JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Sephirath on January 07, 2012, 11:46:18 PM
-
https://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=316173931739830
The origins of the popularly accepted sudo-holiday (Holy Day) called Channukah starts in the year 3595. It all begins with the Selelucid Greek empire hellenization of the Holy Land. Antiochus IV had established a set of decrees to destroy Torah and integrate the Jews into his empire and the larger world. The laws mandated every household to set up a Sun shrine at the entrance of each home. In all the towns there was an epicenter of spiritual sedition established throw pagan alters on top of all the high hills. Right up to the Beit HaMikdash being desecrated with swine blood in tribute to false gods. Some of Israel forsook the G-d of Abraham in replace for integrating within the state. Though most preferred martyrdom over consuming the pig sacrifices. Now there was in the hills of Samaria a place called Modi'in, here lived a man named Matityahu the Hasmoneans. As the whole town was gathered in the city square for idol worship Matthias and his sons ascended the podium and turned on the Seleucid authorities, slaughtering them in front of all the village. They quickly became outlaws and was forced to flee to the mountains. Many joined in rake to resist against the persecutions. The first book of Maccabees describes these evil rulings.
"(44) And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, (45) to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and feasts, (46) to defile the sanctuary and the priests, (47) to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, (48) and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, (49) so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances. (50) And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die." (1 Maccabees 1:44-50)
after a bloody three year revolution war the armies of Matthias and his son Y'hudhah HaMakabi came to Jerusalem and found the Temple in ruins. The story goes that on entering they found the Menorah and a single vial of oil that remained sealed. This oil container allegedly lasted for eight days. The Rabbis elaborate that the 8-branched Channukah candelabrum represents the eight days of light. Yet interesting to note the authentic Menorah in the Holy Temple consist of only 6 branches as described in Shemot - 25:37.
To commemorating the mystical oil, the Rabbis decreed a blessing while lighting the candles, "Blessed art thou Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to light Channukah candles". This addition to the mitzvah's is in direct violation of the Torah which demands of us, "You shall not add to the law which I command you, not shall you diminish from it" (Davarim - 4:2). Similarly, we read "All that I command you, you shall diligently do; you shall not add to it nor diminish from it" (Davarim - 13:1). again "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar". (Mishlei - 30:6) By creating decrees and proclaiming them to be the inherent word of G-d these Rabbis effectively made themselves false-prophets. Also altering the Holy Menorah from its divine image is a blatant corruption. In fact the original freedom fighters of Zion 2200 years ago had nothing to do with these perverse acts, all being they where not innocent themselves, As we will see.
Let consider this story of the one oil vile lasting eight day. Is there any historical evidence to collaborate the authenticity of this narrative? Our main sources are the 1-2 Maccabees witch are actually parallel accounts by two different authors. Here are the verses depicting the arrival of the Hasmoneans on Mount Moriah.
"(36)When the Maccabees first liberated Mt. Zion, they were horrified to find it desecrated: "(37) ...all the army assembled and they went up to Mount Zion. (38) And they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. (39) Then they rent their clothes, and mourned with great lamentation, and sprinkled themselves with ashes." (1 Maccabees 4:36-39)
"(48) They also rebuilt the sanctuary and the interior of the temple, and consecrated the courts. (49) They made new holy vessels, and brought the lamp stand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. (50) Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lamp stand, and these gave light in the temple. (51) They placed the bread on the table and hung up the curtains. Thus they finished all the work they had undertaken." (1 Maccabees 4:48-51)
"(52) Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year, (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)
After reviewing both historical chronologies depicting the rebellion we make an astonishing discovery. Not once was any oil miracle mentioned in the text. What does that mean? The silence speaks measures more then any excuse. Moreover we find in these records the authentic origins to this widespread day. Upon the 25th of Kislev in the third anniversary of the Greeks violating the Beit Hamikdash, the Jews re-dedicated the alter. Thus the name Channukah, or chanukat ha-mizbeach חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ meaning "dedication of the altar"!
