In his lectures on Ḥanukah, HaRav Manitou explains the meaning of the various kingdoms, emphasizing the kingdoms of Greece and Israel in regards to the messianic conception of human history, its purpose, and its meaning.
Manitou defines messianism in human history as the aspiration for redemption from the exile of humanity that began with the generation of the dispersion (B’reishit 11) following the Tower of Babel. The Malkhuyot (kingdoms) took it upon themselves to carry out this project.
In Jewish historiography, the term Malkhuyot refers to a succession of major world empires that have played a dominant role in history – specifically Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Edom.
These four Malkhuyot represent not only political powers but also symbolize periods when world events were shaped by these empires rather than by the people of Israel. They attempt to replace Israel as the central character of history while each attempting in their own unique way to prevent Israel from fulfilling our national mission.
There’s also a theological dimension to these Malkhuyot, as these empires reflect times when Divine Providence appears to be temporarily expressed through the nations of the world.There has always been, however, a firm belief in a return to a state where the children of Israel once again play a significant role in shaping world history. In our times, we are witnessing a shift back to that state.
In realizing this goal of history, a distinction must be made between two types of Malkhuyot, each representing a specific strategy: the four empires that follow that path of Nimrod and the kingdom of Israel that descends from Avraham.
A complex relationship of struggle and mutual influence exists between these two forces throughout history.
In a lecture taught on Purim, Manitou sheds light on another aspect of this dynamic, breaking it down into two central points. The first is understanding the transition humanity underwent when prophecy ceased and Israel was exiled from our land within the broader context of the ancient conflict between Avraham and Nimrod. The second is the desired style of Jewish leadership while under the dominion of the four empires.
Manitou’s Purim lecture includes three parts:
1. The process of suffering (tza’ar) that Israel undergoes due to the destruction of our kingdom and our subsequent absence from international affairs, as well as the transfer of the burden of kingship to the nations of the world. This process is embodied in the characters of the Megilla – specifically Esther.
2. The suffering that the entire world undergoes following the cessation of Divine revelation that occurred during the events of Megillat Esther, with an emphasis on its implications regarding the relationship between humanity and the Creator.
3. The the figure of Mordekhai, who represents a change in the form of Jewish leadership as a result of Israel’s exile and the destruction of our kingdom.
From then on, the decisions of the righteous who take upon themselves the burden of leadership have significance for the fate of the entire people of Israel, especially during historic periods in which they have the power to lead movements and initiate processes that will end the exile. But the public’s essential choice and responsibility lies in following the correct path. Manitou connects this principle with a surprising explanation of the well-known Talmudic instruction that “a person is obligated to become intoxicated” on Purim.
The First Pain: The End of Kingship
Manitou begins his lecture by focusing on a source from Tractate Megilla (10b). The G’mara explains there that the opening words of the Megilla – “And it was in the days of the king” – indicate that these are days of trouble: “a language of pain.”
Despite the great miracle, the pain hovers like a cloud over the words of the Megilla, and Manitou characterizes it in the lecture through two dimensions. The first dimension of the pain revolves around the name of the Megilla: “Megillat Esther.”
The Megilla is named after Esther, and Esther’s personal journey is the story’s central theme. Faithful to the tradition of our sages, Manitou’s approach towards Biblical stories is not as a colorful historical novel that gives us a moral lesson but rather prophetic revelations. The stories of the TaNaKh come to teach us about the deeper characteristics of Israel’s identity, in the sense of “the deeds of the ancestors are a sign for the children” (Ramban on B’reishit 12:6). This phrase is a core concept in the Hebrew tradition. It teaches us that the stories and actions of the Biblical characters, particularly Israel’s cherished patriarchs and matriarchs, are not just historical figures and events. They serve as archetypes, embodying the collective identity and experiences of our people throughout history.
These Biblical figures are seen as representing patterns and lessons that continue to be relevant for the people of Israel. By studying their actions and experiences, we gain insights into how we should navigate our own challenges and choices. It’s similar to the understanding that history often repeats itself, and that by understanding our roots, we can better understand our present and future. The story of Avraham’s journey, for example, represents the Jewish people’s ongoing journey and connection to the land of Israel. It symbolizes the idea that even when faced with uncertainty, the people of Israel is called upon to follow a higher purpose.
