Purim, Book of Esther: Denial of a God? [Archive]

Jinx

03-11-2003, 09:07 AM

It's interesting to note that the Book of Esther (which is read on the Jewish holiday of Purim) does not mention God's name. The story is about an evil adviser to the King of Persia out to kill all the Persian Jews. But, his Queen Esther reveals she, too, is Jewish and begs the King to spare her people. Additionally, through a twist of fate, the evil advisor (Haman) and his sons are hanged in the very gallows they built to kill the Jews.

Verbally, by word of mouth and legend, God is credited with causing the foreshadowing events leading to Esther becoming queen AND the twist of fate ending. However, there is no reference to God in the text! Because of this, it was once hotly debated if this story should even be included in the Holy Scriptures. So, is this a would-be cover-up regarding the existence of God?

So, you have to wonder the following:
a) How many Jews through the ages, esp. in the Holocaust, were given false hope by this biblical story? And, is false hope better than no hope at all?

b) Could this be the smoking gun evidence, well hidden amongst all the Biblical stories, actually giving suggesting there is no God?

c) How many other would-be Biblical stories were intentionally edited out of the Bible for a similar reason? And, were the
author(s) of the Bible purposely hand selecting stories to avoid this very question (b) above?

What do you make of all of this?
- Jinx :dubious:

zev_steinhardt

03-11-2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Jinx
It's interesting to note that the Book of Esther (which is read on the Jewish holiday of Purim) does not mention God's name. The story is about an evil adviser to the King of Persia out to kill all the Persian Jews. But, his Queen Esther reveals she, too, is Jewish and begs the King to spare her people. Additionally, through a twist of fate, the evil advisor (Haman) and his sons are hanged in the very gallows they built to kill the Jews.

Verbally, by word of mouth and legend, God is credited with causing the foreshadowing events leading to Esther becoming queen AND the twist of fate ending. However, there is no reference to God in the text! Because of this, it was once hotly debated if this story should even be included in the Holy Scriptures. So, is this a would-be cover-up regarding the existence of God?

There are reasons for these things.

God is not mentioned in the Esther for the very simple reason that the text of Esther was to be contained in the kingdom's chronicles (see the end of the book). As such, to avoid unneccesary desecration, God's name was left out of it.

In addition, the root of the name "Esther" samech-tuv-reish means "secret" or "hidden" The story is about God's hidden guidence of history.

So, you have to wonder the following:
a) How many Jews through the ages, esp. in the Holocaust, were given false hope by this biblical story? And, is false hope better than no hope at all?

Well, your questions presupposes that there is no God to begin with, a position that I disagree with. You'd have to prove that the lack of mention of God's name in Esther somehow proves that all the other books of the Bible are lies.

b) Could this be the smoking gun evidence, well hidden amongst all the Biblical stories, actually giving suggesting there is no God?

c) How many other would-be Biblical stories were intentionally edited out of the Bible for a similar reason? And, were the
author(s) of the Bible purposely hand selecting stories to avoid this very question (b) above?

If other books were "edited" out of the bible for that reason, then why was Esther included?

Zev Steinhardt

What do you make of all of this?
- Jinx :dubious: [/B][/QUOTE]

Bricker

03-11-2003, 09:27 AM

So... the choice was made to add this book to the Bible, and we should conclude from its failure to mention God that there is no God... and we should also conclude that other stories were excluded from the Bible because they fail to mention God, thus giving rise to the conclusion that God does not exist?

I don't quite follow the inferences.

astorian

03-11-2003, 09:33 AM

"So, Zechariah, my fellow conspirator, did you remove all the books that show there is no God?"

"Yes, Judah... oops! "

"What do you mean, oops?"

"Well, it looks like I forgot to remove Esther."

"You cursed fool! NOW everyone will read Esther, notice that it doesn't mention God, and they'll know He doesn't exist! Our sinister scheme is ruined!"

"Gulp... well, maybe nobody will notice..."

Humble Servant

03-11-2003, 11:50 AM

Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the King's house more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargment and deliverance arise for the Jews from another place....So, if Esther wasn't going to save the Jews, God would find another way.

Esther was living a pretty secular life, as the concubine and then wife of a secular ruler who didn't even know she was Jewish. She probably could have quietly saved herself if she didn't get involved. But the story is about the necessary continuation of the Jewish community as a separate people, even scattered and in the midst of secularity. While the retribution of the Jews against their enemies is enormous and seemingly out of balance (possibly to make the point that we aren't talking about mere politics here), it is unworldly--Haman needed money to arrange the planned slaughter (holocaust) while the Jews spurned the spoils of their victims--whatever was going on (and it is not the most obvious Biblical story) seems to be given as an example of the "larger than life" Jewish existence/covenant imposing itself into the secular and political when necessary for its own ends. That the supernatural acts through Esther in this case is a reminder that individuals should be willing to take action for their community.

