FailedMessiah.com

The Little Menorah That Didn't, Part 5

Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg, a great-grandson of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, is a fellow at the Albright Institute for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. Rosenberg deals with the "miracle of oil" and the differing versions of events in 1 and 2 Maccabees this way:

… THERE IS no reason to doubt the First [Maccabees] or the Second [Second] version of the Hasmonean Revolt. [The first] is written from the point of view of the countryside, from Modi'in, and [the second] from the capital, from Jerusalem. One mentions Mattiyahu defying the Seleucid officer, and one the machinations of the high priests Jason and Menelaus. Neither version mentions the miracle of the oil.

According to First Maccabees the eight days of Hanukka were to consecrate the new altar, such a ceremony taking eight days as in the time of Moses, of Solomon, of Hezekiah and Ezra.

According to Second Maccabees, the eight days were in commemoration of the Festival of Tabernacles, that the Hasmoneans had been unable to celebrate properly in Tishrei, while they were still fighting and living in caves like animals.

So what about the story of the miracle of the oil? We see that it assumes that the high priest was a person of impeccable integrity. Second Maccabees tells us quite clearly that this man was Menelaus, a rogue of the first water.

This information was never given us by our traditional teachers and we must assume that the Talmudists did not know the Second Book of Maccabees. It could either be that they never knew it or that they ignored it as it was written in Greek.

On the other hand the First Book, with the story of Mattiyahu they knew. This is not unexpected, for we know that Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian of the first century, was in a similar position. He knew First Maccabees, which he copies extensively for the Hasmonean battles, but it seems he did not know the different versions in the Second Book.

It is therefore quite possible that the rabbis had only First Maccabees to go on, they knew of Mattiyahu but not of Menelaus. They did not know that the High Priest at the time the Hasmoneans forced their way into the Temple was Menelaus, who was guilty of bribery, stealing the Temple gold, and murdering the former high priest Honia. If they had known that, would they have seen the seal of the high priest as a guarantee of purity, would they have seen a miracle in a cruse of oil sealed by such a high priest?

In other words, to believe in the "miracle of oil" as propagated by the rabbis of the Talmudic period, one would have to either dismiss 2 Maccabees or accept the idea that Menelaus – a murderer, thief and charlatan, a man who plundered the Temple and sold its golden vessels – would be trusted with regard to the purity of oil.

Further, Rosenberg makes a very valid point. If 1 and 2 Maccabees are viewed as originating in different locations – 1 in the small countryside villages and 2 in cosmopolitan Jerusalem – it puts the entire Mattityahu Maccabee legend in its proper perspective. Much the way oral histories, folk tales and urban legends vary in sophistication based on geographic area of origin, so do 1 and 2 Maccabees.

That leaves 2 Maccabees as the most authoritative source on the Hasmonean revolt.

And that, along with much other evidence, including evidence from 1 Maccabees, leaves the "miracle of oil" decidedly in the realm of Elvis sightings and the like.

Should this dampen your Hanukka spirit?

No, of course not. Celebrate the military victory and remember the eight days have real meaning – both as a late Sukkot festival that fateful year and as a rededication ceremony for the Temple.

Neither has anything to do with rabbis, and that is just fine with me.

The Little Menorah That Didn't, part 4

Rabbi Avi Shafran writes:

…Why, if oil sufficient for one day was discovered in Jerusalem's Holy Temple when the Maccabees reclaimed it from Seleucid control, is Hanukka eight days long?

True, that is how long the candles burned, allowing the priests to prepare new, uncontaminated oil. But was not one of those eight days simply the day for which the found oil sufficed, and thus not itself a miracle-day worthy of commemoration? Suggests Rabbi Feinstein: Seven of Hanukka's days commemorate the miracle that, in the time of the Maccabees, the candelabrum's flames burned without oil. The eighth commemorates the miracle of the fact that oil burns at all.…

Of course, the answer to that famous question, a question codified by Rabbi Yosef Karo almost 500 years ago, is not Rabbi Shafran's answer or Rabbi Feinstein's.

Hanukka is eight days long because the Hasmonean's meant for it to be a make-up holiday for Sukkot. (Part 1; Part 2.) They expected to retake the Temple in time for the Sukkot festivities but failed to do so. So they made and eight day holiday, mirroring the eight days of Sukkot, just over two months after the Sukkot ended. Then, in the following years, that eight day holiday, eventually known as Hanukka, was used to celebrate the Maccabees's military victory. There was no "miracle of oil."

Later, rabbis – who did not participate in the Maccabees's revolt and did not play a significant role in the state, invented the "miracle of oil" as a way to de-Maccabee the holiday.

History is not a haredi strong suit. Indeed, it is that willful ignorance that keeps the haredi world going.

