Should the Lord’s Supper be Included in a Messianic Seder?

What kind of question is this?  Should a bird fly?  Should the sun rise?  Should a baby cry?  Of course!  So, should the Lord’s Supper be included in a Messianic Seder!! How could the Seder even be defined as Messianic apart from the inclusion of the Supper? 

Admittedly, until about six weeks ago, these thoughts would have been my sentiments exactly.  At every Seder I have participated in over the past six years, the Supper has always been partaken of, being the climax and highlight of the entire evening. In the former One Law congregation I attended Communion was understood to only be correctly and Biblically celebrated at the Seder meal, just once a year.   Yet, a quite unexpected thing occurred over the past weeks, which has caused me to contemplate this question more carefully.

During ten weeks in January through mid-March I had the opportunity to host a HaYesod group in my home.  This group was made up of eight individuals all of whom attend the same church.  Two of the participants were elders in the church and one of the participants was the senior pastor (and his wife).  So, enthused was this group with the HaYesod lessons week by week that I could barely believe my eyes.  In early February after viewing the lesson about the Biblical calendar and festivals the group eagerly asked about holding a Passover Seder.  They wholeheartedly considered it a privilege to attend a Seder in my home, and without even the slightest bit of hesitation they agreed to participate in this event on a Monday, after nightfall, occupying several hours of time.

Although I was thrilled at their enthusiasm one difficulty cropped up right away.  This particular denomination practices closed Communion.  Communion is only given to those who are confirmed members, of which I am not.  My parents also would be attending my home Seder, as they always do.  My first inclination was to inform the pastor that “Communion is part of a Messianic Seder”.  He didn’t outright object to this, but also didn’t agree to it.  He remained silent on the issue, wanting to read through the Messianic Haggadah that would be used for the evening before expressing an opinion. 

My mind was instantly plagued with various “what ifs”.  What if the eight people from the closed Communion denomination refused to partake of the Supper at the Seder?  What if they only would take Communion from the hand of the pastor?  What if the pastor would give Communion to his own people exclusively and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves?  What if they refused to attend the Seder altogether and their new found interest in Torah would be squelched because of this?

So admittedly I took what seemed to be the cowardly approach, one meant to relieve possible difficulties I faced with this group.  I began to wonder if the Lord’s Supper must be included in a Messianic Seder.  I forced myself to consider this despite my own internal opposition against such a thought, and the feelings of sadness and plain “wrongness” that would well up in thinking about a Seder without the Supper.

The first thing that came to my mind is the fact that I do not know of a single Messianic Haggadah that does not include the Supper.  Most Haggadot that are labeled Messianic, incorporate Communion by means of the Afikoman and third cup.  Only one, that I am aware of, assigns the Motzi Matzah as the bread of Communion and the third cup as the wine of Communion.  In general Communion is part of the Messianic Seder because most Messianic’s believe the Last Supper to have been a Seder meal which included much the same details and steps as the Seder and Haggadah we know today. 

But even a cursory review of the history of the Haggadah and Seder meal reveals that the details and steps carried out in today’s celebration were likely not established at the time of Yeshua’s Last Supper.  It would seem that a meal involving the Korban Pesach, matzah, and bitter herbs was eaten and the Hallel psalms were sung but beyond that other details of the first century celebration are uncertain.  Therefore it is difficult if not impossible to define the Last Supper as a Seder meal by the definition that we know today.

As far as the Last Supper being held on erev Nisan 15, the evening on which the Seder takes place, this understanding also has its problems.  Personally after investigating this over the years, I tend to side with the historical Christian view that the Last Supper occurred on erev Nisan 14, Yeshua then was crucified and died in conjunction with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs during the day of Nisan 14, and spent the first night in the grave on erev Nisan 15 — the traditional Seder night. This scheme is upheld most strongly by the accounts of the Gospels, more than any other conjectures or timelines I have come across.  It’s not my intent to defend this position in this post, but an informative article regarding this topic can be found here.

