Posts
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/61957/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm
Share this:
106 Comments
What Makes a Jew "Jewish"?
Adapted from a public talk by the Lubavitcher Rebbe
Question:
Is Judaism a "religion"? Is the term "non-religious Jew" an oxymoron? Can one still be Jewish without observing the edicts and ethos of Torah in one's daily life?
Answer:
Jews defy all conventional definitions of a "people" or "nation." We lack a common race, culture or historical experience. While we all share our eternal rights to the Land of Israel, for all but a few centuries of the last 4,000 years the overwhelming majority of Jews have not lived or even set foot in the Jewish homeland.
Throughout our 3300-year history, what has defined us as Jews is a relationship and commitment. We are Jews because G-d chose us to be His "cherished treasure from all the nations... a kingdom of priests and a holy people" (Exodus 19:5-6). We are Jews because G-d chose us to play the central role in the implementation of His purpose in creation: to orientate our lives in accordance with His will, and to develop a society and world community that reflects His goodness and perfection.
The substance of this relationship, the charter of this commitment, is the Torah. The Torah is G-d's concept of reality as communicated to man, the blueprint that describes the perfected world envisioned by its Creator and details the manner in which the Inventor of Life wishes it to be lived.
This would seem to define our Jewishness as a "religion": we are Jews because we adhere to the beliefs and practices mandated by the Torah. But the Torah itself says that this is not so.
The Torah itself proclaims (Leviticus 16:16) that G-d "dwells amongst them in the midst of their impurities" -- that His relationship with His people remains unaffected regardless of their behavior. In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew."
According to Torah law, a person's Jewishness is not a matter of life-style or self-perception: one may be totally unaware of one's Jewishness and still be a Jew, or one may consider himself Jewish and observe all the precepts of the Torah and still not be a Jew.
In other words, it is the relationship between the Jew and his Creator that defines his Jewishness -- not his acknowledgment of this relationship or his actualization of it in his daily life. It is not the observance of Torah's mitzvot (Divine "commandments") that makes him a Jew, but the commitment that the mitzvot represent.
The Essence of a Transgression
This is the deeper significance of the axiom, "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew."
The simple meaning of these words is that a Jew is still a Jew despite his transgressions. But on a deeper level, it is because he has transgressed that he is a Jew. A non-Jew who eats chametz (leavened bread) on Passover has done nothing wrong; likewise, his eating matzah on the Seder night has no moral or spiritual significance. But for a Jew, the mitzvot of Passover are a component of his relationship with G-d: by observing them he is realizing this relationship and extending it to his daily life; if he violates them, G-d forbid, he is transgressing -- he is acting contrary to the commitment which defines his identity. Thus, in a certain sense, the fact of a Jew's transgression is no less an expression (albeit a negative one) of his relationship with G-d than his observance of a mitzvah.
Indeed, the Hebrew word mitzvah means both "commandment" and "connection." The relationship between the word's two meanings can also be understood on two levels. On the behavioral level, we connect to G-d through our fulfillment of His commandments. On a deeper level, we are inexorably connected to Him by virtue of the fact that He chose us as the object of His commandments. Obviously, these two levels of connection are two sides of the same coin, being the inner and outer faces of the same truth: our observance of the mitzvot is the manifestation, in our daily lives, of the intrinsic bond between G-d and Israel.
The Six-Dimensional Link
The Zohar, the basic work of the Kabbalah, expresses this concept in the following manner:
There are three connections ('kishrin") that are bound to each other: G-d, the Torah, and Israel --each consisting of a level upon a level, hidden and revealed. There is the hidden aspect of G-d, and the revealed aspect; Torah, too, has both a hidden and a revealed aspect; and so it is with Israel, who also has both a hidden and a revealed aspect.
The Zohar goes on to describe the manner in which the Torah serves as the connecting link between G-d and Israel: how the Torah is one with its Divine Author, and how the Jewish people connect to the Torah through their study and observance of its teachings.
But what are the "hidden" and "revealed" elements of G-d, Torah and Israel? And what is their relevance to our connection to G-d through His Torah?
The Zohar is intimating that these three "connections" are interlinked on two levels, both on a "hidden" and on a "revealed" plane. For each of the three interconnected links possesses both an explicit and an implicit dimension.
There is the so-called "revealed" aspect of G-d -- those expressions of His reality which He chooses to manifest within the created existence; and there is His "hidden" unknowable essence. The Jew, too, has his revealed and manifest self -- the manner in which he expresses himself through his behavior; and his hidden, quintessential self. And the Torah, as outlined above, has both a more pronounced as well as a more implicit significance as the connecting link between G-d and Israel.
On the "hidden" plane, the soul of the Jew is bound to the very essence of G-d through the underlying relationship and commitment which Torah represents. Even if the Jew's life, on the conscious-behavioral level, is inconsistent with the revealed will of the Almighty, s/he is no "less" a Jew, G-d forbid: no matter what, the "hidden" intrinsic bond that defines his Jewishness is unaffected. But in order to express this relationship on all levels of his being, in order to bring his life in line with her essence, the Jew must reiterate the connection on the "revealed" level. This s/he does by studying G-d's Torah and observing its mitzvot.
The Third Juncture
There is, however, another, yet deeper meaning to the Zohar's words.
The above-cited passage speaks of "three connections which are bound to each other." The Aramaic word translated here as "connections" is kishrin, which literally means "knots."
At first glance, this seems to be an inaccurate usage. If Torah is the link between G-d and Israel, then what we have are three entities (G-d, Torah and Israel) linked via two connections (Israel's connection to Torah and the Torah's connection with the Almighty). Where do we have three knots/connections?
This brings us to a second definition of the "hidden" and "revealed" dimensions of the relationship between G-d and Israel. The Midrash states:
Two things preceded G-d's creation of the world: Torah and Israel. Still, I do not know which preceded which. But when Torah states "Speak to the Children of Israel...", "Command the Children of Israel...", and so on, I know that Israel preceded all (Tana D'vei Eliyahu Rabba, chapter 14)
In other words, G-d created the world in order that Israel might implement His Divine plan for existence, as outlined in the Torah. So the concepts of "Israel" and "Torah" both precede the concept of a "world" in the Creator's "mind." Yet which is the more deeply rooted "idea" within the Divine consciousness, Torah or Israel? Does Israel exist so that the Torah be implemented, or does the Torah exist to serve the Jew in the fulfillment of his mission and the expression of his relationship with G-d? If the Torah describes itself as a communication to Israel -- the Midrash is saying -- this presumes the concept of "Israel" as primary to that of "Torah."
This means that G-d's relationship with Israel "pre-dates" (in the conceptual sense) the Torah, for the Torah comes to serve that relationship. In this sense, Israel is the "link" between the Torah and G-d: the Torah's existence as the embodiment of the Divine wisdom and will is a result of Israel's existence and its connection with G-d.
Thus, we have three connections linking G-d, Israel and the Torah:
On the revealed level, the Torah serves as the link between G-d and Israel: the Torah is connected to G-d, and Israel is connected to the Torah. (This includes both levels of connection outlined above -- the connection achieved through the performance of a mitzvah and the connection defined by the commitment itself ).
But on a deeper, more quintessential level, there exists a third connection: the "direct" connection between G-d and His people which precedes the very concept of a Torah. On this level, Israel's involvement in Torah is what connects the Torah to G-d -- what causes Him to extend His infinite and wholly indefinable being into a medium of "Divine wisdom" and "Divine will." On this level, it is not the Jew who needs the Torah in order to be one with G-d, but the Torah who "needs" the Jew to evoke G-d's desire to project Himself via the Torah.
Nevertheless, the Torah is crucial to the Jew's relationship with G-d. The essence of the Jew, as it is rooted within the essence of G-d, is indeed one with its Source. But then it "descends" to become part of the created existence, assuming a distinct identity as a soul and then as a human being. So G-d provided the Jew with His Torah. Through Torah, the Jew touches base with his own quintessential self and makes his intrinsic bond with his Creator a reality in his daily life.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2007/08/apostles-taught-study-of-sacred.html
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by a Non-Catholic:
Any church arrogant enough to claim infallibility is elevating it's self above God and is blasphemy! There are other "churches" that claim to be infallible, how shall I know which one is lying and which one is telling the truth?
I will answer this for you, by reading the bible for myself and letting the Holy Ghost interpret it for me as He does. BTW any church claiming infallability is a false church.
A rant without any support from the Word of God.
And yet Christ Himself promised that assurance of infallibility to His church when He said. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.Matthew 16.
So then you claim this infallibility for yourself? That is precisely what this statement does, while denying what Our Lord promised to His church and actually attempting to usurp that authority and promise of assurance for yourself. I wouldn't do that. So then you are telling us that you are never wrong? Yet I have already proved you wrong several times in this discussion alone.
By this statement you have logically condemned yourself.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by non-Catholic
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I love this verse! I don't suppose that you've noticed here that St. Paul does not say to St. Timothy. "Study the Bible", or "Study the scriptures", and so based on what this verse says (and the context nowhere changes this...) then sacred Tradition is included in what Paul is telling Timothy to study. In this he would be following the apostles.
Example: (I asked you to look all this up and apparently you dismissed my request, so now I'm going to show you why that was so important.)
Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.
Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."....Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."....Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.
The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.
The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look...their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again...St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then... he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.
So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by non-Catholic
You see it all the time. People don't agree on everything, even within any church, including your catholic church. At the same time, if you go to the same source of truth (the bible) and study it though the Holy Spirit, you can understand no matter who you are.
If this were actually true then all faithful believers would hold the exact same doctrines and beliefs...but that is not so among n-Cs, though with in the Catholic Church one single authority is acknowledged and there is indeed one authoritative and knowledgeable source of doctrinal interpretation.
Your comments that some Catholics might dissent or disagree does not indict that infallible authority in faith and morals but instead indicts the consciences of those who dissent or oppose those teachings.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by a Non-Catholic:
Any church arrogant enough to claim infallibility is elevating it's self above God and is blasphemy! There are other "churches" that claim to be infallible, how shall I know which one is lying and which one is telling the truth?
I will answer this for you, by reading the bible for myself and letting the Holy Ghost interpret it for me as He does. BTW any church claiming infallability is a false church.
A rant without any support from the Word of God.
And yet Christ Himself promised that assurance of infallibility to His church when He said. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.Matthew 16.
So then you claim this infallibility for yourself? That is precisely what this statement does, while denying what Our Lord promised to His church and actually attempting to usurp that authority and promise of assurance for yourself. I wouldn't do that. So then you are telling us that you are never wrong? Yet I have already proved you wrong several times in this discussion alone.
By this statement you have logically condemned yourself.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by non-Catholic
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I love this verse! I don't suppose that you've noticed here that St. Paul does not say to St. Timothy. "Study the Bible", or "Study the scriptures", and so based on what this verse says (and the context nowhere changes this...) then sacred Tradition is included in what Paul is telling Timothy to study. In this he would be following the apostles.
Example: (I asked you to look all this up and apparently you dismissed my request, so now I'm going to show you why that was so important.)
Look at these verses from the letter of St. Jude, the next to last book in the New Testament. (You do accept Jude as inspired canon of scripture, right?)
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
Where is that found in the Old Testament? Please show me chapter and verse.
Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."....Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
Where is that in the Old Testament please? Again, I need chapter and verse?
Jude Chapter 1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."....Jude Chapter 1:14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, 15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
2nd Timothy Chapter 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
The first 1st is quoting The Assumption of Moses. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.
The 2nd is quoting The Book of Enoch. Not the Old Testament, yet the apostle Jude quotes it as a fact of belief.
The 3rd is quoting the Book of Jannes and Jambres and not the Old Testament. (Go ahead and look...their names are nowhere found in the OT!), yet here again...St. Paul refers to something as fact that is not stated in the inspired canon. So then... he is clearly telling Timothy to study both scripture and traditional sources, since that is clearly shown here as apostolic practice.