More on Hanukka here.

An Early Hanukka Present: The Rebbe and the Menora, Part 2

Ynet reports:

The renovation of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem that started in 1967 lasted over 15 years. During the construction of the Kotel Yeshiva over the Western Wall's plaza, an impressive building complex was discovered including the homes of affluent Jews, and ashes from the city's destruction in 70 AD.

The complex, better known as the Herodian Quarter – the Wohl Archaeology Museum, is the largest roofed archeological site in Israel (about 2,700 square meters). Actually it is a Jewish neighborhood overlooking the Temple from the final days of the Second Temple period. A bridge connected the Mount with the neighborhood in which the Temple's priests resided.

Findings reveal the lavish lifestyle of the neighborhood's residents including dozens of ritual baths, art works such as mosaics, frescos and stuccos.…

One of the most significant findings is the engraving of the Menorah. Since the Temple is less than 100 meters away, [and the Herodian Quarter looked down on the Mount and was populated by kohanim, priests, and their families, all of who would have seen the real Temple menora] it is quite likely that this is an exact replica of the real thing.…

Top left: The menora fresco c. 60 CE found in the Herodian Quarter; Center left: A coin from the Hasmonean dynasty featuring a menora; Center right: The Rambam's (Maimonides') schematic drawing of what he imagined the Temple menora to look like; Top right: Chabad menora based on the Rambam's schematic drawing and used for Hanukka. Please click images to enlarge.

In other words, the contemporaneous depictions of the menora have curved branches. The Rambam's version 1000 years later has straight branches.

Here's how this plays out now. No serious scholar today doubts the menora had curved branches. We simply have too many contemporaneous depictions of the menora made that way and there are no contemporaneous depictions with straight branches.

Enter Chabad. The late Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson adopted the Rambam's version as a Chabad logo of sorts. At the same time, he claimed the Rambam's version was the historically correct version – the Temple's menora, the late Rebbe claimed, had straight branches.

I think the Rebbe first made this claim before the discovery of many of the coins, the fresco, and other contemporaneous depictions were found. Still, he stuck to his guns. Today, most Chabad menoras used for Hanukka have straight branches.

Is this a crisis? Not really. But it is wrong to teach the Temple menora looked a certain way when all available evidence says it did not. The Rambam would never have made that drawing if he had the coins and other evidence we have. He was not one for arguing against reality. That dubious honor has been left to today's haredi world and, in particular, its evangelists from Eastern Parkway.

An earlier discussion of this problem can be read here, along with Rabbi Seth Mandel's views. (Yes, that is Rabbi Seth Mandel of the OU.)

Hanukka 2006: What's The Truth About Sources For The "Miracle Of Oil"?

Moshe Shoshan writes in a comment on Hirhurim to a post on the validity of the so-called Scroll of Aniochus and other 'sources' for the so-called Miracle of Oil:

I have not had time to look into the matter thoroughly. However a quick check of Stembergers “Introduction to Talmud and Midrash” the standard handbook of modern scholarship of rabbinic literature suggests that R. Zevieli has been rather selective in his citation of the scholarly literature on the topic of megilat Antiochus. Stemberger writes:

“Kaddari proposes to date the work for linguistic reasons between the second and fifth centuries, but most would assume the eighth or ninth century and regard the language as a literary imitation of targum Onqelos. (Similarly A. Kasher, along with other authors… considers… the text to be… redacted in polemical reaction against the karaites, who rejected this feast, this text could not have been composed before the second half of the eighth century…)”

In short, Kaddari is at best, a daas yachid on the issue, whose opinion has not been accepted. That does not make him wrong, of course.

As for other sources for the nes chanuka, there is only one, the famous “mai chanuka” baraita in masseches Shabbos. A similar text appears in many version of megilat taanit, but numerous scholars, most recently vered noam, in her edition of megillat taanit, argue that this is a latter interpolation from the [Talmud] Bavli and not an independent source. These scholars rely in part on the fact that the Or Zarua cites megillat taanit with out any reference to the nes pach hashemen.

Even if we accept that this baraita did in fact originate in Eretz Yisrael around the third century, (not a simple assumption given that neither the Yerushalmi nor any EY midrashim, even those as late a pesikta rabbati, seem to have been aware of this baraita) this still places it centuries after the time of the hasmonean revolt and much latter than many other accounts of origins of chanuka. Lets not evade the issue of the nes pach shemen, it’s a problem.

Hanukka: The Faith of a Suicide Bomber Maccabee?

From Aish.com:

…When the Maccabees reached Jerusalem, they found the Holy Temple desecrated and defiled. In the face of this utter debasement of their values and beliefs, the Maccabees once again rose beyond the laws of logic, and refused to light the golden Menorah with ritually impure oil -- despite the fact that Torah law would have permitted them to do so. The Maccabees were absolutely determined to kindle the Menorah as perfectly as possible. So once again, God intervened in the natural order and made single jar of oil to last for eight days.

