Illusions

R Volume 4

z a am

u l l I

s n sio ‫הזי‬

‫ות‬

ALL NEW INSIDE!

Purim 5777, March 2017

From the Editor Elianna Schwartz ‘17



Thoughts from our Alumni: From the streets of Jerusalem, Ben Kaplan (’16) writes about God’s hand in the Purim story and Ben Rabinowitz (‘16) offers a fascina ng study in textual parallels between the Purim story and the Sodom story.

Pages 2 –3.



Intertextual Analysis: From Noach to Mordechai: The Role of Wine and Alcohol on Purim and in Jewish Ritual: An analysis by Gabriel Klapholz (’17) that probes the use and abuse of alcohol in Tanakh. Page 10.



Number Games: Danny Jaspan (’17) explores the connec on between Purim and the number 2. Page 13.

… And many more thought‐provoking pieces of Purim Torah from the students of the Ramaz Upper School!

In this issue of Illusions, our writers delve into many aspects of Megillat Esther and the holiday of Purim itself. Topics that range from why we eat hamentaschen, the cus‐ tomary Purim treat, to the significance of the name Haman con nuously men oned throughout the Megillah are all explored.

God’s absence from the Megillah is a topic that has been extensively discussed by many commentators over the genera ons and is addressed in our publica on. This issue also focuses on the human aspect of the Megil‐ lah and the fact that the Megillah showcases how ac vism and standing up for oneself can change the course of history. It is an im‐ portant lesson; while God may be working behind the scenes it is up to us to act when we see injus ce. Esther and Mordechai were able to use their influence with the King in a proac ve manner to reverse the King’s de‐ crees. We have an obliga on to be like Es‐ ther and Mordechai and to take it upon our‐ selves to take ac ons that can benefit the Jewish people and humanity in general.

Maybe then, we too can change the course of history.

Chag Purim Sameach!

Student Editor: Elianna Schwartz ‘17 Artwork by: Gabrielle Amar-Ouimet ‘17 Faculty Advisor: Ms. Miriam Krupka

Pulling the Strings Ben Kaplan, Class of 2016 (currently studying in Yeshivat Torat Shraga)

Each and every year, we are commanded with four mitzvot on the holiday of Purim, among them reading the Megillah twice. Upon a perfunctory glance, the story appears to focus on the miracles and the fortunate series of events that one may describe as “lucky.” However, as one delves deeper into the story, one can find how God had already decided to save the Jews prior to the conflict. The ques on that s ll remains throughout the Megillah is “What means will God use to accomplish this mission?”

In the fourth chapter of the Megillah, Mordechai challenges Esther to rise to the occasion, and defend her na on.

Mordechai explains that all of Esther’s success in the kingdom has been granted her by God for the purpose of asking Achasheverosh to save the Jews. As it says ‫ֹאת ֶ ֣רו ַח‬ ֒ ‫” ִ ּ֣כי אִ ם־הַ חֲ ֵ ֣רׁש ּתַ חֲ ִריׁשִ ֮י ּב ֵ ָ֣עת הַ ּז‬ ְ‫ו ְהַ ָּצ ֞ ָלה י ַעֲ ֤מֹוד ַלּיְהּודִ י ֙ם מִ ּמָ ֣קֹום ַאחֵ֔ ר ו ַ ְ֥אּת‬ ֵ ֔ ‫ּומי‬ ‫יֹודעַ אִ ם־ל ֵ ְ֣עת ּכ ָ֔ז ֹאת‬ ‫ּוב‬ ֣ ִ ‫ֹאבדּו‬ ֑ ֵ ‫ֵית־ָאביְך ּת‬ ִ֖ “‫הִ ַ ּ֖געַ ּתְ לַּמַ ְלכּֽות׃‬ (Esther 4:14). One of the most interes ng commentaries on this pasuk is the Malbim’s, who learns from the language and phrasing of this pasuk that some mes the final result is already determined by God even though the means have yet to be determined. He derives this from the pasuk’s seemingly strange order, in which the solu on (that the Jews will be saved) is presented before the problem (that Esther needs to

go before the king to save the Jews). The Malbim derives from the order that although the means by which the saving of the Jews was s ll undetermined, it was already predetermined that God would save the Jews in some way.

This idea appears elsewhere in Tanakh when Yitzchak davens that his wife Rachel should have kids. It says in Bereshit 25:21 ‫”וַּיֶעְ ּתַ֨ ר יִצ ָ ְ֤חק ַלֽיהו ָה֙ ל ְ֣נ ֹכַח אִ ׁשְ ּ֔תֹו ִ ּ֥כי עֲ קָ ָ ֖רה ִ ֑הוא‬ .“‫וַּי ָ ֵ֤ע ֶתר ל ֹ֙ו י ְה ָ֔וה ו ַ ַּ֖תהַ ר ִרב ָ ְ֥קה אִ ׁשְ ּתֽ ֹו׃‬ The Rabenu Be’Chayei comments on the phrasing of the pasuk, which says that not only did Yitzchak daven for her, but also he davened in front of her. The Rabenu Be’Chayei suggests that even if he had not davened, Rachel was s ll des ned to have children. His prayers did not suddenly change God’s course of ac on with respect to the results. Rather, Yitzchak’s davening expedited the process for Rachel to bear children.

Another example of this occurs when the pesukim discuss the story of Yaakov and Esav, with regard to the blessing of the bechor. In dealing with Yaakov’s trickery towards his father, Rashi comments on the fact that Yitzchak is blind and offers three poten al reasons for this; he was blinded by the smoke of avodah zarah, he was blinded by an angel’s tear when he was ed to the mizbeach, and lastly, he is blind in order to ensure that Yaakov would be able to successfully trick Yitzchak and receive the

PAGE 2

(Continued on page 14)

The Story of Sodom and Megillat Esther: A Lesson in Selflessness Ben Rabinowitz, Class of 2016 (currently studying in Yeshivat HaKotel)

**I would like to thank Ms. Krupka and Elianna Schwartz for asking me to be the alumni in Israel contributor to Illusions. My con nued rela onship with Ramaz is something that I cherish and hope to perpetuate, so wri ng this piece is an honor.