There are obviously some parallels to the Nazi Holocaust here, but I'm not sure why Esther would have given "false hope" to the Jews of Europe--that they should not bother to act because a heroine would convince the government to relent? Rather read it as a warning that keeping one's mouth shut if one is involved in the secular world and could pass unnoticed is wrong--Jews must speak up for each other--solidarity in the face of persecution. In any event, the Jews did survive WWII (note that I am not minimizing the Holocaust), so if the message is that God will always ensure that a remnant of his people survive, even scattered in secular societies, that has happened.

Shodan

03-11-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by astorian
"So, Zechariah, my fellow conspirator, did you remove all the books that show there is no God?"

"Yes, Judah... oops! "

"What do you mean, oops?"

"Well, it looks like I forgot to remove Esther."

"You cursed fool! NOW everyone will read Esther, notice that it doesn't mention God, and they'll know He doesn't exist! Our sinister scheme is ruined!"

"Gulp... well, maybe nobody will notice..." It would have worked, too - if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Also notice that there is no mention of clog dancing, or the Zapruder film in the book of Esther. Draw your own conclusions.

Regards,
Shodan

dangermom

03-11-2003, 03:25 PM

Esther asks Mordecai to tell everyone to fast for her; she and her maidens fast also. I had always thought that the fasting went along with prayers for Esther's success--why else would they fast, except as a supplication to God? So AFAIK God is certainly implied in the story.

But hey, if you've got some other reason for a whole community to starve themselves for three days before undertaking a dangerous scheme, let me know. :)

Polycarp

03-11-2003, 04:11 PM

TO: Zev Steinhart and CM Keller, Co-Coordinators, Straight Dope Infiltration Group, Evil Conspiracy to Enslave Minds, Jewish Division

FROM: Polycarp, Co-Coordinator, Straight Dope Infiltration Group, Evil Conspiracy to Enslave Minds, Christian Division

SUBJECT: The Jig's Up

Gentlemen, our cover has been blown. When we had our initial strategy session on infiltration of the SDMB, we were warned about how perceptive Dopers were, and that we'd have to adopt a variety of guises to avoid revealing our Evil Plans (TM) to Manipulate Minds Under the Guise of Religion.

We discussed the problems with Genesis and decided on the threefold attack that's worked so well -- some of us take the literalist view, some attempt to depict it as figurative, and you guys confuse the heck out of everybody with Talmudic pilpul! Nice job on that.

But the flaw in Esther was our undoing, just as we feared. T~, our Catholic operative, was insistent we should use the Septuagint version, which does mention God's name in the added-in portions, but you guys wouldn't listen! "We can handle it! We'll just rattle off some Hebrew letters and say that His name's not there because it depicts Him as working behind the scenes."

We told you that the Dopers were a smart bunch, but no, you wouldn't listen.

Sure. Well, look where it got us. 3,500 years of effort, and all for nothing. If this gets out, our efforts to keep people's minds in narrow religious paths will be for nothing.

And you guys are not getting your toaster ovens!1

1. What, you folks thought Lesbians invented that good a marketing concept? Sheesh!

zev_steinhardt

03-11-2003, 04:22 PM

TO: Polycarp, Co-Coordinator, Straight Dope Infiltration Group, Evil Conspiracy to Enslave Minds, Christian Division

FROM: Zev Steinhardt, Co-Coordinators, Straight Dope Infiltration Group, Evil Conspiracy to Enslave Minds, Jewish Division

SUBJECT: Toasters

So what? Passover is coming up soon. What are we going to do with toasters? Toast matzoh? :D

Zev Steinhardt

Captain Amazing

03-11-2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Jinx
a) How many Jews through the ages, esp. in the Holocaust, were given false hope by this biblical story? And, is false hope better than no hope at all?

I think you have it backwards. The way I read the book of Esther, it's not a way to give false hope, but a call to action. Esther and Mordecai didn't just sit around saying, "I hope G-d will save the Jews". They acted to help save themselves and the Jewish people. That, to me, is the message of Esther, and during the Holocaust, the modern Mordecais and Esthers were the partisans, they were the fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto, the Treblinka uprising, and even though most of the Mordecais and Esthers died, they died unbeaten, and they made their killers pay a high price for their deaths.

It's not a false hope. It's a real hope, mixed with the message that you have to be one of the contributors to your own salvation, and it isn't enough to wait to be saved.

Philosophocles

03-11-2003, 09:01 PM

Esther, Mordecai
Ishtar, Marduk

DSeid

03-11-2003, 11:04 PM

Now at least zev and poly are in the spirit of Purim.

Jinx, Purim is a farcical little holiday. Even many very literalist Jews take this one as a fable. It is sort of a Jewish Mardi Gras ... costumes, doing things all wrong. Heck, it is a holiday during which religious Jews are commanded to get shitfaced drunk.

Enjoy the party; some things defy analysis.

FriarTed

03-12-2003, 06:50 AM

I have heard that names &/or titles of God are hidden in key points of the Hebrew text. Any truth to that?

zev_steinhardt

03-12-2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by FriarTed
I have heard that names &/or titles of God are hidden in key points of the Hebrew text. Any truth to that?

