests, overcame (them), slew them, and saved the Jews from their hand.

          They appointed a king from the priests, and sovereignty returned to Israel for more than 200 years, until the destruction of the Second Temple.

                        Maimonides, Laws of Megilla and of Ḥanukka 3:1

            This is Maimonides’ introduction to his presentation of the laws of Ḥanukka. We may ask why Maimonides attributed significance to the fact that “sovereignty returned to Israel.”

            Following this introduction, Maimonides writes:

Accordingly, the Sages of that generation ordained that these eight days, which begin from the twenty-fifth of Kislev, should be commemorated as days of happiness and praise (of God, i.e., reciting Hallel). Candles must be lit in the evening at the entrance to the houses on each and every one of these eight nights to publicize and reveal the miracle.

These days are called Ḥanukka, and it is forbidden to eulogize and fast on them, as on the days of Purim. Lighting the candles on these days is a rabbinic mitzva, like the reading of the Megilla.                                                                     Ibid. 3:3

            Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveichik quotes the Talmudic discussion [Megilla 14a] of the reason Hallel is not recited on Purim. One opinion is that Hallel is never recited to commemorate miracles which took place outside the Holy Land. In the opinion of the Sage Rava, it is inappropriate to recite Hallel on Purim, since Hallel includes the statement  “Give praise, servants of God” [Psalms 113:1], and even following the salvation of Purim, the Jews remained servants of Ahasuerus. Rabbi Soloveichik explains that even after Mordechai was appointed chief minister and wore royal robes, he remained a servant of Ahasuerus, and he was subject to the king’s every whim. At any time, Ahasuerus could depose Mordechai as he had done to Haman. Though the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved, this salvation did not justify the recitation of Hallel, since the Jews of the Persian Empire lacked the feeling of security.

            Therefore, following the miracles of Ḥanukka, had the Jews not become a free nation in the Land of Israel, there would be no justification for reciting Hallel, for we would have remained servants of Antiochus, and not “servants of God.” Had the Hasmoneans not defeated the Greek, but merely achieved an agreement with Antiochus, who realized that he too was unable to completely defeat his enemy; had Antiochus issued a “Decree of Tolerance,” permitting his Jewish subjects to study Torah and observe mitzvot, the Jews would have remained servants of Antiochus. Therefore, the moment “sovereignty returned to Israel,” the Sages of that generation ordained the recitation of Hallel. While there were no prophets and no one could know how long the sovereignty would last, nonetheless, the Jews benefitted from a sense of security; they regained their sovereignty and their political power. Foreigners could no longer dictate to the Jews how to behave. Thus, the recitation of Hallel is appropriate for Ḥanukka.

            The implication of Rabbi Soloveichik’s analysis is that there is a close connection between the political status of the Children of Israel and their spiritual status. When Israel is sovereign, a reality which can be achieved only within the Holy Land, then, and only then can they truly be “servants of God” and not servants of a master of flesh and blood.

            We can add that, according to Maimonides’ own opinion, even though the Hasmoneans were not descendants of King David, and therefore did not have the Halachic right to become monarchs [Laws of Kings 1:7-8], yet Maimonides has no criticism (not even implied) of the Hasmoneans as kings, rather he lauds them for reestablishing Israel’s sovereignty in its Land. My rabbi, Rabbi Ya’akov Wahrhaftig, noted the parallel to the modern reality of the State of Israel. 

Light, Not Weapons

These comments are taken from my father's writings.

          The Maccabees fought for religious freedom. Indeed, their revolt was the first war in history whose goal was achieving religious freedom.

          They fought as well for the Jewish heritage. The Land of Israel is the Jews’ heritage, given to them by the Almighty Himself. It was the desire to preserve this heritage which motivated the Maccabees.

          On Ḥanukka we commemorate the miracle of the small jug of pure oil, not victories against the mighty Greek army, though this is the more important miracle. Our Sages’ choice to stress the miracle of the jug of oil emphasizes that the war was aimed at achieving religious freedom.

          Our prayers on Ḥanukka do refer to the military victory of Judah Maccabee and his fighters. However, our symbol of Ḥanukka is not weapons, but the lighting of the menorah. The special prayer added on Ḥanukka, “al haNissim”, which deals with “the battles … of the mighty against the weak”, etc., concludes with “then Your sons came to Your Holy dwelling and lit the candles of the menora” in order to demonstrate that the war was merely the means necessary to achieve the spiritual end.

          Our symbol is not the sword, but the light. Ḥanukka shows that the spirit is mightier than the sword.

          Our goal was much loftier than the defeat of the Greek armies. Our aim was to gain religious freedom, to be able to worship the Almighty and to carry on our golden heritage.

