The Truth of Channukah

[muman613]

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/173/Q4/

Topic: Apocrypha, Definition

Will Sleever wrote:

I read through several areas of the origins of Chanukah. There was also reference to the books of Maccabees and Judith. Are these considered false history or true history? I am aware that various peoples like to trace their history to your civilization. I am aware that other religions have Maccabees I and II and Judith in their writings. In your opinion are these events portrayed in these books false or true or mixed?

Dear Will Sleever,

These books and others like them are part of what is known as the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha are not considered holy, inspired or prophetically written. Therefore, they are not necessarily historically accurate. The Book of Maccabees describes events already discussed in the Talmud and hence is generally considered more accurate than the other books of the apocrypha. Another account is the Scroll of Antiochus, which is printed in the Siddur Otzar Hatefillot. Some communities used to read the Scroll of Antiochus during Chanukah on Shabbat afternoon.

See also:

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/essays/ravschwab.html

Jewish History

By Rav Shimon Schwab tz"l

This article originally appeared in Mitteilungen Dec. Mar. 1984-85 and can be found in Selected Writings pp. 232-235. We express our Hakaras HaTov to the Breuers Kehillah for their permission to post the article here.

The story of Chanukah is described in detail in the Book of Maccabees. In the Gemorah and Midrash there are only a few scant references to this epic drama in our ancient history. Why is it that this great tale of heroism is so poorly treated by our Sages? The Book of Maccabees belongs to the Apocrypha, the Sefarim Chitzonim, which are not authentic and which are outside of our sacred literature. Why do our Chazal, who were the eyewitnesses of these tumultuous events of their era, not describe in detail the frivolities of the Hellenists, the ravings of the insane Antiochus and the rebellion of the Hasmoneans, as well as the miraculous victories of the "few over the many," of the weak over the multitude of the strong and the final triumph over the powerful army of Greco-Syria? Why did our Chachomim not leave us an account of the glory and of the final decay of the Maccabees? We have to glean almost every little bit from secular sources. Only a few sprinklings here and there are preserved for us in the words of our Chazal.

The question goes much further. We have no authentic description by our Tanaim of the period of the Churban, the Jewish war against the Romans, the destruction of the Jewish state, the revolt and the downfall of Bar Kochba, except for a few Haggadic sayings in Talmud and Midrash. For our historical knowledge we have to rely on the renegade, Josephus Flavius, who was a friend of Rome and a traitor to his people.

Come to think of it, since the close of the Tanach at the beginning of the Second Beis Hamikdash, we have no Jewish history book composed by our Sophrim, Tanaim and Amoraim. The prophets and the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah have recorded all the events of their days as well as all previous periods. When prophecy ceased, the recording of Jewish history stopped at the same time. Why did our great Torah leaders not deem it necessary to register in detail all the events of their period just as the Neviim had done before them?
.
.
.

[muman613]

I do not know why, nor have I found an exact explanation as to why the Book was deemed inappropriate for the Jewish Tanakh...

[muman613]

Here is some insight from a Daf Yomi on Sanhedrin 100b:

http://dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-100.htm

3) THE STUDY OF "SEFARIM CHITZONIM"
QUESTION: Rebbi Akiva says that one who reads Sefarim Chitzonim has no share in Olam ha'Ba. The Gemara explains that this refers to "Sifrei Tzedukim" (or "Sifrei Minim" according to all of the old, uncensored manuscripts). The RIF explains that this refers to the books written by those who do not accept the Chachamim's explanations of the verses, and who explain the verses according to their own interpretations. Since their words certainly contain heresy, it is forbidden to read their books.

The Gemara says with regard to Sefer Ben Sira -- which is not included in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim -- that one is permitted to learn the positive teachings contained therein. The RIF and ROSH infer from here that it is prohibited to read even the positive teachings (those which do not espouse heretical ideas) in the books of Sifrei Minim.

The BE'ER SHEVA cites the Yerushalmi that includes the books of Homer in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim. This is also how the BARTENURA interprets the Mishnah; he writes that "Sefarim Chitzonim" refers to the books of Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers, as well as to the books of other heretics. It is clear from the Yerushalmi that the category of Sefarim Chitzonim includes any philosophical work written by a person who does not accept Malchus Shamayim, the sovereignty of Hash-m.

