Pachad Yitzchak - Purim Ma'mar 16 "The Day of Holy Hypocrisy"

A. "On Purim, one must give to any and all who extend their hand." This halachic statement teaches us something new both regarding the giver, and the receiver. The giver must give without any inquiry as to whether the receiver is deserving. Similary, a person may present themselves as a "receiver" (k'mkabel), even if they know in their heart that they are not deserving of what they may receive.

B. Let us now attempt to explain this process. "Thou Shalt Not Steal", of the Ten Commandments, is accentuated by a pausal trope-mark on the word "Not" (lo). The Sages teach that this pause indicates that while generally stealing is prohibited, a person may nevertheless deceive (lit. "steal the mind", geneivat da'at) their teacher as to their true level of Torah sophistication, and present themselves on a higher spiritual/Torah level than they actually are, so that the teacher may grace them with more profound/higher Torah than their true standing would typically permit.

We also know that if there exists such an allowance/permission in the actions of a student towards their teacher, then certainly there must be a similar permission vis-a-vis a person's actions towards God. As is stated [in Pirkei Avot 4:12]: "Make the awe of your teacher like your awe of Heaven." And inversely, were there not such a permission of a person towards God, it would be impossible to imagine such a permission regarding a student towards their teacher.

So what, then, is the parallel permission one has in acting such a way towards God?

The permission stems from the premise that one's external actions awaken/rouse/affect (l'hitoreir) one's internal state. This is why we say that sometimes a person should portray one's self as if they were on a higher [spiritual] level than their [authentic] internal level truly is; in order that through doing so they effect an elevation of their spiritual development. When one is acting in such a way, neither the counter-claim of, "their insides are not as their outsides" [Berachot 28a], nor that they are acting deceptively - neither of these claims are in effect, because it is permitted for a person to act in such a manner in order to ascend in their spirituality and Torah.

We have found, then, an example of an allowance for a person to act in such a way in their spiritual life, which parallels the allowance in one's actions towards a teacher, as is indicated in the midrash on the commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Steal."

C. In the section of the Torah describing non-kosher animals, the sages comment that the term chazir (meaning "pig") is an allusion for the Roman Empire [Vayikra Rabbah 13:5]. Here we see the Sages are clearly trying to communciate something innovative. Rome is termed chazir based on the belief that in the future, they will "return" (l'hachzir) sovereignty to Jewish people. On its face, this is based on a strange notion - that the entire relevance of this nickname of the Romans is based solely on the name of this random animal, and has nothing to do with the essence of the animal itself.

This clearly cannot be the case.

We see from this, that the name chazir can indeed be explained based on the essential identity of the animal. And furthermore, it must be that the very identity which derives from the name chazir, is itself the same identity which necessitates the return of sovereignty to the Jewish people from the Romans.

There is great depth to be found here.

One of the deep insights which presents itself to us must be articulated in the following way. The fundamental secret and essence of the fourth kingdom to conquer Israel - namely, the Roman Empire - can be detected in the development of their similarity to the Jewish people. Indeed, this kingdom draws sustenance from its similarities to the Jewish people, and receives vitality through them. In terms of the development of souls, the root of this similarity with Rome is "the game in Esau's mouth" (Gen 25:38). The question of "Father, how do I tithe straw, and how do I tithe salt?" (midrashically, questions that Esau would cleverly pose to his father, displaying false piety), is at the core of the similarity of Esau to Jacob. This similiarity reveals itself as well in the body of the pig/chazir: namely, its split hooves, which are similar to that of a kosher animal. The purpose of the split hooves is to conceal its fundamental lack of kashrut, as indicated by the fact that it does not chew its cud. This concealment is part of its very essence as an animal - and it is from this that it derives its name - chazir ("return"). That is to say, the essential identity of this animal is its desire to appear as animal which chews its cud, which is the most pronounced manifestation of its desire to appear kosher.

All of this is because the pig stands as a symbol for the Roman Empire, which draws sustenance from its similarities to the Jewish people. And since the Sages held that the kingdom which was sustained by its similarity to the Jewish people would be the final of the four conquering nations over the Jews, it indicated that the name chazir referred to the restoration of sovereignty to the Jewish people, as the meaning of chazir testifies to something which attempts to portray its purity/kosher-ness. And this similarity points like a finger to the end of Jewish oppression, and automatically is part of the broader allusion to the return of sovereignty to the Jewish people, which is why the name of this animal (and idea) is chazir.

D. The return of sovereignty to the Jewish people from the hooves of the kingdom of chazir/pig, is at its core rooted in the return of the life-force of this kingdom to the powers of holiness. And we have seen that this kingdom is called by the nature of its attempt to portray its similarity to us. If we were to translate this characteristic in the language of Torah and middot (ethical traits), we would categorize it under the heading of "hypocracy." For all perceived similarities are nothing more than hypocritical concealment of an internal difference with an external similarity.

But - at the moment when an impure hypocrisy returns to the forces of holiness, then it morphs and becomes part of the teaching of "Thou Shalt Not Steal." A person is allowed to deceive their teacher, so that the teacher may grace them with more profound/higher Torah than their true standing would typically permit.

And on Purim - a day in which the powers of the Kingdom of Chazir are negated, and all of their powers return to their holy source, on this day shines the element of holy hypocrisy. That is why we do not fear the counter-claim of, "your insides are not as your outsides", and we may assert ourselves as true "receivers", and extend our hands to all sorts of receiving, without any investigation as to whether we are truly deserving. We may deceive our teachers in order that they bestow upon us at levels beyond our [usual] ability. For this is what the King, Ruler of the World, declared on this day - "all who extend their hands, we give to them."

Jacob Neusner, Christianity When Judaism Began, 96

In response to the challenge of Christianity, the sages thought about "Israel" centered on the issues of history and salvation, issues made not merely chronic but acute by the political triumph. That accounts for the unprecedented reading of the outsider as differentiated, a reading contained in the two propositions concerning Rome: first, as Esau or Edom or Ishmael, that is, as part of the family; and second, of Rome as the pig. Differentiating Rome from other gentiles represented a striking concession indeed, without counterpart in the Mishnah. Rome is represented as only Christian Rome can be represented: it looks kosher, but is unkosher. Pagan Rome cannot ever have looked kosher, but Christian Rome, with its appeal to ancient Israel, could and did and moreover claimed to. It bore some traits that validated, but lacked others.