The Truth of Channukah

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The sages teach us that there are 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments {prohibitions} in the Torah.
Just because an early historical source fails to mention all 248 positive commandments, this is no proof that the commandments did not exist or were not performed. All it means that the omitted commandments did not fit in with the type of story the author was trying to tell.
In my humble opinion Kahane-Was-Right BT you rely too much on the argument of omission to try to "disprove" the Talmud Bavli's account of the oil miracle.

Tell me, which mitzvah did I say did not exist?

Which mitzvah did the book of macabees claim did not exist?  None that I am aware of.  But I guess you're the expert since you never reead it.  So please enlighten us all.

I'll take my argument one step further. The author of the Tehillim/Psalms chapter 105 was a very religious person, to the point of having Ruach Hakodesh. Yet when he recounts the plagues that fell upon Egypt during the time of Moshe/Moses he doesn't seem to mention the plague of boils (the sixth plague).  [Bg Is this proof, because he omits that plague that is described in the book of Exodus/Shmot, that the plague didn't take place? Obviously Not.
Rather the plague of boils just didn't fit in with the message, that the Psalmist wished to convey.

Another straw man because I never said this.  But this is a good question for you?  Are you claiming that the author of psalms in not mentioning those things had some secret pernicious agenda to try to hide them?  I think that's not a realistic claim at all.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Ive lost track of what is being argued here. 

Join the club.  I think he is confusing me with sephirath ben baruch even though we are both saying completely different things.

I'm simply trying to uphold what I think is the truth in these matters based on logic and proof from texts.  I'm not sure what the argument of hypotheticals against my pov actually is.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here's a clear summary for why it makes no sense to say the author of macabees 1 (or 2 for that matter) was against rabbinic Judaism, against the rabbis, or had a malicious/conspiratorial intent in not mentioning the oil miracle:   because if you claim that he does just based on the fact that he didn't mention it, then that means that all the other major sources which did not mention it had these same evil motives (chas veshalom) such as the Talmud Yerushalmi, masechet sofrim, megillath taanith, pesikta rabbathi, etc.

Now.  Care to reexamine your argument in light of this most obvious baseless slander of chachamim?

[edu]

Kahane-Was-Right BT
You're using a straw man. Talmud Yerushalmi etc. is part of our holy sources.
But  just to restate what I was saying, you can't prove, that the sources you site
disagree, with the oil miracle, unless they say so explicitly.
They could be quiet about it for several reasons.
So again I am asking you, do you believe that the Babylonian Talmud is lying?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane-Was-Right BT
You're using a straw man. Talmud Yerushalmi etc. is part of our holy sources.
But  just to restate what I was saying, you can't prove, that the sources you site
disagree, with the oil miracle, unless they say so explicitly.
They could be quiet about it for several reasons.
So again I am asking you, do you believe that the Babylonian Talmud is lying?

Now you've completely lost me.  Please employ logic.

Your claim:  macabees 1 author is a sadducee propagandist who is "hiding" the oil miracle by not mentioning it, and the proof is merely the fact that he didn't mention.

Why your claim makes no sense: some of "our holy sources" such as Talmud Yerushalmi, do not mention the oil miracle, so someone cannot be discredited and dismissed simply because it/they does not mention the hanuka oil miracle.  Or else you'll have to dismiss our holy sources too.


And no I do not think the talmud bavli is ever "lying" when stating its views.  What an absurd question.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane-Was-Right BT you can't prove, that the sources you site
disagree, with the oil miracle, unless they say so explicitly. 

What does disagreeing with an oil miracle mean?

They could be quiet about it for several reasons.

And the author of maccabees 1 could be (and probably is) quiet about it for the very same reasons.

[Sephirath Ben Baruch]

This will be fun!

