Originally published 12/9/07, 12:48 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
In the Nishma Spark of the Week 5754-11, I wrote:
"...It, therefore, is most bizarre that of all the holidays of the Jewish calendar, the one that has been most influenced by the forces of the galut that surrounds us is Chanukah..."
(See http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-11.htm for the full article)
Chanukah celebrates the victory of the Maccabees over the Hellenists, the victory of Torah over the forces of assimilation. Is it not ironic, therefore, that the most assimilated of the Jewish holidays is Chanukah? Ever think about it? People who don't celebrate many of the major Torah holidays seem to get into the "Chanukah spirit." Do you think that has something to do with the external influences that suround this time? What about the way in which Chanukah is celebrated, a bit of external influence there as well would you not say? Let's go beyond the holiday. Is there anything more ironic than the fact that the "Jewish Olympics" are called the Maccabiah?
The Spark concerns these issues, but in a larger way opens a whole new discussion on assimilation. That is what Chanukah is about. Your comments?
Rabbi Ben Hecht
8 comments:
Rabbi Hect,
1) what is so evil about wanting to give presents and have hanuka parties?
2) Judaism needs a few holidays that aren't spoiled by bordom induced by halachic strictness.
3) >> People who don't celebrate many of the major Torah holidays seem to get into the "Chanukah spirit?"
You should be appreciating that these kind of people do something that is jewish as opposed to doing nothing that is jewish.
sj, there is a distinction between the personal and the philosophical. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate the nature of Chanukah pursuant to the ideas of Orthodox Judaism. How people personally wish to celebrate this holiday is under the microscope only in these terss. That people wish to party is a personal matter. That people wish to party and call this partying Jewish touches upon, though, the question of what is Jewishness? That is the issue before us as well as the more specific issue of what exactly is the philosophical lesson of Chanukah.
In more specific terms, that people like presents or like partying or like getting in a "Chanukah spirit" that is more attuned to the general spirit of the times than how Chanukah is actually presented in the Torah literature is not the issue. That is a psychological phenomena that is actually quite understandable. The question is what does this say about the nature of Jewishness in our times and whether how can this phenomena be understood from that Jewish philosophical perspective.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
>> That people wish to party and call this partying Jewish touches upon, though, the question of what is Jewishness?
Jews approach being jewish in their own way. I see nothing wrong with that. Not everyone likes sitting in gender separated synagogues listening to Torah/Talmud lectures for hours from elderly rabbis.
Without getting into the substantive discussion of what is Jewishness, there is a difficulty with every individual defining it in one's own way for Jewishness is tied to a group. Effectively when one says that they are a Jew they are stating that they are a member of a group, the Jews. In defining Jewishness, one must recognize that this term defines the group so how one defines this term is connected to how one defines the group. If we have too many divergent definitions of the group we effectively have different groups trying to call itself one group -- the result is chaos and conflict, which may be happening already. Without getting into specifics and the actual definition of Jewishness, it is first important to understand that the definition cannot be left to individual perception unless we are willing to accept the fragmentation of the group.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
>> it is first important to understand that the definition cannot be left to individual perception unless we are willing to accept the fragmentation of the group.
It simply does not follow that different approaches leads to fragmentation- only if you are willing to shun someone who does not take the same apporach as you, which is an attitude that unfortunately permeates the orthdox world.
(Apparently there are two SJs who read this blog. To jump in...)
If a group has no set definition but is merely a title that can be adopted by any individual who chooses to apply it, then the title no longer retains any meaning.
Jews for Jesus? Are they ideological Jews? They would say so. However, this idea is ludicrous--someone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah simply does not believe in Judaism, whatever he may say to the contrary. The point is that anyone can call himself anything--but that does not make it true. A word only has meaning if there is some agreed-upon standard of its definition.
but the Jewish people does have a set definition- our genes. It is not merely choosing a title if one wants to approach the Jewish religion one way or another.
and btw, although some Jews for Jesus people may be born Jewish I don't think that they are fooling too many people by portraying themselves as a Jewish religious movement.
Post a Comment