So much for the idea that the apostles taught Sola Scriptura.
Quote:
Originally Asserted by non-Catholic
You see it all the time. People don't agree on everything, even within any church, including your catholic church. At the same time, if you go to the same source of truth (the bible) and study it though the Holy Spirit, you can understand no matter who you are.
If this were actually true then all faithful believers would hold the exact same doctrines and beliefs...but that is not so among n-Cs, though with in the Catholic Church one single authority is acknowledged and there is indeed one authoritative and knowledgeable source of doctrinal interpretation.
Your comments that some Catholics might dissent or disagree does not indict that infallible authority in faith and morals but instead indicts the consciences of those who dissent or oppose those teachings.
Extra Biblical truths
http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-bible-teach-that-everything-that.html
Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?
A Catholic buddy of mine offered this list as a start...
Hmmm...things non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. Vacation Bible School.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crew cut
A non-Catholic then asked, "Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?" to which I replied, Sure...2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
So still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. I need to see this if I'm going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.
In fact...you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can't, every Catholic reading this has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still...it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP.
If it's not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That's probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years.
This is a doctrine is one that many non-Catholics hold very dear and I'm serious...if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can't....well...that dent might be somewhere else.
I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Seriously.
This article is about getting some non-Catholic to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. That's all I'm asking here.
If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.
I've read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.
I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this very thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this...it should be pretty simple to show me.
This also has to with MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don't understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here. A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?
The Fullness of truth is important. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is "the truth" and I for one want nothing less.
I am trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God.
Again though....where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible?
I don't understand how people can believe this idea since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he's to withdraw from anyone who doesn't walk according to that tradition. If it wasn't inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?
2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
THIS CONCEPT OF SACRED TADITION IS THE UYNDERPINNING OF JUDAISM AS WELL AS TAUGHT IN THE MIDRASHIM THEN NEXT POST WILL HIGHLIGHT THIS ARTICLE
Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?
A Catholic buddy of mine offered this list as a start...
Hmmm...things non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. Vacation Bible School.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crew cut
A non-Catholic then asked, "Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?" to which I replied, Sure...2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
So still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. I need to see this if I'm going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.
In fact...you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can't, every Catholic reading this has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still...it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP.
If it's not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That's probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years.
This is a doctrine is one that many non-Catholics hold very dear and I'm serious...if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can't....well...that dent might be somewhere else.
I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Seriously.
This article is about getting some non-Catholic to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. That's all I'm asking here.
If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.
I've read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.
I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this very thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this...it should be pretty simple to show me.
This also has to with MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don't understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here. A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?
The Fullness of truth is important. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is "the truth" and I for one want nothing less.
I am trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God.
Again though....where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible?
I don't understand how people can believe this idea since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he's to withdraw from anyone who doesn't walk according to that tradition. If it wasn't inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?
2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.
The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
THIS CONCEPT OF SACRED TADITION IS THE UYNDERPINNING OF JUDAISM AS WELL AS TAUGHT IN THE MIDRASHIM THEN NEXT POST WILL HIGHLIGHT THIS ARTICLE
The Levites The descendants of Moses and Aaron
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=36466&v=ds&p=4
Numbers 1:1-4:20
The Levites The descendants of Moses and Aaron
Chapter 3
Need to finish the rest of chapter 3
1. These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. א. וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי:
These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron: Yet only the sons of Aaron are mentioned. However, they are considered descendants of Moses because he taught them Torah. This teaches us that whoever teaches Torah to the son of his fellow man, Scripture regards it as if he had begotten him - [Sanh. 19b] ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה: ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן. ונקראו תולדות משה, לפי שלמדן תורה. מלמד שכל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו ילדו:
on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses: they became his descendants, because he taught them what he had learned from the Almighty. ביום דבר ה' את משה: נעשו אלו התולדות שלו, שלמדן מה שלמד מפי הגבורה:
2. These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. ב. וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַבְּכוֹר נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר:
3. These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed kohanim, whom he consecrated to serve as kohanim. ג. אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים הַמְּשֻׁחִים אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא יָדָם לְכַהֵן:
4. Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they brought alien fire before the Lord in the Sinai desert, and they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar, however, served as kohanim in the presence of Aaron, their father. ד. וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם:
in the presence of Aaron: During his lifetime. [Num. Rabbah 2:26, Lev. Rabbah 20:11, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 173b] על פני אהרן: בחייו:
5. The Lord spoke to Moses saying: ה. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
6. Bring forth the tribe of Levi and present them before Aaron the kohen, that they may serve him. ו. הַקְרֵב אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְשֵׁרְתוּ אֹתוֹ:
that they may serve him: What form does this service take? “They shall keep his charge” (verse 7). Since guarding the Sanctuary so that no stranger (non- kohen) should come near is his obligation, as it says, “You, your sons, and your father’s house with you, shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary” (Num. 18:1), and these Levites assisted him this was the service.
7. They shall keep his charge and the charge of the entire community before the Tent of Meeting, to perform the service of the Mishkan. ז. וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת כָּל הָעֵדָה לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
They shall keep his charge: Any office to which a person is appointed and [the duty] he is bound to carry out, is מִשְׁמֶרֶת in Scripture and in Mishnaic idiom, as in reference to Bigthan and Teresh [where it says], “But my duty is not similar to your duty” (Meg. 13b), [meaning that the hours of my service do not coincide with those of yours]. Similarly [we find the word used in the clause],“The watches (מִשְׁמְרוֹת) of the kehuna and of the Levites.” ושמרו את משמרתו: כל מנוי שהאדם ממונה עליו ומוטל עליו לעשותו, קרוי משמרת בכל המקרא ובלשון משנה, כמו שאמרו בבגתן ותרש (מגילה יג ב) והלא אין משמרתי ומשמרתך שוה, וכן משמרות כהונה ולויה:
8. They shall take charge of all the vessels of the Tent of Meeting and the charge of the children of Israel, to perform the service of the Mishkan. ח. וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כָּל כְּלֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
the charge of the children of Israel: All of them were bound [to take care of] the needs of the Sanctuary, but the Levites were in their stead, as their agents. Thus, in reward, they [the Levites] take tithes from them [the Israelites], as it says,“for it is your reward, in exchange for your service” (Num. 18: 31). ואת משמרת בני ישראל: שכולן היו זקוקין לצרכי המקדש, אלא שהלוים באים תחתיהם בשליחותם, לפיכך לוקחים מהם המעשרות בשכרן, שנאמר (במד' יח, לא) כי שכר הוא לכם חלף עבודתכם:
9. You shall give over the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they shall be wholly given over to him from the children of Israel. ט. וְנָתַתָּה אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו נְתוּנִם נְתוּנִם הֵמָּה לוֹ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Given over to him: for assistance. נתונים המה לו: לעזרה:
from the children of Israel: Heb. מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, like מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, from among the children of Israel, that is to say, they have been singled out for this purpose from the rest of the congregation by the decree of the Omnipresent, and He gave them to him, as it says, “And I have given the Levites, they are… given” (Num. 8:19). מאת בני ישראל: כמו מתוך בני ישראל, כלומר משאר כל העדה נבדלו לכך בגזרת המקום, והוא נתנם לו, שנאמר (במד' ח, יט) ואתנה את הלוים נתונים וגו'
10. You shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their kehunah; any outsider [non kohen] who approaches shall be put to death. י. וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו תִּפְקֹד וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהֻנָּתָם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
You shall appoint Aaron…: [The word תִּפְקֹד is] an expression of appointment, not of counting. ואת אהרן ואת בניו תפקד: לשון פקידות ואינו לשון מנין:
They shall observe their kehunah: [This refers to] receiving the blood [in a basin], dashing the blood, burning [the fats], and other rites entrusted to the priests. ושמרו את כהנתם: קבלת דמים וזריקה והקטרה ועבודות המסורות לכהנים:
11. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying. יא. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
12. As for Me I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of all firstborns among the children of Israel who have opened the womb, and the Levites shall be Mine. יב. וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּחַת כָּל בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם:
As for Me: I have taken-As for Me; what right do I have to them ? ואני הנה לקחתי: ואני מהיכן זכיתי בהן:
from among the children of Israel: That the Israelites should have to hire them for My service? I gained My right to them through the [Israelite] firstborns, taking them [the Levites] in their place. For [originally] the service was performed by the firstborns, but when they sinned by [worshipping] the [golden] calf, they became disqualified. The Levites, who had not committed idolatry, were chosen in their stead. [Midrash Aggadah] מתוך בני ישראל: שיהיו ישראל שוכרין אותן לשירות שלי. על ידי הבכורות זכיתי בהם ולקחתים תמורתם, לפי שהיתה העבודה בבכורות, וכשחטאו בעגל נפסלו, והלוים שלא עבדו עבודה זרה נבחרו תחתיהם:
13. For all the firstborns are Mine; since the day I smote all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, I sanctified for Myself all the firstborns of Israel, both man and beast they shall become Mine, I am the Lord. יג. כִּי לִי כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה לִי יִהְיוּ אֲנִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
Chapter 1
20. This was [the sum of] the children of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כ. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כֹּל זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
21. Those counted from the tribe of Reuben [were] forty six thousand, five hundred. כא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה רְאוּבֵן שִׁשָּׁה וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
22. Of the tribe of Simeon, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; his tally, according to the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כב. לִבְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם פְּקֻדָיו בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
23. Those counted from the tribe of Simeon: fifty nine thousand, three hundred. כג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה שִׁמְעוֹן תִּשְׁעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת:
24. Of the tribe of Gad, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כד. לִבְנֵי גָד תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
25. Those counted from the tribe of Gad: forty five thousand, six hundred and fifty. כה. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה גָד חֲמִשָּׁה וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים:
26. Of the tribe of Judah, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כו. לִבְנֵי יְהוּדָה תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
27. Those counted from the tribe of Judah: seventy four thousand, six hundred. כז. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁבְעִים אֶלֶף וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת:
28. Of the tribe of Issachar, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כח. לִבְנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
29. Those counted from the tribe of Issachar: fifty four thousand, four hundred. כט. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
30. Of the tribe of Zebulun, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. ל. לִבְנֵי זְבוּלֻן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
31. Those counted from the tribe of Zebulun: fifty seven thousand, four hundred. לא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה זְבוּלֻן שִׁבְעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
32. Of the children of Yosef: of the tribe of Ephraim, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לב. לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף לִבְנֵי אֶפְרַיִם תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
33. Those counted from the tribe of Ephraim: forty thousand, five hundred. לג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם אַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
34. Of the tribe of Manasseh, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לד. לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
35. Those counted from the tribe of Manasseh: thirty two thousand, two hundred. לה. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף וּמָאתָיִם:
36. Of the tribe of Benjamin, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לו. לִבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
37. Those counted from the tribe of Benjamin: thirty five thousand, four hundred. לז. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה בִנְיָמִן חֲמִשָּׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
38. Of the tribe of Dan, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לח. לִבְנֵי דָן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
39. Those counted from the tribe of Dan: sixty two thousand, seven hundred. לט. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה דָן שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים אֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת:
40. Of the tribe of Asher, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מ. לִבְנֵי אָשֵׁר תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
41. Those counted from the tribe of Asher: forty one thousand, five hundred. מא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר אֶחָד וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
42. Of the tribe of Naphtali, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מב. בְּנֵי נַפְתָּלִי תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
43. Those counted from the tribe of Naphtali: fifty three thousand, four hundred. מג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי שְׁלֹשָׁה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
44. These are the numbered ones, whom Moses and Aaron and the twelve princes of Israel counted each one [representing] his fathers' house. מד. אֵלֶּה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וּנְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶחָד לְבֵית אֲבֹתָיו הָיוּ:
