Throughout the past week we have thanked Hashem for the improbable defeat of the powerful Seleucid forces by a small, untrained band of Jewish fighters. We also celebrated the story’s one open miracle, when the menorah’s lights burned for eight consecutive days following the Temple’s rededication.
For the uninformed, the Chanukah story is understood in a narrow context. From our youth, we are taught that at one point in our history a sworn enemy (Antiochus IV, a Seleucid ruler) passed a series of heartless decrees against our nation and threatened our spiritual survival. We were then told that a hoary hero (Matisyahu) emerged and defiantly challenged the monarch’s cruel decrees. Following the hero’s death, his son, Yehudah Maccabee, completed the uprising and led the Jews to lasting victory.
While much of that description is true, some of it is not. Moreover, it fails to present the true context of the spiritual challenge to our nation, as well as the aftermath of the Jewish uprising. In fact, relatively few are aware that the story of the illustrious Hasmonean family ended in tragedy and shame, just a few decades following their heroic stand.
Yehudah, Matisyahu’s third son, died in battle some years after the Temple’s rededication. He was succeeded by his younger brother Yonasan, who deftly led the Jewish forces through the next stage of battles and began the process of expanding Judea’s boundaries. Following Yonasan’s abduction and murder at the hands of a former ally, Matisyahu’s last living son, Shimon, assumed the reigns of leadership.
Shimon would complete the process of ridding the Seleucids from Judea and obtained complete autonomy for the Jewish people. As a result, he was proclaimed “leader and high priest” of the Jews (I Maccabees 14:35, 47) and the Hasmonean Dynasty officially began (though Shimon stopped short of accepting the title “king.”)
After a lapse spanning roughly three centuries, a Jewish state once again reigned supreme in the Holy Land. However, like his brothers before him, Shimon met his death in an untimely fashion, murdered by a scheming son-in-law who sought to expand his own locus of power. Shimon was succeeded by his son Yochanan Hyrcanus.
* * * * *
The collective fate of the five Hasmonean brothers is nothing less than tragic. Each of them died an unnatural death. Three (Elazar, Yehudah, and Yochanan) perished in the act of war. Two others (Yonasan and Shimon) were victims of deceit and treachery from former allies or relatives.
Ramban, in his commentary to Genesis 49:10 (“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”), describes the Hasmoneans as “saints of the most high, without whom the Torah would have been forgotten from Israel.” Despite such greatness, he writes that their tragic fate was sealed because they ruled over the people even though they were not from the tribe of Yehudah. They went against the will of their forefather Yaakov in removing “the scepter” from its rightful heirs.
As sad as the demise of Matisyahu’s sons was, it would pale in comparison to the moral degeneration that would be exhibited by his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Following his ascension to the throne, Yochanan Hyrcanus set his eyes on restoring the Jewish commonwealth to its biblical borders. The Hasmonean leader first turned north, to the center of the country. Soon thereafter, he embarked on a campaign in Transjordan. Sizable territory was brought under Hasmonean control from this area as well.
Yochanan then conquered Idumea from tribes in the Negev. Concerned that these tribes might later join sides with invading forces, he made a decision that would have dire consequences for his people: forced conversion of the Idumeans. From this time onward, the Idumeans became inseparable from the Jewish people. Out of this nation would come Antipater, a scheming advisor in a subsequent Hasmonean civil war. Of even more significance would be Antipater’s son Herod, who would rule the people for an extended period with oppressive force.
* * * * *
Throughout much of our nation’s history, internal groups have challenged the spiritual status quo of the people. During the early Hasmonean years, this group was the Hellenists. The Hellenists saw no need for the continuation of a separate Jewish nation. Their goal was universal integration through Hellenism and pagan worship. After the success of the Hasmoneans, they were completely discredited and dissolved.
Into their absence stepped the Sadducees (Hebrew: Tzadukkim). Similar to the Hellenists, the Sadducees had secular aspirations. However, they understood the importance of presenting their aims under the pretense of preserving a distinct Jewish nation. They claimed to be loyal nationalists, bent on maintaining Jewish independence.