So if the Last Supper is likely not a Seder by definition or by date of occurrence why then are Messianics so intent on incorporating the Lord’s Supper within it?  Surely Paul’s words regarding “Messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7b) figures strongly into this determination, and rightly so.  Israel’s exodus from Egypt is a framework of G-d’s way of redemption.  It foreshadows and informs us regarding the greater redemption through Messiah our Passover.  It is therefore fitting for believers in Yeshua to celebrate the Seder with thanksgiving for Israel’s exodus from Egypt combined with thanksgiving for Yeshua’s sacrifice as “our Passover” which is the foundation of our exodus out of this world of sin and death. Yet, this dual thanksgiving, relating the original exodus and the greater exodus to come can be accomplished most beautifully in many sections of the Haggadah, without the Lord’s Supper specifically being celebrated.  For example, the opening admonition of the Maggid can include a Messianic inference as follows;

This is the bread of affliction that Israel ate in the land of Egypt.  Let all who are hungry come and eat!  Let all who are needy come and celebrate Passover!  Now we are here, next year may we be in the Land of Israel!  Now, we are slaves; next year may we be free men! Now we toil and labor against the evil forces; sin, the world, the flesh and the devil, next year may our redemption be fully realized at the return of Yeshua the Messiah our Master!

Here, within the very framework of the Haggadah, is found an enhancement which expresses a fuller meaning in Messiah without destroying this “step” of the Seder itself.  Interestingly, the Divine Invitation model advocates that Gentiles who desire to participate alongside Israel in Torah observance should do so with respect for Jewish tradition and halachah.  Yet, when the Lord’s Supper is incorporated into the Seder it is nearly impossible to add it without destroying a step or portion of the Jewish traditional Haggadah.  Some have even conjectured that the difficulty of incorporating the Lord’s Supper is do to the purposeful arrangement of the Seder by the rabbi’s who did so in a manner that would insure the Christian celebration of Yeshua as the Passover Lamb, as formalized in Communion, could not be successfully incorporated into the Haggadah itself without destroying its form and function. [1] 

With this in mind other questions naturally arise.  If the Motzi Matzah is understood as the bread of affliction and haste partaken of in Egypt, is it possible for it also to be the bread of the Lord’s body?  Doesn’t the consecration of this bread as the body of Yeshua make it something different than the matzah symbolizing the bread of Egypt?  Or if the Afikoman is understood to stand in for the Passover Lamb in these times when the Temple sacrifice is impossible, can it also be the Lord’s body?  Perhaps it could be said that Messiah’s body is a greater fulfillment of the Motzi Matzah or the Afikoman but there is still one additional difficulty that is easily overlooked.

If the Lord’s Supper is part of the Seder, what about those who cannot partake of Communion – children who are too young, say less than 7 or 8 years old, and adult guests who are not believers?  Practically they cannot partake of the Motzi Matzah and/or the Afikoman if these Seder elements are consecrated as the Lord’s body.  The tragedy here is that both Seder elements fulfill a direct command of Torah.  The Motzi Matzah fulfills Exodus 12:18 while the Afikoman fulfills Exodus 12:8-10. Therefore, those who are excluded from Communion are also excluded from performing a direct mitzvah of Torah.  Now, it’s certainly easy enough to avoid non-believers, by refraining from inviting them to partake of the evening.  But the children are a key reason for the Seder and the Haggadah which serve as means to tell and instruct them about the Exodus.  It doesn’t seem right to exclude the younger children from a Torah mitzvah in order to accommodate a messianic perspective where one of the key elements of the Seder must serve as the bread of Communion.    

 As I have contemplated all of this over the weeks it would seem that an ideal way for a Messianic congregation to celebrate would include a footwashing and Lord’s Supper ceremony during Maariv of Nisan 14.   This would be followed by a Messianic Seder on Nisan 15 in which thanksgiving for the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is combined with thanksgiving for Yeshua’s sacrifice as “our Passover”, woven into the Haggadah in a way that enhances and does not destroy the framework and function of it. 

. . . . . . .

With Passover being less than one month away I am under some pressure to complete a suitable Haggadah that will be used for the Seder meal in my home this year — one that the pastor of the HaYesod church group will read and review.  This Haggadah will likely not include the Lord’s Supper, and perhaps the pastor will think this has been excluded to accommodate him and his denomination’s closed Communion doctrine.  So be it. 

In reality a Seder without the Supper is the result of careful contemplation combined with a personal desire to participate in Torah observance in a manner that honors and respects the Scripture, as well as, Jewish tradition and halachah. 

[1]  Israel Jacob Yuval, Two nations in Your Womb, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2006, pp. 73-77.

A Thin Veneer of Authenticity

A couple of weeks ago, a friend came to me with an unusual request.  In her hand was a document, five paragraphs in length, written in English which she desired to have translated into Hebrew.  The document was written by a friend of hers whose daughter had recently become engaged.  This friend’s family is into “Hebraic roots” and had composed a ketubah document/contract to recognize or make “official” the engagement of their daughter.  Planning to hold a formal ceremony, they desired to have the contract written in both English and Hebrew. 

