The Little Menorah That Didn't, #2

Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky, a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University's rabbinical school questions why we say the full Hallel prayer every day of Hanukka:

There are two distinct mitzvos that we perform on Chanukah, the mitzvah of hadlakas neiros and the mitzvah of krias Hallel. It is not surprising that Chazal instituted two different mitzvos to commemorate the events of Chanukah, since two miracles occurred that we are celebrating. The miracle of the oil is commemorated by lighting Chanukah candles, whereas the victory of the battle against the Yeavnim is marked by reciting Hallel. Chazal tell us (Megillah 14a) that we recite Hallel when we are saved through a miracle. As great as the miraculous events of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash were, these events would not cause us to recite Hallel. Only the events of the battlefield preceding the restoration of the Beis Hamikdash should warrant the recitation of Hallel.

Each day of Succos we complete the Hallel, whereas on Pesach we recite an abridged form on Chol Hamoed and the concluding days. Chazal (Taanis 28b) explain that this difference reflects a basic distinction between Succos and Pesach. Each day of Succos is a separate yom tov since the korbanos that are offered each day differ from the previous day. On Pesach the identical korbanos are offered each day, therefore the entire week of Pesach is viewed as one yom tov. Therefore, once a complete Hallel is recited on the first day there is no need to repeat it on subsequent days. Tosafos raises the problem that according to this criterion we should only complete the Hallel on the first day of Chanukah. Why do we view each day of Chanukah as a separate entity? Tosafos concludes that the miracle of the oil was renewed each day. Since each day the oil lasted was a new miracle, we commemorate each miracle with a daily completion of Hallel. The solution of Tosafos seems difficult – since the recitation of Hallel relates to the victory on the battlefield, why is the daily nature of the miracle of the oil relevant? It would seem that the complete Hallel should only be recited once, since we were only saved once.

Those of you who have read my previous post on this issue already know the factual answer to this question. However, Rabbi Sobolofsky chooses to answer the question with a new myth:

When the war ended, it was obvious that the Chashmonaim were victorious on the battlefield. However, it was not apparent who had won the spiritual conflict. Perhaps the Chashmonaim had defeated their enemies with their swords, but it still had to be determined who would emerge victorious in the battle between Torah and Yavan. Hashem performed a second miracle that would prove that the spiritual battle had also been won. Chazal associate the light of the menorah with the light of Torah. If pure oil could burn for eight days despite the defilement of the Beis Hamikdash by the Yevanim, the pure light of Torah had emerged victorious from the darkness of Yavan. The miracle of the oil was not distinct from the miracle on the battlefield, but rather it was the completion of the physical struggle that occurred. The Chashmonaim emerged victorious on the physical and spiritual battlefields. Lighting the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash was not just a mitzvah, but rather the victory in the spiritual war. Being saved from spiritual annihilation warrants reciting Hallel just as a physical deliverance does.

Tosofot did not have the resources we have. They had no history books, no archaeological digs, no Josephus, no 1 and 2 Maccabees, no Philo, etc. Their mistake is understandable.

But we must be clear – there is no record of a "miracle of oil" in any ancient source. The first mention of it is in the Talmud, written at least 600 years after the events took place. In contrast, 1 and 2 Maccabees were written by Jews within a few years of the events of Hanukka, and only the military victory is mentioned – no "miracle of oil." Josephus, written just over 200 years after Hanukka has no mention of the "miracle of oil." I repeat, nowhere in any ancient source, rabbinic or otherwise, is a "miracle of oil" mentioned.

Full Hallel is said each day of Hanukka because Hanukka was both a rededication of the Temple/victory celebration and a replacement for the recent Succot festival the Jews had missed because of the Greeks. That is exactly what Judah Maccabee said when he instituted Hanukka. It answers Tosofot's question without tortured logic and sleight of hand. And it is the truth.

Comments

[S.]

Although I'm sure you realize that when it comes to issues of historicity I am right with you, the fact is that the miracle of oil is a Talmudic midrash aggadah. Take it literally, don't take it literally--midrashei aggadah are not things to ignore.

[Jath]

Such a bunch of phoneys .
They go lighting Menoras with gentiles .
But do they tell them what they do in Nit'l Nacht & what that means to them.
And how they don't study Torah that day & why ? And how they sit all day that day and cut toilet paper ? and why ?
And when that mayor , or Governor or Prime Minister does the lighting , do they tell him about the difference between a Jew who dons Tefillin and a monkey who does the same thing ?
And how about the Jew who lites the Menora vs a gentile who does so ?

Posted

[Dovid Komarov]

You mentioned that tosafos had no access to josephus. Last Rashi in Bava Basra 3b mentions Josephus. Now its not a proof that tosafos had josephus but it could be they did.
Also you mentioned that rabbis did not support maccabean revolt but supported rebellion during beis hamikdash - can you mention your sources where you get this information.
Kol Tov

[Shmarya]

1. Tosefot. I'll check out the Rashi. But as you know, although is Rashi's students, grandsons and their disciples and descendants, Tosofot was compiled a few hundred years after Rashi. Rashi also had a relatioship with the local priest, who may of had Josephus.

