Abstract
Ezra chapter one presents a striking proclamation attributed to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, authorising the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple of YHWH. This declaration, central to the narrative of the post-exilic return, raises significant historical and philological questions regarding its composition, ideological function, and relationship to external historical sources. This paper critically examines the portrayal of Cyrus in Ezra 1 against the backdrop of the Cyrus Cylinder, an authentic Achaemenid inscription. By analysing the language, theological framing, and historical context of both texts, this study argues that the Ezra declaration, while not a verbatim transcription of an imperial edict, represents a theologically oriented adaptation of a genuine Persian imperial policy. It highlights the nuanced interplay between Persian imperial pragmatism and Judean religious particularism, demonstrating how historical events were absorbed, localised, and reinterpreted within the sacred history of ancient Yehud.
Keywords: Cyrus Cylinder, Ezra, Achaemenid Empire, Second Temple Period, Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Persian Policy, Judean Identity.
Biblical History
Aug
Jul
1. Introduction: The Problem of Post-Destruction Ritual Memory and the Principle of Progressive Ritualization
The return from Babylonian exile presented the Yehudite community with complex theological and ritual challenges. Among these was the question of how to memorialize the destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple. Zechariah 7–8 captures a pivotal moment in this transition, illustrating a principle of progression in ritual development: how localized, spontaneous mourning customs, initially emerging from the trauma of exile, gradually solidified into widespread, communal rites, eventually facing prophetic reinterpretation and institutionalization. The prophet Zechariah is approached to adjudicate the status of these fasts, and his response illuminates the inherent tension between ethical-religious priorities and the communal need for structured memory.
This period was defined by the Pax Persica, the relative peace and administrative stability imposed by the Achaemenid Persian Empire. While offering opportunities for rebuilding (including the Temple), Persian imperial policy often favored local religious autonomy within a framework of loyalty to the empire. This context meant that the Yehudite community, still under foreign dominion, had to navigate its religious identity and practices within these political realities, contributing to a desire for internal coherence and divine favor. Furthermore, the economic conditions of the post-exilic community were often challenging, marked by crop failures, drought, and a lack of resources (Haggai 1:6, 9-11). Such material hardships could exacerbate a community’s search for divine intervention, sometimes leading to an overemphasis on ritual performance as a means to alleviate suffering, a perspective Zechariah subtly critiques.
Methodological Note: Diachronic and Synchronic Readings
This analysis integrates both diachronic and synchronic approaches. It examines the historical development of the fasts and their context over time (diachronic), tracing their progression from ad hoc to established practices, while also analyzing Zechariah 7-8 as a coherent literary unit within the broader “Book of the Twelve” (synchronic). This dual perspective allows for a richer understanding of how the prophet addresses specific historical circumstances while also contributing to the larger theological message of the prophetic corpus, emphasizing the overarching theme of God’s sovereignty and Israel’s covenant destiny.
2. Zechariah 7: From Local Mourning to Ethical Reorientation
2.1. The Question of the Delegation (7:1–3)
The inquiry brought by the men of Bethel—”הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים” (Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done for so many years?)—centers on whether the fast of the fifth month should continue. The fifth month (Av) was, and remains, associated with the destruction of the Temple (cf. 2 Kings 25:8–9). The use of the verb הִנָּזֵר (“to abstain” or “to separate oneself”) suggests more than mere fasting; it indicates a broader withdrawal, perhaps in mourning or as a form of dedication, echoing the concept of נזיר (Nazirite) in Leviticus 10:9 concerning priestly abstinence.
That the delegation comes from Bethel, a location historically associated with Northern Israelite worship (cf. 1 Kings 12:29), suggests a broader re-engagement of returning exiles with the Jerusalemite cult and highlights the pressing need to standardize or harmonize diverse mourning practices across the reintegrating community. This inquiry illustrates the early stage of ritual progression: what began as individual or localized responses to a catastrophic event (“as I have done for so many years”) was now being questioned for its communal and long-term validity within the re-established Yehudite state. This quest for standardization was likely spurred by the ongoing rebuilding efforts of the Second Temple, raising questions about the continued necessity of exile-era mourning rites now that a new sacred center was emerging.
