April Fool's Day

A'fikomen: The Origin of April Fool's Day

Today marks the juxtaposition of the first night of Passover (starting today at sundown) and what Americans celebrate as April Fool's day.

What few Americans know is that April Fool's Day has its origins in the Passover story. It became dissociated with Passover when it was adopted to the Gregorian calendar, switching it from a lunar holiday like all Jewish holidays to a solar holiday and fixing the date.

April Fool's Day derives from the Jewish holiday called A'fikomen, which originally came 8 days before Passover. Passover, of course, celebrates the Exodus, as everyone knows. And everyone knows that before the Jews left Egypt, Moses tried convincing Pharaoh of the validity of the Jewish religion by matching wits with the priests of Amun, a manifestation of the Egyptian sun god. This famous battle of tricks, called the A'fikomen in ancient Hebrew, did not convince Pharaoh. It took the ten plagues sent by G_d to do that, thus symbolizing the futility of human actions in comparison with the power of G_d.

The battle of tricks between Moses and the priests of Amun were celebrated in a kind of foolish, children's holiday 8 days before Passover called A'fikomen. During this time parents would hide treats and toys and children would have to find them.

This holiday of tricks was condemned by early Christians as belittling the sanctity of Passover (now being transformed into the Christian Easter) and being incompatible with the Christian holiday. But as anti-Semitism grew, the silliness of the holiday was seen as a way of belittling Judaism, so Pope John John III in the 11th century revived the holiday, fixing the time of its observance at April 1st according to the solar calendar and renaming it April Fool's Day.


mole333's picture

| | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 2092 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.


— David Brooks, A Defining Moment


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify