Mysteries of the Menorah

Meir Soloveichik
March 2008
"Mysteries of the Menorah"
has been emailed to your friends.
Most E-mailed articles:
In 2004, the two chief rabbis of Israel, Shlomo mar and !onah Met"#er, traveled to the
$atican for a historic meetin# with %o&e 'ohn %aul II. n ambitious interfaith a#enda had
been &lanned for the encounter, but (abbi mar had more on his mind than reli#ious
dialo#ue. )I could not resist,* he told Israeli radio. )I asked them about the +em&le
vessels and the menorah.* In so doin#, (abbi mar reflected a belief common amon#
many 'ews, that the solid-#old candelabrum taken by the (oman rava#ers of ancient
'erusalem remains in the city that was once the heart of the em&ire.
+here is, scholars have noted, no reason to think that the $atican has been hidin# the
candelabrum these many centuries. ll sources indicate that the sei"ed +em&le treasures
were ori#inally dis&layed by the (oman con.uerors in an edifice called /in an anti.ue
instance of 0rwellian usa#e1 the )+em&le of %eace.* +he vessels were then taken from
(ome when the city was &lundered by the 2oths in the 3th century c.e. +he $atican itself
vehemently denies havin# any knowled#e of the menorah4s whereabouts.
nd yet )my heart tells me this is not the truth,* res&onds (abbi mar. 5or is he the only
reli#ious 'ew whose heart dwells in lon#in# memory both on the menorah and on the
+em&le from which its li#ht once radiated to the world. +oday, the site where the
menorah &roudly stood is an area &hysically em&ty of 'ews, a fact commemorated every
year on the ninth day of the 6ebrew month of v, the day on which, accordin# to
tradition, the 7irst +em&le was destroyed by the 8abylonians in 389 b.c.e. and, half a
millennium later, the even more ma#nificent Second +em&le was sacked and burned by
the (omans in :0 c.e.
+o be sure, one mi#ht res&ond to the rabbi4s &lea by notin# that, althou#h the &hysical
ob;ect has indeed been lost to history, in another sense the menorah has indeed returned
to the 'ewish &eo&le. fter all, the dis&lacement of the menorah to (ome is ine<tricably
associated with the most famous visual ima#e of the +em&le4s destruction, the still-
standin# arch of trium&h erected by the victorious em&eror +itus alon# the road to the
(oman 7orum. +he ori#inal &a#an inscri&tion on this edifice, whose &ediment de&icts the
victory &arade of the (oman forces and their train of s&oils, &roclaims its dedication )to
the divine +itus $es&asianus u#ustus, son of the divine $es&asian.*
5or was it only (ome4s em&eror-worshi&&in# &a#ans who saw a cosmic si#nificance in
the con.uest of 'erusalem. +o the =hristian =hurch, the destruction of the +em&le served
as an ultimate si#n that the 'ews were no lon#er 2od4s chosen &eo&le, divine favor
havin# now been transferred to a newer and better Israel. s recently as >82>, a &la.ue on
the other side of the arch notes, %o&e %ius $II ordered the rehabilitation of this
monument, so )remarkable in terms of both reli#ion and art.*
8ut today the 'ews have returned to 'erusalem, and their soverei#nty over the 6oly ?and
has been restored. +he work commemorated by the arch has, it would seem, been undone.
Indeed, it was to underline this thrillin# transformation that, in the late >@404s, the
nascent state of Israel chose the menorah de&icted on the arch of +itus as its symbol. lec
Mishory, an Israeli art historian, e<&lains the rationale,
+he menorah is returned from the arch of +itus, where it symboli"es defeat, humiliation,
and dis#race, and is installed in a &lace of honor on the emblem of the state, the
establishment of which is testimony to the eternity of the 'ewish &eo&le.
