Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

A reading of the Aruch Hashulchan's description of the Miracle of Chanukah shows that there is a word he didn't use. What is it and why ?

share|improve this question
How about putting up the text here, or at least a link? – Dave Nov 12 '10 at 15:59
@Dave. Good idea. Done. – Isaac Moses Nov 12 '10 at 16:09

closed as not constructive by Isaac Moses Jun 17 '11 at 21:49

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I'm thinking Yevanim (instead he uses the name אנטיוכוס, and even pluralizes it in the first sentence).

That's probably got something to do with censorship (i.e., either R' Yechiel Michel changed it himself, or the government censor did so), because "Yevanim" was a popular term for the Russians, whose brand of Christianity is an offshoot of the Greek church.

share|improve this answer
1  
It also happens to be more technically correct from a geographical standpoint -- the "people led by Antiochus" certainly followed Greek culture, but themselves were from Syria. But your point about censorship certainly adds to it. – Shalom Nov 12 '10 at 17:07
1  
True, though it seems kind of odd to say that the אנטיוכוסים issued anti-Torah decrees, since that was true only of Antiochus IV (indeed, his father, Antiochus III, is reported as being very friendly towards the Jews). – Alex Nov 12 '10 at 18:38
2  
If you're sensitive about inadvertently ascribing one Antiochus' evil to all Antiochi, you should be at least as sensitive about inadvertently ascribing some "Greeks'" evil to all Greeks! :) – Isaac Moses Nov 12 '10 at 20:10
True, but the difference is that there was definitely more than one Greek involved, whereas apparently there was only one Antiochus. – Alex Nov 13 '10 at 23:36
up vote 2 down vote

To quote my father on this... My dad noted that it gets rid of Yavan in Malchus Yavan HaRasha. He suggests that this is because he was living in Novardok, Russia. Note how the Aruch HaShulchan must effusively praise the Czar in order to get his work published. Imagine, now, speaking about Ivan the Rasha.

I would guess that this is the answer you have in mind for this riddle.

share|improve this answer
2  
actually, now i see that this is more or less the answer proposed above. – josh waxman Jan 12 '11 at 12:01
Actually, the answer above seems to indicate that Yavan was a popular term because of a fondness for Greek culture due to the adoption of the Greek Orthodox brand of Christianity in Russia. But writing the term "Evil Yavan" when it could appear as "Ivan the Terrible" (which is what I think you're saying) lends even more credence to the idea of censorship. – Seth J Mar 30 '11 at 20:12
up vote 0 down vote

It is possible that he refers to the terrible defeat suffered at Bet Zur by the Jews at the hands of Antiochus V (or rather his general Lysias), who ruled for two years after Antiochus IV's death. Due to internal Seleukid politics Lysias gave Judea its freedom anyway, and Ant V was soon killed by his cousin Demetrios I.

share|improve this answer
So what word didn't he use? – Seth J Apr 1 '11 at 13:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.