Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
The Truth of Channukah
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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!)
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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)
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---"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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote ---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!)
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version