Although I felt somewhat honored that this person would come to me regarding this, it was far beyond my ability to translate such an extensive English text into Hebrew.  However, I did know of someone who would be able to accomplish the task, a native Israeli whose mother tongue is Hebrew.  After contacting this person they were agreeable to look at the document and see what they could do.  Two days later the translation was completed and the finished document arrived in my email.  A little note was attached explaining that some of the English phraseology was difficult to translate exactly into Hebrew but hopefully the translation provided would be acceptable. 

I forwarded the translated document to my friend who called to tell me how delighted she was with the finished product.  I related to her that some of the phraseology may not be exact and expressed hopes that the individuals reading the document in Hebrew at the ceremony would be able to do so without the aid of nikkud (vowel points) which was not included in the translation.  My friend laughed and said; “no one in the family or attending the engagement ceremony knows how to read Hebrew, they’ll never know the difference if a few things didn’t translate smoothly”.  Taken aback, I questioned why the engaged young ladies’ family would desire to have the contract translated.  What was the purpose for this?  “For effect, I suppose” was my friend’s answer as she added that the family thought it would be “cool” to have the contract in both English and Hebrew. 

This struck me as very odd, and in a way seemed insincere.  I suddenly felt bad about enlisting my Hebrew speaking acquaintance regarding this. I thought about the carefulness and exactness with which the document was translated and concerns regarding correctness and appropriateness in translation.  Such conscientiousness would serve no real purpose except to create a document which presented little more than a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity.

Along the same lines, during Hanukkah, Torah observant believers participate in a celebration which can easily incorporate little more than a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity. With this reality and concern in mind, I have noticed the tendency among conscientious Messianic ministries and writers to stress the fact that “Hanukkah is more than latkes and dreidels”.  With all the outward trappings that Hanukkah brings, the Torah observant believer is encouraged to celebrate with an awareness of both the historic and prophetic meaning of the season.  The books of Maccabees are reviewed, the prophecies of Daniel are related, and the warnings of Yeshua regarding the abomination of desolation are considered.  At the heart of it all, the non-Jewish individual, who may question participation in a Jewish nationalistic celebration with no Biblical mandate, is directed to John 10:22-23 as a proof-text confirming such observance. 

 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.  (John 10:22-23 KJV)

The fact that Yeshua made the scripturally non-obligatory journey to the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Dedication indicates the importance of the celebration to him personally.  If Hanukkah was meaningful to the Master, then of course it should be meaningful to those who believe in and follow him. The setting of Solomon’s Porch is also seen as significant based on the midrash that Mashi’ach will enter the Temple in Jerusalem through the eastern gate (employing the imagery of Zechariah 14:4 and Ezekiel 43).  Since Solomon’s Porch is understood to have been located just opposite the eastern gate, Yeshua’s presence there for Hanukkah presents great Messianic significance and symbolism regarding the one who will ultimately restore Jerusalem and rededicate the Temple at the End of Days.  [1]

 Yet, is this all that John 10 (beginning at verse 22) is meant to communicate?  Is it simply a proof-text providing believers in Yeshua permission to participate in and spiritual symbolism to contemplate regarding the celebration of Hanukkah?  In context, John 10:22-23 is just the “tip of the iceberg” being the introductory setting of Yeshua’s interactions with the Jews and his teachings that follow in vv. 24-39. 

 As Yeshua is seen walking in Solomon’s Porch the Jews surround him and admonish him to “tell us plainly” regarding if he is the Messiah.  Perhaps the fact that Yeshua is described as “walking” in this scenario relates that he had just entered the Temple complex via the eastern gate and made his way into the porch area that was opposite it.  This prompted the question of the Jews as based on the traditional understanding that the Mashi’ach would enter the Temple via this very gate.  What better setting to ply this man regarding his Messianic aspirations?  Yeshua points to his works as bearing witness of him and explains that those questioning do not believe because they are not one of his “sheep”, who hear and follow him.  Yeshua then explains that his “sheep” are given eternal life by him and cannot be “snatched out of” his hand nor out of the hand of his Father, concluding with the statement that; “I and the Father are one”.

