Chanukah

Few episodes in Tanach stand as models of terrible events that will befall the Jewish people throughout their history. In brutal fashion brothers, flesh and blood, gathered together and plotted to murder and then eventually settled on selling one of their own. Tragic in its own right, the episode will go on to serve as the impetus for the tragic murder of the עשרה הרוגי מלכות that we recount on Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av.

It is perhaps remarkable, then, that the generous reader could read the story of the selling of Yosef as one done by someone other than his brothers. The narrative seems to be deliberately vague.

ויראו- they saw

ויתנכלו- they plotted

ויאמרו איש אל אחיו- they said to one another

ונהרגהו ונשלכהו- we will kill him and throw him

ויאמר אליהם- he said to them

ויקחהו וישלכו- they took him and they threw him

וימכרו את יוסף- they sold Yosef

The liberal use of pronouns provides opportunity to assume someone other than Yosef’s brothers sold him. There are only two exceptions. At two points in the narrative is one of Yosef’s brothers clearly a participant of the tragic episode.

1. Reuvan calls for “them” to not murder Yosef but only throw him in the pit
2. Yehuda suggests that “they” sell Yosef to someone

The sudden use of proper nouns may indicate that there are in fact two layers to the story being told. The layer that will serve to define an experience of the Jewish people, not only in the subsequent exile in Egypt but that will model future tragedies such as the עשרה הרוגי מלכות. For that, there was no need for names. The names were irrelevant. Similar episodes will repeat themselves and the names are interchangeable with the participants at any given point in history.

Simultaneously, this episode highlights the leadership style of the two possible future leaders of the Jewish people, namely, Reuvan and Yehuda. Reuvan, the firstborn, is the natural choice of the leader for the Jewish people. Yehuda, however, is the one whose children will eventually wear the crown. While there are a number of episodes chronicled about their respective skills, here we have both attempt to lead within the same episode and offers an important perspective as to why one became the father to the Davidic legacy and one did not.

As the brothers discuss how they wish to best murder Yosef, Reuvan shocked by the conversation and aware of at least some of the terrible ramifications their course of action would case, intervenes. Eventually planning on rescuing his brother himself, he convinces his siblings that instead of directly murdering their brother it is far better to only throw Yosef into the pit and allow the natural course of events to unfold. Keep in mind, unaware of their eldest brother’s plan, at this point the brothers have every intention of allowing for the death of their brother.

Yehuda, on the other hand, convinces the brothers that covering up a murder is beneath their dignity. Instead the Yosef solution could be alleviated by simply selling him to some wandering merchants. The brothers once again listen and sell their brother.

In this clash for leadership, there is a dramatic difference that is quite telling. The brother who attempts to carefully calculate how he can best manage the situation by manipulating his brothers fails. Yosef is sold and Reuvan loses his status as the father of the future kings of the Jewish people. Yehuda who clearly stands up, tell his brothers that the murder of their sibling is wrong and recommends selling him instead—once again, a terrible outcome—is chosen to head the family who will rule the Jewish people.

Leadership demands ascertain. While in general life is complicated and there are many shades of gray and nuances to complicated situations, in the rare cases where stakes are high and the correct course of action is clear, ambiguity from leadership is a failure of leadership. An attempt to subvert the brothers so they do not murder Yosef is a failure of leadership. Being unable to clearly denounce expressions of hatred, is a failure of leadership. On the other hand, clearly proclaiming that murder is wrong, even while offering a course of action that is only slightly preferred, is a skillset exhibited by one who can be a future leader.

Ascertain is an important skill of leadership but ascertain without perspective can be quite dangerous. Ascertain without perspective allows for educated lawyers to celebrate acts of violence. Ascertain without perspective allows for groups standing for women’s rights to remain silent in the face of travesty. Ascertain without perspective allows for a pediatrician to hold a child hostage in his home.

So how do we develop ascertain with perspective? That is the story of Channukah. It is unclear what exactly provoked the Chashmoniam to declare war on the Greeks. After all, some hundred years before Alexander the Great and Shimon Hatzadik met in a symbolic understanding of each other’s culture and no war was fought. Shortly after the Hashmoniam’s victory Greek culture had clearly inserted itself into Jewish life and no war was fought. However, during the story of Channukah a line was crossed, idol worship—a breach of Halacha—was allowed to occur in the public square and so assertive leadership with perspective was needed. There was allowance and perhaps even encouragement of utilizing Assyrian/ Greek/ Roman academia to compliment our understanding of the Torah but once a clear halachic breach was committed there was no place for shades of gray. Assertive action must be taken.

This is highlighted in how we celebrate Chanukkah as well. The miracle of the oil remaining lit for eight nights was unnecessary. From a purely halachic sense, if all the oil was impure, any oil could have been used. And yet, the battle hard soldier who lost many of their brothers during the war needed pure olive oil. At that point in time, when the sensitivities of the Jewish people were peaked, it was necessary to not allow Halachic gymnastics to provide a less than ideal option that would have been completely appropriate any other time. The challenge of Chanukkah is, then, to learn our morals and our ideals through the prism of Halachic analysis with the complement of our academic training. Sometimes those morals will allow us to meet Alexander the Great and engage in conversation. Others, it will require (figuratively) to strike down the Greek general as he attempts to have us eat pig meat.

And so, the lesson of Chanukkah is this: our moral and ethical perspective is guided by good halachic analysis. I challenge us then to not simply look forward to analysis of biblical episodes or Jewish philosophical discussion or to some political pundit or a college president to inform how we view the world. Our worldview is shaped and established by good halachic analysis allowing for assertion with perspective.