2.2. Zechariah’s Response (7:4–14)
YHWH’s response, mediated through Zechariah, critiques the intent and authenticity of the fasts:
“When you fasted and mourned… did you really fast for Me, for Me?” (7:5)
The Hebrew reads צַמְתֻּנִי אֲנִי (tzamtuni ani). Grammatically, the verbal form צַמְתֻּנִי (you fasted, masculine plural) is directly affixed with the first-person singular direct object suffix -נִי (“for me” or “me”). The subsequent and explicit independent first-person singular pronoun אֲנִי (“I” or “Me”) serves as an intensive and emphatic reiteration of this direct object. This pleonastic construction creates a powerful double emphasis, underscoring the crucial question of motive and the intensely personal nature of YHWH’s inquiry. It highlights YHWH’s desire for genuine worship rooted in inner disposition, not merely outward performance. This theological emphasis on authenticity over outward show is a hallmark of prophetic critique and covenantal theology. These practices, though growing in observance, are depicted not as divinely ordained commandments but as human-initiated responses that, in their current form, may lack genuine ethical foundation.
The prophet then shifts the focus sharply from ritual observance to moral action (7:9–10), echoing earlier prophetic messages:
- “Execute true justice” (מִשְׁפַּט אֱמֶת שְׁפֹטוּ, “execute a judgment of truth”). The term אֱמֶת here is significant, implying a justice that is not merely legalistic but rooted in divine faithfulness and covenant fidelity, reflecting God’s own character.
- “and show steadfast love and compassion “(וְחֶסֶד וְרַחֲמִים).
- “Do not oppress the widow, orphan, foreigner, or poor” (וְאַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם גֵּר וְעָנִי אַל תַּעֲשֹׁקוּ).
This language closely parallels Isaiah 58, which similarly critiques fasting devoid of righteousness and social justice: “Is this the fast I choose? To bow one’s head like a reed?” (Isa 58:5–7). Beyond Isaiah, this ethical call resonates deeply with Deuteronomic legislation and earlier prophetic voices (e.g., Amos 5:24; Micah 6:8), demonstrating Zechariah’s role in synthesizing and reinterpreting these foundational traditions for the post-exilic community. His message implicitly challenges the notion that religious ritual alone, divorced from social justice, can guarantee divine favor or alleviate communal hardship. Furthermore, this critique echoes Jeremiah’s “Temple Sermon” (Jeremiah 7), which similarly warns against reliance on the mere presence of the Temple while neglecting ethical living.
3. Zechariah 8: Reframing Fasts in Light of Redemption – The Culmination of Progression
By the time we reach Zechariah 8, the tone shifts considerably. While chapter 7 questions the spiritual legitimacy of fasting, chapter 8 masterfully reframes these very fasts within a redemptive eschatological vision. This dramatic shift underscores the dynamic nature of prophetic discourse, which can move from sharp critique to hopeful re-envisioning based on divine promise. Critically, this chapter reveals the culmination of the ritual progression: these once-local and spontaneous mourning practices have become sufficiently widespread and ingrained that they cannot simply be abolished. Instead, the prophetic voice recognizes their deeply embedded nature and seeks to transform their meaning.
3.1. The Four Fast Days (8:18–19)
Zechariah 8:19 explicitly names four fasts:
- The fast of the fourth month — linked to the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls (Jer 52:6).
- The fast of the fifth month — commemorating the destruction of the Temple (2 Kgs 25:8–9).
- The fast of the seventh month — associated with the assassination of Gedaliah (Jer 41).
- The fast of the tenth month — marking the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:1).
These correspond to critical markers of historical trauma. However, instead of abolishing them, the prophet proclaims their radical transformation:
“These shall become for the house of Judah days of joy and gladness and cheerful feasts and truth and peace you shall love” (יִהְיֶה לְבֵית יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה וּלְמֹעֲדִים טוֹבִים וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ.)
Here, prophecy demonstrates its capacity to accommodate and guide liturgical development, reassigning profound theological meaning to existing practices rather than rejecting them outright. This shift explicitly reflects the institutional momentum behind these fasts—they had evidently become deeply embedded in public consciousness and communal identity across Yehud. The prophetic response thus evolves from a posture of critique to one of profound reinterpretation and re-sanctification, aligning the future of these rituals with YHWH’s promised restoration and emphasizing the authority by which Zechariah can announce such a dramatic reorientation.
