A Jew knows that G-d runs the world and a Jewish writer strives to suggest ways in which Jews can see that more clearly. It’s well known that when Rabbi Alexander Rosenberg z”l headed the OU kosher division in the ’60s and ’70s where he reshaped the modern kashrus system he had a favorite question he’d pose when someone would approach him with what seemed like a shady business proposal: Uhn vos zogt G-t? And what does G-d have to say about it?

So in a similar vein let’s dispense with all the standard political analysis opining on the actions and motives of the players in this drama implications for Mideast peace Israel’s future and American politics. From a Torah perspective that’s all largely irrelevant. There are no “implications” — there’s only the Divine will with all else merely a distraction from the lessons we’re intended to draw that are truly relevant to our lives.

In seeking to identify such lessons we begin with two premises about how Hashem interacts with His world and in particular with His chosen people. First that in His great kindness He employs the tool of middah k’neged middah to make it easier for us to discern His message in a world bereft of prophecy and direct Divine communication.

Second that a particular application of the middah k’negged middah principle that recurs throughout history from Bilaam to Haman to Hitler and beyond is that the things anti-Semites say and do are tools of instruction for us often in uncannily corresponding ways.

They may be wicked but they sure aren’t stupid and indeed they often have an unerring sense of who we Jews are and what we ought to be. And even when they don’t Hashem uses them to achieve His ends which are to return us to Him.

When Ner Israel rosh yeshivah Rav Aharon Feldman shlita was asked by a prominent secular Jewish leader to explain the strange phenomenon of a Palestinian people that is a historical fabrication yet has materialized to wreak terror upon Israel and gain the sympathy and support of the world the Rosh Yeshivah simply reached for a Chumash and opened to the primer on Jewish history known to us as Ha’azinu (Devarim 32:21): “They [the Jewish People] angered Me by believing in a non-god and I will anger them by means of a non-nation.” The non-god is the secular Jewish nationalism that replaced the G-d of Israel and the non-nation is the one in today’s headlines.

For decades now the world community’s treatment of Israel can be summed up in two words — double standard. Forget about the murderous kleptocracies populating the UN’s “Human Rights Commission.” Even democracies like ours hold Israel to ethical standards of military conduct that they themselves violate with impunity.

But of course the Jewish People’s entire raison d’etre in this world is to exemplify the higher ethical standard that comes with its calling as a mamleches kohanim v’goy kadosh. And thus a thought: Could it be that the Ribbono shel Olam whipped up the entire Security Council firestorm so that two statements would reverberate in the ears of His beloved nation?

First courtesy of a messenger named Kerry (see Vayikra 26:23-24) comes the truth of “a fundamental reality… Israel can either be Jewish or democratic — it cannot be both….” The man is right and ironically he echoes the murdered hero of the Israeli extreme right who never tired of making precisely this point referring to the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of a “schizophrenic document ” Israel’s Declaration of Independence. They’re both right in their diagnosis but deeply wrong about the necessary course of treatment which is neither a two-state solution nor an annexation to create a Greater Israel but a return to Hashem’s embrace.

Second courtesy of His marionettes on the Security Council comes the first-ever declaration that the “Western Wall is occupied territory.” This just as for the first time too Israel’s Supreme Court in collusion with its government the heterodox movements and the “Open Orthodox ” is preparing to declare the Kosel precisely that — “occupied territory” — and to rip it away from the faithful Jews who are its “occupiers.”

The crucial question for us is: Can we put aside for a moment our disgust with the malevolent messengers and focus on the possible Divine message they may be transmitting?

WHAT ME WORDY?

My pre-Chanukah column moved a reader “Reb Z.” to write in to “compliment Eytan Kobre on a column that is consistently penetrating and well written — possibly too well written.” He explains: “I usually come across at least one word that I have to look up but ‘A Chanukah Reflection’ took it to the next level. First there was ‘predations’ — I didn’t know what it meant but at least I could pronounce it. Next I came across ‘denouement’ — couldn’t pronounce it but I feel like I’ve seen it before (probably in a previous Eytan Kobre piece). But the kicker was ‘bailiwick.’ Had anyone else said it I would’ve assumed it was made up.”

As regular readers know I see this column’s limited and intermittent sesquipedalian indulgences as a good thing (and I sent Reb Z. some past columns explaining why that’s so). But a few words about the particular words he mentioned are in order.

As to “predations” of course Reb Z. was able to pronounce it — it’s related to the far more common “predator.” Indeed making the connection between the two words might have given him at least a general sense of the former’s meaning.

Interestingly “predations” is identical in meaning to “depredations” both denoting the “act of preying or plundering.” But how can they both mean the same thing? In my Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate after all the first three meanings of the prefix “de-” are “reverse of ” as in “de-emphasis”; “remove from ” as in “dethrone”; and “reduce ” as in “devalue.”

So shouldn’t “de-predation” thus mean an undoing of a “predation” either the reversal removal or reduction of “preying or plundering”? Or is this just further evidence for the truism that English is a crazy language?

Next up “denouement.” Reb Z.’s feeling of having seen it before in this column is on the mark because a search of my past columns tells me that I’ve used it three times prior to this most recent one. Well two’s company but three’s a chazakah. In other words there’s no stopping me now.

On to “bailiwick” which I’ll concede could be confounding particularly when a word containing “wick” appears in a Chanukah-themed essay.

I appreciate the confidence Reb Z. expresses that I haven’t made up the unfamiliar words he finds here but in the Kobre home we do enjoy retelling the anecdote shared by my friend Rabbi Dovid Schwartz who growing up in Los Angeles was zocheh to have the great Rav Simcha Wasserman ztz”l as a rebbi. Now and then he recalls Reb Simcha would use a word that his students were quite certain was not part of the English lexicon and they’d tell him so. Whereupon Reb Simcha entirely unfazed would tilt his head back and chuckle “Heh heh so vee vill coin it.”

So the most I can say Reb Z. is that I haven’t knowingly used any freshly minted words here… yet.

Speaking of looking up words Reb Z.’s letter happened to arrive shortly before dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster released its list of 2016’s top ten words chosen based on a “high volume of lookups” on the company’s website. This year’s list included “irregardless” a “non-standard” substitute for “regardless.” Although Merriam-Webster’s editor-at-large says the word is best avoided I don’t see why it can’t be salvaged simply by adding another prefix to turn it into disirregardless.

Also making the Top Ten was “in omnia paratus.” That’s a great Latin phrase meaning “ready for all things” — not to be confused with “in omnia Paramus” which is where you’ll find people in north Jersey who are looking to buy a midsized sedan.

And rounding out the list was “feckless” meaning “worthless” which made the list thanks to Mike Pence’s use of it in a debate to describe Barack Obama’s foreign policy. As Pence begins his term in office here’s hoping his own views will have considerably more feck.