Monday, 2 March 2026

Purimfest 2026

 



The reading of Megillat Esther is the central ritual of Purim — and yet it is the only book of the Hebrew Bible in which God's name does not appear. There are no open miracles, no splitting seas, no pillars of fire. Everything could be explained away as coincidence. This is not an oversight. It is the point. The Megillah is a story about God's hidden hand in the world, and about the difference between those who perceive it and those who are blind to it.

Mordechai: The One Who Sees What Others Miss

Mordechai's very name signals his defining quality. He is named after Marduk, the supreme hero of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, who is described as having been given "four eyes and four ears" — extraordinary, superhuman perception. And perception is exactly what defines Mordechai in the Megillah. Sitting at the king's gate, he uncovers the assassination plot of Bigtan and Teresh and reports it through Esther. The conspiracy is investigated, confirmed, and recorded in the royal chronicles.

On the surface, a minor episode. But Mordechai perceives a pattern where others see only randomness. His vigilance is not merely civic duty — it is the watchfulness of a man attuned to the way God weaves events together across time.

Esther: The Hidden Jewess and the High Priestess

No figure in the Megillah embodies hiddenness more than Esther herself. Even her name evokes concealment — the rabbis connect it to the Hebrew root hester, meaning "hidden," while its surface meaning points to Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess. She is a Jewish woman wearing a Persian name, living in a Persian palace, married to a Persian king. When she is taken to the royal court, Mordechai instructs her not to reveal her people or her origins, and she obeys. She eats at the king's table, lives among his wives, and to all appearances has become fully assimilated into the world of Shushan.

It would be easy to see Esther as lost — a girl who traded her identity for comfort and position. But Mordechai sees something else entirely. When the decree of annihilation is issued against the Jews, he sends her a message that cuts to the heart of the Megillah's theology: "Who knows whether it was for just such a time as this that you attained your royal position?" The implication is unmistakable. Esther did not arrive at the palace by accident. A hidden hand placed her there.

And when Esther acts, the mask falls away to reveal something extraordinary. She calls upon all the Jews of Shushan to fast for three days. Then she dresses in royalty and enters the inner court of the king unbidden, an act punishable by death unless the king extends his golden scepter. The parallels to Yom Kippur are striking: fasting, donning special garments, and entering an inner sanctum where one faces the possibility of instant death — all to intercede on behalf of the people. Esther, the outwardly assimilated queen, performs a service that mirrors the High Priest entering the Holy of Holies.

She is the Megillah's deepest paradox: the most outwardly worldly character turns out to operate on the highest spiritual plane. Her hiddenness is not a compromise — it is itself part of the divine design.

Haman: The Man Who Refuses to See

Haman is Mordechai's opposite. Where Mordechai is attuned to providence, Haman is consumed by self-made greatness. Everyone in the empire bows to him — everyone except Mordechai, whose refusal the rabbis understand not as stubbornness but as the same principled conviction that drives Daniel's companions to refuse to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol. Mordechai will bow only before God, and that recognition of a higher sovereignty is intolerable to Haman.

This is why punishing Mordechai alone is not enough. Haman seeks to destroy all the Jews because their very existence testifies to a reality he cannot accept — a God who guides history, who raises up and brings low, before whom Haman's wealth and power become contingent and revocable. Mordechai's quiet refusal is a living refutation, and it fills Haman with a rage far out of proportion to the slight.

The irony reaches its peak when Haman's own wife and advisors tell him: "If Mordechai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him." Even his inner circle can see what he cannot — that a force is operating behind the scenes on behalf of this people. Haman, of course, does not listen. He walks into his own destruction.

The Hidden Hand in Our Time

The rabbis teach that Purim will never be abolished, even in the messianic era, because its lesson is the most enduring of all: that God operates in history even — especially — when He cannot be seen. The Megillah trains us to look beneath the surface, to perceive providence in the apparent chaos of political events, to trust that the story has an Author even when He does not sign His name.