One of the highlights of my week is reviewing the parshat ha’shavua with my brother. We discuss the biblical commentaries on the por on, which o en inspire us to develop our own thoughts on the parsha, one of which I present below.

I believe first, however, a point of preface is per nent. One of the most significant things that my R”am at Yeshivat HaKotel, Rav Jesse Horn, has imparted to me this year is the importance of being methodologically sound. For example, when one no ces similar language used in two different places in Tanakh, they must ask themselves if there is a thema c connec on that this syntac c congruence is hin ng to, and if there is, what is it’s significance, why are the two narra ves being compared, and what is the message that one should glean from this contrast.

Quite interes ngly, there are many textual parallels between the story of the destruc on of Sodom in ‫פרק יט‬of ‫בראשית‬ and Megillat Esther: 1. When se ng the scene for the story in ‫פרשת וירא‬, the Torah writes that

,(19:1) ”‫ ”לוט יושב בשער סדום‬while in 2:21 of the Megillah, Mordechai is described as “‫“יושב בשער המלך‬.

2. Lot greets the ‫מלאכים‬ by “ ‫וישתחו‬ “‫אפים ארצה‬ while when commanded to bow down to Haman, Mordechai refuses: ”‫“מרדכי לא יכרע ולא ישתחוה‬.

3. The concept of Mishteh appears at the outset of both stories: Lot is ‫ויעש להם משתה‬ for his guests, while the Megillah begins with the ‫משתה‬ of Achashverosh.

4. The crowd that surrounds Lot’s house is termed “‫”מנער ועד זקן‬ (19:4) and Haman wishes “ ‫היהודים מנער ועד זקן‬ ‫להרוג ולאבד‬ (3:13)”.

5. A emp ng to appease the mob, Lot offers them his two daughters, saying that the people can “‫”עשו כטוב בעיניכם‬ while ‫אחשורוש‬ tells ‫המן‬ that in regard to the Jewish people, he can ‫”כטוב בעיניך‬ ‫”לעשות‬ (3:11).

6. The Torah ascribes another characteriza on of the people encroaching on Lot’s house – “ ‫מקטן ועד‬ ‫”גדול‬ while the people of Achashverosh’s empire are “‫”קטן ועד לגדול‬.

7. Lot, when imploring the angel to be compassionate, says, ‫”נפשי את להחיות…בעיניך חן עבדך מצא נא‬ ‫להחיות את‬...‫הנה נא מצא עבדם חן בעיניך‬ ‫”נפשי‬ (19:19) while when Esther solicits the king, she says, “ ‫אם מצאתי חן בעיני‬ ‫תנתן לי נפשי בבקשתי ועמי‬...‫המלך‬ .(7:3) ”‫בשאלתי‬

Perhaps some of these similar

PAGE 3

(Continued on page 13)

A Nosh and a Derash Caroline Jaspan ‘17

When I think of Purim, the things that come to mind are fas ng, Megillat Esther, costumes, carnivals and Mishloach Manot. But what would a Jewish holiday be without food? It seems that all our holidays have a symbolic food, such as latkes on Chanuakah, apples and honey on Rosh Hashanah, and matzah on Pesach. Of course, Purim has its tradi onal food known as hamantashen. Also referred to as “Oznei Haman”, Haman’s ears, they are doughy cookies that contain different fillings. The dough is simple, but it is the filling which bursts with sweetness. The more popular ones amongst children are the sweet ones, chocolate, apricot and strawberry or raspberry jams, but the poppy seed filling, also known as mon, is the classic one which has been used for many years.

Why hamantashen? What is the meaning of the name of this delicious nosh, and why are they eaten on Purim?

The Yiddish word tasch means pouch or pocket. Some suggest that the term is a reference to Haman’s pockets – meaning the vast treasure he offered Achashverosh for permission to wipe out the Jews (Esther 3:9).

The holiday of Purim has many hidden miracles. For example, Mordechai hearing the plot to kill the King could be considered a miracle. Even the hamantashen alludes to the hidden miracles; the fillings are hidden inside the dough. Mordechai even placed a hidden paper in the inside of pastries, when the Jews did not understand the seriousness

of what was going on during the Purim story.

Mordechai sent le ers hidden in pastries warning the Jews of what their enemies were planning. He was scared that the enemies would intercept the messages, so he hid them.

(Menuchah u’Kedusha 2:20) Why poppy seeds? The Talmud states that Esther ate seeds while in the palace of Achashverosh. The Talmud records that Esther subsisted on seeds in order to keep kosher in the palace (Megillah 13a). She kept her Jewish iden ty secret and ea ng seeds enabled her to avoid ea ng non‐kosher food and wine. Perhaps the Yiddish word "mon" alludes to this, since the Hebrew word for manna, the miraculous food which sustained the Jewish people for 40 years in the desert, is also called "mon." And mon sounds like Haman. Otzar Dinnim u’Minhagim suggests further that the many poppy seeds inside the “pocket” allude to the myriad of coins Haman offered the king.

This corresponds with the classic explana on given in the Shulchan Aruch for ea ng hamantashen on Purim: Some say that one should eat a food made out of seeds on Purim in memory of the seeds that Daniel and his friends ate in the house of the king of Babylon. When Daniel, Hanania, Mishael, and Azaria were forced into service in Nebuchadnezzar’s court, Daniel requested that they be given seeds and water to eat so they wouldn’t have to defile themselves with non‐kosher food. Their request was reluctantly granted, and they thrived on their limited diet, as the verse in the Mishnah Brura states, “And he gave them seeds.” Siman 695, Se’if Katan 12.

