Sacred and secular on Hanukkah and in general

Nero Yair – 2012

Rabbi Michael Avraham

introduction

The words of the Ramban and the controversy in Yerushalmi

Explanation of the dispute

The fundamental difficulties

Character of the Hasmonean House

The Character of the Greeks in the Eyes of the Sages

The overall picture and its implications

Initial conclusion: separation between sacred and profane

Halachic Perspective: Holiness, Impurity, and Holin

On the kingdom and the realm of the profane in our day and in general

The concept of reduction

introduction

Maimonides, at the beginning of the Laws of Chanukah (3:1), writes:

In the second house, when the Greeks ruled, they issued decrees against Israel, and abolished their religion, and did not allow them to engage in the Torah and the commandments, and they spread their hands on their wealth and their daughters, and they entered the temple, and they broke through it, and defiled the pure things, and Israel was greatly distressed because of them, and they were under great pressure, until the God of our fathers took pity on them and delivered them from their hand. And the sons of the Hasmoneans, the high priests, prevailed and killed them, and delivered Israel from their hand, and appointed a king from among the priests. And the kingdom returned to Israel for more than two hundred years, until the second destruction.

At the end of his words, we see that the return of the kingdom to Israel is one of the virtues of the Hasmonean victory over the Greeks. Many see these words as a source of the importance of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, to the point of seeing it as an expression of the appearance of holiness in the world. In the following words, I would like to temper this conclusion a little, and put it in a more minor perspective, which, to the best of my understanding, arises from the well-known words of the Ramban in Parashat Vai-Yachi.

The words of the Ramban and the controversy in Yerushalmi

In Jacob's blessing to Judah (Genesis 44:10), he says:

A tribe will not be cut off from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and with him the people will rejoice.

The language of the verse seems like a prophecy for the future, that no tribe will depart from Judah (or from the House of David). However, some have also seen this verse as having a normative meaning, that is, a command. Thus the Ramban writes there:

But we answered that no tribe should depart from Judah to one of its brothers, because the kingdom of Israel will be ruled over by one of its rulers, and none of its brothers will rule over it. Likewise, no lawgiver will depart from his feet, because every lawgiver in Israel who has the king's ring in his hand will be from him, because he will rule and command in all Israel, and he will have the seal of the kingdom, until Shiloh comes and all the nations will be united to him to do with all as he wishes, and this is the Messiah, because the tribe will allude to David, who is the first king to whom he has a royal tribe, and Shiloh is his son to whom the nations will be united.

He then discusses the reigns of Saul and other kings. He then writes:

And in my opinion, the kings who ruled over Israel from the other tribes after David would go against their father's will and transfer an inheritance, and they would rely on the word of Ahijah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, and said: "And I will afflict the seed of David for this cause, but not for all the days" (1 Kings 11:39). And when Israel prolonged the reign of one king after another from the other tribes and did not return to the kingdom of Judah, they transgressed the will of the old man and were punished for it, and as Hosea said (8:4): "They have reigned, and not of me."

According to the Ramban, this is a commandment, not a prophecy. The conclusion from the interpretation that this is a commandment is that one who enthrones a king who is not from the tribe of Judah (and the house of David) is violating a prohibition (which is not included in the number of commandments).

Now the Ramban continues and explains in light of these words the punishment of the Hasmoneans:

And this was the punishment of the Hasmoneans who ruled in the second house, because they were followers of the Most High, and if it were not for them, the Torah and the commandments would have been forgotten from Israel, and yet they were punished with a great punishment, because the four sons of the elder Hasmonean, the followers who led one after another, with all their valor and success, fell by the sword of their enemies. And the punishment finally came to what the wise men said: "Whoever says, 'From the house of Hasmonean, I am a slave' - he is a slave" (Bava Batra 3b), for they were all cut off for this sin. And although the seed of Shimon was punished by the Sadducees, all the seed of Mattathias the righteous Hasmonean did not pass away except because they were kings and were not from the seed of Judah and the house of David, and they removed the tribe and the lawgiver completely, and their punishment was measure for measure, because the Holy One, blessed be He, imposed upon them their slaves and they were the circumcision.

It is also possible that they sinned in their kingship because they were priests and were commanded: "You shall keep your priesthood for all the service of the altar and for the house of the Lord, and you shall serve, the service of the gift I have given you as your priesthood" (Numbers 18:7), and they did not have the right to reign, only to serve the Lord.

The Ramban cites the Gemara in Baba Batra, which describes that every Hasmonean house was destroyed, down to the last, by their servants. He explains that this is measure for measure, because they ruled unlawfully. It should be noted that he raises two possibilities here to explain their crime of making themselves kings: A. The punishment is for making themselves kings even though they were not from the tribe of Judah. B. The punishment is for making themselves kings and they are from the tribe of Levi. According to option B, beyond the problem of them not being from the tribe of Judah, which of course exists in all tribes, a king from the tribe of Levi is particularly problematic.

