Candy Questions

Candy Questions

If you've visited the Pardes booth pomegranate tree display at conferences and exhibitions, you probably received a piece of candy with a question attached to it. Look below to find the answers and get a taste of Pardes learning!

Is your challah really ashamed on Friday night?
Why do we cover the bread during kiddush?

Spilled your Mochaccino on your roommate's printer?
What are three steps to repentance before Yom Kippur?

Why do we light one additional candle for each night of Chanukah?

How are women involved in Brit Milah (the Covenant of the Flesh)?

Oral Torah: Out of Whose mouth?
Were both the Oral & Written Torah given to Moshe at Sinai?

Modern day Torah Study: Is it about the journey or the destination?

Are women obligated in reading Megillah on Purim?

Was Rabbi Hillel that hungry? Why do we eat the Hillel sandwich at the Passover Seder?

Glossary of People and Terms

bullet Is your challah really ashamed on Friday night?
Why do we cover the bread during kiddush?

Though it may be hard to imagine bread having feelings, the Shulchan Aruch, a code of Jewish law written by Joseph Caro in the 16th century, states that this is one of the reasons we cover the bread during kiddush on Shabbat. During normal, everyday meals, the bracha, or blessing, over the bread generally precedes the one for wine. Ergo, the bread is "embarrassed" to be outdone by its "lesser" peer.

A second reason given for why we cover the challah is to follow a Biblically based tradition. When the Jews were wandering in the desert, they received manna as food, which was covered on the top and bottom with dew. The tablecloth and challah cover mimic the dew on our Shabbat table.

So how do you know which tradition you are following? The practical difference comes to whether or not you cover the challah when saying the hamotzi, the blessing over the bread. If the challah is covered during the blessing, then you are complying with the second tradition. If the challah is uncovered, then you are following the first, and your challah was ashamed!

bullet Spilled your Mochaccino on your roommate's printer?
What are three steps to repentance before Yom Kippur?

Rav. Moshe ben Maimon, (1135-1204, Spain), otherwise known as the Rambam, addresses in a more general context. In his work Hilchot Teshuvah, or the Laws of Repentence, the Rambam outlines the three major steps for moral cleansing which can even be applied to modern-day situations.

Step 1) Don't wait until Yom Kippur! It may be tempting to put off repenting until the Day of Atonement, but don't delay! To demonstrate the proper repenting spirit, make amends right away. Even if you spilled the Mochaccino in the spring semester, it is better to come clean now than to put it off until the High Holidays.

Step 2) Make reparation towards the person you injured. Offer your roommate apologies and payment for all damages incurred. You should probably award your roommate greater damages if s/he was in the middle of printing her/his thesis which was due later that same day. Reparations can and should be less if the Mochaccino simply stained the machine and didn't seep into the printer innards.

Step 3) Make amends with God by a) acknowledging your carelessness; b) expressing remorse and c) making a commitment to be more careful in the future with Mochaccinos and all other spillable beverages.

These three steps are not only useful in terms of immediate repentance, but they also elucidate some general principles about Judaism. Judaism is about action, as you can see in Step 1, and also in Rabbi Hillel's famous quotation, "If not now, when?" Moreover, in everyday life, Judaism seeks to enhance communication between people and people (Step 2), and between people and God (Step 3).

bullet Why do we light one additional candle for each night of Chanukah?

Excerpt from "Chanukah candles and mehadrin" by Mick Weinstein, Pardes teacher

The Sages taught: the mitzvah of Chanukah is fulfilled for a man and his entire house with a single candle; those who enhance it (mehadrin) light a candle for every member of the house; regarding those who are extremely diligent about enhancing it (mehadrin min hamehadrin), Beit Shammai (the school of thought known for its strictness) says to light eight candles on the first night and to remove one each following day, and Beit Hillel (the school opposing Beit Shammai) says to light one candle on the first night and to add one on each following day.

What is at the heart of the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel? One possibility is that Beit Shammai seek a literal recreation of the original miracle in the Temple - the Macabees expected that the intensity of the menorah's fire would lessen gradually within one day's time, but instead it lessened only over eight days' time; hence Beit Shammai prescribe decreasing from eight candles to one in our practice. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, prefer a conceptual expression of the growing magnitude of the divine intervention over the course of the eight days.