4. Philological Note: Fasting and Mourning Terminology Reflecting Progression
The Hebrew verbs and nouns used across these chapters are particularly telling, indirectly highlighting the progression from spontaneous grief to structured ritual:
- צוּם (“to fast”) – The general and most common term for ritual abstention from food, suggesting a formalized practice.
- בָּכָה (“to weep”) – Implies emotional mourning, whether personal or communal, often accompanying fasting, hinting at the raw grief that gave rise to the practices.
- הִנָּזֵר (from the root N-Z-R) – As noted, this suggests a broader ritual abstention or separation, potentially encompassing more than just food (cf. Naziriteship, where vows involve abstention from wine, cutting hair, etc.). Its usage here indicates a dedicated withdrawal for a specific purpose, highlighting the deliberate, even formalized, nature of these mourning practices as they developed.
- אֵבֶל (“mourning”) – While not directly used in Zechariah 7–8 to describe the fasts themselves, this noun appears in similar contexts (e.g., Zech 12:10, where “mourning” is connected to future lamentation over the pierced one). Its conceptual presence underscores that the fasts are fundamentally acts of mourning, embodying deep communal grief and memory.
This range of terms highlights that the issue addressed by Zechariah is not merely about fasting as a technical act, but about emotional and social memory—the collective processing of trauma ritualized through various forms of abstention and lament. This also shows an awareness of “wisdom” literature’s emphasis on righteous living as a path to blessing, aligning the ethical demands with the promised future joy.
5. Reception and Liturgical Institutionalization – The Enduring Progression
5.1. Second Temple and Qumran Evidence
By the late Second Temple period, the progression of these fasts from ad hoc observances to formally recognized communal practices was complete, as evidenced by their entrenched status within Jewish religious life. The Megillat Taʿanit (1st century CE), a significant historical document, not only lists fasts and days of mourning but also enumerates days when fasting is prohibited. This demonstrates the increasing codification and regulation of the Jewish calendar, often reflecting diverse communal practices and occasional disputes regarding appropriate responses to historical events.
Regarding Qumran: While fasting was certainly a practice within the Qumran community, often tied to their distinct sectarian calendar and emphasis on purity and atonement, direct textual evidence for the observance of these specific four fasts (of the 4th, 5th, 7th, and 10th months) among the Dead Sea Scrolls is lacking. The community’s unique calendar and theological focus meant their liturgical practices often diverged from those developing in Jerusalemite Judaism. Therefore, while shared concerns with mourning, judgment, and divine restoration can be found in Qumran literature, a direct link to Zechariah 8:19’s fasts cannot be definitively established based on current evidence.
5.2. Rabbinic Codification
In Mishnah Taʿanit 4:6–7, the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months are formally codified as commemorations of national tragedies, underscoring their enduring significance. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Rosh Hashanah 18b) directly references Zechariah 8:19 and expands upon the conditional nature of these fasts:
“When there is peace—they shall be joy and gladness; when there is persecution—they shall be fasts.”
This rabbinic interpretation precisely captures the prophetic trajectory articulated in Zechariah: the fasts are actual observances, but their emotional and spiritual tenor is directly dependent on the prevailing historical context and the state of the nation. This flexible interpretation is a testament to the dynamic progression of these rituals, allowing them to adapt to changing historical circumstances while retaining their core meaning. It encapsulates the profound truth that mourning can indeed turn into rejoicing.
Broader Reception and Modern Observance
Beyond the rabbinic period, Zechariah’s prophecy has resonated in various ways. In early Christian interpretation, the ethical demands of Zechariah 7 often align with Jesus’ critiques of hypocrisy, while the eschatological promises of Zechariah 8 contribute to the broader messianic expectation. While the literal transformation of fasts into feasts is specific to Jewish tradition, the underlying principle of divine redemption bringing joy out of sorrow holds universal appeal. In contemporary Jewish practice, these fasts (Shivah Asar B’Tammuz, Tisha B’Av, Tzom Gedaliah, and Asara B’Tevet) continue to be observed, though often with a renewed emphasis on the prophetic call for social justice (tikkun olam, “repairing the world”) alongside communal memory, embodying the ongoing dynamic between ritual and ethics. This demonstrates the long-term progression and adaptability of these practices across millennia.