2. That the rabbis supported the first revolt against Rome is clear. Many of the zealot leaders were relatives of the leaders of Beit Shammai, and we have no record of the rabbis opposing the revolt – until it failed. (Beit Hillel may have been opposed, but their views had been marginalized years earlier by Beit Shammai's violent tactics – see Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbat 1:4.

3. No mention is made of rabbinic involvement in the Maccabeean wars.

[Dovid Komarov]

Thanks for addressing my comment.
On your second point "That the rabbis supported the first revolt against Rome is clear." I don't see it in the gemorah - I think that zealots who wanted war were called baryonim (empty people according rashi on gittin 56a). In that gemora it says that rabbis said to baryonay - lets make peace with romans. It seems from this gemorah that rabbis were against war with romans. Just because rabbis nefews were pro-war it doesn't mean that rabbis agreed with their nefews.
On your 3rd point - " No mention is made of rabbinic involvement in the Maccabeean wars."
Look - the text of al hanisim refers to macabeans in very positive terms - "that Hashem put sinners into the hands of righteous and so on." Even if the rabbi were not personally involved its clear they supported it also from how gemorah describes how they cleaned the beis hamikdash (gemorah is praising them).
Kol Tov

[Dovid Komarov]

Thanks for addressing my comment.
On your second point "That the rabbis supported the first revolt against Rome is clear." I don't see it in the gemorah - I think that zealots who wanted war were called baryonim (empty people according rashi on gittin 56a). In that gemora it says that rabbis said to baryonay - lets make peace with romans. It seems from this gemorah that rabbis were against war with romans. Just because rabbis nefews were pro-war it doesn't mean that rabbis agreed with their nefews.
On your 3rd point - " No mention is made of rabbinic involvement in the Maccabeean wars."
Look - the text of al hanisim refers to macabeans in very positive terms - "that Hashem put sinners into the hands of righteous and so on." Even if the rabbi were not personally involved its clear they supported it also from how gemorah describes how they cleaned the beis hamikdash (gemorah is praising them).
Kol Tov

[Shmarya]

The gemara was written more than 600 years after the first hanukka and more than 400 years after the first revolt. You have to look at earlier sources.

Further, the al hanisim prayer may have been written during the reign of Judah Maccabee. What you're really saying is later rabbis did not alter it.

As for the first revolt, nearly all of the leaders of the rebels were close relatives of perushim. The rabbis only came out against them when it became clear Rome would win. Before that? They appear to have supported the revolt. When the rabbis asked to make peace with the Romans it was after the siege of Jerusalem had begun, and the countryside had already been lost.

The second revolt had more leaders of the perushim who opposed it, but Rabbi Akiva and his students were active supporters and participants, as were many other perushim – clearly the majority of perushim supported Bar Kohba and the revolt. It is also not clear if the perushim who opposed the revolt did so in retrospect, after the war was lost, or did it at the time of the revolt itself.

[Dovid Komarov]

Thanks for responding.
You said"The gemara was written more than 600 years after the first hanukka and more than 400 years after the first revolt. You have to look at earlier sources."

Do you know of any earlier sources that discuss rabbinic attitude towards Maccabean revolt? Please let me know if you do (with exact references - I would be very curios to look at them).
Kol Tov

[josh waxman]

"But we must be clear – there is no record of a "miracle of oil" in any ancient source. The first mention of it is in the Talmud, written at least 600 years after the events took place. In contrast, 1 and 2 Maccabees were written by Jews within a few years of the events of Hanukka, and only the military victory is mentioned – no "miracle of oil." Josephus, written just over 200 years after Hanukka has no mention of the "miracle of oil." I repeat, nowhere in any ancient source, rabbinic or otherwise, is a "miracle of oil" mentioned."

Ravina II was 600 years after the events took place. Are you claiming that Ravina II made up the brayta being cited (it is introduced with "Tno Rabbanan.") And no ancient source? ?The Tno Rabbanan is a citation from Megillat Taanit, about the same time as Josephus (early first century CE),and does *indeed* mention the miracle of oil.

See my post here:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/12/shifting-miracle-of-chanukka.html

On the other hand, you did bold and repeat your statement, so I guess it must be true.

[josh waxman]

of course, that assumes that the explanatory notes in Hebrew in megillat Taanit dates to the same time as the Aramaic. some would date it to after the Talmud. in which case you are correct, the explanation would first appear in the talmud.

[Shmarya]

Wrong, Josh. You can BELIEVE what you want. All we know is the first written source is the Talmud, and the brita you mention *MAY* have been written when you state, and it also could have been written 200 years later.

All early sources are clear on what the miracle was, and it was NOT a miracle of oil.

[Shmarya]

"of course, that assumes that the explanatory notes in Hebrew in megillat Taanit dates to the same time as the Aramaic. some would date it to after the Talmud. in which case you are correct, the explanation would first appear in the talmud."

I think "some" would really be "most."

[josh waxman]

it was wrong of me to comment here and give you a semblance of being a bar hachi in anything. you had the benefit of reading my retraction before posting your response.

there is an answer to the issue of the Tno Rabbanan, but it is not what you appear to think.

I will leave off discussion here.

[Shmarya]

I posted off the email from the comment. I only saw your retraction later. Sorry.