Shabbos (21b): What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew22 [commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden.23 For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest,24 but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel25 and thanksgiving.
The gemora directly asks about the nature of Chanukah and answers that Chanukah is to commemorate the miracle of the oil burning in the Temple.
Similarly the Rambam(Hilchos Chanuka 3:1-3):
רמב"ם הלכות מגילה וחנוכה פרק ג
הלכה א
בבית שני כשמלכו יון גזרו גזרות על ישראל ובטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצות, ופשטו ידם בממונם ובבנותיהם ונכנסו להיכל ופרצו בו פרצות וטמאו הטהרות, וצר להם לישראל מאד מפניהם ולחצום לחץ גדול עד שריחם עליהם אלהי אבותינו והושיעם מידם והצילם וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתים שנה עד החורבן השני.
הלכה ב
וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואבדום בחמשה ועשרים בחדש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.
הלכה ג
ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחלתן מליל חמשה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס, וימים אלו הן הנקראין חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים, והדלקת הנרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה
הלכה ג
ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחלתן מליל חמשה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס, וימים אלו הן הנקראין חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים, והדלקת הנרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה
The standard sources all indicate that the Syrians were trying to stop Jews from keeping Torah and mitzvos and that Chanukah was commemoration of the tremendous mesiras nefesh the Jews displayed in trying to observe the Torah.
My question - what is the source of the common understanding that Chanukah was a battle against Greek philosophy and secular knowledge?
Good question, especially since Sefer Makkabim and Yossifin (far as I know) also mention nothing of Greek philosophy or secular knowledge, only external manifestations of Hellenism such as sports and idolatry. The Rambam would probably not agree that the fight against Greece was a fight against Aristotle, whom he regarded as one of the wisest of men. I suspect that the earliest mention of this idea would be during the time of backlash against philosophy, or later.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume that the motive behind the attempts to have Jews not keep their laws was a desire to have the Jews adopt Hedonism?
ReplyDeleteSee here.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the source of common understanding, but I think R' Hirsch in Vol. 2 of the Collected Writings on Hannukah -- IIRC it's "Hellenism and Judaism." (you can read much of it vis-a-vis Google Books) -- suffices for such an idea.
ReplyDeleteand on II:25, one interpretation here: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n066.shtml#04
ReplyDeleteNot exactly what you are looking for but the opening of the book of macabees objects to the introduction of greek style gymnasiums.
ReplyDeleteIn Rav Soloveitchik's Pathway to Prayer, he writes a whole section talking about the incompatibility of Greek and Jewish philosophy and how this led to the conflict.
ReplyDeleteIn short: Greek philosophy is about personal pleasure. Life is about feeling good. Jewish philosophy is about developing the soul to become more Godly. Happiness is incidental and not the prime goal of life.
These two philosophies are at complete odds with each other and the source of the conflict.
I can't see that "secular knowledge" could have been a big deal. In fact, our rabbis studied Greek astronomy and thought highly of it.
ReplyDeleteWhen people say that the Maccabees opposed Greek philosophy I think they mean the philosophy of life rather than that of ideas. Hellenism was very attractive, particularly to the aristocracy. It meant exposure to highly-developed Greek cultural events such as theatre, organised sports, symposia, and so forth. It meant commercial trade and civil rights with many other Hellenic states. And (not least) it meant being on the side of the dominant political force of the time. The problem is that all this required adopting the religious and cultural behaviors which were incompatible with Judaism. Our ancestors really didn't have a choice about rejecting parts of the package: it was all or nothing.
Hellenism was a complete civil and religious philosophy that incorporated everything from dress and deportment to religion and ethics. To be a Hellene was to explicitly accept polytheism and other Hellenic cultural norms.
Firstly, Hellenes thought that monotheists were almost as bad as atheists: their failure to recognise the different gods was impious, arrogant, and ungracious. In the area of dress and deportment, Hellenes went naked much of the time (which obviously offended the Jews). More importantly was the fact that this nakedness let the Hellenes see circumcised males, and they thought this was outrageous. In an uncircumcised male (forgive me for being graphic) the glans of the penis is exposed only when that man has an erection. Circumcision (which exposes the glans) is therefore like going naked. In other words, the Jews were outraged by Hellenic nakedness, and the Hellenes were outraged by the nakedness of the Jews.
The conflict between Hellenes (many of whom were Jewish) and traditional Jews was inevitable. If the Jews were to remain Jewish (and most did) they had to reject Hellenism, which meant rejecting the Jewish leaders that had adopted it. We talk about the Jews fighting Greeks: the sad thing is it was largely Jews fighting Jews.
what seems obvious from the comments so far is that there are simply no sources in Chazal or Rishonim which refer to a conflict between Greek Philosophy and Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe imporatance of Chanukah lies in the mesiras nefesh to observe Torah and mitzvos.