In our own time, this lesson carries particular weight. As the United States and Israel confront the antisemitic, genocidal ambitions of the Iranian regime — a regime that, like Haman before it, is consumed with hatred for the Jewish people and seeks their destruction — the story of Purim comes vividly alive. The mullahs' rage, like Haman's, is fueled by something deeper than politics. It is the fury of those who see the promises made to the Jewish people being fulfilled — a nation returned to its land, a people that refuses to disappear — and who cannot abide the implication. If Jewish history has a direction, if Jewish survival testifies to a guiding hand, then the worldview built on denying that hand is shaken to its foundations.

And so, even as we marvel at the military capabilities and strategic alliances on display, the Megillah reminds us where to look for the real story. The hidden hand of the Almighty that moved Esther into the palace, that kept Mordechai's loyalty recorded in the chronicles, that turned Haman's gallows into the instrument of his own demise, that turned a day of bitter mourning into a holiday for the ages.

Wednesday, 29 May 2024

The Crisis of Kohelet

When we encounter the book of Kohelet(Ecclesiastes), we encounter an author in crisis. Kohelet son of David is unable to see any meaning in life. What is the nature of this personal crisis? How has the King come to this bleak outlook? Let's approach Kohelet through the lens of modern Tanach study and Psychoanalytic theory and see if we can gain some insight into these questions.

Contradictory Voices


Our sages found the book of Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) to be problematic, and considered omitting it from the Tanach, as the Gemara relates:

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes (and declare it apocryphal) because its statements contradict one other. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah.(Shabbat 30b).

How are we to understand the many internal contradictions in this book and what do they mean?

Yoel Bin-Nun and Yaakov Meidan present a novel approach to this question in their book "Ani Kohelet"(pub. 2017). The theory is that the book of Kohelet is a dialectic between four different "Personalities", from within the head of  a single author:
  1. Practical Personality- a man of action and achievement
  2. Hedonic Personality- out to enjoy all life has to offer
  3. Wise Personality- a master of wisdom
  4. Pious Personality- Godfearing man
This theory of different sub-personalities also explains the name of the book's mysterious author:

"The words of Kohelet son of David, king in Jerusalem."

Who is this Kohelet son of David who is mentioned nowhere else in Tanach? Our sages identify him as King Shlomo, but why the pseudonym?

Bin-Nun and Meidan read the name Kohelet as rooted in "Makhelah"--the Hebrew word for a "Choir". Shlomo refers to himself by this name as a reference to the choir of different voices in his head who engage in this poetic dialog. From this perspective, the Book of Kohelet reads almost like a Greek Play, performed by distinct characters, each singing their parts in dialog with one another.

Shlomo chooses to use a pseudonym due to the deeply personal nature of sharing his inner conflict.

Psychosynthesis

According to Bin-Nun and Meidan, the book of Kohelet records the conflict between the many sub-personalities in King Shlomo head. This literary theory reflects a popular psychanalytical model of personality.

Freud and Jung
Psychoanalysts like Freud and Jung developed the idea that Human personality can be understood as as an amalgam of various sub-personalities. A person strives to integrate these personalities and reach a state of equilibrium between them.  Jordan Peterson points out that, as challenges are encountered, the sub-personalities clash and each one "tries to make their case". As such, these sub-personalities are most apparent at times of crisis. This process of Psychosynthesis is actually adaptive and looks something like this:
  1. Equilibrium- subject has a well-integrated personality
  2. Crisis- breaks the equilibrium. One of the subject's sub-personalities has an extreme reaction to the crisis
  3. Psychosynthesis- Subject thinks obsessively about the crisis, how he failed to anticipate it, how he failed in handling it, what he should do about it moving forward. Each sub-personality has a take and they argue with one another whose approach is correct. This can take days, weeks, months, or even years as the subject subconsciously seeks a satisfactory solution
  4. Re-Integration- subject has "solved" the situation and now has an approach for dealing with it in the future.  A new equilibrium has been reached and they have grown as a person. 