On the surface, the opposition posed by the Sadducees to the traditional Jews, who had become known as the Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim), was purely religious in nature. Like the Pharisees, the Sadducees professed a belief in one God and claimed allegiance to His Torah. However, they rejected three core religious tenets: the legitimacy of the Oral Law, the existence of an Afterlife, and the notion that God rewards and punishes human behavior.
These rejections were motivated more by political than religious considerations. The Sadducees consisted primarily of the wealthy class, who saw in traditional Judaism a threat to their comfortable, Hellenistic lifestyles. They regarded the lower and middle classes, almost all adherents of traditional Judaism, with contempt. They scoffed at their brethren’s loyalty to tradition and custom and viewed the sages as threats to their own cultural viability.
Hellenized and more broadly educated, the Sadducees felt themselves most capable of making appropriate decisions on behalf of the nation. Their motive was naturally self-serving: to gain power. Naturally, the Pharisees wanted nothing to do with such an arrangement. They placed primacy on the religious rather than political side of Jewish life. They saw the Torah as open to all, and its study to be each man’s personal responsibility, regardless of class or social rank.
For most of his life, Yochanan Hyrcanus remained devoted to traditional Judaism. In his later years, however, he switched his loyalties and supported the Sadducees.
A number of factors contributed to Yochanan’s change in allegiance. They included:
• Questionable Lineage – A rumor had circulated that Shimon’s wife, the mother of Yochanan, was captured during the days of Antiochus IV. It followed that, due to the lofty spiritual levels that the Torah imposes on the high priesthood, her continued marriage to Shimon was sinful and forbidden. Any children subsequently born would be spiritually tainted, and could not serve as high priest. Though this rumor was rejected by most Pharisees, a percentage continued to maintain this view, leading to Yochanan’s anger and mistrust.
• Who Will Rule Next? – None of Yochanan’s three sons were acceptable in the eyes of the Pharisees. From their youth they had followed in the ways of the Sadducees, pursuing Hellenistic culture and warfare over Torah learning. Yochanan was naturally desirous of having his children succeed him and so an alliance with the Sadducees was viewed as the best way forward.
Following the death of Yochanan Hyrcanus, his eldest son, Yehudah Aristobulus, seized the throne. He cast his own mother into prison, as well as his brothers. He also adopted the title “king.”
Aristobulus was the first Hasmonean ruler to assume that title instead of maintaining the lesser title nasi. Shimon’s own grandson did not respect the deliberate distinction he had made years prior. The power that would accompany this new title would serve to corrupt Aristobulus and his successors for the next half century, leading to their complete demise. Aristobulus died after one year in office, leaving behind no children. His mother and brothers continued to languish in prison.
Upon Aristobulus’s death, his widow Shlomtzion released her oldest remaining brother-in-law, Alexander Yannai, from prison. In accordance with Jewish law, Yannai married Shlomtzion through the process of yibum, or levirate marriage. He also became the next Hasmonean king.
* * * * *
At the beginning of their marriage, Shlomtzion prevailed upon her new husband to deal kindly with the Pharisees. Her brother, Shimon ben Shetach, was the leading sage of the time and Yannai conferred with him in both political and religious matters. However, this peaceful, productive arrangement would not last long.
Foremost on Yannai’s mind was a desire to expand Judah even further. He was particularly focused on securing the Mediterranean coast and its port cities. He also aimed to expand Jewish holdings in Transjordan. Early on, Yannai met with much success. Despite his accomplishments, Yannai failed to garner the support of the Pharisees. They were unimpressed with his selfish goals of personal triumph and glory. Many also found fault with Yannai’s insistence in occupying the positions of both king and high priest.
A sizable rift developed between Yannai and his people, one that would lead to internal violence, bloodshed, and civil war. Many sages were tortured and killed. Others were forced to seek refuge. Taking advantage of this situation were the Sadducees. Using their close relationship with Yannai, they secured practically every significant political position for their party. Even the Sanhedrin came under Sadducean control, the result of which was numerous errors in judgment and practice.
