According to Genesis 9:27a, when Noach awoke after being disgraced by his son Cham and respectfully covered by his other sons Shem and Yefet, he uttered a prophecy: "Yaft 'Eloqim leYefet, veyishkon be’oholei Shem" ("G-d will enlarge Yefet, but may he dwell in the tents of Shem"). Though third in wisdom (the Sages teach the traditional order they are named in is in order of their wisdom rather than their age), the descendants of one particular son of Yefet—Yavan—would become particularly renowned for their wisdom. These were the Greeks. However, much in this wisdom was quite the opposite of the hashqafah (outlook) of those descendants of Shem, the Jewish people. In fact, this mode of thought, called "Hellenism" after the Greeks’ name for themselves, would eventually engage Israel in a struggle of monumental importance. This happened because the philosophy of the descendants of Yefet had strayed from the tents of Shem—the only place where its excesses could be counteracted.

Unfortunately, the initial victory of Israel over the unrestrained excesses of Hellenism was temporary, and this mindset, having strayed further than ever before from the tents of Shem, lies at the root of much of the confusion of the modern world.

Hellenism is usually simply described as a philosophy that concentrates on the shallow, superficial, surface level of things rather than the ultimate and deep things. Though the most famous example of this is the Greeks’ obsession with physical perfection, it was also reflected in their entire view of how one derives one’s moral beliefs and the meaning of life. Rather than receiving these things as Divine Revelation from the Creator, the Hellenistic mindset begins with the self and reasons outward. It abstracts and projects the individual onto the whole of society. Thus, "thou shalt not kill" was known to be wrong not because it had been prohibited by G-d but because the logical man knew that something he would not want visited upon him would be regarded similarly by other men, and was thus destructive of a good society. He arrived at his other values through similar humanistic logic. It was not that G-d did not exist—G-d was a distinct possibility. But this was a matter of abstract speculation for philosophers. "Thou shalt not kill" and the rest of the moral code was of immediate practical concern for society and all its members, and whether or not this moral code originated with G-d was a matter whose resolution could be deferred, indefinitely if need be. In the meantime, life had to go on.

All this meant that the most important things, as well as those things most certainly known, were at the most immediate level, and these qualities decreased as one moved outward to the deeper and ultimate issues. That murder or theft or injuring another was wrong all were agreed. As to whether there was a Creator or whether the world was self-existent, these things were a matter of opinion and for brain exercise in one’s spare time. The knowledge of what was right and what was wrong simply could not wait for the resolution of the matter. This may be contrasted with Israel’s experience and acceptance of Divine Revelation at Sinai.

By the time the Hellenistic philosopher had turned his attention to dealing with such ultimate issues as G-d’s existence and nature, he had already constructed a complete value system. He had already decided what was good, what was true, and what was beautiful. He may have been a prominent citizen or politician, and whatever causes he championed depended no more on the origin or purpose of the world than did his moral code. Once again, he was not opposed to the existence of such a Deity, but it was an open issue. As the centuries passed and paganism was displaced by chr*stianity, many still retained the Hellenistic mindset. Most of those who did had concluded that there was indeed a Creator, even if He was impersonal and detached. But as chr*stianity was displaced by the scientific worldview, more and more began to answer that question in the negative. In the 19^th Century many prominent scientists and philosophers declared that G-d was no longer necessary to explain the ultimate cause or reason of things. However, this did not mean that nothing was right or wrong, or that one shouldn’t have ideals and goals. Why? Because these things had been determined first by natural reasoning. They had pre-existed the issue of G-d, continued throughout the debate, and would persist beyond its resolution. What had been found to be objectively good, true, and beautiful beforehand would so remain. The outcome of a long period of speculation on an abstract matter would not put even a crack in the magnificent temple of ethics which had been erected, because that temple’s foundation lay firmly on the immediate. G-d was ultimately irrelevant, even if He did exist.

However, if moral and ethical truth is to be appropriated by reasoning from the self outwards, what does one do when others, using the same method of attaining moral truth, arrive at radically different conclusions? For example, most Hellenists today may be absolutely convinced of the moral truth of the brotherhood of man. But how do they respond to other Hellenists who have decided the primary ethical concern should be the purity of the white race? The answer is that they cannot respond rationally, as both arrived at their values systems by the same method of reasoning. Instead the Hellenist has to rely solely on state force and social pressure to assure universal assent, or at least silence from those who disagree. This is because, despite the absolutism with which Hellenists adhere to their ideals, that objective truth and certitude are simply impossible without an appeal to an objective external authority. The Hellenist in power can only enforce his own subjective hang-ups (meanwhile the Hellenist out of power hypocritically poses as a libertarian).