The Be'er Sheva asks that according to the Yerushalmi, how did the RAMBAM and numerous other great sages learn the works of Aristotle and Plato and other philosophers of the nations?

ANSWER: The Be'er Sheva answers that the Rambam maintained that not all opinions agree with the Yerushalmi.

The Mishnah in Avos (2:14) exhorts, "Know how to respond to an Apikorus." The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos there) explains that this Mishnah permits one to study the works of the non-Jewish Apikorsim in order to know how to refute their claims, as long as one does not allow their views to enter his heart. It seems that the Rambam understood that this Mishnah argues with the Yerushalmi.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Book of Maccabees is an Apocryphal book, do you agree? It has been decided that it is not a part of the Jewish scriptures. This is not debatable. There was a decision made by the sages to exclude it.  

I would like you to explain to me what "Apocryphal book" means.  

I am aware that Book of Maccabees is not part of Jewish scriptures.   There are millions of books which did not get incorporated into Jewish scriptures.
 

Are you aware the Book of Maccabees is in the Christian bible?

Of coures I am aware of that.   We (Jews) would have no idea who Judah Hamaccabee was if not for Christian monks copying manuscripts of the book of Maccabees.   Did you know that?  

Can you explain to me the relevance of pointing out that the book of macabees is part of the Christian religion?   They also adopted all the books of the Hebrew Bible.  Should we stop reading those too?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I heard once that when the contents of the Tanakh were determined, certain apocryphal books like Maccabees were excluded because they were written in Greek with no Hebrew original.

Actually, the first book of Macabees was originally written in Hebrew.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/essays/ravschwab.html

Jewish History

By Rav Shimon Schwab tz"l

This article originally appeared in Mitteilungen Dec. Mar. 1984-85 and can be found in Selected Writings pp. 232-235. We express our Hakaras HaTov to the Breuers Kehillah for their permission to post the article here.

The story of Chanukah is described in detail in the Book of Maccabees. In the Gemorah and Midrash there are only a few scant references to this epic drama in our ancient history. Why is it that this great tale of heroism is so poorly treated by our Sages? The Book of Maccabees belongs to the Apocrypha, the Sefarim Chitzonim, which are not authentic and which are outside of our sacred literature. Why do our Chazal, who were the eyewitnesses of these tumultuous events of their era, not describe in detail the frivolities of the Hellenists, the ravings of the insane Antiochus and the rebellion of the Hasmoneans, as well as the miraculous victories of the "few over the many," of the weak over the multitude of the strong and the final triumph over the powerful army of Greco-Syria? Why did our Chachomim not leave us an account of the glory and of the final decay of the Maccabees? We have to glean almost every little bit from secular sources. Only a few sprinklings here and there are preserved for us in the words of our Chazal.

The question goes much further. We have no authentic description by our Tanaim of the period of the Churban, the Jewish war against the Romans, the destruction of the Jewish state, the revolt and the downfall of Bar Kochba, except for a few Haggadic sayings in Talmud and Midrash. For our historical knowledge we have to rely on the renegade, Josephus Flavius, who was a friend of Rome and a traitor to his people.

Come to think of it, since the close of the Tanach at the beginning of the Second Beis Hamikdash, we have no Jewish history book composed by our Sophrim, Tanaim and Amoraim. The prophets and the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah have recorded all the events of their days as well as all previous periods. When prophecy ceased, the recording of Jewish history stopped at the same time. Why did our great Torah leaders not deem it necessary to register in detail all the events of their period just as the Neviim had done before them?
.
.
.

You left us with a cliffhanger.

In any case, I have heard Rabbi Bar Hayim speak about this subject.  He cites Shabtai ben Dov who asks why is there no historical account fo the entire 2nd Temple period.   Already, that does not just single out Hanukka (as if the history of hanuka is not important?!) but the entire second temple period history was glossed over.   He answers that it's because there was no national vision and cohesiveness for the Jewish people.  Even the macabbean revolt was shortsighted because they could not decide on a course of action afterwards and it also died out and led to even more foreign rule over the Jews.    There was never a unified effort to establish Jewish sovereignty and usher in a new messianic period.  For that reason all the various historical events of that time period were of little consequence from a big picture perspective.   (And this was limited of course by the fact that so few Jews followed Ezra back to the homeland).