There are several places where God's name (the Tetragram) can be found. Two such places are:

1) Esther 5:4 "The King and Haman should come today..." The Hebrew for this is Yavoh Hamelcech V'Haman Hayom.... The first letter of each word makes up God's name.

2) Esther 7:7 "for he [Haman] saw that there was evil determined against him..." In this case, it is the last letter of each of the four words in this Hebrew phrase that contain God's name.

Zev Steinhardt

Polycarp

03-12-2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Philosophocles
Esther, Mordecai
Ishtar, Marduk

Exactly. Just as there are unquestionable parallels between the early chapters of Genesis and the Enuma Elish -- the former picking up on particular elements of the latter as a way of saying "Those Babylonian idiots are wrong; with regard to Tiamat and the primordial Deep, this is what really happened," so Esther is a "Judaification" of the Babylonian myths: "Even Ishtar and Marduk are pious believers in YHWH," so to speak. :)

I'll grant that many people take Esther and Daniel as literal historical accounts, but that's their privilege: one man's Mede is another man's Persian, so to speak! ;j

::: ducks and runs :::

cmkeller

03-12-2003, 11:36 AM

Philosophocles:

Esther, Mordecai
Ishtar, Marduk

It's also quite possible that the story was real, these were real Jews, and they had adopted or been assigned Babylonian names during the exile, a la the Judean youths in the first Chapter of Daniel (Daniel = Belteshazzar, Hananiah = Shadrach, Mishael = Meshach, Azariah = Abed Nego). It should be noted that both Esther and Mordecai are referred to by other names in the Bible - Esther's original name is Hadassah (Esther 2:7), and Mordecai is referred to as "Mordecai Bilshan" in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The similarity of the names in Esther to names that also coincidentally occur in Babylonian mythology is hardly proof that Esther is a corrupted version of some unknown Babylonian folk tale.

DSeid:

Even many very literalist Jews take this one as a fable.

What Jew that you know takes the rest of the Torah and Tanakh literally considers Esther to be a fable?

Heck, it is a holiday during which religious Jews are commanded to get shitfaced drunk.

That bit is SO used out of context, it's become almost sick. Not pointing a finger at you specifically, I'm referring to the behavior of many religious Jews on Purim that they claim is justified by that law. A slight buzz is what we're commanded to get. Shitfaced drunk is out-and-out against what the law of the holiday suggests.

Polycarp:

one man's Mede is another man's Persian, so to speak!

I don't get this comment. Yes, I know it was accompanied by a smiley, but...is there some issue about the Persians and Medes that non-religious folks claim as one of their list of Biblical inconsistencies? Weren't there, historically, both Median and Persian kings named Darius?

Papermache Prince

03-12-2003, 11:50 AM

"One man's Mede is another man's Persian" is merely an old joke, based on "One man's meat is another man's poison."

Polycarp

03-12-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by cmkeller
Philosophocles:

It's also quite possible that the story was real, these were real Jews, and they had adopted or been assigned Babylonian names during the exile, a la the Judean youths in the first Chapter of Daniel (Daniel = Belteshazzar, Hananiah = Shadrach, Mishael = Meshach, Azariah = Abed Nego). It should be noted that both Esther and Mordecai are referred to by other names in the Bible - Esther's original name is Hadassah (Esther 2:7), and Mordecai is referred to as "Mordecai Bilshan" in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The similarity of the names in Esther to names that also coincidentally occur in Babylonian mythology is hardly proof that Esther is a corrupted version of some unknown Babylonian folk tale.

IMHO, CM, while what you suggest is possible, I'm inclined to see the Esther story as a novelization of a traditional story, with the two "theophoric" names used for precisely the purpose I suggested -- to bring even the false gods of the Babylonians under the ambit of believers in the real God.

Polycarp:

I don't get this comment. Yes, I know it was accompanied by a smiley, but...is there some issue about the Persians and Medes that non-religious folks claim as one of their list of Biblical inconsistencies? Weren't there, historically, both Median and Persian kings named Darius? [/B]

Nope. (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/darius.html)

There was, in fact, a Median general and satrap in the Persian Empire who governed Babylonia under Cyrus after leading his armies in its conquest; his name was Gubaru (http://www.fbinstitute.com/Anderson/Preface_Tenth.html), and he's often thought to be the historical referent for "Darius the Mede". Others have equated this figure with Cyaraxes II (http://www.dabhand.org/Essays/OT572%20C6%20Darius.htm) the last independent king of Media, and Cyrus's father-in-law.

cmkeller

03-12-2003, 02:17 PM

Polycarp:

Others have equated this figure with Cyaraxes II the last independent king of Media, and Cyrus's father-in-law.

That sounds plausible from what I've learned of the period from traditional Jewish sources; I'm pretty certain they do refer to "Darius the Mede" as Cyrus's father-in-law. As for the name discrepancy, it is quite possible that he had both a Persian name/title and an actual, Median name, a point of view which I'm pretty certain also has support from traditional Jewish sources.

