Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
The Truth of Channukah
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: edu on January 12, 2012, 02:23:03 AM ---Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BTIt is a little bit unfair on your insistence of pre-Talmud sources,
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---Oil miracles, also already appear in the Tanakh, where G-d helps the prophet Elisha...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---You ask, why then the stress on the oil miracle in the Talmud Bavli?
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
precisely.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: edu on January 12, 2012, 02:33:07 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: edu on January 12, 2012, 02:42:20 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
. 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.
--- Quote ---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).
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version