In addition to the utter subjectivism of any moral or ethical system based on Hellenistic reasoning there is another danger. Because the Hellenist is convinced that only the immediate can be known, anyone whose values system is based on Ultimate Things is regarded at best as a delusional obscurantist and at worst as a ticking irrational time bomb. The most inoffensive religious believer, the most benign private prayer, is a sign of insanity. Obviously, these people are dangerous. What if their G-d orders them to kill someone or to commit mass murder? Meanwhile, the Hellenist’s own dogmatic, unquestioned belief in his own rationality gives him a blank check to do the same things (when justified by what is immediate and "obvious") and moreover blinds him to this potential for evil within himself. Surely there is no need to point out at this stage of history that "rational men" are not at all above the most unrestrained violence and even killing. But of course, he never acts without a "rational" reason. The victims of the crusades died for no reason than the fanaticism of their killers; those executed by the rationalist Hellenist simply would not be rational. They would not cooperate. The Hellenist did not want to execute them, but they simply would not "see reason." Needless to say, this moral certitude is even more dangerous than that of one who believes in Ultimate Things, because the Hellenist’s moral certitude supposedly rests on "undeniable" immediate experience which "no sane person" could possibly doubt.

Despite his vaunted rationality, the Hellenist is most irrational. His insistence that moral obligations exist even in a purely random world with no meaning whatsoever is not only an inherent internal contradiction but an invitation to fanaticism—a fanaticism that can only enforce not objective moral truth, but someone’s subjective opinion (no matter how many—or how few—people actually share that opinion). The only logical and reasonable morality is that based on the Decrees of the One Who created the Universe in the first place. And if (chas vechalilah) He does not exist, there is no reason to "fix the world" or to subscribe to any moral/ethical system, much less force it on others.

As stated at the outset of this article, there was at one time in history a violent confrontation between the forces of Torah and the forces of Hellenism. The victory went to the Torah (though it was unfortunately only temporary), and the Sages ordained the festival of Chanukkah to celebrate this victory. However, like their archtypal representative Antiochus Epiphanes, the forces of Hellenism combat Judaism with assimilation. This is in contrast to `Amaleq (yimach shemo vezikhro), whose only tactic and solution is the utter annihilation of the Jewish People. Just as `Amaleq struggles against Purim, the festival of his defeat, so does Antiochus struggle against Chanukkah. But because `Amaleq’s goal is absolute and total victory all at once—annihilation—he has either accomplished this or he has not. Because he has not annihilated the Jewish People (barukh HaShem) Purim still shines forth in its unobscured purity (so immune is Purim to distortion that Jewish liberals simply refuse to celebrate it rather than twist its meaning). Antiochus, however, is ever the Hellenistic rationalist. He does not seek anyone’s annihilation (unless absolutely "forced" to this tactic by his enemy’s "irrationality"). He has sought not to destroy, but to assimilate Chanukkah. And because his mentality is not "all or nothing," he has succeeded where `Amaleq has failed. For Chanukkah, ordained by the Holy Sages as a festival commemorating the victory of the Holy Torah over Hellenism has now been turned on its head and turned into a veritable celebration of Hellenism.

Every december, just as the pagan/chr*stian festival of materialistic consumption approaches and we stand in need for a truly spiritual celebration than as at no other time of the year, we are given the deconstructed and reconstructed festival of Chanukkah. As every American knows, the rationale of Chanukkah is the "right" of people to dissent in unimportant Ultimate matters so long as they agree on those essential immediate matters. Who cares Who created the world or even if it was created at all? Objective Ultimate Truth is a "tyrant" which must be destroyed (not assimilated this time) by the rational "freedom fighters" who recognize that it is useless to "legislate" things that can never be proven to be true or false (unlike their own personal moral hang-ups). Indeed, we are told, the fact that Benei Yisra’el are allowed in the United States of America to worship the Creator of the Universe is the ultimate expression of the absence or unknowability of Ultimate Truth. So the festival of HaShem has been turned into the festival of religious subjectivism. That the story of Chanukkah took place before Judaism’s struggle with "theocratic" chr*stianity is conveniently ignored, as is its origin within a national Theocratic rather than an individualist or congregational polity. So successful has Antiochus been in assimilating and thus "defanging" Chanukkah that even the most rightwing of Orthodox Jewish leaders, when lighting chanukkiyyot in public ceremonies, cannot avoid remarking on how fortunate it is that America’s Founding Fathers were so splendidly disinterested in Ultimate Things that they gave us a country where even the Jewish G-d—Melekh Malkhei HaMelakhim—may safely be worshipped. What better tribute to agnosticism could be conceived?

The Noachide may rejoice at the defeat of `Amaleq on Purim along with Benei Yisra’el. But on Chanukkah, when we need the certainty of HaShem the most, we are given exactly the opposite. `Amaleq demands total victory or none. Because Antiochus is not so "unreasonable" he has succeeded where `Amaleq has failed.

The "enlightenment" which we have been told is the only context in which Judaism may safely be practiced is in fact totally alien to it. Universal acknowledgement of the True G-d—HaShem—is not a "right" but an obligation on each and every individual, and it is precisely to enforce this obligation that Mashiach HaMelekh (yaggia` veyavo’ beqarov beyameynu) will fight "the wars of HaShem." Let us hope G-d will be more merciful to us than we deserve and make it soon.

And who knows? Afterwards we may even get to celebrate the true message of Chanukkah.

Back