Who Owns The Holocaust?

Twelve years ago, the British Union of Jewish Students launched a project called 50 Days For 50 Years, an effort to commemorate the Holocaust by having Jews learn something each day for 50 days in memory of a Jew murdered in the Holocaust. A book of 50 essays written by leading (Orthodox) rabbis and scholars was published and the program was launched. In 2005, TRIBE, a section of the British United Synagogue (Modern Orthodox, Jonathan Sacks is their chief rabbi) relaunched the program under a new name, 60 Days For 60 Years. It then changed the name to 60 Days For 6 Million and "syndicated" the program to communities around the world.

Fine. To a point. Now groups like Aish and Ohr Somayach have gotten on the bandwagon (please see the pictures above for an example), and use this program as a way to draw non-Orthodox Jews to Orthodoxy and Modern Orthodox Jews to haredism.

But the problem with this program is deeper than subterfuge from Orthodox outreach organizations. First of all, many of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were secular or non-Orthodox, and they were secular or non-Orthodox by choice. They were Jews who left the backwaters of shtetl Orthodoxy for the bright lights of the Enlightenment. Is the proper way to remember those Jews learning Orthodox theology and theodicy?

Some of you will argue it is, claiming that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on theological truth. I beg to differ. Leaving aside the overwhelming failure of Orthodox rabbinic leaders leading up to the Holocaust (please see our discussion here), I would still argue that an Orthodox monopoly on this endeavor is wrong. Why? To me, it is too much like the Mormon baptisms of long-dead non-Mormons.

The proper way to do this, I think, is to take a Jewish text we all accept and study it or sections of it. For example, take the Pentateuch. Use the text to show how traditional commentary (like Rashi and Ibn Ezra) work, show how halakha is derived, codified and implemented. Show how the Documentary Hypothesis works, how modern Biblical Criticism works, and how Orthodoxy (for the most part) rejects it.

Another possibility is to deal with the exact issues the 60 Days program does, but bring varied, pluralistic responses to each one.

Of course, when an Orthodox organization sponsors an event like this, one expects the viewpoints to be Orthodox. That is why I don’t have much of a problem when the OU sponsors 60 Days, or the British United Synagogue does. But when Orthodox outreach organizations get involved, especially when those organizations have a history of deception and when their involvement is partially masked by community organizations like the Jewish Community Relations Council (please see above pictures) or the non-Orthodox day school, I think a line has been crossed.

Should the Holocaust be used as a marketing tool to bring Jews to Orthodoxy? If you think it should, shouldn’t information like Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman’s letter (which I first read in the Aish HaTorah beis midrash) and the behavior of the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe be presented right along with it?

Haredim and the Holocaust, 2

UOJ quotes the infamous letter written by Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman telling a student not to go to YU or HTC (Skokie), even though it would get him safely out of Europe:

"I received your letter, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do. The yeshivos in America which can bring talmidim from overseas are the yeshivah of Dr. Revel (YU) and [HTC in Chicago]. However, both are places of spiritual danger because they are run in a spirit of disloyalty to the Torah. Therefore, of what benefit would it be to escape [Europe] from physical danger to spiritual danger."…

UOJ notes that later in the letter, Rabbi Wasserman suggests the student contact Rabbi Shlomo Hymen at Yeshiva Torah Vodas who, Rabbi Wasserman writes, will help him. But then UOJ continues:

Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman was urged [by Rabbi Henkin] to bring over all of his students to Yeshiva Torah Vodaath and Rabbi Shlomo Hyman had agreed to step aside as the Rosh Hayeshiva and gladly have R’ Elchonon take his place. Instead he went back to Europe where he was slaughtered along with his students . He is quoted in his "Kovetz Maamarim" as saying he intended himself and his students to be a "korbon" or a sacrifice, on behalf of American Jewry. So much for "daas Torah" and "gedolim infallibility".