An interesting disagreement among the medieval commentators exists regarding this disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. According to the Rambam, the disagreement concerns the intensification of the mehadrin level. The simple requirement for Chanukah candles is one candle per house. mehadrin, or enhanced, observance is one candle for each member of the house, and mehadrin min hamehadrin, or more diligent enhancement, involves every one of those family members either a) gradually decreasing the lights in their personal hanukia (Beit Shammai), or b) gradually increasing until eight (Beit Hillel).

Rav Yitzhak of Dampierre (1120-1200, France) disagrees with this understanding of the Beit Hillel/Beit Shammai disagreement, and with compelling logic: if every member of the family lights a personal hanukia in this manner, then the average passerby on the street over the course of Hanukkah would have no way of knowing that anything beyond mehadrin is occurring. He will simply assume that the number of candles burning equals the number of individuals staying in the house that night! Where's the mehadrin min hamehadrin there?! Rav Yitzhak therefore submits that the disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai expands upon the basic mitzvah of lighting just one Chanukah candle. The simple requirement is one candle per house, mehadrin observance is one candle for each member of the house, and mehadrin min hamehadrin observance is one hanukia for the whole house, either decreasing in lights (Beit Shammai), or gradually increasing until eight (Beit Hillel).

While the halacha clearly follows the position of Beit Hillel with regard to the number of candles lit each night, the Jewish world remains divided in practice between the approach of the Rambam and Rav Yitzhak. The most common practice in the Sepharadi world follows Rav Yitzhak - lighting just one menorah for the entire family. Ashkenazi practice tends to follow the Rambam - multiple hanukiot under one roof.

bullet How are women involved in Brit Milah (the Covenant of the Flesh)?

Excerpt from "''Sealed in Our Flesh'-Women as Members of the Brit" by Gary Shapiro, Pardes Teacher

There is a notion expressed both in Genesis, and in rabbinic literature, of a female counterpart to brit mila; beginning with Sarah, the Jewishness of each new life is brought about via the body of a woman. As my teacher, Rabbi Moshe Adler, put it, every Jew, whether born Jewish or a convert, must pass through the womb of a Jewish woman, or its ritual equivalent, the mikva. Women do have an active, personal, brit-making experience - the birth process itself, a "brit leydah" (covenant of birth), if you will. It is the event through which a Jew passes on the gift of Jewish existence to her emerging child.

That our mother Sarah made this true for Jewish women is further indicated by a fascinating comment cited by the Abarbanel (15th century, Portugal) in the name of the Ran (14th century Spain). His comment centers on the difference between the way God changes Avraham's name, as compared to how Sarah's name is altered. The Ran explains that Avraham was not fit to be renamed (from Avram) until he underwent circumcision, the act necessary to make him complete. God says, "Your name shall be Avraham," meaning that with this physical change, he would be a new person. Sarah, however, "was not lacking anything, for she was already complete." The only reason, states the Ran, that God did not change her name earlier was that He wanted to wait until Avraham was ready for circumcision. This is why God, when addressing Avraham, says, "You shall not call her Sarai, for Sarah is her name." It is not that God is now changing her name, rather, he is revealing to Avraham the true, complete name that she already carried within her. As the Ran says, "Immediately after Avraham received the brit, she was [revealed as] Sarah." Avraham received brit mila as a finishing touch in his relationship with God, while Sarah, it seems, had perfected herself spiritually to such an extent that she was already standing in a brit-type relationship to God at the time of Avraham's circumcision.

In light of this analysis by the Ran, I suggest it was Sarah who forever bequeathed to Jewish women the capacity to transmit Jewish status through their very being. Sarah was able to establish her own womb and those of her daughters to come as a type of oht brit, a sign of God's covenant with our people. This spiritual and halachic ability marks a woman's Jewish status before God, even if she has no children, in a manner parallel to the way brit mila functions for men. This thesis significantly supplements the halachic principle we saw earlier that women are "considered circumcised." What we see now is that not only do women have a passive share in Avraham's covenant of circumcision, but beyond this, they possess another kind of covenental sign which is "in their flesh as an everlasting covenant."

bullet Oral Torah: Out of Whose mouth?
Was the Oral Law given to Moshe at Sinai?