When I look at the miracle of Chanukah, I think not just of the military victory or the jug of oil which lasted eight nights. Rather, I think of the Maccabees' courage, self-sacrifice and profound faith in God, by which they were able to accomplish the impossible.

History is not always made through acts of pragmatism or logic. History is made through heroic people who stand up and are willing to forfeit everything for what they believe.

The story of Chanukah is a call to abandon the shackles and restraints of our logic, to forget what "makes sense," and to finally fight our wars. A nuclear Iran? Poverty and domestic strife? Assimilation? The potential to attain the achievement equal to the Maccabees is within every individual. We must fight against the impossibilities, because only then can we make a difference; only then can we actually change history. Our personal history, and that of the entire world.

Let's see. A little fairy tale about oil, invented by rabbis to shift the emphasis of Hanukka away from the Maccabee's military victories* (and the Sages lack of leadership and participation in same) now becomes the justification for acting rashly – and perhaps fatally.

This Aish piece sounds like a call for suicide bombers. Rabbi Noach Weinberg should be ashamed.

Previously, this Hanukka: 1 & 2. (The first post has links to last year's series of Hanukka posts, The Little Menorah That Couldn't.)

*Contrary to the haredi spin, the Maccabees' military campaign was well planned. They relied heavily on intelligence gathering and were brilliant tacticians familiar with current military theory. They were not pious fools from the Judean shtetl.

Hanukka: Did The Maccabees Make It All Up?

Is the entire story used by the Maccabees as the basis for their rebillion nothing more than PR? Ha'aretz* reports:

…"The reason for Antiochus' oppression of the Jewish faith, attack on the Temple and prohibition of the Torah precepts is not explained by the existing historic sources," says Dr. Steven Weitzman, a lecturer of Judaism in the University of Indiana and the author of Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity.

Weitzman analyzes the description of the edicts in the Hanukkah tale, and concludes that the story was concocted by the Hasmonean kings as propaganda intended to legitimize their precarious rule. The Hasmoneans used literary tales dating back to ancient Eastern kingdoms as the basis for their story of Antiochus, he says.

Historians of ancient times agree that religious persecution was not customary among Hellenistic monarchs. Therefore the acts attributed to Antiochus, which every Jewish child learns about in the Hanukkah story, are historical anomalies. "His behavior is completely inexplicable," argues Weitzman.…

"The Maccabees have been considered heroes for so long, that it is hard to imagine that in their time, their rule was extremely controversial. They and their descendants, the Hasmonean dynasty, presented themselves as high priests, but did not belong to a family that held that position for a long time. Neither did they belong to the House of David dynasty, which was supposed to produce kings. Therefore many Jews did not recognize the Hasmoneans as legitimate rulers."

"The story of Antiochus' edicts is part of the effort to justify the Maccabee's rule. This is why they described themselves as protectors of the Jewish tradition, a tactic which many rulers and conquerors in the ancient East used to justify usurping power," he says.…

Weitzman is aware that his statements may anger Jews who see the Maccabees as righteous rulers and models of heroic resistance to oppression. "My thesis indicates that the Maccabees may have been very different from their present image," he says.

However, there is also a positive aspect to Weitzman's study, he says. "I say that the description of Antiochus' persecution, more than the story of Jewish survival, reflects Jewish imagination and its role in bringing about political change. Hanukkah is a reminder that the stories we tell can create a real change in our life," he says.

And that, I'm afraid, explains much of Jewish history.

[Hat Tip: Danya on Jewschool.]

* Ha'aretz has a stub up instead of the story, even though it was published Saturday. The link above is to the cached version on Google.

Hanukka 2006: How Ignorant Are Haredim? This Ignorant

Rabbi Nota Schiller is a co-founder of and rosh yeshiva at Ohr Somayach, the "Harvard" of BT yeshivot. Rabbi Schiller was educated at Ner Israel in Baltimore, and has been a leading exponent of kiruv (missionizing) and haredism for 40 years. Yet, in a fanciful attempt to prove both the need for Jewish Otherness – separation from non-Jews – and the validity of the Oral Torah, Rabbi Schiller displays a level of ignorance that, even now, is truly shocking. In his attempt to explain what the midrash means when it says, "Write upon the horn of an ox that you have no portion in the God of Israel," Rabbi Schiller writes:

Historically, at Chanukah, the Jews warred with the Greeks, yet there is no megillah, no written work chronicling that battle. Why? Because it is a story that must be transmitted orally, for at the center of this battle was the Greeks' attempt to destroy the Oral Torah. Instead of being conquered, we persevered and created a new holiday that could only have been orchestrated through the mechanism of the Oral Torah.

