So, it’s Chanuka.   Moreover, tomorrow night (Shabat) and the next day (from Friday night through Sunday at dusk) are also another holiday, the new moon (Rosh Chodesh) of Tevet.

We’ve already discussed the origins of Chanuka.  And, there are plenty of stories about the holiday in the Talmud- but those were codified 400, 500 years after the event..  We Jews have decided that the Book of Makabi (the second book is not contemporary) should not be part of our canon, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from contemporary accounts of the event.

Just like we use Josephus’ (a Jew who abandoned his faith to join with the enemy) chronicles to discern the thinking of his time, we should at least examine Makabi 1 to see how a contemporary scholar (he could read and write, after all!) considered this rebellion and the new monarchy.  After all, it may be cool that a little flask of oil lasted for 8 days, but should that precipitate a continued holiday of lights (Chanuka)  for 2200+ years?

We may use the lights as our celebratory event, but we are commemorating the victory over Antiochus, a battle for religious freedom! And, that battle for Judaism included that against all those of us Jews who were willing to give up their religion to be ‘accepted’ by the majority, which would have annihilated the Jewish people forever.  (Let us not forget that the victory over Antiochus was at best temporary, since taxation began soon after the victory, and the subsequent accommodations with the Romans only led to the Makabi-led kingdom to become a vassal state.  Matityahu and Yochanan might have been great rulers, but their clan never rose to the task.)

That is probably why we really don’t call Chanuka a ‘chag’ (חג), a festival, but a mo’ed (מועד), an appointment with Hashem.  The holiday is actually presaged in the Tora; Moshe commands the Jews to take pure olive oil to provide a perpetual light- via a menora.  But by the time of the Makabi, Hashem has ceased having ‘conversations’ with us. (I view the Tora as the explanation of how Man and Supreme Being accommodated one another; Hashem decided the best way is to pay attention to us ‘from a distance’, so the disappointments resulting from our imperfections would not be overwhelming.)  So, while this Chanuka miracle was inconsequential in and of itself, its message was overwhelming.  Hashem is here! Now!

I can hear you saying already… “Oh, Roy!  Where do you come up with this?”

From carefully reading Makabi 1.  To discern what the chronicler was trying to communicate to us, his future readers.

The author of Makabi 1 is seeking to demonstrate the analogy of his times to the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt (the first religious freedom battle; but that one was fought by Hashem) .  By reading the Hebrew (or the Greek version- NOT the King James version, which is, as is often the case, a poor translation- depicted above), we see that Antiochus starts his attack on the Jews by sending tax collectors [שר מסים].  (Please don’t tell me that tax collectors aren’t villains!)

Back then, tax collectors used any means possible to garner the wealth they planned to appropriate for themselves and the royal treasury.  More importantly, if you check Shmot 1 (the first chapter of the book you call Exodus), you will find that Paroh (Pharaoh) also first sent tax collectors to impose their will on the Jews of Egypt.

And, the next thing Paroh and his tax collectors did was employ the Jews to build the treasure cities of Pitom and Ramses.  Oh, wait- that’s exactly the next thing that Antiochus did- a citadel was constructed. (By the way, the Makabi chronicler brings in Egypt directly – and its ‘strong cities’ in verse 18 of Chapter 1.)

Those first two steps were followed by Paroh’s decree to kill all male children, by throwing them into the Nile.  Oh, yeah.  Antiochus decreed that no male child could be circumcised- and if they did participate in the brit mila (covenant of circumcision), these children were executed and were hung around the necks of their mothers.

Before we examine the next analogies, I need to explain an issue with Hebrew dialects.  The letter ‘shin’ (ש) can lead to two different sounds.  One matches the name, the ‘sh’ in shin.  The other is closer to a ‘th’ that is represented by the sound of the word ‘Tora”, even though in the Tora it is written as ‘shin’.  (Many scholars employ this  second sound via the t in taf,  ת).  That is the dialectical shift.