PAGE 4

(Continued on page 15)

Purim and the Men on of Haman in the Torah Rachel Wahba ‘17

A sec on of Daf ‫קלט‬ in Masechet Chulin speaks about the significance of names and their appearance in the Torah. The Gemara asks, “‫המן מן התורה‬ ‫מנין‬ ‐where do we see Haman men oned in the Torah?” This seems like an odd ques on, because as we all know, the story of Purim is not men oned in the Torah, as the story occurred in a much later me period. The Talmud con nues to quote from Sefer Bereshit, “ ‫המן העץ‬ (Bereshit 3:11)”. This quote is from a conversa on between Hashem and Adam, a er Adam and Chava ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Hashem asked, “Did you eat from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?”

This answer at first does not seem so se ling to me. Isn’t it just a play on words with similar sounding language (haman, hamin)? They are also the same root le ers and there are no vowels in the Torah. I believe that there is a deeper meaning behind this play on words.

When in Gan Eden, Hashem told Adam and Chava that they were allowed to eat from EVERY tree, “”,‫מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל‬

except for the Tree of Knowledge (Bereshit 2:16). So, why did Adam have to choose to eat from that specific tree, the only one that he was prohibited from ea ng from?

The fundamental connec on between the words Haman and Ha’min come into play in a very similar situa on. Every single person in the kingdom was bowing down to Haman, except ONE Jew, Mordechai. Haman was so greedy and could not accept the fact that he couldn’t have everyone bow down to him, so he had a desire to annihilate all of the Jews.

Like Adam in Bereshit, he wanted something that he couldn’t have.

This is not just an ancient phenomenon. We too have desires for things that are not meant for us. Instead of being happy with what we have, we try to get things that we don’t. The message we can learn from this Gemara is to always be happy with what we have, even if there is something li le that we really want but can not or should not have.

PAGE 5

Lessons from the Megillah Evan Straus ‘17 When Mordechai learned of Haman’s decree that all of the Jews in Persia were to be killed, he immediately tore his clothing as a sign of mourning. As it says in the Megillah (4:1): . ‫ּומָ ְרּדֳ כַי י ָדַ ע אֶ ת ּכָל אֲ ׁשֶ ר נַעֲ ׂשָ ה וַּיִקְ ַרע‬ ‫מָ ְרּדֳ כַי אֶ ת ְּבגָדָ יו וַּיִ ְלּבַש ׂשַ ק ו ָאֵ פֶ ר וַּיֵצֵא ּבְתֹוְך הָ עִ יר‬ ”‫וַּיִזְעַ ק זְעָ קָ ה גְדֹולָה ּומָ ָרה‬ “And Mordecai knew all that had transpired, and Mordecai rent his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and he went out into the midst of the city and cried [with] a loud and bi er cry.”

However, when Esther heard the news of the impending disaster, she sent new clothing to Mordechai so that he could replace the ones that he ripped and stop his mourning. As it says(4:4): " ‫ו ַּתָ בֹואנָה נַעֲ רֹות אֶ סְ ּתֵ ר ו ְסָ ִריסֶ יהָ וַּיַּגִידּו‬ ִ‫ָד‬ ‫לָּה ו ַּתִ תְ חַ לְחַ ל הַ ּמַ ְלּכָה מְ א ֹד ו ַּתִ ׁשְ לַח ְּבג ים‬ ".‫לְהַ ְלּבִיׁש אֶ ת מָ ְרּדֳ כַי ּולְהָ סִ יר ׂשַ ּקֹו מֵ עָ לָיו ו ְֹלא קִ ּבֵל‬ “And Esther's maidens and her cham‐ berlains came and told her, and the queen was extremely terrified, and she sent clothing to dress Mordecai and to take off his sack‐ cloth, but he did not accept [it].”

Why did Mordechai and Esther react so differently to hearing the news of Haman’s decree?

Mordechai and Esther each wanted to prove a point. Mordechai’s goal of ripping his clothing was to mourn and repent in or‐ der to convince Hashem to save the Jews. On the other hand, Esther’s goal of sending new clothing to Mordechai was to show that the Jews should be happy and confident in the belief that Hashem will save them. Esther believed that the Jews should not give up hope because Hashem would

never allow the Jewish people to be de‐ stroyed.

In one of the Aesop’s Fables stories, “Hercules and the Waggoner”, a Waggoner was traveling along a muddy path when the wheels of his cart sank into the road. The more the horses pulled, the deeper sank the wheels. So the Waggoner threw down his whip and prayed to God for assistance, but when God appeared, God said to the Wag‐ goner, “Don’t just sit there! Get up and put your shoulder to the wheel.” We learn from this fable that God helps those who help themselves.

Jewish tradi on believes in the idea of free will, where humans have the ability to choose for themselves between ac ng right or wrong. The Rambam states, “Free will is granted to every man. If he desires to incline towards the good way and be righteous, he has the power to do so; and if he desires to incline towards the unrighteous way and be a wicked man, he also has the power to do so.”

Unlike in Egypt where Hashem ap‐ peared and sent down the plagues on the Egyp ans, the Megillah does not men on Hashem. During the story of Purim, Hashem chose to stay in the background. Hashem’s concealment shows how the Jewish people had to decide for themselves to con nue ac ng in righteous ways. A er the Jews did all they could do to persevere against adver‐ sity, then Hashem would intervene. Again, God helps those who help themselves.