The blessing we say when lighting the Chanukah lights is "…Who has sanctified us with His commandments and has commanded us to light the flame of Chanukah." Where are we commanded? Which verse in the Torah mandates such? The oblique origin of this mitzvah is its very strength: Because the Torah endows our Sages with the initiative in each generation to legislate for the Jewish People, a mitzvah such as Chanukah symbolizes the power of the Oral Torah. That which the Greeks sought to extinguish is symbolized in the light that illuminates the darkness of exile.

Well, no Rabbi Schiller, there are written works from those days describing the war and the victory of Hanukka. They're known as 1 & 2 Maccabees. We did not canonize them, although we use them. Why weren't they canonized? Because, one can easily argue, the books show two things clearly; 1. The sages did not participate in the war (if they even existed) and played no role in national life and, 2. the miracle of Hanuka was the victory. There is no mention in these contemporaneous documents written by believing Jews of any miracle of lights. In fact, mention of the "miracle" does not appear anywhere until more than 100 years later.

The holiday of Hanukka was this: The Maccabees were about to take back the Temple and expected they would in time for the Succor celebrations. They were delayed and took the Temple too late for Succor. To make up for the missed Succor celebrations and to remember the victory, they instituted Hanuka. (That's why Hanukka is 8 days long – 7 days of Sukkot, 1 day of Shemini Atzeret.) That is what out Hanuka megillot say.

And there is no proof at all for Rabbi Schiller's assertion that the "Greeks" sought to destroy the Oral Torah. It is unclear whether the Oral Torah even existed at the time of the Maccabees.

Rabbi Schiller continues with his foolishness:

Each holiday that Jews approach is like a way station along the turnpike of history. The largest distance on the highway had been between Succos and Pesach, between which there was no holiday to stop off and refuel. In the darkness of exile, G-d in His wisdom provided us with two more fueling stations, Chanukah and Purim. When we celebrate Chanukah, we celebrate a holiday that reminds us that it is the wisdom and genius of the Jew, expressed and refined through the Oral Torah, that makes us Jewish.

Again, simply untrue. We had holidays then that are not celebrated now, or are "celebrated" by not saying certain prayers connected to sadness. One such holiday is Tu B'Shvat, which falls smack dab in the middle of the Succot - Pesach "gap."

Rabbi Schiller is a fool.

For an extensive post on the origin of Hanuka please see my posts, The Little Menorah That Didn't: 1, 2, 3, & 4.

For DK's coverage of Schiller's idiocy, see his post.

[Hat Tip: DK.]

Menorah Safety Recall

M & M's menorah is being recalled because the plastic base is a fire hazard. If you have one of these, MasterFoods will return your money, plus shipping, and also give you a $10 gift certificate.

[Hat tip: Steven I. Weiss.]

The Evil Of Harediism

GodolHador reports the on following quote attributed to Rabbi Shimshon Sherer, the son of the (in)famous leader of Agudath Israel of America, Rabbi Moshe Sherer:

This past shabbos I heard R. Shimshi Sherer (R. Moshe Sherer's son) speak at a shalasheudes. He asked why do we say "ve-al ha-milchamos" [and on the wars] in the al hanissim [prayer said during Hanukka]. shouldn't we remember the victory but not the milchama [war]? Says R. Sherer, quoting, IIRC the Nesivas Shalom (ironically) that the reason is because the "milchama" [war] is not yet over.* We continue to fight the misyavnim [Greeks].

And don't think, said R. Sherer, that the misyavnim [Greeks] of today are the Reform or Conservative. No, they're the Modern Orthodox rabbis (verbatim quote) who want to chepper [mess with] with bris milah and shabbos!

Wake up, people! Haredim are your enemies.

* [Read the series of posts titled The Little Menorah That Didn't #1 #2 #3 #4 for the actual reason.]

The Little Menorah That Didn't, #4

Toward A Unified Theory Of Hanukka Candle Lighting And An Accurate Dating Of The "Miracle Of Oil"

As we have seen, the "Miracle of Oil" often given as the reason for Hanukka candle lighting did not take place. It is a later myth with no historical basis. So, why this myth? Where and when did it come from?

As Hasmoneans became Hellenized, they celebrated the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, centered around the winter solstice. Observance of this pagan holiday seems to have eventually spread throughout most of the Jewish community.

Saturnalia's  7 day candle lighting often coincided with part of Hanukka. This may have caused the populace to confuse the two celebrations, much in the way many American Jews in our times had "Hanukka bushes." The story of the "miracle of oil" was probably added by the rabbis to give a Jewish "spin" to the lighting, by moving the custom to the 8 days of Hanukka and giving it a new reason – the "miracle of oil."

