“The Chashmona’im that ruled in the second Temple were extremely pious, and without them the Torah and the mitzvos would have been forgotten. Even so, they were punished greatly [for taking the position of king for themselves despite not being from the Tribe of Yehuda]. For the four pious sons of the elder Chashmonai who ruled one after the other, despite all of their might and success, fell by sword by the hand of their enemies, with the punishment going so far that our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Basra 3b) whomever claims to be from the family of the Chashmona’im is a servant, for all of them were cut down (the family did not survive) because of this sin” (Ramban, B’raishis 49:10). Being that there is a prohibition for anyone who is not a descendant of Yehuda to be the king of Israel, how could the Chashmona’im, who fought and risked their lives so that the Jewish people could still keep the Torah, violate one of its prohibitions?
Although we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and of being taught about the mistake made by the Chashmona’im since we were “Tinokos Shel Beis Raban,” it would be difficult to attribute this severe error, which brought about such a harsh punishment, to that generation not being as familiar with the prohibition as we are. What were the Chashmona’im thinking when they took on the role of ruler in addition to being the Kohanim G’dolim (High Priests)?
Maharsha (B’rachos 28a) compares the Chashmona’im becoming the rulers with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taking over the political leadership (becoming the Nasi) from Raban Gamliel, as the former was a Kohain and the latter was from the Tribe of Yehuda. How could the sages have appointed a Kohain to a position reserved for a descendant of Yehuda? (Interestingly, the Talmud says that they would have appointed Rabbi Yehoshua if not that it would be inappropriate since he had been mistreated by Raban Gamliel, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was a Levi.) A similar question can be asked about Sha’ul, who was from the Tribe of Binyamin, being anointed as the first king of Israel. Ramban (on B’raishis) says that G-d specifically chose someone who was not from the Tribe of Yehuda, because He was unhappy with the nation’s request for a king, and didn’t want this king–who only became king because of that request–to come from the Tribe that the ruler was supposed to come from and would always come from. Since the appointment of Sha’ul was only a temporary one, it didn’t contradict that status. The same could be applied to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; his appointment was never meant to be a permanent one, only a temporary measure until the issues with Raban Gamliel were resolved. Once they were (when he realized he was treating those who disagreed with him too harshly), he was reinstated. Based on this, it would seem that it would not have been a problem if the Chashmona’im had only taken control of the political leadership temporarily, until they cleaned up the mess created by the Hellenistic leaders.
Although Raban Gamliel (after appeasing Rabbi Yehoshua) was restored to his position, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya retained his new elevated status as well. Rabbi Yitzchok Sorotzkin, sh’lita (G’vuras Yitzchok, Chanukah 23; http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51788&st=&pgnum=73) discusses how Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya could remain Nasi if he wasn’t from the Tribe of Yehuda, concluding that there is only an issue if the political leadership rested solely in the hands of someone who was not from the Tribe of Yehuda. Since Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya shared the leadership with Raban Gamliel, the prohibition didn’t apply. Ramban says the same thing, suggesting that had Sha’ul not sinned he would have remained king over his own Tribe, or over the Tribes that came from Rachel; this would not be problematic since Dovid would have ruled over the other Tribes. Based on this, not only wasn’t it a problem that the kings of the Northern Kingdom descended from Yosef (since the kings of the Southern Kingdom were from Yehuda), but it wouldn’t have been a problem for the Chashmona’im to retain their position as rulers had they shared the leadership with someone who was from the Tribe of Yehuda.
Under his entry in Toldos Tanna’im v’Amorai’m for Shimon HaTzadik (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43958&pgnum=385), Rabbi Aharon Hyman brings some strong arguments to support Doros HaRishonim’s position that during the period of the Second Temple there were two different positions referred to as the “Kohain Gadol” (High Priest), one was the political leader and the other was the religious leader. The religious leader served in the Temple, while the political leader answered to the ruler of the empire that controlled the Holy Land. Fearing that a true political leader might eventually rebel, the king of the Persian Empire couched the leadership position of his puppet ruler in the form of being a religious leader, with this position being referred to as the “High Priest.” This “system” was continued by the Greeks, including Antiochus, so that there were Kohanim (or primarily Kohanim, as a non-Kohain could “purchase” this leadership position from a greedy ruler) who were the political leaders in Israel, while other Kohainim served in the Temple.
This arrangement explains many things, including how Matisyahu, as well as his father Yochanan, could be referred to as Kohain Gadol while Onias, Jason and Menelaus were taking turns (albeit not cordially) being the High Priest. (Since the latter three were Hellenists, it is likely that their position was referred to in Greek, while the title of the religious leader was referred to in Hebrew.) It also explains how the seal of the Kohain Gadol on the jug of oil found when the Temple was purified had religious significance if the High Priest was a Hellenist; this seal was from the religious leader, the Kohain Gadol, not the political leader, the High Priest. In addition, it explains how everyone knew that some of the Hellenistic High Priests had pillaged the Temple’s treasuries in order to pay for their position; the political leader didn’t have access to the Temple, and couldn’t raid it quietly. More relevant to our discussion, it means that the concept of a Kohain being the political leader was not instituted by the Chashmona’im. Rather, it was the political situation that existed for a very long time, and was only continued by the Chashmona’im when they consolidated the two positions.
Combining these three aspects together, the picture that emerges is not one of power-hungry priests who violated the Biblical prohibition against anyone other than a descendant of Yehuda ruling over Israel. The status quo had been one where Kohanim were the political leaders, and the mess the Hellenistic High Priests had made necessitated taking over that position temporarily in order to clean it up. Had the Chashmona’im relinquished that leadership, or at least shared it with someone from the Tribe of Yehuda after things had been successfully straightened out, there would have been no problem; it was only because they never relinquished their position that they were punished. Rather than Chanukah celebrating a victory (and its associated miracles) that was tainted by an improper power-grab, we are celebrating a wondrous, miraculous victory that saved our religion. The “tainted” part didn’t happen until much later, when what should have been a temporary situation became permanent.