The rabbis of the Talmud held that the sources quoted by Sephirath ben Baruch are unreliable and according to the simple understanding of their words even held that it was forbidden to study them.
I heard a lenient view, but I can not recall in whose name it was said, that if it is learned as a flawed historical source and not as a biblical book, it is not outright forbidden.
Just as today, besides legitimate Judaism, you have new sects that distort it, such as, reform, conservative and reconstructionist, so too during second temple times you had heretical sects, such as the Sadducees, as well as a few more, which I will not mention here. Who knows what was the religious affiliation and/or bias of the book of Maccabees.
point 2, the menora of the Torah had seven branches not six. Six outer branches together with one central branch
point 3, there is actually a prohibition to make a seven branch menora for non-temple purposes (see for example, Talmud tractate Rosh Hashana page 24)
point 4, The book of Esther which is part of the Tanakh/Bible does call for the addition of the celebration of a holiday that is not mentioned in the Torah. For whatever, reason you wish to give, why that holiday with all its activities is permitted, so too this applies for lighting Hanuka candles (or wicks in oil).
point 5, According to Rashi the prohibition of adding to the Torah is not to add extra details to a mitzva written in the Torah. For example, not to add words to the bircat cohanim {priestly blessing} mentioned in Bamidbar/Numbers 6 verses 24 to 26. According to Rambam, the prohibition of adding to the Torah is that one is not allowed to identify a rabbinic commandment as if it a Torah commandment. But if you clearly identify that the source of a practice is rabbinic it is not a violation.

Another false point of Sephirath Ben Baruch that I have not previously addressed is his connection of Chanuka with the pagan Solstice ceremony
He is ignorant of the fact that the Jewish calendar is not solar. It is lunar based. Therefore Chanuka will not always fall on the days of the Soltice ceremony. Especially since during the 2nd Temple, the calendar was not fixed as it is today. Every year, it was up to the Sanhedrin to decide, if the year would contain 12 lunar months or 13 lunar months. Also the start of each month was determined by the Sanhedrin.
Furthermore, Sephirath Ben Baruch contradicts himself. He starts off clearly acknowledging that there was some celebration on the 25th of Kislev concerning the rededication of the Temple, a point clearly acknowledged by Orthodox Judaism and then he changes his mind and claims Chanuka is a Solstice ceremony, which is an outright lie and slander.

Point 1: Validate your sources!

Point 2: The Menorah of the Beit HaMidash had only 6 branches all connected to one stand tied into a base. There wasn't seven branches, four on one side or four on the other. "32 And six branches are running out from its sides, three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side. 33 Three cups shaped like flowers of almond are on the one set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating, and three cups shaped like flowers of almond on the other set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating. This is the way it is with the six branches running out from the lampstand." (Shemot 25:32-33) Okay, Eda... Do you overstand now?

Point 3:The Holy Menorah should only be in Hashem's House of Sacrifice. The prohibition in the quote is correct. (We agree, right?)

Point 4: Hashem through Malachi ordained Purim unlike Channukah. The Hashmoneans where not prophets infact they weren't even the Sons of Zadok (First High Priest to Jedidiah's Temple). The Navi Yechezchial proclaims for Jeh0vah "But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Hashem G-d." (Yechezchial 44:15) The Lord ordained for ministry the House of Zadok only (note*  It is likely that the origin of the term Sadducee is the same as Zadokite, after it passed through Greek translation.). Interestingly we read, "(53) they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering which they had built. (56) So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness; they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise (59)" (1 Maccabees 4:52-59) In this verse the Hasmonean (Probably from the House of Abiathar) in disobedience offered up sacrifices.

Point 5: According to the Almighty, "You shall not add to the law which I command you, not shall you diminish from it" (Davarim - 4:2). "All that I command you, you shall diligently do; you shall not add to it nor diminish from it" (Davarim - 13:1) "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar". (Mishlei - 30:6). Yet Rashi is correct in stating not to add extra in the mitzvah's, for in the days ahead HaShem will complete his Torah. Only through the name of Jeh0vah alone can laws be created.

Yes the obvious failure to mention that Chanukah is based on the Hebrew calender, which is a lunar cycle, doesn't always fall out on the Winter Solstice... Must not have been written by a scholar...

Correction, LuniSolar.... "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua READ not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them." (Yehoshua 8:35)

[Sephirath Ben Baruch]

Ps. muman613, The Hasmoneans didn't listen to a direct commandment of Hashem (For the House of Zadok to only light his offerings). These men may have fought for the G-d of  Abraham, Issac, and Jacob yet they were not perfect. In my article 'The Truth of Channukah' I make a modern distinction, this being the adaption of presents borrowed from christmas. In the eyes of the wayward Jew the reason for the practice isn't important only assimilation is.