But the beginning of the custom should be properly attributed to the Hasmonean's victory celebration and the rededication of the Temple. The first celebratory year may have included 8 days of candle lighting, and it is highly probable that the custom continued, at least in in Priestly families, after that. As the populace became more Hellenized, the practice was merged with Saturnalia and broadened throughout the Jewish community.

If the original Hanukka did have 8 days of candle lighting (again, not based on the "miracle of oil" myth), and if the custom continued after that, gradually merging with Saturnalia, the addition of the oil myth would have helped to remove pagan influence while at the same time supplanting the core of the Hanukka miracle, the military victory, with a myth that emphasizes God's role and downplays man's – a winning proposition for the rabbis.

This may be further demonstrated by the rabbinic ban on studying Maccabees 1 & 2, Jewish books that document the Hasmonean victory, the rededication of the Temple, and the continuing war against the Greeks. The ban was probably first instituted during the late Herodian or early Roman period and reissued after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt.  It would not have had much effect at its first issuance, because the rabbis were few in number and had little influence.

I suspect the ban therefore did not take hold and was largely forgotten by the time of the first revolt against Rome and the Destruction of the Temple. This may be seen by reviewing Josephus's account of the Hasmonean victory, which seems to be based in part on 1 & 2 Maccabees. Josephus, who wrote after the Destruction and before Bar Kokhba, was a student of the rabbis and considered himself to be a Pharisee. Again, he knows nothing about the oil myth. But he does know the details of the military victory and the celebration that followed. He also knows the holiday's common name – Lights – apparently a reflection of the common custom to light candles.

I believe this indicates the ban on 1 & 2 Maccabees was not reinstituted until after the Bar Kokhba revolt failed, when the rabbis needed to quiet anything that might promote or endorse revolution against Rome. It would have been then, not long after the death of Josephus, that the oil myth was first widely taught.

It's purpose would then have been several-fold: To lessen the role of the now disgraced and Hellenized Maccabees, who in their end had also became close to the hated Saducees; to emphasize God's role in the victory; to remove pagan elements (Saturnalia) that had crept into the holiday's observance; to shift focus away from a victorious war in which the rabbis did not prominently participate; to shift focus from a failed, disastrous war in which the rabbis did prominently participate; and to dampen down any further attempt to revolt against Rome. This may also be seen by the Talmud's lingering memories of a reason underlying Hanukka candle lighting other than the "miracle of oil," and the complete lack of any mention of that same "miracle" in the Mishna or other early rabbinic texts.

In short, while the creation of the oil myth may possibly be dated to the early Roman period, the widespread propagation of that myth most likely began at or just before the beginning of the redaction of the Mishna. Two hundred years later, at the time of the beginning of the redaction of the Talmud, the myth had become an accepted "truth" (even though the rabbis could find no written source for that "truth") – in large part because the rabbis themselves had successfully banned 1 & 2 Maccabees and Josephus 200-plus-years earlier.

And so the "Miracle of Oil" became the focus of Hanukka, as we see to this day.

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.

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.

The Rebbe And The Menorah, #2

 

The Lubavitch News Service propagandizes:

Millions are by now accustomed to the menorah display in their respective town squares, and, Jewish or not, they welcome the light, often joining in the festivities celebrating the message of Chanukah. After all, the menorah’s message is universal, which explains why governors and mayors and councilmen nationwide are eager for the chance to get into those ubiquitous cherry pickers and put flame to wick.

No. Not really. In fact, not at all.

First of all the mesage of Hanukka is not universal. Judaism does not endorse the freedom of polytheists to practice their religions. When the Maccabees took control of Judea, they did not allow (in the first years) polytheism to continue in the areas they controlled. No Temple of Zeus was endorsed by Judah Maccabee and he did visit any such shrine in a fit of "religious tolerance." Further, the later Maccabees became hellenized and were heavily criticized by the rabbis as a result.

Second, politicians light the menorah because it is a photo op and free publicity, two things politicians thrive on. But Chabad prattles on:

More than any other symbol, the menorah is representative of Chabad-Lubavitch and its efforts to displace darkness with light. When Chanukah was an unknown among the general American public, Chabad introduced the holiday. At the time, it didn’t seem to have much hope of ever competing with the pervasive and highly popular sights and sounds of the December holiday season.

Funny. I remember 40 years ago, well before Chabad's public menorah lighting campaigns, my local television stations reporting on Hanukka and broadcasting a menorah with the proper number of burning candles at the beginning and end of each commercial break. Our newspapers had front page coverage. Radio stations played a few Hanukka songs. Public schools mentioned the holiday. And I live in a metropolitan area with few Jews. And friends from around the country had similar experiences.

