Second night Purim, when we were waiting to hear the Megillat Esther for the third out of four times, we were discussing the "Situation." No, that that "situation;" we were talking about the Purim versus Shushan Purim for Shiloh.
Why do we have to celebrate two days instead of one? Remains of the ancient Shiloh wall are easy to see at Tel Shiloh, so that should place us in the ancient walled cities category, like Jerusalem.
There are two problems, and they're related. One is called רצף דייור retzeff diyyur, "continuity of residence," meaning that for many years, a couple of thousand for sure, there wasn't a Jewish community living in Shiloh.
Problem number two: Shiloh isn't listed in the list of cities that the Gemorrah (Jewish law books) states as those which celebrate Purim on Shushan Purim. Why was Shiloh left out of that list? Couldn't they just do a web check on the data base of Jewish cities with walls at the time of Mordechai and Esther? Weren't those learned men knowledgeable about the Bible? Shiloh certainly has a very prominent place in our history, being the first capital, a position held for 369 years.
The chances are that since there wasn't a Jewish community in Shiloh at the time the list was made up, it was left out. How sad that it never occurred to those learned men that Jews would return to Shiloh.
Baruch Hashem, Thank G-d, we're here in Shiloh and here to stay!
Today's rabbis should have the courage to revise the list.
24 comments:
it could be that the 2 problems are really 1. we know that there was no continuous residence there because the gemara doesnt mention it.
alternatively, the wall dates from post-Joshua, and this is why the gemara doesnt mention it.
a, nu, wasn't the Purim story also post-Joshua? It certainly didn't happen beforehand.
Batya, because of the importance of Eretz Yisrael, the halacha regarding the age of a walled city has to place its origins back to the time of Yehoshua's conquest or earlier, even true for another walled city in Persia, the only exception being Shushan.
Where is there mention of a halachic condition of continuous residence? I've never heard of this.
chas v'shalom the rabbonim were unaware of the shilo's walled condition and it's importance in the geography and prophecied resettlement of the land. rather, they had their reasons for leaving it out. just as, by intellectual slight of hand the authority of the cohanim/leviim was lifted from them and placed on the rabbis, the importance of the shilo site in temple service was lifted from shilo and placed on jerusalem. just as cohanim and leviim today have only vestigal ritual obligations/rights, so shilo has only vestigal kedusha (if that) and should never be mentioned in the same sentence, let alone be part of the same "honor roll" that includes yerushalayim ir ha kodesh.
and that's why it's called "rabbinic judaism". cuz they can do stuff like that.
I have no idea what Yoni is talking about.
Use of the term "rabbinic Judaism" is often (but not always) a giveaway to a comment made by a non-Torah observant Jew, or a christian, or an ignoramus or a combination of 2 of these.
shy, yoni, Over the years (we're almost 29 in Shiloh) HaRav Elchanan has explained it many times. The age of the wall isn't a problem, nor is the certainty that shiloh is shiloh.
The problems are the two I mentioned.
If Shioloh has walls, where are the walls? What is in and what is outside?
Sammy, there are probably pictures of the walls on my husband's blog.
Batya, what I'm asking for is a reference in the Gemarah or in Rishonim to the requirement of "continuous residence".
BM> a, nu, wasn't the Purim story also post-Joshua? It certainly didn't happen beforehand.
The rule about walled cities is really a substtute for what was probably the original rule, which was that Jews living in Shushan, observed the 15th day of Adar and Jews everywhere else observe the
14th day of Adar.
At the time the change was made there were no Jews living in Shushan. In fact, there was nobody living in Shushan. The city of Shushan burned down to the ground late in the reign of Artaxerxes I. I read that one but didn't read a year. It was certainly after the
32nd year because that year nehemiah was there. Artaxerxes I ruled 40 years, or 41 years (in some documents) if you include the short lived reign of his son Xerxes (3 momnths) although this Charles Rollin was giving him 49 years. The city of shushan was never rebuilt or used as a capital. It is called Susa or ruins of Susa on the maps and it is in Iran near the border with Iraq. ferench archeologists excavated it from around teh 1860's till after 1901 and they made a mess of it - they didn't do things like people did later or in otehr places. That's where they found the Code of Hammurabi. It didn't belong theer - it must have been in some royal archive or museum. as you may know (if you read teh hertz Chuimash) the Code of Hammurabi ends with the case of what do you do with an escaped slave - cut off his ear or whatever - and Mishpatim begins with boring the ear of a slave who wanted to stay. That is what Moshe RFabbeinu must have meant (in Devorim) when he said this is your wisdom in the eyes of the nations who will say only a wise and understanding people could have come up with these laws - because there was anotehr law that an escaped save was not supposed to be returned. So an escaped slave ran from bavel to Eretz Yisroel and people looking for him - in Bavel any person with an ear misisng was an escaoped slave - here it was someone who wanted to remain!