"(58) There was very great gladness among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was removed. (59) Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with gladness and joy for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev." (1 Maccabees 4:58-59)
"(5) It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Kislev. (6) And they celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of the feast of booths, remembering how not long before, during the feast of booths, they had been wandering in the mountains and caves like wild animals. (7) Therefore bearing ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place. (8 ) They decreed by public ordinance and vote that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year." (2 Maccabees 10:5-8)
Reviewing these text we find a lack of references to miracle oil yet, in the contrary the consideration is to the dedication of the altar. Imagine how Y'hudhah HaMakabi attributed this day. From the verses above we are enlightened that he and his military brigade began by gathering beautiful palms and branches with bands of ivy, all in the manner of the Feast of Booths. What was occurring in those distressed days was none other then a combination of the dedication of the alter a second Sukkot celebration. Thus it was so much identified as such that we read "the feast of booths in the month of Chislev"!2 (Maccabees 1:9) Along with the quote we must rely upon our second testimony, "Since on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev we shall celebrate the purification of the temple, we thought it necessary to notify you, in order that you also may celebrate the feast of booths". (2 Maccabees 1:18) Channukah was essentially a Sukkot sheni, deriving from ideal of a missed Pesach in the Torah.
What gave the Hasmonean dynasty and the Israeli people the right to establish a second Sukkot? As priory noted in 2 Maccabees 10:8 the consecration was ordained by democracy. Yet the Word of Hashem never proclaimed these decrees to anoint another Holy Day. Even if the Lord allowed practicing the Feast of Tabernacles late, the Maccabees were forty days delayed from the fifteenth of the eighth month! Considering that the celebration would only occur once instead of annually. However Jeroboam once tried this move exactly a month after Sukkot, "(32) And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month." (1Kings 12:32-33). This act was one of his high sins, "(30) for the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and wherewith he made Israel to sin; because of his provocation wherewith he provoked the LORD, the G-d of Israel." (1Kings 15:30; also 1Kings 16:31).
So why does the celebration consist of eight days? Well let us hear from their own mouths "(6) And they celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing, in the manner of the feast of booths, remembering how not long before, during the feast of booths, they had been wandering in the mountains and caves like wild animals." (2 Maccabees 10:6) So Sukkot last for seven day yet, the day after is called "Eighth of Assembly" or Shemini Atseret שְׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת. Shown here, "(36) Seven days ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto Hashem; on the eighth day shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall bring an offering made by fire unto Hashem; it is a day of solemn assembly; ye shall do no manner of servile work." (VaYikra 23:36 also in BaMidbar 29:35)
It is quite questionable that as all this was occurring the Greco-Roman World had an eight day tradition in the same season. It seems this Saturnalia was a heavy influence in connection to Channukah. The ideal behind the Winter Solstice ceremony to the surrounding nations went as such. As the days begin to become shortened the pagan worshipers would assume that the Sun was 'dying' an so to give energy up they would light lamps and, candles. After the Solstice the days would gradually lengthen in time thus confirming to your ancient heathen that his tidings where accepted. Now concern yourself to this thought, both remembrances where eight days long and both trademarks were to light candles. Is this all coincidental? Never. Moreover, these facts add to the understanding of why Y'hudhah HaMakabi chose to fabricate an anniversary. In alternative of any other missed Holy Day during the three year revolution why was Sukkot given special consideration? Well the Feast of Booths was an eight day celebration that had a relative relation date wise to Saturnalia.
Thought it may be difficult imagining any Hellenization of the Hasmonean's there must be evidence to ponder. In the Talmud is a brayta from around the year of 3800 it reads- "When Adam saw the day getting gradually shorter, he said, ‘Woe is me, perhaps because I have sinned, the world around me is being darkened and returning to its state of chaos and confusion; this then is the kind of death to which I have been sentenced from Heaven!’ So he began keeping an eight days’ fast. But as he observed the Winter Solstice and noted the day getting increasingly longer, he said, ‘This is the world's course’, and he set forth to keep an eight days’ festivity" (avodah zarah 8a) i.e. Saturnalia along with Kalenda. Was the verse above another attempt to justify assimilation? Yes, presented is a devised tail to vindication some rabbi nearly 4000 years after the pretend incident. In the same rite, by comparison all the Mishnah ties to Channukah are void and invalid.