Yet Chabad writes: "When Chanukah was an unknown among the general American public, Chabad introduced the holiday."

What was unknown among the "general American public" and among Jews anywhere was the new Chabad menorah, which has become the trademark of Chabad-Lubavitch. For more on Chabad's misrepresentation of that menorah, see The Rebbe And The Menorah. For historical details on the story of Hanukka, read The Little Menorah That Didn't.

The Little Menorah That Didn't

Here we are, soon to light the second candle on this 2169th Hanukka. For 2169 years, our ancestors have lit candles, most often in menorah's, to celebrate the "miracle of the oil." Or have they?

We all know the story. The Maccabee's capture Jerusalem, free the Temple and find it defiled. Worse yet, there is only one sealed, undefiled cruse of oil left in the Temple – enough to keep the menorah burning for only one day. It will take days – eight days, to be exact – to send for more pure oil.

The Maccabees, God-fearing priests that they were, lit the menorah with that one cruse of oil and, lo and behold, the menorah burned for eight days. New oil arrived as the menorah was still burning on day eight, and thus the miracle of Hanukka is sealed in the memory of our nation forever – maybe.

Why maybe? Because it did not happen that way. Let's see why:

1. The oldest telling of the story of Hanukka is found in 2 Maccabees. It does not mention the "miracle of oil."

2. The text of the Al HaNisim prayer inserted in the Amida prayer for Hanukka does not mention the "miracle of oil."

3. Josephus, who was a priest and served in the Temple, recounts the battles that led to the liberation of Jerusalem and the Temple but does not mention the "miracle of oil." This is even more significant because Josephus was a member of the Perushim (Pharisees).

4. No other ancient records mention the "miracle of oil."

Why would this be? Let's try to answer that question by exploring the first known mention of the "miracle of oil," found in the Talmud, which began to be codified in about 400 C.E. – almost 600 years after the Maccabees triumph – and was not completed for many years after that.

The Talmud's version of the Story of Hanukka can be found in Shabbat 21b:

What is Hanukkah? Our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev [begin] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight, and on which mourning and fasting are forbidden.  For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmoneans [Maccabees] defeated them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil with the seal of the High Priest,  but which contained enough [oil] for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle happened and they lit [the menorah from that single cruse of oil and it lasted for] for eight days. The following year these [days] were made a Festival including [the saying of] Hallel and thanksgiving.

So, 600 years after the event, the Talmud claims the miracle of Hanukka was the "miracle of oil" and the holiday of Hanukka was established for the following year, in part because of it.

Here is the story of Hanukka as told in 2 Maccabees, written by a Jew within a few years of the actual events:

10:1 Now Maccabeus and his company, the Lord guiding them, recovered the temple and the city:

10:2 But the altars which the heathen had built in the open street, and also the chapels, they pulled down.

10:3 And having cleansed the temple they made another altar, and striking stones they took fire out of them, and offered a sacrifice after two years, and set forth incense, and lights, and shewbread.

10:4 When that was done, they fell flat down, and besought the Lord that they might come no more into such troubles; but if they sinned any more against him, that he himself would chasten them with mercy, and that they might not be delivered unto the blasphemous and barbarous nations.

10:5 Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu [Kislev].

10:6 And they kept the eight days with gladness, as in the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long afore they had held the feast of the tabernacles, when as they wandered in the mountains and dens like beasts.

10:7 Therefore they bare branches, and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang psalms unto him that had given them good success in cleansing his place.

10:8 They ordained also by a common statute and decree, That every year those days should be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.

10:9 And this was the end of Antiochus, called Epiphanes.

No "miracle of oil."  Eight days because of the Succot sacrifices (that went on for eight days) that were not able to be offered due to the Greeks.

Now, Josephus:

[36] Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus's generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son.

[38] Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom, and in his hatred to the Jews also.…

No "miracle of oil."  Again, eight days because of the Succot sacrifices (that went on for eight days) that were not able to be offered due to the Greeks.

What happened? Why was a "miracle of oil" added to Hanukka?

The Pharisees fought with and suffered suffered from the Hasmonean kings, as the Hasmonean dynasty over time became Hellenized and the Sadducees, opponents of the rabbis, allied with the Hasmoneans.

The rabbinic dislike for the Maccabees can be summed up with the following question: How could a miracle have come through a family that would later become so evil?

Within 150 years two disasters would rock the Jewish world. The first, the Destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. after a war initially backed by many of the rabbis. The second took place 65 years after the Destruction when the Bar Kokhba revolt failed and with its defat came the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of Jews. The chief backer of the revolt was Rabbi Akiva, the leader of Rabbinic Judaism who believed Bar Kokhba to me the messiah. This revolt failed, but the Maccabees, without rabbinic leadership, won their war and liberated the country.