I still can't understand how one could claim it's forbidden to read the book of maccabees.   Do you really claim that?!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here is some insight from a Daf Yomi on Sanhedrin 100b:

http://dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-100.htm

3) THE STUDY OF "SEFARIM CHITZONIM"
QUESTION: Rebbi Akiva says that one who reads Sefarim Chitzonim has no share in Olam ha'Ba. The Gemara explains that this refers to "Sifrei Tzedukim" (or "Sifrei Minim" according to all of the old, uncensored manuscripts). The RIF explains that this refers to the books written by those who do not accept the Chachamim's explanations of the verses, and who explain the verses according to their own interpretations. Since their words certainly contain heresy, it is forbidden to read their books.

None of this describes the book of macabees.   This is what I was getting at.

The Gemara says with regard to Sefer Ben Sira -- which is not included in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim -- that one is permitted to learn the positive teachings contained therein. The RIF and ROSH infer from here that it is prohibited to read even the positive teachings (those which do not espouse heretical ideas) in the books of Sifrei Minim. 

And what justification do you have for a claim that Macabees could possibly be referred to as sifrei minim?  It's quite clear the author is anything but a min, he was a devoted religious Jew.   Reading the book can easily demonstrate that to the reader.

The BE'ER SHEVA cites the Yerushalmi that includes the books of Homer in the category of Sefarim Chitzonim. This is also how the BARTENURA interprets the Mishnah; he writes that "Sefarim Chitzonim" refers to the books of Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers, as well as to the books of other heretics. It is clear from the Yerushalmi that the category of Sefarim Chitzonim includes any philosophical work written by a person who does not accept Malchus Shamayim, the sovereignty of Hash-m.

LOL yes exactly, the books of homer, however Homer did not write maccabees 1 or 2.   And I knew that sefarim chitzonim referred to greek philosophy which is why it made no sense to me that people here are claiming it has to do with Macabbees.   And even despite this supposed prohibition, we see that Rambam and other rishonim were well versed and in fact experts in Aristotle and other works of philosophy, so I have doubts about the entire foundation of this "prohibition" but certainly it cannot be said to include the books of Macabees, IMO.

The Be'er Sheva asks that according to the Yerushalmi, how did the RAMBAM and numerous other great sages learn the works of Aristotle and Plato and other philosophers of the nations?

ANSWER: The Be'er Sheva answers that the Rambam maintained that not all opinions agree with the Yerushalmi.

The Mishnah in Avos (2:14) exhorts, "Know how to respond to an Apikorus." The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos there) explains that this Mishnah permits one to study the works of the non-Jewish Apikorsim in order to know how to refute their claims, as long as one does not allow their views to enter his heart. It seems that the Rambam understood that this Mishnah argues with the Yerushalmi.

Interesting.  According to the beer sheva, Rambam holds that the prohibition of sefarim chitzonim is not even halacha lemaaseh?   Learn something new every day I guess, huh.

[edu]

quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT

But, if I'm not mistaken, the Talmud Yerushalmi is silent about oil miracles, and I know megillath taanith did not mention an oil miracle.  Only in the scholia it is mentioned (written much later, added in Hebrew - megillath taanith itself was written in aramaic), and scholars actually are in debate over whether the original scholia added in actually contained mention of the oil or whether that was added in even later than the rest of the scholia.   So this is not just a saduccee thing to be silent about an oil miracle.

It is specifically the Talmud Bavli which focuses intently on the oil miracle and it does so for rational and good reasons.   But I also understand why this was not focused on or not even mentioned in other sources.