Following Yannai’s death, Shlomtzion retained her title of queen and became the country’s sole ruler. Her nine-year reign provided the Jewish people with much needed stability following the turbulent rule of Yannai. A new, improved relationship developed between the monarchy and the sages, one that allowed the Pharisees to regain their social, political, and religious strength.
Shlomtzion and Yannai had two sons together. Neither, however, was viewed as a suitable candidate to succeed his father. The elder, Hyrcanus II, was a quiet and private man. He assumed the office of high priest and was regarded as the eventual heir to the throne. His younger brother Aristobulus II was of a vastly different temperament. He was bold, ambitious, and a fearless warrior, and deemed an inappropriate fit to assume the throne.
Shlomtzion grew old and tired. The Sadducees seized upon this to reclaim their lost power and approached the Aristobulus II for help. Viewing them as potential allies in his own rise to power, Aristobulus was all too eager to assist. The Sadducees entreated the aging Shlomtzion for increased power and recognition. They presented her with the following ultimatum: Turn over all of the Hasmonean fortresses to the Sadducees or they would ally themselves with powerful Jewish enemies, including Aretas, king of the Nabateans. In her weakness, Shlomtzion agreed. Twenty-two strongholds were transferred to Sadducean control.
Aristobulus did not stop there. He had himself proclaimed king in an attempt prevent his elder brother Hyrcanus from seizing the throne. The aged queen, now in her final days, was unable to move against her younger son. When she died, Aristobulus immediately declared war on Hyrcanus, and in so doing, won over most of his brother’s troops.
Aristobulus promptly defeated Hyrcanus in a battle near Jericho; the latter fled to Jerusalem. There, under siege, he agreed to abdicate the throne and leave the royal palace. He further resolved to live peacefully on his new estate, without meddling in public affairs. The Sadducees had played their cards correctly, and forged their way to the top of the political heap. The peaceful situation between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus would not last. Encouraged by his new accomplice Antipater, a scheming, power-hungry Idumean, Hyrcanus reopened the struggle with his younger brother. Secretly, the two left Jerusalem to meet with Aretas in Transjordan. In exchange for military support, Hyrcanus and Antipater promised to restore to Aretas twelve cities that Yannai had captured.
Aretas agreed. He led a large army across the Jordan and marched on Jerusalem. Seeing Hyrcanus at the army’s head, his followers in the capital opened the city gates. Aristobulus and his men were forced to seek refuge behind the walls of the Temple Mount.
The siege that followed was filled with particular hatred between the sides, both of which used the people as pawns in their personal struggle. Upon seeing the manner in which these two brothers treated one another, and their complete disregard for the general welfare of the populace, many abandoned hope of a peaceful resolution and fled to Egypt.
Neither side was able to resolve this fraternal conflict militarily. At that time, the Roman general Pompey appeared in Syria with his legions, having completed an extensive military campaign in Asia. Exhausted, desperate, and concerned about what they perceived to be inevitable Roman intervention, both brothers appealed to Pompey in hope of a favorable decision. With this fateful decision, eighty plus years of hard earned Hasmonean independence would soon end.
Pompey initially ruled in favor of the younger Aristobulus; his larger bribe held sway with the greedy leader. Hyrcanus and Aretas were instructed to lift the siege and leave Jerusalem. If not, they would be viewed as enemies of Rome. Aretas duly returned home. Aristobulus pursued Hyrcanus and his men after they left the city, killing some 6,000 soldiers. Antipater petitioned Pompey to reconsider his verdict. Some years later, both brothers were summoned to appear in Damascus. The Roman general now decided in favor of Hyrcanus, and in appointing him as ethnarch and high priest, fulfilled Shlomtzion’s original desire to be succeeded by her older son. Aristobulus quickly withdrew, surrendering all of his fortresses.
* * * * *
Such was the continued decline of the Hasmoneans. After a brief respite during the reign of the righteous Shlomtzion, this royal family continued to display the morally corrupt behavior that would eventually plunge the people into foreign subjugation and exile. Not again until the Great Rebellion of 66 CE would the Jewish people possess even fleeting political independence. By then it would prove to be too little, too late.
About the Author: Rabbi Naphtali Hoff is president of Impactful Coaching and Consulting (ImpactfulCoaching.com). He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.