Rambam, Greeks and Chanukah: ideological battle or philosophical synthesis?

Earlier this week we explored the interplay between “Yafet” – representing the artistic and cultural faculties of humanity – and the religious dimension symbolised by “Shem”. We did so primarily through the perspective of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch who taught that the arts and aesthetics hold substantial positive value for humanity, but only when influenced by and “dwelling within” the tents of Shem.

This post will attempt to examine the dynamics of the ideological clash between Maccabees and Hellenists from the perspective of Rambam. This is of particular interest since Rambam – one of Judaism’s primary sources concerning philosophy and theology – is remarkably silent when it comes to the ideological battles of the Chanukah era. Even though such ideological divergences are emphasised in prior Rabbinic sources. Additionally, it is evident throughout his writings that Rambam possessed a healthy respect for many aspects of Greek philosophy, albeit as we will discuss, from an earlier era. What did he see as being the key differences between Greek thought and Judaism? And could any of these ideological tensions have been at play in the Chanukah story?

While it is true that Rambam enthusiastically embraced many aspects of Greek philosophy and science which represented in his day (and for many centuries after), the main framework and template for understanding the world, he does make some crucial qualifications.

At the conclusion of Rambam’s explanation of the concept of miracles as having been built into nature at the world’s creation, he presents a simple summary of his fundamental agreement and disagreement with Aristotle. Rambam explains that, with regard to the functioning of the physical world according to its natural order, he broadly follows the Aristotelian structure of fixed, immutable and eternal rules of nature – that God instituted the rules of nature and doesn’t plan to breach them. In fact, the wisdom contained within the functioning of the universe bears testimony to God’s supreme wisdom. Nevertheless, the same section of Moreh Nevuchim also firmly rejects Aristotle’s understanding of the world as having existed eternally in the past, with God merely ensuring its existence.

Aristotelian theory, as presented by Rambam, held that God cannot be said to have created the universe at any one specific point in time, but rather constantly and eternally causes the world to exist. According to Aristotle’s understanding therefore, God is not free to in any way influence the physical world which emanated from Him.

Rambam states strongly that such an Aristotelian understanding would render the Torah meaningless since it would relegate God to some kind of technical cause, unable to exercise (or grant) free will, perform miracles and all other aspects of providential interaction with the world. For this reason, Rambam emphasises creation in time as “the basis for the Torah”; if Aristotle were correct on this point, writes Rambam “the entire Torah would become void”. The reason for this becomes more apparent when we explore Rambam’s understanding of miracles.

Rambam addresses the concept of miracles in two of his works – both of which emphasise how all miraculous occurrences were built into the natural order at the time of creation – based on God’s knowledge of the future. In Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam cites a midrashic teaching to support his understanding that “When God created this existence and established all of its nature, He placed within the physical world that all miracles too would occur.”

Then in his commentary to Avot, he states further that the ten miraculous phenomena – such as Moshe’s staff and the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korach – were said to have been formed already during the days of creation because:

The Sages did not believe in the constant renewal of God’s will, but at the beginning of Creation [God] put the nature of things into the world, both the way in which things should act regularly—this is “nature”—or the abnormal manner in which they should act rarely—this is a “miracle.”

For Aristotle however, who opposed the very notion of creation in time by a freely-acting God, there is no scope within the rigid rules of nature for any miracles, providence or revelation. For this reason, Rambam considers that such an Aristotelian system renders the entire Torah void.

How might this relate back to Chanukah?

It must be borne in mind that Greek philosophical thought of the Hellenic Chanukah era had evolved somewhat from the Classical era of Aristotle. Nevertheless, and without wanting to get too involved, there were strong trends of similarity in the way that major Hellenist philosophical groups such as the Epicureans understood God as no longer involved in any meaningful way in the functioning of His Creation. Aristotle’s thought too remained highly influential right the way through to, and beyond, Rambam’s era.

As we explained in the previous Chanukah post, within the worldview of R Hirsch, Noach’s prophecy implies that the ideology of Yafet (of which the Greeks are a primary element) is not to be viewed as an entirely negative contribution to humanity – but rather as containing positive potential when correctly harnessed to the Torah’s teachings – ie when it “dwells in the tents of Shem”.

Similarly, we can suggest within Rambam’s worldview, that the Greek-Aristotelian conception of steady and unbreakable natural laws emanating from a single source is to be embraced. As Rambam writes, reflecting upon the beauty and wisdom inherent in the universe can lead one to fear and love of God and appreciation of His wisdom.

Rambam believed that Aristotle’s methodology for analysing the world was extremely beneficial, and could lead to recognition and knowledge of the Single God of the Torah. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote how monotheism and the Torah’s description of God creating the world:

“made science possible. No longer was the universe seen as unpredictable. It was the work of a single, rational, creative will.”

Others have noted how science has particularly flourished in societies based on monotheistic belief. Only if one perceives the world as an organic whole designed by a single Creator, can one analyse and develop meaningful theories as to how it all functions together.

But this acceptance and approval of Yafet’s systematic understanding of the natural order is only proper when placed in the correct context of creation in time – an acceptance of God’s creation of the universe with all of the accompanying implications for providence and miracles. If this is correct, then for Rambam too the ideological conflict between the Jews and the Greeks was not a total rejection of Greek thought, but rather represented an attempt to reposition the beneficial aspects of Yafet firmly within the tent of Shem as the verse advises. So that, as Rambam demands, appreciation of the structure, wisdom and beauty of the universe can lead to the further comprehension of the Creator who freely designed it.

Perhaps this can explain the strong emphasis we find in Rambam’s Laws of Chanukah on publicising miracles. Particular attention is paid by Rambam at the start of his discussion of Hilchot Chanuka to the miraculous aspects both of the deliverance from the Greeks and its connection to the miracle of the oil. At the conclusion of these laws Rambam teaches that the mitzvah of the Chanukah light holds particular importance as it makes God’s miracles known.

According to the ideas highlighted in this post, it is the capacity of God to have introduced miracles into the natural order which represented the crucial distinction, for Rambam, between Jewish and Greek ideologies. For Rambam therefore, so-called “Greek” truths and appreciation of the wisdom and beauty inherent in the world can and must lead us towards understanding, appreciation and love of its Creator.

Devoid of Shem’s guidance this wisdom loses its deeper meaning and utility. Rather than leading to a warm appreciation of and relationship with the Creator, scientific and philosophical wisdom outside the tent of Shem becomes cold, detached speculation and knowledge. In such a system of thought, God can be relegated to an eternal but irrelevant and limited cog in the eternal wheel of existence – rather than the Source of the wisdom - who freely created and interacts with the world.

First posted to Facebook 16 December 2020, here.

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.