Anyway, so when Shushan burned down they must have substituted ibserve the 14th day inunwalled towns (Esther 9:19) and - who observed in the 15thh day didn't make it into the Megillah because the rule is a little complicated.
They evidentally substituted Jerusalem for Shushan. But at the time Yerushalayim didn't have walls..no it got it pretty soon.
They found remains of that wall recently http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4418.2664.0.0
It is not a city that was walled that day because they didn't want it to change. Maybe that rule was put in a t a later time. It became a city that was walled in teh time of yehoshua bin Nun which included Yerushalyim.
Correction: Nehemiah served as Governor of Yehud from the 20th year of Artaxerxes to the 32nd year but doesn't say he was back in Shushan in the 32nd year so it could have burnt any time after the 20th year.
The 1904 Encyclopedia Americana says that Susa did not have any walls. (But it had a citadel) I thin I heard that Bireh means the central place.
Anyway two days were observed. I think maybe originally the Megillah said that Jews in Shushan observed the 15th and Jews other places the 14th. (The Anshei Knesses HaGedolah had a little ability to edit the Kesuvim, which I think they lost or the body lost the ability to act with the conquest of Alexander the Great. The Geneologies in a few places are brought more up to date)
So anyway after no Jews were living in Shushan, it was replaced by Yerushalayim. The Anshei Knesses HaGedolah din;t want to lose the fact there were two days and that one day was only in a few places. It wasn;t that Shushan had walls it was that it was one way to distinguish Jerusalem and inckude a few other places maybe just in case Yerushalayim was again destroyed or its walls.
Shy, I'll see what I can do about that.
Sammy, you're amazing with all your research, thanks!
@ shy guy above:
i resent your casting of aspersions, you aspersion-caster, you. my post was meant to be lightly humorous for people with some background in jewish scholarship and to fly harmlessly over the heads of those, like you, who think the term "rabbinic judaism" is, "like, some christian thing". (go look it up.) only you had to go and start the name calling. fyi, if you "don't understand what someone is talking about", that makes you the ignoramous, not the other guy. for future reference.
the rabbinic disinclination to even discuss shilo, or why or how or by whom shilo was chosen as the site of the mishkan or what it means today is well known to anyone who's ever made even the most cursory investigation of the subject. the reasons for this are as i have stated- the tension between mishkan/mikdash, between the mobile nature of the mishkan and the sedentary nature of the beit hamikdash, and the very nature of jewish leadership as it has evolved since joshua. good luck finding anyone willing to discuss this intelligently, at least i tried. and i didn't go around insulting the many rabbis i found who "had no idea what i was talking about". stam anonymous blog commenters are another matter, however. maybe you should ask sammy finkelman "what i'm talking about". unless you're a hindu or something. or a puritan, or baptist- you sound like one of those.
batya, i won't be making any more attempts at highbrow humor on your blog, your self-declared "humble" commenters get all nasty. i apologize if my posts seem unintelligible to some (including you) but they're not, i promise. they're just not for everybody, i guess. when i get accused of sounding like a christian ignoramous or (horrors!) non-observant jew by a guy who admits he doesn't even know what i'm talking about, it's time to get out.
Hi Yoni. You can blame my not understanding your post on ignorance if you want, but I think otherwise.
And I tried hard to hedge my concern ("often but not always") about use of the term "rabbinic Judaism". It is you who should look up the origins of the term. Its primary usage is to claim that the Oral Torah is the fabrication of humans.
So, when you come on the blog of a religious Jew, maybe you should be more careful in choosing words which can be so easily misconstrued to refer to their original offensive intention, if that's not what you intended.