Now he brings up that this is actually a dispute between Amoraim in Jerusalem regarding parental rights:

And I saw in Yerushalmi in Tractate Horiot (3:2 [15:2]) that kings and priests are not anointed, Rabbi Yehuda Anturia said: Regarding the name “No tribe shall be cut off from Judah” (Genesis 44:10), Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Abba: “In order that I may prolong the days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20), what is written in the Book of the Law? “It shall not be for the Levitical priests” (ibid. 18:1). Here they taught that kings are not anointed from among the priests, the sons of Aaron, and he first interpreted that it was in honor of Judah, that the power did not depart from that tribe, and therefore, even though Israel establishes over them a king from among the other tribes according to the need of the hour, they are not anointed, lest there be majesty over them, but Like judges and policemen, they will be. And the priests reminded that although they themselves are worthy of anointing, they are not anointed for the sake of kingship, much less the rest of the tribes, and as they said in the Gemara (Horoyot 11b) that only the kings of the House of David are anointed. And Rabbi Chiya bar Abba explained that it is forbidden from the Torah that the Levite priests of the entire tribe of Levi have a share and inheritance in the kingship. And this is a proper and honorable thing.

The dispute in Yerushalmi is over the question of whether the Hasmoneans' sin is because they were not from the tribe of Judah, or because they were from the tribe of Levi as well. In any case, Yerushalmi also chooses a normative interpretation of the verse. The dispute is whether the sermon of the verse "It shall not be for the Levites to be priests" is read in such a way that it prohibits even priests from being kings (from the proximity of this verse to the king's parsha), that is, that it was true that the priests were not included in the prohibition that applied to all the other tribes, or whether it specifically prohibits priests (in addition to the general prohibition that applied to all the other tribes). These are two completely opposite views: the first holds that the priests are more worthy of kingship than the other tribes, and therefore a special innovation is required, and they are also disqualified from kingship. The second view sees the kingship of priests as more seriously problematic than the kingship of the other tribes.[1].

It is important to note that there is no room to see a fundamental disagreement here between the Ramban and Maimonides. Even if the Rambam sees the return of the kingdom to Israel as a positive result of the war with the Greeks, this does not mean that he views positively the reign of kings who are not from the tribe of Judah and the house of David (see Sefer HaMitzvot 33:22, and the 13 main points cited in the commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11:12, in the basis of the 12th chapter).[2].

Explanation of the dispute

What is the point of disagreement between the two opinions presented in Yerushalmi and Ramban? The first view is the classic one, that there is a transfer of an estate here. It should be noted that this is described in Yerushalmi as a transfer of an estate, and not as a violation of the institution of monarchy. In other words, there is a violation here of the will of Jacob, who bequeathed the monarchy to Judah, but not necessarily a violation of the Torah commandment that a king must be from the house of David. Although the OT suggests that the priests are exempt from this, since there is something in them that is more worthy of monarchy, the conclusion is that this is ruled out and they are included in the general prohibition of "no tribe from Judah shall be afflicted." The second view is that beyond the requirement that a king be from the house of David, there is an additional requirement that he not be a priest or a Levite. Here it also remains to be concluded: whoever enthrones a king from the house of David commits two offenses.

Rehaba's view, which seems to the Ramban at the end of his words "a proper and decent thing," is that the Torah commands us to separate authorities. The priest and the Levite deal with holiness, and they are not supposed to be kings, since kings deal with the profane. This is a demand for separation between the sacred and the profane.

It should be noted that in Halacha there is no complete separation of governmental authorities in the modern sense. The 14th is the legislative authority and the judicial authority, and when there is no king, he also receives the executive powers (the executive authority), as we have learned in Tractate Moed Katan (6a. and see Mishnah Shekalim 1:1):

And he said: On the first of Adar, they are to be heard on the shekels and the slain, on the fifteenth of which they read the scroll in volumes, and go out to cut the roads, and to repair the streets, and to measure the mikvehs, and to do all the needs of many, and to mark the graves, and go out on the slain!

The Ministry of Transportation is responsible for all the needs of many. It should be remembered that the Mishnah was written in a period when there was no king, but when there is a king, he apparently serves as an executive authority and takes over mundane matters.

And yet, in the verse in Parashat Vayyachi there is a demand to separate those who engage in sacred work from those who engage in profane work. The priests and Levites are not supposed to be kings, not only because they are not from the tribe of Judah, but because they belong to the tribe of Levi, which engages in sacred work.

The fundamental difficulties

There is a great innovation here in the very demand to separate the sacred from the profane. But beyond that, it should be noted that in the eyes of the Ramban, the sin of those who did not separate the sacred from the profane is so serious that despite the great dedication of the Hasmoneans, who gave their lives for Israel's independence and the war in Greece, and for the Torah and the commandments in general, despite all these rights that they certainly had, they were all exterminated to the last man at the hands of their slaves, because of this sin of not being careful to separate the sacred from the profane.

This description raises two important questions: A. Why is this sin so serious? B. If it is indeed so serious, then why did the Hasmoneans, who were so devoted to the Torah and the commandments, fall into this sin? Was it a pursuit of honor and power that was not justified?

We will try to understand the second difficulty by observing the character and conduct of the Hasmonean dynasty. After that, we will return to the first difficulty.

Character of the Hasmonean House

A look at the sources of the Sages reveals that the Hasmoneans attempted to leave a very specific mark on the conduct of the people's lives. The Gemara in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (18b) says (this is an excerpt from Megillat Taanit):

Rav Acha bar Huna answers: On the day of Tishrei, on the day of Adkrata, from the Shatriah, that the kingdom of Yona of Shemed decreed that the name of God should not be mentioned on their bills, and when the Hasmonean kingdom prevailed and was defeated, they established that the name of God should be mentioned even on bills. Thus they would write: In the year of so-and-so to Johanan, high priest to the Most High God. And when the sages heard of this, they said: Tomorrow this man will pay off his debt, and a bill was found lying in the trash, and they canceled it. And that day they made it a holiday.