In this tradition, Manitou examines Esther as a general figure, an archetype, and a private personality.
Esther is a reflection of Israel’s exilic identity that began to take shape at that time. Like the contemporary Diaspora Jew, who lives in a foreign country/cultural context and therefore experiences a hyphenated identity (Jewish-German, Jewish-Moroccan, Jewish-American, etc.), Esther also experiences a duality of identities: her connection to the Persian kingdom is clear from the words of the Megilla, but her background being from the tribe of Binyamin indicates a connection to the kingdom of Israel. This refers to the branch of the kingdom of Yosef and Binyamin (“Messiah son of Yosef”) which existed parallel to the kingdom of Yehuda (“Messiah son of David”) and which – like Esther – desires a connection with other nations.
In her throne in the earthly material kingdom, Esther represents the metaphysical Israelite collective identity. Her personal story reflects a national process taking place in that generation: “For through Esther the queen, the kingdom leaves Israel and is given over to the nations until the Messianic era” (from the lecture). Israel is essentially replaced as the main character of history.
Esther may also represent another process. Her saving of the Jews at the price of her personal loss parallels the process of going into exile. But unlike other conquered peoples, the children of Israel were saved in our going into exile. We reverted from our national Israel state of being to our personal Yaakov state of being. The kingdom was lost from us and passed to other nations.
On a personal level, Esther paid a heavy price for saving the Jews of the Persian empire – she was lost to her people as a result of her marriage to Aḥashverosh. But on a national level, her loss and surrender of the kingship to the nations represents a heavy price that Israel paid at the beginning of the exile – the end of the era of Israel’s kingship.
This idea is developed later in the lecture when Manitou discusses the halakhic concept of Karka Olam (ground of the world). In Hebrew tradition, this phrase represents several interconnected concepts:
Passive Receptacle: Karka Olam symbolizes the earth’s passive nature, its ability to absorb and nurture. Just as the ground receives seeds and allows them to grow, it also represents the way the world receives and processes human actions and events.
The Stage of Human Action: It also refers to the world as the stage upon which human beings act out their lives. It represents the arena in which people make choices, experience consequences, and shape their destinies.
A Metaphor for the Divine Presence: In some contexts, Karka Olam can also be seen as a metaphor for the Divine presence within the world. It represents the way HaShem’s will is manifested through the natural world and through human actions.
When speaking of Karka Olam, our sages aren’t merely teaching us about the physical earth. They’re also referring to the way the world functions as a dynamic system, shaped by both human and Divine forces. Just as a garden needs fertile soil to grow, the world needs a receptive “ground” to allow for human flourishing. This analogy helps us understand that Karka Olam is not just a passive entity, but an active participant in the process of growth and development.
The G’mara in Tractate Sanhedrin (74b) uses this term to explain the sexual relations between Esther and Aḥashverosh, and to “acquit” Esther from the transgression of sexual relations with a gentile because she was completely passive in the act.
Against the background of Esther being a national figure, Manitou adds to this explanation a historiographical layer in addition to the halakhic one:
“And Queen Esther is not just Esther – one Jewish woman […] there is an explanation of the Talmud: she was ‘Karka Olam.’ That is to say, there is a trend according to the deeper meaning of history, that it was necessary to save the people of Israel through Queen Esther, through what happened to Esther and Aḥashverosh […] so ‘Megillat Esther‘ – again it was a miracle of Esther, but it is the disaster of the departure of the kingship from Israel. For through Queen Esther, the kingship leaves Israel and enters among the nations until the Messianic era.”
What is the connection between the concept of Karka Olam and the metaphysical historical shift that Manitou is teaching?
What is that “kingship” that leaves Israel and passes to other nations?
To understand Manitou’s point, we must examine the depths of our Torah’s hidden teachings from where he takes his understanding. We must also explain the Kabbalistic concept of “Malkhut” and how it is realized in human history. The following should help to clarify additional dimensions related to the topic of kingdoms in his lectures.
The concept of “Malkhut” amongst the Kabbalists represents the last s’fira in the Tree of Life. According to the simple meaning of the word, one of the aspects of the s’fira of Malkhut is the involvement and revelation of the Creator in our material world. In other words, the Sh’khina (Divine Presence).