Rabbis gave notoriously poor advice all during WW2; the above is only one example out of many rabbinic failures. From Hungarian hasidim to Chabad, from Litvaks to Galitzianers, rabbis failed. You can say this means God "hid" the truth from them, or you can say God never spoke to them in the first place. My money is on option number two.

If Moses Existed, Did He Have Two Tablets On Sinai Or Only One?

Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg of the Jerusalem-based Albright Institute of Archaeological Research asks what at first seems to be a stunning question – did Moses get stonne two tablets on Mount Sinai or only one? Rosenberg answers this question rather conclusively. But first, he points out a problem in out traditional understanding of the biblical text:

…[Two stone tablets] seems to be the easy way to read the biblical texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but were the Ten Commandments really engraved on two tablets, which together would have weighed one-quarter of a ton according to the dimensions given in the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14a)? Luckily the Gemara, which describes the tablets as each having been like a very large paving slab and six times as thick, does not have a monopoly on our history.

In any case, would it have made sense to engrave one of the shortest codes of Law on two pieces of stone, however large or small? If we look back into antiquity, we can see the actual pieces of stone of several codes of law. The most famous is the Code of Hammurabi of about 1750 BCE, which has 282 laws engraved in cuneiform on one mighty black stone, front and back. Also from Mesopotamia is the earlier code of 61 laws of Eshnunna of about 2000 BCE, and the 38 extant laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Sumer from a period a little later. These were all written on one piece of stone with a rounded head, as are major inscriptions from ancient Egypt, though we have no code of laws from that country.

To inscribe a set of laws, particularly such a succinct one as the Ten Commandments, on two pieces of stone seems to be asking for trouble. Is one stone the important one, and the other less so? Is one first class and the other second? What if one is lost, will its laws be forgotten and considered defunct?… [I would only half in jest note that we do have the more important, less important problem today, with the division going, more important: laws between God and man, less important: laws between man and man.–Shmarya]

So, we have stone tablets way to heavy for even the strongest human to carry. This is what our so-called mesora tells us to believe. Rosenberg now looks to the biblical text itself to clarify this:

…From the biblical texts it looks as if there were certainly two tablets, in Hebrew the word is luhot. Its original meaning is based on the root laha, meaning fresh or moist. In old age, Moses does not lose his freshness (leiho, Deut. 34:7). In a dispute between rival advisers to King Ahab, one prophet hits another on the cheek (haleihi, I Kings 22:24), a ruddy cheek being a sign of good health, of freshness. As leihi basically means the human cheek, then the two tablets or two luhot would be the two cheeks or sides of the one stone. This is further underlined by a passage in Ezekiel (27:5) which talks of the fine ships of the port of Tyre having their cedar wood made luhotayim, in the dual plural, meaning that the ships’ planks had two smooth faces, or cheeks, on the underside as well as the top. Only the best ships would have that refinement. It looks therefore as if the two luhot of the Ten Commandments could be the two cheeks or smooth faces of one piece of stone.

IF WE look again at the Bible texts, we should now read them in that light. In Deut. 9:15, Moses says "and the two luhot of the Covenant were on my two hands," meaning the two smooth sides of one heavy stone. More revealing is 9:10, "He gave me the two luhot of stone written with the finger of God." Although the word stone is in the plural in the Hebrew, it implies the material and not the pieces, and is always translated in the singular, meaning that the "cheeks" were of stone, that is, the two sides were of stone. This is made clear in Exodus 24:12 which is quite explicit, when God says to Moses, "I will give you the luhot of the stone (ha’even)." And Exodus 31:18 says that He, God, gave "the two luhot of the Testimony, luhot of stone [singular], written with the finger of God."…

So, let’s recap. We have a gemara that claims the impossible, a superhuman feat. We also have a rational explanation that fits well with the biblical text and with available historical evidence. Faced with this choice, what would you choose?