The Mishna which obviously predates Talmud Yerushalmi talks openly in tractate Baba Kama of the mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles/lights and the impact that this mitzva has on the laws of damages if flax is burned.
Masechet Sofrim also talks about, the need to light Chanuka candles.
The Talmud Bavli states the various customs of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai regarding Mehadrin min Hamehadrin, thus showing that mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles goes way back.
It is logical that lighting candles recalls some miracle, otherwise they would have chose to find some other way to commerate the miracles that we recall in the Al Hanissim prayer.
As far as what exactly was the miracle of the oil, you can choose from the more than 100 answers given to the question of the Beit Yosef, regarding why should we celebrate Chanuka for 8 days if there was enough oil for the first day. Rav Shalom Rosner says that there is a new book that ups the explanations to around 500

[edu]

If the author of the book of Maccabees was a Saduccee, I already provided a reason he might want to be silent about the oil miracle, so as not to strengthen Rabbinic Judaism, which demands that Jews light candles for Chanuka.
But even if he wasn't, Rabbi David Berger provides such speculation, why the author might ignore the story.
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/11/human-initiative-and-divine-providence.html

I will also add that in any movement calling for Rebellion against foreign rule, one problem always faced is that some people will try to avoid the call to join the rebellion with the claim, that G-d is going to do miracles for us, so why get involved in dangerous activities.
The goal of the rebel leader is to try to deemphasize the role of miracles in order to get people to join his cause.
Rabbi David Samson once explained that this is also why Bar Kochba is quoted as saying to G-d, don't aid us and don't be against us. He was trying to convince the people that they could beat the Romans without miracles.
The author of the first book of Maccabees, might have also being trying to convince his readers that we can win without miracles and therefore chose not to discuss the story.
Another point to Kahane-Was-Right BT
you also contended that you didn't find any halachic problems with the book of Macabees. As I said before, I am afraid to read the book, (since Rabbi Akiva possibly says one can lose his Olam Haba for this) but at least I have heard that the book is wrong about the halachas regarding warfare. If someone can add on to this point to verify or contradict this claim, I would be happy to hear about it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT The Mishna which obviously predates Talmud Yerushalmi talks openly in tractate Baba Kama of the mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles/lights and the impact that this mitzva has on the laws of damages if flax is burned.
Masechet Sofrim also talks about, the need to light Chanuka candles.
The Talmud Bavli states the various customs of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai regarding Mehadrin min Hamehadrin, thus showing that mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles goes way back.
It is logical that lighting candles recalls some miracle, otherwise they would have chose to find some other way to commerate the miracles that we recall in the Al Hanissim prayer.
As far as what exactly was the miracle of the oil, you can choose from the more than 100 answers given to the question of the Beit Yosef, regarding why should we celebrate Chanuka for 8 days if there was enough oil for the first day. Rav Shalom Rosner says that there is a new book that ups the explanations to around 500

Please read carefully, I said miracle of oil.   A mitzvah of lighting chanuka candles and a miracle of oil are two different things.   No one here ever disputed that there is a mitzvah to light candles.  (unless sephirath ben baruch did, but I don't remember.  Certainly I DID NOT!)

It is not "logical" that lighting a menorah is for a miracle.  You are convinced that that is what it is for, so you are saying that is what it's for.   There are multiple opinions about why we light, and even for those who say it's for a miracle of oil, there are different opinions about what the miracle itself was.   I'm not disputing it or saying it didn't happen, but I am saying that it is omitted from ancient sources related to the land of Israel while the galut sources of later date (ie talmud bavli) stress this above all else.   It makes sense to me that that is the galut approach and was very necessary and proper.

I can just as easily say, "It is logical" that lighting candles recalls the first ceremonial act that maccaabees did upon re-entering the bet hamikdash and purifying it.  They put together a makeshift menorah out of scrap metal because halacha permits that when gold is not available (while they were most uncertain about what to do with the defiled altar and therefore they took no action and instead waited for a resolution of that matter first before taking the risk of doing anything improper.   You see, they were so religious they even exhibited some of the rabbinic paralysis that we see today.  Very frum indeed! - I say that in jest of course because that was probably the proper course of action they took.)

And just as a very clear evidence of what I'm claiming, read the source from Pesikta rabbathi which gives an explanation of why we light the menorah which has nothing to do with any miracle of oil.   It is a fact that Talmud Yerushalmi and other earlier sources do  NOT mention the oil miracle.   So quoting Hillel and Shammai really does not address this issue.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I will also add that in any movement calling for Rebellion against foreign rule, one problem always faced is that some people will try to avoid the call to join the rebellion with the claim, that G-d is going to do miracles for us, so why get involved in dangerous activities.
The goal of the rebel leader is to try to deemphasize the role of miracles in order to get people to join his cause.

