What Does Moses Have to Do with the Hasmoneans?

What would we know about the Hasmonean period – the one that began with the revolt of Mattathias the Hasmonean and his family in Modi’in and ended with the destruction of the Second Temple – if we drew our knowledge only from rabbinic literature? If we collected all the information contained in the Mishnah with its six orders, in the dozens of volumes of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, in the Tosefta, in the many Midrashim and even in the prayer book, we would discover that we could give only an extremely meager description, deficient in large parts and full of contradictions, of a long period lasting more than 230 years. If we did not have at our disposal the Books of the Maccabees and the writing of the historian Joseph ben Matityahu (Flavius Josephus, c. AD 37 – c. AD 100), we would remain in great confusion regarding the sequence of events and even regarding the names of the central figures who participated in them. For example: from rabbinic sources we would not even know with certainty why Hanukkah is celebrated for exactly eight days. 

No tractate on Hanukkah

The strikingly scant attention that rabbinic literature pays to the Hasmoneans and their times (including the period of Herod) is even more obvious in light of the fact that the Mishnah does not include a tractate on Hanukkah, even though it would have been easy to construct a tractate on the lighting of candles, the oils suitable for this purpose, the placement of the menorah, the prayers and blessings recited on Hanukkah, and so on.

Various answers have been given to explain the meager impression that this eventful and turbulent period left on rabbinic literature, ranging from the assertion that new troubles make one forget old troubles, so our Sages had greater interest in the destruction of Jerusalem and the events of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE), to the opinion that the Sages did not look favorably upon the Hasmonean period, because the Hasmoneans, who were indeed priests, took for themselves not only the crown of the High Priesthood but also the crown of kingship, which had been promised since the days of King David to the tribe of Judah alone. Some say therefore that this was a forgetting caused by time, and others say it was a willful forgetting with various motives.

Thanks to Moses

Whatever the reason may be, it is difficult not to accept the claim regarding the scarcity of attention to the Hasmoneans and their world in rabbinic literature.

But lo and behold, great assistance to those seeking to present the Hasmonean period in full, even with the help of rabbinic sources, is offered to us by none other than... Moses. Indeed one must wonder: what does Moses have to do with events that occurred long after the biblical period? It turns out that the scientific study of aggadic literature has found in it evidence of difficult and bitter arguments that centered on the question of whether Moses was a king or not. This question finds expression, for example, in a passage from Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (55:4).

“In two places Moses compared himself to Abraham. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: ‘Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence; do not stand in the place of nobles.’ (Proverbs 25:6). Abraham said: ‘Here I am’ (Genesis 22:1) – here I am for priesthood, here I am for kingship (Exodus 3:4), he merited priesthood and he merited kingship. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: ‘Do not come closer (Exodus 3:5).”

Who can be king?

The Midrash goes on to prove with various verses that “do not come” means preventing the possibility that Moses would be a priest offering sacrifices, while “closer” means preventing the possibility that Moses would be a king. This request of Moses to be king and priest becomes clear, according to scholarship, as a remnant from the debate over the question of whether it is possible for a man from the house of Levi, Moses, to also be king. The Hasmoneans and their supporters mentioned Moses as biblical proof of this possibility, while their opponents were forced – in order not to provide a basis for the legitimacy of the Hasmonean house – to oppose this possibility, even if it meant blackening the image of the father of the prophets as one who sought greatness that he did not deserve.

And from here it is only one step to the discussion of other traditions in aggadic literature dealing with the connection between Moses and kingship. These indeed indicate a great controversy that prevailed regarding the question of whether the Hasmonean house was worthy of kingship, or whether it was like one who forcibly seized what they were not worthy of – or in the words of the ancient request  (as part of the blessings recited after reading the Haftarah) that apparently also dates back to those days, that “upon his [David’s] throne there shall not sit a stranger,” and this “stranger” is none other than the Hasmonean king.

Thus Moses, who was the most humble of all men, was drawn to his detriment into a stormy controversy that took place many hundreds of years after his time over a topical and burning contemporary question.

This article was originally published in Hebrew.

Main Photo: Moses with the Ten Commandments\ Wikipedia