This concept of Sh’khina in our tradition refers to the Divine presence dwelling within the world. It’s not about the Creator being physically present in a specific location, but rather about the idea that His presence permeates all of creation.
Imagine the world as a beautiful symphony. The Sh’khina is like the conductor, the invisible force that guides and harmonizes all the different instruments. Even if the conductor can’t be seen, his presence can be felt through the music. Similarly, the Sh’khina is the unseen force that brings harmony and purpose to the world. It’s also like the warmth of the sun. We can’t see the sun’s warmth, but we can feel its effects on our skin. The Sh’khina is similarly a pervasive presence that brings life, light, and warmth to the world. So when we speak of the Sh’khina, we’re talking about the idea that HaShem’s presence is not something distant or abstract, but rather something that is intimately connected to our world and our lives.
As a s’fira that expresses a dimension of HaShem’s leadership in reality, Malkhut is the kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, that must appear in human history.
Understanding the Kabbalistic context deepens our appreciation of the concepts the Midrashim – “kingdom” and “four kingdoms” – that Manitou drew upon in his lectures on Ḥanukah. The sovereign kingdom of any civilization is a garment for the Kingdom of HaShem that appears in history. It should be seen as a stage in the Creator’s Divine plan to repair the world.
HaShem’s plan manifests in various ways through several civilizations in human history.
When the children of Israel are in our land with political sovereignty, that “kingdom” becomes the responsibility of the people of Israel. But when we are exiled from our land, that sovereign kingdom—the messianic plan for humanity’s redemption—is passed to the nations of the world. From this, we understand that the halakhic obligation to recite a brakha upon seeing a gentile king stems from his role as a representative of Malkhut in those countries. In this king, even though he is a gentile, there exists a dimension of HaShem’s “Kingdom.”
This is evident despite the contradiction and Israel being in a state of subjugation, as described in the Megilla during Esther’s days.
It turns out that Esther and the other figures of the Megilla reflect a more general historical process that goes beyond Israel’s particular national existence. The heroes of the Megilla reflect a universal process of unique people who are partners in realizing the Divine kingdom in this world. Indeed, the Midrashim and the Kabbalists explain that the story of Megillat Esther expresses HaShem’s management of His world during Israel’s exile. The holy Zohar actually connects Esther with the s’fira of Malkhut through the concept of Karka Olam.
Secondly, through the figure of Aḥashverosh. The expression “the king” – which recurs in the Megilla as a key word – secretly refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, so that the kingdom of Aḥashverosh is a garment of the Kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world.
This is the first focus of the pain in the story of the Megilla: the transfer of the messianic program from the people of Israel to other nations. This will change in the future, when the kingdom will return to Israel. Manitou identifies the beginning of this new era already in our time, following the political phenomenon in which many kingdoms reached their end during the twentieth century while Israel has returned to self-determination in our land.
The Second Pain: The Cessation of Prophecy
The second dimension of pain is the end of the prophetic era – what we can call the “age of mythology” – that occurred in the period described in the Megilla.
Manitou explains this through a Talmudic hint. The G’mara in Tractate Ḥulin (139b) asks about the connection between Esther and the Torah: “From where in the Torah is Esther derived?” and answers: “And I will surely hide My face on that day.”
This is not just a hint that connects the Persian name “Esther” with the Hebrew word “Hester” (“Hidden”) mentioned in the verse. It reflects the period of Megillat Esther, in which all of humanity experienced a large-scale change in reality.
Through an analysis of the verse, Manitou reveals the G’mara‘s intention: the pain is over the cessation of the Creator’s revelation to His creation, or in the language of the Kabbalists, “concealment within concealment.” The duplication of the term “concealment” teaches about the essence of the change that occurred in the connection between man and his Creator during that period.
The hiding of the Creator’s face in history has several levels.
The first was created by creation itself. To influence the course of history, man needs free choice. For this to be realized, it is essential that the developed world that the Creator constantly changes, as happened during the Six Days of Creation, be subjected to an order of deterministic laws that allow man to plan his steps. In other words, to give man the keys to charting the direction of the world’s development, the Creator, at the end of the Sixth Day of Creation, “vacates the stage” and hides under the guise of the natural world. This is the first concealment called “Hester Panim” – the Creator hides His face from His creation. But at this level there still remains a connection between the Creator and the creation through revelation.