The Greek kingdom decreed not to mention the name of God, and in response, the Hasmoneans, upon their victory, decreed to mention the name of God on their banknotes. This means that the Hasmonean dynasty decreed that trade in the market should be conducted in the name of God. The sacred should be applied to the profane, and no profane area should be left that is separated from the sacred (the name of God).

Another, more esoteric example is found in Mishnah Berakhot (9:5), where we find:

And we established that a person should ask about the welfare of his neighbor by name, as it is said: “And behold, Boaz came from the house of the reapers, and said to the reapers, The Lord is with you.” And they said to him, The Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4); and he says: “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior” (Judges 6:12); and he says: “Do not be despised, for your mother is old” (Proverbs 23:22); and he says: “It is a time to work for the Lord, they have broken your law” (Psalms 111:20). Rabbi Nathan says: They have broken your law because it is a time to work for the Lord.

And Bashi there (45a) explains:

Let a person ask for the peace of his friend in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and let us not say that he disdains the honor of a place for the honor of mankind by putting a heavenly name on it. And learn from Moab who said, "The Lord is with you," and from the angel who said to Gideon, "The Lord is with you, mighty in power."

And he says, "When it is time to do for the Lord, break your Torah" - times when words of the Torah are abrogated in order to do for the Lord, even this one, who intends to ask for the peace of his friend, this is the will of the place, as it is said, "Seek peace and pursue it." It is permissible to break the Torah and do something that appears forbidden.

In other words, there was a problematic regulation here, but they saw it as a temporary necessity in order to do it for God. Who were the ones who established this regulation? Ostensibly, it was during the time of Boaz (since the verse cited here is from the Book of Ruth). But in the Gemara (ibid. 63a) there are those who learned it from Giddens. And among the early Jews, opinions are divided.[3]Some have learned that the regulation is from Boaz (see Makot 23b; and also in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 4:5). Some have understood that this is a regulation from Ezra (see Rashash 25b).

And here, in the book of HaMachtam, our Rabbi David of Narbonne (printed in the Genzei Rishonim LeBrakhot, pp. 221-222), he brought in the name of the Rav (see there on page 63a, who wrote that all of this is from the Rav):

They established that a person should ask about the welfare of his neighbor. I do not know when this [regulation] was established. For this regulation did not exist except because they were pious to the Jews, and they say that one should not mention the name of the Lord, and the Hasidim among them would mention Him even when asking for peace, and in the Second Temple there was no piety to the Jews, and perhaps this regulation existed in the days of Boaz, even though it is later in the Mishnah. Or perhaps it was in the days of the Greeks, who would decree for Israel, and when the hand of the Hasmonean house prevailed, they established this, and learned it from the elders, as it is said, "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem." And so in the Yerushalmi it is said that Boaz established it. And in the Tosefta, when the first elders saw that the Torah was being forgotten by Israel, they would devour it among them, as it is said, "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem." (P.A.) It seems that this regulation did not exist in the days of Boaz, but the Hasidim of that generation would make it for themselves.

The Rav raises the possibility here that this regulation was from the Hasmoneans' Beid. This is a very puzzling assertion. After all, it has no root whatsoever in the Shas issues (neither in Berakot 33a nor in Matzot 23b), nor in Chazal at all.

The more puzzling and unsourced this statement is, the more one must seek an internal logic as to why the Raved nevertheless attributes it specifically to the Hasmonean dynasty. It seems that he thought that such a regulation was very appropriate for the character of the Hasmonean dynasty. They were zealous, and we have seen that they decided to rule the sacred over the profane in the realm of commerce. Therefore, they determined to conduct commerce in the name of God. Therefore, the Raved concludes that they also regulated social relations in the name of God, that is, to ask about the welfare of one's friend in the name. And indeed, Rabbi Israel Shtsipansky (ibid., note **19) also raises the possibility that the Raved learned this from the issue of the Rabbis regarding the regulation of the name of God on banknotes.

From this it can be assumed that their takeover of the monarchy was also done from the same trend: as part of the control of the sacred over the secular, they perceived that the secular should be governed by the sacred. It is the priests who should be kings. If so, the takeover of the monarchy was done in the name of an ideology that sees all of reality as sacred. This seems to be the interpretation of the Jerusalemite presented in the Ramban, and the interpretation of the Ramban's own words.

Now we can answer the second difficulty presented above: How can such saints of the Most High be afflicted with a lust for power that causes them to transgress the prohibition of "it shall not be for the Levitical priests"? As we have seen here, it is not a lust for power but an ideology that advocates the imperialism of holiness. An ideology that is unwilling to leave a place for the mundane in our reality. This was the motivation of the Hasmoneans, and it seems to befit them and their tendencies.

The Character of the Greeks in the Eyes of the Sages

As we saw above, the regulation to write the name of God on banknotes was a response to the Greek regulation that forbade using the name of God. As Chazal described: "Write on the bull's horn: We have no part in the God of Israel" (Genesis Rabbah 2:4). According to the Rav, the regulation to ask about the welfare of one's friend by name is also a response to the same Greek policy. Indeed, it can be consistently seen that this was the Greek ideology, to dominate the profane over the holy.

In the piyota 'Maoz Tzur', which is dedicated to our collection of tsurrim of all generations, the Greeks are presented with the words: "They broke through the walls of my towers and defiled all the fat ones." That is, the central Greek characteristic is the breaching of walls. It seems that the source of these words is in the Mishnah in Mitod (2, 3):

In front of it was a lattice ten cubits high and there were thirteen loopholes there, through which the kings of Greece returned and surrounded them and decreed thirteen obeisances against them; in front of it was the army.

