Religion and culture: not throwing the Greeks out with the bathwater

While Chanukah correctly commemorates the miraculous battlefield exploits of the outnumbered Maccabeans, our tradition also emphasises the ideological dynamics which underpinned this military victory. Unlike most other peoples swallowed up by the rapacious Greek-Hellenist Empire, the Jews found themselves on the wrong end of severe religious prohibitions. The Book of Maccabees details how the Syrian-Greek monarch, Antiochus, criminalized the observance of circumcision, Shabbat and holidays, dietary laws, and many other practices. He also placed an idol in the Jewish Temple so “that they [the Jews] might forget the Law and change all their religious ordinances”.

While this ideological clash between Jews and Hellenists has been seized on by some commentators who perceive an eternal struggle between Judaism and “secular culture”, Judaism Reclaimed develops Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s thoughtful and nuanced explanation of the ideal interplay between religion and culture, and how this was not realised in the Hellenist-Chanukah era.

R' Hirsch’s builds his account upon an early passage of the Torah. Shortly after the floodwaters have subsided, Noach embarks upon a session of heavy drinking which leaves him lying exposed, provoking contrasting reactions from his sons Shem, Cham and Yafet. While Cham mocks – and according to some midrashim abuses – his helpless father, Yafet allows himself to be guided by Shem to recover their father’s dignity. Noach wakes (and presumably sobers) up and pronounces “the most profound and far-reaching vision of the future that God ever permitted a mortal to behold or utter”.

“Cursed be Canaan, may he be a servant of servants to his brothers… Blessed be God the God of Shem...God will broaden/open up [through] Yafet and he should dwell in the tents of Shem...”

While this passage has sometimes been approached – by Jewish and Christian commentaries alike – as foretelling and even justifying African slavery, Ibn Ezra strongly opposed this interpretation. How do these commentaries, he writes, ignore the fact that the first line of powerful kings after the Flood, including the fearsome and powerful Nimrod, were descendants of Cham?

This paves the way for R Hirsch’s approach which understands that Noach’s words concerning his sons represent three distinct ideologies and traits which individuals – and even nations – can display. These verses contain Noach’s fervent wish and guidance to the various nations which would descend from his sons as to how their national traits can be channelled toward spiritual accomplishment:

Cham (literally “hot”) represents the height of unrestrained “burning” physical power and desire which respects neither spiritual nor intellectual values. As a result, those possessing such a personality descend into a form of slavery, unable to free themselves from their desires and primal passion.

Yafet (literally “beauty” (yofi) or “openness” - liftoach) connotes the ability of emotion to make one “open” or appreciative of external impressions and influences. Yafet’s culture, seen most strongly with the Greeks, embodies the ability of the arts to elevate and uplift raw physicality.

Shem (literally “name”) represents intellectual clarity and the potential connection to God that this brings (“God of Shem”). The ability to assign a name to something indicates a clear perception of its inner nature and function. When Adam, in Gan Eden, names the animals it is not a matter of simple convenience to distinguish between various species of wildlife. But is seen by many commentaries as representing a profound understanding of their nature and essence. A form of wisdom which transcends the physical world.

It is crucial to note that R’ Hirsch understands Noach’s words to his sons be referring to traits and ideologies rather than strict biological descent. So, for example, while the cultured Germans of the 19th century would have been viewed by R Hirsch as prime embodiments of Yafet, their 20th century murderous descendants were unquestionably a powerful expression of Cham.

Noach’s prophecy was uttered at the dawn of civilization. Surveying human history in the last 4,000 years we can trace, in retrospect, the influence of these three forces through the development of humanity. To summarize Rav Hirsch’s theory, many nations have risen and fallen throughout human history, their only contribution being their attempts to control the world by harnessing human ability and potential to the goal of destruction, exploitation, and domination of others. The whole aspiration of such nations of “Cham” is power, brute force, tyranny, coupled with a submission to their own basic urges.

But there are other nations that devote their energies more to beauty, art, and aesthetics. Those cultures which have represented or been primarily influenced by the characteristics of “Yafet” recognize that there is a higher ideal to which mankind must ascend, valuing beauty and elegance over raw physicality. The trait of Yafet must play a crucial role in refining the physicality of Cham, using art and aesthetics to develop an acceptance and eventually an appreciation of more transcendent concepts. Once people have become aware of and able to appreciate matters which lie above raw physicality they can then be led towards the more spiritual message and truths of “Shem”.

According to R’ Hirsch, the intellectual and moral clarity of Shem demonstrates that Yafet’s glorification of pleasure and satisfaction through beauty, culture and refinement should not be humanity’s highest aspiration. Instead, there must be a more noble ideal — a recognition of what is inherently good and true. Such truths are provided by the intellectual and spiritual clarity of “Shem,” who embodies the teachings and values of the “God of Shem”.

Shem teaches God’s views of the world and humanity. How humans are created in God’s image, and must be guided and elevated by God’s wisdom and teachings. This in contrast to the Greek approach in which humans build gods in their own image by deifying their own flawed ideas of beauty, strength and wisdom.

It is an important feature of R’ Hirsch’s approach that the traits and ideologies of Yafet are viewed neither as inherently good nor inherently harmful. The art and aesthetics are a powerful tool which, when used correctly, can enhance the religious truths of Shem and enable them to be more easily understood. In such a scenario – as with Noach’s sons – Yafet is allowing himself to be guided by Shem subjecting himself to the influence and teachings of Shem.