At this point, the Jews take up stones to stone him, not due to his works, but with the understanding that Yeshua is claiming to be G-d incarnate.  From a traditional Christian perspective, v. 33 is understood as a proof-text of Yeshua’s divinity as the Jews recognized that he was claiming to be G-d.  However, based on context this is questionable. First of all, Yeshua clearly states (v.29) that the Father is greater than all, presumably including himself.  Also, the statement that “I and the Father are one” is presented regarding the eternal status of the “sheep” or believers who hear and follow Yeshua.  Both Yeshua and HaShem are of the same purpose regarding eternal life for believers, that no one can snatch them out of Yeshua’s hand or HaShem’s hand. In this way they share a common goal and “are one”. 

Throughout the Apostolic Writings the phrase and concept of “being one” is used in the common and practical sense of two individuals having “one purpose”.  In 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul speaks of “planting seeds” which “Apollos watered” explaining that “he who plants and he who waters are one”.  The Greek word heis/εἷς used in the Corinthians verse is the exact word found in John 10:30 in which Yeshua describes himself and HaShem as “one”.  Yeshua himself presented the concept of “being one” in John 17:11, 21-22, in praying that his followers would be “one” in the same way that he and HaShem are “one”.   

Since “being one” in its most common sense is to be of “one purpose” in the context and meaning of the Apostolic Writings, why would the Jews accuse Yeshua of claiming to be G-d incarnate?  The answer may very well have to do with the account taking place during Hanukkah.  Fresh on the mind of every Jew at this season was the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, a man who proclaimed himself to be Zeus (or possibly another Greek god) incarnate.  For a Hellenistic king to claim to be a manifestation of a god was commonplace.  However, Antiochus took this divine role to extremes by referring to himself as Theos Epiphanes (god made manifest) instead of simply “Epiphanes” (as his predecessors had) and in being the first Hellenistic king to mint coins in honor of his divine status.  [2]

To a Jew, the claim of a Greek king to be the manifestation of a pagan god would be considered little more than a worthless and common idolatrous practice. For such a claim to come from a fellow Jew, would make him an apostate cut off from the community of Israel and worthy of death by “the hand of heaven”.  Although some commentators understand the Jews’ accusation of v. 33 to be speaking of Yeshua’s claim to be “a god” (and not “the G-d” due to the absence of the definite article in Greek), if this were true then certainly his accusers would not have attempted to stone him for blasphemy.  For the death penalty involving blasphemy as described by Torah has to do with HaShem alone and is unconcerned with claims or representations regarding other pagan “gods”.

Therefore, the Jews seem to be accusing Yeshua of something more serious than, but along the same lines as, Antiochus Epiphanes, of claiming to be the true G-d, HaShem, in human form. Although some commentators point out that no Jew in his right mind would suggest that HaShem could be incarnated, yet, perhaps like the Hellenistic king at the center of the Hanukkah story, Yeshua’s accusers understood him as taking things to irrational extremes by proclaiming himself to be G-d in human form. In response to this accusation Yeshua quotes Psalm 82:1,6 which describes people who received and administered the word of G-d as being legitimately referred to as “gods” and “sons of the Most High”. 

Instead of affirming that he is G-d incarnate, Yeshua places the Jews accusation in proper Biblical perspective.  According to Scripture, one who receives the Word of G-d can be understood as “god” (Elohim) and a “son of G-d” in the sense that he is G-d’s representative here on earth.  Because Yeshua represented G-d more perfectly than any other person, by being “one” in purpose and mind with HaShem continually, to refer to himself as the Son of G-d and “one” with the Father was in no way blasphemous or to be understood as suggesting an incarnation of the Holy One.

In ending, Yeshua again refers the Jews to his works, for through them one “may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in Him” (KJV).  Interestingly, in the more ancient (NU) text v. 38 reads; “that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I in Him”.  In this sense, that the Father is in Yeshua and Yeshua is in the Father is something that is knowable and understood logically through his works, and not something that must be believed via faith alone because of its inability to be logically comprehend.

In rabbinic thinking a father is “in” his son via means of the birth process.  Through conception and birth the physical and personal characteristics of the father are passed on to his son.  A son, on the other hand, is “in” his father not by means of genetics or the birth process for the father being the progenitor does not have the physical or temperamental characteristics of the son.  The son instead is “in” the father through imitation of the father’s ways, or by adopting the father’s beliefs and lifestyle.  Yeshua’s works performed in the fullness of the Holy Spirit reveal the fact that the Father is in him, being conceived of the Holy Spirit, and anointed with the Spirit at his baptism.  His works being one in purpose with the Father and always and only what he saw the Father doing (John 5:19) speak of the fact that Yeshua is in the Father.