45. All the children of Israel were counted according to their fathers' houses, from twenty years and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מה. וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל פְּקוּדֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:
46. The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty. מו. וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל הַפְּקֻדִים שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים:
47. But the Levites, according to their father's tribe were not numbered among them. מז. וְהַלְוִיִּם לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָם לֹא הָתְפָּקְדוּ בְּתוֹכָם:
48. The Lord spoke to Moses saying: מח. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
49. Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, and you shall not reckon their sum among the children of Israel. מט. אַךְ אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי לֹא תִפְקֹד וְאֶת רֹאשָׁם לֹא תִשָּׂא בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
50. But you shall appoint the Levites over the Tabernacle of the Testimony, over all its vessels and over all that belong to it; they shall carry the Tabernacle and they shall minister to it, and they shall encamp around the Tabernacle. נ. וְאַתָּה הַפְקֵד אֶת הַלְוִיִּם עַל מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת וְעַל כָּל כֵּלָיו וְעַל כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הֵמָּה יִשְׂאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְהֵם יְשָׁרְתֻהוּ וְסָבִיב לַמִּשְׁכָּן יַחֲנוּ:
51. When the Tabernacle is set to travel, the Levites shall dismantle it; and when the Tabernacle camps, the Levites shall erect it; any outsider [non Levite] who approaches shall be put to death. נא. וּבִנְסֹעַ הַמִּשְׁכָּן יוֹרִידוּ אֹתוֹ הַלְוִיִּם וּבַחֲנֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן יָקִימוּ אֹתוֹ הַלְוִיִּם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
52. The children of Israel shall encamp, each man by his own camp and each man by his division. נב. וְחָנוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ עַל מַחֲנֵהוּ וְאִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ לְצִבְאֹתָם:
53. The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony, so that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel and the Levites shall keep the charge of the Mishkan of the Testimony. נג. וְהַלְוִיִּם יַחֲנוּ סָבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קֶצֶף עַל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁמְרוּ הַלְוִיִּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת:
54. And the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord had commanded Moses thus did they do. נד. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ:
Numbers 1:1-4:20
The Levites The descendants of Moses and Aaron
Chapter 3
Need to finish the rest of chapter 3
1. These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. א. וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי:
These are the descendants of Moses and Aaron: Yet only the sons of Aaron are mentioned. However, they are considered descendants of Moses because he taught them Torah. This teaches us that whoever teaches Torah to the son of his fellow man, Scripture regards it as if he had begotten him - [Sanh. 19b] ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה: ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן. ונקראו תולדות משה, לפי שלמדן תורה. מלמד שכל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו ילדו:
on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses: they became his descendants, because he taught them what he had learned from the Almighty. ביום דבר ה' את משה: נעשו אלו התולדות שלו, שלמדן מה שלמד מפי הגבורה:
2. These are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the firstborn Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. ב. וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַבְּכוֹר נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר:
3. These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed kohanim, whom he consecrated to serve as kohanim. ג. אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים הַמְּשֻׁחִים אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא יָדָם לְכַהֵן:
4. Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they brought alien fire before the Lord in the Sinai desert, and they had no children. Eleazar and Ithamar, however, served as kohanim in the presence of Aaron, their father. ד. וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם:
in the presence of Aaron: During his lifetime. [Num. Rabbah 2:26, Lev. Rabbah 20:11, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 173b] על פני אהרן: בחייו:
5. The Lord spoke to Moses saying: ה. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
6. Bring forth the tribe of Levi and present them before Aaron the kohen, that they may serve him. ו. הַקְרֵב אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי וְהַעֲמַדְתָּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְשֵׁרְתוּ אֹתוֹ:
that they may serve him: What form does this service take? “They shall keep his charge” (verse 7). Since guarding the Sanctuary so that no stranger (non- kohen) should come near is his obligation, as it says, “You, your sons, and your father’s house with you, shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary” (Num. 18:1), and these Levites assisted him this was the service.
7. They shall keep his charge and the charge of the entire community before the Tent of Meeting, to perform the service of the Mishkan. ז. וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת כָּל הָעֵדָה לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
They shall keep his charge: Any office to which a person is appointed and [the duty] he is bound to carry out, is מִשְׁמֶרֶת in Scripture and in Mishnaic idiom, as in reference to Bigthan and Teresh [where it says], “But my duty is not similar to your duty” (Meg. 13b), [meaning that the hours of my service do not coincide with those of yours]. Similarly [we find the word used in the clause],“The watches (מִשְׁמְרוֹת) of the kehuna and of the Levites.” ושמרו את משמרתו: כל מנוי שהאדם ממונה עליו ומוטל עליו לעשותו, קרוי משמרת בכל המקרא ובלשון משנה, כמו שאמרו בבגתן ותרש (מגילה יג ב) והלא אין משמרתי ומשמרתך שוה, וכן משמרות כהונה ולויה:
8. They shall take charge of all the vessels of the Tent of Meeting and the charge of the children of Israel, to perform the service of the Mishkan. ח. וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כָּל כְּלֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן:
the charge of the children of Israel: All of them were bound [to take care of] the needs of the Sanctuary, but the Levites were in their stead, as their agents. Thus, in reward, they [the Levites] take tithes from them [the Israelites], as it says,“for it is your reward, in exchange for your service” (Num. 18: 31). ואת משמרת בני ישראל: שכולן היו זקוקין לצרכי המקדש, אלא שהלוים באים תחתיהם בשליחותם, לפיכך לוקחים מהם המעשרות בשכרן, שנאמר (במד' יח, לא) כי שכר הוא לכם חלף עבודתכם:
9. You shall give over the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they shall be wholly given over to him from the children of Israel. ט. וְנָתַתָּה אֶת הַלְוִיִּם לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו נְתוּנִם נְתוּנִם הֵמָּה לוֹ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
Given over to him: for assistance. נתונים המה לו: לעזרה:
from the children of Israel: Heb. מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, like מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, from among the children of Israel, that is to say, they have been singled out for this purpose from the rest of the congregation by the decree of the Omnipresent, and He gave them to him, as it says, “And I have given the Levites, they are… given” (Num. 8:19). מאת בני ישראל: כמו מתוך בני ישראל, כלומר משאר כל העדה נבדלו לכך בגזרת המקום, והוא נתנם לו, שנאמר (במד' ח, יט) ואתנה את הלוים נתונים וגו'
10. You shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall keep their kehunah; any outsider [non kohen] who approaches shall be put to death. י. וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו תִּפְקֹד וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת כְּהֻנָּתָם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
You shall appoint Aaron…: [The word תִּפְקֹד is] an expression of appointment, not of counting. ואת אהרן ואת בניו תפקד: לשון פקידות ואינו לשון מנין:
They shall observe their kehunah: [This refers to] receiving the blood [in a basin], dashing the blood, burning [the fats], and other rites entrusted to the priests. ושמרו את כהנתם: קבלת דמים וזריקה והקטרה ועבודות המסורות לכהנים:
11. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying. יא. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
12. As for Me I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of all firstborns among the children of Israel who have opened the womb, and the Levites shall be Mine. יב. וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תַּחַת כָּל בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם:
As for Me: I have taken-As for Me; what right do I have to them ? ואני הנה לקחתי: ואני מהיכן זכיתי בהן:
from among the children of Israel: That the Israelites should have to hire them for My service? I gained My right to them through the [Israelite] firstborns, taking them [the Levites] in their place. For [originally] the service was performed by the firstborns, but when they sinned by [worshipping] the [golden] calf, they became disqualified. The Levites, who had not committed idolatry, were chosen in their stead. [Midrash Aggadah] מתוך בני ישראל: שיהיו ישראל שוכרין אותן לשירות שלי. על ידי הבכורות זכיתי בהם ולקחתים תמורתם, לפי שהיתה העבודה בבכורות, וכשחטאו בעגל נפסלו, והלוים שלא עבדו עבודה זרה נבחרו תחתיהם:
13. For all the firstborns are Mine; since the day I smote all the firstborns in the land of Egypt, I sanctified for Myself all the firstborns of Israel, both man and beast they shall become Mine, I am the Lord. יג. כִּי לִי כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאָדָם עַד בְּהֵמָה לִי יִהְיוּ אֲנִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
Chapter 1
20. This was [the sum of] the children of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כ. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כֹּל זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
21. Those counted from the tribe of Reuben [were] forty six thousand, five hundred. כא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה רְאוּבֵן שִׁשָּׁה וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
22. Of the tribe of Simeon, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; his tally, according to the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כב. לִבְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם פְּקֻדָיו בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כָּל זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
23. Those counted from the tribe of Simeon: fifty nine thousand, three hundred. כג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה שִׁמְעוֹן תִּשְׁעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת:
24. Of the tribe of Gad, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כד. לִבְנֵי גָד תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
25. Those counted from the tribe of Gad: forty five thousand, six hundred and fifty. כה. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה גָד חֲמִשָּׁה וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים:
26. Of the tribe of Judah, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כו. לִבְנֵי יְהוּדָה תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
27. Those counted from the tribe of Judah: seventy four thousand, six hundred. כז. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁבְעִים אֶלֶף וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת:
28. Of the tribe of Issachar, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. כח. לִבְנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
29. Those counted from the tribe of Issachar: fifty four thousand, four hundred. כט. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה יִשָּׂשכָר אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
30. Of the tribe of Zebulun, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. ל. לִבְנֵי זְבוּלֻן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
31. Those counted from the tribe of Zebulun: fifty seven thousand, four hundred. לא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה זְבוּלֻן שִׁבְעָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
32. Of the children of Yosef: of the tribe of Ephraim, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לב. לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף לִבְנֵי אֶפְרַיִם תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
33. Those counted from the tribe of Ephraim: forty thousand, five hundred. לג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה אֶפְרָיִם אַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
34. Of the tribe of Manasseh, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לד. לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
35. Those counted from the tribe of Manasseh: thirty two thousand, two hundred. לה. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף וּמָאתָיִם:
36. Of the tribe of Benjamin, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לו. לִבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
37. Those counted from the tribe of Benjamin: thirty five thousand, four hundred. לז. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה בִנְיָמִן חֲמִשָּׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
38. Of the tribe of Dan, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. לח. לִבְנֵי דָן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
39. Those counted from the tribe of Dan: sixty two thousand, seven hundred. לט. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה דָן שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים אֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת:
40. Of the tribe of Asher, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מ. לִבְנֵי אָשֵׁר תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
41. Those counted from the tribe of Asher: forty one thousand, five hundred. מא. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר אֶחָד וְאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת:
42. Of the tribe of Naphtali, their descendants according to their families, according to their fathers' houses; the number of individual names of every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מב. בְּנֵי נַפְתָּלִי תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא:
43. Those counted from the tribe of Naphtali: fifty three thousand, four hundred. מג. פְּקֻדֵיהֶם לְמַטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי שְׁלֹשָׁה וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת:
44. These are the numbered ones, whom Moses and Aaron and the twelve princes of Israel counted each one [representing] his fathers' house. מד. אֵלֶּה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וּנְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶחָד לְבֵית אֲבֹתָיו הָיוּ:
45. All the children of Israel were counted according to their fathers' houses, from twenty years and upward, all who were fit to go out to the army. מה. וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל פְּקוּדֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:
46. The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty. מו. וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל הַפְּקֻדִים שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים:
47. But the Levites, according to their father's tribe were not numbered among them. מז. וְהַלְוִיִּם לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָם לֹא הָתְפָּקְדוּ בְּתוֹכָם:
48. The Lord spoke to Moses saying: מח. וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
49. Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, and you shall not reckon their sum among the children of Israel. מט. אַךְ אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי לֹא תִפְקֹד וְאֶת רֹאשָׁם לֹא תִשָּׂא בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
50. But you shall appoint the Levites over the Tabernacle of the Testimony, over all its vessels and over all that belong to it; they shall carry the Tabernacle and they shall minister to it, and they shall encamp around the Tabernacle. נ. וְאַתָּה הַפְקֵד אֶת הַלְוִיִּם עַל מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת וְעַל כָּל כֵּלָיו וְעַל כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הֵמָּה יִשְׂאוּ אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְהֵם יְשָׁרְתֻהוּ וְסָבִיב לַמִּשְׁכָּן יַחֲנוּ:
51. When the Tabernacle is set to travel, the Levites shall dismantle it; and when the Tabernacle camps, the Levites shall erect it; any outsider [non Levite] who approaches shall be put to death. נא. וּבִנְסֹעַ הַמִּשְׁכָּן יוֹרִידוּ אֹתוֹ הַלְוִיִּם וּבַחֲנֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן יָקִימוּ אֹתוֹ הַלְוִיִּם וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת:
52. The children of Israel shall encamp, each man by his own camp and each man by his division. נב. וְחָנוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ עַל מַחֲנֵהוּ וְאִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ לְצִבְאֹתָם:
53. The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony, so that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel and the Levites shall keep the charge of the Mishkan of the Testimony. נג. וְהַלְוִיִּם יַחֲנוּ סָבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קֶצֶף עַל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁמְרוּ הַלְוִיִּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדוּת:
54. And the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord had commanded Moses thus did they do. נד. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ:
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Zaporozhian Cossacks
Note comment to the below:
May 29 2012 14:18 .The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:
This religion of freedom and instinctual anarchism was put in a glorified context with no clear conmection.The connection quite correctly is not straightforward.