[Dan Ben Noah]

Point 2: The Menorah of the Beit HaMidash had only 6 branches all connected to one stand tied into a base. There wasn't seven branches, four on one side or four on the other. "32 And six branches are running out from its sides, three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side. 33 Three cups shaped like flowers of almond are on the one set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating, and three cups shaped like flowers of almond on the other set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating. This is the way it is with the six branches running out from the lampstand." (Shemot 25:32-33) Okay, Eda... Do you overstand now?

If you keep reading you'll see that there were 7 lamps.  It would have been 6 on the branches, and 1 on the shaft itself:

Exodus 25:37
37. And you shall make its lamps seven, and he shall kindle its lamps [so that they] shed light toward its face.

Point 5: According to the Almighty, "You shall not add to the law which I command you, not shall you diminish from it" (Davarim - 4:2). "All that I command you, you shall diligently do; you shall not add to it nor diminish from it" (Davarim - 13:1) "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar". (Mishlei - 30:6). Yet Rashi is correct in stating not to add extra in the mitzvah's, for in the days ahead HaShem will complete his Torah. Only through the name of Jeh0vah alone can laws be created.
 
Correction, LuniSolar.... "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua READ not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them." (Yehoshua 8:35)

Joshua also wrote his own ordinance with the Torah:

Joshua 24:25-26
25. And Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.    
26. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of G-d, and took a great stone, and set it under the doorpost which is in the sanctuary of the Lord.

Also, if you say no holidays can be commemorated unless they are in the Pentateuch, you would have to throw out the book of Esther, which says this about Purim:

Esther 9:20-28
20. And Mordecai inscribed these things and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, both near and far,   כ.  
21. to enjoin them to make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day thereof, every year,   כא.  
22. as the days when the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month that was reversed for them from grief to joy and from mourning to a festive day-to make them days of feasting and joy, and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.   כב.  
23. And the Jews took upon themselves what they had commenced to do and what Mordecai had written to them.   כג.  
24. For Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had devised to destroy the Jews, and he cast the pur-that is the lot-to terrify them and destroy them.   כד.  
25. And when she came before the king, he commanded through letters that his evil device that he had devised against the Jews return upon his own head, and to destroy him and his sons on the gallows.   כה.  
26. Therefore, they called these days Purim after the name pur; therefore, because of all the words of this letter, and what they saw concerning this matter, and what happened to them.   כו.  
27. The Jews ordained and took upon themselves and upon their seed and upon all those who join them, that it is not to be revoked to make these two days according to their script and according to their appointed time, every year.   כז.  
28. And these days shall be remembered and celebrated throughout every generation, in every family, every province, and every city, and these days of Purim shall not be revoked from amidst the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their seed.

[muman613]

The Chanukah Chanukiah is not a menorah... It is called a Menorah in order to compare it to the Menorah which stood in the Holy Temple. There is no prohibition from displaying a Chanukiah in your home as we do on Chanukah.

There is no mitzvah of giving presents on Chanukah, I don't know what is being implied by this:

In my article 'The Truth of Channukah' I make a modern distinction, this being the adaption of presents borrowed from christmas.

Obviously the Hasmoneans weren't perfect, as our Holy Tanakh relates what befell the Jewish nation as a result of their arrogance for taking the Kingship in Israel. But that is part of the divine plan, and a part of the miracle of the Jewish people.

I don't really understand what Serophath Ben Baruch is trying to say. It is obvious that our sages, our Talmud, our Shulchan Aruch, and all mordern Jewish scholars have no problem with Chanukah and their is no question as to why we celebrate it.

It is ridiculous to claim that Chanukah was a response to the solar solistice. As you state it is a lunar calender which is aligned to the solar cycle by adding leap months according to a calculation. There is no way that Chanukah would correspond to the winter solistace due to this fact.


http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/331/Q1/

Dear Debra R.,
When reading a question like yours - which is basically a question of semantics - some people will say, "who cares?"