Before you answer that, look at this:

…[I]n 32:15, when Moses descended from the mountain, "the two luhot of the Testimony were in his hand, luhot written from their two sides (evreihem), from this side and that they were written."

If the tablets were two individual hunks of stone, no matter their size, how would this have worked? Rashi answers that question in a most bizarre fashion. The letters were engraved in a miraculous fashion, completely through the stone, so they were visable from both sides. What’s miraculous about that? According to Rashi, whatever side you looked at was perfectly legible. Also, neither side had reversed letters, and round, closed letters were magically suspended in the stone.

Rosenberg answers Rashi this way:

…[The biblical passage] refers to the single stone itself, which had two sides (everim) of smooth faces or cheeks, and that it was the single stone that was written, or better engraved, on both of its faces.

The conclusion is, then, that the Ten Commandments – like other ancient codes of law such as the Code of Hammurabi – were engraved on both faces of one stone.

Of course, the problem with all this rational information and historical data is that it contradicts the fantasies of generations of rabbis. Did Moses even exist? It’s an open question. But one thing seems sure; if he did, he carried one stone, smoothed and engraved on two sides.

Auschwitz Falling Apart

Ha’aretz reports Auschwitz is crumbling, disappearing, not so slowly, into the earth. Visitors now walk on bits of exposed bone and the infamous exhibits of human hair, shoes, etc., are being destroyed by mildew:

…[Auschwitz director Piotr] Cywinski is acutely aware of the deficiencies of the museum but is constrained by money and the physical limitations imposed by the scale of the site.

Various grandiose ideas – including one for a giant dome – have been rejected on grounds of cost and because any major construction would destroy some of the area and alter it.

Smaller-scale enclosures to protect the buildings would be possible, but even these would be expensive and would have to be agreed by all the groups that protect the site.

"Tens of millions of dollars, more, would be needed to do all the work," said Cywinski. But money is not the main problem: the Polish government has provided large sums and there are a number of international donors.

Time itself is the enemy, eroding the site and its contents.

"Conservationists are like doctors: we can extend life, but not for eternity," said Cywinski, who opposes any suggestion that decaying original artefacts should be replaced by copies.

Faded and frail, two tonnes of hair shorn from victims is piled up in one cell block: once blonde plaits, black pony-tails and auburn curls, it is gradually decaying and now looks like grey wire wool.

The museum has had more luck with its 80,000 shoes, mostly odd. Chief conservationist Rafal Pioro and his staff of 38 invited school children to help clean and polish some of them.

But there are so many, most still have to be stored in a warehouse without air-conditioning. Slowly, most are falling apart.

"The work is endless and painstaking and can be heart-rending," said Pioro. "When we were working on the children’s shoes, some of us were crying all the time."

Workers at Auschwitz are struggling to slow the ageing of the camp and keep it as a lesson on the evils of anti-Semitism.

They aim, in the words of a plaque near the gas chambers, to keep Auschwitz as "a cry of despair and a warning to humanity".…

How far should humanity go to preserve this most horrific part of our history? How much money should be spent? Cywinski now has a staff of 260 workers. Should he have more?

I think the answer is yes. Auschwitz needs to be preserved at almost any cost.

Idealogical Head Of Edah Haredit Passes Away, Group Now Seen As Rudderless

The Jerusalem Post reports on the passing of what it terms the "mythological political leader" of the anti-Zionist Edah Haredit, Rabbi Yosef Scheinberger. To me, the most interesting bit of information is the yichus of Rabbi Scheinberger and therefore of his grandson, Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, the haredi street riot leader turned Zaka founder turned – haredi street riot leader:

Sheinberger’s family was directly related to the Sanz Hassidic dynasty.

Edah Haredit was built on anti-Zionism. All major anti-Zionist haredi leaders are hasidim. Neturei Karta’s theology is largely based on the works of three hasidic rebbes: Yoel Titlebaum of Satmar, the Munkatcher Rebbe known as the Minchat Elazar, and the fifth rebbe of Lubavitch, Sholom DovBer Schneersohn.