Sure enough, a er Esther sends Mor‐ dechai a new set of clothes, he is dressed in the king’s clothes and led through the city by Haman. At this point, things begin to start looking be er for the Jews.

PAGE 6

Esther: Mordechai’s Cousin or Wife?

Jacob Aufzien ’17

One of the key dynamics in Megillat Esther is the rela onship between Esther and Mordechai, as it leads to many of the major plot developments. However, there are mul ple opinions as to the exact nature of their bond, due to the necessity of reconciling varying sources’ view of what happened with the wording of the text.

In verse 2:7, Esther is described as being Mordechai’s cousin and also his foster daughter, but according to Josephus in An qui es, she was his niece. In Rashi’s view, the wording lo lebat does not signify adop on, but should be read as lbayit, as he took her into his house as his wife, as per the understanding of Masechet Megillah daf 13a.

If the understanding of Rashi is correct, an issue then arises due to Esther’s marriage not only to a non‐Jew , but to another man. She is already the wife of another (‫)אשת איש‬ so this would be a crime that we are normally expected to avoid even under the threat of death..

According to Masechet Sanhedrin daf 74b, the problem was avoided by the fact that she was forced into this marriage between herself and the king, thus absolving her of the requirement of martyrdom before transgression, and enabling her to eventually return to Mordechai as a permissible wife (as only Thiswilling adultery makes one unable to reunite with their spouse). However,

Rashi interprets Esther’s reference to her death in verse 4:16 as a recogni on of the fact that she would be prohibited from engaging in rela ons with Mordechai in the future, if she was in fact his wife. This is because she would be voluntarily going to seek out an audience with the king, thsu removing herself from the category of “forced” when called to the king. This would not be against her will and she would therefore, not be permi ed to return to Mordechai her husband.

As a leader of the Jewish community, it is tough to grapple with the ethical consequences of such an act. Therefore, to many, it may be more logical to conclude that Esther was actually his adopted daughter, thus resolving any such ethical or religious issues.

Sources: Sanhedrin 74b Rashi 2:7 Rashi 4:16 Megillah 13b Megillah 16a

PAGE 7

Divine Interven on in the Megillah Olivia Schwartz ‘18 Divine interven on is a topic that has been disputed amongst our sages for centuries. Some Rabbis interpret divine interven on to mean that Hashem intervenes but only in the pious’ lives. These Rabbis explain that Hashem created systems which He let's play out. Other Rishonim dissent from these Rabbis, they say that Hashem intervenes in each detail of every person's life. Though they agree that He created systems of nature that control the world, they add that He can and will intervene within those systems. In Megillat Esther , this idea that Hashem is constantly intervening in all of our lives is called into ques on.

While reading Megillat Esther one will never encounter the name of Hashem. This might lead you to call into ques on Hashem’s presence throughout the narra ve. In addi on, throughout the story the Jewish people are in galut and are about to be exterminated. A er looking at these facts, how can not ques on where Hashem was? In the megillah, Esther ques ons Mordechai with concerns about their plan. He calms her down by saying, “If you are silent and you do nothing at this me somebody else will save the Jewish people….But who knows, was it not for just this moment that you became a Queen, with access to King Achashverosh in the royal palace.” Mordechai pointed out to Esther that she should ask herself how and why she got to her posi on. The

Jewish na on was about to be destroyed and Mordechai s ll challenges Esther to look for God. We learn from Mordechai that even in our darkest moments, we should ask how we got there. He teaches us to recognize that Hashem helped us get here, the same way Hashem helped Esther become the queen and save the Jewish people.

There is a concept in Kabbalah that Hashem created the world in order to give “goodness” to it. But some mes this “goodness” we look for is absent; and when it is hard to find we begin to ask ourselves where Hashem is. Kabbalah derives from the quote in Devarim, “there is nothing but God,” that though we were created so that Hashem could give us this “goodness,” some mes it is withheld from us due to the need for a spiritual transforma on. The reason for why we do not see Hashem’s name while reading the megillah ,why we are in galut the en re me, and why we are being threatened with extermina on is to get us to ask why, and to get us to no ce that something is wrong. In the absence of Hashem’s name we can learn that it is important to always refer back to Hashem, and to appreciate that everything comes from Him. The reason why we are in galut the en re me, could be to teach us that we do not need the Beit Hamikdash ,to find Hashem. The lesson of galut is that you can find Hashem anywhere, even in Persia! And

PAGE 8

(Continued on page 17)

From Noach to Mordechai: The Role of Wine and Alcohol on Purim and in Jewish Ritual Gabriel Klapholz ‘17

“One is obligated to become inebriated on Purim un l he cannot tell the difference between cursed Haman and blessed Mordechai,” says Rava in the Talmud Bavli (Mesechet Megillah 7b). All too o en, we take Rava’s statement for granted on Purim. We simply view the line as an affirma on of the atmosphere for which the rabbis hoped ‐ one of singing, chan ng, stomping, and, of course, drinking wine. In Judaism, the role of intoxica on ‐ and wine for that ma er ‐ is far more complex than Rava’s statement suggests. Wine serves a wide range of purposes in Judaism. It is used to symbolize our freedom and wealth, used to sanc fy kodesh from chol, and in the case of Purim, wine is used for drunkenness. How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory uses of wine and alcohol? Does Purim turn our use of wine, a drink that we share at the holy Shabbat and seder tables, into an object of hedonism? Although these burning ques ons confront us as we approach the holiday of Purim, in reality, they should challenge us on a weekly basis.

Wine serves as the cornerstone of our Shabbat rituals, calling into ques on what the rabbis ‐ in the me of the Talmud and beyond ‐ intended in their seemingly contradictory portrayals of the Jewish a tude towards wine.