8ut if the menorah has indeed been returned, and if the defeat wrou#ht by +itus has been
reversed, why then do observant 'ews continue to mourn what +itus brou#ht aboutA Bhy
does the ninth of v, which embodies the twin ideas of e<ile and dis&ersion, need to be
observed at allA
In answerin# this .uestion we need to e<amine the eni#matic ima#e of the menorah more
closely, and revisit a mystery that has confounded many over the centuries.
CCCCCCCCCCCCC

Be know a #reat deal about the confi#uration of the menorah from the biblical book of
D<odus. 8eaten out of solid #old, the ancient candelabrum boasted si< branches emer#in#
from a seventh, its central shaft. +he menorah was adorned with #olden buttons, cu&s,
and flowers.
Bhat #oes unmentioned in the 8ible is the menorah4s foundation, how it was su&&orted.
6alakhic tradition lon# insisted that it stood on a three-le##ed base, and this has been
confirmed by archeolo#ical evidence. +hrou#hout the land of Israel and the early
Eias&ora, &ainted and etched ima#es of the menorah have been discovered datin# to the
first century c.e. and immediately thereafterF virtually everywhere the base is discernible,
it is a tri&od.

n e<ce&tion, however, is the most famous ima#e of all, the one on the arch of +itus.
+here, (ome4s trium&hant soldiers are carryin# a menorah mounted on a lar#e ste&&ed
&edestal.
+he mystery is still dee&er. Studyin# the ima#e on the arch, one can discern dra#ons or
sea ser&ents adornin# the ste&s of the &edestalG;ust the sort of &a#an art that 'ewish
sa#es sin#led out as associated with idolatry. )If one finds vessels,* we are told in the
+almud, )u&on which are the forms of a sun, or a moon, or a dra#on, let him throw them
into the Eead Sea.* %illars decorated with dra#ons virtually identical to those on the
menorah4s &edestal have been discovered in the (oman tem&le at Eidyma in southern
+urkey. It be##ars belief that the +em&le candelabrum would have incor&orated such a
fundamentally &a#an aesthetic.
Several answers have been offered to these
conundrums. ccordin# to some, a ste&&ed
&edestal was in fact a more customary motif
than has been thou#ht. 0thers have
s&eculated that, at some &oint after the
+em&le4s destruction, a &edestal was
substituted for the ori#inal tri&od. +hus,
(abbi Isaac 6er"o#, the first chief rabbi of
Israel and an astute scholar in his own ri#ht,
su##ested that the base must have broken off
durin# the return voya#e from 'udea, to be
re&laced with a &edestal of (oman desi#n in
&re&aration for the &rocession into the city.
8ut &erha&s the most interestin# theory has been &ut forward by the Israeli scholar Eaniel
S&erber, who has &ro&osed that the menorah had already been altered from its
authentically ori#inal desi#n by the time of the +em&le4s destruction. 5otin# the basic
similarity of the dra#ons on the arch to those on the tem&le at Eidyma, S&erber &oints to
a si#nificant difference, unlike the sea-dra#ons on the menorah, those at Eidyma are
ridden by naked nym&hs. %erha&s, he su##ests, the new &edestal was the brainchild of
someone ea#er to introduce a &a#an motif into the +em&le while at the same time
remainin# nominally sensitive to 'ewish concerns.
Bho mi#ht that have beenA +he &erfect cul&rit is the man who has served as a villain in
both the 'ewish and =hristian traditions, Hin# 6erod, the Idumean dictator and client of
(ome who ruled 'erusalem around the time of the birth of 'esus.
6erod4s relationshi& with the +em&le was a com&le< one. 0n the one hand, all
contem&orary sources, includin# the rabbis of the Mishnah, a#ree that he oversaw a
stu&endous refurbishin# of the +em&le Mount, elevatin# its architectural status into an
ei#hth wonder of the ancient world. 0n the other hand, the contem&oraneous historian
'ose&hus recorded the kin#4s efforts to (omani"e the +em&le, as well as the outra#e this
s&arked amon# his sub;ects,
7or the kin# had erected over the #reat #ate of the +em&le a lar#e #olden ea#le, of #reat
value, and had dedicated it to the +em&le. 5ow the law forbids those that &ro&ose to live
accordin# to it to erect ima#es or re&resentations of any livin# creature. So these wise
men &ersuaded Itheir followersJ to &ull down the #olden ea#leF alle#in# that althou#h
they should incur any dan#er which mi#ht brin# them to their deaths, the virtue of the
action now &ro&osed to them would a&&ear much more advanta#eous to them than the
&leasures of life.