Here we have rabbinic sanction for war and no miracle happens. Why? Were the rabbis less deserving of God's miracles than the Maccabees and their Sadducee allies?

Worse yet, the prayers for Hanukka, established long before Bar Kokhba, glorify the Maccabee's war and do not mention the oil, and the rabbis cannot simply remove or edit a text which was widely known throughout the Jewish world.

I believe the rabbinic response to this problem was to gradually push aside the victory of the Maccabees, which was the true miracle of Hanukka, and replace it with  the "miracle of the oil." By the time the Talmud was codified, the "miracle of oil" had become the "normative" understanding of Hanukka.

Today the "miracle of oil" is well known, but the details of the Maccabees' fight against the Greeks is not.

Hanukka Samayakh.

The Rebbe And The Menorah

Arch of Titus, Rome

Hanukka is fast approaching. A motzei Shabbat excursion to the grocery store brought me face to face with two shluchim (Chabad rabbis) of the younger generation, hard at work erecting a Hanukka display that will remain up through Hanukka. The centerpiece of the display is a menorah with straight diagonal branches, often mistakenly referred to as Rambam's menorah. (More on this below.)

I like both of these rabbis very much. I've known them since they were children. I know the work they do is often selfless. One has done innovative, successful programing – a rarity in these parts. But every time I see a "Rambam's menorah," I want to scream. And tonight was no exception.

I restrained myself somewhat and contented myself with pointing out a historical fact – the menorah in the Temple looked nothing like that. As a simple proof, I mentioned that coins have been found from the reign of Mattias Antigonus [see one to the left], the last Hasmonean king, who ruled just before Herod. These coins have the menorah on them, and the branches are curved, not straight.

The elder of the two answered my challenge by quoting the Rebbe: The menorah on those coins and on the Arch of Titus is not the Temple menorah – it is merely a second menorah, a copy, used for non-sacramental purposes in the Temple.

Right. This is the same mind that brought us a new "Jewish" version of Gosse's theory and who insisted that spontaneous generation really happens.

Well, there are a few problems (to put it mildly) with the Rebbe's thesis, not least among them is this – all representations of the menorah  contempraneous to the existence of the Temple show the menorah with curved arms. Further, in all of Jewish history, only two rabbis appear to have claimed anything different – the Rambam and Rashi. Both lived almost 1000 years after the Temple stood. Neither had any representation of a menorah that matched the Rebbe's understanding of their positions.

But take a look at the Rambam's own drawing of the menorah, and compare it to the Rebbe's version.

 
Rambam's drawing of the Temple menorah     The Rebbe's menorah (adapted for Hanukka)

The cups on the Rambam's drawing are at different heights and at different angles. In Rebbe's menorah,  each cup is at the same height and the same angle. (And of course there are other differences, as well.)

So here we have an entirely new version of the menorah not found anywhere else throughout Jewish history. Worse yet, the Rebbe claimed this was the "correct" version of the menorah, and the one found on the Hasmonean coin (minted by a king who was both a kohen and the high priest and who served in the Temple!) was incorrect.

Rabbi Seth Mandel has a long post on AishDas.org dealing with the shape of the menorah. In it, he explains convincingly that the Rambam's drawing was a schematic, and was not meant to be representative of the menorah itself:

[I]f the arms weren't exactly straight, why did the Rambam draw them
that way? Well, why did he draw the kaftorim as a circle? Because he
drew everything with a ruler, a compass and a protractor (much as an
electrical schematic drawing is done with straight lines). Note that all
the kaftorim are drawn not as free-form circles, but are perfectly round
(even though the real kaftorim were not). Similarly, the top of the
base, above the three legs, is a perfect arc clearly drawn with a
compass. The distances are also schematic: the space occupied by the
gavia', kaftor and perah above the base are one tefah, as the note on
the drawing next to them states, whereas the empty space above them and
below them are both two t'fahim, also clearly noted ("t'fahayim") on the
drawing, yet those latter spaces in the drawing are much less than the
space taken by the g'via', kaftor and perah.…

Now even in a schematic drawing, if the arms were semicircular arcs, as
they are on the Arch of Titus, the Rambam would have surely drawn them
that way, using a compass. But what if the arms were not semicircular,
but were curved somewhat? What, as a matter of fact, if they were like
the arms shown in a), the coins of Matitya Antigonos or the arms shown
in b), the drawing on the wall of the house discovered in the Old City
[conclusively dated to the end of the Second Temple era],
that were partially curved and partially straight or almost straight? I
would argue that in his schematic drawing, the Rambam would see nothing
wrong with drawing them with a ruler as a straight line. After all, as
he says, "my intent in this drawing is not that you should know [i.e. I
should draw] the exact form. Rather my intent is to show you the number
of the g'vi'im, the kaftorim and the p'rahim, and their placement, and
the length of places of the arms of the Menorah that are empty and that
of the places that have kaftorim and p'rahim, and its general
appearance."