King Shlomo's Crisis

This model of Crisis, Psychosynthesis, and Reintegration fits well with the description of Kohelet as a dialog between sub-personalities who reach a resolution in the end. That said, one cannot help but wonder what was the crisis that triggered the whole process. No external danger is mentioned, so it seems that we are dealing with an Existential Crisis.

Existential Crisis- in existentialism, a crucial stage or turning point at which an individual is faced with finding meaning and purpose in life and taking responsibility for their choices(from American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology)

I would speculate that Shlomo finds himself in a whopping Midlife Crisis. He has been incredibly successful: ruling over a stable kingdom, building God's temple, amassing a personal fortune, and having fathered numerous children with his many wives. At this point, the incredibly ambitious Shlomo looks forward to his next achievement and finds... nothing of significance. He has been spectacularly successful, but has already accomplished all of his greatest achievements. Looking forward, Shlomo sees only lesser goals and his own mortality looming.

Looking at the Structure of Kohelet, in the first half of the book Shlomo finds himself pulled in four different directions:
  1. Practical Personality- pulls him to gather more riches and build more palaces and gardens
  2. Hedonic Personality- pulls him to enjoy his remaining days in luxury
  3. The Wise Personality- pulls him to prefer a life of scholarship over a material life 
  4. Pious Personality- pulls him to live piously as a humble servant of God
Shlomo recognizes the value of each of these approaches, each "In it's own season", but ultimately chooses Wisdom and Piety as the focus for his latter days. This will make a worthy legacy as a son of David and King of Jerusalem. At this point he has integrated his sub-personalities, grown as a person, and the crisis is resolved. 



Tuesday, 28 May 2024

The Structure of Kohelet

Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) is a difficult book to read. Most books in the Tanach are divided into distinct stories, poems, or prescriptive passages. Kohelet, on the other hand, is written in a stream-of-consciousness style, full of repetitive and and contradictory passages that make it hard to follow. As a first step to approaching this book, it may be helpful to analyse it's structure.

Kohelet divided based on Masoretic divisions
The Masoretic Structure

For a start, let's look at the breaks in the Masoretic text of Kohelet. Verse 11 ends with an Open Break and the poem "For Every Season" is also delineated with Open Breaks. There is also a break 52 verses before the end of the book. In all, these divisions give us five sections. This is not satisfactory as the bulk of the book remains in one long 118 verse section followed by a 52 verse section. Compare this with Esther whose 167 verses are broken into over 20 sections by the Masoretic breaks, making it's structure explicit.

  

Kohelet divided by Chapter
Chapter Divisions

What about the 12 chapter divisions in Kohelet? These divisions are not part of the original text(circa the 9th century BCE), but were made by Stephen Langton in the 13th century based on his understanding of the text. These divisions are generally based on textual cues, but sometimes seem disconnected from the text(for instance consider the break between Kohelet Ch. 4 and 5, when there is no discernible break on the narrative, and perhaps was added due to Langton's desire to create roughly consistent chapter sizes).


The granular Chapter Divisions can help us get an overview of the text, since they are roughly similar in size and each one's content can be summarized. That said, this structure is not fundamental since the divisions are not based on a deep textual analysis.


I am Kohelet

I recently encountered a fresh take on Kohelet in Yoel Bin-Nun and Yaakov Meidan's "Ani Kohelet"(published in Hebrew in 2017). They develop a literary theory that the book of Kohelet is a dialectic between four different "Voices", each a different perspective presented by the book's single author:
  1. Wise Man- a master of wisdom
  2. Practical Man- a man of action and achievement
  3. Hedonic Man- out to enjoy all life has to offer
  4. Pious Man- Godfearing man
"Ani Kohelet" is a collection of lectures and papers developing this approach, delineating these characters, their literary styles, and their themes. This theory quite effectively explains the book's dialectic style and resolves it's conflicts since the voices are explained as warring perspectives in the mind of the author.

