Rabbi
Bernard Fox
“During the Second Temple period, the Hellenist
kings made decrees against the Jewish people, suppressed their religion, did
not allow them to learn Torah or to perform mitzvot,
seized their money and daughters, entered the Temple and broke down its walls,
and defiled the objects of purity. And,
they greatly afflicted the Jewish people and oppressed them tremendously until
the G-d of their fathers had mercy upon them, provided salvation and saved them
from their hands. And the house of the
Hashmonaim – High Priests – triumphed over them, killed them and provided the
Jewish people with salvation from their hands.
And they established a king from among the Priests. Kingship returned to the Jewish people for
more than two hundred years – until the destruction of the Second Temple.” (Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Hilchot Chanukah 3:1)
Maimonides describes the events that are recalled
through the celebration of Chanukah. He
explains that the Hellenist kings ruled the land of Israel and the Jewish
people. Their reign was characterized
by comprehensive religious oppression and material persecution. Eventually, the Hashmonaim – a family of Kohanim – led a rebellion and overthrew
the oppressors. They reestablished the
Jewish kingship. They appointed a king
from their own family. The kingdom that
they established lasted for over two hundred years and only ended with the
destruction of the Second Temple.
It is clear from Maimonides’ comments that he views
the two hundred year rule by the kings of the Hashmonaim positively. Maimonides’ inclusion of this assessment in
his discussion of Chanukah also seems to indicate that the longevity of their
rule is somehow relevant to the celebration of Chanukah.
There are a number of problems with Maimonides’
position. One of these problems is his
indication that the longevity of the rule of the Hashmonaim kings is relevant
to the celebration of Chanukah. It is not
immediately obvious why this factor should be worthy of note. The Jewish people were oppressed by the
Hellenists – both spiritually and materially.
Hashem had mercy upon His people and through the Hashmonaim, he rescued
them from oppression. This seems to be
an adequate reason to give thanks to Hashem through the observance of a
celebration. Why is the length of rule
of the Hashmonaim relevant?
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l offers and interesting explanation of Maimonides’
position. He bases his explanation upon
a teaching from the Talmud. Like
Chanukah, Purim recalls the salvation of the Jewish people from an enemy
determined to destroy them. Haman
carefully planned the destruction of the Jewish people. Through Hashem’s intervention, Mordechai and
Esther succeeded in defeating his designs and destroyed the enemies of the Jewish
people. It would seem appropriate to
commemorate the salvation of the Jewish people with the recitation of the
Hallel. Why is the Hallel not recited
on Purim? The Talmud offers three
possible explanations. First, the
events of Purim occurred in the exile.
The Hallel is not recited on miracles that occur in the exile. Second, the Hallel is not needed on
Purim. The reading of the Meggilah
replaces the Hallel. Third, the
salvation commemorated by Purim was not complete. The Jewish people were rescued from Haman. However, they remained in exile – subjects
of the heathen king.[1]
Rav Soloveitchik suggests that Maimonides,
apparently, adopts the Talmud’s final explanation. Hallel is not recited on Purim because the Jewish people remained
the subjects of a foreign king. Rav
Soloveitchik contends that Maimonides extrapolated from this ruling a general
principle. The Hallel cannot be recited
to commemorate any miracle that does not result in complete salvation – leaving
the Jewish people under the role of a foreign king. Based on this interpretation of Maimonides’ position, Rav
Soloveitchik suggests that we can understand Maimonides’ reference to the two
hundred years of rule of the Hashmonaim kings.
According to Rav Soloveitchik, Maimonides is applying
his understanding of the Talmud to the practice of reciting the Hallel on
Chanukah. The Hallel is recited on each
day of Chanukah. This is only
consistent with Maimonides’ understanding of the Talmud’s ruling if Chanukah
commemorates a complete salvation. A
complete salvation must restore the Jewish leadership. Had the Hashmonaim not succeeded in
reestablishing Jewish rule, it would not be appropriate to recite the Hallel on
Chanukah. But, because the Hashmonaim
did reign over the Jewish people for over two hundred years, the requirements
for the recitation of the Hallel are met and the Hallel is recited on Chanukah.[2]
Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation of Maimonides’
comments resolves another problem.
Nachmanides comments that the Hashmonaim did not have the right to
elevate themselves to the position of kings.