Is it possible Israel could have adopted elements of Sun worship by influence of the nations? Its more then possible, its reality. Just as in the days of old when our people lusted after false gods made of wood and stone. In these times of past the precious new born were consumed upon flames, men and women alike would sacrifice lives to lies! The Prophets spoke with fierce indignation against all these corruptions. "(3) The ox knoweth his owner, and the donkey his master's crib; but Israel doth not know (me), My people doth not consider." (Yisheyah - 1:3) Yet the seductions of the goyim's acceptance prevailed in the will of Israel. Even today during this Winter season most family's have adopted a custom of gift giving. The jealously of our children pressured their parents into adapting to the current culture and Christmas. This act was never heard of one hundred and fifty years ago! But who care right? Well, Your grandparents would be bathing in their own tears. In ancient Rome during the Winter Solstice the ruling class forced their Jewish citizen to run naked throw the cities while being pelted with stones and rotten fruit. Thousands of Jews throwout the centuries where rapped, beaten and, murdered. On top of all this the 'crown' forced the Jewish community to give gifts to the state on the pain of death. This behavior evolved into gift giving generally, then in time became linked to Santa Clause.
Israel must make teshuvah and return to Jehovah. The mighty G-d who saved us from Mitzrime's slavery and, fought for us in the days of redeeming Zion with Yehoshua, the one and only who strengthened Y'hudhah HaMakabi and his poorly equipped band of 3000 to overcome Antiochus IV with 60,000 infantrymen and 5000 cavalry. The Almighty G-d who brought the Sons of Jacob back from an eighteen hundred and seventy seven year galut. "(14) Oh that My people would hearken unto Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! (15) I would soon subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their adversaries.(16) The haters of Hashem should dwindle away before Him; and their punishment should endure for ever." (Tehilim 81:14-16) This is the time for redemption, may you be amongst the triumphant.
-
This is hogwash.... Another attempt to discredit Jewish belief... The Talmud answers what Chanukah is... The 'Book Of Maccabees' is Apocrypha and not a part of Jewish scripture..
By the way, we also say a blessing every Shabbat 'Who commanded us to light Shabbat Candles' and yet that is not a Biblical commandment. So what? The Talmud explains why the Rabbis could institute such prayers.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/767153/jewish/Where-does-the-Torah-say-to-light-Shabbat-candles.htm
-
Also, didn't either Matityahu or Judah Maccabee kill a self hating Jew who decided to make a public pagan sacrifice?
-
See this article about how the Rabbis can institute commands via the Oral Law...
http://ravkooktorah.org/HAAZINU59.htm
Ha'azinu: The Source of Rabbinical Authority
Numerous rabbinical decrees were designed to protect Torah laws. For example, the Sages extended the Torah's prohibition of eating milk and meat together to include fowl, since it confused people who did not distinguish between fowl and 'real' meat.
There are, however, a few cases in which the Sages went even further, and created totally new mitzvot. The rabbinical mitzvot of lighting Sabbath candles, reading the Purim megilah, and lighting Chanuka lights, have no direct basis in Torah law. They are not extensions or protective measures. They are brand-new mitzvot, unrelated to any Torah law. By what right could the Sages create them?
Even more audacious, the rabbis decreed that over these rabbinical commandments we make the blessing, "Blessed are You ... Who has commanded us to ..." When did God command us to light Sabbath candles and read the megilah?
The Talmud (Shabbat 23) gives two sources in the Torah itself for the rabbinical authority to establish new mitzvot:
* "Do not stray to the right or left from the word that (the high court) will declare to you." (Deut. 17:10)
* "Ask your father and he will tell you; question your elders, and they will respond." (Deut. 32:7)
Why two sources?
Rav Kook explained that God-given commandments naturally lead towards the goal of absolute good. This is understandable, as God knows the future and is aware of all implications of any decree. A human-made law, on the other hand, even those designed by the best and the brightest, will never be able to achieve the same exact effect as a Divine decree.
Of course, the Talmudic Sages were blessed with divine inspiration ("ruach hakodesh"), in addition to the logic and reasoning that are an integral aspect of the Oral Law. They used these gifts in order to attain results similar to God-given mitzvot, to further the cause of the people's spiritual and material perfection.
The Sages examined two aspects when creating a new law:
* Current religious and physical needs;
* Maintaining cultural and spiritual ties to the people's sublime heritage.
It is not sufficient to consider only current benefits. If the people becomes estranged from its spiritual foundation, it has become a different nation. Its unity and continuity are no longer assured.