Chaim Mattis Keller

DSeid

03-12-2003, 10:41 PM

Chiam,

Well, my old orthodox roommate wasn't a total literalist so maybe he doesn't count ... and my other source for that info was a Reform rabbi who probably doesn't count either.

As to getting drunk- isn't the commandment to get drunk enough that you can't tell "Blessed be Mordechai" from "Cursed be Hamen" or something like that? I'd think of that as more than a slight buzz. Or am I wrong here? I'll defer to your greater knowledge on these matters.

My point remains. It is a playful little holiday, nothing too serious.

RedNaxela

03-13-2003, 09:17 AM

DSeid, the statement you recall about getting confused between "Blessed be Mordechai" and "Cursed be Haman" is correct, but there's more to it than meets the eye. Here are some relevant (translated) quotes from the various commentaries on the Code of Jewish Law (section Orach Chayim 695:2), supporting what Chaim wrote earlier:

"Some say that one need not drink that much, but rather that one should drink more than usual so that he'll sleep - and when he's asleep, he won't know the difference between 'Blessed be Mordechai' and 'Cursed be Haman'" (glosses of R' Moshe Isserles)

"Both of these phrases [in Hebrew] have the same numerical value, 502. Thus, when one has drunk enough that he can no longer figure out this numerical equivalence, he is exempt from further drinking" (Magen Avraham)

"Before one has gotten drunk, one surely expressed thanks to G-d for both of His acts of goodness [the degradation of Haman and the elevation of Mordechai]. Thus, our Sages were saying that one should continue giving thanks for this with such joy that one reaches the point of not being able to tell which is the greater good" (Mishnah Berurah)

"We are not commanded to get drunk and to degrade ourselves through [over]celebrating, since the joy we are told to experience is not one of wild abandon and silliness, but rather it should be a pleasureful joy which leads one to love of G-d and thankfulness for the miracles He performed for us" (Meiri, cited in Beur Halachah)

As far as Purim being "a playful little holiday, nothing too serious": that's an unfortunately mistaken impression. For one thing, it's "serious" enough for its detailed laws to take up eleven sections in the Code of Jewish Law. For another, there's a teaching - IIRC, it's attributed to R' Isaac Luria - that Yom Kippur (the full name of which is "Yom Kippurim") is so called because it's "a day like Purim" (yom ke-Purim); the implication is that Purim, in a sense, outranks Yom Kippur in importance and serves as its model!

IzzyR

03-13-2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by cmkeller
That bit is SO used out of context, it's become almost sick. Not pointing a finger at you specifically, I'm referring to the behavior of many religious Jews on Purim that they claim is justified by that law. A slight buzz is what we're commanded to get. Shitfaced drunk is out-and-out against what the law of the holiday suggests.I'm not too clear on the exact meaning of the term "shitfaced drunk", so I can't say for certain whether it applies. But it is true that there are many who interpret the requirement as being to get totally stoned. And even those who give alternate explanations (e.g. those cited by RedNaxela) allow for the totally drunk as being highly recommended if not required. Getting totally drunk on Purim has a long and honorable tradition, and is not to be dismissed.

Having said that, the important point is how one acts when under the influence. If in a given case someone will act innapropriately, he is NOT to get drunk, but rather to drink a bit and rely on the alternative explanations.

There are many many people who will get stoned out their minds and become better people. It all depends on what really lurks inside the mind. Those who are louts but afaid to show it will lose their inhibitions and act like louts. Those who are sincere fine people but restrained in expressing their emotions will lose their inhibitions and express themselves more fully as well.

cmkeller

03-13-2003, 11:05 PM

IzzyR:

But it is true that there are many who interpret the requirement as being to get totally stoned. And even those who give alternate explanations (e.g. those cited by RedNaxela) allow for the totally drunk as being highly recommended if not required. Getting totally drunk on Purim has a long and honorable tradition, and is not to be dismissed.

Really, now? Even the best-behaved of drunks, if genuinely impaired, is not supposed to say grace after meals or the afternoon or evening prayers (I'll assume that most of the enthusiastic Purim drunks are not drunk at morning prayer time, but merely nursing the hangover from the prior night). Is that "recommended" or considered "honorable"? What about someone who will not act inappropriately, but will end up vomiting from too much drink? No matter how you cut it, it certainly gives a bad image, and dare I say, a desecration of G-d's name, in those who do it. I once personally prevented my Rosh Hayeshiva from being thrown up on by a fellow student who is, every other day of the year, a fine man...he even received his Rabbinic ordination last year. Is that level of debasement for Torah sanctioned by this "honorable tradition"?

Sorry, but I must disagree. There is a distinction to be made between "a little extra wine" and "totally stoned," as so many Halachic authorities, some of whom were quoted by RedNaxela, have said. This day of license has become much abused in recent years, beyond any traditional sanction.