Incidentally, the name "Kohelet" is explained as rooted in the word "Makhelah"--the Hebrew word for "Choir". These four arguing voices come together into a sort of choral song of multiple voices.


Structure Based on Ani Kohelet

If we map-out the passages spoken by each of the four voices(as well as a fifth voice for general narration), then a clear structure for the book emerges.

Yoel Bin-Nun divides the book into two distinct halves of similar size, with the 2nd half beginning with Chapter 7. He also divides the halves into 3 sections each, roughly along Chapter divisions, but with notable exceptions in chapers 4 and 9.

Kohelet's Structure based on "Ani Kohelet"


In the first half, the four voices are in constant, chaotic dialog with one another, with no clear winner emerging. At the beginning of Section 3, the Pious Voice opens with a significant monologue, but this is immediately undermined by the other voices. This unresolved dialog goes well with the theme of the "To Every Season" poem at the beginning of the Section 2. The Poem's meaning is that there is no ultimate perspective and that different times call for different approaches. The four voices demonstrate this principal as they refute one another's arguments, but with no clear winner emerging.

In the second section, the dialog is much more ordered. The Wise Voice has a long monologue spanning all of Section 4, and then argues with each of the other three voices individually in Section 5. In Section 6 the Wise Voice has a final monologue, but is then undermined by the Pious voice and his final monologue. Kohelet ends with the general Narrator's summary, first restating Kohelet's dilemma, then  praising Wise men and their works, and the finally arguing for Piety and the fear of God.


Insights from the Structure of Kohelet

If you would have asked me to summarize Kohelet before this analysis, I would have said that King Solomon is seeking the meaning of life and ultimately concludes that it is to live a God-Fearing life.

After performing this analysis, however, I think that King Solomon's answer is much less black-and-white. Solomon really truly believes that each of the four perspectives herein have their "season". That said, he ultimately favours Wisdom and Piety as primary over Practicality and Hedonism.

Tuesday, 23 January 2024

Blood on the Doorpost

 


Let's explore the meaning of the mitzva of Mezuza.

The first time this mitzva is mentioned is Devarim chapter 6

ד שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.  ה וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.  ו וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ.  ז וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ.  ח וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת, עַל-יָדֶךָ; וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת, בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ.  ט וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזֻזוֹת בֵּיתֶךָ, וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

This paragraph is loaded with new mitzvot, according to the Sefer Hachinuch there are 7

  1. תיז. מצות אחדות השם
  2. תיח. מצות אהבת השם
  3. תיט. מצות תלמוד תורה
  4. תכ. מצות קריאת שמע שחרית וערבית
  5. תכא. מצות תפלין של יד
  6. תכב. מצות תפלין של ראש
  7. תכג. לקבוע מזוזה בפתחים
How are these mitzvas related to one another and what do they have in common?

Besides that, another question arises when we read the Ramban's introduction to Devarim.

הספר הזה ענינו ידוע שהוא משנה תורה יבאר בו משה רבנו לדור הנכנס בארץ רוב מצות התורה הצריכות לישראל ולא יזכיר בו דבר בתורת כהנים ולא במעשה הקרבנות ולא בטהרת כהנים ובמעשיהם שכבר ביאר אותם להם. והכהנים זריזים הם לא יצטרכו לאזהרה אחר אזהרה אבל בישראל יחזיר המצות הנוהגות בהם פעם להוסיף בהם ביאור ופעם שלא יחזיר אותם רק להזהיר את ישראל ברוב אזהרות כמו שיבאו בספר הזה בעניני עבודת גלולים אזהרות מרובות זו אחר זו בתוכחות וקול פחדים אשר יפחיד אותם בכל ענשי העבירות. ועוד יוסיף בספר הזה כמה מצות שלא נזכרו כלל כגון היבום ודין המוציא שם רע והגרושין באשה ועדים זוממין וזולתו. וכבר נאמרו לו כולן בסיני או באוהל מועד בשנה הראשונה קודם המרגלים כי בערבות מואב לא נתחדשו לו אלא דברי הברית כאשר נתפרש בו.