Rav Hirsch traces these ideas through early human history until the era of the Greeks. He uses this to shed further light on the greater significance of the Chanukah story and its ideological dimension.

Yafet’s ability to open people’s minds and make them appreciative of greater ideas can be used positively in the service of the truths of Shem. In the era of the Chanukah story however, the aesthetic and artistic aspects of Yafet were being allied to a Cham-like imperial and tyrannical war machine which sought to control and impose itself violently on the truths of Shem. Once the ideology and traits of Yafet are no longer submitting themselves to the guidance of Shem’s truths and teachings they lose their legitimacy and, particularly when combined with the violence of Cham, can become a dangerous threat to Judaism.

This is why – despite Noach’s indication that Yafet has a lot of positives to offer humanity – the Jews and Hellenists faced off in a bitter ideological struggle. When Yafet is not prepared to reside and be guided by the truths of Shem. When human-created conceptions of culture and refinement are seen as an ultimate goal for humanity as with the Hellenistic transformation of human characteristics into godly attributes. This puts Yafet and so-called “secular culture” on a collision course with the truths of the God of Shem which teach God’s perspective and thoughts of mankind, morality and human endeavour.

Judaism Reclaimed develops these ideas in a more modern context with the 20th century phenomena of the cultured tyranny of Nazi Germany (Cham and Yafet) and the Religious tyranny of Islamic State (Cham and Shem).

First posted to Facebook 13 December 2020, here

A time to light? Are we authorised to amend Talmudic law?

Visitors to Jerusalem typically react with equal measures of frustration and endearment at its unique charms and idiosyncrasies. One local custom which pertains specifically to Chanukah relates to the time of lighting; while the majority of the Jewish world lights Chanuka candles at nightfall, many Jerusalemites follow the position of the Gra and therefore start lighting immediately at sunset – approximately half an hour earlier.

As I show in my new Talmud Reclaimed, what might at first glance be regarded as a minor dispute in fact embodies two different legal philosophies and methodologies which separated leading medieval Jewish Halachists.

This dispute regarding the latest time for performing the commandment of lighting the Chanukah lights provides a perfect example of the different approaches taken by the Maimonidean and Tosafist schools to extrapolating Jewish law from Talmudic sources. Chapter 6 of Talmud Reclaimed explores these differences in detail, with Rambam, Rif and the Geonim typically relying on a stricter and more literal reading of Talmudic sources in contrast to the relatively freer approach of the Tosafot who permit themselves to incorporate more of their own rationalisations into the halachic process. The case study below is based upon an accompanying Appendix which explores 30 relevant case studies.

The Talmud (Shabbat 21b) states that the time for lighting is from sunset until the time that people have left the marketplace. Rif and Rambam take the duration of this window of fulfilment of the commandment to be approximately half an hour. Once this time has elapsed, the Talmud tells us, there is no longer an obligation to light (and, as a corollary, any blessing over the lights after this time may be biblically prohibited as a berachah levatalah,a blessing in vain).

Rambam records this Talmudic conclusion into his laws of Chanukah (4:5):

Should one forget, or even if one purposely did not light at sunset, one may light afterwards until there are no longer any passers-by in the marketplace. How long a duration of time is this? Approximately half an hour or slightly more than that. Should this time pass, one should not kindle the lights.

Tosafot however, take a very different approach to this law, assessing how it should apply within the context of the realities of post-Talmudic Jewish life. Since the Jewish people went into exile following the destruction of the Second Temple, the commandment of Chanukah lights has largely been performed indoors for the benefit of the members of the household. Accordingly, Tosafot understand, there is no longer any reason to limit the time of lighting to when passers-by can see them.

Rambam’s strict methodology of recording simple Talmudic conclusions does not permit him to make this innovative alteration to the Talmudic rule, even if he thought it logical to do so. Like Rif before him, Rambam interprets the Talmud’s phrase “until there are no longer passers-by in the marketplace” to represent a specific measure of time after sunset rather than making the time span for fulfilling the commandment practically dependent on the actual presence of passers-by by to witness the lights. In this he is supported by the use of the identical phrase elsewhere in the Talmud (Menachot 36a), regarding the law of wearing tefillin after sunset – a commandment which is wholly unconnected to the publicising of a miracle to passers-by. The Talmud’s specification that the commandment must be fulfilled during the half-hour following sunset may instead be explained as requiring a time that is dark enough for the lights to be noticed, but not so dark that they can be mistaken for regular night-time lights (see Yerei’im and Maharam MiRottenberg).

Talmud Reclaimed argues that the vast contrast in the methodologies and legal philosophy of these schools of medieval scholars is the primary cause of varying halachic practices between Ashkenazim and Sephardim to this very day.

Ironically however when it comes to Chanuka lighting times in Jerusalem, it is the Ashkenaz communities who are most likely to adopt the stricter Talmudic reading of Rambam and Rif to light at the earlier time, while Sephardim follow the more flexible Tosafist approach. This is because Jerusalem custom is in line with the Gra (who was often more Maimonidean in his halachic methodology), while the majority of Sephardim follow the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling which embraces a later time for lighting.

For more information about Talmud Reclaimed: An Ancient Text in the Modern Era visit www.TalmudReclaimed.com.

First posted on Facebook 10 December 2023, here.