Chaim Mattis Keller

IzzyR

03-14-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by cmkeller
Even the best-behaved of drunks, if genuinely impaired, is not supposed to say grace after meals or the afternoon or evening prayersThis is not correct.Is that level of debasement for Torah sanctioned by this "honorable tradition"?I would say it depends on the attitude of the guy on the receiving end. Generally, no. But as you know, though, even a certain amount of hezeik is sort of tolerated (though not called for) in the spirit of Purim. Obviously, you want to avoid vominting on people. But if a (very) small number of people end up throwing up, it goes with the territory.

I don't know about you, but in the circles in which I move, getting totally stoned is extremely common. Vomiting is relatively uncommon (though certainly not unheard of, especially for younger teenagers), and I've never seen or heard of anyone throwing up on another person.Sorry, but I must disagree. There is a distinction to be made between "a little extra wine" and "totally stoned," as so many Halachic authorities, some of whom were quoted by RedNaxela, have said.Disagree all you want. But you are disagreeing with a great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities, who felt that getting drunk was required or at least preferred, or who practiced this custom themselves.

As mentioned earlier, the halachic authorities cited by RedNaxela merely say that you can fulfill the requirement of ad d'lo yodah by means of alternative explanations. You will not find a halachic authority who says not to get literally drunk, unless there is a risk of innapropriate behaviour.This day of license has become much abused in recent years, beyond any traditional sanction.I disagree - Purim as currently practiced is one of finest and most uplifiting days of the Jewish calendar. I may start a thread in MPSIMS to describe this more fully, if I get around to it.

RedNaxela

03-14-2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by IzzyROriginally posted by cmkeller
Even the best-behaved of drunks, if genuinely impaired, is not supposed to say grace after meals or the afternoon or evening prayersThis is not correct.Depends what "genuinely impaired" means, then. See Orach Chaim 99:1-3 and 185:4, and Mishnah Berurah there, for the details: in short, if a person is so drunk that he can't speak coherently, then he may not recite Shemoneh Esrei, and there are various opinions as to whether he may recite the Grace After Meals. (And if he's "as drunk as Lot," where he has no sense of what he's doing at all, then everyone agrees that his prayers are invalid. In Chaim's example of a student about to throw up on his Rosh Yeshiva, I think a fair case can be made that this approaches Lot's level of drunkenness!)

Is that level of debasement for Torah sanctioned by this "honorable tradition"?I would say it depends on the attitude of the guy on the receiving end. Generally, no. But as you know, though, even a certain amount of hezeik is sort of tolerated (though not called for) in the spirit of Purim.Note well the Rema's expression (695:2): "If a person causes damage to his colleague due to the joy of Purim (my emphasis), he is exempt." It seems to me that this is talking about a case where the damage is directly caused by an overenthusiastic expression of joy (picture a case where a guy is flailing his arms wildly as part of a Purim play, and accidentally socks another guy in the jaw), not where it's an unnecessary byproduct.

[Compare also with the case in Choshen Mishpat 378:9 concerning damages caused during a horseback-riding (jousting?) tournament at a wedding; there too the emphasis seems to be that the riders are exempt from payment for damages incurred "in the course of play," but not damages caused by getting drunk.]

See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (185:4), where he points out that a drunken person (who hasn't yet reached the "drunkenness of Lot") is considered to be fully compos mentis and liable for any damages or misdeeds he commits.

One other thing: even in the cases where hezeik is "sort of tolerated," that's on the receiving end; a person is still morally culpable for his actions, unless he's oseh birshus (see, for example, Choshen Mishpat 378:8), a consideration which is conspicuously absent from the Rema's formulation.

But you are disagreeing with a great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities, who felt that getting drunk was required or at least preferred, or who practiced this custom themselves. <snip> You will not find a halachic authority who says not to get literally drunk, unless there is a risk of innapropriate behaviour.Actually, there are indeed halachic authorities - I don't have the necessary sefarim handy to look them up, but I can do so over Shabbos - who hold that the Gemara's statement about drinking ad delo yada is not even accepted as normative halachah, as evidenced by the fact that it's juxtaposed with the unfortunate episode involving Rabbah and Rav Zeira (Megillah 7b). So by insisting that this is indeed meant to be taken literally, you too are disagreeing with several Rishonim and Acharonim...

Furthermore, as you yourself noted, there are indeed different levels of drunkenness; surely you're not going to claim that those "great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities" got drunk to the point of vomiting and making fools of themselves, G-d forbid!

Purim as currently practiced is one of finest and most uplifiting days of the Jewish calendar.Indeed, and there's nothing like a good strong dose of yeinah shel Torah - in the form of maamarei Chassidus such as "Chayav Inish LeVasumei BePurya" in Torah Ohr, and "VeKibbel HaYehudim 5687" - to help a person appreciate the uniqueness of Purim!

zev_steinhardt

03-14-2003, 11:57 AM

Am I the only one here who doesn't drink at all on Purim? :D

Zev Steinhardt

candida

03-14-2003, 12:00 PM

"Two Jews, three opinions?"