By contrast, the origins of Religious Zionism are largely Lithuanian. Even the hasidic founders of RZ were, for the most part, hasidim from the Belarus-Lithuania region. Examples of the latter would be Rav Kook and the lesser known but influential Smargoner Gaon.

Haredim And The Holocaust

How do haredim relate to the Holocaust? Ha’aretz reports:

…Professor Menachem Friedman, however, one of the leading experts on ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel, attributes it to Haredi society’s reluctance to confront the most difficult questions arising from the period. Questions like "Where was God in the Holocaust?," and those raising doubts about the rabbis’ performance during those dark years. These questions were seen by ultra-Orthodox society as threatening to their way of life, and pushed it into a defensive stance.

"Even now, the Haredim cannot ask, at least not openly, how the Gerrer, Satmar and Belzer rebbes and others fled and saved themselves, leaving their followers behind. The question is not only why the rabbis refrained from warning their followers, but also why they prevented them from migrating to Israel for fear of ‘spoiling’ them," says Friedman.

Friedman says these questions, which Agudat Yisrael newspapers dealt with passionately immediately after the Holocaust, gradually became taboo over the years.…

The bulk of the article is about one woman, Esther Farbstein, who has changed this to a small degree:

…Farbstein, who presented the research at both Haifa University and Yad Vashem, believes these are historic documents that shed light on various issues and add insights into Jewish life before and after the Holocaust. …

The most interesting dilemmas are those pertaining to survival itself. Rabbi Weinberger of the town of Turka, in Galicia, contends with the question of whether or not to leave. Despite family pressure to leave, he decides to remain with his community. The prefaces also reveal that the option of pretending to be a gentile presented a halakhic dilemma, as adopting a non-Jewish identity can be tantamount to idol worship.

The question of whether to go to the Land of Israel also worried the ultra-Orthodox rabbis, many of whom strongly objected to Israel for ideological reasons.

For it’s part, Chabad was not different. The Rebbe Rayyatz followed in his father the Rashab’s virulent anti-Zionism. (Did you know that a significant part of Neturei Karta’s ideology is based on three hasidic Rebbes’ anti-Zionism, the Satmar Rebbe, the Munkatcher Rebbe and the Rebbe Rashab of Lubavitch?) The Rayyatz told his followers there would be no war and Warsaw was safe for them. He did this in the summer of 1939, a couple of months before the Nazi destruction of Poland.

The Rayyatz was saved by American intervention. As he was being wisked out of bombed out Warsaw, what did he ask his American saviors for? To save more Jews? No. He asked for his book collection (largely secular books like Sherlock Holmes in Yiddish) and his household silver. The Rayyatz wrote several letters to President Roosevelt during the war. He never once asks Roosevelt to save Jews.

Only one man spoke with prescience regarding Europe’s Jews – Vladimir Jobotinsky. And it was followers of Jobotinsky who created and organized the so-called Rabbis March on Washington, which brought the ceation of the War Refugee Board, which saved more than 200,000 Jews. These followers of Jobotinsky were for the most part not Orthodox.

In other words, for the most part, listening to haredi rabbis meant dying on the ash heaps of Auschwitz. Never forget that.

The Jesus Dynasty

Months ago, I was contacted by Simon & Schuster and asked to accept a review copy of James Tabor’s book, the Jesus Dynasty. I agreed, and intended to write a review. But the Lebanon War and the abuse scandals didn’t leave me time, and Tabor’s book sat partially read on my table.

I met Tabor years ago in Jerusalem, and have really felt uncomfortable with my continued procrastination. Then tonight, I happened upon Tabor’s blog. From there I went to the book’s website:

…John and Jesus preached adherence to the Torah, or the Jewish Law.  But their mission was changed dramatically when John was arrested and then killed.  After a period of uncertainty, Jesus began preaching anew in Galilee and challenged the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators in Jerusalem.  He appointed a Council of Twelve to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom he included his four brothers.  After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James – the “Beloved Disciple” – took over leadership of the Jesus Dynasty.