Those people are anti-semantic. What they don't realize is that a situation could arise where someone says, "pass the menorah" and everybody reaches for something different and all havoc breaks loose. So, I think your question deserves special attention and that the answer will resolve an argument between you and your friend and bring peace on earth.

Menorah means candelabra (Exodus 25). A gold menorah with seven lamps was part of the "furnishings" in the ancient Temple. This was chosen by Israel as a national symbol, and it appears on some Israeli coins.

On Chanukah we light a special eight-candle menorah. There is a ninth candle to provide light because the Chanukah candles themselves may not be used for light. Modern Hebrew has coined the word "chanukiah" to refer to this Chanukah menorah. This new word, while not in any classical Jewish text such as the Talmud or Shulchan Aruch, is nevertheless quite a clear and useful word.

So, in the classical sense, the clerk and tour guide are wrong. But in the modern Hebrew sense, I think they are right. So…please pass the chanukiah!

[Sephirath Ben Baruch]

If you keep reading you'll see that there were 7 lamps.  It would have been 6 on the branches, and 1 on the shaft itself:

Exodus 25:37
37. And you shall make its lamps seven, and he shall kindle its lamps [so that they] shed light toward its face.

Joshua also wrote his own ordinance with the Torah:

Joshua 24:25-26
25. And Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.    
26. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of G-d, and took a great stone, and set it under the doorpost which is in the sanctuary of the Lord.

Also, if you say no holidays can be commemorated unless they are in the Pentateuch, you would have to throw out the book of Esther, which says this about Purim:

I wasn't talking about the lamps you fool, get it straight. The only reason this is an issue is so you can ignore the message. Keep your excuses, I don't want them!

[Dan Ben Noah]

I wasn't talking about the lamps you fool, get it straight. The only reason this is an issue is so you can ignore the message. Keep your excuses, I don't want them!

Why did you have an issue with edu's post on the branches?  What he was saying was correct.

Are you a Karaite?  Exactly what is your connection to historic Judaism?

[muman613]

Why did you have an issue with edu's post on the branches?  What he was saying was correct.

Are you a Karaite?  Exactly what is your connection to historic Judaism?

Good questions. I suspect this is not a Jew...

[edu]

I agree with the response of Dan Ben Noah and Muman613 to Sephirath Ben Baruch
I will also add that Karaites and Saducees are very subjective about when yes to rely on the Sanhedrin and when not to.
They often rely on the Sanhedrin's determination, what is a book worthy of being in the Tanakh and what isn't.
Who is a valid prophet and who is not. Or how to properly read the text of the Tanakh, which is written without vowels and is dependent upon the oral tradition on how to properly read the text by inserting vowels and punctuation marks.
For Kahane-Was-Right BT . The following is not my interpretation of the Chanuka Miracle, but it is based on how Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of Machon Hamikdash once explained the Chanuka miracle to me.
He taught at the time he gave the shiur ( I don't know what he holds today) that the Chashmonim in order to preserve the pure oil, made special types of wicks that could burn longer on less oil.
He didn't spell the following points out explicitly but If I understood correctly from him, the fact that these special wicks could fulfill all the halachic requirements without going out, was interpreted by the Babylonian Talmud as a miracle, while other sources such as Talmud Yerushalami, saw this as not being, so much out of the natural order of the laws of nature to label it as an explicit miracle.
A final point to Sephirath Ben Baruch. Ezra and the prophets who initiated the Second Temple did not build that Temple in accordance to the prophecy of Yechezkel. There were differences in the structure, size, etc.
Just as the architectural models were different. The laws of who could perform the sacrificial service were different.
Any valid Cohain, even not from the sons of Zadok, could perform the sacrificial offerings in the second Temple.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Point 3:The Holy Menorah should only be in Hashem's House of Sacrifice. The prohibition in the quote is correct. (We agree, right?)

But in hanukkah, we are not making the 7 branch menora for non-temple purposes (or for any purposes, we're not making replicas of the real thing.  The hanukkiah looks different).   So what is your point?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This will be fun!

Point 1: Validate your sources!

