Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
The Truth of Channukah
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 11, 2012, 12:36:32 AM ---http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/essays/ravschwab.html
--- Quote ---
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?
.
.
.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 11, 2012, 12:55:21 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
None of this describes the book of macabees. This is what I was getting at.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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: edu on January 11, 2012, 04:43:54 AM ---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
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version