6. Conclusion: Prophecy and Ritual Memory in Dialogue – A Model of Progression
Zechariah 7–8 profoundly reveals how prophecy both critiques and dynamically adapts to communal religious development. What begins as spontaneous mourning practices in response to catastrophic trauma gradually becomes institutionalized. Zechariah’s prophecy reflects this complex trajectory of progression:
- Initial individual/localized responses to trauma.
- The gradual spread and recognition of these practices (implicit in the Bethel delegation’s question).
- Prophetic critique of their internal motivation when widespread.
- Transformation and re-sanctification of these now-entrenched fasts into symbols of future joy.
The ethical priority of prophets like Isaiah and Zechariah is unequivocally clear: ritual without righteousness is an empty gesture. However, equally clear is the reality that people need ritual frameworks to process national trauma, maintain collective memory, and express communal identity. The prophetic voice thus evolves—not to reject established tradition outright, but to shape and infuse its theological meaning in light of divine promises of redemption and covenant renewal. This dynamic interplay ensures both continuity and spiritual vitality within the unfolding religious life of the community, serving as a compelling model for understanding the progression of ritual memory.
Bibliography (Select)
- Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Eerdmans, 2009.
- Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.
- Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. SCM Press, 1986.
- Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
- Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford University Press, 1985.
- Floyd, Michael H. Minor Prophets, Part 2. Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
- Koch, Klaus. The Prophets: The Babylonian and Persian Periods. Fortress Press, 1983.
- Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox Press, 1984.
Oct
Some scholars have speculated that the waving of the four species during Sukkot, as practiced in Rabbinic Judaism, may have its origins in a fertility ritual. This interpretation is based on the association of agricultural festivals in the ancient Near East with fertility, where symbolic acts like waving branches or plants were believed to ensure good harvests. Such rituals often involved invoking blessings on the land and crops, reflecting a deep connection between human action and divine influence on agricultural productivity.
Aug
An examination of the relationship of the New moon and Shabbat in Biblical Times
“Is the New moon day a Shabbat?” has been a discussion in Torah observant groups for many years. The common argument is that the day of the new moon is the starter of a cycle of seven days, where the seventh or eighth day is a day of rest. In this article, I will examine the use of Amos 8:5 in the claim, and look into historical evidence on the matter.[1]
Apr
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
“Then Hizkiyahu sent to all Isra’el and Y’hudah, and wrote letters also to Efrayim and M’nasheh, summoning them to the house of YHWH in Yerushalayim, to keep the Pesach to YHWH the God of Isra’el.”
2 Chronicles 30:1
From our weekly bible class, we look at how converts have been handled at different times, and how King Hizkiyahu’s passover is a defining point in the history of identity.
Apr
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
Yoel explains the practical logistics of this component of the feasts and calendar based on the Aviv Search of 2019. This teaching was presented to our Weekly Bible Class group.
Dec
The following article is not intended to be a full explanation of a complicated subject, nor is it a final word on the matter. It is rather to be taken as musing over a question which bothers many Torah keepers who do not heed to everything Judaism has to offer. As an orthodox raised Jew I have always pondered about Hanukkah and why it is celebrated. As a trained historian, the history of what happened is well known to me. However, the history of the Halakhik development (Jewish law) of things is much more obscure.
When the Talmud addresses the question in the tractate of Shabbat “What is Hanukkah?” (Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 21b) we get a very partial answer which ignores the whole history. The answer focuses on only one aspect, the reestablishing of the temple. The story of the little source of oil is considered fiction invented later on, which gives us even more insight to some of the dilemmas later Jewish sources had about this matter.
History in the Making
To understand the full history of Hanukkah one only needs to read the book of Maccabees and get a full description of the internal and external politics of 2nd century Judea. This was a struggle between Syrian soldiers who felt entitled in Jerusalem, thinking that it is no different than any other hellenised city, and Jews who lived in their homeland for centuries who objected to the attempt to change God’s people. This was a war over identity which also ended up to be a war of independence. Freedom became the centre of Hanukkah, and the is why it was seen as a national celebration which was not in any way part of Torah keeping. It was a time to give thanks to God for the redemption from Syrian-Greek forces, and a return to a Torah based government.