Far from containing a mere affirmation that he found Hanukkah meaningful or veiled Messianic symbolism in the setting of Solomon’s Porch, Yeshua’s interactions with the Jews in John 10:22-39 emphasizes that his works are the proof that he is one in purpose with the Father as Messiah of Israel.  Why would this emphasis be so necessary, especially during Hanukkah?

The Hanukkah story not only contains an inspirational account of resistance against assimilation and obedience to G-d and His Torah as seen in the actions of the Maccabees and those who fought alongside them.  But also contained there, is the real-life account of an inevitable process which occurs when a man is popularly embraced as the incarnation of deity.  In highlighting his divinity, Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to destroy all forms of worship except his own, understanding himself to have the authority to do so because he was divine. This new religion completely rejected Torah as irrelevant and harmful and prohibited specifically the observation of the Sabbath and Biblical feast days, the keeping of kashrut and circumcision.   Many sincere and honest Messianic writers recognize the uncomfortable comparison of this Torah rejection to erroneous doctrines found in classical Christianity which taught and still teaches the same basic things. 

As the recent ebook edition of First Fruits of Zion’s Light in the Darkness describes it;

For many centuries, Christianity has been following these laws of Antiochus—the laws of the abomination of desolation—instead of the Torah of God by requiring Jewish believers to forsake Torah when they become believers. [3]

According to 1 Maccabees 1:54 the “abomination of desolation” (or “desolating sacrilege”) was erected by Antiochus upon the altar of burnt offering in the Temple.  Although there are many opinions regarding exactly what this abomination entailed, in the most literal sense it was something that was affixed to the very altar of HaShem indicating that the sacrifices were no longer directed toward G-d, but toward Antiochus, the god incarnate, himself.  Three years later, when Judah Maccabee and his men drove back Lysias and his forces, in taking back the city of Jerusalem and initiating the cleansing of the Temple, the first thing they did was to pull down the “abomination” (1 Maccabees 6:7).  The Temple could not begin to function or be restored until the symbol of god incarnate was removed from its midst.

 In John 10:22-39 Yeshua downplays and redirects the association of himself as G-d incarnate that the Jews accused him of with Hanukkah and the story of Antiochus fresh on their minds.  Roughly 300 years later, the church fathers involved with the first Council of Nicea defined Yeshua for greater Christianity as being of the same essence and substance as G-d, being G-d incarnate.  In like manner an “Antiochus-type” story unfolded yet again as such a cornerstone of doctrine led to the proliferation of antinomianism and anti-Semitism to an extent and extreme never before known to mankind. 

Those in the Messianic movement of our day have returned to Torah and understand it to be G-d’s instructions for His people.  They follow the Scriptural example of Yeshua including his keeping of the Hanukkah season.  Yet, could it be that in essence we are attempting to “cleanse the Temple” and restore proper worship of HaShem, while yet holding on to a belief that Yeshua is G-d incarnate?  Is this even possible based on Yeshua’s own words in John 10?  For there, Yeshua reiterated that those who would consider him to be proclaiming an incarnate status equal to HaShem had not heard him and did not believe him (cf. v. 38).  How blatant these questions seem in considering more than just the surface niceties and introductory thoughts of John 10 in relation to what Yeshua actually taught during the Feast of Dedication. In celebrating Hanukkah, Yeshua emphasized his works and oneness in purpose with the Father as proofs of who he was.  This is the voice that his sheep hear and that they follow in believing in him and observing G-d’s Torah.  These are not easy questions to consider, and veer on the heretical in the minds of most.  But perhaps they are the questions that need to be addressed in order to move beyond a thin veneer of Jewish authenticity in following Torah while yet proclaiming Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A few days after receiving the finished translated ketubah document, my friend came to my house to drop off a thank you card and gift certificate for the person who did the translation work.  Oddly enough she seemed very nervous regarding this thank you and wanted me to review what she had handwritten inside a most lovely stationary note card.  The words were very fitting and very nice and I saw no difficulty with her sentiments there.  As she tucked the gift certificate inside the card and sealed the envelope she added; “I didn’t write ‘G-d bless you’ or anything like that because it just seemed inappropriate”. 

Ironically enough, she said this as we were standing in the entryway of my home in which a large framed and matted calligraphy of the Aaronic Blessing is displayed on the wall.  The first words of the blessing being “the L-RD bless you”.  I couldn’t help but think that the sentiments she felt were inappropriate for a Jew encompass the opening words to what is perhaps the most Jewish of all blessings.  But, giving it a second thought, perhaps it was most prudent to leave out such sentiments, based on history and definitions and doctrinal considerations that could make such an expression from a Gentile Christian to a Jew a very complicated matter indeed.