          We celebrate Ḥanukka by lighting a menorah because we are interested in bringing light to enlighten people, not to destroy them. The menorah is the symbol of education, of God’s light.

          Ḥanukka means dedication and is a reminder of necessity of dedication to our spiritual values.

         

Hanukka: a Family Holiday

          Ḥanukka is a family holiday on several levels.

          The rededication of the Temple, which is the celebration of Ḥanukka, was brought about through the unity of a single Jewish family, that of Matityahu and his five sons. (We can note the contrast between the Ḥanukka story and the Torah portions which are always read on the Shabbatot of Ḥanukka, which deal with the conflict between Joseph and his brothers, demonstrating what can go wrong when a Jewish family is disunited.)

          Further, the basic commemoration of the rededication of the Temple centers upon the family:

Our Rabbis taught: The mitzva of Ḥanukka (requires) one light for a man and his household (that is: one light is lit every evening of the eight days for the entire household).

          Rabbi Kook notes that the conflict between the Greeks and the Jews was a conflict of philosophies of life. The Greeks abhorred the Torah approach, one of whose basic ideas is purity and modesty within family life. The Torah approach stood in stark contrast to the Greek focus on the physical pleasures of life. Therefore, our Sages established the basic practice of Ḥanukka as a family event.

         

The Center of the Hasmonean Revolt

Jerusalem is the center of the world         Midrash Tanhuma, Kedoshim 10

Essentially, the planet Earth is a sphere. On a ball, any point can be considered the center, depending upon how the ball is held. This, explains Maharal of Prague, is exactly our Sages’ intention: we must make Jerusalem the center of our world.

This point, in a nutshell, underlies the Ḥanukka story. The Greeks understood the centrality of Jerusalem, and specifically of the Temple, as the Midrash continues: “and the Temple is the center of Jerusalem” to Jews and Judaism, and realizide that turning the Temple into their pagan temple was the best way they could dominate the Jewish People. Fortunately, Matityahu and his five sons understood the point equally well.

Judah Maccabee fought four battles against the Greeks before ascending to Jerusalem to purify and rededicate the Temple. The battles were fought for control of the roads to the Holy City, and the battlegrounds are all within thirty kilometers (approximately twenty miles) of Jerusalem.  Once Judah demonstrated that he is master of the roads, he was ready to enter and liberate Jerusalem.

Our Sages consistently teach that the destiny of Jerusalem is to unite the Jewish People. The Hasmonean revolt came about through the unity of a single Jewish family, that of Matityahu and his sons. In effect, the Hasmoneans harnessed their unity to liberate Jerusalem and the Temple. (It is significant, as well, that the Hasmonean kingdom ended as a result of civil war.)

If we take the supreme importance of the unity of the People of Israel as one of the lessons of Ḥanukka, the holiday has within its power to hasten the ultimate redemption of Jerusalem and the dedication of the Third Temple.

Overt and Covert Miracles

          Rabbi Yehonatan of Lunel (late 12^th, early 13^th centuries) asserts that our Sages established the holiday of Ḥanukka to memorialize the Hasmonean victory over the Greeks. The additional miracle of the oil led the Sages to add the ritual of lighting the Ḥanukka menora, as a reminder of the double miracles of Ḥanukka.

          In a similar vein, Maharal of Prague suggests that our Sages established the holiday of Ḥanukka primarily to commemorate the military victory over the Greeks. However, the military victory can be seen as a natural event. (Despite the fact that the war was “the few against many”, one could attribute the victory to Judah Maccabee’s genius in guerrilla warfare.) Thus, God provided the miracle of the oil, which is an overt miracle.

          Essentially, the overt miracle of the oil informs us that the military victory was no less miraculous. Beyond that, the miracle of the oil teaches an additional lesson: the purpose of the military victory was a spiritual end: rededication of the Temple and the ability to renew the service.

Priestly Rebels

Rabbi Kook notes that it is not by chance that the Hasmomean revolt, which brought the rededication of the Temple and the holiday of Ḥanukka, was led by Kohanim.

In Greek philosophy there were two distinct and separate approaches. One was to develop the powers of nature. Indeed, the Greeks developed a worship of sports and the culture of body, virtually deifying the body. The second possibility was to abstain from the physical and natural worlds to devote oneself to the spiritual. The Greeks saw a complete dichotomy between the physical and spiritual spheres.

The Jewish attitude, as expressed in the verse (Exodus 19:6): “you shall be for Me a kingdom of priests” stood in total opposition to the Greek view. “Kingdom” deals with temporal administration, while “priests” deal with the spiritual realm. The verse clearly states the ideal of combining and unifying the temporal and the spiritual. The continuation of the verse “and a holy nation” carries the ideal to the ultimate level. Not only a select few, but the entire nation, no matter what manner of work occupies them, can achieve the level of holiness.