The issue of Greek Philosophy and secuar studies seems to have been relatively recently
See Maharal in Ner Mitzvah about the clash of philosophies.
ReplyDeleteThere is a classic question as to why we have a fast on Asarah BiTeves mounring the translation of the Torah into Greek, when Moshe Rabbeinu ostensibly translated the Torah into 70 Languages.
for one presentation of the answer see here:
http://dktorah.blogspot.com/2007/04/finding-hashem-in-nature-losing-hashem.html
simply no sources in Chazal or Rishonim which refer to a conflict between Greek Philosophy and Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe Maharal quoted above is expounding on many Chazal which indicate a conflict in philosophy.
You can find an excellent on-line version of Ner Mitzvah here:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/shabat/hanuka/ner-2.htm
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeletesimply no sources in Chazal or Rishonim which refer to a conflict between Greek Philosophy and Torah.
The Maharal quoted above is expounding on many Chazal which indicate a conflict in philosophy.
===============
You are right that the Maharal expounds chazal - but there is no necessity to understand these chazal as supporting the idea that Chanukah was the battle against Greek Philosophy as Rav Hutner and others understand the matter.
If you are only citing the Maharal it would seem clear that no one prior to the Maharal understood it this way.
Chanukah celebrates mesiras nefesh of those with emuna peshuta against those who wanted to nullify Torah and mitzvos. No evidence that philosophy played any role
see the shiur of Rav Amital regarding the Maharal's understanding
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/chan-rya.htm
R' Eidensohn:
ReplyDelete>what seems obvious from the comments so far is that there are simply no sources in Chazal or Rishonim which refer to a conflict between Greek Philosophy and Torah.
Did you read RD Moshe Sokol's sermon? What I posted/pointed to above. About Aristotelian eternal universe vs. Torah's creation ex nihilo and ketz hayamim.
He doesn't express it in relation to Chanukah, but there it is in the middle of Section II of the Guide.
Actually, he does rather imply it by his wording in Hil. Chanukah 4:12, saying that the Chanukah lecht are very dear to the Jews, and one must be very careful in doing it to publicize the miracle and to give praise to Hashem, and thanks to Him for the miracles which he has done.
The other mitzvot that get that kind of "very dear, very careful" treatment are those, such as tzitzit, tefillin, and mezuzah, which proclaim God's unity and existence and presence in our lives and the world. So by implication, the Chanukah lights must also be about God's existence, unity and presence, as opposed to the uncommunicative watchmaker god, and epicureanism and hedonism of the Greeks. The hedonism is a direct consequence of not having a god who cares about human actions, who dispenses reward and punishment, etc. That was the foundation of R' Sokol's drasha.
For all that Rambam liked Aristotle's ethics and logic, his theology was better left in the dustbin of history.
thanbo said...
ReplyDeleteR' Eidensohn:
>what seems obvious from the comments so far is that there are simply no sources in Chazal or Rishonim which refer to a conflict between Greek Philosophy and Torah.
Did you read RD Moshe Sokol's sermon? What I posted/pointed to above. About Aristotelian eternal universe vs. Torah's creation ex nihilo and ketz hayamim.
=================
yes I read it and thank you for the information.
However my point was not that there is no conflict between Greek philosophy and Torah - but that contrary to a widespread assumption - Chanukah was not related to this issue.
In fact there are sources such as the Remah that clearly state that philosophy was produced by the prophets and stolen by the Greeks.
Rav Tzadok also asserts that the development of the Oral Torah was the result of the rationality of the Greeks.
Again my point is very simple. Chanuka is frequently used as a club against philosophy and/or science - when in fact there is no validation of such an approach by Chazal.
when in fact there is no validation of such an approach by Chazal.
ReplyDeleteI think the Maharal is an authoritative interpreter of Chazal and is qualified to identify their subtle approaches.
Let's be frank: Do you think the Maharal is projecting his own independently arrived ideas on the words of Chazal with no internal basis? Wouldn't that be dishonest?
The fact that there is no explicit statement of Chazal that comes right out and uses the term פילוסופיה של היונים (or anything similar), should not surprise anyone who is familiar with how Chazal express themselves in aggada.
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteI think the Maharal is an authoritative interpreter of Chazal and is qualified to identify their subtle approaches.
Let's be frank: Do you think the Maharal is projecting his own independently arrived ideas on the words of Chazal with no internal basis? Wouldn't that be dishonest?
====================
The Maharal doesn't talk about philosophy but rather chochma - which could be understood as science.
In fact I just spoke to a former student of Reb David - and she said that the Rebbetzen never used the world philosophy but rather chochma.