This Essay was culled from and inspired by the Pardes 2001 "Philosophy of Halacha" class taught by Rabbi Levi Cooper..

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam 1138-1204) highlights the importance of establishing the "entire" Torah as divinely transmitted in his "Thirteen Principles of Faith."

Principle number eight of the Rambam's list is paraphrased as follows: I believe with a complete faith that all of the Torah that we now have in our hands is that which was given to Moses, our teacher, peace be upon him. Establishing this principle does not answer but rather further emphasizes the importance of delving into the question of whether or not Moses received the Oral Torah as well as the written at Sinai. What does Rambam mean by the "entire" Torah?

There are many possibilities to explore in the realm of attempting to discern Rambam's definition of "entire." A few examples include:

The entire Oral Torah - as encountered by all future generations - was given at Sinai
Only a portion of the Oral Torah was given at Sinai, while a portion of Oral Toah was developed later in history.
Moses received all Oral Torah on Sinai, some of which was forgotten in ensuing generations, this lost transmission was later reconstructed.
Moses viewed all of the Oral Torah, but was not charged with transmitting its entirety.
Moses received all of Oral Torah and Written Torah; the Oral Torah was received in potential but not in actuality. The tools but not the text comprise the "entire" Torah received at Sinai (hence the potential for innovation was also possibly given at Sinai).

The First Chapter of Pirkei Avot (Ethics of Our Fathers, 1:1) says: "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua, Yehoshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: be deliberate in judgement, develop many students and make a fence around Torah."

Moses received the Torah at Sinai, Was it both the Written and the Oral Torah? How much of the Torah? In generalities or in detail? Moses to Yehoshua, How much of what Moses learned did he transmit and in what detail? Yehoshua to the Elders, How much did he transmit and how much did he possibly forget? The Elders to the Prophets, How much did they forget? How much did they re-reveal? The Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly, How much did the Prophets forget? How much did the Prophets re-reveal? They said three things: be deliberate in judgement, develop many disciples and make a fence around Torah. Are these three sayings new teachings adding to knowledge transmitted or does this mean the Great Assembly was re-establishing three lost precepts?

The experience of exploring the question of what Moses did or did not receive at Sinai joins us, in the modern age, to the chain of transmission or "mesorah."

bullet Modern day Torah Study: About the journey or the destination?
Contemporary dilemma of Torah study from Rambam to The Rav

This essay is an edited version of Pardes teacher Kalman Neuman's article "The Contemporary Dilemma of Torah Study."

The study of Torah was the central cultural activity of the European Jew prior to the Emancipation. Rabbinic pronouncements on the primacy of study formed the basis for a value system that permeated Jewish society. This world has been poetically described in Abraham Joshua Heschel's The Earth is the Lord's:

Almost every Jew gave of his time to learning, either to private study or by joining one of the societies established for the purpose of studying the Talmud or some other branch of Rabbinic literature...When night came and a man wanted to pass time away, he did not hasten to a tavern to take a drink, but went to pore over a book or joined a group which - either with or without a teacher - indulged in the enjoyment of studying revered books.

Sociologist Samuel Heilman in his work on Talmud study groups in Jerusalem finds the nature of this learning so unique that he uses the Yiddish word lernen for it:

..learning and lernen are not identical...the person who applies himself to lernen does so because he feels to do so has been laid upon him by some superior force whose help he must call upon when beginning. ...lernen is much closer to ritual than to intellectual activity. Its sound, format, the resulting communion with others and the implicit steadfast attachment to Judaism that it generates take religious precedence over comprehension...

This central element in Jewish life has, it seems, lost some of its status for many modern-day Jews, even those who see themselves as committed to tradition. Here an attempt will be made both to understand the change in the role of study, and to find ways, based on traditional sources, to renew the spirit of lernen.