Of course, one can also easily argue that the Rambam was simply mistaken, and did the best he could do with the information he had.

But what of the representation on the Arch of Titus? The base is wrong and their are other problems as well. Rabbi Mandel answers by quoting Rabbi Daniel Sperber, whose book on minhagim (Jewish customs) is very well regarded:

… [T]he base is two giant hexagons, the top one larger than the lower one,
with decorations on the side panels. Examination of the panels of the
hexagons shows that the central one on the upper hexagon has a picture
of two eagles holding a (laurel?) crown. To its left and right are
panels showing a ketos, a aquatic monster usually with a serpent body
and the head of a bird or other animal. In the lower hexagon are three
panels with various kete (plural of ketos). A ketos is called drakon by
Hazal; in the Mishna Avodah Zara 3:3 it shows that a drakon was suspect
of being a symbol of AZ. How would that get into the Temple? Even worse,
the eagle was the symbol of Imperial Rome, and as such was an anathema
to Jews longing to be free of Roman rule.

However, the picture cannot be simply an invention of a Roman artist.
The arms are are equidistant from each other, and the distance equals
the width of the arms (another universal characteristic of Jewish
sources), they all go up to an equal height, and even the ratio of the
distance from the base to the lower arms to the rest of the height
matches the ratio given by Hazal. And there are clear g'vi'im, kaftorim
and p'rahim on the arms. This must be a representation of the Menorah of
the Hekhal. So how can we explain the base?

R. Daniel Sperber gives the correct answer, IMHO. He notes that usually
a ketos has a nymph perched on its back, and scales on its neck, and
shows pictures of a very similar from a Roman temple in Didyma with such
a nymph. In e), there is no nymph and no scales on the neck. He quotes
the g'moro AZ 43a that a drakon that is osur has scales on its neck, and
the Tosefta in AZ that says "if the neck was smooth, it is muttar." This
evidence, that the base was made showing the symbol of Imperial Rome and
avoiding AZ, matches Herod the Great. He was put in his position, after
Matitya Antigonos, by the Roman, and Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews
tells us that he erected a great golden eagle over the gates of the
Temple, an act that angered the Jews. OTOH, he always was careful to
portray himself as King of the Jews and avoided any outright AZ. So, R.
Sperber concludes, it must have been Herod who put on the base. Why
would he have monkeyed around with the Menorah? Probably because shortly
before his reign the Parthians entered Y'rushalayim and plundered it.
The Menorah may well have been broken at its weakest point, its small
base, at that time, and Herod, whose mark was large construction
projects many of which were for the benefit of the Jews while at the
same time reminding everyone of Roman sovereignty (as he did in his
reconstruction of the BhM), would naturally have made a large new base,
for the good of the Jewish Temple but with Roman symbols.

So it is extremely probable that [it] was actually drawn from someone who
saw the Menorah as it was paraded through Rome in 71 and perhaps later,
wherever it ended up. But some of the exact details, like the exact
number of kaftorim, or the exact curve of the arms, is wrong, because
the sculptor no longer had the Menorah in front of him.

My Chabad friend also pointed out that Rashi holds the menorah is like the Rambam's drawing. Rabbi Mandel attempts to deal with Rashi (who also had no coins or seals or wall paintings to look at) this way:

I would also argue that Rashi's statement of alakson [diagonal] could also fit the drawings Medieval Jewish sources … it is inconceivable to me that rabbonim drawing pictures of the Menorah in the 14th Century would not have noted that Rashi disagrees.

I would simply argue that Rashi is mistaken, except that Mandel has a stong point – no one ever drew a menorah that matches the Rebbe's understanding of Rashi. Therefore, the Rebbe's understanding is mistaken.

As Mandel points out, history is against the Rebbe:

In summary, all depictions of the Menorah in the Hekhal, from Jewish and
Roman sources from the time of the [Temple] and the following couple of
centuries (as well as medieval Jewish sources) show the Menorah with
rounded arms. …

Menorah from 1st century Italy

In conclusion, I have argued that no one thought that the arms were
exactly straight; that the idea came into being only in the 20th Century
after the Rambam's drawing became common knowledge, but does not have a
basis in a careful reading of the Rambam and a comparison to Jewish
depictions ranging from the time of the Temple to centuries later.

Some have claimed the Rebbe set up the new Chabad menorah as a corporate symbol, for branding and messianic purposes. History would seem to support that claim.