Regarding the examination of current and future needs, the Torah writes, "Do not stray". This verse refers to the high court, which passes legislation and decrees relevant to the present situation.
Regarding the need for rabbinical decrees to maintain ties with the spiritual past, the Torah says, "Ask your father ... question your elders". For your past was elevated and divine, and is the source of your success. "For His people is God's portion; Jacob is God's inheritance."
(adapted from Ein Eyah vol. III, p. 73)
-
You put man's word over G-d's!
"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)
-
You put mans word over G-d's!
"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)
You must be a Karaite for you do not understand that the Oral law was given alongside the Written law...
There are many things you cannot explain without the Oral law. Are you prepared to answer these questions, obvious commandments from the Torah for which the Torah (written) does not explain? Are you on the level of the Sages and the Rabbis who received the Mesorah which reaches back to Sinai?
I dont think so...
So if you want to talk about who has the ultimate decision of Halacha, whether it is G-d or Man... Hashem has handed the decision of Halacha over to man.
-
Here is a simple question for one who doesn't believe in the Oral law...
How come the Torah says clearly not to make graven images, and yet the Holy of Holies itself contains gold images of the Churibim?
Is this a violation of the Torah, a mistake, or what?
-
Another good question for those who do not believe Oral Law...
What does the command 'Observe the Sabbath' really mean? What constitutes 'work'/melacha?
-
There is also no command to observe Purim and yet we read Megillah Ester every year during this time... Is this too an addition to the Torah?
-
Hashem has handed the decision of Halacha over to man.
G-d does not leave the matters of morality in the hands of man. You say “Are you greater than our Rabbis?”
The question is “Are your Rabbis greater than Hashem?” If not, why contradict him!?
-
G-d does not leave the matters of morality in the hands of man. You say “Are you greater than our Rabbis?”
The question is “Are your Rabbis greater than Hashem?” If not, why contradict him?
I will continue this discussion tomorrow...
-
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.
-
To commemorating the mystical oil, the Rabbis decreed a blessing while lighting the candles, "Blessed art thou Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to light Channukah candles". This addition to the mitzvah's is in direct violation of the Torah which demands of us, "You shall not add to the law which I command you, not shall you diminish from it" (Davarim - 4:2).
LOL, no it isn't. And neither is the blessing over the reciting of the Megillah.
You are spouting pure ignorance here. The "miracle of the oil" is certainly more stressed by the Talmud Bavli because of the danger of celebrating a revolution against the gentiles while living as subjects in galut to a gentile rulership, and also because Bavli Jews had no connection or awareness of military affairs or endeavors like those undertaken by the maccabees. And certainly this miracle may have evolved over time (was the miracle that the leftover oil was pure with the kohen gadol's seal? Was the miracle that the oil lasted longer than expected? But oil lasting longer than expected was a miracle that happened every day in the bet hamikdash). The true miracle was the guerilla victory over the illustrious and superior-trained, superior-armed seluecid greek army, by a bunch of peasants with faith in G-d and strict devotion to the guerilla warfare principles of their military commanders the Hashmonaim. But nonetheless, what you put here is mostly nonsense and weird speculation.
-
You put man's word over G-d's!
"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)
So you're going to stop celebrating Purim then?
Do you also not say Hallel? Afterall, where does the Torah specifically say do x y z. etc. You will have to throw out the entire religion if you think the scholars of Judaism (the prophets and then the chachamim who were their students and followers) have no say in anything we do.
-
G-d does not leave the matters of morality in the hands of man. You say “Are you greater than our Rabbis?”
The question is “Are your Rabbis greater than Hashem?” If not, why contradict him!?
I don't see that muman contradicted God anywhere here. The rabbis were given power and authority by God's Torah to adjudicate on matters of Jewish law. Read Devarim.
-
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.