The irony is that the Cossacks were absorbed by the Tsars as tools of oppression to silence and butcher the revolutionaires and used by the white army in pogroms of the Jews in Brisk in 1918 and other times during Hetman Khmelnytsky's massacres and pogroms of thousands with hatchets and clubs, so my research has indicated in the 1600s. My mother was girl of age 5 who survived these Cossacks and white Russians , if such they were in Brisk Lihuania(Belarus).Yet they valued freedom so much as anarchism tends to find romantic glory in the distant past, and to idealize that past.
Edward Yablonsky.
www.edwardsliteracylog.blogspot.com
http://libcom.org/history/makhnovists-beyond-rapids-zaporozhian-cossack-influence
Zaporozhian Cossacks.
At the Historical Musuem in Dnipropretrovsk an unassuming note dated November 27th 1919 bears the signature of Bat’ko Makhno. The note, promising security and financial assistance to the museum, was issued to the famous historian of the Zaporozhian Cossacks and then museum director Dmytro Yavornytsky. Beyond these details contained in the note the meeting of Yavornytsky and Makhno has receded into the realm of popular lore. According to legend, the Makhnovist counterintelligence came to the Yavornytsky’s home demanding he open the museum to fulfill necessary ‘contributions’. Understanding the seriousness of the situation Yavornytsky demanded an audience with Makhno who in turn requested a tour of the museum. During the tour, Makhno, quite fascinated by the exhibitions, requested an ancient Cossack drinking bottle as a present. In later renditions this bottle is described as an ‘elixir of life’ capable of giving immortality to its drinker. [12, p. 114]
Yavornytsky protested arguing the museum owned only two such artifacts. Makhno apparently responded by saying “For history one bottle of vodka is enough,” and took the bottle for himself. Makhno then asked to see the sword of a famous Hetman. Not to be fooled twice, Yavornytsky directed the Bat’ko’s attention towards a rusty artifact. In all, the visit was kindly and Makhno even refers to the director as “friend” in his security note. The following day fourteen cartloads of coal were delivered to the museum to help Yavornytsky through the winter months. As a final request Yavornytsky was asked to lecture on the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Makhnovist army staff. Unfortunately the lecture was never held as Makhno was soon forced to evacuate the city. [5]
The Yavornytsky-Makhno meeting is a fascinating blend of history and folk memory illustrative of how the Zaporozhian heritage contributed to the Makhnovist identity. Arthur E. Adams writes: “Any effort to identify the motives of the peasant rebellions of 1918-1920 must begin with a consideration of the most powerful and glorious of all Ukrainian traditions—that of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [1, p. 249] Particularly for the peasant rank and file, their movement was intimately linked to the unique historical traditions of the Zaporozhian Host. The Zaporozhian tradition is a critical recurring theme in the Makhnovist narrative. It served as a wellspring of collective cultural memory and encouraged the social cohesion of the movement via references to a shared history, culture, and characteristic libertarian impulse.
Eighteenth century southern Ukraine was largely an unconquered territory. Ostensibly claimed by the Ottoman and Russian Empires, southern Ukraine in reality functioned as a grand refuge for peasants and outcasts seeking to escape the reach of lord and state. Voline writes that “thus for centuries, the Ukraine was the promised land of fugitives of every kind.” [16, p. 545] Beginning in the 15th century peasants that fled to the borderlands [ukraina] in search of ‘the free life’ [vol’nitsa] came to be called Cossacks. Derived from the south Turkic word qazak, or adventurer, in the Ukrainian context it came to refer to “the free, masterless man who lacked a well-defined place in society and who lived on its unsettled periphery.” [15, p. 108]. The Cossacks formed confraternities, or hosts, based around the Don and Dnieper rivers. These exclusively male encampments were open to all Christians irrespective of social background and members were free to leave at their own behest
The most fiercely independent of the Cossacks was the Zaporozhian Host. This group established their capital, or Sich, “beyond the rapids” [za porogy] in the islands of the lower Dnieper, near what would become the city of Alexandrovsk (modern day Zaporozhye). Voline describes the Zaporozhians as “men in love with liberty” who had “struggled for centuries against the attempts at enslavement by various neighbours.” [16, p. 544] The physical location of the host was integral to their free way of life providing a natural defence against Russians and Poles to the north and Turkic Tatars to the south. By the mid-17th century the Zaporozhians occupied an independent buffer zone in what would later become the provinces of Ekaterinoslav and Kherson. [8, p. 15] It is telling that the Zaporozhian and Makhnovist regions of influence correspond to a great extent. While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.
While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.
While never able to recover their former way of life, the spirit of volnitsa continued to flow through the veins of the toiling peasantry. Nationalist author L. Vynar, no friend to Makhno, was of the opinion that, “[Gulyai Polye's] inhabitants are mostly descendants of the old Cossack times, who have down to the present preserved the true Zaporozhian traditions.” [11, p. xx] The majority of Makhnovists descended directly from the Zaporozhians Cossacks and retained a strong cultural memory of their history through folk tales and song.
A specifically Zaporozhian tradition evolved over time, described by Adams as “a genuine egalitarianism, an anarchistic love of personal freedom that expressed itself in a profound distrust of all authority, and a proud tradition that, when a true Cossack is oppressed, he will rebel and fight with a fine disregard for consequences.” [1, p. 249] Integral to the Zaporozhian way of life was an early form of direct democracy, in which atamany [military chiefs] were elected at open councils [rady]. All Cossacks, regardless of their socioeconomic status, were free to participate in these often-boisterous elections. In contrast to their cousins on the right-bank of the Dnieper, the Zaporozhians experienced less social inequality and more restrictions on the power of their atamany in peacetime.
The Zaporozhians’ love of freedom could even extend to peoples outside their clan. In an event foreshadowing Makhnovist practices, the Zaporozhians released thousands of Turkish slaves in 1616 during a raid on Kaffa in the Crimea. [15, p. 112] All social outcasts and runaways seeking the free life were welcome to join the host. More surprisingly, and out of step with the other hosts, the Zaporozhians accepted Jews into their ranks. [9, 56] In his time Makhno would consciously adopt a policy of friendship towards Jews. The movement benefited from the participation of numerous Jewish intellectuals and ethnically Jewish battalions.
For Voline and Arshinov the influence of the Cossack heritage on the evolution of Ukrainian psychology cannot be underestimated. All three of our main sources for the Makhnovist narrative invoke Zaporozhian traditions as central to the indigenous development of the movement. Arshinov considered the presence of “the traditions of the Vol’nitsa … preserved from ancient times” as the most important Ukrainian factor facilitating the rise of the Makhnovshchina. [2, p. 50) For Voline the historical presence of the Zaporozhian tradition and its preservation in the memory of the peasantry through the years of enserfment is proof of a qualitative difference between the Ukrainian and Russian peasantry:
Certain parts of the Ukraine never allowed themselves to be wholly subjugated, as had happened in Great Russia. Their population always preserved a spirit of independence, of resistance, of popular rebellion. Relatively cultivated and refined, individualistic and capable of taking the initiative without flinching, jealous of his independence, warlike by tradition, ready to defend himself and accustomed, for centuries, to feel free and his own master, the Ukrainian was in general never subjugated to that total slavery – not only of the body but also of the spirit – characterized the population of the rest of Russia. [16, p. 544]
All factions of the civil war recognized the Makhnovshchina’s distinct Zaporozhian spirit. Anarchist Josef Gotman, remarked that, “in [Makhno’s] veins flowed the blood of Zaporog Cossack ancestors renowned for their independent spirit and fighting qualities.” [3] The White General A. Shkuro, remarked of the Makhnovists that they “take pride in calling themselves “Cossacks” and fantasize about re-establishing the Zaporozhian [Host].” Passing through Ekaterinoslav the peasants voiced their support of Makhno saying, “it doesn’t matter whether we’re Ukrainians or Russians, just that we’re Cossacks.” [13, Chapter 22] The Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai wrote that “the village of Guylai-Polye took the form of a form of a fortified camp, reminiscent of old Zaporozhye.” [Pravda February 14, 1919, cited in 4] Likewise, during a May 1919 visit to Guylai-Polye, L. Kamenev’s assistant recalled that he felt as though he had been “transported back among the Zaporogs of the 18th century.” [cited in 14, p. 292] All levels of observers recognized the Zaporozhian influence. For example, in March 1919 the Supreme Military Inspectorate observed that, “Parts of Makhno’s army are strongly imbued with the spirit and traditions of a free Zaporozhye.” [cited in 4]
For Makhno himself, the Zaporozhian heritage was integral to his identity. He writes in his memoirs:
My mother often told me about the lives of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, about their free communes in the old days. I had once read Gogol’s novel Taras Bulba and was thrilled with the customs and traditions of the people of those times. But it never occurred to me that the day would come when I would feel myself their heir, and they would become for me a source of inspiration for the rebirth of this free country. [Makhno, A Rebellious Youth, 33]
During the agrarian disturbances of 1905 Makhno’s comrade A. Semenyuta would rally the local anarchist-communist group with the words: “A big cheer to you, children of the people, famous great-grandsons of the Cossacks!” [4] Peasant delegates from the region to the All Russian Peasant Congress in November 1905 similarly stated: “In our people there lives to this day that sense of freedom which was found among the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [cited in 8, p. 236]
Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:
Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].
At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.
The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.
Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:
Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].
At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.
The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.