The writing of the book of Macabbees 1 was already decades after the events took place.   There was no longer any "cause" to join.  It's a historical work.   Not an uncle sam poster (or a polemic!)

The author of the first book of Maccabees, might have also being trying to convince his readers that we can win without miracles and therefore chose not to discuss the story.

Since you have not read the book, it is pointless for you to speculate about what the author did in the text.   The text makes it clear that the hashmonaim thanked God for their miraculous military victories and in a public fashion beseeched God's help and thanked.  The author is a pretty frum guy from what the reader can gather.

Another point to Kahane-Was-Right BT
you also contended that you didn't find any halachic problems with the book of Macabees. As I said before, I am afraid to read the book, (since Rabbi Akiva possibly says one can lose his Olam Haba for this)

But I do not see how it can be included in "sefarim chitzonim" or sifrei minim.   How can it be labelled as that?  I don't see it.  And considering I've read Greek philosophy in college and even due to some points raised by Rambam himself in his own works, I find that whole matter to be debatable.  But even if you were so strict on that issue, how did you become so certain that book of macabees is among the sefarim chitzonim?  Did you know that the artscroll did a book on hanukah and they include scholarship from the books of macabees?   That means they read that material.   Those rabbis were obviously not concerned that there was a risk of losing olam haba by reading the books of macabees.

but at least I have heard that the book is wrong about the halachas regarding warfare. If someone can add on to this point to verify or contradict this claim, I would be happy to hear about it.

In your opinion, is it not possible that those laws evolved? It doesn't give "halachas of warfare" in the book.  It explains what actions were taken and why.  It demonstrates that there were different opinions on this matter and the halacha evolved over time IMO.   From what I remember,  Rav Goren had a keen insight on this particular matter but I forget now what he said and need to look it up again.    Still, would that be a reason not to read it because the hashmonaim did something that differs from Talmudic law?    I never said the book is infallible or anything like that, but it is very much worth reading.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Oh and when the Lubavitcher rebbe studied philosophy in University, and the probably thousands of books he read in his life (he was an avid reader and used to literally get shipments of books dropped off at his headquarters and he would read through them rapidly) he was not worried about losing his olam haba.  Howcome?

What about Rav Soloveitchik in University of Berlin and all of his expertise in philosophy and then application toward Jewish philosophy?   Also no concern with losing olam haba.    It is clear to me that there are many rabbis who did not interpret this prohibition the way some of our members are interpreting it here (along with the "ask the rabbi" site that was quoted).

[muman613]

If anyone wants to read it online there is a version here.... But as the note indicates it was transmitted by Christian sources and thus may contain factual errors..

http://www.tsel.org/torah/macab/1MA0.HTM

"The First Book of the Maccabees covers the period of forty years from the accession of Antiochus (175 B.C.) to the death of Shimon the Maccabee (135 B.C.). Its contents are as follows: Ch. i. 1-9 is a brief historical introduction; i. 10-ii. 70 treats of the rise of the Maccabean revolt; iii. 1-ix. 22 is devoted to the Maccabean struggle under Yehuda; ix. 23-xii. 53, to the fortunes of Israel under Yonatan; xiii. 1-xvi. 24, to the administration of Shimon. The events are followed with intense interest and sympathy. At times the enthusiasm of the writer rises to a high pitch and breaks out into poetry of a genuine Semitic character (comp. iii. 3-9). The style is simple, terse, restrained, and objective, modeled throughout on that of the historical books of the Tanach. The fact that just proportions are observed in treating the different parts of the narrative proves the author to have been a writer of considerable skill. He dates all events in terms of the Seleucid era.

It is clear from the Semitic idioms which occur throughout the work that it was composed in a Semitic language (see, for example, ii. 40, iv. 2), and certain passages indicate with great clearness that the original language was Hebrew (see ii. 39, iii. 19). To this fact Origen and Jerome also bear testimony, though it is possible that the version or paraphrase known to them was Aramaic.