However my basic point remains. There is no statement in Chazal that asserts the Chanuka had anything to do with Greek thought - it was the suppression of religion.
In addition it is not clear whether the Maharal is addressing the issue either.
However my basic point remains. There is no statement in Chazal that asserts the Chanuka had anything to do with Greek thought - it was the suppression of religion.
ReplyDeleteIn addition it is not clear whether the Maharal is addressing the issue either.
I think it is perfectly clear that the Maharal is referring to Greek thought (חכמה) and their suppression of Judaism was a direct outgrowth of their thought.
This is why the Greeks went out of their to bestow impurity on the oil. They didn't just confiscate all the oil or destroy it. They contaminated it from its kedusha. This is a theological concept that they were attempting to nullify.
והנה התבאר בדבר זה דברי חכמי יוון מה שרצו בזה שאמרו (ב"ר ב:ה ) כתבו על קרן השור שאין לכם חלק באלוקי ישראל. כי אמרו מצד שישראל עשו את העגל מיד שהוציא אותם ממצרים, אם כן מורה שאין להם ח"ו חלק באלוקי ישראל. כי הדבר שהוא בעצם הוא ראשונה, והעגל היה ראשון. וזהו מה שאמרו כתבו על קרן השור לא אמרו כתבו על נייר, כי הקרן היה מן השור עצמו, ור"ל שעשו העגל, והחטא זה דבר עצמי להם ולא דבר מקרה ולכך אין להם חלק באלוקי ישראל. ואין לך דבר שהוא קשה יותר מן הקרן, ואמרו כי דבר זה יש להם לישראל מצד קושי ערפם שיש בהם, וקושי ערפם בודאי מצד עצמם, לכך העגל הוא מצד עצמם כמו שאמר השם יתברך במעשה עגל (דברים ט, יג יד) ראיתי את העם הזה והנה עם קשה עורף הוא. הרף ממני וגו'. כך אמרו היונים, ולא הבינו התשובה על זה שאמר הכתוב (ישעיה מט, טו) ואנכי לא אשכחך: וכל זה, מפני שרצו האומה הזאת לבטל מן ישראל מעלתם האלוקית העליונה שיש לישראל, ולכך גזרו עליהם לבטל מהם התורה אלוקית. ואף גם מלכות הרביעית גזרו שמדות על ישראל בכמה וכמה דברים, אין זה דומה. כי מלכות רביעית לא היו עושים זה בשביל שאמרו לנו המעלה העליונה האלוקית כמו שהיו אומרים היונים, רק שהיו רוצים לכלותם כאשר לא היו עושים את אשר גוזרים עליהם, והיו רוצים להרוג אותם לכך גזרו עליהם גזרות ושמדות. וזה היה עיקר כוונתם של מלכות רביעית, שכל כוונתם ההריגה כמו שיתבאר. אבל היונים לא היה כוונתם בשביל לכלותם, רק היו אומרים כי אין לכם חלק בו יתברך, רק כי לנו ...הוא המעלה האלוקית.
...והתבאר, כי מלכות יון הוא מוכן להתנגד לישראל במה שיש להם תורה ומצות אלוקי'. כי אל מלכות זו שייך לה החכמה שהיא שכל האדם בלבד, לא השכל האלוקי הנבדל, אשר היא התורה האלוקית שהיא השכל הנבדל האלוקי לגמרי. וכן אל בית המקדש. שיש לו מעלה אלוקית קדושה, הם מתנגדים ביותר לה, המלכות הזאת. כי התורה ובית המקדש הם שתי מדרגות זו על זו, כמו שאמרו (אבות פרק ה, משנה כ) בכל מקום שנים אלו יחד: יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלוקינו שיבנה בית המקדש במהרה בימינו ותן חלקינו בתורתך, כמו שהוא מבואר במקום אחר. ולכך היו מתנגדים אל המצות התורה ולבית המקדש בפרט, ולכך הנס שנעשה להם היה בנרות של בית המקדש (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצווה ותורה אור וכו'.
ושמונה ימים שנעשה להם הנס מורה על מעלת התורה כמו שבארנו זה במקום אחר. והרי יסד דוד מזמור (תהלים קי"ט) אשרי תמימי דרך על התורה בתמניא אפי. ועוד סדר למנצח מזמור לדוד השמים מספרים כבוד אל וגו' שבעה פסוקים, ואחר שבעה פסוקים תורת ה' תמימה. כי אלו ז' פסוקים הם העולם הזה, והתורה היא על העולם הזה שנברא בז' ימי בראשית, לכך מדריגה השמינית היא התורה. ולכך שבעה שבועות תספור (דברים טז, ט), עד החמישים שהוא אחר השבעה הוא מתן תורה, ודבר זה בארנו באריכות במקום אחר. לכך הנס של חנוכה ראוי שיהיה שמונה ימים זה אחר זה, ועוד יתבאר טעם לזה בסמוך.