Point 2: The Menorah of the Beit HaMidash had only 6 branches all connected to one stand tied into a base. There wasn't seven branches, four on one side or four on the other. "32 And six branches are running out from its sides, three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side. 33 Three cups shaped like flowers of almond are on the one set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating, and three cups shaped like flowers of almond on the other set of branches, with knobs and blossoms alternating. This is the way it is with the six branches running out from the lampstand." (Shemot 25:32-33) Okay, Eda... Do you overstand now?

Point 3:The Holy Menorah should only be in Hashem's House of Sacrifice. The prohibition in the quote is correct. (We agree, right?)

Point 4: Hashem through Malachi ordained Purim unlike Channukah. 

Huh?

There was a debate before the scroll of Ester was adopted into the Tanakh precisely because of the reason that it was NOT clear that it was divinely ordained to do so, and sages looked for ways to find hints to it in the verses of Torah before they would accept it to make it amongst the sacred writings.  (There was a dispute among the Sanhedrin with Mordechai one of the ones fighting on behalf of Esther that it should be included, but they were at first outnumbered!)
This dispute is discussed in the Talmud.

 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

For Kahane-Was-Right BT . The following is not my interpretation of the Chanuka Miracle, but it is based on how Rabbi Yisrael Ariel of Machon Hamikdash once explained the Chanuka miracle to me.
He taught at the time he gave the shiur ( I don't know what he holds today) that the Chashmonim in order to preserve the pure oil, made special types of wicks that could burn longer on less oil.
He didn't spell the following points out explicitly but If I understood correctly from him, the fact that these special wicks could fulfill all the halachic requirements without going out, was interpreted by the Babylonian Talmud as a miracle, while other sources such as Talmud Yerushalami, saw this as not being, so much out of the natural order of the laws of nature to label it as an explicit miracle.

Well, that's certainly a possibility.   There are a number of interesting ways to understand the situation.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

A final point to Sephirath Ben Baruch. Ezra and the prophets who initiated the Second Temple did not build that Temple in accordance to the prophecy of Yechezkel. There were differences in the structure, size, etc.
Just as the architectural models were different. The laws of who could perform the sacrificial service were different.
Any valid Cohain, even not from the sons of Zadok, could perform the sacrificial offerings in the second Temple.

Indeed.

The Torah law is a vast corpus and contains many seeming contradictory verses and intricacies which the sages had to discern and unify into a legal system which does not always function in the most obvious manner due to the complexity of verses and contrasting sentiments from different verses which need to be interpreted and balanced.   They inherited this job as a matter of tradition from the prophets and the men of the great assembly who were students under the prophets.  (The prophets adopted this task from Moshe Joshua and the elders who came before the prophets and during their times).    Johnny-come-lately's who want to crumble the whole system based on personal differences they have with one or a few individual matters decided within this traditional and authoritative edifice, have no credibility.

[edu]

The Following is another difficulty in the words of Sephirath Ben Baruch
He says

The Hashmoneans where not prophets infact they weren't even the Sons of Zadok (First High Priest to Jedidiah's Temple).

He then explains, that the Hashmoneans violated the command of the prophet

But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister unto Me; and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Hashem G-d." (Yechezchial 44:15) The Lord ordained for ministry the House of Zadok only

He then explains

(note*  It is likely that the origin of the term Sadducee is the same as Zadokite, after it passed through Greek translation.)

Well if you are contending that Sadducee is the same as Zadokite. And the Hashmoneans from the time of Yannai, adopted the Sadducee ideology and served sometimes as High Priest and nearly on a yearly basis chose a new High Priest, when it fit their interests (not from the house of Zadok, particularly). Then it turns out that you are saying that the followers of Zadok themselves, didn't believe that the words of the prophet Yechezkel/Ezekiel required them to abstain from offering sacrifices.

[edu]

The Truth of the matter is Sephirath Ben Baruch
that the Sadducees don't really have the right or the authority to have any say about interpreting the Tanakh.
It's just because you have been unfavorable to the Sanhedrin's view of the holiday of Hanuka and their view of the Tanakh, that I  wanted to show you that no one, even those who are outside the legitimate framework of Judaism, that lived in the 2nd Temple era, supports your views.