The Greek version seems to be a literal one, often preserving the Semitic, and sometimes even the Hebrew, idiom; but it is clear, and probably it is, on the whole, a satisfactory translation. It is transmitted in three uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint—the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Venetus—as well as in several cursives."

IMPORTANT NOTE: since the only text we have today for this book was translated and transmitted by Christian sources, the present text may well contain intentional errors.

Indeed it appears many scholars and sages have read this text. I do believe one should be careful due to errors of translation because it was translated several times {it appears}.

See also:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/greek_persecution/
http://e.yeshiva.org.il/ask/default.aspx?id=1317

[edu]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT

It is not "logical" that lighting a menorah is for a miracle.  You are convinced that that is what it is for, so you are saying that is what it's for.   There are multiple opinions about why we light, and even for those who say it's for a miracle of oil, there are different opinions about what the miracle itself was.   I'm not disputing it or saying it didn't happen, but I am saying that it is omitted from ancient sources related to the land of Israel while the galut sources of later date (ie talmud bavli) stress this above all else.   It makes sense to me that that is the galut approach and was very necessary and proper.

It is a little bit unfair on your insistence of pre-Talmud sources, because as you are fully aware of, until the days of Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, all matters of the oral Torah, with a few exceptions were purposely not written down.
Oil miracles, also already appear in the Tanakh, where G-d helps the prophet Elisha to perform a miracle where one vessel of oil filled up many vessels of oil, in order to pay off the debts of a widow, who was about to lose all to her creditors. The Talmud in tractate Yoma, reports another oil miracle, in the days of the Cohen Gadol Shimon ben Shetach, that the oil in the western branch of the menora did not extinguish and the light kept on burning.
Oil miracles are not the sudden invention of the exile.
You ask, why then the stress on the oil miracle in the Talmud Bavli? Because the Talmud Bavli states, that the Rabbis wished to abolish all the holidays celebrating victories during the second Temple era, once the second Temple was destroyed. And indeed most of those holidays were abolished.
However, Chanuka and Purim were not abolished because there were mitzvas that were associated with those holidays and people would interpret abolition of those mitzvas as if Torah mitzvas were being abolished. Thus candlelighting, which was a minor element of the Chanuka celebration during the second Temple times, Saved Chanuka from being abolished.
For a person living in the land of Israel, the element of being saved from the Greeks overshadowed other minor miracles, just as our salvation in the six-day war overshadows, the individual miracles that took place during the war.
But for someone who has lost all the elements of the national salvation, it is more appropriate for him to at least focus on the miracles of Chanuka, which have relevance even during the bad times of the exile.

[edu]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT

The writing of the book of Macabbees 1 was already decades after the events took place.   There was no longer any "cause" to join.  It's a historical work.   Not an uncle sam poster (or a polemic!)

Take the example from modern times. When Zionists pleaded with certain elements of the Charedi community to join in their efforts against, the British and the Arabs, they were answered by some (but not all Charedis) that we need miracles to improve our situation and they were opposed to fighting.
Now even decades after the zionists (including religious zionists) were indeed successful, they still have a negative feeling towards those Charedis that years earlier, in their viewpoint did not contribute a fair share to the war effort.
It is only natural that at least some followers of the original Macabbees would have such feelings also to the "miracle lovers" of their days.

[edu]

Kahane-Was-Right BT feels that books that were intentionally not included by the Sages in the Tanakh are on the same level as gentile philosophy books.
Leaving aside the issue to what extent one can or can not learn from gentile philosophy books, my contention is that in the eyes of the Sages, the "apocrypha" are even worse than gentile philosophy books, because one is more likely to make the mistake and learn from them (for example, deduce incorrect halachic opinions about how to conduct warfare).
Just like in politics, in some respects the phoney Israeli right has damaged the country more than the blatant leftists, so too, the Sages might have felt that the bad influence of the apocrypha was even worse than Gentile Philosophy Books

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BTIt is a little bit unfair on your insistence of pre-Talmud sources,

I'm not insisting anything.  These preTalmudic (you mean pre sealing of the Talmud) sources exist whether I look at them or not.  Fact is, they do not mention an oil miracle, and that is true whether we like it or not.  I am certainly not the first Jew to find that fact interesting or noteworthy.  People much greater than me have pointed this out.

because as you are fully aware of, until the days of Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, all matters of the oral Torah, with a few exceptions were purposely not written down.  