Despite its clear influence on the Makhnovshchina any appeal to a common Zaporozhian heritage is conspicuously absent from the movement’s propaganda. Indeed, even in a June 1920 appeal to the Don and Kuban Cossacks there is no mention of a common heritage, they are simply appealed to as labouring peoples. [2, p. 270-273] Some commentators have interpreted this as evidence that the Zaporozhian-Makhnovist connection is exaggerated, or an artificial attempt to harmonize Ukrainian history. [7, p. 526; 4] However, as is evident, participants and observers were keenly aware of the movement’s Zaporozhian inspiration. A possible explanation is that Makhnovist propaganda was commonly produced by non-peasant anarchist intellectuals. Many members of the cultural-educational department were urban Jews who would not have shared the rank-and-file peasant’s common Zaporozhian heritage. As such, the Makhnovist vision was expressed in the more universal language of revolutionary anarchism as opposed to the culturally limited, and potentially chauvinistic, language of Zaporozhian cossackdom. Furthermore, there is evidence that the peasant leadership also consciously adopted this attitude. None of the movement’s early proclamations mention Zaporozhian heritage. From the beginning the Makhnovshchina sought to include all exploited peoples of the region and thus avoided ethnically exclusive rhetoric. Makhno himself actively opposed any manifestations of national chauvinism and would have frowned upon any attempt to rally the troops around ethnic traditions. His language, and the movement as a whole, was based on the common heritage of the toiling worker, regardless of ethnicity, language or religion.
Particularly illuminating is the proclamation entitled “1654”. Published November 27th 1919 in the Ukrainian-language Makhnovist daily Shliakh do Voli [Road to Freedom], the title refers to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in which Bohdan Khmelnytsky, on the heel of his uprising, accepted the overlordship of Muscovy. The exact intentions of Khmelnytsky are still debated by historians, however for the Makhnovists the treaty was clearly a treasonous affair. In a clear indictment of the treaty, the anonymous author states that a slave is still a slave whether under the rule of Hetman or Tsar. [6, Shliakh do Voli, November 27, 1919]. The proclamation exhibits a willingness to critically engage Zaporozhian history and serves as a clear warning against any blind glorification of the Host. It points the reader to a perspective beyond national prejudices and towards a common solidarity through the experience of slavery. Furthermore, it presents a characteristically Makhnovist interpretation of history in which the rebellious masses are consistently betrayed by a privileged leadership.
The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:
If we ignore the anarchist slogans in Makhnovist manifestos, the political system of the Makhnovist movement was a romantic attempt to replace modern social relations with an idealized popular fantasy borrowed from Cossack times, which would allow people to find fraternal equality and personal freedom. Anarchism was only a modern 20th century formulation, which embodied similar values. Its doctrine, with its references to the methods of science, offered a way to make this dream a reality, while downplaying its utopianism. [4]
As a narrative thread the Zaporozhian heritage operates in the substrata of the Makhnovist story: implicit in the movement’s common language of the movement but never explicitly propagandized. At a fundamental level anarchism and Zaporozhian Cossackdom are profoundly complementary, functioning to narratively link the past with the present.
Bilbliography
[1] Adams, Arthur E. “The Great Ukrainian Jacquerie.” In The Ukraine, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution, edited by Taras Hunczak, pp. 247-270. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
[2] Arshinov, Peter. [1923] History of the Makhnovist Movement, 1918-1921. Translated by Lorraine and Fredy Perlman. London: Freedom Press, 2005.
[3] Berkman, Alexander. “The Man Who Saved Moscow”, Item 221. Alexander Berkman Papers, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.
[4] Chop, V.M. “Проблема традицій запорозького козацтва в історії махновського руху.” [“The Problem of the Zaporozhian Cossack Tradition in the History of the Makhnovist Movement”] Українське козацтво у вітчизняній та загальноєвропейській історії. Міжнародна наукова конференція. Тези доповідей. Одеса: 2005, pp. 69-70. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/5.php
[5] Chop, V.M. “Ставлення до махновського руху з боку істориків запорозького козацтва Я.П.Новицького та Д.І.Яворницького.” [“The Zaporozhian Cossack Historians Navitsky and Yavornitsky’s Attitude Toward the Makhnovist Movement”] Матеріали Перших Новицьких читань. Запоріжжя: РА “Тандем-У”, 2002, pp.104-111. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/16.php
[6] Chop V.M. “Газети махновського руху.” [“Newspapers of the Makhnovist Movement”] Наукові праці історичного факультету Запорізького державного університету. Запоріжжя: “Просвіта”, 2004, pp. 239-258. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/6.php
[7] Darch, Colin. “The Myth of Nestor Makhno.” Economy and Society 14 (1985): 524-536.
[8] Friesen, Leonard. Rural Revolutions in Southern Ukraine: Peasants, Nobles and Colonists, 1774-1905. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
[9] Gordon, Linda. Cossack Rebellions: Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth Century Ukraine. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.
[10] Makhno, Nestor. [1929] The Russian Revolution in Ukraine (March 1917 – April 1918). Translated by Malcolm Archibald. Edmonton: Black Cat Press, 2007.
[11] Malet, Michael. Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1982.
[12] Peters, Victor. Nestor Makhno: The Life of an Anarchist. Winnipeg: Echo Books, 1970.
[13] Shkuro, Andrei. Гражданская война в России: Записки белого партизана [“The Russian Civil War: Notes of A White Partisan”]. М.: ACT: Транзиткнига, 2004. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shkuro_ag/22.html
[14] Skirda, Alexandre. [1982] Nestor Makhno – Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine, 1917-1921. Translated by Paul Sharkey. Oakland: AK Press, 2004.
[15] Subtelny, Orest. [1988] Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009, 4th edition.
[16] Voline. [1947] The Unknown Revolution. Translated by Fredy Perlman. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1990.
May 29 2012 14:18 .The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:
This religion of freedom and instinctual anarchism was put in a glorified context with no clear conmection.The connection quite correctly is not straightforward.
The irony is that the Cossacks were absorbed by the Tsars as tools of oppression to silence and butcher the revolutionaires and used by the white army in pogroms of the Jews in Brisk in 1918 and other times during Hetman Khmelnytsky's massacres and pogroms of thousands with hatchets and clubs, so my research has indicated in the 1600s. My mother was girl of age 5 who survived these Cossacks and white Russians , if such they were in Brisk Lihuania(Belarus).Yet they valued freedom so much as anarchism tends to find romantic glory in the distant past, and to idealize that past.
Edward Yablonsky.
www.edwardsliteracylog.blogspot.com
http://libcom.org/history/makhnovists-beyond-rapids-zaporozhian-cossack-influence
Zaporozhian Cossacks.
At the Historical Musuem in Dnipropretrovsk an unassuming note dated November 27th 1919 bears the signature of Bat’ko Makhno. The note, promising security and financial assistance to the museum, was issued to the famous historian of the Zaporozhian Cossacks and then museum director Dmytro Yavornytsky. Beyond these details contained in the note the meeting of Yavornytsky and Makhno has receded into the realm of popular lore. According to legend, the Makhnovist counterintelligence came to the Yavornytsky’s home demanding he open the museum to fulfill necessary ‘contributions’. Understanding the seriousness of the situation Yavornytsky demanded an audience with Makhno who in turn requested a tour of the museum. During the tour, Makhno, quite fascinated by the exhibitions, requested an ancient Cossack drinking bottle as a present. In later renditions this bottle is described as an ‘elixir of life’ capable of giving immortality to its drinker. [12, p. 114]
Yavornytsky protested arguing the museum owned only two such artifacts. Makhno apparently responded by saying “For history one bottle of vodka is enough,” and took the bottle for himself. Makhno then asked to see the sword of a famous Hetman. Not to be fooled twice, Yavornytsky directed the Bat’ko’s attention towards a rusty artifact. In all, the visit was kindly and Makhno even refers to the director as “friend” in his security note. The following day fourteen cartloads of coal were delivered to the museum to help Yavornytsky through the winter months. As a final request Yavornytsky was asked to lecture on the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Makhnovist army staff. Unfortunately the lecture was never held as Makhno was soon forced to evacuate the city. [5]
The Yavornytsky-Makhno meeting is a fascinating blend of history and folk memory illustrative of how the Zaporozhian heritage contributed to the Makhnovist identity. Arthur E. Adams writes: “Any effort to identify the motives of the peasant rebellions of 1918-1920 must begin with a consideration of the most powerful and glorious of all Ukrainian traditions—that of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [1, p. 249] Particularly for the peasant rank and file, their movement was intimately linked to the unique historical traditions of the Zaporozhian Host. The Zaporozhian tradition is a critical recurring theme in the Makhnovist narrative. It served as a wellspring of collective cultural memory and encouraged the social cohesion of the movement via references to a shared history, culture, and characteristic libertarian impulse.
Eighteenth century southern Ukraine was largely an unconquered territory. Ostensibly claimed by the Ottoman and Russian Empires, southern Ukraine in reality functioned as a grand refuge for peasants and outcasts seeking to escape the reach of lord and state. Voline writes that “thus for centuries, the Ukraine was the promised land of fugitives of every kind.” [16, p. 545] Beginning in the 15th century peasants that fled to the borderlands [ukraina] in search of ‘the free life’ [vol’nitsa] came to be called Cossacks. Derived from the south Turkic word qazak, or adventurer, in the Ukrainian context it came to refer to “the free, masterless man who lacked a well-defined place in society and who lived on its unsettled periphery.” [15, p. 108]. The Cossacks formed confraternities, or hosts, based around the Don and Dnieper rivers. These exclusively male encampments were open to all Christians irrespective of social background and members were free to leave at their own behest
The most fiercely independent of the Cossacks was the Zaporozhian Host. This group established their capital, or Sich, “beyond the rapids” [za porogy] in the islands of the lower Dnieper, near what would become the city of Alexandrovsk (modern day Zaporozhye). Voline describes the Zaporozhians as “men in love with liberty” who had “struggled for centuries against the attempts at enslavement by various neighbours.” [16, p. 544] The physical location of the host was integral to their free way of life providing a natural defence against Russians and Poles to the north and Turkic Tatars to the south. By the mid-17th century the Zaporozhians occupied an independent buffer zone in what would later become the provinces of Ekaterinoslav and Kherson. [8, p. 15] It is telling that the Zaporozhian and Makhnovist regions of influence correspond to a great extent. While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.
While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.
While never able to recover their former way of life, the spirit of volnitsa continued to flow through the veins of the toiling peasantry. Nationalist author L. Vynar, no friend to Makhno, was of the opinion that, “[Gulyai Polye's] inhabitants are mostly descendants of the old Cossack times, who have down to the present preserved the true Zaporozhian traditions.” [11, p. xx] The majority of Makhnovists descended directly from the Zaporozhians Cossacks and retained a strong cultural memory of their history through folk tales and song.
A specifically Zaporozhian tradition evolved over time, described by Adams as “a genuine egalitarianism, an anarchistic love of personal freedom that expressed itself in a profound distrust of all authority, and a proud tradition that, when a true Cossack is oppressed, he will rebel and fight with a fine disregard for consequences.” [1, p. 249] Integral to the Zaporozhian way of life was an early form of direct democracy, in which atamany [military chiefs] were elected at open councils [rady]. All Cossacks, regardless of their socioeconomic status, were free to participate in these often-boisterous elections. In contrast to their cousins on the right-bank of the Dnieper, the Zaporozhians experienced less social inequality and more restrictions on the power of their atamany in peacetime.
The Zaporozhians’ love of freedom could even extend to peoples outside their clan. In an event foreshadowing Makhnovist practices, the Zaporozhians released thousands of Turkish slaves in 1616 during a raid on Kaffa in the Crimea. [15, p. 112] All social outcasts and runaways seeking the free life were welcome to join the host. More surprisingly, and out of step with the other hosts, the Zaporozhians accepted Jews into their ranks. [9, 56] In his time Makhno would consciously adopt a policy of friendship towards Jews. The movement benefited from the participation of numerous Jewish intellectuals and ethnically Jewish battalions.