After the war settled, around the year 140BCE, the people gathered together to crown Simon the Hasmonean to be king. Simon did not want to rule without the consent of the people, and requested this great gathering to give him a mandate to rule (1Mac 14:27-45). The mandate given to Simon was Torah based, and his family had received the agreement of the people to govern them. However, this charter was limited till a prophet would come and and re-establish the kingdom. What happened with the family in later generations was completely wrong and against the original agreement. The Hasmoneans became priest-kings and the later kings not only forced themselves on the people, but also became a political power which sought to control using violence. The internal wars between the different members of family, and the fact that Judah brought the Romans to Judea as part of an agreement during the rebellion (1Mac 8:23-32), puts the whole story and achievements of the Hanukkah into question.
At the end of it, even though Israel had (a short lived) freedom, the family itself brought misery and destruction, and opened the door for the destruction of Jerusalem and the deepening of internal war between brothers. Factions deepened, and Torah keepers had to flee for their lives when the Hasmoneans didn’t agree with them (DSS 1QpHab). This, in my opinion, is something very difficult to celebrate, and this is probably why the Talmud ignores to some degree the historical side of things and focuses on the positive. It has been an argument for many years whether the Talmud ignores the Hasmoneans. However, it seems clear that they preferred to reduce the attention due to the issues which were well known to them. This is especially evident from the attitude the Talmud has to the later king Alexander Jannaeus who is described as a supporter of the Sadducees who were the enemies of the Pharisees (Babylonian Talmud Kidushin 66a). Historically speaking, Jannaeus was an extremely violent king, and hard his own people who were tired of his wars and conquests. At the end he murdered many Jews, and this people were becoming less and less supportive of the family (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13:380-381). However, the return to Torah, and the existence of a celebration which was several hundred years old compelled Jewish tradition to keep the celebration even though the historical side was negative and non-existent after the Romans took over. To me it seems that the point of keeping Hanukkah by Talmudic standard is more custom and mostly the celebration of Torah reestablishment.
Why Was Hanukkah Created?
The principle standing behind Hanukkah is the celebration of returning to the Temple. The legend of the oil jar is a late redaction of the history which is presented in Maccabees 1&2. In 2 Macc we receive a very clear description of the reasoning behind creating the feast:
“Now upon the same day that the temple had been polluted by the strangers, on the very same day it was cleansed again, to wit, on the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu. And they kept eight days with joy, after the manner of the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long before they had kept the feast of the tabernacles when they were in the mountains, and in dens like wild beasts. Therefore they now carried boughs, and green branches, and palms for Him that had given them good success in cleansing his place. And they ordained by a common statute, and decree, that all the nation of the Jews should keep those days every year.” (2Macc 10:5-8).
As can be seen, the principle standing behind the feast was an attempt to reestablish the temple with Sukkot being the core principle behind the days. It was an attempt to give the renewal of the temple the same atmosphere at the dedication of the temple in Ezra 3:4, and possibly a version of 1Kings 8 where the dedication of the temple was done during Sukkot. There was no oil or light, but Josephus does call it “The Feast of Lights” but does not give an explanation as to why it had lights lit during the days.
“Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon, but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices, and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was that this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us, and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies.” (Antiquities 12:7:7).
Adding to The Torah
This subject is probably the most difficult one to deal with, and I myself even as a child never understood how we can add things since we are clearly forbidden to do so in Deuteronomy 4:2. This question has bothered even Rabbinic sources, and different answers were given such as it is forbidden to take away details, but adding a whole idea is allowed. This basic idea gave the elders full authority on everything and allowed them to interpret things even if the text does not support the idea. This in turn meant that one is not allowed to turn to the left or the right from the elders’ teachings no matter what.
At this stage it is important to note that we do find customs in ancient Israel, and research done on life in ancient Israel show that there were many things which do not appear in the Torah which were kept. One example can be found with virgins wearing striped clothing (as in the case of Tamar 2Sam 13:18), and the taking off of a shoe when an agreement is made (Ruth 4:7).