ודווקא נס זה נעשה, כי עיקר רשעת היונים שטימאו את ההיכל, וכמו שאמרו בכל מקום (עבודה זרה נב, ב) אבני המזבח ששיקצו אנשי יון, וכן בכמה מקומות. והשם יתברך ראה רשעתם שטימאו היכל שלו, וגם כן גזרו שמד לבטל התורה ומצוותיה, ונתן כוח ביד חשמונאי שהם כוהנים עובדי השם בהיכלו, ואלו ניצחום דווקא ולא אחרים, כאשר ניצחום טיהרו את המקדש. וכאשר לא היה להם שמן, נעשה להם נס שיוכלו לטהר ולחנך הבית. ולכך נקרא חנוכה, שהיו מחנכין את בית המקדש אחר שטימאו אותו בני יון. ולפיכך, הנס הזה שנעשה בשמן הוא הניצחון שנצחו ישראל היונים, כי הניצוח היה בשביל שטימאו את ההיכל, והשם יתברך רצה בעבודת ישראל, ולכך נעשה הנס בנרות, כי היונים היו מטמאים את ההיכל שכך כוח יון מיוחד להתגבר על ההיכל יותר מכל האומות. וסימן לדבר, היכל עולה למספרו ס"ה ו-יון מספרו ס"ו, להורות כי יש למלכות יון כוח גובר על ההיכל ובזה מטמאים את ההיכל, כי מצד ההיכל בלבד גובר עליו כוח יון. ולכך כשגברו על ההיכל, טימאו את כל השמנים שבהיכל. ודווקא שמנים, כי השמן הוא מיוחד לקדושה. וראיה לזה, שבשמן מקדשין ומושחין הכל (שמות ל, כד לג) והוא עיקר הקדושה, ואף בזה שלטו יון וטימאו את כל השמנים.
הניצחון ע"י כהונה וקדושת קה"ק
ולא נשאר רק פך אחר קטון שהיה מונח בחותם של כהן גדול. כי כהן גדול יש לו קדושה על קדושה, כי כהן גדול נכנס לפני ולפנים הקודשים, וזה קדושה על קדושה, ומצד זה אין ליונים כוח על ההיכל. ובשביל מעלה זאת, שהיא קודש הקודשים, לא היו יכולים לשלוט יון באותו פך קטון שהיה בחותמו ובהסתר של כהן גדול. כי באות הה"א של היכל שיש בה הצירי יש יו"ד נחה, והיא יו"ד נעלמת שנשמע בקריאת הצירי. והוא מורה על מעלה עליונה נסתרת שיש בהיכל, והיא מעלת קודש הקודשים. ובזה לא שלטו היונים, כי היו"ד שהיא נח נעלם מורה על קודש הקודשים שהוא נסתר ונעלם בהיכל, ושם לא שלטו על קודש הקודשים שהוא נסתר. אבל הכהן שולט אף על קודש הקודשים, שהרי כהן גדול נכנס לקודש הקודשים. לכך כהן הוא במספר היכל עם יו"ד הנעלמת שהיא כנגד קודש הקודשים, ולפיכך היה נשאר פך קטון מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול שלא שלטו שם יונים. כי ההיכל כל אותיות שלו כנראה שהם כתובים, רק היו"ד שהיא נח נעלם שהוא בהסתר. והיו"ד מורה על מדרגה קדושה, כי העשירי הוא קודש בכל מקום (ויקרא כז, לב). והיו"ד הנחה בצירי שתחת הה"א, מורה על קדושה נעלמת נסתרת, והיא מדרגת קודש הקודשים שהוא נסתר, וזה לא מצאו היונים. אבל כהן במספר ע"ה והוא נכנס בנסתר ובנגלה של היכל, ולפיכך היה פך קטון שהיה מונח בהצנע של כהן גדול.
ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד ונעשה נס להדליק בו שמונה ימים, כי אלו ח' ימים שנעשה נס באור, דבר זה בא ממעלת קודש הקודשים ששם לא שלטו היונים במעלתו שיש לו, והוא הצנע של כהן גדול. ולכך הדליקו בו שמונה ימים, כי קודש קדשים הוא אחר שבעה וזהו השמיני. ולמה קודש הקודשים אחר שבעה, כי הנהגת עולם הטבע הוא תחת מספר שבע, כי בשבעה ימים נברא העולם הזה הטבעי, ולפיכך מה שאחר הטבע הוא תחת מספר שמונה, שמונה הוא אחר שבעת ימי הטבע. ולכך המילה שהיא על הטבע, שהרי לפי הטבע האדם נולד ערל, וזה מפני כי הטבע נותן שיהיה ערל, והמילה הוא על הטבע, ולכך המילה ביום השמיני. ומפני שכל דבר שהוא קדוש והוא נבדל מן הטבע שהיא גשמית חומרית, ולכך קודש הקודשים שהוא נבדל לגמרי הוא גם כן אחר הטבע.