For Voline and Arshinov the influence of the Cossack heritage on the evolution of Ukrainian psychology cannot be underestimated. All three of our main sources for the Makhnovist narrative invoke Zaporozhian traditions as central to the indigenous development of the movement. Arshinov considered the presence of “the traditions of the Vol’nitsa … preserved from ancient times” as the most important Ukrainian factor facilitating the rise of the Makhnovshchina. [2, p. 50) For Voline the historical presence of the Zaporozhian tradition and its preservation in the memory of the peasantry through the years of enserfment is proof of a qualitative difference between the Ukrainian and Russian peasantry:
Certain parts of the Ukraine never allowed themselves to be wholly subjugated, as had happened in Great Russia. Their population always preserved a spirit of independence, of resistance, of popular rebellion. Relatively cultivated and refined, individualistic and capable of taking the initiative without flinching, jealous of his independence, warlike by tradition, ready to defend himself and accustomed, for centuries, to feel free and his own master, the Ukrainian was in general never subjugated to that total slavery – not only of the body but also of the spirit – characterized the population of the rest of Russia. [16, p. 544]
All factions of the civil war recognized the Makhnovshchina’s distinct Zaporozhian spirit. Anarchist Josef Gotman, remarked that, “in [Makhno’s] veins flowed the blood of Zaporog Cossack ancestors renowned for their independent spirit and fighting qualities.” [3] The White General A. Shkuro, remarked of the Makhnovists that they “take pride in calling themselves “Cossacks” and fantasize about re-establishing the Zaporozhian [Host].” Passing through Ekaterinoslav the peasants voiced their support of Makhno saying, “it doesn’t matter whether we’re Ukrainians or Russians, just that we’re Cossacks.” [13, Chapter 22] The Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai wrote that “the village of Guylai-Polye took the form of a form of a fortified camp, reminiscent of old Zaporozhye.” [Pravda February 14, 1919, cited in 4] Likewise, during a May 1919 visit to Guylai-Polye, L. Kamenev’s assistant recalled that he felt as though he had been “transported back among the Zaporogs of the 18th century.” [cited in 14, p. 292] All levels of observers recognized the Zaporozhian influence. For example, in March 1919 the Supreme Military Inspectorate observed that, “Parts of Makhno’s army are strongly imbued with the spirit and traditions of a free Zaporozhye.” [cited in 4]
For Makhno himself, the Zaporozhian heritage was integral to his identity. He writes in his memoirs:
My mother often told me about the lives of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, about their free communes in the old days. I had once read Gogol’s novel Taras Bulba and was thrilled with the customs and traditions of the people of those times. But it never occurred to me that the day would come when I would feel myself their heir, and they would become for me a source of inspiration for the rebirth of this free country. [Makhno, A Rebellious Youth, 33]
During the agrarian disturbances of 1905 Makhno’s comrade A. Semenyuta would rally the local anarchist-communist group with the words: “A big cheer to you, children of the people, famous great-grandsons of the Cossacks!” [4] Peasant delegates from the region to the All Russian Peasant Congress in November 1905 similarly stated: “In our people there lives to this day that sense of freedom which was found among the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [cited in 8, p. 236]
Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:
Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].
At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.
The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.
Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:
Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].
At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.
The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.
Despite its clear influence on the Makhnovshchina any appeal to a common Zaporozhian heritage is conspicuously absent from the movement’s propaganda. Indeed, even in a June 1920 appeal to the Don and Kuban Cossacks there is no mention of a common heritage, they are simply appealed to as labouring peoples. [2, p. 270-273] Some commentators have interpreted this as evidence that the Zaporozhian-Makhnovist connection is exaggerated, or an artificial attempt to harmonize Ukrainian history. [7, p. 526; 4] However, as is evident, participants and observers were keenly aware of the movement’s Zaporozhian inspiration. A possible explanation is that Makhnovist propaganda was commonly produced by non-peasant anarchist intellectuals. Many members of the cultural-educational department were urban Jews who would not have shared the rank-and-file peasant’s common Zaporozhian heritage. As such, the Makhnovist vision was expressed in the more universal language of revolutionary anarchism as opposed to the culturally limited, and potentially chauvinistic, language of Zaporozhian cossackdom. Furthermore, there is evidence that the peasant leadership also consciously adopted this attitude. None of the movement’s early proclamations mention Zaporozhian heritage. From the beginning the Makhnovshchina sought to include all exploited peoples of the region and thus avoided ethnically exclusive rhetoric. Makhno himself actively opposed any manifestations of national chauvinism and would have frowned upon any attempt to rally the troops around ethnic traditions. His language, and the movement as a whole, was based on the common heritage of the toiling worker, regardless of ethnicity, language or religion.
Particularly illuminating is the proclamation entitled “1654”. Published November 27th 1919 in the Ukrainian-language Makhnovist daily Shliakh do Voli [Road to Freedom], the title refers to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in which Bohdan Khmelnytsky, on the heel of his uprising, accepted the overlordship of Muscovy. The exact intentions of Khmelnytsky are still debated by historians, however for the Makhnovists the treaty was clearly a treasonous affair. In a clear indictment of the treaty, the anonymous author states that a slave is still a slave whether under the rule of Hetman or Tsar. [6, Shliakh do Voli, November 27, 1919]. The proclamation exhibits a willingness to critically engage Zaporozhian history and serves as a clear warning against any blind glorification of the Host. It points the reader to a perspective beyond national prejudices and towards a common solidarity through the experience of slavery. Furthermore, it presents a characteristically Makhnovist interpretation of history in which the rebellious masses are consistently betrayed by a privileged leadership.
The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:
If we ignore the anarchist slogans in Makhnovist manifestos, the political system of the Makhnovist movement was a romantic attempt to replace modern social relations with an idealized popular fantasy borrowed from Cossack times, which would allow people to find fraternal equality and personal freedom. Anarchism was only a modern 20th century formulation, which embodied similar values. Its doctrine, with its references to the methods of science, offered a way to make this dream a reality, while downplaying its utopianism. [4]
As a narrative thread the Zaporozhian heritage operates in the substrata of the Makhnovist story: implicit in the movement’s common language of the movement but never explicitly propagandized. At a fundamental level anarchism and Zaporozhian Cossackdom are profoundly complementary, functioning to narratively link the past with the present.
Bilbliography
[1] Adams, Arthur E. “The Great Ukrainian Jacquerie.” In The Ukraine, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution, edited by Taras Hunczak, pp. 247-270. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
[2] Arshinov, Peter. [1923] History of the Makhnovist Movement, 1918-1921. Translated by Lorraine and Fredy Perlman. London: Freedom Press, 2005.
[3] Berkman, Alexander. “The Man Who Saved Moscow”, Item 221. Alexander Berkman Papers, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.
[4] Chop, V.M. “Проблема традицій запорозького козацтва в історії махновського руху.” [“The Problem of the Zaporozhian Cossack Tradition in the History of the Makhnovist Movement”] Українське козацтво у вітчизняній та загальноєвропейській історії. Міжнародна наукова конференція. Тези доповідей. Одеса: 2005, pp. 69-70. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/5.php
[5] Chop, V.M. “Ставлення до махновського руху з боку істориків запорозького козацтва Я.П.Новицького та Д.І.Яворницького.” [“The Zaporozhian Cossack Historians Navitsky and Yavornitsky’s Attitude Toward the Makhnovist Movement”] Матеріали Перших Новицьких читань. Запоріжжя: РА “Тандем-У”, 2002, pp.104-111. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/16.php
[6] Chop V.M. “Газети махновського руху.” [“Newspapers of the Makhnovist Movement”] Наукові праці історичного факультету Запорізького державного університету. Запоріжжя: “Просвіта”, 2004, pp. 239-258. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/6.php
[7] Darch, Colin. “The Myth of Nestor Makhno.” Economy and Society 14 (1985): 524-536.
[8] Friesen, Leonard. Rural Revolutions in Southern Ukraine: Peasants, Nobles and Colonists, 1774-1905. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
[9] Gordon, Linda. Cossack Rebellions: Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth Century Ukraine. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.
[10] Makhno, Nestor. [1929] The Russian Revolution in Ukraine (March 1917 – April 1918). Translated by Malcolm Archibald. Edmonton: Black Cat Press, 2007.
[11] Malet, Michael. Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1982.
[12] Peters, Victor. Nestor Makhno: The Life of an Anarchist. Winnipeg: Echo Books, 1970.
[13] Shkuro, Andrei. Гражданская война в России: Записки белого партизана [“The Russian Civil War: Notes of A White Partisan”]. М.: ACT: Транзиткнига, 2004. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shkuro_ag/22.html
[14] Skirda, Alexandre. [1982] Nestor Makhno – Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine, 1917-1921. Translated by Paul Sharkey. Oakland: AK Press, 2004.
[15] Subtelny, Orest. [1988] Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009, 4th edition.
[16] Voline. [1947] The Unknown Revolution. Translated by Fredy Perlman. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1990.
Korkoro
.jpg)
Korkoro From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Korkoro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korkoro
American DVD cover
Directed by Tony Gatlif
Produced by Tony Gatlif
Written by Tony Gatlif
Starring Marc Lavoine
Marie-Josée Croze
James Thiérrée
Music by Delphine Mantoulet
Tony Gatlif
Cinematography Julien Hirsch
Editing by Monique Darton
Studio Production Princes
France 3 Cinema
Rhone-Alpes Cinema
Distributed by UGC Distribution
Release date(s) August 2009 (2009-08) (Montréal Film Festival)
24 February 2010 (2010-02-24)
Running time 111 minutes
Country ‹See Tfd› France
Language French
Romani
Korkoro ("Freedom" in the Romani language) is a 2009 French drama film written and directed by Tony Gatlif, starring French actors Marc Lavoine, Marie-Josée Croze and James Thiérrée. The film's cast were of many nationalities such as Albanian, Kosovar, Georgian, Serbian, French, Norwegian, and the nine Romanies Gatlif found in Transylvania. The film also has a minor character that was played by an 11-year-old great-grandson of Django Reinhardt, a virtuoso jazz guitarist and composer of Manouche gypsy ethnicity.
Based on an anecdote about the Second World War by the Romani (Gypsy) historian Jacques Sigot, the film was inspired by the real story of a Romani who escaped the Nazis with help from compassionate French villagers, depicting the rarely documented subject of Porajmos (the Romani Holocaust).[1] Other than the Romanies, the film has a character representing the French Resistance drawn from the true story of Yvette Lundy, a French teacher who had been deported for forging the passports for Romanies. Gatlif intended the film to ba a documentary, but the lack of supporting documents caused him instead to present it as a drama.
The film premiered at the Montréal World Film Festival, winning the Grand Prize of the Americas and other awards.[2] It was released in France as Liberté in February 2010, where it grossed $601,252; revenues from Belgium and the United States brought the international total to $627,088.[3] The film's music, which was composed by Tony Gatlif and Delphine Mantoulet, received a nomination in the Best Music Written for a Film category at the 36th annual César Awards.
Korkoro has been called "a rare cinematic tribute" to those killed in the Porajmos.[4] In general, it received positive reviews from critics, including praise for having an unusually leisurely pace for a Holocaust film.[5] Critics regarded this as one of the director's best works, and with Latcho Drom consider it the "most accessible" of his films. The film is said to be showing Romanies in a non-stereotypical way, far from their clichéd depictions as musicians.