The role of Talmud Torah is necessarily different for the contemporary Jew who has chosen to participate fully in modern society. For him/her the study of Torah is not the only activity available for leisure time, and it must necessarily "compete" with other alternatives. In fact, it would seem that Western culture has no real parallel to the idea of study as an all-embracing obligation and life-long challenge. "Jewish Education" has replaced the traditional ideal of Talmud Torah. The study of Jewish texts is seen today as "finding out about Judaism." Just as a person pursues a liberal arts education, so a person concerned with his Judaism devotes some time to acquiring knowledge in this "field."

This utilitarian approach to Talmud Torah is not absent in the traditional sources. The sages were not unaware of the importance of torah study as a necessary prerequisite for a life of mitzvot. This approach, however, does not explain the centrality of study in Jewish tradition.

Rambam: Torah As Knowledge of God

In his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Rambam 1138-1204) regards the study of Torah as a way of fulfilling the commandment to love God. This is to be understood in the context of a celebrated passage in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tshuvah 10:6 in which Rambam makes it clear that true love (as opposed to illusory feeling) must be grounded in a clear perception of the beloved:

One only loves God with the knowledge with which one knows Him. According to the knowledge will be the love. If the former be little or much, so will the latter be little or much...

The study of the word of God brings one to an awareness and love of Him. Rambam's perception of the purpose of Talmud Torah as the knowledge of God raises a serious dilemma about the legal parts of the Torah and especially the dialectics of rabbinic literature. What about those sections of Torah that don't seem to lead a person to knowledge of God?

For Rambam, the study of Talmudic law should chronologically precede the study of philosophy. Nevertheless, he states that the study of "what is permitted and what forbidden" is not of ultimate spiritual value but rather a social necessity...One way of applying this outlook on Torah study today would be to emphasize those parts of Torah, which are more obviously spiritually enhancing. Thus, both Tanach, which deals with the ongoing dialogue between God and man, and Jewish thought would take center stage; the hair-splitting intricacies of Talmudic literature would be neglected or granted only secondary importance.

Bahya Ibn Pakuda (11th century), author of the famous philosophical-moralistic book Duties of the Heart, feels that emphasis should be placed on studying those commandments relating to the "heart," such as love and fear of God. Other figures in Jewish history also saw the need to focus Torah study on areas other than Talmudic halacha. These individuals, as described by the 14th century Spanish polemicist Profiat Duran, included both those who emphasized philosophical speculation and those who favored the study of Kabbala.

As attractive as the emphasis on the study of Jewish thought may seem to those concerned with the contemporary relevance of Torah study, it implies a rejection of the bulk of Jewish intellectual endeavor from the destruction of the Temple to the Emancipation. The Talmud contains signs of tension between those sages who dealt exclusively with the minutiae of halacha and those who involved themselves with the world of aggada (that part of rabbinic literature which concentrates on ideas). These tendencies continue during much of Jewish history... In Durans's description, for example, both the philosophers and the masters of Kabbala are in opposition to the Talmudists who see the study of Talmud as the greatest possible achievement.

One approach sometimes proposed as a solution to the question of the relevance of Talmud Torah is to find ways to read those very Talmudic discussions which were seen by Rambam as devoid of theological messages, as containing spiritual content. Thus halachic debates are to be read as manifesting deeper issues which have been hidden for centuries, and only discovered thanks to modern sensibilities or sophisticated methods of literary analysis.

Maharal and R. Hayyim: Torah As the Word of God

Maharal of Prague (1525-1609) in his book Tiferet Yisrael...sees the important part of the Torah not in metaphysical speculation but specifically in those legal rules which seem to have no spiritual relevance:

If it seems to a person that the words of Torah are low and unimportant matters, this is not surprising, for the Torah of Man (Torat haAdam) is similar to man...just like man himself who is in this world and at the same time his soul is eternal. The Torah deals with things of this world and its ultimate worth is beyond this world.