In any case, hasta la vista.
shy guy: "rabbinic" judaism is sometimes referred to as "normative" judaism or "traditional" judaism, all in jewish sources which claim to speak in the name of the above descriptions. i don't know how christians use the term, although i'm familiar with the ancient karaite/rabbinic controversies, if that's what you're talking about. why don't you enlighten me- how was the term "rabbinic judaism" first used, and by whom? and why would this cause you to cast baseless aspersions at someone whose words you claim not to understand, although you are not (chas v'shalom) ignorant yourself? could it be you're some kind of modern "jewish puritan"? the rabbis of old, who you presumably admire so much, would laugh at such a position, you know.
yoni, please, this post is about the fault of those who made the list and forgot Shiloh. Forgetting Shiloh was a serious omission.
Shy, it may be that people who live in Shiloh are more sensitive to it than you.
It's obvious that the gdolim who wrote that list never thought that there would be Jews in Shiloh ever again.
batya, as you must have noticed by now the matter of why shilo is "not on the list" goes quite a bit farther than simple "forgetfulness" on the part of the rabbonim. they didn't "forget" (chas v'shalom) anything. it goes to the very heart of the source of their authority. even suggesting such "forgetfulness" will make you a target of the modern jewish puritans, btw, as will even talking about it in any great depth. it is for this reason that rav elchanan (a wise and prudent man who isn't looking for any trouble) has been so cagy on the issue for so many years, and why it's hard to find even serious students today in shilo who know anything about it. if you, like rav elchanan want to stay on the good side of the modern jewish puritans, i wouldn't dig too deeply. i wouldn't even joke about it.
but, this is the internet, and i'm not you, or rav elchanan, or any kind of puritan. or a christian, or an ignoramous, or a non-observant jew. just wanted to make that clear. again.
yoni, so is this simply, lack of vision, lack of guts?
i don't think so. if there were some compelling reason to place shilo "on the table" i'm sure rav elchanan would be in the forefront of advocacy- lack of "guts" is not the rabbis problem. rather, shilo today is just a nice little town, with nice people, trying to live nice lives. nobody is trying to build a mishkan or reinstate the cohanim to their glory of old or challange the status quo in any way, other than to maintain a jewish presence at a historical site claimed by the "palestinians" for their (chas v'shalom) future state and maybe influence the allmighty israeli gov't. to include it in their future plans. there's no need, from the rabbi's point of view, to stir up any trouble, especially the kind that might call their own judgement into question. they have enough problems already with this (conversion issues, the temple mount, scandals of various types, the very legitimacy of the state of israel and the authority of torah, you know, the usual). leave them alone. you're doing enough just by living here to stand for truth in our generation.
thanks for asking, good to get that off my chest. :)
ok, yoni,
but I don't think the Arabs have shown any interest in Shiloh, besides agriculture of sorts. xtians come here a lot.
"I don't think the Arabs have shown any interest in Shiloh, besides agriculture of sorts."
al tiftachi peh l'satan! it would be horrible if the arabs related to shilo as a place of religious pilgrimage like they do with machpela and kever rachel. to them it's just real estate- but that's bad enough. that's also apparently how the israeli gov't views it, since the recent "jewish historical sites" foofaraw is another "list" shilo didn't make it onto. and i haven't noticed anyone complaining, either...
yoni, I complained
but I'm just some old fat grannie.
"old grannies", fat or otherwise are traditionally greatly respected in jewish society and culture, you shouldn't talk that way about yourself. i'm just an old balding hermit, if it comes to that, and no shimon bar yochai or eliyahu hanavi neither. but none of this is the point, which would be: for profound and deep political and religious reasons, complaining about the status of shilo beyond it's significance as a historical site to the jewish people (and a nice place to live) is a loosing game. even if we were young, beautiful, rich hollywood celebrities- or even rabbis or politicians. tel shilo remains a stark reminder of just how far the jewish people could get with a non-political (pre-king) theocracy. nobody (unfortunately in my view) is in any rush to return to the "scene of the crime" and see if we might be able to salvage something. if anybodies interested, i remain here, and support any and all jewish connection to this beautiful place. and i suppose you do too, more or less. (we probably have some disagreements about what kinds of "jewish connection" would be acceptable.) :)
a gutten shabbis
yoni, shavua tov!
Post a Comment