Contents [hide]
1 Plot
2 Production
2.1 Background
BackgroundFurther information: Porajmos, Antiziganism
Romani arrivals in the Bełżec extermination camp await instructionsDuring World War II, the Porajmos was the attempt by Nazi Germany, the Independent State of Croatia, Horthy's Hungary and their allies to exterminate the Romani people of Europe.[7] Under Hitler’s rule, both Romanies and Jews were defined as "enemies of the race-based state" by the Nuremberg Laws; the two groups were targeted by similar policies and persecution, culminating in the near annihilation of both populations in Nazi-occupied countries.[8] Estimates of the death toll of Romanies in World War II range from 220,000 to 1,500,000.[9]
Because Eastern European Romani communities were less organised than Jewish communities, Porajmos was not well documented. There also existed a trend to downplay the actual figures, according to Ian Hancock, director of the Program of Romani Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.[10] Tony Gatlif, whose films mostly have Romanies as subjects, had long wanted to make a documentary on this less well-known subject, but the lack of enough documented evidence coupled with the absence of accurate pre-war census figures for the Romanies made it difficult.[11]
2.2 Development
DevelopmentGatlif's quest began in 1970 when he approached Matéo Maximoff, a French writer of Romani ethnicity. The two went to Montreuil to interview the Romanies there who refused to discuss the subject. Gatlif was also researching the Justes, the French who attempted to shield the Romanies from persecution.[12] Following former French President Jacques Chirac's efforts to honour the Justes,[13] Gatlif came across Yvette Lundy,[11] a former schoolteacher in Gionges, La Marne, who had been deported for forging documents for the Romanies.[14] Gatlif came across an anecdote by Jacques Sigot, a historian who has documented the Porajmos,[15] which would later help with the story.[11] The anecdote is about a Romani family saved from being sent to the camp at Montreuil-Bellay by a French lawyer who sold them his home for a single franc. Unable to adjust to a stationary lifestyle, the family took to the streets, which led to their arrest in northern France and eventual incarceration in the Auschwitz concentration camp.[12]
The characters in Korkoro are drawn from Sigot's anecdote. The film traces the Romani Taloche's escape, with help from a French notary, from the Nazis in Nazi occupied France, and his subsequent inability to lead a non-nomadic life. The character Théodore Rosier is based on the notary in the anecdote.[11] The other Juste character, Lise Lundi, is based on Yvette Lundy and an old teacher of Gatlif's from Belcourt in Algeria who was a communist and an aide with the Front de Libération Nationale (National Liberation Front).[12]
Intended to be a documentary, Korkoro became a drama because of the lack of sufficient supporting documents. Gatlif wrote the initial script in one month; further modifications later followed which made the film's style a narrative by the characters Rosier and Lundi. Gatlif used Lundy's help to write the scenes related to her, to which he added his own experiences with his teacher. The first appearance of the Romanies in the film is inspired by the way the nomadic Romanies showed up in the middle of nowhere after Gatlif had been working on the characterisation for over a year. Another year was spent in developing Taloche's character.[11]
2.3 Casting
CastingGatlif wanted to represent the entire Romani community through the characterization of Félix Lavil dit Taloche's naiveté and purity. For example, Taloche is shown as being afraid of ghosts, which echoes the Romanies' phobia. For Taloche's role, Gatlif needed a musician with acrobatic skills, which was very hard to find. In Paris at the Théâtre de la Ville, he was impressed James Thiérrée, a grandson of Charlie Chaplin. A non-Romani, (though Chaplin's grandmother was Romani) Thiérrée learned Romani and Gypsy swing music in six months.[11)
For Théodore Rosier, Gatlif wanted someone who looked like a typical Frenchman of the time, with a "voice and face a little like that of Pierre Fresnay, Maurice Ronet, Jacques Charrier or Gérard Philippe", which he found in Marc Lavoine.[11] Marie-Josée Croze was the obvious choice for Mademoiselle Lise Lundi. Gatlif had envisioned Lundi as being like a "Hitchcock character: fragile, mysterious and strong".[11]
Pierre Pentecôte, the militia character played by Carlo Brandt, was presented with a pitiful look, rather than a caricature villain. Gatlif depicted him as a character with a drooping hat and a few extra pounds to symbolise the fat militia of the period. The orphan, P'tite Claude, was played by Mathias Laliberté. Rufus was chosen by Gatlif for the role of Fernand because of his typical French looks. Puri Dai, the grandmother, was played by Raya Bielenberg, a Soviet-born Norwegian artist and 2005 recipient of Oslo City art award, who uses music and dance in an effort to make the Romani culture better known in Norway.[16] Gatlif found her in Oslo.[11] The other notable characters in the movie, Darko, Kako, Chavo, Zanko and Tatane were played by Arben Bajraktaraj, Georges Babluani, Ilijir Selimoski, Kevyn Diana and Thomas Baumgartner respectively.[11] A minor character named Levis was played by then 11-year-old great-grandson of Django Reinhardt, a virtuoso jazz guitarist and composer of Manouche gypsy ethnicity.[17] The cast included people of many nationalities, Albanian, Kosovar, Georgian, Serbian, French and Norwegian along with the nine Romanies Gatlif found living in extreme poverty in Transylvania.[11] Arrangements were made for these Romanies to stay in France for the three to four months it took to shoot the film.[12
2.4 Filming
The film was shot in Loire, in the Monts du Forez, Rozier-Côtes-d'Aurec and Saint-Bonnet-le-Château.[18] The tools used in the movie, which were very similar to the ones employed in 1943, came from Transylvania. The barbed wire fences of the concentration camps are genuine ones built by the Nazis in Romania which can be differentiated from the ones used for cattle by their denser spacing.[12]
The male actors were asked to grow their hair and moustaches. The actors also had to diet to lose weight to achieve the look of World War II characters.[11] The costumes had a faded look, a reflection that people of the period owned few clothes, often only two outfits. None of the actors knew the script in advance and were only informed each night before of what they were to do in their daily scenes. The Romanies were not aware of the historic events that were the basis of the movie, and were only told that the story was set in hard times comparable to Ceaușescu's tenure in Romania.[12] In the scene where the Romanies revolt against the police over the death of Taloche, they were made aware of the character's death only when the scene was being shot, leading to a genuine outpouring of emotions, making their fight with the police appear more real. Gatlif later remarked in an interview that this scene stands for the actual revolt[12] by the Romanies in Auschwitz on May 16, 1944.[19]
Thierrée was the only actor allowed to improvise. His characterisation of Taloche was built on spontaneity, and in many instances, Gatlif had no clue how he would act in a scene, such as in the tap scene in which he plunges into a stairwell. In another scene, in which he dances with war music in the background, Thierrée pretended to make love to the earth like an animal. Gatlif, who had wanted the character to have the ability to sense forthcoming danger, like animals often do, stated that Thierrée was suitable for the role because he is very much an animal. The dance scene where Taloche is shown falling from a tree was done without stunt doubles.[11]
2.5 Music
MusicLiberté
Soundtrack album Korkoro by Various
Released March 2, 2010 (2010-03-02)
Genre Soundtrack
Length 50:52
Language French
Label Universal France
Producer Tony Gatlif
Music plays a very important role in all Gatlif's films, such as Latcho Drom and Gadjo dilo, Scott Tobias noted in his review for NPR.[4] Korkoro is no exception: the importance of music is evident from the opening credits in which barbed wire fences vibrate to the tune of plucked strings of a guitar and a cymbalum in line with the opening lines of the screenplay, "the barbed wire sings in the wind",[17] to the oddest tools used to make music, such as the clanking of buckets and wagon wheels.[4]
The background score was composed by Tony Gatlif and Delphine Mantoulet. The main theme of the songs is the Romani association with France. Despite the sad story, there are cheerful tracks too, with pieces for the waltz, tarantella and java. The film's music plays a prominent role from the opening credits to Catherine Ringer's track in the closing credits, "Les Bohemians", a waltz piece written by Gatlif and Mantoulet, which is described as setting the tone for the film.[20][21] "Les Bohemians" is the first French song ever featured in a Gatlif movie. Gatlif chose Ringer for the track, inspired by the "blood in the mouth" feel to her voice. The song translates as "Good luck to you all, if anyone worries that we’re gone, tell them we’ve been thrown from the light and the sky, we the lords of this vast universe."[11] The java dance piece composed by Delphine accompanies a scene where the characters secretly congregate in a barn for dancing, signifying the scenario then when public gatherings were prohibited.[17] The track "Un Poulailler A La Bastilles", sung by Gatlif's son Valentin Dahmani, plays on the existing stereotype of Romanies as chicken thieves. The film also incorporates sound effects of horses, explosions and a watch mechanism. The soundtrack also has a tune of the "Le Temps des cerises", the revolutionary song of the Paris Commune. The music for the song's version in the movie was composed by Gatlif, using clockwork sounds and banjo. Other soundtrack vocalists included Kalman Urszuj, Sandu Ciorba and Ikola.[20]
A soundtrack album was released in February, 2010. It was nominated for the César Award in 2011 in the category Best Music Written for a Film, but lost to Alexandre Desplat's The Ghost Writer.[22] Korkoro's soundtrack is said to invoke mixed feelings like good humour, nostalgia and fear, creating a universe parallel to the film.[20]
3 Themes and analysis
Themes and analysisKokoro has been compared to Schindler's List, a well-known Holocaust movie.[4] In his directing style Gatlif juxtaposed the vibrant Romani culture against the backdrop of war.[21] In particular, reviewers commented on the subtle manner in which he dealt with the horrofic aspects of war, and the manner in which he portrayed the Romanies in a non-stereotypical way. In addition to the Romani characters, the film also has a spy for the French Resistance and a Dickensian orphan.[4] Critics also made comparisons between the state of the Romanies in the film, set during World War II, and their circumstances in the present.[23]
3.1 Holocaust elements
Holocaust elementsCritics compared Korkoro to Stephen Spielberg's Schindler's List because of the sacrifices Rosier made to protect the Romanies from the Nazis. A review in Moving Pictures Network called it "Schindler's List minus the happy ending", citing a lack of comic relief, creating an inability to connect with the audience.[23] The opening scene, a close-up shot of barbed wire fences stretched along wooden posts with internment camp barracks in the background, is an image common to many Holocaust films, wrote Scott Tobias, who also commented on the "Schindlerian" actions of Rosier who gives his home to the Romanies—an assessment backed up by Eric Hynes's review in Time Out, New York.[4][24] Sophie Benamon at L'Express observed that Gatlif dealt with the horrors of the Holocaust by hinting at them through symbolism, such as portraying an abandoned child, suggesting imprisoned parents, and a clock with Hebrew markings seen lying abandoned in the middle of the railroad tracks, implying the passage of a train taking Jews to a ghetto.[25] Jr Glens Heath, writing forSlant Magazine, remarked that Gatlif's characterisation of the incomplete historic archives with which he was presented made the film a very "personal WWII historiography", where the characters "transcend victimisation" rather than mire themselves in melodrama, regarded as a typical Holocaust movie characteristic.[26] Michael Nordine wrote for Hammer to Nail that this film cannot be compared with Life is Beautiful and other "uplifting tales" with Holocaust themes because of its straightforward portrayal of realistic events.[27]
3.2 Gatlif's "Gypsy soul"
There were many reviews on the way Gatlif has depicted the Romanies, comparing it with their portrayals in his earlier movies. A reviewer in Variety said that the film's central theme lies in its depiction of the "Gypsy soul", which is its unique element, rather than its rather clichéd portrayal of the Holocaust.[28] Tobias noted that Gatlif has depicted Romanies as "a tight, syncopated unit than a motley collection of individuals", citing a scene where the members of a group are distressed, even though they have escaped from a ghetto, until a missing person rejoins them.[4] Unlike his earlier films, in which the Romanies were stereotyped as musicians, Korkoro depicts them as possessing many other skills, for example as healers and blacksmiths, and that its portrayal reveals their communitarian side along with their respect for unique individual qualities, stated Odile Tremblay at Le Devoir.[29] Brian Lafferty's (East County Magazine) comments were quite the opposite, complaining that the characterisations were "bland and generic with no unique identity" except for Taloche's, which was considered more of an annoyance.[30] Rachel Saltz at The New York Times attributed Korkoro's "unexpectedly leisurely quality" to the Gypsy way of living, their music, colours and bond with nature.[5] The film also depicts the Romanies' aversion to being tied down to one location, observed Harvey Karten at Arizona Reporter,[31] and some of their customs, such as silencing the sounds of horse's hooves with cloth bags, according to The Village Voice's reviewer Nick Schager.[32] Dan Bennett at North County Times approved of the appropriate costumes used in the movie, making it "a visually stylish and detail-friendly look at the nomadic lifestyle" that prevailed at the time.[33]
3.3 Freedom as a theme
Freedom as a themeA few critics suggested freedom as a theme in light of the importance shown by the characters to it. True to its title, which is a Romani word for freedom, Gatlif used his freedom to direct a tangential, poignant romantic story with the historical documents available to him, unlike other movies with similar themes, remarked Jacques Mandelbaum at Le Monde.[21] The Village Voice review declared that it is "a magnificent paean to the mad ecstasy of freedom".[32]The Arizona Reporter review added that, for the Romanies, freedom means "being able to keep in motion, that is, the journey, not the destination, is the reward". It observed the importance the characters give to freedom, citing the scene where Taloche becomes concerned that water is being "held against its will" in the taps, and "releases" it to overflow the sink onto the bathroom floor, and then the stairs, with Taloche blissfully sliding down the stairs as if he were on a Disney ride.[31] Alexis Campion at Le Journal du Dimanche remarked that Gatlif has refreshingly portrayed the Romanies as "free-spirited" characters and added that this historic film is a tribute to those free souls who take to the streets even today.[1] The Télérama review was of the opinion that the movie runs out of steam during the scenes depicting historic events, but gains momentum in the forests and on the roads, where its characters' passion for freedom, and hence Lavoine's and Croze's characters, get sidelined by that of Thierrée's, with his St. Vitus' dance and Dostoyevsky-like ruminations.[34] It added that Taloche is the true "incarnation" of freedom.[