Biblically, a tudes toward alcohol consump on and drunkenness vary greatly. The Tanakh adopts a cri cal tone toward wine in Bereishit, Chapter 9. The

Torah recounts the shameful ac ons of Noach. A er plan ng a vineyard, Noach “became drunk” and “uncovered himself within his tent” (Bereishit 9:21).

Subsequently, his three sons ‐ Shem, Ham, and Yapheth ‐ must face the incident and manage their father’s recklessness. While Shem and Yapheth make an effort to cover their naked father, Ham merely reports the situa on to his two brothers, remaining a passive witness to the affair. A er his drunken stupor, Noach harshly rebukes Ham, cursing his descendants, and praises Shem and Yapheth. Thus, wine can also serve as a source of division and familial strife, raising tensions between parents and children. Drinking leads to anger and resentment, causing Noach to set a terrible example for his children. The a tude toward wine expressed in the story of Noach contradicts how drinking is viewed elsewhere in Tanakh. In Tehillim 104:15, the verse reads “ve’yayin yesamach le’vav enosh” ‐ “and wine cheers man’s heart”. In this men on of wine, Kituvim expresses an alterna ve view to that of the Noach narra ve. In Tanakh, wine both fuels warmth and merriment as well as hatred and contempt.

The opposing views regarding wine consump on extend into the realm of halacha as well, and the Talmud confronts the topic in the context of Purim. The main source for drinking on

PAGE 9

(Continued on page 10)

(Continued from page 9)

Purim, as men oned above, sets the tone for the Talmudic discussion found in Mesechet Megillah 7b. In this instance, the Talmud contradicts itself, producing ques ons about the conflic ng virtues and problems with wine. Following Rava’s ini al statement, the Talmud recounts the following story: Rabbah and Rabbi Zera joined together in a Purim feast. They became inebriated, and Rabbah arose and cut Rabbi Zera’s throat. The next day, [Rabbah] prayed on his behalf and revived him. Next year [Rabbah] said: Will the master come and we will have the Purim feast together? [Rabbi Zera] replied: A miracle does not take place on every occasion.

The harrowing account of Rabbah and Rabbi Zera’s encounter with death challenges Rava’s original statement.

The story highlights the dangers of drinking and the recklessness that ensues from senseless intoxica on. The account not only men ons the immediate concerns associated with drunkenness, but also the rabbis’ decision not to drink wine the following year. Does Rabbi Zera’s rejec on of future drinking reflect a halachic machloket ‐ a prac cal contradic on ‐ with Rava’s statement, or does it simply suggest modera on within the previous obliga on? Does Rabbi Zera intend to undermine Rava’s claim en rely or only to inject some sensibility into an otherwise reckless command? In order to understand the halachic conclusion, later commentaries are useful to examine.

The Rambam, in Hilchot Megillah, Perek

2: Halacha 15, codifies intoxica on on Purim as law, sta ng that one should drink un l he falls asleep in a drunken stupor. Rambam interprets the opinion of Rava in the Talmud as the halachic model for drinking on Purim. The Tur (Orech Chaim 695) claims that one should strictly follow Rava’s statement and should not drink past the point of “ad d’lo yadah…” ‐ when one cannot tell the difference between Haman and Mordechai. The Tur upholds the requirement to drink wine on Purim but so ens Rambam’s interpreta on of complete and u er drunkenness marked by sleep. The Beit Yosef, commen ng on the Tur, claims that drinking to the point of intoxica on is forbidden on the holiday.

Thus, these halachic commentators provide contradic ng sugges ons regarding drinking on Purim, offering varying levels of drunkenness that we should either avoid or pursue.

The Tosafot on Megillah 7b point out that Haman and Mordechai are very different and therefore minimize how much one would have to drink on the holiday. For the Tosafot, drinking wine is really a ques on of differen a ng between the wicked and the Jews ‐ a much broader dis nc on than one between the two individual characters of Haman and Mordechai. The Tosafot draw from the Talmud Yerushalmi, which explains that the line of “ad d’lo yadah…” originates from a prayer. In this prayer, claims the Yerushalmi, the refrain is a line about Haman and Mordechai. When Rava stated “ad d’lo yadah…,” he meant that one should drink un l he cannot differen ate the

PAGE 10

(Continued on page 16)

Why Don’t We Say Hallel on Purim?

Jack Silber ‘17

Of all the Jewish holidays, Purim is the one most synonymous with joy. Yet Hallel, the prayer that personifies joy, is not recited on Purim. Thus, the big ques on is: why do we not recite Hallel on Purim?

In Megillah 14a, there is a debate between Rabbi Nachman and Rava. Rabbi Nachman holds the opinion that Purim is a holiday that is worthy of Hallel; however, the reading of Megillat Esther fulfills the requirement for Hallel and that’s why we don’t recite Hallel. In contrast, Rava states that Purim is not a holiday worthy of reci ng Hallel. The reasoning for this is that unlike the holiday of Pesach where the Jews transi on from slavery to freedom, the Purim story starts and ends with the Jews under Persian rule. Since there is no progress towards na onalis c sovereignty, the blissful Hallel is not warranted. On this controversy of whether Megillat Esther fulfills the requirement of Hallel, Rambam (1138‐ 1204) takes the posi on that it does, while Rabbeinu Asher (1250‐1327) agrees with Rava.

Rav Meiri (1249‐1306) explains something from the Gemara. If we follow Rabbi Nachman, then if we are in a situa on where we aren’t able to read Megillat Esther, then we should read Hallel since the Megillah is there to fulfill the requirement of Hallel. However, if we follow Rava, then if a Megillah isn’t available, then one should not recite anything in its place due to the lack of a connec on between Purim and Hallel.