That is, the Greeks broke thirteen gaps in the bars, and the Hasmoneans returned and were defeated.

What was the function of the grille? It is not entirely clear, and several hypotheses have been put forward.[4]The T'T presents several possibilities and rejects them all:

Ten cubits high – The Mishnah wrote in the Laws of the House of the Chosen One in the name of the Rosh that the grating was made to shake the Sabbath, and for this reason it was ten cubits high, as is the case with any partition. The circumference of the Temple Mount is not a fence, it is surrounded, and finally [it] does not sit. Therefore, I am puzzled, because in the Sefer of Pesach it is stated: The first sect set out [with their Passover] and sat on the Temple Mount, the second – in the army; and if the circumference of the Temple Mount is not a fence, how did they shake their Passover there? Therefore, the above-mentioned detachment did not require anything, according to the Torah, everything that is surrounded by four partitions is a complete rabbi, as it says in Refaia of Shabbat. And they did not decree that the temple would be built. Furthermore, since there was a place on the Temple Mount where the temple guards would keep their place, why would the enclosure not be called a dwelling from the beginning? And as before, we were the help with several offices for the priests and Levites who performed the work of the sanctuary.

And indeed, in terms of the purpose of building the lattice, it could be said that it was between the sect and the sect of Dov Pesachim, but there is no evidence that this building would be there because of that; because the building would have been there anyway – they would have been divided between these differences and divisions, but to build a building for that purpose in the first place – this is not apparent. For what purpose would they have needed a distinction between sect and sect?

After ruling out all other possibilities, he concludes that the purpose of the grating is to mark the limit to which Gentiles can enter the Temple:

But what is seen in this construction of the grate is what I already wrote in the Book of the Shape of the House, 352, which is to provide a place and a distinction between the idolaters who enter to pray in the House of God and Israel; as we read in the Book of Deklim [48]: The pillar is sanctified from it, so that idolaters and the unclean dead may not enter there.

And from this verse I found it difficult to ask about Rabbi Abarbanel, who in his commentary on Ezekiel wrote, and the late Rabbis said: The first external help. The late Rabbis said that in the second house there was a help for women and that they built it into a cistern, and I saw in the commentaries of the Christian sages that the first help was special for foreigners to pray in the House of God. And as Solomon said in his prayer: "And also for the foreigner" etc. And their words are clear in my opinion, because behold, in the future the prophets destined that many nations would go to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob to receive His Torah, and therefore it was appropriate that a special place be set aside for them, external and more distant from the sanctuary, and perhaps on that platform there would be an ascent surrounded by a canopy for women, as they said, and they would see from above and the foreigners from below in the platform, etc., etc. However, remembering and not forgetting the Ten Commandments – he would not have written that that special place was in the city, since even in battle they would refrain from entering. And to say that at a time when their hand was strong, these words were spoken is absolutely false, for if their hand were strong, who would stop them and who would set boundaries for nations to put a hand on them and a place of boundary and a law that they would not cross? Furthermore, the meaning of the words of the Christian sages themselves, that they had a special place that was from the knowledge of Israel, and to say that it was permissible for something to be done among them when their hand was strong, this too is not clear.

But the main thing is that even the Christian sages did not say except on the Temple Mount to the east, that that place was special to them. And what they called 'Ezra' is only a borrowed name. And in either case, as we know from our years, which is the faithful testimony - idolaters were not allowed to enter the east, and therefore the bar was made.

And hence he explains why the Greeks broke the thirteen gaps in the bars:

And in the editions of the aforementioned book, I added the sub-titut tām, which is why the doves broke through it, since a more internal entrance was made to distinguish them. And so, when Israel returned and gained their fence, they established a place for bowing down at every fence to thank the Lord for being good.

The Greek kings broke through the bars because they wanted to lower the barrier between Israel and the nations and between the sacred and the secular, and to bring the secular into the sacred. In response, the Hasmonean kings returned and opened fire, in order to repair the Greek breach. Once again, we see that the Greek ideology is a breach into the sacred, and the control of the secular over the sacred, an imperialism of the profane. In contrast, the Hasmoneans, with their opposing ideology (an imperialism of holiness), fight against them and repair what the Greeks had spoiled.

It should be remembered that the Greek conquest did not destroy the Temple, but left it intact, while enslaving it to their needs (desecrating it). Other conquests destroyed the Temple, but the goal of the Greeks was not to oppose Israel but to take control of it, while erasing the distinction between the profane and the holy. They did not want to destroy the holy, but to profane it.

In the poem "Maoz Tzur," the Greeks are also credited with the desecration of the fat. This too is a desecration (=making the sacred) of the sacred, as part of the same trend of their profane imperialism.

Another Greek decree is the decree cited in Tractate Ketubot (3b):

Damari: A virgin who conceives on the fourth day will be given to the first hegemon.

And Rashi commented on this (Shabbat 23:5 in the same miracle), when explaining the Gemara that stated that women are obligated to light a Hanukkah candle:

There was that miracle – that the Greeks decreed that all married virgins must first be circumcised, and the miracle was performed by a woman.

We see that the decree described in Tractate Ketuvot was issued during the time of the Greeks. The Greeks had a goal of introducing their seed into Israel, that is, to once again erase the boundary between them and Israel. And so it is in the words of Maimonides quoted above: "And they stretched out their hands in their daughters."