I'm not sure how this is relevant.  I am pointing out written sources, and these are sources which were preserved and we have them and routinely study them.  And they don't mention the miracle of oil.  To me, that is very interesting.

And just btw, it is my opinion that even after rebbe yehuda hanasi the sources remained in oral form (except for personal note taking) and were still transmitted as such.  What rebbe did was compile the mishnayot and formalize their transmission into a system (still done orally) and initiated the process of gemara (darshaning/interpreting and explaining the reasons for the mishnayot) which came to replace the old system of darshaning pesukim from the Torah to derive laws (the formal system up this point which was now officially ended).  See Rabbi Meir Triebitz in his reshimu journal articles and shiurim on development of the Talmud for more on this, but I. Find his observations compelling.

Oil miracles, also already appear in the Tanakh, where G-d helps the prophet Elisha...

What the heck?  I have nothing against the genre of "oil miracles" nor do I suggest that a miracle regarding oil could never happen.  The events with Elisha have nothing to do with hanukka, but you know that.
You bring up another Talmudic oil miracle with Shimon ben Shatach which I accidentally erased while I was trying to quote you, but in any case I struggle to understand how that relates to hanuka.  Do I have a bias against oil miracles?  Not so, my friend.  I was referring to the oil miracle in the story of hannuka.  THAT is the one not mentioned in the ancient sources of Eretz Yisrael.

 

You ask, why then the stress on the oil miracle in the Talmud Bavli?

Actually I didn't really ask that.  I indicated that I think there are good reasons why the Bavli focuses on the oil miracle in hanukka, but the Yerushalmi does not (for its own reasons).

Because the Talmud Bavli states, that the Rabbis wished to abolish all the holidays celebrating victories during the second Temple era, once the second Temple was destroyed. And indeed most of those holidays were abolished.
However, Chanuka and Purim were not abolished because there were mitzvas that were associated with those holidays and people would interpret abolition of those mitzvas as if Torah mitzvas were being abolished. Thus candlelighting, which was a minor element of the Chanuka celebration during the second Temple times, Saved Chanuka from being abolished.

Again with the candlelighting.  I never said anything against lighting candles.  Please do not confuse my comments with someone else in this thread (sefirath)!
And you say here that candle lighting was a minor element of the celebration - what is your proof for that?  How do you define what was minor and what was major?   And how do you ignore that there were also other mitzvot involved in this holiday such as saying hallel every day.

For a person living in the land of Israel, the element of being saved from the Greeks overshadowed other minor miracles, just as our salvation in the six-day war overshadows, the individual miracles that took place during the war.  

precisely.

But for someone who has lost all the elements of the national salvation, it is more appropriate for him to at least focus on the miracles of Chanuka, which have relevance even during the bad times of the exile.

This is one of the reasons I suggest (Rav Bar Hayim teaches this in fact and I agree with him) the Bavli brings up the miracle of oil and claims its the most important or only important aspect of hanukka, while the sources of eretz yisrael ignore it completely.  So you agree with me now?  That was easy.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It is only natural that at least some followers of the original Macabbees would have such feelings also to the "miracle lovers" of their days.

Miracle lovers?  This is really bizarre terminology and you're making it sound like some kind of conspiracy theory.  There is not one single thing in the first book of macabees that suggests the author is against miracles or the possibility that they happen.  On the contrary, in fact.   Perhaps since you have not read the book you should just stop speculating about it because there is no way for me to realistically engage in conversation when you are just sort of shooting at the hip but the book is available, you can just read it, many people have and do not describe it the way you do and I got no such impressions from it myself.

I mean, don't you think its a little absurd as a line of reasoning?  'Havent read the book but I bet the author had agenda xyz and the reason his book doesn't mention a certain thing is because he was trying to hide such and such.' How can you make such speculations without having read the work?  You can at very least take my word for it when I tell you its not a polemic work.  If you really refuse to believe me then what can I tell you, go read it for yourself.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane-Was-Right BT feels that books that were intentionally not included by the Sages in the Tanakh are on the same level as gentile philosophy books. 