In su##estin# that the same 6erod who could brin# an ea#le into the +em&le mi#ht also
have &laced dra#ons on the menorah, S&erber observes that durin# the rei#n of an earlier
kin#, nti#onus, the city of 'erusalem had been &lundered by %arthians. +here is no
.uestion, he writes, that the vessels of the +em&le were dama#ed in the &rocess. nd so,
)when 6erod came to restore the +em&le, and to fi< its vessels, he was &resented with the
o&&ortunity to create a new foundation Ifor the menorahJ in the style of the tem&le of
Eidyma, with symbols taken from the altar of &ollo.*
If S&erber is ri#ht about this, it mi#ht e<&lain the &rofusion of ima#es of the authentic
menorahGdevoid of dra#ons, and with a clearly defined tri&od baseGdrawn and
scrawled over 'ewish walls and floors in the 6oly ?and and the Eias&ora in the days
before and after the +em&le4s destruction. s S&erber concludes, drawin# such a menorah
would have been an act of defiance a#ainst (ome and all it stood for, as well as a
&rofound e<&ression of lon#in# for the day when 'udaism, and 'udaism alone, would
dictate how the 2od of Israel was worshi&&ed in 'erusalem.
CCCCCCCCCCCCC

Bith this in mind we can return to the emblem of the modern state of Israel, chosen in
order to em&hasi"e the restoration of 'ewish soverei#nty. s it ha&&ens, much debate
surrounded the &recise confi#uration of this artifact. mon# the &ro&osals submitted at
the time, one leadin# candidate showed the traditional three-footed menorah flanked by
two other ancient symbols, a &alm frond /lulav1 and a ram4s horn /shofar1. lthou#h the
&ro&osed emblem also incor&orated seven stars, a symbol linked to the writin#s of
+heodor 6er"l, reli#ious ima#ery clearly &revailed over &olitical, and the &ro&osal
likewise included a 6ebrew &hrase, )&eace over Israel,* taken from Scri&ture.
In the end, however, the committee overseein# the choice of symbol declined this
&ro&osal, re;ectin# the biblical &hrase, the shofar and lulav, and the tri&od menorah, and
settlin# ultimately on the menorah of the arch of +itus flanked by two olive branches
si#nalin# Israel4s &eaceful intentions. Bhile #rantin# that the &airin# of a menorah with
two olive branches nods to Israel4s reli#ious history by harkin# back to ima#ery from the
book of the &ro&het Kechariah, Mishory writes that the emblem )clearly shows that in the
stru##le between the Lsecular cam&,4 which wanted to em&hasi"e the state4s socialist and
democratic &resent and future, and the Lreli#ious cam&,4 which wished to stress the
#randeur of the &ast and its link to the 2od of Israel, the former won.*




Indeed, when the state4s seal was officially announced, (abbi 6er"o#, an ardent Kionist,
&rotested on both reli#ious and archeolo#ical #rounds,
It is not #ood what our #overnment does today. 'ust when we have merited once a#ain the
li#ht of Kion that is symboli"ed by the menorah, Ithe stateJ chose s&ecifically the ima#e
of the menorah that is on the arch of +itus, which, it a&&ears, was altered by forei#ners. . .
. nd not only this, but an e<&ert in the science of anti.uities has testified to me that the
menorahs that are formed on the #raves in I'ewishJ catacombs in (ome . . . are all with
three le#s, as are all those formed on the mosaics in the remains of ancient syna#o#ues
that are in the land of Israel.