This also seems to be the root of the translation of the Torah into Greek, for which the Fasting Scroll prescribed three days of fasting (8th-10th of Tevet). There too, the goal was to profane the sacred, that is, to transform the Torah into Greek wisdom.

If we want to complete the trinity: the people, the Torah, and the land, then we must remember that the Greeks also conquered the Land of Israel, apparently as part of the same trend. The conclusion is that on all levels – the Greeks wanted to dominate the profane over the sacred.

Chazal in Bereishit Rabbah (2:4) describe the various exiles as follows:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish interpreted the reading in the Exiles, ‘And the land was desolate’ – this is the exile to Babylon, as it is said: “I saw the land, and behold, it was desolate” (Jeremiah 4:29), ‘And they were desolate’ – this is the exile to Media, “And they went to bring Haman” (Esther 6:14), ‘And it was darkened’ – this is the exile to Greece, which darkened the eyes of Israel with their decrees, which would tell them: Write on the horn of the bull that you have no part in the God of Israel, ‘On the face of the abyss’ – this is the exile to the kingdom of wickedness, for which there is no searching like the abyss, what is this abyss, not even the wicked can search for it.

What sets the Greeks apart is the demand: "Let them write on the horn of the bull that you have no part in the God of Israel." If so, the connection to God, blessed be He, also joins the previous trinity here. The Greeks wanted to sever that too. Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, author of Pahad Yitzchak, repeats in his book on Chanukah several times that this was the first decree of destruction that was made against Israel. All the previous decrees (including Purim) were to kill and destroy them, or to exile them. The first time they went to war against the faith and the commandments was in a polemic with the Greeks. In the previous wars, the commandments could have been the motivation for killing the Jews (as in Purim: "He will make them one people... and their customs will be different from all the people" [Esther 3:8]), but the decree was to kill and not to prohibit the observance of the commandments.

It should be remembered that they decreed circumcision, a month, and a Sabbath. Circumcision and a Sabbath are two commandments that are a 'sign' that distinguishes Israel. The rabbi also symbolizes the moon, which is Israel's special calendar ("For it is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations" [Deuteronomy 4:6]). These three also constitute an attempt to abolish Israel's uniqueness.

Also on the broader cultural level, there is the phenomenon of Hellenization that developed during the Greek conquest. This phenomenon is unusual in our history. We do not find in our tradition any reference to the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc. This is a result of Alexander the Great's tendency to conquer the world culturally (he was a student of Aristotle, and one of his goals was to spread his master's philosophy). Therefore, the struggle between them and Israel is also waged on the cultural platform, and not only on the level of power and government. Therefore, it was precisely during this conquest that Hellenization was created.

The overall picture and its implications

The general picture that emerges here is that the Greeks are perceived by the Sages as trying to impose the profane upon the holy: to introduce their seed into the people of Israel. to conquer the Land of Israel. to bring the Gentiles into the Temple. to translate the Torah into Greek. to defile the oils and the Temple. to erase the commandments and the culture of Israel (from the Greeks), and to sever the connection with the God of Israel. In essence, the trend is to erase the boundary between the profane and the holy, thereby turning the holy into the profane. It is worth looking again at the language of the Maimonides quoted above:

In the second house, when they were ruled by Greece, they issued decrees against Israel, and abolished their religion, and did not allow them to engage in the Torah and the commandments, and they spread their hands on their wealth and their daughters, and they entered the temple, and they broke through it, and they defiled the pure things, and Israel was very distressed because of them, and there was great pressure to block…

This is literally our description in a nutshell.

In contrast, as we have seen, the Hasmoneans attempt to rule the sacred over the secular, as an antithesis. This is according to Maimonides in Hilchot De'ut (2:2), that in order to correct a distortion, one must exert force to the opposite extreme, in order to tilt things toward the middle path. They fix by fencing off the loopholes, writing the name of God on bills, asking for the well-being of one's fellow man by name, and ruling the priesthood over the monarchy, in other words, conquering the secular by the sacred. This is not a policy of restoring the situation that was corrupted by the Greeks to its former state, in other words, returning the sacred to the secular, but rather a radical change in the opposite direction: the domination of the sacred over all areas of life.

As mentioned, such an approach has its place as part of the struggle against the Greeks. Returning to the middle path sometimes requires the opposite extreme. But after the victory, the Hasmoneans are required to return the situation to normality, that is, to a situation in which the sacred operates alongside the secular. But the Hasmoneans 'fell in love' with their extremist ideology. They continued to constitute an alternative royal dynasty, and did not restore the House of David and return to Temple worship themselves (recall that they were the sons of Mattathias, the High Priest). They continued to amend regulations that supposedly correct the Greek corruptions, but these regulations are destructive. They are also trying to change the situation that prevailed before the Greek occupation, and move it to the opposite extreme. Here, there is an opportunity to exploit the war with the Greeks, to fight against the middle people in the process, and to impose their extremist ideology.

Ostensibly, this is a blessed ideology. Extremism and the fierceness of holiness. And yet, when the Sages abolished the Hasmonean rule to write the name of God on the banknotes, the Gemara says (R.H. 18:2) that they made a new law about it. Here, too, the words of the Ramban fit in, explaining that as punishment for the sin, despite all the rights of the Hasmoneans, none of them remained. They were completely annihilated, and therefore the Gemara says, "Whoever says: 'I am from the Hasmoneans,' is known to be a slave."