The first book of Maccabees is likely reliable historically. It is a first hand account written only a short period after the events. It seems the author is a partisan of the Hashmonaim and could even have been a soldier in the army himself when those wars were fought, telling his own story there, or the story of the maccabean fighers (from their perspective). Book of Maccabbees 2 is more of a secondary source, written later and written in the galuth, but it is also pretty reliable and gives some interesting details. Scholars suggest that Macc. 1 may have been written by a sadducee, and macc 2 written by a Pharisee, but in my humble opinion, this is largely baseless speculation because neither work is a polemic in any sense. And the scholars only say this because the first book glosses over all the controversy surrounding the high priest and the corrupt kohanim (usually the saducees were the ones in control of the temple service and were the corrupt ones getting positions through bribery, etc and sometimes not even real kohens), while Maccabees 2 details some of those events within the kahuna which led up to the revolt. IMO neither of that proves the allegiance of the author and in both cases, no real position is taken aside from reporting on facts deemed relevant by the author. So the scholars say the author of book one has "something to hide" but IMO he is simply giving the military and cultural/religious history and doesn't much care about the temple service controversies.
Books 3 and 4 written much later and are barely even worthy of a mention. Probably not even worth reading because almost completely unreliable historically except for whatever they happen to repeat from the other 2 texts..
-
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.
True.
-
True.
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...
-
quote by Kahane-Was-Right BT
The first book of Maccabees is likely reliable historically. It is a first hand account written only a short period after the events. It seems the author is a partisan of the Hashmonaim and could even have been a soldier in the army himself when those wars were fought, telling his own story there, or the story of the maccabean fighers (from their perspective). Book of Maccabbees 2 is more of a secondary source, written later and written in the galuth, but it is also pretty reliable and gives some interesting details. Scholars suggest that Macc. 1 may have been written by a sadducee, and macc 2 written by a Pharisee, but in my humble opinion, this is largely baseless speculation because neither work is a polemic in any sense.
If Maccabees 1 for example, was written by a Sadducee and I have no idea (having not even read the book, being somewhat afraid of the stringent view that there is a Talmudic prohibition to learn the book, although I have not thrown it out of my house when I was sent a free copy) then it is obvious he would want to keep silent about oil miracles, because the Sadduccees were against Rabbinic commandments and interpretations.
Today, for example, the leftists media doesn't always have to lie. Usually, their main weapon is to ignore facts they don't like and magnify facts that fit in with their agenda. The same could theoretically be said for a Sadduccee author, talking about Chanuka.
Furthermore, the Jewish legal system always relies on 2 or more valid witnesses, to establish facts, even for the sake of giving the death penalty or determining marital status. If the Sages tell us there was an oil miracle and instituted a ceremony to recall the oil miracle, this at the very least has the strength of two witnesses.
-
I will give you a modern example, where bias of the author determines which facts are reported, including miracle stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i489Z8J0Nsg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i489Z8J0Nsg)
Tamar Yonah provides a list of modern war miracles that took place for Israeli soldiers in our time.
The Leftist media wishing to promote their leftists traitors, such as, Yitzchak Rabin and their secular agenda, will try as much as they can to avoid these types of stories, because they "help" the religious.
Quote describing, the youtube interview:
G-d really loves His children, Israel. He shows it with the abundant miracles He has performed throughout the ages for His people. In this re-broadcast from 2006, Tamar interviews Commander (and Rabbi) Meir Hakak HaLevy as he shares true stories of miracles that took place on the battlefields where Israel has fought. Hear amazing stories of 'divine intervention' and spiritual experiences including angels appearing on the battlefield shielding our soldiers. This show is sure to send tingles down your spine!
-
quote by Kahane-Was-Right BTIf Maccabees 1 for example, was written by a Sadducee and I have no idea (having not even read the book, being somewhat afraid of the stringent view that there is a Talmudic prohibition to learn the book, although I have not thrown it out of my house when I was sent a free copy)
Talmudic prohibition to read maccabees I ? What?
I never heard of this being included in any kind of prohibition. What are you talking about?
then it is obvious he would want to keep silent about oil miracles, because the Sadduccees were against Rabbinic commandments and interpretations.
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.
Also take a look at Pesiqta Rabbathi (9th century work)- It not only does not mention the miracle, it gives a different reason altogether for why we light the hanuka lights - It says because the Hashmonaim defeated the Greeks (then quotes a verse from Zacharia), then they entered the Bet Hamikdash and found 8 poles of iron, so they put them together (into a makeshift menorah) and lit candles on them. Guess where we also find this account of what they did when they entered the Bet Hamikdash for the first time since conquering it from the greeks - The book of the maccabees, supposedly written by a "saducee?" Again, I see no polemic in the work, and his account of the events is not disputed by our rabbis anywhere. And he too writes of a makeshift menorah put together out of scrap metal as the first ceremonial act upon re-entry to the Bet Hamikdash.