_________________________________________________

[1] First Fruits of Zion, Light in the Darkness (Hanukkah and the Disciples of Yeshua), Electronic Publication, 2009, p. 22, available at:   http://ffoz.org/gifts/hanukkah.html

 [2] James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon; studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple, Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, the Netherlands, 2000, pp. 155-156.

 [3] Light in the Darkness, p. 31.

One Size Fits Most

This past Friday morning, as I was braiding the Challah which I make weekly for the Erev Shabbat Oneg at my Messianic community, the doorbell rang.  It was my neighbor who lives across the street from me.  Coming in from the cold and dusting the snow off of her long wool coat she explained the reason for her visit.  With a tone of excitement in her voice she announced that in a few days she and her husband would be traveling to Israel for a two week trip.  Before leaving she wanted to know if there might be anything she could “pick up” for me while they where there.  Standing in the entryway she noticed the Chanukiah sitting on my dining room table.  With a smirk on her face she asked “how about a new Chanukah menorah”?  Immediately, we both broke out in laughter.

You see, my Chanukiah is an inside joke between my neighbor and me.  The first Chanukah I ever celebrated included an invitation from this couple for dinner at their home during the 8^th night of the festival.  At that time they didn’t live across the street from me, but in a neighboring town.  We had gotten to know each other through attendance to the same Messianic synagogue.  The invitation included a request for each family invited to bring their personal Chanukiah to light as part of the festivities.  After dinner was over the various Chanukiahs were placed in the front window of the home.  Mine was the largest and perhaps most elaborate. 

I had purchased it online mail order and thought it to be quite beautiful.  Yet, there was one strange thing about my Chanukiah, none of the various sizes of candles would fit in it.  The candles I purchased were much too small for it despite the fact that they were labeled to “fit most menorahs”.  Though one size candle would fit most, somehow they didn’t fit my Chanukiah size.

That first Chanukah I ended up using Shabbat candles in the menorah. Though they were a little too wide for the holders, by carving some wax from the bottom I was able to make them fit.  Night after night as I lit the white candles I found myself somewhat frustrated.  The candles were too close together which caused them to melt and drip.  The melting and dripping became more pronounced as the number of candles increased each night, yet what else was I to do? 

Finally, on the eighth night my Chanukiah looked lovely with a full display of eight Shabbat size candles within its holders.  After dinner the various family Chanukiah’s were lit in the front window of my friend’s home. At first the display of light from my Chanukiah was quite striking.  But within a few minutes I found myself horrified and embarrassed.  The heat from the eight candles and the closeness of their proximity produced a near inferno of flames as the candles began to melt together into one dripping white mass of wax.  I feared that my friend’s curtains would catch fire as the flames shot upward.  My friend’s husband laughed uncontrollably at the sight, as I hurried to blow out the candles before a bonfire ensued. I apologized and explained my dilemma in finding Chanukah candles that would fit my menorah.  Inspecting the situation, my friend’s husband pointed out that my Chanukiah was an “oil model”.  The cups were large and wide because they were meant to be filled with olive oil and wicks instead of used for candles. Little did I know!

Since that first Chanukah candle fiasco I have managed to figure out that by placing some sticky tack along the bottom of the cups I can use the “one size fits most” candles in my oil model Chanukiah.  Using oil, though a more authentic experience, always seemed too much of a fire hazard, seeing that after lighting the menorah it burns basically untended for 45-60 minutes.  Yet, in studying some of the traditional halachah surrounding Chanukah in preparation for the festival this year, I came to understand that this should not be the case. Especially in a home in which women are present for the lighting of the Chanukiah.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 132:3 states that women are to do no work for at least 30 minutes after the Chanukah candles are lit.  During the first 30 minutes the candles are burning a woman is to sit and relax and simply take in the beauty and purity of the lights.  This law is meant to honor women who are understood to have suffered more terribly under the rule of the Greeks at the time of the Maccabees then the men, due to the law of jus prima noctis.  This law involving the “right of the first night” was imposed upon all virgin Jewesses who were engaged to be married.  The night prior to the marriage the virgin bride was required to have sexual relations with the Syrian governor, as this was considered the right of the “lord” over his “vassals”.  This barbaric law particularly incensed and outraged a woman named Yehudit who is traditionally understood to be the young widow daughter of Yochanan the High Priest. 