Initial conclusion: separation between sacred and profane

The conclusion is that, surprisingly, the Torah sees as an ideal model precisely a situation in which the sacred operates alongside the profane. The imperialist approach of holiness is not recommended, even though it may be enchanting to many. It is possible as an intermediate situation aimed at combating the polar opposite approach, but not as a continuous and permanent situation. Anyone who tries to impose this trend on our reality is committing a very serious offense.

The balanced and correct picture is a clear separation between the profane and the sacred. The profane should not dominate the sacred (like the Greeks), and the sacred should not dominate the profane (like the Hasmoneans). They must operate side by side, with a clear division of roles. This does not mean that the Torah has nothing to say about the profane. Even profane food can and should be eaten in the purity of the sacred. There are commandments and prohibitions that concern the management of profane food, but commandments and prohibitions are not holiness.

The category of 'holiness' was disparaged by the Hasmoneans, who believed that everything related to the Torah must be holy (and done in the name of God). In doing so, they violated the very essence of the created world. The world was created to be conducted as a profane thing, unlike God, whose very essence is holy. All of our daily needs are done according to the Torah, and yet they are not holy. Breakfast, or a visit to the bathroom, are done according to Halacha. This does not make the bathroom and food holy. The commandments are intended to instruct us how to conduct our profane lives, and this is why the world was created.

The world was created to be governed by the sphere of the profane, not by the sphere of holiness. It is true that profaneness is above the purity of the holy, but profaneness above the purity of the holy is not holiness. This ideological confusion was the terrible sin of the Hasmoneans, and despite their noble intentions, they perished. Such a path cannot exist in our world, and God, the Holy One, decides to annihilate it while it is still in enmity. This settled the first difficulty (where we asked what the sin was in the domination of the holy over the profane).

Halachic Perspective: Holiness, Impurity, and Holin

The Gemara in the Megillah (26b) distinguishes between mitzvah objects and sacred objects, regarding the laws of genizah:

Our rabbis taught: Mitzvah utensils – to be thrown away, holy utensils – to be stored. And these are the mitzvah utensils: sukkah, lulav, shofar, tzitzit. And these are the holy utensils: book covers, tefillin and mezuzot, a Torah scroll bag, and a tefillin pouch and their straps.

Then begins a detailed discussion of where exactly the line is crossed (see also Minchot 3a). In other words, there is strictness in the law that the category of holiness be different from the category of mitzvah. They should not be mixed, and therefore the attitude towards holy objects is different from the attitude towards mitzvah objects.

Between holiness and impurity there is a realm of profaneness. The profane are supposed to be conducted according to the holy (profane in the purity of the holy), but not to be conquered by the holy. The separation must be maintained. What is relevant to the realm of profaneness is the mitzvah, not holiness. There are commandments that tell us how to live a profane life, but a mitzvah is not holiness.

An interesting example that illustrates this is also found in the Tosafot, where it says, "There is no trace of a woman" (BK 11a). The Gemara there discusses the impurity of a woman giving birth, and it distinguishes between a situation of doubt whether a child will come out and a situation of doubt about the pregnancy.

And here, in the Toss, they make it difficult:

There is no part of her being childless – and if you say to Rabbi Elazar that they are afraid because there is no part of her being childless, but if there was a part of her being childless she would not be afraid, how much is that? Is it in the Rabbinical Law – even in a single purification, and is it in the Rabbinical Law – even in a doubt that the purification is impure, then this is the law: All the purifications that you can multiply in the Rabbinical Law, even in a doubt that the purification is impure (according to Taharat 6:4)! And you will hear the words of the wise concerning the prohibition of her husband.

Thos says that the laws of doubting impurity are different from the laws of doubting prohibition. A doubt is impurity in a pure rabbi and an impure rabbi. The Mishnah in Taharat (6:4) states: “Whatever you can, including spicuit and doubt spicuit in a pure rabbi is impure in a pure rabbi.” That is, in impurity there is no difference between a single doubt and a doubt spicuit. Now Thos asks, how does the Gemara in the Bible distinguish between a doubt and a doubt spicuit? If it is a rabbi – both are impure, and if in a rabbi – both are pure.

Thos agrees that the discussion here is about the prohibition against her husband, and not about impurity. There is a major innovation here that the prohibition of a woman giving birth against her husband is not necessarily related to her impurity, and this has already been discussed by the later scholars. But some of the later scholars have made it difficult for Thos to answer the words of Thos with a very strong objection: after all, every law regarding doubt about impurity is learned from a false teaching, and there it is about the prohibition against her husband. So how can it be said that in the discussion of prohibiting a woman from her husband, the rules regarding doubt about impurity do not apply?

And here, in the book Nefesh Yehonatan on the parashat Hakat, the publisher (Rabbi Yaakov Orner, Zion for Nefesh, 5th century), who is the grandson of the father of Avni Nazar, on behalf of his uncle Zeko, brings this settlement to Kushya. His argument is that holiness belongs only in a place of impurity (he cites a source from the Kuzari). Why is the law of doubting impurity taught as a falsehood? The source for this is the verse (Numbers 5:12): "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, 'If a man goes astray with his wife and commits adultery with her,' then we see that the violation of the marital bond is described as an abuse, that is, as a violation of holiness. Therefore, the use of the word kiddushin is used to describe the bond between a man and his wife. This can also be learned from the question in Kiddushin (6a), which compares the law of consecrating half a woman to consecrating part of an animal. For the immigrant, in the name of[5].