Thus the spiritual message of the Torah is "garbed" in the minutiae of Talmudic discussion. Paradoxically, it is impossible to grasp the Torah "itself." The only possibility open to man is to grasp the Torah by its "garments." Clinging to God through the Torah is achieved specifically through the medium of the legalistic rulings, which seem to stand between man and God. Thus he explains the prohibition on touching the parchment of a Sefer Torah without an intervening "garment" as a metaphor for the entire human relationship with God. Just as our contact with the scroll of the law must be mediated, the legalistic aspect of the Torah must be interposed between our limited understanding and its hidden secrets...

The obvious ramifications of Maharal's thoughts are in the sphere of curriculum. As opposed to Rambam, who views philosophy as an integral part of man's proximity to God, Maharal in effect says that the way to God is specifically through those legal texts of the Talmud which seem to have no uniquely "spiritual" message.

It is precisely the legal part of Torah which deals with God's will as it manifests itself in the physical world, which is the most important vehicle for clinging to God.

Rav Hayyim of Volozhin (1749-1821) in his classic work of Mitnagdic through Nefesh Ha-Hayyim. R. Hayyim emphasizes the importance of the study of even the most mundane topics in the Talmud, and negates the importance of awareness of devekut, the experience of communion with God while learning.

Instead, R. Hayyim sees the Torah and its study in ontological terms, as that force which upholds the entire structure of the universe:

For the holy Torah is the word of God, may He be blessed. And all the worlds were created in the act of creation by His Word...And therefore the essential existence of the worlds is only when we study it properly...And if, God forbid, we would all leave and totally cease its study, all the worlds would immediately also desist...

From this point of view, all sections of the Torah are equally significant, as they are all literally the word of God. This perception goes even beyond that of Maharal. Instead of seeing the "garment of the Torah" as a way of coming closer to the "inner Torah," R. Hayyim sees the "small things" themselves as the very word of God by which a person, through its study, literally upholds the universe.

Rav Kook: The Human is the Divine

Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook (1865-1935) is probably best known for his conception of the uniqueness of the Jewish people (Segulat Yisrael). As formulated by him, this uniqueness is a divine gift, which is implanted in every Jew independent of his exercise of free choice. ...Because he saw the Jewish people as the manifestation of the Divine in the world, he could resolve the question of the dichotomy between the Torah as the word of God and as the work of human beings.

Conclusion

It would seem that a renewal of the spirit of Talmud Torah can truly come from an approach which combines the insights of the different thinkers mentioned.

First, what has been shown as Maimonidian emphasis on the aspect of content and spiritual edification in the realm of Torah study should not be ignored. For various reasons, however, entire disciplines of Torah have been relatively ignored in the traditional yeshiva world. This tendency was often attacked by some of the giants of Torah but generally their criticisms went unheeded. The circumstances of the Jewish people today demand that Torah study create a new and deepened spiritual awareness. Therefore, the study of Tanach and of Jewish thought in the broadest sense must play a central part in making Torah study a major component of Jewish life.

Rav Kook's insight into the nature of Torah as the collective creativity of the Jewish people and one which typifies its volkgeist is an important message, especially in a Jewish state in search of defining its national uniqueness...While this approach indicates the possibility of making Torah study more responsive to contemporary problems, there is a danger which must be offset with the insights of R. Hayyim and the Maharal.

The centrality of Torah study should not be reduced to the degree to which its contents agree or are relevant to modern ideas. The importance of saying a bracha before engaging upon study shows perhaps that one approaches the Torah with an attitude totally different from that of any other intellectual activity. Precisely the "irrelevance" of the intricacies of Talmudic dialectic can be an important element in defining a uniquely Jewish way of relating to God. Rabbi Yoseph Ber Soloveitchik (1903-1993) has emphasized in both Halachic Man and in his eulogy for the Brisker Rav, the autonomous nature of Talmud study, which does not derive its value from application to the outside world. The utility and meaning of Torah study is not to be judged according to any criteria other than that of learning itself.

In fact, it may be that precisely the aspect of Torah study as service of God devoid of utilitarian applications is even more meaningful for the modern Jew who lives part of his life in the secular world. In contrast to the Jew in the traditional world for whom study of Torah was the totality of his cultural life, a Jew today may perhaps see his study as that aspect of life which he devotes totally to God, a corner of his existence in which he has carved a niche, as it were, for the sacred.

bullet Are women obligated in reading Megillah on Purim?