He explains that once Hashem chose David as king, the institution of
kingship was awarded to David and his descendants in perpetuity. In assuming the kingship, the Hashmonaim
were usurpers. Nachmanides argues that
they were severely punished for this trespass.[3] Of course, it is possible that Maimonides
does not agree with Nachmanides’
position regarding the prohibition against the appointment of a king from
outside of the family of David. Maimonides
seems to indicate that although kingship will ultimately return to the family
of David, it is not inappropriate to appoint a king from another family or shevet, if necessary. The Torah instructs us only that the
kingship cannot be permanently transferred to another family.[4]
However, according to Rav Soloveitchik’s
interpretation of Maimonindes’ comments, there is no reason to assume that
Maimonindes disagrees with Nachmanides’ position. It is possible that Maimonides would agree that the Hashmonaim
were not entitled to assume the mantle of kingship. Maimonides is not endorsing their behavior. Instead, he is dealing with a different
issue – was the salvation commemorated by Chanukah complete. The complete salvation required for the
recitation of the Hallel requires the reestablishment of Jewish rule. This was done by the Hashmonaim. Whether they were correct in their behavior
or were usurpers is not relevant to this issue. Irregardless of the advisability of their behavior, kingship was
restored.
Rav Soloveitchik points out that there is a serious
problem with his interpretation of Maimonides’ comments. Maimonides discusses the omission of the
Hallel from the observances of Purim.
According to Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation of Maimonides’ position,
we would expect Maimonides to explain that the Hallel is not recited on Purim
because the salvation commemorated by Purim was not complete. However, Maimonides does not offer this
explanation. Instead, he explains that
the Hallel is not recited on Purim because the reading of the Meggilah takes
its place.[5]
In order to attempt to resolve this problem, it is
important to define the question more clearly.
Maimonides’ comments in regard to Purim seem to indicate that the
deficiency of the salvation commemorated by Purim does not prevent the
recitation of the Hallel. In fact,
there is an obligation to recite Hallel on Purim. However, this obligation is fulfilled through the reading of the
Meggilah. In contrast, his comments in
regard to Chanukah seem to indicate that an incomplete salvation would not have
sufficed for the recitation of the Hallel.
How can this contradiction be resolved?
The Talmud explains that, in general, when the
Jewish people are rescued from an affliction, we are required to recite the
Hallel.[6] In other words, the Talmud is identifying
two elements that together create an obligation to recite the Hallel. First, there must be an affliction. Second, the Jewish people must be rescued
from the affliction. It follows that in
order to determine whether the redemption is complete, it is necessary to
determine the nature of the affliction that the redemption addresses. For example, if the Jewish people are faced
with religious persecution, then redemption would be defined as the rescue from
this religious persecution.
Alternatively, if the Jewish people were confronted with annihilation,
then redemption would be defined as the rescue of the nation from this
destruction.
Let us apply the same analysis to the events
commemorated by Purim and Chanukah respectively. Haman’s design was to totally destroy the Jewish people. Redemption from this affliction would be
defined as the rescue of the nation from Haman’s elaborate plans to destroy the
nation. In contrast, the Hellenists did
not wish to destroy the Jewish people.
They practiced religious persecution and they attempted to subjugate the
Jewish people. Rescue from this
affliction would be defined as the cessation of religious persecution and the
freeing of the nation from foreign domination.
As Rav Soloveitchik explains, Maimonides maintains
that the Hallel is not recited for a salvation that is not complete. But, the completeness of the salvation must
be evaluated relative to the affliction.
The events commemorated by Purim represent a complete salvation. The Jewish people were in exile. Exile is a tragedy. But, Purim is not designed to recall our
return to the land of Israel. Instead,
it recalls that Haman wished to destroy the nation. Hashem intervened and defeated Haman. Was this rescue complete?
When evaluated relative to the affliction, it is clear that it was. It is not relevant that the Jewish people
remained in exile, ruled by a foreign king.
The tragedy of exile is not the affliction that is recalled on Purim. However, the events commemorated by
Chanukah occurred in the land of Israel.
The affliction consisted of religious persecution and an attempt to
subjugate the people in their own land.
In this instance, the definition of salvation includes not only the
cessation of religious persecution, but, also, the restoration of the
independence of the nation and its regaining of freedom from foreign
domination. In such an instance, the
reestablishment of Jewish kingship is an essential element of the salvation. If the Hashmonaim had succeeded in bringing
an end to religious prosecution, but had failed to rescue the nation from
foreign domination, the salvation could not have been regarded as complete.
This explains Maimonides’ position. Maimonides maintains that only a complete
salvation obligates us in the recitation of the Hallel. On Purim, the salvation was complete. The Jewish people were saved from
destruction at the hands of Haman. That
they remained in exile does not negate the completeness of their salvation from
Haman. Therefore, Maimonides rules that
Purim requires the recitation of the Hallel, and this obligation is fulfilled
through the reading of the Meggilah. However,
the salvation of Chanukah was only completed through the reestablishment of
Jewish rule in the land of Israel.
Therefore, the restoration of the kingship is cited by Maimonides as an
essential element of the salvation.
[1] Mesechet Meggilah 14a.
[2] Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Harerai Kedem , volume 1, p 272.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 49:10.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 1:7-9.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Meggilah 3:6.
[6] Mesechet Pesachim 111a.