. Actually I don't think I said anything like this.  You seem to be ascribing things to me which I did not say, and I'm not sure why.  I'm also not sure what you find so horrible about this first book of maccabees (which you haven't even read).  Did someone teach you it was evil or something.  This whole business strikes me as very odd.

Leaving aside the issue to what extent one can or can not learn from gentile philosophy books, my contention is that in the eyes of the Sages, the "apocrypha" are even worse than gentile philosophy books, because one is more likely to make the mistake and learn from them (for example, deduce incorrect halachic opinions about how to conduct warfare). 

I am confused as to what you are saying.  We are not living in chazals times.  You and myself are followers of chazal and the Jewish religion.  As such we both know the Talmud is the source of Jewish law.  And here we are debating the merit of reading the book of macabees thousands of years later.  Why would either of us ever think that something the macabees did is law and talmud is not to be consulted?  We both already know that is not true.  So seeing something in the book that they might've done differently from us is not going to make me or you write up a "macabee talmud" because of a thing or two written in a historical account.  What you bring up certainly may have factored into chazal's decision, but chazal would be pleased that we here in the 21st century could not possibly make such a mistake.

Just like in politics, in some respects the phoney Israeli right has damaged the country more than the blatant leftists, so too, the Sages might have felt that the bad influence of the apocrypha was even worse than Gentile Philosophy Books

Strawman.

You haven't explained what about the book of macabees is so threatening to you.  But that's probably because you have not read it so all you can do is speculate about it.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

My only comment is that there is more to Judaism than just what is the law. There is much spirituality which Judaism brings and sometimes ideas can influence how we see the world. It is not a matter of Halacha, in my opinion, it is the integrity of the thoughts to the core Jewish faith.

I am not arguing about Maccabees here. Your discussion with edu has been mostly positive but I do sense your not attempting to understand what he is saying and trying to prove that you are right. Sometimes we can engage in discussion without making the issue about winning. In the end we all become better for involvement in the discussion.

[edu]

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.
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). 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.

[muman613]

Ive lost track of what is being argued here.

The original post attacked the Jewish faith for observing Chanukah by lighting candles as in indication it was somehow linked to the winter solstice, which is obviously not correct as someone pointed out that the Jewish calendar is fixed to a lunar system and not linked to a solar cycle.

But then we got sidetracked when I brought up that the Book of Maccabees was not a part of the Tanakh according to the Jewish sages. As a part of the Apocrypha I related that many Rabbis eschew reading the apocryhal books and I brought several sources which support this although KWRBT doesn't agree that The Book of Maccabbes (TBoM) should be considered a Sefer Minim or Sefer Chiltzonim as the Talmud relates that reading these books cause a Jew to lose his Olam Haba(World to Come). I am still hesitant to read  TBoM as it seems to be used by people who want to attack Judaism, and as I pointed out the Christians find some message which supports their religion in it {although this is only a supposition on my part}. I agree with KWRBT that reading it may not be prohibited and as a result, as RAMBAM points out that we are supposed to know how to answer a heretic, there are times we must read all the 'scriptures' which people are reading.

But I am lost as to this argument about the Talmud and the oil miracle. I don't quite understand what is being argued... It seems like an argument just for the sake of an argument... Is this L'Shem Shamayim?

[edu]

Muman613 stated

But I am lost as to this argument about the Talmud and the oil miracle. I don't quite understand what is being argued... It seems like an argument just for the sake of an argument... Is this L'Shem Shamayim?

My point in talking about the oil miracle, is because I was left with the impression, from the writings of
Kahane-Was-Right BT that he was hinting at, that maybe the Babylonian Talmud, was lying for the sake of advancing the agenda of the Jews in exile about the oil miracle. It was that accusation that I was trying to counter.
If that was not Kahane-Was-Right BT intention, then the argument between us is over and we can move on to other issues.
If I was not interpreting Kahane-Was-Right BT correctly please clear this up for me.

[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.