I was young, and now I’ve grown old on this site, and I’ve never seen Michi write special columns just because of round numbers, so don’t get your hopes up. Though there is a pretty good chance the column will deal with criticizing the Haredim, and to be fair, they definitely deserve it.

“The Lord saves man and beast”: 7. Human-centeredness — the human tendency to claim that a person is superior to a machine (column 700)

Eli, the minister of forgetfulness has struck you.

For we do find that celebrations were mentioned at round numbers (and at every hundred his memory was not absent). The esteemed Rabbi Michael Abraham has even gone further, and at times has devoted a festive column, or at least a quasi-festive one (see columns one hundred and four hundred). But after all is said and done, we are dealing with a Litvak (“no person is perfect”), so why should you cry out and expect anything?! Why, even getting pleasantly mellow on wine costs him dearly, and the bitter drop is not his way, unlike the custom of the Hasidim (as he partially admitted just a few days ago, in passing). Infer from the greater case to the lesser and establish it in its place. And the matter is clear and reasonable: the questioner’s intention is to ask precisely this — will the celebrations now merely be mentioned in an incidental remark (just to discharge the obligation, as in the later view), or will he actually do something different and make the festivity part of the content itself (for the earlier view has not moved from its place)?

And I will not hide it, but will briefly tell those who know the hidden wisdom what is on my heart, though it is deep and concealed from you all (as we expound: “For it is no empty thing from you”): for the question is this: this idea of “celebration” — which results from the joining of the public — do we say that the commandment rests on the individual person, and the public merely joins in as an instrument for the commandment, or is it itself one essence with the public, in the way it is said, “All Israel are responsible for one another,” implying that there is no individual on one side and community on the other, but rather that the public is the basic constellation [some versions have, in the vernacular: constellation] of celebration?

And this is what Moses says in the Torah (though heaven forbid that one should mention that we derive nothing from Scripture; it is only suggestive support): “With our young and with our old we shall go, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds we shall go, for we have a festival to the Lord” — meaning, the festival itself is the reason for the joining of the public, for there is no celebration without people joining together. And this is what is written: “There is no celebration without cake” — and the emphasis is not, God forbid, on the cake, but on the fact that something additional must join the core concept itself (that is, the very essence of celebration is joining).

And you should know that this is not merely semantics between them. For if you should say that celebration depends on the very fact of connection, how can we say that there is an idea of celebration for an individual alone — for example, a person in the wilderness, or one who has no community to attach himself to? Is it meaningful to say that his celebration is a celebration, or perhaps he is merely an ordinary fellow jumping about? Not that we suspect arrogance in him, but he has accomplished nothing at all — like eating in the rain in a sukkah, which is effectively just a pergola, as is well known from the Ritva’s words, “what legal effect is there here?” One may further doubt what you said, that celebration is a commandment performed in public, for we do see that the notion of celebration also applies to an individual (see, for example, Maimonides, Laws of Festivals 6:20), which implies that celebration is not necessarily dependent on gathering, but that if there is a public, it is an added enhancement. If so, our question returns to its place: is the public itself part of the definition of celebration, or merely an improving condition? [And some say more than this: that what we call “the wisdom of crowds” really means that the humanists are mistaken (until proven otherwise)! According to this, one can further say that celebration through joining depends on the quality of those joining and of that which joins them together, and this will be explained elsewhere regarding quality and quantity — whether they are conceptual categories and measurable thresholds, and measuring time on the Sabbath, and majority of head or legs, and these matters are ancient.]