A perversion harms the marital bond, which is a type of holiness, and is therefore called a transgression. Therefore, we can learn that a wife's prohibition against her husband is essentially impurity, because it harms the bond between them, which belongs to holiness.

Now the Avanz explains that there is no difficulty with the above-mentioned Toss B.K. prohibition. The prohibition of a woman giving birth is like the prohibition of a nida. In such a situation, the woman is prohibited for the entire world, and not specifically for her husband. The relevance is of course to her husband, but this is a prohibition that is not related to harming the marital bond. Therefore, the prohibition of a woman giving birth to her husband, although it is accompanied by impurity, is not impurity but a prohibition. Therefore, the relevant laws of spikit regarding it are the laws of doubt of prohibition, which distinguish between doubt and doubt of spikit. In contrast, the prohibition of a pervert for her husband is based on harming the marital bond between them. This is an offense to holiness and therefore a gedera is a fallacy of impurity.

We have learned that between holiness and impurity there is a realm of profaneness, which is governed by different rules. Impurity and holiness are extremes, but they do not occupy our entire field. In between there is a broad and important realm, the realm of profaneness. This realm must not be blurred, and the extremes must not be allowed to take over, neither the extremes of impurity nor the extremes of holiness.

Halakha has a lot to say about the profane realm. It is not a realm of authority, but neither is it a realm of holiness or impurity. Both of these are completely alienated from the profane realm, which is governed by other categories. There, the one who rules is the king, not the priest (and not the Greek).

On the kingdom and the realm of the profane in our day and in general

Many today have a tendency to see holiness everywhere. The foundation of this tendency is probably in Hasidism. Eating is nothing more than clarifying sparks of holiness from the food and sanctifying it as part of the project of sanctifying the mundane. This perception also characterizes large parts of religious Zionism, which attempts to apply categories of holiness to all of our mundane spaces, and in particular to the whole of Israel and the State of Israel and its institutions. At the beginning of the article, I mentioned that some cite the source for this from Maimonides' words about the return of the kingdom to Israel.

However, the kingdom is part of the profane realm. The king operates in this realm and rules over it, but this does not make it holy. As we have seen, it is very important that these realms also remain profane and not attempt to impose holiness upon them. Again, this does not mean that the law and the Torah have nothing to say about them, for even profane food deserves to be eaten in the purity of the holy. But it is not right to see holiness in all of this, except perhaps in a borrowed and distant sense.

On the other hand, there are opposite anti-Zionist approaches, which see the entire Zionist enterprise as an expression of the sitra achra, that is, impurity. In their eyes, everything that is not related to holiness becomes impure. The common denominator between these two poles is that they are unwilling to recognize the existence of a profane realm on top of the purity of the sacred. From their perspective, the world is divided into holiness and impurity, with no middle ground between them. Therefore, the dispute boils down to the question of whether the phenomena belong to one side or the other. The alternative that the Zionist act and the State of Israel belong to the profane realm hardly ever comes up as an option on the discussion table. Hence the intense emotions that accompany this debate. Holiness and impurity are realms where the winds are turbulent. It is impossible to have a calm and peaceful discussion when the sacred is being desecrated and defiled. In contrast, the profane realm allows for a more relaxed debate and discussion about the correct way to conduct it.

It should be remembered that the entire institution of monarchy is governed by a different set of rules than the usual halakhic rules. In a certain sense, the king is an essentially secular institution. This is clearly evident from the view of the author of the R'an's sermons (Drush 11), who sees the monarchy in a system parallel to that of the Bible and the halakhic system. But even in the Rambam, whose words some see as a different approach, one can see a clear expression of this view. See in the Sanhedrin Laws (18:6):

The decree of Scripture is that a court does not put a person to death or punish him for his confession except on the basis of two witnesses. And the one that Joshua killed Achan and David killed the Amalekite alien by their confession – it was a temporary order, or it was a royal decree. But the Sanhedrin does not put a person to death or punish him for his confession, lest his mind be consumed by this matter, lest he be one of the hard-hearted workers who wait for death, who always stab their swords in their stomachs and throw themselves off the roofs, so that this person will come and say something he did not do, so that he will be put to death. And in general – it is a royal decree.

We see here that a king can rely on self-incrimination, contrary to the Bible, since Joshua and David killed according to the defendant's own confession.[6].

And here, in the book Hemdat Yisrael (Ner Mitzvah booklet, 100 pages) by Rabbi Meir Dan Platzky, author of Kelei Hemda, discusses the question of whether or not the law of the sons of Noah accepts self-incrimination. He quotes these words of the Rambam, and writes about it:

And here… we wrote to force the late Rabbi Zal to also accept it as the teaching method [that the son of Noah was killed by his own admission] and from what he wrote in the aforementioned Sanhedrin laws, it seemed that Joshua killed Lecain by his own admission, and we chose the name Demach… He no longer has the power to judge the affairs of the sons of Noah, and whoever does not commit to the laws of the sons of Noah, even the king cannot punish him…

In other words, he proves from the words of Maimonides that even in the law of the sons of Noah, one necessarily accepts self-incrimination, since the law of a king is no more than the law of the sons of Noah. There is a comparison here between the law of a king and the laws that apply to the sons of Noah, since kingship is a universal concept.[7].