According to Jewish legend, when Yehudit’s village came under siege by the Syrians, she bravely went out to meet with the Syrian general Holofernes.  Posing as a traitor, Yehudit promised to inform the general of the most opportune time to attack and capture the village.  Holofernes was so captivated with Yehudit’s beauty and intelligence that he requested she sleep with him.  Agreeing to do so, Yehudit dined with the general and offered him some homemade goat cheese and kosher wine she had brought along.  Because the cheese was salty the general drank much wine and eventually became so drunk that he lost consciousness. Taking the sword from his scabbard, Yehudit decapitated him and brought his head back to her village.  This act of bravery so inspired the men of Jerusalem that it was considered the turning point in the war against the Syrian Greeks, resulting in the ultimate victory for the Jewish people under the leadership of the Maccabees. 

Based on these legendary details passed down through the centuries, it is traditional to eat dairy foods during Chanukah in honor of Yehudit, and for women to rest and reflect upon her heroic deed for at least 30 minutes after the candles are lit each evening.  For ultimately, it was the heroism of a woman that resulted in the inspiring and miraculous events celebrated during Chanukah.

Yet, another interesting detail is found in Shulchan Aruch 139:8 which states that the Chanukiah should be placed between 3-10 “handbreaths” (Hebrew tefachim) from the ground.  Understanding a tefach to equal approximately 3.2 inches [1] would mean that the Chanukah menorah should be placed no lower than 10 inches from the ground and no higher than 36 inches. This ruling is based on Talmud tractate Baba Kama 62b in which the Mishnah relates the account of a camel, laden with flax, being led through a narrow alleyway.  If the flax protrudes into the window of a shop along the alley and becomes ignited by the shopkeeper’s light, thereby starting a fire and burning down the entire building, the owner of the camel is liable.  However, if the owner of the shop left a candle outside, causing the flax upon the camel to ignite and destroy the building, then the shopkeeper would be liable.  An exception to this is noted by R. Judah who explains that if it was a Chanukah candle that was lit outside the shop, the shopkeeper would not be liable for damages caused by a fire. 

Based upon this Mishnah the Gemara goes on to state that a Chanukah candle must not be more than 10 tefachim (36 inches) high for in this way the shop owner could fulfill the mitzvah of “pirsum hanes” (publicizing the miracle) while taking into consideration the safety of load bearing camels in the narrow alleyway.  Since the shoulder height of a typical camel is approximately 6 feet, to place the menorah between 10 and 36 inches from the ground would allow a safe clearance between the flames of the candles and the flammable cargo the camel would be carrying.  On the other hand, the sages determined that the menorah should not be placed at a height greater than “20 amos” (approximately 30 feet), for though this height would also provide safe clearance for a load bearing camel, yet it would cause the light of the candles to be easily overlooked and nullify the mitzvah of pirsum hanes. 

Today, the issue of load bearing camels in narrow alleyways is irrelevant being that halachah allows for the Chanukiah to be lit inside the home in a window facing the street.  Yet the height requirements for the Chanukiah remain, though the practicalities of the original ruling are mostly obsolete.  The reason for this is based on the kabalistic understanding that the Shechinah never descended lower than the final 10 tefachim (36 inches) of airspace above the earth.  In this way, the 10 tefachim above the surface of the ground are understood to be the darkest region in all the earth because it is the region in which the Shechinah will not dwell and is absent all together.  [2]

The light of the Chanukiah is to radiate in this darkest of regions to publicize the fact that HaShem helps even those who dwell in the greatest spiritual darkness, if they will but make a meager effort to find Him.  This is why the Menorah must be at least 10 inches from the ground, for this minimal height represents a minimal spiritual effort and desire to make a “fresh start”.  Placing the Menorah on the ground (or at a height lower than 3 tefachim or 10 inches) is forbidden for the ground level symbolizes laziness or “lying down” spiritually, an attitude that HaShem does not honor or show mercy toward. [3]

Reb Nosson writes in Likutei Halachos that Chanukah “draws down an illumination for the future times of Moshiach”.  This illumination or “light” of Mashiach is discovered in the teachings of the righteous and by learning their works.  It is through the works of the tzaddikim that even the most distant Jew is encouraged to trust in HaShem and make a fresh start.  In this way the Chanukiah represents the light of Mashiach that shines where the Shechinah is absent, and that draws down the light and truth of the Torah to those living in the greatest of darkness spiritually. [4]

. . . . .