However, when we come to a system which creates very specific laws and regulations on how to light a candle, one has to stop and ask how on earth can this not be adding to the Torah in a gross way? The attitude towards these rules is that they are equal to laws of actual Torah commandments, which is really why some people object to the ritual–especially the blessing of being commanded by God to light the candles. This in truth is the main objection I hear from non-Rabbinic Torah keeping people, and it is very understandable.
To really understand the subject we have to dive into a very complicated history of Torah keeping and the subject of authority in 2nd temple Judaism (which is outside of the scope of this article). This is a very well attested and researched subject both in ancient sources, and also in modern day ideas. Unfortunately this would require a whole book, and there are several books on the matter. To keep things short I will only give the general idea:
Everyone wanted to be in charge, and it seems to me that putting in blessings was not just a chance issue developed later on due to a custom becoming law. To me it seems there is an ideology here of making sure that Hanukkah is kept with a very clear statement that the Rabbinic authority is absolute, and that no one can undermine it. This is why, in my personal opinion, Rabbinic sources made such a big issue out of keeping Hanukkah. In the midst of a war over authority, and the survival of Judaism after the destruction, Rabbis had to take a very bold stand to insure the survival of Torah. Even if one disagrees with what was done, the action itself created order which allowed Jews to unite over more or less one system. This is not perfect, and is far away from ideal, but under such circumstances what choice does one have? This was life and death of Judaism, and even though political struggle existed even inside the system, the common cause was survival.
Understanding History
When objecting to Hanukkah and Jewish customs, it is fundamentally important to put one’s modern understanding of things aside, and try and step into the world of the people who were around when things happened. As a trained historian this is History 101 where you are taught to think like an historian. We are not trained just to know facts, but to also understand the process and different sides of events.
I agree that today in our times where we have more freedom, we can and should ask questions about how we should keep Torah without violating it. But for them this was survival, and we cannot judge them till we are in their position. Judaism had to create a system which governed everyone under one rule, and customs such as Hanukkah (yes it started as a custom) became part of identity, which was important. When you live in freedom and have everything you need it is easy to dismiss things. However, when you are culturally in trouble, and there is a war against you and your culture, people tend to become protective of some of the most trivial things. This is why Hanukkah was kept, and this is why the different rules were created because it was a preservation of identity and a focus on the positive of what happened.
The Bottom Line
To answer the question of should one keep Hanukkah, my response would be “what do you identify with?”. This is, in essence, what one should take into consideration. If one identifies with Judaism and identifies with Jewish customs, then one should keep at least lighting the candles without saying a blessing. However, if one does not identify with Judaism as it developed, then there is no point in keeping any of it. This is an identity and affiliation question, and is less about Torah law.
In many cases I use the following modern day analogy for Israelis:
Keeping Hanukkah is no different than asking the question of keeping independence day. If one is a supporter of the state of Israel, then one can and should celebrate this day. However, if one objects to the state of Israel, then there is no point in keeping such a day.
Hanukkah, in rabbinic eyes, is about celebrating the establishment of Torah keeping, and this was the focus rabbis in the Talmud were going for. They knew the problems with the Hasmoneans, but in a time of darkness and destruction, clinging to the light of a reestablished Torah based rule was a way to keep the light of hope burning.
Oct
The word משיח-Mashiach-Messiah is derived from the root משח which is mostly associated with the idea of placing oil on something or someone. The act of anointing was performed as an act of dedication of a person or an item to a service (mostly to God). In this article, I will be looking into the background of this act, and the meaning of the title Mashiach.
Oct
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
In this short podcast, we look closer at some of the interpretations of what Cham did to Noach and the sources of these interpretations.
Aug
One of the basic stipulations of any covenant in the world is the principle of trust and loyalty between the two or more parties. Many books and papers have been written on the subject of covenants and treaties, but in this short paper I will examine one of the most important words used in covenant language–Love.
Join My Group Bible Class TODAY!
The class is done in a virtual class room with multiple participants. We meet on Sundays at 11:45am US eastern, or 6:45pm Israel time. You do not need to know Hebrew for this class, and you also receive a recording of the classes every month. For the link and how to join, click the More Info Button to email us.