(For example:  Shoftim [Judges] 12 and 13 describes how Yiftach’s men could discern who was not of their tribe, but from Ephraim.  A simple test was employed- those confronted had to say the word Shibbolet ([שבולת] the flood of the stream, as in the Jordan overflowing its bands- not as an ear of corn, another meaning of the word).   But, those from Ephraim thought the word was Sibolet- and were killed on the spot.  Think of this pronunciation issue as how many non-Hebrew speaking people don’t pronounce the ‘ch’ sound in Chanuka correctly.)

So, given that buildup, what is the real issue?  Moshe and Matisyahu.  “What?”, you say?

Well, in Shmot (Exodus), the Tora says that Moshe got his name because Paroh’s daughter “mashitihu” (משיתיהו), from the water, Moshe  and his little ark was drawn from the Nile.

Hmm.  See that “sh” [ש]?  And, remember that  written Hebrew text includes no vowels.  So, ‘Matityahu’ [מתיתיהו]] is shown  to be akin to that first  redeemer of the Jews, a man sent by Hashem.  (You do see the substitution of the second letter, right?)

Before you say this is a step too far, consider this.  Moshe was the Prince of Egypt.  Moshe could not sit idly by as Jews were being hurt, once he left the palace.  And, because of his actions, he escaped to a self-imposed exile.  (By the way, Moshe was from the tribe of Levi; his brother, of the same tribe, was designated as the first Kohen [priestly caste], a splinter group of the Levites.)

Matityahu was a Kohen, and Antiochus’ minions tried to convince him to ally with their forces, to become part of their ruling class (i.e., to be the Prince [Kohen] of the Greeks).  But Matityahu rejected that notion, helped his fellow Jews who were being hurt, and imposed his own self-exile.

Now, the chronicler couples three separate events.  When Hashem frees the Jews by the Sea of Reeds, the Tora says Hashem saved the Jews on that self-same day [ ויושע ה’ ביום ההוא].   The same words are used in the book of Makabi when Matityahu defeats the Greeks, when his group overturned the Greek’s mighty, tremendous forces.

The third event to include?  King Saul, Yonatan (Jonathan, his son), and Shmuel (Samuel) the prophet.  When Saul wants to exact revenge against the Philistines (the choice of revenge was Saul’s error!), he ventures out with 3000 troops against a vastly outnumbering force.  And, as he waits for Shmuel, the number of his troops attrites to 600.  So, instead of waiting for the 7 days that Shmuel had advised, Saul offers sacrifices to Hashem without Shmuel.

In the meantime, Yonatan and his aide decide that the difference between 3000, 600, or 2 is immaterial.  If Hashem will deliver the Philistines to the Jews, any number will do.  And, they ‘attack’.  The Philistines get discombobulated and shoot every which way- killing each other with friendly fire.  So, Yonatan ‘wins’.   (On the way back to his dad and the rest of the troops, he finds a deposit of honey on the ground.  Very similar to the manna the Jews ate during their 40 years of wandering.)

When Shmuel finds that Saul had sacrificed to Hashem without him, he loses it.  And, declares that because of this impetuous act (and Saul’s  desire for revenge, rather than letting Hashem demonstrate its power), his kingdom would not prevail.   Because Saul and his son would become estranged.  (Yonatan, you might recall, becomes an adherent of the ‘camp’ of David.)

This is what worries the author of the Makabi, why he uses this analogy.  He worries that the Chashmonayim (Hashmonean)  kingdom will self-destruct, will become enamored of power- their own- and not that of Hashem.  Unfortunately, he was prescient.  As that free kingdom flares out quickly, becoming a vassal of Rome.

Let me push this one bit further- with an analogy that the chronicler did not foresee.

The state of  Israel was formed under similar circumstances.  Against impossibly overpowering and overwhelming odds in 1948 and again in 1967.  But Hashem doesn’t need multitudes- Hashem wants and uses believers.

And, the initial leaders of Israel were not interested in multiplying their own power.  So, they prevailed.  One wonders how Hashem will consider the actions of Netanyahu, who is so enamored of his own image that he engages in bribery,  who arranges for Israel’s version of Fox News to only broadcast positive imagery about his tenure.

Uh-oh!  I think its time for me to stop. To go light the menorah.  Thereby helping bring the light of Hashem to the world.  To help make the world better, one step at a time.

To quote Dr. Seuss:   To the world, you are one person.   To one person, you are the world.

May we all be that person.