ודבר זה רמזו חכמים במדרש: (ויקרא רבה כא, ה)
בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש...(ויקרא טז, ג) בזכות המילה שנאמר בה (בראשית יז, י) זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו וכו'... נכנס אהרן אל הקודש.
ובאור זה, כי לא היה ראוי בן אדם חומרי לכנוס אל מקום שהוא קודש קדשים נבדל מן הגשמי החומרי, אם לא שיש באדם המילה שהוא על הטבע גם כן, ובזכות זה היה נכנס אל קודש הקודשים שהוא קודש נבדל מן הטבע. ולכך בקודש היו הארון והתורה שהיא שכלית בלתי גשמי. והתורה נתנה גם כן אחר השבעה, שהרי כתיב (דברים טז, ט) שבעה שבעת תספר לך כו', ואחר שבעה שבועות ביום החמישים נתנה התורה, וכן מזמור (תהילים קי"ט) אשרי תמימי דרך וכו', הוסד על התורה, והולך בתמניא אפי, כמו שבארנו למעלה. ובהיכל עצמו היה המנורה ובה שבעה נרות, אבל בקודש הקודשים היה התורה והארון שהוא האור עצמו, לכך נקרא ארון מלשון אור, שהתורה היא אור והיא השמינית, ומשם בא הנס של שמונה נרות חנוכה. וכבר בארנו כי נשאר פך אחד קטון שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, וידוע כי כהן גדול הוא משמש בשמונה בגדים, וכל זה בשביל מעלתו שיש לו מדרגה השמונה. וכאשר טמאו היונים את ההיכל וטהרו אותו מן הטומאה וחזרה הקדושה מן מדרגה שהיא שמינית, ולכך נעשה הנס שמונה ימים.
And the Rambam does imply that Greek denial of Hashem's existence and power, which was inextricably linked with their philosophy, is something which our Chanukah celebration opposes. It may not have been an explicit casus belli, but from our perspective, it's part of what we reject about Hellenism.
ReplyDeleteR Eidensohn
ReplyDeleteI know this does not advance the discussion but I would like to understand.
"Rav Tzadok also asserts that the development of the Oral Torah was the result of the rationality of the Greeks"
Could you please expand/provide me with a source for this idea
Maccabees II is actually quite pro Greek philosophy. The author sees Hanukah as a celebration of the joining of Jewish and Greek culture and the victory against those Jews who tried to wipe out Judaism.
ReplyDeleteDr. Eidensohn, I don't understand why one needs Chazal and rishonim. If the idea can't be found in Chazal or the rishonim, but it's found in acharonim (like R' Hirsch), isn't that sufficient? It's not like it's a halacha or anything; it's an idea.
ReplyDelete[Maccabees 2 is a very interesting sefer. I've never understood where such books fit in our mesorah.]
Eytan said...
ReplyDelete"Rav Tzadok also asserts that the development of the Oral Torah was the result of the rationality of the Greeks"
Could you please expand/provide me with a source for this idea
======================
(19) ספר מחשבות חרוץ - אות יז
ובתחילת מלכות יון היה הסתלקות הנבואה כמו שאמרו בסדר עולם, ואז היה יסוד חכמת תורה שבעל פה, וזה לעומת זה התחילה אז חכמת יונית ופילסופיא שהכחישו האצטגנינות והכישוף וכדומה חכמות שלמעלה משכל אנושי, דרק אצל בני ישראל חכמתם הוא השגת רוח הקודש ויוכלו להשיג עתידות גם כן דרך חכמה וברוח הקודש, וכמו שאמרו בפרק הדר (עירובין ס"ד ע"ב) מכאן שכיוון רבן גמליאל ברוח הקודש, וכן בכמה דוכתי רוח הקודש מחכמי ישראל, וכל חכמתם הוא להשיג שיש חכמה למעלה משכל אנושי, ושכל השגתם אינו מצד השגת שכל אנושי כלל, ועל כן אצל בני ישראל החכמים הם יודעי העתים גם כן, דפשטיה הוא ידיעת העת דרך אצטגנינות או עוננות שלמעלה מהשגת אדם, ואצל אומות העולם הם שני מינים:
thanbo said...
ReplyDeleteAnd the Rambam does imply that Greek denial of Hashem's existence and power, which was inextricably linked with their philosophy, is something which our Chanukah celebration opposes. It may not have been an explicit casus belli, but from our perspective, it's part of what we reject about Hellenism.