"The Reading of the Megilla on Purim Night," by Rabbi Daniel Landes, Director, Machon Pardes

This Purim night at Pardes, both men and women will be reading the Megillah for the community. This reflects the clear statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi , who said, "Women are obligated in the reading of the Megillah she-af heim hayu BeOto HaNes--They also were involved in the miracle" [Megillah 4a]. This statement is understood by Rashi as signifying that, "Women may read and fulfill thereby the obligation of men [who are listening to them]" [Hiddushei HaRosh]. This concurs with another Talmudic statement, "'All are eligible to read the Megillah,' 'all' signifying that women are included" [Arakhin 2b]. Maimonides also decides absolutely that women are obligated in its reading [Hilkhot Kriat HaMegillah I:1]. The Maggid Mishneh [I:2] concludes that according to Maimonides, a woman may fulfill the obligation for others. R. Yosef Kaphach Shlitah in his commentary on the Mishneh Torah deduces that this includes fulfilling the obligation for a tzibur (congregation), "and there is no [violation] of Kavod HaTzibur [respect for the congregation], for the obligation of men and women is equal" [Zmanim 2, pg. 824].

Rashi's and Maimonides' shared opinion is stated as Halakhah (law) in the Shulchan Arukh in the section entitled, "All Are Obligated in the Reading of the Megillah" [Orakh Chayim 689], which lists women as fulfilling it for others and eliminating only the deaf-mute, the minor, and the mentally impaired. The Shulchan Arukh does, however, bring down a dissenting opinion (yesh omrim) that women do not fulfill the obligation for men. Rabbi Moshe Isserlis [Rama] on that basis also brings a yesh omrim that, "If the woman reads to herself, she makes the blessing, 'to hear the Megillah,' for she is not obligated in reading." These dissenting opinions are based upon the BeHaG, who has a Tosefta that posits, in clear contradiction to the Talmud in Megillah and Arakhin, that women are exempt from the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and cannot fulfill the obligation for others. The BeHaG mediates the contradiction by stating that women are exempted from reading the Megillah (and consequently cannot fulfill the obligation for others), but are only obligated to hear it [a position not suggested in the Talmud]. Thus the dissenting opinion (yesh omrim) cited in the Shulchan Arukh.

Modern Halakhic deciders who opine that we are careful with this opinion of the BeHaG found in the yesh omrim nonetheless affirm that the main opinion of the Shulchan Arukh-- that women are commanded and can fulfill the obligation for others--, following Rashi and Maimonides according to the clear position of the Talmud, is certainly the De'ah Haikarit--the essential position. Since women are obligated, they can fulfill the obligation for others, including men, according to the generally accepted principle that women are bound by the parameters of areivut, halakhic responsibility for the performance of mitzvot by others [Shaar HaTziyun Orakh Chayim 27, Note 9, citing the definitive arguments of Rabbi Akiba Eiger, Tsuvah 7].

But even according to the BeHaG's opinion, women are obligated to read the Megillah on Purim night. This is conclusively demonstrated by Rabbi Hanoch Henech Agus of Vilna in his classic work Marcheshet. He responds to the problem of why for the BeHaG women would be exempted from Megillah. He answers that Megillah is a subset of the recital of Hallel--as the Talmud states that we don't chant Hallel on Purim, for the reading of the Megillah is itself Hallel: Kriatah 20 Haleila (Megillah 14a). Since women are exempt from the positive, time-bound mitzvah of Hallel, they cannot fulfill the obligation for men. But, the Marcheshet continues, this is not the case on Purim night, for at night there is no obligation of Hallel [The Hallel of the Haggadah is of a different character, and note that it is both broken up and lacking a blessing]. The reading of Megillah at night is an act of Persumei Nisa, publicizing the miracle. "In this, women fulfill the obligation for men, for their obligation there is equal." This position is endorsed by HaRav Tzvi Pesach Frank, of blessed memory, the Rav and final Halakhic authority of Jerusalem for over forty years. He demonstrates the cogency of the Marcheshet's interpretation even if one substitutes other reasons for exempting women from the obligation of reading during the day [Mikraei Kodesh Chanukah/Purim, pp. 132-3].