 After sharing a laugh with my neighbor regarding memories of my Chanukiah I thanked her for her kind offer to bring some items back from Israel for me. I explained that I would not need her to do me such a service as I’m planning to travel to Israel the first two weeks of March ’09.  Needless to say I have already started a list of various things I hope to purchase when I am in the land. Toward the top of that list is a new Chanukiah one that is not only unique and beautiful, but one that also uses the standard size candles.

 In the meantime, I continue to use my oil model Chanukiah adapted with sticky tack in order to accommodate the “one size fits most” candles. As I placed it in my front dining room window this afternoon in anticipation of lighting the first candle this evening, I thought about the halachic details I had read and studied over the past week and how beautifully they can be adapted to my celebration of Chanukah as a believer in Yeshua.

A plant stand that holds a potted palm during the remainder of the year, is transformed into the Chanukiah table by means of a richly embroidered royal blue and silver brocade tablecloth that I handmade to fit its dimensions a couple of years ago.  Incredibly, this stand is exactly 24 inches in height, falling within halachic specifications I was previously unaware of.  In this way my Chanukiah illuminates the darkest of regions which so beautifully represents Yeshua who brought salvation and the light of Torah to those “which sat in darkness” even in “the region and shadow of death” (Matthew 4:16, Isaiah 9:2).  Namely, this represents the Gentiles, of whom I am one. The people so often associated with “islands” in scripture.  How fitting a description this is, being that islands typically represent land masses that are exceedingly low upon the earth, being most times at “sea level” or only slightly above it.  It is to individuals in these most lowly and dark regions that Mashiach draws down the illumination of G-d’s truth through means of his works as the greatest tzaddik.  Even in John 10, in which Yeshua is seen celebrating the Feast of Dedication, he points to his works as the witness of light and truth to fellow Jews ready to stone him on the misunderstood grounds of blasphemy (John 10:37-38).

Just as the bravery of Yehudit initiated the wonderful events remembered in the Chanukah celebration, so the bravery of another woman resulted in the culmination of Chanukah at its fullest and brightest.  For if Yeshua is understood to have been born on the first day of Sukkot, then his conception can be understood as taking place on Rosh Chodesh Tevet (encompassing the 6^th or 7^th day of Chanukah, depending on the length of Kislev as 29 or 30 days) [5].  It was the bravery of Miriam, in submitting to the will of G-d and placing herself under tremendous social pressure and misunderstanding, which brought forth the one who proclaimed;

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.  (John 8:12 KJV)

With these wonderful thoughts in mind I lit the first Chanukah candle this evening and proceeded to sit down, put up my feet and relax.  As I watched the two skinny candles flicker in the darkness of the dining room window, I sipped a Chai latte and took a moment to read  Luke 1:46-47, the first statement of Miriam in her inspiring”Magnificat” canticle.  Though these words, uttered by the mother of Yeshua, encompass 10 verses in the Apostolic Scriptures, the canticle itself is actually composed of eight individual statements.  How beautifully this fits with the theme of heroism and spiritual bravery as being the honor of women during Chanukah.  Each of the eight nights, as I take 30 minutes to put aside work and totally relax in the glow of the Chanukah candles, I plan to consider one statement from the Magnificat, as a way to reflect on the heroism involved in living a godly life as a woman in a spiritually dark and confused world.  

For in considering the legend of Yehudit and the real life story of Miriam, I couldn’t help but think that bravery is still required for those of us who would walk in the ways of Yeshua. Especially for women, whose privilege it is to set the tone and mood of the home. Because I’m a person who is basically shy, and avoids confrontation with others, the thought of being heroic or brave is one description that doesn’t “fit well” with my personal make-up.  Heroism and bravery, is certainly not a “one size fits most” characteristic in my opinion. Yet, through the awkward adjustments of adapting my oil Chanukiah to accommodate regular wax candles, I’m daily reminded of the greatest truth of this Chanukah season . . .that HaShem is able to provide opportunities for adjustment and adaptation that His people might walk in His ways, and shine forth the truth of His light no matter how frightening, dark or oppressive the circumstances might be.

[1] Judaism 101; A Glossary of Basic Terms and Concepts, as found at http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/tw.htm

[2] Spirit of the Law; Chanukah #8, as found at http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:R8O5i8NSB8AJ:fire-in-breslov.blogspot.com/2008/12/spirit-of-law-chanukah-8.html+tefachim+chanukah&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[3]  Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] As related in Minor Celebrations Connected with the Birth of Messiah as found at http://messianic613.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/minor-celebrations-connected-with-the-birth-of-messiah/