James, like John and Jesus before him, saw himself as a faithful Jew.  None of them believed that their movement was a new religion.  It was Paul who transformed Jesus and his message through his ministry to the gentiles, breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, preaching a message based on his own revelations that would become Christianity.  Jesus became a figure whose humanity was obscured; John became merely a forerunner of Jesus; and James and the others were all but forgotten.

James Tabor has studied the earliest surviving documents of Christianity for more than thirty years and has participated in important archeological excavations in Israel.  Drawing on this background, Tabor reconstructs for us the movement that sought the spiritual, social, and political redemption of the Jews, a movement led by one family.  The Jesus Dynasty offers an alternative version of Christian origins, one that takes us closer than ever to Jesus and his family and followers.  The story is surprising and controversial, but exciting as only a long-lost history can be when it is at last recovered.…

James D. Tabor is chair of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.  He holds a Ph.D. in biblical studies from the University of Chicago and is an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins.  The author of several previous books, he is frequently consulted by the media on these topics and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.

I still have not had time to finish the book. From what I’ve read, I’m not yet convinced Tabor has proved his case. Still, for those interested in the split between the Church and Jews, or who simply want to know more about the time period that led up to the destruction of the Second Temple, Tabor’s book may be worthwhile.

[By the way, Tabor for many years was involved in the Bnai Noach Movement, and may still be today.]

Our Sheltered Ancestors

Truth is funnier than fiction. Stefan Kanfer writes in the New York Times:

… Boris Thomashefsky, the quintessential impresario-entertainer, … billed himself as “America’s Darling.”…

Thomashefsky held forth at the National Theater, where he and his wife, Bessie, staged everything from pageants to Shakespeare. Threatened by Thomashefsky’s ambition, his personal playwright once declared, “I will write you a better play than this ‘Hamlet’!”

The boss played the troubled Prince of Denmark, anyway, and received tumultuous applause from a naïve audience. The ticket-holders called, “Author! Author!” According to the Thomashefsky memoirs, Bessie explained to the audience that “Mr. Shekspir lived far away in England and could not come to see his play.”…

[Hat Tip: Dr. Gershon Mendel.]

Did Moses Exist?

The new Encyclopedia Judaica is not so sure, citing the work of historians, archeologists and others. YU’s Rabbi Shalom Carmy responds this way:

Orthodox Rabbi Shalom Carmy of New York’s Yeshiva University grants that historians have so far found no documentation on Moses apart from the biblical writings. He doesn’t find this gap surprising and says scholars who make that argument fail to acknowledge that evidence corroborating ancient texts is very spotty.

Summarizing the Jewish divide, Carmy observes that liberals hold the biblical text "doubted until independently proven true," while for fellow traditionalists "it is true unless conclusively disproved."

Really? A less-than-6000-year-old-universe has been conclusively disproven, yet most of Rabbi Carmy’s "fellow traditionalists" still posit a less-than-6000-year-old-universe. And, one should ask, what would Rabbi Carmy do if large parts of the Torah were proven false? You know the answer to that question. Rabbi Carmy will continue to believe, will continue to maintain even those parts of the Torah are true, and will continue living his Orthodox life.

In Rabbi Carmy’s mind, the Torah can never be wrong and can never be proven wrong. Therefore all proofs are not conclusive. Follow that reasoning? It should sound very familiar to you, especially if you were ever a Moonie or wore orange robes.

How Martin Luther King, Jr. Learned Hebrew

Pierre M. Atlas writes about his uncle, Rabbi Seymour Atlas:

…From, Rabbi Seymour Atlas was the spiritual leader of Congregation Agudath Achim, an Orthodox synagogue in Montgomery, Ala. One day while going for a walk, the young rabbi bumped into the young minister who led the church down the street. That church was Dexter Avenue Baptist, and the minister was Martin Luther King Jr.