================
The fight against the Greeks was not because there were ideas in Hellism that we reject. It was simply because they tried to stop us from keeping Torah and mitzvos.
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteI think it is perfectly clear that the Maharal is referring to Greek thought (חכמה) and their suppression of Judaism was a direct outgrowth of their thought.
This is why the Greeks went out of their to bestow impurity on the oil. They didn't just confiscate all the oil or destroy it. They contaminated it from its kedusha. This is a theological concept that they were attempting to nullify.
============================
Greeks did not typically try to impose their views on conquered peoples.
The problem was more of the Jews who were attracted to Hellenism and they wanted their freedom - much as the Reform Jews in our day.
It was the suppression of Torah and mitzvos that led to the rebellion of the Jews. The suppression was more an issue of a king concerned with power and the involvement of assimilated Jews - then a question of philosophy. If there were no assimilated Jews and if the ruler was a normal Greek - there would not have been suppression of Torah.
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteDr. Eidensohn, I don't understand why one needs Chazal and rishonim. If the idea can't be found in Chazal or the rishonim, but it's found in acharonim (like R' Hirsch), isn't that sufficient? It's not like it's a halacha or anything; it's an idea.
===================
When dealing with an understanding of history involving a period discussed by Chazal - it is very problematic to assume that Chazal were not aware of the essence.
Rav Tzadok mentions that even when Chazal seems to be at odds with historical fact - Chazal are reporting the inner essence which is not accessible to historians.
To say that an achron such as the Maharal or R. S. R. Hirsch had a sensitivity to historical events which was greater than Chazal is very problematic.
Either you say that the achron is explicating that which is found in Chazal or else you say the achron had access to a new revelation e.g., the Arizal or Baal Shem Tov.
Of course concerning events which Chazal did not discuss - there is clearly a basis for new understandings - but you can't assume the ruach hakodesh which Chazal had.
This is discussed by the Leshem in his attack on Maharetz Chajes.
Either you say that the achron is explicating that which is found in Chazal or else you say the achron had access to a new revelation e.g., the Arizal or Baal Shem Tov.
ReplyDeleteSo which was R' Hirsch doing?
It was the suppression of Torah and mitzvos that led to the rebellion of the Jews. The suppression was more an issue of a king concerned with power and the involvement of assimilated Jews - then a question of philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't discussing the final trigger for the rebellion but rather what the underlying struggle between the two sides were about.
I just quoted the Maharal who, based on Chazal, says the oppression was the result of their philosophy.
The fact that the Greeks didn't oppress other religions can just as easily indicate that Judaism's unique concept of kedusha and above-human wisdom were specifically anathema to the Greeks.
The historical chain of events and circumstances that are described for that period, don't imply they contain the exclusive, or even the primary cause-and-effect relationships in the conflict.
And you just quoted R' Tzaddok about the existence of inner dimensions of a historical period that are not accessible from the outer descriptions of the events themselves.
Baruch said...
ReplyDeleteEither you say that the achron is explicating that which is found in Chazal or else you say the achron had access to a new revelation e.g., the Arizal or Baal Shem Tov.
So which was R' Hirsch doing?
================
just posted an excerpt from R' Hirsh's attitude towards Chazal
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteWe aren't discussing the final trigger for the rebellion but rather what the underlying struggle between the two sides were about.
I just quoted the Maharal who, based on Chazal, says the oppression was the result of their philosophy.
===================
Actually I am talking about the final trigger. In fact there is no indication that the final trigger is not also the essential disagreement.
The Maharal does cite Chazal - but they do not explicityly say what the Maharal constructs.
The Maharal states, "Because the Kingdom of the Greeks was focused on knowledge they were focused on nullifying the Torah from Israel because it is a higher level of knowledge that that of man... This kingdom of Greeks was not opposed to the Jews but only to their Torah."
This is the essence of the Maharal's position - where does Chazal say such a thing? Chazal say in Bereishis Rabbah (2:4) R. Simeon b. Lakish applied the passage to the [foreign] Powers. NOW THE EARTH WAS TOHU (E.V. ‘UNFORMED’) symbolises Babylonia: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was tohu-E.V. ‘waste’ (Jer. IV, 23)2; AND BOHU (E.V. ‘VOID’) symbolises Media: They hastened (wa-yabhillu) to bring Haman (Est. VI, 14).3 AND DARKNESS symbolises Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel with its decrees, ordering Israel, ‘Write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel.
Please note that the darkness was caused by the Greeks' decrees - it doesn't say because of their philosophy.
AND DARKNESS symbolises Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel with its decrees, ordering Israel, ‘Write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel.