)6ow ri#ht are the words of (abbi 6er"o#,* e<claims S&erber, for whom Israel4s choice
of emblem was a tra#ic error. In seekin# to restore 'ewish &olitical honor, the 'ewish state
ended u& insultin# the 'ewish faithF in seekin# to em&hasi"e 'ewish &olitical
inde&endence, it ended u& selectin# a symbol of 'udaism4s s&iritual servitude.

CCCCCCCCCCCCC

+hus does a late->@404s debate over a state seal raise the dee&er .uestion of the ultimate
&ur&ose of the 'ewish return to the 6oly ?andGa .uestion that in modern 'ewish thou#ht
lon# &redates the birth of Israel itself. Bas that &ur&ose to enable the 'ews to be a &eo&le
like all othersA 0r was it to enable the 'ewish &eo&le to for#e a stron#er relationshi& with
their faith, with their 2od, and with their destinyA
7or (abbi Samson (a&hael 6irsch />808->8881, the foremost e<&onent of 0rthodo<y in
2ermany, the first a&&roach reflected the worldview of many a modern 'ew for whom
)the 'ewish state, both of the &ast and of the future, is to be re#arded as belon#in# to the
same class as all other &olitical &henomena.* 8ut this view, wrote (abbi 6irsch, )is not
the old 'ewish view. It is in fact un-'ewish and untrue.* nd he continued, invokin# the
lan#ua#e of Isaiah,
0, lon# not for the mi#hty state, for the state of dee& di&lomatic s&eech, for ton#ues
which &ur&osely stammer and s&eak unintelli#ibly. ?ook u&on Kion, the city of our
future. ?et thine eyes see 'erusalem, a home of &eace, a tent that shall never more be
removed, the stakes whereof shall never more be &lucked u&, neither shall any of the
cords thereof be broken. 7or when the ?ord shall be there with us in ma;esty, there in a
&lace of broad rivers and streams no shi& of war shall cruise, no vessel &ass by. 8ut 2od,
our 'ud#e, 2od our ?aw#iver, 2od our Hin#, 6e it is Bho will then hel& us.
'ewish commonwealth, in other words, embodies the idea that 'ews are not merely one
&eo&le amon# others, but have been chosen for an un&aralleled relationshi& with the 2od
Bho dwells in 'erusalem. In the 8ible, as 5orman %odhoret" has observed /)'erusalem,
+he Scandal of %articularity,* =0MMD5+(!, 'uly-u#ust 200:1, 'erusalem is both a
&olitical ca&ital and a reli#ious oneF it is the ca&ital both of 'udea and of 'udaism. +his is
the reason that, of all the fast days in the 'ewish calendar, the ninth of v is the saddest.
+hree weeks earlier, on another annual fast day, 'ews mark the date on which the (omans
broke throu#h the walls of 'erusalem, the locus of the 'ewish &olity. 0n the ninth of v,
they bewail the ultimate defeat, the destruction of the +em&le, the locus of the 'ewish
faith.

CCCCCCCCCCCCC

5o one understood this better, I would ar#ue, than +itus himself. 6e did not see his
victory over 'udea as a &urely &olitical &henomenon, and he knew that undoin# the dee&
dama#e he had successfully wrou#ht would re.uire much more than the restoration of
'ewish &ower.
+hat brin#s us to still another mystery involvin# the ima#es on the arch.
It is often assumed that the center&iece of the (oman victory &arade was the menorah.