A er drawing the parallels, Rav Meiri ends up agreeing with Rabbi Nachman since it seems more ra onal. In contrast to Rav Meiri, Rav Chaim Y.D. Azulai, in Birkei Yosef, Orech Chaim 793:4, sides with Rava due to the fact that there is no codifica on in Jewish law that there’s an obliga on to recite Hallel on Purim.

With much debate over the topic, Rabbi Avraham S.B. Sofer clarifies the issue. In K’Tav Sofer, Orech Chaim no.

140, R. Sofer states that despite the fact that Hallel on Purim was ul mately not codified into Jewish law, R. Nachman’s opinion serves as the impetus to discuss why Hallel is not read on Purim.

Therefore R. Nachman’s message was not in vain. R. Sofer explains that once Jewish law adopted the Megillah, that prac ce nullified the obliga on to recite Hallel. As a result, the codifiers do not allude to R. Nachman’s posi on because it carries no halachic significance.

Like many aspects of Purim, R. Nachman’s posi on is somewhat hidden. Although no Jewish obliga on to recite Hallel exists; Rabbi Nachman and his supporters show logical evidence for the connec on between Hallel and the Megillah. First, in the absence of a minyan, Megillat Esther should be read individually. Rabbi Soloveitchik observes that the laws of tefillah are the basis for this principle, therefore showing a connec on

PAGE 11

(Continued on page 17)

The Connec on Between Purim and the Number 2 Daniel Jaspan ‘17

We encounter many events on Purim that directly relate to the number two. For example: we read Megillat Esther twice ‐ once at night and once during the day. By comparison, other mitzvot or prayers for other Chagim are performed only once, like Matzah, that is commanded to be eaten only at night.

On Sukkot, we shake the lulav only once during the day. On Chanukah, each night we light one addi onal candle. On Purim, matanot l’evyonim must be given to two people and mishloach manot must comprise two gi s over which you make two brachot. There is a commentary by the Bayit Chadash (Bach‐ Siman Tet reish tzadi hey) that can be applied to this concept. On Purim, there were two Yeshuot (salva ons); two aspects of how God saved us. God punished our enemies and took vengeance on them. God also saved us so that not one Jew was killed. You can win a war, but you risk loss of soldiers. Here, we won the war against our enemies and not one Jew was killed. We need to recognize this double salva on of Purim.

The Bach goes further and explains that these two aspects of salva ons on Purim are both reflected in what Achashverosh did. He first killed Haman and gave us Beit Haman, to win against our enemies. And then he gave Mordechai his ring, so that he could change the evil decree against the Jews and prevent any deaths amongst the Jews. What the Bach might be alluding to is that whenever the Megillah men ons the “King” it seems to be referring to Achashverosh. However, on a deeper level it is referring to HaMelech‐ God. The fact that Achashverosh performed these two salva ons is supposed to be a fable for God helping us and saving us.

The Bach himself delves deeper into his analysis of Purim and the number two. He says the specific mitzvot of mishloach manot and

matanot l’evyonim reflect the two salva ons themselves. He explains that mishloach manot is the celebra on for man. This means that you eat and enjoy yourselves with your friends. Pursuant to this idea, which we will refer to as lachem, you focus on yourself. Then there is the mitzvah of Matanot L’evyonim which the Bach calls “celebratory work you do to serve God.” This is the celebra on of our avodah for God. You are doing God’s work by serving the poor. This enjoyment is not for your own pleasure, it's for God. This, we will refer to as LeHashem. The Gemara in Pesachim uses these two terms when it is discussing simchat yom tov. The Bach says that the two yeshuos are reflected from the fact that Chazal gave us two different mitzvot, mishloach manot, enjoy yourself (lachem) and matanot l'evyonim, bringing simcha to God by helping the poor (LeHashem.) So the mitzvah of mishloach manot is to enjoy yourself and to reflect on our happiness that we were saved and that not one Jew was killed. But, matanot l’evyonim reflects the yeshua that God took vengeance on our enemies. That was not for our sake. Rather, it was for God’s sake.

But the mefarshim explain that when God punishes our enemies, that is a Kiddush Hashem (sanc fica on of God’s name).

When people see the damage a na on inflicted upon the Jews, they also see that God has no mercy on them.

Not only do we see this concept of lachem and lashem during Purim, but we also see a parallel on Shavuot. The Gemara in Pesachim explains that on Shavuot you need to have chatzi lachem and chatzi lashem. We hold that for all holidays you need to have extra food and extra learning.

PAGE 12

(Continued on page 18)

(Continued from page 3)

languages are generic, and no further analysis is warranted. However, I posit that the fact that there are so many parallels hints to there being a more profound rela onship between the two narra ves than just a superficial, linguis c one. There are no coincidences in life, especially in the verbiage of the Pentateuch. Before elucida ng on this thema c connec on, it is important to note that as the story of Purim occurred a er that of Sodom, the Megillah must be the text that seeks to relate and hint to the story in Bereishit, and not vise‐versa. Also, the disparity in the plots, I believe, underscores the contrast between Mordechai and Lot. Both stories deal with the impending destruc on of a group of people at the hands of another en ty or authorita ve power because that power views the people’s sins or inherently worse quali es as incorrigible. However, in Bereishit, angels of God wish to obliterate a city and Lot prays/beseeches the angel for mercy for himself and only his family is saved, while in the Megillah, the second‐in‐ command to the king wants to exterminate a na on and Esther and Mordechai pray/u lize their acumen and interpersonal skills to persuade the king

and the whole people is rescued.

The ques on now begs, why connect, and thereby contrast, both stories? I believe that the authors of the Megillah wrote it with analogous language to that of ‫וירא‬ ‫פרשת‬ to each a vital message. In order to poten ally understand why the two stories turned out differently, it is helpful to first look at the dis nc on between the personali es of Lot and Mordechai.