The men began a cordial relationship based on common interests as clergy. Uncle Seymour spoke several times to King’s congregation. King asked the rabbi to teach him to read Hebrew.
But as my uncle told me the other day, King had to enter the synagogue through the back door for his Hebrew lessons. "That was the tradition of the South," Seymour said. "If you let a black man come in the front door, you’d be ostracized. It was rough. There was lot of hatred there."
Many Southern Jews walked a fine line in those years, not wanting to anger the whites who held all the power, who were often anti-Semitic as well as racist. The synagogue board of directors took a "don’t rock the boat" attitude toward racial issues and they were hypersensitive to anything that might look like a pro-civil rights stance. Some Jews had even joined Montgomery’s racist White Citizens’ Council, which was linked to the Ku Klux Klan. "They said it was better to be on the inside knowing what the enemy was doing rather than guessing," Seymour told me. "They wanted me to join the WCC, but I wouldn’t do it."

I asked my uncle if he became involved in the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. He said no. But in the next breath, he told me a story showing that he did, in fact, take his own stand.

Seymour had a black "domestic" who cleaned the house and helped his wife with the kids. The boycott meant that the maid, who refused to ride the bus, could not make it across town to the Atlas home. So Seymour drove her back and forth from her "colored" neighborhood to his home each day.
In response, his car was vandalized on several occasions. " ‘N-lover’ and N-words were painted on my car from top to bottom," he told me. "It was a very dangerous time." As the boycott progressed, my uncle got a gun permit and carried a revolver with him as he drove across town to bring the maid to his home. "I only had to use it once," he said. "I fired it in the air to scare off some people."…

Rabbi Atlas was forced out by his synagogue shortly afterward. Here is more on Rabbi Atlas from a scholarly article on Jews and the Civil Rights Movement:

…Twenty years later, as events surrounding the Montgomery Bus Boycott
began to unfold, another local Rabbi, Seymour Atlas of Congregation
Agudath Israel would suffer the same fate as Rabbi Goldstein. Known for
his liberal sermons and his outspoken support for civil rights, Rabbi
Atlas caused a split among members of his congregation, many of whom
were afraid of retribution from the larger anti-civil rights
population. Appeals for him to moderate his rhetoric instead pushed him
to the other extreme. Much to the consternation of his congregation, he
frequently appeared on local television and radio stations with Martin
Luther King, publicly discussing issues relating to desegregation, the
Montgomery Bus Boycott, and other civil rights problems. To dramatize
his activism, Life magazine featured Rabbi Atlas in an article that
included his photograph. The article depicted him as a maverick, whose
views were so progressive they were out of place in a southern city
such as Montgomery. At an emergency meeting summoned by his
congregation’s board of trustees, Rabbi Atlas was invited to recant his
support for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and asked to henceforth submit
all public speeches he intended to deliver to the board two to three
days prior to delivering them (Life, 1956). Rabbi Atlas remained
unrepentant. At his next service he offered a defiant prayer in support
of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It was more than the increasingly irate
trustees were willing to tolerate. Snubbed by his own congregation, a
dispirited Atlas tendered his resignation, and gave up his career as
Rabbi of the synagogue (Webb, 476).…

They Didn’t Teach You This In Yeshiva Or Seminary

He was placed as an infant in a basket and sent off down a river. There was a cupbearer and a dream. A commoner rose to lead his nation. An epic was written. Have you read this story? You probably have, although not in its original form.

[Shamelessly borrowed from this post by DovBear.]