+his is understandable enou#h, durin# the Second +em&le &eriod, the menorah served as
the symbol of 'ewish soverei#nty on coins minted by 'ewish kin#s. It is also lo#ical,
#iven the way the relief on the arch &rominently &ositions the ca&tured menorah to
hi#hli#ht the &olitical sub;u#ation of the 'ews. 8ut 'ose&hus, who was an eyewitness of
the trium&hal &rocession, insists in his Wars of the Jews that the menorah /the a&&earance
of which, he notes in &assin#, had been )chan#ed from that which we made use of*1 was
not the most salient ob;ect on dis&lay. In e<hibitin# what he had ac.uired from 'erusalem,
+itus saved what he believed to be the most im&ortant artifact for last,
I+Jhere followed those &a#eants Iof ca&tivesJ a #reat number of shi&sF and for the other
s&oils, they were carried in #reat &lenty. 8ut for those that were taken in the +em&le of
'erusalem, they made the #reatest fi#ure of them allF that is, the #olden table, of the
wei#ht of many talentsF the candlestick also, that was made of #old, . . . and the last of all
the spoils was carried the Law of the Jews. Iem&hasis addedJ
It seems, then, that for +itus the most si#nificant of all the s&oils taken from 'erusalem
was a scroll of the +orah, the book of 'ewish law. +his statement by 'ose&hus cau#ht the
attention of Billiam Bhiston, the historian4s >8th-century translator, who remarks
correctly that )the ?aw or %entateuch does not a&&ear on that arch at all*Ga fact, he says,
that deserves )the consideration of the in.uisitive reader.*
Bhy is the ostensible center&iece of the s&oils missin# from +itus4s archA nd what was
this scroll that was dis&layed alon# with the +em&le treasuresA
In a series of lectures &ublished in the >@th century, Billiam Hni#ht, then a lecturer at the
Mniversity of 8ristol, offered a theory as to the first of these &u""les. review &ublished
at the time summari"es Hni#ht4s ar#ument,
Mr. Hni#ht corroborates the account of 'ose&hus by a &assa#e, a&&arently overlooked by
modern writers, from the work of 8iondo, the earliest authority on the anti.uities of
(ome, who wrote in the first half of the >3th century, and who ends his descri&tion of the
ob;ects carried in the &rocession and scul&tured on the arch with these words, )Postea
portabatur Lex Judaeorum marmoreal item extans.* /)fter this was carried the ?aw of
the 'ews, which also is e<tant in the marble.*1 +his &assa#e, which a&&ears in the edition
of >3>>, is omitted in those &rinted in >3N> and >33@. May we not hence, with some
&robability, infer that between the years >3>> and >3N>, the 8ook of the ?aw ceased to be
visible in the bas-reliefA
CCCCCCCCCCCCC

In short, accordin# to Hni#ht, the arch when built did contain an ima#e de&ictin# the
&aradin# of the +orah throu#h the streets of (ome, but the ima#e had become effaced
over the centuries. %erha&sF as we shall see, there may be another e<&lanation. 8ut
whatever the case may be, what e<actly was the )?aw of the 'ews* that +itus brou#ht
back from 'erusalemA
It was unlikely to have been merely a scroll stolen randomly from some syna#o#ue in
'erusalem. (ather, like all the other ob;ects in the &rocession, it must have been a co&y of
the ?aw taken from the +em&le itself. nd indeed the Mishnah and the +almud refer to a
very valuable co&y of the +orah that was ke&t in the +em&le courtyard. Some versions
call this the )sefer Azarah,* the courtyard scroll, while others use a sli#htly different
word with a similar s&ellin#, )sefer Ezra,* that is, the scroll written by D"ra, the leader
who oversaw the initial buildin# of the Second +em&le after the 'ews4 return from e<ile in
8abylonia.
+he latter name si#nifies that the scroll was considered .uite old and authoritativeG
hence, the source to be consulted in addressin# any te<tual .uestions that mi#ht arise
about the ?aw. nd this co&y of the +orah also served as a reminder of national &riorities.
Eeuteronomy informs us that a 'ewish kin# is obli#ated to write a +orah for himself and
kee& it with him at all times. =itin# the discussion of this law in the 'erusalem +almud,
Maimonides in the >2th century adds an interestin# detail,
+he kin# is commanded to write a +orah as a kin#, aside from the one he had as a
commoner. . . . nd Ithis +orahJ is checked Ia#ainstJ the Sefer ha-Azarah accordin# to the
instruction of the 6i#h =ourt. +hat which he had as a commoner he &laces in stora#e, and
the one he wrote after becomin# kin# must be with him always. nd if he #oes out to war
the +orah must be with him.