The Ramban says that many mitzvot are brought in Devarim for the first time, with no previous mention in the text of the Torah. Is that the case with Mezuza?

To explore this question, let's begin by looking more deeply at the mitzva of Tefillin. Tefillin scrolls contain the same two paragraphs from Devarim that a Mezuza does, but it also contains two paragraphs from sefer Shemot. Let's look at the first of these in Shemot chapter 13.

ח וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר:  בַּעֲבוּר זֶה, עָשָׂה יְהוָה לִי, בְּצֵאתִי, מִמִּצְרָיִם.  ט וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְךָ, וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ, לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה, בְּפִיךָ:  כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה, הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.


Here we have a clear reference to tefillin! Why does the Sefer Hachinuch only count the mitzva in Devarim?

Looking at the Rashbam gives us the answer:

לאות על ידך - לפי עומק פשוטו: יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאלו כתוב על ידך. כעין, שימני כחותם על לבך.

בין עיניך - כעין תכשיט ורביד זהב שרגילין ליתן על המצח לנוי.


The references to write the exodus on one's hand and between one's eyes is only a metaphor to keep the exodus in our minds and hearts always. It is only formalized into the Mitzva of Tefillin later in Devarim. Is it possible that the mizva of mezuza has a similar background?

We hear the term mezuza in the previous chapter of Shemot with regard to the Korban Pesach, and the one-time commandment to paint it's blood on the doorposts and lintel of our homes.

ז וְלָקְחוּ, מִן-הַדָּם, וְנָתְנוּ עַל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, וְעַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף--עַל, הַבָּתִּים, אֲשֶׁר-יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ, בָּהֶם.

יג וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת, עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם שָׁם, וְרָאִיתִי אֶת-הַדָּם, וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית, בְּהַכֹּתִי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם




What is this bloody practice? Some sort of magic? Rav Yoel Bin Nun suggests a more rational answer
מתוך: מאבק הזהות של משה: איזה ילד לא נימול, ומדוע? הרב יואל בן נון

האות הזה ניתן דרך בנו בכורו של משה דווקא, כי אחיו אשר במצרים היו נימולים, וזהותם הייתה ברורה. האות הזה של מלאך ה' למשה ("ויבקש המיתו"), עם דם הברית של "חתן דמים", מקביל, כמובן, למשחית שלא ייגוף את בני ישראל בזכות הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות של הפתח במכת בכורות (י"ב, יג, כג), והוא הרעיון הידוע של "בדמיך חיי" (יחזקאל ט"ז, ו, לקראת הברית עם ה') – "דם פסח ודם מילה".


The blood on the doorpost represents the blood of the brit mila i.e. the covenant between God and the descendents of Abraham. By painting it on the door, the Israelites are creating a potent symbol that "this house is a house of the covenant". It is this dedication to God's covenant that saves them from the angel of death on the night of the final plague.




But then, what is the mitzva of Mezuza? Our most basic tenants of faith and dedication to the covenant are written on a scroll and affixed to the doorway to our home. The symbolism is clear: this home is not merely a mundane shelter for our bodies, rather it is a center for faith in God and dedication to his commandments. As with Tefillin, it would appear that we are given a Mitzva in Devarim that formalizes an important concept from the Exodus.

Monday, 21 August 2023

Building a Camping Eruv

My chavruta and I have been learning the Gemara in Eiruvin this year and I recently stumbled on a sugia that seems very relevant to a previous post.

As you may recall, in 2018 we went camping over Shabbat Chol Hamoed Sukkot. This necessitated the challenge of building both a small Sukka and an Eiruv so that we could carry items around our camp site on Shabbat.