ReplyDeletePlease note that the darkness was caused by the Greeks' decrees - it doesn't say because of their philosophy.
Um, isn't it crystal clear that the decree to "write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel" is a decree to assert their philosophy over the Jews?!!
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteAND DARKNESS symbolises Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel with its decrees, ordering Israel, ‘Write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel.
Please note that the darkness was caused by the Greeks' decrees - it doesn't say because of their philosophy.
Um, isn't it crystal clear that the decree to "write on the horn of an ox that ye have no portion in the God of Israel" is a decree to assert their philosophy over the Jews?!!
===========
nope! Please explain. The simple explanation is that this was indicating that the Jews by sinning with the Golden Calf had lost their special relationship with G-d.
Well is it just a "suppression from keeping Torah and mitzvos" as you are claiming??!!
ReplyDeleteThis is exasperating.
The Maharal tells us clearly this decree was an outgrowth of a philosophical/theological dispute between the Jews and the Greeks contrary to what you have been proposing.
I'll leave it to an authority like the Maharal to tell us that to remain with the "simple explanation" of aggadic statements of Chazal is a deep mistake in understanding Judaism.
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteWell is it just a "suppression from keeping Torah and mitzvos" as you are claiming??!!
This is exasperating.
The Maharal tells us clearly this decree was an outgrowth of a philosophical/theological dispute between the Jews and the Greeks contrary to what you have been proposing.
I'll leave it to an authority like the Maharal to tell us that to remain with the "simple explanation" of aggadic statements of Chazal is a deep mistake in understanding Judaism.
==============
Your arguments remind me of a biology teacher I had in college. He explaining evolution from a sloshing chemical broth to single cell animals to multicell creatures to man. I asked him what was the mechanism to get from one step to the other. He looked at me like I was crazy and said, "But if you don't believe that is what happened then you are a fundamentalist!"
You are acknowledging that there is no explicit statement of Chazal but rather we have to have faith that the Maharal knew that is what Chazal really meant.
I am not aware of any principle of faith that I have to accept the Maharal's undestanding - which may or may not been based on Chazal.
Furthermore the Maharal is not saying that this is the view of Chazal. Could you please show me where the Maharal says what he is saying is the view of Chazal?
To cite a medrash and then do pilpul on it does not mean that the pilpul is that of Chazal.
Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 1:1): You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study—even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with Tannaim in halachic matters—but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.
I give up. Its useless talking to someone whose mind is made up.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that on the 8th of Teves the world was black because of a
ReplyDeletetranslation of the Torah by the 72 Chachamim, which leads you to question
how something could be both a miracle and bad thing at once. To answer it
you suggest that letting the non-Jews have their own access to Torah is bad.
I question both the question and answer - and I'll start with the answer.
Gemara, Sotah 38 says that Klal Yisroel was commanded to write the whole
Torah in 70 languages in a way that would allowa/encourage the non-Jews to
make impressions of the translation and take them back home with them.
Clearly, it is a good idea if they read and study an accurate translation of
the Torah, as it teaches them moral and religious concepts that were foreign
to them (e.g. monotheism - a Jewish contribution to the world).
And as relates to you question, a careful reading of Mesechtas Sofrim shows
that there were really TWO translations of the Torah for Talmai. The first
was by 5 people, was not so accurate, and that caused the world to be black
for 3 days. The it says that the 72 Chachamim translated it (well) with all
types of miracles. The implication is clear that the first translation
caused the problem because it wasn't accurate, but the later translation -
just like the one put onto the rocks by Yehoshuah - was a good thing.
I've seen others confusing these two translations, but in the Poskim I saw I
did not see anyone connecting the targum hashivim to the 8th of Teves. As
you can see, this issue has been on my mind for a while, so if you have any
thoughts or sources I'd love to hear from you.
Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...
ReplyDeleteI give up. Its useless talking to someone whose mind is made up.
===============
No it is useless repeating the same unconvincing arguments. Have you ever considered that maybe you are simply wrong?
Have you ever considered that maybe you are simply wrong?
ReplyDeleteYes. But I find that argument unconvincing. ;-)
Freelance
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean when you say that you have considered the possibility that you are wrong? You operate under the assumption that Haredi style masorah is by definition true and cannot be challenged. So how is it possible that you have considered that this could be wrong in some meaningful sense? Is there some secret heretical side to you that we have not seen?
Yes I have certain basic assumptions that I cannot prove but assume are true. For example I accept that the laws of logic are true. The reason why is that not to accept these things is to jump over a cliff into insanity.
Why preserving one's sanity a valid reason? Who says sanity is more appropriate than insanity?
ReplyDeleteBefore you laugh it off, you should realize that Koheles pondered this question very thoroughly.