Maimonides here is reca&itulatin# the ancient idea that while soverei#nty was su&remely
im&ortant, and while 'ews had to be &re&ared to defend themselves by means of military
force when necessary, &ower could not be allowed to become an end in itself. 'ews,
es&ecially those rulin# in 'erusalem, could never for#et that their ultimate obli#ation was
to serve the 2od who dwelled in the +em&le of 'erusalem.
5o wonder, then, that +itus &laced such a hi#h value on the most im&ortant +orah in the
&ossession of the 'ewish &eo&le, the oldest and most authoritative version of the Mosaic
?aw, the one ke&t in the +em&le as a symbol of 'ewish chosenness. s if to em&hasi"e the
&oint, 'ose&hus tells us that althou#h the menorah and the other #olden vessels were
dis&layed in the +em&le of %eace, the most valued ob;ects sei"ed by +itus, includin# the
?aw and the )&ur&le veils of the holy &lace,* were ke&t not there but in the royal &alace.O
+itus knew that his #reatest victory was the ca&ture not of 'udea but of the +em&le, and
that his le#acy lay first and foremost in the blow he had dealt to the 'ewish faith by
brin#in# about the e<ile of the +orah itself.
Bhat +itus knew, the 'ews knew as well, thou#h they refused to acce&t it. +hrou#hout the
centuries of dis&ersion, the 'ewish dream of redem&tion was always two-&art, first, that
'ewish soverei#nty be restored over the land of Israel, and second, that the +orah return to
the +em&le of 2od and its su&reme si#nificance be reco#ni"ed by all humanity. s the
&ro&het Isaiah had &roclaimed centuries earlier,
nd it shall come to &ass in the end of days, that the mountain of the ?ord4s house shall
be established in the to& of the mountains, and shall be e<alted above the hillsF and all
nations shall flow unto it. nd many &eo&le shall #o and say, =ome ye, and let us #o u&
to the mountain of the ?ord, to the house of the 2od of 'acobF and 6e will teach us of his
ways, and we will walk in 6is &aths, for out of Kion shall #o forth the +orah, and the
word of the ?ord from 'erusalem.
CCCCCCCCCCCCC

6ave, then, the trium&h of +itus and the messa#e of the arch been undoneA 0r does there
remain somethin# to be mournedA
+he idea that mournin# for Kion has indeed become irrelevant is another notion that
&redates the foundin# of the state of Israel, and that in some &laces and times has even
been acted u&on. In describin# a >@th-century instance of this, (abbi 6irsch recalled how
)one evenin# on the ninth of v, the rabbi of a small town in South 2ermany had his
syna#o#ue brilliantly lit u& and invited the members of his con#re#ation to attend in their
best clothes.* 2iven the civil ri#hts that 2erman 'ews had recently won, &etitionin# 2od
for a return to 6oly ?and had evidently become an anachronism to this rabbi. )'erusalem,
he said, was here. %alestine was now situated on 2erman soil.*
In hindsi#ht, such sentiments seem lau#hable or tra#ically deluded. 8ut even at the time,
(abbi 6irsch found them radically deficient. 0n the ninth of v, he wrote, 'ews #rieved
for much more than their historic loss of &olitical ri#hts, and they still had much to mourn
even after havin# been offered e.ual status as citi"ens,
In the darkest centuries of the e<ile, when the (oman sword rent the curtain of the
+em&le . . . the ma;esty of 2od and the holiness of the +orah found refu#e in 'ewish
family life, the 'ewish home. . . . +he barriers are InowJ fallin#, the chains are bein#
struck off. . . . Bill Israel be able to carry over its intimacy with 2od from the #hetto into
the court, from the hovels into the mansions, from the heder into the salon, from the
corner sho& into the office, from the shul into the )tem&le*A Is Israel e.ui&&ed to take
over with it into the new civic life the old alle#iance to 2od, the old sanctity of the
+orahA 0r do the divine &resence, the kin#shi& of 2od, the +orah, face the last and
sternest sta#e of their e<ileA
+oday there still seems reason from a reli#ious &ers&ective to affirm the accuracy of
(abbi 6irsch4s concerns. In both Israel and merica, 'ews have e<&erienced un&aralleled
freedoms, achieved #reat economic success, and e<ercised a&&ro&riate de#rees of
&olitical &ower. t the same time, un&recedented numbers in the Mnited States have
re;ected 'ewish &articularity by intermarryin# and assimilatin#, while &ost-Kionism has
made analo#ous inroads into the core identity of many secular 'ews in Israel. +he e<ile of
the 'ews has to a &al&able e<tent come to its endF but does not the e<ile of the +orah,
boldly &roclaimed by +itus, continueA
+here have been, admittedly, moments of transcendent and redem&tive si#nificance that
have infused even the most secular 'ews with intimations of what it means to be a chosen
&eo&le. %onderin# the famous &hoto#ra&h of Israeli soldiers #a"in# in wonder at the ;ust-
ca&tured Bestern Ball on the day 'erusalem was won in >@9:, the writer !ossi Hlein
6alevi observes,
Many of the &aratroo&ers identified themselves as Israelis first, 'ews only a distant
secondF some weren4t .uite sure whether they identified as 'ews at all. nd yet it is at the
Ball of all &laces, symbol of the .uietism of e<ile, where secular Israelis become
reconciled with their 'ewishness. s one &aratroo&er &ut it, )t the Ball I discovered that
I4m a 'ew.* 6istory had yielded the moment of consolation that #enerations of believin#
'ews had insisted, a#ainst all lo#ic, must come. )Be received the +orah at Mount Sinai,*
wrote the !iddish &oet 'acob 2latstein, )and in Ithe 6olocaustJ we #ave it back.* In
'erusalem, at the Ball, if only for a moment, we considered acce&tin# it a#ain.
)If only for a moment.* nd then the moment &assed. ?ivin# in 'erusalem after Israel4s
failed 2009 cam&ai#n in ?ebanon, in a season )in which the disa&&ointments that have
marred much of Israeli life in the last 23 years have culminated in . . . &olitical shame and
military defeat,* Hlein 6alevi confesses that most of the time he does not feel he is in any
&lace unusual. Dven so, however, there continue to be those momentsGmoments in
which
I suddenly remember where I am. I feel myself, then, like one of those barefoot and wide-
eyed Dthio&ian immi#rants, silently ste&&in# off the &lane at 8en-2urion air&ort into
Kion. I recall, too, my father4s wonder at the Ball, whose fra#ile and im&robable
endurance he saw as a meta&hor for the 'ewish &eo&le. ?ike him, I ask myself what it is
about this stran#e little &eo&le that continually finds itself at the center of international
attention, re&eatedly on the front lines a#ainst totalitarian forces of evilG5a"ism, Soviet
=ommunism, now ;ihadismGall of which IhaveJ marked the 'ews as their &rimary
obstacle to achievin# world domination. t those moments, I feel #ratitude for havin#
found my &lace in this story.
Be live in an a#e when one mi#ht think that the chosenness of the 'ews had become
im&ossible to doubt. !et, consciously or not, many 'ews, in Israel and the Eias&ora, doubt
it all the same. In this sense, the menorah that has come to symboli"e the 'ewish state, the
menorah of +itus, &erfectly embodies the unredeemed condition of the world, a world in
which there is both much to be ;oyously celebrated and much that remains to be mourned,
and to be lon#ed for. 5ot for nothin# do reli#ious 'ews continue every mornin# to &ray, in
words recited for millennia,
May you cause a new li#ht to shine over Kion, and may we all soon be worthy of its li#ht.