The Little Menorah That Didn't, #3

In a previous post we saw the "miracle of oil" did not happen. Another piece of information that sheds light on a possible reason for invention of the "miracle" has been brough to my attention by DovBear, who, after listing the reasons mentioned earlier, notes:

… The Mishnah has some brief references to the rules for Chanuka , indicating that by the end of the second century C.E. there was already a custom of kindling lights at the darkest period of the year. This was a custom that may have been imported from the northern latitudes during Roman rule -- perhaps in imitation of the Roman Saturnalia observances. Sometime between then and the completion of Gemara, the celebration of lights assumed greater significance and, just as today we elevate the observance of Chanuka in order to offset the influence of Christmas, the rabbis of the Talmud may have built up the idea of a miracle connected with lights, to show Jews that we had our own basis for a solstice observance.

This contention of DovBear's is strengthened (as noted by Doobeedoo, a commenter there) by the following Gemara:

Since Adam HaRishon saw [after he sinned] that the day was becoming shorter, he said, "Woe is to me! Perhaps because I sinned the world is becoming dark on me and returning to emptiness, and this is the death that was decreed upon me from Heaven." He immediately sat and fasted eight days. When he saw the winter solstice, and saw that the day was lengthening, he said, "It is the nature of the world." He went and celebrated eight days. The following year he made both these [the eight days of fast] and these [the eight days of celebration] as holidays. He established them for the sake of Heaven, whereas they [the heathens] established them for idolatry. (Avoda Zara 8a)

In other words, to justify a pagan practice that had become widespread in the Jewish world, the rabbis invented a miracle story to "kasher" the practice. The careful student of Christmas should find much familiar in this.

As an addendum to my previous post on this issue, let me add three more early rabbinic references to Hanukka that do not mention a "miracle of oil" (also via DovBear):

"[At Hanukah] we commemorate the dedication of the Temple by the Hasmoneans who fought and defeated the Hellenists, and we kindle lights -- just as when [we] finished the Tabernacle in the Wilderness . . . ." (Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 6)

"Why do we kindle lights on Hanukah? Because when the sons of the Hasmoneans, the High Priest, defeated the Hellenists, they entered the Temple and found there eight iron spears. They stuck candles on them and lit them." (Pesikta Rabbati ch. 2)

"Why did the rabbis make Hanukah eight days? Because . . . the Hasmoneans entered the Temple and erected the altar and whitewashed it and repaired all of the ritual utensils. They were kept busy for eight days. And why do we light candles? Because . . . when the Hasmoneans entered the Temple there were eight iron spears in their hands. They covered them with wood and lit candles on them. They did this each of the 8 days." (Megilat Ta'anit ch. 9)

So what does this do to our "unaltered" tradition? DovBear will disagree, but it seems perfectly clear that rabbinic tradition is only as good as it is honest. The minute it becomes clear that somewhere down the line rabbis, to put it kindly, messed with the truth, the whole basis for believing anything they said goes out the window. (And, if the behavior of today's 'gedolim' is any indication, the "miracle of oil" is not the only thing in our tradition that is false.)

That is why lying is such a bad thing. It destroys trust, and, without trust, there is no tradition.

Comments

[Doresh]

Very incisive and very scary in its implications. It implies that Judaism is not true. And since all other religions are an even bigger farce we are not left with much.

For so many this so painful. But humans are good at coping in difficult situations and I am sure that very soon people will move on.

There are suggestions that there is neurological evidence for humans needing to invent the concept of the divine. I predict that within 30 years we will have much more detailed idea of this. ( I will see if I can dig up a source for what I have said.)

I should add that I am not 100% sure that the nais of the oil didn’t happen. But it’s pretty scary that the historical evidence points that it didn’t. Especially when its so relatively recent. People say “what do we know about the mabul” when we start having doubts. They say “we don’t have any human beings testifying that it didn’t happen” so they want to ignore geological evidence. Ect ect....

Here though we do have people testifying to stuff. And the implications threaten to tip over a whole pack of cards.

[rebeljew]

Obviously, it is significant if you are a fundamentalist. However, if you understand that the sages were skilled parable makers and that it was not always safe or diplomatic to tell "the truth", sacrificing the literal truth is not a game ender. IOW, if you accept that these stories are MEANT as parables, then it matters little whether they are literally true. It is the fundamentalist drive to insist on its literal interpretation that causes the ensuing crisis of faith. In fact, if one believes that every word of canon is important, then it testifies that it is the parable, ratheer than the literal truth that is primary. What difference does it make to the literal truth whether I say "the sun rose" or "morning came", or "it became light out". Yet no Torah scholar would allow one to be substituted for the other in any sefer kadosh.

"No evidence for G-d, no evidence for a Creation, no evidence for Adam Harishon, no evidence for the Mabul, no evidence for the Exodus, no evidence for Matan Torah, no evidence for David and Solomon, no evidence for the Hanukkah....".

The next thing is that Scott will be falling in line with the Muslims that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem because there's no evidence
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95956

The perplexing thing is that there's just enough evidence to support the truth of Judaism's claims to keep even a diehard like Scott going to synagogue, because deep, very deep down, he's got a gut-feeling that there is a Soton who is merely playing with him, and that it might all be true!

[Shmarya]

Funny how you hasidim and haredim confuse an aggadata from the Talmud with actual halakha. You really should start a class action and sue your teachers.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

"It is the fundamentalist drive to insist on its literal interpretation that causes the ensuing crisis of faith."

If there is any possible direct involvement by haShem in this world at this time, there will be an extra scoop of chulent for you this Shabbas for having the courage to write those words.

[Shmuel]

Some thoughts:
1. I never understood why Chanukah is legislated in three different ways: basic, a bit more, and mehadrin min hamehadrin. And no explanation feels right.
2. I never understood why there was a machlokes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to actually how to light the lights. I mean, didn't the rabbis explain how to do it? After all, this wasn't some Sinai-given law lost through the ages that required rabbinic argument and discussion like the hundreds of others.
3. I asked a rabbi why the miraculous jug wasn't mentioned in Al Hanisim. He said that Chanukah is the victory of Torah she Bal Peh, and so the story of the miracle jug was also transmitted orally over the years, in a Torah she Bal Peh manner, like the holiday, and that's why it wasn't written down until the Braisa recorded in the Talmud. As with so many of these kinds of frummy answers, it's pretty weak.
4. The Psekta Rabbasi citations really confirm this whole thing for me. I wasn't aware of them until now. Since no sources mention the "miracle" until that braisa mentions it in BT Shabbos 21b, I am convinced that there appears to be more truth in the theories against its historical truth than for it. Very troubling.