Manitou very briefly mentions two consequences of this revelation in the age of mythology: idolatry and Hebrew prophecy.
The combination of the Creator “hiding” behind the laws of nature and also revealing Himself in specific situations – He is both fully present and hidden – fosters in humanity a feeling of absence and longing. This feeling may have led to a negative result – the intensification of idol worship, which claimed to identify the traces of the hidden Creator in creation itself. But it also led to a positive result – strengthening humanity’s awareness of Divinity: “A negative feeling leads to something positive: they know that something is missing. Therefore there is room for emuna.”
Even if some people did not experience Divine revelation in the prophetic period, they didn’t doubt those who did experience it or deny that it was real. The belief in Divinity and the possibility of its revelation to human beings characterized the experience of human existence during the age of mythology.
Following the destruction of the First Temple, which heralded the end of the prophetic era, humanity began to forget the experience of revelation. The Creator hid His face a second time, and people throughout the world stopped understanding the Divine speech.
This is the second level of hiding the face – “concealment within concealment.”
The feeling of longing for the Divine faded and, with it, the robust emuna and spiritual experience that characterized the previous period: “All the expressions that we learn in the sources [such as ‘angels’ for example] had meaning, literally, in that period of the revelation of the Sh’khina. But in our period it is as if we believe in it without truly believing, because we have no experience of it” (from the lecture).
According to Manitou, such a state of disbelief is an unnatural situation for humanity.
To explain where this situation comes from, Manitou brings the continuation of the verse that the G’mara brings in Tractate Ḥulin (139b): “Then I will surely hide my face on that day because of all the evil they have done, for they have turned to other gods (D’varim 31:18).”
From the meaning of the historical events that took place during the period of the Megilla, Manitou refines the common interpretation of the verse, and presents a three way relationship between the double concealment, the turning to other gods, and the abandonment of the land. When the people of Israel abandon our land, the very abandonment of the land constitutes a turning to foreign gods since the land is the realization of the Sh’khina in our world.
The pain of the end of prophecy is closely related to the historical period of Megillat Esther. The absence of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the Megilla also hints at this gap. Moreover, during the Megilla, the people of Israel had an opportunity to return to the land and restore the revelation of the Sh’khina. But this opportunity was missed and the “concealment within concealment” grew worse.
Leadership of the Righteous
Even in the period of double concealment, there are nevertheless signs of revelation – through open and hidden miracles like those seen in the Megilla.
Identifying these signs, a limited experience of the lost revelation offers a taste of the revelation of the Sh’khina even though the events appear to unfold naturally.
The skill to identify echoes of the prophetic experiences in our current reality is the virtue of the righteous, the possessors of the holy spirit. The power of their emuna is so powerful that they radiate it to their immediate environment so that those in their presence also merit to be strengthened in emuna and fear of heaven. This phenomenon is expressed in Manitou’s understanding of the Maharal’s commentary on the G’mara (Brakhot 33b), that the fear of the Creator regarding Moshe is “a small thing.”
There are two interpretations of the word “Regarding.” The first and most common is “regarding Moshe.”
But another interpretation is “next to Moshe” or “close to Moshe.” This means that in the vicinity of Moses (and the righteous who continue his path), the Divine presence is felt at such a level that the demand for fear of heaven suddenly seems like a “small thing” that’s easy to achieve.
Megillat Esther offers a crucial understanding to the role of the righteous of the generation. According to the Midrash and the interpretation of the Torah Temima, the words “And Mordekhai knew all that was done” (Esther 4:1) teach that Mordekhai in his holy spirit merited a revelation of the meaning of events, like in prophecy, through a dream. His dream led him to turn to Esther, and she initiated a t’fila for the Jewish people.
That t’fila did not end only in requesting needs but also reflected a conceptual change: revelation is unnecessary for emuna. The Jews reconciled ourselves to the double concealment and the absence of revelation, yet strengthened our emuna.
The conceptual change of the Jews also included another component that the Talmud discusses: the renewed acceptance of the Torah from free will – “the generation accepted it” (Shabbat 88a).