While contextually it is true that Lot was only tasked with saving his family, because the rest of the city inhabited the people who were a acking him, at his core, Lot was a selfish and inwardly‐ focused individual. He could not see past the violence that his neighbors were waging in the moment, so he did not try to convince the angel to not annihilate his fellow townspeople. Perhaps, it is this type of a tude that pervaded the people of Sodom that caused their demise. Not surprisingly, the mishna in Masechet Avot 5:10 says that there are those who say that one who does not share – one who believes “‫”שלך שלך ושלי שלי‬ exhibits “‫ ”מדת סדם‬.”This self‐centered mindset is corrected by the approach that Mordechai and Esther take in the

PAGE 13

(Continued on page 18)

(Continued from page 2)

brachah. Here too, the remedy for the issue was created before the problem surfaced, as Yitzchak was blinded before Yaakov and Esav fought over the birthright.

This demonstrates God’s hand in carrying out all of the solu ons for the Tanakh’s problems, whether working behind the scenes or in an outright fashion.

One can deduce from these examples that although it may occasionally appear that occurrences are random or coincidental, whether posi ve or nega ve, everything is in God’s well‐thought out, carefully enacted plans. As seen through the story of Purim, God some mes plants seeds for the remedy prior to the evolu on of the issue itself. This is a central idea in the teaching of Megillat Esther. The lack of God’s name in the en re story ironically

comes to emphasize that although we may not see it, God is the underlying force behind the saving of the Jews, and all other Jewish triumphs throughout history and s ll today. On occasion, even though God does not always appear on the surface, it is important to remember that He is always “pulling the strings.” We should try to take advantage of the opportuni es God lays out for us, take ac on when necessary, and involve ourselves in God’s plan for both our personal success, but more important, the na onal success and con nuity of the Jewish people.

PAGE 14

(Continued from page 4)

(Continued from page 19)

Unlike other holidays, we are not restricted from performing labor on Purim.

We thus eat a pastry with a treat hidden inside of it, signifying that though on the outside Purim is a regular day, it contains “treasures” – of sanc ty and fes vi es – within. The yom tov is hidden the way the miracles of the holiday were hidden. This is similar to the custom of ea ng kreplach (dumplings, dough filled with meat) on two other holidays – the eve of Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabbah (and some eat them on Purim as well, since Simchat Yom Tov is accomplished with meat. (Based on Ta’amei HaMinhagim 895.)

Sources:  Tractate Megillah 13a.  Ta'amei HaMinhagim 895.  Mishneh Brurah 695:12.

and here the Torah is giving us a guideline to finding a perfect balance between the physical and the spiritual.

Sources:

 ‫מגילת אסתר‬  h ps://www.jewishideas.org/ blog/purim‐paradox‐guest‐blog‐ rabbi‐alan‐zelenetz  h ps://www.ou.org/holidays/ purim/purim_and_yom_kippur/  h p://torah.org/learning/ yomtov‐chanukah‐5755‐vol1no59/  Sec on drinking on Purim: h p://www.puretorah.com/ resources/Significance%20of% 20Purim.pdf  h p://www.chabad.org/library/ ar cle_cdo/aid/581082/ jewish.What‐is‐Judaisms‐take‐on‐ alcohol‐consump on.htm

PAGE 15

(Continued from page 10)

lines of this prayer (i.e. un l one is unable to recite it). Thus, the Tosafot, using the Talmud Yerushalmi, limit the Talmud Bavli’s statement regarding an obliga on to drink Purim wine.

The Rama (Orech Chaim 695) a empts to explain wine’s purpose as part of the holiday spirit. One should only drink un l one falls asleep, states the Rama, at which point one would not know the difference between Haman and Mordechai. The Rama uses sleep as the point of “ad d’lo yadah…” ‐ when one cannot differen ate between the megillah’s main characters. Furthermore, no ma er how much one drinks, maintains the Rama, it is all for the sake of heaven and for holy purposes. The Rama elevates wine consump on to a holy level that contradicts the rabbinic percep on of the drink’s effects in the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zera. Nevertheless, both the Rama and the story of the two reckless rabbis a empt to minimize the amount that we drink on Purim, reflec ng an overall halachic trend of se ng limits on how much wine should be consumed.

The various commentators who reduce the extensiveness of “ad d’lo yadah…” raise the ques on ‐ what mo vated these rabbis to challenge alcohol consump on on Purim?

Moreover, what about the obliga on specifically in the Talmud Bavli to drink on Purim concerned these commentators?

The simple answer lies in the issue of alcoholism. The rabbis did not want to redefine the symbol of wine in Judaism as one of carelessness and unholy ac vity. It seems that there is a threshold beyond which wine transi ons from a holy tool to

one of excess and danger. In this sense, the rabbis must balance this complex substance ‐ using it to upli us while remaining mindful of its poten ally nega ve effects.

The Beit Yosef highlights this a tude, sta ng that, perhaps, if one drinks too much, he will descend into terrible tendencies, including murder and licen ousness.

Ul mately, we should not assume that Purim gives us carte blanche to drink as we please. Megillat Esther plays with the theme of excess, o en portraying it as contribu ng to the menace of materialism and the loss of religious con nuity. The rabbis (both in the Talmud and in later halachic teachings) warn against excessive drinking. They perhaps fear that the careless a tude toward wine that Purim seemingly (but not necessarily) engenders will permeate into other Jewish wine‐ related rituals.

PAGE 16

(Continued from page 11)

(Continued from page 8)

between Hallel ‐a tefillah‐ and Megillah.

Second, R. Soloveitchik notes that in Sukkah 38b, we learn that certain parts of Hallel are to be recited responsively.