Today, for example, the leftists media doesn't always have to lie. Usually, their main weapon is to ignore facts they don't like and magnify facts that fit in with their agenda. The same could theoretically be said for a Sadduccee author, talking about Chanuka.
Furthermore, the Jewish legal system always relies on 2 or more valid witnesses, to establish facts, even for the sake of giving the death penalty or determining marital status. If the Sages tell us there was an oil miracle and instituted a ceremony to recall the oil miracle, this at the very least has the strength of two witnesses.
Theoretically anyone could claim anything, but in my humble opinion, the scholars attributing book 1 to a sadducee and book 2 to a pharisee is guesswork based on speculation and has no bearing on the content of these works. It's very circumstantial evidence from what is inside them, but not from any actual bias demonstrated in the works. Therefore I find the point an irrelevant one since both books seem to be historically reliable for the most part and are not polemic in nature. And about witnesses, that seems to have nothing to do with this. When a chacham writes a halachic work, we don't require two witnesses to certify it's kosher. If it's written, and it's preserved, then we have it, and we can read the words. If not, then we can't. Similarly, lehavdil, for a historical work. Either it survives or it doesn't. You can consider the source, but there is no stamp or seal of approval placed on texts.
As to your claim that it is forbidden to read them, I can't understand how that could be possible. From what I understand, the Aruch Hashulchan uses an explanation right out of book 2 for why there are 8 days in the festival and how it is based on the holiday of Sukkot. (This is straight out of Maccabees II). And doesn't the Rambam in his description of hanuka in Mishne Torah utililze some material from Maccabees I as well? I forget now exactly how he describes it and would have to look it up again to confirm this.
-
KWRBT,
The term 'prohibition' is a bit strong but the sages recommend that we not read these Apocryphal books...
See:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/543,533/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-the-Apocrypha.html
What is the Jewish view on the Apocrypha?
by Rabbi Yossi Marcus
The Apocrypha refers to books that remained outside the biblical canon, such as the Book of Maccabees, which deals with the story of Chanukah, and The Book of Ben Sira, which is a collection of Proverbs.
These books were not written with Divine inspiration and according to some contain ideas that are antithetical to true Judaism. Judaism therefore does not encourage one to read them. However, they do contain valuable info and wisdom and according to some opinions may be consulted appropriately.
See Talmud Sanhedrin 100b regarding the “external books.”
(Obviously the Christian Apocrypha is treated like all other books of Chrisitanity.)
See : http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_100.html#PARTb
-
KWRBT,
The term 'prohibition' is a bit strong but the sages recommend that we not read these Apocryphal books...
See:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/543,533/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-the-Apocrypha.html
What is the Jewish view on the Apocrypha?
by Rabbi Yossi Marcus
The Apocrypha refers to books that remained outside the biblical canon, such as the Book of Maccabees, which deals with the story of Chanukah, and The Book of Ben Sira, which is a collection of Proverbs.
These books were not written with Divine inspiration and according to some contain ideas that are antithetical to true Judaism. Judaism therefore does not encourage one to read them. However, they do contain valuable info and wisdom and according to some opinions may be consulted appropriately.
See Talmud Sanhedrin 100b regarding the “external books.”
(Obviously the Christian Apocrypha is treated like all other books of Chrisitanity.)
See : http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_100.html#PARTb
Really, so any book that is outside the Biblical canon is forbidden? Do you honestly believe that?
And can Rabbi Yossie Marcus explain to me how he included the book of the maccabees in this prohibition?
-
Really, so any book that is outside the Biblical canon is forbidden? Do you honestly believe that?
And can Rabbi Yossie Marcus explain to me how he included the book of the maccabees in this prohibition?
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.
Are you aware the Book of Maccabees is in the Christian bible?
-
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?
.
.
.
-
I do not know why, nor have I found an exact explanation as to why the Book was deemed inappropriate for the Jewish Tanakh...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
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 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.
-
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 Jehovah's House of Sacrifice. The prohibition in the quote is correct. (We agree, right?)
Point 4: Jehovah 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 Jehovah God." (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)
-
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 God 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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.