Thus, according to both the essential opinion of the Shulchan Arukh and even according to the yesh omrim, it is incontestable that women may fulfill the obligation for men by reading the Megillah on Purim night. Is this, however, a worthy policy? Our answer must be an unequivocal yes.

First of all, many women left out of participation in the Megillah reading at night feel the necessity to form their own groups for Megillah reading. This avoids the mitzvah of reading in the greater tzibur, for Berov Am Hadrat Melech, "in the numerical greatness of the people there is glory to the king" [Beer HeTaiv 690 Note 16]. Purim, which is the triumph of Jewish survival, is to be celebrated in giving glory to our God in a unified, public fashion. Group reading is a crucial way of demonstrating the miracle of Purim by manifesting an intact community.

Even more important is the position of women within Pirsumei Nisa. This is a defining category of Megillah, especially at night. One must join within the synagogue for the reading even if one could hear it from the open window of one's home for the reason of Persumei Nisa. Women are integral to the miracle of Purim as described in the Talmud as af hein hayu beoto hanes--they also were in that miracle. The Tosefot quotes the Rashbam as to alternative readings of that statement, in the context of Purim, Chanukah, and Pesach. It could either refer to the central role of women in the miracles of those holidays, or it could mean that they were benefited by the miracle, but that their role is secondary, tifailot. The RaShaSh convincingly demonstrates, with many proofs, that Af Hein means "indeed," that women played the essential role--hein hayu ikkar. This is certainly true in the Megillah, as anyone who has read it can see. Reb Velvel Soloveitchik [Hiddushei Hagriz Archin, pp. 57-8] takes the discussion a step further. He shows that the import of af hein hayu beoto hanes is more than the elimination of a pittur, the exemption that women have from positive, time-bound commandments. He maintains that the hein hayu is the creation of a special obligation for women, a hiyuv miyuchad, "for the miracle was done by them." Thus for Reb Velvel this special obligation does not merely make them equal to men, but is unique to them, "the essential reason why they are obligated."

Women, as facilitators of God's miracle, have a paradigmatic role in Persumei Nisa. Esther, who was stirred into areivut, responsiblity, for her people, is described in the Megillah as "donning kingly [attire]" to meet Ahashveros on Israel's behalf. The Midrash Rabbah explains that these were the robes of her kingly ancestors. Thus Esther dons not the robes of her surrounding society, of Persian nobility, but rather comes clothed in the royal garments of the house of Saul, who had neglected to completely defeat Amalek. Now it is her turn to complete the task. The women and men who will read the Megillah at Machon Pardes also come clothed for the reading not in the mores of the surrounding society, but from the deepest sources of our tradition.

bullet Was Rabbi Hillel that hungry? Why do we eat the Hillel sandwich at the Passover Seder?

This response is adapted from Rabbi Aryeh Ben David's article "Looking Back: Denial or Integration?"

We eat the Hillel sandwich at the Passover Seder because of the verse that says, "You shall eat (the paschal lamb with) matzot and bitter herbs," and this way Hillel fulfilled the two commands at the same time.

The past, that which has been discarded and remains distasteful, is symbolically represented by the bitter herb, the maror. Rabban Gamliel states that whoever does not mention three things during the seder - Pesach, Matzah and Maror - has not fulfilled his/her obligation in the retelling of the story of the exodus. The Hagadah offers no alternative of denial. We must taste and talk about the bitterness.

But then the Hagadah instructs us to understand this bitterness of the past, the maror, on a deeper level. The Hagadah tells of Hillel who would make a sandwich of the matzah and the maror. Now the taste of freedom - matzah, and the taste of bitterness - maror, have become united. Now the joy of the present and the trials of the past have blended into one experience. In Egypt, the bitterness of their travail induced the Jewish people to call out to God, ultimately catalyzing their redemption. The pain of this bitterness was the first step toward their freedom. God's bringing them out, their freedom, was the response to their distress. The bitterness was not simply a phase of their lives, rather the precipitating force behind their ultimate freedom.