Philosophically, the Greeks were unable to accept the Jewish approach which strives for a complete union and synthesis of the earthly and the heavenly, which sees the body ideally as a spiritual base and which asserts that nature can be imbued with sanctity.

The Hasmoneans, endowed with the holiness of Aaron, rose to battle the Greeks and their philosophy. Those who, with God’s help, succeeded in returning the crown of kingdom to Israel also represent the spiritual struggle. Those who fought with physical bravery were also the defenders of the spirit and soul of Israel, of Israel’s purity and its temple.

Hallel and Thanksgiving, Not Feasting

What is (the reason for) Ḥanukka? Our Sages taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev the eight days of Ḥanukka commence, on which eulogizing the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed and defeated them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit (the menorah) therewith for eight days. The following year these (days) were appointed a Festival with (the recital of) Hallel and thanksgiving.                             Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 21b

          Bayit Hadash (Rabbi Yoel Sirkis 1561 – 1640) asks why our Sages established Ḥanukka as a time for recitation of Hallel and of thanksgiving, but not of feasting, as they did for Purim, and answers that Purim involved the physical salvation of the Jewish People, hence it is appropriate to manifest joy through feasting, while Ḥanukka was the spiritual salvation of the nation, hence the material aspect of commemoration is inappropriate.

          Turei Zahav (Rabbi David haLevi Segal 1586 – 1667) notes that there is a material aspect to the miracle of Ḥanukka as well, since it came about through the miracle of Judah Maccabees’ military victories, however, since this was not an overt miracle (as it could be attributed to Judah’s military genius and his success as the leader of a guerilla uprising), our Sages chose to focus on the overt miracle of the oil. Thus, since the miracle of Purim relates to the physical salvation of the Jews, it is celebrated with joy in this world [the physical act of feasting], while Ḥanukka does not.

          Rabbi Kook comments that it seemingly would have been appropriate for our Sages to institute commemoration of the Ḥanukka miracle with feasting and rejoicing, as they did for Purim, however, they chose not to for a pragmatic reason: the struggle between Greek philosophy and Judaism included the Greek ideal of enjoying all worldly and physical pleasures, as an end in itself, versus the approach of traditional Judaism that man’s physical nature must be subservient to his spiritual side, thus to include feasting as part of the celebration of Ḥanukka was to risk conveying the message of the value of the Greek approach. For this reason, our Sages chose to limit the commemoration of Ḥanukka to the spiritual level of Hallel and thanksgiving.

          It is appropriate to quote the comment of RaMa (Rabbi Moshe Isserles 1520 -1572):  (though our Sages did not institute Ḥanukka as days of feasting and rejoicing) some (authorities) say that there is some mitzva in adding festive meals, and it is customary to sing songs of praise and then it is considered a meal of mitzva. [Oraḥ Ḥayyim 670:2]

          Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1510 – 1573) adds that if the purpose of the meal is to praise God or to publicize the miracle, it is considered a meal of mitzva.

The Hasmoneans War as Milhemet Mitzva

            The apocryphal First Book of Maccabees (which is believed to be an accurate historical source) presents a moving description of Judah Maccabee’s preparations for the Battle of Emmaus, his most stellar victory. (The Battle of Emmaus is such an excellent example of how a battle should be run that until today, more than 2160 years later, the battle is taught not only in officers’ training courses in the Israel Defense Force, but at the U.S. War College as well.)

Next Judah appointed leaders for the people, to command a thousand, a hundred, fifty or ten men. He told those who were building houses, or about to be married, or planting vineyards, or who were simply afraid, to go home every one of them, as the Torah allowed.                    I Maccabees 3:55-56

            The authors of First Maccabees (according to the tradition of Rav Yehudai Gaon [mid eighth century], they were the elders of the Houses of Hillel and of Shamai) end their description of Judah’s granting exemptions from battle by stating that this was done in accordance with the Torah. This comment raises a question: Maimonides (Law of Kings and Their Wars 7:4) states that the exemptions apply only to a discretionary war (milhemet r’shut), but in a mandatory war (milhemet mitzva) “all go out, even the bridegroom”. Maimonides (ibid. 5:1) includes in his definition of milhemet mitzva “a war to save Israel from the oppressor who comes upon them”. Thus, it would seem that Judah Maccabee’s battles were part of a milhemet mitzva and he should not have granted the exemptions.