To answer your question directly:
I meant only that I claim some measure of objectivity in evaluating my own positions. Especially the positons I wasn't born with or raised with.
And vis-a-vis the alternatives I've explored until now, I find my set of assumptions holding up as well, or better than, anyone else's.
Freelance
ReplyDeleteUnlike most Haredim I do think about Kohleth quite a bit. I actually study Tanach. I ponder the abyss of insanity that lies at the bottom of the cliff. That being said, this whole conversation is only meaningful if we assume the value of sanity and agree to not jump off the cliff.
It is the opinions that one was born with that one has to scrutinize the most. Critical thought has no meaning otherwise.
Of course your opinions hold up very well against everyone else's. Playing by your rules means that by definition you cannot be wrong. Which is the whole problem here in our case.
It is the opinions that one was born with that one has to scrutinize the most. Critical thought has no meaning otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOf course your opinions hold up very well against everyone else's. Playing by your rules means that by definition you cannot be wrong. Which is the whole problem here in our case.
You misunderstood.
I didn't say I don't scrutinize the opinions I was born with at all. I only said I cannot claim the same measure of objectivity while scrutinizing those kinds of opinions and much as later ones.
Freelance
ReplyDeletePlease tell us. To what depth have you scrutinized your Judaism? What have you done to open yourself up to consider the possibility that the Judaism you grew up with is incorrect?
I haven't confined my reading material of other beliefs and challenges of Judaism to the slanted Orthodox presentations of them.
ReplyDeleteWhy, I've been out there in the real world! I've read XGH's blog! Isn't he the most convincing skeptic in the world? I can't think of a more direct way to confront and challenge my cherished assumption about Judaism which I was raised with.
As an aside:
I ponder the abyss of insanity that lies at the bottom of the cliff. That being said, this whole conversation is only meaningful if we assume the value of sanity and agree to not jump off the cliff.
I feel the same way about raising the possibility of Averroist thinking in Judaism.
The study of and discussion about any Jewish text is only meaningful if we assume the sincerity of the author and agree not to jump off the cliff.
Freelance
ReplyDeleteI ask you about your experiences with alternative beliefs and you point to the fact that you read blogs! I certainly do not view XGH as the greatest skeptic in the world. He makes for an interesting read, though more recently he has become somewhat annoying. I am definitely not about to view him as any great intellectual.
The Averroist claim does not force one into insanity. It just causes a problem for mesorah. It is a legitimate method of reading, offering a way to explain contradictions in texts. One does not automatically assume that everyone is a heretic there are specific signs that one looks for.
I ask you about your experiences with alternative beliefs
ReplyDeleteNo you didn't. You asked just today:
What have you done to open yourself up to consider the possibility that the Judaism you grew up with is incorrect?
Reading skeptic blogs is what I've done, and that's a heck of a lot more than your average Chareidi Jew is willing to do to challenge his beliefs.
Believe me. ;)
The Averroist claim does not force one into insanity.
I wasn't *comparing* Averroist thinking to insanity. I was making an *analogy*. There's a significant, if subtle difference.
My analogy was:
Just as one cannot have a meaningful conversation about reality and truth without assuming the value of sanity,
you can't have a meaningful discussion about the compelling nature of statements and ideas presented in a text without assuming the transparency of its author.
Freelance
ReplyDeleteIn the land of the blind you are the half blind king.
There are many texts that are meant to be esoteric. The Torah is not a transparent text; we need the oral law for it. Kabbalah is not transparent. Maimonides is also not transparent. He tells you so in the very beginning of the Guide.
Bad comparison for many reasons.
ReplyDelete1) The Torah does in fact have a transparent layer of meaning: אין המקרא מוציא מידי פשוטו.
The many Pshat commentators to the Torah who do not rely on Chazal for pshat, assumed this transparency very clearly.
2) Torah and Kabbalah came with a thorough, detailed oral tradition of its true meanings. This was to ensure that at least some people would really understand the truth.
3) With the Guide, it's really anyone's guess as to which contradictions he was referring to and how they should be resolved.
For the sake of meaningful discussion we should assume transparency of the text and no contradictions until we come across a passage which gives us no alternative.
So if you want to seriously entertain that any Orthodox idea in the Moreh is a possible smokescreen to conceal his real unorthodox opinions, (which is not really a textual contradiction in the normal sense) you have pulled the rug out of any meaningful discussion of the text.
At the end of the day you can always say that something is not a contradiction. The question is at what point does your answer become weaker than just saying that something is a contradiction.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that Maimonides openly states in the introduction to the Guide that he contradicts himself in order to reveal some things to some people and to hide things from others.
In fact there are sources such as the Remah that clearly state that philosophy was produced by the prophets and stolen by the Greeks.
ReplyDeleteCan you please provide a source for this?