What is Hillel trying to convey through this joining of the matzah and the maror? The truest integration of the past and the present is not when one recognizes that there were many stages in one's life, but when one understands that all of these stages ultimately enabled me to become whom I am today. That my being is not just the product of the "good moments" and the "good decisions", but rather that I am the composite whole of all of my previous moments and decisions. I could not have become who I am today without all of my previous experiences, since they all ultimately yielded this personality.

The deepest level of integration of one's past together with one's present occurs when one can look back and say, "The powers and qualities that I am blessed with today are the composite result of my entire life. These qualities would not exist as they are if not for all of my previous experiences." Hillel wanted to teach that the sweet taste of the present is inseparable from the bitter taste of the past. The sweetness would not exist if not for those times of bitterness. Looking back, even the maror becomes part of the taste of freedom.

No denial. Not merely a phase. Rather a whole life. That was the process necessary for the true freedom of the Jewish people. That is the process necessary for each individual Jew.

bullet Glossary of People and Terms

BeHaG
Acronym for Ba'al Halachot Gedolot, a Geonic-era halachic work. The authorship of this work is a matter of debate. Some attribute it to Rav Yehudai the son of Shmuel Gaon, who headed the academy in Sura, Babylonia and lived from approximately 820 through 905, while others claim that it was written by Rav Shimon of Kaira.

Rabbi Moshe Isserlis
Moses ben Israel Isserles (1525-1572) lived in Cracow, Poland. He is known especially for his commentaries on Jewish law, which often focused on the Ashkenazic, or Eastern European, customs.

Rabbi Yosef Kaphach
Rabbi Kaphach was the foremost editor of the works of Maimonides. Born in Yemen in 1917, he used ancient manuscripts to restore the text of the Mishne Torah .

Maggid Mishneh
Rav Vidal of Tolosa, who passed away in the middle of the century, wrote one of the most important works on the Mishne Torah. This work included the sources for Rambam's laws, and explained why some laws preceded others or were omitted entirely from that code, thus filling up many of the holes that critics of the work had complained about since it first appeared

Mishneh Torah
Principle work of the Rambam.

Rambam
Rav Moshe ben Maimon, also known as the Maimonades was born in Cordova in 1135. He traveled with his family first to Christian Spain, then to Morocco and finally to Egypt, where he died in Cairo in 1204. His magnum opus is his Mishne Torah, a halachic work that codifies all of the laws found throughout the Talmud, including those that were no longer applicable (such as laws of sacrifices).

Rashash
Also known as Rabbi Shalom Shar'aby was born in Yeman in 1780. He was a Kabbalist who died in Jerusalem 1837.

Rashbam
Rav Shmuel the son of Meir was the grandson of Rashi and lived from 1085 through 1174 in France. His Torah commentary is renown for its stress on the plain meaning of the text. Parts of his commentary on the Talmud have been preserved, and they appear on the pages of most of Bava Batra as well as the last chapter of Pesachim in the Talmud.

Rashi
Rav Shlomo Yitzchaki (son of Yitzchak) lived in Troyes, France from 1040 until 1105. His most famous work is his commentary on the Talmud, which appears on the inside margin of almost every page, and his commentary explains the text phrase by phrase. In addition, Rashi authored a commentary on the Torah, which incorporates his own views, as well as many Midrashim and grammatical notes.

Shulchan Aruch
Compiled by Sephardic rabbi Josheph Caro in the mid-1500s, the Shulchan Aruch is still the standard legal code of Judaism. The main topics it covers are holidays, prayers, Torah study, dietary laws, marriage, divorce, and Jewish civil laws.

Tosefot
Supplements or additions to the Talmud composed by many scholars in different schools throughout the 12th and 13th centuries.

Tosefta
Supplements to the Mishna written around 200 CE. It functions like a commentary on unquoted Mishnaic material; It offers additional haggadic and midrashic material, and it sometimes contradicts the Mishna in deciding Halakhai (law), or in declaring in whose name a law was given.

Yesh Omrim
Dissenting opinion.