            The late Rabbi Shlomo Goren (for many years the chief rabbi of the I.D.F. and subsequently Israel’s chief rabbi) suggested that the obligation to participate in a war of salvation derives from the mitzva “thou shall not stand inactive by the blood of your friend” [Leviticus 19:17]. Accordingly, my father explained that while in principle Judah’s war was a milhemet mitzva, in practice, Judah acted correctly in granting the exemptions. The mitzva “thou shall not stand ...” obligates one to try to save his fellow man only in a situation in which he is capable of saving his fellow man (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a]. (For example, a trained life guard who fails to rescue a person who is drowning violates “thou shall not stand ...”. However, one who cannot swim is not obligated to jump into the water and attempt a rescue.) Since, on the natural level, Judah did not have a chance of defeating the Greek army, in practice there was no obligation to fight. Therefore, practically speaking, the war cannot be considered a milhemet mitzva.

            In a similar way, Rabbi Shmaryahu Arieli noted that the point of milhemet mitzva is not the fighting, but the victory. Since Judah could not expect to be victorious, his war could not be considered milhemet mitzva even though its purpose was rescuing Israel from their enemy.

            My father’s own opinion is that the obligation to participate in a war of salvation derives from the simple fact that one’s own life is in danger. If this is the case, then one apparently should have an obligation to try to save himself, even if the situation seems hopeless. Thus, the question arises again: if Judah’s battle was within the framework of milhemet mitzva, how did he issue exemptions?

            My father explained that the exemptions were issued based upon a technicality. Milhemet mitzva requires a king to lead the people. Since Judah Maccabee was not halachically king, he could not require the bridegroom, etc. to go to battle.

            My father concluded that even though Judah could not require his men to fight, those who chose to certainly participated in a milhemet mitzva, since it clearly was a war of salvation.

Jacob's Family and the Hasmonean Family

             The Shabbat of Ḥanukka always coincides with Parashat vaYeshev or Parshat Mikketz. Years in which Ḥanukka includes two Shabbatot, both vaYeshev and Mikketz are read during Ḥanukka.

It is not by chance that the parashot of Ḥanukka deal with Joseph and his brothers.         

There is a most instructive contrast between the story of Joseph and his brothers and the Ḥanukka story. The first shows what can happen when a Jewish family is disunited, the latter demonstrates what can be accomplished by a single, united family.

The Good Angel and the Bad Angel

And a man found him (Joseph), and behold he was wandering in the field. And the man asked him, saying: “What do you seek?”                                     Genesis 37:15 The “man” was the angel Gabriel.                                   Rashi, quoting a Midrash

            In last week’s parasha, Joseph’s father, Jacob, encountered a “man” as well:

And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of day.                                                                Genesis 32:25

Our Sages identify this man as the angel of Esau.

            The question arises: since each of the angels is described simply as a man, how did our Sages determine that the one encountered by Jacob was Esau’s angel, while it was Gabriel whom Joseph met?

            Rabbi Leib Mochiaḥ of Pressburg notes that at the end of his wrestling match with the angel, Jacob requested that the angel bless him, to which the angel replied (based upon Rashi’s explanation [32:27]): “I must go to praise God.” An angel who cannot take a few seconds to help a human being must be the angel of the evil Esau. The angel (“man”) whom Joseph encountered, no doubt had an obligation to praise God, as did the angel who wrestled with Jacob,  yet he asked Joseph in what way he can be of help, and was willing to delay praising God in order to assist a person in need. Such an angel must be the good angel Gabriel.

            When the “Tzaddik of Jerusalem,” Rabbi Aryeh Levin (1885 – 1969) related the comment of Rabbi Leib, he added that the introduction to the amida, the heart of the morning prayers, is “Rock of Israel, arise to help Israel”: teaching that helping Israel precedes prayer.

Hating the Slanderer

This Dvar Torah is taken from my father’s writings.

These are the descendants of Jacob, Joseph at the age of seventeen was a shepherd, with his brothers and a lad with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, the wives of his father, and Joseph brought [vayavei] an evil report of them [dibbatam] to their father.             Genesis 37:2 “with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah”: Joseph’s brothers held the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah in contempt, and he befriended them.       Rashi

Given Joseph’s kindness to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, it seems surprising that they did not try to rescue him. Perhaps the lesson is that even those who benefited from Joseph’s reports (“dibba”) to his father hated him as did the brothers who were the subject of his negative reports, because they saw him as a gossiper who might bring a negative report of them as well.

Our verse is the only time in the Bible that the word “dibba” (generally translated as “slander”) appears with the verb bo (to come), as opposed to yatzo (to go out), because typically those who speak ill of others are interested in creating disunity, while Joseph brought the report to his father in the hope that Jacob would rebuke them and thereby improve his brothers’ behavior.