Rather "Two Jews, a near infinite posibility of citations."

:)

cmkeller

03-14-2003, 12:12 PM

zev:

Am I the only one here who doesn't drink at all on Purim?

Nope, I'm like that as well, and have been ever since the unfortunate near-incident I recounted in my message above.

Chaim Mattis Keller

IzzyR

03-14-2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by RedNaxela
Depends what "genuinely impaired" means, then. See Orach Chaim 99:1-3 and 185:4, and Mishnah Berurah there, for the details: in short, if a person is so drunk that he can't speak coherently, then he may not recite Shemoneh Esrei, and there are various opinions as to whether he may recite the Grace After Meals. (And if he's "as drunk as Lot," where he has no sense of what he's doing at all, then everyone agrees that his prayers are invalid.It has to do with whether he can comport himself properly ("in front of a king"). Someone who is so drunk that he has no sense of what he is doing is exempted from all commandments. (In fact, R' Yisroel Salanter held that ad d'lo yada was when a person reaches this point - he is exempt from further drinking because of the general exemption from all commandments.)In Chaim's example of a student about to throw up on his Rosh Yeshiva, I think a fair case can be made that this approaches Lot's level of drunkenness!)Throwing up has to do with the state of one's stomach, and is not relevant.One other thing: even in the cases where hezeik is "sort of tolerated," that's on the receiving end; a person is still morally culpable for his actionsOf course. My point here was to note that there is some degree of acceptance of this phenomenon. I would say that a person who has good reason to believe that he might harm someone else should NOT get drunk on Purim. But the fact that there might be some guys who fall through the cracks should be accepted in proper spirit and not be used to denigrate the proper approach.Actually, there are indeed halachic authorities - I don't have the necessary sefarim handy to look them up, but I can do so over Shabbos - who hold that the Gemara's statement about drinking ad delo yada is not even accepted as normative halachah, as evidenced by the fact that it's juxtaposed with the unfortunate episode involving Rabbah and Rav Zeira (Megillah 7b). So by insisting that this is indeed meant to be taken literally, you too are disagreeing with several Rishonim and Acharonim...You would be referring to Rabbeinu Efraim and those who hold with him (e.g. the Meiri and IIRC the Ran - I am well aware of this opinion. But this is not accepted halacha. (Though there is a Taz, IIRC, that seems to suggest otherwise). As I am sure you are aware, we follow the accepted halacha in matters that have been disputed, and I consider your claim that by "insisting that this is meant" etc. I am "disagreeing with several rishonim" etc. to be misleading at best.Furthermore, as you yourself noted, there are indeed different levels of drunkenness; surely you're not going to claim that those "great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities" got drunk to the point of vomiting and making fools of themselves, G-d forbid!Please reread the second and thirds paragraphs of my first post to this thread.

zev_steinhardt

03-14-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by candida

Rather "Two Jews, a near infinite posibility of citations."

:)

Quite true, to some extent. Halachic literature goes all the way back to the Mishna, which was compiled about 1900 years ago. Since then there have been numerous sages, who have commented on and codified works of Jewish law.

However, in this thread, despite the many names thrown around, there haven't been too many different works mentioned.

Orach Chaim and Choshen Mishpat are two of the four parts of the Shulchan Aruch, a codification of Jewish law written by R. Yosef Cairo in the 1560s.

The Rema (which is an acronym for Rabbi Moshe Issrelis) is a gloss written on the Shulchan Aruch about ten years later. Rabbi Cairo's work reflected the norms of Jewish law and Sephardic customs. Rabbi Issrelis added comments to the text which reflected the practice in Ashkenazic countries.

The Mishna Berura is a commentary written on Orach Chaim by R. Yisroel Meir Kagan (also known as the Chofetz Chaim. This work was written in the early 1900s.

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (not to be confused with the Shulchan Aruch) was written by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the mid to late 1700s.

Megilah as quoted above, is one of the Tractates of the Talmud and was compiled at about 450.

I think that covers most of the citations mentioned below.

Zev Steinhardt

IzzyR

03-14-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by cmkeller
Am I the only one here who doesn't drink at all on Purim?Nope, I'm like that as well, and have been ever since the unfortunate near-incident I recounted in my message above.Here's the key, guys. Sugar-free wine. (E.g. Matuk)

zev_steinhardt

03-14-2003, 12:27 PM

The problem for me isn't the drunkeness (although I've never been drunk in my life, and I'm in no hurry to start), but the fact that I'm driving most of the day.

Put it this way, I drink far more with the arba cosos at the seder than I do the entire year round (forget about just Purim...)

Zev Steinhardt

candida

03-14-2003, 12:28 PM

Zev

I appreciate all that, there's a Jewish 'shrug' behind my voice in the comment.