And you should know: if we say that the joining of the public is required from the outset, then it would follow that even “Simchat Torah,” which is the joy of an individual with the Torah, would not be called a celebration except with the participation of the community! True, one might say that there there is no category of celebration at all but only joy, yet the difficulty remains: what is the difference? (For we do not treat this as mere semantics.) Rather, one must say that celebration differs from the obligation of joy — and this is a division in definition, not, Heaven forbid, in rationale — for here we require an act that is essentially public, like the matter of “Hakhel” (Deuteronomy 31:10), from which we learn that apparently without the public there is no relevance to celebration at all. And even though we do find “a festival to the Lord” (Exodus 5:1) stated without qualification, in its plain sense it is public language, not individual language. This connects to the discussion among later authorities (Acharonim) regarding “be fruitful and multiply”: whether the commandment applies to the individual or constitutes a broader process of repairing the world (see Minchat Chinukh, commandment 1). So too here one may say that celebration is not merely a private obligation, but a social idea — and on this depends whether one can celebrate alone.

The practical difference in all this concerns one who is in a place with no community — is he required to try to create a community so that he can celebrate, or is what he has by himself enough? And similarly regarding a person who is only comfortable with a small circle — can he celebrate with a small group, or is a large multitude required? And now we may explain the terms “festival” and “celebration” — for we find “festival” in the sense of dancing and circling, which implies something communal and circular, meaning that its essence is a surrounding ring of people together. We likewise find that the Festival of Sukkot is called “the Festival of Ingathering” (Exodus 23:16), and you have inferred well that this is about gathering the public, not only gathering fruit; and therefore “all Israel are fit to sit in one sukkah.”

And now we can explain the questioner’s intent: whether there will be a column with a festive tone, or merely a passing mention. That is: is the concept and idea of celebration dependent on the individual — and what business has he celebrating columns in public? For a Lithuanian-style celebration suffices with carob bread, austerity, and privacy. Or perhaps one can say that celebration is from the outset rooted in the essence of the public, for “in a multitude of people is the king’s glory,” and celebration is a commandment done in public. This can also be connected to the sorites paradox. For if we say that celebration is built on a multiplicity of people, what difference does it make between different numbers of participants? At what point does a collection of people cease being a mere aggregation of individuals and become a community, which is the very essence of celebration? The depth of the matter requires length. So we conclude as follows: this requires practical investigation; if you accept it, good; and if not, we shall find the rabbis and discuss it explicitly.

To this great man, from whom no secret is hidden, who has stretched forth his mighty hand across the breadth of this very site, and in these very days of Purim fulfilled “and it was reversed,” leaving no stone unturned throughout this holy site. And in the force of his excessive mastery of all the treasures of this site, he pushed an elephant through the eye of a needle, and did everything with wisdom, counsel, and cunning. And all in one stroke; of him it is said, “Every blessing for him is a blow” (see Ketubot 10a). Though this is of course only a flourish of speech (Heaven forbid), before the fumes of the wine wear off into sobriety. And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and all questioners shall be ended and gone, and the earth shall be filled with knowledge — not in heaven, but like a convert on earth.

And one may further say that celebration is always something that joins with something else, and even an individual can have celebration, since this festival joins the other festivals — a kind of public of festivals. And one must consider whether a rabbinic festival joins a Torah-level festival, or whether they are two separate publics, like the princes of the king’s sons. In my humble opinion, it seems that a festival is like consecrated offerings, where Scripture repeated the matter to make it indispensable, as explained somewhere or other, because the service preceded the Torah; and if so, the same applies here: festival preceded the Torah. In that respect, a rabbinic festival, a Torah-level festival, and even a festival that a person invents from his own heart are all one public. Examine this carefully.

However, I have already written at length that Purim is a rabbinic festival, and like all rabbinic laws it pertains to the person rather than to the object. By this one may explain what our master wrote in his pure table, that one may marry on Purim even though one does not marry on a festival, for the “mixed celebrations” there involve both person and object, whereas here there is no mixture at all. From here is a peg and cornerstone for all mixtures of festivals, like one kind mixed with a different kind, where even one in a thousand is not nullified; and from here our rabbis established that Purim and the Megillah are never nullified. I have been brief, for “give to the wise and he will become wiser still,” and all the more so this is excellent.