The Eruv construction method I went with was simple- four 3 meter tall bamboo poles stuck in the ground around our campsite(4 or 5 tents around a mat for eating on), with heavy metal screw inserted at the top. A metal wire was then stretched taught between the four screws at the top of each pole, thus creating a "צורות הפתח" on each side. This was a simple solution that required few materials. That said, the 3 meter poles can be a bit tricky to secure. There are also a number of laws of "צורות הפתח" that need to be minded to have a kosher Eiruv.




Now lets' look at Eiruvin chapter 1, Mishnas 8-10:


The Misha teaches that the requirements for an Eiruv for a temporary encampment are actually less stringent than for a permanent settlement. The requirements listed in the Mishna include:
  • The Eiruv can be a temporary "fence" 10 handbreadths high constructed from saddles, bags, and other equipment piled up for this purpose
  • The fence can have breaches, as long as the fenced length is greater than the breached length(up to a maximum breached width)
  • If you build a fence with posts, you only need 3 cords, each within 3 handbreadths of one another
  • You can also use vertical reeds spaced a distance of 3 handbreadths
  • No Eiruv chatzerot is required for the area shared between tents
I need to research the practical halacha more, but from this it sounds like alternative Eiruv constructions techniques could potentially include:


1. Arranging your tents in a tight circle, then filling some of the breaches between them with luggage up to 10 handbreadths high

2. A stake & chicken wire fence(10 handbreadths high)

3. A fence utilizing the solution used commonly in aluminum sukkas, where a rope is set at 10 handbreads high, then 3 additional horizontal ropes are used to close the gap.





Wednesday, 24 March 2021

Achimedes and the Exilarch

My chavruta and I are excited to have finally reached the end of mesechet Shabbat from the Talmud Bavli. That said, the end of this tractate was rather anti-climactic.

Talmudic tractates are largely filled with dry, matter-of-fact discussions of Jewish legal matters. These are interspersed with more colorful aggadic sections containing stories, legends, and medical remedies. That said, the Talmudic redactor usually will save a particularly juicy aggada for the end of a Tractate. Classic examples of this are the oft-quoted poetical drashas about Talmidei Chachamim at the end of mesechet Brachot and the famous story of Rabbi Akiva's laughter while the other sages cry at the end of Makkot.

And so, I was primed to see what Talmudic tidbit the huge, 314-page mesechet Shabbat would end with. Perhaps there would be some inspiring story of Shabbas observance, or maybe a lesson on the true meaning of the day. How disappointing to find a dry discussion of which rabbinic prohibitions we are allowed to violate for the sake of performing a Mitzva and the principle of Mitasek.

And yet, upon re-reading this final story on Mitasek, I begin to wonder if my first impression was wrong. Chazal's writing can work at multiple levels, and this particular story contains a number of surprising details brought in the typical concise and understated manner of Talmudic texts.

עולא איקלע לבי ריש גלותא חזייה לרבה בר רב הונא דיתיב באוונא דמיא וקא משח ליה אמר ליה אימר דאמרי רבנן מדידה דמצוה דלאו מצוה מי אמור אמר ליה מתעסק בעלמא אנא:


One Shabbat, Ulla visits the house of the Exilarch, Raba bar Rav Huna, a sage of renown and one of the one of the most powerful men in the Babylonian diaspora. Ulla has no doubt come to consult on some Torah matter, yet he finds the Exilarch immersed happily in a barrel of water, engaged with the critical task of measuring the volume of liquid in the barrel. Somewhat taken aback, Ulla interrupts Raba's computation, asking him 

"Did not the Rabbis prohibit measuring on Shabbat?!"

Rabba turns to him and replies

"Generally speaking, you are correct, but I'm not actually trying to compute something of significance! I'm just playing around enjoying my bath!"

This absurdist image of Rabba bar Rav Huna taking a bath brings to mind an older story of a different sort of sage taking a bath: the famous story of Archimedes of Syracuse.