In the previous paragraphs in which we discussed the hiding of the face, we mentioned Manitou’s equation between revelation and choice. One side indicates that the revelation of the Creator negates choice. This principle was especially prominent at the time of the giving of the Torah at Sinai: in the presence of the Creator, it is impossible to choose other than His command – the Holy One, blessed be He, “forced upon them the mountain like a barrel” in the language of the G’mara. That is, at Sinai, the acceptance of the Torah by Israel could not be the result of a completely free choice because when there is revelation, the choice is emptied of its meaning.
During the period of the Megilla, “the generation accepted the Torah,” since the concealment of the Creator allows for free choice. While the first concealment in the act of creation created choice at a certain level, the double concealment at the time of the Megilla and the end of prophecy added new possibilities of choice. A new period began in which the choice of whether to fulfill the will of the Creator became more dominant.
Another meaning regarding the role of the righteous is the optimal form of leadership for the people of Israel during the era of double concealment: the righteous takes the place of the prophets as the authority that reveals the Divine word and deciphers the meaning of historic events.
Following hints scattered by the Torah Temima, Manitou reveals that the dreams of the righteous during the period of double concealment constitutes a prophetic revelation, which charts a way to behave in a world of concealment and helps to avoid the hidden obstacles in the darkness. Therefore, alongside the pain, the Megilla paves the path in which the people can survive the dark period of exile: following the path of the righteous is recommended. Their dreams and holy spirit illuminate the meaning of the events for the entire people and the correct way to behave following them. Indeed, this way of life of rabbinic and righteous leadership has characterized the people of Israel since our political sovereignty came to an end.
But a righteous leader’s ability to see the propper path does not guarantee that the people will walk with him. Manitou illuminates the dialectic between two potential responses from the people, from the double meaning of the expression “from another place” – which is said by Mordekhai (who in that generation was righteous and saw the correct path) in response to Esther.
“Ḥayev Inish Levasumei” (A Person is Obligated to Become Intoxicated)
Manitou refines the principle of free choice and the criteria for right and wrong paths later in the lecture through a surprising explanation of a famous halakhic expression: “A person is obligated to become intoxicated until he does not know the difference between ‘cursed is Haman’ and ‘blessed is Mordekhai’.”
“Cursed is Haman” expresses a person’s wrong choice, while “blessed is Mordekhai” expresses the correct choice.
In the same place where it discusses the source for Esther in the Torah, the G’mara also asks about the source of “Haman” and suggests an expression from a verse that was said in the context of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A deep connection actually exists between Haman’s path and the Tree of Knowledge. Through eating from the Tree of Knowledge (Haman’s Tree), an action that stemmed from a wrong choice of the other side (“cursed is Haman”), sin entered the world, and since then our world has been mixed with good and evil. Since then, man has been tasked with repairing the world by clarifying good from evil throughout history.
The choice of “cursed is Haman” – which represents the extreme side of evil implanted into our world – leads events to their destination through a path of suffering. In contrast, “blessed is Mordekhai” clarifies good from evil through the Torah. This latter path is especially relevant in the generation when the exile is ending – as was possible in the time of Esther and Mordekhai and made possible again in our time.
Drinking wine on the Purim festival can blur the boundary between good and evil that belong to the Tree of Knowledge. The experience of drunkenness should be stopped at that boundary line, which allows, on the one hand, to touch the experience of unity that was before the sin of the Tree of Knowledge and, on the other hand, to remain within the boundaries of morality, which distinguishes between good and evil.
“Because the wine gives the mixture between good and evil. So, to reach that boundary, you must be satisfied with it. That is to say, the mitzva is twofold: first, it is to be in the joy of the wine. That is a mitzva, an obligation. But then, to be satisfied with the boundary is very difficult. Until he does not know and no more” (from the lecture).
Manitou is precise in the expression: “until he does not know.” Indeed, according to most halakhic authorities, there is a mitzva of joy over the wine but there is a prohibition against getting drunk to the point of losing one’s good sense.
At the end of the lecture, Manitou connected wine, choice, and the leadership of the righteous.
When one goes the wrong way, as in extreme drunkenness, it is challenging to identify evil, which is sometimes disguised as good. At this point, one may lose their moral compass and validate evil. As in the case of Esther, the leaders — general figures who represent a process that the entire nation goes through — are the first to pay the price.