Mirroring the current times
A section of critics wrote on the relevance of the movie to the current times. In an interview, Gatlif stated that he wanted the movie to mirror the current times, adding that the times have not changed much, and that while the political extermination has gone, the psychological and political views of Romanies have not. He criticised the French law that allows wanderers to stay in one place only for 24 hours. He was also critical of the plight of Romanies in Hungary, Romania and Italy.[11] He went on that the state of the Romanies now in many places, "with the rows of homeless people people waiting for a bowl of soup with a tin can on their hands", is not very different from that in the concentration camps.[12] Gatlif also lashed out against the fact that until 1969, Romanies were required to have their papers stamped at a police station or city hall whenever they arrived at or left a French village.[11] Bob Hill at Moving Pictures Network remarked that the movie draws parallels to the fact that "we are once again veering toward a culture in which regimes and wealth determine who has the right to live free — and who has no rights at all", and cited present happenings such as the developments in the Middle East, racial wars and inter-country disputes. It added that the movie makes the audience ask themselves if they live in a society that embraces or condemns diversity.[23]
3.4 Mirroring the current times
4 Release
5 Reception
5.1 Box office
5.2 Critical response
5.3 Awards
6 References
7 External links
PlotSet during World War II in rural Vichy France, the film begins with a nine year old French boy, Claude (Mathias Laliberté) escaping from an orphanage, deciding not to stay confined under state protection for the rest of his childhood. He then comes across a Romani caravan, consisting of an extended family of 20 men, women and children, who decide to adopt this orphaned boy. The Romani start calling Claude, Korkoro, the free one. Claude too gets fascinated by their nomadic lifestyle and decides to stay with them.[6]
The caravan sets up camp outside a small wine-growing village, hoping to find seasonal work in the vineyards and a place to sell their wares. The village, as was the trend, is divided into two factions—one welcomes the Romanies, and the other sees them as an intrusion. Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the village mayor and veterinarian, and Mademoiselle Lundi (Marie-Josée Croze), a school teacher and clerk in city hall, are two of the friendlier villagers. The Vichy France gendarmerie used the documentation made in the passports of its citizens to monitor their movements for which a threshold was set, along with imprisonment for violations This adversely affected the Romanies. Lundi uses her powers as a clerk, and forges their passports, removing the documentation about their movements.[5]
Later, when Rosier has an accident outside the village, he is rescued by the Romanies, who treat the mayor with their traditional healing practices. Rosier returns the favour by selling them his father's house, in a move to protect them from the Fascist policy of imprisoning the homeless. Lundi decides to provide formal education for the children by enrolling them in her school. However, these friendly gestures are not well-received by the freedom-loving Romanies, who regard life in a fixed place and formal education with rules as little better than imprisonment.
Eventually when the Nazis arrive, Rosier and Lundi are revealed to be members of the French Resistance which leads to their arrest and torture. The Nazis round up the Romanies who are then sent to concentration camps. Claude, then cared for by Rosier chooses to go with the Romanies.[6]
__________________
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/movies/stories-of-war-through-a-gypsy-lens.html
For a more realistic and nuanced view of Gypsy culture during this period, and the role Gypsies played as victims and also resistance fighters during the Holocaust, read Jan Yoor's two fine books, "The Gypsies" (a true story about the Roma people before the war) and "The Crossing" (about Gypsies during the Holocaust).
It's a shame that Gatlif didn't use these two fine books as the basis for his movie. If he had a good writer--and somebody who could smell a cliche a mile away--he might be able to produce top-flight films.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Psalm of David
http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/tehillim.asp?tDate=5/17/2012
Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord. 2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts. 3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways. 4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently. 5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes. 6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments. 7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments. 8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me 9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word. 10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments. 11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You. 12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes. 13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth. 14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches. 15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways. 16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word. 17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word. 18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah. 19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me. 20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment. 21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments. 22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies. 23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes. 24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors. 25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word. 26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes. 27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders. 28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word. 29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah. 30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me. 31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame. 32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart. 33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last. 34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart. 35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire. 36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed. 37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life. 38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You. 39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good. 40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness. 41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised. 42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word. 43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments. 44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever. 45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts. 46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed. 47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love. 48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes..49. Remember the word [promised] to Your servant, by which You gave me hope.50. This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.51. [Though] the wicked ridicule me severely, I have not strayed from Your Torah.52. When I remember Your judgments of old, O Lord, I take comfort.53. Trembling seized me because of the wicked, those who forsake Your Torah.54. Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my wanderings.55. At night I remembered Your Name, O Lord, and I kept Your Torah.56. All this came to me because I kept Your precepts.57. The Lord is my portion; I pledged to keep Your words.58. I pleaded before You with all my heart: have compassion upon me according to Your word.59. I contemplated my ways, and returned my feet to Your testimonies.60. I hurried and did not delay to keep Your commandments.61. Bands of wicked men plundered me, [but] I did not forget Your Torah.62. At midnight, I rise to thank You for Your righteous judgments.63. I am a friend to all who fear You, and to those who keep Your precepts.64. Your kindness, O Lord, fills the earth; teach me Your statutes.65. You have dealt goodness to Your servant, O Lord, in accord with Your promise.66. Teach me the goodness and wisdom of the [Torah's] reasons, for I believe in Your commandments.67. Before I afflicted myself, I would blunder; but now I observe Your word.68. You are good and benevolent; teach me Your statutes.69. The wicked have smeared me with lies, [when in truth] I keep Your precepts with all my heart.70. Their hearts grew thick as fat; but as for me, Your Torah is my delight.71. It is for my good that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes. 72. The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver. 73. Your hands have made me and prepared me; grant me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments. 74. Those who fear You will see me and rejoice, because I hoped in Your word. 75. I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are just; righteously have You afflicted me. 76. Let Your kindness be my comfort, as You promised to Your servant. 77. Let Your mercies come upon me, that I may live, for Your Torah is my delight. 78. Let the scoffers be shamed, for they have maligned me with falsehood; but I will meditate upon Your precepts. 79. May those who fear You return to me, and those who know Your testimonies. 80. May my heart be perfect in Your statutes, so that I not be shamed. 81. My soul longs for Your salvation; I hope for Your word. 82. My eyes long for Your promise, saying, "When will You comfort me?” 83. Though I became [dried out] like a wineskin in smoke, I did not forget Your statutes. 84. How many are the days of Your servant? When will You execute judgment upon my pursuers? 85. The wicked have dug pits for me, in violation of Your Torah. 86. All Your commandments teach truth, [yet] they pursue me with lies, help me! 87. They nearly consumed me upon the earth, but I did not forsake Your precepts. 88. As befits Your kindness, grant me life, and I will keep the testimony of Your mouth. 89. Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens. 90. Your faithfulness persists for all generations; You established the earth, and it stands. 91. They stand ready today [to execute] Your judgments, for all are Your servants. 92. Had Your Torah not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction. 93. Never will I forget Your precepts, for through them You have sustained me. 94. I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts. 95. The wicked hope to destroy me, but I meditate upon Your testimonies. 96. To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment is immensely broad.
Verses 1-96
David composed this prominent psalm in alphabetical sequence-eight verses for each letter. Every verse contains one of the following words (referring to different aspects of Torah): Way; Torah; Testimony; Precept; Commandment; Statement (translated here as Word or Promise); Word; Judgement (or Laws); Righteousness; Statute. Replete with morals and prayers, this psalm should be recited daily, as a powerful preparation for the service of God. (In verses beginning with one of the letters of the mnemonic PeReTZ BeN DaMaH, the word "עדותיך" is pronounced "eidvotecha.")
1. Fortunate are those whose way is artless, who walk with the Torah of the Lord. 2. Fortunate are those who keep His testimonies, who seek Him with all their hearts. 3. Indeed, they have not done iniquity; they walk in His ways. 4. You have commanded Your precepts to be observed diligently. 5. My wish is that my ways be directed to keep Your statutes. 6. Then I will not be ashamed, when I behold all Your commandments. 7. I will give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, when I learn Your righteous judgments. 8. I will keep Your statutes; do not utterly forsake me 9. How can a young man keep his way pure? By observing Your word. 10. With all my heart I have sought You; do not let me stray from Your commandments. 11. I have harbored Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You. 12. Blessed are You, O Lord; teach me Your statutes. 13. With my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth. 14. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, as I would with all riches. 15. I will speak of Your precepts, and gaze upon Your ways. 16. I will delight in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word. 17. Deal kindly with Your servant, that I may live to keep Your word. 18. Unveil my eyes, that I may behold wonders from Your Torah. 19. I am a sojourner on earth; do not hide Your commandments from me. 20. My soul is crushed with a longing for Your judgments every moment. 21. You have rebuked the accursed scoffers, those who stray from Your commandments. 22. Remove insult and contempt from me, for I have kept Your testimonies. 23. Though princes sat and spoke against me, Your servant speaks of Your statutes. 24. Indeed, Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counsellors. 25. My soul cleaves to the dust; revive me in accordance with Your word. 26. I have spoken of my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes. 27. Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will speak of Your wonders. 28. My soul drips away out of grief; sustain me according to Your word. 29. Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously endow me with Your Torah. 30. I have chosen the way of faith; Your judgments have I laid before me. 31. I held fast to Your testimonies, O Lord; put me not to shame. 32. I will run on the path of Your commandments, for You will broaden my heart. 33. Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes, and I will keep it to the last. 34. Grant me understanding and I will keep Your Torah; I will observe it with all my heart. 35. Direct me in the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire. 36. Incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to greed. 37. Avert my eyes from seeing vanity; by Your ways give me life. 38. Fulfill for Your servant Your promise, which brings to the fear of You. 39. Remove my shame which I fear, for Your judgments are good. 40. Behold, I have longed for Your precepts; give me life in Your righteousness. 41. And let Your kindness come to fruition for me, O Lord, Your salvation as You promised. 42. I will offer a retort to those who taunt me, for I trust in Your word. 43. Do not at all remove the word of truth from my mouth, for I hope [to fulfill] Your judgments. 44. I will keep Your Torah continually, for ever and ever. 45. And I will walk in spacious paths, for I seek Your precepts. 46. I will speak of Your testimonies before kings, and I will not be ashamed. 47. And I will delight in Your commandments, which I love. 48. I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will speak of Your statutes..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)