Archimedes, the famous mathematician, is floored when his Monarch tasks him with the problem of determining if the golden crown he commissioned is actually made from pure gold. The great sage ponders the problem for days without arriving at a solution. Finally, despairing of a solution, he goes to take a bath. Sitting in the tub, watching his mass displace the water, Archimedes suddenly arrives at the critical insight, shouting "Eureka!" and running naked through the streets of Syracuse to tell the King.

The Romans were fond of this story of Archimedes, and the sages of the Talmud were no doubt familiar with it. And so, we now understand why the story of Ulla and Raba bar Rav Huna was chosen to end the mesechta, and that it has something fundamental to say about the Sabbath rest. At first glance, it seems absurd to find the great sage playing in the bathtub like a child- is this how a Great Man conducts himself? Yet the story alludes to the classic parable of Archimedes to teach us that rest is actually essential to the creative process. Rabba bar Rav Huna's playful Shabbas diversions are actually what allow him to be such an effective scholar and leader the rest of the week.

הדרן עלך מסכת שבת!


Wednesday, 15 July 2020

Babel as Man-Made Garden


The second chapter of Bereshit provides us with seven verses on the architecture of the Garden of Eden:
ח וַיִּטַּ֞ע יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים גַּן־בְּעֵ֖דֶן מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיָּ֣שֶׂם שָׁ֔ם אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָצָֽר׃ ט וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַֽאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃ י וְנָהָר֙ יֹצֵ֣א מֵעֵ֔דֶן לְהַשְׁק֖וֹת אֶת־הַגָּ֑ן וּמִשָּׁם֙ יִפָּרֵ֔ד וְהָיָ֖ה לְאַרְבָּעָ֥ה רָאשִֽׁים׃ יא שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃ יב וּֽזְהַ֛ב הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא ט֑וֹב שָׁ֥ם הַבְּדֹ֖לַח וְאֶ֥בֶן הַשֹּֽׁהַם׃ יג וְשֵֽׁם־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַשֵּׁנִ֖י גִּיח֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסּוֹבֵ֔ב אֵ֖ת כָּל־אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃ יד וְשֵׁ֨ם הַנָּהָ֤ר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי֙ חִדֶּ֔קֶל ה֥וּא הַֽהֹלֵ֖ךְ קִדְמַ֣ת אַשּׁ֑וּר וְהַנָּהָ֥ר הָֽרְבִיעִ֖י ה֥וּא פְרָֽת׃

 Salient features of the garden:
  1. A garden with all types of tree
  2. Two mystic trees at the center- one of Knowledge, the other of Life
  3. Gold and precious stones 
  4. A river extending from Eden which branches into four rivers:
    1. Pishon- not clear it's location. Opinions range from the Nile in Egypt to the Ganges in Ethiopia
    2. Gichon- not clear it's location. Opinions range from Ethiopia to Mesopotamia
    3. Chidekel- commonly identified with the Tigris in Mesopotamia
    4. Prat- commonly identified with the Euphrates in Mesopotamia


Now compare this with the architecture of the city of Babel in chapter 11:

ג וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר׃ ד וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה ׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Parallel features to Eden:
  1. A city with buildings and eventually all types of language
  2. A mystic Ziggurat-Temple at it's center(and historically two Ziggurats, one in Ur, the other in Babel)
  3. City is made of bricks that form "stone"
  4. The historic ziggurats of Ur and Babel are both in cities near the Euphrates river in Mesopotamia
So it seems like there are some strong parallels between these two passages in both text and subtext. What does this indicate?

I would argue that this parallel teaches us the nature of Mankind's sin in the Tower of Babel story. In the construction of this city & tower, Mankind was trying to build an artificial Garden of Eden. In this sense they were rebelling against God's decision to evict Man from the garden and exile them to our world with it's difficult day to day existence.