;)

RedNaxela

03-14-2003, 02:53 PM

Reb Izzy, It has to do with whether he can comport himself properly ("in front of a king").No, it has to do with whether he can speak (yachol ledabber) before a king - i.e., coherently without mistakes. (The Rav, in his Shulchan Aruch (185:5), draws a clear distinction between one who sounds drunk but can still speak clearly - which puts him in the category of shasui - and one who can't speak coherently, who is defined as shikor. See also Mishnah Berurah 185:6.)

Throwing up has to do with the state of one's stomach, and is not relevant.Yes, but throwing up on one's Rosh Yeshivah has to do with the state of one's mind; I am sure that Chaim's friend would never have done such a thing if he was at all conscious of what he was doing, which is why I would characterize his state of drunkenness as Lot-like.

I would say that a person who has good reason to believe that he might harm someone else should NOT get drunk on Purim. But the fact that there might be some guys who fall through the cracks should be accepted in proper spirit and not be used to denigrate the proper approach.But how many have to "fall through the cracks" in a particular community before we say that something is indeed wrong with their approach - not with the halachah itself, G-d forbid, but with how they're (mis)applying it? Granted that most posekim would place the limit higher than Chaim's "slight buzz," they would also place it lower than DSeid's "shitfaced drunk," which to me suggests unlimited drinking and losing control of one's faculties - and that's the characterization to which Chaim was objecting. So if people in your community indeed rarely reach that latter stage, then they do indeed have good halachic support for what they're doing - but that's precisely because they recognize that there are limits.

As I am sure you are aware, we follow the accepted halacha in matters that have been disputed, and I consider your claim that by "insisting that this is meant" etc. I am "disagreeing with several rishonim" etc. to be misleading at best.I apologize and withdraw that comment, then: when you wrote that "you will not find a halachic authority who says not to get literally drunk," I parsed that as meaning "any authority on halachah, regardless of whether their opinion is accepted." (BTW, thanks for providing the references to Rabbeinu Efrayim's opinion.)

Please reread the second and thirds paragraphs of my first post to this thread. I have done so, but I don't really see where you've addressed the issue of involuntary drunken behavior (vomiting, etc.) which leads to a debasement of Torah and a chillul Hashem. One can be a fine person and still reach such a state through over-inebriation, as Chaim's friend's example demonstrates.

Polycarp

03-14-2003, 05:36 PM

Well, I normally don't drink to celebrate Purim either! ;)

Seriously, gentlemen, with the Feast of Unleavened Bread looming, would you gentlemen be willing to address (perhaps in a new thread) what Passover means to you and what you understand it to mean to Jews generally? There have been any number of comments made in my general direction that "you Christians don't get half of the real meaning of Passover" because of the particular focus we put on our parallel commemoration of what happened to Jesus on Pesach 29 AD. I think it would be highly enlightening to all of us to read what it signifies in your lives. Thanks.

zev_steinhardt

03-15-2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
Well, I normally don't drink to celebrate Purim either! ;)

Seriously, gentlemen, with the Feast of Unleavened Bread looming, would you gentlemen be willing to address (perhaps in a new thread) what Passover means to you and what you understand it to mean to Jews generally? There have been any number of comments made in my general direction that "you Christians don't get half of the real meaning of Passover" because of the particular focus we put on our parallel commemoration of what happened to Jesus on Pesach 29 AD. I think it would be highly enlightening to all of us to read what it signifies in your lives. Thanks.

I'd be more than happy to participate.

However, I don't think you can make a parallel between the events of the Exodus and the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The former involved a very physical liberation from a very physical bondage. The latter, (as I understand it) involved a spiritual libertation from sin.

In addition, I think that people who have been physically enslaved (as many of those in American history have been) certainly can understand the spirit of Passover.

Zev Steinhardt

Polycarp

03-15-2003, 10:15 PM

Well, that's something of the point, Zev -- the parallels may not be obvious from your side of the table, but the narrative of the Last Supper, particularly in Luke, parallels the Seder quite closely, the idea of the sharing in the Lamb without Spot sacrificed to God, the whole idea of the angel of death passing by those marked with the blood of the lamb... it has great significance from our end. Therefore I wanted to get a handle on what it meant to you, since what Jews found meaningful in the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread would be what the first Christians, who were Jews, would have been working from in the parallels to what Jesus did.

Three Easter hymns that draw the parallel even stronger than what I said above:
At the Lamb's high feast we sing (http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/a/a097.html)
The Day of Resurrection (http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/t/t029.html)
(On attempting a link, I find the third one may be copyrighted, so a short excerpt:
Through the Red Sea brought at last/
Egypt's chains behind we cast/
Deep and wide/
Flows the tide/
Severing us from bondage past.

Like the cloud that overhead/
through the billows Israel led....
I trust you can see how these make strong reference to Pesach and draw the parallels between what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished for all men and what God is supposed to have accomplished for the Israelites many years before.