This is yet another principle that was adopted into the reading of the Megillah.

While Purim may not have all the elements of a chag that qualifies for the recita on of Hallel‐open miracle, spiritual redemp on, it clearly signifies a momentous and miraculous day.

Otherwise, why would genera ons of Talmudic scholars use Purim as a benchmark to analyze the laws of other miraculous days such as Chanukah and Yom Yerushalayim? The physical salva on of the Jewish people on Purim is a miracle that I personally relate to. It may be that in this post Holocaust era, I appreciate a miracle that stopped the total annihila on of the Jewish Diaspora. Or maybe as a Jewish American, I recognize the poli cal acumen of Mordechai and Esther.

Although technically Purim does not pass the Hallel requirement test, I personally iden fy with Rabbi Nachman that it is a Chag worthy of Hallel.

lastly, we can ask where Hashem was when we were all about to be exterminated. Though we cannot explain it, we can look to Hashem and ask Him how we got there.

h p://www.rabbisacks.org/gods‐ hidden‐call/

PAGE 17

(Continued from page 12)

(Continued from page 13)

Some say that on Pesach and Sukkot you could spend the whole day learning and davening.

But everyone agrees that on Shavuot you must have a lot of lachem and lashem. It is very

Megillah. They too are faced with

interes ng that we have the same case for Purim where we must have enjoyment for ourselves and work for God. In conclusion, we see an underlying theme of the number two in Purim. The Bach explains to us that the predominant aspect of the number two are the two salva ons God performed on Purim. They symbolize two important concepts. The concept of enjoying yourself and spending me with close ones. It also symbolizes the concept of understanding you are a servant of God and you must a end to his needs. That is why we are commanded to give to the poor on Purim. We are in essence doing God’s work. It is so important to always understand that these two no ons co‐exist. We do not have to deprive ourselves of self‐enjoyment to only cater to God’s wishes. Addi onally, we cannot be selfish. We must think about those who do not have the opportuni es to experience self‐enjoyment, because that is the task that God has assigned to us.

PAGE 18

imminent decima on, albeit on a larger scale – their en re na on. However, they are focused on more than themselves and their immediate family; Mordechai tells Esther to use her good standing with the king to act on behalf of the Jewish people, and be the liaison to the king to save the whole na on. It is because of this altruis c outlook, which manifests itself in Mordechai and Esther’s ac ons, that the result of the Purim story is different, and more successful, than that of the one in Sodom.

When Mashiach comes, Purim will be the only holiday whose observance lasts (midrash on Mishlei 9) based on “ ‫נזכרים ונעשים בכל דור ודור‬ ‫”והימים האלה‬ (Esther 9:28). Purim and the values of its protagonists are eternal, ideals that the Megillah suggests we should inculcate into our own lives. The Megillah alludes to the story of Sodom to demonstrate the significance of some of these principles: sacrifice and selflessness, vital characteris cs that we should all strive to a ain. May we be blessed to realize that while our own goals are indeed things that we should work to achieve, we are all part of a larger whole am yisrael, something that’s existence and con nued success is far more essen al than our own, individual ambi ons.

Purim: The Physical and the Spiritual Shelli Cohen ‘17

On the surface, Purim seems to be a very physical day. We are obligated to celebrate through physical means, most obviously feas ng and drinking wine. One would think that in religion there would be more of a focus on the spiritual rather than the physical and therefore, isn’t it strange that Purim has such a focus on the physical?

In no other place are we commanded to get extremely drunk (to the point of not recognizing the difference between Haman and Mordechai!). Does this not seem a bit excessive? Isn’t this allowing us to give into tempta ons that we are generally forbidden to do? Isn’t there too much focus on the pleasure?

If we look closer, Purim’s focus on the physical begins to make a bit more sense. Haman’s decree tried to annihilate the en re Jewish people. Conversion wasn’t even an op on. Haman was trying to destroy their physical bodies and did not care about their spirit of religion. So when the Jews were saved, it was a salva on of their physical beings not of their religiosity. Their observance was never in danger; rather it was their lives. Because of this physical salva on, Purim has a very large focus on physical ac vi es.

Even though Purim is not the only holiday with a focus on the physical, in every other case the focus on the physical is in modera on. Feas ng may seem glu nous, something forbidden by the Torah. However, we have a feast on almost every holiday as we celebrate. Most important, we eat a large meal on Shabbat. The meal is a me

for families to come together and celebrate.

Judaism has a huge focus on wine, a substance that has the poten al to be extremely dangerous. There are many instances in the Torah where alcohol consump on has led to wrongdoing, such as Noah. It seems that we should be extra careful with wine considering the ac ons it could lead to. However, wine, along with other Jewish laws teach us the importance of modera on. The religion introduces alcohol in a moderated way on special occasions.

There is a profound lesson within our rela on to wine. There may be mes where we can give in to our tempta ons and focus on the physical, but we may always ensure that it will not endanger the spiritual. This is a combina on in itself of the physical and the spiritual. Judaism does not reject the physical completely; rather it encourages the combina on of the spiritual and the physical.

It encourages us to thwart our bad tempta ons and manage them with small physical pleasures.

The Torah understands the dangers of the physical and therefore limits us in what we eat, drink, and act. The danger of a strong focus on the physical is the possibility of an elimina on of the spiritual. Therefore the Torah balances the two, by allowing for each to enhance the other. We combat our tempta ons with the spiritual, by focusing on our souls and deepening our connec on with ourselves and Hashem. Through the spiritual, we allow elements of the physical to enhance our mitzvot, just as we allow a bit of wine and an elaborate meal on Shabbat. In life it is always important to find the correct balance (Continued on page 15)

PAGE 19

Happy Purim! ‫חג פורים‬ !!‫שמח‬