These things are related to broader questions, which concern the existence of acts of authority, or the word of authority, in the Torah-halakhic world.[8]. Are there actions that the Torah permits but does not see as a virtue or a vice (neutral actions). Does choosing one type of bread or another to eat for breakfast necessarily have Torah-value aspects? Does choosing whether to eat at 8:00 or 9:00 necessarily have such aspects? This can be further refined and spoken of as a ‘matter of authority’, in the sense that there is no absolute halachic determination regarding it. But as Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein already noted in his article[9]The word "authority" is not necessarily something neutral. Sometimes the Torah does not set strict limits, but that does not mean that it does not care what is done in these areas. And in our language, even profane food can be eaten in the purity of the holy.

The concept of reduction

In this section, I will conclude my remarks with a few words about the deeper roots of the problem I have discussed here. It seems that the deeper root of the tendency to ignore the mundane realm (on both sides) is probably rooted in the concept of tzimtzum. At the beginning of the Arizal's main book, Etz Chaim (Chapter 1, Branch 2), the process of tzimtzum is described. Initially, the infinite Light (=AS) filled all of reality. Then it began to move away to the sides from some point in the middle, it cleared out, leaving an empty circular space in its place. The Light of AS is the Godhead, or holiness, and it is in this space that is free of holiness that we operate. That is where the mundane reigns. While it is true that there are traces, that is, remnants of the surrounding Light of AS that remain in this empty space, it actually expresses the influence of holiness on this mundane space, which is probably the purpose of all creation.

In Hasidism, it is customary to perceive the reduction in a non-literal way, that is, to see the As, which represents holiness, as if even after the reduction, it still exists in all realms of existence. However, at least in our approach (and to the best of my understanding, following the words of the author of the book,[10], one of the greatest Lithuanian Kabbalists, is also true), the tzimtzum should be understood literally. This means that the empty space is a realm of the profane. Holiness guides it and influences it from the outside, but is not actually present in it.

We left Hanukkah, and now we will return to Hanukkah (in other words: we have finished the unfolding of righteousness, and now we will move on to a tour of the circles). The days of Hanukkah are "days of praise and confession." The Kabbalists teach us that confession is rooted in the number of Hod. This number is on the left line (with eternity on the right). The left is the line of judgment, that is, the limiting element (the right line is the line that expresses kindness, expansion). The Rabbi, in his well-known commentary on "I confess" in the Siddur Olat Raya (1, p. 1), explains that there are two meanings to the term 'confession': confession of something (a confession to someone for the good that he has done for us) and confession of something (a confession in truth).

Rabbi Kook explains there that there is a common side to both of these, and therefore they are described using the same word. It is difficult for us to thank those who have done us good, since such an acknowledgment requires us to admit that we needed him, that is, that we could not do without him. We must recognize our limited value. Acknowledgement requires us to discern our boundaries and limitations, and to reduce ourselves in comparison to others. And this is precisely the reduction that is in the measure of greatness, and the acknowledgment that characterizes Chanukah.

The profane is found in confession in front of the sacred, but it is distinguished as a separate realm, which is conducted under the inspiration of holiness but not as part of it. The explanation in terms of sefirot and tzimsum is indeed at the root of the ideological phenomena we described above. But the confrontation with them and between them should not be done on this hidden plane (which belongs to holiness that is not part of our world, but only guides it), but on the ideological plane (which is the expression of holiness in the profane world), as described in the first part of my speech. And this is Chanukah…

[1] The Ramban himself (in his commentary on Genesis 22:4) provides another explanation for the punishment of the Hasmoneans (for collaborating with the Romans). For our purposes here, this is not important.

[2] Here the issues directly concern our day. The fact that the government in the State of Israel is not bound by halakhah does not mean that there is no positive value in its return. On the other hand, seeing a positive value in its return does not mean the absence of criticism of its conduct.

[3] See Regulations in Israel, by Rabbi Yisrael Szczypansky, volume 2, pp. 121-128.

[4] After writing, I was referred to the article by Rabbi Azaria Ariel, 'Responsa Beit Hashmonai', in: Booruch Narod Or, Jerusalem 5764. There he states (pp. 56-57), that according to the words of the Torah, the Gra (on the Mishnah there) and the Rema'a of Panu also believe (in Responsa, sign 3). Likewise, on a historical relic of the gate, it is written in various languages that Gentiles are forbidden to enter.

[5] And so it is in the language of the Gemara (Kiddushin 2:2): "Daser la akh"a ka kedesh." See also Tod"a 'Daser', ibid.

[6] See also the book of education (Mitzvot 26:1-2), Or Samach (Kings 9:9), which he brought from Jerusalem as a Kiddushin (1:1 [1 Eb]), and Midrash Rabbah in Genesis (34:14).

[7] See also my article "Is Halacha a Hebrew Law?", Akademo 15.

[8] See a brief discussion of this in the appendix to the articles "Between Time and Leisure", in: The Front in the Home Front, Sarel Weinberger and Amichai Bitner (eds.), Bethel Library 2007.

[9] "In all your ways know Him - Two models in the service of God", In the light of your heart, Yedioth Ahronoth - Herzog College, 2012. See also Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, "The Chief Rabbinate of Israel - A Halachic View", in: The Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Seventy Years to Its Foundation, Heichal Shlomo, 2012.

Rabbi Lichtenstein himself refers to the State of Israel and its institutions in these categories, in an interview he gives on the website 'Realistic Religious Zionism': http://www.tzionut.org/oldsite/tzionut/tzionut.org/articles_details2fc6.html?id=61.

[10] To the place where they returned and Achlam, explanations of the Tree of Life, the Agoy's sermons, the beginning of the introduction to Branch B.