IzzyR

03-15-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by RedNaxela
No, it has to do with whether he can speak (yachol ledabber) before a king - i.e., coherently without mistakes.I'm sorry, but I believe you are wrong here. The language should more properly be translated "address a king", not speak to a king. Not being able to enunciate the words clearly would be one example of not being fit to adress a king, but if he could speak clearly but was lurching to and fro or the like, he also could not pray.Yes, but throwing up on one's Rosh Yeshivah has to do with the state of one's mindActually I think it is an involuntary reflexBut how many have to "fall through the cracks" in a particular community before we say that something is indeed wrong with their approach - not with the halachah itself, G-d forbid, but with how they're (mis)applying it?I don't know. Interestingly, there were ads in the religious papers this weekend signed by zillions of rabbis and scholars warning about dangerous drinking practices particularly among the underage. But no one suggested that no one should drink more than a slight buzz.Granted that most posekim would place the limit higher than Chaim's "slight buzz," they would also place it lower than DSeid's "shitfaced drunk," which to me suggests unlimited drinking and losing control of one's faculties - and that's the characterization to which Chaim was objecting. So if people in your community indeed rarely reach that latter stage, then they do indeed have good halachic support for what they're doing - but that's precisely because they recognize that there are limits.Again, I don't know what "shitfaced drunk" means. But again, a person who is a good person inside will not act like a jerk even when losing control of their faculties. This has been my experience. (Whether they will throw up or get sick is another story).

zev_steinhardt

03-16-2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Polycarp
Well, that's something of the point, Zev -- the parallels may not be obvious from your side of the table, but the narrative of the Last Supper, particularly in Luke, parallels the Seder quite closely, the idea of the sharing in the Lamb without Spot sacrificed to God, the whole idea of the angel of death passing by those marked with the blood of the lamb... it has great significance from our end.

I've looked over the hymns that you've linked to, as well as the account of the Last Supper in Luke. To be honest, I still don't see that much of a parallel. True, the LS was a Passover seder. But beyond that, I don't see much of a parallel.

The biggest thing that breaks the parallel for me, is that Christians (as I see it. If I'm wrong please correct me) view Jesus as a sin-offering; as someone who was sent by God to atone for their sins. But the first thing that you need to realize is that the Passover sacrifice was not a sin-offering. It was an offering that was offered at a specific time to commemorate a specific event in our history. Unlike a true sin-offering, both the sinner and the sin-free had to bring it; both had to partake of it; and both faced the same penalties for not doing so.

And, remember, of course, that the blood that was sprinkled on the doorposts was only done by the first Passover in Egypt. This ritual was not performed at any other time in Jewish history. The only other significance that the blood of the sacrifice played was that it's blood had to be thrown on the altar. However, that is true not just for the Passover offering, but for every offering, whether it was a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering, a thanksgiving offering, or any other type of sacrifice. There is no special meaning to the blood of the Passover sacrifice over any of the thousands of other sacrifices that were offered year-round in the Temple. I understand that Christians place a great deal of emphasis on the blood of Jesus, but the parallel there is strained too. Firstly, of course, in order for any sacrifice to be acceptable, the blood of the sacrifice had to be sprinkled on the Altar. Jesus' blood was not. Beyond that, there are numerous other places where the parallel between a sacrifice and Jesus' death fails.

Therefore I wanted to get a handle on what it meant to you, since what Jews found meaningful in the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread would be what the first Christians, who were Jews, would have been working from in the parallels to what Jesus did.

Passover, to Jews, as mentioned above, is primarily a holiday commemorating and giving thanks for our liberation from a very physical slavery in Egypt. We do things on the night of Passover to bring into focus our new-found status as free men. We eat the meal and perform the rituals leaning on a pillow. We do not pour our own wine for the Four Cups, rather others pour our wine for us. These are all symbols of chairus, freedom. In many Sephardic households a ritual is performed whereby the people in the household get up, put sacks over their shoulders and walk around the table. They are asked "Where are you coming from?" and they answer "Egypt." "Where are you going?" "To Jerusalem" is the answer.

Symbolism abounds on Passover. We eat matzah to commemorate the bread that our forefathers ate. We eat marror (bitter herbs) to remember how bitter the Egyptians made the lives of the Jews. We drink four cups of wine in commemoration of the four expressions of redemption mentioned in Exodus. We eat the charoses, which is designed to look like mortar, to remind us of the bricks we formed. We eat vegetables dipped in salt water, to remind us of the tears that were shed by our ancestors.

On the night of Passover, the Exodus is discussed at lenght, far beyond what is written in the text of the hagaddah. People are encouraged to ask questions about the Exodus and the laws of Passover. There is much lively discussion that goes on between chapters of the hagaddah.

Lastly, Passover is about redemption. However, it is a holiday of physical redemption. We remember the past enslavement of Egypt and how we were redeemed from there by God's hand. And at the seder we pour a cup of wine for Elijah, who will come before our final redemption, when we are redeemed from our current Exile.

We already have a holiday for our redemption from sin. It's called Yom Kippur. It existed well before Jesus' time. I see more of a parallel between Yom Kippur's meaning and Jesus death as Christians see it, than between Passover and the Crucifixion.

Zev Steinhardt