Nittlenacht 2006: If Blogs Existed 2000 Years Ago

It’s often stated that blogs are the modern day equivalent of pamphlets, like those (largely anonymous) pamphlets we know today as the Federalist Papers. I wonder what the world would look like today if blogs and the Internet had existed 2000 years ago. Would Jewish the rabbis have blogged? Would the Sadducees? Beit Hillel? Beit Shammai? The Essenes? I don’t know. I tend to think most of these groups would have reacted to the Internet and blogs much the way Gary Rosenblatt of the NY Jewish Week does, treating blogs with disdain and using the Internet to promote his own agenda while disdaining other’s.

But I do think Jesus (or, at the very least, his close disciples) would have blogged. Much of Jesus’ life was dedicated to righting what he felt had gone wrong within the Pharisaic movement, particularly the positions and behavior of the Beit Shammai faction. He would have screamed in the courtyard of the Temple and blogged about it that night. To many Jews, what I just wrote treifes blogging. But it should not. Why?

Just look at the numbers. Christianity has grown in leaps and bounds, both during times of persecution and during times of plenty while Judaism has shrunk, almost without exception. Christianity has always been based on bringing its message to the masses, while Judaism has largely been about favoring the rich and influential at the expense of the masses. (Yes, I know this goes against the Torah, but it is our history, nonetheless.)

Blogs and the Internet (and their technological progeny) are here to stay. Is Judaism? If you look at the numbers and speak to teens and college students, the answer would have to be no. They see no relevancy to Judaism and feel no uplift from Jewish leadership. We’re stagnant and vapid, and we’re vested in maintaining institutions and not maintaining Jews.

Tonight, as you eat Chinese food and talk with your friends about how glad you are not to be goyyim, remember this. Also remember that every Jew alive 500 years ago has at least as many non-Jewish descendants as Jewish ones. And the reason for that goes well beyond persecution. It is the elitism of Jewish leadership coupled with the vapidness of their message that has done the most damage.

A Freilichen Nittlenacht.

Hanukka 2006: What’s The Truth About Sources For The “Miracle Of Oil”?

Moshe Shoshan writes in a comment on Hirhurim to a post on the validity of the so-called Scroll of Aniochus and other ‘sources’ for the so-called Miracle of Oil:

I have not had time to look into the matter thoroughly. However a quick
check of Stembergers “Introduction to Talmud and Midrash” the standard
handbook of modern scholarship of rabbinic literature suggests that R.
Zevieli has been rather selective in his citation of the scholarly
literature on the topic of megilat Antiochus. Stemberger writes:

“Kaddari
proposes to date the work for linguistic reasons between the second and
fifth centuries, but most would assume the eighth or ninth century and
regard the language as a literary imitation of targum Onqelos.
(Similarly A. Kasher, along with other authors… considers… the text to
be… redacted in polemical reaction against the karaites, who rejected
this feast, this text could not have been composed before the second
half of the eighth century…)”

In short, Kaddari is at best, a
daas yachid on the issue, whose opinion has not been accepted. That
does not make him wrong, of course.

As for other sources for the
nes chanuka, there is only one, the famous “mai chanuka” baraita in
masseches Shabbos. A similar text appears in many version of megilat
taanit, but numerous scholars, most recently vered noam, in her edition
of megillat taanit, argue that this is a latter interpolation from the
[Talmud] Bavli and not an independent source. These scholars rely in part on the
fact that the Or Zarua cites megillat taanit with out any reference to
the nes pach hashemen.

Even if we accept that this baraita did
in fact originate in Eretz Yisrael around the third century, (not a
simple assumption given that neither the Yerushalmi nor any EY
midrashim, even those as late a pesikta rabbati, seem to have been
aware of this baraita) this still places it centuries after the time of
the hasmonean revolt and much latter than many other accounts of
origins of chanuka. Lets not evade the issue of the nes pach shemen,
it’s a problem.

Jewish Mass Murderers

Sever Plocker writes:

…An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "[m]essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.…

Some of those 38.5% were former Chabad hasidim, including the men who arrested the 6th Lubavitcher rebbe in the event we know as Yud Beis Tammuz.

[Hat Tip: Tzemach Atlas.]